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

[Odhanan]

It depends indeed on how much the players know and care.

I believe, however, that no GM can have an understanding of a given game if he hasn't read its core rules and background and worked out how these two elements mesh together. Way too many GMs assume they know a game just by reading its background or assuming things with just a scanning of the core books. For instance, many D&D DMs out there just assume they know Third Edition D&D, both in rules and feel, from having played AD&D. It's a bit like thinking you know what's in the DMG 3.X because you've read the AD&D 1E's DMG. That's a gross mistake (and believe me, I know many such DMs).

Further, no GM in my opinion can fully understand what s/he's doing when houseruling a game s/he hasn't fully read and understood. Many such examples of bad houseruling exist in my opinion, starting by GMs reading a particular rule, not liking it from the get-go and modifying it right away without thinking of the "domino effect" it has on the rest of the game. This is especially true of the d20 System.

So, yes, I believe that to be a decent GM and run a particular game, you should at least have read its rules and understand them, if only to know what you're doing when you're discarding some of its components.

 

[Oryan77]

Maybe you should tell you're group exactly what you've told us. Ask them to help you find a middle ground.

Well luckily the original rules lawyers bailed out of my game and were replaced by an excellent group of guys/gals. But the focus on rules still carried over with me. I've noticed how 3.5 is more tactical and even the new players that know the rules still question anything that I may have overlooked. They won't argue it at all, but the fact that they point it out makes me want to get it right. I've realized that if the DM comes off as knowing as much or more than the players, the players really enjoy your game more. So I try to make sure they see me as an equal or a teacher rather than an underling.

So I would argue that because you have a stronger grasp of the rules, you have more options in your arsenal to challenge your players with. But you still have to know when it's appropriate in the game to use those options.

Oh definately, the players are very tactical with the rules, so it's helped me keep up as much as I can. My problem is that I feel I've become like them. Instead of focusing on entertaining roleplaying & NPC interaction, I'm becoming more of a strategist. I think of it like my animation job. I'm the imaginative computer graphics guy that makes everything look nice, and then there's the straight laced code crunching programmers that have no clue about what will make the animation look good. I don't want to be like a programmer

I have no idea why you'd need to luck up rules in every encounter unless you are in a high level campaign with alot of spell slingers. In any event, its time for you as a DM to put your foot down. Inform the players that you are wasting too much time looking up and arguing over the rules

Oh it's not that big of a problem. The cleric always uses new spells we aren't familiar with yet, I'll be introducing new spells via NPC's, or then there's the ever popular grapple confusion (thanks Evards). I've just noticed that the tactical side of D&D has taken over the fluff side a bit. So my focus goes towards making sure we're ruling properly. It's as much my fault as any of the players. With this group, the fault might be mostly mine even.

The other problem is what you are doing wrong. Briefly, you are allowing metagame information to creep into your roleplaying. You are letting the crunch get in the way of the fluff, and you've fallen into the trap of communicating only crunch with the players. You have forgotten the DM's first rule of fluff. As long as the fluff doesn't impact the mechanics, any sort of fluff is allowable under the rules.

Exactly! This is what I was referring to. I only recently realized that I was doing this. I've always been pretty good at having great fluff in my game, but I was pretty bad in the crunch area. Then I became really good in the crunch area and I think my fluff has taken a hit. How can I train myself to do both during an encounter? My mind just doesn't think about fluff during an encounter unless I happen to think about roleplaying battle dialogue. My mind focuses on what tactical maneuver am I going to do next to keep up with my tactical players.

 

[Celebrim]

I think of it like my animation job. I'm the imaginative computer graphics guy that makes everything look nice, and then there's the straight laced code crunching programmers that have no clue about what will make the animation look good. I don't want to be like a programmer

First, no dissing the programmers. Second, where the heck are you working that the programmers are straight laced?

I've always been pretty good at having great fluff in my game, but I was pretty bad in the crunch area. Then I became really good in the crunch area and I think my fluff has taken a hit. How can I train myself to do both during an encounter?

Practice. That's about it. DMing is hard. I wouldn't claim to know how to make that 4th round of combat against the orc horde interesting, especially the second or third time it happens, except to say that if you don't have much interesting to say about the combat you probably shouldn't have had it in the first place. There is only so much you can say about the dice rolls. (If there is too much going on to focus on the individuals, at least try to give the big picture.)

I try to make my fights occur in tactically interesting places so that there is lots of motion to the fight (either the monsters or the PC's or both). But like I said, DMing is hard.

Keep always in mind that you are trying to entertain people. To be a DM is to be a performer. Combat is one oppurtunity to do that. Try to follow the fight in your head in first person (yes, I know, minatures distract from this big time). First and foremost, you are trying to tell the characters what they see and hear. You probably used to do this before you got distracted. Now you just got to do two things in your head simultaneously. Like Manning in the pocket watching the recievers focusing on all the down field routes but stepping up at the last momment to escape the pressure.

Practice.

I wouldn't worry too much about squeezing every last drop of challenge out of every encounter. I kinda have a meta CR that I factor into an encounter, which is basically how intelligent and cunning I plan on playing the foe. It doesn't make sense to play zombies, animals, orcs and so forth with as much cunning as you'd play something with 18+ INT. If I don't plan on making a big plan, I just toss in an extra foe or three. If you are planning for a memorable fight, plan for it the way you'd plan for a chess game.

 

[Oryan77]

First, no dissing the programmers. Second, where the heck are you working that the programmers are straight laced?

I work at Stanford University...but then, most everyone here is straight laced Nothing against programmers...I admire their ability to create. They just don't have an eye for layout. Programmers would be perfectly fine having a program look like it was made in 1990 My analogy was that a programmer is like a rules lawyer...focuses on the number/code crunching. The graphic artists are like the roleplayers, they focus on making people say, "wow, that's creative".

 

[Piratecat]

Practice.

Yep. And consciously learn lessons from every game -- what went well, what didn't go well, and how it might have been better. Asking your players for regular feedback helps a lot here.

I really learned how to DM running RPGA games. It was a great experience; always running for different people, all of whom had to give you feedback as to how you did, worked wonders on my bad habits. I still have a long ways to go, but I'm pretty happy with most of my games.