GMs: What lessons have you learned from playing/other GMs?

[Mamacat]

Something I learned from two different DM's, who both unfortunately did this: DO NOT either favor your significant other, or let them know secrets other party members do not know. My husband is adamant that I not know anything the others don't, and I treat him the same, and it does make for better game play. Unfortunately, I've been involved in two separate games (one just last year) where the DM was obviously letting his/her SO not only get away with things any other player would get in deep trouble for doing, but was also telling the SO important details of the story/game (you could tell by how the SO's character was doing things, and how the SO's were acting if the party went off on a tangent).

So, there should be no in game benefits to sleeping with the DM. Out of game - you're on your own!

 

[Loonook]

I learned the art of opening and closing. One of my favorite DMs (and one of three that I would, when I was a player, drop anything non-serious to find time and play with) was an excellent salesman. Immersion (opening) and the ability to tie each session (closing) were probably the things which were most important to everything I do.

The second favored DM taught me that the numbers matter only as far as you can throw them. Every time you played in her game you had to know that what you saw wasn't necessarily what you got, and the sheer glee of finding out the new and improved goblins you were fighting were... different.

The third was immersive beyond all ken. Vocals, music, all sorts of things tied together. Ambiance brings the players in . . . but it isn't necessarily about the setting. This DM (the guy who was there to shepherd me through my first fledgling sessions) would have us all chill out for a few minutes, unwind, and sort of meditate on the situation. The level of recall to detail, ability to 'see' the action, and otherwise know everything in its place and time was built around just that little 5 minute burst of thought, as he got the materials out for our next big delve or exploration.

---

Ahh, this thread just has me nostalgic to actually get to play again. It's a real shame that I don't have a player who could DM us through something and make it stick right now... they're just not interested.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I learned the art of opening and closing. One of my favorite DMs (and one of three that I would, when I was a player, drop anything non-serious to find time and play with) was an excellent salesman. Immersion (opening) and the ability to tie each session (closing) were probably the things which were most important to everything I do.

Can you elaborate on this point a little?

 

[Loonook]

Can you elaborate on this point a little?

Apologies... sleep is a killer of men and all of that, and I need to die earlier next time .


Okay... 'opening' the session all about immersion... you get yourself ready, almost as if you were going to go in front of someone and hawk your wares. You get your patter down, you get the little bits ready, and you try to really get into the heads of the people or locales you're going to be in. This DM was huge about noticing the little things . . . how someone's appearance reflects what you think of them, how little slips of the tongue could make huge differences. He was so good at knowing his body language, how to manipulate all the little tics to really milk out every drop from those NPC and PC interactions that made it worth being there.

Closing... ahh, that's the tricky part. It's basic establishment narrative. You have to get the pacing right in the beginning and middle, but so few people remember to get that end-session pacing set. One of my first session with him he ended up describing this amazing scene... each individual detail that was necessary (and some that weren't) . . . we were all amped to get this scene through, knowing we were mere feet away from the Big Payoff.

And then he closed his book and walked off. That book had everything he needed in it to run the session, all the little hardscrabble bits that some people would forget either written down or photocopied and pasted.

And when that book closed, we just stared at each other. We got nervous, we got anxious... but we ground out the days until we could find out what was to occur. Some sessions ended like that; some were just sort of petered out, others were at what felt like the right breaks and still others ended (to our ideas) far too soon or too late. But the energy of each session was just bottled and set, and each line connected between the sessions so well that they blended together. That linking, no matter how he did it, made it worth showing up; you became emotionally invested (as much as you can in a game) in finding out what came next.

I hope that explains it.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[roguerouge]

As the discussion between roguerouge and Hussar illustrates, not every lesson really applies to everyone. I for example strongly disagree with roguerouge on several points. His lessons worked for him and his game style, but they're the opposite of what I've learned over the years.

There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" lesson there, just an illustration of different goals and desires in playing/running the game.

_Anytime_ you're thinking about advice from other people, you've always got to filter it through your own experiences.

That's about the only lesson that can be applied almost universally.

Agreed. Hence my sig. And, as my experiences make clear, I now strongly disagree with my decisions back then.

 

[Sidereal Knight]

Something I learned from two different DM's, who both unfortunately did this: DO NOT either favor your significant other, or let them know secrets other party members do not know. My husband is adamant that I not know anything the others don't, and I treat him the same, and it does make for better game play. Unfortunately, I've been involved in two separate games (one just last year) where the DM was obviously letting his/her SO not only get away with things any other player would get in deep trouble for doing, but was also telling the SO important details of the story/game (you could tell by how the SO's character was doing things, and how the SO's were acting if the party went off on a tangent).

So, there should be no in game benefits to sleeping with the DM. Out of game - you're on your own!

That's a very interesting point. Since you are one of my former players, I have to assume you are referring to me... Would you care to start a thread about this and discuss?

Or perhaps you'd like to come over to the Circus to discuss it directly rather than making vague statements here?

 

[Ipissimus]

Great points made here. Got a few more:

One, give the players what they want but leave them begging for more. There's a sweet spot of power to challenge ratio that you should strive to maintain. Players should be powerful but the Big Bad should be badder. I've played with DMs who portioned power out frugally and, honestly, we didn't feel like the challenges he presented were worth the reward. Farming would have been better. And then I've played in a party where half the party could turn into Dragons while the other half wielded artefacts. We just stomped everything (including Lolth), which was fun but felt really cheap.

Two, play the world like a sandbox. I played for a CoC DM back in high school who showed how well this method can work. He let us step off the railroad and stretch our legs and the bad guys reacted to our moves in the same way we reacted to theirs. Case in point, during a raid on a cult, one of our guys had to be taken to hospital. While he was convalescing, a related cult cell tried a hit on him which turned into one of the greatest action sequences I've ever played in AND it was unscripted.

Three, cater for all the players equally. Remember that campaign where we could turn into dragons and killed Lolth? I didn't mention that only ONE of us fought Lolth (the Ancient Gold Dragon) while the rest of us stood around twiddling our thumbs. I thought I was doing pretty well that campaign. I had an intelligent Holy Avenger, +5 plate of invulnerability, +5 shield, etc... not bad enough to take Lolth but the Gold Dragon was. I felt like I was superfluous, probably because I was.

Four, give the villain some Shoot the Dog moments. If the players can handle it, have him Rape the Dog too. Make the players want to take him down whatever the cost.

Five, BBEGs have maximum hit points. Because killing him quick is anticlimactic.

Six, only kill a PC if the player deserves it either through stupidity or their own actions. Heroic self sacrifice is a good way for a PC to die, the goblins inflicting a TPK at level 1 is just frustrating. (And I know, it happened to me a few times).

Seven, say yes when a player gets creative, only say no if they're being silly. DMs who constantly say no, or inflict grevious punishments for even the most minor infraction of creativity (either through megalomania or fear of breaching THE RULES) generate disgruntled players. I once had a DM that told me I couldn't target a rope (holding up an iron grate) with Burning Hands... he ALWAYS said no. Nobody plays with him anymore.

 

[jdrakeh]

• Rules are not as important as their consistent application is (i.e., you can make due with very few written rules, so long as you make consistent judgements as the GM).
  
  
• More rules does not mean more tactical options. To wit, wargames are heavier on tactics than most RPGs while being simultaenously lighter on rules. We can learn from this.
  
  
• Horror is not vampires, werewolves, magic, etc. Horror is inducing fright. Only if the aforementioned things are employed to that end are you actually playing a Horror game.

 

[roguerouge]

As the discussion between roguerouge and Hussar illustrates, not every lesson really applies to everyone. I for example strongly disagree with roguerouge on several points. His lessons worked for him and his game style, but they're the opposite of what I've learned over the years.

Out of curiosity, what do you disagree with there? I'd love to see if I can nick a tidbit of gaming from you!

 

[jdrakeh]

• For the vast majority of gamers, "Swords & Sorcery" means "Anything with magic and swords in it!", genre tenets be damned.
  
  
• A person with horrible communication skills can make even the most simple game mechanic nightmarishly unplayable in actual practice.
  
  
• Never assume that the players live in your head. Chances are, what you see in your mind's eye is not what they see in theirs.
  
  
• A unique game mechanic is only good if it works. Being unique and broken may win you accolades from your buddies but it doesn't win you any points with actual consumers.