Buy the book?

[captainjapan]

I've known since forever that the older the referee I play with, the more the control they exercise over my character. I could argue a point with my friends but if their older brother was dm, I'd do better to just go with the flow. When I started playing, it was with a friend refereeing from his older brother's old AD&D hardcovers (left behind when he went to college). Sometimes, however, I would play a pick-up game with some older guys that we were introduced to through one of the tougher kids in my class. Their dm was se-ri-ous about d&d, and sported a collection of materials like I had never seen until the dawn of the YouTube game reviewers with their library-esque backdrops. I don't recall ever bringing a rule book to play, in those days. But, later on I was able to pick-up some used orange spine editions at ye old book barn. And, later than that I used a combination of spells from one or two books that I'd purchased to cast on a fellow player in one of the greatest revenge plots I may never speak of again.

It has been my impression, lately, that posters here are not even speaking the language of osr (whatever that is); but, rather of Gronan's fkr i.e, ”free kriegspiel" where the only thing the players are expected to do is to dialogue with the referee. I could ask other poll questions like: Should players roll the dice? or Do players get to keep their own character sheets?, but I think that the rulebook question is a better starting point. After all, Gary Gygax marketed Dungeons & Dragons sets to everyone, regardless of whether they intended to dm or not. Maybe, that was a mistake?.

[robertsconley]

The consequence of not sharing a rule book is that the burden is on you to verbally communicate what the players know about what their character can do. If you are an excellent verbal communicator, and coach likely it will work out.

Personally I rather not spend my time verbally expanding details like the reductions of the odds when you are a veteran swordsman fighting on a muddy slope in the middle of the rain. A detail that a veteran swordsman would really know or guess at.

The problem isn't that there are rule books, the problem is the common assumption that everything you can do as a character in a campaign is defined in the rules. I make it clear what determine what one can do as a character is determined by the setting and the description of the character. For convivence some of these details are tersely communicated as mechanics of a game. But the final authority as far as consistency goes is how I describe the setting. Doing means I can use pretty detailed RPGs like GURPS and still run the campaign the way I did with AD&D and currently run with the Majestic Fantasy (a variant of Swords & Wizardry).

If one doesn't do this or does it well, the results is on average a bunch of hesitant players who will try to play it safe because they don't want to lose the time they have invested to what they view as a "gotcha" situation. I found players hate feeling that their choice amount to little more than throwing darts in a dark room. The way around that is give some context on which to base a decision. The most important element is what are the odds of success for the various things I can do as my character.

You see this all the time if you play live-action roleplaying and try to deal with adventuring situation in-person. There were times when I was hidden in the brush on the edge of the clearing looking at a bunch of NPC staff playing Orcs and weighing whether I can sprint across before they can catch me. Could sneak around? Or could take the group in a fight. Even at my first events, I had a good enough idea of my physical capabilities, personal skills, and what game abilities I have, to come to a reasoned choice because I played sport and fought in reenactments prior to my first LARP event.

However when a 16-year old teenager show up for the first time, they are lot more hesitant unless they have a experienced player as part of their team coaching them. But they are not completely lost due to the fact it is live action. With tabletop, it is all verbal with some visuals if one uses minis and props. So without knowing at least the basic rules the players will be completely lost.

Now having said all this, there are some for this is appealing and enjoy starting from ground zero in every which way. But it is a small niches of the hobby that enjoys this both today and back in the day.

[Falconer]

For OD&D, I pass out copies of Men & Magic. They can keep them, or not, it’s easy enough to make as many as I like. I don’t think they usually keep them.

For AD&D, I always stocked up on PHBs to have at the table, and eventually gifted them to players (and then stocked up some more).

I guess I figure it’s nice for players to have the list of spells, the list of equipment, etc. Also for experienced players to help new players create characters and such.

Now that said, I prefer they not have referee rules like to-hit numbers or saving throws. I guess I feel AD&D 1e nailed the player/referee division of info.


Many RPGs don’t nail that division quite so well, like there is just one rulebook and it’s too dense for casual players. Or else the info I need is far-flung in multiple sources, or else I just want to customize the rules a lot. For RuneQuest Classic, I made a Men & Magic type booklet. If the campaign would have continued, I would probably have expanded it, or else just eventually have been okay with people having their own copy. I have one for the Original Star Trek RPG as well (a work-in-progress, but quite substantial at this point). I am working on one for the LotRRPG as well; we’ll see how far it comes, but I have been thinking that everyone will eventually have their own copy of the (published) book. I have been slowly stocking up with the idea of gifting them out.

[tombowings]

The rules are the game world. They do not exist fully in written form. There are no specific set of rules for players to own.

[jeffb]

No vote. I'm not terribly concerned (other than financially) if they don't own the books. If they want to spend their money on books, great. If they want ME to buy books for them to use, that's an issue.

But do not assume because you own/bought the book, it's part of MY game. I may allow it, I may not. I may allow a bit of it. I may not. Unless it's WAYY out there (like weird races or classes that don't fit the setting I'm using) I'm usually accommodating. Please check first.

As a DM it is your obligation to make sure players understand what is/is not being used in your game. That could be as simple as " Tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you what to roll" to the extreme of "We play RAW per the 2E PHB, along with the following supplements...blah blah blah"

[Deleted]

I voted yes, but I'd qualify it: I prefer the players own the rules for players (e.g., players handbook or whatever). If they are not also DMs, I would prefer they not own things like the DMG or MM or equivalent sourcebooks. Players don't need to see behind the screen.

[arkansan]

It doesn't really matter to me personally. Either way is fine. Never had any trouble explaining to players what their options are and I've been fortunate enough to have players that pick things up quickly thus far.

[asaki]

Which rulebook are we talking about here?

The PHB? Yes, players should have the Players Handbook. It is a handbook for players =) (regardless of Gary's absence of any apostrophe)

The DMG? Well, I would prefer not, but most of my friends DM more than I do, so it's rather unavoidable...though most of us don't all run the same editions.

The MM? I think Gary said he allowed the players to read it, but not during gameplay. I mean it makes sense, in Real Life you can go to a library and read up about different creatures. And if you play by the old rules, you're not supposed to explicitly tell the players what monster they're fighting, you just describe it to them.

Adventure modules? Eh, no to that one =)


And regarding "buying" the book, D&D 5E at least, you can do a heck of a lot of gaming without buying any books.

[hamurai]

I voted Yes, since we're not only refering to OD&D.

Even in simple rules systems, I prefer the players own the rules (not necessarily buying the book but copying the core rules). That way, they can read up on rules stuff themselves without having to use precious play time at the table asking me stuff. That's even more true the crunchier the system gets. Our D&D 5E group has a player who still isn't sure about many rules aspects after 5 years of playing. He just doesn't get it in his brain. It certainly helps that he owns the rules and can re-read them before we play so we can limit his questions about the basics of the game to a minimum when we're in the middle of the action.

[jamiltron]

I either just run the game with a sort of "you tell me what you do, I'll tell you when/what you need to roll," or I will reproduce the necessary player rules in a doc and share it among the group. So my answer is kind of a no-vote.

[DungeonDevil]

Humans being what they are, if the Ref says "Don't go near the rulebooks!!!!", the first thing any will do is to sneak off and take a peak at the rulebooks! I always say to newbs "If you want to read the rulebooks, go right ahead. There's nothing super secret about them, and knowing the rules isn't necessary for players, but knowing a bit about chargen is good. However, if you read the adventure modules you're only cheating yourself." So, yeah, they can buy their own stuff -- as long as they don't pre-read the modules. Even then, I'm sure some have gone off to read the modules to "prep" for the session, thinking they'll be able to cheat the system and "win"...or somesuch gibberish. *eyeroll* For some people winning ("playing for blood" as it were) is the most important thing of all, and they will go to any length to do so, even at the cost of propriety and their own enjoyment.

[Starbeard]

Sept 7, 2021 8:27:03 GMT -6 captainjapan said:

I've known since forever that the older the referee I play with, the more the control they exercise over my character. I could argue a point with my friends but if their older brother was dm, I'd do better to just go with the flow. When I started playing, it was with a friend refereeing from his older brother's old AD&D hardcovers (left behind when he went to college). Sometimes, however, I would play a pick-up game with some older guys that we were introduced to through one of the tougher kids in my class. Their dm was se-ri-ous about d&d, and sported a collection of materials like I had never seen until the dawn of the YouTube game reviewers with their library-esque backdrops. I don't recall ever bringing a rule book to play, in those days. But, later on I was able to pick-up some used orange spine editions at ye old book barn. And, later than that I used a combination of spells from one or two books that I'd purchased to cast on a fellow player in one of the greatest revenge plots I may never speak of again.

It has been my impression, lately, that posters here are not even speaking the language of osr (whatever that is); but, rather of Gronan's fkr i.e, ”free kriegspiel" where the only thing the players are expected to do is to dialogue with the referee. I could ask other poll questions like: Should players roll the dice? or Do players get to keep their own character sheets?, but I think that the rulebook question is a better starting point. After all, Gary Gygax marketed Dungeons & Dragons sets to everyone, regardless of whether they intended to dm or not. Maybe, that was a mistake?.

From those examples, I'm not entirely sure what you experienced isn't necessarily "the older the DM" but "the older and self-perceived more experienced the DM is than me," which brings in all its own social expectations. I know I played with the friend of a friend's cocky older brother and had that same experience, but at the same time I was also playing with a guy in his 40s who started in the 70s and he was very "System Matters" and interactive with players regarding rules & rulebooks at the table.

For myself, I don't have an opinion. I default to not worrying about whether the players engage with the rules, and if it's clear they can't or won't, then I just adjust my DMing so that I can track that for them and/or reduce the complexity of their character rules so that they don't need to engage at that level. If they really want to dive into the rules, I will happily let them and even call on them for their learning if I can't think of the answer myself.

[captainjapan]

Starbeard,

You're right about the unyielding quality of some referees. It's not exclusively a product of the difference in their age. Selective memory being what it is, I must now admit that the player who was the target of my revenge plot was formerly a referee, himself. He exercised all the same sorts of control over his players' characters, but he was also exactly our age.

Thanks for the prompt. I'll agree that my experience isn't nearly universal. We're, all of us posters, fairly old gamers, now. If the poll results are any indication, then more rules knowledge all 'round is a preference most of us share in common with the gaming community at large.

[Starbeard]

Oct 16, 2021 19:24:28 GMT -6 captainjapan said:

Starbeard,

You're right about the unyielding quality of some referees. It's not exclusively a product of the difference in their age. Selective memory being what it is, I must now admit that the player who was the target of my revenge plot was formerly a referee, himself. He exercised all the same sorts of control over his players' characters, but he was also exactly our age.

Thanks for the prompt. I'll agree that my experience isn't nearly universal. We're, all of us posters, fairly old gamers, now. If the poll results are any indication, then more rules knowledge all 'round is a preference most of us share in common with the gaming community at large.

I do think you have a point. There's a certain type of player who really likes to be the most experienced person at the table and use that to, well, bully and lord over the other players, particularly by being a snarky or overcontrolling DM. An older grog simply has more opportunity to seek out that situation because most other players will have less experience. So the circumstance ends up confirming the stereotype for those of us who were subjected to that bad experience.

[talysman]

No vote, because it doesn't matter. The vast majority of the rules are really guidelines for the GM for making things and are likely to get changed. If players get rule books for lists of spells and equipment, that's fine. It's even OK if they want lists of classes, as long as they understand that those classes, especially those outside the core three or four, will probably work differently than expected. Nothing else matters, because monsters and treasures will probably be very different in my campaign, and other rules are just suggestions.

It's not that those other rules are secret, it's just that they don't matter when playing a character. I will tell the player what's happening in the game world, and the player tells me what they want to do, and I figure out what happens as a result. That's all role-playing is, and all that anyone actually needs to know.

[simrion]

Sept 7, 2021 9:27:14 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

The problem isn't that there are rule books, the problem is the common assumption that everything you can do as a character in a campaign is defined in the rules.

This most definitely. Much as I hate admitting it I run a later rule set that defines practically every action a character can due (or has some rule/roll for it.) I try to encourage the players to describe what their character is doing, especially when searching for something. They invariably think a simple die roll will suffice to accomplish the task without description, example "I search the room..." rolls die. I mess with them by saying "You find nothing of interest unless you tell me where you are searching, how you are searching and what you are searching for...you are going to find nothing!"

[robertsconley]

Oct 17, 2021 16:40:31 GMT -6 simrion said:

Sept 7, 2021 9:27:14 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

The problem isn't that there are rule books, the problem is the common assumption that everything you can do as a character in a campaign is defined in the rules.

This most definitely. Much as I hate admitting it I run a later rule set that defines practically every action a character can due (or has some rule/roll for it.) I try to encourage the players to describe what their character is doing, especially when searching for something. They invariably think a simple die roll will suffice to accomplish the task without description, example "I search the room..." rolls die. I mess with them by saying "You find nothing of interest unless you tell me where you are searching, how you are searching and what you are searching for...you are going to find nothing!"

I ran GURPS for over 15 years. As a rules system it is about as detailed as they come. However I was always one to say describe first, roll second. Some of my reason for doing that was practical. As I lived in a rural area, I often was the one who knew GURPS best. So by having that policy is made things less aggravating for the players when they only had partial knowledge of how GURPS worked. I generally explained the mechanics so it came off more as coaching rather than dictatorial.

Over time I cam to realize the reason I gravitated to systems like Hero System and GURPS not because I wanted codification. I wanted consistency and support to cover areas that wasn't knowledgeable about. If the players opted to weave baskets, I knew GURPS had me covered.

Also the systems like Hero System and GURPS also were toolkit system that allowed me to tweak them to fit my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands. And I applied those tweak when I started using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. Not to make OD&D more like GURPS, but rather to make OD&D fit better with how I defined the Majestic Wilderlands. With the condition that still is basically OD&D.

[asaki]

Oct 17, 2021 16:40:31 GMT -6 simrion said:

...example "I search the room..." rolls die. I mess with them by saying "You find nothing of interest unless you tell me where you are searching, how you are searching and what you are searching for...you are going to find nothing!"

I mess with my players by letting them leave the room empty-handed...the next time they enter that room, "You see a group of bandits pulling a large chest out from under the bed."

[jeffb]

Oct 17, 2021 16:14:13 GMT -6 talysman said:

No vote, because it doesn't matter. The vast majority of the rules are really guidelines for the GM for making things and are likely to get changed. If players get rule books for lists of spells and equipment, that's fine. It's even OK if they want lists of classes, as long as they understand that those classes, especially those outside the core three or four, will probably work differently than expected. Nothing else matters, because monsters and treasures will probably be very different in my campaign, and other rules are just suggestions.

It's not that those other rules are secret, it's just that they don't matter when playing a character. I will tell the player what's happening in the game world, and the player tells me what they want to do, and I figure out what happens as a result. That's all role-playing is, and all that anyone actually needs to know.

D&D is a conversation- people forget that as they get more experienced, or never understand it to begin with.

It took Dungeon World to remind me of that about 7 or 8 years ago.

[captainjapan]

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who noticed you free kriegspiel guys making noise:

[Mordorandor]

The best set of guidelines [for players to learn] are the ones that come about when you ask someone to put a book down long enough to participate in an interaction. 🙂