GMs: What lessons have you learned from playing/other GMs?

[Toj]

1. Set things up early. In one campaign, a minor, forgettable event from early on proved to have a momentous effect on the climactic session of the campaign a year later. Frankly, I'd be surprised if he planned it that way all along; instead, he created a rich melange of events and factions that came into play early, which resulted in the creation of a lot of potential hooks that he could exploit in the later part of the story. Since then, I've always worked at including a lot of interesting NPCs, factions, events early on, then making a point later of looking back to the early campaign and asking myself how those elements might be relevant now. It creates a wonderful sense of campaign continuity, and a lot of "holy s**t!" moments when players see campaign-spanning connections that were previously unsuspected.

I have to echo this, and add a few more points.

After I run a session, I always jump on my computer and start writing a transcript of what just took place. Try to write down as much as you can remember, things that you might not even think are important (names of minor NPCs, etc). While this takes time, it has huge benefits in the long run.

First, you have something to 'summarize' the previous session at your next meeting.

Second, you would be surprised at how many minor and major plots just appear in your head as you relook at what just transpired. Going over the game again without the pressure of having to host an active game tends to make you see things you might have missed before, as well as brainstorm ideas off of things that occurred.

Third, you are building a history of your game, and you have a valuable tool you can pull from as the sessions continue. Like mentioned above, you can look at the past and see how it can be relevant in your current game. Having this record enables you to pull things from a characters past to add to current plots and really makes the game and story that much deeper.

Players always do things that enable your game. You may have missed it when it occurred, but if you take the time to go back and review your games, you'll be surprised at how easy they make it for you.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

After I run a session, I always jump on my computer and start writing a transcript of what just took place.

I would love to do this, but Christ, where do you get the energy? After a session, I'm creatively exhausted. The thing is, I know that when it's fresh in my mind, I could easily get a session's events down in 20 or 25 minutes, but I just can't force myself to do it.

 

[Hussar]

Lots of good stuff here, but, I have a couple of questions for roguerouge:

a. Do not allow players to duplicate party roles.

Why not? What is the problem if you have two tanks or two face type PC's?

d. Forget the cinematic: players need time to plan and argue.

I agree with this to a point. However, there is something to be said for shot clocks and cutting through the arguments. I've seen lots of games get bogged down over minutia and it really hurts a session. I once saw a group of players spend nearly two hours trying to pin down the exact wording of a Divination spell.

e. All published adventures play one level harder than you anticipate.

I strongly disagree with this. It really depends on the company. Paizo adventures tend to be on the tougher side, but, WOTC? Not so much.

g. Have an ending. Have an arc in mind. Know your tale's themes and its moral.

This depends on play style of course. Lots of games aren't all that interested in "telling a tale". I guess I would advise to make sure that your table is all on board with your playstyle before going this route.

j. Your character must be able to die for the game to be meaningful.

Totally, 100% disagree with this point.

---------

I've been fortunate to be a player for the past year. Previously I had also gotten to play for some time before that as well with a different DM. I've learned quite a bit from both.

From the first DM I learned that while a rich, detailed world can be a thing of beauty, it can also really suck all the fun out of the table when it become obvious that the DM is more interested in the world than in the game. Adventures, IMHO, MUST come first. The plot's the thing and if it's not related to the plot, I don't care.

From the first DM I also learned that I most decidedly not a simulationist player. Keeping the action moving in order to keep the attention of the players is primary concern.

From the second DM I learned that no plot survives the departure of half your players.

I also learned that it is important to use a variety of encounters and not rely on a small number of monster types.

I learned that having a small number of very well developed NPC's is a whole lot of fun.

 

[Toj]

I would love to do this, but Christ, where do you get the energy? After a session, I'm creatively exhausted. The thing is, I know that when it's fresh in my mind, I could easily get a session's events down in 20 or 25 minutes, but I just can't force myself to do it.

I work out.

Actually I do, but really I am always pumped after running a game. And this is after running a game for like 8 hours straight, and it's like 3 a.m.

It's like going to see a good movie; you walk out and are pumped up.

Now, if your game is boring and you couldn't wait for it to end....

 

[Kyrail]

I'll tell you one I picked up from YouTube, it's how Nick Logue first mechanically works out what happens, and then re-tells it in an animated style. I have been trying to do more of this myself, I feel it really adds to the overall enjoyment of the game (at least for me).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9MWwPi3py4

I am nowhere near as good as he is at it, but I'm working on it.

As someone who does this, in fact I DM basically exactly like that but less organized... and is now very embarrassed by watching that video, it is the most fun way to DM for sure.

Oddly enough since you're the DM you can make your NPCs act in ways you might be hesitant to have your PC act, as it might be too presumptuous.

You want your PCs to get really emotive and act out and have fun, but they'll only do that if the DM reciprocates or leads the way.

Seriously I've ended up "dead" on the floor a number of times in front of four other adults gurgling my dead throws. Hey it's fun.

 

[roguerouge]

Lots of good stuff here, but, I have a couple of questions for roguerouge:

Okay. I'll see what I can answer. Before we start, though, remember that this is about personal lessons, not objective truths about good gaming for all campaigns. See my sig.

Why not? What is the problem if you have two tanks or two face type PC's?

The problem is that duplication often leaves a base uncovered. In one of my campaigns, two players designed characters without much regard to party needs. At first, I was in your camp. Now, my character is the third string skill monkey, despite having been designed first. My skills very, very rarely get the spotlight.

So I ended up being the team player and re-jiggering everything to make my guy become a front line guy, but you know what they say about square pegs and round holes. I feel a bit resentful towards that player because my guy gets knocked unconscious in 3/4 of the combats as my character tries to do what a Ranger simply can't do: be a tanking hit point soak. And he asked me about it at the time, but I was like, "Sure! Go ahead! What's the harm?" Now I know better. The DM's coming to my rescue with a prestige class, so my guy just has to survive a few more levels.

Also, we have two identical blasters and, as a result, no utility casters in a 7 player party. We have no access to the wizard's enchantment, illusion, and divination schools, and limited access to abjuration and transmutation.

I agree with this to a point. However, there is something to be said for shot clocks and cutting through the arguments. I've seen lots of games get bogged down over minutia and it really hurts a session. I once saw a group of players spend nearly two hours trying to pin down the exact wording of a Divination spell.

Well, that's just silly!

There's a reason for the shot clock, though, no question. And I prefer it if people confab over the interwebs. But DnD tactics at mid to high levels are flexible enough that it's really rewarding if you take some time to work together and some encounters need that.

I strongly disagree with this. It really depends on the company. Paizo adventures tend to be on the tougher side, but, WOTC? Not so much.

YMMV. It's probably a table thing. I've been using 1e and Paizo mostly.

This depends on play style of course. Lots of games aren't all that interested in "telling a tale". I guess I would advise to make sure that your table is all on board with your playstyle before going this route.

I'm not talking about railroading, here. I'm talking about having an idea of where your character or campaign is going to go and what you'd like an end goal to be. It's so rewarding when the paladin dies defending everyone else as they flee the zombie horde. It's much less so if you're just slow in heavy armor. It's so rewarding when you get to face off against ancient enemies from first level. It's awesome when you can see the plot horizon and have an idea of what just might be the choices on the other side. But there should be endings, not written in stone and not fated, but you should know that you are building towards an end, and hopefully one with a better world due to the PCs' actions.

Totally, 100% disagree with this point.

YMMV. But note that I said that the character must be ABLE to die. The possibility of losing and losing BIG is what I'm talking about here; consequences, you know? A great thing that happened to me in one campaign was when, after a year, the idea that the DM couldn't let us die was broken. And the best thing that happened to my campaign that I DM was when I applied that principle to my single PC campaign. Having her PC unconscious, one of her NPC friends die in front of her, and the party's fate in the hands of her BFF with two levels in expert sent the message that anything could happen ... even though I was her boyfriend, the dice determined the combats.

 

[00Machado]

I tend to fall back on the "you hit" syndrome, particularly later in the game session. If anyone has pointers for overcoming this I am all ears (or eyes in the case of the internet)

What if you ask the player to describe what happens after rolling the dice and telling them how much damage was caused?

You can desribe for the NPCs. They can describe for their characters? Or, vice versa. Mix it up. You can even have the players who like doing it spend more time doing it than those who don't, essentially taking other people's turn to describe things, when person B isn't into it.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

As the discussion between roguerouge and Hussar illustrates, not every lesson really applies to everyone. I for example strongly disagree with roguerouge on several points. His lessons worked for him and his game style, but they're the opposite of what I've learned over the years.

There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" lesson there, just an illustration of different goals and desires in playing/running the game.

_Anytime_ you're thinking about advice from other people, you've always got to filter it through your own experiences.

That's about the only lesson that can be applied almost universally.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Find some people who aren't your players and use them as a sounding board.

One of my college roommates who GMs often will send our other roommates and I ideas on his latest plot and we'll brainstorm on where he needs help. Sometimes he uses our suggestions to fill plot holes and add plot hooks but often times our suggestions aren't used but are good sources for inspiration.

 

[roguerouge]

I've just nicked another technique from one of my DMs.

My player's PC is going away while her cohort goes through training to transfer her NPC levels into PC levels. While the PC's away, I'm going to have the player take over the cohort and do a one shot.