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

[Brimshack]

I almost always learn something positive and negative from anyone I watch GMing. The last extended campaign I played in was really interesting for about 8 games. I remember the GM had a very strong sense of the rules and kept things very close to the books, and it inspired me to learn 3.5 (before this I had played 1st edition about 20 something years and little else). In time the game fell apart for about 5 reasons:

1) The GM was extremely unresponsive to the players. Ideas outside the norm were rejected out of hand, options within the standard rules dismissed without consideration, and legitimate questions about decisions were brushed aside without much thought. In time, each of us accumulated a grief or two, and in time we began to discuss it with each other, multiplying our griefs by picking up on the concerns of other players.

Lesson - Listen and be polite. Even if the player is wrong, take the time to show you give a damn about the other human being sitting at the table.

2) There was a time when a certain player decided to make up several magic items. She had been designed for just that purpose. We had a certain amount of treasure and she had some experience to burn. The GM said he would allow it, but that if one player wanted to continue adventuring in the meantime, then the rest of the characters would be inactive in the meantime. The suggestion was that we were literally expected to sit there as players and do nothing while the other players fiddled about with some encounters. Well, after all the maneuvering in the week leading up to the game where the magic would be made 2 players were unwilling to sit tight. So the GM ran some pointless encounters (tedious in the extreme, even for the players that were acting on their own) through an entire game session while the rest of us tried to wait out the spell casting. Had the other two players been willing to sit tight, the entire party would have become much more powerful in the space of about 10 minutes. Given the over-powered nature of the campaign, this might have caught us up, but that's about all it would have done. Instead, we all had a very frustrating experience, and it soured us on the campaign, and on each other. Seriously, the hostility between the players who wanted to wait out the magic using and those who decided to explore the sewers was intense.

Lesson - Do not play the players off against each other like that, and NEVER deliberately bore a player. Some in-game conflict can be fun to play out if everyone keeps it to the characters. But when the players themselves have very different goals in mind, a GM should either help to resolve the potential conflict or let them resolve it themselves. Making it worse, or deliberately using it as a ploy to undermine a player strategy is a really bad idea. Issues like that are the sort of thing that ruins the fun and ends a campaign.

3) Too many mixed signals deprives players of a means of making any decisions. This was actually almost cool, but in the long run it soured me on the campaign. The GM would have big NPCs guide us in completely different directions, and every time the group settled on a direction we were soon given good reason to reverse our course. Even the gods gave us contradictory advice, and no sooner did we have a course of action, than some minion of the gods would show up half way through the adventure to tell us we would all be killed if we didn't turn around. In the long run, it just became impossible to make a decision with any degree of confidence that the reasons for making it would not turn out to have been false. In time, I stopped caring, and so did the other players. There was simply no basis for making any decisions, and that took the fun out of the role-playing. We began to ignore all advice and do whatever we felt like, which then angered the GM. Several times he commented that we had ignored important advice, not realizing apparently that he had never provided us with advice that had not proven bad at one point or another.

And part of the problem here is that virtually every game session was framed for us. It wasn't really an open campaign. So, we were constantly presented with a sort of "next week you'll go here" proposition only to find out half way through that we really shouldn't do that after all. So, in effect, every game was a GM proposition to the players (via the NPCs) followed by a "Nevermind."

Lesson: A good curve ball is the stuff of great drama, but too many at the same time leaves players with no leverage over the game. Let the players have some means of resolving the questions you frame for them. You can always unravel today's givens later, but always leave the players with reason to believe some part of their world makes sense.

4) The first time we got help from a powerful NPC was pretty cool. We needed it and we all breathed a sigh of relief to have the help. But this continued for game after game. We never did catch up to the level of challenge we faced and so we always needed overpowered NPCs to help us. After watching the GM play himself for half a dozen games and hope just to help out a little on the side, we finally tried to escape the major plots and just put ourselves in the middle a small war that we could handle. When this too resulted in playing second string during a battle between a lesser deity and a great dragon, the lesson for me anyway was that there was no escape from side-kick status. I deliberately triggered a free attack on my character, getting him killed and left the campaign.

Lesson: Use the over-powered help sparingly. I've done it myself, but seeing the mechanism overused so badly really made an impression. I have refrained from doing so ever since.

5) This wasn't the GM. It was me and the players. We never talked to the GM. It would have been hard doing so, because the GM was not the most approachable person in any event. Still, no-one tried.

Looking back on it, it's a lesson for me as a player and as a GM.

Lesson - Player: If you're not happy with a campaign, say something. Don't be rude and don't tell the GM what he should do, but let the GM know what he is doing that is a problem for you. Maybe he'll be responsive and maybe he won't. But try.

Lesson - GM: Be approachable. Don't just be willing to discuss problems, but make that willingness clear. That way maybe you'll know something is wrong before people start leaving your game table.

 

[Loonook]

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?

This is one of the big no nos I learned as a DM and watching other DMs commit this error time and time again.

As A DM: Don't take it personally, and NEVER let your feelings for the player contort how you're playing. It isn't just about SOs. Sometimes, you get a player who is a complete misanthrope... but is just worth sticking into the game.

One of my favorite games to run was with a group of teens from... not so good circumstances. These guys were great players... but not so great people. A lot of the ability to melt down time in institutions, prisons, or wards is the wanton suspension of the interior and expansion of the exterior. This group (which I actually mentioned in the post on Racism in Gaming, was not... the best seeds. However, there was a connection. These guys enjoyed fantasy and science fiction, pretty bright, just allowed themselves to get into bad situations which snowballed into worse and worse ones.

However, when we were at the table, I wasn't thinking about my players as people who were stuck where they were... I was thinking about them as their characters. And they didn't think of me as some sort of bad guy; the game was a privilege, not a right, and when you had made your way through a week without disciplinary action you got to come over and have the setup.

Of course, this is probably the only game I played where pens weren't strewn casually around for player access... or where I had to make sure that I was sitting in an appropriate position to view the whole table. Tense scenes, but it really helped the players to get through a rough time, and when they came out there was a lot of glowing reviews on it.

If I (playing the part of 'the man') and they (playing the part of 'the convict' or 'condemned') could get along in and out of the game without bias, have fun, and get through, then I don't think you should criticize your former players (or DMs, in many cases) for faults. We all have them. And posturing as a player or a DM is childish and kinda rude to the other side and sets a bad example for the hobby in general. When I see DMs who favor players... I'm probably bailing after a short talk with them and a few sessions where nothing changes. And that's it...

The stories can be funny (and I have plenty of them), can be sad (a few of those), pathetic (considering some of my players . . . .) or just plain scary.

If you've never had a sharp object waved around over a bad die roll, sit down and let the big boys talk about 'hard gaming'

 

[pawsplay]

I learned an important concept from one DM:

When you get a bunch of immersive roleplayers together, playing characters on a quest to save the world, don't let them meet the Ultimate Evil Bad Guy too soon or they will feel compelled to jump him and try their best. TPK!!!

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Warning, long post....

Sorry for the delay in my responding. I think there's probably better people to take lessons from than myself, since what I want from a game as a player and as a GM seems to be different from other folks.

However, it's only polite that I answer you especially since I explicitly said I disagreed with some of the lessons you'd learned.

So, here's my response, with the following understanding:
1. I've been doing this for 20 years. That's more than some and less than others. I've been through so many systems, I literally can't remember them all. I've also lived all across the U.S. and there used to be a "style" that depended on where you were. So in the past 20 years, I've been exposed to a _lot_ of different GMs and group styles.

2. I seem to be out of sync with "gamers" these days. What I want and value from playing an rpg doesn't seem to be what most folks are after. Either those folks online, or even the ones that I overhear in an rpg store.

3. These are only my opinions and therefore valid only if you're looking for the same sort of thing out of a game that I am. What is it I'm looking for out of a game? Wellll... that's kinda beyond the scope of this thread. Fast action, "Cool" moments, minimal rules fussing, and focus on the Player Characters is an ok summation for now.

4. I'm not accusing you of any "wrongness" or anything. Different folks play games for all kinds of different reasons. Same thing with running them.

5. I realize that this is a D&D board, but I personally run games other than D&D and while I'm running a BESMd20 derived game, I dislike default D&D and flat-out refuse to run it. It's too fiddly for me. I own a decent enough number of d20 books, and think that there's some solid games out there for different purposes(Grim Tales, Everstone, Lone Wolf come to mind) and a bunch more really spiffy settings. So part of my perspective is approaching things from a non-d20/D&D perspective. And a preference for less rules rather than more.

Sheesh, I hope I qualified this enough...

[sblock=a. Do not allow players to duplicate party roles.]

The problem is that duplication often leaves a base uncovered. In one of my campaigns, two players designed characters without much regard to party needs. At first, I was in your camp. Now, my character is the third string skill monkey, despite having been designed first. My skills very, very rarely get the spotlight.

Okay, so the first thing that I disagree with is this. When a player makes a character, that player is saying, "HEY!!! I think [this] is important. I want to do [this]!!"

From my perspective the game is all about the PCs. Yeah, I'm on the side of M. John Harrison and his views on worldbuilding. I get that some GMs build worlds and then enjoy running characters through them. I'm not one of them. The game is _all_ about the characters and what they're doing. I play games to be awesome in, and I run games for others to be awesome.

If a GM has characters and doesn't play to the strength of the group, it's going to be dissatisfying in general. I had the misfortune of being run through some of the Eberron modules and I @#$%@#$ hated it. The GM ran it straight by the book, and because nobody bothered making a social monkey, we got screwed on part of it. In fact, we just got screwed every step of the way, because people made characters based on what they thought would be fun and cool to play.

Not based on party roles.

Having said that, I'll also be the first to say that I often do make characters for a niche of one sort or another. In the above mentioned Eberron game for example, I played a Dragon Shaman. Poor man's healer. Most people online seem to think it's a crap class, but I had all kinds of fun with it.

The thing is "party roles" are a handy way of being able to establish areas for players to have a character that can really shine, but people seem to be obsessed with them in a slightly...odd... direction. Instead of them simply being there as a shorthand method for folks to establish areas where their character can be cool, it's treated much more like a military mission or going out to raid a dungeon in Everquest or World of Warcraft.

"Sorry Bob, you can't play a wizard. Joe over there is already one. You can play your alt cleric if you'd like. We're going to need one for this module."

If your approach to playing D&D or any other rpg is going to be from the perspective of a boardgame type of thing, that's fine if you and everyone in your group is into that. But not everyone is, and there's going to be dissatisfied people at the table if they made a character to have fun, not because of a specific party need.

It's also not an approach that's going to work for every rpg out there. Yeah, killing things and taking their stuff is a pretty popular approach to rpgs. But there's plenty of others out there that simply have combat happening as something in the context of a "larger" game going on, rather than being the primary focus.

In other words, an awful lot of straight up D&D seems to be Ultimate Fighting Championship. Whereas other games out there are more like Die Hard. UFC is all about the beat down, period. Die Hard has plenty of beat down happening, but that's to show just how cool the main character is.

No, I'm not saying that's _all_ D&D is about. Nor am I saying that's how everyone runs it. I'm just saying that there is a combat focus to begin with in the game, and focusing too much on party roles, duplication, and that sort of thing helps to reinforce that.

And even if your game _is_ that way and you like it... duplication _still_ shouldn't be a problem. As long as the game is focused around the _characters_ and what they're doing.[/sblock]

[sblock=d. Forget the cinematic: players need time to plan and argue.]

There's a reason for the shot clock, though, no question. And I prefer it if people confab over the interwebs. But DnD tactics at mid to high levels are flexible enough that it's really rewarding if you take some time to work together and some encounters need that.

I think we're just on opposite sides here. I've got no objections to needing to use tactics in a combat. I tend to run my monsters as "smart" in that they're generally not suicidal, without a pretty specific reason.

But I also tend to play without a mat, and even when I do sketch something out and have folks toss some sort of miniature or counter out to represent monsters and PCs, I do my best to avoid the "tactical" miniature combat that many seem to like in D&D.

And of course, plenty of rpgs don't have any kind of assumption about a battlemat or anything like it.

Yes, my game explicitly doesn't have AoO in it. Yeah, that means some feats are worthless. Oh well, that's life.

Action movies are pretty popular. How popular they are with "gamers" compared to the "general population" isn't particularly important. TV, videogames, movies, books... all of these things are sources of inspiration. Not just for the GM, but for players too.

I'm pretty damn certain I wasn't the only one that watched 300, and had visions of doing something like that in a game. And I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one that has a little movie playing in their head as the game is played.

"Cinematic" seems to get a bad rap these days among many gamers. At least online. I gotta say, I'm @#$%#$%# sick to death of "realistic", "gritty", or whatever else you care to call it. If I wanted to play a chump, I'd tell the GM, "Dude, I want you to run an rpg called 'Life: The Cubicle'. It'd be all about going to work and dealing with office politics and we'd have nice slow advancement and have to really struggle to get any kind of reward."

I see people talking about things like how Hit Points are good because they're a decent abstraction of a bunch of different things in a fight. Fine. Extend that thinking.

I posted in the Best moments as a GM thread, and used my last game as an example. My wife decided that her character was going to ride a Lurker Above like a sandworm out of Dune.

Cinematic as hell, but tactically... not so much going for it. Well, the group was also ambushed by Displacer Beast so she decided she'd use the Lurker Above to attack them.

It worked out for them, and everyone had a great time (except for the Displacer beast that got eaten) but if I didn't run the game in a "cinematic" fashion, nudging folks into action and not worrying so much about the tactics, what I and everyone thought was pretty cool wouldn't have happened.

Which isn't the same as saying, "Screw tactics and tactical play". I also almost killed the entire party because they were stupid in how they engaged some Ropers. A bit of quick thinking on the part of one of them, as well as a bit of generosity on my part was the only thing that kept it from being a TPK.[/sblock]

[sblock=h. Disappointed players can be a pain, but they need to face failure too.]

This I'm just going to flat out disagree with. The characters can face adversity and may not be able to achieve everything they try for, but as a general rule I feel they ought to.

Struggle, certainly. Fail? Rarely.

In general, failure isn't interesting. There are times when a player can decide that a character doesn't succeed at something in order to accomplish something else, but that's a bit different.

It might seem to be a bit of hair splitting, but I do feel it's important.

Some games (like Zorcerer of Zo) have a mechanic whereby if you tap a character's weakness, and it causes problems for a character, they'll get a bonus of some kind of Hero Points, which can be spent later for other stuff.

One might say that it's a pay-off from the GM to the player for having the character fail in some fashion.

In this particular case though, I'd argue that it's really a reward the GM gives the player for stretching a bit and allowing something negative to happen to their character in order to deepen the story/game. Since the player stretched, the GM stretches and says, "Here's some extra mojo so that when it comes time for you to do something that's _really_ important to the character, there's no stopping it."

Failure just means that something doesn't happen. And since the character is at least a partial extension of the person playing the character, it means that the _player_ has failed in some fashion as well.

Players and GMs working together to make an interesting story/game is groovy. When that involves characters experiencing some adversity, that's even better.[/sblock]

[sblock=j. Your character must be able to die for the game to be meaningful.]

YMMV. But note that I said that the character must be ABLE to die. The possibility of losing and losing BIG is what I'm talking about here; consequences, you know? A great thing that happened to me in one campaign was when, after a year, the idea that the DM couldn't let us die was broken.

I'm glad it was a great thing for you.

I flat out disagree with your premise though. Character death is a pet peeve of mine, right after characters being chumps.

I'm pretty sure that if I put out a variant game where characters all leveled up to level 10 and then died, people would think I was out of my mind. Sure, there'd probably be a few people that ate it up (there's always one out there), but the vast majority of people would think that was flat out stupid. What's the point in playing the character when you know he's meat at the end?

Some people want their character to be able to die, but not everyone does. If nobody cared about their character staying alive, why bother to have healing spells, ways to come back from the dead, and the vicious arguments that can break out over rules?

When I run a game, I flat out ask people if character death is "on the table". If everyone is willing to go along with it, then my next question is "perma-death or not"?

There seems to be this thing where people feel that if death isn't on the table, then players are going to run riot and do all kinds of crazy/stupid stuff.

That's not a function of whether or not there's "consequences" for actions in the game. That's a function of the player in question acting like a jerk.

I have a certain expectation that people are going to act reasonable. And no, I don't expect to have to define "reasonable" in an upfront document, as if this were a legal debate or something. I'm running a game to have some fun, and for other people to have fun. I should be able to say, "Ok, death isn't on the table so you don't have to worry about that. Just don't do stupid stuff like jumping off a skyscraper since your character 'can't die' and we won't have any problems."

Just because the PCs have death immunity doesn't mean there's no consequences for their actions. NPCs can die, bad things can happen to the characters, resources can be lost, penalties to actions can be given... all the usual kinds of stuff that can happen in a game.

Taking death off the table means that many (not all) people can really get into their character. They don't have to worry about investing time and effort into building the character, investing in the world and all of that, only to suddenly have the rug yanked out from beneath them.

If my character can die, I admit it... I don't invest much in the character. Why should I? Sure, he'll get a history, he'll have goals, but that's about it. Leveling him? Whatever. I'll do what I have to, but it doesn't matter. Because I know at some point the GM is going to threaten character death in some fashion.

I've never understood how it is that a GM can expect me to really invest in a character, when it can get yanked away at any moment. If the character can be butchered like a hog at any time, why shouldn't I treat the character as potential ham? Go ahead, kill him. I'll just make a new one.

After a certain point of course, it becomes ridiculous. If the GM just wants to keep killing characters, we're clearly on different pages in terms of what we want out of the game and I should leave.

To me, it's the equivalent of saying, "Being friends with someone is only meaningful if you recognize that they could knife you in the back at any time." Why the heck bother investing if that's the expected potential outcome? I invest in friendships with people that I expect to be loyal and not jack me over, and I invest in games where my method of interacting with the game and the world isn't in constant jeopardy.

Afterall... how many MMOs have perma-death as the default style of play? I realize that many rpg gamers like to view MMOs as some sort of dirty and polluting influence on rpgs, but let's be honest; MMOs are simply the newest expression of rpg play. More tactical (kinda like what people like about default D&D these days) than some rpgs, and often having less emphasis on "roleplay", but it's not like the apple has fallen _that_ far from the tree.

In an MMO, "death" has a varying degree of consequence. In general, they've found that the more "sting" they give death, the less happy people tend to be. At higher levels, people are more willing to take a greater sting; but by then, they've also invested more into the character.

In other words, while MMOs have death as a "consequence", the degree of that consequence tends to be in relation to the amount of time and effort already invested in that character. And even then, it tends to not be too harsh as otherwise most people would just walk away from it.

Now, this doesn't mean that _everyone_ agrees with this. Some people just can't play a game and take it "seriously" if their character can't die. That's fine if that's your style.

Just realize that _not_ everyone agrees with it. Yes, it's a common assumption people make in rpgs, but it's getting to be a lazy one in my opinion.

I noted above that I ask players about death being on the table when I run a game. Seems kinda odd considering how much I personally dislike it, doesn't it?

Simple answer: I run games for people to be awesome in and to be entertained. If all the players are going to be more entertained by the fact that their character can die, hey that's cool. Because I don't have a character invested in the whole thing. And it doesn't bother me that I roll crappy and my monsters and NPCs get butchered, because they're only there for the PCs to look great against anyway.

Death is often the ultimate "failure". And I've already said how I personally think that failure isn't generally interesting. Death _can_ be interesting and good and bring a lot to a game. If it happens for a _reason_. And like the whole failure thing, it might seem like hair splitting, but I do think it's an important difference. [/sblock]

So.... that's an awful lot to absorb. Like I said, I don't expect folks to agree with me. And I don't think that the people that disagree with me are doing it "wrong". Heck, I might even enjoy playing with folks that hold completely opposite views than what I've posted. It's just what I've learned over the years that works for me and why.

 

[roguerouge]

"Okay, so the first thing that I disagree with is this. When a player makes a character, that player is saying, "HEY!!! I think [this] is important. I want to do [this]!!"

I agree with this. That's very true and it sucks to play a role because there's a role to be filled, rather than because you want to fill that role. (And we can call it role, hero type, icon, or archetype.)

There's a balance to be struck. I find that I have a difficult time striking that balance. My concern is that when 2+ players design characters to do the same cool thing X, problems can result. Sometimes, in that situation, neither player gets to do X frequently enough to be satisfying. Sometimes one player is better at designing his character to do X and the other player rarely gets to do X. And sometimes, doing X requires that someone else do Y. (Healing, tanking, etc.)

With some things it's easy to resolve as a DM, such as when two players want to be the front line fighters or be the face of the party. You just add more mooks or have two different plot lines that push a different face to the fore. And sometimes, an item or a power will resolve things. But in DnD, not everyone can play Legolas, because it's a small-scale, close combat game and they'll get destroyed with no front line. And having three Gandalfs kind of ruins the charm, don't you think? And sometimes it takes months or even a year to identify a problem and find an elegant solution that doesn't look like a handout to the player.

That's where I was coming from, which is that it's so much easier if the players compromise and work things out at the outset. Duplication can work, so perhaps the ban language I used over-simplified things, but it's so much more work for the DM and extra risk for everybody if the players can't compromise and share their fantasy.

 

[roguerouge]

re: "Forget the cinematic: players need time to plan and argue."

I think that there's two issues here. First, as you'll see from the last quote on my sig, I agree with your need for the game to be heroic. I love it when my players once put their halfling monk on a balista bolt and shot him at the oncoming ship. I made up rules on the fly and imposed penalties and they cast True Strike and fired away. I love it when that guy throws himself off a cliff to grapple a manticore flying past. So we agree on the need for creativity and improvisation.

For me, "cinematic" in this context meant rapid pacing with no time to think BETWEEN encounters. And that's okay as a change of pace, but in my campaigns as a player and a DM, I don't like it as the standard rule. What I like about spending time to figure out how to tackle a problem (social, military) is that it replicates the character's innate experience, which they as players don't have. So what tactics the character would use instinctually, the player has to think them out. And I love knowing that the player's thinking about how to solve the social issue or mystery all week.

 

[roguerouge]

"j. Your character must be able to die for the game to be meaningful."

Hm. I never thought of it that way. That's pretty interesting.

 

[Storminator]

I've got two.

Episodic play: the adventure is done at the of the night, as we play with whoever shows up. I don't know if I could make it work with D&D, but it's awesome for my M&M game.

Saying yes: I used to reflexively deny new bizarre plans of my players. No longer! Let it fly and it just might work! Learned that one from PirateCat.

PS

 

[Piratecat]

Episodic play: the adventure is done at the of the night, as we play with whoever shows up. I don't know if I could make it work with D&D, but it's awesome for my M&M game.

This was a revelation to me. I've always been a "your PC must not be adjusted" guy. Seeing Storminator do this, and how much fun I had as a result, has made me a convert. I'm running a multi-session 4e game to get used to the system, and I've told all the players that they can completely change their characters every game if they want to. I wouldn't want the lack of continuity in my regular game, but it's perfect for this, and it wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.

I've learned all my GM tricks from other GMs. The reason I was so active in RPGA for so many years is that it gave me a chance to learn from some of the best. Pacing, voices, combat tricks, roleplaying... all sorts of good stuff.

 

[Storminator]

This was a revelation to me. I've always been a "your PC must not be adjusted" guy. Seeing Storminator do this, and how much fun I had as a result, has made me a convert. I'm running a multi-session 4e game to get used to the system, and I've told all the players that they can completely change their characters every game if they want to. I wouldn't want the lack of continuity in my regular game, but it's perfect for this, and it wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.

I got that trick from the Golden Age sourcebook, and it's fabulous. Rewrite your PC every session. Awesome.

PS