First time Dm-er

[UnholyPenance]

Hello playgrounders, next week i'm starting my first actually campaign and i'm a little nervous. I'm running the DungeonADay dungeon delve, so i have something i can follow..but i have no real experience past that.

Is there anything you could suggest for a first time dm?

all help is appreciated

[Shpadoinkle]

DO NOT expect the players to do anything you would do in a given situation. Things are very different on the other side of the DM screen. Your players will almost invariably do something you were completely unprepared for (and it'll probably be something really stupid, too, but every player does stuff like that. You just notice it a lot more as a DM.)

[Dienekes]

Some wisdom from my years of GMing and only GMing.

Remember this is a group activity. Your job as the GM is to 1st make sure that everyone is having fun, this is most important. Secondly is to have a vague idea of what the game is going to be about. The reason I say vague is because whatever brilliant plan you create will not survive 10 seconds with your players, you have to be able to roll with the punches. Vagueness does not mean you get to be sloppy. Your players will pounce on the opportunity to prove you wrong and if you put no effort in it'll show. Thirdly you have to keep the players attention.

Some helpful hints:
1) Don't start in a tavern. I mean, there's nothing really bad about it, but try some originality. A little originality in the beginning goes a long way.
2) Ask your players for backstories and look at their character sheets. The easiest way to get your players involved is to tie the plot of the game in with their backstory in some way. The easiest window into seeing what a player wants to do is look at their character sheets. Did Billy max out Slight of Hand for skills? Well then there'd better be a time for him to shine while slight of handing the crap out of something.
3) Don't be afraid to go all out. When I GM a character I take on a persona, I hold my body differently, I speak differently, and I display the emotions that the NPC in question would. You may feel uncomfortable the first few times you do it, but I found that my players respond well to it.
4) Put in the work. GMing is 90% preparation work and 10% gaming
5) Make your NPCs interesting. No one cares about random peasant number 341. But they might grow fond of the casually cynical Wat with a habit of saying outrageous curses at anything that bothers him. The breathe of life is in those extra little details.
6) Make the NPCs interesting but don't grow too attached to them. Your players could kill them or they could get screwed at any second. Nothing is more embarrassing then when a GM desperately tries to save that NPC they loved so much. Or when they keep bringing the same guy back that the rest of the group seems to hate. If the players don't enjoy your devilishly handsome Drow sorcerer, don't bring him back.
7) GMPC. Don't do it. It takes either a lot of skill or nauseating amounts of natural talent to make one that the players won't despise. It's simply safer to not have them around.
8) Make sure you're having fun. If GMing becomes a chore, it'll show in your work and everyone will not be as happy. It's better to step down than be dethroned.

[RaggedAngel]

The newer the players are, the more likely they are to attack everything. If you get a group of newbies at a table and tell them that they see an orc, attack rolls will be made. I don't care if he's decked out in golden armor; they think "monster" and they attack.

More experienced players know what you throw at them. And by 'know', I mean a longtime player can tell you the stat block of your cryohydra better than you can, and you've got it right in front of you.

[Zaq]

Don't panic. No matter what happens, don't panic.

You'll screw up. That's OK. They'll surprise you. That's OK. The dice are going to completely hate one player. That's OK.

Just don't panic. Panicking is the quickest ticket to a bad session. Don't let them push you into making a quick ruling that you'll end up regretting. Don't panic.

[Knaight]

Some helpful hints:
1) Don't start in a tavern. I mean, there's nothing really bad about it, but try some originality. A little originality in the beginning goes a long way.
2) Ask your players for backstories and look at their character sheets. The easiest way to get your players involved is to tie the plot of the game in with their backstory in some way. The easiest window into seeing what a player wants to do is look at their character sheets. Did Billy max out Slight of Hand for skills? Well then there'd better be a time for him to shine while slight of handing the crap out of something.
3) Don't be afraid to go all out. When I GM a character I take on a persona, I hold my body differently, I speak differently, and I display the emotions that the NPC in question would. You may feel uncomfortable the first few times you do it, but I found that my players respond well to it.
4) Put in the work. GMing is 90% preparation work and 10% gaming
5) Make your NPCs interesting. No one cares about random peasant number 341. But they might grow fond of the casually cynical Wat with a habit of saying outrageous curses at anything that bothers him. The breathe of life is in those extra little details.
6) Make the NPCs interesting but don't grow too attached to them. Your players could kill them or they could get screwed at any second. Nothing is more embarrassing then when a GM desperately tries to save that NPC they loved so much. Or when they keep bringing the same guy back that the rest of the group seems to hate. If the players don't enjoy your devilishly handsome Drow sorcerer, don't bring him back.
7) GMPC. Don't do it. It takes either a lot of skill or nauseating amounts of natural talent to make one that the players won't despise. It's simply safer to not have them around.
8) Make sure you're having fun. If GMing becomes a chore, it'll show in your work and everyone will not be as happy. It's better to step down than be dethroned.
Elaboration on these, all of which are useful.
1) The tavern is a terrible idea, and you can't go wrong with in media res. Start in the middle of a high stakes scene, and how you frame it informs the first impression heavily, a game that starts with killing desert raiders because you need their water and a game that starts in the middle of a trial before the throne set a very different first impression, much more than you get from a mere tavern.

2) Moreover, get your players to design characters together and weave the back stories into each other. Shamelessly lifting Burning Wheel's Beliefs or FATE's Aspects and having those as character short hand is also helpful.

3) Keep this as a tool for special occasions, at least to begin with. But keep this tool.

4) Note that prep time is highly dependent on the system involved. Odds are you need it for d20, but if it gets you down, there are other options, all of which are better than giving up GMing. Plus, always be ready to improvise, and don't worry if you aren't good at either prep or improv to begin with, they are learned skills. I'm basically an improv GM, and do next to no prep, outside of fleshing out settings for the fun of it.

5) Use this, but also keep the stock characters as options, with added traits sprinkled on as needed for bit parts. I'd familiarize myself with Comedia dell Arte archetypes as a quick resource, but there are other methods.

6) The key to this is having a lot of NPCs. You won't be as attached to any of them, and will get better at making interesting NPCs quickly. Again, this is a learned skill, don't worry if it takes a while to grok.

7) Yeah, don't do this. Subordinates can work, though I'd recommend holding off on those until you have more practice, but the GMPC is a trap.

8) Amen to this.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Organize, organize, ORGANIZE!

The more book-keeping you do on your game (XP gains, What's going on, extra rules, etc.) the less of a headache you'll get in the long run. I found this out the hard way, and am now taking serious steps towards better organization in my games.

If you run PbP, institute a Tracking Thread so all your important information is in one place. If it's RL, keep a Tracking Notebook of the same stuff.

If it's really hard, you can delegate some of these tasks to your players, like having them keep a journal of campaign events, but always assume that you'll need to do it yourself, just in case.

For an example of a Tracking Thread, here's one of mine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200485).

[Katana_Geldar]

Don't be afraid to ask for five minutes. It helps you can say "You guys roleplay for a moment, I need to work something out."

The more you plan, the less you panic.

[Knaight]

Organize, organize, ORGANIZE!

The more book-keeping you do on your game (XP gains, What's going on, extra rules, etc.) the less of a headache you'll get in the long run. I found this out the hard way, and am now taking serious steps towards better organization in my games.

Also, keep duplicate character sheets. At some point, someone will lose one, and that duplicate will be your friend. Plus, it makes a nice quick reference and is useful to have if you are a subscriber to the whole "balanced encounter" school of thought.

[Absol197]

7) GMPC. Don't do it. It takes either a lot of skill or nauseating amounts of natural talent to make one that the players won't despise. It's simply safer to not have them around.

I've actually found a way to do this without it becoming a problem:

First, make the DMPC less powerful than the party, and you play him to his stats. If you're honest about it, and he's not more powerful than them, it works well. Plus, if the party ever gets truly stuck, he can spontaneously "remember" something to get them back on track.

Second, expect that he might die, just like any other PC, and don't cheat to prevent it if it happens.

Of course, like has been said, for a first time DM it's probably (read: definitely) not a good idea. But it can be done well -- I don't use them too often, but I've never had a DMPC that the party has hated, because I make sure the game is about the party, and he's only a small part of it.

[XianTheCoder]

Regarding DMPC's.... My group has sporadically used them during times when the player rolls dropped off or when a the group lacked a desired role (our perma-cleric went to the marines for 4 years so we went without a divine caster for a while). I find that they work alright if/when the players initiate it. If the players feel like they gained a cohort/follower rather than had a character forced on them then they are more likely to not mind the character being around. Of course this means that you get far fewer options in what you get to play as the DMPC, but it's better than nothing. I agree with previous posts though, that you should generally not optimize to or beyond the level of the party, and unless there's specific need, don't play a tier 1 class (my groups most lovable DMPC was a low level rogue turned monk.... seriously underoptimized). Also, and extremely important... do not spend more time deciding what to do with your DMPCs loot then the players, and definately don't spend more time working on your character then the overall game... this makes the palyers feel like your more interested in making your character cool then their characters and the game.

[Big Fau]

Here's a really good tip to keep in mind: If the players seem really bored, send in the ninjas. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlepblp18h5?from=Main.ChandlersLaw)

[Darth Stabber]

Building on the point about DMPCs:

-they should only cover for a shortfall (ie a player can't make it, or the party is otherwise undermanned). my current campaign has 3 players, when they need a 4th man there is a character ready to fill in, but for the most part he's got a day job that keeps him from adventuring full time.

-they should be significantly less optimized than the players (not neccessarily lower level). the gmpc that the party has is a half-orc bard focused on twf, he's the same level, but he can't really compete with the Dread Necromancer, Unarmed Swordsage, and Psion in most respects

-unless they are covering a specific need (ie tank or trapfinder) the character should probably be support oriented. again the GMPC is a bard, and with dragonfire inspiration, and his spell list is focused on buffs (especially important given that halforcs have a CHA penalty)

-if at all possible the character should only be around for the parts where he is absolutely needed. If the GMPC is there because the party lacks a trapfinder, he is really only needed on a dungeon crawl. If it is an escort mission, delivery, or monster hunt, he should have some other pressing matter keep him from attending. The bard in question has all but stopped going out with them since the players have gotten their tactics down. Once the Dread Necromancer got a couple wights and the psion got astral construct and they adjusted their tactics, they could handle the adventures without the aid quite proficiently. And the green bard fell back into being a traditional NPC

-If the party is merely undermanned (2-3 players) consider the gestalt rules in the SRD/UA instead of a GMPC. It keeps the players doing the work, and opens up a whole new build paradiagm that a lot of player enjoy.

Other notes

-Know when to say yes, and when to say no. This is something a lot of new GMs have trouble with, usually falling to one extreme or the other (when I started GMing, I had trouble with no, but some people get really restrictive). Base classes that can logically fit in the world should probably all be fine since Wizard, Druid, and Cleric are all core, and nearly universally allowed (and are pretty much the most powerfull classes). Artificer is the exception since they generally require a fair bit of down time to be effective, and that could throw off your pacing. Banning individual non-broken things is usually just annoying, but if you want to say no to whole systems (like psionics or incarnum) because they don't fit in the setting go ahead.

-Make certain decisions democratically. The players are invested in the campaign, and ultimately you would like to keep the players around. If you are interested in including a new houserule, or homebrew, or a book that the other players aren't familiar with, it might be best to give the players a say. If you do give them a vote, do not get upset if they shoot it down, and do not do what you were going to do anyway. That will make them feel lied to, and harm the general good will of the table. If you are irrevocably set on using something don't hold it up as a vote (though you shouldn't really get that commited to something, this is collaberative story telling after all). If you want their input, but don't want to be countermanded, you can have a chat with the players about it, so long as you don't actually vote.

-Taverns are just fine starting places, so long as you don't do it every time, and realize that it is an overused trope bordering on cliche. Playing with genre conventions and tropes means that you have to play them straight sometimes (if for no other reason than to set up juxtopositions).

[Malimar]

1) The tavern is a terrible idea, and you can't go wrong with in media res. Start in the middle of a high stakes scene, and how you frame it informs the first impression heavily, a game that starts with killing desert raiders because you need their water and a game that starts in the middle of a trial before the throne set a very different first impression, much more than you get from a mere tavern.

Huh! It never even occurred to me that one could begin a D&D campaign in medias res. This is perhaps the most genius idea I've heard all day.

[Luckmann]

DO NOT expect the players to do anything you would do in a given situation. Things are very different on the other side of the DM screen. Your players will almost invariably do something you were completely unprepared for (and it'll probably be something really stupid, too, but every player does stuff like that. You just notice it a lot more as a DM.)

This ties well into my philosophy that everyone is an idiot.

Everyone.

Including me.

[Taelas]

We have always used DMPCs to fill out the party (we are a small group), and it has never been a problem. The DMPC is a normal player character, but he doesn't have any input on decisions (except if the party is stuck and the DM decides hinting isn't going to do it, and even then it is usually the result of a roll).

As long as the DM builds the character by the same principles that the players do, and treats his own character by the same rules he treats everyone else's, there really isn't a problem.

[UnholyPenance]

Thank you all for your words of advice.

[Geigan]

This ties well into my philosophy that everyone is an idiot.

Everyone.

Including me.

You fools!

Anyway I would suggest reading this thread (http://home.nerbonne.org/dnd/oaksparthread-H.xhtml) (fair warning as that is a lot of stuff to load and may lag your browser)for any aspiring DM but that's some really heavy reading. The quick primers you've gotten so far should be a good enough start.

[UnholyPenance]

Sometimes, i think the players can be drawn to a cliche. I started the campaign with everyone entering the town close to the delve from opposite ends of town even. Once i asked what everyone was going to do once in town, they said in unison, "To the Tavern!"

Also, i have six players in my group (i've been told that's pushing it for player count). Three of them have great backstories, quirks, and roleplaying opportunities. Such as, the warlock is being based off his Oblivion character who had to eat Daedra hearts to survive, so he's been wanting to find an outsider to eat it's heart. Another has this real life hatred for Wesker (from Res Evil). As a joke at first, i mentioned Wesker's name to see his reaction. Yet it's seeming to evolve from there and Wesker's making more apperences. Also, he hates undead from something that happened in the first session. The other three players have little quirks, but are playing more stats and skills.

Would it be wrong to reward those who are roleplaying their characters? I mean, sending outsiders for the warlock or undead for the wesker hater. The way the campaigns turning out, Wesker may turn out to be the end boss and i'm justifying why i'm doing ti because i feel i should reward his roleplaying by making his hatred the final fight.

What do you think?

[PollyOliver]

You can reward roleplaying if you like, but keep in mind that while some people might suck at roleplaying because they put no effort into it, others might suck at it because they're inexperienced or just bad at it, but they are trying. I would
1) Reward roleplaying effort, not just success and
2) Keep the rewards within reason, because depending on the group some people will get mad if other people get shiny toys or experience and they don't. And you don't want the party at different power levels, and you don't want to make roleplaying just a system to be gamed for rewards.

Edit: rewarding roleplaying with plot developments is frequently awesome, though

[Rogue Shadows]

Remember that you are one person and your players are several. Simply put, they will always be able to think up solutions to problems that you never even concieved of. Sometimes these will even be solutions that seem pretty obvious in hindsight. And, sometimes they will create problems when they absolutely didn't have to.

For that reason...don't feel too much of a need to hold back.

I'm not saying "through a CR 20 Red Dragon at them while they're level 5," of course. Monsters are a little different from what I'm getting at here. Rather, don't bother trying to think up solutions to situations: just present a situation. Your players will figure something out.

Have a definite goal, but be ready to adapt that goal towards what the players do. Have that climactic battle with the evil copper dragon planned out, but be ready to change the precise location.

Use manipulation to get your players where you want them whenever possible. Play into what you know they want and twist it to fit your own designs.

You're not evil. But you should be crafty. DMing isn't about DM verses player, but that doesn't mean that you don't necessarily have a "win condition." You are "winning" when your players are doing exactly what you want them to do, of their own volition, without realizing it.

This chart is your friend:

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/XanatosGambitDiagram_7509.jpg

[UnholyPenance]

You can reward roleplaying if you like, but keep in mind that while some people might suck at roleplaying because they put no effort into it, others might suck at it because they're inexperienced or just bad at it, but they are trying. I would
1) Reward roleplaying effort, not just success and
2) Keep the rewards within reason, because depending on the group some people will get mad if other people get shiny toys or experience and they don't. And you don't want the party at different power levels, and you don't want to make roleplaying just a system to be gamed for rewards.

Edit: rewarding roleplaying with plot developments is frequently awesome, though

I'm not rewarding them through items, xp, or gold. Just opportunities based off their roleplaying, such as the end boss and adding a few outsiders for flavor

[stemfish]

My biggest advice is to keep notes throughout the session of who enjoys what as the session goes on. Then next time adjust so that everyone gets something to shine at and enjoy, and minimize the time that most people don't enjoy something.

This happened to me when a roleplaying bit dragged on longer than I figured it would and while half the players loved it, the other half were bored to tears. But the entire group dives into combat, so I try to have a little roleplaying before or after combat, but mostly straight up combat and traps. You know your group (or will learn soon) so you know what to do best, you just don't know it yet.

Also, keep the game moving. Table talk is fun and there's more to life than D&D, but some rule lawyering or an off topic comment can lead to an hour of talking that eats up a quarter of your session. Same with combat talk, talking may be a free action, but when the group spends 5 minutes per round working out group tactics...well the monsters are right there listening in.

Good luck and feel free to message me for any other advise.

[Drglenn]

Don't rely on the CR system to give you decent encounters for your party as its a load of rubbish.
Use it more as a vague guideline-type thing

[Herabec]

If you're going to have a plot, I recommend starting to think of a few large set pieces and an ending now, so you have plenty of time to develop and evolve them based on your PC choices and whatnot.

[UnholyPenance]

So, i've notice one person trying to do everything. He's playing a Dragon Shaman, so i understand the 'i charge up and fight', but he's also searching, taking everything, reading everything, and is trying to talk for everyone. Also, he's starting to be more aggressive out of game, calling out when players do stupid moves (once i leave the room that is) and it's frustrating other players. I've also noticed he's starting to question my dming, but in the other game i'm in with this player with a different dm, he's more in line. (Admittedly, there are two other more experienced players able to keep him in line.) He's bigger and stronger than i am plus i'm not one for confrontation. My tentative plan is to punish him in game and try to rein him in so he'll respect me and my other players, but i'm not sure it'll work. Any advice?

[PollyOliver]

I wouldn't punish him in game until you talk to him out of game. Avoiding throw-down spontaneous wrestling is all well and good, but avoiding conflict by punishing people in game if they don't know what they're doing wrong just leads to worse conflict later. If the other players aren't having fun, I would talk to the guy and tell him that this is a group game and the point is for everyone to have fun playing it. Point out that the other players' characters have just as much of a right to be heard in game as his. You might also want to point out that while it's all well and good to talk strategy, he might try being courteous about it. No one enjoys being told they're stupid or they suck, and there are ways to instruct people in strategy that will make them far more receptive to what he's actually saying. You might also ask him if he can try to let the other characters occasionally shine at the things they are meant to be good at.

As for questioning your DMing, it really depends what he's doing. If he's just correcting you on rules, yeah, it can be annoying, but sometimes he might be right. If it's incessant or continued, you could try instituting the houserule I mentioned to Teej a while back--either "my ruling stands until the end of the session, we'll talk then" or "you have until your next turn to prove me wrong and then it stands till the end of the session and we'll talk then". If he's actually questioning your DMing style, there are a couple things to do. 1) Ask yourself if he has a point. If all the players are having a ton of fun, this is less likely. 2) If the other players are having fun, but he seems to not be or think something is lacking, ask yourself if you can work that something in somehow without taking away from your fun or the other players'. 3) If he's just being contrary, try to explain, as diplomatically as possible, that in order for the game to work, the DM has to run it. Without you making rulings/style calls/whatever, the game does not go fast or smoothly, and his outbursts are disruptive and detracting from your fun and the fun of the other players. If he has an issue, he should bring it up out of the session where it doesn't stall the game.

I'd only resort to "punishing" him in character if you cannot possibly get him to see reason out of character. Though frankly, if you cannot possibly get him to see reason out of character, I'd probably boot him from the table before I tried to play passive aggressive games with his character.

[UnholyPenance]

I wouldn't punish him in game until you talk to him out of game. Avoiding throw-down spontaneous wrestling is all well and good, but avoiding conflict by punishing people in game if they don't know what they're doing wrong just leads to worse conflict later. If the other players aren't having fun, I would talk to the guy and tell him that this is a group game and the point is for everyone to have fun playing it. Point out that the other players' characters have just as much of a right to be heard in game as his. You might also want to point out that while it's all well and good to talk strategy, he might try being courteous about it. No one enjoys being told they're stupid or they suck, and there are ways to instruct people in strategy that will make them far more receptive to what he's actually saying. You might also ask him if he can try to let the other characters occasionally shine at the things they are meant to be good at.

As for questioning your DMing, it really depends what he's doing. If he's just correcting you on rules, yeah, it can be annoying, but sometimes he might be right. If it's incessant or continued, you could try instituting the houserule I mentioned to Teej a while back--either "my ruling stands until the end of the session, we'll talk then" or "you have until your next turn to prove me wrong and then it stands till the end of the session and we'll talk then". If he's actually questioning your DMing style, there are a couple things to do. 1) Ask yourself if he has a point. If all the players are having a ton of fun, this is less likely. 2) If the other players are having fun, but he seems to not be or think something is lacking, ask yourself if you can work that something in somehow without taking away from your fun or the other players'. 3) If he's just being contrary, try to explain, as diplomatically as possible, that in order for the game to work, the DM has to run it. Without you making rulings/style calls/whatever, the game does not go fast or smoothly, and his outbursts are disruptive and detracting from your fun and the fun of the other players. If he has an issue, he should bring it up out of the session where it doesn't stall the game.

I'd only resort to "punishing" him in character if you cannot possibly get him to see reason out of character. Though frankly, if you cannot possibly get him to see reason out of character, I'd probably boot him from the table before I tried to play passive aggressive games with his character.

Thank you for the advice. I'll see what i can do, i'd prefer not to have to boot him because i like to keep the peace. I've gotten an interesting idea from a friend that i'd like to try out next session. See, my group can easily be split in two: two tanks (barbarian and Dragon Shaman), two healers (Cleric and Druid), and two specialists (rouge and warlock). The Barbarian, Druid, and Warlock enjoy the roleplaying and have given their characters a personality: outsider eater, undead hater, gem seeker plus a few other quirks whereas the other players are more about their stats, skills, rolls, and numbers. It was suggested to split the group for a session: having the roleplayers go do something and the numbers go do another, but both are central to the same task. He thought it might help the group have some fun being with those similar to themselves. What say you?

[PollyOliver]

As long as your group isn't paranoid about splitting the party (that always set off alarm bells in ours) and you think you can handle running both groups, it could work. Don't try to run both sides at the same time though; one side will always be waiting on you, and splitting your attention increases the chance of messing up or forgetting something important. But if you have two sets with very different play styles, it might well give each half a chance to do what they enjoy best for a little while, which could be fun.

Also, the barbarian eats outsiders?

[Jacque]

My only and most important advice for you is:

You will make mistakes. You will make lots of them. You will forget an important ability, an important plotclue, an important event. And its okay. It happens to everyone.

[UnholyPenance]

As long as your group isn't paranoid about splitting the party (that always set off alarm bells in ours) and you think you can handle running both groups, it could work. Don't try to run both sides at the same time though; one side will always be waiting on you, and splitting your attention increases the chance of messing up or forgetting something important. But if you have two sets with very different play styles, it might well give each half a chance to do what they enjoy best for a little while, which could be fun.

Also, the barbarian eats outsiders?

No, the Warlock does. He based his Warlock character off his Oblivion char. who had to eat the hearts of evil creatures to survive in the Oblivion gates, so he wanted to make his Warlock eat outsider hearts. It's his quirk

[Knaight]

My only and most important advice for you is:

You will make mistakes. You will make lots of them. You will forget an important ability, an important plotclue, an important event. And its okay. It happens to everyone.

Moreover, its quite possible that these gigantic mistakes will not be noticed.

[lord pringle]

5) Make your NPCs interesting. No one cares about random peasant number 341. But they might grow fond of the casually cynical Wat with a habit of saying outrageous curses at anything that bothers him. The breathe of life is in those extra little details.


I second that. If any of my group is reminded about the Troglodyte bartender who's only line was 'I don't deal with no light weights' the remember the whole game.
also expect the unexpected. *twitch* They flooded the second layer of hell *twitch *twitch*