|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been encountering this a fair bit lately, the idea that a GM is basically incompetent upon the slightest mistake or smallest deficit in understanding of a rule or rules. And in some cases the slightest misinterpretation of (or disagreement with a player over) a thematic issue.
And I have to ask this general question, to what standard do you hold your GMs to?
At one extreme do you expect GMs to have a perfect recollection of the entire Core Rulebook (and perhaps the accompanying books like Ultimate Combat, APG, etc etc) and how every single rule could potentially interact with others in other books? And would you expect them to agree with you on every single thematic issue (even the Goblin Orphanage)? And would you be unwilling to forgive even the first mistake?
Or do have incredibly low standards and willing to excuse just about any problem?
Or are you somewhere in the middle? Obviously most probably go on a case-by-case basis but some may have a hardline set of standards.
Speaking as a GM who has made his share of mistakes, I'm usually quite forgiving even when the GM is wrong so long as they aren't a dick about it. (Though as both a player and a GM I prefer to keep all but the simplest and most urgent of disputes deferred post-session to minimize disruption).
I'm also interested in hearing anecdotes about disputes with GMs, both resolved positively and not so positively.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't really the best place to ask such things, since forums tend to attract the extremes of opinions. Check with a variety of local gaming groups and what those players expect, and you'll have a much better feel for it, I suspect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course no one (should) expects GMs to know every rule of even 1 book.
But a GM should know the rules very well of anything he's doing in that scenario. And if a stable group, should know the rules of his player's characters. If rotating like PFS. The GM should know what he can. If the GM has a question about the player's character, ask the Player to show the source of the rules. Read it, and any rules that are involved with that ability. And then make a rules call. IF spending that much time to get a correct ruling isn't worth it at the time, assume the player got his character correct and play on. Then after the game either continue to truest the player is correct, or go and look up the rules source and any rules that it talks about to have a good understanding of the rules involved and then make a decision, perhaps going to the forums as part of that rules search.
But I don't tell a player he's wrong unless I can show a rule that I know says he's wrong and come to an agreement that it's unclear and then I'll make the GM call for the game and make sure to review it afterwards.
But I feel a GM shouldn't say someone is wrong without spending the time to show in the rules why they are wrong. Saying someone is wrong, deal with it (even if deal with it for now), cause Rule 0, is abusing Rule 0.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM is fair, and doing their best to make sure every player gets exposure and has a good time, that pretty much covers it for me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course no one (should) expects GMs to know every rule of even 1 book.
But a GM should know the rules very well of anything he's doing in that scenario. And if a stable group, should know the rules of his player's characters. If rotating like PFS. The GM should know what he can. If the GM has a question about the player's character, ask the Player to show the source of the rules. Read it, and any rules that are involved with that ability. And then make a rules call. IF spending that much time to get a correct ruling isn't worth it at the time, assume the player got his character correct and play on. Then after the game either continue to truest the player is correct, or go and look up the rules source and any rules that it talks about to have a good understanding of the rules involved and then make a decision, perhaps going to the forums as part of that rules search.
But I don't tell a player he's wrong unless I can show a rule that I know says he's wrong and come to an agreement that it's unclear and then I'll make the GM call for the game and make sure to review it afterwards.But I feel a GM shouldn't say someone is wrong without spending the time to show in the rules why they are wrong. Saying someone is wrong, deal with it (even if deal with it for now), cause Rule 0, is abusing Rule 0.
Ya, pretty much all of this. The issue is rarely the GM not knowing every single rule. It's the GM ignoring the player who does know the rule to the player's disadvantage. Or the GM who ignores the rules (knowingly or not) to make sure their "story" works. That's when the GM not knowing the rules is a problem.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PERFECTION!
I want a theater trained MIT Graduate with a doctorate in nuclear physics and Shakespearean theater I want him free and I want him HERE!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the GM ignoring the player who does know the rule to the player's disadvantage.
Would the players who DO know the rules move to the left side of the room.
The players that don't know the rules move to the right side of the room.
And would the players that know the rules, but are going to try to take the least likely interpretation because it makes for the most mechanical advantage please move to the back of the room?
huh. how come EVERYONE moved to the left?
It's the GM ignoring the player who does know the rule to the player's disadvantage.Would the players who DO know the rules move to the left side of the room.
The players that don't know the rules move to the right side of the room.
And would the players that know the rules, but are going to try to take the least likely interpretation because it makes for the most mechanical advantage please move to the back of the room?
huh. how come EVERYONE moved to the left?
I would hope so. If everyone showed up without knowing the rules it's going to be hard to play. That being said "knowing the rules" is a spectrum. And even then, the most important thing isn't necessarily knowing the rules, but knowing how to 1. read and 2. locate the rules. Fortunately thanks to online SRDs, knowing the rules is often a click away.
Now, if you need to understand some of the more complicated rules, you should be good at 1. the English language, 2. sentence diagramming, and 3. checking your personal feelings at the door.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM that makes the game entertaining is my standard. Personally I believe in the Golden Rule, that the DM makes the rules. As long as any rule change applies to both PC and NPCS equally and the DM can rationally explain why a rule change/interpretation is superior to RAW than it is fine by me.
Now, if you need to understand some of the more complicated rules, you should be good at 1. the English language, 2. sentence diagramming, and 3. checking your personal feelings at the door.
Its funny how those often get opposing answers.
Its funny how those often get opposing answers.
Now, if you need to understand some of the more complicated rules, you should be good at 1. the English language, 2. sentence diagramming, and 3. checking your personal feelings at the door.
Only in very rare circumstances, where both parties are actually following those 3 things. Most people are very bad at 2. and 3. I find. Which makes me glad that my English teacher forced sentence diagramming on me.
Only in very rare circumstances, where both parties are actually following those 3 things.
Horsefeathers. It happens in EVERY. SINGLE. Rules disagreement.
There is no one true raw. The rules are not written that tightly. Hell, english isn't written that tightly, which is why lawyers make so much money even when readability, length, and layout get chucked out the window to write legal code.
Most people are very bad at 2. and 3.
Would the people that are bad at reading please move to the back as well...
What.. no one?
The DM has a limited ability to tell someone citing the rules, from a rules lawyer, from a munchkin. Rules interpretation is a complex mix of raw, reading comprehension, rules knowledge, balance, and common sense. It is not objective. It's not solvable with sentence diagrams.
Only in very rare circumstances, where both parties are actually following those 3 things.
Horsefeathers. It happens in EVERY. SINGLE. Rules disagreement.
There is no one true raw. The rules are not written that tightly. Hell, english isn't written that tightly, which is why lawyers make so much money even when readability, length, and layout get chucked out the window to write legal code.
Most people are very bad at 2. and 3.Would the people that are bad at reading please move to the back as well...
What.. no one?
The DM has a limited ability to tell someone citing the rules, from a rules lawyer, from a munchkin. Rules interpretation is a complex mix of raw, reading comprehension, rules knowledge, balance, and common sense. It is not objective. It's not solvable with sentence diagrams.
No, most rules disagreement have one party who isn't following either 1., 2., or 3. Usually 3 in my experience. But please cite an example where you feel this is not the case. Most rules do in fact have a one true RAW when you follow rules 1, 2 and 3. While I concede there are some that do not, they are the vast minority. Or do you intend to tell me there is not one true RAW for the BAB of a 9th level Fighter, the number of bonus spells a Wizard gets for having a 20 INT, or the cost to create a given magic item?
PM'd to prevent the spur from becoming an intercontinental railroad.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
PERFECTION!
I want a theater trained MIT Graduate with a doctorate in nuclear physics and Shakespearean theater I want him free and I want him HERE!
Sorry man, I'm really close but I left my doctorate to come work here and it was in AI. Also, MIT doesn't offer doctorates in Shakespearean theater, but I'll count my concentration with 2 Lit Shakespeare classes, 4 theater classes, and 1 cross-listed Lit/Theater class on Elizabethan culture and theater as being close. Even minus the humanities PhD from MIT (I suppose the hypothetical GM could have gotten it from another university and then gotten nuclear physics from MIT), I don't know that you'll find your exact qualifications and also GMing skills on anybody.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a table. It's a nice one, inside even. But it doesn't have to, it's easily moved outside, if that's your fancy. :-)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course no one (should) expects GMs to know every rule of even 1 book.
I expect any GM who points this out after having been proven wrong, to also recite it to themselves before trying to assert that the player is wrong - especially if the topic is the functionality of the PC. Honestly, assuming similarly-competent human beings, who's more likely to know how a character's mechanics work? The person for whom that character is the sole focus of their study for the duration of the campaign, or the person trying to multitask all the setting details and NPCs and monsters and whatnot? I expect GMs to recognize and respect this reality.
-------------------------------------
More broadly, I expect new GMs to recognize that they've got a lot of learning to do and ways they need to improve, and I expect experienced GMs to recognize that this fact hasn't changed. I expect GMs to accept that their best teachers and guides for growth and development are their own players. The GM who meets these expectations will, eventually, meet all others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PM'd to prevent the spur from becoming an intercontinental railroad.
Don't break the crayon!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
assuming similarly-competent human beings, who's more likely to know how a character's mechanics work?
All too often Players have a vested interest in a particular interpretation or rules oversight and go with that.
Trust, but verify.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
assuming similarly-competent human beings, who's more likely to know how a character's mechanics work?All too often Players have a vested interest in a particular interpretation or rules oversight and go with that.
Trust, but verify.
All too often, GMs have a vested interest in a particular interpretation or rules oversight and go with that.
Trust, but verify.
EDIT:
To be clear, I'm not saying that a player won't be biased. I'm saying there's no difference in the likelihood of the player being biased versus the GM being biased. For every player misinterpreting the rules because he wants his character to be capable of X, there's a GM misinterpreting the rules because he doesn't think characters should be capable of Y. The mindset of "What I set up sounded really cool to me but now somebody says it doesn't work like that," which pushes people into a defensive posture that makes it hard to reason properly, does not play favorites between players and GMs. And frankly, the common misunderstanding of this principle (tending to assume that in a given debate, the player is the one twisting things to his advantage while the GM is the one able to act with disinterested impartiality and also knows the rules better) is one of the larger issues in this community and a major factor in why I left PFS.
|
I have a table. It's a nice one, inside even. But it doesn't have to, it's easily moved outside, if that's your fancy. :-)
LOL. The other day a player started arguing about a rule. He keeps coming back with the idea that you can't do a five foot step after a move action because he says 'move actions are like movement'. I said 'no, I'm the GM and I'm deciding this, because I'm an a$$hole'. Am I close to being a perfect GM then? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I'm not saying that a player won't be biased. I'm saying there's no difference in the likelihood of the player being biased versus the GM being biased.
Both are certainly possible but I don't think its on a one to one basis. The DM isn't as personally as invested in his character, has a sort of kind of selective process in that if he's unfair to the players they'll vote with their feet, and should acquire an air of fatalism that the fate of his carefully crafted story and adventure is to go up in flames recognize that his primary goal is for everyone else at the table to be having fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a table. It's a nice one, inside even. But it doesn't have to, it's easily moved outside, if that's your fancy. :-)LOL. The other day a player started arguing about a rule. He keeps coming back with the idea that you can't do a five foot step after a move action because he says 'move actions are like movement'. I said 'no, I'm the GM and I'm deciding this, because I'm an a$$hole'. Am I close to being a perfect GM then? :)
And you are correct by RAW and your player is wrong by RAW. And despite the claims that RAW is so hard to follow it's almost always pretty easy, like it is in this case.
assuming similarly-competent human beings, who's more likely to know how a character's mechanics work?All too often Players have a vested interest in a particular interpretation or rules oversight and go with that.
Trust, but verify.
All too often, GMs have a vested interest in a particular interpretation or rules oversight and go with that.
Trust, but verify.
EDIT:
To be clear, I'm not saying that a player won't be biased. I'm saying there's no difference in the likelihood of the player being biased versus the GM being biased. For every player misinterpreting the rules because he wants his character to be capable of X, there's a GM misinterpreting the rules because he doesn't think characters should be capable of Y. The mindset of "What I set up sounded really cool to me but now somebody says it doesn't work like that," which pushes people into a defensive posture that makes it hard to reason properly, does not play favorites between players and GMs. And frankly, the common misunderstanding of this principle (tending to assume that in a given debate, the player is the one twisting things to his advantage while the GM is the one able to act with disinterested impartiality and also knows the rules better) is one of the larger issues in this community and a major factor in why I left PFS.
If a players interpretation is wrong provided it does not game breaking I will often let the player interpret the mechanic as they see it. I think an RPG functions better when the players actually genuinely enjoy their characters. Most DMs I have played table top with operate the same way.
Moving forward if the interpretation does indeed break the game open I will ask them to scale it back.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The DM isn't as personally as invested in his character,
In a specific character? Maybe not, but a huge number of the unpleasant experiences that drove me from PFS involved the GM being personally invested in something going a certain way (such as a certain fight being as difficult as they expected, or a certain monster getting to use an ability the GM thought was cool, or a scene playing out in a certain manner, etc). Heck, sometimes the emotional investment is in other people's PCs not getting to do a certain thing. Just because the GM doesn't have a PC doesn't mean they don't have just as much emotional investment in their side of things as the players have in their own.
has a sort of kind of selective process in that if he's unfair to the players they'll vote with their feet,
This is total BS, at least in PFS. There are almost always more players than GMs, so a GM could be inflicting themselves upon a steady stream of new players, driving half of them away, and never really "see" how many foot-votes they've gotten. The notion that "If the GM is really doing something wrong they'll find themselves without players" is ridiculous. I did vote with my feet. Want to guess how much of a dent it made?
recognize that his primary goal is for everyone else at the table to be having fun.
Recognizing that your goal is for everyone else at the table to have fun (though that recognition is not a given) does not make you immune to any of the pitfalls we're discussing here. It doesn't make you sharper at reading comprehension, it doesn't improve your ability to remember what you've read, it doesn't magically improve your ability to de-invest yourself in things, etc. Having a goal of table-wide fun is necessary to be a good GM, but is also not sufficient to be a good GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to?Breathing with a pulse. Everything else can be improved on.
If you have a necromancer handy, even the first isn't necessary!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to?Breathing with a pulse. Everything else can be improved on.
Picky picky picky
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been encountering this a fair bit lately, the idea that a GM is basically incompetent upon the slightest mistake or smallest deficit in understanding of a rule or rules. And in some cases the slightest misinterpretation of (or disagreement with a player over) a thematic issue.
And I have to ask this general question, to what standard do you hold your GMs to?
At one extreme do you expect GMs to have a perfect recollection of the entire Core Rulebook (and perhaps the accompanying books like Ultimate Combat, APG, etc etc) and how every single rule could potentially interact with others in other books? And would you expect them to agree with you on every single thematic issue (even the Goblin Orphanage)? And would you be unwilling to forgive even the first mistake?
Or do have incredibly low standards and willing to excuse just about any problem?Or are you somewhere in the middle? Obviously most probably go on a case-by-case basis but some may have a hardline set of standards.
Speaking as a GM who has made his share of mistakes, I'm usually quite forgiving even when the GM is wrong so long as they aren't a dick about it. (Though as both a player and a GM I prefer to keep all but the simplest and most urgent of disputes deferred post-session to minimize disruption).
I'm also interested in hearing anecdotes about disputes with GMs, both resolved positively and not so positively.
I GM and don't pretend to know every rule. With that being said I try to rule in the player's favor if possible. If I can't that's ok too because my players trust me. They know I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I know how much effort most players put into creating their characters so I never try to screw them over, but I also don't hesitate in making a ruling that could kill their characters. Basically I'm like that boxing referee: "firm but fair."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect to enjoy the game. I don't care what the GM does if I'm having fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to?Breathing with a pulse. Everything else can be improved on.
I like you. Mistakes can be made and people can learn from them. If nobody's being physically harmed or emotionally traumatized (or something similarly egregious), and the GM has learned from the mistake... there's no real problem right?
Prepared, fair, open to discussion, make decision and move on, evaluate performance and improve for next session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect of myself constant improvement, however small, and storytelling that's fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been encountering this a fair bit lately, the idea that a GM is basically incompetent upon the slightest mistake or smallest deficit in understanding of a rule or rules. And in some cases the slightest misinterpretation of (or disagreement with a player over) a thematic issue.
And I have to ask this general question, to what standard do you hold your GMs to?
At one extreme do you expect GMs to have a perfect recollection of the entire Core Rulebook (and perhaps the accompanying books like Ultimate Combat, APG, etc etc) and how every single rule could potentially interact with others in other books? And would you expect them to agree with you on every single thematic issue (even the Goblin Orphanage)? And would you be unwilling to forgive even the first mistake?
Or do have incredibly low standards and willing to excuse just about any problem?Or are you somewhere in the middle? Obviously most probably go on a case-by-case basis but some may have a hardline set of standards.
Speaking as a GM who has made his share of mistakes, I'm usually quite forgiving even when the GM is wrong so long as they aren't a dick about it. (Though as both a player and a GM I prefer to keep all but the simplest and most urgent of disputes deferred post-session to minimize disruption).
I'm also interested in hearing anecdotes about disputes with GMs, both resolved positively and not so positively.
Nobody has the entire book memorized and anyone can misinterpret a rule, but barring crazy combinations I expect for the GM to understand the rules most of the time.
Nobody agrees with another person on everything in my experience. It is not realistic. I would like for him to be willing to work with the player, but sometimes the answer is just "no". Players need to seperate "he disagrees with me" from "he is clueless".
I do expect for a GM to inform me of any houserules and not just make rules up randomly. That would be annoying to me.
As an example if I am ruining the encounters of a GM I would prefer that he talk to me about the problem so we can work together and find a common solution than to fudge dice and/or use other methods to try to negate my character in that regard.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs (although this is not just PF specific)....
You get players who would never in a million years volunteer to GM but who are more than happy to b$@@% and moan about every decision and God help you if their PC dies!!!
Amazing.....
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like you. Mistakes can be made and people can learn from them. If nobody's being physically harmed or emotionally traumatized (or something similarly egregious), and the GM has learned from the mistake... there's no real problem right?To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to?Breathing with a pulse. Everything else can be improved on.
The part of your post that I've bolded is where I've run into the most trouble; that's why my posts upthread focused on "if they're willing to learn, everything else will follow eventually". You're absolutely right that as long as a GM is willing to learn, the rest will eventually take care of itself.
Unfortunately, it's been my experience that GMs who have truly internalized that concept enough that it actually affects their actions, are far more rare than I would like (at least, among the pool of GMs I've encountered). Everybody and their dog knows that "learn from your mistakes" is a wise belief to hold; far fewer seem to understand that acknowledging such a belief is not the same as internalizing it and acting on it, and that the latter is what matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player points out an error I have made in the rulebook, I expect the player to have understood the rule in question. I expect him to state it clearly and accept my ruling of it. Like it or not, the rules are not always very clear, multiple interpretations are possible. Or there are conflicting rules. And if we are to have a discussion about it, that happens AFTER the game.
See, one of the most annoying situations I have ever been in was one player who did not understand the rules himself, and because he did not, he kept questioning my rules applications to the point that EVERY. SINGLE. Piece of rules effect was debated. And when I told him to show me what the rules said, he was wrong again and again. Eventually, I put the smackdown on his passive aggressive rules whining by saying that he, specifically, was not allowed to make rules questions during play AT ALL. It cost us several hours of rules whining before I did.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player points out an error I have made in the rulebook, I expect the player to have understood the rule in question. I expect him to state it clearly and accept my ruling of it. Like it or not, the rules are not always very clear, multiple interpretations are possible. Or there are conflicting rules. And if we are to have a discussion about it, that happens AFTER the game.
I wish my experiences with GMs chafing against being corrected were mostly due to being in the middle of a game and wanting to keep things moving. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish my experiences with GMs chafing against being corrected were mostly due to being in the middle of a game and wanting to keep things moving. :/
How often do rules disagreements get settled with anything short of an FAQ on the matter? (even thats optimistic sometimes)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do my best
I want my players to have fun
I hope any GM I play with operates in a similar fashion
then again I mostly play with friends and people I know fairly well
this prevents most of the crap nonsense that is here on the forums
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, look at it this way: If you don't accept the GM having the final word in conflicts, that is what you get. Sometimes the important point is that SOMEONE has the final word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an example if I am ruining the encounters of a GM I would prefer that he talk to me about the problem so we can work together and find a common solution than to fudge dice and/or use other methods to try to negate my character in that regard.
This is really it for me. I absolutely hate with a blinding fury a GM that will fudge dice rolls or arbitrarily increase monster stats just to negate a character I've brought to the table. If my save-or-lose sorcerer is causing problems, let's talk and I can change the character or use a different one but don't make every creature I fight have an arbitrary +5 to all of their saving throws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do rules disagreements get settled with anything short of an FAQ on the matter? (even thats optimistic sometimes)
I wish my experiences with GMs chafing against being corrected were mostly due to being in the middle of a game and wanting to keep things moving. :/
Well, they've certainly educated me and improved my understanding of a matter even if they don't resolve it for the forum. The immediate action discussion in regards to Emergency Force Sphere let me and my table come up with a really good interpretation of how the spell works that turned it into something workable from something completely broken.
I expect the GM to understand the mechanics of actions, setting DCs, how monster abilities work and skills (or at least have them to hand).
However it is impossible to keep track of all of the huge numbers of feats, spells, equipment and monsters, even for an experienced GM. Sometimes GMs need to make up house rules on the fly to resolve in game conflicts or interpretations of how these feats/equipment/abilities interact. Then have a wider discussion with the group at the end of a session.
My impression is that he feat/ability/equipment/spell questions are far more prevelent than the core mechanics questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With great power comes great responsibility, said Spiderman's Uncle Ben.
Fortunately, the god-like power of a GM is only in an imaginary world. The real-life power of a GM is social, and thus, the responsibility is social, too. Pathfinder is a group activity. The GM has to keep the game running and keep it enjoyable, but the rules are everyone's responisibility.
I play with a bunch of gamers: roleplaying games, board games, and video games. They are accustomed to following the rules. As a GM, stating the rules correctly stops disagreements and ends confusion, so I find memorizing lots of rules to be convenient. The rules are a powerful tool for keeping the game running. Stating the rules incorrectly, however, has the opposite effect. If I am ignorant of a rule and don't know where in the rulebooks to look it up, then I ask the players if anyone knows the rule. Or if I misunderstand a rule, the players correct me. If no-one knows the rule, we invent something workable and continue playing.
See, one of the most annoying situations I have ever been in was one player who did not understand the rules himself, and because he did not, he kept questioning my rules applications to the point that EVERY. SINGLE. Piece of rules effect was debated. And when I told him to show me what the rules said, he was wrong again and again. Eventually, I put the smackdown on his passive aggressive rules whining by saying that he, specifically, was not allowed to make rules questions during play AT ALL. It cost us several hours of rules whining before I did.
If my game has a player who does not abide by the rules, who misinterprets the rules regularly, I don't have to face him alone. The other players back me up, especially if one of us finds the correct page in the rulebooks. Often a player will volunteer to look up the rule while waiting for his or her turn while the rest of us keep playing.
My current game has one newbie player who repeatedly forgets rules. I ended up memorizing his PC's stats due to repeatedly explaining his bonuses to him. Fortunately, that shortened the discussion: "Add 9 to your d20 roll, +5 for BAB and +4 for Strength, and tell me the result. Okay, you hit. Roll for damage. No, not the d20 again, the d10. And add 6 because you wield the glaive two-handed." He is getting better with practice. I recall a previous campaign run by my wife where we threw two PCs out of our six-person party (their reckless actions led to an explosion that killed another PC) and we threw the players out of the group at the same time (they did not listen during other players turns, so constantly asked for recaps and made half-witted decisions).