Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Celebrim]

Welcome to the boards, Bawylie. Nice post.

Yes, you're going to force your players to create characters that belong in the world. That's the game. People don't show up, fully formed & geared to go out of nowhere. Characters, with classes, ages, races, backgrounds, etc., should also have families, friends, rivals, romances, and all that.

It took me a while to learn that the GM has to be part of the character creation process. I'm a big believer in the GM never running the PC, but I've learned from experience that he has to approve of the PC before letting it into play.

As an addendum to the quoted part above, the hard part isn't forcing players to create characters that belong in your fantasy world. The real hard part is massaging the player's creativity until you can get characters that belong and can stay together, often despite conflicts in philosophies between the players that are starker in some ways than the conflicts between their characters.

Sometimes, players what to use "Chaotic Neutral" or "practical" as an excuse to avoid RP altogether. Whatever you think of alignment, if the players aren't interested in RP, then they're not interested in setting or pursuing goals (for the most part).

One of my players has from the beginning signaled that he has no interest in moral conflicts or ethical challenges. Not surprisingly, he just - with a bit of prompting - moved his character on the dial to Chaotic Evil. I always find it amusing that players think that they are going to avoid RP in that manner.

So the fine art of DM-ing starts in character creation. It starts with interviewing the player about the character and rejecting characters that don't fit into the world. "He comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing." That's not a playable character. It has no motivations nor ties to the setting. You have to lead the player into creating those ties. Because role playing a character is one of this game's biggest features and strengths.

I think 'he comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing' is playable, it's just likely to be self-deception on the part of the player. To a certain extent, I don't really care what your background is, so long as the character has a reason for risking life and limb to obtain something. I learned that after trying to run a game where everyone had created a character with some form of crippling enochlophobia or misanthropy. The only sort of character concept that really doesn't work is one with no reason to leave his house. The character concept of, "He comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing.", could be a great concept if it finishes with something like, "And now something from his past is trying to kill him." It's the motivations and desires that are most important here. If needed, I can fill in the past.

A common pitfall is to have a player create a loner badass who lacks reasons to cooperate.

We're mostly talking about skillful DMing, but there is such a thing as skillful playing as well. For example, you can play the loner who always goes it alone, provided you wink and play out, "But this time, he find himself entangled with...", for whatever motive you wish to create. In other words, there is an art to playing a character who clearly has a certain personality and still animate them in a way that it seems natural for them to go against their natural inclinations. Stories are filled with this sort of thing where one character quite against his will finds himself in a partnership, and good RPers - working together - can create that sort of dance where each of them no how this is going to work out but each also knows that the needs of the story require dancing around that end.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One salient piece of advice from the 3e DMGII:

Running a game can be an intimidating task that calls on a huge variety of unrelated skills: memory for rules, a head for numbers, imagination, verbal agility, and sensitivity to group moods. Most dauntingly, it requires the confidence to take center stage in front of a group--an act that terrifies many self-assured people. Anyone who does even a half-decent job of DMing should be congratulated just for trying to marshal these skills.

I think it's important because so many people on these boards are either very negative about individual DMs, or about the idea of a DM, or both.

This piece is an important reminder of two things. First, that DMing is a big job, it carries more authority and more importance than the roles of the other people at the table; "center stage" is inherently a tough place to be in. Second, that the DM does not always have to be perfect in order to be a DM.

A nice bit from the original DMG:

Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire. and whatever you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or to keep things running smoothly.

DM cheating is a big deal. The section goes on to provide some other interesting thoughts on the subject, and notes that it's okay to hew strictly to the rules, or to bend them if you want. It then notes:

Just as important an issue, however, is whether the players realize that you bend the rules. Even if you decide that sometimes it's okay to fudge a little to let the characters survive so the game can continue, don't let the players in on this decision. It's important to the game that they believe their characters are always in danger. If the players believe, consciously or subconsciously, that you'll never let bad things happen to their characters, they'll change the way they act. With no element of risk, victory will seem less sweet. And if something bad does happen to a character, that player may believe you're out to get him if he feels you saved the other players when their characters were in trouble.

This is interesting to me in how strong a paternalistic stance the core books adopt. They're expecting you as a DM to manipulate and outright lie to the players (albeit in a way that makes sense dramatically) in order to get them to think what you want them to.

***

Of non-D&D sources, I've always thought that CoC offers some of the best advice for running a game, regardless of genre:

Crafting a story: First and foremost, a game session is a story. It should make some sense and hang together rationally, providing a beginning, middle, climax, and ending. Telling spooky stories around the campfire is how horror began; your Call of Cthulhu games should aim for at least that degree of immediate power.

Since I got started in the hobby by storytelling, this speaks to me.

USING THE RULES
The rules of a roleplaying game may seem complex at first. After all, they have to represent everything that could possibly happen in the world at any time. When you add in monstrosities from non-Euclidean dimensions, sorcery left over from the archaic empires of serpent men, and gods who shred reality like rice paper, that becomes a pretty big job. The key is to grasp the underlying logic of these rules. Be familiar with their central principles such as skill checks and how they represent the "basic reality" of the Call of Cthulhu universe. Read this book through and stay familiar with its basic concepts. Don't hesitate to extrapolate form the underlying principles when something comes up that the rules, remain silent on.

Which is really the whole game right there, articulated better in any form than I recall seeing it elsewhere. This is why we have rpgs: to set up a set of rules that show you how an imaginary world works as a starting point, which we then expound upon, with the DM/GM leading the way.

Really, the whole book is very good and has several chapters on GMing.

***

Probably one of the most important non-D&D sources I used to develop a DMing philosophy was the behind-the-scenes commentary in various forms that Ron Moore delivered on the new (2004) Battlestar Galactica. A representative mission statement:

A lot of the show was about subverting audience expectation. You think you’ve seen this show before. You think you know what your hero’s going to do in this situation. You think you know how television is going to take you by the hand and say, “It’s OK, don’t worry! Your heroes aren’t going to become suicide bombers!” We have the heroes do that, and then see how the audience feels. Make them really think about their preconceptions, and think about the story that we’re telling. That was a lot of the guiding philosophy behind it.

Which is very much how I've always looked at D&D. If the players are expecting certain things, goals, world elements, NPC behaviors, basic facts of reality, the way to really engage them is to target some salient expectations of theirs and purposefully and profoundly violate them.

And to sprinkle this variation about in different ways. An entirely conventional plot might unfold over an unconventional timeframe. A seemingly insincere NPC might turn out to be an ally. A treasure hunt might turn into an existential conflict. But each time, not only is an expectation being violated, but the nature of the targeted expectation is completely different. The players then genuinely cannot predict what is coming, and hopefully are freed of any predispositions they might have had.

Another big lesson I got from his commentary was to try to use the meta-level constraints (time and practical considerations) to create an in-world experience. This speaks very loudly to roleplaying in my view. If the characters stand to lose something, it helps if the players do too (which is why I stopped letting them make new characters without penalty; now they actually lose something when they lose a character).

 

[GX.Sigma]

It really bugs me that the 3.5 DMG says that it's okay to cheat. It should have included a discussion on why you should or why you shouldn't, and that different DMs have different styles.

Every DMG I've seen tries to teach you the Only Right Way to DM. That's a big problem for DMing as an art.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

When in doubt, I always go with 50-50. Everybody understands the coin flip and its regimented impartiality. This is, of course, in situations not relevant to character abilities. If some sort of skill or save would apply best, I use that instead. If a PC needs a miracle to survive, I go with 5%...natural 20. Everyone also understands the beauty of a natural 20 when you really, really need one.

I don't bother to hide monster stats from my players. The players always know the math at work. Some might prefer to decode context clues from the DM, but I haven't met any. I'll hide monsters capabilities until they're unleashed, but rarely the raw numbers.

Players are responsible for creating characters that have a reason to join and adventure with the group. I don't force players to roleplay if they don't want to. Their PCs are free to have no 'real' motivation for all I care. Even a half-mumbled "My dude just wants to kill stuff and get treasure, I guess." is fine by me. But contrarian motivation I don't allow. A player that wants to create an evil, power-mad megalomaniac necromancer for a group of paladins out to save the world is not going to cut it. Inter-party conflict should be avoided at all costs unless you have a mature group of experienced players willing to delve into such content.

DMs should most certainly help players create characters for their games. The DM should be forthcoming about the nature of the world, the campaign and the group. If the player has a concept that doesn't quite fit, the DM should work with the player to determine what about the concept appeals to the player and then work to make it campaign compatible. "Hey, I really have this idea of a Klingon badass!" "Umm...how about a half-orc instead?" "Can I play a Jedi?" "Uhh...maybe there's an ancient order of monks using light swords somewhere in my world..."

The best advice I can give DMs and potential DMs that isn't found in most DMGs, is: "Don't take it too seriously." When the players are openly mocking the archvillain you spend two hours lovingly crafting, laugh with them. It happens. It's D&D. When you make a bad call and are later corrected, say "Oopsy" and do what you can to salvage the situation. When the players trounce your epic encounter or, worse, go off in the opposite direction, roll with it. Open your Monster Manual or your campaign file and throw something else at them. There is always another encounter, another combat, another dungeon, another adventure to do it better.

I got a lot better at DMing when I started thinking of myself as an MC (Master of Ceremonies). You introduce monsters and NPCs who do their acts, keep things moving along, and make sure everyone is having a good time. I was never worse at DMing then when I thought of myself as an "auteur" with my game being some sort of brilliant artistic masterwork (it wasn't).

 

[Ahnehnois]

It really bugs me that the 3.5 DMG says that it's okay to cheat. It should have included a discussion on why you should or why you shouldn't, and that different DMs have different styles.

It does. Actually, another paragraph that I didn't quote comes between the two that I did (I do have to type these things manually):

However, you might not think it's right or even fun unless you obey the same rules the players do. Sometimes the PCs get lucky and kill an NPC you had planned to have around for a long time. By the same token, sometimes things go against the PCs, and disaster may befall them. Both the DM and the players take the bad with the good. That's a perfectly acceptable way to play, and if there's a default method of DMing, that's it.

This posits a compelling rationale for not "cheating": consistency. If you believe that NPCs and PCs should be treated the same way, DM cheating makes less sense. If you want PCs to be "special", then it makes more sense.

The rules were designed as one consistent and logical set of parameters for all possible characters, so if you want your players to be outside of the norm, you have to change them in some way. DM cheating is one common way of doing that; it enforces a level of "plot protection" beyond what the rules themselves could reasonably provide.

Every DMG I've seen tries to teach you the Only Right Way to DM. That's a big problem for DMing as an art.

The 3e version is pretty pluralistic as I see it. Not as much as it could be, perhaps, but the practical implication is that it's very difficult to write advice that's concrete enough to mean anything to the reader, while being open-ended enough to accommodate all possibilities (though I think this is one area where CoC outstrips the other games I've seen).

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6776279]Rod Staffwand[/MENTION], sorry I couldn't XP your post, which I enjoyed.

The most common alignment I see in play is Chaotic Self-Interest, which is followed closely there after by Neutral Pragmatist. The only campaign defeat that is meaningful in that context is the death/maiming of a PC. Expecting players to view other goals with great concern is I think naïve, and even to the extent that some will, all I think you are doing is punishing players for having goals beyond killing things and taking their stuff and specifically punishing those with story goals more severely than those with less prosaic concerns.

<snip>

Beyond that, this approach once again amounts to railroading, with the GM deciding what story he'd actually prefer and then implementing it regardless of the rules or fiction.

Your description of what is common among players isn't really something that I've experienced for 25-odd years. I've generally found that players want to engage the fiction.

This relates to the idea of "punishing more severely". In my experience, if players want to engage the fiction, then providing them with fiction to engage - even fiction which is adverse to the desires of their PCs - needn't be experienced as punishing the player. It's providing the player with what s/he wants.

This generalisation plays out differently in detail across different players, of course, and part of being a good GM is knowing in which respects, and how far, you can push your players without making the fiction no longer fun or engaging for them. But flawless victory for the PCs certainly isn't the only thing that will tick that box, at least in my experience.

Finally, on the railroad - if players using a 13th Age-style mechanic declare a retreat, then the GM deciding upon the campaing loss is not railroading or circumventing the rules. S/he is following the rules, which the players have enlivened. If, at that point of the game, the players don't want to put things into the GM's hands, then they can always decline to declare a retreat and let the action resolution dice fall where they may.

And once again, we have a definition of what it means to be an artful dungeon master which is situational and limited.

<snip>

a theory of good DMing has to encompass both your home game with players you've been with for 30 years and who all have identical aesthetics of play, and that random group of 12 strangers at a Con or local gaming store.

One thing that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has posted a few times in recent weeks (months?) on these boards is that there is no single set of GMing techniques that is universally applicable. I agree with that.

Moldvay thinks that metagaming is bad. In my OP I explained why I don't follow that advice any more, although even up to 15 years ago I used to follow it religiously. That doesn't mean that there aren't others out there following Moldvay's advice still, and whose games are better for it. Different RPGers are coming to the game with different propensities, different expectations and different desires for the play experience.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There is quite a bit of DMing advice to be found, much of it solid, some of it not so much. The best piece of advice I have for prospective DMs is to stop worrying about getting everything right and just run some games. Like a great many other activities, just diving in and doing it is the best solution.

I see a great many parallel issues between running games and miniature painting. In this day and age, with instantaneous communication via internet and hordes of wonderful knowledgeable people, very accessible its so easy to fall into the trap of what I like to call everprep.

The law of everprep says that there is wealth of information out there just waiting, and if you are dilligent enough to consume it all before attempting your endeavor then it is sure to be a smashing success first time out.

It doesn't work by the way.

Advice, support, and resources are very nice things but direct experience is still the best teacher. I mentioned the similarity to miniature painting because I have experienced it firsthand with regard to trying new techniques. I found myself putting off trying them because there was just one more tutorial to look up, one more cool how-to video to watch. It was all informative and entertaining but fairly meaningless until I had actually slapped on some paint to see it in action.

Dungeon Mastering as a fine art is no different. Advice only goes so far. Not all of it is even of value depending on your situation. My advice then is to run a game for your friends before stepping on that everprep treadmill. It might be great, it might kinda suck, but it will be practial experience that has personal value to you. Once you have a few games experience, all the advice and suggestions you get will make more sense because you will have been there and done that.

 

[Lanefan]

The best piece of advice I have for prospective DMs is to stop worrying about getting everything right and just run some games. Like a great many other activities, just diving in and doing it is the best solution.

I'll add here: after playing in some games and watching what the DM does there, making mental notes of what works for you and what doesn't about what that DM is doing and how she does it.

Dungeon Mastering as a fine art is no different. Advice only goes so far. Not all of it is even of value depending on your situation. My advice then is to run a game for your friends before stepping on that everprep treadmill. It might be great, it might kinda suck, but it will be practial experience that has personal value to you.

This is important too: don't expect anything much out of the first game you run. I always suggest running a one-off adventure just to learn the ropes, and then starting in to your actual campaign. (and if you can find a way to tie the one-off adventure into said campaign later, so much the better)

Once you have a few games experience, all the advice and suggestions you get will make more sense because you will have been there and done that.

Amd, paradoxically enough, you'll probably find you don't need it as much.

That said, the best thing you can ever have as a DM is good, fun, entertaining players.

Lanefan

 

[Manbearcat]

I've talked about GMing principles and advice in several systems that I enjoy. How about some Mouse Guard by Luke Crane.

p8

The GM’s job is to transform the players’ guardmice characters into heroes. How does he do that? By challenging the players with obstacles set in their path. It is only by overcoming difficult challenges and passing through the fire of conflict that the players’ characters can become heroes.

This might be a bit controversial because it states its the GM's job to transform the PCs into heroes. Obviously that transformation is the synthesis of the GM framing the PCs into a situation/conflict, the PCs making decision and deploying resources, and the ultimate resolution and fallout of the conflict. The first part is what Luke is talking about here. How are the PCs to become heroes if they have no exciting conflicts to carve out their legend?

p11 Passing the Spotlight

It’s the GM’s job to pass the spot-light around and make sure every player gets an opportunity to contribute and shine.

Pretty straightforward here. You're not framing one PC into a thematic conflict. You're framing all of them into conflicts that matter to them personally and which give them the opportunity to struggle and to be heroic.

p12 Structure of Play

A single session lasts two to four hours. During the course of a session, the players use their guardmice characters to complete a mission presented by the GM. Missions consist of a series of obstacles to overcome and problems to solve. These obstacles and problems are dealt with by testing the characters’ abilities. The results of these tests determine where the game goes next.

Looks good to me. Change out guardmice for adventurers and mission for quest and you've got D&D. The specific duties inherent to being in the Guard and the obstacles/hazards to overcome while performing them are broached later.

Typical Duties: Patrolling, path clearing, trail blazing, carrying mail, escorting, weather watching, hunting predators, maintaining the scent border, rescuing mice in distress and mediating disputes.

Typical Obstacles/Hazards: Weather, wilderness, animals, and mice.

D&D has an analogue for each of these or it maps precisely. Basically the GM should have a strong list of genre-relevant conflicts to frame the PCs into and within those conflicts the GM should have genre-relevant antagonists that opposes the PCs will/machinations. And make sure to keep it exciting, challenging, thematically coherent, well-paced and up the ante on the stakes when its called for!

p 14 Canon

Canon refers to the story as it happened in the comics. Some things in your game might be different than the comics, or might even change the events or the characters. That’s okay!

Once your game has started, it is yours. It does not have to follow the story of the comics. You can use the characters and the events however you wish, so long as it’s in keeping with the mood of Mouse Guard as a whole.

So don't be afraid to deviate from canon and make the game your own but take care that you don't stretch mood and genre credibility to the point that it breaks. If the game calls for A Song of Fire and Ice aesthetic then you don't want Peter Pan or the Three Stooges making an appearance (or vice versa). Its certainly the players' responsibilities to adhere to that credo but the GM takes a leading role here.

p 43 - 44 Challenging Beliefs

This section is for the GM more than the players, but players should read it too.

When the GM puts Conrad ’s life in danger and presents the choice to Sadie’s player—stay and help and possibly be killed or flee to Lockhaven with your news—he’s challenging her Belief.

It’s your job to challenge that Belief in the course of play. You present the player with situations that say, “You believe that? Cool. How about now? Do you still believe that if I push you?” Put the character in situations where the reputation of the Guard is at stake: missions with a high public profile, for example:

Sadie’s player has to make a difficult choice between what her heart wants and her head tells her. That is precisely the point of a Belief. It makes the situations in the game more gripping.

For even deeper, richer play, tie in other characters:

Saxon and Kenzie are the perfect example of this type of dynamic. Saxon’s Belief is very direct: “The best solution is always found at the point of my sword.” Kenzie’s Belief is more philosophical: “It’s not what you fight, but what you fight for.”

When they encounter a problem, they both have a different idea of what should be done. This leads to tension, discussions, arguments and sometimes even fights! But it makes the characters rich and engaging.

p 46 - 47 Challenging Goals

A Goal is no fun unless it’s challenged. We’re getting into actual game play here: when a player writes a Goal and that Goal is challenged, we’re going to test the mettle of the character and the luck of the player. We’re going to see what he’s made of.

Challenging the players’ Goals is your prime job as GM. It requires creativity, quick thinking and a bit of stubbornness. It’s not hard, though!

A player has a Goal to deliver the mail to Gilpledge. How do you challenge that? Well, it’s your job to make sure that it’s hard to get the mail to Gilpledge. In fact, you must put the delivery in doubt: Rain, bandits, or hungry animals could all prevent the patrol from completing its duty. If the guardmouse does not do his duty, then he fails at his Goal. In this case, the mail does not get delivered.

So he must overcome trials—he must negotiate the wilderness, travel in bad weather, avoid getting eaten by predators and deal with the problems of mice he meets en route. It’s a hard task!

Sadie and Conrad are attacked by crabs at the Calogero outpost. Conrad sacrifices himself so that Sadie can escape. Sadie’s player must make a choice. Does she escape and accomplish her goal or does she risk her own life and her goal by attempting to rescue Conrad from the voracious crabs?

p 48 - 49 Challenging Instincts

Instincts are a big clue for you, the GM. When a player writes an Instinct, he’s effectively grabbing you and shaking you, “Please put me in this situation!” So do it! Put the player in situations that trigger his Instinct.

“Always draw my sword at the first sign of trouble.” Make sure there’s lots of trouble for this player to draw his sword at. Then, later on, put him in a situation that is clearly trouble, but it’ d be a bad idea to draw his sword, too. It’s easy and appropriate for Saxon to whip out his sword when he finds the overturned cart or encounters the snake. It’s a problematic Instinct when his patrol encounters a fellow guardmouse in the wild or when he’s conducting a sensitive investigation in a town like Barkstone. When those problems arise, does the player have his character draw his sword? Imagine everyone staring at him with imploring eyes, saying, “No, no, please, no...” Those are great moments at the table and defining moments for the character.

I'm including all of these together. There are system-specific mechanical components at work here but the general guidance is extremely tight and functional for any thematic play that is meant to be emotionally or dramatically provocative.

Players are going to have quests. Don't be afraid to make them overt and central to play (as 4e does). These are player goals that they telegraph to the GM, signaling him what sort of content they're interested in engaging in and moving toward.

Simple, transparent ethos and pathos statements signal to the GM what is philosophically and emotionally important to the PC in question. What will they fight for? What are their limits? Just how important is this thing/belief to you? When you have to prioritize these values/emotions, which yields and which prevails? What about when the PCs as a group have to prioritize their collective values and emotions because their at tension with one another? Conflict!

Draw these out of your players and pull on those strings they give you.

In the end, you'll fill all of their lives with exciting adventure that each of them care about and we'll all find out if they're heroes (or troll lunch) and, if so, what kind of heroes they turn out to be as their legacy is carved out in play.

 

[Hussar]

On the notion of character creation.

I think one of the best pieces of advice I ever got was; do not create characters one at a time. Character creation should be a group effort. It's one place that FATE gets very right. Every Fate character will have direct ties to at least two other characters in the group. No one is an island. Everyone is tied together.

Our current Dark Sun campaign didn't do this and it really showed. We spent a long time just trying to build a group consensus on what we actually should be doing. For a long time, the loudest voice (probably unsurprisingly mine, ) was driving a lot of the campaign. Everything the group was very much centred on my character because I was the only one who had concrete goals.

In a group where everyone works together to build a group, it makes sharing the spotlight a lot easier.