How well do you have to know a game to run it?

[Ottergame]

I think it's important that a GM understands all but the most rare rules in the book.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Well, in a few weeks I'm gointg to run Paranoia XP for table top for the first time. I'm also reading therough HARP for a review and that just got me thinking.

Paranoia runs itself. If you fudge up a rule, just look innocent and politely ask the player exactly what he means by "not fair". I ran a 2e game, it really isn't very hard. It's a comedy game. Just bring "teh funny".

HARP, on the other hand, is a different story. I have no suggestions to offer you.

 

[Crothian]

Paranoia runs itself. If you fudge up a rule, just look innocent and politely ask the player exactly what he means by "not fair". I ran a 2e game, it really isn't very hard. It's a comedy game. Just bring "teh funny".

HARP, on the other hand, is a different story. I have no suggestions to offer you.

I'm not that worried about it.

 

[Glyfair]

Depends on what I'm running. If it's a one-off, the bar is much lower than if I'm running a campaign. Nothing is more annoying than finding out an error you've made is game-breaking in a long-term campaign. Fixing it rarely leads to a satisfying conclusion.

 

[Jdvn1]

Depends on what I'm running. If it's a one-off, the bar is much lower than if I'm running a campaign. Nothing is more annoying than finding out an error you've made is game-breaking in a long-term campaign. Fixing it rarely leads to a satisfying conclusion.

For rules, I think it's more important to know them in a one-shot. You only have one session and you want to make it run smoothly. If you have to spend time figuring out how something works, that's bad. If you have a long-term campaign, you have time to tweak things. If one session doesn't go as well as planned, it's okay.

 

[Bryan898]

That depends on whether or not there are rules lawyers that have knowledge of the game in the group, or knowledgable people at all. When 3.0 came out I read the players handbook over night and ran my first game the next day. I had a decent idea of what I was doing, better than the players at least. The only thing that was intimidating was combat, since role-playing is the same regardless of the edition, and at 1st level there's little to deal with.

 

[zeo_evil]

I say the more you know the better off you are.

One thing I haven't seen anyone bring up is responsibility. If you are younger or running the game for newer or younger players they may be less responsible and may be more prone to take advantage of you and the rules. The same goes for immature older players. In these cases the more you know the better. The opposite holds true for responsible players who, for example, will know and live by the rule even if it bones them. In these cases less is okay.

 

[Glyfair]

For rules, I think it's more important to know them in a one-shot. You only have one session and you want to make it run smoothly. If you have to spend time figuring out how something works, that's bad. If you have a long-term campaign, you have time to tweak things. If one session doesn't go as well as planned, it's okay.

However, in a one shot you can focus on learning the things dealt with in the scenario and ignore anything that isn't. It's even easier with pregenerated characters.

Also, you can wing things in a one-shot without having to worry about future repercussions from that ruling.

 

[MonsterMash]

Moderately well is good enough to run it - in many ways you don't really know a system until you start running it as sometimes things work differently from how you imagine when reading RAW.

 

[diaglo]

Ooo Baby, Ooo baby, OOooo


yeah i faked it too.