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

[donremus]

The DM having a higher than average CHA score is just as important as knowing the basic rules. Acting ability is also a bonus for role playing NPCs. Remember it's a ROLE playing game not a RULE playing game. I think D&D is too rules heavy these days and it can often get in the way of smooth, fast and exciting play. Good DMs should 'wing it' if they need to as they have complete control of the environment. Hell if your players are kicking your end of adventure baddie's arse just increase the hit points or bring in a 3rd party off the cuff. The players will appreciate a close fight much more than a whitewash and often resulting anticlimax.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I think it's rather important to have a good working knowledge of the rules or at least have a good enough Idea on what should be done that not more than a few minutes is spent looking up rules. This tends to cause problems getting back into the game when player decide that rules looking up time is a good time to start a non-game conversation.

Also a DM with little rules knowledge should be careful about what he allows. One of my friends who had only played for a year before trying to DM didnt fully understand exactly how powerful some things where when he let the players take them and he didnt understand what his own NPC's where capable of. Example: Our Party of average level 15 characters where able to easily defeat 2 40th level characters with no losses and one 30th level character.
Also some DMs who dont understand the rules can seriously gimp a players abilities if he decides to hand wave certain rules. Ive had many characters have certain things become totally useless (Under some Dm's) due to this blatant disregard for the rules.

But if I where to give a certain percentage to the amount of rules the DM should know by heart (or at the very least be able to fake) it would be something like 60 %. The remaining 40 being what the players should know in the way of Spells, Feats, special abilities that they have. Nothing is more annoying than to have a player ask what his character can do, especially if they read the ability, used it several times or heck even made it himself.

Actually what might help with some rules like grapple is to photocopy the rules and give each player a copy. Though with PDF's, Individual Books and such there is no excuse in my group to not know the rules for grapple.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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'?

The best option at that point is to delegate to a player who does know the rules, which is a far better option than A or B. I'm not saying the player starts running the monster, but the player will say, "Okay, first you do a touch attack... Now an Attack of Opportunity... Now a Grapple check... " etc. Then, after the game, the DM can work on learning those rules for the next time the situation arises.

This can go back to the DM should know the rules at least as well as the players. If my DM doesn't know the grapple rules, then the game is mentally going to come to a screeching halt for me the second he starts making things up. It throws everything out of whack with a big "Bwah?" as I try to understand just what's going on, and I'll stop the gameplay to try to figure out what is happening, because I'll have no idea what kind of strange thing is happening.

 

[delericho]

The best option at that point is to delegate to a player who does know the rules, which is a far better option than A or B. I'm not saying the player starts running the monster, but the player will say, "Okay, first you do a touch attack... Now an Attack of Opportunity... Now a Grapple check... " etc. Then, after the game, the DM can work on learning those rules for the next time the situation arises.

Given that it's "Attack of Opportunity then Touch Attack then Grapple check", and given that while I was reasonably sure of that I still had to look it up to be certain, it would appear that asking an experienced player isn't a workable option... and that's for Grapple, which is one of the least-obscure corner cases in the game.

Actually, what should have happened is that the player, in the whole round he had to plan his action, should have looked up Grapple in his PHB, and have it ready to hand to the DM to consult if needed. If the DM is using a creature known to grapple, then he should have reviewed the rules before play began.

If my DM doesn't know the grapple rules, then the game is mentally going to come to a screeching halt for me the second he starts making things up.

Ah, so we are talking about a slavish adherence to the RAW.

It throws everything out of whack with a big "Bwah?" as I try to understand just what's going on, and I'll stop the gameplay to try to figure out what is happening, because I'll have no idea what kind of strange thing is happening.

If you rules-lawyer an inexperienced DM, the most likely outcome is that he'll never DM a game again.

If you rules-lawyer an experienced DM in the manner you described, then you're proving a distraction for the whole group, and a disruption of the fun of the whole group. More than likely, after a few such instances, you would be politely asked not to return. The place for that sort of rules dispute is after the game session.

Either way, stopping gameplay as you describe is inappropriate.

 

[RFisher]

If C isn't an option, do you go for 'A' or 'B'?

It depends.

Sometimes, for me, the point is as much to learn a new system as it is the in-game events. I don't mind bringing the game to a halt to look something up. Heck, the group was probably going to go off on tangent soon anyway & spend some time discussing a random subject. This is the same, but with one or two people looking things up as it happens.

 

[GlassJaw]

If you rules-lawyer an inexperienced DM, the most likely outcome is that he'll never DM a game again.

If you rules-lawyer an experienced DM in the manner you described, then you're proving a distraction for the whole group, and a disruption of the fun of the whole group. More than likely, after a few such instances, you would be politely asked not to return. The place for that sort of rules dispute is after the game session.

Either way, stopping gameplay as you describe is inappropriate.

I love this - the person who knows the rules gets punished and branded as a rules lawyer for trying to help the group. Awesome.

Did you ever consider that hand-waving rules over and over again might be hurting that player's enjoyment of the game? Of course not. The only reason someone would correct the DM or another player is to throw it in their face right? Whatever.

On your little chart, I would vote for D: Stop play and learn the frakkin rule so the next time it comes up, everything moves nice and smooth.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

One thing I'd like to bring up that I've only seen briefly alluded to:

I think everyone will agree that knowing the rules is better than not knowing the rules. However, almost as important (in my opinion) is this: know what you know and know what you don't know.

Let's say you have the PCs travel by boat to a new city/ruin/immanent death/whatever. You weren't planning on having an encounter on the boat itself but you got the new Critter Book XII and end up finding the "Awesome Aquatic Beast" that you just know will make for a great encounter. Only one problem: you don't know the odd water combat rules.

If you "know you don't know" these rules you can reread them a couple of times before the session to get the basics and mark the page so you can quickly flip to them during the session. If you don't realise that you don't know this stuff it'll really bog down combat and bring everything to a grinding halt.

I'm a player and have had good DMs and... um... not-so-good DMs. The good DMs weren't perfect but when they didn't know the rules they usually knew were to find them quickly. Even the good ones were sometimes caught completely off guard but I was more than willing to give them a pass on these occations because they usually were on top of things.

Knowing the rules is great; but being prepared to fill in the gaps you know are there is almost as good.

 

[Mallus]

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.

I do this. It works great, especially since I don't own every WoTC supplement (and I'm not always so clear on the material in the ones I do own).

A DM should have a good basic understanding of the rules. They don't need to be the most knowledgeable person at the table (though that assumes a fair amount of trust exists in the group).

After that, I think other skills are more important; people skills, the ability to manage the group's expectations, their time in the spotlight, the level of challenge, the ability to characterize, etc.

Someone earlier in the thread brought up 'DM authority' and how it 'earned' by rules mastery. It's an interesting point, and wrong, IMHO. 'DM' authority is better thought of as 'given' by the players. And I've never seen it given based on how well a DM knows the rules.

I've seen it given, and received it, for providing the players with an entertaining experience.

 

[Shadowslayer]

On your little chart, I would vote for D: Stop play and learn the frakkin rule so the next time it comes up, everything moves nice and smooth.

Actually, just to be clear, answers A,B and C on the "little chart" were answers to "which would you rather have?" not "what should happen next?"

But yes, expecting the judge to know the rules is a reasonable request when you're playing a game.

If you're simply telling stories, then it doesn't much matter.

 

[delericho]

I love this - the person who knows the rules gets punished and branded as a rules lawyer for trying to help the group. Awesome.

No, the person who forced the game to a halt the second the DM went off-book is branded a rules-lawyer.

Did you ever consider that hand-waving rules over and over again might be hurting that player's enjoyment of the game? Of course not.

Didn't I? You sure about that? It couldn't possibly be the case that I consider the appropriate course of action to be for the DM to make a ruling at the time, and then determine the 'correct' rule at a later time for future reference, thus allowing the game to flow and avoiding the need for "hand-waving rules over and over again"?

The only reason someone would correct the DM or another player is to throw it in their face right? Whatever.

There is a big difference between correcting the DM and stopping play to insist the rule be looked up and used as written. The DM is responsible both for ensuring the rules are applied and for making sure the game is appropriately paced and exciting. Where those goals come into conflict, the DM has to decide which is more important. And, to be blunt, it is the DM's place to make that call, not a player's.