"How to GM" Books

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Edgewise said:
Does this one count?

A Quick Primer for Old-School Gaming

It's not comprehensive, and it doesn't really tell you how to GM, per se. It's more like a punk rock manifesto for RPGs. But it's short and free, and it can be revelatory, so I think every GM should read it.
Click to expand...

There's lots of reasonable, good advice in the Primer but I think it is pretty narrowly focused on D&D, I'm not sure much of his advice tranfers to other kinds of games.

And much of the good sense is all mixed in with overstated assumptions about 3e D&D play and claims about 'old school play' that in no way reflect my experience of playing D&D throughout the 80s.

I think that it is a common mistake to argue in favour of something by taking potshots at something you don't like. I remember doing that myself when I wrote my first published music review in the university newspaper, where I felt the silly need to slam Kenny G in a jazz review, as if anyone reading a jazz review took Kenny G seriously. It pained me to see that lazy thinking in print and I vowed to never do it again.

I agree more with this and this critique of the Primer.

I much prefer Jason Cone's Philotomy's Musings. His ideas are much more distinctive and interesting to me and he never feels the need to caricature other editions or games.
 
TristramEvans said:
Wasn't Zak S revealed to be behind the YDIS blog, or am I thinking of something else?
Click to expand...
Doubt it since they skewered him pretty good. I've seen maybe 2 or 3 articles on there; they were somewhat funny in the taking windbags and blowhards down a notch or three. Could've done without the constant homophobic stuff.
 
Voros said:
There's lots of reasonable, good advice in the Primer but I think it is pretty narrowly focused on D&D, I'm not sure much of his advice tranfers to other kinds of games.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends. There are four principles: (1) rulings, not rules; (2) player skill, not character abilities; (3) heroic, not superheroic; and (4) forget game balance. I think applicability depends on the principle - #3 seems like the one that I'd say is more game-dependent. The others I could apply to most RPGs, I think.

For what it's worth, I think that part of Finch's purpose in writing the Primer was to promote Swords & Wizardry, and to help people understand the way he intended it to be used. While I don't think he narrows his argument for this purpose, I do think it colors the whole thing.

Voros said:
I think that it is a common mistake to argue in favour of something by taking potshots at something you don't like.
Click to expand...

I have to say that, unlike you and the two critiques you cite, I really don't see the primer as any kind of attack. Nowhere does it say "new-school gaming is garbage." It doesn't even really criticize other styles of play, and goes out of its way to explain that it's presenting a bland interpretation of modern gaming in order to highlight the mechanical differences.

I think the Gnome Stew article gets something important wrong - this isn't a paean to 1e play; it's actually hearkening back to 0e. That might be why his 1e buddies scoffed that the primer represented their old experiences. The Refereeing and Reflection article is a lot more accurate when it says:

Refereeing and Reflection said:
In the course of doing so, it ends up comparing a caricature of modern gaming with a very specific vision of old school gaming which I would argue is particular to the OSR, and which represents only one type of play that existed during the 1974-1977 prime of 0E.
Click to expand...

But what I think both articles get wrong is the notion that the primer is suggesting that this is the One True Way, and that all others ways are wrong. It's presenting a way, not the way. Naturally, Matthew Finch thinks that it's a very good way, and I do, too.

This is sort of where I was going with the punk rock comparison. It's presenting a very purist image of a certain gaming style, but I don't think it's insisting that you absolutely must play this way without any deviation. The idea is that, by presenting this mode of play so starkly, you have a clearer view of the underlying philosophy.

At least, that's my take.

Voros said:
I much prefer Jason Cone's Philotomy's Musings. His ideas are much more distinctive and interesting to me and he never feels the need to caricature other editions or games.
Click to expand...

I'll have to check it out.
 
Last edited:
Edgewise said:
I guess it depends. There are four principles: (1) rulings, not rules; (2) player skill, not character abilities; (3) heroic, not superheroic; and (4) forget game balance. I think applicability depends on the principle - #3 seems like the one that I'd say is more game-dependent. The others I could apply to most RPGs, I think.
Click to expand...

Number three is the one I was thinking of too. Lots of games are based on superheroic play.

I've seen Finch say on DF he wrote the Primer as a pitch to 3e players explaining the supposed difference in play styles as those he encountered online didn't seem to get the advantages of a rules light system like 0e. I think he should have been more upfront about that as the vague references to 'modern gaming' just seem completely inaccurate outside a D&D frame.
 
Last edited:
Dumarest said:
That is interesting reading. I have read the first few pages and wouldn't mind playing OD&D as he envisions it.
Click to expand...
Finch's Primer is like the quick pitch for people who just want to get an idea of what old school play is. Philotomy's Musings is a practical handbook for someone that actually wants to play OD&D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top