D&D General How Do I Help Mentor a GM Making Rookie Mistakes?

[Cergorach]

But the other way to look at it is that this person has volunteered to host Poker night because no one else wanted to do it. So if the other players all show up and take the person up on their hospitality because they themselves couldn't be bothered to host... they shouldn't get to then also dictate how that person runs the game. After all... if they wanted to play poker in only a certain way so badly... then they should have hosted a poker night themselves.

An RPG is not a poker game. Poker is a relatively simple game, there is imho no way to dislike how a game of poker is being run, you either like the game or not, you like the people or you don't.

With a pnp RPG you can like the game, you can like the people, but you can dislike how the game is run, you can dislike the themes, you can dislike the story. And unlike poker, a pnp RPG generally isn't about winning, it's about having a good time. The DM is generally the fun facilitator, but everyone needs to have fun, including the DM. It's not about having fun all the time, at every moment, but the general feel should be more significantly more fun then irritation.

Just because the person is a new DM, does not mean everyone else needs to have a terrible time. If there are irritations, they should be discussed, not during the game, after the game. Preferably, so that next session the DM can prepare differently.

The problem is that quite often, people DMing can hold so tight to certain ideas/concepts that they strangle them. The same can happen with players, especially DMs that have very little experience with being a player, being an actual player...

In this case I would say, give the person some slack, see the first three sessions if they are improving, what is getting worse and what isn't changing, but should. Praise what they did wrong, suggest what they could and should do better. If you say, 'the group thinks', actually check with the group if the actually feel this way.

We generally take turns DMing in our group, we've been playing with this group (in various compositions) for ~35 years. Only one player had never DMed before, and they did this year for a couple of sessions. Yes there were issues, there were things that went well, and we let our 'face' of the group discuss it with our new DM (instead of all piling on). We know each other, we're all in the same age range, we can take a few hits. Not everything that irritates us needs to be discussed, we let some stuff slide, but the rest of us have enough experience to get some bigger lines aligned.

After their adventure, I was up next. I did discuss things with our groups 'face' (as they generally have a better insight into all the members of our group) before hand, as I wanted to do a bunch of things that were out of our norm, and probably going out of the comfort zone of some of the players. After the session zero (and a half) there was a lot of fun/cool stuff, there was also some room to improve, after session 1 even more. This was discussed with me, but I actively ask for feedback and I can take quite a bit of critisism, not every DM does so and can so. And I also noticed that I was sometimes holding too strongly to certain ideas that were good ideas at the time I thought them up, but when I realized that changing thing that the players feel like is (more) fun, why not change xyz. Things that changed were technical vision/movent thing in our (Foundry) VTT, how I was dealing out XP (after every encounter, XP for anything else would be rare, to per session with a focus on how much was done during the session), I needed to change the pacing of the dungeon crawl (discovery of unique things during each session), etc. If we did the same in our early 20s, this would have been a drama fest, but due to we being a bit older and wiser, we tend to be open a lot more to improve, but there are still limits...

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'm not sure why TTRPGs seem to be exempt from some social contracts compared to other games. If you're hosting a Poker night, Risk weekend or Softball game for the first time, you shouldn't surprise your guests with sudden rules changes. Better explain first before the investment of time and energy. I don't care if it is your first time.

The difference is that part of the rules of RPGs is that the GM decides what the rules are, changing the rules as needed is part of the GMs role in the game.

Also, the GM isn't necessarily the host. I've played in games where one of the players hosted the game at his home, provided beer and snacks and recruited both the GM and the rest of the group. We still defer to the GM when it came to the rules, the host doesn't get any special treatment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The difference is that part of the rules of RPGs is that the GM decides what the rules are, changing the rules as needed is part of the GMs role in the game.

This is not a universal view of being a GM, and GM-only choice here. Its traditional, but its not a law of nature.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm not sure why TTRPGs seem to be exempt from some social contracts compared to other games.

And how are we supposed to find the forest with all these trees in the way? The idea that TTRPGs are exempt from social contracts is so strange I don't know where to start. Everything that's not in the rulebook - and even some things that are - are managed by social contract.

The problem presented by the OP is not caused by lack of a social contract. It's that there are too many socialist contracts for the OP to know how to navigate all of them together. One contract about experts helping apprentices. One contract about the rules of the game. One contract about the authority of the DM. One contract about the expectations on a player. One contract about the group dynamic. One friendship contract between the OP and the new DM. One separate friendship contract between the OP and the DM's parent. And that's only scratching the surface. If you read some of the other posts by the OP you'll learn that he has a number of other social contracts at play related to playstyles, game experiences, social dynamics, the fact that his wife is part of the group, etc, etc. And that's before we even start to consider social contracts based on age, gender, past experiences with friends, what food people eat at the table, or who farted.

People are complicated.

 

[Clint_L]

Unless someone asked for advice, don’t give it. It’s fine to ask if they want advice, though, but only in a way that makes it clear that you are not pressuring them. And if they don’t want your advice, then that’s it - either live with it graciously or leave graciously.

If someone doesn’t ask you to mentor them, then don’t.

 

[tetrasodium]

Poker is an interesting analogy here. Can you imagine if the person running/hosting the game announces that 3 of a kind beats a flush AFTER the money is in and the cards have been turned up? Poker is a great example of a game where the rules MUST be disclosed and known before play starts, especially any changes.

I'm all for letting the new DM find their way etc., but If there is a rules mistake (or mistakes) that significantly impacts the game? or if new DM is doing something seriously impacting the fun of the table? I wouldn't publicly call the person out, but I would privately mention the issues, in as polite a way as possible.

No you are missing a step in the analogy. You might need to compete Chinese checkers night and a list of frustrations over how that game is not checkers.

. They are playing levelup5e and a not insignificant chunk (or outright majority) of the things being called "house rules very much sound like big standard rules as written with the sticking point being that they are rules as written for levelup5e rather than witc's d&d. The gm seems to be getting an extra helping if criticism for waiting until they need to explain those changes mid game as they come up in play with players who aren't familiar enough with the rules as written for the game being played to be aware without the reminder.

/I made a post earlier how the things being called b"house rules" all very much seem to be areas where levelup5e differs from wotc 5e or are areas where it provides additional rules structures for the GM to deploy.

 

[Mort]

No you are missing a step in the analogy. You might need to compete Chinese checkers night and a list of frustrations over how that game is not checkers.

. They are playing levelup5e and a not insignificant chunk (or outright majority) of the things being called "house rules very much sound like big standard rules as written with the sticking point being that they are rules as written for levelup5e rather than witc's d&d. The gm seems to be getting an extra helping if criticism for waiting until they need to explain those changes mid game as they come up in play with players who aren't familiar enough with the rules as written for the game being played to be aware without the reminder.

/I made a post earlier how the things being called b"house rules" all very much seem to be areas where levelup5e differs from wotc 5e or are areas where it provides additional rules structures for the GM to deploy.

I was responding to a different, much later, of post, that was talking about how the person running has the right to change rules. Which had brought up poker as an example.

 

[pawsplay]

Focus on positive feedback. If they ask you a direct question about some of their rules, just be honest.

 

[kermit4karate]

As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I’m a Forever GM who tends to be a “bad player” on the rare occasions I get to play. I don’t necessarily cause problems, but I have strong preferences, and it’s easy for me to get bored or judgemental.

Recently, I decided to take a break from running games and have chosen to limit my time in the hobby. I’ve passed the GMing duties to the college-aged daughter of another player in the group. I’m trying to be adaptable to the GM’s style, go along with playing a system that isn’t my favorite, and taking a class that isn’t my favorite to accommodate the fun of everyone else at the table. In short, I’m trying to be supportive as a player. And as a former GM, I’m trying to do everything I can to help her succeed - giving her access to minis, battlemaps, ambient music, rulebooks, etc.

But there’s stuff that I really want to push back on. For example, she has a habit of adding houserules in the middle of play. To make things more confusing, we're playing Level Up, which is a system that is new to us and a little more complex than we're used to. She keeps adding and changing things so we can't get our bearings.

“You just got a critical hit, so you’re going to take a lingering injury that can’t be healed without proper medical care.”
“You’re not going to keep your starting wealth. So you’re broke.”
“You don’t get hit points every level.”
“You have to burn Hit Dice to recover hit points on a rest.”
“I’m not going to tell you the DC or why you’re rolling.”
"I didn't realize that feat was so good - you can't use it anymore."
Additionally, it seems that EVERY encounter has taken place with me out of my armor with an AC of 10.

Basically, this is a GM’s first campaign, and there’s a lot of stuff she’s doing that’s against “GM best practices” and that I can tell are annoying other players as well as me.

So, do I bring this up to her? If so, how do I do it that doesn’t make me seem like a jerk trying to usurp control from a first-time GM? I want to be supportive, but I am seeing her make rookie GM mistakes. Do I try to push back to have a better time in the game - or do I value the necessity of her making these mistakes?

One doesn't first decide whether to mentor someone. Someone else must first decide whether they want to be mentored.

As others have already said better than I, focus on the positive, support her, help her (to the extent she appreciates and welcomes the help), be an asset and an ally to her. You can't force someone to want your help or even to agree with you that they need it. You can only offer help willingly and accept the response.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was responding to a different, much later, of post, that was talking about how the person running has the right to change rules. Which had brought up poker as an example.

Yes but your reply seems to echo the OP with the assumption that the GM is the one changing the rules rather than allowing for the scenario we where the player not knowing those rules for the specific poker variant they were explicitly invited to play. I commented about your metaphor extension because you included a bunch of example rule changes without allowing for the player simply not knowing the rules to the poker variant they were invited to.

The GM does have the right to change the rules. They also have the right to enforce the rules of the specific game they offered to run with a reasonable expectation of not being blamed for changing them when those rules don't match a different game players are more familiar with.