How Important Is Rules Knowledge In Being A Good D&D DM?

[phindar]

Rules Knowledge is important, but I've never found it to be a make-or-break quality of a GM. If the story is uninteresting, no amount of technical proficiency is going to make up for it (unless I'm just there to steal mechanical ideas). If the story's good, I can forgive imperfections.

Thing is, Rules is the part of the game you get better at the quickest. If you play D&D, you start learning the rules. You screw up a a wizard battle, you'll have the next one down better, and better after that. All the other things GM's have to do (play characters, improv, come up with plots, settings, descriptions, and so on) are on a slower curve.

I think its okay for the GM to know less rules than the players as long as the players are honest, helpful, and willing to sit back and let the GM run the game, even if its not by-the-book.

 

[delericho]

Disagreed. Not for D&D. And not if you're trying to keep to the RAW.

The best DMs know when to step beyond, or even totally ignore, the RAW. Indeed, a slavish obedience to the RAW is not a trait of any of the best DMs I have seen - indeed for many it is an impediment to their advancing beyond 'mediocre'.

However, leaving aside that opinion, here is another: all the rules knoweldge in the world won't help your game if you can't pace it properly, so your entire group are bored, or if you can't get a grip on the player-vs-player disputes that are tearing your group apart.

I'm not saying rules knowledge is not important - indeed, I said as much in my earlier post. However, I do consider it less important than most of the other skills that a really good DM needs to command. It is also, in my estimation, the easiest of the skills to learn and to improve.

 

[Celebrim]

However, I do consider it less important than most of the other skills that a really good DM needs to command. It is also, in my estimation, the easiest of the skills to learn and to improve.

I agree with you somewhat. There are definately times to throw out the rules. There are definately times to go beyond the rules. However, in that it is the easiest of the skills to learn and to improve it is also the one which is most inexcusible not to possess. Even an inexperienced DM should have this skill under thier belt. There are some which may be more important, but knowing the rules is simply fundamental.

For example, I wouldn't trust a DM to know when to throw out the rules or when to go beyond the rules, if he didn't understand the rules well enough to understand what effect on the game (and meta-game) that the rules have and thus what effect on the game it will have to change or ignore them. To often I see young DM's making house rules willy nilly without any apparant understanding what the resulting game will be like. To often I see young DM's winging it through something not because they are making a conscious decision but because they simply don't know how to handle the situation because they don't know the rules. They are winging it because they have to and not because they need to, and frankly there aren't many DM's out there that are good enough rulesmiths to do better than the mechanics of the game as written. And that's assuming that they have the confidence to wing it successful, instead of stumbling around clearly lost and blowing the pacing of the game. 'Referee wisdom' comes from a combination of experience with different rules systems, experience with the game in question, and plain old memorizing the rules (deliberately or simply as the result of experience).

Now, is story telling harder than knowing the rules? Yes, absolutely. Is it what separates a really good DM from a merely adequate one? Yes, absolutely. So don't let something easy to control like not knowing the rules get in the way of your story telling.

 

[RFisher]

So what do you think? Do you need good rules knowledge to be a good D&D DM or can you be just as good without really knowing the rules and just making ad-hoc decisions on the fly?

A DM can let the group help him with the rules at the table. I've seen GMs with little knowledge of the rules do just fine by recognizing it & relying on players that knew the rules well. I'd say that even DMs with a good knowledge of the rules should make use of the players' knowledge as well.

You can get by with ad hoc decisions, but I think developing good ad hoc judgement is mostly unrelated to rules knowledge. It is probably more vital to the task than rules knowledge. It's another area where the DM should welcome input from the rest of the group.

 

[delericho]

I agree with everything in your post. I would, however, like to comment some more on this:

Even an inexperienced DM should have this skill under thier belt. There are some which may be more important, but knowing the rules is simply fundamental.

My standard advice to new DMs (as regards rules) is "use the core rules only, and don't use house rules", at least at first. It is also imperative that a new DM (especially a new DM) not only know the rules, but also be confident that they know the rules... because getting that fundamental down will give them confidence to deal with many other issues that are likely to crop up in those crucial first sessions.

That said, while I would expect even a first-time DM to know the core of the system, I would not expect them to know the ins and outs of every detail of the core rules (for example, they may well not know the grapple or flight rules off the top of their head, nor necessarily the interaction between spell A, class feature B and magic item C), and neither would I expect them to get everything right first time out. (But then, I suspect neither would you.)

(I also recommend that a new DM go for a low-level one-shot with pregen characters for their first adventure, rather than shooting for a full campaign out of the box. But that's drifting off-topic for the thread, and anyway I've posted it before, so I'll stop here.)

 

[Mark CMG]

Rules Knowledge is very important. It's one of those elements that, if you do not have it, you need something else in double supply to make up for not having it.

 

[Shadowslayer]

The best DMs know when to step beyond, or even totally ignore, the RAW. Indeed, a slavish obedience to the RAW is not a trait of any of the best DMs I have seen - indeed for many it is an impediment to their advancing beyond 'mediocre'

Actually, I'd argue that the best DM's are well versed enough in the RAW to be able to make a reasonable snap judgement to keep the game moving. What you suggest is sort of like the amateur coffee house poet who feels that he never had to learn the principles of poetry because all he does is free verse. A real poet knows the difference between iambic pentameter and onomotopeia. Same with any art. We're not talking about slavish devotion, we're talking about simply knowing the rules.

As I said in to post you quoted, if your game is free form and includes a lot of handwaving then its not an issue, so I'm not saying your point's not valid. But if the RAW means anything to you, you should at least know it.

As in anything, proper preparation prevents poor performance.

 

[delericho]

What you suggest is sort of like the amateur coffee house poet who feels that he never had to learn the principles of poetry because all he does is free verse. A real poet knows the difference between iambic pentameter and onomotopeia. Same with any art. We're not talking about slavish devotion, we're talking about simply knowing the rules.

That's a very good analogy, and so I'm going to run with it. Clearly, Shakespeare had to understand what Iambic Pentameter was before he was able to consciously choose to modify it: "To be, or not to be, that is the question." (Possibly. It's also possible he just had a really good ear for how things would sound, and redrafted often.)

However, by the same token, I can know all the rules of poetry, could be able to bore you at great length about what they mean, and could even be able to apply them as much as you desire... and yet if I were to write poetry it would still sound and feel like computer code. It just wouldn't work. Having the talent, and mastering the intangibles of the craft will always beat out a flawless application of the tangibles, executed without any heart.

Another example? In every technical respect, the Star Wars prequels are better than the classic trilogy. Which are the better films?

 

[Shadowslayer]

Having the talent, and mastering the intangibles of the craft will always beat out a flawless application of the tangibles, executed without any heart.

I maintain the sweet spot is when you have both.

Bringing it back to D&D: Take grappling, just as an example, (lots of guys seem to have to look this one up a lot) When it gets down to crunch time, and you're in the middle of a grand climactic battle, your weapon has been sundered, and you choose to throw yourself on the BBEG's main goon, just to save the party wizard. Which would you rather have happen?

A Play comes to a screeching halt while the relevent rules are looked up.

B: The DM handwaves it in the name of telling a good story,

C: The DM applies the grappling rules as written without having to stop play.

I'd choose C any day.

 

[delericho]

I maintain the sweet spot is when you have both.

Oh, without question. But, if you can't have both, which do you sacrifice?

Bringing it back to D&D: Take grappling, just as an example, (lots of guys seem to have to look this one up a lot) When it gets down to crunch time, and you're in the middle of a grand climactic battle, your weapon has been sundered, and you choose to throw yourself on the BBEG's main goon, just to save the party wizard. Which would you rather have happen?

A Play comes to a screeching halt while the relevent rules are looked up.

B: The DM handwaves it in the name of telling a good story,

C: The DM applies the grappling rules as written without having to stop play.

I'd choose C any day.

I don't think anyone wouldn't choose 'C'. However, here's a slightly different question: If C isn't an option, do you go for 'A' or 'B'?