|
My stance on this is, that pathfinder is not a casual game and probably can never be. So i fully expect players to know the rules for their own characters. If they are too lazy to read over that little piece of information, they can´t be helped.
And what do they expect from the GM?
Not only to know all the "behind the scene" rules like initiative, environment rules etc, also preparing the scenario ( that´s why you don´t need to know all the monster etc rules, because you can look at them while preparing the scenario and makes notes or just learn them then) already takes a lot of time. Then also knowing each players part is troublesome. Surely over time it´s possible to know all classes and subsystems there, but it´s not the GM playing that characters, but the players. So even if you know all those rules, if you have to explain them to same people over and over again during game, something is severly going wrong. And that´s not about the GM then.
That´s more something about attitude in my eyes.
|
What if instead of dismissing them, you educated them, helped them to better understand their own characters, urged them to use the classes with simpler mechanics, or enticed them to be more dedicated and leas casual (if they have the time)?Benjamin,
While I agree with you in principle, not all of us have such a thriving player base that we can afford to dismiss the casual players.
If I can, I do. But casual players tend to be casual for a reason. Maybe they don't have the time to invest. Maybe the effort they would have to put forth to learn everything they need to know about their character sucks too much fun out of playing for them. Some of them may have learning disabilities. Etc.
I have several players in my area that fit this bill. Many have been playing for years and still don't get some of the basics, like you can't move and full attack in the same round. They just don't see mastering the rules as being an important part of having fun as a player. Instead, they rely on the GM or other players to know the rules for them. Pushing them to know the rules simply pushes them away from the table. You can call them lazy if you want, but they help make tables so that the more invested players get to play.
|
|
With that in mind, draw a vertical line on a piece of paper. This is the range of possible rules proficiency a player might have: the top is the greatest rules-fu ever known, and the bottom is someone completely new to the hobby.
Next to it, draw another vertical line, this one representing the range of possible rules proficiency a GM might have. The top will be in the same place as the player line (this should be self-evident). The bottom will be a little higher than "total newbie", because of the phenomenon you correctly observed.
So now the two lines of GM and player rules-fu start at the same place at the top, run parallel for most of the range of rules-fu, but then the GM line stops while the player line dangles a bit further, accounting for newbies.
Now I refer you to my earlier clarification that of course newbies should be handled differently, and my call for trusting players to know their characters does not apply to them. So for the scope of this discussion, you can erase that bottom portion of the player line that represents being a newbie.
And you know what happens? The two lines are about the same length now.
I just have to dispute the idea that the bottom of the rules-fu line disappears if you exclude newbies. I have a 6+ year veteran of two APs who could not tell me what the hit die of their character is. Lack of rules knowledge is not limited to newbies, and to a greater or lesser extent *is* the rule for most tables.
Clearly, we must enact Hunger Games-style deathmatches to determine who GMs.
Motion seconded.
|
|
As someone who knows many of the rules fairly well and often is one of those that helps others who don't, I do get it. I just find it unfair to blame the rule set, or to put the onus entirely on the GM, for something that really isn't the fault of either the rules nor the GM. I understand wanting to make full tables, and wanting the casual player to have fun, but part of me must also question if this is fair to the GMs or other players? If something meant to be fun is instead becoming a frustration due to other players, this is an issue.
Is it fair? No. But if I was worried a lot about fair, I would not be organizing and GMing our local group for little more than thanks and an occasional game store discount (and one guy who occasionally puts store credit on my account).
That said, I preach an idealistic situation that I admit to being hypocritical about. While I do make every effort to correct people about the rules when their wrong(and to explain to them the correct rules and justification for them so that they can become more knowledgeable players), I find it difficult to be confrontational and generally would rather accept the extra workload/burden than risk turning others away (not just in PFS, but in other settings as well). But if I do so, then the problem is with my willingness to accept that burden. In your setting, the other dedicated players who are using the casual players to make tables need to split that burden among themselves so that it doesn't fall solely to the GM.
Oh, we do that. At the very least at least one of the other players at the table is one of our GMs so knows the rules well and helps out. But that doesn't really minimize the burden of knowing the rules or the frustration inherent in rules glut. Why? Because while others can certainly help out, you can't expect anyone to know exactly what you don't know. I suppose in an idealistic situation I could choose to master one rule book, while another person masters another and someone else masters a third, but, realistically, that is never going to happen.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just have to dispute the idea that the bottom of the rules-fu line disappears if you exclude newbies. I have a 6+ year veteran of two APs who could not tell me what the hit die of their character is. Lack of rules knowledge is not limited to newbies, and to a greater or lesser extent *is* the rule for most tables.
You seem to have taken my post to mean the exact opposite of what I said. You think your assertion that "lack of rules knowledge is not limited to newbies" is correcting me, when in fact it is reinforcing what I wrote. The post to which you think you're replying was a clarification of one subpoint of my argument that lack of rules knowledge is not limited to one subgroup within this hobby.
I know it's a long thread, so it's okay if you don't want to go back and read all the context to make sure you understand what a post is actually meaning. But if that's what you're going to choose, please also choose not to "correct" a post that you don't have the time to understand. To anyone who was following the whole conversation, it just makes you look silly as you try to correct someone who actually agrees with you.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say this, Jiggy and others have definitely enlightened me, I used to be in the camp that I had to know all the rules because if I didn't how could I know if someone was doing something wrong.
However, this was pretty time consuming, as I am a husband, full time worker and full time student. In addition to textbooks I was also buying most splatbooks and all the hardcovers to ensure I knew every new spell released or any new traits that might work wonky, it was getting expensive both in time with my family and friends and for the pocketbook.
Reading this thread and following along has really enlightened me to the idea that I can just trust my players and expect them to hopefully trust me. I'll know how my monsters work and the player will know how their character works.
Honestly, at the end of day and as I got to the end of this thread, I had to ask myself why I am playing this game? To have fun. I am going to endeavor to have fun and this for me is going to be not having to learn every new rule or understand every character build.
|
|
Lack of rules knowledge is realitive. I play since the playtest, yet i really can´t say i know all rules, spells, feats or whatever or remember them all the time.
Not knowing what your own character does at all is a different shoe though, i see that as the minimum investment, especially in PFS.
Moreso when you want to play one of the more complicated classes.
Reading a class and class ability description takes about 30 minutes, if you read really slow. (Having any conditions is an exception i´m not counting in there)
|
Let's reverse the roles for what you're saying there:
It makes me feel like I'm failing at my "job" as a player if I don't know the rules my GMs are using. There are too many rules for one person to know them all, but if I don't know them who will? Several people have said "the GMs", and that's great. But the GMs don't always know the rules for their own monsters, much less the characters I'm playing.Does that still seem reasonable? If not, why not? What do we mean by knowing the rules in this context? Is everyone okay with knowing those rules after the game is over? Are you saying it's an "argument to the extreme" to say that this sort of reversal should be reasonable?
Nope. All the player is ever expected to be responsible for is their own character. If you play a Gunslinger, no one expects you to know that Smite Evil bypasses damage reduction. If you play a paladin, no one expects you to know that you can Reflex save for half of an alchemist's splash damage. As a GM, there is pressure to know these rules, both to help newer players with their characters, and to be more competent at running the game in general. So, no. Your reversal of my statement is not reasonable.
There are plenty of players who know the rules. There are players who know the rules better than their GMs. In the end, I don't care who knows the rule, as long as they share that knowledge when appropriate. Just because I feel the pressure to know the rules at least as well as my players, doesn't mean I'm doing things the right way or the wrong way. It's just how I feel.
