PDA

View Full Version : Tips For DM's



Teapot Salty
2015-06-29, 11:22 PM
Hey guys. So for all you DM's out there, do you guys remember the transition from player to DM? The challenges, the problems? Well I'd like to propose that we all use this thread to share tips to aspiring DM's, or if you'd prefer, you could point out a flaw you have in your own dming, and have people try to come up with solutions and tips for you. Who's game?

The tips I'd give are what my first dm gave me: Say yes as much as possible, and if you make plans for city a, and the party goes city b, make city b city a, with changes so that people actually see the difference (change sand to snow for example).

For something to help me, I honestly find it difficult to let players play something that I dislike the flavor of. And that's something I'd like to get fixed.

Thanks guys, let's put some awesome tips together, and go nuts.

Karl Aegis
2015-06-30, 12:07 AM
You don't need to jam every slam. Most of the time you can just have fun playing the game.

Gamgee
2015-06-30, 03:45 AM
Kill all the things. Oh right advice.

Kill all players.

:smallsmile:

Tips to running an open world game. Be good at improvising anything on the fly.

Zejety
2015-06-30, 04:08 AM
The single most useful advice I've picked up somewhere is "Be a fan of your players' characters."

This implies a lot of things: Give them opportunities to be awesome. Show confidence in their abilities. The already mentioned "say yes" (because you want to see what awesome thing they are going to do!).
Be happy about their victories, not their defeats. Cheer when they come up with an awesome idea, even if it trivializes your cool encounter.
Last and IMO most importantly: Do not go out of your way to make them look like idiots (unless that's what the players are going for). If they fail a check, let them fail but don't intepret every failure as the PCs making a fool of themselves. That awesome trapper may misinterpret that set of tracks but ho won't confuse bear tracks for those of a pidgeon. If a players make a mistake based on their OOC lack of IC circumstances, correct them, don't let your NPCs treat them like lunatics.

When I look back at un-fun games now, it was often due to the DM not following this principle.

Milo v3
2015-06-30, 04:42 AM
Grow to accept that if you make something there is a good chance of it burning.

VincentTakeda
2015-06-30, 05:58 AM
Its true that the single most important facet in the transition from player to gm is to drop the need to win.

As a player its fine to have the mentality that all that you face should fall before you and that through persistance, victory will be yours.

As a dm, this attitude is the worst kind of attitude you can have because 'the enemy' is now your table.

If you hate seeing your creations die and your settings mangled, the gm chair is not for you. Get used to losing fights... Like MOST of the time. Especially with the characters you care about most.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-06-30, 06:46 AM
Fun, interesting, challenging. Make sure it's all three for all players.

Don't have favourites, especially when NPC's get involved and even more especially if your significant other is playing.

If a session focusses on one player - either as a part of their character arc or because their skill set makes them ideally suited to taking the lead, make sure other sessions focus on the rest of the party.

Don't be afraid to kill PCs, but equally, don't make it something you aim for in every session. Well, unless you're playing Paranoia, of course. :smallamused:

Have contingencies ready. Character gets killed? Ok, a local church agrees to raise them for less than normal (or even for free), but demands the party go off on a quest. Or the party go to city B rather than city A? They eventually get hired to escort someone to city A and then get involved in what you were originally planning.

Be creative in the information you give out, even if you don't really plan on going anywhere with it. For instance, if they find a ring, it's not a ring, it's a silver band with an inscription in some language on the inside and a triangle of jade inset into the bezel. Maybe it's magical, maybe it's just jewellery, and if the PCs can't translate the inscription themselves, they'll probably go off in all sorts of directions trying to do so. If the storekeeper's got a name, is he a significant character, or have you just consulted a list of pre-generated names? Or, if the barmaid's dark skinned in an otherwise scandanavian-themed village, what's she doing there - is she simply a migrant, an adopted foundling, a spy, an exile, a wanted criminal in her homeland or what?

lytokk
2015-06-30, 08:06 AM
Rule zero is an emergency tool, not a story telling device.

Don't give the bad guys something you wouldn't want the PC's having, because they will find a way to get it.

Audit character sheets every once in a while.

Allow rule of cool to trump rules as written every once in a while

Everyone should be having fun at the table, including you

You get out of the game what you put in. Unless you're good at improvising, try to plan ahead

You will never perfectly plan for what PC's may do

Never make a problem with a single solution. Try to come up with at least three of your own. Even though the PCs will come up with something outside of what you planned, at least now you're open to multiple solutions

Don't force NPCs on the party. If the party likes an NPC, they'll ask him to come along.

On that same vein, don't run a DMPC unless the party specifically asks for it, and do not tailor encounters to require said DMPC. He can always stand back and guard the dungeon entrance.

goto124
2015-06-30, 08:29 AM
Or, if the barmaid's dark skinned in an otherwise scandanavian-themed village, what's she doing there - is she simply a migrant, an adopted foundling, a spy, an exile, a wanted criminal in her homeland or what?

Spent too much time suntanning.

*whistles innocently*

Yora
2015-06-30, 08:37 AM
Don't try to get the players to act out a specific story you want to happen. It's not fun for the player and usually those stories are a lot more interesting in the head of the GM than to the players who have no clue what everything really means.

Prepare a problem and present it to the players. Then let the players decide how to deal with that problem. It usually helps if you create environments that don't force the PCs to go through a single specific door or to defeat a single specific group of enemies to make progress toward their goal. Offer at least two possible paths. Neither of the two has to be easy, but the players should have some choice of which one of the two bad options they want to deal with. (Note: 98% of all published adventures don't do that, which I think is why a huge number of GMs never learns about it.)

Phoenixguard09
2015-06-30, 09:18 AM
I think my biggest one is that the GM needs to learn to enjoy the players' success. In my experience, games where the GM is adversarial with the players tend to lead to a fair bit of ill feeling.

My players know that I want them to succeed and be awesome. And we have a lot of fun as a result.

All the other usual advice like saying yes as much as possible and not preparing too much are things I keep in mind, but the first one is the thing I try to always keep in mind.

Talar
2015-06-30, 09:32 AM
Do not be afraid to improvise. The best encounters I have ever ran were half or fully improvised. Also do not use a sledgehammer against the PC's when a simple slap on the wrist will do. I had a DM shunt my second level wizard off to the Ethereal Plane because I opened a spellbook of minor spellcaster (level 3), which I had examined with Detect Magic. I did not gain experience points and it was about 3 levels before he came back to the party, after I told the DM he was going to commit suicide to just end it.

Spartakus
2015-06-30, 09:42 AM
For a first-time GM it is helpfull to use a recommended official adventure. It takes away most of the fun that is building your own world and gives you less opportunities to include your own ideas. But it gives you a good feeling how to make challanging encounters, shows you where skill-checks are appropriate and so on. You will learn enough about Gamemastering to make your own campaign after that.

Have at least one experienced player in your group that you can ask for help. Should be someone whose style in gameing or GMing you liked.

Ask your players to play classes you are familiar with. GMing is alot more difficult if you have no idea what a char can do. Evil chars a a similar problem (because you don't want to deal with PvP-problems if you have still problems without them. Keep in mind that you should not force them to play something they don't want to play. But if they really want to play that CE half-angel vampire surrealist make them aware of your problem.

The last one leads directly to the main point (that even experienced GMs should do on a regular basis):
Speak with your players. A lot.
Ask them after a gaming-session what they liked or disliked. Ask for constructive criticism.

Spartakus
2015-06-30, 09:59 AM
For something to help me, I honestly find it difficult to let players play something that I dislike the flavor of. And that's something I'd like to get fixed.


Again, talk to your players. Maybe they can make you understand why they want to play it.
Keep in mind that there are great differences in what players like about the game. Some people just want to smash evil Monsters with absurd power (like early Vaarsuvius). Others like making complicated plans that involve clever tactics and interaction with many NPCs(like Nale or Tarquin). Maybe they just want to create fun in the world you created(like Elan). Or they just want to sit at a table playing a funny game with their friends.
Maybe you dislike a class just because it is utterly useless to your style of gaming. But that doesn't mean it doesn't fit your players gamingstyle. As a GM you should give everyone the room to shine in their style of gaming and restrict them from interrupting the style of others (that is the main reason why I-slay-every-NPC-we-meet-Barbarians ar hated. The same goes for I-talk-our-way-out-of-every-encounter-Bards :smallwink:

Amphetryon
2015-06-30, 10:28 AM
Allow rule of cool to trump rules as written every once in a while
Corollary: When you do this, specify - preferably for all present to note - whether this represented a one-time "That's way too cool not to work this time" or a change in how things will function in that circumstance while you're in the DM chair. If smashing a chair over someone's back has a 50% chance of knocking that someone unconscious in this fight, Players deserve to know if that's only going to happen during their one fight with Mick Foley, or from here on out.

Aran nu tasar
2015-06-30, 10:39 AM
Be ready to come up with names on the fly, whether that is a good random name generator, a massive list made before hand, or simply a knack for improvising the names. If your game isn't firmly locked onto rails (which it shouldn't be) then the players will go places you don't expect and talk to NPCs you didn't bother fleshing out. The game is much more immersive if Faceless Mook #7 introduces himself to the players as Private Lance Callorn, stuck again on gate duty because he lost another hand of poker, and no he can't let the players through because it's his job on the line and the brass hates him enough already.

On a different note, take advantage of player's questions and what they take note of to flesh out the world and the story. I'll use an example from a past game of mine to illustrate this. The premise of the game was that the players were pirates on airships; in an attempt to capture the players, the Imperial Navy kept sending dragonriders at them. One of my players kept asking why the dragons, who are intelligent creatures, were helping the empire. I honestly hadn't thought about it, but on the fly decided that the dragons were specially bred and mind controlled. Suddenly I have half a session of infiltrating the breeding facility, the players feel great that they managed to figure out that something was afoot (and got some dragons by breaking the mind control), and for the finale they raised a small army and attacked the place to get revenge on the BBEG. From paying attention to what the players were curious about, I got without much work a session and a half that the players were genuinely invested in, because it was in response to questions they had been raising.

dream
2015-06-30, 11:07 AM
Prep.

Before characters are made & you start prep, start with the Same-Page Tool. (https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/)

Know the rules :smalltongue: especially the fiddly ones like Grappling, shooting while moving, circumstance modifiers & at least the basics of spellcasting or using super-powers (depends on system).

If you use them, have hand-outs ready for maps, notes, & anything the players should know for your adventure/scene. If you like to use images/pics, have them ready; I recommend using a PC/tablet for quick reference & player presentation.

Have more information than you need. For key NPCs; a full physical appearance with visible gear, a distinct personality, a quirk that makes them stand out, their motivation, & a skill/ability that makes them useful/dangerous to the PCs. Having a prepped list of random NPC names helps a lot.

For locations; a short history of the place, what part of town/the world, temperature, sights, sounds, smells, the mood of the place, & who or what is there for the PCs? If your group uses maps, have them ready. I love my dry-erase grid-board for whatever. Miniatures are best, but paper counters or just about anything works for tokens.

Having 8-10 prepped NPCs & locations that you can throw into your adventure helps maintain pace. When the players make an unexpected decision, you'll be ready for them. Some GMs like to write & prep is easy. For others, writing long notes is not fun and for those GMs I recommend putting down some simple notes to remember key points about NPCs & locations. I use online documents I can easily reference from a cell or PC, but some GMs like index cards, which serve the same purpose.

Have dice for yourself & everyone else. GM screens are cool, especially if you use secret rolls (or fudge 'em). Make sure you have a copy of each player's character sheet for easy reference. If there's treasure, have the total ready. If they're encountering any possible combat scenarios, have the X.P. rewards ready. Put combat Initiative on a sheet or board where players can see, while keeping your own initiative list that includes NPCs/monsters. Please have easy access to monster/NPC combat stats so combat flows instead of stalling.

Also, check out this article, Don't Prep Plots. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots)

noob
2015-06-30, 11:14 AM
Do not throw the attack dices of your monsters in front of the players else if they see your monster does lots of critical you will not be able to say that in fact he did not do all those critical for not having the players die against one goblin with one commoner level and all stats under 8.

Yukitsu
2015-06-30, 02:47 PM
Start small, start low level, start simple.

NomGarret
2015-06-30, 08:42 PM
Give enough of the premise of the adventure beforehand that players can create characters who are inclined to follow the plot hooks and will have reasonable opportunities to incorporate backstory into the setting.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-30, 09:55 PM
Improvisation is not a substitute for Preparation. They are two sides of the same coin. Improvisation is not "Winging It". Fudging a die roll is evidence that you probably didn't prepare properly.

Know the rules. You can't break a rule properly until you know it. Any musician will confirm this.

The DM is not always right, but the DM's decisions are always binding. Own all of your decisions. Nothing happens in-game without DM approval, even if this approval is tacit. Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

Don't bring a creature with Save or Die attacks into play unless you are prepared to take PCs out of the game. NEVER fudge a die roll for one of these creatures. These creatures should never be encountered randomly. Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

Never award an experience point for behavior you want to discourage. Murderhobos are not born, they are made.

One detail, well described, can be more immersive than an entire brick of descriptive text.

As a rule of thumb, the NPCs and Monsters should just not be that into the PCs. Attitudes from NPCs towards PCs should usually be Indifference. The attitude from Monsters towards PCs should usually be Depraved Indifference. The PCs are neither as delicious nor as interesting as they think they are.

Take notes. Even if it is just to buy time to think of what you are going to do next. It looks like you are thinking even if your just making a shopping list.

If you need a minute to make a decision, say to the players "I need a minute", and then take one minute instead of five. If you need five minutes to make a decision, say to the players, "I need five minutes", and then take five minutes not fifteen.

Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

noob
2015-07-01, 05:07 AM
Total party kills are valid once you reach lvl17 and that you have allies since there is a spell allowing to resurrect without level loss.(but it must be rare for example if the players encounters a(rare) necromancer with wail of the banshee and that they all fail)
Or if adventurers does truly stupid things and think they are immortal and then decide they are going to fight the entire empire army by themselves at a level where soldiers are a significant threat for them.
Also fudging is not necessarily a proof of lack of preparation:for example if players stupidly ran into a room for hunting two goblin and that those goblin get 100 percent of their attacks critical and that the players does only fumble the goblins might believe the adventurers are super weak and then decide to block the door and if you keep being unlucky all the team might get killed by those goblins if none of them can hit them because of critical fails.

dream
2015-07-01, 05:27 AM
The DM is not always right, but the DM's decisions are always binding. Own all of your decisions. Nothing happens in-game without DM approval, even if this approval is tacit. Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.
Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

Explain how TPKs are always the GMs fault please?

Phoenixguard09
2015-07-01, 05:49 AM
7.As a rule of thumb, the NPCs and Monsters should just not be that into the PCs. Attitudes from NPCs towards PCs should usually be Indifference. The attitude from Monsters towards PCs should usually be Depraved Indifference. The PCs are neither as delicious nor as interesting as they think they are.

Not sure if I agree with this one as a rule personally. There will be some times that the characters should be seen as interesting individuals.

In fact, to many players, the idea that the enemy has put some serious thought and investigation into stopping them is a bit of a kick.

dream
2015-07-01, 06:15 AM
Improvisation is not a substitute for Preparation. They are two sides of the same coin. Improvisation is not "Winging It". Fudging a die roll is evidence that you probably didn't prepare properly.

Know the rules. You can't break a rule properly until you know it. Any musician will confirm this.

The DM is not always right, but the DM's decisions are always binding. Own all of your decisions. Nothing happens in-game without DM approval, even if this approval is tacit. Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

Don't bring a creature with Save or Die attacks into play unless you are prepared to take PCs out of the game. NEVER fudge a die roll for one of these creatures. These creatures should never be encountered randomly. Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

Never award an experience point for behavior you want to discourage. Murderhobos are not born, they are made.

One detail, well described, can be more immersive than an entire brick of descriptive text.

As a rule of thumb, the NPCs and Monsters should just not be that into the PCs. Attitudes from NPCs towards PCs should usually be Indifference. The attitude from Monsters towards PCs should usually be Depraved Indifference. The PCs are neither as delicious nor as interesting as they think they are.

Take notes. Even if it is just to buy time to think of what you are going to do next. It looks like you are thinking even if your just making a shopping list.

If you need a minute to make a decision, say to the players "I need a minute", and then take one minute instead of five. If you need five minutes to make a decision, say to the players, "I need five minutes", and then take five minutes not fifteen.

Total Party Kills are your fault. Every time.

Looking this over again, there's A LOT of One-True-Wayism here;

Fudging dice is a widely-accepted practice by GMs to prevent the ugly reality of player failure. A lot of people play TTRPGs to do cool things & have fun & failing doesn't accomplish that. While I don't do it, I also don't assume GMs fudge rolls because they're incompetent. Some very capable GMs fudge rolls.
Never use random rolls for "hard" monsters? Random encounters have been a core feature of D&D for decades. I would counter with "players should NEVER (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzi2B7QeMdM) assume they can win every combat".
Why should NPC be indifferent to PCs? What if your players prefer the opposite? Maybe the GM should give the players the kind of game they want?
On TPKs, I've had players charge their PCs into certain death more than a few times. That's after they were asked "you sure you want to do that?" and also after I offered plenty of alternatives. Sometimes, players just make bad decisions. It's part of the game & the "CR system" is not the safety net many players think it is. Note: sometimes that TPK event is the most fun any of the players have ever had at the table, so as odd as it seems, if the low-level players want to take on Tiamat, let 'em.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-01, 02:47 PM
Know what sort of game everyone will enjoy. Maybe you fudge rolls to keep the PC's alive since they are obviously attached, but the players aren't fond of that and want death to have an impact. Maybe you don't fudge because you worry about insulting the players, but they really rather deal with a KO scenario. Players can affect the atmosphere, tone and rules, but not as well as the GM. And what works for one group won't work for another.

Comet
2015-07-01, 03:05 PM
Don't go out of your way to impress your players. No illusionism, no iron grip on rules, no grand storytelling. Just know your world, know your game, be prepared to get to know your players and find out how you can ride those three things to have a lot of fun. You are the master of dungeons, not the master of the evening.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-01, 03:18 PM
Fudging dice is a widely-accepted practice by GMs to prevent the ugly reality of player failure. A lot of people play TTRPGs to do cool things & have fun & failing doesn't accomplish that. While I don't do it, I also don't assume GMs fudge rolls because they're incompetent. Some very capable GMs fudge rolls.


These are tips for a new DM. For new DMs, fudging rolls is a crutch, not a tool.



Never use random rolls for "hard" monsters? Random encounters have been a core feature of D&D for decades.


There are plenty of "core features" that have been tripping new DMs up for decades. A beholder is not an appropriate random wandering monster.



Why should NPC be indifferent to PCs? What if your players prefer the opposite? Maybe the GM should give the players the kind of game they want?


It feels more authentic for NPCs to have other priorities than killing the PCs. It facilitates Willing Suspension of Disbelief if the world doesn't literally revolve around the PCs.


...On TPKs, I've had players charge their PCs into certain death more than a few times.
...

Yep. And it was all your fault.



...
That's after they were asked "you sure you want to do that?" and also after I offered plenty of alternatives.
...

Yep, you offered them Cake or Death...

Your fault. All your fault.



...
Sometimes, players just make bad decisions. It's part of the game & the "CR system" is not the safety net many players think it is.
...

*cough*Your Fault*cough*



...
Note: sometimes that TPK event is the most fun any of the players have ever had at the table
...

If the most fun players ever have at your table is after you kill all of their characters? Then it is really your fault.



...
if the low-level players want to take on Tiamat, let 'em.

Tiamat?

Oh, it is so your fault.

Amphetryon
2015-07-01, 03:45 PM
I've had mid-level PCs TPK against an equal number of unleveled Goblins with nonmagical equipment, while rolling in the open at the behest of the Players. The Goblins needed a 19 on the dice just to hit; the PCs needed a 4 or higher (or to use non-Attack-based magic, which they eschewed for the fight). Choice of which PC(s) to attack was entirely arbitrary based on assigned numbers, again rolled in the open. I didn't miss for 4 rounds and critted twice; the PCs didn't hit for 4 rounds. The Goblins attempted to get away, and the PCs chose to pursue them.

If you're going to blame me, as DM, for that TPK, I'm going to ask you to explain your rationale besides blindly repeating "all your fault."

Comet
2015-07-01, 03:59 PM
TPKs are sad and exhausting things. Coming back with a new, prepared party and getting your revenge is a lot of fun. Taking the consequences of violence away from a game that is so in love with killing can definitely feel disingenuous. I've personally given up fudging entirely because I got tired of trying to decide what is and isn't fun or cool for the players. Let the game and the players do that, it'll work fine.

Vitruviansquid
2015-07-01, 04:20 PM
Tips for new DMs... new DMs... hmm....

How about this one:

There is this ugly, pushy attitude I've seen on internet forums and in some RPG players that I'm going to label "Tabletop Doucheyness". This is the idea that certain DM practices are taboo, often things like "the DM should NEVER discuss how my character thinks," "the DM should NEVER allow a helpful NPC more powerful than the PCs" or "the DM should NEVER restrict player options within the plot." And then, that it is the players' right or duty to give the DM a hard time if he engages in any of these practices, including by turning up their noses and then leaving the table. My advice is don't take any of this nonsense. There's nothing wrong with getting player feedback and changing up your campaign based on it, but do so when you feel like it, and at your leisure.

Why? Because it is better to organically grow as a DM based on experimenting around and seeing what works for you. Like with other creative arts, DMing works best when you do it with your unique voice in your unique style. There is also the possibility that players who constantly push you to run the game this way or that way for them are simply control freaks or arrogant, and are not really worth listening to because they will never be satisfied, and will end up torpedo'ing your game anyways. Finally, you're going to want to DM games your way because it's more fun like that, and it being more fun means you won't experience burnout. A campaign can survive player burnout, but never DM burnout.

MrStabby
2015-07-01, 04:21 PM
I have had games, not least as a player where we believe that our characters would make an epic stand against certain death. Out DM gave us the freedom to express our characters this way. We went down in a blaze of glory fighting to the last.

It was one of the best evenings I have had in a long time. It was totally our DM's fault we had such a good time.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-01, 04:22 PM
If you're going to blame me, as DM, for that TPK, I'm going to ask you to explain your rationale besides blindly repeating "all your fault."

Nothing happens in game unless the DM approves it. Nothing. Even if the approval is tacit.

I am accountable for everything that happens in my campaign. Everything.

I never blame the rules. I never blame the dice. I never blame the players. I have never had a TPK. I don't consider this to be a coincidence.

Players don't have the standing authority to kill their characters. The rules don't have the authority to kill characters. The dice don't have the authority. The DM, and the DM alone, has that authority.

If a TPK occurred at the game table and you are the DM, it is your fault because a TPK can't happen unless you say it happens.

That is my rationale.

My version of Rule Zero is, "The DM is Always Accountable."

Karl Aegis
2015-07-01, 04:52 PM
You probably shouldn't have a DM philosophy that encourages you to personally attack others for thinking differently than you.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-01, 04:58 PM
I have had games, not least as a player where we believe that our characters would make an epic stand against certain death. Out DM gave us the freedom to express our characters this way. We went down in a blaze of glory fighting to the last.

It was one of the best evenings I have had in a long time. It was totally our DM's fault we had such a good time.

I strongly concur with this statement.

It is always totally the DM's fault when players have a good time.

And it is always totally the DM's fault when players have a bad time.

The DM can easily delegate virtually all of his authority to the players. But he simply can't delegate the accountability.

I'm not saying it's fair, but it is true.

TheThan
2015-07-01, 06:54 PM
Tips?

DMs are supposed to get tips? Like how much? The standard 15%?

Perturbulent
2015-07-01, 07:19 PM
Nothing happens in game unless the DM approves it. Nothing. Even if the approval is tacit.

I am accountable for everything that happens in my campaign. Everything.

I never blame the rules. I never blame the dice. I never blame the players. I have never had a TPK. I don't consider this to be a coincidence.

Players don't have the standing authority to kill their characters. The rules don't have the authority to kill characters. The dice don't have the authority. The DM, and the DM alone, has that authority.

If a TPK occurred at the game table and you are the DM, it is your fault because a TPK can't happen unless you say it happens.

That is my rationale.

My version of Rule Zero is, "The DM is Always Accountable."

Not to be over the top, but what I just heard was "The players are never accountable." If the DM is the arbiter in every course of action, and to that degree, it sounds like you advocate robbing the players of agency. Should a PC say simply "I stab myself in the stomach with my wakizashi" would you deny their suicide? What if it was the whole party? Doesn't sound like a fun game for too many people.

Perturbulent
2015-07-01, 07:23 PM
So for me, I think the first rule is: Listen to your players, while they are trying to determine the naughty folks schemes, they likely will come up with a better more interesting story than you might have. Use their story, maybe alter it a little to add flair and surprises. Truth is, the mind will find patterns, if they've explained one to you, it makes sense to them, if you try to justify a pattern you've made up, a lot of the time it won't make terribly much sense to the players.

I also really like Tarol Hunt's suggestions (not for everyone, but cool) Particularly the index cards for xp, if you intend to give everyone different xp, his card system is perfect. http://www.goblinscomic.org/dungeon-master-tips/

Rakoa
2015-07-01, 07:34 PM
Nothing happens in game unless the DM approves it. Nothing. Even if the approval is tacit.

I am accountable for everything that happens in my campaign. Everything.

I never blame the rules. I never blame the dice. I never blame the players. I have never had a TPK. I don't consider this to be a coincidence.

Players don't have the standing authority to kill their characters. The rules don't have the authority to kill characters. The dice don't have the authority. The DM, and the DM alone, has that authority.

If a TPK occurred at the game table and you are the DM, it is your fault because a TPK can't happen unless you say it happens.

That is my rationale.

My version of Rule Zero is, "The DM is Always Accountable."

All this means is that you remove any danger from a game by making sure that, regardless of the decisions made my PCs, they'll survive. They are effectively invincible. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that. I'd get bored. Maybe it works for you, but I'd never run a game that way, and I'd leave a game if I ever found out the DM was doing it.

If the PCs decide to, at first level, rush the King's Palace and take on the Royal Guard, they deserve what is coming to them. And it is not my fault.

dream
2015-07-01, 07:35 PM
I have had games, not least as a player where we believe that our characters would make an epic stand against certain death. Out DM gave us the freedom to express our characters this way. We went down in a blaze of glory fighting to the last.

It was one of the best evenings I have had in a long time. It was totally our DM's fault we had such a good time.
+1 this :smallsmile:


So for me, I think the first rule is: Listen to your players, while they are trying to determine the naughty folks schemes, they likely will come up with a better more interesting story than you might have. Use their story, maybe alter it a little to add flair and surprises. Truth is, the mind will find patterns, if they've explained one to you, it makes sense to them, if you try to justify a pattern you've made up, a lot of the time it won't make terribly much sense to the players.

I also really like Tarol Hunt's suggestions (not for everyone, but cool) Particularly the index cards for xp, if you intend to give everyone different xp, his card system is perfect. http://www.goblinscomic.org/dungeon-master-tips/
I base 75% of any given game on what players want & it works like a charm. I'll check out the link because that's a cool idea.

Amphetryon
2015-07-01, 07:39 PM
All this means is that you remove any danger from a game by making sure that, regardless of the decisions made my PCs, they'll survive. They are effectively invincible. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that. I'd get bored. Maybe it works for you, but I'd never run a game that way, and I'd leave a game if I ever found out the DM was doing it.

If the PCs decide to, at first level, rush the King's Palace and take on the Royal Guard, they deserve what is coming to them. And it is not my fault.

I have a legitimately difficult time imagining why dice are even in the equation in a game with the setup described; there are diceless systems that seem like they'd be much more appropriate to a game style where every outcome will have to survive GM scrutiny at that level.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-01, 08:01 PM
...
All this means is that you remove any danger from a game by making sure that, regardless of the decisions made my PCs, they'll survive. They are effectively invincible.

I said I've never had a Total Party Kill. Individual characters have died.


...
I wouldn't want to play in a game like that. I'd get bored. Maybe it works for you, but I'd never run a game that way, and I'd leave a game if I ever found out the DM was doing it.
...

I've never run a game like that either, and I'd leave too.


...
If the PCs decide to, at first level, rush the King's Palace and take on the Royal Guard, they deserve what is coming to them. And it is not my fault.
...

Actually it is your fault.

Here's how I would deal with it.

On their way to rush the palace, they are attacked by orcs.

Well, guess we'd better deal with this... but after this.... we rush the Palace.

Now the orcs are dead... Palace Rush time.

Kobolds? Where the hell did they come from? Okay, we will kill them... THEN we will Rush the Palace.

Now the kobolds are dead... they are going to Rush the crap out of the Palace...

Zombies?!? What is going on here? Well, we'd better deal with this... THEN we will Rush the Palace...

Okay, we need to heal up and get our spells back... and THEN we will Rush the Palace.

Next day... all ready for some Palace Rushing...

Goblins? Okay... but we are Rushing that Palace right after we kill them...

Goblins are dead... and now...

Kobolds again? Dammit. Well, they aren't going to vanquish themselves. Fine. But after that... Palace Rush...

[three days later]

The PCs are all second level now. They are going to Rush that Palace something fierce...

Hobgoblins? FINE. But right after this we are going to Rush that Palace.

[a week later]

The PCs are third level now.

What were we going to-- Rush the Palace!

An ogre? Okay... after we kill this ogre... we are going to then Rush the Palace.

[a month later]

The PCs are fifth level...

and now... at long last... we are going to Rush the Palace.

A sign outside the palace door: "Closed for Renovation."

That is just one way to prevent a TPK.

Boring, huh?

Perturbulent
2015-07-01, 08:06 PM
A sign outside the palace door: "Closed for Renovation."

That is just one way to prevent a TPK.

Boring, huh?

Yeah, I'd be pretty bored in a campaign where my rightfully deserved TPK was robbed from me.

TheThan
2015-07-01, 08:16 PM
All this means is that you remove any danger from a game by making sure that, regardless of the decisions made my PCs, they'll survive. They are effectively invincible. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that. I'd get bored. Maybe it works for you, but I'd never run a game that way, and I'd leave a game if I ever found out the DM was doing it.

If the PCs decide to, at first level, rush the King's Palace and take on the Royal Guard, they deserve what is coming to them. And it is not my fault.

yeah, there's a difference between pulling punches (Accidentally overestimating CR for instance may cause a DM to pull some punches so he doesn't TPK the whole party because of his mistake), and completely removing all real sense of danger.

If the players want their characters to go down in a blaze of glory, they should be free to do that. If they decide to go completely off the reservation and get TPKed by something they ought not to pick a fight with anyway, they should have the freedom to do that.

One of the greatest draws of table top RPGs is the freedom of choice; if the player doesn't want choice, then why are they even playing a table top in the first place? They could go and pop a JRPG into their console and get a similar experience.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-01, 08:20 PM
...
Should a PC say simply "I stab myself in the stomach with my wakizashi" would you deny their suicide? What if it was the whole party? Doesn't sound like a fun game for too many people.

I would probably deny the suicide.

I would want to know why the player felt the suicidal act was necessary.

I would ask the player why his character wanted to commit suicide.

If I were not completely satisfied with the reason I would use my best Bane voice and say, "You do not have my permission to die."


Yeah, I'd be pretty bored in a campaign where my rightfully deserved TPK was robbed from me.

Yeah, I know, my players hate it when their characters survive encounters. I've actually had a player ragequit because his character hadn't died enough... said no DM ever.

goto124
2015-07-01, 08:23 PM
Ask the player why he wants his char to commit suicide.

Often, it's because something very wrong has happened.

TheThan
2015-07-01, 08:44 PM
You have never heard of hara-kiri? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku)

It is a perfectly legitimate reason for a player to off his own character; particularly in a samurai themed campaign.

Cluedrew
2015-07-01, 08:44 PM
Never get frustrated at the players for honest mistakes. Avoid getting frustrated at people in general for honest mistakes, but especially your players.

Correct them when necessary, but avoid doing it any more that that.

Know what sort of game they want to play, if you don't want to run it, pass on the GM's chair.

CombatBunny
2015-07-02, 05:27 PM
Resist the temptation to give your former PCs relevant roles.

Don't include them on your story at all if possible.

I’ve never met a new GM (former player) whose first adventure doesn’t involves giving his PCs a major role and using the table as a way to discharge his past frustrations and give his PCs all that they couldn’t ever have as adventurers and show to the rest of the table just how “awesome” they are.

Darth Ultron
2015-07-03, 12:38 PM
I'll add some of the hard ones:

Being a DM is a lot of Work-if you want to casually show up at a game and have random fun....be a player. If you don't want to put a lot of time and effort into the game, you should not be a DM.

The DM needs to be the one in Control Now sure if your group is a bunch of true, true best friends that are all on the same wavelength and live in one big group hug, then you can just be the ''Buddy DM''. But if your playing with anyone else....the DM needs to be the one in control. And it is best to set this right out in front: I'm DM, this is my game and this is the way it will be in my game. Players can leave, or ask the DM to appeal something...but thing like whining or complain are not allowed. Sooner or later something will come up where a call must be made, and it is much better if it is just the DM's call.

Talk to the Players This one is tricky, as you can't just ''talk'' to the players. A DM wants to know what the players are thinking and know things like what a player wants from a game....but talking is not the way to get that information. Most players will have a hard time ''breaking down the fun'' and describing how they want to have fun. They just ant to ''have fun'' and not ''think about having fun'', as that is not fun. And even when a player says something they are very often vague, unhelpful or use different definitions for words. And a lot of players don't even know what they want. This makes the big job of the DM to figure out what the players want.

The Bad Build-Up This is one of the things few players understand: You need to have a bad build-up to have a good event. That is just the way it works. You can't succeed at everything all the time, and get to the climax and succeed some more. Though there is a subset of players who do like that style. And as DM, you are the one that has to dish out all the bad. And some players will get unhappy, sad, angry, or all other sorts of negative emotions. It is natural. And as DM, you can't let it get to you. And you can't tell the players either.

The Lifeline The bad can build up quick, so it is important to make sure you add lifelines. That is very easy to spot opportunities for the players to use.

Jay R
2015-07-04, 09:08 AM
There are lots of different approaches to the many games called D&D. I know that my approach is different from many other DMs', but it works for me and my players.

1. Your game is your game. Never assume that your DM approach will work for somebody else, or that somebody else's will work for you.
2. Be involved in character creation, and make sure they know everything about your world that affects the character. (If you're using the Greek gods, for instance, they need to know that before deciding whether to play clerics.)
3. Whenever possible, make sure the players don't have any information that is explicitly hidden from their characters. It's not fair to make them try to ignore what they really know.
4. Make every decision based on its own merits, trying to maintain a sensible, consistent world, without a prejudice in favor of "yes" or "no".
5. When possible, tell them why you said "no". If it's based on information their characters don't know, tell them that. If it's based on some active magic effect they don't know about, feel free to say, "Your character doesn't know why it didn't work. He thinks it should have."
6. Never be afraid to give obvious hints. They will miss half of them, and ignore many of the rest.
7. When the encounter is clearly determined, end it. If the NPCs are clearly beaten, they should flee or surrender, unless they are creatures who can't.
8. The PCs' abilities should be worthwhile. If a character has Improved Trip, then for every encounter with enemies that can't be tripped, there should be one in which it is devastatingly effective. Ideally, in each session, you should have one small encounter for each PC in which his or her specific abilities, absolutely rule the encounter. (This doesn't take much time. By definition, this will be a very quick encounter.)
9. What the players want right now is an quick, easy way to defeat the current enemy. But what they will want tomorrow is to remember a hard battle that they thought they were likely to lose. Don't take that away by only allowing encounters you know they can beat.
10. You don't run the PCs. They are allowed to be stupid, even fatally so. You cannot claim authority over the players' choices. You certainly can and should give hints, and you must tell them anything relevant that their characters would know and remember that the players aren't remembering right now. But if, after you remind them that their weapons are ineffective against this creature, and remind them that there is a way out the creature is too big to use, and after you point out the size of its mandibles, It's still their decision. If they attack the beasts they cannot beat, then the TPK is their fault, and you cannot deny player agency by preventing it.
11. It's not the players' fault that they read the books too. If you don't want them to know how to defeat each creature, don't refuse to let them use what they know; change some of the monsters. But tell them before the campaign starts that you will do so. (My introduction to the campaign explicitly states that dragons are not color-coded for their convenience, and that undead names won't tell them what weapons work.)
12. No other DM knows the situation that your players are in right now. Read other DMs' suggestions, consider them all, and then make your own best call, ignoring any other DM's rules - including mine.

Algeh
2015-07-04, 08:01 PM
A few more suggestions on NPC names: when I started GMing, back in the 90s, I bought myself some baby name books at used book stores. The one most helpful for NPC names (for me, at least) was The New Age Baby Name Book, because it would give a lot of variants from different cultures. If I wanted a town or other group of people in my setting to seem like they all "belonged together", I'd give them all names from the same real-world country or region. (This also makes it easier to telegraph that an NPC as an "outsider" - give them a name that obviously doesn't fit the local pattern as a first, subtle clue to help build the idea that they're from elsewhere. If the players need to figure this out, you will need more clues. If it's just flavor with no plot impact, you might not bother dropping a bunch more clues unless they go looking or remark on it.) You can flesh out the few NPCs you think you'll need, then write some additional names on blank index cards, one to a card, with a note as to what the name means (if you care) and whether it's a male or female name, or any other things you should know before picking that name for an NPC. You then have a pre-chosen name and a labeled card to start making notes/the beginning of a character sheet on when you actually need to make up an NPC in that town, with a name that fits your setting rather than um...Steve. (I used to keep all of my minor-but-repeating NPCs on 3x5 notecards, generally organized by which town or other setting they belonged to (which would be written in a corner of the card so I could re-sort them easily if needed - a few major NPCs would get full character sheets).

Now, of course, we have the internet so you may not want to use physical books and notecards (although I still prefer it that way during play - I find it too easy to get sidetracked into looking up pointless additional details with computers so I try not to use them during games unless it's actually worth stopping to look something up), but the idea of picking a real-world overlay for choosing names for a town would work pretty well with name websites, too. Some countries even have Name Day calendars online, which can be a good way to get a list of a reasonable number of common/traditional names for a country.

Also, try to give your NPCs names that are not particularly similar-sounding to each other even though they do all come from the same place. If they have several people with names that rhyme or share both starting and ending syllables, players will probably mix them up. If it's an area where most/all the female names will end in "a" and most/all of the male names will end in "o" or similar, be particularly sure that you don't make them keep track of NPCs named Maria, Marina, and Marna. They probably won't. Make them keep track of Maria, Rosa, and Evelina instead unless there is a very good reason why the NPCs must have similar names. Varying number of syllables as well as vowels within the name can really help here.

MyNoobsRBigger
2015-07-04, 11:27 PM
It was one of the best evenings I have had in a long time. It was totally our DM's fault we had such a good time.

I am currently getting ready to GM for the first time. I have done practice "encounters" with my husband to get used to my new side of combat.

I decided to start with a module, but it is pretty linear. I wish I could give a bit more freedom, but I don't see how... Should I try to prepare some extra just in case, or warn my players so they know not to run too far off of the beaten path just yet?

I want to do this because our groups usual GM is awesome, but basically never gets to be a player. I have had other ideas for my own campaigns, but still don't understand all of the techical stuff that goes into making everything from scratch. (Appropriate enemy CR, and what-not)

dream
2015-07-05, 12:16 AM
I am currently getting ready to GM for the first time. I have done practice "encounters" with my husband to get used to my new side of combat.

I decided to start with a module, but it is pretty linear. I wish I could give a bit more freedom, but I don't see how... Should I try to prepare some extra just in case, or warn my players so they know not to run too far off of the beaten path just yet?

I want to do this because our groups usual GM is awesome, but basically never gets to be a player. I have had other ideas for my own campaigns, but still don't understand all of the techical stuff that goes into making everything from scratch. (Appropriate enemy CR, and what-not)
Hi, MyNoobsR!

There's tons of resouces for new GMs online. I use RoleplayingTips.com (http://www.roleplayingtips.com/rpg-articles/) maybe the most. Great site with advice from hundreds of experienced GMs.

For your first session; relax :smallcool: You know the group and they know you're a new GM, so no true pressure. Many times GMs are harder on themselves than players ever would be. D&D's "grandfather", E. Gary Gygax, once said the great secret about RPGs is GMs don't really need rules to create fun adventures. So, don't let the rules and technical stuff overwhelm you.

You have the module. Read through it so you're comfortable with the plot. Knowing the material is important, but again you're a new GM and your group will probably cut you some slack. Also, there's nothing wrong with linear, especially when you're new. But, you can always add to or change parts of the module to suit your taste.

What system are you running?

What module?

When you game, does your group have rules discussions, or not so much?

dysike
2015-07-05, 05:37 AM
Firstly player expectation in important, the players need to know what kind of game you will be running and to be on board with it, and make sure they really are on board and not just planning on trying to still do their own thing despite the game type. For instance I once told players I'd like to run a horror game they seemed to like the idea but it soon became clear that what they had in mind essentially consisted of shooting and blowing up monsters, so I told them "if you want to play a game about killing monsters I'll run a game about killing monsters but don't agree to a horror game if that's not what you want to play" after a little more discussion we decided to play a combat focused campaign. You need to have a consensus on the type of campaign not just for tone and mood though, but also for problem solving, I've run combat-based heroic campaigns, because the players knew that, they knew most problems could be solved by fighting and they would most likely win their fights, by contrast another game I ran was more about low-powered strategy, so the players again knew that most problems would be resolved by combat but that they would be weaker than most of their enemies and would thus have to be a bit more creative with their tactics.

Essentially the above paragraph can be summed up as; if the GM is trying to run one type of game and the players are trying to play another neither is going to enjoy themselves.

I'm also going to just say, some people believe it is the GM's job to make sure the players enjoy themselves, a bad GM can ruin a game mch worse than a bad player, but it's important that you have fun too, so make sure you find a game type that you enjoy running and the players like playing.

MyNoobsRBigger
2015-07-05, 10:07 AM
What system are you running?

What module?

When you game, does your group have rules discussions, or not so much?

I am running the Pathfinder module Tears at Bitter Manor. I have read and looked over it so many times, I also wrote out the "invites" to actually give to my adventurers/players. (It starts off with them getting letters asking for help, so I thought it would be fun and give them a little info before we actually sit down and play.) Also, instead of them just being in the tavern as MANY campaigns start, I am having them RP how they are arriving into town and finding their way there.

The wizard came by ship and tried to hire a dock worker as a wand caddie. The very young half-elf has a touch of ADD and a bit of a shopping addiction, which is making her run late. Another player is vegetarian and asked for a grapefruit for breakfast but was brought a bowl of grapes and a weird look because the inn's cook has never heard of a grapefruit before.

I do know the group, and they are all really laid back and relaxed. I am not really worried about them being upset over anything, but I just want to make sure they really do have fun. This whole thread has been helpful.

We don't sit and have rule discussions. Whoever is GMing, we do ask that you know and research what your charachter can do. Before we get started or when we level up, we do ask and figure out how spells or different feats, and how things work before we start playing again. We played with a group of "rule nazis" that would stop the game completely and pull out books and phones and argue for an hour about how to interpret what the book says. Even if the GM tries to make the final decision. We dont play with that group any more... It stopped being enjoyable.

RBVakarian
2015-07-05, 10:16 AM
I said I've never had a Total Party Kill. Individual characters have died.

I've never run a game like that either, and I'd leave too.

Actually it is your fault.

Here's how I would deal with it.

Stuff

To me, this sounds like railroading your players with encounters, If i wanted to attack the Guard and this kept on getting pulled, I would probably leave the table.

As a player, if i want to do something, I'd like the freedom.

dream
2015-07-05, 10:43 AM
I am running the Pathfinder module Tears at Bitter Manor. I have read and looked over it so many times, I also wrote out the "invites" to actually give to my adventurers/players. (It starts off with them getting letters asking for help, so I thought it would be fun and give them a little info before we actually sit down and play.) Also, instead of them just being in the tavern as MANY campaigns start, I am having them RP how they are arriving into town and finding their way there.
Great idea to RP their entrances. Gets them into character fast.


The wizard came by ship and tried to hire a dock worker as a wand caddie. The very young half-elf has a touch of ADD and a bit of a shopping addiction, which is making her run late. Another player is vegetarian and asked for a grapefruit for breakfast but was brought a bowl of grapes and a weird look because the inn's cook has never heard of a grapefruit before.
Excellent stuff. I'd throw in conversational tidbits from NPCs telling the PCs what's going on around town that links into the greater story. Maybe rumors, real events, foreshadowing, ect. Kind of "set the stage" for future events. Just a suggestion.


I do know the group, and they are all really laid back and relaxed. I am not really worried about them being upset over anything, but I just want to make sure they really do have fun. This whole thread has been helpful.

We don't sit and have rule discussions. Whoever is GMing, we do ask that you know and research what your charachter can do. Before we get started or when we level up, we do ask and figure out how spells or different feats, and how things work before we start playing again. We played with a group of "rule nazis" that would stop the game completely and pull out books and phones and argue for an hour about how to interpret what the book says. Even if the GM tries to make the final decision. We dont play with that group any more... It stopped being enjoyable.
Knowing the group is crucial. Like Dysike posted above, establishing what kind of game everyone expects is a key first step. Looks like you have that handled. The meat of being a good GM is exactly what you want to do: having FUN. The best GMs I've encountered were performers, in that they really got into acting-out the NPCs and monsters. They also painted the scene well, giving ample description so players felt as if we were really involved in things.

neonchameleon
2015-07-05, 12:55 PM
1: Don't sweat the small stuff. This can not be emphasised enough.
2: No plan survives contact with the PCs. This is part of where the fun is. For everyone. As long as they are all enjoying it you are doing a good job. And the worst thing you can do is shut down the PCs
3: As GM you are ultimately responsible for whatever goes wrong. If you see a pattern you don't like, first and foremost look at yourself. (There are plenty of things you aren't responsible for of course)
4: Most GMs are far far more worried about killing PCs than the players are about having their PC die. This is the right way round.
5: If planning the adventure plan the questions. Let the PCs come up with their answers.
6: This means that there should never be one right answer that you force the PCs to find.
7: Don't fudge the dice. It takes away from both the drama and the interest of the game.
8: Different people get different things out of games. Work out what yours do.
9: Experience will tell you when to override any or all of the above rules.


Looking this over again, there's A LOT of One-True-Wayism here;
* Fudging dice is a widely-accepted practice by GMs to prevent the ugly reality of player failure. A lot of people play TTRPGs to do cool things & have fun & failing doesn't accomplish that. While I don't do it, I also don't assume GMs fudge rolls because they're incompetent. Some very capable GMs fudge rolls.

If you need to fudge rolls you're running the wrong system or something else has gone wrong.


*Never use random rolls for "hard" monsters? Random encounters have been a core feature of D&D for decades. I would counter with "players should NEVER (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzi2B7QeMdM) assume they can win every combat".

Random encounters have been a part of D&D for so long that people have forgotten what they are for. oD&D as written by Gygax was a timed obstacle course. With the random monsters providing the time pressure and the dungeon being effectively an obstacle course. How much treasure can you collect before things catch up with you. This is far from the default playstyle of D&D - and indeed hasn't been the default playstyle of D&D or RPGs since 1985. Just as I'll run crazy nonsense on PCs in a game of Call of Cthulhu that I wouldn't in D&D the absurdly strong random counter belongs in OSR style D&D and not in most modern variants.


* On TPKs, I've had players charge their PCs into certain death more than a few times. That's after they were asked "you sure you want to do that?" and also after I offered plenty of alternatives. Sometimes, players just make bad decisions. It's part of the game & the "CR system" is not the safety net many players think it is. Note: sometimes that TPK event is the most fun any of the players have ever had at the table, so as odd as it seems, if the low-level players want to take on Tiamat, let 'em.

Here I'd agree - but this comes under the heading of advanced DMing. One rule is any experienced GM should know why the rules are there and when they can break them. This thread is about tips for newbies.

Cluedrew
2015-07-05, 01:24 PM
something else has gone wrong
Made me think of another one:

If things aren't going wrong, consider breaking something.

Seriously, I don't have a huge study on this or even a particularly large collection of personal experiences, but the times everything works out are rarely as interesting as the times that everything exploded (metaphorically... usually).

Of course don't go overboard, and sometimes you can just wait. The PCs or the dice will brake something soon enough.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-05, 05:15 PM
...
To me, this sounds like railroading your players with encounters.
...


It is precisely railroading players with encounters.

(You make that sound like a bad thing.)


...
If i wanted to attack the Guard and this kept on getting pulled, I would probably leave the table.
...

I don't know how to say this in a particularly genteel way... so, I'll just say it plain...

You wouldn't be missed at my game table.

For every "sandbox" gamer like you, I can find five gamers who would rather rescue the dragon from the princess than go around randomly attacking targets that are obviously out of their weight class.


...
As a player, if i want to do something, I'd like the freedom.
...

The freedom to... commit suicide?

The freedom to... attack random NPCs who have no beef with your character?

The freedom to... waste the DM's time?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Amphetryon
2015-07-05, 06:20 PM
The freedom to play my Character as I wish to play him (or her), with all his/her peccadilloes, peculiarities and penchants for seeking out as little - or as much - trouble as s/he finds interesting and appropriate. The DM has control of the ENTIRE GAMING WORLD except for the Characters run by the other Players at the table. Take away the Players' abilities to run their own Characters according to their understanding of the personalities they've given these Characters, and the Players have scant reason to show up at all, other than to watch the DM tell a story and - sometimes - roll dice for the NPCs that they thought were actually PCs.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-05, 06:27 PM
...
let's put some awesome tips together, and go nuts.
...

Is this nuts enough for you?

(Be careful what you wish for...)

Darth Ultron
2015-07-05, 09:55 PM
5: If planning the adventure plan the questions. Let the PCs come up with their answers.
6: This means that there should never be one right answer that you force the PCs to find.



Sure the above sounds good, but you really can't do them unless your running a wacky cartoon game. Most RPG's have a game reality, and players can't alter it. So this means the DM has to come up with and set up at least half of the answers. And all most all the time there will be only one answer. That is the way even game reality works.

goto124
2015-07-05, 10:21 PM
Sure the above sounds good, but you really can't do them unless your running a wacky cartoon game. Most RPG's have a game reality, and players can't alter it. So this means the DM has to come up with and set up at least half of the answers. And all most all the time there will be only one answer. That is the way even game reality works.

Guys, if we want to argue about this, please start a new thread. Thank you!

DDogwood
2015-07-06, 03:59 PM
While I personally disagree with ShaneMRoth's DMing style, I think he raises a good point - good DMing happens at the intersection of what your players want and what you, as DM, want.

I've played with plenty of people who like to follow a railroady, plot-driven adventure with a predetermined outcome. Personally, I loathe this type of game, but if I represented the entire industry then I doubt Paizo would be selling so many copies of their Adventure Paths.

The trick is to make sure that the players WANT this before you inflict it on them. Likewise, players who like this kind of game need a DM who is willing to run it. There is no wrong way to have fun; the only wrong way to play is when it's not fun.

dream
2015-07-06, 04:47 PM
While I personally disagree with ShaneMRoth's DMing style, I think he raises a good point - good DMing happens at the intersection of what your players want and what you, as DM, want.

I've played with plenty of people who like to follow a railroady, plot-driven adventure with a predetermined outcome. Personally, I loathe this type of game, but if I represented the entire industry then I doubt Paizo would be selling so many copies of their Adventure Paths.

The trick is to make sure that the players WANT this before you inflict it on them. Likewise, players who like this kind of game need a DM who is willing to run it. There is no wrong way to have fun; the only wrong way to play is when it's not fun.
+1 this :smallsmile:

neonchameleon
2015-07-06, 06:29 PM
Sure the above sounds good, but you really can't do them unless your running a wacky cartoon game. Most RPG's have a game reality, and players can't alter it. So this means the DM has to come up with and set up at least half of the answers. And all most all the time there will be only one answer. That is the way even game reality works.

All I can say to this is you may claim you can't do it, but I and many others have done it. It is, however, much much easier in games where you don't expect the campaign to last more than about a dozen sessions at most than it is in a multi-year D&D campaign spanning about 10-20 levels. There comes a point at which the GM can't keep up with all the consequences.

And yes, most RPGs have a reality and the players can't alter it. But the idea that this means that the PCs can only come up with one solution simply doesn't follow.


While I personally disagree with ShaneMRoth's DMing style, I think he raises a good point - good DMing happens at the intersection of what your players want and what you, as DM, want.

I've played with plenty of people who like to follow a railroady, plot-driven adventure with a predetermined outcome. Personally, I loathe this type of game, but if I represented the entire industry then I doubt Paizo would be selling so many copies of their Adventure Paths.

The trick is to make sure that the players WANT this before you inflict it on them. Likewise, players who like this kind of game need a DM who is willing to run it. There is no wrong way to have fun; the only wrong way to play is when it's not fun.

QFT

shadow_archmagi
2015-07-06, 09:17 PM
My three guiding philosophies:

1. No fixed points:
The only thing you can't change is information the players have, and that you're allowed to change the context.

1A. Directly steal ideas from players
If a player says something like "Gosh, I sure hope these swords we stole don't have like, magical tracking devices" then feel free to use that idea, or a variant of it. Boom. It's now canon that the evil count has magic-sniffing dogs and the swords have a distinct 'scent.' Next session the hunters appear.

1B. Use unused ideas
If you designed a shifty blocks puzzle for the earth temple, and the players exploded the earth temple without going inside, then feel free to tear that page out of your notebook, write "Shifty gear puzzle" and tape it into your clock temple. They're never going to play the campaign again, so what do they know?

1C. Indirectly steal ideas from players
If one of your players is fixated on, say, the pie shop, because you did a funny voice for simon the pieman, go ahead and work that up. Maybe now simon is a spy for the evil count, or shows up as one of the only survivors after zombies take over the town. The important thing is that players thought he was fun, so now he gets a bigger role.

1D. Alter the game world to make the game more fun.
If one of the players is on fire, and running into the room that you have marked on your map as "SECRET GUNPOWDER STORAGE" you need to ask yourself if that's really what you want to happen. Whether a massive explosion is good for your game or not will depend on the group and the story, but if you decide that a TPK at this time would be bad, feel free to just scribble out "SECRET GUNPOWDER STORAGE" and declare it a different kind of room. Fountains, maybe. Or bees.

2. Add Content.
Players love things. Give them things. Throw out sideplots willy nilly. Players will miss some, latch onto others. Let them end the adventuring day asking themselves "Should we keep searching for the cure to the disease, investigate the masked ball, burn down the pie shop, find someone who speaks kobold, fight crime, or tidy this place up because really what the hell guys our lair is a mess"

3. Lies. I find that being flexible and taking into account what your players want leads to a more satisfying game. However, I also find that the grognard attitude of DMs less as storytellers and more as mere arbiters of the world (in ACKS they're literally called Judges instead of DMs) carries a certain weight. It's one thing to win because we're the protagonists and so obviously, it's another thing to win because we were smarter or stronger than the opposition. It's like beating a video game on the hardest difficulty; you weren't sure you were going to win. It's an achievement.

With the magic of lies, you can give the impression that you're a Judge even if you're really more of a Storyteller.

3A. Lie about how prepared you are. Whenever I improvise, I make a big show of consulting my massive binder of notes. Pretend everything was set in stone a long time ago, and you are merely the one telling them about this established setting. That room was *always* the fountain room, and it's a craaazy coincidence they were on fire next to it.

3B. Lie about what might have been. So they skipped the earth temple? Tell them that there was an awful puzzle involving water levels in there, and they really lucked out. Or tell them it had just a handful of elementals guarding huge piles of gems and gold, since all the best treasure comes from the earth. Make them feel like their decisions had weight. They're never going to play the game a second time, so what do they know?

goto124
2015-07-06, 10:14 PM
1A is a jerk move. Don't too it too often since this advice is for a new DM. Otherwise your players will never dare to say anything in front of you.

1C too. It would be much better if he helps the PCs in minor ways, or simply reappears (Hey guys, I just opened a new branch here!).

3B... I dunno. Might be best to skip it entirely and don't tell them at all. Do it too much and the players might catch onto the lying (there're cues to lying, and they can put two and two together).

shadow_archmagi
2015-07-07, 07:37 AM
1A is a jerk move. Don't too it too often since this advice is for a new DM. Otherwise your players will never dare to say anything in front of you.

1C too. It would be much better if he helps the PCs in minor ways, or simply reappears (Hey guys, I just opened a new branch here!).

3B... I dunno. Might be best to skip it entirely and don't tell them at all. Do it too much and the players might catch onto the lying (there're cues to lying, and they can put two and two together).

I mean, do it for good things too. If the PCs say something like "Hey, shouldn't this dragon have eggs?" you could throw some dragon eggs into the loot. And if you do it right, they won't know you're taking their suggestions. It's not "Oh ho ho ho you said tracking devices now that's a real thing!" it's "Hey, that thing you were worried about? You were right to be worried about it! Excellent survival skills there. I was sure no one would catch that."

dream
2015-07-07, 09:07 AM
I mean, do it for good things too. If the PCs say something like "Hey, shouldn't this dragon have eggs?" you could throw some dragon eggs into the loot. And if you do it right, they won't know you're taking their suggestions. It's not "Oh ho ho ho you said tracking devices now that's a real thing!" it's "Hey, that thing you were worried about? You were right to be worried about it! Excellent survival skills there. I was sure no one would catch that."
That works and it gives players a way to have input with the setting/scene, indirectly.

goto124
2015-07-07, 09:20 AM
Sounds rather difficult for a new DM, to be honest.

AxeAlex
2015-07-07, 09:41 AM
It is precisely railroading players with encounters.

(You make that sound like a bad thing.)


Railroading is most of the times defined by refusing the player's choices. That's a bad thing, always. Linear games are good, and alot of players enjoy them, but even linear games avoid railroading.



The freedom to... commit suicide?

The freedom to... attack random NPCs who have no beef with your character?

The freedom to... waste the DM's time?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The ONLY fun the player characters have is making decisions, they have no other powers and that is the only way they can interact with the game master's universe.

If your player are interested in your world and invested in their characters, commiting suicide is possible, probably dramatic and intense, maybe a good tool to end or even advance the story... Anyway, you have to accept that. Even some TPK are fun, they are not always a bad thing. (Not talking about player simply refusing to participate by killing their characters, that means there is a big problem)

Now, I am talking only from experience, but putting all the blame (of TPK or anything) on the GM also means the GM controls the whole experience and decides arbitrarily the outcome of every encounter (It is opposed to your own view of never fudging dices). And most people would agree that roleplaying games are at their best when both the GM and players collaborate to create the story. That's why most people disagree with your comment that it's all the GM's fault.

If, when the players want to attack the dragon, goblins attack them instead; and when the goblins roll too good and are about to kill the players, the dragon comes to their rescue... The dices were useless, there were never any risk.

I cannot accept that refusing player decisions and railroading them is a good tip to give to new GMs.

Joe the Rat
2015-07-07, 11:12 AM
Keeping with the theme of new DM's, here's what I learned after the fact:

1. Know the rules, show the rules. Obviously, you should know how the game works. You may know better than the players. And players may miss really obvious (to you) actions or ideas. Don't make suggestions unless they ask for advice. And if they don't ask, have someone else do it. Players forget to make opportunity attacks? Have the monsters do it. Characters not using features or resources? Encounter someone else that has them.

2. It's okay to give players a nudge to start. "You've been hired for this job" is a fair first-session starter, but from that point on you need options.

3. "Why" is important. Why is this random person so important? Why aren't the local guards/militia dealing with it? Why does this batch of goblins know how to operate an airship? Have an answer.

4. Players will latch on to the damnedest things... One random loot roll, and now the cleric is obsessed with finding marbles on (or in) corpses. The monk is becoming a rug merchant.

5. ...so tie a string to it. After finding about a half-dozen matching marbles in various enemies, the party defeats one of the boss monsters, and discovers an entire bag of them.

6. Details, details. If there's something important in a room, make a note to mention it. The players sold one Gnome NPC the blood-stained rug they used to transport a prisoner, which he then gifted to the local baron. When the players later met with the baron, that rug (with bloodstains) was the centerpoint of the room. It would have been a cool opener to the encounter, and say something about the relationship between the Gnome and the baron, and about the baron's preference for "subtle shows of force"... and I completely forgot.

7. Everything needs a personality and hit points. Players will talk instead of fight, and fight instead of talk. Be prepared for both.

8. Think it through This is really the meta-label for everything, but this is particularly important for doing "cool things" If your scenario involves a chase, figure out how the players are involved in the chase (die rolls, decisions, whatever), or skip to the end.

9. Yesterday's Plot Hole is Tomorrow's Plot Point For those occasions where you don't have an answer, "That is strange, isn't it." covers a wide range of sins. But be prepared to answer that later.

dysike
2015-07-07, 02:39 PM
I just remembered something I do that could be quite useful for a new DM (especially since I made it to help myself with something I'm bad at).

Whenever the players enter a new location (a city, a dungeon, a valley, whatever) you read the following statement "As you enter the [place] you notice [something which gives an indication of the place's history] and you see [something which indicates something currently happening]". One example might be; "As you enter the walled city you notice that on the outskirts are a large number of poorly built shelters, once inside you can also see that a large portion of the city is black smoldering ruins" or something.

I basically made this because I was terrible at description and as a result a lot of my world-building went unseen, so I made this as a way of showing off parts of it without slowing the game down with it, it's also a decent way to introduce minor plot hooks.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-07, 03:04 PM
Railroading is most of the times defined by refusing the player's choices. That's a bad thing, always. Linear games are good, and alot of players enjoy them, but even linear games avoid railroading.



The ONLY fun the player characters have is making decisions, they have no other powers and that is the only way they can interact with the game master's universe.

If your player are interested in your world and invested in their characters, commiting suicide is possible, probably dramatic and intense, maybe a good tool to end or even advance the story... Anyway, you have to accept that. Even some TPK are fun, they are not always a bad thing. (Not talking about player simply refusing to participate by killing their characters, that means there is a big problem)

Now, I am talking only from experience, but putting all the blame (of TPK or anything) on the GM also means the GM controls the whole experience and decides arbitrarily the outcome of every encounter (It is opposed to your own view of never fudging dices). And most people would agree that roleplaying games are at their best when both the GM and players collaborate to create the story. That's why most people disagree with your comment that it's all the GM's fault.

If, when the players want to attack the dragon, goblins attack them instead; and when the goblins roll too good and are about to kill the players, the dragon comes to their rescue... The dices were useless, there were never any risk.

I cannot accept that refusing player decisions and railroading them is a good tip to give to new GMs.

Railroading, as you call it, is just another way of telling the players NO.

NO, is one of the most important words in the DM's vocabulary.

It is particularly important for new DMs to keep that word in their spoken and written vocabulary at the table.

It is a particularly powerful word that must neither be abused, nor neglected.

Use the word too frequently, and you have "railroading".

Use the word too infrequently... or not at all, and your "sandbox" will soon look... and smell... more like a "litterbox".

As to the notion of player decision-making being some sort of absolute right or absolute benefit... I have seen players who chose to have their fun at the direct expense of others at the table (include the DM) and once someone has given himself permission to do that, that someone will rarely rescind that permission without being prompted by the ref.

If I, as a DM, have prepared a haunted house at the edge of town, an abandoned mine in the next valley, and a mysterious sound coming from the attic of one of the PC's favorite uncle's... and the PCs decide to go Murder Hobo on the King's Palace... that's not good roleplaying. That's not decision making. That is juvenile... passive-aggressive... and it is an act of bad faith. And as the DM, I will railroad the players into not attacking the King's Guard. And those who insist on walking away from the table on some sort of principle of choice will be replaced and will not be missed.

As to the so-called dramatic value of a suicide mission... nothing is more boring that a table full of players with nothing to do. Total Party Kills stop the game cold, by definition. And randomly charging the King's Palace is not the same thing as Leonidas making a stand against the might of the entire Persian army like in the movie 300.

And 300 wasn't a Total Party Kill. It was Death By A Thousand Cuts. In game terms, the dramatic last stand of 300 was the natural culmination of at least a dozen viscerally satisfying encounters, including non-combat encounters.

If you are a DM and your players experience a series of TPKs, then you... as the DM... are doing something wrong. Not the players. All of your players become incompetent at keeping their characters alive... at the exact same time? Over and over again? Really? REALLY?

While many participants on this thread have taken principled exception to my opinion that TPKs are always the DM's fault... no one has offered a credible criticism of the most important statement I made on the matter...

The DM is always accountable.

The DM has to own every good and every bad thing that happens at the table.

That's my version of Rule Zero.

Good games don't just happen. If the game went well... at all, the DM did something right. Even if all the DM did was to just shut the hell up and facilitate player decisions.

Bad games don't just happen. If the game went poorly... at all, the DM did something wrong. Even if all the DM did was to just shut the hell up and facilitate player decisions.

dysike
2015-07-07, 04:25 PM
In the interest of trying to keep this thread about giving advice to new DMs instead of arguing. I will elaborate further on something someone else said earlier about adapting to what your players do. My general method of prep is to make a list of 'things I want to happen this session' whenever the players do something and I have to react to it I pick something from the list which makes sense given the situation and pick that, not everything on the list needs to be used as it probably won't, so don't use this method if there is something which has to happen. It's a good way for less experienced DMs to be flexible when responding to players, I've given it as advice to friends of mine when they're learning to DM and they found it useful so here you go.

elliott20
2015-07-07, 05:04 PM
- don't give them plotlines / storylines, give them narrative choices
- don't make obstacles that if failed, would just stop the game cold. (i.e. a giant gate that if the players can't get open will simply stop them from entering the dungeon at all) instead, give them a choice of consequences. (i.e. if you fail this roll, you will still get the gate open, but it will take you THAT much longer, losing precious time)
- don't get attached to your monsters / NPCs. There will always be more.
- use random tables as an Oracle, not as an explicit encounter. Wait for THEM to react to it. This is especially important in games with no clear agenda. i.e. if you roll up giant spiders as a random encounter, don't just have them walk into it in the middle the road, maybe have them stalk them for a bit. And if the players don't seem that interested in reacting to it, don't sweat it. There are other things that they WILL react to.
- really good or really bad rolls (i.e. natural 1s and natural 20s) are BEGGING to be described with plenty of cinematic flair
- let them fail forward. If they **** up, let them progress still, just complicate things and make life more interesting

Cluedrew
2015-07-07, 07:51 PM
The freedom to... commit suicide?

I had a character idea for a one-shot character, who could only be a one shot character because the point of the character would be his suicide near the end of the adventure. Probably will never run that for various reasons. One of which has given me an idea for another tip.

Be very sure everyone is completely comfortable with any subject matter you use in the game.

Raimun
2015-07-07, 08:20 PM
FYI. Just walking empty hallways? As the action for over 90% of the game time? Boring.

To elaborate, don't do horror, unless you're sure you can pull it off. You're sure you can? Don't do it even then. Just because you played "First Person Horror Game: Walking Simulator", doesn't mean it will make an interesting roleplaying experience.

I've played far too many* "horror" games where the GM's idea of horror is:

- You don't actually see monsters or supernatural phenomena for most of the time. Okay, that's staple of the genre in movies.
- There won't be much action. Okay, makes sense.
- There won't be any people to interact meaningfully. So... no action or interaction?
- There won't be any clues, evidence, anything that would shed even a bit of dim light to what is happening. Okay...
- There isn't any goal or even "plot hooks" that would give us motivation to go inside that creepy building.
- There really doesn't happen anything, unless you count walking corridors.
- Except in the end, when something just enters the scene and ends "the story" abruptly.

Of course, it just might be the game is supposed to be 70's B-horror, which are usually a similar experience. Except they at least had a lot of red herring that looked, at the time, important and exciting.

*Even once is too many.

MyNoobsRBigger
2015-07-08, 01:15 AM
Most of this has been really helpful.
Thanks to those of you that answered my questions, I needed that little boost of confidence! :-)

AxeAlex
2015-07-08, 08:26 AM
Railroading, as you call it, is just another way of telling the players NO.

NO, is one of the most important words in the DM's vocabulary.

It is particularly important for new DMs to keep that word in their spoken and written vocabulary at the table.

It is a particularly powerful word that must neither be abused, nor neglected.

Use the word too frequently, and you have "railroading".


Most people would disagree with you. If a players is interested in your world, excited about the game, and invested in his character; and then you refuse his choices and refuse to let him play his character like he wants, you will break his sense of immersion and his willing suspension of disbelief.

All GM like when the players are immersed in their universe, therefore I think all GM try to make that happen.



Use the word too infrequently... or not at all, and your "sandbox" will soon look... and smell... more like a "litterbox".

As to the notion of player decision-making being some sort of absolute right or absolute benefit... I have seen players who chose to have their fun at the direct expense of others at the table (include the DM) and once someone has given himself permission to do that, that someone will rarely rescind that permission without being prompted by the ref.

If I, as a DM, have prepared a haunted house at the edge of town, an abandoned mine in the next valley, and a mysterious sound coming from the attic of one of the PC's favorite uncle's... and the PCs decide to go Murder Hobo on the King's Palace... that's not good roleplaying. That's not decision making. That is juvenile... passive-aggressive... and it is an act of bad faith. And as the DM, I will railroad the players into not attacking the King's Guard. And those who insist on walking away from the table on some sort of principle of choice will be replaced and will not be missed.


Then the problem seems to be with the players around the table. All these points can be avoided with good players.

Surround yourself with people you trust and you should not have this problem. That is one of the most important advice to give to a new GM.

A good player should not be juvenile, and not be passive-agressive, in fact you should not play with people like this. If you have to refuse your player's decisions just to have fun as a GM, then there is a problem at some level. (And here I don't mean having fun by antagonising the players, just to clarify)



As to the so-called dramatic value of a suicide mission... nothing is more boring that a table full of players with nothing to do. Total Party Kills stop the game cold, by definition. And randomly charging the King's Palace is not the same thing as Leonidas making a stand against the might of the entire Persian army like in the movie 300.

And 300 wasn't a Total Party Kill. It was Death By A Thousand Cuts. In game terms, the dramatic last stand of 300 was the natural culmination of at least a dozen viscerally satisfying encounters, including non-combat encounters.


I agree that a random TPK and an Epic last stand is not the same thing. We are on the same page here.

A random TPK is boring and is an "halt" to fun... But if you like to challenge your players, and your players love a good challenge, it should happen sometimes (Even more when you refuse to fudge dices like you said earlier). When it is anti-climatic, like in a random encounter, I usually save my players. But when it's against an important villain, I usually dont.



If you are a DM and your players experience a series of TPKs, then you... as the DM... are doing something wrong. Not the players. All of your players become incompetent at keeping their characters alive... at the exact same time? Over and over again? Really? REALLY?


Nobody here is talking about having lots of successive TPKs, just the one.

Most of the times the players will try to do things togheter as a group in order to avoid to split the party. That means a single persuasive player can lead everyone into a really bad situation.

Of course you can use Deux Ex Machinas to let the players survive, or maybe juste tell the player bluntly that their plan is stupid and doomed to fail. But again if you want to play a game where failure is possible, then failure has to be possible.

Of course, not all failures have to be TPKs, but sometimes it is the only plausible consequence.



While many participants on this thread have taken principled exception to my opinion that TPKs are always the DM's fault... no one has offered a credible criticism of the most important statement I made on the matter...

The DM is always accountable.

The DM has to own every good and every bad thing that happens at the table.

That's my version of Rule Zero.

Good games don't just happen. If the game went well... at all, the DM did something right. Even if all the DM did was to just shut the hell up and facilitate player decisions.

Bad games don't just happen. If the game went poorly... at all, the DM did something wrong. Even if all the DM did was to just shut the hell up and facilitate player decisions.


I do agree that the GM is accountable, BUT SO ARE THE PLAYERS.

Just like you described earlier in that same posts, player who are juvenile, passive-agressive, uninterested, easily distracted, they can all make "bad games happen", of course the GM can then kick said players, but I don't think no one will call that game "good".

Good games don't just happen. If the game went well, BOTH THE GM AND THE PLAYERS did something right.

Bad games don't just happen. If the game went poorly, The DM OR THE PLAYERS did something wrong.

Roleplaying games are collaborative. Players and the GM have to be on the same page.

The GM taking all the credit for all that happens in-game seems a bit hypocritical to me. Why do you even have players then?

elliott20
2015-07-08, 09:18 AM
snip

I believe that a large part of the problem here is not just what is a good player / DM, but also the game we're playing and the expectations that are not laid out clear. D&D games actually make a lot of implicit assumptions that once you break WILL impact a game.

- it is assumed that players are on the same team, share the same overall goals / agendas
- it is assumed that players' individual agendas do not clash with each other
- it is assumed that player conflicts are kept to a minimum
- it is assumed that there is combat, lots of it
- it is assumed that every player will buy into the narrative being presented to them without question
- it is assumed that the DM is responsible for the narrative arc

All of these are actually HUGE assumptions, and all of it is because the game was built off of it's dungeon crawling roots, where these assumptions were never challenged. This is the core problem with D&D and why you get discussions like this where people are worried about railroading and what not.

But here's the dirty secret: by simply exposing these assumptions you can easily mitigate against the problems these assumptions bring. (With the help of your players, of course) Simply put, by putting these assumptions on the table you are doing one thing: create a social contract between the participants.

If, for example, you actually don't mind player conflict or even players being the outright antagonists, then player vs. player conflict resolution will be critical and rules need to be put down to address that. It doesn't even need to be actual mechanical rules, mind you. It could just be an agreement that if it does occur, the players and DM need to be mature enough to not take any of the consequences following said conflicts gracefully. So if I'm playing a game where all of the other players who want the unification of a kingdom, but my character's agenda is to perpetuate the chaos and civil war of said kingdom as long as possible, I need to accept the very real possibility that my character might end up at the other end of their swords. And the DM and the other players need to accept that I will probably be the main antagonist of the game instead of the one the DM has planned. If we can accept that, we can play.

I also want to address the last line. I see this a lot, where people are all basically asking the DM to be the one provide ALL the content, and be able to anticipate what the players want at every turn. I'm sorry, but the DM is not a business with a product that he's trying to sell to the players. The players are not just an audience whose job is to just show up and watch TV. The players are active participants in the creation of the story, and like all things, you can't expect a participant to be invested in something if they have no say in the planning and designing process.

In that sense, the word "No" really IS a bad word at the table. In negotiation theory, the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement or BATNA is the course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. (think of it as the "give me a better deal or I walk" line in haggling) BATNAS are almost always bad for the negotiations. The word "NO" is effectively that. You are using your DM authority (such as it is) to shut down negotiations. If your players don't accept that authority, they will rebel.

This is why the better mantra should be "Say yes or spend/roll dice".

goto124
2015-07-08, 09:42 AM
I suppose you shouldn't do passive-agressive 'yes's that are actually 'no's in disguise. Such as a DC 700 door.

What was the adventure path with the infamously high DC door...?

AxeAlex
2015-07-08, 09:45 AM
In that sense, the word "No" really IS a bad word at the table. In negotiation theory, the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement or BATNA is the course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. (think of it as the "give me a better deal or I walk" line in haggling) BATNAS are almost always bad for the negotiations. The word "NO" is effectively that. You are using your DM authority (such as it is) to shut down negotiations. If your players don't accept that authority, they will rebel.

This is why the better mantra should be "Say yes or spend/roll dice".

I really like the parallel with a negociation.

When my players come up with something impossible, and I'm tempted to tell them no, I instead took it upon myself to say, "Yes, if *the player can meet certains restrictions or requirements*". It usually triggers negociations and we end up satisfied, one way or another.

elliott20
2015-07-08, 11:23 AM
I suppose you shouldn't do passive-agressive 'yes's that are actually 'no's in disguise. Such as a DC 700 door.

What was the adventure path with the infamously high DC door...?
This made me laugh more than it should. Almost makes me want to run a D&D game just so I can throw DC 700 doors at people for ****s and giggles.

But yeah, one thing i did not explicitly say in my post is that if you want your players to be vested in the game and the narrative, you need to give them a say in how it evolves. This means that DMs need to also let go some of the control over the narrative. (In fact, I dare say you should let go of as much as you can, up to the player's willingness to drive the events) So in this example, you should never give people a DC 700 door. You should give them a DC 35 door, and IF they can beat that, they ****ing deserve to walk in. The idea is that if you don't want to give the players the choice, don't give them a queue at all.

dream
2015-07-08, 12:44 PM
Most of this has been really helpful.
Thanks to those of you that answered my questions, I needed that little boost of confidence! :-)
No problem, MyNoobsR :smallsmile:

I wish I had this kind of resource around when I started running adventures. Whew! Back in the old days it was "trial & terror" as I tried to figure-out what worked best for what scenario with what PCs? Like many of the GMs here, I learned the hard way, by watching other GMs, by studying GM tips and by (most important) listening to the players.

I hope something I offered helped & good gaming!

Warlawk
2015-07-08, 04:27 PM
I would like to use this as an example of how important it is to be on the same page with your players.


I said I've never had a Total Party Kill. Individual characters have died.



I've never run a game like that either, and I'd leave too.



Actually it is your fault.

Here's how I would deal with it.

On their way to rush the palace, they are attacked by orcs.

Well, guess we'd better deal with this... but after this.... we rush the Palace.

Now the orcs are dead... Palace Rush time.

Kobolds? Where the hell did they come from? Okay, we will kill them... THEN we will Rush the Palace.

Now the kobolds are dead... they are going to Rush the crap out of the Palace...

Zombies?!? What is going on here? Well, we'd better deal with this... THEN we will Rush the Palace...

Okay, we need to heal up and get our spells back... and THEN we will Rush the Palace.

Next day... all ready for some Palace Rushing...

Goblins? Okay... but we are Rushing that Palace right after we kill them...

Goblins are dead... and now...

Kobolds again? Dammit. Well, they aren't going to vanquish themselves. Fine. But after that... Palace Rush...

[three days later]

The PCs are all second level now. They are going to Rush that Palace something fierce...

Hobgoblins? FINE. But right after this we are going to Rush that Palace.

[a week later]

The PCs are third level now.

What were we going to-- Rush the Palace!

An ogre? Okay... after we kill this ogre... we are going to then Rush the Palace.

[a month later]

The PCs are fifth level...

and now... at long last... we are going to Rush the Palace.

A sign outside the palace door: "Closed for Renovation."

That is just one way to prevent a TPK.

Boring, huh?

To me, and in my group this would be completely and utterly rejected. Not because it isn't fun (that's relative) but because it makes no sense. Unless said palace was a month's travel from where we began there's no reason it should drag out with that many random encounters. If there is a clearly thought out reason for all these monsters to be attacking the PCs, and the DM presents that reason (ideally as an adventure hook all it's own) then yes, it could make sense. As originally presented, with just a string of random encounters for no reason other than preventing the characters from getting to a place you don't want them to be, it feels forced and artificial. To me and my group, that would break immersion. There's no reason for all those monsters to be there in sequence and slowing down the players. It does not make sense within the context of the world. I guess that would be the lesson I want to point out here. Know what you want to do, but also figure out how and why this event/creature actually fits into the world you have placed it within.

As a side note, a castle/palace doesn't generally just 'close for renovation' with no advance notice, this seems like something the PCs would know as they were planning the whole thing. It also seems to me like that would make a great adventure hook right there. They could plot an infiltration posing as workers or something else to get into the palace and accomplish whatever it is they were actually looking to do by attacking it. To me, that is the sign of a good game. Take what the players say/do/want and incorporate it into your game, often with twists and adjustments to make it fit your vision better.


EDIT: I just wanted to make something very clear. I pointed out a lot of things that are wrong... for myself and my playing group. Shane and his group enjoy that type of play, more power to them. As long as everyone is having fun, you aren't playing 'wrong'. The only wrong is when people aren't having fun. Some people don't care about the how and why of a monster, they just want to kill it. That play style isn't for me, but it also isn't wrong.

Shane, you've taken a lot of flack in this thread and while I strongly disagree with your approach to DMing, that's fine because we aren't playing together. You and your table are having fun, so keep doing what you're doing!

Aran nu tasar
2015-07-08, 04:52 PM
Don't do horror, unless you're sure you can pull it off. You're sure you can? Don't do it even then.

As advice for a new DM, this is solid. (And to be fair, this thread is aimed at new DMs.) I disagree with it in general, though. When done well a horror game can be excellent, it just happens to be one of the hardest types of games to run. The balance of power/powerlessness for the players is difficult to get right, and small things can easily break the mood that has been painstakingly built up. Plus the players have to be on board with the whole thing. There are many ways to run horror without being the awful walking simulator you are describing, however, and I wouldn't recommend shutting off an entire style of play because of a bad experience with it. My advice would instead be: don't do horror, unless you're sure you can pull it off, your players are on board, and both you and your players are all experienced with RPGs in general and the system you are working in particular.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-08, 05:06 PM
It occurs to me that I should provide some added context to my previous posts.

In addition to my belief that the DM is always accountable, I also believe that the DM owes a duty to the players to facilitate a game experience that is satisfying to the players as a whole.

A DM without players is just a very specific kind of book collector.

A DM without players is not a director, he is a screenwriter. An unpublished screenwriter.

The best analogy I can come up with is the political philosophy of "consent of the governed".

The DM must facilitate the game with the consent of the players.

The players are the governed (the public) and all of the legitimate governing authority vested in the DM (the public servant) stems from the consent of the players. In this sense, the DM owes an affirmative obligation to the players to refrain from abusing that authority. Otherwise the players may be compelled to rescind the DM's authority by voting with their feet.

TheThan
2015-07-08, 06:41 PM
here's some good ones:

World building exercise: the rumor mill
Most people when they get together with other people do this weird thing called talking. They talk about stuff. They gossip, spread rumors that sort of thing.

Make a list of rumors and gossip going around town; maybe even do different lists for different city districts. Now when a pc makes a gather information check or the equivalent; drop a rumor in their lap, even if it has nothing to do with their current quest… especially if it has nothing to do with their current quest. PCs will probably investigate; which gives you the opportunity to use these as mini-quests. You get to reward players for getting invested in the game world. If they don’t then they may learn more about the world you’ve undoubtedly spend a ton of time and effort to create.

That old lady that lives at the edge of town is rumored to be a witch. Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t. Regardless, she might be looking to hire adventurers; or maybe she’s a Hag and her presence explains why young men have been disappearing around town. That sort of thing.

Bill the Beggar fell into a lot of money recently. Nobody knows how he did it. Maybe he stole it from a dragon, or a wizard, or traded his priceless family heirloom for it; maybe his dear old auntie died and that’s his inheritance. The players should never know what will pan out for adventures and what wont. Maybe that haunted mansion is actually haunted. You’re players should my nature start investigating these rumors and better yet, they can get rewarded for doing so.

World building exercise: evolving world.
In this exercise, the world continues to turn while the PCs are not around. If they go off into a dungeon and are gone from town for 3 weeks; make some changes. Maybe the bartender at the local Inn got fired for stealing money from the till. Maybe farmer john’s daughter is getting married to Bob the Baker’s son. Maybe the PCs roll into town during the wedding service and they find everything’s been deserted because everyone’s at the wedding over in the chapel. Maybe someone died from old age, or illness (not all illnesses have to be supernatural or a campaign objective) or injury; maybe someone had a baby and it’s the talk of the town. Maybe there are some new people in the tavern. Maybe they’re just passing through on their way elsewhere, maybe they’re settling in the area.

You don’t have to make huge changes (which is an easy urge to have), just little changes that can make the world come alive.

AxeAlex
2015-07-10, 10:51 AM
It occurs to me that I should provide some added context to my previous posts.

In addition to my belief that the DM is always accountable, I also believe that the DM owes a duty to the players to facilitate a game experience that is satisfying to the players as a whole.

A DM without players is just a very specific kind of book collector.

A DM without players is not a director, he is a screenwriter. An unpublished screenwriter.

The best analogy I can come up with is the political philosophy of "consent of the governed".

The DM must facilitate the game with the consent of the players.

The players are the governed (the public) and all of the legitimate governing authority vested in the DM (the public servant) stems from the consent of the players. In this sense, the DM owes an affirmative obligation to the players to refrain from abusing that authority. Otherwise the players may be compelled to rescind the DM's authority by voting with their feet.

Fair enough, but I think it is still a little arrogant.

It's not the GM's story. It's the player's story, they decide the direction of it takes, and how they resolve the conflicts, deals with the antagonists, etc... What makes the game, is that they do so in the GM's universe, a universe they don't control.

So the way I see it, you cannot make the GM the only person accountable. The players are too, both collaborate to create the game and the story, they can't be isolated or separated.

Warlawk
2015-07-10, 01:54 PM
Fair enough, but I think it is still a little arrogant.

It's not the GM's story. It's the player's story, they decide the direction of it takes, and how they resolve the conflicts, deals with the antagonists, etc... What makes the game, is that they do so in the GM's universe, a universe they don't control.

So the way I see it, you cannot make the GM the only person accountable. The players are too, both collaborate to create the game and the story, they can't be isolated or separated.

Agreed. The core 4 members of my gaming group have all been gaming together for at least 17 years (two of us for 24 years) so there is not a lot of personality conflict and clash, good communication of expectations etc. We do have a few people who have rotated in an out over the years and the way we describe our games is "Collaborative Storytelling." No one tries to win, no one tried to pull anything over on the DM or crush anyone elses fun.

We all want to get together and tell a good story. When our DM clearly has a plot hook, we find reasons to follow it so he can tell the story he has in mind. When a player has something they want to do or develop with their character our DM gives a chance for them to do so. We come together and tell a fun story. Everyone is part of the creative process and everyone takes ownership of that.

DDogwood
2015-07-10, 08:05 PM
Fair enough, but I think it is still a little arrogant.

It's not the GM's story. It's the player's story, they decide the direction of it takes, and how they resolve the conflicts, deals with the antagonists, etc... What makes the game, is that they do so in the GM's universe, a universe they don't control.

So the way I see it, you cannot make the GM the only person accountable. The players are too, both collaborate to create the game and the story, they can't be isolated or separated.

Very well said.

MrStabby
2015-07-10, 09:58 PM
Fair enough, but I think it is still a little arrogant.

It's not the GM's story. It's the player's story, they decide the direction of it takes, and how they resolve the conflicts, deals with the antagonists, etc... What makes the game, is that they do so in the GM's universe, a universe they don't control.

So the way I see it, you cannot make the GM the only person accountable. The players are too, both collaborate to create the game and the story, they can't be isolated or separated.

Pretty much a perfect summing up.

Darth Ultron
2015-07-11, 11:07 AM
It's not the GM's story. It's the player's story, they decide the direction of it takes, and how they resolve the conflicts, deals with the antagonists, etc... What makes the game, is that they do so in the GM's universe, a universe they don't control.

So the way I see it, you cannot make the GM the only person accountable. The players are too, both collaborate to create the game and the story, they can't be isolated or separated.

I'd say it is everyones story. I know there is a lot of DM hate and everyone complains if the DM dares to have a story or plot, but maybe you can explain this more?

So how do the players decide the direction the player-only story takes? Are the players also DMs? Are they saying ''we will go north, that is where the bandit camp is as we say so.'' Are they creating things ''ok, Lord Doom is this 11th level cleric I wrote up''? Do they control the world ''Ok, for his first attack the 15th level wizard will cast ray of frost ''?

Do they resolve conflicts the same way? "We cut a tree down and block the road, the day is saved, give us XP''?

And if the players don't control things like DMs, then how do they make all the decisions and changes?

Nerjin
2015-07-11, 12:03 PM
Oh hey! A strawman...

It's everyone's story in that the DM creates the setting and the players interact with it. If a DM stops your character from doing what you want them to try than the players aren't part of the story and it's just the DM telling a story.

If the players are deciding the setting, NPCs, and encounters than it's freeform RP with one guy just sorta sitting there without a character to directly control.

If you're honestly asking how a Freeform RP would be run I don't think this is the thread for it. It's a thread where you give Tips to DM's.

[hr]

My advice is this: Experiment and have fun. No matter how many tips you follow you will mess up.

Bad sessions happen no matter how good of a DM you are. Don't be afraid of failure. You'll learn more from your own failures than you ever will reading academia [to an extent].

I also offer this tidbit: Don't be afraid to not play.

Sometimes the group will not be in the mood for a game of DnD or whatever system you are playing. Don't force it. It's better to wait until everyone's in a better mood for it. It is a game, not an obligation.

Darth Ultron
2015-07-11, 06:44 PM
Oh hey! A strawman...

It's everyone's story in that the DM creates the setting and the players interact with it. If a DM stops your character from doing what you want them to try than the players aren't part of the story and it's just the DM telling a story.



Ok, but how does this work? How does a DM not stop a character from doing things? For example if the DM says ''the door to the bank is locked, your character can't just walk in and rob the bank'', is that the kind of ''stopping a character from doing something'' that your talking about? Is this advice: Just let the characters do anything they want? I just don't get it.

Milo v3
2015-07-11, 07:05 PM
Ok, but how does this work? How does a DM not stop a character from doing things? For example if the DM says ''the door to the bank is locked, your character can't just walk in and rob the bank'', is that the kind of ''stopping a character from doing something'' that your talking about? Is this advice: Just let the characters do anything they want? I just don't get it.

You're not stopping them from "Trying to open the door". If the door was locked, they'd probably end up trying to bash it down, or pick the lock, or phase through it or something. If they try to walk in and rob the bank, let them "try" but have the world react appropriately.

JAL_1138
2015-07-12, 08:29 AM
For new DMs, and I DM so infrequently that I basically qualify as new every time I run a game, my advice is:

Modules, modules, modules, modules, and furthermore modules. BUT! You don't have to run them as-written. Oftentimes the maps and encounters can be used without the "plot" just fine. Use them as prep you didn't have to do (entirely) yourself. You can even have a couple--the main one you're running, and another to yoink side quests, encounters, and spare locations out of for when things go off the rails or for when the main module leaves an area undefined (common in many older ones). Mix and match and let things happen out of order.


Caution: Modules don't always have everything fully statted. They'll often give you a "stat block" that assumes you know the MM entry and equipment list like the back of your hand, like "Attacks: Halberd, Hand Crossbow. Special: Mist, jump." And that's it. You need to go look those up in the MM. Kind of a pain. It's a ludicrous amount of paper and ink and thus isn't necessarily great advice, but I like to copy or print off packets of MM pages for each encounter that I can write stuff out on, like spells and anything not written out fully in the block itself (very handy in PF/3.5 for things like feats which are never spelled out in the blocks).

Prep does not need to be "everything that can possibly happen" or "the story and world start to finish." Go week by week so you can react, adapt, and not spend three months trying to prep EVERYTHING before the game starts.

Don't catch players in a "gotcha" with something you didn't describe that wouldn't have needed a perception check, or that would have prompted one. If you didn't mention the huge stack of barrels in the otherwise-featureless room, and thus nobody could have checked to see that they're oily-looking and smell like sulphur, don't have the barrels explode when the wizard casts Burning Hands.
EDIT: That's an extreme example of course, but as an absent-minded person I've inadvertently omitted obvious details plenty of times, like "Oh, I forgot to mention the open spike pit," or "oops, I forgot to mention the guard in the shop who would've seen that pickpocket attempt") and as a player I've had that very thing happen to me (My character died in the blast, too).

Knaight
2015-07-12, 10:24 AM
I'm not wading into the ongoing debates here, though there's plenty of stuff that I have counterpoints to. Instead, I have one key piece of advice:

You will make mistakes. GMing is an art and it takes lots of practice, and you don't get good without having screwed things up. Even once you're good, you'll still make errors from time to time. You might introduce an influential NPC that ends up much less interesting than hoped, you might screw up a rule, you might make a setting that turns out to be shallower than anticipated or unmanageable due to being overly complex. There are a lot of little ways to screw up.

Accept this. Accept that errors will happen, try to do better in the future, and don't beat yourself up about them. They aren't a sign that you're a terrible GM, they aren't a sign that you should give up GMing, and generally players will understand that.

AxeAlex
2015-07-13, 01:29 PM
I'd say it is everyones story. I know there is a lot of DM hate and everyone complains if the DM dares to have a story or plot, but maybe you can explain this more?

So how do the players decide the direction the player-only story takes? Are the players also DMs? Are they saying ''we will go north, that is where the bandit camp is as we say so.'' Are they creating things ''ok, Lord Doom is this 11th level cleric I wrote up''? Do they control the world ''Ok, for his first attack the 15th level wizard will cast ray of frost ''?

Do they resolve conflicts the same way? "We cut a tree down and block the road, the day is saved, give us XP''?

And if the players don't control things like DMs, then how do they make all the decisions and changes?

You are right when you say that the story belongs to everyone.

The GM has control over the whole universe. He knows and decides all that's in it, and he controls everything in it, except the players.

I don't hate GMs, im the GM in my group. I don't usually do sandbox games either, I usually have a story, a narrative goal and questline to offer my players.

When I said that it's the player's story, I meant it the same way that Terminator 1 and 2 is the Story of Sarah and John Connor. The players are the main characters in the story, if not there is a big problem.


Ok, but how does this work? How does a DM not stop a character from doing things? For example if the DM says ''the door to the bank is locked, your character can't just walk in and rob the bank'', is that the kind of ''stopping a character from doing something'' that your talking about? Is this advice: Just let the characters do anything they want? I just don't get it.

I will try to illustrate using your example:

Bad Example:
GM: The bank's safe is indestructible, magic proof and cannot be lockpicked. Your characters soon notice they have no way to open or break it.

Players: ... Ok

Good Example:
GM: This is the richest bank of the most powerful nation in the world. So your characters would expect it to be pretty hard to rob. It's safe is predictibly magic-proof, and it's enchanted to be indestructible...

Unless you guys got an artifact or a weapon of great magical power, you're pretty sure you can't break it. There is no lock on it, but there are number of parchments laying around, maybe you could look for clues on how to open it

Here the players should already understand that it's possible to rob the bank, they just don't have the means, so they are interested to keep on going, the wizard asks:

Wizard: Ok, it's enchanted, we are talking about the metal itself, can I use my magical knowledge to know if I could, for example, get in by travelling in another plane, calculating the distance I have to move in that plane to reach the Inside, and travel back to the material plane?

GM: Uhh... Let me think.. Ok, roll it. (The Wizard rolls good) The enchantments on the safe doesnt seem to indicate any protection from portals opened IN the safe, so that would work.

Wizard: Alright, I can't travel in other planes right know, but I know what we will do as soon as I can.

So here, in both example, the players can't get in, but in the first, the GM refused to let the players rob the bank. In the second, in-universe, the characters don't have the power to rob the bank, yet, but have many options available:

-The easiest way would be to look around and ask around to find out how the safe is opened. The GM even told them so. Maybe the solution would be to cut the hand of the lord who owns it, for example.
-They could find the Ultimate Axe of All-Destroying +5 and break the safe. Finding it could be very hard.
-The player thought about using another dimension, and the GM agreed it would work. That won't be hard, but they will have to come back later when the Wizard is poweful enough.

Do you understand my point better now?

Darth Ultron
2015-07-13, 08:20 PM
Do you understand my point better now?

Yes.

I'd say your talking about letting the players have the illusion they can ''do anything''. By not having the DM say to the players ''No'' mostly. And guess you go the extra step of holding the players hands, but maybe that is just your play style.

goto124
2015-07-13, 08:22 PM
I'm glad you adknowledge the different playstyles, instead of dismissing them outright.

AxeAlex
2015-07-14, 08:27 AM
Yes.

I'd say your talking about letting the players have the illusion they can ''do anything''. By not having the DM say to the players ''No'' mostly. And guess you go the extra step of holding the players hands, but maybe that is just your play style.

There is no Illusion. They can decide to do anything. This a a simulation of life in another universe, nothing more, and nothing less.

Just like in this universe, they can decide to do anything, they REALLY can, but that doesn't mean they will always succeed or they won't have to face consequences.

If your talking about "They can't do anything because they can't just decide to destroy all the bads guys by wishing it" I'll answer: Of course they can decide to destroy the bad guys by wishing it... Just like you can decide to end world hunger by wishing it right now, it doesn't mean you will succeed.

But, if your players are really invested in wishing the bad guys away and it seems they really would have alot of fun doing so, then you should give them clues and let them work toward making a bad-guy destroying wish. :smallbiggrin:

If you, as a GM, would really NOT have fun having the main quest be: Find a way to wish the bad guys away, then you have to TELL them to change course, out of game. They are your friends, if you tell them "Guys, I have something really awesome planned and it's not about wishing the bad guys away", they should understand. NOT trump their fun in-game by screwing with their characters, their choices, and their ideas... Because then NO-ONE will have any fun.

About "holding the player's hand", there was no such cases in my "Good Example". It's important to understand that if the players don't know about something, then it "doesn't exist".

If you predicted the PCs could reach "plot island" by a Flying Ship, but they never heard about no Flying Ship, then the Flying Ship doesn't matter, it could as well not exist and it would have the same impact in the story. If you are waiting for your players to ask "Are there flying ships in this world?", then you're waiting for them to read your mind, and you will be disappointed. If the PCs would know that flying ships exists because they are either famous or common, then you SHOULD tell them.

Again, you should tell your players everything they could know and perceive. If you don't tell them they see a strange marking on the door, they can't interact with that marking, for all they know, it doesn't exist.

So back to my "Good Example", telling the players there HAS to be a way to open the safe was not "holding there hand", that was a logical assumption any character in my universe could reach, and the first thing that would come to mind to someone who is trying to break into that safe but notice it has no apparent opening mecanism. If there was no way to open it, it would not be used for anything!

But, it was still important to describe it to the players, because if I didn't, and simply said there was no possible way to open it, then the only thing the players can assume is that there is no possible way to open it. Some players could be disappointed in what they could perceive as GM fiat!

I control the whole world, but we are telling the story of the PCs, they can try anything, and it will become an adventure... Just like anything a main character does in any story is never useless, and always amount to something. They should be able to write their own fate.

Im sorry for my walls of texts, Im starting to think I really love to read myself. :smallannoyed:

Amphetryon
2015-07-14, 09:20 AM
Again, you should tell your players everything they could perceive and understand. If you don't tell them they see a strange marking on the door, they can't interact with that marking, for all they know, it doesn't exist.
I'd like to expand on this point, because it's a good one that can get sticky. I don't think anything I'm about to say contradicts anything AxeAlex has said, above.

As DM, you need to be careful not to use too much Conservation of Detail, only describing those bits that you intend to be immediately relevant or useful to the PCs. If you leave out everything but that which is useful in your preconceived notions, you're probably going to interfere with Player agency. They won't feel as able to meaningfully interact with the world because the only things they can interact with are the things you hang bright neon signs over via your description. This does not mean you need to describe every single brick and stick of furniture in every room down to the smallest possible detail, only that you should probably include at least some details and items that aren't immediately relevant to the plot as you understood it when you sat down to DM.

Now, what happens if the PCs latch on to your 'window dressing,' the bits you didn't immediately consider relevant to the plot? What do you do when, as an off the cuff example, one of the PCs declares "A-ha! Now that we have this mundane green candlestick, we can defeat Lord Baddington"? One good starting point is asking the Player how she intends to use that item to achieve that goal. If the answer seems reasonable, allow the attempt. If the answer seems ludicrous or deliberately aimed at the 4th wall, explain that, instead. It could be that something in your description gave the Players the impression the item was more important than you thought when you included it. That's not necessarily a problem, as it indicates your Players are paying some attention and investing in the campaign world.

Allowing Players to assign importance to some bits you hadn't considered important, or to attempt plans you hadn't conceived in order to achieve their goals, helps keep the game feeling more like a collaborative experience in world building and exploration, and less like DM Story Hour.

Jay R
2015-07-14, 09:35 AM
... I also believe that the DM owes a duty to the players to facilitate a game experience that is satisfying to the players as a whole.

<snip>

In this sense, the DM owes an affirmative obligation to the players to refrain from abusing that authority.

I agree completely with the point you're trying to make, but I think you are coming at it from the wrong, or at least a non-optimal direction.

I would much rather play with a DM who actively enjoys creating a satisfying game experience than one who feels he has a duty or obligation to do so.

So my advice is this: Like the PCs, and enjoy their triumphs. Set up fun, difficult encounters and enjoy the fact that they found a way to make some of them too easy.

Provide ten thousand short-term frustrations and difficulties, adding up to the long-term satisfaction of overcoming them.

AxeAlex
2015-07-14, 09:55 AM
Allowing Players to assign importance to some bits you hadn't considered important, or to attempt plans you hadn't conceived in order to achieve their goals, helps keep the game feel more like a collaborative experience in world building and exploration, and less like DM Story Hour.

I agree with all you said, this bit in particular is important to most players.

Have one solution, not because it's the only right one, but because every challenge you create needs one.

Then, the players will most of the times come up with a really better solution (the rest of the times with a incredibly stupid and complicated one) because they are many minds vs only yours. Be humble, roll with it!

Slarg
2015-07-14, 09:58 AM
Ok, but how does this work? How does a DM not stop a character from doing things? For example if the DM says ''the door to the bank is locked, your character can't just walk in and rob the bank'', is that the kind of ''stopping a character from doing something'' that your talking about? Is this advice: Just let the characters do anything they want? I just don't get it.

I don't think a locked door is going to stop many adventuring parties, honestly....

If characters want to rob a bank and the door is locked, challenge them to find a way into the bank first. If they pass THAT test, reward them with the bank scenario (Not the loot, but the opportunity for it). I personally would love the opportunity to throw a player or two in jail forcing the rest of the party to try to spring a jailbreak (Which would have it's own consequences as well) or abandon them to the chagrin of their comrades.


As for tips for new DMs?

-Nothing is Sacred. Depending on your group, be prepared to throw out your entire plan the moment something goes awry; sometimes, the party of adventurers doesn't want to stop evil, sometimes they want to chase a rabbit..... Doing so can be helpful to all involved as well, as a super serious game can get boring after so long, and a little bit of levity will help a ton.

-Know when to put your foot down. This is Highly Subjective, but know your limits and what will or won't push/break them. My best friend always plays a lady of nightly pleasures whenever he roleplays, so I make sure to give him encounters where he can wile and woo his way out of certain things.

However, in Vampire; the Masquerade, you can take Perks/Flaws which highly affect your character positively/negatively (My character has a bum leg that never healed, so he walks around with a cane like a Sir). The first time we played V; tM, he wanted to be a Stripper and take the Child Flaw (So he was turned into a vampire as a small child, around 12 years old). While slightly funny in an ironic way, I told him he couldn't do that, not least of all because no one in the New York area would employ a child as a stripper.

-Sometimes, you just have to keep your sanity, so Railroad if you absolutely have to.

STORY TIME!

My first, very absolute first, experience with TTRPGs was with Star Wars, Edge of the Empire. My afformentioned friend had said that he needed an extra guy for a full group of 5 (DM and 4 players) so I told him I would absolutely play.

I show up the day of, he pulls out the books and said "Who wants to be the DM?" :smalleek: After an hour long debate with each other as to who would DM and why (We very briefly kicked around the idea of passing DM along every night to another person), I said I would do it, told everyone who did to go smoke while I think of a plan, and literally did the first thing that came to my mind; assassinate a drug lord. I set up that a farmer owed him money, and pretty much had everything they thought of trying be either a dead end (Open Bounties don't lend themselves to waiting two weeks for something to potentially pan out) or direct them back to the farmer.

It was something I had to do because being DM was literally sprung on me. It's not something you should do, but it IS a tool to rely on when things get sprung on you. Just be prepared to think of reasons WHY the PCs can't do something (Want to attack and kill the Emperor? He's out of town right now.)

braveheart
2015-07-16, 01:42 PM
Don't fudge the dice if you can avoid it.

Personally I always try to balance an encounter so that at least one player is temporarily incapacitated, not beyond anything a few heal or restoration spells won't fix, but enough that the players see every fight as a threat.

If a player wants to do something really stupid, give them every opportunity to back out before you kill them off, players want to do stupid stuff, but sometimes they don't realize how stupid what they are doing is, make sure they figure out that they are killing their character while you can still save them.

Dont let your NPC's outshine the PC's while "on stage" the story is about the PC's being awesome not your NPC's.

Also see my signature, this is my philosophy on gaming (white text may or may not be applicable)