Do you mind players owning a copy of the game you run? Or do you think that it leads to rules lawyer behaviour?
How am I going to stop them?
Quote from: droogHow am I going to stop them?
Good question. I've noticed that some GMs balk like crazy over players owning any game that they run. Usually the GMs that like to run a lot of prewritten scenarios.
Quote from: AnthrobotDo you mind players owning a copy of the game you run? Or do you think that it leads to rules lawyer behaviour?
I would like for them all to own a copy and learn it. But they're lazy bastards.
Far as I'm concerned, they can even memorise the rulebook page by page. As long as they understand that the ultimate authority on rulings is me, not the book, and that I can and will change and twist the rules as I please.
Quote from: ImperatorI would like for them all to own a copy and learn it. But they're lazy bastards.
Amen, brother! I have the same problem. I cant even get one of them to glance over the rules.
And their free!
Whose free? And what's a free?
I don't have an issue with it, in fact I'm all for it, it means we have a better chance of at least one of us knowing the rules.
I used to have a player knew Gurps backwards, certainly better than I did (and I knew it fairly well), we just referred all rules questions to him.
Players knowing the rules is only a problem if the player is a dick, and I prefer not to play with dicks. If I had an otherwise good player who couldn't help rules lawyering a bit (and that does happen, good players can have faults like anyone else) then I'd choose a game less susceptible to rules lawyering and let them learn that.
Like several of the above, I prefer my players to own and learn the rules for games that I run. In many games it's almost essential (how can a player play a reasonable caster in D&D without access to the spells, for example).
I find it odd that some GMs would actively discourage players from owning a copy of the rules. The suggestion that it leads to rules lawyering is a fault of the individual player and seems a trivial reason to object.
Quote from: TrevelyanLike several of the above, I prefer my players to own and learn the rules for games that I run. In many games it's almost essential (how can a player play a reasonable caster in D&D without access to the spells, for example).
I find it odd that some GMs would actively discourage players from owning a copy of the rules. The suggestion that it leads to rules lawyering is a fault of the individual player and seems a trivial reason to object.
It suggests to me GM control freakery, a GM who is perhaps GM because they want to control what happens in the play and that sees the players as secondary participants.
I don't have any rules lawyers in my current group, but even if I did I think the occasional bit of rules-lawyering is more than a fair price to pay for having all the players (or even some of the players) be fully conversant with the rules; the sheer amount of time you save when the players understand how the game works far outweighs any tiny blips which might crop up when players point out contradictory rules or say "hey, is this obscure optional thingy in play?"
I guess the grass is greener on the other side. I'd prefer more of my players to own the rules than do. Rules lawyering is not a problem IMC.
(Of course, my players usually at least own the core books. They are all educators and have cheap access to printers on campus. They just buy the PDF and print it for free. I'd still prefer more of them knew the rules better.)
I think we only have one player who actually cares much what the rules are, two maybe three who care a bit and two who don't much mind as long as they know which dice to roll.
And the one who does care isn't a rules lawyer, he just thinks more tactically than the rest of us.
So to be honest my issue isn't the players knowing the rules too well, it's them not really knowing them, and when I'm a player as I often am I generally don't bother learning them myself either.
I mean hell, if the game's rules actually need to be learnt to any meaningful degree they're really a bit too complex for my tastes.
What Balbinus has said. I really prefer that players know the rules as well. My expereince is that few do -I'm guilty of this as well when I play- and don't really have to. I also don't mind rules lawyering, if the actual rule makes me or "what" as a GM, then there is usually soemthing really winky with the rule and I've been fortunate to paly almost exclusively with palyers who agree that maybe this rule needs some help. Then we'll all come to some agreement on a change.
I encourage it.
Doesn't mean they do, of course! :D
-clash
For the first time in my life, I'm playing with a group that everyone owns a copy of the rules. It's wonderful! It means I can get on with, you know, the business of GMing, instead of playing researcher and librarian.
A copy of the rules is usually what my guys get for birthdays and xmass from me.
Frankly, in a lot of games the players better know the rules ... I can rack up a lot of brutal TPKs (or, in less kill-centric games, a lot of brutal humiliations and human tragedy) against people who don't have the rules-skill to fend off my attacks.
Lord, I only wish my players knew the rules better. :)
I also wish their reading of rules were a little less selective (e.g. leaving out the fact that a certain spell only affects Humanoids and so on.)
-O
Quote from: droogWhose free? And what's a free?
I've been running a Star Frontiers game. The rules are avaiable free on the intar-web. If your interested in checking them out. Look in my sig below.
Another voice in favor of players knowing the rules, whether they own them or not.
They'd damn well better know the rules. I'm way too lazy to do all the work involved in running a game where I'm the only one who knows the rules.
I too will note that there's not much that anyone can do about this sort of thing anyways; but I generally like for my players to have their own copies of the corebooks when we play (doesn't often happen though).
However, if we're talking about a book that is purely setting/GM material (ie. The Great Pendragon Campaign), where the only reason for a player to get his hands on it is to cheat (ie. to know what's coming up, or secrets he's not supposed to know), then I would try to discourage that.
I always kind of operate on the assumption that my players will be doing this, though; and adapt to it when I see it happen. On the whole, my real reason for telling them not to do this isn't so much about me as it is about them, since they will only be ruining their own experiences by trying to "look ahead".
RPGPundit
Quote from: ImperatorI would like for them all to own a copy and learn it. But they're lazy bastards.
Yep. I fucking yearn for the day when my players will actually buy their own copies. They all earn good money and enjoy the rulesets we use, so it really shouldn't be an issue.
Rules? Hell yeah. But as a player i like encountering the unkown, so i avoid anything that i would consider GM material. Likewise, as a GM, i prefer my players to be shocked and amazed at what they encounter during a session, so 'GM material' i prefer to be the province of the GM only. Shock and awe, baby. Shock and awe.
I like it when players know the rules. And if I'm wrong and they correct me, the better!! :)
When players know the rules, they can help me.
Similarly, I like to know the rules, and I hate GMs who want to keep me "in the dark".
Quote from: BalbinusPlayers knowing the rules is only a problem if the player is a dick
As always, Balbinus saying something sensible and intelligent. :haw:
Quote from: ClaudiusI like it when players know the rules. And if I'm wrong and they correct me, the better!! :)
When players know the rules, they can help me.
Similarly, I like to know the rules, and I hate GMs who want to keep me "in the dark".
I'm down with all of this- except when they do something in game like bitch that the ogre had 10 more hit points than it should have.
I actually give bonus XP to any player who gets the rulebook for whatever game we're playing within the first few session. If they already own the rulebook, more power to 'em: they get the points.
Doing do benefits me, my players and the game in general in a few ways:
- Less strain on my books since everyone can look up rules and fluff in their own books rather than mine, since mine get enough strain as is.
- My players become familiar with the rules which only benefits the game. The game gets stopped less if players know the rules and things just flow smoother. Rules Lawyers will be what they are regardless. But those types don't last long in my games.
- Character generation goes faster the more core books there are at the table. Ever try making six or seven characters with one copy of the core book? It tacks on another couple of hours (if not days, depending on the system).
- They might decide to GM/DM/ST a campaign on their own once they become comfortable with the rules. It's a small hope for me (I'm always GM it seems and I *do* happen to like playing as well).
Campaign setting books are different. If there's a lot of GM-only information in a book (besides the core book) I'd rather my players not get it. That's one of the reasons I happen to like Kalamar as much as I do. The core book has all the information about the setting, but the Player's Primer gives the same information, but from the eyes of a person in the setting and without the GM only stuff. I haven't checked out the FR or Ebberon player's guides to see if they do the same thing, but I always like that.
-=Grim=-
It doesn't bother me if they do or don't have the rules. Luckily, my players know the basics of the games we play and we only have to use a rulebook on a tricky and essential bit in the game...like if their character's lives hang in the balance. As for the source material, I change it to some degree but they are free to buy the book, especially if it only gives general details.
Quote from: ClaudiusAs always, Balbinus saying something sensible and intelligent. :haw:
Let me second that view. The only person I didn't want to have a copy of the rules I was using was a rulesrapist that tried to twist the rules to his advantage by arguing over every little thing. I quickly killed off his character and threw him out of my games. Since then I've had a much more enjoyable time GMing.:D
I play rpgs with a bunch of miniatures gamers. They wouldn't play a wargame without knowing the rules. But it takes a little cajoling to get them to pick up rules for a game they can't lose. :)
Quote from: RoninI've been running a Star Frontiers game. The rules are avaiable free on the intar-web. If your interested in checking them out. Look in my sig below.
I think the somewhat pedantic point being made was that you'd failed basic grammar:
QuoteAmen, brother! I have the same problem. I cant even get one of them to glance over the rules. And their free!
What you meant to say was "and they're free".
Quote from: AnthrobotDo you mind players owning a copy of the game you run? Or do you think that it leads to rules lawyer behaviour?
In our group of Gamesmasters we always thought that would be the case. So back in 1978 we decided to write our own individual sets of rules based off of the original three books, in part for that reason. We then steadfastly refused to show those rules to the Players. To date, no player has ever seen my full set of rules, and it's been 30 years. I have, however, shown some of the rules to individual players under some circumstances - for example I do let them know the rules surrounding character generation.
The problem I have now, actually, is that if I do publish my system, then it will break this modality once and for all. I'm not sure what I want to do about that.
The other reasons we wanted to create our own rules was because we had changes to the base system that we wanted to make for various reasons. In my case I wanted a low number of charts to handle a lot of different things, so I genericised my rules system.
So Yes, I do think that once the Players have the rules in hand it leads to Rules Lawyering, and worse, it usually makes the Players focus on the Game aspect rather than the Story aspect. I'm pro-Story, and always have been, so I wanted to minimize the Rules Lawyering from the get-go, and this seemed like the best way to go.
EDIT: Seems like I'm the only dissenting opinion. Neato. :)
Quote from: TrevelyanI think the somewhat pedantic point being made was that you'd failed basic grammar:
What you meant to say was "and they're free".
An error amusingly compounded by the misuse of your/you're in the reply.
Quote from: James McMurrayAn error amusingly compounded by the misuse of your/you're in the reply.
Sorry, I made a mistake. I guess I cant be as perfect as all of you.
Gammar aside, I'm sure you can still appreciate the gist of my post. Thats whats important.
Who has money for a Gammar these days? And why should I put it aside? If I'm lucky enough to have one, I'm keeping it right where I can see it.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Quote from: RoninSorry, I made a mistake. I guess I cant be as perfect as all of you.
Gammar aside, I'm sure you can still appreciate the gist of my post. Thats whats important.
It was "amusing" not "moronic," smile a little. :)
When I started playing we had one set of rules per game. Valuable resources could not be spent on backup copies, only on new games. Now most of the people I know have copies of the game they play the most (D&D) and a small library of other RPGs that have caught their eye.
I would almost always prefer my players to own a copy of the rulebook and to be familiar with it. I am very good at shutting down ruleslawyers, and rarely play with them anyhow, so it's not too big a deal.
Quote from: AnthrobotDo you mind players owning a copy of the game you run? Or do you think that it leads to rules lawyer behaviour?
I love when players own a copy, especially for the really detailed games.
No rules lawyering problems for us.
Quote from: James McMurrayAn error amusingly compounded by the misuse of your/you're in the reply.
There ought to be an internet law covering that, if there isn't one already.
Unless anyone can point me to a pre-existing formalised law asserting the same, I hereby propose Trevelyan's Law:
Any post made with the specific intent of ridiculing a grammatical error, spelling mistake or typo will necessarily contain a similar error of its own.(Godwin here I come!)
I agree with your law in principle trevelyan but I think I'm the walking, posting exception to it. Whenever I correct someone's spelling/grammar (and I do it often among friends who know I'm not just a pompous ass) I make damn sure that I don't have any mistakes myself.
That's no fun, Saskwach! Try instead using long posts (at least 3 paragraphs) to correct the errors, and injecting one or two obscure grammatical mistakes such as "which vs. that" or "different than vs. different from". If someone points it out, scour their post for the hidden error they injected.
Stop raynan on mii piriate.
Quote from: James McMurrayThat's no fun, Saskwach! Try instead using long posts (at least 3 paragraphs) to correct the errors, and injecting one or two obscure grammatical mistakes such as "which vs. that" or "different than vs. different from". If someone points it out, scour their post for the hidden error they injected.
That sounds fun.
It sounds like something, maybe, Mr. Dancey can make a Story-Building game for?