1. While the thread has some arguements going on in it (big surprise) I found this particular post to be very handy in terms of thinking about how to structure the game, and things to watch out for as I run games:
Player Types: Active vs Reactive
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5266197&postcount=1
The one caution I'd have for anyone that starts looking at their game in this fashion, is to not get too hung up on trying to define/anticipate the players. Sometimes people get so locked into trying to define/quantify their players/game, that they miss the point of it in the first place.
2. I've seen a fair number of GMs over the years that don't seem to know _why_ they run games. "Because it's a cool game and nobody else is willing to run it" doesn't really answer that in my opinion.
3. Pay @#$%@#$%@ attention to the players. They've made characters for a reason. If the GM can't be bothered to care about the characters, why on earth should the players bother to care about the GM's game?
4. Communication is important. Over the years I've seen some really good GMs and some lousy ones. An ability to actually talk to the players about the game and people's expectations is a hallmark of the good ones in my experience.
5. Being a GM isn't like the Wizard of Oz. It's not some arcane thing you can never learn, it's not something that needs to be shrouded from the players with veils of secrecy.
6. Don't run a game you don't like. Every GM I've seen that does that has made it absolutely miserable for me. If the GM doesn't groove on the system or the premise, they're going to constantly be running into walls. It seems obvious, but it's a mistake many well-intentioned GMs seem to make.
When I started running my game, the other GM was looking to be able to do alternate games. Giving both of us a break from having to prepare a game every week, and allowing each to play too.
I thought about what I'd be willing to run, and said "I've got [these games]. We can play [several different premises]. What's everyone think?" One of the guys flat out said he wouldn't play anything that wasn't d20 or White Wolf. I countered with, "Well I'm not going to run default D&D. I don't have the time or patience for it. I do however have a couple of games that are d20 based that I'd be willing to run." And since I already had an idea of the type of characters the player in question tended towards, I then offered the game that I thought would be the best match for him.
He said, "Can I blow stuff up?", I said, "Yes", and away we went.
But before I laid everything out I told them, "Look I'm happy to run a game for folks, but there's some things I'm just not interested in doing or willing to run. If we can't figure out something that works for you as players and me as a GM, then I'm not going to run a game. We can do something else, or just switch to an every other week deal since that's what we're really talking about."
7. You're playing Invisible Barbie. At the end of the day, what does it hurt if Bob's Barbie goes ahead and gets that new dress? Some GMs have been so obsessed with following the rules just right and making the world just so, that it's completely killed my interest in the game.
8. Decide if the game revolves around the characters or not. So many GMs don't seem to have a clue whether the characters are actually important or not. This kind of ties back to #2 and knowing why they're running a game in the first place.
A lot of people like to talk about playing/running rpgs as being related to a novel, just one that's "written" by everyone as they go along. How interesting would Star Wars have been if all the main characters had been killed off halfway through the movie? Some people would be fine with it, others would think it sucked.
The GM should damn well know where they sit on the topic, and adjust their game if need be. If you think it'd suck, then for heaven's sake don't do the equivalent to the characters in your game.
This past Sunday, I beat the snot out of a couple of characters. 2 of them almost died. I push hard and I roll my dice in the open most times. But I also worked with the players to help them figure out ways their characters could survive. In the end, I "bent" rules. I paid for the game, and I'm the one running it. The players made their characters, and they're playing it. I don't care what the maker of the game says "should" happen and I really don't care if anyone else other than the group agrees with my decisions or not. The _only_ people I have to worry about keeping happy are myself and my players.
9. Related to #3, incorporate player feedback. "Feedback" doesn't simply mean, "Did I run a good game" and they say, "Oh yeah dude, you rock. Just keep on doing what you're doing". That's obvious feedback and while it's useful to a point (part of the whole communication thing), the _really_ useful feedback is when someone or other goes along and says, "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if..." or "Oh man, I'm going to do [whatever]."
Again, it seems to me to be one of those obvious things, but I've seen _many_ GMs totally miss it. Either it doesn't match their vision of how things should play out or something. It's a pretty rare occasion though that I won't rise to what they've tossed out there.
10. Different people play rpgs and run them, for different reasons. The lessons I've learned work for _me_ and for people that happen to have similar sensibilities. But not everyone does, and the most important lesson I've learned over the years is to hook up with people that have similar goals in the first place.