How to GM well?

[Zhentarim]

How do you design a game that lasts, and what is the best way for a crappy GM (like me) to get better at it? I'm a decent player, but have always struggled at running games, despite always having kinda wanted to do one.

[Mikemical]

How do you design a game that lasts, and what is the best way for a crappy GM (like me) to get better at it? I'm a decent player, but have always struggled at running games, despite always having kinda wanted to do one.

Well, what seem to be the issues you have? If we know where your failings are, we can provide some constructive criticism instead of throwing advise your way and hope one of them sticks.

[Crake]

One thing I've noticed is: People who are introduced to and taught the game by friends rarely read the books beyond looking up specific rules that they aren't sure about. As such, many GMs actually miss out reading the game mastering section of the core rulebook, and few ever buy and read the game mastering guide. What I recommend is reading all that stuff. It is surprisingly useful for learning how to conduct between players, how to handle sessions, dealing with preparation and different methods of worldbuilding. If you have access to 3.5 books, read the DMG and the DMG2, both have very useful content for budding DMs.

[RoboEmperor]

1. Stick to RAW as closely as possible, sometimes entering RAI.

2. Don't house rule. There is a difference between house rule and homebrew. Homebrew is fine, house ruling is not. House ruling can be done right by experienced GMs, but most house rulers are either:
a. Scrubs with no system mastery and bans everything or changes rules to meet their limited understanding of the game.
b. People with god complexes warping the game into their own personal fantasy fetish world. I had a DM saying barbarians had to smoke marijuana for a week to level up.
c. Not in it to play d&d.
d. Sadistic ****s who enjoy watching PCs die so they make up rules like your weapon flying off when you roll a 1 with no way of preventing it.

End result: You are no longer playing d&d, but some crappy weirdo d20 system game that makes no sense and is absolutely ****ing terrible.

3. Emphasizing points 1&2. If there is a problem, or if you think something is crazy OP, you pause and look up online on how to deal with it because 9/10 the player misinterpreted something or there is a perfectly good way to deal with it within the rules. If there is a perfectly good way to deal with it within the rules but instead you throw a fit and start house ruling, you are an absolutely ****ing trash GM that should not be GMing.

4. Your job is to let the players win. If a player is hard to kill because of high AC, so be it. If he gets his jollies from being unhittable, let him be unhittable. Seriously. Getting angry, throwing a fit, and suddenly sending CR inappropriate monsters to kill the player is a sign that you are a terrible GM.

5. Talk to the players if you have a problem. Be honest and direct. I had a DM who wasn't direct and I had no idea what problems he had with me, so when he scolded me that I "failed to improve", I left the table because I didn't want to deal with this **** for a year. Seriously be direct. If you have a problem like the game is not fun for you because the PCs are too strong and whatnot, talk to the players, because your enjoyment is just as important as theirs. Try not to be selfish though.

6. Keep your personal world philosophies away from the game. Most important fact to remember is this is a game and you're here to have fun with other people. For example, if you're a vegan and think eating meat is murder, punishing the players because their characters aren't vegan is a terrible thing to do. Likewise making trolls able to die to coup de grace with a weapon that doesn't deal lethal damage to them because "Nothing in the world should be immortal" (wtf this makes no sense), or preventing players from enslaving creatures via charm or planar binding because "There is no such thing as a free lunch" (wtf this makes less sense) will not only detract from the fun, but also make the players respect you less. This particular DM, I left because I no longer respected his intelligence.

Summoning monsters completely under your control make no sense, Gate have a mind control ability without the mind-affecting tag makes no sense either, but who cares, it's fun to bring in powerful monsters and watch them wreak havoc upon your enemies. So you just roll with it, have fun, instead of crying and throwing a fit how this makes no sense and trying to house rule all of it into oblivion because "there is no such thing as a free lunch."

7. Get your skill up to the point you are the best player in the group. I firmly believe a GM has to be the best and most experienced player in the group for the group to succeed. Otherwise he will consistently be surprised by the PC's tactics and be completely at a loss on how to deal with it.

[Fouredged Sword]

Try to get to yes. If you are with a good group of players who are all trying to have fun and are basically not *******s then people are trying to play a game that they find fun. Trying to let them play the sort of game they WANT to play rather than forcing them to play the sort of game you EXPECT them to play is important. This means that sometimes the players want to do something you didn't think of or have a knee jerk reaction to. Stop, take a breath, and think for a minute. Don't reject the idea on it's face. Try for a moment to find a way to yes.

Yes doesn't have to be ensured, but you owe it to your players to think about what they suggest for a moment and try to make it fit into the world you created. If you build this habit your players will stay with the game because they will feel like participants in the world rather than just characters riding the rails of your storyline. That is the difference between a solid DM who can run a module (generally fairly fun rides on solid rails) and a truly great DM who can take you anywhere. You can still make them EARN the stuff they want, but you should try not to throw

Player request / Bad DM / Good DM examples

Player - I want to become part of the local nobility. Bad - "No, you have to be born into the nobility" Good DM - "You would have to merry into the nobility or be raised to peerage by the king of this land. You would have to earn the devotion of a noble family or have the King greatly in your debt."

Player - I want a flying ship. Bad - "No, those don't exist in the setting." Good - "Those are not something you can buy. Keep your ears open though, strange things happen... (A few sessions later during a break between quests). You overhear the guards worrying about the dread pirate Gearbeard, a gnome pirate who's ship seems to disappear when cornered, even in inlets with no exit save for a blockade."

If you run into a situation where you feel you NEED to say no to a player, be honest. If, after you think about it and cannot work something into your setting be honest and tell your player you do not feel such things fit into the world you are playing in. Tell them why you do not feel they fit. Offer suggestions for ways to do something that may meet the same feel for the player but fit better into the setting.

Here is an example - I had a player once want to play a VOP character in a post apocalypse undead game of 3.5 (most cities are leveled by an undead horde). I felt it didn't fit in the sort of game I wanted to run mechanically as I wanted to avoid WBL (they got the magic items they found and had to make them work) and thematically (there are no groups to donate to or even really a currency as food is more needed than gold).

He was playing a shapeshifter druid as melee/support casting. His character had little use for magic items in combat. I didn't just say "VoP is banned, pick something else" and shut him down. I said "Here is part of the setting I WANT you to struggle with. Here is the reason I don't feel this feat fits into this game". Rather than feeling shut down he thought about it for a bit and came back empowered to think of ways for his character to actually USE the items they found.

[Zanos]

Player - I want a flying ship. Bad - "No, those don't exist in the setting." Good - "Those are not something you can buy. Keep your ears open though, strange things happen... (A few sessions later during a break between quests). You overhear the guards worrying about the dread pirate Gearbeard, a gnome pirate who's ship seems to disappear when cornered, even in inlets with no exit save for a blockade."
"Yes, but..." is generally better than "No.", but saying no doesn't always make you a bad DM. If there aren't flying ships in my setting, there aren't flying ships. Being flexible is good, but sometimes you need to put your foot down in order to write a consistent setting.

[Geddy2112]

Seconding all of the fantastic advice above,and adding my 2 coppers

1. Talk to your players before the game about what kind of game they want to play. If they want to play a mecha sci fi hack and slash, don't run a sword and sorcery political intrigue game. There is no inherently wrong system, setting, or play style, but there can be a wrong mix. If half of your players only want to rollplay and the other half only want to roleplay, there can be issues. Making sure everyone is on the same page with a session zero, including making characters that work together with each other and the system, are key. Likewise, tailor encounters to the players. They might want a Call of Cthulu level of PC death, and they might throw their dice across the room and storm out the moment their characters go below 0HP. Knowing the kind of game they want to play and the world you are running in prevents a lot of problems from even coming up, and makes planning sessions much easier.

2. In my experience, most tables will fall somewhere in the middle of the lethal encounter spectrum. Death should be a threat, but the party should not be a revolving door of characters. If your party wants CoC level death, or Final Fantasy combat(just downed in combat and short of a TPK everyone is back up at 1 HP after the battle), that's easy to build for. For all the other groups that don't want the extremes, I follow the mantra of "Build fair, play to win". When you are designing combat encounters, make sure they are ones your party can generally beat, that will be tough but not utterly brutal. That said, when you are running the encounter, play it to the best of your ability(or the monster's). Use their dirtiest tricks and tactics if they have any, throw all of their nastiest abilities, and don't suddenly sandbag if the dice get too hot in your favor or against theirs. If the encounter is too lethal or too easy, those are notes to remember for your encounter design, but not your playstyle. That said, not every monster has to fight to the death or mercilessly hunt the PC's-a banshee might want to kill every living creature it can find, but a hungry wolfpack might turn tail and run if the party proves to be less of an easy meal than they thought.