Best GMing Advice you've ever gotten

What's the best GM advice you've ever gotten

  • It's a social interaction first. You're friends. Be friendly

    Votes: 5 10.6%
  • You are the referee and story teller, it is not GM vs Player.

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • Be fair and transparent. Players know if you fudge dice to keep your personal fav NPC alive

    Votes: 7 14.9%
  • Don't worry about memorizing the rules. Make a ruling to keep the game going and look it up later

    Votes: 12 25.5%
  • It's your game world. Work with the players when possible, but don't let your fun be overridden

    Votes: 5 10.6%
  • Let the players form the game world

    Votes: 5 10.6%
  • No reasonable request should ever be unreasonably declined.

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • Session 0 isn't just to make PCs. Set the ground rules and identify players who might not be a fit

    Votes: 14 29.8%
  • Keep your campaign outline form only (simple). Too complex, and you risk railroading YOUR story

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • Allow yourself to make mistakes

    Votes: 7 14.9%
  • Show, don't tell ("a pool of ebony viscous liquid" vs "there's a black pudding there")

    Votes: 9 19.1%
  • All challenges must have risk. A risk-free challenge should be narrated.

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • GM because YOU want to, not because everyone else does

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • If you're changing a rule, get table agreement

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 19.1%

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
2, Failure is and should always be a possibility -don't put an obstacle/encounter in or call for a test unless you are prepared for it to fail or the party to be defeated. (It's a thing I see in a lot in adventures where there is, for example, a hidden door that calls for a check to be discovered but needs to be found for the adventure to progress)
This contradicts itself. First you say failure should always be a possibility (I completely agree!) but then you seem to criticize a type of adventure design that in fact makes failure a very real possibility.

Put another way, failure is and should always be a possibility whether on the individual-task scale or the whole-adventure scale.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Haiku Elvis

Knuckle-dusters, glass jaws and wooden hearts.
This contradicts itself. First you say failure should always be a possibility (I completely agree!) but then you seem to criticize a type of adventure design that in fact makes failure a very real possibility.

Put another way, failure is and should always be a possibility whether on the individual-task scale or the whole-adventure scale.

Sorry it or I wasn't clear. I'm criticizing adventure design that doesn't allow for failure but puts in something that could cause failure but is written assuming it won't actually happen.

The illusion of failure if you will.

My GM advice is when you put a test or obstacle in stop for a second and think if they screw this up, zig instead of zag, are there options for the players or is it just fudge or come to a grinding halt.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Sorry it or I wasn't clear. I'm criticizing adventure design that doesn't allow for failure but puts in something that could cause failure but is written assuming it won't actually happen.

The illusion of failure if you will.
Got it. Makes sense.
My GM advice is when you put a test or obstacle in stop for a second and think if they screw this up, zig instead of zag, are there options for the players or is it just fudge or come to a grinding halt.
Where I see "grinding halt" leading to a (temporary or permanent) fail-state for the adventure as always being a possibility.
 






Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top