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

[GlassJaw]

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.

We need an analgous term to rules lawyer for the stubborn DM that refuses to look up rules or actually figure out how certain things work.

I've just seen this too many times so I'm admittedly a little bias. The term rules lawyer gets thrown around too frequently for my tastes. Trust me, when I'm a player now, I tread very lightly when I initiate a rules discussion. People just get too defensive.

That's why when I DM, I run the game as close to the RAW as I can. And if there's something I do differently, I let the players know ahead of time. As a player, I tend to assume the same thing from DM's, which obviously isn't always the case.

 

[delericho]

We need an analgous term to rules lawyer for the stubborn DM that refuses to look up rules or actually figure out how certain things work.

Agreed.

While in this instance I'm arguing the DM's case, my views on this issue sit right at the centre. There clearly are times when the DM needs to consult the books. However, I don't believe the middle of a climactic combat is the time to do it, especially if the DM feels he can make a suitable ruling far more quickly.

That's why when I DM, I run the game as close to the RAW as I can. And if there's something I do differently, I let the players know ahead of time.

I tend towards the same. That said, when running the game, my leaning as far as rules-accuracy is that it's going to be 'good enough', which is about 90% right 90% of the time. But the reaction described (that the player would stop the game if the DM made a ruling rather than checking the books) I would consider to be a disruption, and not acceptable except in extreme cases.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

In any game played or refereed, knowledge of the rules helps the game to run better. Monopoly is more fun if you know the rules of the game. D&D is more fun if you know the rules.

As for D&D, if you're running the game, you should take the time to at least have the same knowledge of the game that your players do (on average). Heck, even as a player, if you know the rules of the game, it helps out everyone.

 

[RFisher]

Hi. My name is Robert, and I'm a rules-lawyer.

After many years of gaming & being a rules-lawyer, this is what I've learned:

• I must always remember that the DM & the rest of the group are people too & my friends.
• When I feel the DM is straying from the rules, I should politely point it out.
• If the DM chooses not to act on my point, I must let it drop & do my best to enjoy the game anyway.
• If the way a DM handles something bothers me a lot then I should discuss it with the group before the session, after, during a tangent, or outside of the session. I must strive to understand the points of views of the DM & the other players to the best of my ability.
• If the DM/group chooses not to make any concession on that point, it falls to me to deal with that. (Until I next accept the DM seat. ^_^)

That has helped me enjoy the hobby a whole lot more. YMMV.

 

[Celebrim]

Hi. My name is Robert, and I'm a rules-lawyer.

After many years of gaming & being a rules-lawyer, this is what I've learned:

• I must always remember that the DM & the rest of the group are people too & my friends.
• When I feel the DM is straying from the rules, I should politely point it out.
• If the DM chooses not to act on my point, I must let it drop & do my best to enjoy the game anyway.
• If the way a DM handles something bothers me a lot then I should discuss it with the group before the session, after, during a tangent, or outside of the session. I must strive to understand the points of views of the DM & the other players to the best of my ability.
• If the DM/group chooses not to make any concession on that point, it falls to me to deal with that. (Until I next accept the DM seat. ^_^)

That has helped me enjoy the hobby a whole lot more. YMMV.

The five step plan on the road to recovery.

The only correction I would add to that is that I generally prefer you bring up concerns about my DMing privately before going to the group.

 

[balterkn]

Hi. My name is Robert, and I'm a rules-lawyer.

After many years of gaming & being a rules-lawyer, this is what I've learned:

• I must always remember that the DM & the rest of the group are people too & my friends.
• When I feel the DM is straying from the rules, I should politely point it out.
• If the DM chooses not to act on my point, I must let it drop & do my best to enjoy the game anyway.
• If the way a DM handles something bothers me a lot then I should discuss it with the group before the session, after, during a tangent, or outside of the session. I must strive to understand the points of views of the DM & the other players to the best of my ability.
• If the DM/group chooses not to make any concession on that point, it falls to me to deal with that. (Until I next accept the DM seat. ^_^)

That has helped me enjoy the hobby a whole lot more. YMMV.

Sounds like you are the kind of rules lawyer we'd love to have in our game (as a fellow player, DM, or as a player for when I DM).

This is my preferred method also - keeps the game moving, gives the player with more experience a chance to educate the DM in a more appropriate forum than the middle of an encounter.

I've made calls in the middle of a game that players have disagreed with, typically because my rules intuition tells me something different (typically, I find that I've ruled in the same direction as the errata and FAQ, rather than the PHB as printed). Now, I don't keep all these items open at the game table, nor am I able to cite "well, the that rule was changed in the FAQ on page X, in the following manner for game balance". And sometimes, I hand-wave a rule when I detect that the other 3 players at the table roll their eyes at the rule-lawyer's point (so, in choosing between 1 person feeling wronged, and 3 people wanting to “get past this and on to something more fun”, my fault is that I will prefer to keep the three people engaged and deal with the wronged person in the post-session wrap-up)

On review after/before the next game, I find I was typically right about 80-90% of the time for uncommon items (90-95% for common core), and when incorrect, I start the next session with a quick - "I was wrong and Billy was right, in how I handled this last time, sorry about that, here's how it works according to the rules for the future"

I actually like it when my players want to discuss the rules outside the current "encounter in progress" – while I'd like to be following the rules, most of the people I play with don't even follow the rules exactly for their favorite board games, they play the board games following about 90% of the rules and wing the rest to have fun.

 

[brehobit]

I find it depends upon the type of game you are running.

A hack-and-slash DM (such as myself) needs pretty good rule knowledge. We spend 75%+ of our real time in combat. So that means if you want it to go fast-ish you need to know the rules well.

A role-playing DM, where combat is fairly rare and pretty meaningful and usually with humanoids, doesn't need to know all the wacky rules (undead traits, ooze traits, improved grab rules). And the players of such games rarely pull out too unusual of combat options or spells.

I need to have a better grasp of the rules (don't ask me about bull rush, I always have to look it up, and the details of grappling often get me). But my biggest needs in improvement are elsewhere. I'm good at roleplaying as a *player* but find it hard as a DM.

Moral of the story: Identify your greatest weakness in YOUR game and attack that. I've taken to having NPC names and titles on a quick-reference sheet. I find it makes the role-playing improve.

Mark

Mark

 

[Raloc]

I'll throw in my two copper here. I personally don't think you need a super-human knowledge of the rules to be a good DM. Far more important is your ability to recall rules that are important to *what will happen* during the session. I find my own sessions go best when I follow some guidelines:

1) Prepare before the session
a. Read monster stats
b. Get NPCs ready
c. Find out and rationalize the motivations and tactics of a. and b.
d. Prepare the home terrain of your a. and b. and possibly give them some tactical advantages therein.

2) Anticipate the actions of your players for the session
a. What did they do last session? Where are they now? Where are they headed? What is their goal?
b. Detail the actions of NPCs/creatures in relation to a.
c. Try to think of where the players might head away from your planned session

3) Start the session with action or drama
a. If starting with action, try to tie it into the plot of previous sessions
b. Same thing goes for dramatic bits
c. Mix up a. and b. by starting off the session where the PCs left off, and wait until they're feeling "secure" before springing the action on them.

4) Write major descriptions (even of battle scenes and the like) beforehand (try to anticipate)
a. If a major baddie is going to bite it this session, or you think he might, write up the majority of his speech or description of his death scene before hand.
b. Write descriptions of major geographic features or overland traveling
c. Write descriptions of any miscellany that's important to the session (dungeon description, items, etc.)

5) End with action or suspense to keep your players coming back.

Other than that, I try to fix any issues that my players bring up (slow combat, slow game in general, too much RP, too much combat etc.). I find that using things the players are unfamiliar with helps as well (especially if you have long time RPG players).

 

[Wraith Form]

Hi. My name is Robert, and I'm a rules-lawyer.

After many years of gaming & being a rules-lawyer, this is what I've learned:

• I must always remember that the DM & the rest of the group are people too & my friends.
• When I feel the DM is straying from the rules, I should politely point it out.
• If the DM chooses not to act on my point, I must let it drop & do my best to enjoy the game anyway.
• If the way a DM handles something bothers me a lot then I should discuss it with the group before the session, after, during a tangent, or outside of the session. I must strive to understand the points of views of the DM & the other players to the best of my ability.
• If the DM/group chooses not to make any concession on that point, it falls to me to deal with that. (Until I next accept the DM seat. ^_^)

That has helped me enjoy the hobby a whole lot more. YMMV.

Amen, brother. You're welcome at my table any day.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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

It's not strict adherence to the RAW to, for example, note to the DM that normally my PC would get an Attack of Opportunity when the NPC drinks a potion beside me. That's just a rule, and a good one to bring up to the DM if it comes up in game. Strict adherence to the RAW would be buying a Karma Bead for free.

I am the kind of person that will point out that putting money on Free Parking is not in the rules, but will let it slide so long as the rest of the players know this and are changing the rules consciously.