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

[Allandaros]

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.

OK, Paranoia is one of the most GM-friendly systems out there. You just need to be familiar with Alpha Complex, not with the system at all. The System is Down. If you want stuff to happen, roll a die and do whatever you feel like with the number. You have total control. Don't stress overmuch about the system, just about the feel of the game. If you want more info, check out the various articles at Paranoia-Live. They really help with GMing this game. No suspicious ulterior motives about recommending the site, no, none at all, no siree. *whistles tonelessly*

...that said, I think it's vital to have a basic understanding of how the game works. If you have that, you're good to go. You can't have complete understanding, because how will you gain that experience without DMing the game?

 

[Stormborn]

It really depends on the system. D20 is complex and I don't see how it could be run w/o some basic understand of the rules. Others where the rules are less prevelant in actual game play, like many Unknown Armies games, I can fake it.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

Very Well

No game is a perfect simulation of reality.
Because of that, one of the required qualities of a DM is spontaneous ad hoc rules arbitration.

Also, to be an good GM, one must not only be prepared, one must understand the "soul" of a game.

Between these two requirements, a good background of play experience is essential, as well as off-game-time reading of the system, to get a good grasp the mechanics.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

I think that for one, in order to REALLY get used to how the rules work, you almost need to run a game.

And for another, it all depends on who you game with.

The first game I ever ran came after only playing one campaign. It was disastrous. Girl 1 and Girl 2 had never played. Boy 1 was experienced, but not a lot of experience in 3.0. Boy 2 was also experienced. Boy 3 had never played pen and paper rpgs, but rped online. He and Boy 2 were dating. I never had trouble with the girls. If anything, they didn't get too into the game, because I was too busy focusing on the guys. Boy 1 was fine. One of the best roleplayers I know. But boy two is a gnome-faced weasle. Because he knew the rules better than I did, he could cheat. And he did. And complained every time I made a ruling. And since Boy 3 thought he hung the moon, HE challenged everything I said, despite the fact that he didnt know an AC from a Reflex save. To make matters worse, Boy 2 hated Boy 1 for unknown reasons, so he and his boyfriend ganged up on him. In that instance, it would have helped if I'd known the rules better. I would have commanded more respect from my players, and would have been better able to handle the unruly boys. But in the end, I don't think that the problem was me not knowing the rules, it was my players.

A year later, when I ran my second game, I had a much better grasp of the rules, but I still wasn't entirely up on things. And it went great! My players had low to mid experience, and I had no problems.

A few months after that, with my third game, I had a newbie, a mid experience, a very experienced, and a veteran. The veteran is my DM, and the friend that taught me pretty much everything I know about the game. And that game went fine, too, but was different. The experienced players would point things out that I was doing wrong, or tell me rules that applied to whatever whatever that I missed. But they're supportive, and respectful, and didn't challenge that EYE was the DM, and while I might appreciate a rules reference, I was the one who made the decision.

And in the future, if I run a game for one group I play with now, I'll have to be VERY sharp on the rules, because the group includes powergamers and a dangerous rules lawyer.

So, all in all, I think that as long as you have a group of people who will either learn with you, or, some people that are more familiar with the rules but won't try to take advantage of you, you can run a game that you're not familiar with, and have a pretty good time.

 

[Silverleaf]

When I started playing D&D in the early 80's, all I had was the Basic rulebook and the 1e PHB. Had to figure things out for myself and make up rules. It felt very natural though.
The only important things a DM needs are imagination, enthusiasm, and empathy (he must be fair). Rules are entirely secondary and will never make up for the lack of those qualities, whereas the opposite can be true.

 

[Ladytribble]

Against my better judgement, I recently agreed to play in a game that is being DM'd by someone who played 2.0 rules...but hadn't DM'd ever and isn't exceptionally familiar with 3.5 rules. The game is miserable. 5 of the 6 players have come to me and said that they are miserable because he doesn't know the rules but because the DM is our friend we are having a hard time explaining that he needs to know the rules better before attempting to DM. He's running a pre-existing module so creativity isn't particularly an issue...though it seems to have a significant number of empty rooms. Arguing over what the rules are isn't really worth it because he won't conceed for anything.....

it sooo much easier just to have a DM that knows what they are doing before getting into anything. Play is smoother and more time can be devoted to storyline because logistics flow quickly.

 

[arwink]

Enough to understand how the genre works, as represented by the games rules and the games story elements.

I'm spending this weekend running Ronin Arts Vs. Monsters at a Convention, which means I'll be playing it about a half-dozen times all told. I'm probably going to make a dozen rules mistakes every time I play the game, because I just haven't absorbed even the light amount of rules Vs. Monsters has yet. It'll still be fun, however, because I've absorbed enough of the games look and feel to understand how I think it should be working and I can wing it from there.

 

[Altalazar]

Obviously, the better you know the game, the more easily you'll be able to run it.

But you can fudge some things if you are a good GM. More to the point, as GM you control the world, so you can leave out things that you don't understand. Like if you don't understand the rules for certain types of special attacks that some monsters have, well, those monsters don't have to be encountered at all. You can't control what the players will do, so as they get more and more powers, it will be harder to keep certain sections of the rules that you are unfamiliar with out of play.

I think, actually, that may be part of why so many DMs don't like running anything above low level games - they don't understand the rules well enough to make adventures that take into account all of the possible powers of PCs at higher levels. Of course, that is only a part of it - I have my theories about the rest of it, but that is getting off thread.

So I think you need to know the rules somewhat, including a bit of the uncommon parts, but you can fudge and/or leave out the rest, perhaps introducing new elements as you learn the rules. Many game systems are good for doing that, since they start off low level, with few options, which only gradually increases over time, giving both players and GM a chance to learn more as they go.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Sliding scale

A sliding scale is the most realistic answer, I think.

Meaning: the more experienced the GM, the more he can get away with.

A new GM is going to need to know the system inside out, while a very experienced GM will have little trouble running a game of at least as high quality knowing only a fraction of the rules.

Of course, there is a baseline. Any GM has to at least have skimmed the rules, learned how to make characters, and run combat.

 

[Darkness]

Technically, a slight clue is all I need. I've ran Mage: The Sorcerer's Crusade on little knowledge, with several players I hadn't played with before, and very well.

'course, I've been GM'ing for >15 years.