At the eve of my 25th RPG/GMing birthday, I’m actually reading something I told myself I’d read but never did up till now: The award winning Robin’s Laws of Good Game Mastering. (Copyright 2002 by Steve Jackson Games Inc).
To say that it’s a good read for all DM/GM is an understatement and is well worth the 8$ it costs to download from Steve Jackson Games’ PDF store.
As I read this, I realize that it was heavily influenced by the late 1990’s RPG market (it was published in 2002) and I thought that I’d discuss some key concepts here and explore how I read it in light of my recent development as a DM and current thought on the RPG sites I read.
I’ll also draw parallels with what he wrote in the Dungeon Master Guide II, which seems to me to be more recent re-write of the same concepts but in a D&D centric way.
I’ll tackle my thoughts in the order Robin wrote them in the original text, starting with chapter 1 of 9. If this inspires me enough, and garners significant interest, I’ll tackle the other chapters in later posts.
The Rule 0 of DMing (or The Great Immutable Ironclad Law)
“Roleplaying games are entertainment; your goal as GM is to make your games as entertaining as possible for all participants.”
This has been my my main driving factor (I bet all GMs say that) for the last year.
Aside: While some say that Rule 0 is the DM’s right to chose any rules and discard any he/she dislikes, I think Robin’s should comes first in my book.
Thing is, I used to believe that my players liked playing RPGs just for the empirical joy brought by the game’s mix of Crunch and Fluff. I didn’t think I had to do anything more than prep a game based on how I felt like on any given week and put my trust on my narrative, enthusiasm and people skills to bring on the awesome (and surprisingly enough, I did quite often).
In fact, I have yet to see anyone ever disagree about that rule… (It’s hard to disagree with Virtue). More realistically, I think that what GMs define as entertainment varies widely. And when that definition clashes with the gaming group (even in part), that’s when the sparks fly.
It’s only when I finally integrated that Rule Zero of DMing that my games started performing. By integrated I mean actually spending significant amounts of time thinking about what brings my players around the table and makes them stick around in spite of their busy schedules.
Then Robin finishes that short chapter with another excellent question for when a GM finds himself having lost control of rule 0. It’s so good that that it is worth risking reprinting here (Buy the book! Don’t sue me Robin or Steve, fair use, fair use!!!!):
“What would be the most entertaining thing that could possibly happen, right now?”
If this means fast forwarding a whole wilderness trek you had meticulously planned, killing the 7th wave of orcs by a freakish cave in or just having Gandalf choke on his own spit during a stirring speech, so be it.
Getting those players back in the game is paramount. And if it’s not possible, admitting defeat and calling the game off for the week is a wise move.
That being said, I think next time I feel my game slipping (and it will, because no one is THAT awesome, all the time) I think I’ll actually ask the question out loud and apply the best answer I get.
I hope it’s going to be Ninja Dragons!!!!
Up next, the fabled Player Types, updated!
Robin’s Laws of Game Mastering is one of the most incredible reads out there. The Player types are my favorite thing from that book, but just his stating of the “IRONCLAD” rule of GMing is an incredible thing. I think people get wrapped up in the philosophy of a particular game when they are playing it, thinking that if a game doesn’t follow the designers way exactly then it isn’t being played correctly. Really every group is going to modify things to fit their own style, because that is how they have fun, and seriously if you are having fun that trumps anything else.
Ahh, the Laws book. That was the third GURPS book I owed, after the black 3rd Edition and GURPS Prisoner. I’d rate it as the best textbook on how to GM, ever, and it did a lot to sell me on the whole GURPS thing; I figured if this is their bible, Steve Jackson games can’t be all bad, eh?
I’d say it should be an essential part of any GM’s bookcase, definitely.
Ninja Dragons, eh? Hmmmmm…..
Pedantic Nitpicking alert:
It’s not actually a Gurps book Grey… Altough it feels like he only talks about D&D, Vampire and Gurps in it.
But back to your actual point, you are entirely right that it’s a very good book. It actually makes me realize why other player types go for games I have no affinity for.
Steve Jackson innovated in offering a truly genre neutral book on the art of GMing. It’s a pity they’re having such a hard time now and focusing almost exclusively on the Munchkin’ line it seems.
John:
“Really every group is going to modify things to fit their own style, because that is how they have fun, and seriously if you are having fun that trumps anything else”.
I plan on following this series with the same approach to Gygax’ DMG…. specifically because he advocates all kind of weird things…. some that have stood the test of time, others that didn’t. Like his stance against tinkering with the system… when the whole AD&D game is actually his own tinkering with his game…
s’ok, nitpick away!
You’re right, it’s not a GURPS book; I stand corrected 🙂
“Like his stance against tinkering with the system… when the whole AD&D game is actually his own tinkering with his game…”
Yeah, the thing that I understand about that was that it was a highly balance . . . sensitive game. It was one of those styles where it required constant tweaking to get it feeling right. All games do require that kind of tweaking, but AD&D had so much inbuilt structure that it was hard to color outside the lines.
I wonder how 4E is going to follow along with how much 3.5E allowed that tinkering. Stuff like gestalt classes, and racial classes, etc.
What I read on Gygax and the then TSR was that they were trying to go for a RPGA approach where character could move from campaigns to campaign, including official ones backed by TSR.
So I think standard rules was what they were aiming at…. I’ve read somewhere that after having published Original D&D, that screamed for customization, it was too late to take it back.
I’m just not sure that Gygax was talking from his personal point of view or from his company’s policy.
The fact that 3e encouraged tinkering so much might be because the actual engine was available to all with minimal reverse engineering.
That and the tons and tons of material (good and bad) made available for it.
I don’t see why 4e would go a different path… 3.x was a financial success for many.
Oh, 4e is definitely taking the same route.
I mean, much of 4e rose out of the fact that none of the designers were playing unmodified 3e anymore.
And since there will be a 4e OGL as well (they have stated this), it’s not like they could stop it if they wanted to.
Congratulations on your anniversary. Mine was July 2001. This year will be my 32nd.
Laws’ Laws (especially 0) are a good read, but reread it! There’s more in there than you think.
Take for example the rule you cite: “Roleplaying games are entertainment; your goal as GM is to make your games as entertaining as possible for all participants.”
It actually also tells you that you have to make it fun for you! Always a compromise, huh?
The ‘discard any rules’ rule is contained in Laws’ rule 0; is it entertaining to run rules you don’t like?
At this point I think I need to reveal a secret I’ve kept (whether I wanted to or not) for a long time.
1) Fluff isn’t set until it’s said, and
2) It’s all fluff.
The seventh wave of orcs? Never existed if not mentioned. Wilderness trek? Not there if you say it was a road instead. Gandalf’s speech? The same.
Now here’s the hard part….
Learn to live without the ‘map’.
Really, you can do it. I did. I’ve given lots of explanations how to do it. What you do is erase the map from your mind, but keep the points of interest. Don’t even relate them geographically in your head. Just let them wait for the appropriate moment.
For example, the players set off on the adventure after a rough start and you want to go a little easier on them; save the point of interest in the midst of that trek for another time. The seventh wave of orcs? Hang onto it until either they are looking for trouble or when the adventure has gotten really intense. (Special Hint: Never let the intensity dampen) If Gandalf’s speech will bore anyone at the table, due something to them /during it/. (Someone can fill them in later.)
The biggest problem comes when the players ‘go the wrong way’. Not a problem. Since there is no geographic relationship, move the next point of interest right in the direction they are going. What’s that? The evil overlord’s castle can’t be in the plains they’re playing in? Make it a floating castle. (Who wouldn’t be drawn to a flying continent while travelling across the plains?)
Whew! Longer than I meant to be.
So sorry for the tone (and the length). I don’t know what to say.
Enjoy!
Fang Langford
Actually, many forum flame wars have been fought over the idea of /tweaking/ rules during play. I tended to explain that, since they are creating and modifying everything *in* the game, the participants see no difference in the rules.
The flaw in both this and the strict-rule techniques is that role-playing game rules can’t *NOT* be tweaked. Follow:
Do I have to roll to get across this chasm?
How can you answer that without tweaking both the rule interpretation *and* the scene? Every situation where applying a rule or not applying it is an example of tweaking. The only alternative is to use the rules for every situation.
Cross the street? Gimme a agility roll. Look at the store? Gimme a observation roll. Settling in for the night? Gimme a outdoorsman roll.
Who plays this way?
Then what decides when to roll then? Is it the gamemaster? The player?
No. The social situation in which these real people get together and play. This also decides who gets to talk when and most often who’s idea is used in the game.
It was a real epiphany for me to realize that no amount of rules or advice will overcome the social situation shared by the participants. It changed the way I write for role-playing games.
Fang Langford
p.s. Who can’t seem to help himself today and is very sorry.
Don’t be sorry Fang… your peculiar type of heresy brings a fresh perspective on any discussions. 🙂
For rules tweaking, I think it’s a balance between in-group consistence (we play dice in so and so situation with the following exceptions…) and the dramatic tension/ Emotion manipulation the DM shapes (as in ‘ah hell, screw the roll, you succeed because it’s so cool!’)
I rather like that different “Rule 0”. I read somewhere else on the Interwebs that the goal you should have when you sit down is to make sure the players will have fun.
Everything follows on from that
.-= Katana Geldar´s last blog ..There’s one at every table… =-.