Imperfect GM

Successful GMing begins and ends with having clear goals and effective strategies to accomplish those goals. Different types of roleplaying games have different goals and strategies; you have to make sure your goals and strategies sync with the type of game you are GMing. For example, if a strong and unified narrative is your goal then don't play a collaborative game, actually if a strong and unified narrative is your goal you might be better off writing a novel than playing any roleplaying game.

Traditional tabletop RPGs like D&D require the GMs to do it all: they have to create the setting, develop the story-arcs, roleplay the NPCs, adjudicate the rules, resolve disputes, and be good hosts. As you move away from this to other types of RPGs, the GM surrenders these duties to the other players until we eventually reach the point that there's no GM. It is critically important for the GM to understand who has what duties and to respect that. If your goals and strategies as a GM are tied to duties that the RPG bestows upon the players then you are either going to botch things up or be very frustrated. If the players have to decide the weather in the game then as the GM you need to not be involved with that decision. This can be very challenging, honestly it took me years to learn how to facilitate collaborative RPGs after decades of running more traditional tabletop RPGs. It is hard to step back and let things play out.

I feel it is very useful for GMs to explore this continuum of games, because a lot of collaborative RPGs break down roleplaying to the fundamentals, which is an invaluable experience. Collaborative RPGs really hone in on a few specific concepts, usually in fascinating ways. You'll pick up insights on how to encourage roleplaying and methods of empowering your players; most importantly you'll learn to be a better listener and more flexible GM. Related to all of this, is that playing more RPGs on this continuum will also expose you to different sorts of players, which opens up all sorts of opportunities that will expand your horizons as a GM. I don't think it's a coincidence that the best GMs I know are very eclectic in the RPGs they run.

"When should you stick to a lumpy, confusing mechanic to try to make it work or hack a game on the fly?" - Marshall

If something isn't working then make a change. This is one of my mantras as a GM, really I strive for it as a life practice. When you sense problems is when you should take steps to correct them; waiting for problems to disappear on their own is counterproductive. If your players are getting bored or frustrated because of the game's mechanics then you should change things up.

However there is far bigger question beneath this question: how important are mechanics to roleplaying games? That's a very difficult question to answer, because it depends very much on what you want to get out of an RPG. My goal as a GM running a new RPG is to attempt to run it as intended by the game's designers, which means using the rules as written. At least that's my intent; in reality, the moment problems manifest I jettison the rules and make changes to keep my players engaged. Afterwards I will go back to the rules to try to figure out where I went wrong.

When a GM struggles with rules, as I have on many occasions, it raises the question what went wrong?

For a GM to effectively run a RPG three elements must be internalized: the mechanics, the setting, and the intent of the game. In most RPGs these three things are deeply intertwined. RPGs fail when one or more of these elements don't mesh with the remaining elements. For example you are playing a RPG titled Cloud Pirates that's a steampunk-inspired setting promising daring adventure, yet the rules are so cumbersome you have to spend 30 minutes just to figure out if you get motion sickness every morning. This is a problem, not surprising for as we all know simple rules are a lot harder to write than complicated ones.

I'm of the opinion that it's usually not the flaws in the mechanics that trip up GMs. The more prevalent problem is that GMs fail to internalize the three elements. They rush into a game without really understanding the mechanics, setting, or the game's intent. I am very guilty of this. I will skim a new RPG and wrangle up a group of players who are subjected to an "interesting" ad hoc interpretation of the RPG. It often takes me three to four attempts at running an RPG before I finally "get it" and some RPGs like Mouse Guard defy my understanding even after a dozen attempts at running it. I suspect I'm not alone in this and that many GMs for one reason or another struggle to internalize a RPG that it seems like everyone else on the planet has mastered.

What do I mean by internalization? It's not memorization, it's learning an RPG so that you understand it and can adjudicate and extrapolate it quickly and easily. If you can't internalize an element of an RPG it makes working with that RPG difficult, it will become a slog as it's not intuitive to you.

Now there is another reason why rules might not seem to work: the RPG requires everyone at the table know the rules. Most RPGs function pretty well even when most of the group has only a basic understanding of the rules, yet some RPGs are more demanding. These games are fascinating it that when the GM and group have an imperfect understanding of the rules they will seem awkward, cumbersome, and a complete disaster. Yet the moment everyone has learned the rules they become an amazing work of art.

In the end though, you got to make the session you're in work. There isn't time for you to reread the rules so if things aren't working then make a change, port in rules from another RPG you have internalized.

"Battles. Run! How?" - Richard

I have been putting off this question for months, so I am committing to answering it next month.