DMing Style

[antoniosmith198]

Just curious as to what your dming style is.

Are you a very picky and hands on controlling type with every aspect including character creation?

Do you allow your players to have complete control of their characters?

Do you just guide the players in a certain direction and let the game play out with different twists and turns?

Please explain why

Just curious to see people responses.

[Keltest]

I allow players to *try* anything they want. Theres always some miniscule chance that a god we have in the pantheon specifically set aside for this will notice you, get a chuckle out of it, and let it happen.

As far as character creation goes, we have a list of setting-allowed class/race combos. Elves for example cannot be any divine class (including paladins) because culturally they became seriously disenfranchised with their gods. They still worship them out of respect (in the backstory they were actual elves who fought the evil gods and won), but they don't act as their agents.

Of course, if they want to do something different, they can just ask and ill work with them to integrate the character into the setting. Stone Giant bard FTW.

For the adventures, I set out a clear path that says "Here is what I have prepared to run for you guys" and if they go off those rails, I grumble a bit, head down to my computer, and print out a bunch of monster sheets for the new direction. And then I grumble at them.

[Amphetryon]

I'm the "annoy Players by making competitive challenges, then annoy those same Players by making challenges too easy" variety of DM. Sometimes, for variety, I go in the opposite order.

[Keltest]

I'm the "annoy Players by making competitive challenges, then annoy those same Players by making challenges too easy" variety of DM. Sometimes, for variety, I go in the opposite order.

Have you tried annoying your players by making challenges exactly the right level of challenging?

[Amphetryon]

Have you tried annoying your players by making challenges exactly the right level of challenging?

What level would that be? Options: Did any Player Characters take damage? If yes, Brutal Killer DM trying for TPK. If no, Cakewalk Kid-Gloves DM who makes things so easy on the PCs it's boring.

Small amounts of hyperbole involved in describing the options.

[Keltest]

What level would that be? Options: Did any Player Characters take damage? If yes, Brutal Killer DM trying for TPK. If no, Cakewalk Kid-Gloves DM who makes things so easy on the PCs it's boring.

Small amounts of hyperbole involved in describing the options.

Um... yes.

In all seriousness, a DM should be trying for a TPK. The trick is to make it possible, but not easy. If that pack of ogres isn't actually capable of killing the party, then theyre just a drain on the resources. Sometimes it may take (un)lucky rolls for it to happen. Heck, maybe even most of the time. But when youre playing the monsters, they should always be a threat unless the players take steps ahead of time to correct that.

[Maglubiyet]

I have some guidance in character creation so as to prevent problems from cropping up later during play. No evilness or one-dimensional powerhouses allowed. I also try to encourage people not to duplicate roles that already exist in the party.

I allow players to *try* anything they want.

Absolutely. Getting them to try, especially for newer players, is sometimes the issue. For those people I might try to coax them, make suggestions in order to get them to act.

For those for whom it isn't a problem, the assertive and creative ones -- yeah, I let them go to town. It keeps me on my toes.

[mephnick]

I'm strict and I'm flexible, I guess?

In D&D for example, I'm fairly strict in character creation. I restrict races, multiclass combos, alignments (if I use them) and other things that don't make thematic sense to me.

In game-play I let players try anything they want and will usually attempt to make it possible. My games are generally set in a sandbox of some sort and they're free to go anywhere, provided they work with me and give me a chance to run a successful session. The other side of that sword is that they can try whatever they want and this means sometimes they die if they make bad decisions.

[Thrudd]

I have run the gamut over the years, from totally open sandbox with no plan at all to linear narrative railroad with pre gen characters, and back again.

Now I prefer a sandbox style with a well defined and detailed setting, at least a few appropriate adventure locations prepared, and lots of tables for the random generation that drives the simulation.

I define the classes and races that are available for the game.
Players choose from any class/race that is appropriate for the setting and that they qualify for after randomly generating their ability scores. They create the characters together, or at least while I am there, and as a group decide their party dynamics and character relationships.

In game they have absolute control of the character's actions. The dice rule all outcomes of actions.

I do not force them or expect them to do anything in particular, besides role play their character that must have goals and motives that drive them to be an adventurer, and be compatible with the other characters. I expect them to seek adventure, treasure, power, justice, etc, and my setting is set up to have plenty of places they can go to do that.

I tend to be animated as a DM, physically acting things out, making sound effects and doing voices and accents.

In combat, I try to create a sense of urgency and my activeness should help make a more visceral experience. I use an open table and measuring tape instead of a grid, so the battlefield looks a little more organic and chaotic. I don't allow pre-measuring before taking actions (you can look at the tape and look at the table and guesstimate, but no actual laying it down until you actually move/shoot).
I encourage actions to be declared fairly quickly. I don't use a turn timer unless I have to (people taking minutes to plan their action).

[Elbeyon]

I pick a system.
Because we need a system unless we are going freeform, but that's more rules work than just picking a good system.

The players make their characters without any mechanical input from me.
Because they don't need any mechanical input from me.

I never get the dice out.
Because I never need to roll anything.

I make up some fluff and never have to set a DC.
Because that's an easy way to have a fun time. Woo~

[Eisenheim]

I like collaborative storytelling, including the creation of the setting and game. I don't control character creation, but I like it to be part of a session zero, so that everyone builds their character together and the party makes sense.

Once play begins, I run plotted adventures, rather than a sandbox, but try to make those plots about the PCs, rather than railroad them through things they don't care about.

[NRSASD]

I normally just try to plan one adventure ahead of play and let the PCs decide what their goals are, but recently I've been doing something bigger and it's been a lot of fun. What I did is draw up an outline of the general trajectory of the plot, and figure out what the NPCs would do in absence of the characters. Then, I have the NPCs improvise and try to catch up with the PCs once the shenanigans begin and the plot veers out of control.

For example, I'm currently running a medieval-era civil war, where one of the players is the heir to one of the warring factions but is in hiding to avoid assassins. Without PC interference, the king gets assassinated, the two sides form up and engage each other, the "good guys" attempt a surprise assault on their rival's capital which ends in disaster because the "bad guys" were ready for them, the good forces are forced to a humiliating surrender, and a new puppet king is set up by the victorious faction.

The nice thing about setting up a vague outline is you always know what the villain's goals are going to be. It also lets you get inside his head as you try to figure out how to counter the absurd chaos that PCs cause to his plans. Finally, it adds a sense of verisimilitude to the game as it feels less like a string of random events caused by a demigod with a grudge, and more like a game of chess between two opponents.

The only downside is that it can take quite a lot of work to set up, and that work may be worthless if the PCs decide to go another direction entirely.

Also, I make sure that every NPC is expendable and non-vital to the plot (or at least a workaround for their importance exists), because knowing PCs, they'll murder at least one completely innocent person a session on charges of being a shapeshifter.

In play, I'm only ok at improv so I try to map out everything ahead of time. It doesn't work, because PCs fixating on the wrong small details or careening off course are to be expected, but it at least gives me a solid foundation to work from as everything slowly (or rapidly) collapses.

[Bard1cKnowledge]

OK the kind of DM where if I don't have easy access to something (iethe hell knights the barbarian wants to pick fights with) I will stop him right there and pack everything up. YOU don't railroad MY story. That's MY job

[Karl Aegis]

OK the kind of DM where if I don't have easy access to something (iethe hell knights the barbarian wants to pick fights with) I will stop him right there and pack everything up. YOU don't railroad MY story. That's MY job

Your barbarian still uses the same system as everyone else, right? Sometimes you get barbarians who think that their foreignness allows them to use playing cards to "roll" in a d6 system just because the opposite side of the world in the setting uses playing cards to "roll".

[prufock]

Campaign Creation and Background
I keep a scrapbook of my ideas, and usually have at least half a dozen games I could potentially run. When one game is drawing to a close, I'll ask my players what they'd like to do next, and give them a list of the games I have in my scrapbook. Generally they vote on it, or try to come to some consensus. If they didn't like any of these ideas (but I've always have enough that there is one on which they can agree), I would ask what sort of game they'd like to play, take all their ideas, and try to make some coherent campaign around it.

I'm pretty transparent and flexible, letting the players have input on most everything. I spend a bunch of free time working on settings, homebrew, houserules, etc. It's all out in the open for the players to see, critique, and use.

Character Creation
As a DM, I generally provide a list of sources, races, and classes that are allowed or disallowed. For D&D, it's normally it's "any official WotC product" but with limited races depending on the setting. I usually like to vet characters before we start to make sure there's nothing absurd, broken, or completely out of place in the setting; I've never had to ban a character concept. Again, we usually discuss character concepts and build advice during the process (which the players do on their own time) by Facebook chat, so it's a pretty transparent exercise.

I usually place some allegiance/motivation/alignment demands on them to rule out PvP and to make sure they have similar goals in keeping with the campaign idea, unless it's the type of campaign that encourages intra-party conflict (like Paranoia!).

Planning
I plan in stages. The first stage is the "concept" and overarching idea, such as "the princess has been kidnapped, get her back." Stage 2 is the "session" stage, where I try to determine what stage each session will involve. The final stage is the "scene" stage. I generally plan for 4-6 hours, average 5, and plan by "scenes" which I assume are 1 hour each (apart from a short introductory scene and wrap-up scene). For each scene I determine what sort of obstacles there are for the PCs to overcome, and how that contributes to the final goal in stage 1. This is where the nitty gritty details come into play, such as enemy statblocks and such.

Actual Play
While I plan a campaign's plot, the route PCs take is always open to change and therefore revision in the Planning section. I try not to railroad, but to provide clues, points of interest, motivations, and so on for the players. The players generally work with me to make things happen, but if they go off course I adapt and improvise. The characters can say and do anything (or at least try), but I try to build worlds which have consequences for failure.

Ultimately, I try to make the game fun for everyone. I do my best to give everyone something to do, and their own little sub-plots.

Aftermath
I ask for feedback from my players on what they liked, what they didn't, what they'd like to do next, what they'd like to see more or less, and any other comments they might have. This way, I tailor my games to fit everyone's desires as best as I can.

[AxeAlex]

I like to try different story styles, and really the Gm's style is linked to the story he and the players are trying to tell.

I did a story where a French Knight, a Zulu Hunter, a German Physician, a Generic-Human Spacecolony-Engineer, an American Sheriff, and an Egyptian Vizier all woke up in the same island. Character were pre-defined, all had different goals and quests. Since they were all in the same room without knowing wtf was going on, it was a heavily rail-roaded mystery game. They had access to a time-machine, but they were in a very confined environment, the island.

I also GMed a game were the players were trying to take over the world... And that's it, complete sandbox. I didnt even choose the challenges to oppose them, as they were not reacting to some evil, and were given no quest, THEY initiated the action, THEY were the bad guys. So I only REACTED to them.

All-in-all, whatever your story is, what is important is to never say "no" to your player.
All the fun of the player comes from decisions. Or what the Angry DM calls "decision-points".

Why is a fight fun? Why is a political debate fun? Because the players have lots of options at any time.

Why is a chase-scene so lame to play out? Because the players simply say "Uhh, ok, I run after him" then roll a bunch of dices until everyone is bored enough and the DM decides if you finally catch him or not.

If you let their players make their own decisions and never refuse them, you will never railroad, whatever is the style of the game, even when you GIVE them characters and make them wake up togheter in prison!

[Bard1cKnowledge]

Your barbarian still uses the same system as everyone else, right? Sometimes you get barbarians who think that their foreignness allows them to use playing cards to "roll" in a d6 system just because the opposite side of the world in the setting uses playing cards to "roll".

Um, this is in a pathfinder game, no cards at all

[Jay R]

I have a pretty strict approach to character creation, with the possibility of DM-granted exceptions. The character creation handout for my current 2E game includes the following:

Spoiler: Discussion of character creation

Show

Note: I have a basic idea for PCs, but I urge people to ask for exceptions. Some exceptions I won’t grant because they don’t fit the world, others because they would make a character too powerful. But I am quite comfortable with the idea that every character is an exception to the basic idea.

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.

It’s a really small village. There are fewer than 100 people living there, which is smaller than it used to be. There are chickens, goats, sheep, a couple of oxen, but no horses or cows.

The village has a single road going out of town to the north and south, and you’ve never been on it. The only travel on it occurs when a few wagons go off to take food to market – and even that hasn’t happened in the last few seasons. Very rarely, a traveler may come through, and spend the night with the priest. You have all greedily listened to any stories these travelers tell. Your parents say this isn’t good for you – what’s here in the village is good enough for you, and all travelers are always liars, anyway.

...

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

[Telok]

Bounded sandbox with flexability and an unenforced plot. Theme and timeline are enforced. Npc actions are as realistic as I can get for the npc's experience, intellect, and resources. Fame and piety are tracked by the dm and have in-game, in-character, effects.

Essentially "Here are the limits, stuff will happen with or without you, you can change the course of the world or die in a ditch, if you have questions ask me. Now play."

[MesiDoomstalker]

I'm a story heavy GM... primarily because I find the task of designing encounters boring (at least mechanically) and I'm also the strongest optimzer, so I'm constantly afraid I'll TPK when I don't want to. My players tend to be the hit things with sticks types versus doing any kind of meaningful strategy or anything. However, my story I set up in a very loose framework. I know how and what the NPCs are doing. I present the situation to my players, they decide their goal and how they go about it. Then I adjust NPCs accordingly (or not, depending on what they know of the PC's plans and actions). I also make a point of reminding or informing my players of In-Universe reasons their plans are bad (typically involves reminding them proposed actions are acts of Treason against the government, whom they are working for).

[NRSASD]

All-in-all, whatever your story is, what is important is to never say "no" to your player.
All the fun of the player comes from decisions. Or what the Angry DM calls "decision-points".

I agree 10000%. This is the single most important factor to playing as a DM. Always let your players try to do something if they decide they want to. However, this does not mean you should let them succeed all the time.

For example, if the 10-ton ceiling is slowly descending on them and the gnome illusionist with a 7 str decides to hold the ceiling up with his bare hands, he's still going to fail even if he rolls a natural 20. If he decides to enlarge and strength boost the barbarian however, that stands a better chance of working.

Make your PCs work for their victories by always giving them the chance to try whatever insanity they think is most feasible, but don't feel bound to regard a natural 20 as an automatic success in any challenge.

If they want to do something really improbable, like hit a flying griffon with a javelin while falling off an angry dragon 1500 m up, let them take the shot with appropriately high penalties. Just never say "no".

[Flickerdart]

In my experience players will always whine about how hard an encounter is up until the moment they tower over the corpses of their enemies. So I don't worry too much about that.

I treat my players the same way I like to be treated when I play - I trust them to be mature adults about the builds they bring to the table. So far I have never had to ask anybody to rebuild, though sometimes players choose to do so on their own volition in order to bring a character more in line with the rest of the party and the demands of the plot.

Likewise, I don't enforce any sort of rails. This leads to some interesting turns, like the PCs deciding to disguise themselves as evil cultists and befriend a necromancer rather than kicking in his door, or choosing to serve the sealed evil they awakened instead of trying to fight her. I am very good at improvising and usually don't plan session details (monsters, treasure, etc) more than one or two sessions in advance, so this sort of thing works very well for me.

[sktarq]

In PC creation I work very tightly with players to help them create something that will have ties to the world, a reason to stick with the other PC's, goals, etc.

Then it is a matter of building a highly detailed world. Often with a PC agreement to keep adventuring within the region I've focused on building (though they direct what kinds of areas I build or build out so they get that choice during session zero)

I usually try to have slow building consequences of ignoring the plot-but enforce that only when any shenanigans are not entertaining the party or causing issues like the party dividing into two mini-parties. Also the "plot" is normally defined as a goal and I let them choose a path/method.

As for when to say no to my players: during character creation somewhat (and I'll happily work with them to get a character that is mutually acceptable) and to enforce agreement made around the game (if the game is stated no PvP then it's up to the DM to enforce that rule IMO). If talking to a player hasn't worked an something is causing a problem at the table then I will consider it a warning before booting the player.

[goto124]

[snip]If they want to do something really improbable, like hit a flying griffon with a javelin while falling off an angry dragon 1500 m up, let them take the shot with appropriately high penalties. Just never say "no".

Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

[Earthwalker]

Onethly I massivily approve of this thread. I see the same names appearing on the forums and I have to admit I do want to know what they think thier GMing style is. Its nice putting a style to a name / and series of posts.

Also so far it has just been examples of ways to play with no one jumping up and down telling people what wrong fun they are having.

Twothly my own style has changed and evolved alot. It also shifts depending on what game system I am running. Every time I think back to some of my old GM tricks I shudder at the thought.

Currently I am running Fate and as you would imagine ithier is no rail roading or many roads. The PCs drive the action and I responce throwing in complications when I think it is funny. I am really loving how FATE works the making things up on the fly and just rolling with it seems to work perfectly for my lack of planning.

I have recently finished a Pathfinder game that did have a plot I knew before the game began but I am no still driving things by player choices its just my change of drive happens slower in pathfinder and its more what do you want to see / do next week deal then instantly reponding to situations.

This has mellowed alot from my days of having a strict plot I was going to follow. Then forcing the Players onto that path.

Oh one universal think when I am GMing. No PvP. I have no interest in it. I want to run a game all want to play in together and have no interest in people working against the team.

[hifidelity2]

Player Creation

Where there are multiple books I usually tell the Players what books they can use (Core only, Core plus etc). If there is anything I don’t allow I advise up front (No Mind affecting spells) . I also tell them of the game style so they can plan characters to suit it (e.g. it’s a Machiavellian type game rather than a dungeon crawl) BUT if they want a barbarian in my Machiavellian setting them I have no issues with that

I do however reserve the right to Ban any PC I don’t like or make them make adjustments

[AxeAlex]

Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

Not at all.

By experience, my players LOVE those sorts of things.
They love trying something that has few chances of success.

The player is not stupid, he knows trying to hit that shot in the tower's window while falling from a zeppelin and surrounder by a swarm of bees is not easy to do. He doesn't WANT it to be easy, he wants to try it!

Furthermore, if you think something is simply impossible, you better have good arguments to back it up, because if the player has argument why it COULD be possible, even if highly improbable, he will be pissed if you don't allow him to at least try it.

Finally, if you really try something is just impossible, you SHOULD offer something to your player that would make it plausible. "The falling tower is just too heavy, you know it will kill you if you try to hold it... But maybe if you had something to raise your strenght to higher than humanly possible, a potion or a spell, then MAYBE you could do it"

[goto124]

because if the player has argument why it COULD be possible, even if highly improbable

I suppose it is a good idea to ask the player to give said reason.

[Amphetryon]

Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

From personal experience? In order: Yes, Players find this comes off as a passive-aggressive way of just saying 'no' to them, and grouse about it; no, they would not prefer if the DM just said 'no.'

[AxeAlex]

I suppose it is a good idea to ask the player to give said reason.

Of course! If you think something is plain impossible, you can ask something like:
"How would you do that?" if you are unfamiliar with the player, or declare:
"Dude that's impossible, crazy and stupid." if it is a close friend.

This should prompt an explanation.

If the player can't give you a reason why it's possible or probable, he probably won't be frustrated you refused and will have to accept his silly idea (All the player's ideas are silly :D) is just too much.

If he can give you an explanation, but you still think it's impossible, try to come up with WHY you think it's impossible, and tell what his character is lacking to make it possible. (In a fantasy world, this can be plain and simple magic)

Example:
-I'll eat it.
-You wanna eat the iron chest? That's just insane, dude.
-Nah, see I have adamantium teeth. And the jaw, is like, the strongest muscle.
-Okay... Not sure about that jaw fact, but yeah ok, I guess you could eat the chest, but don't you agree it would take awhile and you'd probably end up dead?
-Nah, Im a dwarf, dwarves are tough, I have 22 Constitution, I can survive things no human ever could, like eating that much iron.
-Alright *Sign* Look, i'll allow a strenght roll to eat through the iron chest, even with a success it'll take 2 hours. Then, later, you will have a DIFFICULT roll related to your constitution which could make you severely ill, dead, or maybe -IF YOU ARE LUCKY- You will have severe tummy-ache which will still need some magic to heal your innards anyway. That's fine with you?
-So have I eaten the damn chest already? It's step 1 of a 9-step plan that can't fail.