Game Master Sections

[Keith Senkowski]

What kind of information is good to place in a Game Master Chapter/Section of a core rule book?  In our game right now we have rules that apply only to the game master, some antagonists, the basics of session/adventure creation and some helpful tables for creating NPCs on the fly.  Is this enough?  Is it too much?  Is there something really important we are missing?

Keith

[anonymouse]

As a sort of side-answer: don't put any "secrets" in the GM's section. Whether or not someone plunks down $20 for a gamebook, if you label a section with big 'DO NOT READ' warnings.. it's the first thing that'll be read. ;p

[MachMoth]

Well, the importance of a GM section, is to cover the points the GM may need to/should know, that the players don't.  The GM knows that being on fire does 1d6 points of damage per turn.  The player knows that being on fire hurts.  The GM knows that your at a -8 modifier to climb a sheet of ice.  The player knows its hard to do.  Including what anonymouse said, the GM section should contain everything the players are allowed to know, but don't need to.  Depending on the system, you seem to have it pretty well covered.  Though, I would keep the antagonists (possibly with NPC's) in their own section, but that's just me.

[Andrew Martin]

I'll be different and suggest that a good game doesn't hide any rules from it's participants. Consider board games, like Chess, Go, Monopoly and so on. In those games, no player has the 'advantage' of having an extra set of special rules.

Why does it have to be different for RPGs?

[M. J. Young]

I'll be different again and turn the question on its head: what does the player have to know? Multiverser doesn't have a player's section or a player's rule book--the referee is given everything, and the players learn what they would know as they go along.

Now, maybe there are things that players need to know in your game; if so, you need a player's section. However, I think that's one of the weaknesses of role playing games. Consider board games, as Andrew suggested. When you're going to play a board game like Monopoly, does each player sit down and read the rules? Not in my experience, and I play a lot of board games. Usually one of us reads the rules and explains to everyone else how it's done.

In my view, in a role playing game, that one person who reads the rules and explains to everyone else how its done is the referee. The more you expect the players to read before they play, the higher the bar you've erected against playing your game. Target the one guy who likes to read the rules to the game and explain them, give everything to him, and let him tell everyone else what they need to know.

So, what do you think has to be in the player's section?

--M. J. Young

[MachMoth]

Well, like I said, it depends on the game.  D&D is the one that comes to mind the most, due to its very large set of rules for every possible situation.  Assuming you want the people playing the game to actually use all of those rules, the GM section (or book in that case) still holds a job.  The uber-knowledge player (GM) knows all the rules, and teaches the players.  However, in this teaching of the rules, some (in theory) wouldn't benifit the players enough to be worth explaining.  I say in theory, because in a gamist environment, any rule can be to the player's advantage.  But for the most part, a player doesn't need to be told the damage value of falling off the cliff.  They know it hurts.

Like you said, there are no rules you should hide from the player.  I just believe that some rules may be more important to the player's experience than others.  Whether that's up to the GM, or the writer is a tough choice.

[Jack Aidley]

I think the question is unanswerable without knowing your target audience and the nature of your game.

Having said that... M J Young; that is the best point I have heard in ages... Methinks I will be rewriting some rules this weekend.

[ADGBoss]

I always see questions / comments that I want to add to my corporate gaming model essay I am working on and this is a good one.

The first question (which you have probably already answered, even if unconsciously) is what is the relationship of the GM to the players and to the game?  Is the GM a pure judge? How far does he/she slide into the role of Player? Are there clear lines of delineation?

The second question you may want to consider is how closely related are setting and system? I personally love to discover (Explore?) as a player and if there is information that is system independant that I do not need to know.  This gets back to M.J.'s point.   A question of secrets really, though I dare say the rule set and the setting "secrets" should be seperate but thats a personal opinion.

A third question might be to decide if the book and or its layout is goign to be a selling point foro the game.  A good gaming book can intrigue a potential buyer, catching the eye.  Internal design can often times make or break a game, if finding answers is too confusing.  

I think the traditional model is that, just tradition.  Its not bad but it sets up a very specific set of roles that player and GM have to play.  It also sets up for potential in game conflicts, where the number counter guy, who has memorized the beast book, says that you the GM must be wrong because the Zoop has fewer Hit points and should be dead.

These conflicts can arise in any case, as has been mentioned players will likely sneak a peak at the forbidden secrets.

A few rules of thumb that I have been trying to go by:

1) Everyone knows the rules of the system and how it works.

2) Setting is in a seperate section from system, although examples from the Setting help illustrate points about the system.

Rulebook design is as much a tool for conveying the feel of a game as the system and putting a non-traditonal RPG into a traditional book design can make the experience somewhat schizophrenic.

Hope this helps.

Sean

[Marhault]

I'll be different and suggest that a good game doesn't hide any rules from it's participants. Consider board games, like Chess, Go, Monopoly and so on. In those games, no player has the 'advantage' of having an extra set of special rules.

Why does it have to be different for RPGs?

While this is an interesting point, you're neglecting an important factor.  The players in (most) RPGs are not on equal footing.  The Game Master has the 'advantage' of more rules, because he has the extra task of controlling NPCs and world elements that the other players don't have to worry about.  There are many board games (almost all wargames, for example) where the players do not have equal resources, and therefore must play using different sets of rules, with different strategies, etc.

There has always been the problem with "secrets" - information that only the Gamemaster should know - being available to anyone who can purchase the game.  The answer to this has always been the "quit reading now" warning, which is only effective if the player in question actually wants to preserve their ignorance.

I have found, that with certain types of games, it pays to have the players be ignorant.  I was involved in a long running Call of Cthulhu campaign, but beyond character generation and simple task resolution, I couldn't tell you a damned thing about the game system, or how to run it.  Why?  Because I never looked at any other part of the book.  The Keeper felt that having us be ignorant to many of the rules to the game, as well as knowing almost nothing about the stats of monsters, etc. would enhance the games theme and mood.  He was right.  I've rarely been in a campaign that I enjoyed more.  Would I have still enjoyed the game if I'd read the manual cover to cover?  Yes.  Of course.  But if I had, I wouldn't have jumped to my feet and swore in panic when the Thing From Between the Planes attached itself to my character's face, I would have calmly asked how much acid damage I was taking, and moved on.

Of course you can't limit players from reading the GM section.  If your game has information that would ruin play if the players knew, you might want to rethink the design a little bit.  From your list, I don't see that you have this problem.

To address your game specifically, the only thing I think you're missing is setting.  If your game has a particular setting, your GM should get information that the players (in theory) aren't privy to.  You might want to give them a lot of this sort of information if the game has a focus on setting exploration.  If the game doesn't have it's own setting, you probably want to give the GM some advice on how to go about creating their own.  That last only applies if setting construction isn't done as part of the game, by players as well as GM.

-- Edit -- Cross posted with ADGBoss.  Sorry for any redundancy.

[Keith Senkowski]

Sorry in advance but my thoughts are a bit disjointed.

––

I don't think placing certain related material in a seperate section is necissarily hiding the material.   In reality there is no such thing as a secret in a book since you can always flip to the end and see that the butler did it.  I see is as simply a matter of grouping similar/related information that while available to everyone targets a specific audience (in this case the GM).

––

If you want to use the board game analogy you can think of a GM section as the optional rules often found in strategy games.  Not everyone reads them but they are there to add something to the game if you choose to use them.

––

My thoughts on this simply stem from an organizational delema.  Even if the GM is the one relating the information to the players they are still going to be exposed to the book at one point or another (particularly in character creation but other areas as well) so in my mind it seems silly to group that information with things like, for example in my game, the Goon/Mook rules.

––

I also see that since the GM has a unique role in most/many RPGs he/she/it has special needs.  An example I think is stuff to help with say NPC generation.  On the fly kind of stuff when you are unprepared for the madness that is unfolding before you.

Keith

[Callan S.]

I'll be different again and turn the question on its head: what does the player have to know? Multiverser doesn't have a player's section or a player's rule book--the referee is given everything, and the players learn what they would know as they go along.
*snip*

Probably to assure them it isn't just the player and the GM at the table. There's a third party, which are the rules. If their not interested in there being a third party though, it'll be okay. They're also a handy reference, as players are going to take notes on the rules the GM tells them...in otherwords, they'll make their own hasty and hard to use players hand book.