The Nine Commandments of DM'ing [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Prymetime

2013-07-10, 01:25 PM

Hello, everyone. I run a podcast called Side Quests, and this week my co-host and I discuss what we feel to be the nine commandments vital to being a good DM. If you are a seasoned veteran, this won't be new information, but you're still welcome to have a listen. We made this podcast with the beginner DM in mind, so if you are just getting your feet wet in the realm of dungeon mastering, please come have a listen!

LINK: The Nine Commandments of DM'ing (http://prymecast.com/podcast/side-quests-july-10-2013-the-nine-commandments-of-dming/)

While we go into greater detail on each point in the show and do our best to explain our choices, the nine commandments we lay out are as follows:

1.) Your personal story isn't as important as the communal story. Your players will never care about your world as much as you do and that's okay.
2.) Every problem is an opportunity in disguise.
3.) Don't be afraid to make problems of your own.
4.) Ripping off other campaigns, video games, books, etc. is acceptable and oftentimes encouraged.
5.) The rules, much like the pirate's code, are more of a guideline. Don't let them trip you up.
6.) Know your players and play to their strengths and their interests.
7.) You are the arbiter and messenger, not the enemy. Your job is to make sure everyone has fun, not to make sure everyone dies.
8.) All DM's should be aware of Rule 0 and when to invoke it.
9.) D&D is largely improv. Instead of saying 'no,' say 'yes, and' or 'yes, but.'

What do you think? Are there any commandments that we missed? Is there anything you think new DM's should know that isn't listed here, or do you disagree with any of these points?

Amphetryon

2013-07-10, 02:05 PM

Prymetime

2013-07-10, 02:10 PM

I'd say a large number of these are group-specific. In particular, I've had groups get quite. . . attitudinal about #4, as they were interested in playing they OWN campaign, not in re-hashing some other campaign/tv show/movie/novel.

You're absolutely right, and that is a point we make. A lot of the 'commandments' are fairly situational, and, as we say in the show, at the end of the day, you know your game better than we do. Not every group can be shoehorned to fit these rules and that's why number six--knowing your players--is arguably the most important of the lot. Everyone has different playstyles, different goals, and different reasons to play the game. Your mileage may vary with this list; we just found it to be a good starting platform for beginning DM's. Thanks for your response!

Alejandro

2013-07-10, 02:44 PM

An important rule is 'Never resolve an out of game problem in game.'

hamlet

2013-07-10, 03:58 PM

Commandment #11: Learn when to actually say no. As in "No, you cannot strap a xylophone to your halberd."

Grinner

2013-07-10, 04:16 PM

Commandment #11: Learn when to actually say no. As in "No, you cannot strap a xylophone to your halberd."

How did this ruling come about?

Prymetime

2013-07-10, 04:23 PM

An important rule is 'Never resolve an out of game problem in game.'

Oh most definitely. Bringing real world issues into your fantasy world is a recipe for disaster. Awkward, awkward disaster. Good one.

Commandment #11: Learn when to actually say no. As in "No, you cannot strap a xylophone to your halberd."

Now, I'm normally in favor of "say yes always, no matter what," but I have to ask.. story time on this one?

Tork

2013-07-10, 04:26 PM

What do you think? Are there any commandments that we missed? Is there anything you think new DM's should know that isn't listed here, or do you disagree with any of these points?

I'm not so sure about #1. If players A to C like X, but the DM likes Y, then the game must do X. Well I'd say that having three players do the thing one DM wants, is just as bad as having one DM doing what three players want to do.

And as for seven...I have always been a two hat DM. A DM should try to ''kill the characters'' when they are acting out a role in the game...like a foe.

And I don't think many players like nine.

Werephilosopher

2013-07-10, 04:36 PM

An important rule is 'Never resolve an out of game problem in game.'
Equally important is keeping in-game problems from becoming out-of-game problems. If your friend's character pulls a prank on your character, or does something that really ticks you off, don't let it affect your out-of-game relationship.

nedz

2013-07-10, 04:44 PM

13) Your group will contain a spread of playstyles. If you favour one too much, your group will have fewer.

Barsoom

2013-07-10, 04:47 PM

Hello, everyone. I run a podcast called Side Quests, and this week my co-host and I discuss what we feel to be the nine commandments vital to being a good DM. If you are a seasoned veteran, this won't be new information, but you're still welcome to have a listen. We made this podcast with the beginner DM in mind, so if you are just getting your feet wet in the realm of dungeon mastering, please come have a listen!

LINK: The Nine Commandments of DM'ing (http://prymecast.com/podcast/side-quests-july-10-2013-the-nine-commandments-of-dming/)

While we go into greater detail on each point in the show and do our best to explain our choices, the nine commandments we lay out are as follows:

1.) Your personal story isn't as important as the communal story. Your players will never care about your world as much as you do and that's okay.
2.) Every problem is an opportunity in disguise.
3.) Don't be afraid to make problems of your own.
4.) Ripping off other campaigns, video games, books, etc. is acceptable and oftentimes encouraged.
5.) The rules, much like the pirate's code, are more of a guideline. Don't let them trip you up.
6.) Know your players and play to their strengths and their interests.
7.) You are the arbiter and messenger, not the enemy. Your job is to make sure everyone has fun, not to make sure everyone dies.
8.) All DM's should be aware of Rule 0 and when to invoke it.
9.) D&D is largely improv. Instead of saying 'no,' say 'yes, and' or 'yes, but.'
Aren't (5) and (8) basically the same? Also, with respect to Rule 0, you should know when to invoke it and when not to.

Love the second sentence of (9).

Eldan

2013-07-10, 04:55 PM

Now, I'm normally in favor of "say yes always, no matter what," but I have to ask.. story time on this one?

Have you never had this player? I thought every DM encountered this player over hte years. This player can be recognized by the following:

"I'm chaotic neutral so I thought my character would only speak in limericks, but he has only intelligence 5, so he doesn't actually know what a limerick is."

"Can I buy 200 live chickens instead of adventuring equipment?"

"My familiar is a banana pancake."

"I punch the king, because I'm so random."

"The guard is arresting me? Don't tell me how to play my character!"

"Combat is starting? I'm starting to juggle!"

"I'm half goldfish on my mother's side, so my long term memory is only five seconds."

Now, these were all invented. But I do remember the time I had a player who played a pacifist fighter who was, amongst other things, afraid of:

Small furry animals, dark rooms, spiders, water, the undead, magic, people with weapons, the colour blue and fresh fruit.

Afraid enough to run away at full speed. Of course, this was the first campaign I ever ran, I was a newbie DM and I was trying to run a premade adventure to learn the ropes.

Prymetime

2013-07-10, 05:21 PM

I'm not so sure about #1. If players A to C like X, but the DM likes Y, then the game must do X. Well I'd say that having three players do the thing one DM wants, is just as bad as having one DM doing what three players want to do.

If you and your players share intrinsically different ideologies on what constitutes quality D&D, there's unfortunately little you can do to fix the problem. But, as the DM, it is up to you to ensure that the game runs smoothly and the players enjoy themselves. An accomplished DM will be able to incorporate ideas, themes, and scenarios he or she wishes to have happen as well as the things his or her players desire. For example, let's say you want them to investigate the dealings of a demonic cult that's going to eventually lead them to the greater campaign arc, but they are more interested in the intrigues between the thieve's and adventurer's guilds. Build on that intrigue, that rivalry, encourage that storyline and have them incorporated into their chosen guild. The adventurer's guild starts finding that the thieve's guild has ties to a demonic cult, helping them procure goods needed for rituals. Something. Anything. There's always a way to tie the story back to where you want it to go without railroading. And now you have an entire subplot built by the players, including memorable and important NPC's to use as resources. This is what rule number one means. If you have a story and your players want to tell a different story, your story takes a back seat to "our" story. That doesn't mean your story has to go away; you just have to be creative. And being creative is what being a DM is all about.

Aren't (5) and (8) basically the same? Also, with respect to Rule 0, you should know when to invoke it and when not to.

Within the context of the podcast, rule number five refers to dealing with rules lawyers and letting the rules slow down the pacing of the game, where rule eight more covers your ability and the extent of your authority as the DM, and when it is and isn't okay to invoke absolute law on your players.

Have you never had this player? I thought every DM encountered this player over hte years. This player can be recognized by the following:

"I'm chaotic neutral so I thought my character would only speak in limericks, but he has only intelligence 5, so he doesn't actually know what a limerick is."

"Can I buy 200 live chickens instead of adventuring equipment?"

"My familiar is a banana pancake."

"I punch the king, because I'm so random."

"The guard is arresting me? Don't tell me how to play my character!"

"Combat is starting? I'm starting to juggle!"

"I'm half goldfish on my mother's side, so my long term memory is only five seconds."

Now, these were all invented. But I do remember the time I had a player who played a pacifist fighter who was, amongst other things, afraid of:

Small furry animals, dark rooms, spiders, water, the undead, magic, people with weapons, the colour blue and fresh fruit.

Afraid enough to run away at full speed. Of course, this was the first campaign I ever ran, I was a newbie DM and I was trying to run a premade adventure to learn the ropes.

I know the type. I don't DM that type, but I know of it. And my response to it would not be to say no, but when a player says, "My character is afraid of furry animals, darkness, spiders, small rocks, gentle bursts of wind, a child's laughter, etc.," I would quiz them on their character's motivations, why such a coward would want to brave the dark places of the world, how that player intends to have their character grapple with and overcome these worries, how that character is going to move forward and develop as an individual, how these qualities are going to help define his character as a compelling member of the party.. if they can answer all those questions earnestly, I give them a pass and let them try their hand at their oddball character. But usually showing your players how serious you are about DM'ing makes them serious about playing and weeds out the wise guys.

Eldan

2013-07-10, 05:26 PM

Weeelll...

It's a good idea, but it I don't think it will work. In my experience, they don't put that much thought into their character, apart from "lol random". At best you might get a very short answer like "childhood trauma, he's not talking about it" or "he was cursed by the goddess of love for writing dirty poetry about her".

The one I had probably could, the guy's smart and he's also a pretty good story writer, usually.
If you tell him not to play what he wants, he'll probably either sulk or make a scene and throwing out someone during character creation has a habit of tainting a game session.

Plus, the guy was my best RL friend at the time. I only knew him and one other person who were even remotely interested in fantasy of any kind. Couldn't really kick him.

hamlet

2013-07-10, 06:04 PM

Now, I'm normally in favor of "say yes always, no matter what," but I have to ask.. story time on this one?

Player was playing a bard and did not want to be told that she had to put away the halberd in order to play her instrument, which was a xylophone, so she decided to strap it to the weapon and play it while engaged in combat.

She also attempted to strap on a lit torch, turn her xylophone into one of those little drag behind kids toys that plays by itself, and bolted a hooded lantern to her head (not helmet, head).

Raum

2013-07-10, 06:27 PM

What do you think? Are there any commandments that we missed? Is there anything you think new DM's should know that isn't listed here, or do you disagree with any of these points?As others mentioned, several are group and / or system specific. They're certainly not all "vital to being a good DM". As you note in a follow up post, some are situational. If they're situational, how are they vital?

Some specifics:
#1 - Personally, I agree. However this is not universal. Many prefer tightly scripted adventures.
#2 - While I agree with the sentiment, I'd reword it. Absolute statements tend to be disprovable.
#3 - Depends on your definition of "problem". Personally I'd say you should create in-game conflict, situations, dilemmas, and drama. None of those are what I'd consider problems in the context of a game.
#4 - Sure, no real objections...inspiration may come from a variety of sources. I often use news, not much weirder than real life. ;)
#5 & 8 - These are system and group dependent. Some systems depend on arbitrary GMs while others don't need (or even discourage) arbitrary decisions. Most importantly, don't break the social contract!
#6 - Depends on the game / system. Some intentionally explore specific concepts.
#7 - Agree until "your job is to make sure everyone has fun". You can't force fun. Perhaps more importantly, the GM is a player of the game also - just in a different role. He / she should also be having fun. It's a group effort to ensure no one is having fun at another's expense.
#8 - See #5.
#9 - It's a decent guideline, one I try to keep in mind. It's not an absolute. Don't be a doormat! So not something I'd call a commandment.

To come up with valid "commandments" you'll need to paint with a broad stroke. I'd say the single most important thing a GM needs to do is communicate. The GM is the players' window into the campaign and setting as well as a referee. Communications are key.

Grinner

2013-07-10, 06:29 PM

Raineh Daze

2013-07-10, 06:31 PM

Player was playing a bard and did not want to be told that she had to put away the halberd in order to play her instrument, which was a xylophone, so she decided to strap it to the weapon and play it while engaged in combat.

She also attempted to strap on a lit torch, turn her xylophone into one of those little drag behind kids toys that plays by itself, and bolted a hooded lantern to her head (not helmet, head).

... but the xylophone things there are amazing. :smallfrown:

#5 & 8 - These are system and group dependent. Some systems depend on arbitrary GMs while others don't need (or even discourage) arbitrary decisions. Most importantly, don't break the social contract!

Uh... just to check, you do realise that 'arbiter' is not the same as 'arbitrary', right? :smallconfused:

hamlet

2013-07-10, 08:11 PM

Was she playing a gnome, perchance? :smallamused:

No, just insane. She also sobbed loudly when her character was killed after charging blindly into a dark room she knew to be filled with monsters.

Like I said, sometimes the DM really should just say no.

Raum

2013-07-10, 08:39 PM

Uh... just to check, you do realise that 'arbiter' is not the same as 'arbitrary', right? :smallconfused:Yes. Items 5 & 8 are talking about making unilateral decisions without or in spite of published rules. That's arbitrary. arbitrary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary?s=t&path=/)
adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. Do note, I did not assign a value judgement to making arbitrary decisions. I simply stated it isn't appropriate in all situations / groups / game systems.

The Fury

2013-07-10, 10:06 PM

Player was playing a bard and did not want to be told that she had to put away the halberd in order to play her instrument, which was a xylophone, so she decided to strap it to the weapon and play it while engaged in combat.

She also attempted to strap on a lit torch, turn her xylophone into one of those little drag behind kids toys that plays by itself, and bolted a hooded lantern to her head (not helmet, head).

Maybe these are the sorts of things that fall under #9's "Yes, but--" thing?

Such as, "Yes, you can strap a xylophone to your halberd but your halberd is now unwieldy and the xylophone's keys are falling out."

"Yes, you can strap a torch to yourself if you want to be on fire."

"Yes, you can turn your xylophone into one of those drag-behind kid's toys that plays itself, though it works pretty crappy on rocky terrain and gets stuck whenever there's mud."

"Yes, you can jam some bolts into your skull if you really want to. You can no longer feel your right arm."

Seharvepernfan

2013-07-10, 11:06 PM

My cousin and I started playing D&D together; my first game was his first game. The biggest problem I ever had with him, regarding the game, was that he felt that players should never lose. If his characters died, he would get upset (sometimes he would get upset at even a relatively minor setback or embarassment). When he DMed, my players just could not ever lose. (I don't know if he was consciously aware of his bias or not)

I did not enjoy his games.

If I can tell that a DM is being soft on me (or "us"), either by fudging dice in my/our favor or having npc's do uncharacteristically stupid things, then I just lost virisimilitude and now enjoy the game less. I like challenges, and if I only got by through "cheating", then I'm going to feel cheated.

So, some of these "commandments" need to be tailored to the specific players.

Prymetime

2013-07-10, 11:07 PM

As others mentioned, several are group and / or system specific. They're certainly not all "vital to being a good DM". As you note in a follow up post, some are situational. If they're situational, how are they vital?

Some specifics:
#1 - Personally, I agree. However this is not universal. Many prefer tightly scripted adventures.
#2 - While I agree with the sentiment, I'd reword it. Absolute statements tend to be disprovable.
#3 - Depends on your definition of "problem". Personally I'd say you should create in-game conflict, situations, dilemmas, and drama. None of those are what I'd consider problems in the context of a game.
#4 - Sure, no real objections...inspiration may come from a variety of sources. I often use news, not much weirder than real life. ;)
#5 & 8 - These are system and group dependent. Some systems depend on arbitrary GMs while others don't need (or even discourage) arbitrary decisions. Most importantly, don't break the social contract!
#6 - Depends on the game / system. Some intentionally explore specific concepts.
#7 - Agree until "your job is to make sure everyone has fun". You can't force fun. Perhaps more importantly, the GM is a player of the game also - just in a different role. He / she should also be having fun. It's a group effort to ensure no one is having fun at another's expense.
#8 - See #5.
#9 - It's a decent guideline, one I try to keep in mind. It's not an absolute. Don't be a doormat! So not something I'd call a commandment.

To come up with valid "commandments" you'll need to paint with a broad stroke. I'd say the single most important thing a GM needs to do is communicate. The GM is the players' window into the campaign and setting as well as a referee. Communications are key.

Hi, thanks for the response. The intent of the podcast was to lay down some ideas for new DM's that would help them create the best D&D experience possible. In the show itself, we go into detail about what each point means, the caveats attached to each, and in the end we decide that the entire list of commandments are, similar to the rules of D&D, more of a guideline; nebulous, open to interpretation, and don't fit everyone's playstyles. I could understand how the truncated version of our thoughts I've posted here could seem incomplete, perhaps even incorrect, which is why I'd encourage any new DM's looking for information to listen to the podcast, where I feel we better explain ourselves. But I'm thrilled to see the subject bring such conversation, and many wonderful points have been brought up, yours included!

My cousin and I started playing D&D together; my first game was his first game. The biggest problem I ever had with him, regarding the game, was that he felt that players should never lose. If his characters died, he would get upset (sometimes he would get upset at even a relatively minor setback or embarassment). When he DMed, my players just could not ever lose. (I don't know if he was consciously aware of his bias or not)

I did not enjoy his games.

If I can tell that a DM is being soft on me (or "us"), either by fudging dice in my/our favor or having npc's do uncharacteristically stupid things, then I just lost virisimilitude and now enjoy the game less. I like challenges, and if I only got by through "cheating", then I'm going to feel cheated.

So, some of these "commandments" need to be tailored to the specific players.

I agree absolutely. I use the word 'commandment' but it's just a buzz word. These things aren't hard set in stone. And the disconnect and dissatisfaction you felt with your DM going easy, I feel, is covered by number 6: know your players. As I mention in the show, my group is much more character-driven. They love their characters and are attached to the point where if we had a TPK it would probably end the campaign. So I have the task of making a campaign difficult enough that the worry of death is prevalent, but not pushing it to the point where I wipe the group. But every group is different and none of them are wrong.

Seharvepernfan

2013-07-11, 05:48 AM

I feel, is covered by number 6: know your players.

The more you see me around here, the more you realize I am incapable of seeing the flaws of my posts until after they are posted.

hamlet

2013-07-11, 08:00 AM

Maybe these are the sorts of things that fall under #9's "Yes, but--" thing?

Such as, "Yes, you can strap a xylophone to your halberd but your halberd is now unwieldy and the xylophone's keys are falling out."

"Yes, you can strap a torch to yourself if you want to be on fire."

"Yes, you can turn your xylophone into one of those drag-behind kid's toys that plays itself, though it works pretty crappy on rocky terrain and gets stuck whenever there's mud."

"Yes, you can jam some bolts into your skull if you really want to. You can no longer feel your right arm."

No, we attempted that (the DM and myself who got sick of a 2 hour diversion every time one of these things popped up). She wanted to dictate not only what she wanted to attempt, but the result as well, and logic had no effect. Even to the point of physically showing her how big a xylophone was and what happened when you tried to secure it to a halberd (by strnage coincidence, we actually had both on premises at the time).

So, yeah, I maintain that the DM needs to learn when, on those certain occasions, he/she is required to simply say "No."

In any case, I will unhijack this thread slightly and comment more towards the OP.

Specifically, commandment #1. I would typically rephrase it thus: "Plot/story in game does not work the same as plot/story in a novel, movie, or television show. It is, simply put, what the characters do, not a progression from point A to B to C creating an overarching predetermined story."

Can't tell you how many games I've quit based on what I view as this misunderstanding. Both as a DM and as a player.

Scow2

2013-07-11, 10:52 AM

No, we attempted that (the DM and myself who got sick of a 2 hour diversion every time one of these things popped up). She wanted to dictate not only what she wanted to attempt, but the result as well, and logic had no effect. Even to the point of physically showing her how big a xylophone was and what happened when you tried to secure it to a halberd (by strnage coincidence, we actually had both on premises at the time).
*Dictating results is not one of the rights a player has. Remind them of this. They can choose their actions and make their decisions. But the world - even physical laws, need to react to them

Lord Haart

2013-07-11, 11:01 AM

Even to the point of physically showing her how big a xylophone was and what happened when you tried to secure it to a halberd (by strnage coincidence, we actually had both on premises at the time).

Now that's a story i wanna hear.

hamlet

2013-07-11, 12:23 PM

Now that's a story i wanna hear.

Sure.

Now, you got to keep in mind I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time . . .

*Dictating results is not one of the rights a player has. Remind them of this. They can choose their actions and make their decisions. But the world - even physical laws, need to react to them

Yeah, I know. And we did remind her. But she detonated at least three separate gaming groups entirely. The survivors of the fallout, luckily, got together and have formed a fourth and seriously keep it under wraps that they're even still living in the same state let alone gaming.

Deepbluediver

2013-07-11, 12:29 PM

7.) You are the arbiter and messenger, not the enemy. Your job is to make sure everyone has fun, not to make sure everyone dies.

I've said before that the books should do a better job of emphasizing the fact that to "win" the game is to have fun, not to "beat the DM" OR "beat the players".

Making sure everyone has fun, though, is the job of the whole group. If the DM offers you plot hooks to go west, south, or east, the players shouldn't head into the northern wastes and demand the DM conjure a story for them out of nothing.

That doesn't invalidate this rule, but there should be something similar on the "9 rules of being a good player".

Alejandro

2013-07-11, 12:55 PM

Sure.

Now, you got to keep in mind I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time . . .

Yeah, I know. And we did remind her. But she detonated at least three separate gaming groups entirely. The survivors of the fallout, luckily, got together and have formed a fourth and seriously keep it under wraps that they're even still living in the same state let alone gaming.

How in the world did you let one person wreck three successive gaming groups? No one had the cojones to boot the person?

hamlet

2013-07-11, 01:21 PM

How in the world did you let one person wreck three successive gaming groups? No one had the cojones to boot the person?

Essentially, it boiled down to that. Nobody wanted to bite the bullet and send her away, so things sorta blew up all at once in three concurrent groups that were running (with, actually, a core of the same group of people with others coming and going).

Prymetime

2013-07-11, 01:59 PM

I've said before that the books should do a better job of emphasizing the fact that to "win" the game is to have fun, not to "beat the DM" OR "beat the players".

Making sure everyone has fun, though, is the job of the whole group. If the DM offers you plot hooks to go west, south, or east, the players shouldn't head into the northern wastes and demand the DM conjure a story for them out of nothing.

That doesn't invalidate this rule, but there should be something similar on the "9 rules of being a good player".

Interestingly, we are considering a follow-up episode that would be "Nine Commandments of PC-ing(?)" so thoughts like this are especially valuable to me, because when it came time to think up a list, I drew a blank. I guess I just don't have enough experience on the opposite side of the table.

Deepbluediver

2013-07-11, 02:23 PM

Interestingly, we are considering a follow-up episode that would be "Nine Commandments of PC-ing(?)" so thoughts like this are especially valuable to me, because when it came time to think up a list, I drew a blank. I guess I just don't have enough experience on the opposite side of the table.

Hmm...honestly, I think that the comment about different groups having slightly different rules applies more to the players than to the DM. Every DM has to keep the word functional, sort-of arrange the plot, and provide a suitable environment for the group. Across many systems and in many genres, you can find some common ground.

But players have a lot more variety in their actions, even when given a setting by the DM. You might have better luck just saying something like "all the players need to agree that they are on the same page", and then talking about different types of games.

What I mean is, you can have completely cooperative games where the party must reach a consensus on everything and PvP games where the Rogue pickpockets his own group. Or look at a different axis, and go from Sandbox, to straightforward dungeon crawl, or kill-everything and rule the world to courtly intrigue/politics and charm. And anything in between.

All are workable, but NOT one you've got one person from each style in the same group, and I've seen player-friction destroy (or lessen the fun of) more games than I have from conflicts between players and the DM.

Knaight

2013-07-11, 02:23 PM

*Dictating results is not one of the rights a player has. Remind them of this. They can choose their actions and make their decisions. But the world - even physical laws, need to react to them

This is game dependant - in Wushu, they very much do, and it isn't the only one. Then there are metagame points, which often allow this even in more traditional systems, and on top of that there are the GMless systems (though those aren't particularly relevant here).

Fibinachi

2013-07-11, 03:57 PM

1.) Your personal story isn't as important as the communal story. Your players will never care about your world as much as you do and that's okay.

I disagree. I'm not inviting people to participate in my personal imaginary realm. We are all playing this together - everyone caring at least a little is a requirement, and I'm often the guy who cares the least ("So what was up with those kobolds?" ".. What kobolds?" "The two kobolds who followed us around the desert talking about a quest" "Oh, I was looking for something to add a bit of tension. They weren't important" "What? Look, I made up this entire kobold realm because it seemed to fit. And I'm giving them a cake next time we meet them. They're important now!")

Essentially, you don't need the last sentence, and you should consider writing "your personal story is only a part of the communal story".

It also seems really sad to me to set out with the stated goal that the people you are playing with don't care, or at least don't care very much.

2.) Every problem is an opportunity in disguise.

No. Most problems are opportunities in disguise for advancement and dialogue. Some problems are problems, and should be treated as such, prone to the dictates of communal story telling and dialogue. I don't have to treat someone threatening me with violence for doing 1d4 dmg to their character as another opportunity, unless that opportunity is for a quick bout of fisticuffs to settle the question.

3.) Don't be afraid to make problems of your own.

As long as those problems are solvable, or at least, interesting. DM fiat is great fun if everyone enjoys it, but the trick is in the last three words of that semi-sentence.

4.) Ripping off other campaigns, video games, books, etc. is acceptable and oftentimes encouraged.

Yes.

5.) The rules, much like the pirate's code, are more of a guideline. Don't let them trip you up.

Some rules are more of a guideline. Some rules are rules, and breaking them without at least giving a reason is considered poor gamesmanship. It's fun if the cantrip suddenly kills someone because of allergies. It's not fun if a longsword now does 1d12 damage because you wanted the players to suffer. You can change rules often, but you need to be careful with grand sweeping redirection of gritty mechanics.

6.) Know your players and play to their strengths and their interests.

Yes.
Side-note, is there actually anyone that doesn't do that? q:

7.) You are the arbiter and messenger, not the enemy. Your job is to make sure everyone has fun, not to make sure everyone dies.

Probably the most important point on here.

8.) All DM's should be aware of Rule 0 and when to invoke it.

Conversely, all DM's should be aware of Rule 0 and when not to invoke it.

9.) D&D is largely improv. Instead of saying 'no,' say 'yes, and' or 'yes, but.'

Or consider "Maybe" or "Yeah, doesn't it?". Both are very useful phrases.
("Can I make this jump?" "Maybe")
("Woah, that sounds like it would be heavily guarded!" "Yeah, doesn't it?")

FabulousFizban

2013-07-11, 04:11 PM

Fighter1000

2013-07-11, 07:04 PM

If your tabletop roleplaying game involves the rolling of dice, and not everyone has their own dice, make an agreement with your players. The agreement goes like this: You, the DM, rolls the dice for them unless they say otherwise. This eliminates problems so that if you roll a number they really don't like, you don't have to listen to them whine
"You rolled a natural 1, stupid DM! I hate that dice! I want to reroll that same check myself!"
Or you could opt to introduce "fate points" into your game so that if they do want to force a reroll, they can, but they must spend doze fate points ta do it.
This "commandment" has helped me in the past when GMing for my players, because some of my friends have always had a limited amount of dice.

There's certain foundations and agreements that must be made with your players before the game can begin. The above advice is just one such agreement that should be made beforehand.

Barsoom

2013-07-11, 07:08 PM

("Woah, that sounds like it would be heavily guarded!" "Yeah, doesn't it?")Or my personal favorite: "I can see why you would think so."

Deepbluediver

2013-07-11, 08:56 PM

Or my personal favorite: "I can see why you would think so."

That's perfect. It's practically the most ambiguous thing you can say, and no matter what the situation it's not dishonest or limiting to the players.

Amphetryon

2013-07-13, 10:04 AM

Alejandro

2013-07-13, 10:47 AM

Prymetime

2013-07-13, 07:35 PM

I have to hand it to you, that is the first time I've ever heard of a group problem stemming from there not being enough dice for everyone. Every group I have ever been a part of has at least one and usually multiple people with entire sets of different types and colors, and they just let someone borrow a set.

Truth. As a decade-long roleplayer I've amassed a treasure trove of dice. Of course, savvy players know better than to touch the DM's dice.

Phaederkiel

2013-07-13, 08:26 PM

Winniger's rules of dungeoncraft

1) Never create more than you have to
2) Every time you create a major game element, create a secret for that element
3) Whenever you have no idea what the probability of success should be for a situation, consider it 50%
4) Always challenge the players AND their characters
5) Once dice have been rolled & you've moved on, never reset events to an earlier state to correct a mistake

I really like those rules. Especially nr. 4 is gold.

here come some more practically minded "commandments" (if it is only a buzz-word, why use it? Isn't this a community of smart people?) of my own:

1. When desingning encounters, I try to switch between encounters which make my players abilities relevant, and encounters which somewhat prey on their shortcomings. As a third part of the cycle, I randomly open a MM and use the first thing that is on the partys cr or below.

2. Everything my players do has consequences. Which sometimes make them think a bit longer than I want, but enriches the game when a small random act leads to a response which affects the overall game.

3. I try to play my badguys according to their Intelligence and Information.
A BBEG should not be waiting for the party to come and slaughter him. Neither should a street urchin.

4. I love riddles, but I hate dungeon rooms with a riddle inside 'coz the BBEG had no better idea for his security system. I want my riddles coming naturally. ( An example: Party was travelling a big river delta by boat - suddenly the crew attacks them. They're PIRATES! Party kills pirates, find a map of the river, but has no idea where on the map they are. Some thinking in combination with some clever use of their skills and they are able to guess.)

5. The players do not know what you have planned for them. If they would miss your beautiful encounter on the left because they went right, reallocate the encounter to the right.

6. NPC get funny Voices, and I do train the delivery.

Raum

2013-07-13, 09:44 PM

I really like those rules. Especially nr. 4 is gold.

here come some more practically minded "commandments" (if it is only a buzz-word, why use it? Isn't this a community of smart people?) of my own:I like Fizban's list as well and certainly agree with you on the buzzword bs. I've played buzzword bingo during large meetings at work, I'd really prefer to keep words meaningful elsewhere.

I like most of your list as well. I'd rephrase #1 a bit perhaps, "give equal spotlight time" is how I think of it. (And I seldom do random encounters.) Number 2 is something I think too many games miss. Particularly since it makes the games far more real. Whether meeting the child whose parents you saved or seeing the remnants of the town you refused to rescue - consequences add impact to the game. Agree with three also and with four for the most part...though my liking for riddles is probably less than yours. ;)

Items five and six are where we start to diverge. Five simply because I seldom plan encounters more than one session ahead - it helps prevent misguided planning on my part. For that matter I'll even ask players what their plans are at the end of a session if it isn't obvious. As for six, well I suck at voices. :smallredface:

Baron Of Hell

2013-07-13, 10:02 PM

There are some rules that are unique to PBP that you didn't touch on.
1. Keep the game moving. Meaning don't go without posting for weeks.
2. If one player is constantly holding up the game don't be afraid to cut them or run their PC.

Amphetryon

2013-07-14, 09:14 AM

I've said before that the books should do a better job of emphasizing the fact that to "win" the game is to have fun, not to "beat the DM" OR "beat the players".

Making sure everyone has fun, though, is the job of the whole group. If the DM offers you plot hooks to go west, south, or east, the players shouldn't head into the northern wastes and demand the DM conjure a story for them out of nothing.

That doesn't invalidate this rule, but there should be something similar on the "9 rules of being a good player".

Some Players I've known would insist that "head[ing] into the northern wastes and demanding the DM conjure a story for them" is well within their rights, and would call it a violation of said rights for the DM to claim otherwise.

Of course, in the same group, I had Players (sometimes the same Players as above) who complained about railroading if their actions took them toward an apparent set-piece. . . .

Phaederkiel

2013-07-14, 09:28 AM

I like most of your list as well. I'd rephrase #1 a bit perhaps, "give equal spotlight time" is how I think of it. (And I seldom do random encounters.)

Number 2 is something I think too many games miss. Particularly since it makes the games far more real. Whether meeting the child whose parents you saved or seeing the remnants of the town you refused to rescue - consequences add impact to the game. Agree with three also and with four for the most part...though my liking for riddles is probably less than yours. ;)

I like to do about one third "random" encounters as in: monsters I did not write myself. I will still refluff anything I get out of a book so that it fits my setting and is not too familiar with my players. On the other hand I try to use some very iconic monsters from time to time.

The good thing a random monster has is: Its fair. You did not design it to challenge a certain aspect of your party, nor did you chose its weaknesses. Therefore, unexpected Problems or easy victorys happen, which is good for diversity. And I much prefer a pregenerated Monster to fall prey to a first round roflstomp than one I made in 2 hours of work.

I Aim for about 2 fifth of combat, 2 fifth social encounter and 1 fifths riddle sessions. Although the riddles can be inserted in social encounters or combat encountes.

Items five and six are where we start to diverge. Five simply because I seldom plan encounters more than one session ahead - it helps prevent misguided planning on my part. For that matter I'll even ask players what their plans are at the end of a session if it isn't obvious. As for six, well I suck at voices. :smallredface:

Well, I like my encounters well designed, and I will not let my players dodge any encounter which i deem really interesting. Which is not to say that I will not give them freedom to chose what they are doing, but I will simply refluff and relocate encounters they went around.

Deepbluediver

2013-07-14, 09:40 AM

Some Players I've known would insist that "head[ing] into the northern wastes and demanding the DM conjure a story for them" is well within their rights, and would call it a violation of said rights for the DM to claim otherwise.

Of course, in the same group, I had Players (sometimes the same Players as above) who complained about railroading if their actions took them toward an apparent set-piece. . . .

Then those people are being bad players.
Let me clarify; they are free to wander off into the northern wastes, but they can't complain when they face 37 random encounters in a row (and I mean truly random, everything from a single sickly kobold to the lich-tarrasque) and then starve to death when they fail enough survival rolls.
I'd pretty much shrug and go "it was your choice, now deal with it".

Maybe one of the "9 rules for players" should be to ask your GM what kind of game they are trying to run and then work WITH them to make it happen.

Not all GMs can handle a truly open absolutely-anything-goes sandbox. Some can have a multi-plotline world, and some might feel that keeping a single story juggling at the same is the limit of their abilities.

So long as the GM is flexible enough so that he doesn't need to resort to fiat constantly, especially when the players legitimately make an unexpected play, I don't have a problem with that. Trying to dismantle the world or game as presented just because you're unhappy with how things are progressing is the same as throwing a temper tantrum. IMO any gamer with less maturity than a 3-year old won't be a long-term asset anyway, and should be dis-invited from the group.

GameSpawn

2013-07-14, 03:52 PM

TuggyNE

2013-07-14, 06:20 PM

Amphetryon

2013-07-14, 06:38 PM

Do you live in the same area as Talakeal or something? You guys have players with terrible, terrible attitudes, it's really sad.

Mine mostly came from the 'joys' of running a game at a public setting, where management said I had to let any interested Players join on any given week, and couldn't kick them unless they violated management's policies (which weren't related to gaming)..

Mr Beer

2013-07-14, 10:07 PM

So, yeah, I maintain that the DM needs to learn when, on those certain occasions, he/she is required to simply say "No."

I agree. Different techniques work on different people. Most players can be guided by cause and effect and won't derail a session arguing about it. If you have someone who responds to adult discussion by bitching for 2 hours, then say "no" and leave it there. You're doing everyone a favour.

Mr Beer

2013-07-14, 10:09 PM

Mine mostly came from the 'joys' of running a game at a public setting, where management said I had to let any interested Players join on any given week, and couldn't kick them unless they violated management's policies (which weren't related to gaming)..

If I was forced into that situation, those problem players' characters would have short and unpleasant lifespans in game.

"Yes, the archers/powerful wizard/dragon did randomly target you again. No, you can't watch me roll the dice. OK, well if you feel like that, I will understand if you choose to leave."

Prymetime

2013-07-15, 12:56 AM

I like your podcast mostly, especially rule #1. One rule I'd add is "let your PCs drive the plot". Sometimes this means it will go slowly, or in a direction you didn't intend, but it's best to let that happen. Another, related, rule would be "don't make your players helpless". Not to say it won't happen sometimes, but it should happen because of bad die rolls or poor decisions on their part, not because you put them in a situation that was far above their power level to deal with.

Thanks for giving us a listen! I am of the opinion that we do a much better job explaining our "commandments" on our show than I've done here. Just listing them doesn't give our thoughts justice. :smallsmile:

I would agree with both of your points. We touch briefly on letting the PC's drive the plot with number one, but don't overtly state it. It's true, railroading is a grievous sin. I have the good fortune of having a group that enjoy being led a bit, and I enjoy spinning a tale, so I lay down the foundation and they flesh out the plot. It works well for us. Making your players helpless is equally grievous, although the distinction should be made that the DM shouldn't be putting them into those situations; the players getting themselves into said situations is another matter entirely!

Amphetryon

2013-07-15, 10:21 AM

If I was forced into that situation, those problem players' characters would have short and unpleasant lifespans in game.

"Yes, the archers/powerful wizard/dragon did randomly target you again. No, you can't watch me roll the dice. OK, well if you feel like that, I will understand if you choose to leave."

Such tactics would have a) been against my personal ethics code and b) resulted in management coming down on me, the minute one of the Players complained.

Phaederkiel

2013-07-15, 03:48 PM

were you at least paid well?

Amphetryon

2013-07-15, 04:42 PM

were you at least paid well?

I made twice as much money doing that, compared to what you get paid specifically to post here. . . .

Phaederkiel

2013-07-15, 06:14 PM

Amphetryon

2013-07-15, 06:21 PM

yeah, but here I can just turn my back on anyone who I do not like.

And I just wanted to offer some sympathies.
By the way, I know some guys who get paid a little by their store for dm'ing, so my question was meant less sarcastically than it probably got over.

I figured your question was genuine. Sorry if my naturally sarcastic nature rubbed you the wrong way with my response.

TuggyNE

2013-07-16, 04:21 AM

And I just wanted to offer some sympathies.
By the way, I know some guys who get paid a little by their store for dm'ing, so my question was meant less sarcastically than it probably got over.

I figured your question was genuine. Sorry if my naturally sarcastic nature rubbed you the wrong way with my response.

<shamelessplug>Situations for this are what green text is for!</shamelessplug> :smallwink:

Amphetryon

2013-07-16, 05:38 AM

<shamelessplug>Situations for this are what green text is for!</shamelessplug> :smallwink:

You should be happy I used grey text the other day to nitpick at a potential nuance to someone's comment. Baby steps. :smallwink:

TuggyNE

2013-07-16, 06:50 AM

You should be happy I used grey text the other day to nitpick at a potential nuance to someone's comment. Baby steps. :smallwink:

Heh. Yeah, I'm just eager is all. :smalltongue:

Fiery Diamond

2013-07-18, 01:54 PM

Such tactics would have a) been against my personal ethics code and b) resulted in management coming down on me, the minute one of the Players complained.

Wait. So the players can crash your game by being terrible players so long as they don't break non-gaming regulations, but you have to put up with them and treat them fairly or you'll get in trouble? The hell? How is THAT fair?

TuggyNE

2013-07-18, 05:32 PM

Wait. So the players can crash your game by being terrible players so long as they don't break non-gaming regulations, but you have to put up with them and treat them fairly or you'll get in trouble? The hell? How is THAT fair?

Who said anything about fair? "The customer is always right", and Amphetryon was presumably less a customer and more an volunteer attraction.

Waker

2013-07-18, 05:51 PM

Nah, the appropriate response for Amphetryon's situation is to run a campaign that is one part Alice In Wonderland and one part Who's Line Is It Anyways?, with the rules constantly changing and having an incoherent plotline. If the problematic player complains, you point out that the campaign setting was stated up front and they should have expected some randomness. Once said player leaves, you resume the actual campaign.

Amphetryon

2013-07-19, 01:16 PM

Wait. So the players can crash your game by being terrible players so long as they don't break non-gaming regulations, but you have to put up with them and treat them fairly or you'll get in trouble? The hell? How is THAT fair?"Who says life is fair? Where is that written?" - The Princess Bride

Who said anything about fair? "The customer is always right", and Amphetryon was presumably less a customer and more an volunteer attraction.Yep, I was not a customer, while those playing under me were much closer to customers, given the nature of the place.

Nah, the appropriate response for Amphetryon's situation is to run a campaign that is one part Alice In Wonderland and one part Who's Line Is It Anyways?, with the rules constantly changing and having an incoherent plotline. If the problematic player complains, you point out that the campaign setting was stated up front and they should have expected some randomness. Once said player leaves, you resume the actual campaign.You're assuming that there was a single problematic Player, or that there were enough consistently present Players that the concept of "the actual campaign" was more than "the starting-off point to justify random slaughter of [Creature X]."

WeLoveFireballs

2013-07-19, 02:46 PM

Some Players I've known would insist that "head[ing] into the northern wastes and demanding the DM conjure a story for them" is well within their rights, and would call it a violation of said rights for the DM to claim otherwise.

Expecting to be able to go into the northern wastes is well within their rights, expecting there to be a story there is ludicrous. Just make it dangerous or boring to ignore the interesting events they have heard about and wander off into the middle of nowhere, random wandering usually is.

Felhammer

2013-07-19, 03:21 PM

Talakeal

2013-07-19, 03:35 PM

1.) Your personal story isn't as important as the communal story. Your players will never care about your world as much as you do and that's okay.

Isn't this kind of contradictory? If the players don't care about the world, why should you care about incorporating their personal stories into it?

Prymetime

2013-07-19, 04:53 PM

Isn't this kind of contradictory? If the players don't care about the world, why should you care about incorporating their personal stories into it?

With any amount of luck, your players WILL care about your world, it just isn't likely they're going to be as invested in it as you are. And that's okay. If you are the god that created these lands and they are the inhabitants that populate it, obviously you, as the creator, are going to have a more vested interest in the world itself. As long as they care enough about it to weave an interesting and entertaining story, you're set. But if they ask a simple question about who the ruling monarch is and you launch into an elaborate detailed description of the lineage of bygone kings, there's a chance you'll put at least one person to sleep.

Farastu

2013-07-19, 05:43 PM

My players (at least some of them) actually really seem to care rather a lot about the world, and are big on detail. I've had to work to get some of them to accept things like that I haven't come up for the name, and life-cycle details for every single plant and animal that they happen to see when they adventure. I love that they enjoy the details of the world, and the NPCs, etc.., but sometimes they go so far that I find myself a little baffled.

Felhammer

2013-07-19, 05:50 PM

Isn't this kind of contradictory? If the players don't care about the world, why should you care about incorporating their personal stories into it?

Your players will never care as much for your world as you do. You painstakingly created the world from nothing and gave it life. You have spent hours upon hours crafting this world's geography, history, language and etc. The players come to the table to take part in an adventure that happens to be located in a cool world. They honestly don't care about the centuries long feud between the Telupac and the Eugatnom families. They really do not want you to recount that history to them. For the players, the world is covered in history and they don't want to take the time to learn it all. They just want the facts that pertain to the adventure. It is one of your duties as DM to get the players to invest into the campaign setting and get them to want to learn about the complicated history shared between the Telupac and the Eugatnom families. That takes time, effort and patience. It doesn't happen over night. Even when it does happen, your players will still never adore your setting for the master piece that you see it as. They will love it because of the memories they shared when inside the world.

Drachasor

2013-07-20, 05:36 AM

7.) You are the arbiter and messenger, not the enemy. Your job is to make sure everyone has fun, not to make sure everyone dies.
8.) All DM's should be aware of Rule 0 and when to invoke it.
9.) D&D is largely improv. Instead of saying 'no,' say 'yes, and' or 'yes, but.'

These are some of the most important, they should not be last.

I think it is particular important to have a decent level of mastery over the rules. That way when a player wants to go with a certain concept, you can help them make that concept WORK. D&D, for example, has a ton of concepts you think you can do, but when implemented they suck. That's when the DM has to step in with some house rules; a custom class, tweaking class abilities, and the like can do a lot to make players enjoy the game more.

I'm a big fan of the attitude that if the rules don't make what you want to be effective, then let's make rules to make it effective.

Amphetryon

2013-07-22, 09:04 AM

Expecting to be able to go into the northern wastes is well within their rights, expecting there to be a story there is ludicrous. Just make it dangerous or boring to ignore the interesting events they have heard about and wander off into the middle of nowhere, random wandering usually is.
Didn't forestall either of the above-cited complaints, when tried.

A clever DM would just scratch off the names from his current adventure, give them Northern Waste names and carry on. :smallsmile:
I've referred to this style of DMing before as "all roads lead to Rome;" it's functionally railroading, as it makes any choices the PCs make regarding engaging or avoiding the plot meaningless. The fact that such railroading may not be immediately apparent from the Player's side of the DM screen does not negate the existence of the tracks. Also? Interesting inclusion of the word "clever," there, implying that any DM that doesn't use your recommended tactic is lacking in cleverness.

Jay R

2013-07-22, 09:49 AM

A clever DM would just scratch off the names from his current adventure, give them Northern Waste names and carry on. :smallsmile:
I've referred to this style of DMing before as "all roads lead to Rome;" it's functionally railroading, as it makes any choices the PCs make regarding engaging or avoiding the plot meaningless. The fact that such railroading may not be immediately apparent from the Player's side of the DM screen does not negate the existence of the tracks.

Some people have a hazy idea that whatever random decision they make should lead to a unique, previously-prepared adventure, and that a DM who has created less than a billion separate adventures is railroading. This is both untrue and unreasonable.

There's an important distinction to draw about player choices.

Some players choose to go to the Northern Wastes because they heard something about them, or because they want to hunt polar bears, or for some other specific reason. These players made a meaningful choice, and there should be a meaningful and distinct adventure there.

Other players just go north as a random direction. These players made a random choice. They may just get random encounters, or they may get the adventures I spent all week preparing, but in the snow.

And some players just say, "We go north" specifically because there were interesting things happening to the east, south, and west, and their direct purpose is to "get off the rails" in the sense of making all the work the DM did for them useless. I've never dealt with this situation, because my players aren't trying to mess up the game. If anybody did this to me, I could do one of three things:
1. Say, "OK, I have no idea what's going on to the north. Today's session is canceled. If I have time to create a whole new area this week, we'll start up here next week", or
2. Roll some random monsters and have completely random encounters and getting lost in the snow, or
3. Move some of the road adventures that weren't tied to a specific location to the north.
Which one of these provides the best game?

I'll give the players leads to every interesting area I have planned. There will be more than one, but not an infinite number. There's rarely as many as six. Players who avoid the planned adventures and walk into the white spaces on the map, because they believe the DM doesn't have any plans there, aren't being either creative or free. They are trying to break the game.

Oh, and by the way, introducing a plot or a bad guy isn't railroading. Deciding there's only one solution to the problem is railroading. But it really is all right for the DM to develop a scenario.

Also? Interesting inclusion of the word "clever," there, implying that any DM that doesn't use your recommended tactic is lacking in cleverness.
Not really. He implied that his solution is clever. Nowhere does he say that other solutions are not clever.

Amphetryon

2013-07-22, 11:04 AM

1. Say, "OK, I have no idea what's going on to the north. Today's session is canceled. If I have time to create a whole new area this week, we'll start up here next week", or
2. Roll some random monsters and have completely random encounters and getting lost in the snow, or
3. Move some of the road adventures that weren't tied to a specific location to the north.
Which one of these provides the best game?Best is group specific, and would be the one which receives zero complaints and has no visible means of improvement. You cannot simultaneously do your best and hope to do better next time, after all, unless you're deliberately employing moving goalposts or otherwise robbing the word "best" of any real meaning.

Not really. He implied that his solution is clever. Nowhere does he say that other solutions are not clever.Your reading is potentially valid. This fact does not, actually, invalidate my reading.

Gravitron5000

2013-07-22, 12:11 PM

You cannot simultaneously do your best and hope to do better next time, after all, unless you're deliberately employing moving goalposts or otherwise robbing the word "best" of any real meaning.

"Doing your best" is doing the best you can with what you have currently at your disposal. If you learn something this time, then the next time your best will be better. This does not rob "best" of meaning, as "the best" is what you strive to make "your best".

Jan Mattys

2013-07-22, 12:18 PM

Some people have a hazy idea that whatever random decision they make should lead to a unique, previously-prepared adventure, and that a DM who has created less than a billion separate adventures is railroading. This is both untrue and unreasonable.

There's an important distinction to draw about player choices.

Some players choose to go to the Northern Wastes because they heard something about them, or because they want to hunt polar bears, or for some other specific reason. These players made a meaningful choice, and there should be a meaningful and distinct adventure there.

Other players just go north as a random direction. These players made a random choice. They may just get random encounters, or they may get the adventures I spent all week preparing, but in the snow.

And some players just say, "We go north" specifically because there were interesting things happening to the east, south, and west, and their direct purpose is to "get off the rails" in the sense of making all the work the DM did for them useless. I've never dealt with this situation, because my players aren't trying to mess up the game. If anybody did this to me, I could do one of three things:
1. Say, "OK, I have no idea what's going on to the north. Today's session is canceled. If I have time to create a whole new area this week, we'll start up here next week", or
2. Roll some random monsters and have completely random encounters and getting lost in the snow, or
3. Move some of the road adventures that weren't tied to a specific location to the north.
Which one of these provides the best game?

I'll give the players leads to every interesting area I have planned. There will be more than one, but not an infinite number. There's rarely as many as six. Players who avoid the planned adventures and walk into the white spaces on the map, because they believe the DM doesn't have any plans there, aren't being either creative or free. They are trying to break the game.

I think I love you.
Also, it might be railroading, but not all railroading is bad.
In a sense, almost all the players I ever met in my DMing career were actively looking for tracks.

You just have to let them stumble upon them, or let them feel like they uncovered them with their hard work, or even that they managed to find them despite your best efforts to hide them. Whatever.

But the tracks MUST be there. Hell, a DM is basically a giant track with legs.

Amphetryon

2013-07-22, 01:21 PM

"Doing your best" is doing the best you can with what you have currently at your disposal. If you learn something this time, then the next time your best will be better. This does not rob "best" of meaning, as "the best" is what you strive to make "your best".

Difference of opinion duly noted. Every authority figure under whom I've worked - in school or at a job - has tended toward my given definition, rather than yours. Congratulations to you, if your experience is different.

Baron Of Hell

2013-07-22, 02:00 PM

Difference of opinion duly noted. Every authority figure under whom I've worked - in school or at a job - has tended toward my given definition, rather than yours. Congratulations to you, if your experience is different.

Not going to lie your definition makes no sense to me. Did you actually talk to people on what doing your best means? How did those conversations even come up where they felt the need to explain what doing your best means.

Amphetryon

2013-07-23, 11:21 AM

Not going to lie your definition makes no sense to me. Did you actually talk to people on what doing your best means? How did those conversations even come up where they felt the need to explain what doing your best means.

The conversations went something like this (paraphrased):

"Do you think you could have done anything better?"

"Well, sure, I could have [specific example]."

"So, you admit you didn't do your best, then. Good for you to acknowledge that. Nice to acknowledge your room for improvement."

Other popular forms of "praise" have included "I'm sure you'll do better next time," "Just imagine how well you'll do if you truly apply yourself," and "Not a bad start."

crazyhedgewizrd

2013-07-23, 06:48 PM

"Well, sure, I could have [specific example]."

Of course people will say they could have done better, after the did something. That is just pointing out where they did something wrong, there is nothing wrong with i tried my best with the given scenario but it could have been better.

Amphetryon

2013-07-23, 06:54 PM

Of course people will say they could have done better, after the did something. That is just pointing out where they did something wrong, there is nothing wrong with i tried my best with the given scenario but it could have been better.

My point is I have had it repeatedly explained, by multiple different folks, that one cannot truthfully say "I tried my best" AND "it could have been better," as the two are incompatible, barring specific qualifiers to "best" (not present above). If you could have improved upon your effort, your best effort was not given.

crazyhedgewizrd

2013-07-23, 07:22 PM

Angel Bob

2013-07-23, 07:47 PM

Some Players I've known would insist that "head[ing] into the northern wastes and demanding the DM conjure a story for them" is well within their rights, and would call it a violation of said rights for the DM to claim otherwise.

You know, that's quite entertaining to me, because it's exactly what my group has done. I started them in the capital city of a kingdom one of our old campaigns took place in, which was now ruled by an evil tiefling wizard. I expected them to take the bait and maybe try to resist the wizard's rule, or at least stay in the city for more than one session.

Well, nope! The party leader's player was flipping through his books and came across the Helm of Seven Deaths, which intrigued him, so he went to the city's library to see where he might find one. Off the top of my head, I came up with three options: a dread domain in the Shadowfell, in the possession of a lich who roams the countryside (a character I'd previously envisioned), or (and this was me making it up on the spot) an orcish warlord who used it to conquer seven other orc nations in the frigid Northern Realms before perishing. A master of necromantic magic, he bound the souls of his army to his fortress to keep the Helm guarded. Though they've tried, the adjacent orc realms have consistently failed to retrieve the Helm.

So the party up and left the city, making a beeline for the Northern Realms. And we've been having a hell of a time ever since. Just goes to show that, in some groups, heading off in a random direction and demanding that the DM make up a story as you go along can work out just swimmingly. :smallsmile:

TuggyNE

2013-07-23, 10:55 PM

My point is I have had it repeatedly explained, by multiple different folks, that one cannot truthfully say "I tried my best" AND "it could have been better," as the two are incompatible, barring specific qualifiers to "best" (not present above). If you could have improved upon your effort, your best effort was not given.

Those folks are (possibly willfully) ignoring the existence of any form of improvement, limited capacity, and so on; they are equating "trying your best" with "succeeding to the maximum possible extent anyone in that situation ever could", which is patently false, and blatantly manipulative. Feel free to write off those specific explanations (without, perhaps, actually flipping the bozo bit (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit) on them) and take comfort in the fact that you can do a good job, even the best job you could manage, without it being perfect. "To err", after all, "is human".

Baron Of Hell

2013-07-23, 11:44 PM

Those folks are (possibly willfully) ignoring the existence of any form of improvement, limited capacity, and so on; they are equating "trying your best" with "succeeding to the maximum possible extent anyone in that situation ever could", which is patently false, and blatantly manipulative. Feel free to write off those specific explanations (without, perhaps, actually flipping the bozo bit (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit) on them) and take comfort in the fact that you can do a good job, even the best job you could manage, without it being perfect. "To err", after all, "is human".

It sounds like you are arguing the exact opposite point you are trying to make. By your logic if you an error you can not have done your best by the very definition what you make out the best to be which is doing something with no possible way to do it better. Yet you say it is ok to make mistakes and still do your best? What point are your arguing?

TuggyNE

2013-07-24, 12:21 AM

It sounds like you are arguing the exact opposite point you are trying to make. By your logic if you an error you can not have done your best by the very definition what you make out the best to be which is doing something with no possible way to do it better. Yet you say it is ok to make mistakes and still do your best? What point are your arguing?

Sometimes the best you, personally, can do is to make a mistake/fail to accomplish what you attempted (for example, if you're acting on incomplete information, or if it's just not possible for you). Sometimes the best you, personally, can do increases after the attempt because you figure out some crucial insight or muscle memory needed to do a better job (for example, after an 18-month software development process, you realize dozens of decisions could have been made differently, and processes tweaked). Sometimes the best you, personally, can do is simply not as good as someone else could do (for example, the best female athletes are incapable of running a four-minute mile, but the best male athletes passed that mark over 60 years ago).

In none of these cases is it reasonable to assign blame for not doing your best, because you did! But in none of these cases is it at all incorrect to describe how it could have been done better.

TL/DR: Individual people are not static omnicompetent robots of accomplishment; limitations and unavoidable errors are simple facts of life.

Amphetryon

2013-07-24, 05:58 AM

Those folks are (possibly willfully) ignoring the existence of any form of improvement, limited capacity, and so on; they are equating "trying your best" with "succeeding to the maximum possible extent anyone in that situation ever could", which is patently false, and blatantly manipulative. Feel free to write off those specific explanations (without, perhaps, actually flipping the bozo bit (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit) on them) and take comfort in the fact that you can do a good job, even the best job you could manage, without it being perfect. "To err", after all, "is human".

Interesting description of both parents, every teacher from 1st grade, and every employer, right there.

Knaight

2013-07-24, 12:54 PM

My point is I have had it repeatedly explained, by multiple different folks, that one cannot truthfully say "I tried my best" AND "it could have been better," as the two are incompatible, barring specific qualifiers to "best" (not present above). If you could have improved upon your effort, your best effort was not given.

If whatever you are doing takes much of any time at the all, you are probably better at it when you finish than when you start, which means that when you finish you can think of a better way to do it than when you started. That doesn't mean that you didn't do your best, just that "your best" was lower at the start point than the end point ans as such you missed the options you now see.

kyoryu

2013-07-24, 04:13 PM

I'll give the players leads to every interesting area I have planned. There will be more than one, but not an infinite number. There's rarely as many as six. Players who avoid the planned adventures and walk into the white spaces on the map, because they believe the DM doesn't have any plans there, aren't being either creative or free. They are trying to break the game.

This is a great way to look at it, and I think the "break the game" comment is appropriate.

Personally, my favorite way to deal with this is out-of-character. Before the game starts "Hey, let's have a game about exploring the Northern Wastes." The players agree, and now we have a direction, and I can make plans. It's not really railroading, because as a group we decided what the game was about.

If they don't want a game about the Northern Wastes, then I'd rather hash that out before I do any kind of planning or people make characters.

Oh, and by the way, introducing a plot or a bad guy isn't railroading. Deciding there's only one solution to the problem is railroading. But it really is all right for the DM to develop a scenario.

Totally agreed, and "there are consequences to your actions" isn't railroading either.

If I know exactly how the next six sessions are going to go, and have the encounters prepped? *That's* railroading.

Baron Of Hell

2013-07-24, 04:57 PM

If I know exactly how the next six sessions are going to go, and have the encounters prepped? *That's* railroading.

I think having your encounters planned out before hand is being prepared. Forcing your players into those encounters is railroading.

For example if you are playing a pathfinder AP the encounters are mapped out for you to tell that story. Hooks are given to you to place in the story to lead from A to B. This is same thing with a game you make from scratch.

In both cases the players are free to ignore the hooks and do something else. If they do you map out a different set of encounters with a different set of hooks which they are also free to ignore. If this keeps up there is something wrong or the players didn't really want to play AP, or don't care about stories or quests

Amphetryon

2013-07-24, 05:21 PM

If whatever you are doing takes much of any time at the all, you are probably better at it when you finish than when you start, which means that when you finish you can think of a better way to do it than when you started. That doesn't mean that you didn't do your best, just that "your best" was lower at the start point than the end point ans as such you missed the options you now see.

Sounds like the goalposts for "best" moved.

kyoryu

2013-07-24, 06:01 PM

I think having your encounters planned out before hand is being prepared. Forcing your players into those encounters is railroading.

Which is why I also said "if you know how the session six sessions from now will go...".

Just prepping encounters isn't railroading, but it often subtly leads to railroading - it's based on a prediction of what the players will do, and it's an easy slope from prediction to guidance to coercion, especially when the players not doing what you predicted means you throw out hours of work.

For example if you are playing a pathfinder AP the encounters are mapped out for you to tell that story. Hooks are given to you to place in the story to lead from A to B. This is same thing with a game you make from scratch.

For an AP, yes, it's railroading. The story is predetermined. The illusion of free choice is presented, but it's just that - an illusion.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. There's advantages to railroading, in terms of how much prep can be done to make key encounters really memorable and awesome. Just make sure everyone's on board with that, and railroad away.

As far as games made from scratch - strangely, I don't know how games I run will turn out. Deliberately.

If they do you map out a different set of encounters with a different set of hooks which they are also free to ignore. If this keeps up there is something wrong or the players didn't really want to play AP, or don't care about stories or quests

Which is why I suggested having the out-of-character discussion, rather than relying on players choosing to pick up hooks, to get an agreement on just what sort of game everyone wants to play in the first place.

TuggyNE

2013-07-24, 06:04 PM

Sounds like the goalposts for "best" moved.

Well, yes! A realistic view of human capacity shows that one person's best can change; for an obvious example, a five-year-old (no matter how talented) can't beat the pole jump world record, but that same person, if they train hard while they grow, might be able to, though once they age past physical prime, it's unlikely they'll be able to match their previous performance. Therefore, best (in terms of "how much you can do if you put out the effort") can only reasonably be measured by one's current capability.

It's unlikely that a few hours of DMing will substantially change your ability to DM, but it's possible, and it's certain that many hours will.

nedz

2013-07-24, 06:25 PM

Sounds like the goalposts for "best" moved.

The goal posts of Best are always fluid. In any complex situation there will always be a better solution even if you happen to have arrived at a local maxima. This can change in a big way, and quickly, with a paradime shift or evolve more subtly because the situation changes with time.

kyoryu

2013-07-24, 06:26 PM

The goal posts of Best are always fluid. In any complex situation there will always be a better solution even if you happen to have arrived at a local maxima. This can change in a big way, and quickly, with a paradime shift or evolve more subtly because the situation changes with time.

Not to mention that "best" can only be determined in context of achieving a specific goal, in a specific set of circumstances.

Knaight

2013-07-24, 06:59 PM

Sounds like the goalposts for "best" moved.

Given that "best" is being used to describe "highest capacity of an individual" as opposed to "optimal method of performing a task", or more succinctly it is being used in the context of "your best" and not "the best", yes, it did. That would be how "your best" works. For that matter, within the contexts of actual methodologies, competitions, etc. that is how "the best" works, compliments of how just about any field develops.

WeLoveFireballs

2013-07-25, 09:29 PM

You know, that's quite entertaining to me, because it's exactly what my group has done. I started them in the capital city of a kingdom one of our old campaigns took place in, which was now ruled by an evil tiefling wizard. I expected them to take the bait and maybe try to resist the wizard's rule, or at least stay in the city for more than one session.

Well, nope! The party leader's player was flipping through his books and came across the Helm of Seven Deaths, which intrigued him, so he went to the city's library to see where he might find one. Off the top of my head, I came up with three options: a dread domain in the Shadowfell, in the possession of a lich who roams the countryside (a character I'd previously envisioned), or (and this was me making it up on the spot) an orcish warlord who used it to conquer seven other orc nations in the frigid Northern Realms before perishing. A master of necromantic magic, he bound the souls of his army to his fortress to keep the Helm guarded. Though they've tried, the adjacent orc realms have consistently failed to retrieve the Helm.

So the party up and left the city, making a beeline for the Northern Realms. And we've been having a hell of a time ever since. Just goes to show that, in some groups, heading off in a random direction and demanding that the DM make up a story as you go along can work out just swimmingly. :smallsmile:

This is a good attitude for players and GM. The players aren't really interested in overthrowing a magocracy, they want to find an artifact. If a DM is comfortable enough with improvising he can suit the player's desires. Some DMs who put a lot of effort into the wizard might be really annoyed that their hard work was for nothing, but this really all fits in to the #1 commandment. The players might not want your story, so the ideal solution is to come up with a reasonably detailed world with a dozen or so plot ideas and major characters around and see what catches the player's eye. Then flesh that out as needed. Its unreasonable to expect 4-5 adventures to be completely laid out but with good improvisation its possible to have interesting things in any direction. This could really get complex at higher level games with more balance issues though. (Which is one reason I like E6)

kyoryu

2013-07-26, 01:44 PM

The players might not want your story, so the ideal solution is to come up with a reasonably detailed world with a dozen or so plot ideas and major characters around and see what catches the player's eye. Then flesh that out as needed.

Why not just have that discussion be part of the pre-game setup, rather than wait until you're actually running the game.

"Hey, guys, I'd like to run a game where you take down a magocracy."

"Eh, that doesn't sound awesome. But a game where we hunt down a lost artifact sounds like a lot of fun!"

"Cool, we'll work up characters around that idea, and I'll set up the beginnings of it!"

Isn't that a lot less effort?

WeLoveFireballs

2013-07-27, 12:49 AM

That's also a perfectly good way to do it but I prefer keeping it all integrated in the world rather than doing it OOC. Its certainly difficult sometimes, but I enjoy it.

Jay R

2013-07-27, 12:21 PM

kyoryu

2013-07-29, 03:18 PM

That's also a perfectly good way to do it but I prefer keeping it all integrated in the world rather than doing it OOC. Its certainly difficult sometimes, but I enjoy it.

Yup. If you don't enjoy doing difficult things, you're not going to be a DM at all.

Well, I'm certainly not opposed to doing difficult things, when I see value in them.

Why do you guys find doing it IC to be better than OOC? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but generally curious as to what you see the advantages as being.

Here's a more detailed list on why I prefer doing this OOC:

1) It's a player discussion as much (or more!) than it is a character discussion. If Player A wants to do a dungeon crawl, and Player B wants to do an intrigue game, then that's a difference in player expectations, and I'd rather handle it at that level.

2) By handling it OOC, we can get on the same page before character creation, and ensure that the characters we create make sense for the game we'll actually be playing. In the previous example, if done OOC, Player A's dungeon-fighter will be a lot less effective in a high intrigue game, and Player B's social-monkey will be not so useful in a dungeon. Whichever way the decision goes, Player A or B will likely be happier if they can make a character that actually works for the setting.

3) As a result of this, by handling these questions IC, you often end up confusing the player argument with the character argument, or worse, having a player argument through the characters. This makes it much harder to actually get an agreement as to what's going to happen.

4) The end result is the same. The game goes in a particular direction. Hashing this out IC doesn't present interesting mechanic challenges, nor does it likely present interesting story bits.

Now, in fairness, here's the reasons I can see for doing this IC:

1) If you really want to get into your character's head as quickly as possible, and avoid "meta" conversations, this does it.

2) Doing this IC does a somewhat better job at presenting the game as a "world".