PDA

View Full Version : Words of Wisdom for GMs



Yora
2013-09-01, 10:12 AM
Running a game is easy, running a game well is really hard. Share your pieces of insight on how GMs can make their games more fun for everyone with simple but very efficient tricks. Mark them bold, so they are easy to see when browsing through this thread.

Three Clue Rule: Not sure exactly who formulated it first, but "Whenever the players are supposed to discover something, leave at least three clues". Nothing is worse than having an adventure come to a halt because the players have no idea how to progress.

At the start of a session, try to get the PCs into a combat encounter as fast as possible. Especially in the first session of a campaign. There is always an endless amount of time where everyone is just talking about what happened last game, what they have come up with for their next character level, and all kinds of things that don't even have anything to do with the game, before finally someone says "okay, let's continue". Skip the akward half hour sitting in a bar talking and then having some NPC invite them to his estate and be led to the throne room, and have the situation explained. As soon as possible say "Roll initiative!". Even if it's just a short and basically irrelevant encounter, everyone should now be fully in the right mindset to concentrate on the game.

If in any way possible, tell the players to create their characters as a group. Unless the specific adventure demands it, the characters should already know each other and want to have each other in the company. That works so much better than random strangers with completely different goals and personalty suddenly deciding to trust each other with their lives.

If you want to avoid railroading, don't prepare what the PCs will do, but what the villains plan to do. You can make a flowchart in which you plan ahead what happens if the players pick option A, B, or C, but it generally works a lot better if you simply prepare what the villains want to achive and what resources they have. After the PCs have disrupted one part of the villains plan, look at the situation for the villains perspective and come up with a new plan how the villains could use the troops, magic, and contacts they have to still accomplish their main goal.

Enemies (usually) don't want to die. Wounded animals will usually flee, intelligent enemies will retreat when too many of their allies and leaders are killed. No orc should keep trying to defeat four enemies all by himself, who just killed his ten friends.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-09-01, 11:53 AM
Three Clue Rule: Not sure exactly who formulated it first, but "Whenever the players are supposed to discover something, leave at least three clues". Nothing is worse than having an adventure come to a halt because the players have no idea how to progress.

Absolutely. In fact, I'd further that to "have ideas for a bunch of clues, and let the players find at least three." That way you have back-ups in place for groups that do unexpected things.


At the start of a session, try to get the PCs into a combat encounter as fast as possible.

This one I completely disagree with. Some of my most memorable sessions (including starting sessions) have had no combat at all. Whether or not a group needs combat to get into the right mindset is fully dependent on the group's dynamic, preferred playstyle, system of preference, and a number of other factors. Either way, it's a case-by-case basis, not general GMing advice.


If in any way possible, tell the players to create their characters as a group.

Agreed. I let at most one person create their character separately, unless the campaign requires a newly-formed and newly-acquainted group. One outside is fine: 4 outsiders forced to work together can get unwieldy and difficult to manage.


If you want to avoid railroading, don't prepare what the PCs will do, but what the villains plan to do.

Best advice given thus far. Remember, GMs: NO PLOT SURVIVES CONTACT WITH THE PCs. Plan ahead, but don't railroad your players: let the world adapt to them.


Enemies (usually) don't want to die. Wounded animals will usually flee, intelligent enemies will retreat when too many of their allies and leaders are killed. No orc should keep trying to defeat four enemies all by himself, who just killed his ten friends.

Appropriate in realistic games. Less so in dungeon crawls. Still good advice.

erikun
2013-09-01, 12:00 PM
I've checked several websites, and they all point to this article (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) at the Alexandrian referencing the Three Clue Rule.

I agree with being hesitant with the "combat as fast as possible" idea. It works in games like D&D, where combat is common and frivolous. It would be a pretty terrible way to start out a World of Darkness or Shadowrun game, especially if that is the way all sessions start. It might be worth trying to start each game with something exciting or suspenseful, which combat certainly is but it isn't limited to combat. I haven't given it a try myself, though.

Eldan
2013-09-01, 12:02 PM
"If you don't remember, just forget the damn rules and get on with the game".

Really, that's the most important one I ever learned as a DM. Nothing kills the mood like book-digging.

Subaru Kujo
2013-09-01, 12:26 PM
No orc should keep trying to defeat four enemies all by himself, who just killed his ten friends.

Unless he has a telepathic link going with the devil a floor below him and it has indicated it will be up there. But that's me being a jerk about it. :smallbiggrin:

Yora
2013-09-01, 12:54 PM
I think instead of "start a fight as soon as possible", maybe a smarter approach would be "get to business as soon as possible". Doesn't have to mean that anyone draws a weapon, but I think it's very smart to start a session with something that is really important. I would very much avoid beginning a game with "you are sitting around minding your own business, waiting for something exciting to happen".
I think the Alexandrian had an article about structuring the adventure along important moments of excitment. Don't build up slowly over the course of an hour or half by setting the scene, but start with a bang to set everyone on edge and full alert mode.

Schrödingers Gun: A combination of Schrödingers Cat (something is uncertain before we check it out) and Chekhovs Gun (don't draw the players attention to something unless it will be relevant later on). "Nothing about the world or the story is set in stone until the players interact with it."
The worst case of misue of this is offering the players three choices but only one possible outcome. But when used appropriately, don't hesitate to change a detail you prepared if the players give you an idea that would be a much more fun alternative. If the players try to make a darring escape and blindly open the door to the barracks, you don't have to tell them there are 20 guards present like you wrote down in your notes. If it makes the game more fun, reduce the number to only 5. Or increase it to 40. :smallbiggrin:
Things can be made up or changed on the fly, but not if the change would conflict with something the PCs already did.
The rule of thumb with this technique is not to use it get the better of the players. You can always make up a new clue and put it in the one place the players did not look, and then have an NPC do the dramatic revelation, but usually that's just cheap. But if you think it would make a better story that is more fun for the players, then just do it!

Two thieves run away with stolen documents, but a PC manages to make the one who has them trip before the long chase even starts? If they don't know this thief has the documents, just make it that the other one has them and you still get your chase.
If they know the one with the papers tripped, don't paddle back.

nedz
2013-09-01, 01:04 PM
At the start of a session, try to get the PCs into a combat encounter as fast as possible. Especially in the first session of a campaign. There is always an endless amount of time where everyone is just talking about what happened last game, what they have come up with for their next character level, and all kinds of things that don't even have anything to do with the game, before finally someone says "okay, let's continue". Skip the awkward half hour sitting in a bar talking and then having some NPC invite them to his estate and be led to the throne room, and have the situation explained. As soon as possible say "Roll initiative!". Even if it's just a short and basically irrelevant encounter, everyone should now be fully in the right mindset to concentrate on the game.

If in any way possible, tell the players to create their characters as a group. Unless the specific adventure demands it, the characters should already know each other and want to have each other in the company. That works so much better than random strangers with completely different goals and personalty suddenly deciding to trust each other with their lives.


Your other points are good, but this is not how I do these.

Players create their characters independently before the first session. This gives me a chance to see what I'm getting and improves the quality of the characters. This also creates a mini-game where the players try to discover who or what everyone else is playing. This approach is essential in evil campaigns, not that I run those, and helpful in creating PCs with secrets in their backgrounds.

I craft the first session from the PCs backstories, the aim here is to bring them together as a party in a slightly more interesting way than you all meet in a tavern. This should introduce them to the setting and foreshadow any plot-lines (The players will not have read your setting notes). I will be ruthless in railroading them into a group, but then I will let the group decide their actions without any railroading. The goal here is to produce interesting inter-PC RP. I will run a combat as soon as reasonable, but it should not be forced.

RustyArmor
2013-09-01, 02:03 PM
#3 can be tricky when the players fight against it. I had one game where they were all going to be a guild and that was how then knew each other and worked together. Pretty much whole group picked they were exiled from it, blacked into it and wanted out, the hardcore loner that refuses to work with other guild mates, etc.

Rosstin
2013-09-01, 02:52 PM
If in any way possible, tell the players to create their characters as a group. Unless the specific adventure demands it, the characters should already know each other and want to have each other in the company. That works so much better than random strangers with completely different goals and personalty suddenly deciding to trust each other with their lives.

I agree with the poster above me, I have astounding trouble in getting players to have pre-existing relationships. When I suggest it as a DM, it doesn't happen. When I ask another player if they want to try it with me, they usually don't want to.

It's some kind of social phenomena I don't really understand. I think it's because creating a character is such a personal experience, it's difficult to design for multiple characters. It's also hard to pre-establish a relationship without roleplaying.

I think a good alternative is to at least give the starting players all the same "problem" at the beginning. I often use the device of the players all being dead at the start, then revived and tasked by the same individual.

The guild example sounds like it sort-of worked, at least. All the players had something in common-- hating that guild!!

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-09-01, 03:05 PM
It's some kind of social phenomena I don't really understand. I think it's because creating a character is such a personal experience, it's difficult to design for multiple characters. It's also hard to pre-establish a relationship without roleplaying.

I've found the method that FATE uses to be pretty fantastic, at least for characters with a bit of prior adventuring experience (or who have lived through relatively major events).

When creating characters, FATE asks for some adventure/event your character was involved in, and then asks how at least one other person in the party interacted with you there, or what that event means to them. It crafts acquaintanceships, friendships, things-in-common, conflicting/similar perspectives...basically all the stuff that can really help bring a party together.

Definitely worth trying.

Rosstin
2013-09-01, 03:16 PM
That sounds pretty sweet, Djinn.

Bulhakov
2013-09-01, 03:29 PM
Have the most conflicting players create characters that are siblings - a lot of conflict that could turn into PvP otherwise, will now be just sibling rivalry.

Give your NPCs distinguishing physical or psychological traits to make them easily remembered - the one-eyed dwarven blacksmith, the elven bard with the purple hair, the girl with the dragon tattoo....

ScubaGoomba
2013-09-01, 04:48 PM
This is connected to Yora's example: "'Nothing about the world or the story is set in stone until the players interact with it.'"

Not only does this apply to player interactions, but also to your NPCs. Your overarching plot and deep backstory means nothing unless the players interact with it. The only things that exist are the things that the players have witnessed or have written into their own backgrounds (and even those are flexible if they haven't come up). As with any storytelling, you want to show, not tell.

Example: If you have this dark band of Elves that lives in the southern region, simply having them show up isn't enough (even if your players succeed at a Knowledge check to identify them and their culture). Telling them that the Elves are mean means nothing. Everything they encounter is mean. Unless they kick the dog (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog), there's really no reason for your players to think they're any different than any other NPC.

Lorsa
2013-09-01, 05:35 PM
Your job is to create an enjoyable game for your players. While a GM should certainly enjoy him/herself, the enjoyment should come out of giving the players a great time. Set your players in the forefront, not yourself. There might be people who disagree with this but it's the best word of wisdom I can give.

Zavoniki
2013-09-01, 09:12 PM
If a player asks if they can do something, you should generally say Yes, But...

Players like being able to do things and if they come up with a crazy plan or attack or device or whatever, unless it violates something(the game rules by a lot, the world rules, the tone of the campaign) you should let them have it, but tell them there may be unintended consequences(hence the But). This is especially true in high power and/or games where the players have access to a lot of resource(Epic DnD, Eclipse Phase, Exalted, etc...).

Just go with it:

One of the best games I've ever run had the players each playing a house cat stuck in a city during a Tsunami(or maybe it was a flood... I never made the distinction). My pre-session work was to right out the house cats and make a map of the city(a very vague map). The players ended up in three locations throughout the game, the apartment complex they started in, Skyscraper A, and Skyscraper B. The game I'd originally planned involved exploring the city and looking for a way out while surviving. That wasn't the game the players played. Be prepared to go with your players. If they aren't playing the game you planned, change your game. Improvisation is in my opinion, a GM's most useful skill by far. If you have the ability to create a plausible and consistent game world on the fly, you give your players a lot of freedom that they will appreciate because you can throw something at them and they know they can solve it in a way you did not foresee and the world will be able to handle it. This is about as difficult as it sounds admittedly. Somewhat attached to this:

Roleplaying is a Cooperative Experience

Listen to your players about what game they want to play and what characters they want to make and tailor the adventure around that. If you want to do an intrigue/espionage game and they show up with combat characters, adapt. Maybe they don't do a lot of the spying but when someone needs the Black Ops Special Forces Badasses(BOSFB) to turn everything inside a building to ash, they call the players. If you are just GMing for yourself and ignoring your players, write fanfiction or a novel. If you want to introduce elements that are new to your players, do it slowly. In the above example, maybe as the players keep hitting these safehouses their superiors don't tell them why, so their only clue as to what's really going on is to search each site carefully. If their superiors find out, they will be mad. If you ease the players into this slowly, their combat characters will become paranoid hardened spies by the end of the campaign. I suppose that's a somewhat separate piece of advice.

Don't Point, Nudge

If you want the players to go somewhere or do something, don't tell them to do that unless it's the only option left. Instead slowly nudge them in that direction with hints, rewards, or something else. If your trying to change the tone of a campaign, don't do it all at once, do it slowly over time.

There's probably more. Don't over-prepare would be another one IMO, but some people may disagree with that.

Techsmart
2013-09-01, 10:31 PM
My biggest one

Do as much as possible to prevent the game from slowing down. The interest level of your players is based largely on how long it takes to decide on the success or failure of something. Losing enough interest will make a session boring and tedious. As a rule of thumb, I follow some principles on this.

10-second rule - If nobody can answer a rules question within 10 seconds of me admitting uncertainty, I will make a rule for it. No rummaging through books after the 10 seconds. If the rule is found out later, "ok cool, let's remember that for next time"

Have all information quickly accessible, including a copy of the PC's info - This makes it really easy for me to determine if a monster hit or miss. No need for "what's your AC?" for the billionth time. If it is common to have players buff, I will make note of it.

Keep a tool that will let you quickly order initiative - Of all the parts of combat, the longest single activity I've seen in some games is determining who goes first. I personally keep a set of cards I can quickly re-order for combat. Also, find some way to get players to quickly respond to what their initiative is. With my cards, every player writes their initiative roll, and it already has their name and init modifier so that I can quickly straighten things out.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-09-01, 10:42 PM
I agree with being hesitant with the "combat as fast as possible" idea. It works in games like D&D, where combat is common and frivolous. It would be a pretty terrible way to start out a World of Darkness or Shadowrun game, especially if that is the way all sessions start. It might be worth trying to start each game with something exciting or suspenseful, which combat certainly is but it isn't limited to combat. I haven't given it a try myself, though.

My rule is when things start to get slow (sometimes but not always at the beginning of a session), get the game back in gear by having the **** hit the fan. It's not necessarily a combat encounter, but it does mean bad **** will go down unless the PCs react immediately (or at least they can minimize the damage). Examples that I've used:

"The building you're all in is now on fire. You're 12 floors up."

"[PC] suddenly starts violently coughing blood."

"6 guards show up and one of them says '[PC], you're under arrest for murder.'"

"[Important NPC] clenches his chest and keels over."

"[Random NPC] opens his shirt to reveal a bomb strapped to his chest."

nedz
2013-09-01, 11:26 PM
Run a variety of encounters.
(Obviously) your encounters should further verisimilitude but always try and create different types of challenges. Even if your players are travelling through the Valley of undeath not every encounter has to be undead; making half to two thirds of the them undead should carry the verisimilitude without it getting old.

Also vary the structure of the encounters. Not every encounter should be a meeting engagement or an ambush. Do use multiple elements and terrain.

If you are going to use stock monsters, e.g. goblins, do try and change them around a bit. Whether that's changing their tactics, their culture or even their alignment.

Vary the pacing
Whilst ACTION is very important so are the longer scenes. Your action scenes will seem more dramatic if you switch pacing suddenly. You may find the inter party RP dull, but your players may enjoy it.

Being a DM is a bit like directing a movie. Not every movie is "Action packed", in fact most of the best ones aren't.

I'm not saying that Techsmart and Craft (Cheese) are wrong, just that there are different ways of running a game.

Dienekes
2013-09-02, 01:43 AM
Find out what your players find interesting in a campaign and try to cater to both their and your tastes.

Your job is a storyteller, a guide, a stand-up comedian, a negotiator, an actor, and a general. It's a big job, you'll screw up some times. It's not a big deal.

Make the players decisions mean something more than exp and gold. This can be things like having the peasants notice that these heroes are helping them, or getting sick from going through a sewer.

Understand the basics of class balance. This doesn't mean you can't let wizards and fighters in the same group, but at least know that there is generally more potential for a wizard to break the game than a fighter and do your best to make sure everyone feels like a hero from time to time.

Ask your players for their honest opinion of how the game went and the direction they hope it will take.

Talk to problem players directly. Don't dance around a problem and hope it will go away.

If you write a campaign, try to figure out the points that need to happen for the plot to work. Then figure out what will happen when the PCs inevitably completely destroy those points.

Write up a list of cool encounters or problems. Don't attach them to any actual part of the story and keep them on the back-burner. When the PCs inevitably destroy the story or figure things out too quickly throw one of these at them. At worst it gives you some time to think about your next step, at best it can take the game to an entirely new direction.

Get good at improv.

The PCs will only start to care if you show you care. Put in the time and originality to your characters, give them traits and flaws and interesting little gimmicks. At the very least it gives the PCs something to remember. If all your peasants are dull nameless things why would the PCs want to talk to anyone?

If you make a mistake, cop to it. Your players will hopefully understand.

Know when to step down. GMing should be fun, if you're not having fun it will show and then no one will have fun. If you need a break that's fine. It's better to step down than be deposed

Jon_Dahl
2013-09-02, 02:05 AM
Lots of great advice so far!
These are my favourites ones:
"Run a variety of encounters."
and
"If you want to avoid railroading, don't prepare what the PCs will do, but what the villains plan to do."

I will add this:
If everyone actively uses the Internet, start a Google Document about the campaign.
I have one and it has all the data about the game and most importantly, a game calendar which everyone can use. This has saved immense time and effort trying to coordinate game sessions.

Of course if you have something similar like Google Docs, just go with it. You just need an interactive calendar and a place where archive the campaign data and you're good to go. I just really, really emphasize the need for an interactive calendar, if you have more than two players.

Toofey
2013-09-04, 01:42 PM
A lot of these are flavor advice, but my first bit of advice is make sure to consider what other people are saying that is clearly just a matter of taste. It may not be your taste now, but there might be something useful, a mechanic, an idea, a different flavor you haven't tried before, and it's always good to be open to that.

The 2nd one has to do with a reality of playing and of communication. Sometimes your players will think something you don't intend is going on. Generally unless you feel very strongly that your idea is better, you should consider adopting either the player's idea of what's going on, or something close to it. The game may be played out in the DM's mind in many ways, but the players are an integral part, and sometimes going their way is better for everyone.

Do not let players create special characters the first time you DM for them. If you don't know someone's play style yet, you don't know if they're going to create something with the specific intent of breaking the game (they may think of this in terms of being as powerful as possible or something similar) or if they're going to constantly be rules lawyering based on the details they slipped in, or whatever. Once you know their play style you can decide how much you want to let them customize, don't do it blind.

Make your characters come up with backgrounds for their characters, even at lower level. Try and get a couple pages of story out of them. This is as much because this material is going to be insanely useful for coming up with plot hooks, as it is to make sure that your players connect with the character, not the class and level description. Connecting players emotionally with their characters, getting them generally interested in the fate of their characters, makes the game much better, more satisfying and in many ways easier to DM. (Players won't go crazy as much with characters they care about)

Do not give your players what they want for their characters right away. You need something to give them as a reward, if they have everything they want/need then nothing is much of a reward.



Some of my Flavor Advice
-Control the information. If a Mage casts identify they find out what it is, they can tell the party what they want, give the player the option, one way or the other it develops drama.

-Reward Participation with Attention. If a player does nothing but mechanically participate in fights, ignore them, if they complain the story isn't involving their characters, connect the dots for them, make it clear that if they want the story to come to them, they have to come to the story.

-remember fights don't happen in a vacuum. The enemy can get reinforcements, other parties (or monsters) may hear the fighting etc...

- If your players stop taking their character's mortality seriously kill them. Either they're not very interested in the character, or they've forgotten there are consequences. If the want their character back there's always Resurrection or "oh hey, you cough up some blood, your friends can still save you if you act fast"

-Have Fun. Don't worry too much it is a game. Have Fun. If people are having fun and don't seem to be playing that night, consider just hanging out. Have Fun!

kyoryu
2013-09-04, 02:00 PM
If a player asks if they can do something, you should generally say Yes, But...

This can even work for low-powered games, but you have to look at it a bit differently. When I use this in low-powered campaigns, it's more about telling the players the requirements.

As an actual example, some players of mine were fighting some demon-infested people. One of them wanted to know if he could exorcise the demons out right there. That wasn't really what the scenario was about (this was setting up a larger arc), but I didn't want to just tell him "no". So I told him "Sure, it's possible. But you don't even know what these things are yet. You'd have to figure that out, and figure out what would be necessary for a ritual to expunge them. And that knowledge isn't readily available, so it will at a minimum take research, and may even take you figuring out who *has* the knowledge."

This has the effect of turning a flat "no, you can't do that" and turning it into a possible quest hook.


Don't Point, Nudge

If you want the players to go somewhere or do something, don't tell them to do that unless it's the only option left. Instead slowly nudge them in that direction with hints, rewards, or something else. If your trying to change the tone of a campaign, don't do it all at once, do it slowly over time.

I actually disagree with the first part of this. If you really want the players to do something, tell them straight up, on a GM-to-player level. The nudging can in many cases teach your players to look for your nudges rather than think about what their characters would do, which can be a difficult habit to break.

Changing campaign tone slowly over time is a good idea, though.

prufock
2013-09-04, 03:31 PM
Relax, it's just a game. You're going to make mistakes. 'Fess up, fix it, and try not to make the same mistake next time.

Yora
2013-09-05, 04:59 AM
Roleplaying is about making choices. To be meaningful, the players have to know what they are chosing from. Having three doors out of a room and one leading to free treasure, one to an empty room, and one to a hidden pit of deadly snakes is not confronting the players with a choice if they have no way to know what might await them.
Players need to be given some clues and evidence which they can use to make a guess what their options might be, and then make a choice which of these anticipated outcomes they prefer to face. Players want to investigate, draw conclusions, and use this new knowledge to decide on their next actions. Without the chance to draw conclusions about what's ahead, there isn't really a choice, just something arbitrarily set in their path by the DM.
(Some more elaboration here. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/32593/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-meaningful-choices-in-dungeons))

Mastikator
2013-09-05, 08:59 AM
If a player can't make up his mind in combat then the player forfeits his round, the thing that slows down combat the most is a player asking what his options, it tends to ruin the game for everyone else.

I'll also give a +1 to Jon_Dahl for his suggestion. My current group uses Facebook instead of Googledocs to organize, but it's basically the same.

AKA_Bait
2013-09-05, 09:54 AM
I crowd sourced advice on GMing from playgrounders a few years back. The resulting guide is linked in my signature.


Also:



If a player can't make up his mind in combat then the player forfeits his round, the thing that slows down combat the most is a player asking what his options, it tends to ruin the game for everyone else.

I'll also give a +1 to Jon_Dahl for his suggestion. My current group uses Facebook instead of Googledocs to organize, but it's basically the same.

I cannot disagree with this more. Offer the player the option to hold their action if they cannot come up with anything, then they can jump back in once something occurs to them and not feel like they "failed".

Jay R
2013-09-05, 10:30 AM
What the players want today is a encounter that they know they can triumph over. But what they will want tomorrow is to have triumphed over an encounter that they thought was going to kill them.

shadow_archmagi
2013-09-05, 11:33 AM
Have the most conflicting players create characters that are siblings - a lot of conflict that could turn into PvP otherwise, will now be just sibling rivalry.

By all my stars and garters, this is gorgeous. Suddenly we can justify all the petty bull-excrement!





@"keep the game moving no matter what gotta go fast even if it means making judgement calls as to the rules"

In my games, I find that this isn't really essential. Often, the night's D&D game will be the only part of the week when everyone sees each other, so they'll happily take the chance to socialize and talk about Pacific Rim. Brief delays are everywhere in today's culture (commercials, loading screens, etc etc) and people are pretty good at not being bothered by them. (Although I generally don't waste much time on rules, because I've got most of them memorized and the rest I can find in two minutes or less)

On the other hand, I take it as a point of pride that in my games the rules are almost always consistent. Occasionally, like any good GM, I make judgement calls and houserules about special situations, but I get quite frustrated if I'm in another GM's game and I have a conversation like
"Okay, I'm Prone, so I have +4 AC against his ranged attack"
"+2. Prone is definitely +2."
"Here, I'll show you where it says-"
"Hey whoa there book guy, we don't have time for that, there are GIANT SPIDERS HERE. It's +2 until next week."

Kol Korran
2013-09-05, 12:37 PM
Hmmmm.. some things that worked wonderfully for my group: (In no particular order)
1) Players roll all the dice, yes, even for opponents and such. You can alter DCs and such to fit: This had an IMMENSE effect on my games- First of all, the DM can't fudge against or for the players. This does 3 main things:
- Builds up trust with the DM, and puts the weight of responsibility more on their hands.
- The player become aware of enemies AC, attack bonus, spell rolls and so on. They get a better understanding of who they face, and so they become more involved in the game, and act with more awareness, mroe responsibility.
- It helps keep players who it's not their turn a bit more in the action, even if rolling for the enemy, they are more in tune with what goes on.

Really I cannot stress how great this rule is (Though it takes a bit of getting used to at first)

2) Prepare situations, not encounters: Don't plan a dungeon with 14 encounters, but rather plan the dungeon as a whole, as something that lives and reacts. i often build "adjustable" modules of enemies that can move and interact differently depending on a situation, but I don't set up specific encounters. True, sometimes specific encounters are more appropriate, but when you can- go for situations. It les the party act on a greater, more meaningful, more fun scale.

3)Make situations with no obvious solutions: As DMs we like to come up with ideas how the party might solve the scenario, usually 1-3 favored paths ("Giving them a choice") But I found out that my best games involved making some situation, often nearly overwhelming, make it complex enough with different potential leverages, work ups, vulnerabilities and more, and then let the party try to figure out how to deal with this, WITHOUT me thinking of a possible solution. You can prepare for some "most likely approaches", but an outright solution usually railroads the DM him/ herself into it, which is a bummer. You'd be surprised with the creativity of players, when they feel it is "up to them", and not following the DM's script.

4) Listen up to the players ideas, they can often be better than yours: Something I'm still working on. Sometime a player will come up with a really cool idea. If you're too stuckup with your own ideas of what might be fun, you might miss on some really great opportunities. (As I sometimes had :smallfrown:)

5) choices, choices, choices: I'm repeating a bit something Yora said, but the main thing in the game is making a meaningful change, of making choices (big and small) that affect the game. Don't present a choice if you're not willing to roll with the different outcomes. (Including failure of PCs) Nothing aggravates players more than having their choices nullified.

6) Interparty conflict is good, if handled properly: If you think of many favorite series and movies, it's the friction between main characters on the same team that really makes for great moments. (Hey, even in OOTS, Belkar brings up great stuff, as does V when s/he are mad, or Haley's little shenanigens, or the tension between Redcloak and Xykon) Our group found that interparty conflict adds ALOT to the game, amongst their best moments! But you need to handle it carefully.

First, the players must work to make the story better, not just their characters. Second, they must accept that they might take insults, pranks and so on. Third all players must agree beforehand not to cross a certain line, which will just break the tense enough relationship. It's a delicate line, but is quite worth the hassle.

7) Appeal to the players, only then to the characters: Yes, we like to play characters, and immerse in them, but as aDM your job is to first appeal to the players sensibilites, not their characters. The hooks, NPCs, challenges and such should first take the people you play wiht into account, and then the PCs. Sounds simple, but many people miss that

8) When choosing a new group, pick a decent group of people who can work together, over their gaming experience, the character they make and so on: (Especially true for PbPs, but also to table top) Choose people, not gaming skills. You can have a group of highly veteran skilled players who breaks apart, or a group of newbies with no clue who will last a decade. Choose people, not gamers.

9) Something old and something new: When encountering a situation, a mystery, a battle, a social encounter, I like putting elements the party are already familiar with, and things they don't know. the first gives them a sense of accomplishment, and strengthen the "realness" of the world, while the second keeps up the tension. Tension is always good!

All I can think of as for now... :smalltongue:

erikun
2013-09-05, 01:01 PM
On the other hand, I take it as a point of pride that in my games the rules are almost always consistent. Occasionally, like any good GM, I make judgement calls and houserules about special situations, but I get quite frustrated if I'm in another GM's game and I have a conversation like
"Okay, I'm Prone, so I have +4 AC against his ranged attack"
"+2. Prone is definitely +2."
"Here, I'll show you where it says-"
"Hey whoa there book guy, we don't have time for that, there are GIANT SPIDERS HERE. It's +2 until next week."
Just as an aside, but I get bothered as a player when a GM will consistently be making these mistakes and then overruling objections. I don't have a problem with a single fiddly bonus here and there, but when it's something key to the character and/or can result in major success or failure of the campaign - and if it happens regularly, such as every other session - then I tend to become annoyed when characters potentially need to be re-rolled because the GM wouldn't let me turn to the page I already have marked out.

Again, though, it depends on a consistency/importance thing. If it doesn't happen regularly or the rolls generally aren't important, there isn't likely to be much concern over it.

Yora
2013-09-05, 01:19 PM
You can look it up and debate its meaning, but you should do that after the game is over. Unless it's something really crucial to the progress of events, it's generally better to just run along with a slightly wrong ruling and use that instead of the one in the book. And for the next game, you can use the correct ruling. But when it's about modifiers to rolls or target numbers, or numbers of attacks, or ranges or spells, or anything like that, it's really a lot better to follow a general policy of not getting into long debates about specific rules.

kyoryu
2013-09-05, 01:39 PM
2) Prepare situations, not encounters:
3)Make situations with no obvious solutions:
4) Listen up to the players ideas, they can often be better than yours:
5) choices, choices, choices:
7) Appeal to the players, only then to the characters:
8) When choosing a new group, pick a decent group of people who can work together, over their gaming experience, the character they make and so on:

I'm starting to suspect that you're my clone. Or I'm yours. Or something.

I've been on a kick recently about two "high principles" in RPG play:

1) Decisions
2) Questions

A game is about the player's decisions, and what questions the game will answer. Decisions give the agency, and questions provide the tension.

The trick is that the decisions must be meaningful, and the questions must be open - IOW, the player decisions need to have a discernible impact on how the questions are answered.

Mastikator
2013-09-05, 02:14 PM
[snip]
I cannot disagree with this more. Offer the player the option to hold their action if they cannot come up with anything, then they can jump back in once something occurs to them and not feel like they "failed".
Yeah I usually do this but it tends not to work and I refuse to get into an 30 minute (not an exaggerated timespan here) long argument over which spell or attack to use on some random mook.
I'd rather steamline over that player than let that player steamline over the whole game. Those are my priorities.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 02:19 PM
Combat is quick and vicious, no time to stand and drool (unless you're playing Burning Wheel because then that will happen a lot). I also expect my players to make up their mind in a timespan of at least 10 times larger than the combat round.