Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Water Bob]

So, basically, book rules are available to players, and let them plan and find interesting interactions and solutions to problems that are not guaranteed to be there under the "GM Just Makes Judgement Calls" system.

When the game started and got into 1E AD&D (after it had grown from the three little books, of course), the DM's Guide was only meant for DM's. If you read the beginning sections of that book EGG says as much.

I actually prefer a game where the players don't know the rules. Oh, in a d20 game, I want them to know enough to look long-term at building their characters and buying feats.

But, if I had my rathers (and I don't in this instance, because you can't control what people read), I'd defintely chose to go Old School on this and leave access to most of the rules to the DM, leaving the players with just the PHB and stuff they specifically need to know.

I know, I know. You guys don't agree. What else is new.

 

[chaochou]

Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?

In addition to the excellent answer above from [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] it's because some players like the authority to influence the game world.

 

[nedjer]

That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.

As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon (in 3.x), or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to.

For example, if I had in mind a character who was this huge brute that hit people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through rule or house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, than my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe.

These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind.

For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Lastly, having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule (you have even asked EN World in the recent past how to justify a mechanical rule, rather than change it to something perhaps more realistic, here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/304196-flat-footed.html).

Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule.

As a player, the rules are their for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, the maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, as it is a maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of the reliable rules.

As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Mutants and Masterminds use Hero Points to allow your character to do things beyond their normal control. There's a knockback mechanic for when you get pretty hurt by an attack. These help indicate the style of game the rules were created for.

When a GM begins to use his granted power of Rule and Overrule, I do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment.

And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. For all of my problems with 4e, I really, really like the idea of a unified mechanic for on the fly maneuvers (I doubt I'd like the implementation, but that was true of 3.x, 2e, etc. mechanics). Having a rule like that exist allows players to reliably use new abilities in a predictable method, and thus does not infringe on their enjoyment when something seems inconsistent. It prevents situations where an action was Dexterity once (because of the ability to react quickly) and Intelligence the next time (because of the ability to think quickly).

That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. I have the added benefit of playing a game of my own creation, so I can just fix previous rules as these new decisions are made. Regardless of that, I can say in all sincerity that I am an amazing GM, even though I embrace the rules. Honestly, my players love me GMing (I'm stuck never getting to play). I'd be a horrible GM to other people.

It's a playstyle difference. You wanted to know why people preferred rules over GM fiat. That's about it, I think. I hope it at least illuminates the issue, even if you don't agree with the playstyle. And, the real beauty of the thing, is that everyone gets to play however they want. And that's pretty amazing.

Astonishing, if glossy and hedging, case for rules as a railroading device and means to stereotype PC characterisation- all dressed up as even-handed.

Like "it's all about enjoyment", followed by I've decided "people prefer" my definition of enjoyment.

Is it not possible that those "people" you claim to speak for would prefer a GM who strikes a balance or creative tension between GM fiat and GM rules lawyer?

Equally, where does this idea that a game's designer expects her/ his rules to be treated as some sort of gospel carved on tablets of stone come from?

 

[Jhaelen]

When the game started and got into 1E AD&D (after it had grown from the three little books, of course), the DM's Guide was only meant for DM's. If you read the beginning sections of that book EGG says as much.

I actually prefer a game where the players don't know the rules.

So, your 1E AD&D PHB didn't have rules? You may want to try getting a complete copy of the book.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Okay, I'm not exactly sure why the following post seems hostile when it doesn't seem to be against what I said. However, as it was written in response to my post, I will assume it is directed at me.

Astonishing, if glossy and hedging, case for rules as a railroading device and means to stereotype PC characterisation- all dressed up as even-handed.

Well, I disagree. But, as you explain your reasoning below, I guess I'll explain mine there as well.

Like "it's all about enjoyment", followed by I've decided "people prefer" my definition of enjoyment.

I didn't actually say that. Let me quote myself (from the quote you responded to): "Honestly, my players love me GMing (I'm stuck never getting to play). I'd be a horrible GM to other people."

The second sentence indicates that other people (indeed, that phrase is specifically used) would not find me to be a good GM, much less a great one. It means that other people would hate my playstyle. However, I'm pretty sure my definition of enjoyment is shared by most people. Something akin to "doing what one enjoys."

Is it not possible that those "people" you claim to speak for would prefer a GM who strikes a balance or creative tension between GM fiat and GM rules lawyer?

Is it possible my players would prefer that (since that's who I'm speaking for)? Yep. Sure is possible. I mean, nothing they've said or done indicates that, and their other actions and statements go against it, but some of them are sneaky.

Equally, where does this idea that a game's designer expects her/ his rules to be treated as some sort of gospel carved on tablets of stone come from?

I'm really not trying to be coy or anything, but I'd say it comes from... you? I never indicated it. In fact, I said, specifically, "I'd be a horrible GM to other people." That means that the reasoning I presented in my full post does not apply to everyone. If that wasn't clear, that was probably a miscommunication on my part, and I apologize. I hope you get where I'm coming from now. If not, I'm coming from the position of my group, and my observations. And apparently they are not only in my mind, as several people in this thread have agreed with my post.

As a game designer (my group mostly plays a game I created), I am particularly against rules being carved in stone, and they are certainly not gospel. But, I never said that was the case. And I hope my previous paragraph clarified what I meant.

However, I do tend to go on and on about enjoyment, play what you like, etc. If you don't like the rules, you can disregard them. I do when I want to (as I am the GM). My players know I do, and they're okay with it. Again, "I'd be a horrible GM to other people." Luckily, we can all play with the style we like, and I still find that amazing. It's very hard to find an entertainment medium that allows for that kind of versatility.

But yeah... I hope this clarified things. Play what you like

 

[nedjer]

However, I'm pretty sure my definition of enjoyment is shared by most people. "

Dude, how do you work that out?

Irrespective of that, we're good, I always come across all belligerent in the morning

 

[JamesonCourage]

Dude, how do you work that out?

I usually rely on the dictionary

Irrespective of that, we're good, I always come across all belligerent in the morning

No worries

 

[Barastrondo]

I actually prefer a game where the players don't know the rules. Oh, in a d20 game, I want them to know enough to look long-term at building their characters and buying feats.

But, if I had my rathers (and I don't in this instance, because you can't control what people read), I'd defintely chose to go Old School on this and leave access to most of the rules to the DM, leaving the players with just the PHB and stuff they specifically need to know.

I know, I know. You guys don't agree. What else is new.

Well, that sums it up, though: players like to know the rules so that they can make informed decisions. If they don't know the rules, they can only guess at what might or might not work. So basically there are two gambles instead of one: you're gambling that your assessment of the odds is in-line with the DM's, and then you're gambling that you can pull it off with a die roll or whatever form of conflict resolution is used. A lot of people prefer to have just one gamble: you still don't know if you succeed or fail, but you still know the odds. You don't know what the other guy is holding, but you do know that your full house will beat anything but four of a kind or a straight flush. If you don't know the rules, you only know that you have a number of cards that match and that's basically good.

Informed decisions are at the centerpiece of player skill, technically. The ability to evaluate the odds is critical. Of course, you can get that in an utterly rules-free game, too, with information like "Steve is a total sucker for Joss Whedon, so if I quote some Buffy quip while I pull this off he will absolutely let me get away with it." But in most situations, rules are simply more reliable information than the GM's judgment, and they're accessible at any point you look at a book.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Saw the terminator picture and just had to say: I am that GM when a player asks me "what's his armor class?". I know it's a valid style of play, but I like the mechanics to stay in the background.

 

[pemerton]

Why is it that people tend to give credence to a rule if its written down in a book but look at a rule suspiciously if it's a quickie GM judgement call.

<snip>

Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?

Any number of reasons. Everything else being equal, the rule in the book is more likely (i) to have been carefully thought through, (ii) to have been playtested, (iii) to be mechanically balanced with other elements of the game, (iv) to be knowable in advance by the participants in the game, etc.

Combat Maneuvers in Conan are a good example. If you want to clothesline somebody, there's a maneuver for it. If you're grappling with somebody and want to pull the character around in front of you using him as a human shield, then there's a rule for it. If you want to move out of the way so that your flankers attack each other, there's a rule for it.

It is so much easier for the player to simply state what he wants to do and then have the GM think for a second an apply whatever throw or modifiers make sense to him at the moment.

Did you look at the actual play report that I linked to?

If you did, you would see that the stunt system/improv rules in 4e don't resemble d20 Conan's combat manoeuvres all that much - they're not detailed action resolution mechanics often identifying a feat as a prerequisite, but a set of parameters for DCs and damage that permit a GM to balance an improvised manoeuvre against the mechanical capabilities that the rules already grant to monsters and PCs.

They therefore contribute to speed in GM ruling/improvisation, because the basic parameters are already given. They also avoid the potential difficulty inherent in your suggetion, in that they give the players a degree of confidence that they can declare their PCs' actions knowing what the likelihoods of success will be, without being subject to the unstructured and/or arbitrary whim of the GM.

You present it as an issue of "validity" and the GM needing to be backed up by a rulebook. But for me, at least, it is more an issue of providing a framework (i) that the players can reliably deploy, and (ii) that the GM is confident will progress the game at a certain pace, with various consequences occuring with the sort of probabilities that the rest of the game is built around.

As someone else asked upthread, do you use the combat matrices, or the spell memorisaiton matrices, found in the A&D rulebooks when you play that game? If the answer is "yes", then why do you find it odd that others like to use the rules to regulate other parts of the game than to-hit and damage? If the answer is "no", then what do you use out of those books? And in what sense is it playing D&D?