[D&D 3.5 (but really any game or edition) DMing] Your Style

[Deepblue706]

I've never had a clear picture of how most other DMs like to run sessions and campaigns. I catch a few glimpses of individual opinions, when discussions around here, for instance, mention "DM fiat", in reference to instances where one PC might play more or less importance in ongoing activities than is often believed they should. The term "DM Fiat" has some implications in itself; Fiat is generally a word to be taken as an arbitrary decree, with itself might be implied to be unreasonable, which would probably be expected to be contrary to "normal gameplay".

But, I'm not posting this to start a debate on what we all believe to be unreasonable with certain DM rulings, or how any opinion is necessarily ignorant. Rather, I want to focus on what DMs like to do for a session, a campaign, an overall good experience. Something they would expect to make up "normal gameplay" for when they DM. "DM Fiat" was simply a term that got me thinking about whether a default D&D experience really exists, and by how much tastes might vary between people. I am not seeking to disprove notions that 3.5 is unbalanced. Rather, I just want to observe what this gaming community's DMs like to do. I would appreciate it if anyone who'd like to participate would keep that in mind.

Mainly, I'd like to see if whether or not if DMs converge towards any one specific style of running a game. It might provide insights, or it might just be fun to read.

In case I haven't really made the idea clear, I'll start off:

----------------------------------------------

I am highly attracted to violence, flashing lights, loud noises, and all sorts of exciting things. I love dangerous places, legendary monsters, and pitched battles. I also like a swift pace, with constant adventuring and exploration.

So, when I DM, I try to include all of that. Sometimes I start slow, to build up suspense. And, I usually have a good deal of roleplaying with NPCs. But, I rarely openly provide all that much actual downtime. My goal is to always have something going on.

I don't actively work against players who want extra Rest, some time for Crafting, or walking around streets to make use of skills like Gather Information, but there is almost always something going on, and it'll often be time-sensitive.

My philosophy is that if there isn't really anything going on, I'm wasting time. I could have just as easily said the nothingness happened between sessions. In fact, I like it when my players can do the more tedious stuff between sessions. In my opinon, buying standard equipment, making craft rolls and all that is better checked at the beginning of a session where downtime had already been assumed, rather than declared mid-session where I'd rather have something cool happen.

The length of time where "nothing happens" (and players are free to do whatever) will usually be randomly determined, unless the players somewhere specfically engage in something which has to be continued immediately the following session (follow a new plot hook, for instance). And, I feel compelled to always have something to draw them onward; not because I don't want them to have free time, but because I want stuff to happen and saying "So you guys did nothing for a full week but farmed summoned animals for poison and scribed a million scrolls" just strikes me as totally lame when it's not absolutely necessary to a specific, in-game goal. They can still make that decision, but I'd rather rush them and constantly throw time-sensitive hooks because I simply think it's more exciting.

I've never implemented an "event clock" or anything like that, and I'll cut players some slack if they took just a few extra hours getting the Unique-Magical-Antidote to Deathly-Ill Baron Save-Me-For-Monetary-Rewards. However, if players have to retreat from Bad-Guy-Castle because they've expended their resources, I do reinforce. If players take an extra week to track down Caravan-Raider Bob, I have him raid more caravans. I think it's reasonable to have things happen while PCs do other stuff, so that they understand there are choices to be made, and they cannot expect the world to wait for their previous endeavor to finish before moving onward. I think it helps make the game interesting if PCs think things could get significantly worse if they mess up or take their situation for granted.

I don't keep many campaigns going. Usually, I run lots of small adventures that last 3-4 sessions long. If I am intent on a campaign, I usually link them together in one-way-or-another and narrow the group's focus, but the great amount of possibilities still exists. I find an ever-changing environment keeps things fresh and exciting. However, I find having too-few villains, a singular goal and a lack of new elements can easily become boring.

I not only crave a lot of action, but also a lot of variety. I constantly look for excuses to use all different sorts of monsters and in all different sorts of terrain. I am also a huge fan of terrain hazards: high cliffs, pit-falls, quicksand, really-thin ice, lava floes and more. In my opinion, it has a huge impact on gameplay, and in a hugely awesome way.

If I were to sum up my aspirations as a DM, I'd say I just try to make things Awesome.

Not every battle has to take place on the wall of a collapsed, ruined tower that is riding an avalanche down into a frozen lake said to be the home of a slumbering monster of legend. But, I think it's pretty awesome when stuff like that happens. I try to get as much of it as I can before it turns stale.

--------------------------------------------

So, that's basically it. I'd love to read what some of you folks have to say, because it'd help to develop my own perspective of other groups, and possibly help provide me with new ideas for my own games.

Thanks in advance.

[reptilecobra13]

I have a tendency to try to cater to my players. My friends and I take turns DMing mini-campaigns, so we all know each others' play-style. This lets us see what everyone else craves in a campaign and construct something fitting. For example, we will run a campaign that lets one or two of our players expand on their characters' back stories. In others, we'll just throw down a handful of powerful monsters (personally, I'm very fond of the Concordant Killer) and see how well we can fight them off. The advantage to this is that no one of us gets burned out from over-DMing, because we all love to just play. :smallcool:

[TheYoungKing]

I'm a somewhat experienced pen-and-paper player DMing over a group of newbies. I'm a fairly new DM, so I guess it works out.

Because they are new, I have a bit heavier plot than I would like. This is because I would usually get blank stares at the simplest of adventure hooks. A lot of them are in a video-game mentality, where their quest is described to them in detail and they are told almost exactly what to do. Trying to break this out of them a little, and now they're picking up adventure hooks where they didn't exist. But they are enjoying my plot more than experienced groups would, so its working out.

I tend to be very flexible. After I describe the scenery and hazards the players can see, if they come up with something creative I hadn't thought of, I quickly stat out its crunch effect. You want the Halfling scout hoisted up onto the banquet hall chandelier so he can shoot his shortbow without a problem? Sure, why not? A magic missile will break it though, and expect some damage from the glass. I guess this links up with the OP's AWESOME bit.

I'm definitely a little too protective of their characters, both because they are new and I'm new. The only death thus far was due to a player departure. However, the RNG usually hides my attempts to protect them, and they've had a few close calls. Still, I realize I might have to put on the ruthless a bit more in future encounters.

I offer "memory" checks, as their original notekeeper left the group and took his notes with him. He also wasn't a very good notekeeper. Simple Wis or Int checks, and I hold them to failing (and sometimes, just making the check spurs their memory.) I think they like rolling for memory anyways.

I've built most of their characters for them, although I've recently been handing it over to the player who is getting the best grip at optimisation. Usually, they gave me an idea, I suggested the class and possible feats or paths, and they went with it or decided for themselves.

I've moderated my usual narrator voice- I've been doing a lot less prosy description lately, and just leaving it up to general expressions and metaphors or pop-culture comparisons. Would probably irk other players for hurting immersion, but it helps them and it helps me quite a bit, as the players can paint the world as easily as I can.

Um.... probably a bit scattered, but that is all I can think of right now....

[jseah]

I've given to starting PbP games (but haven't been finishing, playing groups tend to have RL issues all the time) that are more sandbox in nature.

There would be an overall strategic goal for the characters. A bit like an erfworld scenario. (Conquer this country, halt an attack, prospect and colonize a new land)

I do expect players to ask for information that they need to make their own goals, and I give the information without looking at what they are doing. Certain events are scheduled to happen if the players don't do anything too drastic but they can certainly be avoided if the players want to.

I also try to incorporate an element of philosophical choice into it. Their goal may represent an ideal that I challenge (the warring states scenario has a technological/capitalist vs agrarian/feudalist element) and consequences abound. They gain advantages but there is usually a cost. (unless they thought of something unique, which has happened)

[Eclipse]

Depends on the group I'm with, but generally speaking, I aim to kill the PCs. The reason is simple. Most of the players I play with are good. Not alignment good, monster stomping good. If I think a battle, infiltration, quest, or anything else is impossible, they can usually find a way to win the battle or solve the problem before them. So I play like an evil overlord.

Now, to be more specific, once I've made the decisions for my NPCs, I don't smooth them over later. If they failed to take something into account, they need to put in just as much effort to fix it as the PCs would have to. Given that they usually have far more resources, they do have an advantage on this front, but I don't just handwave it and add things in, I play the NPCs out. I won't retroactively put on a cloak of resistance because my villain needs the saves... if I forgot it, they forgot it. And the PCs likely win.

In minor skirmishes, I'll fudge for the PCs survival in the case of an unlucky break. In a major battle, the dice rule. Basically, plot armor goes away against the big villains, to make those battles more intense and memorable, but for the minor stuff, the PCs basically win since we don't feel a need to drag out the minor stuff. Sometimes, we'll even just do a quick, no dice description of minor encounters.

I usually have a balance between plot and action. Not a lot of dungeon delving in my games either, as they usually focus on the politics in the world and what needs to be done for the betterment of the kingdom. Or, what will benefit individual PCs if they're less altruistic. This will involve lots of fighting. Social players are welcome to work their magic to prevent encounters, but their are some people who aren't going to be swayed. Diplomacy is heavily house-ruled to prevent if from destroying the game in this respect.

I do about 50-75% magic mart style. Most relevant items can be bought in town. Some of the really powerful things can't. Particularly filtered are weapon traits equivalent to a +5 as well as some spells 7th level and up. Most are available, but the PCs are going to work to find the really good stuff.

We have some agreements on things we won't do as well. Most notable is that no one uses mage's disjunction. It hoses the PCs hard, and they know that if they decide to use it on my villains, I'll use it on them. Also, paladin's have a much less restrictive code than what is described in the PHB. It makes party cohesion work so much better, and people get to play the classes and characters they like.

If players want downtime, I'll generally let them have it as soon as a relevant plot point is over. If they took crafting feats, they should have a chance to make use of them.

When it comes to metagaming, I'm pretty lenient about it now. I used to try to stamp it out, but I realized that most often, metagaming on the level it happens with the people I play with is acceptable for two different reasons. The first is when it comes to tactical choices. Players making suggestions to other players really just helps them make good choices that their characters would understand, and also allows the players to stay involved when they aren't doing anything in character. The other circumstance is when some characters know something but others don't. I just come out and tell everyone, and we usually assume the knowledge is passed on when the players meet up again. This makes play smoother and keeps players in the loop on plot events. There's no need to pass notes or pull people aside, everyone just stays involved in the game. Also, if a player knows the monster manual well enough to pick out a monster weakness, they can make use of it instead of pretending they don't know it. Chalk it up to being experienced adventurers and random pieces of information they've picked up. However, all players know I take liberties with monsters and don't always leave them as is, so it's unreliable knowledge.

Finally, the newest trick to my repertoire, is trying to let the PCs attempt whatever they want to attempt instead of sticking to the rules so much. Crazy things will have crazy DCs, but you can try it and possibly even succeed. If I'm not sure of how to gauge success vs. failure, I'll ask the player to make a suggestion on the mechanics, which I may or may not modify. Usually, my players are responsible about this and have a good system in mind that fits with their character.

So, that's my hodge podge of ideas about running and playing D&D. I might've missed some things, but I think I hit the high points. It works out pretty well for us, so we must be doing something right.

[valadil]

I run a lot of plots in parallel. Plots advance themselves regardless of PC involvement. Even if the plots aren't unique, the total outcome ends up unique and makes me look way more creative than I really am.

I screw over the players a lot. It's not because I'm adversarial. I just prefer plots of them overcoming something challenging. Getting beat up and then getting revenge is a much better story than winning two fights. That said, I don't like torturing the PCs. There are a lot of situations where they win the battle but lose the war.

Most of the threats are sentient humanoids. Monsters just don't do much for me. Dungeons don't either. I think I've only even used a dungeon in half the games I've run and never for more than a session at a time. I like them as breaks from plot, but long term they bore me.

I aim to focus on player created plot. That's not always possible though. I'm kinda failing at it in my current game.

Every event that I plan has to advance the plot or the characters. If there's no progress made, the event is a waste of time. I think I learned this from Vonnegut. The big effect of this is that I don't do random encounters and wandering monsters. Ever. I just don't see the point. If a situation really calls for it, a random encounter can lead into plot. IE, those bandits on the road had pictures of all the PCs. Now the players know someone is after them and knows what they look like.

[jiriku]

I am a big fan of immersive worlds and role-playing interaction. Not so much on the hack-n-slash 10-level dungeon crawls. I typically spend 1-2 months prior to a campaign preparing background. I write up thumbnail descriptions of 20-30 NPCs, flesh out the area around the player's home base with half a dozen interesting places to visit, and spend a lot of time reading about the ancient history of the real-world places that inspired the home region of the campaign (for example, my current campaign has an Egyptian/Mayan/Sumerian feel, so I spent a lot of time reading about those cultures).

When the rubber meets the road, I give the players a quest or two to ground them in the setting and gradually introduce the NPCs, including the characters who will eventually become recurring villains. Although I generally have a good guy side and a bad guy side, I tend to build NPCs in many graduated shades of grey, and let the players draw the line between who is a reluctant ally and who is an enemy.

As we game, I watch my players to see which parts of the game world and which NPCs they find most interesting. Those people and places become the focal points for future adventures, while stuff they skimmed over gets moved into the background.

I also try to avoid a lot of globe-trotting. One of my goals for a campaign is to further develop and flesh out my homebrew setting, so the adventures tend to criss-cross a single region, with each session an opportunity to add another layer of depth and detail to the fictional world.

To keep people guessing, I almost never use stock monsters, but mod them up with extra HD, class levels, and templates. That takes a lot of time, so I don't use random encounters or fill dungeons with meaningless rooms full of one monster after another. My dungeons are quick and to the point.

When it comes to difficulty, I hit hard and don't pull punches. There are no throwaway encounters, the traps are devious, your enemies will ambush you when you least expect it, and death can lurk behind any door. If the dice decree that you die, then that's how I call it. That said, I abstain from save-or-die effects or effects that force players to sit out whole combats, because I want players to be able to play and I want them to feel their actions determine their success.

Finally, I like to be surprised. One of my favorite moments in the game is when the players are theorizing about what X NPC is planning, and I find myself thinking "Oh that's much better than what I came up with." I'll often change my plans to match their suspicions if they come up with something cool or clever. Likewise, I kind of enjoy it when they do something that throws me for a loop and forces me to rethink my plans, although it's very rare that they'll manage to throw my games completely off the rails.