Da Rules

[CrosshairCollie]

With all apologies to Butch Hartman.

I was gonna poll this, but realized that the answers would be so nebulous that there wouldn't be a point. Basically, how well do you think someone needs to know the rules of a game before they should make an attempt to run it?

Well enough to play competently?
Everything major? Knowing all the little corner cases? Being able to quote the proverbial scripture? Just the basics?

Related note: If you, as a player, are informed by another player that you're doing something wrong in the mechanical sense (not a character choice sense), how do you react?

[Lamrok]

Before I run a game, I read the rules thoroughly at least three times, and run many (more than a dozen) solo test battles to make sure I have a feel for the flow of combat. After the first session, I read the rules again, and conduct a few more test battles using the characters from the game to get a feel for the way the game balances. That seems to do it well enough for me.

[Narf the Mouse]

I dunno. I only GM'd D&D once and didn't do much prep - So more than I did (It bombed).

[Blue]

Depends on the game. As Sidekick proves, you don't have to use every rule to make Hero System work sufficiently well; Just add things as you need them.

Generally you want a good foundation in the game unless you want a LOT of stop-and-go gaming.

[Savinien]

The first HERO game I GM'd I conscripted help with all things mechanic. Story happened to be good enough players didn't mind the various questions I asked THEM about rules and stuff.

[McCoy]

You kids today! Back In The Day, we got the white box D&D and the whole group worked together figuring out the rules from prose that could only have been written by an insurance salesman! The GM was the one with a plot, not the one who knew the rules best. (Later, the GM was the one least likely to pack the party with his pet PC's who were the only ones allowed to do anything, but I digress.)

Idealy, one should get an opportunity to play a game before having to run it, but we live in an imperfect world.

[Narf the Mouse]

On the other hand, I did a rather successfull freeform for a while with little prep. But it was a forum game, not openrpg.

And on the foot, I burnt out GM'ing that.

/me hops out of the thread.

[AliceTheOwl]

I don't fully understand ALL of the rules by heart, but I do get the basics of Hero System, and I have Hero Designer to create NPCs and to help my players who don't understand things as well build their characters. Josh helps me a LOT with mechanics.

I also run a rolling-light game, though and encourage roleplay over rolling dice to resolve things.

I think a person CAN run a game without understanding all of the rules, and without spending half the session looking things up. But it requires an overall understanding of the system, and of its philosophy.

Generally, even if one wants to run a rules-light game, one should understand the rules one is bending, first. That goes for almost anything in this world, as far as I'm concerned.

[teh bunneh]

I think the GM should know the rules as well as or better than the players. He should be able to make judgements on the fly, confident enough that they won't completely contradict the rules. He should know the rules well enough that he can discard any of them that will interfere with running an enjoyable game. He should also know them well enough that he can add new rules as needed without disrupting the flow of the system.

Also, he should bring pie to the gaming sessions, and share it with his players. :D

[Narf the Mouse]

...You aren't a GM, are you?

[teh bunneh]

Yes I am, and I try to follow all those rules. Except the one about pie. I expect my players to bring pie to me. :king:

[Narf the Mouse]

Mmm, pie.

Now stop trying to confuse me, I've been up since today.

[archermoo]

It is nice if the ref is very conversant with the rules. But having something interesting to run is more important than that. Failing a solid knowledge of the rules, it is nice if the ref has at least played.

As far as being corrected when I make a mechanical mistake goes? Whether I am a player or the ref, my standard reaction if someone corrects me is to make sure they are correct, and then thank them (assuming they were). Even with Hero I still make the occasional mistake. Lots of those are "well, that USED to be in the rules" kinds of things. :)

[Lamrok]

It is nice if the ref is very conversant with the rules. But having something interesting to run is more important than that. Failing a solid knowledge of the rules, it is nice if the ref has at least played.

As far as being corrected when I make a mechanical mistake goes? Whether I am a player or the ref, my standard reaction if someone corrects me is to make sure they are correct, and then thank them (assuming they were). Even with Hero I still make the occasional mistake. Lots of those are "well, that USED to be in the rules" kinds of things. :)

If I'm running the game, I make a quick expediant ruling and continue. Then I revisit it after the game is over. As a player, I roll with it - if the GM is making the correcting, I'll either just go with it (if he sounds right), or make a single succinct statement explaining my point of view - then take it up after the game is over if I feel the need to dwell on it more. There's nothing I hate more than seeing a game side-tracked by rules discussions - unless it is a new game that people are feeling their way through.

[archermoo]

If I'm running the game, I make a quick expediant ruling and continue. Then I revisit it after the game is over. As a player, I roll with it - if the GM is making the correcting, I'll either just go with it (if he sounds right), or make a single succinct statement explaining my point of view - then take it up after the game is over if I feel the need to dwell on it more. There's nothing I hate more than seeing a game side-tracked by rules discussions - unless it is a new game that people are feeling their way through.

Pretty much my way of doing it. My "make sure they are correct" statement covers anything from looking it up to just thinking about the rationality of the statement. Whatever is appropriate for the situation. What I had intended to get across was that I welcome being corrected when I make mistakes. Generally I'm on the correcting end of it, but I'm happy to admit when I make mistakes of my own.

[TheRealVector]

It is nice if the ref is very conversant with the rules. But having something interesting to run is more important than that.

I could not agree more. I'm the regular GM for our champions group but one of the players (an experienced GM) likes to run the occasionaly scenario. For reasons of sheer laziness he refuse to learn the Hero system in any detail beyond what he needs to play his characters (and often not enough knowledge to do that well, from a mechanics sense). He has said that he simply has enough rule systems in his head and doesn't have the time/energy to mastert the Hero system. I am sympathetic to his point of view.
Despite his sparse rules knowledge I always look forward to his games because I know they will be well thought out exciting adventures. His lack of rules knowledge will not hinder his plot, pacing, npcs or fairness.

Of course, the evil part of me wishes he would just read the @#$! book!

[CrosshairCollie]

As far as being corrected when I make a mechanical mistake goes? Whether I am a player or the ref, my standard reaction if someone corrects me is to make sure they are correct, and then thank them (assuming they were). Even with Hero I still make the occasional mistake. Lots of those are "well, that USED to be in the rules" kinds of things. :)

Then I take it that you would consider someone whose options to being corrected are either 'stomp out of the room in a pissed-off huff' or 'throwing himself over the table at you' to be in the wrong?

Hypothetically, of course.

[archermoo]

Then I take it that you would consider someone whose options to being corrected are either 'stomp out of the room in a pissed-off huff' or 'throwing himself over the table at you' to be in the wrong?

Hypothetically, of course.

Don't know that I'd consider them "in the wrong" so much as "oversensative". And/or "someone I'm not interested in gaming with".

Pointing out that someone made a mistake isn't a personal attack in and of itself. You can MAKE it a personal attack, but it isn't one by default. People aren't perfect.

[Narf the Mouse]

Mortals aren't perfect for more than a short period of time, anyway.

[Thia Halmades]

With all apologies to Butch Hartman.

I was gonna poll this, but realized that the answers would be so nebulous that there wouldn't be a point. Basically, how well do you think someone needs to know the rules of a game before they should make an attempt to run it?

Well enough to play competently?
Everything major? Knowing all the little corner cases? Being able to quote the proverbial scripture? Just the basics?

Related note: If you, as a player, are informed by another player that you're doing something wrong in the mechanical sense (not a character choice sense), how do you react?

The basics -- they should know enough to be able to go through a combat without looking at the book too much, and to adjudicate basic questions. They should at least be familiar enough with the text to look up what they need. This is much easier to do with something like d20, where the more complex aspects of the game can wait.

IME, HERO contrasts with that because you need to know the basics of design, what different powers do, and of course have your ground rules set (which optional rules, what flavor of combat, power caps, and so on.) I found that a huge difference between the two is that I become a better HERO GM with every game I run, whereas with d20 I was always trying to learn all new rules, and all new mechanics with every splat book.

HERO, while offering gazillion options, uses a consistent enough engine that rules & options are easily incorporated. So my answer is, "It depends on the system." However, I'm also of the opinion that the best way to learn anything is by doing it. So even someone who just bought the book can still run a game - they'll just be doing a lot of research.

[AliceTheOwl]

Then I take it that you would consider someone whose options to being corrected are either 'stomp out of the room in a pissed-off huff' or 'throwing himself over the table at you' to be in the wrong?

Hypothetically, of course.
That doesn't sound like an issue of rules understanding to me. Sounds more like an issue of playing with an overgrown child in desperate need of a time-out.

[Thia Halmades]

Then I take it that you would consider someone whose options to being corrected are either 'stomp out of the room in a pissed-off huff' or 'throwing himself over the table at you' to be in the wrong?

Hypothetically, of course.

Yes. Entirely so. There's just no excuse for that sort of behavior past grade school Monopoly when people should have learned better. I know that some gamers still think this is a valid method of dispute resolution, but none of them play at my table.

[Hyper-Man]

With all apologies to Butch Hartman.

I was gonna poll this, but realized that the answers would be so nebulous that there wouldn't be a point. Basically, how well do you think someone needs to know the rules of a game before they should make an attempt to run it?

Well enough to play competently?
Everything major? Knowing all the little corner cases? Being able to quote the proverbial scripture? Just the basics?

Related note: If you, as a player, are informed by another player that you're doing something wrong in the mechanical sense (not a character choice sense), how do you react?

Knowledge of the rules is good. A willingness to keep learning them instead of 'house-ruling' the ones you don't is mandatory. If you aren't willing to learn the rules before changing them as a GM you're just setting up a situation for disaster if any of the players get deeper into the 'book rules' than you (yes, I was a player in this very situation years ago).

I consider myself well versed in the rules since I have gamed with every edition since 83'. I am not that well versed in the skills of Gamemastering any system. This was due to shyness and a compusilve perfectionist streak for a long time. Now its just lack of willing players among known gaming(d20/D&D) friends.

I have no problem being corrected on rules issues but I'm usually the one doing the correcting for others. As a general rule, I try not to interfere during actual game sessions but rather at the end of the session with the player and/or GM.

[Hyper-Man]

I could not agree more. I'm the regular GM for our champions group but one of the players (an experienced GM) likes to run the occasionaly scenario. For reasons of sheer laziness he refuse to learn the Hero system in any detail beyond what he needs to play his characters (and often not enough knowledge to do that well, from a mechanics sense). He has said that he simply has enough rule systems in his head and doesn't have the time/energy to mastert the Hero system. I am sympathetic to his point of view.
Despite his sparse rules knowledge I always look forward to his games because I know they will be well thought out exciting adventures. His lack of rules knowledge will not hinder his plot, pacing, npcs or fairness.

Of course, the evil part of me wishes he would just read the @#$! book!

That sounds like my old gamemaster from 1st edition. His campaign was fun and lasted nearly 2 years but used a lobotomized ruleset that actually became more complicated and convoluted than the core it was replacing.

[archermoo]

I have no problem being corrected on rules issues but I'm usually the one doing the correcting for others. As a general rule, I try not to interfere during actual game sessions but rather at the end of the session with the player and/or GM.

I also do my best to not interfere with the session, but unfortunately frequently my mouth will act more quickly than my brain and a correction will leap out. Which is another reason I don't like to game with people that react poorly to being corrected. :o

[Narf the Mouse]

I realized I do have another example. My GM for the D&D game I'm in shows a comprehensive understanding of the rules and it does enhance the game. For one thing, we can drag in any prestige class we want (Even ones for books he doesn't have) and recieve a fair and balanced judgement of whether it's allowed or not.

[archermoo]

Personally, for a Hero game at least, I'm pretty unconcerned with whether a Ref knows the rules very well or not. I can easily make up for their lack of understanding of the rules, assuming they are willing to let me do so.

[CrosshairCollie]

Yeah, the the 'eight-year old needing a timeout' is a pretty good description of him. I'm going to talk to the rest of the group (well, the one other person who isn't him or his girlfriend) and I'm seriously thinking of suggesting a PERMANENT timeout, as far as we're concerned.

[teh bunneh]

Yeah, the the 'eight-year old needing a timeout' is a pretty good description of him. I'm going to talk to the rest of the group (well, the one other person who isn't him or his girlfriend) and I'm seriously thinking of suggesting a PERMANENT timeout, as far as we're concerned.

Someone seriously did that at your game? Dude, throw his ass out. Or, if it's not your game, walk. There's no excuse for that kind of grade-school behavior.

[CrosshairCollie]

Someone seriously did that at your game? Dude, throw his ass out. Or, if it's not your game, walk. There's no excuse for that kind of grade-school behavior.


It's a long story. Basically, after he stormed out (because I either exposed his incompetence or caught him cheating), he called to other people who were at the game and said that he stomped off rather than attack me because 'it was the mature thing to do'. Yeah, right.

Since we do a 'GM rotation' thing, I'm going to talk to the one other person and see if he agrees. It'll be a 4-2 vote (presuming his girlfriend will vote with him, as they're more like Siamese twins joined at the crotch at this point), and I'm reasonably certain she'll quit if we throw him out ... not a great loss, as she's even more inept and RP-less than he is.

Of course, the truth is I have no doubt that this will become an exceptionally messy situation, likely involving police and or lawyers.

[Narf the Mouse]

Not really on the same scale, but in a game of Interstate '76 (Early car combat game), I pumped about a hundred and sixty (Four loads of forty) missiles into the guy running the game. Then I told everybody he was cheating.

He kicked me, of course. I like to think that the rest of them were smart enough to leave.

[input.jack]

You kids today! Back In The Day, we got the white box D&D and the whole group worked together figuring out the rules from prose that could only have been written by an insurance salesman! The GM was the one with a plot, not the one who knew the rules best. (Later, the GM was the one least likely to pack the party with his pet PC's who were the only ones allowed to do anything, but I digress.)

Idealy, one should get an opportunity to play a game before having to run it, but we live in an imperfect world.


Funny...I dont remember seeing you in my old game group....but according to this, you obviously were...!

[The Monster]

As GM, I prefer to know the rules better than anyone else at the table - but that rarely happens, since there's some pretty sharp and exerienced gamers at out table. At the very least, I try to make sure to know the rules well enough to navigate easily through the basics: combat, skills, healing, etc. With fantasy and supers, there's always enough weirdness going on that I don't even bother trying to keep track of everything that the characters are capable of doing (one reason I prefer Hero - the mechanics are consistent across powers, rather than a long list of unique abilities/spells/feats).

But I run a pretty open game - if someone questions a rule, I'm open to looking it up or even discussing it for a minute or two, just so everyone is in at least temporary agreement. If it's unclear and/or important to my plot, I'll make a ruling that will hold for the scene or session, and revisit it later rather than slow down the game too much.

I'll even go so far as to elicit input from players about rules; when rules affect their characters, they often know details better than I, and as long as I don't smell abuse and/or they can cite page and paragraph, I'll roll with it. I extend a lot of respect to my players, and I expect to get it back. It's cooperative storytelling, after all.

On the other side (as a player), I don't mind too much if the GM isn't a rules expert, as long as they're open to correction and information, and they aren't capricious in making arbitrary rulings without conulting the book or the players. It really cuts deep into my enjoyment of a game when a GM makes a decree without apparent consideration of what the rules actually say about a particular situation, or considering what the implications are of the decision. It's even worse when the GM makes a snap decision "for the sake of game flow" (i.e., before anyone can look up the rules), and then takes offense if anyone challenges the decision. Sure, the GM is the ultimate authority, but you shouldn't be Stalinist about it.
Of course, the worst is when the GM makes a ruling that goes directly against the published rules, without informing the players ahead of time and without appeal. That's just arrogant and offensive.

The other time lack of GM knowledge annoys me is during a demo game. If you're introducing the game to new players, you really need to be able to run the game with ease and confidence, not stumbling through book or handwaving rules. The point is to show people how the game works, and if you're making stuff up, you aren't showing them the game, you're showing them your GM skills (even if they are are very fine skills).

[Klytus]

It is nice if the ref is very conversant with the rules. But having something interesting to run is more important than that. Failing a solid knowledge of the rules, it is nice if the ref has at least played.

As far as being corrected when I make a mechanical mistake goes? Whether I am a player or the ref, my standard reaction if someone corrects me is to make sure they are correct, and then thank them (assuming they were). Even with Hero I still make the occasional mistake. Lots of those are "well, that USED to be in the rules" kinds of things. :)

I have played with GM's in many different systems, with differing levels of rules knowledge and interesting ideas for the game. If given my druthers, I'd rather play with folks who have good ideas yet do not know the rules (like White Heat) as opposed to those who know the rules inside out, yet lack inspiring campaign ideas.

That having been said, IMHO, there is a lot to be said for knowing the rules - especially when it comes to combat. Nothing disrupts the flow of play more than having to press pause because one of the players wants to do something, the GM isn't sure how to do it, so they need to look it up (Grappling and Mounted Combat are the bane of many D&D DM's for this reason). No, combat may not be the be-all and end-all of a campaign, but if its there at all, a GM needs to know how to run it as well as possible. At the very least, if there are situations that the GM isn't fully familiar with, he/she needs to let the players know "For the sake of expediency, I am completely winging this, so do not bog me down about 'the rules' for the time being," and the players need to be OK with that.

[Klytus]

Knowledge of the rules is good. A willingness to keep learning them instead of 'house-ruling' the ones you don't is mandatory. If you aren't willing to learn the rules before changing them as a GM you're just setting up a situation for disaster if any of the players get deeper into the 'book rules' than you (yes, I was a player in this very situation years ago).


I've always been of the opinion that you should understand the RAW (Rules As Written) as well as possible before you start adding/changing things with House Rules. All of the rules do tie into one another, and a subtle change in one place can have an unforseen cascade effect that can utterly mess up other rules and/or game balance if you're not careful.

[archermoo]

I have played with GM's in many different systems, with differing levels of rules knowledge and interesting ideas for the game. If given my druthers, I'd rather play with folks who have good ideas yet do not know the rules (like White Heat) as opposed to those who know the rules inside out, yet lack inspiring campaign ideas.

That having been said, IMHO, there is a lot to be said for knowing the rules - especially when it comes to combat. Nothing disrupts the flow of play more than having to press pause because one of the players wants to do something, the GM isn't sure how to do it, so they need to look it up (Grappling and Mounted Combat are the bane of many D&D DM's for this reason). No, combat may not be the be-all and end-all of a campaign, but if its there at all, a GM needs to know how to run it as well as possible. At the very least, if there are situations that the GM isn't fully familiar with, he/she needs to let the players know "For the sake of expediency, I am completely winging this, so do not bog me down about 'the rules' for the time being," and the players need to be OK with that.

Yup. Knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the game is very useful to a GM. Good ideas are also very useful. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll take a GM with good ideas every time. I'd still rather have one that is good at both though... :)

[CrosshairCollie]

Someone seriously did that at your game? Dude, throw his ass out. Or, if it's not your game, walk. There's no excuse for that kind of grade-school behavior.

Well, I just gave him the call. His girlfriend called back, asked to speak to my wife and apparently asked 'is that the end?' to which she replied 'Well, since he wrote off his brother when he threatened violence, I'd say so'. Now, I'm just getting a phonebook open to the Emergency Numbers in case he comes by.

And, if you're curious, I *am* scared s**tless, thanks for asking. :)

[Narf the Mouse]

Hope it works out ok.

[CrosshairCollie]

Hope it works out ok.

Well, my nose is unbroken, my spleen unvented, and my sandwich unknuckled.

So far, so good.

[McCoy]

You kids today! Back In The Day, we got the white box D&D and the whole group worked together figuring out the rules from prose that could only have been written by an insurance salesman! The GM was the one with a plot, not the one who knew the rules best. (Later, the GM was the one least likely to pack the party with his pet PC's who were the only ones allowed to do anything, but I digress.)

Idealy, one should get an opportunity to play a game before having to run it, but we live in an imperfect world.


Funny...I dont remember seeing you in my old game group....but according to this, you obviously were...!
I was the Black guy running the Cleric. Don't you remember me?

[Narf the Mouse]

Well, my nose is unbroken, my spleen unvented, and my sandwich unknuckled.

So far, so good.
Those are all good things.

[teh bunneh]

Well, I just gave him the call. His girlfriend called back, asked to speak to my wife and apparently asked 'is that the end?' to which she replied 'Well, since he wrote off his brother when he threatened violence, I'd say so'. Now, I'm just getting a phonebook open to the Emergency Numbers in case he comes by.

Good for you!


And, if you're curious, I *am* scared s**tless, thanks for asking. :)

Here's hoping it doesn't turn ugly (uglier).

[Thia Halmades]

I love the smell of psychopathy in the morning. What a [censor] [censor]. Sorry. Those are among the seven words I can't say on TV. :D You did the right thing, CC. I'm glad he got booted and I'm glad you're okay.