Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-11-27 20:24:56
Converted from Phorums BB System



Seanchai wrote:
-------------------------------
<i>Are you going to run it like D&D?</i>
-------------------------------

I've never run <i>D&D,</i> only played it.

BRP <b>Call of Cthulhu</b> was the first game I ever ran and I've run pretty much every other game -- <i>RuneQuest, SuperWorld, Pendragon, Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, Justice Inc., DC Heroes</i> plus a couple I've probably forgotten -- in the same way. I stand up, gesture, describe the situation, play the NPCs, answer the players questions, determine the consequences of the character's actions, moderate the rules, etc. It's a style of GMing that works well for me and I don't see any reason to change it. In <b>CoC</b> there's a stronger emphasis on mood than in other games -- which tend to emphasis other things -- but the core of the GMing style remains basically the same.

I'm not sure what my GMing style has to do with the question, though. The rules exist independently of how I GM the game. They act as an independent way of resolving how characters interact with the world. While the rules can be changed, they have to remain independent of the GM and the players, otherwise what's the point in having rules?

If the rules have lots of special little features that no-one can remember and which they have to keep checking, that's going to affect how the game is played than if they don't. Or if various features function in similar ways that you can figure out how an unknown feature works by analogy to other features you do remember. The first will obviously require more rulesbook consulting than a game without lots of little features or with a more consistent system.

[I'm not slamming the d20 system here. Based on what I can remember of playing <i>AD&D,</i> third edition <i>D&D</> is a much more consistent system, meaning there's less that needs to be looked up. For me, that's an improvement.]

I've always treated game rules as being like <i>Robert's Rules of Order</i> for running committee meetings. When everything's going well and everyone's of a like mind, they are superfluous, but when problems arise, they provide ways to mediate disputes between participants that are fair, impartial and separate from those engaged in the disagreement.

Regards,

Zoran