Rules for DMs -- again

[Jay R]

Last summer, I posted my Rules for DMs. People seemed to like them and I updated them based on other people's comments. So here's the current version. Feel free to offer critiques or suggestions. Feel free to quote them anywhere, any time.

These rules were written for myself, for the way I run games. Not everybody agrees on how to run a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of them are serious, some are deliberately exaggerated for comic effect, but all of them are actual considerations when designing or running a world.

Feel free to offer critiques or suggestions. If you think a rule is wrong, feel free to say so. You may talk me out of it. Or you may show people your good way to play that's different from my good way to play. Either way, the discussion has value.

1. Don’t make it flammable if you don’t want it burnt.

2. The DM cannot make the PCs more complex than the players do. No matter what the character sheet says, there are usually only three PC alignments – Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and bravely turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.

4. It's your job to build the problem. It's their job to find a solution. If you create a death trap with only one solution, then then they cannot get out unless they figure out what your solution is. But if you build death trap with no solutions, then any clever plan they come up with might work.

a. The purpose of a death trap is not death; it is to make the players feel clever. Don't build one to cause death, and more importantly, don't build one to make them feel stupid.
b. An escape proof trap, is, by definition, escape proof. What you want is a fool proof trap, and allow your players to amaze you with the quality of fools being made today.
c. Do not confuse a death trap with no solutions with a death trap that cannot be solved. No resemblance.

5. Never let a player roll a die unless it is reasonable to roll a 20, and reasonable to roll a 1.

a. If there's no way to fail, don't roll. If there's no way to succeed, don't roll.
b. PCs should not roll for common or obvious knowledge. If the world has three moons, then they don't have to roll to remember it. They've lived under that sky all their life; they don't even have the idea of a world with only one moon.
c. If it doesn’t matter, then don’t roll dice; summarize. Rolling dice for mop-up combat is as pointless as rolling dice for tying your shoes.

6. At the start of the game, you should have in mind several ways for the PCs to fail. By contrast, it is not your job to find a way for them to succeed.

7. Reward good tactics, consistent characterization, and brilliant ideas more than lucky die rolls.

8. A role-playing game is run by rules. But it isn't made out of rules; it's made out of ideas, characters, and imagination.

9. The more completely you know the rules, the better you can be at ignoring them when necessary.

a. "When necessary" means it should be rare, forced by an unusual situation, and non-intrusive. [And some people believe it should not happen even then.]
b. Applying the rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong.
c. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

10. Never base a campaign on something you are more excited about than your players are. You may have a great idea for a story based around Andalusian left-handed barbed-wire weaving, but by definition, your players are less interested in it, and less knowledgeable about it, and won't get your clues or references. And they won't care.

11. Don’t hinge your adventure on the players figuring out a specific clue. Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean that it will seem obvious to your players. Have multiple clues, and/or multiple entries.

a. Know what you will do if they never figure out the clue.

12. Failing to solve the puzzle can cost them hit points, time, resources, curses, some treasure, or surprise attacks, but it should never cost them the adventure.

a. Some nice treasure can be behind the secret door, but the quest object cannot. [Unless there's another way to find it.]

13. If you aren’t willing for the players to have it, don’t put it in the game. Remember that if the NPC uses an item on the PCs, there are only two possible outcomes:

a. They party will all die, or
b. The party will wind up with the item.

14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game.
b. “Screwing up the game” includes genre-busting. Medieval fantasies don’t have railroads, factories, or atomic power; the players have no right to introduce them (unless genre-busting is a focus for that game).

15. The dice do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not roll a die if the result could screw up the game.

16. The DM does not have the right to screw up the PC's story. He does have the right to screw up the PCs' plans. Don’t confuse the two.

a. The player does have the right to screw up the PC's story -- even by accident. If a 2nd level PC chooses to attack a dragon, then the PC's death is his doing, not the DM's.

17. There are players who see the world as a series of activities they can safely and straightforwardly defeat, and there are players who see the world as a dangerous world with life-threatening risks behind every bush. You cannot run the same game for both sets. Neither is inherently bad, but know which kind of players you have.

a. If the term "CR" is a common part of the players' conversation, assume that you have the first group, and plan accordingly. Never count on them deciding to run away from an encounter.

18. When the players ask for something - an item, a skill, a feat, whatever - they are not planning to use it for what it is intended for, they're planning the weirdest thing it could possibly be used for. [If they were planning to use it as intended, then they wouldn’t bother to ask.]

19. A backstory is like a sword. Some characters are incomplete without one, and others wouldn't use one even if they had it.

20. A player's backstory isn't your toy to destroy if you want; it's part of their toy. You can threaten their friends, family, or homes, but by the end of the adventure, the players should not feel abused. Use their family as hostages, but expect them to be rescued, and to come home with more than they started with. If you burn down their cottage, they should wind up with a castle. The players should be glad that the backstory was used, not sorry that they had a background.

21. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

a. Identify the loudest player and the pushiest player. You will never need to set up their moments; they will do so.
b. Identify the quietest player and the least active player. You will need to set up their moments every session, and make it impossible for the first two to take these moments over.

22. A game is a co-operative venture. You don't have the right to force players into your game against their will, and for the same reasons, players don't have the right to force themselves into your game against your will.

a. Not all games are alike, and that's fine. Not all players want the same things out of a game, and that's fine.
b. Avoid having players who won't like the kind of game you're running. And then run a game your players will enjoy.

23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

24. The purpose of wandering monsters is to prevent the game from bogging down. If the players spend over five real minutes in useless discussion, then it's ghoul o'clock.

a. Be careful with this. Not all discussion is useless.
b. There should be encounters that have nothing to do with the main quest, or there is no world – just a party and a quest.

25. When the party’s victory is assured, the encounter has lost all suspense. Mop-up combat is boring, so end it.

a. Remember, the NPCs don’t want to die; they would usually rather flee, negotiate, or surrender.
b. One round earlier, when you know the PCs have won and they don’t yet, is a great time for the NPCs to offer to negotiate.
c. This is your opportunity to force-feed them that obvious fact they’ve been missing, and let them believe they earned it.

26. When you design a scenario, you should be firmly on the players' side, trying to produce encounters in which they have every legitimate chance to succeed (and that poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail). But when running the scenario, you need to be a fair and neutral judge of the PCs' actions.

27. As far as possible, interact with the characters, not the players.

a. The player is asking about the rules. The character is asking about the orcs. Don’t confuse the two.

28. Don't plan how to answer a player's question until you know what the question is. And don't approach all players the same.

a. The player who asks for nonsense should most often get a "No". The player whose requests are pretty basic and reasonable should most often get a "Yes". The player who asks for something cool and cinematic, but unlikely, requires a careful judgment call. She should sometimes get it -- but rarely enough that it creates a climactic moment, not an average move.
b. Think about a movie where you've seen something like this happen. Did the hero do it often? Probably the player should be allowed to do it often. Did the hero do it once, as a desperate move, at the big finish? Then save it for the big finish.

29. The player identifies with the PC, and will take what happens to the PC personally. If the PC wants to defeat the orcs, then the player wants to defeat the orcs. The DM does not have that luxury. The orcs want to kill the PCs, but the DM should not.

a. Follow Matt Dillon’s principle: “I never hang anybody. The law does.” The DM should never kill a PC. Sometimes the game might.

30. When the players come up with something you never considered, stop and think. This is the source of your absolute best, most perfect moments. It’s also where all scenario-destroying mistakes come from. Ask yourself which it is before you react.

a. "Scenario-ending" and "scenario-destroying" are not (necessarily) synonyms. You may have planned a major battle in front of the black Gate. But a PC endings the quest by throwing the Ring into the Cracks of Doom could still be a satisfying, if abrupt, ending.

31. You are here to give the players a challenge. But the challenge should be within the game (dragons, traps, puzzles), not playing the game (mapping, tracking equipment).

a. Having said that, they are in still charge of their character sheets and their equipment.

32. Remind them of things that their characters would not have forgotten, but not things that characters will forget.

a. The PCs can’t forget that they picked up a magic glaive, so if they start looking around for a long weapon, remind them that they have it. And they won’t forget the face of the sorceress who destroyed their village. But if they forgot that the blacksmith said he heard about ogres in the hills, then the PCs weren’t paying attention.
b. This can require some careful judgment calls.

33. You will make mistakes -- lots of them. A crucial skill to be a good DM is the ability to fix mistakes and as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

a. This will sometimes involve admitting them. It will also sometimes involve keeping the players from ever seeing them.
b. In either case, the point is to make the game go forward, not to repair your ego.

[Telok]

Is good.

Corollary to #1: PCs are flammable.

Re #9: This is the Chesterton's Fence issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...rton%27s_fence

[prabe]

There are some details that are different from how the tables I sit at mostly run, but I think the big picture is pretty much right--and it's probable-shading-to-certain that there are tables I don't sit at that run consistent with those details.

[Jay R]

Is good.

Corollary to #1: PCs are flammable.

Good point. I may point this out sometime when they are planning to burn something down for their own purposes.

Re #9: This is the Chesterton's Fence issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...rton%27s_fence

Good catch. Yes, I took that idea from Chesterton

[prabe]

Well, rule 1 applies to any and all forms of destruction, dunnit? I mean, if you make something susceptible to being struck by lighting, that's what the PCs will do, right? And in principle, just about any form of destruction can be applied to the PCs.

One of the things I like best about GMing advice is when it conflicts with my own opinions, because it makes me examine why I think and believe what I do. Seems fair to point out there are elements in this that do exactly that.

[D+1]

Lots to comment on here. As always, play it the way YOU want, not just the way someone else tells you you should.

These rules were written for myself, for the way I run games. Not everybody agrees on how to run a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Did pretty much the same thing several years ago with my "D&D Manifesto."

2. The DM cannot make the PCs more complex than the players do. No matter what the character sheet says, there are usually only three PC alignments – Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

IME there are more than that - but not many. I've never had a problem with alignment - it's always the OTHER guy who seems to hate it with the fire of 1000 suns or can't come to grips with it.

4. It's your job to build the problem. It's their job to find a solution. If you create a death trap with only one solution, then then they cannot get out unless they figure out what your solution is. But if you build death trap with no solutions, then any clever plan they come up with might work.

If you build a trap with NO solutions they can never solve it with any plan. A trap where any clever plan they come up with might work is a trap with MANY solutions.

a. The purpose of a death trap is not death; it is to make the players feel clever. Don't build one to cause death, and more importantly, don't build one to make them feel stupid.

Nothing wrong with a death trap in and of itself. The question is why do you, the DM, put it there instead of something else. PC's will die just fine with no special help from the DM. They can miss/ignore important clues, take more randomly rolled damage than they have hit points through no fault of their own, and miss a save-or-die roll by just 1 point, to name a few. A DM who sets out to deliberately kill PC's just to prove they can do it doesn't deserve to be a DM, so when you start adding death traps and save-or-die poisons and unavoidable level drains or whatever then you'd better have a solid reason why you feel the usual life-and-death stakes are just not enough - and then you'd better be providing players with commensurate warnings and tools to deal with the increased dangers.

5. Never let a player roll a die unless it is reasonable to roll a 20, and reasonable to roll a 1.
a. If there's no way to fail, don't roll. If there's no way to succeed, don't roll.

I have two somewhat related rules to #'s 4 and 5. First I call the Shelob Rule: You don't need poison to be deadly in order to be "scary". The other I call the Truth in Advertising Rule: If you succeed in a saving throw then it SAVES you - if a successful save causes half damage and that damage would otherwise reduce your hit points to 0 or lower, then you live with 1 hit point. A successful save CANNOT result in a character's death.

6. At the start of the game, you should have in mind several ways for the PCs to fail. By contrast, it is not your job to find a way for them to succeed.

But it IS your job to direct the entertainment that is playing D&D. A DM needs to have just as much interest in seeing the player characters ultimately succeed as the players themselves do. A DM who truly doesn't care if the PC's ever succeed is a DM who by definition doesn't care if anyone has any fun in playing the game. A DM can kill the PC's at any time, in any way. It's EASY. You generally don't have to even try. It'll just happen eventually. Engineering their success in the face of obvious obstacles (especially without it being obvious that's what you're doing) is MUCH harder.

7. Reward good tactics, consistent characterization, and brilliant ideas more than lucky die rolls.

And also don't base success and failure on lucky/unlucky die rolls.

8. A role-playing game is run by rules. But it isn't made out of rules; it's made out of ideas, characters, and imagination.

ABSOLUTELY.

9. The more completely you know the rules, the better you can be at ignoring them when necessary.
a. "When necessary" means it should be rare, forced by an unusual situation, and non-intrusive. [And some people believe it should not happen even then.]

Bollocks. :) A DM ALWAYS knows what's better for the game (and fun) than the rules. ALWAYS. Because rules don't know you, your players, or your game.

b. Applying the rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong.

Following stupid and problematic rules can be a good thing even though they're making something wrong. Sometimes sticking to even bad rules is preferable to alternatives, or it's done because there AREN'T acceptable alternatives. Yet changing perfectly functional rules is not always a bad thing either. COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES. It's okay. There are no gaming police. Ruthlessly beat down any player who insists that the rules run the game and then make a new rule for them to follow as punishment. :)

c. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

Bollocks. Sometimes the best way to learn why a rule exists is to change it, break it or remove it. Just be prepared to clean up the mess afterward.

10. Never base a campaign on something you are more excited about than your players are.

A DM who is more passionate about their campaign is a DM who wants to see that campaign succeed and see players enjoying it. If players have reservations about a campaign or have a lack of interest in the concept for it then the time to speak up is before agreeing to play. Even run-of-the-mill campaigns die because players or the DM themselves become bored with it. DM excitement about a campaign is actually preferred.

Know what you will do if they never figure out the clue.

YES.

13. If you aren’t willing for the players to have it, don’t put it in the game. Remember that if the NPC uses an item on the PCs, there are only two possible outcomes:

a. They party will all die, or
b. The party will wind up with the item.

YES.

Medieval fantasies don’t have railroads, factories, or atomic power; the players have no right to introduce them (unless genre-busting is a focus for that game).

Nonsense. Of course they include those things whether it's genre-bashing or not. If a DM doesn't want it because they feel that it breaks the particular tone they're trying to maintain that's one thing, but "fantasy" is pretty all-encompassing and just tacking "medieval" onto it doesn't mean all that much. Early D&D is most certainly chockablock with sci-fi, out-of-place cultures and societies, and anachronisms by the ton. Nothing wrong with wanting a particular campaign to be more narrowly defined but we need to be careful we're not painting D&D as a whole with that brush.

15. The dice do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not roll a die if the result could screw up the game.

Dice don't run the game. The DM runs the game. If the DM doesn't like their dice rolls the DM has not just the right but sometimes the responsibility to alter or outright ignore those rolls. Doesn't mean you should just because you can - but don't confuse the two. Just like the rules themselves, the dice do not know you, your players, nor your campaign.

16. The DM does not have the right to screw up the PC's story. He does have the right to screw up the PCs' plans. Don’t confuse the two.

a. The player does have the right to screw up the PC's story -- even by accident. If a 2nd level PC chooses to attack a dragon, then the PC's death is his doing, not the DM's.

A DM who plops a dragon in front of a 2nd level PC without warning is most DEFINITELY at fault if that PC then dies. The players control the actions of their PC's. NOTHING else. The DM controls EVERYTHING... except the actions of the PC's. Don't confuse THOSE two...

Never count on them deciding to run away from an encounter.

And understand WHY PC's never run away... Players don't want their characters to be weaklings, or cowards, or as stupid as the players themselves sometimes are. Not ever in my experience. And when PC's blunder their way into certain death, maybe they made the dumb choices that led them to it, but you CANNOT ignore the fact that the DM then LETS THEM. You don't HAVE to let them. Again, the rules don't run the game. The dice don't run the game. The DM runs the game. If the DM wants to save the PC's from the stupidity of the players they are certainly allowed to do so. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but just because YOU chose to NOT save them doesn't mean you made the right choice. Don't confuse the two. :)

18. When the players ask for something - an item, a skill, a feat, whatever - they are not planning to use it for what it is intended for, they're planning the weirdest thing it could possibly be used for. [If they were planning to use it as intended, then they wouldn’t bother to ask.]

And sometimes it might be fun just to see what they do...

20. A player's backstory isn't your toy to destroy if you want; it's part of their toy. You can threaten their friends, family, or homes, but by the end of the adventure, the players should not feel abused. Use their family as hostages, but expect them to be rescued, and to come home with more than they started with. If you burn down their cottage, they should wind up with a castle. The players should be glad that the backstory was used, not sorry that they had a background.

For ME, I believe that backstory is for the players own entertainment and not for myself as DM to really attempt to incorporate into the campaign. The reasons aren't complicated but take some explanation.

If you use one PC's backstory to create adventures then in most peoples perceptions you're being unfair to all the players whose backstories you DON'T build adventures on. Or you have one PC whose backstory lends itself to a series of... 20 adventures. Another PC has a backstory that isn't really conducive to more than 1. So you base the next year of the campaign on the backstory of the first PC while the second gets one brief moment in the backstory spotlight for a single session and that's it for them. So whose FAULT is that? Is that fair? Is that what backstories are really for? What if you have a player who doesn't EVER want their PC in the spotlight because the player isn't up for it? What if I have created a campaign that would end up being Lord of the Rings but the PC with all the backstory is Ash from the Evil Dead? Do I spoil my LotR campaign with Evil Dead elements because I am expected to incorporate ALL PC backstories EQUALLY into whatever campaign I have planned? What kind of DM am I if I haven't even planned a campaign but expect the backstories of the players to create one for me? What kind of player am I if I expect MY characters backstory to be as important or more important than whatever the DM had planned?

If a DM wants to use character backstories to flesh out the campaign - whether the DM had anything fleshed out already or not - that's fine (although a DM that has nothing planned for a campaign and is counting on PC backstories to make one strikes me as probably a pretty unimaginative and lazy DM). But PC backstory that ends up being used should not elevate any one PC to a position of overriding importance for the campaign unless all the other players are okay with that. Even then, if that PC then dies the campaign MUST be able to go on without them. If the DM does use any amount of backstory it can't be expected that all backstories will be given equal importance and relevance. ALL the players have to be okay with that too. No DM should ever REQUIRE backstory from players, and if they do then, "Is an orphan who found a bag of money and decided to be an adventurer," is all that they actually have a RIGHT to if the player - for whatever reasons - isn't inclined to write more.

Most of all, however, I don't think a backstory should EVER be a valid vehicle for any PC to leverage just to "get moar stuff!" No castles, titles, inheritances, relics or artifacts, special powers, rights, privileges, or protections, etc. etc. It doesn't entitle you to anything more or less than what any other PC is entitled to but who DIDN'T write a backstory that says they already own it or are owed it.

21. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

Nope. This is an equivalency falsehood. Not all players need or want the spotlight, and certainly not every session. Not every session is going to lend itself to providing a spotlight moment to every PC at some point and it's ludicrous to think it should. If a player HOGS the spotlight, turn it away from them and to someone else because it's not as if the group is playing the game to stoke any one persons ego. If players don't seek the spotlight who are you to PUSH THEM INTO IT? You're not anybody's therapist or life coach just because you're the DM. If you make sure to give them the opportunity to be in the spotlight on a regular basis that's something different, but if they want to be the wallflower and they don't take it, let them have fun just being there if that's THEIR choice. After all...

22a. Not all games are alike, and that's fine. Not all players want the same things out of a game, and that's fine.

23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

I'd agree that PC abilities should be things that they WANT to use, get opportunities to use, and are effective (insofar as they are meant to be effective), but not sure that this is the way to go about that.

24. The purpose of wandering monsters is to prevent the game from bogging down.

It's only one possible purpose. Another, just off the top of my head, is to simply deplete resources in anticipation of another encounter to occur soon afterward.

27. As far as possible, interact with the characters, not the players.

a. The player is asking about the rules. The character is asking about the orcs. Don’t confuse the two.

The two are not necessarily separate subjects. "Can orcs see in the dark?" Is that a player asking about rules or a character asking about the orcs down the dungeon corridor? No reason to treat the question as if it can (and MUST) only be one or the other.

The player who asks for something cool and cinematic, but unlikely, requires a careful judgment call. She should sometimes get it -- but rarely enough that it creates a climactic moment, not an average move.

Just because the DM allows something once doesn't make it a rule forever.

31. You are here to give the players a challenge. But the challenge should be within the game (dragons, traps, puzzles), not playing the game (mapping, tracking equipment).

a. Having said that, they are in still charge of their character sheets and their equipment.

Yeah, in the early days of D&D those elements of mapping, tracking equipment and the like were BIG factors. They were let go over time because they tended to use up time and weren't fun. But it turns out that sometimes those bits of tedium were controlling things that needed to be controlled. Don't keep a map and players have no freakin' idea where their PC's actually ARE. Don't track equipment and the PC's never run out of water in the desert, lack food on year-long treks, can carry TONS of dead weight apiece, have infinite arrows coming from just one quiver that only holds 20, and ALWAYS have at least one more flask of oil. You ignore that tedium entirely at a genuine cost.

In either case, the point is to make the game go forward, not to repair your ego.

Yep

[Zarrgon]

Lets see....

1. Don’t make it flammable if you don’t want it burnt.

Good start and good advice. And this is even more generic, though I'm not use how to word "make anything PC proof"....

2. The DM cannot make the PCs more complex than the players do. No matter what the character sheet says, there are usually only three PC alignments – Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

Well, no there are lots of PC alignments like Clueless and Follower and such. And while a number of players want zero complexity, a large number do want it, but don't know how. A DM that helps a player become a more complex player gets a good reward.

3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and bravely turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.

No. Players want all sorts of things, unless that is just what your saying here. But then this should be more like "the wants of a player change day to day, or even more often".

4. It's your job to build the problem. It's their job to find a solution. If you create a death trap with only one solution, then then they cannot get out unless they figure out what your solution is. But if you build death trap with no solutions, then any clever plan they come up with might work.

a. The purpose of a death trap is not death; it is to make the players feel clever. Don't build one to cause death, and more importantly, don't build one to make them feel stupid.
b. An escape proof trap, is, by definition, escape proof. What you want is a fool proof trap, and allow your players to amaze you with the quality of fools being made today.
c. Do not confuse a death trap with no solutions with a death trap that cannot be solved. No resemblance.

Well you start with problems and solutions, but then focus only on death traps. Maybe more encounter problems should be made as detailed and complex as possible: more working parts equals more things that can be effected, blocked or whatever. Except for very silly stuff, you should give any "MacGyvering" a rough 50% of working or at least being partly effective.

5. Never let a player roll a die unless it is reasonable to roll a 20, and reasonable to roll a 1.

a. If there's no way to fail, don't roll. If there's no way to succeed, don't roll.
b. PCs should not roll for common or obvious knowledge. If the world has three moons, then they don't have to roll to remember it. They've lived under that sky all their life; they don't even have the idea of a world with only one moon.
c. If it doesn’t matter, then don’t roll dice; summarize. Rolling dice for mop-up combat is as pointless as rolling dice for tying your shoes.

This one is good, and goes with number four of giving complex details. If the trapped room has a one foot round air hole the PCs should notice that with out asking and making a roll.

6. At the start of the game, you should have in mind several ways for the PCs to fail. By contrast, it is not your job to find a way for them to succeed.

Fail? That does not sound right. Maybe At the start of the game, you should have in mind several ways for the PCs to have an adventure. (and for the players to have fun).

7. Reward good tactics, consistent characterization, and brilliant ideas more than lucky die rolls.

Good one here....except never reward dice rolls: really what would be the point.

8. A role-playing game is run by rules. But it isn't made out of rules; it's made out of ideas, characters, and imagination.

Good.

9. The more completely you know the rules, the better you can be at ignoring them when necessary.

a. "When necessary" means it should be rare, forced by an unusual situation, and non-intrusive. [And some people believe it should not happen even then.]
b. Applying the rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong.
c. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

Eh, well I'm far more Old School so I think of the rules as suggestions. Though saying "changing a rule should be a rare thing. There are plenty of ways for a DM to add to a game, take away from a game or change things in a game while using the rules."

10. Never base a campaign on something you are more excited about than your players are. You may have a great idea for a story based around Andalusian left-handed barbed-wire weaving, but by definition, your players are less interested in it, and less knowledgeable about it, and won't get your clues or references. And they won't care.

This is such a tough one. It's sooooo hard to get most players even slightly excited about something that they want to do, let alone anything else. That being said, a DM should always be super excited about the base of a campaign: it will show in everything the DM does. The unexcited DM that does not care is the worst.

11. Don’t hinge your adventure on the players figuring out a specific clue. Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean that it will seem obvious to your players. Have multiple clues, and/or multiple entries.

a. Know what you will do if they never figure out the clue.

True. Follow the three clue rule, at least.

12. Failing to solve the puzzle can cost them hit points, time, resources, curses, some treasure, or surprise attacks, but it should never cost them the adventure.

a. Some nice treasure can be behind the secret door, but the quest object cannot. [Unless there's another way to find it.]

Well.....no. The worst thing the Pcs can do is fail the adventure, and it should always be on the table. The chance of failure is what makes the reward of success so great. There is a huge difference between a group that finished the adventure that they knew they could never fail, and the group that fought and thought tooth and mind vs a DM controlling a hostile world directly opposed against their characters succeeding.

13. If you aren’t willing for the players to have it, don’t put it in the game. Remember that if the NPC uses an item on the PCs, there are only two possible outcomes:

a. They party will all die, or
b. The party will wind up with the item.

Very true, good one.

14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game.
b. “Screwing up the game” includes genre-busting. Medieval fantasies don’t have railroads, factories, or atomic power; the players have no right to introduce them (unless genre-busting is a focus for that game).

Good enough.

15. The dice do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not roll a die if the result could screw up the game.

Well, again here I'd point to the randomness of the dice roll to be a great thing in an RPG. And "the game" and "the DMs plot" is a bit blurry. Still a dice roll could and should have the chance of radically altering the game, in just about any unforeseen direction.

16. The DM does not have the right to screw up the PC's story. He does have the right to screw up the PCs' plans. Don’t confuse the two.

a. The player does have the right to screw up the PC's story -- even by accident. If a 2nd level PC chooses to attack a dragon, then the PC's death is his doing, not the DM's.

A bit of odd word play as is what is a Pcs "story" vs a "plan"? Even the vague statement you seem to be making of "the only time and way a DM can ever screw over a PC is when they willing take an action that has consequences. It sounds good that ok the DM can kill a 2nd level PC that attacks a dragon, but at the same time a DM should and must be able to take any action in the whole game world without first having the Pc roll out a red carpet and givng the DM permission to do so.

17. There are players who see the world as a series of activities they can safely and straightforwardly defeat, and there are players who see the world as a dangerous world with life-threatening risks behind every bush. You cannot run the same game for both sets. Neither is inherently bad, but know which kind of players you have.

a. If the term "CR" is a common part of the players' conversation, assume that you have the first group, and plan accordingly. Never count on them deciding to run away from an encounter.

This falls under the more general know and understand your players.

18. When the players ask for something - an item, a skill, a feat, whatever - they are not planning to use it for what it is intended for, they're planning the weirdest thing it could possibly be used for. [If they were planning to use it as intended, then they wouldn’t bother to ask

Well, not always true. And it's a bit vague. Maybe more like players often try strange, crazy or weird things with items, skills, feats or whatever and as a DM you should be ready for this.

In just about all cases the game rules should always apply to any strange, crazy or weird things a player attempts to do.(Just like the DM above). Most things should work, at least partly, but often won't make the 'giant leap' the player wants.

19. A backstory is like a sword. Some characters are incomplete without one, and others wouldn't use one even if they had it.

Good enough

20. A player's backstory isn't your toy to destroy if you want; it's part of their toy. You can threaten their friends, family, or homes, but by the end of the adventure, the players should not feel abused. Use their family as hostages, but expect them to be rescued, and to come home with more than they started with. If you burn down their cottage, they should wind up with a castle. The players should be glad that the backstory was used, not sorry that they had a background.

Er, well this is like the above saying the DM can't do anything negative to a characters back story. If the player wishes for their back story to be an active part of the game, they must accept what happens.

21. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

a. Identify the loudest player and the pushiest player. You will never need to set up their moments; they will do so.
b. Identify the quietest player and the least active player. You will need to set up their moments every session, and make it impossible for the first two to take these moments over.

Yes, a good one.

22. A game is a co-operative venture. You don't have the right to force players into your game against their will, and for the same reasons, players don't have the right to force themselves into your game against your will.

a. Not all games are alike, and that's fine. Not all players want the same things out of a game, and that's fine.
b. Avoid having players who won't like the kind of game you're running. And then run a game your players will enjoy.

OK

23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

Good one.

24. The purpose of wandering monsters is to prevent the game from bogging down. If the players spend over five real minutes in useless discussion, then it's ghoul o'clock.

a. Be careful with this. Not all discussion is useless.
b. There should be encounters that have nothing to do with the main quest, or there is no world – just a party and a quest.

Ok

25. When the party’s victory is assured, the encounter has lost all suspense. Mop-up combat is boring, so end it.

a. Remember, the NPCs don’t want to die; they would usually rather flee, negotiate, or surrender.
b. One round earlier, when you know the PCs have won and they don’t yet, is a great time for the NPCs to offer to negotiate.
c. This is your opportunity to force-feed them that obvious fact they’ve been missing, and let them believe they earned it.

Good one

26. When you design a scenario, you should be firmly on the players' side, trying to produce encounters in which they have every legitimate chance to succeed (and that poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail). But when running the scenario, you need to be a fair and neutral judge of the PCs' actions.

Ok

27. As far as possible, interact with the characters, not the players.

a. The player is asking about the rules. The character is asking about the orcs. Don’t confuse the two.

Well, big no here. The DM is not playing the game with a fictional character, they are playing the game with another real person. The DM and player should interact often.

28. Don't plan how to answer a player's question until you know what the question is. And don't approach all players the same.

a. The player who asks for nonsense should most often get a "No". The player whose requests are pretty basic and reasonable should most often get a "Yes". The player who asks for something cool and cinematic, but unlikely, requires a careful judgment call. She should sometimes get it -- but rarely enough that it creates a climactic moment, not an average move.
b. Think about a movie where you've seen something like this happen. Did the hero do it often? Probably the player should be allowed to do it often. Did the hero do it once, as a desperate move, at the big finish? Then save it for the big finish.

Ok

29. The player identifies with the PC, and will take what happens to the PC personally. If the PC wants to defeat the orcs, then the player wants to defeat the orcs. The DM does not have that luxury. The orcs want to kill the PCs, but the DM should not.

a. Follow Matt Dillon’s principle: “I never hang anybody. The law does.” The DM should never kill a PC. Sometimes the game might.

This is true for DMs, note it should also be true of players.

30. When the players come up with something you never considered, stop and think. This is the source of your absolute best, most perfect moments. It’s also where all scenario-destroying mistakes come from. Ask yourself which it is before you react.

a. "Scenario-ending" and "scenario-destroying" are not (necessarily) synonyms. You may have planned a major battle in front of the black Gate. But a PC endings the quest by throwing the Ring into the Cracks of Doom could still be a satisfying, if abrupt, ending.

Good one.

31. You are here to give the players a challenge. But the challenge should be within the game (dragons, traps, puzzles), not playing the game (mapping, tracking equipment).

a. Having said that, they are in still charge of their character sheets and their equipment.

Er, feels a bit odd. Playing the game is a huge challenge to many players.

32. Remind them of things that their characters would not have forgotten, but not things that characters will forget.

a. The PCs can’t forget that they picked up a magic glaive, so if they start looking around for a long weapon, remind them that they have it. And they won’t forget the face of the sorceress who destroyed their village. But if they forgot that the blacksmith said he heard about ogres in the hills, then the PCs weren’t paying attention.
b. This can require some careful judgment calls.

Fair enough, though I require players to take notes.

33. You will make mistakes -- lots of them. A crucial skill to be a good DM is the ability to fix mistakes and as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

a. This will sometimes involve admitting them. It will also sometimes involve keeping the players from ever seeing them.
b. In either case, the point is to make the game go forward, not to repair your ego.

Ok



Hummmm....this makes me want to post my own version.

[Pauly]

Re number 3:
I would suggest “What the players say they want and what they actually want are rarely the same”. Players often say they want edge of their seats, difficult, do or die encounters. What they really want is ROFL stomps, lots of loot with a tough boss fight every now and then. Players say they want complex multilayered puzzles, but when they encounter such a problem they’ll hit it with increasingly bigger hammers until it breaks.

[Mastikator]

@Jay R Is it okay if I copy these for my own uses? I'll credit you as "Jay R from GiantITP".

[kyoryu]

1. Don’t make it flammable if you don’t want it burnt.

Generalized beyond burning, absolutely. Don't introduce a PC that you don't want to die.

3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and bravely turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.

Generalized, players want to feel heroic. What feels heroic, in the moment is to curbstomp their opponents. What feels heroic, the next day, is to have eked out a victory against apparently insurmountable odds.

A good mix of the two is probably a good idea.

4. It's your job to build the problem. It's their job to find a solution. If you create a death trap with only one solution, then then they cannot get out unless they figure out what your solution is. But if you build death trap with no solutions, then any clever plan they come up with might work.

As others have pointed out, and I believe you intended, the point is not to make something from which no escape is possible. The point is to not commit yourself to one solution for escape, as by doing so you will bias yourself against the ideas of your players.

As a second point, remember that your trap exists in context - the thing it protects needs access, and the people making it had limited resources. As a GM you have unlimited funds, and don't need to worry about the practicalities. If the Artifact Of Doom is behind a trap, remember that at some point somebody will need it, and the point of the trap is to keep out the people who shouldn't have access... this provides the window the PCs need to exploit.

a. If there's no way to fail, don't roll. If there's no way to succeed, don't roll.

I've started to prefer looking at rolls in many cases as "goes well" and "goes poorly" instead of "succeeds" and "fails". While often times those map directly, it offers a few other options in cases where there's uncertainty, even if the overall "success" or "failure" is obvious.

6. At the start of the game, you should have in mind several ways for the PCs to fail. By contrast, it is not your job to find a way for them to succeed.

This goes back to the idea of having traps with no preset solution. By not designing a success path, you open yourself to what the players come up with.

7. Reward good tactics, consistent characterization, and brilliant ideas more than lucky die rolls.

Games are a series of interesting decisions. Focus on the decisions more than the rolls. Good play is not a matter of optimizing bonuses, it's a matter of putting yourself in positions where the rolls won't kill you.

10. Never base a campaign on something you are more excited about than your players are. You may have a great idea for a story based around Andalusian left-handed barbed-wire weaving, but by definition, your players are less interested in it, and less knowledgeable about it, and won't get your clues or references. And they won't care.

... and figuring out what your players are excited about and adding it to your game is a wonderful thing to do. You still get to invest in it - they're giving you ingredients, you get to make the dish.

14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

And your plot shouldn't be a completely linear set of things, otherwise if you give them any choices at all they will screw it up. This goes hand-in-hand with the "don't make solutions for your trap" advice - the more you're open to what the players do, the better off you are. They're supposed to make decisions - any point in your prep where you start putting down things "and then the players will/must" you're in dangerous territory.

17. There are players who see the world as a series of activities they can safely and straightforwardly defeat, and there are players who see the world as a dangerous world with life-threatening risks behind every bush. You cannot run the same game for both sets. Neither is inherently bad, but know which kind of players you have.

At the minimum, be aware of the two. Tell the players which one you're doing. And make an early encounter, one way or the other, that establishes that. If they need to run away sometimes, give them something they should run away from, and tell them that in the middle of the encounter, and encourage them to do so.

20. A player's backstory isn't your toy to destroy if you want; it's part of their toy. You can threaten their friends, family, or homes, but by the end of the adventure, the players should not feel abused. Use their family as hostages, but expect them to be rescued, and to come home with more than they started with. If you burn down their cottage, they should wind up with a castle. The players should be glad that the backstory was used, not sorry that they had a background.

This ties into the whole "find out what your players are invested in, and use that" bit.

22. A game is a co-operative venture. You don't have the right to force players into your game against their will, and for the same reasons, players don't have the right to force themselves into your game against your will.

a. Not all games are alike, and that's fine. Not all players want the same things out of a game, and that's fine.
b. Avoid having players who won't like the kind of game you're running. And then run a game your players will enjoy.

Also, make sure you're clear about what kind of game you're running. "Let's do a roleplaying game" or "let's play D&D" are massively insufficient. Talk about your expectations and how you think you're going to run things. Use examples. General terms can be misinterpreted. Specific examples are often easier to get crisp about.

24. The purpose of wandering monsters is to prevent the game from bogging down. If the players spend over five real minutes in useless discussion, then it's ghoul o'clock.

This is definitely situational. Sometimes random encounters exist to show the danger of the world and the cost of travel.

26. When you design a scenario, you should be firmly on the players' side, trying to produce encounters in which they have every legitimate chance to succeed (and that poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail). But when running the scenario, you need to be a fair and neutral judge of the PCs' actions.

Both sides of this are super important. The players must believe that they both can succeed, and can fail. That's where suspense comes into play.

If they ever start believing that one or the other is untrue, they'll check out. Sometimes this won't even be at a conscious level.

If they never fail, they'll figure that out eventually. A lesser threat you're willing to follow through on is more effective than a bigger threat that you won't.

a. Follow Matt Dillon’s principle: “I never hang anybody. The law does.” The DM should never kill a PC. Sometimes the game might.

Also, have negative consequences in your bag besides death, or even personal consequences. Sometimes the bad guys win, at least temporarily. This happens in every movie.

30. When the players come up with something you never considered, stop and think. This is the source of your absolute best, most perfect moments. It’s also where all scenario-destroying mistakes come from. Ask yourself which it is before you react.

If your players are generally acting in good faith, presume they're acting in good faith, and that they're proposing something because it makes sense to them. Try to find a way that it makes sense.

"Makes sense" should be based on what is revealed, not your plans behind the curtain.

a. "Scenario-ending" and "scenario-destroying" are not (necessarily) synonyms. You may have planned a major battle in front of the black Gate. But a PC endings the quest by throwing the Ring into the Cracks of Doom could still be a satisfying, if abrupt, ending.

The scenario may end in lots of ways, and that's cool. Maybe the bad guys win and summon demons and now the game is about pushing back the invasion. That's just as cool as heroically stopping the summoning ritual.

32. Remind them of things that their characters would not have forgotten, but not things that characters will forget.

The PCs live in this world, moment to moment. The brief conversation with a blacksmith, in game time, may be several hours, but will take two minutes in table time and then not thought about until next week. Do not make the players remember things the PC would remember. And err on the side of the PC remembering.

33. You will make mistakes -- lots of them. A crucial skill to be a good DM is the ability to fix mistakes and as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

a. This will sometimes involve admitting them. It will also sometimes involve keeping the players from ever seeing them.
b. In either case, the point is to make the game go forward, not to repair your ego.

Once the mistake is obvious to the players, own it. Unless you're dealing with a bunch of jerks, they'll understand that you're human.

[Delta]

Re number 3:
I would suggest “What the players say they want and what they actually want are rarely the same”. Players often say they want edge of their seats, difficult, do or die encounters. What they really want is ROFL stomps, lots of loot with a tough boss fight every now and then. Players say they want complex multilayered puzzles, but when they encounter such a problem they’ll hit it with increasingly bigger hammers until it breaks.

This so much, people in general are absolutely awful at figuring out and then communicating what they actually want. A player will say "Oh I want a layered plot, complex characters, a dramatic story" while he really wants to smash hordes of goblins and gather mountains of loot, but for some reason our mind is conditioned to think the first thing that comes to our mind when we think of fun is somehow "bad", and has to make up something more interesting, more "correct".

[Tanarii]

31. You are here to give the players a challenge. But the challenge should be within the game (dragons, traps, puzzles), not playing the game (mapping, tracking equipment).
a. Having said that, they are in still charge of their character sheets and their equipment.

b. Mapping and tracking equipment is a good challenge from within the game if it enhances game play, and a bad challenge in playing the game if it's a pain in the ass and doesn't enhance game play.

[kyoryu]

b. Mapping and tracking equipment is a good challenge from within the game if it enhances game play, and a bad challenge in playing the game if it's a pain in the ass and doesn't enhance game play.

Yup, mapping was definitely a part of old-school play, and an integral part of gameplay.

That doesn't mean it should be for every game.

[The Shoeless]

25. When the party’s victory is assured, the encounter has lost all suspense. Mop-up combat is boring, so end it.

a. Remember, the NPCs don’t want to die; they would usually rather flee, negotiate, or surrender.

Yes. I would like to send this back in time to every DM I ever had.

[Lorsa]

I'm finding #24 to be the most troublesome when worded this way. Sure, there are moments when wandering monsters are great for moving the game along, or bringing in some excitement or action-scene. However, it can vary greatly between players what is thought of as "useless" when it comes to discussion. And sometimes, you need moments to unwind and relax (more slow scenes), you really can't keep up high adrenaline for several hours.

Basically, it ties into "the flow of the game", which is often an overlooked part for many DMs. And just like everyone likes different movies, so do players prefer different games. Some people think Game of Thrones has too much talky bits, and some people think Jason Statham movies have too much action.

I prefer to think of it as something akin to:

#24: One reason for wandering monsters is to kick-start the game when a scene has dragged out too long and everyone is feeling bored.

[Tanarii]

I prefer to think of it as something akin to:

#24: One reason for wandering monsters is to kick-start the game when a scene has dragged out too long and everyone is feeling bored.

#24 The primary reason for wandering monsters is to make time a meaningful resource, so the players don't waste it.

Personally I'm not a fan of DM judgement on if they should happen. Give the players the chance of it happening per period of time, let them decide if they want to use time or not. No need for them to look sideways at the DM to see if they're using it usefully in the DMs judgement, they can decide themselves.

[Zarrgon]

I'd go with:

#24: The Primary reason for random encounters is to make the gameplay feel more chaotic and real.

Too many games do either the:

1.Set encounters only happen at set times and set places according to the DMs plot and story

Or

2.Encounters only happen when the players wish to have one and give the DM permission to do so.

Both are horrible as they only have some encounters at some times. They loose that random chaos of life. An RPG is best when it's a living breathing world well out of anyone's control.

Personally I'm not a fan of DM judgement on if they should happen.

Well, there is no one else at the table to do it, so this burden like many others must fall on the DM.

[Tanarii]

Well, there is no one else at the table to do it, so this burden like many others must fall on the DM.

That's what dice are for.

[Pauly]

34. It is ok for the DM to deliberately murder a PC if:-
(a) the player is not having fun playing the character and playing a different character will cause that player to have fun.
(b) the character is causing other players to not have fun.
However;
- it is never OK for the player to become aware that it was a planned hit.
- It is never OK to murder a character because the DM has issues with the player.

[Cygnia]

A DM who sets out to deliberately kill PC's just to prove they can do it doesn't deserve to be a DM

*ahem*

LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN BACK TRYING TO SHUT THEIR EYES AND BLOCK THEIR EARS!

[Lord Raziere]

2. The DM cannot make the PCs more complex than the players do. No matter what the character sheet says, there are usually only three PC alignments – Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

No.

alignments don't exist. period. these are just stereotypes based on lowest common denominator DnD nonsense or rolepalying horror stories. I don't think this should rule should exist. I've never seen anybody fall into any of these.

[Vahnavoi]

No.

alignments don't exist. period. these are just stereotypes based on lowest common denominator DnD nonsense or rolepalying horror stories. I don't think this should rule should exist. I've never seen anybody fall into any of these.

I recognize the stereotypes, but I think it's a bad rule for other reasons. For one, taken at face value, it's not an actual productive game rule a GM can follow, just a statement of limited player ability. For two, I don't think the statement is true. Having played characters made by others and having run games with variety of prewritten and random characters, I think it's easy for a character designer to give ideas to players that they wouldn't otherwise think of.

---

10. Never base a campaign on something you are more excited about than your players are. You may have a great idea for a story based around Andalusian left-handed barbed-wire weaving, but by definition, your players are less interested in it, and less knowledgeable about it, and won't get your clues or references. And they won't care.

I don't think this rule actually works. Running a game is frequently more work than playing it. If a GM is only as excited as their players or less, that's a recipe for smoking out the GM. Furthermore, in my experience the best way to get players interested in a weird game is to have the GM be excited about.

I'd revise the rule as "run the game you want to run and your players want to play in, not the game you want to play in", because running a game and playing it are frequently different beasts.

[Zarrgon]

I'd revise the rule as "run the game you want to run and your players want to play in, not the game you want to play in", because running a game and playing it are frequently different beasts.

Well, maybe not.

I think the DM having the ability to put themselves in the game as a virtual character is a good thing. Far too many DMs forget what it is like to be a player or just don't care.

[Vahnavoi]

That has little to do with what I wrote.

[prabe]

I'd revise the rule as "run the game you want to run and your players want to play in, not the game you want to play in", because running a game and playing it are frequently different beasts.

I'll reply to this, differently: Running a game and playing in a game are different things, but if you've played in enough games you've probably seen GMs do things you didn't like; don't do those. You've probably seen GMs do things you like; do those. Also, it's not necessarily bad to run a game you'd love to play in, if your preferences aren't relentlessly fringe.

That at least seems more responsive, no? I know that I've learned a lot about the type of game I like, playing in a lot of games, and I try to run a game I like--both a game I enjoy running and a game I'd like to play in.

[Vahnavoi]

You're still barely touching what Jay R's rule and mine are about. We were writing about GM's motivation to run a specific type of game. You're talking about empirically learning from played games. Two different topics. Even if the game I want to run is also a game I'd like to play in, it does not follow that running it is at all similar than playing in it.

Let's take a few example to make it more obvious what I actually meant:

1) There's a convention coming. Person A wants to play a basket-weaving game in the convention. Person B wants to run a basket-weaving game in the convention. Which of these people is more likely to actually make the game happen in the convention?

2) There are two groups with rotating GMs. In Group A, they rotate the GM as a compromise because everyone wants to play, but no-one wants to run a game. In Group B, they rotate the GM because everyone wants to run a game in addition to wanting to play in each other's games. Which of these groups has a better dynamic?

3) A couple of people buy a gamebook. None of their friends really know what RPGs are. Person A isn't very excited about the game. Person B is excited about playing the game, but not about running it. Person C is really excited about getting to run the game. Which of these people is most likely to tell their friends about the game and make them excited enough to play it?

[prabe]

You're still barely touching what Jay R's rule and mine are about. We were writing about GM's motivation to run a specific type of game. You're talking about empirically learning from played games. Two different topics. Even if the game I want to run is also a game I'd like to play in, it does not follow that running it is at all similar than playing in it.

Let's take a few example to make it more obvious what I actually meant:

1) There's a convention coming. Person A wants to play a basket-weaving game in the convention. Person B wants to run a basket-weaving game in the convention. Which of these people is more likely to actually make the game happen in the convention?

2) There are two groups with rotating GMs. In Group A, they rotate the GM as a compromise because everyone wants to play, but no-one wants to run a game. In Group B, they rotate the GM because everyone wants to run a game in addition to wanting to play in each other's games. Which of these groups has a better dynamic?

3) A couple of people buy a gamebook. None of their friends really know what RPGs are. Person A isn't very excited about the game. Person B is excited about playing the game, but not about running it. Person C is really excited about getting to run the game. Which of these people is most likely to tell their friends about the game and make them excited enough to play it?

That's fair. I guess I was thinking that (to pick an example) a game of Call of Cthulhu that you run might well be very different from one that I run. So "run the game you want to play" doesn't 100% map to "run the rules you want to play." I didn't see anything in JayR's rule that specified rulesets. One person's D&D game might be all kick-in-the-door dungeoncrawling, another's might be more centered around the characters' pasts and goals and be story- or goal- or quest-based (pick your word, there; IMO they're close but not identical).

To answer your examples, One and Three are obvious (the person who wants to run, in both cases), but while I'll concede that in Example Two Group B is likely having a better time, that doesn't necessarily mean their dynamic is better: Group A can have just as good a dynamic as far as gameplay and intragroup relationships go. So long as no one goes Full Metal Martyr, rotating what they all find less-preferable doesn't seem to me as though it must be better than rotating that which they all want to do.

My own approach has been to run campaigns I'd love to play in. Not so much the game I want to play in as a game I want to play in. None of them are centered around anything so obscure as Andalusian barbed-wire weaving, and the players seem to all be enjoying themselves.

[Seto]

Very solid! I'm impressed. I can get behind pretty much everything - I think your rules are sensible, and more than that, they show an understanding of GMing gained through trial, error and experience. I generally aspire to follow that kind of advice.

Just for the sake of being nitpicky, I'd say that in regards to rule 24, wandering monsters, if they consist of an unplanned encounter, can sometimes bog down the game far more than a conversation could. If it's a quick ghoul or two and it's over in a couple rounds, sure. But the encounter being random, since by definition the GM hasn't researched and designed the encounter around the monster's abilities, tactics and terrain, runs the risk of being either boring or having unforeseen consequences ("oops, I didn't see that monster could paralyze with a touch, and it's the one thing the PCs can't cure. Let's get out of the dungeon now I guess"). And there are other ways to deal with an improductive conversation that's bogging down the game: oftentimes, just reminding the players of their options and asking them what they do will take care of it.
So in the case of rule 24, I would use one of three solutions: either use a monster that you know will be quickly and easily defeated ; use a wandering encounter that you prepared and have on hand, ready to spring at any moment ; or just interrupt the conversation by introducing another event, or just by pointedly asking "what do you do?".

As for rule 31, I agree that I don't like to bother (or make my players bother) about things like encumbrance or keeping track of trail rations, unless it's a situation where it should specifically matter, and then the session will be designed around it. Mapping, however, can be a fun and immersive part of exploring a dungeon or unknown wilderness. (Especially when you have puzzles relying on the layout of the map. I've seen it used at least twice, and used it myself at least once.)

[Tanarii]

I don't think this rule actually works. Running a game is frequently more work than playing it. If a GM is only as excited as their players or less, that's a recipe for smoking out the GM. Furthermore, in my experience the best way to get players interested in a weird game is to have the GM be excited about.

No, it's pretty accurate.

It probably just needs a sub-letter caveat:
a) don't run a game you're really not interested in. You'll burn out.

The way it's written, it more about GMs being super excited about something really niche for a campaign theme, based on something the GM know a lot about. You won't hold their attention if you run a game based on your in-depth knowledge of Anime X setting if your players have absolutely no clue what's going on. That's why I don't seriously bone up and read everything I can find on Forgotten Realms lore. I want to be able to use it as a viable backdrop for campaigns.

[Vahnavoi]

That's why my rule has that "and" clause. Regardless, I think you're getting sidetracked by exaggarated example - Jay R notes that some of his rules are exaggerated for punchiness. Because regardless of how niche a game is, the GM typically will have to know more about both the rules and the setting, than their players. That requires more "excitement" or it will get mentally exhausting.

Let's flip this around and think of what happens if the GM is less excited about the game than the players. F. ex. you're trying to hold a Realms game, but all your players are putting more work into knowing the setting than you are. How's that a better dynamic?