GMs: What lessons have you learned from playing/other GMs?
- Thread starter Wik
- Start date
Shades of Green
Explorer
A few tips for describing combat:Festivus said:
Hitting with high damage (relatively for the target's HP, that is) should be described in gory terms, especially if it kills the target. A 1st-level Fighter who manages to kill a previously-undamaged 8-hp Goblin in one blow from his longsword has probably beheaded it; if it was a crit rolling the full 16 damage it might have even cut the goblin's torso in two. If the target isn't killed but has a large part of its HP blown away in one attack, most NPCs and monsters would scream loudly.
Hitting for low damage (relatively for the target's HP, that is) should be described as a scratch or flesh wound, and the target should groan or even mutter a curse.
A near miss (which would've hit if the target was unarmored) should be described as blocked by armor. Misses by greater numbers should either be bad swings or dodged blows.
Also, use your surroundings. If the PCs, for example, interrupt 3 Orcs sitting around a table and drinking ale, the Orcs would probably throw the mugs or even the chairs at the PCs before drawing out their swords. Fire/electricity spells in places with flammable materials would produce explosions and conflagrations.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
(1) Be prepared. I've been in good games in which I'm pretty sure the GM was winging the adventure, but he or she was nevertheless prepared: NPCs, maps, artwork. One of my DMs is very good at being prepared ... the other less so. I am always so much more relaxed at the table when I'm fully prepared.
(2) Be descriptive. This is the primary weakness of both of my DMs. Whenever I find myself losing interest at the table -- and, believe me, I'm a hardcore gamer, so it's tough to lose me -- it's always because there's nothing being described. Another stretch of rough corridor, another chamber, another monster hitting and missing. I've started trying to describe at least three of sight, hearing, scent, taste, and touch, and I think it makes a huge difference.
(3) Be decisive in a 50/50 way. You don't know if the paladin used his Lay On Hands last session? Roll a die -- even's good for the players. Is that half-square occupiable? Roll a die -- even's good for the players. One of my DMs spends way too much time making trivial decisions like this -- or worse, looking to me -- and the other tends to make the decision way more complex than it used to be. Seriously ... "roll a die, even's good for the players" works for damned near everything.
(4) Take notes. I'm terrible at this. One of my DMs never forgets anything in his game, because he takes notes. I keep trying, but I keep finding cryptic things on my notepad like, "Sea Dog, fourth down, red-head." What the hell? Was I calling a play against Texas A&M? I am one of those apparently rare GMs who can make up details like names on the fly, but the talent often does me no good because I forget to write down what I create!
(5) Players like to succeed. A friend of mine and I used to discuss this a lot. He's a professional video game designer, and when we started playing together, he was convinced that more than anything, players want to be challenged. They want things to be hard. We came to the realization together that as long as they have to take some steps to success themselves, players would much rather be successful at something fairly easy than be defeated in a close and challenging way. (I can hear the protests already. Save 'em, please. I know my experiences.)
(2) Be descriptive. This is the primary weakness of both of my DMs. Whenever I find myself losing interest at the table -- and, believe me, I'm a hardcore gamer, so it's tough to lose me -- it's always because there's nothing being described. Another stretch of rough corridor, another chamber, another monster hitting and missing. I've started trying to describe at least three of sight, hearing, scent, taste, and touch, and I think it makes a huge difference.
(3) Be decisive in a 50/50 way. You don't know if the paladin used his Lay On Hands last session? Roll a die -- even's good for the players. Is that half-square occupiable? Roll a die -- even's good for the players. One of my DMs spends way too much time making trivial decisions like this -- or worse, looking to me -- and the other tends to make the decision way more complex than it used to be. Seriously ... "roll a die, even's good for the players" works for damned near everything.
(4) Take notes. I'm terrible at this. One of my DMs never forgets anything in his game, because he takes notes. I keep trying, but I keep finding cryptic things on my notepad like, "Sea Dog, fourth down, red-head." What the hell? Was I calling a play against Texas A&M? I am one of those apparently rare GMs who can make up details like names on the fly, but the talent often does me no good because I forget to write down what I create!
(5) Players like to succeed. A friend of mine and I used to discuss this a lot. He's a professional video game designer, and when we started playing together, he was convinced that more than anything, players want to be challenged. They want things to be hard. We came to the realization together that as long as they have to take some steps to success themselves, players would much rather be successful at something fairly easy than be defeated in a close and challenging way. (I can hear the protests already. Save 'em, please. I know my experiences.)
Scurvy_Platypus
Explorer
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.
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.
Charge for your time! Be it money or snacks!
Put time aside for the development of character background - use Pirate Cat's Questions if you can't come up with your own.
Know your material & have material on hand - nothing kills the flow faster than pulling stopping a game to read up on a rule or check the stats of an NPC.
Give the players homework - nothing major, just stuff to help flesh out the game, NPCs, rumors, gossip, etc. BUT this could be asking the players how the game is going and if directional changes are needed and that this is what the players like.
Put time aside for the development of character background - use Pirate Cat's Questions if you can't come up with your own.
Know your material & have material on hand - nothing kills the flow faster than pulling stopping a game to read up on a rule or check the stats of an NPC.
Give the players homework - nothing major, just stuff to help flesh out the game, NPCs, rumors, gossip, etc. BUT this could be asking the players how the game is going and if directional changes are needed and that this is what the players like.
Sitting in one of Steve Kenson's demos at Origins, I was impressed with how he graphically described actions being taken. Not just 'Blast for 10, he saves' but stuff like 'You feel the gravitic generators and stablizers in your armor fire in sequence, but the concentrated blast of force just washes over his armor.'
He also stood the whole time. For some reason it lent a sense of urgency to the game, perhaps just the frission of having some dude towering over you for a couple of hours, or some other psychological trick, but it made the game feel faster and more 'action-y' than if he'd been slumped in a chair or hidden behind a GM screen.
He also stood the whole time. For some reason it lent a sense of urgency to the game, perhaps just the frission of having some dude towering over you for a couple of hours, or some other psychological trick, but it made the game feel faster and more 'action-y' than if he'd been slumped in a chair or hidden behind a GM screen.
roguerouge
First Post
a. Do not allow players to duplicate party roles.
b. Making up your own stuff is very, very difficult, even more so when you're clearly making some important plots up as you go along. It's also really difficult to link published adventures together coherently. I admire both of my DMs loads.
c. Player morale is the most important military factor in any party combat.
d. Forget the cinematic: players need time to plan and argue.
e. All published adventures play one level harder than you anticipate.
f. No DM plan survives contact with the players completely intact. It shouldn't.
g. Have an ending. Have an arc in mind. Know your tale's themes and its moral.
h. Disappointed players can be a pain, but they need to face failure too.
i. A player fudging dice rolls is always divisive. It prevents other players from getting their chance to shine, prevents productive failures, and produces player divisions.
j. Your character must be able to die for the game to be meaningful.
k. A party which can customize its military responses through spell selection and combat feats is much, much more powerful than a party filled with spontaneous caster-blasters and one-trick combat ponies.
b. Making up your own stuff is very, very difficult, even more so when you're clearly making some important plots up as you go along. It's also really difficult to link published adventures together coherently. I admire both of my DMs loads.
c. Player morale is the most important military factor in any party combat.
d. Forget the cinematic: players need time to plan and argue.
e. All published adventures play one level harder than you anticipate.
f. No DM plan survives contact with the players completely intact. It shouldn't.
g. Have an ending. Have an arc in mind. Know your tale's themes and its moral.
h. Disappointed players can be a pain, but they need to face failure too.
i. A player fudging dice rolls is always divisive. It prevents other players from getting their chance to shine, prevents productive failures, and produces player divisions.
j. Your character must be able to die for the game to be meaningful.
k. A party which can customize its military responses through spell selection and combat feats is much, much more powerful than a party filled with spontaneous caster-blasters and one-trick combat ponies.
Last edited:
GuardianLurker
Adventurer
Things I've learned from other GMs:
1) Having any kind of (appropriate) sound track running in the background makes a huge difference; it greatly enhances mood. It doesn't have to be complex (LotR soundtracks on auto-repeat suffices), but it should be there. My "flattest" sessions have been when I've forgotten. Action movies tend to work best.
2) When I'm a player, PLAY d***it!
3) It's easier to blend published adventures together if you interlace them in some fashion. This works best with mini-campaigns, rather than short adventures.
4) Characters are a lot more durable than you think. I'm a "It sucks when the heroes die early" GM, so I tend to pull my punches. But a combat works best if you can get all of the characters below half, and if its a BBEG battle, somebody should dip negative.
Bonus point, not from another GM: Your players are your best source of ideas. Learn to recognize when they've come up with something better and use it.
1) Having any kind of (appropriate) sound track running in the background makes a huge difference; it greatly enhances mood. It doesn't have to be complex (LotR soundtracks on auto-repeat suffices), but it should be there. My "flattest" sessions have been when I've forgotten. Action movies tend to work best.
2) When I'm a player, PLAY d***it!
3) It's easier to blend published adventures together if you interlace them in some fashion. This works best with mini-campaigns, rather than short adventures.
4) Characters are a lot more durable than you think. I'm a "It sucks when the heroes die early" GM, so I tend to pull my punches. But a combat works best if you can get all of the characters below half, and if its a BBEG battle, somebody should dip negative.
Bonus point, not from another GM: Your players are your best source of ideas. Learn to recognize when they've come up with something better and use it.
CharlesRyan
Adventurer
I played a couple campaigns under a GM named Chris, and even after 20 years of gaming I learned an awful lot from him. Two things stand out:
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.
2. Create rich NPCs and play them fearlessly. Chris's major NPCs never failed to be well-developed personalities, and he wasn't shy about establishing emotional bonds between PCs and NPCs. In addition to providing hooks and motivations, I think this encouraged depth in the players' characters as well. From that I've learned to push through the screen of shyness or awkwardness that I sometimes feel when my NPCs discuss anything more personal than the details of the latest mission with the PCs, and I think it pays off in how much the players enjoy and are connected to both the campaign arc and their own characters.
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.
2. Create rich NPCs and play them fearlessly. Chris's major NPCs never failed to be well-developed personalities, and he wasn't shy about establishing emotional bonds between PCs and NPCs. In addition to providing hooks and motivations, I think this encouraged depth in the players' characters as well. From that I've learned to push through the screen of shyness or awkwardness that I sometimes feel when my NPCs discuss anything more personal than the details of the latest mission with the PCs, and I think it pays off in how much the players enjoy and are connected to both the campaign arc and their own characters.
Similar Threads
