Friendly GM Banter

[Captainspork]

As a GM who has a few campagins under his belt, and is in the planning stages of a new 3.5 campaign, I started wondering what other GMs are doing outside my group of friends who play. I do some occasional reading when I have time (see Musings of a Chatty DM (http://critical-hits.com/category/chattydm/)) but, for the most part, I haven't heard much about alternative GM styles, how individual GMs prepare for each session, etc.

For me, I tend to GM my games fairly loose: I go into each session with a goal in mind, but don't necessarily plan out how the party reaches said goal. I think this allows for some open-endedness, and (hopefully) keeps it from being too linear. I also tend to make my own world for each campaign, although I do have a soft spot for Greyhawk. :smallcool:

So let me know what thoughts/suggestions are floating around out there!

[Xyk]

"Bantar" would be a good name for a tribe of barbarians. I think I'll use that in my campaign.

[Captainspork]

Haha good call :smallsmile: Obviously tribe of barbarians with spelling-deficiencies

[Geigan]

I'm kind of the emergency DM for my group. I don't typically have he time to devote to crafting a story and balancing out every little thing so the rest typically take the main campaign. Of course, things don't always go as planned. Campaigns end early due to burnout or the narrative falling apart or just not being able to make it said day, so I have to step in to salvage nights from being boring. I'm pretty good at improvising, so I can get something started off the first idea out of someones mouth. They just tell me the level and style of campaign and I can have a workable idea in minutes. Twenty minutes after someone said 10th level campaign I had them up on the walls of Goldmoon defending from an assault by a legion from the 9 hells, and most of that time was character creation.

[chainer1216]

personally, when starting a campaign, i choose the setting and then think of the end game, and completely ignore everything else. when the first session comes about i choose a player and i start off with him, and add in the other players in short order, from there i just react to whatever the players do, i'm quite good at making up major plot points on the fly, i'm also good at eyeballing stats for things, and that really helps.

every other session or so i try to do somthing that hints at, or nudges them towards that end game i thought up in the begining, unless they themselves are doing things to push towards it, then i might try to side track them somehow.

[Captainspork]

@ Geigan: Definitely a cool idea. One thing we've thrown around in our group (but actually never done) is occasionally having a player DM for a night or two, so to kinda mix things up and keep it fresh. I'm curious if you think that works well, or do you feel like the story gets sidetracked a bit?

@chainer: That's definitely an interesting way to start things out, but do you have any problems with that first character ever becoming too central though? In one of my earlier campaigns I tried something sorta similar, and it became that first character doing all the roleplaying and the others sitting back and watching (though that was partly the players fault as well). :smallconfused:

[Geigan]

Well it depends on the type of campaign you choose and how cooperative your group is. The example I gave worked out great because the players had a goal and they couldn't really go anywhere without abandoning that goal. I had them basically start out as recruits into the city guard and after basic introductions to their little army unit thing(I am horrible with military terms) they got up on that wall and defended it. That was good for a couple of nights until the main campaign got back on its feet. I think the main idea for a player DMed campaign is that have it be loose and have fun. I wasn't trying to take center stage(I could have extended the campaign, hell that city had backstory and political scheming if they had wanted it), I was just the side act to keep us all entertained on a night that would have otherwise been relatively boring.

Note: my little schtick was entirely separate from the main campaign. Not even the same setting or any related characters so I can't really comment on sidetracking the main story, since I wasn't even telling a remotely related one.

[Captainspork]

I gotcha, still a pretty cool idea. I'll have to keep that in mind as a way to change things up for sure.

[valadil]

I blog about my GMing. See sig for link. Oddly I spend more time blogging when I'm not running a game, so my posts have been a little sparse lately.


@ Geigan: Definitely a cool idea. One thing we've thrown around in our group (but actually never done) is occasionally having a player DM for a night or two, so to kinda mix things up and keep it fresh. I'm curious if you think that works well, or do you feel like the story gets sidetracked a bit?


We did a rotating GM game 3 or 4 years ago. Basically everyone ran a 2-4 session story, then everybody leveled, and someone else took over GMing. It worked out great.

At first it was a series if disjointed plots with no connection. We each ran a game like that. Then we learned how to work together to weave a bigger plot. Basically what that meant was that you didn't have to close off every loose end at the end of your story. You could set up MacGuffins for other GMs. You could let villains go free. It actually became easier to write after that, since you could just pick up where someone else left off instead of starting up new hooks.

[Tyndmyr]

Valadil's experience with this closely matches my own. At first, use some mechanism to ensure you all have some commonality, and everyone'll do their own thing a bit. But later on, incorporating each other's things and building off them gets you to some awesome places.

[chainer1216]

to answer you're question captainspork

thats never really been a problem because of two things, i litterally roll a die in front of the players to see who goes first, and because, even though that first character gets more freedom in what he's doing, i make sure that every character is doing/working towards somthing important.

the only time where my players had a clear "leader" was in a game where theyre were pirates. the reason i let a leader happen in that game was because i has two experianced gamers and 3 (later on 4) people who had never played before.

at first the 3 inexperianced players kinda just sat back and listened to captain magnus' orders and seemed alittle uncomfrtable when i forced them to make desicions on theyre own, but they get better about it over some time...then i forced the crew apart and had a bunch of one on one sessions with everybody, where they had to complete a goal of some sort, and then find theyre way back to the ship. after that the newbies became bold in theyre actions and decisions, not always good ones, but usually funny.

[Captainspork]

@ valadil/tyndmyr: I like the idea alot, it seems like the more you get involved into the different GM stories and the more players discover, the more connected things could be come. I think this would clash with my world building style a little bit, since different players would envision aspects of the world differently then me, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

@chainer: I think I'm going to try that in my next campaign, with emphasis on the randomization of it. I think that will work perfectly with how I want to start the bulk of the main story. It also fixes the problem of characters just finding each other in an inn, or any another generic start.

Two other things came to my mind since I last posted: the inclusion of NPCs as party members, and a GM's "willingness" to let players die.

First off, one thing I tend to do as a GM is often include NPCs into the main party: Characters who may or may not be a crucial part to the ultimate goal, but help guide the party and occasionally keep them on track. They basically become my characters in the party, played from a non-GM perspective. Wondering if anyone else does this, and what people's thoughts are on that approach.

Lastly is the issue of "killing" characters. I think being a GM is a tricky spot to be in when players commit dumb acts and, as a result, are at risk of death. I think its important for players to feel as though they aren't invincible or protected, but at the same time its hard to kill off a friend's character who they've put a siginificant amount of time into creating.

Sorry for the lengthy post! :smallfrown:

[TOZ]

So far, I've only really had experience DMing printed modules. So I tend to try and give my players an idea what classes will be useful and which will be less useful through the game. Usually I'll come up with something that will throw the party together in a dire situation, making them survive something together and give them a reason to stick with each other. At the start of my second Shackled City game, I had them earning passage on a caravan by being guards, and opened the game with a bandit attack.

For my next game I want to have the players make their characters and base the campaign around them instead of some prewritten plot. It's preferrable that they come up with the reason for the group knowing each other, but that's only to smooth over the first session instead of trying to guide the characters together. PCs tend to not do what you want them to, after all.

One of the greatest source of plothooks is the characters actions themselves. Who is upset over what they've done, and how do they react, etc.

[Captainspork]

@TOZ: Having plothooks that involve the characters and their backstories is a great way to make the players feel as through they drive the story. I've done this as well, and had a lot of success with it. I think the printed modules are a great way to run a game as well, had a lot of fun with them both as a player and a GM.

[chainer1216]

i personally usually use a GMNPC in the party, or in that pirate game i refered to, alot of them (had to make up the crew ya know). i find the most important thing is that this guy usually remain quiet, only poping in here and there when the party misses somthing that should be obvious, and only after making an int/wis check to see if they get to be as smart as a PC or a short time. i find the GMNPC a useful tool in connecting the players with the world around them, just because theyre adventurers and are too busy slaying dragons to read a newspaper, doesn't mean this guy is.

now for the death of PCs
going back to the pirate party again, one of the new players, a lvl3 or 4 rogue, decided he needed some more coin, and thought it'd be a good idea to rob some guardsmen who were patroling the streets...in pairs of two...in the middle of the day...in the center of the city near the guard station, did i mention this city was run by the chruch of a paladin god?

he asked me how many guards there were, i rolled randomly and got somthing like 10 or 12 guards that he could see, and told him it'd probably be a better idea to find a more secluded place. He ignored that and went for the nearest pair of guards and tried to sleight of hand himself some gold, and rolled terribly, the guards easily saw him and tried to restrain him to arrest him for petty theft, but he sleight of handed his knife out and sneak attacked the guard trying to grapple him, crit hit, and rolled pretty well, killing the guard.

so, my player, due to his own bad choices, and some...luck, good or bad, put me in a situation where i really had no choice but to kill him, and did so. at least i gave him a pretty epic chase scene, where he almost got away, but botched a hide check.

so, heres my advice, if it comes to the point of killing a character, no matter the reason, make sure its atleast memorable. and keep in mind, this is DnD, just because theyre dead, doesn't mean they'll stay that way. my favorite way to bring back a dead character is by having an enemy raise them for some reason or another, torture is a fun one, makes for good character develpment.

[Captainspork]

so, heres my advice, if it comes to the point of killing a character, no matter the reason, make sure its atleast memorable.

Hilarious that you say that. Your story reminds me of a situation I was in. A player (bard I think?) Was trying to infiltrate this castle of bandits to rescue captured party members. After seeing one of the leaders walk through a room of about 20 bandits, and watching said leader give them orders before heading into the dungeon below, the player proceeds to disguise as said leader and walk in from another door. Thus began a series of (hilarious) events that lead to his death. We still give him crap about it today.

As said, I do alot of the same things with the GMNPC. Its nice to have a character that can speak to the world (especially in a created one like I often play) while also filling in roles no one ever wants to fill (ex: healer).

[Volos]

First off, one thing I tend to do as a GM is often include NPCs into the main party: Characters who may or may not be a crucial part to the ultimate goal, but help guide the party and occasionally keep them on track. They basically become my characters in the party, played from a non-GM perspective. Wondering if anyone else does this, and what people's thoughts are on that approach.

DMPC is the term for what you are refering to. Since there is a term for it, it is safe to say that there are those who do it. Many PCs detest the idea of a DMPC, as many have had DMs who run games to prove how 'amazing', 'awsome', 'epic', or 'cool' their DMPC can be. Or worse yet, how much better he is at 'anything and everything' than the PCs themselves. While I've used DMPCs on occasion, I've never had them steal the spotlight from my players. I've run them with their own minds, agenda, and stories but kept them from taking over the game entirely. If your PCs have teamed up with the ex-Captian of The Guard, then there is going to be a good deal of story attached to that particular DMPC. He'll be shamed to be seen by the other members of his old post, and there may be some things he just isn't willing to do. This can promote amazing roleplay between you and your players that may normally be tossed aside if the PCs are running around on their own. So in short, yes I use DMPCs and enjoy doing so.


Lastly is the issue of "killing" characters. I think being a GM is a tricky spot to be in when players commit dumb acts and, as a result, are at risk of death. I think its important for players to feel as though they aren't invincible or protected, but at the same time its hard to kill off a friend's character who they've put a siginificant amount of time into creating.

Sorry for the lengthy post! :smallfrown:

In my humble opinion, PCs are made for killing. I'm am a Gygaxian DM through and through. If a player makes a mistake that should lead to a deadly situation, then he is in a deadly situation. If a player attacks noble in broad daylight, then he gets a bounty on his head if he isn't killed right then and there. I'm usually kind enough to warn players who are oblivious to the possible consquences of their actions the first time, but after that they are on their own. Example, player wants to jump off a cliff to land on the back of a dragon several hundred feet down. I'll explain to him the basic mechanics of what is going on. If he doesn't seem to think he'll get hurt (take falling damage on impact with dragon) and just declares that he's going to jump... I'll give him a fair warning he's being stupid. But if I've been running a dungeon that is heavily trapped and a player decides it's smart to run down a hallway that has many holes in the walls, and strange looking dragon-head carvings every so many feet; he gets to experience the consquences of his actions. Namely arrows and fire, lots of arrows and fire. I've had many people say that this is a harsh way to DM and I get alot of people on these forums saying I'm a terrible DM for doing so. My players enjoy my games and they have alot of fun trying to avoid death. I've even been praised for being a tough DM by a player who previously had a DM who couldn't let PCs fight anything dangerous or even have a risk of dying. She gave them 'save points' like a video game, apparently.

[TOZ]

I usually run a DMPC for groups I think are too small. It's helpful to have a character I can suggest things through, not to railroad but to give them hints. I usually use the Miniatures Handbook Healer class to avoid ever overshadowing the party. I learned there is one thing Healers can do well besides heal, however. (Undead, you say?) I might try a Bard the next time.

On PC death, I try to avoid it when I can. I have fudged dice on occasion. I've come to prefer action points to give players some say in their characters death, and to shield those unfortunate die rolls. I've told my players as much, but with the caveat that I will NOT shield characters from stupid actions.

Most of this stems from my first Shackled City game. The party was escaping a temple and got ambushed. I didn't realize how beat up they were, and used said ambusher to full effect. The cleric and wizard were dead by the end of the first round. No fault of their own, I just focused fire on injured characters. I still wish I could have seen the wizard character grow further on in the game.

On player stupidity, same party was tracking down the thieves they were after. They get tipped off on the location and go to case it. How do they do that?

Walking in the front door.

Getting ambushed, epic fight later, the hideout is burned to the ground, the party is dead, and the enemy guildmaster is the only one to escape. Luckily the bard player was not at the game, and could have his character collect the bodies for raising.

[Captainspork]

@Volos: Definitely liking how you use the DMPC, although you are definitely a harder DM than I am :smallsmile: Not that that's a bad thing in any way, just a different style of play really. Certainly better than making things too easy (save points? laaaaame).

@TOZ: I think your style of DMing is pretty close to mine. I definitely try to make encounters/dungeons challenging for players, but it also has to be possible. Make it too hard and they'll just quit and/or get pissed (at least my group will).

[Canarr]

I prefer the open-ended style of GMing. Meaning, I start a game with a few key NPCs fleshed out (with regards to goals, motivations, means and methods), adding new ones as required. Then, I drop my players in the middle. Things happen, whether they do something or not; if they do something, I judge how it interferes with the plans of my NPCs and change the outcome accordingly. As a player, I like a game where I can do things, and have the feeling that my actions have an effect on the surrounding world, so I try to GM the same way.

As for PC deaths, that's not something I aim for, but if they happen, I let them happen. To me, an encounter is coolest if I've managed to bring my players (and their PCs) to the brink, but they then manage to pull through. Gives them a sense of accomplishment, and me the feeling that I've really challenged them. Making an encounter either too easy or too hard is something that can happen quite easily; balancing it just right is the most difficult thing.

[valadil]

@ valadil/tyndmyr: I like the idea alot, it seems like the more you get involved into the different GM stories and the more players discover, the more connected things could be come. I think this would clash with my world building style a little bit, since different players would envision aspects of the world differently then me, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing either.


We kept a wiki for arranging what was going on in the world. It all started with a blank slate and GMs could define whatever they wanted. When something was set up we posted it to the wiki and anyone else could use it. However, we made sure to note what parts of the game were off limits. One GM set up a villain, but had further plans for him, so he held onto that villain and didn't let anyone else use it. I think your world building would work similarly. Define the sections of the world you're interested in, but let the other GMs know they shouldn't make any drastic changes there. As long you're okay with an undefined space being next to your area, you should be fine.

When we did our game, each GM made a new area anyway. It was kinda like we'd travel between GMs and always play adventures in a new locale. In that sense, we didn't have to worry about trouncing anyone else's spaces.

[Kol Korran]

first of all, i must say that i like the idea of the thread. cudos for the idea! :smallsmile:

I've DMed a lot when i was a kid, but took a long break and got back to D&D (3.5 this time) about 2.5 years ago. as our DM burned out, i decided to take up the mantle, as i had lots of ideas for a campaign running through my head.

i'm keeping a very detailed log of my experiences as a returned-to-the-saddle-DM. it's in my link. look at it if you will, but be warned- it is lengthy. i do think it is also interesting (or i hope it is).

My styling of DMing differs from what most other posters wrote. i improvise poorly, and so i plan and prepare extensively. i chose a campaign world with which i'm quite familiar (Eberron), and built from there. i built the skeleton of the campaign at first, starting from the villains plans, and through where and how the PCs could interact with them, and change them, and what would be the results.

Then i learned what PCs the players wanted to play, and altered things in my plans so that they'll appeal enough to players and characters, and have a special place for them. i continuously do this.

players have surprised, over and over again, but having been prepared enough i could adjust quickly and provide an adequate follow through that doesn't disrupt the game (too much)

i try to give varied options, to the point of varied adventures. my players have so far been involved enough in the main campaign theme to not divert too much, but perhaps we'll do that in the future. so far they seem to be enjoying the game.

we have precious (VERY precious) little time for our gaming, so rotating DMs won't do well. also- random encounters and other shenanigans just "for the sake of it" are not encouraged. i am a firm believer that each encounter should have some sort of purpose- be it furthering the plot, giving another option, setting the atmosphere, an entertaining challenge and so on...

more on my philosophy, regarding XP and more is on the campaign log.

i've used DMPCs, mainly as healers (simple healing, using a wand of lesser vigor only). the first proved to be an interesting complication to the party, while the second was barely remembered unless someone was bleeding to death. all in all the party likes to take center stage, and with the amount of stuff going on, the DMPC is usually just bothersome.

as to Killing PCs. i do agree that preferably it should be memorable, but i also support that things MUST remain dangerous. but my characters haven't died yet, and i sense i may have over protected them on two occasions, so maybe i'm not so good on my word.

anyway, this is getting to be a way too long a post. (my usual style), so i'll finish here. :smallamused:

[TOZ]

I'm still working on the improvisation side of DMing. Hence the running of printed modules. :)

I think the best time I ever had as a DM was when the bard player said 'I want to go talk to my underworld contact, Rourke.'

I had a brief moment of 'Who the hell is Rourke?' before rolling with it, playing a surly rogue who gave up little but promised more info when he found it. That gave me the week I needed to figure out who the heck he was.

Turns out he ended up being the guildmaster of the weaker thieves guild, a LE ranger/rogue, struggling to keep his organization from being eradicated by the enemy guild that was backed by the campaign villians. This is also the same character from the player stupidity tale I told earlier.

An awesome NPC born from a player forcing me to improvise.

[Volos]

I walk the fine line between improvising and planning. I have a huge campaign world set up with a rich history and many (many) stories already woven into it. I describe the world, in short, to my players when they make new characters or we start a new campaign. I allow them to ask what they will of each region or nation and get a feel for what interests them the most. Do they love the freedom of the democratic union of nations? Are they disgusted by the dark arcane empire headed by an ancient dragon king? Are they inspired by the warrior culture of the militant empire? Do they want to see the theocracy fall under its own wieght?

Once I figure out where they want to roleplay, I have them make characters that fit in the setting. I let them make up whatever details they want or need. Part of the Bard's College? Alright, small adjustment to my notes and we're good. Oh, you want to join that monk's temple that is found in the furthest northern reaches of the drakken-fang mountains? Okay, major note adjustment and that's fine.

When everyone has their characters and their backstories figured out, we begin to play. I find ways to link the characters offered to me, using their motivations and histories to convince them to work together. The stories of my world begin to unfold around them, and whatever interests them usually ends up getting tied to their own goals or character's lives.

Sometimes my players throw me for a loop and decide to go over an impassible mountian range, or want to travel through the underdark, or mess up a teleport spell. This is where my improvisation skills come in handy. It helps to look up random monsters of an appropiate CR shortly before starting any game session, but being able to think on my feet has gotten me out of tight spots with my group and has gotten me a good deal of praise. I honestly think my players try to catch me off guard, but have faild to do so as of yet. This impresses them and keeps them coming back, so I guess I'm doing something right.

[Captainspork]

Sorry for the neglecting things, have been a little busy lately with Easter and school. Definitely liking these replies people, keep questions/comments rolling! :smallcool:

@TOZ: I think most people start with the modules (some never leave them), and they are a great tool to have. The first game I was in, the DM chained together modules pretty much seemlessly, and from it wove what felt like one congruent story. As for Rourke, awesome way to improvise.

@Volos: What you're is describing with his style is exactly what I'm doing now. I want to have my world built with a huge amount of history and diversity, so that it seems like each area is a new locale, and not simply a cookie-cutter version of plains, forest, etc. Once that's done, I think letting the character's drive the story is the best way to keep things interesting, whether they are headed right where you planned or not. I like how you mention your players trying to "catch you off gaurd". That happens quite a bit I feel, even if its not on purpose, yet some of the coolest stories can be made up on the fly (see TOZ post). I think if you're able to work with PC throwing you in different directions, it shows that you want them to have an impact on the story, which they generally like.

Keep up the posts!

[Captainspork]

@ Kol Korran: Interesting stuff by the way on your log, I'll definitely try to keep an eye on it!

[TOZ]

Provided I stick with the current group long enough, my next campaign will probably start with the opening Savage Tide modules, then go off the rails based on the character's actions. With their brief stops in Sasserine during Shackled City the players already have a small understanding of the area, and Cauldron (depending on the current PC's actions) will be there for sidesquests in a well established area.

I rather enjoy building the world during actual play. It helps players learn the world better than any handout or setting book because the players are actually involved in it. Some of the best world and story building I do is on the drive home after session, thinking about what my PCs did and where they might go and what they might find next.

[Captainspork]

@TOZ: I actually haven't used either of those modules personally (Shackled City or Savage Tide), would you recommend them? I've heard good things but haven't spoken to anyone personally regarding them.

Another problem I've had, which may or may not apply to everyone here, is regarding online DnD sessions. In my experience, they suck, frankly. My group has used Open RPG in the past with Ventrilo as a voice over, but it has had limited success. Open RPG has seemed buggy for me as a DM, and its hard to keep things rolling smoothly when we've used it. So, while I want to try and run my next campaign in person, does anyone have any comments on what they use for online play?

On a similar note, I've never personally participated in any campaigns through forum posting, wondering if anyone has any comments on that as well?

:smallcool:

[myancey]

I tend to run two forms of campaigns.

The first is a heavy story arc that keeps the players mainly focused on that. Its sort of a storybook style. I write this campaign in 3 stages. The first is the time line of the story arc, so I know where I'm heading to and I can list the major points along the way. The second phase is breaking those down into "books", where I'll fill in almost all storyline details--but not detailed enough to warrant NPC statistics and such. Finally, I'll write the complete session breakdown, where I tweak random encounters and prepare the stats for my npcs.

The second is player driven, and I'll typically use pre-fab campaigns for that and write side quests based on decisions my players make. For this campaign I'll keep notes on player actions and build sessions based on previous actions.

[TOZ]

@TOZ: I actually haven't used either of those modules personally (Shackled City or Savage Tide), would you recommend them? I've heard good things but haven't spoken to anyone personally regarding them.



I've run Shackled City once to completion, and am halfway through a second time. Right out of the book, it's a solid frame with a wealth of NPCs, locations, and plot to build from. What makes it stunning is the community material on the Paizo forums archived at the RPGenius site. There are a number of tweaks that tighten the links between modules and insert foreshadowing for the campaign villians, which were the biggest weak points of the path. Plus, the hardcover is $30 for a 1-20 campaign, probably the best value you can get in a module. The first time was hardcover only, and still managed to be an amazing game, and the second time around I'm adding the community material and my experience from the first time to make an even more brilliant campaign.

[Kol Korran]

I haven't DMed an online game, but i've participated in a few. here are my thoughts:
- you must realize this is by faaaaaaar a slower pace than tabletop. what yoiu finish in a 4-5 hours RL meeting takes months in PbP.

- in PbP battles seem to be confused, messy, and most of all- slow. many players quite in the middle of them. however, roleplay is usually far more enhanced and detailed, since most players have some time to think and flavor how their characters responds. some of the best roleplay examples i've seen were in PbP.

- as due to the above, PbP encourages themes of exploration, interaction, diplomacy, subterfuge and such much more than battles. this may takes a bit of getting used to.

- if you do PbP as a DM, i suggest to invest heavily into methods and practices that eliminates time lags. such as the DM rolling initiative, perception checks and so on, or auto playing a player that hasn't logged on for two days and so on.

- the most crucial and frustrating fact about PbPs is that most of them (though not all), die out within a few months (about 90-95%). either due to RL constraints, DM leaving, or too many players leaving. (don't talk to me about those who leave without notice :smallmad:). you have to sieve through and stick it out to see if the game lasts. a very thorough screening is prefered, but not a guarantee. in most cases, episodes like holidays, exam periods and so on caused too long of a time lag, so that enough people lose interest.

those are my thoughts. in short- can be an interesting and rewarding experience, but can also be quite frustrating and slow paced. DEFINITELY not to be compared with regular table top. these are entirely two different beasts.

[Alaris]

Our group has a very odd setup. We have 3 Primary DMs. Most of them are players in each other DM's game (sans for 1).

Each DM has 1 saturady a month to run their game, and then there is a General Game Day, in which any of the 3 DMs can run, or we can do something else.

It works out fairly well. I'm one of the DMs, kinda new to the whole DMing thing, so I've been working my way up. Everyone seems to enjoy it, and the schedule can be switched out for certain other DMs depending on how the players feel, or what they want to play that week.

EDIT: We also have a secondary DM, who runs his game every other Friday night. Myself and one of the other Primary DMs are in it, and it's set in Faerun. Fun times actually... gives us a break from the main games, and is slightly less hardcore.

[Rhaegar14]

Quite possibly the most fun session I ever ran was a few weeks ago. After days (in-game time) of trekking through wilderness, the party sees it's first ever city over the course of the campaign. In this city, there was a brothel (due to a joke request by the majority of the party). I decided that there were three succubi in the brothel and that they were going to cause problems for the party. Other than that, I winged it.

From this, I got all six of the PCs captured by a cult that plans to sacrifice them despite their very best efforts to metagame their way out of being totally duped by aforementioned succubi. Hello new dungeon, nice to see you.

[Kol Korran]

a question of my own: my group meets quite infrequently, due to pressures of adult life. we meet every 2-4 weeks approximately. as the DM, i keep thinking of the adventure and campaign between sessions, but most players seem to forget most details between meetings. i do a recap, but it's not the same thing.

in the previous campaign, one of the other players DMed, and as a player i kept a log of the campaign on a wiki site, complete with important people, people, unsolved mysteries, the story from my character's point of view and so on. but only the DM and myself really read the thing. so i gave up on doing a "whole group" log in my campaign, i just keep a DM's log (which i'll let the players read after the campaign is over)

my question is: what do you do to keep the players focused on the campaign- who they talked with, strange clues and so on, and other things you wish you didn't have to remind them?

note: i'm fine with the way it is. i've adjusted, but i'd like to improve on things if i can.

[TOZ]

I have that problem myself. Our group meets twice a month, every other weekend. Even if they put more effort into keeping up on things, the massive number of NPCs in Shackled City makes it hard to follow. I tried maintaining an NPC roster on our Google Group, posted logs on the Paizo forum, even record the entire session on my iPhone and host it on my wife's webspace. My players just don't have the time to track that much information. So I end up just having to be patient and explain who the NPC their talking to is again and again. Repetition helps, but I really need to work on my description and acting, giving each NPC a memorable trait to identify them. Which will be hard for ME to track. :smallsigh: I've had some luck with it on some NPCs, like the paladin pulling the farmer's wagon by himself, and the local lord who always has something alcoholic in hand. (My party calls him Lord Drinks-a-lot. :smallbiggrin:)

[Undercroft]

As i love building villains, i tend to make them and then build plot hooks around them that my players can pick up. I tend to do things rather freeform instead of railroading my players.

Take Eberron for example. The players have just aqquired an airship of their own. I've set down some plothooks to lead them into either the mournlands, xen'drik, shadow marches or off to karnath for some political intruige. I'll build up general concept of what may happen in each area, and when they pick where they're heading then i'll focus on fleshing it out fully and phasing out the villains in the other regions (so the villain in the region they go to can then develope his/her own plans for those places).

Closest i may come to railroading is using DMPC's to nudge them away from stupidity or to guide them into potential plothooks (the artificer that makes all their gear is being tracked by assasins, protect her from danger and follow the plothook, etc)

[TOZ]

I really want to not railroad my players, but it's hard when they ask 'so where's the next rail station, DM?' :smallamused: It could be my own fault for not making the hooks visible enough.

The best advice I've ever read on the subject is the Alexandrian's Node-Based Design (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/node-design/node-design.html) and Don't Prep Plots (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/prep-scenario.html) articles. I look forward to trying out my own non-module campaign with that in mind.

[Captainspork]

@TOZ: Great articles! Had a read at them and they definitely had some good advice on game planning. I think he makes a good point about planning too much during sessions.

@Kol Korron: I've had that same issue as well. While half of our group is available most any time, the other half (including myself) has RL obligations that take priority (in my case, exams ). As a DM, I keep an excel file which includes all my NPCs (most have their own word file), as well as info on states/nations/cities etc and whatever else is important (in my current campaign, religion, for example). I find this helps a lot. However, as we all know, most players aren't nearly as dedicated, especially online. I think TOZ makes a good point about making characters memorable, but it really comes down to PCs putting in the effort to keep track of the game. One thing I have done in the past is to occasionally award experience when a player remembers someone that every other party member forgot. I've found that can sometimes motivates people with some success.

[Captainspork]

Update: Ended up finishing up my map and world design, and I took one of the previously suggested ideas and let my players choose and design their hometowns, mostly from the major cities on my map (barring my approval of course :smallsmile:). I'm hoping this will help get them involved, and let them be a major driving force during the parts of the story that are in those locales. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on this method, and any possible pitfalls to avoid.

As an aside, does anyone have any suggestions/ideas that specifically target small group campaigns? My group is starting with 4 (including myself) and will probably grow to a max of 5 or 6. Up till now, the only really successful campaign I've DMed had probably 8 or 9 of us playing. Just wondering if anyone has any additional thoughts on that as well.