Concise GM Guidelines

[Easy_Lee]

There's a lot of good information out there, but it takes a long time to find. I'd like to dedicate this thread to short, simple advice for GMs.

Format: a single sentence explaining the guideline followed by an example, a coubterexample, and why it matters.

I'm sure everyone has plenty of ideas, but in the spirit of brevity, please limit yourself to one guideline. Pick the most important thing no one has yet covered.

I'll start.

Guideline: Present your players with problems, but make no assumptions about their solutions.

Example: your players must cross a lake. One player swims, another levitates, another builds some contraption to launch himself.

Counterexample: your players must cross a lake. The lake is full of deadly piranhas, is covered with an antimagic field, and also the piranhas jump so launching yourself over it won't work. Only finding the hidden boat nearby will work.

Why it matters: no matter how elaborate or cool your solution is, players lose agency and grow frustrated when they don't know what you want them to do.

[KorvinStarmast]

Guideline: When doing puzzle quests/games, use the three clue rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule). (As Justin Alexander puts it: Why three? Because the PCs will probably miss the first; ignore the second; and misinterpret the third before making some incredible leap of logic that gets them where you wanted them to go all along.).

Example: Your players need to find out where the duke's niece has been taken. Her wedding is in three weeks, and is a big political deal. Interactions with a stable boy (who is taking care of the party's horses, so they'll meet him, a wench at the tavern (whose brother is missing, and who was part of the chancellors hunting party on weekends), and the captain of the guard (who is sporting a new sword with a fancy scabbard, and with whom the party interacts when entering and leaving this large town).

Counter example: The only person who saw it was a maid in the manor, but the players don't have reasons to interact with her beyond either the DM having her come and visit, or them "encountering her" somewhere in town.

Why it matters: A single clue by itself may not get the plot unmasked, but the combination of the three encounters will each point toward the chancellor's son and the niece, who have been sweet on each other since childhood; the captain of the guard got bribed to "turn a blind eye", the boyfriend of the tavern wench had become a fast friend of the chancellor's son, and the stable boy knows when the horses left and who rode what horses (she rode hers, son rode his, and tavern wench's boyfriend rode a third that wasn't his).

[JNAProductions]

There's a lot of good information out there, but it takes a long time to find. I'd like to dedicate this thread to short, simple advice for GMs.

Format: a single sentence explaining the guideline followed by an example, a coubterexample, and why it matters.

I'm sure everyone has plenty of ideas, but in the spirit of brevity, please limit yourself to one guideline. Pick the most important thing no one has yet covered.

I'll start.

Guideline: Present your players with problems, but make no assumptions about their solutions.

Example: your players must cross a lake. One player swims, another levitates, another builds some contraption to launch himself.

Counterexample: your players must cross a lake. The lake is full of deadly piranhas, is covered with an antimagic field, and also the piranhas jump so launching yourself over it won't work. Only finding the hidden boat nearby will work.

Why it matters: no matter how elaborate or cool your solution is, players lose agency and grow frustrated when they don't know what you want them to do.

I would say there's nothing wrong with having a solution in mind, BUT! Always be open to new solutions.

Anyway, my advice.

Guideline: Work with your players. Say "Yes" whenever you can, within the limits of your world. In addition, make sure your "Yes" is a fun yes, not a boring one. (Fun is usually achieved through challenges, at least in my experience.)

Example: Your players want to craft magic items. Say "Yes, you can, but it will require studying under the Artificer of Xanyth (requiring an extraplanar trip to Xanyth and completing the tasks set by the Artificer in exchange for their tutelage), a wide variety of rare ingredients (more questing, for ingredients) and, depending on the item in question, creation at a place of power (once again, a quest to find and get to the place of power, and then possibly a nice cool climax where the crafter frantically tries to finish while the rest of the party fights off encroaching demons, ultimately leading to the item being finished just in time for the crafter to come out and kick ass with his newfound power against the demonic horde)."

Counterexample A: Your players want to craft magic items. Say "No, you can't." (Do note that this might sometimes actually be appropriate-if magic items are a long lost art, and your players are level 2, this can be appropriate. If, on the other hand, you're in Eberron... Not so much.)

Counterexample B: Your players want to craft magic items. Say "Yes. It will take 500 GP per item, and a month of downtime." (This is bad because it's just kinda boring. Once again, it can be appropriate if they want to craft, say, Driftglobes and Bags of Holding-those are minor items, mostly convenience items, that you can pretty much gloss over. But if they want a Holy Avenger, it should require more than just a little downtime and money.)

Why It Matters: Players like doing things. It's not fun to always be told "No"-then you're not doing anything. Likewise, it's ALSO not fun to effortlessly blaze through everything. It can be fun for a little bit, but if there's no challenge, players will quickly lose interest.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would say there's nothing wrong with having a solution in mind, BUT! Always be open to new solutions.

Anyway, my advice.

Guideline: Work with your players. Say "Yes" whenever you can, within the limits of your world. In addition, make sure your "Yes" is a fun yes, not a boring one. (Fun is usually achieved through challenges, at least in my experience.) {snip the rest}

I like your post, although I've see the general guidance you offer called the "yes, but ..." approach.

[JNAProductions]

I like your post, although I've see the general guidance you offer called the "yes, but ..." approach.

It's from improv, I think. I believe it's usually called "Yes and," but "Yes but" also makes sense.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Guideline: Know your players and appreciate that different people enjoy different things (http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/) about D&D.

Example: The game is an even mixture of challenging encounters for Alice who enjoys optimisation, engaging plots for Bob who likes telling stories and hidden secrets for Eve who likes to explore fantasy worlds.

Counterexample: The game is a monotonous slog of combat after combat, with no chance to develop characters or learn more about the world. It uses a grid the whole time, even though none of the players like fiddling around with minis.

Why it matters: It's statistically unlikely that everyone at the table wants the exact same thing, unless you're running a solo or duo game. Your main job as DM is to ensure everyone has fun, and you're more likely to do that if you incorporate multiple sources of fun. Equally, you can't please everyone all the time, so try to tell your players up front what kind of game you're planning to run; some may think "oh, that game isn't going to give me what I'm looking for" and save you all a lot of grief.

[WereRabbitz]

Guideline: Leave lots of plot hooks

Example: You never know when you might need to dig yourself out of a corner or when the players may change the story on you so having multiple plot hooks along the way (just little hints here and there of something else going on) gives it a more worldly feel and gives you more options should you back your story into a corner.

Counterexample: Players just want to railroad the game start to finish and get the loot.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Guideline: Keep narration short and always end on something that prompts the players to take immediate action. Typically, three sentences (one to conclude the previous scene, one to highlight a medium-term objective and one to present a short-term crisis) is sufficient.

Example: You hire the carriage and endure an hour or so of painful jolting before stepping out onto the dew-soaked lawn. Spookyville Manor - home of the dread vampire Bloodsuck - looms at the end of the path, shrouded in mist, and the coachman crosses himself before hurrying back the way you came. As he disappears into the distance, there is a sudden crash! A werewolf bursts from the outhouse and charges towards you!!

Counterexample: Five minutes of waffling, finishing with "Spookyville Manor looms at the end of the path, shrouded in mist."

Why it matters: Ending narration on a crisis encourages roleplay (and discourages metagaming) by forcing a decision to be made quickly, under pressure. It also helps to pull your players into the story: if you just leave them to wander around under their own steam, some players will lose interest and others might try to derail the plot. Using narration to subtly point towards medium-term goals reminds the players what they're working towards and keeps them on-task, without you having to put them on actual rails.

Keeping it short is good because people came here to play a game, not listen to you talk.

You should put some kind of index in the OP. If this is going to be a useful resource, it'd help if specific pieces of advice could be found quickly and easily.

[Scripten]

Guideline: Before you pull out the dice, make sure that the roll will be meaningful. This means that rolling determines whether the attempt succeeds and (most importantly) that the situation changes after the attempt is made. If the character could conceivably succeed just given time, then there is no roll that needs to be made.

Example: The party are being chased by an angry dragon. They took a turn into an unexplored passage and found themselves at a locked door. Bob the Rogue wants to pick the lock, but that will take several critical seconds, preventing them from turning back to take a different route. Failure will result in the door remaining locked, but the dragon will have blocked off their escape. Bob's player rolls and gets a 4...

Counterexample: The party are exploring a dungeon and find a locked door at the end of a newly explored passage. Bob the Rogue wants to pick the lock. Bob's player rolls the dice and gets a 4, then a 6, then a 3, then a 7, and so on. The game is put on hold until Bob's player finally rolls high enough to succeed or the party becomes bored enough that they try a different path.

Why it Matters: Dice rolls should quickly and efficiently decide critical points in the game. Meaningless rolls do nothing but slow down the game and bore your players.

Addendum: Also make sure that there is a chance of success when rolling! If a player rolls the dice, they have some expectation that they should be able to succeed with a good enough roll. An automatic failure, telegraphed correctly beforehand, should not feel unfair. No matter how well you explain the impossibility of an action, allowing a roll implies a non-zero percent chance to succeed, and will feel unfair if the player rolls what they think is sufficiently high.

[JNAProductions]

Addendum: Also make sure that there is a chance of success when rolling! If a player rolls the dice, they have some expectation that they should be able to succeed with a good enough roll. An automatic failure, telegraphed correctly beforehand, should not feel unfair. No matter how well you explain the impossibility of an action, allowing a roll implies a non-zero percent chance to succeed, and will feel unfair if the player rolls what they think is sufficiently high.

Agreed 110%.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Addendum: Also make sure that there is a chance of success when rolling! If a player rolls the dice, they have some expectation that they should be able to succeed with a good enough roll. An automatic failure, telegraphed correctly beforehand, should not feel unfair. No matter how well you explain the impossibility of an action, allowing a roll implies a non-zero percent chance to succeed, and will feel unfair if the player rolls what they think is sufficiently high.

Amen. I had a DM throw a party-wide, absurd DC (DC 24 at level 9!) disabling effect (Confusion, cast from an ambient effect that couldn't have concentration broken) against a party where the class choices were restricted to monk/fighter/rogue (none of which get WIS save proficiency). The only saving grace was that it affected enemies as well (except for one particular creature that was immune). Most of us had no chance to break it since even rolling a 20 is not an automatic success. Not so much fun.

[GlenSmash!]

It's from improv, I think. I believe it's usually called "Yes and," but "Yes but" also makes sense.

I encourage my players to take a "Yes and..." approach with each other. It helps get a roleplaying momentum going.

As the DM i take the "Yes, but..." approach because it makes sense for heroes to accomplish what they are trying to do, then deal with the consequences. It rewards players and moves the story foward at the same time.

Now to the task at hand.

Guideline: As often as possible try and lay out the stakes of a roll before a player makes the roll.

Example: your player's character decides to swim out into the lake and rescue the young girl before she drowns. After setting the DC inform the player that on a successful Athletics check the girl will be rescued without ill effect, on a failure the girl will be subject to the suffocating rules, and will start having Death Saving Throws.

Counterexample: your player's character decides to try and convince the librarian to give the party access to the occult archives. After setting the DC inform the player that on a successful Persuasion Check they will be granted access, and that on a failure they will not be granted access, and the librarian will distrust the sight of them from now on.

Why it matters: Player's typically dislike just being told "You fail" or "that didn't work". Knowing what will happen in either case helps them be prepared to keep the story moving forward and helps give the impression that you are a fair DM that is taking their effort into account when adjudicating the game.

[Oramac]

It's from improv, I think. I believe it's usually called "Yes and," but "Yes but" also makes sense.

As someone who takes improv classes and is studying the art of improv, I feel obligated to point out that "Yes, but" is often (but not always) just a fancy way of saying no.

That being said, in the context of D&D, I understand the desire to say yes without just giving the players whatever the hell they want, so in this case it works.

My .02:

Guideline: Be consistent.

Example: If you have to make a ruling on the fly, stick to it for the rest of the session, even if it's wrong. You can talk to your players and fix it after the game has ended.

Counterexample: You've made a decision once, and later in the game you remember your error and change it. This means that whoever was affected by your earlier (wrong) ruling feels slighted or elated that they circumvented the rules.

Why it matters: Players thrive on consistency. Doing something one way, and that thing continuing to be done that way in the future breeds a healthy gaming environment that promotes fun, easy to remember gameplay.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Guideline: Build fair, play to win.

Example: You build an encounter with orc warriors and goblin archers hidden in ambush. When the party arrives, the orcs rush the melee fighters to protect the goblins, while the goblins try to take out the squishy players with their bows. It's a fair fight; the PCs can win if they use superior tactics, roll well, or dip into their pool of resources, but they might struggle if they don't do any of those things.

Counterexample 1: You build an encounter with orc warriors and goblin archers hidden in ambush. When the party arrives, the orcs split up and attack at random, while the goblins all fire at the paladin, who has the best AC in the party. The party wins easily, because the monsters weren't fighting to the best of their abilities.

Counterexample 2: You build an encounter with an dragonborn wrestler (because the party's paladin has a weak Strength save), fire elementals (because the party's sorcerer only uses fire spells) and goblins with poison arrows (because the party's cleric has a weak Constitution save). The monsters eliminate the party with ruthless efficiency, because they have unfair advantages built in.

Why it matters: Building encounters that are specifically designed to neutralise or counter the party is unfair and will lead to players feeling like you're spoiling their fun or punishing them for doing the 'right' things. On the flip side, not utilising your monsters' strengths or playing them unintelligently may leave the players feeling like they're being wrapped in cotton wool and that their victories are empty. So, build enounters that would be fair and realistic in a vacuum, but then use what you've got to counter the party as best you can.

[napoleon_in_rag]

This should be a obvious one but it happened to me two weeks ago.

Guideline: Do not have an uber-powerful NPC play along with the PCs and win their battles for them.

Example: Wally the Wizard peered through the smoke and the ash. At the far side of the cavern, he could see their quarry, the Great Cuddlefish of Cthulu. This would be a hard fight, a tough fight where some or all of the party might die but, with a little luck, Wally thought they would be victorious. Suddenly, the cloaked stranger who had been travelling with them removed his garb. "Holy crap, It's Drizzt Do'Urden" thought Wally. Drizzt then walked up to the cuddlefish and beheaded it with a single swipe of his scimitar.

Counterexample: Wally stood on the carcass of the Cuddlefish of Cthulu. It been a hard fight, a tough fight but they had won. Frank the Fighter was paralyzed but the cleric said that would wear off in a few hours. Bob the Barbarian was dead but the large mound of treasure meant that they could easily pay the temple priests tithe.

Why it matters: As a DM, it is very tempting to invent an NPC so you play alongside your friends. But the game has to be about the players, not about you. If you do have an NPC assist the players, have him/her be a level or two weaker than the rest of the party. Have the NPC play a support role (like a cleric for healing) or a simple, unimaginative fighter.

[mephnick]

Have the NPC play a support role (like a cleric for healing) or a simple, unimaginative fighter.

The best long term npc I've used was a battlemaster archer that was 3 levels lower than the party. Easy to control, used trips, disarms and commander's strike to put the real characters into advantagous positions. Add in Rally for some temp HP and you've got an effective NPC that never steals the spotlight but everyone loves having around.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Example
...
Counterexample

Shouldn't we have good practice in blue and bad practice in red? Actually, they might be better names than example/counterexample...

[napoleon_in_rag]

Shouldn't we have good practice in blue and bad practice in red? Actually, they might be better names than example/counterexample...

It depends on the guideline. If you are saying "Do This", the example would be positive. If you are saying "Do Not Do This", the example is negative.

[napoleon_in_rag]

The best long term npc I've used was a battlemaster archer that was 3 levels lower than the party. Easy to control, used trips, disarms and commander's strike to put the real characters into advantagous positions. Add in Rally for some temp HP and you've got an effective NPC that never steals the spotlight but everyone loves having around.

Yeah, that works because the NPC is enhancing the PCs, not fighting their battles for them. By unimaginative fighter, I just meant someone who will fight the underlings but not the boss. Pretty much an extra sword to help with crowd control.

[Socratov]

Guideline: Don't punish or neuter your players, just create consequences for their actions

Example: if your players use a certain tactic or exploit, allow them to enjoy it but slowly but surely add smart opponents who know about it and/or exploit it.

How not to do it: [?b] "You keep using your familliar so now every first enemy attack will target your familliar"

[b]How to actually do it: "As the orcs see yoru familliar create more and more distractions they tire of it and wait for your familliar to come to them. As your familliar moves in and you move in for the attack they take your attack and swipe at your familliar"

Why it matters: if a simple exploit like gaining perpetual advantage through a familliar should be fun and used by the character, it could make the game too easy to require you to specifically target for that. By allow the tactic to work once in a while the player feels validated in his/her choice, but by countering it once in a while you invite the player to not jsut rely on a single tactic, but create back-up tactics as well which allows you to challenge them in more varied ways.

[mgshamster]

This is wonderful. Thank you, Easy Lee, for making it. And thank you to everyone else for the suggestions.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Guideline: Don't punish or neuter your players, just create consequences for their actions



I have been playing for quite a while and I have never neutered a player......

[Easy_Lee]

This is wonderful. Thank you, Easy Lee, for making it. And thank you to everyone else for the suggestions.

https://d30y9cdsu7xlg0.cloudfront.net/png/70801-200.png

[Ninja_Prawn]

I have been playing for quite a while and I have never neutered a player......

http://iambrony.steeph.tp-radio.de/mlp/gif/6332801225698766319406.gif

[Socratov]

I have been playing for quite a while and I have never neutered a player......

Congratulations on not doing so :smallbiggrin:

[Cybren]

Guideline: Don't punish or neuter your players, just create consequences for their actions

Example: if your players use a certain tactic or exploit, allow them to enjoy it but slowly but surely add smart opponents who know about it and/or exploit it.

How not to do it: [?b] "You keep using your familliar so now every first enemy attack will target your familliar"

[b]How to actually do it: "As the orcs see yoru familliar create more and more distractions they tire of it and wait for your familliar to come to them. As your familliar moves in and you move in for the attack they take your attack and swipe at your familliar"

Why it matters: if a simple exploit like gaining perpetual advantage through a familliar should be fun and used by the character, it could make the game too easy to require you to specifically target for that. By allow the tactic to work once in a while the player feels validated in his/her choice, but by countering it once in a while you invite the player to not jsut rely on a single tactic, but create back-up tactics as well which allows you to challenge them in more varied ways.

Your how not to/actually seem like... the exact same scenario, one is just given more flowery prose.

[Laserlight]

Your how not to/actually seem like... the exact same scenario, one is just given more flowery prose.

The difference is the "How Not To" is the DM sees the tactic repeated, and has the monster's first attack be against the familiar.
The "How To" is the orcs see the tactic repeated in the same fight, and (probably on the third round or so) Reserve an Action against the familiar.

[Cybren]

The difference is the "How Not To" is the DM sees the tactic repeated, and has the monster's first attack be against the familiar.
The "How To" is the orcs see the tactic repeated in the same fight, and (probably on the third round or so) Reserve an Action against the familiar.

sort of? I had to read it a few times before realizing the implication might be "within a single combat" rather than "every future combat with the orcs". I get the point it's making, but the example seems to be more for a guideline like "enemy behavior should be justified by their knowledge & experience and not yours", while punishment vs consequence is more about your attitude regarding how to respond to & frame the responses to your players actions.

[Decstarr]

Another fairly obvious one:

Guideline: Give all your players' PCs time to shine.

Example: Some classes outshine others in combat. If you have support characters like a wizard or lore bard on the team, create situations in which raw fighting power won't be the solution, hence giving the supports time to shine, too.

Counterexample: Straight forward, "run-into-each-other" meat sack combats in which the martials will clean up without problem.

Why it matters: Even players who focus heavily on social aspects of the game - like the "classic" face character Lore Bard - want to feel useful in combat. Therefore it is important to cater to that. You should always have different types of encounters/quest setups which allow each PC ample opportunity to shine and provide solutions to avoid the feeling of uselessness.

[Sjappo]

Guideline: Work with your players. Say "Yes" whenever you can, within the limits of your world. In addition, make sure your "Yes" is a fun yes, not a boring one. (Fun is usually achieved through challenges, at least in my experience.)

<snip examples>

I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. Saying Yes as opposed to saying No is very useful in improvisation and freeform where saying No retroactively invalidates an action. Same goes for players who use their action to prevent the action of an other player.

However ... DnD is neither freeform nor improv. DnD is governed by a very large and comprehensive set of rules. And players try to bend and break these rules pretty often in my experience. And when the pressure gets high the players get exponentially more creative in breaking those rules. So ...

Guideline: Make rulings that keep as close to the intent of the rules as you perceive them.

Example: Player: "I stow my sword and draw my bow so I can shoot at the Bad". DM: "I'm sorry, you cannot stow you sword and draw your bow. You only get one free Item Interaction. It's either one or the other. I'd allow you to drop your sword and draw your bow. I which case you can attack. Or you use your action to draw your bow, in which case you cannot attack. Or you do something else entirely. What do you do?

Counter Example: Player: "I use my bonus action to draw my ..." DM: "Stop right there. A bonus action can only be used for very specific actions. Check you sheet to see which ones. I'm not opening up bonus actions for other actions. That's a slippery slope I'd rather not be on.

I'm sure people will bring up player empowerment in regards to this. But a clear rules framework helps players to make valid choices for their actions and prevents games of "Mother may I". Thus empowering the players.

On a side note:

Guideline: It's better to make a wrong decision quickly than a right decision slowly. Don't stop your game to look for some obscure rule. Make a ruling and carry on. Look for the rule after the game, preferably when everyone has gone home, and discuss it at the start of next session.

Example: Player: "I try and grab the bugbear as it runs past me." DM: "O, crap, grappling rules, I can never make sense of those even when I can find them. Just make an attack at disadvantage. AC is 14."

Counter Example: DM: "let's see ... index ... grabbing. O, see grappling. Grappling ... page 194 ... 194 ... 194. Right. found it." Players: <sigh> "you know what, I'll just hit it. Does AC 16 hit?"

[Ninja_Prawn]

Maybe we should put these into categories so people can find the help they want quickly? Like 'encounter design' or 'running the game' or 'dealing with disruptive behaviour'.

Guideline: Keep a copy of your players' character sheets (either on paper or digitally (https://www.myth-weavers.com/)).

Example: "You forgot your sheet again, Jim? Don't worry, I've got a copy here."

Counterexample: "Hey Sarah, what's your passive perception?" ... "Sorry, that kind of ruined the surprise, didn't it?"

Why it matters: People forget stuff. Sometimes they lie about having obscure abilities, how much XP they've earned or which spells they've prepared. You want to be able to check people's passive scores secretly. Sometimes knowing which keys your players have can help you with designing the locks. It's a simple thing, but it really makes a difference.

This all feeds into a wider point, which is that the DM is the adult in the room. It's your job to be organised and keep track of things, because no one else is going to do it. You'll probably have to buy the snacks, as well.

[Oramac]

The best long term npc I've used was a battlemaster archer that was 3 levels lower than the party. Easy to control, used trips, disarms and commander's strike to put the real characters into advantagous positions. Add in Rally for some temp HP and you've got an effective NPC that never steals the spotlight but everyone loves having around.

I'm doing exactly this right now. My party of 4 PCs is playing SKT (currently 8th level), and has acquired a Goblin companion as a sort of mascot. I'm playing him as a 6th level ranged Battlemaster. He uses Trip Attack and Commander's Strike almost exclusively to give the rest of the party the chance to shine. Plus, he's a bit of a coward anyway, so it makes sense in-character for him.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Adventure/Encounter Design
Build Fair, Play to Win (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22174376&postcount=14) (Ninja_Prawn)
Give Everyone A Chance to Shine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22178701&postcount=29) (Decstarr)
Leave Lots of Plot Hooks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170271&postcount=7) (WereRabbitz)
Make no Assumptions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170101&postcount=1) (Easy_Lee)
The Three Clue Rule (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170133&postcount=2) (KorvinStarmast)

Metagaming
Be Consistent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170923&postcount=13) (Oramac)
Don't Neutralise your Players (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22176691&postcount=20) (Socratov)
Know your Players (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170234&postcount=6) (Ninja_Prawn)

NPCs
Avoid Overpowered NPC Allies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22176161&postcount=15) (napoleon_in_rag)

Running the Game
Keep Narration Short (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170350&postcount=8) (Ninja_Prawn)
Know the Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22233363&postcount=33) (Ninja_Prawn)
Lay Out the Stakes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170533&postcount=12) (GlenSmash!)
Make a Wrong Decision Quickly Rather than a Right Decision Slowly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22178941&postcount=30) (Sjappo)
Rolls Should be Meaningful (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170459&postcount=9) (Scripten)
Rules as Intended (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22178941&postcount=30) (Sjappo)
Say "Yes" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22170158&postcount=3) (JNAProductions)

Running the Table
Keep Copies of Character Sheets (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22178963&postcount=31) (Ninja_Prawn)

Guideline: Know the rules.

Example: "Yes, Mark, you can maintain concentration while Wildshaped. Don't worry about it."

Counterexample 1: You never checked how mounted combat works and have to spend five minutes in the middle of combat looking it up and trying to understand it.

Counterexample 2: Your players exploit your ignorance by sneaking through illegal builds/combos.

Why it Matters: Knowing the rules, you can dispense fair rulings quickly and answer questions with confidence. Players expect the DM to be the authority on the game, after all. Studying the rules also helps you to develop an instinct for how the game works, so that you can go off-piste or use homebrew content without breaking too many things.