GM's Knowing the Rules

uzirath said:

My goal is always to make gameplay about the dynamic story rather than the rules. But I've found that beyond a few basics, most players don't need to fully digest the rules in order to participate in building a collaborative story. Particularly if the genre expectations are understood, then it's just a matter of imagining your character in the fictional circumstances and describing what you'd like them to do. As GM, I can respond rapidly and adjust their sense of the fiction as needed

Click to expand...

I think this is very system-dependent.

Some systems wear their genre on their sleeves and deliver genre-consistent outcomes. Examples I can think of that I've GMed recently: Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark). And both respond on good GM fiction-oriented responses and mechanically are relatively light (especially the latter).

Some don't, though, and outcomes can depend on mechanical features that don't particularly track genre. I would put many versions of D&D in this category. Traveller also can sometimes be like this.

For me, it depends on the players' expectations.
For instance, if several of the players have indeed done their homework, and come up with effective ways for their characters to be better at doing their thing, ways that are based on a thorough implementation of the rules... then they have made a pretty significant investment in that, and they certainly hope it will work.
If it doesn't work because the GM doesn't implement the rules (be it because he doesn't know them well, or because he thinks it's better, under the circumstances, to take an arbitrary decision, or because he feels a faster pace should trump details, or for whatver other reason)... the players can understandably feel let down.

If the players, preferably all of them, and if that's not possible a significant majority, come to the table to have fun, tell and be told a wonderful story, play a role more than count attack bonuses, etc., then perfection in following the rules isn't so important.

The problem, and I think you see it coming, is when you have one player who wants to line up his sniper's decisive shot, and doesn't want even one targeting bonus be overlooked, while all the other players just want the action to go on.

pemerton said:

I think this is very system-dependent.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure this is true. I left D&D behind as my primary system because new players (without a gaming background) continually butted up against its baked-in assumptions. (This is not an attack on D&D... I have played and enjoyed every version, and still run 5e games sometimes.) Of course many would say that GURPS is even worse, with the immensity of its potential ruleset, but I've found it easy to customize to particular genres and keep the crunch behind the scenes for those who don't care for it. So this may be as much about GMs finding systems that they feel comfortable with. No matter what system I use, I try to stay focused on keeping the story in the spotlight and not letting the mechanics push people out of it. If the mechanics can't handle something properly, I (in collaboration with the players) house rule it on the fly and then review the details afterwards.

Michele said:

For me, it depends on the players' expectations.

For instance, if several of the players have indeed done their homework, and come up with effective ways for their characters to be better at doing their thing, ways that are based on a thorough implementation of the rules... then they have made a pretty significant investment in that, and they certainly hope it will work.
If it doesn't work because the GM doesn't implement the rules (be it because he doesn't know them well, or because he thinks it's better, under the circumstances, to take an arbitrary decision, or because he feels a faster pace should trump details, or for whatver other reason)... the players can understandably feel let down.

If the players, preferably all of them, and if that's not possible a significant majority, come to the table to have fun, tell and be told a wonderful story, play a role more than count attack bonuses, etc., then perfection in following the rules isn't so important.

The problem, and I think you see it coming, is when you have one player who wants to line up his sniper's decisive shot, and doesn't want even one targeting bonus be overlooked, while all the other players just want the action to go on.

Click to expand...

This seems like a sensible way to frame the issue and leads back to the ever-important need to have good lines of communication in the group. I have certainly erred (as GM) in both directions: being overly focused on adhering to RAW versus being too flip with the rules. I know this because players talk to me about it afterward.

I am also mindful here of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s reminders that aspects of this are system dependent. I don't have enough experience with some of the games that he references to imagine how this maps to those systems.

I'll always know the rules in the games I run. I'll always know what the rules are attempting to accomplish. And, for the last many years, I'll only be running systems that are holistically designed where all rules are integrated with each other and together integrated with the game's ethos/premise.

And I'll only be running games for people who are similarly inclined. We can play boardgames or parlor games if we're wanting light-hearted tomfoolery and shenanigans. If I'm going to be running a game, I'm not going to be the only party at the table burdened by the cognitive workload of play and the creative energy that propels it. After many decades of this, I'm fully of the position that TTRPGing is like golf; bad gaming is worse than no gaming.

I pretty much only play in one group these days and we have been playing together for 37 years. I claim I used to know pretty much all the rules for whatever system we were playing and we would as a group have some houserules. We have now been playing 5e for a few years but we discover we are old and stupid and can't remember anything anymore which is a real pain. We only play every 3 months or so which doesn't help. So the sorcerer might go I cast spell x oh sod I have to look it up again sorry. As a DM I find I hate monsters with spell lists, I just can't remember what they all do exactly enough. I am using 4e monsters at the minute which helps in some ways in that they just have a few powers and the only problem is remembering how I converted them to make them work in 5e.

I agree with the above posters that the best way is to play the game and make a ruling at the time and then look up the specific rule afterwards and just mention it to the players or email them in between sessions. If you can't work it out on your own then ask everyone or the internet. Of course this means remembering the rule which never used to be a problem.

muppetmuppet said:

We have now been playing 5e for a few years but we discover we are old and stupid and can't remember anything anymore which is a real pain.

Click to expand...

I feel your pain.

As a DM I find I hate monsters with spell lists, I just can't remember what they all do exactly enough.

Click to expand...

Totally. A potential silver lining here, though, is that by winging it, your monster powers will be more unique. As a player, I like to be surprised by a monster's spell working differently than the party wizard's spell. It's not like they all get their powers from the same vending machine. (Though, barring a fictional rationale, it is nice if a monster's powers stay consistent after they've appeared the first time... which is harder to pull off as the gray matter ages and my interest in taking and studying game notes wanes.)

uzirath said:

I am also mindful here of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s reminders that aspects of this are system dependent. I don't have enough experience with some of the games that he references to imagine how this maps to those systems.

Click to expand...

One example from Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic: if the Doom Pool has 2d12 in it, then the GM can spend those 2d12 to bring the scene to an end.

The game will tolerate the GM "winging it" a bit when it comes to spending Doom Pool dice - for instance, the system has a notion of spending dice to introduce an additional threat into a scene, and the relationship between die size and threat capability is a bit flexible. (There are a number of published examples, but they don't necessarily present a fully coherent pattern.(

But when it comes to growing the Doom Pool, and spending the 2d12 to end the scene, the GM departing from the rules is a bit of a big deal. Players are meant to be able to make decisions about the risk to their PCs, the degree of threat to the situation, etc, by keeping track of how the Doom Pool is behaving.

Another anecdote just occurred to me that may also help explain my attitude about, "everybody learns the rules." The guy who actually introduced me to D&D back in '75 was someone who definitely read rules. Any game that he played he KNEW the rules. D&D was no exception. It probably is no surprise that one of the big reasons he was so keen to master the rules of any game was to simply use them against other players. Also no surprise then that he was the DM in the group, and he understood "gotcha" DM'ing - which is how I would describe the style of gameplay that Gygax understood and more or less wrote into his rules even into 1E:
As DM your position is to take advantage of the fact that players don't know what you know - about monsters, spells, information about the game world, even PLAYER character classes that players actually weren't yet familiar with.

Now, I personally state quite often that nobody plays the game that way anymore and "gotcha" gaming just doesn't fly when players invest so much time and effort into creating and developing their characters. It just isn't much fun or very sociable to hinge enjoyable gameplay on misleading other participants into mistakes whose consequences you can gleefully blow out of proportion, and then revel in their misery and disappointment. Unless you're into that sort of thing... But as much as approaches to RPG gameplay have evolved, for D&D there IS still a certain element built into the game of, "Players are responsible for ensuring the safety and survival of their characters, NOT the DM. Characters have to be reasoned, cautious, knowledgeable, and NOT take things for granted." You don't have to play an assassin PC to understand that it is in your best interests as a player to know what an assassin character can do and how they do it. At some point players who don't expand their working knowledge of all aspects of the game will be responsible for their own characters suffering because of that lack of knowledge.

D&D isn't entirely alone in retaining that element. So, at least part of that attitude of mine was handed down from the way the original RPG was written and intended to be played and the guy who used ME as his guinea pig as we both learned together what D&D, or any RPG, really was, how it was originally intended to be played, and how it actually could and should be played.

Man in the Funny Hat said:

The guy who actually introduced me to D&D back in '75 was someone who definitely read rules.

Click to expand...

Oh, wow, /old/-timer. You can't get much older school than that without having been in Gary's basement.

It probably is no surprise that one of the big reasons he was so keen to master the rules of any game was to simply use them against other players.

Click to expand...

These days we dignify that as "acquiring system mastery."

"gotcha" DM'ing - which is how I would describe the style of gameplay that Gygax understood and more or less wrote into his rules even into 1E: As DM your position is to take advantage of the fact that players don't know what you know - about monsters, spells, information about the game world, even PLAYER character classes that players actually weren't yet familiar with.

Now, I personally state quite often that nobody plays the game that way anymore and "gotcha" gaming just doesn't fly when players invest so much time and effort into creating and developing their characters.

Click to expand...

I vividly recall the first time a GM deviated noticeably from that style. It was 1984. He was running Champions! - definitely a game where the players invest a lot of time & effort into creating their characters.

I had never really thought about that correlation, though, maybe because I had always put a surprising amount of time & effort into my D&D characters. It was a revelation, though.

It just isn't much fun or very sociable to hinge enjoyable gameplay on misleading other participants into mistakes whose consequences you can gleefully blow out of proportion, and then revel in their misery and disappointment. Unless you're into that sort of thing... But as much as approaches to RPG gameplay have evolved, for D&D there IS still a certain element built into the game

Click to expand...

It is not a vanished playstyle, though maybe not a great one to wean newbies on. But you definitely still see traces of it, not in folks advocating for the style openly (OK, maybe sometimes), but in threads like this one, "Challenging the Player" and anytime 'immersion' and 'verisimilitude' and the like show up.
The old trick of skilled DMing vs skilled play, when the DM carefully describes an area or situation in a way that subtlety telegraphs the danger - like one of those nasty little Greek prophecies that becomes all too clear once it's too late - the fiendish glee of pulling it off, or the rare thrill of figuring it out just in time.

Perception & Search and Sense Motive and the like just take that and kill it dead.

Mind you, unless everyone at the table absolutely loves that style, it's dysfunctional as can be. But it's still a source of fun that has been designed out of the system over time. You want to get it back, you have to find some high-falut'n excuse for bringing resolution back to player skill, and denying access to whole swaths of mechanics.