Give me one good reason why I shouldn't ban someone from playing a class on the grounds of "You don't know jack shit...

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't ban someone from playing a class on the grounds of "You don't know jack shit about the lore even though you had all week to read the rulebook"

A class is a set of teachings, not the character, and being hidebound to what the book says speaks poorly of any GM.

Sounds like a personal problem.

>implying that player would be any better with a different class.

...

I can't think of any honestly. I just seems overly pedantic and passive aggressive when you could just explain the lore to them in like 10 seconds.

As long as you warned them in advance, I see no problem with it. Wouldn't want someone who doesn't know shit about the lore playing a Commissar in Only War, for example.

If you didn't tell them in advance I'd say you were overreacting.

I fucking hate people that don't ever bother to learn anything about their own character's class; however, I think there should always be a some form of session 0 to give players a chance to familiarize themselves with the world and the rules without having to do so on their own time. That being said, if the player continues to not give a fuck about learning the rules, they can get fucked.

Did you actually try to talk with the player about the class and the lore or did you descend straight into autistic ultimatums and retarded gatekeeping?

>session 0
Stopped reading right there.

Because you have no right to impinge on how another player has fun. No matter who you are.

>Because you have no right to impinge on how another player has fun. No matter who you are.
Nigga what?

If I'm the GM and a player's definition of fun is being a disruptive spastic, I have every right t tell hin to sit his ass down.

Well, care to elaborate, OP? What class is he playing? What classes require extra lore?

How crazy is this world that you need a session zero to introduce it?

One of the elements of good world-building is mixing the familiar with the exotic. Without any touchstones to latch onto, your players just won't care.
Also, what I do when running a game is introduce in-game information in bite-sized chunks as players encounter those strange elements.
For example:
>You see this band of warrior dressed in all-red start to surround you. You recognize them as the Dervishes of Tybal, an extremist sect devoted to Tybal the murder god.
Assuming that knowledge of the Dervishes is wide-spread, notice how I didn't have to tell them about it until it became relevant.

Now I'm assuming that you have fancy lore for classes too. Just apply the same principle: tell them what would be immediately relevant to their class, and introduce more esoteric knowledge when it becomes relevant.
For example:
>In My Setting™ Paladins must undergo a ritual in which they are possessed then ritually exorcised to achieve their powers of smiting evil
The only person you need to tell this to is the guy who wants to play a paladin. If he does play a paladin, and the ritual is common knowledge, then feel free to tell the party- or don't, just bring it up when it becomes immediately relevant.
What if you have an idea about initiates who fail, or other related topics? Assuming the Paladin knows all this information in-character, just feed him this tidbits as they come up.
See, no session 0 required. Just keep your player information bite-sized, relevant, and simple.

Session 0 is character creation and a small, 'getting to know you' adventure for games I run. Lore dumps are given when asked, or as background kbowledge explained in less than a paragraph when asked.

Things I've done in session zero:
>Explained as much of 40k lore as was relevant to a guy who knew nothing about it.
>Discussed different possible deities to the guys playing divine classes
>Talked about mercenary groups with a guy who wanted to play an ex-mercenary
Thing is, a setting doesn't need to be exotic for a session zero to be useful.
Plus its good fun, if you're playing with a bunch of good people. Doing this stuff while you're all together is nice, because then you can discuss stuff.
Session zero isn't for lore dumps, its for exactly the stuff you described in your post. Its for having a good sperg out with your players about how super duper cool your setting/character is going to be, and if you're lucky you'll get some nice character/setting touches out of it as well.

This. What fucking lore exists for a Fighter? Or a Ranger? Should I be required to read the entire Niberlugenlied before I dare play a Barbarian? The Art of The Deal before playing a Face? The only time when your complaint seems remotely valid is when you play in a very specific game made for a very specific setting, like a Tech-Priest in Dark Heresy. And in that instance, not explaining the setting and properly grounding the players is entirely on your faggoty-ass.

>only bring up information that's immediately relevant
Fuck you buddy, GMs like you are the reason that I can never play a character that plans ahead. Because heaven fucking forbid I know that fey come from this plane of existence 19 hours before I get balls deep in my "banish the fey to their home plane" plan and it becomes "immediately relevant" when I'm ready to pull the trigger.
Give me some fucking jumping off points in the beginning.

Why don't you ask these fucking questions outside of game? It's not like we live in an age where we can send messages to one another in less than a moment.

Why?

They're always a waste of time for everyone involved. Nothing that can be done during session 0 is shit that couldn't be done either sometime before game or within the first ten minutes of game with a basic introduction to the setting and between party members.

Session 0 is pretty dang useful for folks that never filled out a character sheet and for general testing of the waters

Well obviously if that was your plan, I'd provide you with a substitute.
>You would know that fey don't have a realm of their own to be banished to, but your aware that spell [x] or tactic [y] could scare them off
Or maybe you could banish the fey. Where to? Who knows!

I wouldn't be a GM like this if most players didn't have their eyes glaze over when I tell them anything other than the simplest lore. Players rarely have the attention span. I don't the blame them. I might be different if any of us were autistic, but we aren't. Oh well.

Oh, I guess I have done that under different names. I just consider it a part of character creation and the first session.

>useful for folks that never filled out a character sheet
Can literally be done within the first 10 minutes of game unless we're talking about a group of complete newbies, and even then you shouldn't take more than 30 minutes-1 hour unless your system is overly crunchy.
>for general testing of the waters
Can be done within the first 10 minutes with a basic intro.

...

Look, we appreciate your opinion, but it doesn't actually matter.

Clerics for starters. If you claim to be a cleric of whatever God and know literally nothing about this god outside of its name why are you even bothering?

Who is he in this ant sized analogy?

Aren't the rules and lores are just guidelines?

>it doesn't actually matter.
Neither does a session 0. Either your group is going to be a party that works together or they aren't. Wasting a week of play isn't going to change anything substantial.

To be fair, everyone should read the entire Nibelungenlied.

It's going to weed you right out of the group and the whole experience will be more enjoyable for it.

No, it really isn't. Unless calling it out as a waste of time automatically makes me THAT GUY somehow. If anything, you should be screening people before the game even starts.

Why didn't you tell him about some of the gods when he said that he was interested in playing a cleric. The only excuse for this "read my setting bible" Redditor bullshit is if you play online with people you can't meet irl.

>Why didn't you tell him about some of the gods when he said that he was interested in playing a cleric
Man, if only there was a good time that him and all his players could get together and exchange information like this.

A sort of pre-campaign meeting or something, that would take place before the first session?

Also Faust.

Not him, but I don't think session zero is a good idea when introducing new players. I'm sure in your eyes it's very useful and practical (and I'm sure it is), but having a get together just to talk about rules and not even play is just extremely boring and a bad first impression of the hobby

If only there were multiple ways of communicating with someone outside of game. Maybe even a wireless messenger that could send messages in the blink of an eye so that you wouldn't have to waste time during the first session spouting exposition that your player(s) will forget about.

>I'm sure in your eyes it's very useful and practical (and I'm sure it is), but having a get together just to talk about rules and not even play is just extremely boring and a bad first impression of the hobby
This!

Driving all the way to campaign just to listen to some spaz talk about his OC setting is by far the worst way to introduce newbies to the hobby. I got enough of lectures when I was in college and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit through a four hour lecture if I can help it.

>spouting exposition that your player(s) will forget about.
Sounds like you have shitty players or a shitty session, tbqh famalam

Nobody is going to remember everything that they heard during a lecture, especially when they're going to have to wait an extra fucking week before they can actually put any of that information into practice.

If it's that damn important, it'll come up during play. If it's important, and it doesn't come up, then it probably wasn't all that important in the first place.

Session 0 is more for the DM than the players. It is where most main story arcs are born. It is chance for the DM to hear what kind of game you want to play. It lets everybody be on the same page.

If your DM already has content planned before a session zero. They have already messed up in my opinion. Every session 0 I have play had a bit of combat at the end. So you could test your character and have a chance to change anything before you actually begin.

Why not ask for backstories before the first session and develop a primer so people know what the campaign will generally be about?

I mean, that's what our GM did for our 5e game. He made a group, invited everyone into group chat, dumped a primer, and asked people to give him a basic backstory sometime before game.

It's not for explaining rules, it's for chatting with other players and getting to know them, to discuss what kind of characters they're interested in making and coming up with reasons why they're working together, and learning what kind of game the GM intends to run so you don't accidentally make Berserk in Princess Bride, and running a short introductory adventure if you have time left.

you just described a session zero. You don't have to be physical together for it to happen.

>He made a group, invited everyone into group chat, dumped a primer, and asked people to give him a basic backstory sometime before game.
This is standard session 0 material, user. Your GM ran session 0 for you and you didn't even realize it.

I generally don't trust GM's who use their players as a means of generating a plot, it feels less like an adventure and more like a mad lib. If you're going to base a campaign around a plot, you should already have a basic idea of where you want the story to go before the players even have a chance to interact with it.

That way, worst case scenario, you still have a destination to look forward to, rather than a ramshackle mess that's being held on by a wing and a prayer because everyone wanted to be in the spotlight without actually calling the shots.

Ah, in that case that's fine. I generally only have an issue if we're physically there for game and the GM decides to ramble on for a few hours.

At least over group chat I can go back and reread what the GM said.

No way that's horrible. You need to talk to your players to find out what they want to do first. If the DM is trying to push a horror campaign but every body wants to play a happy go lucky adventure quest. Your going to have a bad time. The players shouldn't generate the plot but the should influence it. The game should be steered towards there interest. If they don't have fun, what's the point.

>Not running a happy go lucky adventure quest that slowly morphs into an existential horror over time.
Step your game up senpai. If the players manage to turn a planned horror campaign into a high fantasy one, there's no reason why you can't have both.

Look at Adventure Time; one minute you're in a fantasy kingdom where candy people exist, next minute you're fighting a dude who wants to extinguish all life in the universe while wearing some dude's flesh like a suit.

>Why didn't you tell him about some of the gods
Because they're literally in the fucking book and as a adult the player should be able to read?

Most people aren't even aware that you can pick IRL deities, let alone that the list of deities is within one of the indexes towards the back of the book.

>Most people aren't even aware that you can pick IRL deities, let alone that the list of deities is within one of the indexes towards the back of the book.
Because they didn't read the fucking book

More like, because they didn't know and who the fuck reads the indexes at the end of the book?

Seriously, the only sections that I will generally read are the sections that I actually need to play, such as the section on race, classes, backgrounds, equipment, combat, and magic (if applicable) and most people I know are the same.

That would be awesome to go from happy to horror. Still though, if I am running a dark campaign I want to talk before hand. Is it okay to have a devil rape your player? How about tricking you into killing your family or a past PC. I just want to find out how far I can push the players and still have friends afterwards.

This is what happens when expecting people to read the fucking rules of a game is apparently "gatekeeping" rather than a basic expectation

>Seriously, the only sections that I will generally read are the sections that I actually need to play, such as the section on race, classes, backgrounds, equipment, combat, and magic (if applicable) and most people I know are the same.

Then you are the problem and that behaviour is provably harmful to the hobby

If deities were so fucking important than why are they shuffled towards the back of the back, separate from the actual rules that people are more likely to read?

How? You barely even get information on the deities they actually bother to list beyond a handful of domains and an alignment.

If they were so important to know, they should've taken the time to develop a pantheon and a blurb for each deity in the Cleric section.

As they are, they just feel like an afterthought.

I don't blame you for this. This irks me to no end, but generally I let them play what they want (and make them feel horrible while doing so). They get their shit together by session 2

A session 0 can be ten minutes long. It's literally just to get players familiarized with things and to help with character creation.

>well if the rules are so important why aren't they all literally on the first page
You're supposed to wipe the drool off your mouth and read the entire fucking book you goddamn retard.

There is pretty much zero things that can happen in 10 minutes in rpgs

Why should I read something that isn't relevant to my character though? Also see I'm sorry nobody gives a shit about deities but that's the designer's fault for making them feel so unimportant.

If it's relevant to the game then it's relevant to your character. Just stay home and masturbate if you think your character can stand separately from the game.

>If it's relevant to the game then it's relevant to your character.
It can't be that fucking relevant if all the book bothers giving you is a name/domains/alignment at the very end of the book where most people aren't going to see it.

There were plenty of ways to make them interesting and worth checking out, it's just that the devs didn't really give a shit because, let's face it, a lot of GM's will just invent a pantheon if they really give enough of a shit to make a custom setting.

Yes Dave, you do have to read the entire spell list. How else do you know how to play a fighter?

Unironically yes.

>In order to know how to swing a sword, you must know how to cast magic missile.
>How does that help me swing a sword
>SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ THE MANUAL SPERG, WIPE THE DROOL FROM YOUR MOUTH!
This is what you sound like. I'm glad you don't actually run games.

And I'm glad you don't actually play any.

Try again sweetie.

Fake femfag detected.

Don't know if this is bait, but yes, you should read the whole spell list. Why are you in this hooby if you're not bothered to learn about it anyway?

Do players ever read rulebooks?
So far every person I've played with has refused to read the books so I kinda thought it was a common problem

Eh, it's okay. The more oblique the rules mechanics are to the players the better it is for the GM. Ideally only he has read the rules, and tells the players what to roll when relevant.

Give me one good reason not to walk away from the table and find myself a GM that's not shit.

Try playing with people older than 21. Older people tend to actually give a shit about their hobbies and know how to put effort forth instead of just waiting for everything to get handed to them like in a video game.

Everyone jokes about all these shitty players and shitty GMs on Veeky Forums, but I think it's mostly a spectrum and it's like anything else.

I have 5 players and 3 have read most of the of the book, and the other 2 have at least skimmed the parts that are relevant to their class and the combat chapter. One of them has even been reading the bestiary just because it's full of lore about the world.

We have weekly sessions and they talk about the game in between sessions pretty regularly. In fact, it's possible we talk about the game more than we actually play.

Try to find better players I guess.

these are legitimately the worst threads on Veeky Forums. just some asshole venting about being called an asshole

>these are legitimately the worst threads on Veeky Forums.
I see you've managed to avoid every 3.PF vs 4e thread that's ever happened.

Bye? It's fairly well understood that GMs are an order of magnitude more rare than players.

Because your OC Donut Steel setting's "lore" is a raging dumpster fire being extinguished by a bunch of hobos pissing on it.

Rangers do have requirements tho. They're people that live at the outskirts of [place] protecting it. It's why I never play it because I can't in good faith not have that as part of my backstory.

I probably wouldn't even play Monks if I wasn't a martial arts movies fan because the backstory implies you had training at a temple/master

>Try to find better players I guess.
This