PDA

View Full Version : People who learn RPGs through play are missing out.



notXanathar
2019-10-17, 02:54 PM
The primary way that I was introduced to dnd (having heard a little about it before) was when my family and I went over to a friends house for dinner. While the adults were chatting and the other children playing, being the bookworm that I am, I was looking at the bookshelves. Intrigued by a large rulebook, picked it up. I knew, basically, that it was a fantasy game, so I looked at the contents page, and flipped to the place marked wizard.

The feeling of learning these games by jumping into the rules deep-end is second to none. There is the feeling of being privy to some greater group and ancient tradition (so long as you count the mid 70's as ancient). There is the feeling of not quite understanding what's going on, or how one part of the book interacts with another, like why it references large creatures, when large is such a vague term. It's the feeling of being lost in minutiae without knowing the broad strokes. It's the magical feeling of being lost in arcana that one can't quite grasp. It's brilliant.

I can't really compare it to other ways of learning them, but if you can, please do.

Iamyourking
2019-10-17, 03:06 PM
Every single tabletop game I've played I've learned through reading the rules, and I cannot recommend it more.

darkrose50
2019-10-17, 03:07 PM
I went from reading at a 3rd grade reading level in 5th grade to a university reading level by 8th grade via reading D&D books.

False God
2019-10-17, 03:18 PM
My brain doesn't work that way. If I can't see the pieces come together in play, reading through the rules doesn't do anything for me. You can explain a game to me, I can read the rules, but if it's something I've never played, I'm not gonna learn how to do it until I do it. And I'll learn much faster by doing than I ever would by reading the rules.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, simply: different strokes for different folks.

Imbalance
2019-10-17, 03:50 PM
My brain doesn't work that way. If I can't see the pieces come together in play, reading through the rules doesn't do anything for me. You can explain a game to me, I can read the rules, but if it's something I've never played, I'm not gonna learn how to do it until I do it. And I'll learn much faster by doing than I ever would by reading the rules.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, simply: different strokes for different folks.

This. I'd been over the stereo instructions, but until I started pushing buttons to see what they do I only understood the basics.

martixy
2019-10-17, 07:43 PM
I see two schools of thought here, learning through experience and learning the theory.

And they are not limited to the rules of tabletop games. This applies to school as well. It came up recently in my workplace.

What I can confidently say is that you can't limit yourself to one or the other. You are doing a disservice to yourself if you do.

Getting to grips with how all the parts fits together requires practical experience in using the knowledge. Learning the limits of a system, the intricacies, being able to make predictions and come up with novel approaches requires deep knowledge of the theory.

To the "My brain doesn't work that way" folks:
I get it. I have a couple colleagues like this. They generally do fine, but even they'll admit to struggling to pick up certain more esoteric concepts and ideas, simply because they don't know the underlying foundation that binds them all together. So to you I have this to say: Try to teach your brain to work the other way at least a little bit. It will help you greatly in ways you cannot foresee.

Once you embrace both philosophies, finding the balance between both approaches becomes the true art.

darkrose50
2019-10-18, 07:59 AM
It is important to note that there is (a) an art to designing fun game rules, and (b) an art to describing how to play the game.

Quertus
2019-10-18, 10:02 AM
So, as most who have had online discussions with me doubtless know, I have… issues… with reading comprehension. Even so, I recommend jumping in by reading. It's how I got started.

It's not about "understanding" - I'll agree that actually playing the game is much more conducive to actually seeing the elephant. It's about that sense of wonder at seeing (feeling?) the tusks, the trunk, the tail, and wondering, "just what is this?".

You can come back for understanding later; but, much like a first impression, you only get one shot at feeling that sense of wonder.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-10-18, 01:48 PM
On the other hand, rulebook can be intimidatingly huge, and not everyone has the right mix of free time, inclination, and learning style to slog their way through written mechanics. I'd rather have someone read the rules than not, but it's much more important that they can show up and have fun at my table.

Mastikator
2019-10-18, 03:41 PM
My brain doesn't work that way. If I can't see the pieces come together in play, reading through the rules doesn't do anything for me. You can explain a game to me, I can read the rules, but if it's something I've never played, I'm not gonna learn how to do it until I do it. And I'll learn much faster by doing than I ever would by reading the rules.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, simply: different strokes for different folks.

Same. Context matters to me and only once I have that is deep diving into the rules possible.

ezekielraiden
2019-10-18, 10:18 PM
VARK is a *thing,* guys. Different people process information differently, and may get more out of one kind than another. What is sublimely effective for you may be nearly incomprehensible to someone else and vice versa, and that's okay. People should have some willingness to try new things, but there should be limits to that too. People aren't inherently missing out just because they absorb information in a different way.

(VARK stands for "visual, auditory, read/write, kinaesthetic, the four generally accepted forms that information/experience takes when one is trying to learn. Most people have one primary mode and one secondary mode; some have more, some have less, some adapt their primary to every setting, and a few are "always primary in everything," more or less. I'm in that last group, I need multiple info tracks to *really* understand. Differences in how you digest and grok info often arise at this level. E.g. a kinesthetic primary, auditory secondary would find rulebooks almost worthless, because they usually need either actual-play experience or at least a spoken interaction with an expert. This is also a big part of why you may find one professor more engaging/instructive than another. Their teaching style may just dovetail with your learning style.)

Mechalich
2019-10-18, 11:07 PM
Within the context of tabletop RPGs the rules as written may bear little resemblance to how the game is actually played at a majority of tables.

For example, the rules to actually cast a spell in Mage: the Ascension are several pages long and involve a roughly ten-step process. No one actually did this in gameplay. Players described what they wanted to do, GMs decided whether or not they could and proclaimed a difficulty based on a very rough guideline, and then the player rolled their arrete dice pool. Many gaming tables involve copious houserules, ban huge chunks of various sourcebooks, or simply subconsciously disregard a huge number of rules. For example, in D&D 3.X there are many tables where grappling is considered 'too annoying and complicated' and simply never occurs.

Treating a game as a book club experience can be fun - and there are certain games that are actually probably better as a shared theoretical world than one that's ever been used in play (I'd nominate Exalted and RIFTS) - but it actually has a good chance of distorting expectations of how the game will be played rather than providing useful information.

Yora
2019-10-19, 03:28 AM
People who only learned games by reading the books and people who only learned games by being tought are not qualified to make any judgement which one is better.

I never made my new players read through the whole books and teach them as we play. Some did on their own, others didn't. I never noticed a difference between them.

Faily
2019-10-19, 07:20 AM
My brain doesn't work that way. If I can't see the pieces come together in play, reading through the rules doesn't do anything for me. You can explain a game to me, I can read the rules, but if it's something I've never played, I'm not gonna learn how to do it until I do it. And I'll learn much faster by doing than I ever would by reading the rules.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, simply: different strokes for different folks.

Thirding (or fourthing?) this. There's only so much I can pick up from just reading it through, I *have* to play through it to actually grasp the mechanics and rules properly. Going through character creation in a new system and making a mock-up character gives me some idea, but I need to play it to figure it out.

If it comes to reading setting info though, well, I love doing that. I own a lot of RPG books that I've never played but I've greaty enjoying reading the fluff and the setting. :smallbiggrin:

Cluedrew
2019-10-19, 08:17 AM
I'm actually going to go against the everyone has their own way of learning thing a bit here. In that I think you should probably do both eventually because there are some things you can learn from a theoretical approach and some from a practical approach that you can't learn from the other. There is a lot of overlap as well and for that you can just use your preferred method. But if you want to push your understanding further you should probably to learn some theory as well. I would say get some practice as well but that really means playing the game and I kind of just assumed people would be doing that anyways.

Jay R
2019-10-19, 08:26 AM
People who do what works for them are not “missing out”, even when it’s not what’s ideal for me.

I had a friend who neverread the rules. He told me what he wanted his character to do, and I’d create his character sheet. Then he’d do what made sense to him in that tactical situation.

He never played casters, but he was always a good ally in the game — and had no problem playing several versions of D&D, Flashing Blades, and even Champions.

That can’t work for me. I have a Ph.D. in operations research (mathematical optimization), and I need to examine the rules, play with them, etc. That’s part of why I didn’t mind creating Glen’s character sheets.

Learn and play your way, help your friends learn and play their way, and have fun together.

False God
2019-10-19, 09:49 AM
Thirding (or fourthing?) this. There's only so much I can pick up from just reading it through, I *have* to play through it to actually grasp the mechanics and rules properly. Going through character creation in a new system and making a mock-up character gives me some idea, but I need to play it to figure it out.

If it comes to reading setting info though, well, I love doing that. I own a lot of RPG books that I've never played but I've greaty enjoying reading the fluff and the setting. :smallbiggrin:

Yep, this is where I am in the latest L5R, beautiful works. Great reads, but without a group to sit down and play it, I still have almost no idea how it works! lol

Tawmis
2019-10-19, 12:38 PM
The primary way that I was introduced to dnd (having heard a little about it before) was when my family and I went over to a friends house for dinner. While the adults were chatting and the other children playing, being the bookworm that I am, I was looking at the bookshelves. Intrigued by a large rulebook, picked it up. I knew, basically, that it was a fantasy game, so I looked at the contents page, and flipped to the place marked wizard.

The feeling of learning these games by jumping into the rules deep-end is second to none. There is the feeling of being privy to some greater group and ancient tradition (so long as you count the mid 70's as ancient). There is the feeling of not quite understanding what's going on, or how one part of the book interacts with another, like why it references large creatures, when large is such a vague term. It's the feeling of being lost in minutiae without knowing the broad strokes. It's the magical feeling of being lost in arcana that one can't quite grasp. It's brilliant.

I can't really compare it to other ways of learning them, but if you can, please do.

Not to further complicate matters - but, so many tables also have "house rules" - that bend, adjust, or even ignore some of the "Core Rules."

Honestly, I have found, playing as a player first - is the best way to learn. This allows you to observe the DM (and the players) and see how the players react to the DM. It allows you to see what dice and rolled for what and how things like Armor Class, Hit Points, and all of that work.

Once you've played a few sessions and feel you have a handle of the game - if your DM is up for it (and they should be!), you can begin asking them about some of the things to be ready for, if you should ever decide to step up as a DM. Ask them what rules they like and don't like, what rules are house rules and why.

Once you've gathered the information from playing, and questions from (hopefully at the very least, a slightly experienced DM), then begin diving into D&D.

The beauty of 5th Edition is they've released things like "The Essentials Kit" which is prime material for new DMs. Contains a basic version of the rules. A lighter/less lengthy rule book. It has characters, dice, and even an adventure to run your players through.

5th Edition really has made it much easier for DMs to begin brand new, with stuff like that, if you really wanted to jump in feet first, without experience.

Quertus
2019-10-19, 05:06 PM
VARK is a *thing,* guys. Different people process information differently, and may get more out of one kind than another. What is sublimely effective for you may be nearly incomprehensible to someone else and vice versa, and that's okay. People should have some willingness to try new things, but there should be limits to that too. People aren't inherently missing out just because they absorb information in a different way.

(VARK stands for "visual, auditory, read/write, kinaesthetic, the four generally accepted forms that information/experience takes when one is trying to learn. Most people have one primary mode and one secondary mode; some have more, some have less, some adapt their primary to every setting, and a few are "always primary in everything," more or less. I'm in that last group, I need multiple info tracks to *really* understand. Differences in how you digest and grok info often arise at this level. E.g. a kinesthetic primary, auditory secondary would find rulebooks almost worthless, because they usually need either actual-play experience or at least a spoken interaction with an expert. This is also a big part of why you may find one professor more engaging/instructive than another. Their teaching style may just dovetail with your learning style.)

So, someone who's actually good at reading might not get to share my cool experience. Any suggestions for an alternative for them to fail with?

Cluedrew
2019-10-19, 09:05 PM
What do you mean an alternative to fail with? Are you talking about Quertus (the character) who tends to be horrendously bad at things he is supposed to be good at?

Psyren
2019-10-19, 09:11 PM
VARK is a *thing,* guys. Different people process information differently, and may get more out of one kind than another. What is sublimely effective for you may be nearly incomprehensible to someone else and vice versa, and that's okay. People should have some willingness to try new things, but there should be limits to that too. People aren't inherently missing out just because they absorb information in a different way.

(VARK stands for "visual, auditory, read/write, kinaesthetic, the four generally accepted forms that information/experience takes when one is trying to learn. Most people have one primary mode and one secondary mode; some have more, some have less, some adapt their primary to every setting, and a few are "always primary in everything," more or less. I'm in that last group, I need multiple info tracks to *really* understand. Differences in how you digest and grok info often arise at this level. E.g. a kinesthetic primary, auditory secondary would find rulebooks almost worthless, because they usually need either actual-play experience or at least a spoken interaction with an expert. This is also a big part of why you may find one professor more engaging/instructive than another. Their teaching style may just dovetail with your learning style.)

This.


So, someone who's actually good at reading might not get to share my cool experience. Any suggestions for an alternative for them to fail with?

Being better witih a different learning method doesn't mean someone isn't "good at reading."

CarpeGuitarrem
2019-10-19, 09:22 PM
On the other hand, rulebook can be intimidatingly huge, and not everyone has the right mix of free time, inclination, and learning style to slog their way through written mechanics. I'd rather have someone read the rules than not, but it's much more important that they can show up and have fun at my table.
Yep, this is the biggest thing. I'm a book nerd, but if I have to get my entire group to play a new game, I'm not making them read through the entire rulebook upfront.

Tajerio
2019-10-19, 09:39 PM
As a bit of a side note, studies keep showing that VARK doesn't describe reality. Take a gander at a few of the papers listed here https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/ or here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-learning-styles/

Quertus
2019-10-19, 10:32 PM
What do you mean an alternative to fail with? Are you talking about Quertus (the character) who tends to be horrendously bad at things he is supposed to be good at?


Being better witih a different learning method doesn't mean someone isn't "good at reading."

I am bad at reading.

I learned my first RPG by reading.

The experience, for me, was a magical one, filled with "feeling the parts of the elephant" without "seeing the elephant".

I conclude that everyone should learn RPGs by reading.

I am reminded that not everyone is as bad at reading comprehension as I am.

I hypothesize that others' reading acumen may prove an impediment to replicating my early experiences.

I inquire regarding alternative techniques to replicate my experiences for the "reading impaired impaired" (the "reading enabled"?).

I am meet with two non-sequitor responses.

I experience confusion.

I decide to step through my thought process.

I do so.

-----

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, isn't bad at things he's supposed to be good at. He's excellent at creating custom spells, understanding magic theory, etc. The problem is, he's an academic, and so is a bit lacking in the practical applications side, and generally quite abysmal at the tactics aspect of spell slinging.

So, as a tactically inept academia mage, he does exactly what he's supposed to. Which has little in common with a typical "Playground" Wizard.

Mechalich
2019-10-19, 10:50 PM
I hypothesize that others' reading acumen may prove an impediment to replicating my early experiences.

You should not attempt to have other people replicate your 'magical' experiences. The specific criteria for such an experience are unlikely to be shared across different people.

The best way to learn to play an RPG is the method that makes a person the most effective player of that RPG they can be, ideally with minimum expended effort. That's going to vary, specifically it's going to vary from game system to game system, but will probably combine both actual play and reading the rulebook, with the latter mattering more for more complex systems. For example, a game like FATE is probably best learned primarily through play, because the core mechanics are extremely simple and learning the game involves actively learning how to utilize character and situational features effectively. By contrast a complex game like D&D will involve more reading in order to figure out core mechanical principles and to familiarize oneself with options - like what actions one can actually take on a turn and how to move in combat.

Additionally there are sometimes reasons for players to actively avoiding reading some of the game material. This is particularly important for players who have difficulty separating personal knowledge from character knowledge who may absorb copious amounts of information they are not supposed to know and end up subconsciously metagaming like crazy.

Psyren
2019-10-19, 11:02 PM
The experience, for me, was a magical one, filled with "feeling the parts of the elephant" without "seeing the elephant".

I conclude that everyone should learn RPGs by reading.


Concluding that everyone should learn something the way you do is not a great conclusion. People are different, do you not get that?

ezekielraiden
2019-10-20, 12:55 AM
So, someone who's actually good at reading might not get to share my cool experience. Any suggestions for an alternative for them to fail with?
Needlessly aggressive, much? I'm just saying that you are (or rather the OP is) projecting from particulars to universals, in a way that is a very common form of human bias. The idea that their personal, lived experience is reflective of a fundamental truth or inherent property, and will handily generalize to everyone else.

Some people will have a similar experience to yours--the same qualia, to use the technical philosophical term. Others will not. For the OP to phrase it as "people who learn RPGs through play are missing out," "the feeling...is second to none," "it's [a] magical feeling," etc. The final sentence pays some lip service to the idea that maybe someone can't for some reason, but it still presumes that this same internal experience of wonder and mystery is an inherent universal that maybe a few people just won't have the opportunity to see. That's foolishly projecting.


As a bit of a side note, studies keep showing that VARK doesn't describe reality. Take a gander at a few of the papers listed here https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/ or here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-learning-styles/
To be blunt: whoever uses VARK as a rigid tool, rather than a useful but limited guide, is wasting their time. Learning is always an individual experience, and will continue to be until we develop telepathy or mind-machine interfaces or the like. VARK merely exists to help people reflect on their learning methods, and in particular to help people who are TRYING to change their study habits. I worked as a tutor for several years at the college level; we used a VARK questionnaire as a way to get started on the conversation about how tutees think about information, what tools they feel comfortable using, etc. We would always recommend a variety of methods and never treat the questionnaire as an ironclad "you are an X and therefore only method Y will work" malarkey. (One of your articles even specifically notes that it is study habits which change how someone learns, and study habits can be hard to change. They were an ENORMOUS part of our focus to develop students to the point where they could study totally unassisted and perform well.)


I am bad at reading. I learned my first RPG by reading. The experience, for me, was a magical one, filled with "feeling the parts of the elephant" without "seeing the elephant". I conclude that everyone should learn RPGs by reading.
There is no tool that works for everyone, and arguing from "this was my experience, so it should become everyone's experience" is both a seriously common and frustrating informal fallacy (sometimes called the "projection" or "psychologist's" fallacy), and separately an actual formal fallacy as well (you cannot infer a universal claim from a particular instance; that's not how the universal and existential quantifiers work.)


I am reminded that not everyone is as bad at reading comprehension as I am.
I had not actually seen your post, so I had no idea you considered yourself bad at reading comprehension, and I was in fact not even talking to you, but to the OP. Hence why I quoted their post, and not yours.


I hypothesize that others' reading acumen may prove an impediment to replicating my early experiences. I inquire regarding alternative techniques to replicate my experiences for the "reading impaired impaired" (the "reading enabled"?).
That's...kind of a reaching hypothesis, which is entirely responsible for the allegedly non sequitur responses. You did not even slightly sound serious; you sounded bitterly sarcastic. "Oh, great, just great--could you make more suggestions for how people can fail miserably? That would be delightful, and would totally make the conversation SOOO much more enjoyable." (I could go on, but I hope this communicates the tone your comment appeared to have.) It sounded far less like a genuine request for further discussion, and far more like "well F**K YOU for pissing on my cheerios!"

So, to respond to the question with its intent now known:
That's not how it works. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that good reading comprehension is an impediment rather than a benefit, and that wasn't what was argued. The argument was that there are people for whom reading an RPG, regardless of their understanding of the words, communicates literally nothing like the awe and wonder that the OP describes or that you have felt. Instead, it becomes frustrating, opaque, like trying to wrangle a yes-or-no answer out of a Vorlon. Instead of feeling like there's a vast thing that you have just begun to sense but still don't understand, it feels like a cold grey wall locking you out and refusing to yield. In other words, for some people, the very same experience--ignorance of a larger structure, but awareness of a handful of particulars--produces frustration, confusion, or boredom, rather than interest, wonder, and excitement.

Whether you can comprehend the words themselves is orthogonal to the feeling one experiences from the words. Surely you need to have some reading comprehension in order to get the experience at all. Being illiterate would end things before they began. But just knowing what the words mean doesn't strictly communicate awe and wonder; different people extract different lived experiences from identical texts. For some, like you and to a certain extent myself, there's great power in simply reading those words. That information sparks curiosity and wonder. But curiosity is merely the bright side; unpleasant mystery creates confusion rather than curiosity, despite both being driven by a desire to know more.


Concluding that everyone should learn something the way you do is not a great conclusion. People are different, do you not get that?
Completely agreed with the first sentence, though I would argue your second is perhaps overly confrontational. (Partially calling this out in an effort at fairness: if I'm going to criticize Quertus for something highly analogous, I should try to be consistent.)

Aliquid
2019-10-20, 01:11 AM
Not sure if I can respond to the original question anymore... or if it is too late because of how the thread has been sidetracked into a discussion about learning styles.

I enjoy reading rules and figuring out how they work. There are multiple RPG systems that I have rulebooks for, but haven't ever actually played. I just like reading the rules and seeing how they make their mechanics work, actually I like reading about their "fluff" too. I also like making up my own rules and systems (which I rarely end up actually using)

But I've always liked figuring out how things work. As a kid I dissected machines to figure out what made them tick, and at my job I dissect business processes and IT systems to figure out how they work (and how I can reassemble them more efficiently)

Psyren
2019-10-20, 10:48 AM
Completely agreed with the first sentence, though I would argue your second is perhaps overly confrontational. (Partially calling this out in an effort at fairness: if I'm going to criticize Quertus for something highly analogous, I should try to be consistent.)

Well sorry, but having my direct response dismissed as a "non sequitur" isn't going to get the most positive reaction in my repertoire.

notXanathar
2019-10-20, 12:42 PM
To clear up on what I, personally was saying: I don't think either method of learning is more effective. I just think that the experience of learning about the rules from a book (for this purpose, dive right into the deep end) is a truly incredible one. It's just magical.

Also, for those of you who think you can learn entirely from play (although this is only one example), I have a friend who had never read any of the books, and it was only recently (last 1 or 2 months) that he discovered that his paladin could smite, having played that paladin for the previous 4 months.

False God
2019-10-20, 12:53 PM
To clear up on what I, personally was saying: I don't think either method of learning is more effective. I just think that the experience of learning about the rules from a book (for this purpose, dive right into the deep end) is a truly incredible one. It's just magical.
Okay, then say that. I do not understand why folks insist that because they enjoyed something one way, that people who don't enjoy doing that, or maybe just didn't do that, are missing out on some great revelation of reality.

Like, how difficult is it to say "Hey guys, I wanted to share my awesome experience of learning, picking up that first book and just reading all the rules, it was epic! How about you guys? How did you first get into the game? Was it an epic magical experience for you? Did you do it differently than me?"

See? No judgement. No accusation. No maligning others learning styles, personal preferences or gaming experiences! Just shared enjoyment of learning the game for the first time!


Also, for those of you who think you can learn entirely from play (although this is only one example), I have a friend who had never read any of the books, and it was only recently (last 1 or 2 months) that he discovered that his paladin could smite, having played that paladin for the previous 4 months.
I cannot sufficiently verbalize my pure, unadulterated rage that you are currently causing me to experience. You first on the one hand appear to apologize for not meaning to be insulting towards other people's experiences and learning styles, and then turn around and casually insult people who learned the game via play.

/sofreakindone

Tawmis
2019-10-20, 02:26 PM
Also, for those of you who think you can learn entirely from play (although this is only one example), I have a friend who had never read any of the books, and it was only recently (last 1 or 2 months) that he discovered that his paladin could smite, having played that paladin for the previous 4 months.

I can't speak for your friend and how they rolled up their character...

So there's a few things here...

First, I'd say if you're going to play a "Race/Class" - at the very least, read up on that Race/Class only, so that said person has an understanding of their character's abilities. This is not nearly as daunting as trying to read the entire Player's Handbook if one is looking just to get into D&D and play. The content for reading about Race/Class is all over online, so the Player's Handbook is not even really required (but, if it's a hobby you end up enjoying, it's strongly recommended from me, at any rate).

Second thing, most auto-generated character sheets like D&D Beyond (https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/paladin), will actually note your character's abilities. For someone who is new to D&D, I would recommend using D&D Beyond, or something similar, that PRINTS all of your abilities (such as Smite, but also your Skills, such as Deception, Stealth, etc) all for you - and has all those stats figured out.

Third, while not the job of the DM, per se; a DM who knows someone is brand spanking new to D&D, could take the time to make sure the player understands their character. For example, I began DMing for a group last year that had NEVER played D&D - not even once. So I had Session 0, where we discussed races, classes, what they do and can't do, and the basics. Everyone then rolled up characters. Now I knew everyone was new to D&D - so for each person I made a sheet that explained all of their "powers" - whether they had Darkvision or not, and what their class powers were. I didn't just write "Rage" for the Barbarian - I explained how Rage works and what happens when they use it and how often they can use it.

So definitely said friend, should have gone with Option 1 and/or 2, at the very least. Option 3 is not always possible, especially if they're just joining a random game, at a gaming shop, or something like that.

Faily
2019-10-20, 02:36 PM
Okay, then say that. I do not understand why folks insist that because they enjoyed something one way, that people who don't enjoy doing that, or maybe just didn't do that, are missing out on some great revelation of reality.

Like, how difficult is it to say "Hey guys, I wanted to share my awesome experience of learning, picking up that first book and just reading all the rules, it was epic! How about you guys? How did you first get into the game? Was it an epic magical experience for you? Did you do it differently than me?"

See? No judgement. No accusation. No maligning others learning styles, personal preferences or gaming experiences! Just shared enjoyment of learning the game for the first time!


I cannot sufficiently verbalize my pure, unadulterated rage that you are currently causing me to experience. You first on the one hand appear to apologize for not meaning to be insulting towards other people's experiences and learning styles, and then turn around and casually insult people who learned the game via play.

/sofreakindone

Agreed.

I mean, I could go on about how when I started with RPGs, I played KULT. It was my first RPG, I knew nothing about the setting or mechanics or anything. Everything was new and amazing, I didn't know anything about what some of the references (Carcosa from the King in Yellow) were and I fully lived in the moment of the experience of not knowing what exactly I was facing. Now that is a perfectly fine thing to say, but it would sound kind of mean if I said "people who learn RPGs by reading the rulebook are missing out, because they don't get to experience the magic of meeting the unknown for the first time".


And also seconding Tawmis that if a player is new to a game, help them out. Remind them of their abilities and what they can do.

Cluedrew
2019-10-20, 03:07 PM
I inquire regarding alternative techniques to replicate my experiences for the "reading impaired impaired" (the "reading enabled"?).

I am meet with two non-sequitor responses.
[...]
So, as a tactically inept academia mage, he does exactly what he's supposed to. Which has little in common with a typical "Playground" Wizard.Two points of clarification, my response was asking what it the question actually meant. The fact that it was apparently unrelated is because I had no idea what you are asking. Also when I said Quertus wasn't good at what he was supposed to be, I meant what the system intended to be good at.


Also, for those of you who think you can learn entirely from play (although this is only one example), I have a friend who had never read any of the books, and it was only recently (last 1 or 2 months) that he discovered that his paladin could smite, having played that paladin for the previous 4 months.How did he discover that the paladin could smite? How many people at the table had read the rule-book? I feel these are relevant details.

To the over all question though I will say yes but it goes both ways. People who learn through play will also have experiences that people learning through other means will miss out on. I guess the solution (or the best solution without memory modification) would be to learn different systems different ways.

icefractal
2019-10-20, 04:51 PM
I started out learning D&D this way too, and it _was_ kinda magical. Got the 3.0 PHB one summer, spent a couple weeks reading it in the backyard before joining the group, and it was a wonderful experience of discovery, like reading the secrets of a lost tome.

Learned some things I wouldn't have from play, as well. Did you know that 3.0 had a note about renaming your character's skills to fit with their background? I found out from reading it, but nobody I've played with has even mentioned it. There were a lot of "fleshing out the character details" things that I wouldn't have picked up until years later if ever, the groups at the time being rather efficiency-focused.

There's also plenty of stuff I learned from play, but it's not like reading the book prevents that.

Knaight
2019-10-20, 06:31 PM
I've learned just about every RPG I've ever played through reading it - which is pretty standard as a near-permanent GM who likes trying different systems. It works for me, and I'm glad it does, but there's certainly nothing transcendental about it. It's often just a harder way of doing things, especially if I extrapolate from boardgames. There I've read some, and I've been taught some, with the latter reliably being easier. It helps having people who already know the game at the table.

Leon
2019-10-21, 01:42 AM
What works for one doesn't work for (or indeed be useful at all) another. Have learnt many games many ways over time but prefer to have some one show me how and then read the rule book maybe later to fill in gaps or expand on what i know. I have also taught people who had never played before and they went on to do very well with themselves as both players and DMs. In a few weeks im going to be learning a new system totally by playing it.

Psyren
2019-10-21, 10:11 AM
Also, for those of you who think you can learn entirely from play (although this is only one example), I have a friend who had never read any of the books, and it was only recently (last 1 or 2 months) that he discovered that his paladin could smite, having played that paladin for the previous 4 months.

The plural of anecdote is not data.


Okay, then say that. I do not understand why folks insist that because they enjoyed something one way, that people who don't enjoy doing that, or maybe just didn't do that, are missing out on some great revelation of reality.

Like, how difficult is it to say "Hey guys, I wanted to share my awesome experience of learning, picking up that first book and just reading all the rules, it was epic! How about you guys? How did you first get into the game? Was it an epic magical experience for you? Did you do it differently than me?"

See? No judgement. No accusation. No maligning others learning styles, personal preferences or gaming experiences! Just shared enjoyment of learning the game for the first time!


I cannot sufficiently verbalize my pure, unadulterated rage that you are currently causing me to experience. You first on the one hand appear to apologize for not meaning to be insulting towards other people's experiences and learning styles, and then turn around and casually insult people who learned the game via play.

/sofreakindone

All of this.

EggKookoo
2019-10-21, 01:14 PM
I never made my new players read through the whole books and teach them as we play. Some did on their own, others didn't. I never noticed a difference between them.

The only (anecdotal) experience I have is that players who learn through reading the rules first are more likely to end up DMing. But there's probably some self-selection bias there. If you have the mindset to parse and juggle the rules, you probably have what it takes to put up with being a DM.

I learned 1e by reading through my older brother's DMG, PHB, MM, Deities & Demigods, and Fiend Folio. I spent hours trying to imagine how cool it would be to actually play the game. I had no friends my age who were really willing to do it. By the time I was old enough to have my own social group who were into it, we were all into post-D&D stuff (which was the fashion in the mid-late 80s). I didn't really get into D&D with any regularity until the mid-90s with 2e.

False God
2019-10-21, 07:42 PM
So, to put a little context to all of this: My first play experience was not magical. Reading through the books did not instill me with a sense of wonder (this was circa 2007/8 and I was about 23/4). There was nothing particularly wondrous or awe-inspiring that D&D 3.5 presented that was not presented elsewhere in a more awe-inspiring fashion. The rules were (and remain) clunky, the graphics (art) were lame, and most of the people playing it had no idea what "personal hygene" meant (a problem that persists today), making it difficult for me to be in closed spaces in close proximity to them.

I read the books before the first game, I had someone help me put a character together, which was when I quickly learned that what I thought was cool in my head translated to a terrible character in play (dual-wielding elf, and no, I didn't know who Drizzt was). I made a different character later that effectively combined the cool vision in my head and was effective in play. For the all of one session I actually got to play.

The DM was a friend of mine, which is probably one of the reasons I actually stuck through the whole session (a whopping 3 hours). He was one of those folks who thought he had the greatest "dwarf accent" ever since he saw LOTR. He was playing that psychic rogue class and took great offense when I suggested making a similar class so he could help me out through it, which is why I made a fighter instead. We fought some wizards, we made some bad jokes, it was okay.

-----

I didn't play D&D again for nearly 3 years, in a completely different town, with completely different people. This time we were playing the dreaded 4E *lighting strikes, horses whinny*. The rules were more sound. The graphics were updated. And the guy I was playing with this time was a clean-cut fellow. I read those books and I played kind of simultaneously and it was AWESOME. He ran a 4E updated red box adventure, which we didn't finish but noone really cared. We played some other games, and eventually shifted into Deadlands when we weren't feeling the "swords and sorcerery" vibe for a while. Deadlands was stupid amounts of fun.

I played another 4E game around the same time with more traditional "grogs" and rapidly remembered what I didn't like about D&D, which was revealing itsself more to be the players than any given system. They were all chomping at the bit to shift back into 3.5, which we did, and I largely lost interest and things came to a head when the system I liked was no longer keeping me interested in playing with these folks.

I didn't play much D&D after that until a couple years ago. To be fair, there wasn't much besides "bog standard fantasy 3.5" being offered and I had computer games that covered that in spades. And nobody wanted to play the only edition I've ever loved. And the only other RPG seeing regular play was CoC, a mythos I find terribly boring.

-------------
So that turned into a little bit more "character backstory" than just "my first session". But I put this here to add weight to the fact that when I see all these folks talking about their "magical" first experiences with the system, either via play or via the books or whatever, I am in part jelly (ochre probably, because ochre is just a cool word) and partly pissed when folks talk about something that I didn't experience, and it's not something I can just go back and re-experience. My introduction to D&D was pretty bad. My second introduction was better, but marred by the fact that I love the most hated version of the game.

So when people talk about their "magical" first experiences that everyone else is missing out on it, it reminds me of all the things that got me out of D&D: the people. The arrogant, holier-than-thou, edition-warring jerks who couldn't be satisfied to fist-bump that we all liked D&D (even if we enjoyed it differently) but the folks who had to be right who had to be better, who had to lord it over you.

We all may love D&D or other TTRPGs, but we didn't all get to have magical first experiences, regardless of how we learned the game. We don't always get a chance to go back and have a do-over for our first experiences.

Kaptin Keen
2019-10-22, 12:58 AM
I have never read a rule book. Not ever. I've been playing since the year of our lord, 1987.

Now, I've leafed through rule books, ad nauseam. But actually sitting down and reading the rules? Never done it.

If it's a new game, I start by making a character, trying to figure out how it works, and expand from there. I look up things I don't know, my preferred toilet reading is the rule book of some game, but it's invariably random and haphazard. I cannot and have never managed to read a rule book.

icefractal
2019-10-22, 02:35 PM
So when people talk about their "magical" first experiences that everyone else is missing out on it, it reminds me of all the things that got me out of D&D: the people. The arrogant, holier-than-thou, edition-warring jerks who couldn't be satisfied to fist-bump that we all liked D&D (even if we enjoyed it differently) but the folks who had to be right who had to be better, who had to lord it over you.I see where you're coming from. But -

I had a ****ty time in high school. Very isolated. Those supposed formative experiences as depicted in media? Had none of them.

So media/games in a HS setting do tend to leave me cold. But that doesn't mean other people are wrong for enjoying them, or that they're taunting me when they talk about them.

I think you may be taking this thread as antagonistic, which I really don't think it is. Obviously people have different experiences; no one style is going to work for everyone. This is just a call to give that style a try, a counterpoint to the frequently claimed wisdom that the players not knowing any rules is the best and most pure way to start playing (or to play at all, in some people's opinions).

False God
2019-10-22, 08:30 PM
I see where you're coming from. But -

I had a ****ty time in high school. Very isolated. Those supposed formative experiences as depicted in media? Had none of them.

So media/games in a HS setting do tend to leave me cold. But that doesn't mean other people are wrong for enjoying them, or that they're taunting me when they talk about them.

I think you may be taking this thread as antagonistic, which I really don't think it is. Obviously people have different experiences; no one style is going to work for everyone. This is just a call to give that style a try, a counterpoint to the frequently claimed wisdom that the players not knowing any rules is the best and most pure way to start playing (or to play at all, in some people's opinions).

My point is that you can't. You can't repeat high school planning to be all popular and good-looking and have a great time. I can't open up the book and have a "magical first experience". That's the thing about "first experiences", short of amnesia, you can't just have another one.

Quite literally you cannot do what the OP is suggesting. So all the OP is really saying is "You guys missed out on something awesome." Which, okay, I missed out on being a popular kid in school too. What of it? It's kind of a crummy comment to make, okay, maybe we did, maybe he missed out on something magical experiencing it the way we did.

Which is why I think the thread is intended to be antagonistic. Because many of the people in the TTRPG hobby are antagonistic towards people who experience and enjoy the game differently than they do. I see this thread as just an extension of that.

Vegan Squirrel
2019-10-24, 09:09 AM
So first off, I respect everyone's different learning styles, play preferences, and senses of wonder and awe. It's great that there's so much diversity in how we think and play, and it's a big part of why there are so many interesting things out there to read, watch, and play.

That said, my experiences align more with the OP's, and I couldn't imagine trying to play an RPG without reading the rules first. I also insist on reading the rules for board games before playing if I can; learning through play and someone explaining the rules is always an awkward experience. I started gaming with D&D 3.5, and I'd read the entire PHB cover to cover (in retrospect, there's no need to read all the spells immediately) before fooling around with a character sheet. Reading through it did fill me with that sense of wonder. But this brings up an interesting thought that's rattled around my brain about how some editions have been presented in the books.

Please don't take any of this as edition-warring; I'm glad plenty of players love D&D 4e, it sounds like a fun system to DM, and it's definitely a well-constructed system. I've never had the chance to play 4e myself (the group I started with had tried it and gone back to 3.5, and since then I've been playing 5e), but I've read my way through much of the 4e PHB on a few occasions, and it's really hard to read and really hard to consider playing, for me (and my reading/learning style?).

I think it's this: 4e (and from what I've seen of Pathfinder 2e, I think this applies there as well) more or less assumes that a player is only going to read the class that they want to play. Hence the long menus of options in each class description, which are very similar to the options in the next class description. Each power is presented in a stat block format that summarizes a bunch of rules in one place, but it's included for every power. The repetitiveness of these lists makes it very hard to keep slogging through the rulebook, class after class. But I personally can't really feel like I have a comfortable enough understanding of the rules of the game to actually play it if I can't get through all of the book for the context provided by the rest of the rules. Even though I'll probably end up playing a rogue, I don't want to pick my class until I've read all of the classes. It ends up feeling like the book is pushing me away (in a psychological/learning style kind of way).

Does this align with others' experiences? Is the 4e rulebook very easy to read for someone who doesn't want to read the whole book, but just wants to put together a character quickly? Are there others who found 4e hard specifically because it was hard to read through the entire rulebook in one go? I suspect this may be one more, often unrecognized, reason that people's opinions on 4e were so different. And it perhaps suggests a future path to rulebooks—presenting the same rules in multiple formats (quick-start guides with all the rules to play class X, and detailed rulebooks which focus on covering every rule). Maybe the Starter's Sets already do that; I've never grabbed those because I always start from the PHB.

sktarq
2019-10-24, 09:52 AM
So I had an apparently odd introduction to DnD.
On my 7th Birthday (late 80's) one of my friends mentioned thisthing he heard about older kids doing called DnD....it sounded like an advanced version of play pretend. So we basically tried to play with all 3 players having never seen a book..and only finding out there books afterward in one case when he either missed that bit from the DM. We had a lot of fun and so someone picked up the Rules Cyclopedia (BECMI rules) and we discovered how things were kinda supposed to do.

So about as far as possible from the OP but obviously still a magical experience.

While I have always been pretty good to okay at the rules, and have a good memory for them the part of the game that I really enjoy doesn't derive well from reading them in my experience. For me it has always been more about story, thought experiments, humour, puzzles, and bonding with a few people over an evening of tea or beer. So game tone is probably my biggest thing. Sure I now know how most rules can effect the playstyle that is easiest to fall into or when a rule is going to make things problematic for me but that is experience talking.

In my experience the most engaging way to be introduced, based mostly on does a new person come back for another session, seems to be to have them observe a game while holding onto the core rule book (Players handbook for example) and generally watched over by an experienced player (preferably the one who invited them) usually after a five minute primer of very basics. Get them involved socially, use the flow of the game to explain concepts, and let them dig and discover things in the book (and if their questions are going to need a level of detail that will break the flow of the game refer them to the appropriate section in the book). Some will barely touch the book, some will be looking up the rules for every thing their friend just did, or looking at art in the slower lots of rolls and choices moments. But if you get people to feel welcome, laugh a bunch, that the crew has fun every week, and make learning the rules of the gme not seem a huge investment in time more people will want to come back. No matter what their personal style of learning if you get them to want to play they will pick up the rules as needed. I mean did that Paladin have less fun, or did the other players have less fun, because they didn't know about their SMITE ability? No? Fine then it is a good laugh when they learn and a funny story to tell...just adds to game.

Because fundamentally DnD is SOCIAL event about having fun. Whatever adds to that is probably good and what detracts is probably bad.

Psyren
2019-10-24, 04:28 PM
My point is that you can't. You can't repeat high school planning to be all popular and good-looking and have a great time. I can't open up the book and have a "magical first experience". That's the thing about "first experiences", short of amnesia, you can't just have another one.

Quite literally you cannot do what the OP is suggesting. So all the OP is really saying is "You guys missed out on something awesome." Which, okay, I missed out on being a popular kid in school too. What of it? It's kind of a crummy comment to make, okay, maybe we did, maybe he missed out on something magical experiencing it the way we did.

Which is why I think the thread is intended to be antagonistic. Because many of the people in the TTRPG hobby are antagonistic towards people who experience and enjoy the game differently than they do. I see this thread as just an extension of that.

I happened to have had a great time in high school (largely due, I suspect, to not being in this country when I did) and I still agree with False_God here. Perhaps the intent of the thread was "I had a great experience learning TTRPGs this way, if you've struggled with learning {system XYZ} consider trying this approach and it might click better" but that's not at all how the opening post reads. The second paragraph in particular could have had a generous helping of "for me personally" added in. And then the OP's subsequent post about his paladin friend definitely comes off as "you think you're having fun, but you're not!" And don't get me started on whatever the heck Quertus chimed in with.

Mordante
2019-10-25, 07:34 AM
I do try to read RPG books. With the emphasis on try. I am DM to a lvl16 3.5 party. But to be honest I 100% depend on the players for the rules.

I started RPGs with Talislanta 2nd or 3rd edition and recently started playing and DMing 3.5.

Vampire the Masquerade is next on my list but the book and rules are just too much for me to plough through.

notXanathar
2019-10-25, 10:15 AM
Look, I don't want anyone to feel that I think the way they play is wrong. First, what I meant, and obviously didn't make clear enough, about my friend was that at least some reading the book is necessary in order to be on the same page as everyone else. The second thing is a personal thing that I felt, reading the various rulebooks I had before ever playing a game, which was not a thing to do with play, but simply one to do with trying to understand it outside of context.

I had an experience. It was a cool experience. People who learned RPGs through play could not have had that experience. Therefore they missed out. It's not like I ever said that they played the game wrong or something like that. I don't feel I ever expressed contempt, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Maybe you might say I expressed contempt for my friend for learning through play. I would argue that he just didn't learn. That's fine. He had fun. It is no crime to make a mistake in how you write something, and someone reads it in a different way to how you expect.

I hope I have clarified everything. I've said my piece, so do with it what you will. Maybe I was wrong, and you can get the same experience from play, but I am ignorant of that, since I haven't done so.

https://xkcd.com/386/

Goodbye, and all the best.

Psyren
2019-10-25, 02:07 PM
People who learned RPGs through play could not have had that experience. Therefore they missed out.

Your conclusion continues to be everything you say it isn't, but whatever :smallsigh: best of luck to you.

Knaight
2019-10-29, 02:19 AM
And then the OP's subsequent post about his paladin friend definitely comes off as "you think you're having fun, but you're not!" And don't get me started on whatever the heck Quertus chimed in with.

To be fair, that second part was Quertus.

Psyren
2019-10-29, 10:05 AM
To be fair, that second part was Quertus.

No, I was referring to this bit from the OP:


Also, for those of you who think you can learn entirely from play (although this is only one example), I have a friend who had never read any of the books, and it was only recently (last 1 or 2 months) that he discovered that his paladin could smite, having played that paladin for the previous 4 months.