Taking turn DMing for a group that just had a really good DM

[Book of Vile Derp]

Starting after the new semester begins in January I'll be taking over DMing in my group for awhile, and I'm a bit worried about stacking up to our previous DM. I'm not a total newb, I DM'd a small campaign and two one-off sessions over the summer, and I'm pretty comfortable saying I'm a good DM. At absolute worst I'm competent. My previous DMs strengths were making a good story, being good at performance (voices and improv), and taking things that begin as cliches and making them very original. His weaknesses were mechanics, and in that vein not always letting us know important house rules ahead of time. He's also a very challenging DM, and feels like encounters are too easy if the cleric doesn't have to break out a revivify or two.

What I find to be my strengths are mechanics, (almost too much so because people that have played with me are afraid I'll essentially run a solid tactics game), decent voices and good improv, being a pretty good story crafter, and I make really good maps. My weaknesses are that I can be a bit hardheaded and I'm not always great at explaining myself in rules situations. I don't consider it a weakness, but I am a bit of an easier DM, in my mini campaign, there were only two knock outs (no deaths other than an NPC) BUT the group had no cleric. I plan to make this campaign more challenging, but I do have a "you can only be revived once" rule, the only exception being revivify. because how dead can you really get in in 6 seconds?

One of my biggest worries is not necessarily related to that, but in my group all but one other player have had a max of two other DMs, and played less than 5 games outside our current DM's campaign, so I'm afraid they won't understand a lot of DMs use the same tricks and will assume things they haven't seen before are my bad ideas and "new" things that do work are based off our current DM's good decisions. I want my quality of DMing to be kept separate from him but I know the comparisons will be there in full force.

I also have the issue of a DM that really placed no boundaries on what you could do with classes and races, but when we started we only had PHB1 and DMG. Now most all the group has loads of books and PDFs, and it's already been pointed out by one person that my limiting makes me look like a weaker DM, when they just don't understand that certain things in the game are broken or don't function well.

Can you guys offer any tips based on that, and if you need more info please ask.

 

[Blackbrrd]

When starting a campaign I usually talk with my players about my goals for the campaign and what kind of characters I feel will fit in. If they had any special wishes, we would talk about it.

Regarding limiting available books - well that really depends on your crowd. For me it wasn't a problem, but if your players enjoy using all books printed to date you have an issue. Just saying "you can't do that" isn't a good way of doing it. Explain your reasons (overpowered, power creep, time used to learn new stuff for you, more time used to create encounters) and see if you can come to an agreement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

DMing is like any leadership position. You have to listen to your players and solicit feedback, but when you make a decision, you need to be firm about it. It'll take time to earn their respect if they've gotten used to one DM they like, but having been in a similar situation I can tell you that if you stick with it, they will.

As far as restricting rules options, you shouldn't do it unless you have a good reason, and if you do you should clearly explain what it is before the game, and be firm about it. You're in charge. If you don't like Tome of Battle or you don't think Forgotten Realms stuff fits in your world, that's your prerogative.

 

[timASW]

One way might be to try to alternate gaming sessions with the old DM so there isnt a bunch of system shock for the switch over. If thats an option.

Other then that I would say to ease up on allowing things you think are broken. Its not the end of the world. If your banning for specific flavor reasons I'd consider that to be perfectly valid. If you think something is too powerful though just roll with it.

For an example I have a player who took advantage one night of me being a little distracted (vaguely drunk) and not paying attention (helping a new player roll up a character) to get me to allow his pathfinder druid animal companion to have the creature of legend template and some other template too. (first time GMing pathfinder....)

Anyway so as it turns out this thing is a damn combat monster that blows everything away toe to toe. Does this break my game?

Hell no, i just upped the toughness of enemies or included one really big tougher monster in most combats for it to fight.

Could I have checked that out the next session and told him "dude i read that again and no way"?

Sure I could. But he's one of the better roleplayers I've gamed with and does the wolf so well its become one of my favorite characters in a game of all time. He spends more time playing the wolf then his actual druid, who spends lots of time off in the woods doing druidsy stuff.

So if i HAD said no to what seemed (and probably is) to be an overpowered combo the whole group would have missed out on some great RP and interesting combats that might not have been possible without it at this level.

 

[Quickleaf]

I also have the issue of a DM that really placed no boundaries on what you could do with classes and races, but when we started we only had PHB1 and DMG. Now most all the group has loads of books and PDFs, and it's already been pointed out by one person that my limiting makes me look like a weaker DM, when they just don't understand that certain things in the game are broken or don't function well.

Don't worry about it. Seriously. Most of what you posted was you worrying in a vacuum without any tangible reason to be concerned. There will be plenty of opportunities to worry and course correct as you are DMing after all

That said, this one part you mentioned about a player calling you a "weaker DM" because you want to limit options...don't listen to that player, they sound like they're just trying to browbeat you to get whatever they want. On the contrary, having a very clear social contract with the players at the start of the game is always a good idea...not in a top-down imposing way, but in a collaborative way. "I'm thinking of limiting classes/races to these books and here's why... What do you guys think about it?" is the right way to go about setting up a social contract. Other things to address include loot tracking, player absences, PC death and XP.

 

[Rune]

My previous DMs strengths were making a good story, being good at performance (voices and improv), and taking things that begin as cliches and making them very original...

What I find to be my strengths are mechanics, (almost too much so because people that have played with me are afraid I'll essentially run a solid tactics game), decent voices and good improv, being a pretty good story crafter, and I make really good maps. My weaknesses are that I can be a bit hardheaded and I'm not always great at explaining myself in rules situations. I don't consider it a weakness, but I am a bit of an easier DM...

First of all, it's good that you can recognize these things. It'll make it easier for you to embrace your own DMing style, rather than trying to emulate that of the last DM. The confidence of doing so will, in turn, make it easier for your players to accept that you will not be doing things exactly the same way, either.

One of my biggest worries is not necessarily related to that, but in my group all but one other player have had a max of two other DMs, and played less than 5 games outside our current DM's campaign, so I'm afraid they won't understand a lot of DMs use the same tricks and will assume things they haven't seen before are my bad ideas and "new" things that do work are based off our current DM's good decisions. I want my quality of DMing to be kept separate from him but I know the comparisons will be there in full force.

It's pretty simple. Try different things. Do what works. Discard what doesn't. Be subtle and don't worry about where an idea comes from, or not. Understand that the party's dynamic is different than it was with the previous DM, and is different than it is in any other group. Realize, also, that that dynamic will change over time. Don't sweat it. And, certainly, don't worry about separating yourself from your predecessor. Just try different things, do what works, and discard what doesn't.

I also have the issue of a DM that really placed no boundaries on what you could do with classes and races, but when we started we only had PHB1 and DMG. Now most all the group has loads of books and PDFs, and it's already been pointed out by one person that my limiting makes me look like a weaker DM, when they just don't understand that certain things in the game are broken or don't function well.

Ah. So the players (at least the one who tried to bully you into running the game a certain way by trying to scare you away from looking like a "weaker DM") expect an adversarial relationship with the DM. Is that the game you want to play?

If not, run the game you're comfortable with and suggest to such players (both subtly and bluntly) that there is no room for a strong or weak DM in the game you wish to run--only an impartial facilitator in a setting that reacts with consequences for antagonistic game-play.

Other than that, perhaps you may find some more general advice helpful. You seem to have a pretty good handle on the material in lesson 2 already, but you might find lesson 4, lesson 12, lesson 13, and lesson 16 applicable.

 

[Book of Vile Derp]

Thanks for the tips and especially the link to that thread.

Blackbrrd: My players are already aware that i intend to start with an intro, on top of having all important rules changes posted in a file on a group FB page, both in short "This is different" and long "This is different and here is why" forms. As for using lots of different books, there's only really one player in my group that does that, the others mostly stick to PHB and Spell Compendium with a little Complete Warrior tossed in. And that player wasn't even the one that made the comment, that one intends to play things I was allowing anyway.

timASW: switching back and forth isn't really an option because we only have two sessions of his campaign left, and everyone has already said they don't want to play to games at once because they are too invested in their current characters and want to focus solely on them.

quickleaf: Premature worrying is sort of my thing, when the actual situations arise I handle them well, but I consider studying on DMing style and implementation of rules to be another responsibility of being DM, so I like to ask questions and get interesting answers I may not have thought about before

Rune: Yes. Yes to all of that lol.

 

[nijineko]

because how dead can you really get in in 6 seconds?

...only mostly dead. ;D

 

[MortalPlague]

...because how dead can you really get in in 6 seconds?

Ask Joss Whedon about that one.

Welcome to ENWorld! Good luck with the campaign, it sounds like you're on track. Good advice in this thread. I honestly think I was a better DM before I started over-analyzing my games. I wish I could go back to that freedom.

 

[delericho]

Taking over from someone who was good at the job is always a difficult prospect. Comparisons are almost inevitable, and the new guy has to compete not just with the reality of the old guy but also any nostalgia that may exist.

My recommendation is to take steps, early and often, to make it clear that your game is not his game. So, I would recommend making some clear differences. Use a different setting. Use a different level range. Allow different sets of books. Run the game in a different style. That way, you get to avoid comparisons (somewhat) - he did that thing, and it was good; you're doing this thing, and that's also good.

A couple of specific things...

My previous DMs strengths were making a good story, being good at performance (voices and improv), and taking things that begin as cliches and making them very original. His weaknesses were mechanics, and in that vein not always letting us know important house rules ahead of time. He's also a very challenging DM, and feels like encounters are too easy if the cleric doesn't have to break out a revivify or two.

What I find to be my strengths are mechanics, (almost too much so because people that have played with me are afraid I'll essentially run a solid tactics game), decent voices and good improv, being a pretty good story crafter, and I make really good maps. My weaknesses are that I can be a bit hardheaded and I'm not always great at explaining myself in rules situations. I don't consider it a weakness, but I am a bit of an easier DM, in my mini campaign, there were only two knock outs (no deaths other than an NPC) BUT the group had no cleric.

That's good. Focus on your strengths, minimise your weaknesses.

I plan to make this campaign more challenging, but I do have a "you can only be revived once" rule, the only exception being revivify. because how dead can you really get in in 6 seconds?

Actually, I would recommend against this. My recommendation would be to just allow healing as standard. Worst-case scenario, it makes your game that little bit easier... but you can correct that easy enough by just using tougher monsters if you wish.

I also have the issue of a DM that really placed no boundaries on what you could do with classes and races, but when we started we only had PHB1 and DMG. Now most all the group has loads of books and PDFs, and it's already been pointed out by one person that my limiting makes me look like a weaker DM

Your player is wrong.

Fortunately, your player has also given you a very useful opportunity. Stick to your guns. This does three things:

1) It prevents whatever abuse it is you were wanting to avoid.

2) It makes a clear distinction between your game and what has gone before.

3) Far from showing you to be a weaker DM, it actually allows you to show your strength as a DM - there's been a challenge, and you've handled it clearly.

(That said, I do recommend looking at the things you've banned and whether they're really problematic. In general, my recommended position is to "say yes" unless there is a good reason. But, of course, once you have that good reason - either due to a mechanical imbalance or simply for flavour reasons - then by all means stick to it.)