PDA

View Full Version : How Should a New GM Learn?



BayardSPSR
2015-04-29, 04:10 PM
Splitting off from a thread with a different topic.

If someone was running a game of [Arbitrary: the RPG] for the first time, never having GMed before, how much/what kind of railroading would you recommend that they do? Is it more important for them to experience getting players through a "plot" (here meaning a series of scenes, starting with a clear beginning and ending with a clear conclusion) to learn how to structure things, or to get used to improvising in response to players? In both cases, I'm assuming that the players know they're with an inexperienced GM, understand how linear/open the game's going to be, and aren't antagonistic sociopaths.


I'd probably just say run a published adventure path or barring that "As much as possible".

What would you suggest if they were running a game without a vast library of published material?

Also, to people in general, how important would you say system mastery is for our first-time GM?

As a side question, what would be different for someone who's trying to learn in a relative vacuum - someone who's new to RPGs as well, has players who are new to RPGs, and isn't connected to the word-of-mouth gaming chain? After all, there are people who have to learn independently, instead of from a friend.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-29, 04:23 PM
As I explained a bit more in my post in the other thread, for me I mainly just want them to minimize variables. GMing requires a pretty large skill set and a person can only learn so much at one time. Making things less linear might be viable if they constrain character creation or only stick to one kind of problem, say a strictly social game.

Getting everything dumped on you all at once can be a bit overwhelming, and I think having less wiggle room in the sequence of events is just one of the easier ways to eliminate the number of things the newbie has to be learning at once.

Not that things will go terrible if they dive in the deep end totally unaware and just take things as they come, it's just that their first game might be a bit messier and frustrating than it needs to be.

Geddy2112
2015-04-29, 04:37 PM
minimize variables.

This is the most important thing for a new GM, and part of why an out of the box adventure is a good place to start. If the gm is new and the players veterans, the GM has a nice safe system and clear plan, along with a fair amount of "what if" scenarios covered. The veteran players can roleplay and throw some twists in without leaving the GM high and dry. For new players and a new GM, then everybody gets a nice, easy to follow story that focuses on the basic rules. The only time I think a new GM does not need a boxed adventure is if they are a veteran player of the same system. Although game mastering has a lot of new challenges that players don't face, the GM will still know the mechanics of the system(fairly well) and have seen a lot of adventure arcs and hopefully learned from what worked, what did not work etc.

For system mastery, a new GM should have as much rule mastery as they can stomach. Even veteran GM's make mistakes, so a newbie needs to really dedicate to learning at least the basics of the system.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-29, 05:01 PM
Ignoring all of your questions and hopefully answering some of them, let me tell you how I first started GM'ing.

My first RPG was a D&D starter box. I had never played an RPG and none of my friends had either. I read the rules, trying to figure out exactly what they were talking about (the sample narratives were very helpful here), but we were mostly clueless.

One day I wanted to see how combat worked. I had my friends roll up characters, I selected a few monsters, and then we had battles. Attack roll, damage roll, mark off HP's. Afterwards I'd roll up the monsters' treasure, give it to the PC's, tally XP, and then do it again. Over and over. The characters started to level up and gain new spells and abilities that we would have to look up.

Eventually we wanted to play it "for real". So I took the sample dungeon in the back of the book and walked the players through it. It was a simple, silly "you open a door and see two orcs" type of affair. The combat was a cinch because we had practiced it so much.

And that's how our first campaign was born. Baby steps of fight mechanics, character progression, dungeon exploration, leading to an eventual town where the PC's resupplied and hired henchmen. Looking back I don't know how it could have gone any differently without us losing hope or interest, since we had no one to walk us through even the basics.

So my recommendation would be to do something simple to learn the rules. Make your starting Arbitrary:tRPG characters, have them meet, and present them with a simple fight so everyone can learn how it works. A tavern bar brawl or something. You'll probably to need to look up things a lot at first. Later, armed with your new knowledge, move on to the adventure proper -- preferably a pregenerated one. Look at each section ahead of time and look up any rules that are going to be required. Baby steps.

Just my two copper pieces.

The Evil DM
2015-04-29, 05:13 PM
As an individual currently teaching the GM role to a 17 year old son, Mr Moron is correct.


minimize variables

For his very first game 3.x game

Level 1 characters, shortened list of available magic, core races, shortened list of available feats, shortened list of available classes and context of the game was a relatively linear short dungeon crawl. Exterior of dungeon was a limited scope wilderness area and characters had no powers or capabilities that would allow them to leave - other than we walk east until we find something new.

It is easy to add features and capabilities as the GM increases in skill. Just like learning to play a wizard, it is much harder to jump in at a high level never having played a wizard, than it is to start at level 1 and learn as you go.

EDIT -

My first campaign was old red box too. Was about 9 years old. In our first weeks of play we saw the to hit tables and interpreted it as you had to roll that exact number on the D20 to hit. And one day the spark hit and I said to my friend, the fighter needs an 18 to hit the dragon and the dragon needs a 14 to hit the fighter. That is the same probability, shouldn't it be 18 or higher and 14 or higher...

Sure enough we reread the rules and realized we were doing it wrong.

Vitruviansquid
2015-04-29, 06:02 PM
Systems mastery is important, but at most tables, it's not actually that incredibly necessary for the GM to have the most system mastery. When everyone's in a mindset of cooperating to have a good time, you cover each other on misrulings, and have the flexibility to handle a bit of compromise and on-the-fly houseruling when you need to.

Now, a lot of people have already addressed how a GM should learn a system, so I won't. Instead, I'll talk a bit more about all that stylistic stuff that contributes to good GM'ing. A lot of people speak in absolutes about issues like "if you railroad, that makes you a bad GM" or "if you have a Mary Sue character, that makes you a bad GM" or "if you're not emphasizing role-playing/roll-playing/whatever that makes you a bad GM." There are a whole lot of things people want from GM's that aren't covered by the rules, and the standard expectation seems to be that a GM should be incredibly responsive and flexible and selfless when the players want something different.

My advice is to not stress about it. Run the game you want to run. Trust your instinct more than anything else because if your instinct is wrong about how cool railroading (as an example) is, you'll naturally grow out of it, but if you change the way you play just because people tell you it's the wrong way to play, you'll just have a less fun time GM'ing.

Gritmonger
2015-04-29, 07:31 PM
Try it with ignoring the system at first. Sure you have characters you have to make or roll up, but play with just saying what you do, like a game of pretend. When conflict comes, you break out the conflict resolution system, and start playing with that.

With the players I've had to introduce when I wasn't familiar with a system, often it was just giving them time to get used to the character, maybe do some role play, ask questions about the world, and then see why you'd need a system to resolve conflict: it creates tension and drama.

This also gives you time as a DM to see what a player will focus on or key off of, as well as figure out what kind of conflict they find interesting. This can be done by either asking for a backstory, or asking them to do what you'll eventually be asked to do: make some stuff on the fly.

Some of the best ideas come out this way, and everybody ends up having some investment in the game.

NichG
2015-04-29, 07:42 PM
Learning to live without detailed planning is important. Its easy to get stuck into a mindset of 'I have to have it down on paper before it happens in game' and then end up resisting any sort of deviation from what's on the page later on. It's better to instill the habit of being able to do things on the fly even if the consistency suffers a bit.

Learning in a way that you don't come to fear or hate players is important. Better to start with players who are also onboard with 'this game is about teaching the new guy to GM' rather than 'this game is about cutting loose and turning the dial to 11!'.

Also good would be to have something that helps focus on the PCs not being interchangeable - something where the PCs are the story, rather than one where the PCs are going through the story. That can help teach how to offload some of the creative workload on the players, how to make the players feel personally involved with the game, etc.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-04-29, 07:56 PM
I'd suggest that a New GM not try to focus on making a coherent plot, but rather on mucking about with the world, learning how to respond to the messes that characters make. Learning how narrative cause and effect come together is definitely more important than trying to impose a particular sequence of events on the gameplay.

kyoryu
2015-04-29, 08:28 PM
The best advice I'd give a new GM is to start with an Apocalypse-World derived game. They structure the GM role in such a way as to give a new GM much more concrete advice and decision points to work with than any other game I know.

Starting with 3.x or another rules heavy system is difficult, because you simultaneously have to learn the soft skills of being a GM in conjunction with the hard rules of the game, and do so in a system that gives you less guidance in where and how to do things.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-30, 01:15 AM
This is all very interesting. I'm taking notes (teaching a friend to GM sometime in the moderate future).

I wonder if there's a reasonable way to balance "minimize variables" within player-sourced deviation. There must be good variables and bad variables.

Maybe I should recommend that my friend politely ask their players to not stray out of a given framework (whether plot or setting or both), but give them free rein within that - while going in knowing that it's a "learn to GM" game.

Yora
2015-04-30, 02:44 AM
I'd suggest that a New GM not try to focus on making a coherent plot, but rather on mucking about with the world, learning how to respond to the messes that characters make. Learning how narrative cause and effect come together is definitely more important than trying to impose a particular sequence of events on the gameplay.

I agree. While it's "conventional wisdom" to start with a published adventure, this might have been true back in the 70s and early 80s, but the types of adventures that have been published since around 2000 are actually about the most complicated and difficult to do well. With a linear story you have to be able to get the players back on track when they go off the rail and also see that they are always strong enough to continue with the plot. And that's actually very hard to do without the whole thing becoming a really bad railroading event.

I agree with the other posts in asmuch as "keep it simple". Keeping it simple really is the most important part for a new GM because there will be more than enough stuff to occupy your attention. Trying to tell a prewritten story while making it seem as if the players are in control is a stunt I really wouldn't recommend for new GMs at all. It's so much additional work that has relatively little gain unless you're really good at it.
And your players will also enjoy a well done simple adventure much more than a poorly executed epic story.

So start small and keep it simple: Have someone give the player characters a job to go to a dungeon and get a stolen object or kidnapped person. And then just let them explore the dungeon and search for the thing they are looking for. Even if every room is just a monster they fight to the death, it's still good practice to learn how to run enemies in combat encounter. It actually gets a lot easier if you leave the ending open. Maybe they find what they are looking for, maybe not. Maybe they get too beaten up to continue the whole thing in one go and have to return later. Don't make it unnecessarily hard on the players, but it's not required that they actually succesfully complete their task. Unless they all die, life goes on and they can go to another adventure and try to do better next time.

That being said, there are a few very simple tricks to make exploring a dungeon more interesting:
- Avoid making the dungeon just a single hallway with only one possible way through. Instead make it a web with many different paths the players can take to get to each room. This allows the players to do some real planning and tactics, as they can try to get behind an enemy or avoid a certain room completely if they don't want to risk a fight with what is inside.
- Unless they are golems or undead, all enemies want to live. More than anything else, they really want to stay alive. So if it is clear that a group of enemies has no chance to win, make them try to escape. Dealing with enemies who surrender can be a bit annoying and time consuming, so best use that sparingly. But others might either try to run for the exit and be gone from the adventure, or they might try to flee to some room where there are friends of theirs waiting who can help them.
- When a fight starts, always ask yourself: What do the players and the enemies really accomplish here? Very rarely the goal is "kill everyone"*. Some monsters want to be left alone, others want to eat something, others might defend their nest. At the same time, the players probably want to do something and the enemy is simply in the way. When you know what the enemies want and what the players want, it's much easier to make a fight more interesting than simply having everyone attack until one side is dead.
- As a more general advice: Always make sure you understand what the players intend to accomplish with their actions. When a player says he wants to do something that sounds really stupid, it probably means that in his mind the plan sounds very different from how it sounds in your mind. When a player says "I run towards the pit and jump" or "I hit the wooden post with my axe", he almost certainly has something clever in mind which he things will come from his action. Don't just tell him "you jump into the pit and die" or "your axe is now stuck in the post". When you are not 100% sure what the player intends to accomplish or how his action is supposed to accomplish that goal, simply ask the player what he wants to do. The players only see and hear what you tell them they see and hear, so if they do something stupid, it's usually not because they are dumb, but because they misunderstood something you described. So always check if you are both on the same page.

* If you are running a game in which the players get experience for defeating enemies, I very strongly suggest modifying it to "overcoming the obstacle". An enemy does not need to be killed to be defeated. If the enemy flees he is defeated and the fight is won. If the players want to get at something and an enemy is in the way, then finding a way around that enemy that does not consist of killing it should also get them their XP. If the players put themselves in danger and come out on top, give them XP regardless of how they managed it. If they never are in any danger, they don't get XP of course. Getting past guards who don't intend to stop them is not a challenge, and neither is deciding to take a different entrace into a place. But killing everything on sight is boring.

goto124
2015-04-30, 03:32 AM
I was curious about this, although system mastery is pretty much no problem for an FFRP. In freeforms however, it can be harder because your player(s) can pull all sorts of powerful abilities out of nowhere. Like a lvl 20 DnD wizard, but worse.

I've been blessed with a player who knows me well though :smallsmile:

Lorsa
2015-04-30, 06:02 AM
I would actually advice against any railroading while practicing GMing for the very reasons you stated.


Is it more important for them to experience getting players through a "plot" (here meaning a series of scenes, starting with a clear beginning and ending with a clear conclusion) to learn how to structure things, or to get used to improvising in response to players?

Yes, I do believe it IS important to learn how to structure things. And railroading is what I consider how not to structure things, so if you start out that way, chances are you will develop a bad habit which will be difficult to unlearn later.

I do believe simple is best however. Start with a very easy situation and learn how to respond to player input. For example:



What would you suggest if they were running a game without a vast library of published material?

I would say that it is the best way to start. Your vast library will just confuse you. The first time I GMed, I didn't even have a rulebook. All I had was some loose memories of the rules from the couple of hours I tried RPing at a camp. What you need to begin with is some practice with how to describe situations, teach your players (if they are new) how to describe their actions, and how to respond to that. Rules are rather insignificant at that point, as are tome-like campaign modules.


Also, to people in general, how important would you say system mastery is for our first-time GM?

Well, if this is a group that has played for a long time, and the new GM has been a player before, then some system mastery would be good. It hardly needs to be the best in the group though. But in general, I don't think it's very important at all. I ran almost system-less for the first couple of weeks GMing. I also used a sequence of 4d6s to simulate a d100. The basics of roleplaying has very little to do with the system used.


As a side question, what would be different for someone who's trying to learn in a relative vacuum - someone who's new to RPGs as well, has players who are new to RPGs, and isn't connected to the word-of-mouth gaming chain? After all, there are people who have to learn independently, instead of from a friend.

That question is rather irrelevant since the answer will never reach the intended person.

But to try and answer it, when I started GMing I had very limited roleplaying experience. I had a total of maybe an hour or two played, and then came home and wanted to introduce my friends to this awesome thing. I vaguely remembered some of the rules and how to make characters, wrote down some tables (quarter memory and the rest imagination) and then began to introduce it to my friends. I didn't know anyone in my home town that played, this was before the internet so I guess I had to learn GMing as much in a vacuum as you can.

One thing I learnt from that is that RPGs in essence are very simple, or at least that you don't have to complicate them unless you want to. Dice, pens, paper, rules etc are good to have, but hardly necessary. To semi-quote an old swedish alpine skier; It's just to play.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-30, 08:24 AM
In both cases, I'm assuming that the players know they're with an inexperienced GM, understand how linear/open the game's going to be, and aren't antagonistic sociopaths.

These are ludicrous assumptions. If anything, a completely fresh GM is likely to have a fairly fresh group of players too. The players might know the GM is inexperienced, but this doesn't translate to anything useful because the players can't give much in the way of tips either. The whole linear/open distinction might be unknown to them unless explained. And even if they're not antagonistic sociopaths, their characters will be. :smalltongue:

In any case, one of the best ways to start learning how to GM is the same game is suggested for teaching players how to deal with in-game mysteries: Situation puzzles. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_puzzle) In it, the game master describes a situation, typically the scene of some sort of a crime, and typically also ludicrous and counter-intuitive; and the task of the players is to ask questions which can be answered binarily, with just yes or no, until they can figure out what happened and how the situation got how it is.

It will teach a GM how to describe a scenario, how to commit to memory and invent details about it, and how to deal with player questions about it. As a bonus, it will teach the players to pay attention to the situation at hand and to ask relevant questions about it, instead of going off on tangents.

LuisDantas
2015-05-01, 11:50 AM
"Minimize variables" is good advice indeed IMO.

But it does not necessarily apply to the GM alone, or even mainly.

I have noticed that many campaigns suffer from a lack of clarity about the environment and its options. Starting with a setting which the players are well acquaintanced with is a great advantage, often neglected. So is having well-established character concepts.

Or you can go the other way and choose a crunch-intensive system, but I would not recommend it.

A somewhat linear adventure, with a small set of clearly defined goals which solidly establish that the group has made progress and needs to worry no more about a well-delimited part of their challenges (even if it ends up just opening the way for harder yet different problems) is psychologically very advisable.

I would choose a setting or at least a scenario that is forgiving of previous mistakes. Zombie apocalypse and dark fantasy are two such choices; the character mortality is so high that it is possible to forgive characters and replace them without accumulating much in the way of resentment or worry. More political scenarios are harder on the GM and characters, IMO.

I would attempt to begin play with simple character concepts that are understood well in advance by all players, and chosen reasonably freely among them. Allow them to customize the characters for flavor, to the extent that you feel certain that there will be no dilemmas in characterization, rules mechanics or plot as a result.

Umberhulk
2015-05-01, 12:14 PM
As a first time GM, don't get attached to a plot that involves some kind of grand scheme. For starters, just get through the plot of the day. As you GM more often, you must learn the rules better, to handle PCs and NPCs simultaneously, and definitely to improv. Developing larger stories with original elements will come with time. Don't force it, and don't force your players. Do not teat them as observers of your vision, for a good adventure and gaming world must be a shared vision. Each side must indulge the other to a certain extent. I'm not saying you are a singular-vision kind of GM, but am warning you against it. Pay attention to your players as much as you want them to pay attention to you. Some players are easily immersed, other take more time or work. And never forget: we're all at the table to have fun!

goto124
2015-05-01, 07:06 PM
Does plot mean 'emergent player-created story' or 'pre-determined-by-DM series of events'?

Go for the former. Avoid the latter.

Drakzelthor
2015-05-01, 09:40 PM
I'd also suggest starting with one of the *world games and reading the GMs section (In dungeon world at least there is a section entirely about running first sessions). They are also good for encouraging improvisation and avoiding railroading.

There are also a few blogs with really good advice for GMs out there. In particular thealexandrian.net (read "don't prep plots" at least), and Campaign Mastery both have a some interesting material and are probably worth browsing around, especially if you are running something more prep heavy than Dungeon World.

Thrudd
2015-05-01, 10:16 PM
Splitting off from a thread with a different topic.

If someone was running a game of [Arbitrary: the RPG] for the first time, never having GMed before, how much/what kind of railroading would you recommend that they do? Is it more important for them to experience getting players through a "plot" (here meaning a series of scenes, starting with a clear beginning and ending with a clear conclusion) to learn how to structure things, or to get used to improvising in response to players? In both cases, I'm assuming that the players know they're with an inexperienced GM, understand how linear/open the game's going to be, and aren't antagonistic sociopaths.



What would you suggest if they were running a game without a vast library of published material?

Also, to people in general, how important would you say system mastery is for our first-time GM?

As a side question, what would be different for someone who's trying to learn in a relative vacuum - someone who's new to RPGs as well, has players who are new to RPGs, and isn't connected to the word-of-mouth gaming chain? After all, there are people who have to learn independently, instead of from a friend.

A first time GM new to RPGs needs to read the source material and become very familiar with it. They should read the examples of play which most sourcebooks contain and the advice for GMs that it might contain. Only so much mastery can be gained by reading without actually playing the game, but the GM should have read any core books from cover to cover and have an idea where to find all the info.

Whether there should be a linear narrative plot or an open ended adventure depends on the game being played, different games lend themselves to different structures.
In general, starting out with something smaller in scope and scale is easier to manage, but that does not imply "railroading" of any degree.

The source material should include all the information needed to establish a game, a library of supplemental products shouldn't be needed.

Learning to improvise is important for GMs. This only happens through practice, of course.

Skaven
2015-05-02, 01:19 PM
I would first focus on confidence: first time GMing is kind of stressful and worrying, even an experienced GM can get nervous starting a new game as they dont know the party or where they're going / what they want to do etc.

So do whatever you need to relax yourself. A little early railroading isn't bad so long as the intro railroad stops when the party get on their feet, know who they are, who their friends are and what they want to do.

I find my best way to relax about running a game is to over-prepare.

I don't even look at 90% of my notes/preparations, but they help me feel confident about going in to the game and running it. Confidence is key.

Published modules.. I have personally never used them. They seem like a lot of reading and they seem easy to screw up if the players kill an important npc or decide to leave the area or whatever. Its hard to plan around what the players will want to do.

A few tips:

Keep a list of random NPC names on hand.

Keep a list of tavern names.

Keep a list of minor plots/occurrences to go to if you get stuck (for example: You hear a scream from an alley and find a group of brigands assaulting a young couple, the man is fending them off with a shortsword but he's definitely in over his head!) - a little fight like this can fill up a session, so can give you time to prepare and think. The people you rescue can lead in to another plot, like 'the young couple hold a magical card someone who hired the brigands want! They ask if the party can keep it safe, they want nothing to do with it anymore.

etc

Even if you never look at these things, they can help your confidence.

Ultimately it comes down to doing and experience, with a group that understands you are new and might trip up sometimes.

Another thing I should note is that different settings require more work and thought than others.

Easy mode are what I call 'low consequence settings' like medieval fantasy: where the PCs can run away from social trouble / law more easily.

Medium mode settings are space based sci fi: there are still consequences but again, you can possibly run away from it to other planets.

Hard mode settings are modern day / modern day inspired sci fi like shadowrun: you get in trouble with the law and every law agency in the country has you wanted now, with pictures and CCTV footage. there is a lot more thought that needs to be put in to the world and expectations the players will have because its so similar to RL, even if uit involves magic / superpowers / psionics etc.

I advise starting on an easy or medium mode setting.

LibraryOgre
2015-05-04, 01:43 PM
One of my core ideas is "Orc'n'Pie Gaming". The adventure is very simple. "The orc has a pie. You want the pie. Go get it!" And that problem is approached, with different characters, in different ways. The thief tries to sneak in and steal the pie. The wizard might blast the orc, or charm the orc, or whatever. The fighter probably tries to beat him up.

The point of Orc'n'Pie Gaming is NOT to play a great game. It's to play a messy game where you get used to the mechanics. How does defense work? How do you do opposed skill checks? Saves work how? It has nothing to do with story, because the story is something that's somewhat independent of the game. It's not railroading, but it's incredibly limited of objectives... someone who comes to an Orc'n'Pie session who wants to go off to a ball and have deep discussions is ignoring the point of the game. Someone who comes to an Orc'N'Pie session who wants to fast-talk the orc out of the pie is doing it right, because then you're figuring out the fast-talk rules.

It's great for a new GM and one or two players to get proficient in the system.

Yukitsu
2015-05-04, 06:06 PM
I'm going to go with two things that helped me when I was new that doesn't seem to have a lot of other input here.

Try to get the players, not the characters to help or communicate with you as you go. Make sure people have rule books. Even if you're not the strongest at the rules, when something comes up, they'll look to you for a call. Having people with books on hand, or having your own books on hand so if something does come up, you can get them to help you look for clarity. You don't want to immediately houserule in a panic, you don't want to just make something up. Let them look over the books, take that as time to think of the situation and the rules, and then when you've thought it over, heard the rules, make a decision. Asking your players what parts of a session they like, what they aren't liking is a good idea, though they're rarely honest about it and tend to be more generous than I think they really feel.

Second, I would recommend you try and get into a flexible mind set. I know that making things up on the fly, incorporating story elements, characters and situations is hard, but I also know that players don't really care if you're a new DM or not. If your game is bad, the game is bad, and you are a DM trying very hard to push players down a very narrow path, the players probably won't remain interested in it. If things fly too off the handle and you just feel you have to cancel the game without any real resolution, don't fret about it, you just got a big chunk of DMing experience.

Ultimately, you stop being a new DM by DMing. Even if you crash and burn a few times (I know I did) you'll stop being a new DM really quickly only by just getting in there up to your elbows.