The Angry Gm

[Sir Daniel]

There's a website/blog thingy called the Angry GM. It has really great advice for running D&D games, as well as the final argument on things such as metagaming and railroading. Could one of you guys post a link? I haven't said enough stuff for the ability to post links. You should check it out. This is not a paid sponsorship.

[Angelmaker]

Sure here's a link: http://lmgtfy.com ;)

I think most poeple can work it out from there.

[Lorsa]

This thread confuses me...

[dysike]

This thread confuses me...

It's someone who's found a blog of GMing advice he likes so he made a thread to tell more people about it.

[Lorsa]

It's someone who's found a blog of GMing advice he likes so he made a thread to tell more people about it.

Yeah, except he asks other people to post a link to something that shows up at the top of a google search, which confuses me a bit.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any requests for comments or discussion around a specific article, and then the end line that says "this is not a paid sponsorship" seems to indicate the writer was aware that the post is basically an advertisement but tried to get past it by stating the opposite.

So, it confuses me a bit.

However, I would be more than willing to discuss the good and bad parts of The Angry GM's advice. Is there a specific article that anyone wants to bring up?

[JNAProductions]

I like his Paragon Monster (For 5E) article. It's pretty good.

And I think this guy just is a big fan of the Angry GM and wants to spread the good word. Nothing wrong with that.

[Kish]

Also, there doesn't seem to be any requests for comments or discussion around a specific article, and then the end line that says "this is not a paid sponsorship" seems to indicate the writer was aware that the post is basically an advertisement but tried to get past it by stating the opposite.

Pretty sure the idea is, "This is a non-paid recommendation, which I am doing only because I like this guy's articles, not because he's paying me, and thus it's not against the rules for me to post it here" not, "this post exists for a purpose other than to advertise his articles."

[hymer]

I like his Paragon Monster (For 5E) article. It's pretty good.

And I think this guy just is a big fan of the Angry GM and wants to spread the good word. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, no... But then again, this forum usually gets paid for adverts.

[ATHATH]

I like his Paragon Monster (For 5E) article. It's pretty good.

And I think this guy just is a big fan of the Angry GM and wants to spread the good word. Nothing wrong with that.

There are actually three articles on it, and they're all excellent.

[Quertus]

However, I would be more than willing to discuss the good and bad parts of The Angry GM's advice. Is there a specific article that anyone wants to bring up?

I'd love to hear what you consider the bad parts of his advise. ;)

[J-H]

I'm not a fan of his writing style. Content-wise, I prefer this website:

http://thealexandrian.net/gamemastery-101

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, I'll pick some articles then. I think this article on skills is great for the starting DM, and if you are interested in DMing, should check it out.

However, I find his article on metagaming...Lacking. Sure, level 1 characters might know a bit about trolls. But every dang monster? No. Keep in mind he claims that medieval people might know these things. But keep in mind, medieval people also thought that pelicans would bleed themselves to feed their young, geese came from trees, lynxes made pee-gems, and hyenas didn't have any teeth. Even today, people have to be reassured that garter snakes are not poisonous.

I feel that the advice is useful, but when your players start knowing about EVERY monster you need to have a different plan in place. Especially in groups where you swap DMs a lot.

[RazorChain]

I'm not a fan of his writing style. Content-wise, I prefer this website:

http://thealexandrian.net/gamemastery-101

Thanks for sharing this, read a couple of articles and it adheres to my style of GMing but I might learn a thing or two

[Nicrosil]

I love his articles on monster building for 5th edition; the first one his here. I also love his series on the megadungeon he's building, found here.

[twas_Brillig]

However, I find his article on metagaming...Lacking. Sure, level 1 characters might know a bit about trolls. But every dang monster? No. Keep in mind he claims that medieval people might know these things. But keep in mind, medieval people also thought that pelicans would bleed themselves to feed their young, geese came from trees, lynxes made pee-gems, and hyenas didn't have any teeth. Even today, people have to be reassured that garter snakes are not poisonous.

I feel that the advice is useful, but when your players start knowing about EVERY monster you need to have a different plan in place. Especially in groups where you swap DMs a lot.

Forget medieval people, even people today have a really hit-or-miss understanding of biology, human and otherwise. And that's in a time with widespread printed books and formal education. Take away google, and people would be really unlikely to know anything by sight if it wasn't common and native to their area, or something they happened to see in a zoo, etc. I think there's still a good question of when simulation is fun, though.

[gameogre]

I love his blog but then I'm a HUGE fan of nuttball Drama! I love to read people just ranting away. I'm told it's not one of my better qualities.

His advice is generally ok about the what you would think someone with a lot of miles under there belt would say...just with attitude.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I like Justin Alexander (thealexandrian), because he addresses more planning problems and structure problems than system-specific problems. Taking what I see to be his most important articles as a series, he really addresses the common problem of "How do I keep a plot without railroading?", and applies it on every level from over-arching plot, to individual dungeon maps. While at the moment my GMing skills are limited to running prewritten adventures, I've at least been rewriting them to follow his suggestions on map keys, character keys, and encounter keys.

[Sir Daniel]

Yeah, except he asks other people to post a link to something that shows up at the top of a google search, which confuses me a bit.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any requests for comments or discussion around a specific article, and then the end line that says "this is not a paid sponsorship" seems to indicate the writer was aware that the post is basically an advertisement but tried to get past it by stating the opposite.

So, it confuses me a bit.

However, I would be more than willing to discuss the good and bad parts of The Angry GM's advice. Is there a specific article that anyone wants to bring up?

Well, I said it as a joke. And it discourages lazy people when they have to google something. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think there's still a good question of when simulation is fun, though.

That I agree with, and witholding information should not be the twist of each encounter. But wasting skill points in a knowledge skill because Boris the Strong and Fair with an intelligence of 7 decided to ignore the rules isn't fun for some folks, either.

I think it's a matter of taste and which encounter you try this with, personally.

[Lorsa]

I'd love to hear what you consider the bad parts of his advise. ;)

Hrmm. Now I have to go read all his articles so I find something bad to say right?

In general my criticism has little to do with his advice (although I haven't really found much I didn't know already), but rather his stylistic choice. His articles can get unnecessarily long, and sometimes includes introductions that really says nothing of the topic at hand. If you like to read ranting I guess it's fine, otherwise you have to wade through a lot of nonsense to get to the actual advice part (which isn't even summarized at the end, so you can't skip the ranting either).

Well, I said it as a joke. And it discourages lazy people when they have to google something. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's fine. I probably should've kept my mouth shut. I seem to lack good judgement at times.

[Cozzer]

I read his articles and really like them. As others already said, his style might be... not perfect sometimes, though I usually like it, but his advice is very solid 99% of the time.

It's actually solid enough that sometimes I wonder whether all the opposition and hate (including death threats, apparently) he gets is... I mean, I don't think he's exaggerating, but it sometimes feels like he is. But then I remember he's on Twitter and of course he gets death threats.

Anyway, his site is the first place where I would send somebody who wants to improve their GMing skills. He always keeps everything about players making choices and/or experiencing the consequences of the choices they made, whether they're in combat or talking with the King. Which I think is the core of every RPG.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, I'll pick some articles then. I think this article on skills is great for the starting DM, and if you are interested in DMing, should check it out.

Eh, the first point is one that I disagree with. A player should always be able to ask if they can 'roll X to do something', because the GM can always respond with 'no, that's a Y check'. Sure, they shouldn't be able to just push the 'Diplomacy' button when they come to the guard, but I've had GMs stuck on what skill I should use in order to do something, or other ones where I don't have a specific skill but want to know if I can roll another similar skill as a substitute (which is vital if we're playing GURPS).

Point #2 is just good advice, although I also like the idea of rolling when there's a possible cost for success (Fate Core is good for this, with players being able to choose between 'succeed at a cost' or 'fail', and the book suggests letting them help generate the cost). To use his 'door with massive treasure behind it' example, failing the roll isn't 'you haven't picked the lock', it's 'you picked the lock, but the guards have just come round the corner'.

I like 3, although I can see the rare situation where a task is split between adventure phases and you can have one roll per phase, but that's just a series of 'is it ready now' checks.

#4 is weird, in that I agree with the core of it, but I don't agree with forcing PCs to make knowledge checks. I do agree with not forcing the PCs to ask questions, but sometimes having to investigate and work out what questions to ask is the fun part of the scene. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where I disagree with the point, it's not the core idea but sort of the surrounding assumptions.

I don't think I've seen anyone who'd disagree with point 5. It seems weird to even bring it up.

However, I find his article on metagaming...Lacking. Sure, level 1 characters might know a bit about trolls. But every dang monster? No. Keep in mind he claims that medieval people might know these things. But keep in mind, medieval people also thought that pelicans would bleed themselves to feed their young, geese came from trees, lynxes made pee-gems, and hyenas didn't have any teeth. Even today, people have to be reassured that garter snakes are not poisonous.

I feel that the advice is useful, but when your players start knowing about EVERY monster you need to have a different plan in place. Especially in groups where you swap DMs a lot.

Ummm... so every time I want the PCs to not know something about a monster, I have to invent a new monster that I have never used before? I mean, I enjoy using the occasional snufflegruffler, but when I have to use a Woozlebeater, an Eggplotter, and a Bamboomater just so the party doesn't know that white dragons use ice attacks it gets annoying (also, it's much easier to misplace the snufflegruffler stats then the monster manual). The wizard thing is kind of a strange situation though, most wizard players I know will mainly use one or two damage types for simplicity, in that if the wizard succeed in his knowledge check he should know to use fire, and if he doesn't then he probably will just use his default encounter opener (which, yes, might be Fireball).

And very occasionallycommonly you do get situations where the character just wouldn't know. Let's say I'm playing in a WW1 steampunk game, and the enemy has just unveiled their secret weapon: a steam-powered Tiger tank. Even if I'm a tank buff in real life, my character has no real idea of how to attack this one, which is fairly different to those he is used to (and also running around 20 years too early).

[kyoryu]

Eh, the first point is one that I disagree with. A player should always be able to ask if they can 'roll X to do something', because the GM can always respond with 'no, that's a Y check'. Sure, they shouldn't be able to just push the 'Diplomacy' button when they come to the guard, but I've had GMs stuck on what skill I should use in order to do something, or other ones where I don't have a specific skill but want to know if I can roll another similar skill as a substitute (which is vital if we're playing GURPS).

The point on the first is you don't just "push Diplomacy". You "talk to the guard and try to convince him you'll let him go". No more, no less.

Even in your counter-example you're going along with the rule, because you're saying "roll X to do something". There's nothing wrong with suggesting what skill you're going for, so long as it's accompanied with an in-world action.

"I do something!" - my personal preference, and how I kinda mandate things in some systems (like FAE).
"I do something, can I roll x?" - also okay
"I roll x!" - not so awesome.

#4 is weird, in that I agree with the core of it, but I don't agree with forcing PCs to make knowledge checks. I do agree with not forcing the PCs to ask questions, but sometimes having to investigate and work out what questions to ask is the fun part of the scene. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where I disagree with the point, it's not the core idea but sort of the surrounding assumptions.

I think the point here is to avoid pixel-bitching. If there's something the PCs might know, tell them or make the roll for them, rather than forcing them to ask for the roll.

Which is something I agree with. If you'd recognize something, you'd recognize it automatically, and so that fits into the bits that I consider the GM's job to tell the players automatically. I see the GM's job as not just describing the situation, but also informing the players of things that the characters would know, but the players don't. So if you're a noble in court, I'll, as the GM, tell you what the appropriate etiquette is. You don't need to ask, because your character would KNOW those things without thinking about them.

If there's something that's *not* immediately obvious, then, yeah, the PCs should have to follow the trail to get there. So if there's something under the bed, you shouldn't just roll Spot, because that's not something that you'd actually notice without making a conscious effort to check for it. Is that maybe where the disconnect is?

Or, to put it differently, only things that are essentially automatic should be put on autopilot.

[Max_Killjoy]

Frankly, I found that the "expectation of ignorance" grew tiresome and tedious long ago. It leads to "debates", and rests largely on the level-based / Campbellian notion that every starting character is a raw green noob. Both as a player and as a GM, I'd rather just assume that the PCs know something about their world, and move on.


As for AngryGM, he has some good points and interesting advice, but he buries them in a really juvenile, clickbaity, overblown style that I find grating and tiresome

[kyoryu]

And, yeah, in general I find the Angry GM's advice to be spot on, but I can see where people might disagree with his writing style.

It's a shtick, and sadly sometimes you need a shtick to get attention.

[dps]

However, I find his article on metagaming...Lacking. Sure, level 1 characters might know a bit about trolls. But every dang monster? No. Keep in mind he claims that medieval people might know these things. But keep in mind, medieval people also thought that pelicans would bleed themselves to feed their young, geese came from trees, lynxes made pee-gems, and hyenas didn't have any teeth. Even today, people have to be reassured that garter snakes are not poisonous.

And, OTOH, some people today think that reindeer are fantasy creatures and don't really exist.

[Arctanaar]

And very occasionallycommonly you do get situations where the character just wouldn't know. Let's say I'm playing in a WW1 steampunk game, and the enemy has just unveiled their secret weapon: a steam-powered Tiger tank. Even if I'm a tank buff in real life, my character has no real idea of how to attack this one, which is fairly different to those he is used to (and also running around 20 years too early).

Well, it wouldn't matter because the tank wouldn't have the capacity to move without breaking, assuming it is similar to the RL version and is even worse than the one that existed.

I actually agree with most things that you said, although I think that the example you gave is not great, considering that it's still a tank, and from a combatant's perspective, it is still going to have enough similarities to other tanks as to not change the set of good decisions, relative to the situation where it's not a Tiger but a tank that the character has some knowledge about.

On the other hand, if you are a low-ranking combatant, and the tanks have only recently become used, it could indeed be justified that your character wouldn't have any chance of knowing how to attack one.

[MrStabby]

I find the Angry DM to be an effective source of the blindingly obvious and the wrong. The style is amusing enough for a couple of minutes at a time though.

I actually find the best place for improving DM skills to be here. I have learned much more from posting ideas here and seeing the different views of them that people put forwards. The breadth of experience you can tap on a forum is so much more than the narrow, stylised view of That Guy on the internet.

Here you can discuss specifics, get advice that works for your table, matches your campaign and there is a lot of support here for people starting out.

[hymer]

MrStabby, thou hast spoke the right.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, it wouldn't matter because the tank wouldn't have the capacity to move without breaking, assuming it is similar to the RL version and is even worse than the one that existed.

I actually agree with most things that you said, although I think that the example you gave is not great, considering that it's still a tank, and from a combatant's perspective, it is still going to have enough similarities to other tanks as to not change the set of good decisions, relative to the situation where it's not a Tiger but a tank that the character has some knowledge about.

On the other hand, if you are a low-ranking combatant, and the tanks have only recently become used, it could indeed be justified that your character wouldn't have any chance of knowing how to attack one.

Yeah, I know it was a poor example, both because I don't know that much about tanks and also because I was in a rush. I'll try to think of better examples in the future.

The style is amusing enough for a couple of minutes at a time though.

You see, I find the style dense, hard to read, and full of superfluous swearing. I also find that his style is rather hit and miss, but even when he makes decent points he presents them in a way that supports only one style of GMing and game (not to say that it's a bad style, but it's not the only good one). And that's when I can work out what he's talking about.

I actually find the best place for improving DM skills to be here. I have learned much more from posting ideas here and seeing the different views of them that people put forwards. The breadth of experience you can tap on a forum is so much more than the narrow, stylised view of That Guy on the internet.

Here you can discuss specifics, get advice that works for your table, matches your campaign and there is a lot of support here for people starting out.

I'm agreeing here, although GiantITP is slanted towards higher op games, so I take any encounter and party balancing advice with a pinch of salt. But the forum is generally good on giving GM advice, when we aren't arguing over something we all agree on for about 30 pages.