Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 1: Introduction
In October, my co-author and partner here at CM contacted me to ask,
(Extensively Paraphrased:) Something that has slipped away from me this past decade is a solid knowledge of the rules I game with. This lack of foundation has a number of serious consequences. Good thing I trust my players so much.
Not having rules expertise undermines my position as GM and expert. I don’t think I need to master knowledge of rules and rulescraft to be effective serve RPTx well, but I should at least be conversant. Part of the problem is I do not have a strong desire to read a lot of rules. I used to consume rules with great avidness. Now, my head starts to bob after a few paragraphs.
For my campaigns, I would like to be on top of the rules again, especially when GMing impromptu and creating crunchy stuff on the fly.
Do you have any advice?
- How to get enthused about reading and consuming rules.
- How to approach getting an understanding of the core principles and rules sub-systems of your chosen game rules;
- How are things tied together;
- How to get an understanding of the design of a game.
- Methods of consuming rules for understanding them. Surely there are some tricks to grasping rules other than just reading the rulebook from start to finish!
- How do you read the minds of the designers? What things do they consider, that I should also consider?
- Basically, how do I analyse the rules for any given game system I’m using?
Rules have become a weak spot for me. I don’t like reading rule books much anymore, and I don’t have a solid knowledge of how to analyze rules. But I would like to.
I’m sure Johnn is not alone in all this. I have found that I can rarely read rule books all the way through anymore, myself. All this sounded like fertile ground for (yet another) major series of articles, and hence this post, which is designed to act as an introduction to that series.
Each of the above topics deserves, and will get, one or more articles of their own. I also have a couple of articles from a previous blog that I used to have at Yahoo (before they shut their blogging infrastructure down) on house rules that are relevant, and should be publicly available somewhere.
So Next time, I’ll start delivering on Johnn’s request…
- Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 1: Introduction
- Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 2: Getting Enthusiastic About Rules
- Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 3: Student, Tutor Thyself
- Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 4: The Quality of Rules
- Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 5: Rules Touchstones – Combat
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
The simple answer is that you don’t – a successful GM needs to know only two rules: Rule 0 and Rule -1.
As a GM, you are the rules – your word is law, and it’s your task to judge and make things fair and fun for you and your players. The players give you this power based on your expertise – so instead of trying to learn the specifics of D&D 4e or whatever, focus games on Roleplaying Tips the RPG and use all your gaming experience.
In essence you are reversing the procedure – you are not learning someone else’s game system. That is boring, and dull, and disempowering. You are building and developing your own game system, and as such many of the answers you are looking for are already provided.
You are working through things, making the connections, and putting things in place, you are teaching yourself how your game works. You already know what enthuses you – why you are choosing a specific game system and specific mechanics. You are the designer and they are your decisions.
After all, you are the GM and it is your game, and that is part of the joy and responsibility of being a GM.
Plus, trusting the players is a good thing, because it shows that you are willing to listen to them defer to their expertise and desires. This does not undermine your authority as GM, it is tapping into their judgement and reasoning as well as your own.
One key motto of mine – Experience is learning from our own mistakes, Intelligence is learning from the mistakes of others.
Roleplaying is a collaborative experience, and as such it can be useful to rely on other players for different tasks. Having a player able to remember or look up rules while you keep the action going is no different from having another player keep track of the dungeon map, or putting players in charge of their own character sheets.
Being a master of someone else’s rules does not undermine your authority, expertise, or mastery over what is important – your game. It’s not like they designers of systems lose sleep worrying about being undermined because they don’t know the ins and outs of every campaign being run with their systems.
Your experience is your experience, and you should focus on expanding that and concentrate on what you already know rather than fretting and worrying about what you don’t know.
Da’ Vane recently posted..My Name Is…
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Erica House-Lantto, theeo123. theeo123 said: Rules Mastery For Dummies & Busy GMs Part 1: Introduction: In October, my co-author and partner here at CM cont… http://bit.ly/gnlg4i […]
December 12th, 2010 at 5:15 am
I have to say that I don’t completely agree, Da’Vane. Ninety percent of what you have to say is correct, but for three reasons I think you’ve missed the point.
(1) Your arguement overlooks the need for the GM not only to be fair, but to be seen by the players to be fair. That means that the rules as written need to be the common point of referance for everyone; otherwise, sooner or later, misunderstandings about interpretations will create conflict between Players and GM. While there is no game without the GM, there is also no game without players.
(2) As a GM, you can’t properly prepare for the game if you don’t know how the rules work. It’s a constant scramble for the GM trying to adapt the situation to provide a challenge for the players, and usually a situation will be either too soft or too difficult. Neither is desireable.
(3) The final reason is the impact of not being sure of the rules on a GMs confidence in what he is doing. The loss of confidence can be masked, but it makes the act of GMing more stressful and less enjoyable.
December 12th, 2010 at 10:45 am
@Mike – I have to respectfully disagree to these three issues. This is pretty much a legacy of old-school thinking, when there was a high lethality rate and GMs were often mistaken for being adversarial to the PCs simply because the play the adversaries. Any good GM knows there is no game without the players, which is inherent and implicit in Rule -1. The GMs authority is given to them by the players when they choose to play, and they can just as easily revoke this authority by leaving a game and running their own. Thus, there is no requirement for rules as a common reference point, because players trust their GMs to be fair or they wouldn’t stick with those GMs.
Points 2 and 3 are valid, but only to a very limited extent. If the GM realises they are the rules, they will always have confidence to run their games. Plus preparation doesn’t necessarily require knowledge of someone else’s rules if a GM knows how to handle certain situations. Don’t know the rules for grappling? Make them up, using common sense and other rules systems you DO know, that have become part of your rules, and the player’s probably won’t even notice if they are having fun. If your rules work better, then great – new house rules!
DVOID Systems is focused on running systemless games, based on the action. Sure, it might be hard to come up with material for combat encounters or on the fly DCs for skill checks, but there’s plenty of material on reskinning and retooling to cover this, all of which you have covered in part two. If it doesn’t exist for your chosen system, it probably exists for someone else’s, and likewise a simple conversion job is usually all it takes to get it working.
Da’ Vane recently posted..My World is Collapsing!
December 12th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Actually, I find the notion that an ‘Omnipotent GM’ can make up any rules that seem appropriate to the situation to be far more old-school, deriving from the pre-AD&D era when rules systems were far less comprehensive than is expected of more modern games. The more modern attitude that relaced this very early approach was to use the published rules as written if they cover the situation, or to use analagous rules from within the game system as a template for the creation or extension of existing rules if they don’t.
Neither I, nor anyone else I know, would be happy playing in a game where the GM can change the rules arbitrarily. As a player, I invest considerable time and effort thinking about what my character can do and how my character will behave, and shaping the character’s abilities to enhance both. The rules of the game shape the way in which those capabilities manifest and translate into game mechanics. If the rules are written in sand, much of that effort is undermined because the translation is always uncertain, and what the GM thinks my character can do or should be able to do becomes more important than what the game system, and game balance, says that the character can do. Even granting that the GM has the best of intentions, I would find this situation undermining my confidence as a player, and hence my enjoyment of the game would be superficial and razor-thin. I would not feel completely in control of my character.
I have absolutely no problem with the GM changing rules that need changing, and I probably go farther in that area than a lot of other GMs I know, deliberately tailoring each game system to the campaign that I am running or want to run. But implicit in that statement is the fact that I make my players aware of the changes to the rules, and ad-hoc as little as possible in the rules sense – I’ve seen too many ideas run completely off the rails that way. This preserves the rules as a touchstone for the players, the foundation of the game, a rosetta stone for translating in-game actions and behaviour into game mechanics.
But for the rules to serve in this fashion – and there is no other good reason to have rules – they have to be common to both sides of the gaming table, the lingua franca of the roleplaying experience. Since the players will be relying on the rules, maintaining them becomes part of my responsibility as a GM, and before you can do that, you need to understand them yourself.
Sure, if you are a tyrannical despot behind the GMing screen, you don’t need to know the rules. But few people other than the despot are all that happy, even if there is a social contract requiring the GM to be a benevolent dictator.
Systemless Games (as I understand it, and speaking in general as I havn’t read the specifics of DVOID System’s rules) break the monolithic rules structure into two different tiers – game mechanics and rules for the generation of game mechanics as needed, which could be called operating principles. These are analagous to software (game mechanics) and an operating system (principles). Another analogy for such systems would be an Expert System for rules generation – for those who know what Expert Systems are. Sure, with such games, there is no need to know the game mechanics, because these can be changed arbitrarily, imported from other systems, or whatever. The important rules with such games are the principles that define the process and procedure for developing and arbitrating game mechanics, and the GM had darned well better know them – and have a fair amount of experience under his belt, to boot.
December 12th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@ Da’Vane: PS: You and I could probably have fun for hours discussing and debating game philosophy…
December 12th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
@Mike: I think the fact that is being missed is that just because the GM is omnipotent in their authority, they do not need to be a despot, nor do they need to change rules arbitrarily.
Virtually every game house rules, and the GM is the house, therefore the GM is the rules. These can be defined and stated beforehand, changed as needed, and improved over time, but it needn’t be done for whimsy or tyranny.
Using established systems are for convenience only – it’s easier to say “Have you played D&D 3.x?” than to teach every player the rules of the game from scratch – just the exceptions.
I actually find rules more of a burden these days, because with my players, we’ve played so many different rules systems that it’s becoming hard NOT to have them blend them into one. Is it roll high or roll low? Opposed checks or self checks? Is this the one with action points or action dice? What dice to we roll for initiative? How do we handle damage?
This can be enough to drive any GM spare, and any group spare, so the idea to ignore the rules and get on with the game has a lot of merit. You use the system you want to play, using the rules you already know, and if you see a new system that looks intriguing and pick it up, you look to see what it does differently and how it handles things in terms of the game, not the rules.
DVOID Systems products are truly systemless, there are no rules – they are in fact game theory on how to plan and run specific types of games. The don’t tell you how handle combat in the sense of what dice rolls you need to make to hit and damage your foe, but how to handle them in terms of tactics, storytelling, pacing, and conflict resolution.
A big part of this is because I find that rules tend to slow the game down considerably. I find this a particular issue for me, because as much as I love planning games, my ability to run them is fairly weak because of my dyslexia, so remembering the exact details of the rules slows me down considerably. A single standard encounter that would normally take 30 minutes would take me a four hour session to run, even if I did have full prep work for the encounter.
Modern systems have become cumbersome and complex, when all you want to know is if you did succeeded doing such and such. Does it sound like you would succeed? I can go entire sessions without a dice roll, and others where I don’t even refer to rules other than as references of pure chance (“25% chance of success, go for it.”) – I even get my players involved, getting them learning the rules and understanding the rules. It takes pressure off me without undermining my authority as GM, and basically nips any rules debate dead in it’s tracks.
Plus, I normally err on the side of leniency with systems, handing out bonuses for players who are descriptive with their actions and inventive with their tactics, making the game more fun for everyone. The only time I do not is if I am specifically testing or learning a new system.
After all, there might not be any NEED for a GM to learn new rules and systems, but it does not mean that they will not WANT to learn new rules and systems.
I think this is Johnn’s main issue – he’s seeing a need to learn the latest systems where there is none, but is lacking the desire to want to learn these systems. This just causes stress. If things are the other way around – he desires to learn the latest systems without feeling any pressing need, this once again becomes the joy that most of us felt when we first started gaming, which made us gamers in the first place.
Da’ Vane recently posted..My World is Collapsing!
December 13th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Not really – Johnn’s problem is that he doesn’t know the rules system that he IS using, not that he has some abstract desire to learn a rules system out of some sense of intellectual curiosity that he thinks he should be feeling, but doesn’t.
Ultimately, the question you have posed is how much authority the GM should have, and how much the players should have. Your players seem happy giving total authority to the GM, trusting that he will not abuse it – with the ultimate veto of threatening to leave the game if he does so too aggrediously; mine demand a modicum more power over the game than that, making the game more collaborative. Ultimately, I have just as much power as you, and face the same ultimate veto, but in the normal course of play I have yielded a little of the authority to make the players feel more in control of their own destiny.
It might also be significant that almost all of the players in my campaigns are experienced GMs in their own right, and used to a greater level of control.
December 13th, 2010 at 8:47 am
If Johnn’s problem is that he doesn’t know the rules system he is using, why is he using it? As Johnn says, he doesn’t need to know the system for Campaign Mastery and Roleplaying Tips, as these are both generally system independent.
As someone who has studied social science, the fact that you regard the question as “How much authority does the GM have?” is interesting, because the real question is actually “How much power does the GM have?” Authority is just one form of power, and is the classic top-down power model of governance. However, their are others – and one that particularly stands out is expertise. The term Game Master not only means they control the game (i.e. they are master of the game) but they have achieved a high level of experience with the game (i.e. they possess mastery of the game).
Games Mastery and Rules Mastery are different, and it is perfectly acceptable to have a Games Master and a Rules Master at the table, that are not the same person. In fact, if you can identify the expertise of the players and tap into that, all the better for the game as a whole.
Ultimately, the GMs power is absolute – but it should be a given power based on expertise, not an innate or institutional power based on authority. Maybe I’ll get around to doing a guest article on GMs based on their types of power?
I totally agree with you about arguing game philosophy, Mike, and I think experienced GMs make the best players, because they can understand the needs of the game better and thus tend to put more into playing their PCs. In which case, deferring to their expertise if it supersedes your own, or just provides a different perspective, is always a valuable exercise, even if it just makes them feel more involved with the inner workings of the game.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Maelstrom of Combat
December 13th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
The question of why Johnn is using Pathfinder when he doesn’t know the rules is a question that perhaps deserves a post of its own to discuss. But for me, as with many of the Ask-The-GMs questions, the specific case is less interesting and less useful than examing the general case. Johnn’s questions (posed in part 1 of the series) are the trigger, and the road-map to the series, but not the totality of the question at hand, which is “tips and techniques for learning a new rules system”. That makes the question of why you want to learn a new rules system rather moot; the subject is how you proceed once that decision has been made, for whatever reason.
I found your distinction between Authority and Power really enlightening. You and I both agree that the GM has the ultimate Power,, but I have chosen to cede some Authority over the exercising of that power to my players (because they insist on having some input into the campaign’s rules infrastructure. Similarly, Johnn has been forced to cede almost complete authority over the rules to his players, simply because he doesn’t know the rules, and has had trouble energising/unthusing himself enough to do anything about it.
I agree completely with your point about the difference between Games Mastery and Rules Mastery and the acceptability of them being different people. One of my players is far more expert in the D&D rules than I am – but I do know the basics and have techniques that enable me to become an expert on anything that I need to know or that is likely to be contentious.
An article outlining the different types of power a GM has would be of great interest, and we would be happy to present it as a guest article, or you could post it to your own blog and just drop us a link to it.
Experienced GMs make both the best and worst players. You’ve outlined the case for ‘the best’ pretty solidly; the downside is that they will often think they know better than the GM of record (sometimes they do), and can be more inclined to argue or take control of the game. New players are more inclined to follow the GMs lead and see where it takes them. But the same can be true of experienced players, as well.
December 13th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I will see what I can do, as Power is a common term in Social Science, particularly in politics and it would be interesting to do a version of an essay that I had to write on this very subject, but themed towards gaming and games mastery in general.
It reminds me of a quote of yours that struck me which can further enlighten this discussion, with regards to rules, taken from http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/monkeywrench/
“As with any rule, an expert knows when and how to break it, the wise amateur doesn’t break it at all, the uneducated break it from ignorance, and the fools and rebels break it because it’s a rule.”
Rules are based on authority, and rebels are anti-authority – they fight against authority simply because they can. But expertise, as possessed by an expert, is a different form of power to authority. As such, the expert doesn’t really break the rules at all – they are their own rules because they have their own power.
This is why I do not think the the question of “why” Johnn feels the need to learn rules is moot. Rather understanding why can help him tap into that and get him re-enthused. An important part of this looking at what power Johnn already has and leveraging that.
In this case, Johnn is an expert. He has power at the table, it’s just a different sort of power that doesn’t feel like it is backed by an instruction manual or Dungeon Master’s Guide. It isn’t. It’s backed his knowledge of playing and running games, and that’s what he needs to use most to get rules mastery or any other form of mastery relevant to the game.
According to Johnn’s commentary in part two, http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/rules-mastery-2/ it seems he has a great deal of enthusiasm and expertise with Campaign Mastery, which is of no real surprise since that’s the name of this very website, and how this can be leveraged can be looked into on the comments there.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Maelstrom of Combat
December 14th, 2010 at 2:29 am
Excellent point, Da’Vane!
February 18th, 2011 at 12:37 am
Thank you so much for this series. As a GM one of my issues is that players don’t read the rules, but then in games where I am a player I often only bother with character generation. From what I’ve read so far, many principles here will work for players as well as GM’s.
I feel this series is a valuable contribution to the hobby!
February 18th, 2011 at 1:20 am
You’re welcome, Rodney. I’ll be getting back to this series sometime in March, I expect.