Rules Larnin'

Just as with the setting, understanding the rules enables the DM to be proactive during gameplay. Briefly, for clarity's sake, when we talk about "the rules," we refer to the system that governs the mechanics of the game — how combat works, how spells are cast, how abilities function and how success or failure is determined through dice rolls. The rules serve as the foundation that keeps the game consistent and fair, providing structure for everything that happens within the world.

To "understand" the rules means to internalise this system to the point where the DM does not need to constantly reference rulebooks or second-guess decisions. This requires not only familiarity with the basics, but a deeper knowledge but a deeper knowledge of why each rule exists, what it attempts to accomplish within the game, how the rule binds the players' actions, and — most importantly — how players are likely to push back against that rule, and why.

Each rule affects the manner in which the player's "game piece," the character, is allowed to "move on the board." D&D being such a complicated game, there can be a hundred ways that this is possible, most of them dependent on other factors outside the player; managing these alternatives, not only for multiple players but also for NPCs, monsters and various ways in which the setting itself can infringe upon the game pieces, creates a tremendously flexible system that, at the same time, is next to impossible to manage without a solid grasp of all the mechanics in play.

As familiarity with the rules accumulates, the we become better equipped to make swift, confident decisions, without having to do so arbitrarily. Arbitrary rulings are merely evidence of not knowing the rule, or not knowing where to find it through minimal familiarity with the rules. Additionally, when a DM chooses to make an arbitrary ruling, regardless of what justifications he or she has, this is in fact a demonstration that this particular DM has little to know understanding of why the rule even exists, much less why it ought to be imposed in a particular way. As we have discussed, D&D can function as a game this way; it can even thrive, given a certain type of player... with the result that it devolves into an inconsistent mess where reliance on the DM's judgment becomes so imposed that the players are denied any real agency.

We must be careful not to equate "the system works," as arbitrary DMs will argue, and "the system is ideal," which is a whole other matter. A dependency upon arbitrary rulings passes the agency of the game from the players, who operate the game pieces, to the DM, who has no game piece, as this obstensibly facilitates the game's function. As agency moves away from the players and into the DM's sphere, the game becomes but a shadow of what it could be. It must be said, however, that once the agency has accumulated in the DM's hands, the number of "moves" the pieces can make declines drastically, making the game both less flexible and considerably easier for the DM to manage.

Let's commend the DM that has decided to embrace the rules, desiring to ensure the game is fair and consistent in the way the rules intended. Making this momentous effort is evidence of a person of substance... while failing at the effort, sometimes for literally years, is a path that every "qualified" DM had to walk at some point. This is not an easy rule set, nor should we pretend it is. No one, whomever it might be, can honestly protest that it's "easy." On the contrary, it's easy to resort to making snap, arbitrary decisions instead, to keep things moving... and in the beginning, we're going to do that. It does not matter that we're perfect in every moment, or that we don't take a desperate action now and then, for our sanity. The complexity of these rules demands that we must. What matters is that we maintain the vision of one day becoming able to run the game on the level that it's meant to be run... and to recognise, when they happen, those little moments that assure us that yes, in fact, we're getting there.

Therefore, yes, the DM should occasionally make the players wait while the game is paused, to admit that we want, in this moment, to get the rules right. We can be open about this. We can say to the players, "This is the part of this game that matters to ME; I do appreciate that we're all champing at the bit to get at the orcs, but this, just right now, is a part of my learning process as a DM, so give me three extra minutes and we can move forward."

In every situation like this, being direct and open about what we're going through is a way to build camaraderie between the players and ourselves. It reminds them that we are not just a utility for their use, we are a person, one who is trying our honest best to give them the best game we can. We should trust that our players will respect and appreciate this dedication on our part... it takes a fairly selfish person to condemn effort and capability on principle. Then, once the moment is past, and the ruling is clear, the very fact that it was highlighted increases the probability that everyone will remember that ruling going forward, not just us.

This transparency about the learning process should relieve much of the pressure on a new DM. Admitting that we need to pause for clarity or check a rule removes the unrealistic expectation we place upon ourselves that we must know everything, all the time. This allows us to run a more friendly, thoughtful and fair game, especially as the players understand that "fair" is our priority... rather than, say, efficiency or obstinacy, which is the mark of many a DM's approach. To improve as dungeon masters, we must do so without fear of being judged, by ourselves most of all. In turn, with each of these pauses, a positive, friendly game group will enjoy learning themselves about the complexities of running the game.

In practical terms, don't attempt to learn all the rules at once. We should try to familiarise ourselves with one subset at a time, potentially setting up "learning sessions" with one other player to play out mock combats or discussing the ins and outs of a particular rule. "Nitpicking" forums can be held at random in the minutes before starting a game or at it's end, reading out a random rule from the books and asking the players to express what they like or don't like about the rule. These don't just have to occur pre-game, either. Bringing up such things while driving with friends, or at a bar, or between classes, encourages a sense of everyone having a part in learning the rules... which is a rising tide that potentially raises all boats.

Importantly, all such strategies contribute to the DM's proactive approach to the game, where we already know the rule before it's invoked, where we even expect the rule to be invoked, because we know precisely what monsters the party is about the meet, or what setting they're about to enter. With time and patience, this "knowing ahead of the game" itself becomes the impetus for knowing where to crack the books on the day of, which then really does permit us to look like we "know it all," when it fact we know it took a long, long time to get here.