Does the GM Need To Know the Rules?

[delericho]

At the outset, the DM doesn't need to be an expert, but should be at least reasonably competent with the rules. If only to stop the more ruthless players from just walking all over him.

As time goes on, the DM should be sure to become an expert in the rules, if not necessarily the expert. Fortunately, that should come naturally with running a long-term game .

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think the DM should be the expert in the group. If the entire group has a poor grasp on the rules, it is ok for the DM to only have a decent grasp on the rules.

I've found too many problems in games where the players know the rules better than the DM. It normally ends in the players using the rules to outsmart the DM and the DM either overriding the rules to thwart the players or the DM being annoyed that their adventure didn't turn out the way they expected.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think the DM should be the expert in the group. If the entire group has a poor grasp on the rules, it is ok for the DM to only have a decent grasp on the rules.

I've found too many problems in games where the players know the rules better than the DM. It normally ends in the players using the rules to outsmart the DM and the DM either overriding the rules to thwart the players or the DM being annoyed that their adventure didn't turn out the way they expected.

Two things spring to mind, if duelling rules mastery between the players and DM is the situation the there not a healthy dynamic anyway. Otherwise, the DM could delegate pure rules questions to one of the rules experts.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

I guess you could say that you could host a 'storytelling game' and roll some dice and so on without knowing any rules. But from that perspective, you dont really need rules at all.

I'd say it's important to have a good grasp on the rules when you GM, you dont need to completly master it or have a encyclopedic knoweldge, but at least a good grasp of the framework & system, enough to know what you dont know (and hence know where to look).

A GM is supposed to reff the game too. Cant reff without knowing the rules.
You could say that a GM has the fiat to play by his own rules, or wing it, split up from the RAW when he doesnt know something and make it up himself.

But then, if the GM isnt going to use the rules, why expect the player to know it?

 

[Pbartender]

I ran Call of Cthulhu for three years before I ever opened a rule book. Hell, I still have never read the CoC rules other than skimming them. It's a testament to BRP's relative simplicity and elegance that I picked up everything I needed from having played the game first.

A more tactical game is different, though. It helps in D&D to know what you don't know, if you know what I mean, and to know how to find the answer (or make up a fair and consistent solution.)

But, the point is... You still had to know the rules well enough to run the game. You just didn't have to read the rule book to learn them.

 

[Votan]

I does badly if the Dm does not have a basic grasp of the rules system. But I am no pathfinder expert and I do okay (admittedly with tolerant players).

It's aslo worth noting that there are a wdie variety of rules systems out there. Some have a lot of "lore" to know but very simple mechanics and vice versa. It can be helpful (presuming that the GM can pick) to use a system with the right level of complexity for your style and interests.

It's also worth noting that an excpetional GM cna pull people into the story and be forgiven mechanical issues; those of us lesser mortals are more likely to make errors.

[it helps a lot, in my experience, if you are willing to admit you are wrong and re-assess when an error happens]

 

[Animus]

... It can be helpful (presuming that the GM can pick) to use a system with the right level of complexity for your style and interests...

Which leads me to ask this question: Is it more important that the GM runs a system/setting that fits his style/interests, or should the GM run a system/setting that caters to the players' style/interests, assuming they're different? This is something I wrestle with to this day as a GM.

An example, dealing with setting: I love Eberron. Love it. Yet when given choices for the next campaign that I'm going to run my players gave it no love whatsoever. I included my vote (it was an anonymous multi-choice poll) and I was the only one that even chose the Eberron campaign idea.

Also, some in the group are fish out of water if we don't play D&D. I want to move away from D&D and run FATE-based games (including fantasy).

 

[DragonLancer]

The DM should know the rules well enough to run the game but accept that there will be times when they need to rely on a player or crack open the rulebook.

 

[chaochou]

I don't know if there's one answer which covers all RPGs. I'm not even sure it's possible to be a 'rules expert' with some games.

With very crunchy games I think the GM needs a sound understanding of the mechanics, whether it's Runequest or a 'story' game like Burning Wheel.

In a lot of the games I enjoy the skill as a GM is in framing scenes and conflicts, not knowing mechanics. You don't need to be a rules expert because there aren't huge swathes of rules to be an expert on.

 

[Piratecat]

But, the point is... You still had to know the rules well enough to run the game. You just didn't have to read the rule book to learn them.

I knew the rule that said "people roll percentile dice, low is good." On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say my rules knowledge was a 2 or 3. My genre knowledge, though, was 7 or 8, and that's what carried me.

My point is that some games (such as CoC) are far more about atmosphere and terror than they are about rules. Rules are largely irrelevant until a fight starts. That's not true in more mechanical systems.

In D&D, it's not uncommon for us to have a player who has a more encyclopedic rules knowledge than I do. When that happens, I just use them as a resource for obscure cases. They're like a talking book!