On GMing Advice

[pemerton]

I think it is possible for thoughtful RPGers to provide good advice and analysis of play. This is based on my experience in benefitting from that advice and analysis.

Some of those include Ron Edwards, Vincent Baker, Paul Czege, Eero Tuovinen, Christopher Kubasik, Robin Laws and Luke Crane; as well as a good number of posters on these boards: it's invidious to name names but @chaochou, @Campbell, @LostSoul, @S'mon and @Manbearcat have probably had the most influence on my practice and my reflection.

One thing that characterises good advice is that it locates itself within a fairly clear set of orientations towards and expectations of play. If I read a post or a blog and it does not do this, but rather just proceeds as if well all know what "good" roleplaying should look like, then for me that it is a warning sign that I'm unlikely to find the advice useful.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Only advice I have found useful over the years as been; "know your material and your players."

Every game is different and while GMs and players may be similar from table to table, each has their own pace and flavor, making them different. So, do not give advice, give tips, tricks, and methods to help all at the table.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

For me, the best advice is very specific and 'easy' to do.

As an example, "Roll your d20 to hit and your attack's damage dice at the same time". That is specific and easy to do. It's easy to see results from adhering to that advice.

Less useful is saying "When attacking, try and speed up the process by whatever means you can think of. Pre-rolling dice, or rolling together, or just using averages all the time". The point is still there, "make combats faster to complete in real time", but the advice is not specific, and might not even be easy (depending on different factors).

When there is "vague" advice to take or give, it needs to be "short and sweet". It can be open to interpretation, but the gain is in the fact that it IS "vague". For example, "The most important rule for a DM is this: BE FAIR!". That is 'vague' in that it isn't telling you anything specific on how to obtain that 'fairness'. But that's ok because the very word 'fair' is subjective. For example, I see 1e Barbarians and 1e Fighters as being "fair" because of XP progression over the course of months and years of game sessions; it all balances out, so to my mind it's "fair'. Others may not feel the same, and they want the two classes to be 'equal' in XP progression, damage dealing, damage taking, etc...just different 'flavours' of it.

So when the DM remembers that advice, "Be Fair!", they interpret it as suits their particular idea of fairness. But they are taking the advice, as their decision, whatever that is at the time, is weighted within their own framework of "Is this fair?".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Umbran]

Are we supposed to write long posts about our every assumption, target audience, and other things to offer better advice?

Well, no. That'd be exactly backwards. Because, again, advice shouldn't be about YOU, and your assumptions. It should be about the game of the person you're advising. How much do you know about it? If you get a more full picture of the situation, your assumptions won't really be in question - because you won't be assuming.

I'm saying that before you offer advice, you should ask questions. Ask about the playstyle of the people you are advising, ask about how the players act, what they like, and so on. Make sure the advice that comes to mind actually fits the game they are playing.

 

[Umbran]

I think it is possible for thoughtful RPGers to provide good advice and analysis of play.

Yep.

One thing that characterises good advice is that it locates itself within a fairly clear set of orientations towards and expectations of play.

Exactly the point. I'm saying that, here, we can determine the useful location by asking questions first.

 

[prabe]

Well, no. That'd be exactly backwards. Because, again, advice shouldn't be about YOU, and your assumptions. It should be about the game of the person you're advising. How much do you know about it? If you get a more full picture of the situation, your assumptions won't really be in question - because you won't be assuming.

I'm saying that before you offer advice, you should ask questions. Ask about the playstyle of the people you are advising, ask about how the players act, what they like, and so on. Make sure the advice that comes to mind actually fits the game they are playing.

It sounds as though you're suggesting that advice should be more ... personal. More about a given situation--GM, players, game (and "game" includes a lot) than general principles. I don't really disagree with you, that that's probably an ideal, but I do think there's something to be said for talking about general principles--even if some of those might not be immediately applicable for a given situation.

 

[Umbran]

It sounds as though you're suggesting that advice should be more ... personal. More about a given situation--GM, players, game (and "game" includes a lot) than general principles.

Yep.

I don't really disagree with you, that that's probably an ideal, but I do think there's something to be said for talking about general principles--even if some of those might not be immediately applicable for a given situation.

So, I'd say that "talking about general principles" is an entirely different activity than "giving advice", and should have different goals.

 

[prabe]

So, I'd say that "talking about general principles" is an entirely different activity than "giving advice", and should have different goals.

What about ... something like pre-emptive advice, for lack of a better term? The idea that there may be something like FAQ for TRPGs?

And if there are general principles worth conveying, you seem to be advocating something more like connecting them to specific situational advice. That about right?

 

[Umbran]

What about ... something like pre-emptive advice, for lack of a better term? The idea that there may be something like FAQ for TRPGs?

So, if we set aside things that are really about human interaction (Wheaton's Law, and so on)?

There's darned little that's generally applicable. It has to be targeted by game, playstyle, and so forth.

And if there are general principles worth conveying, you seem to be advocating something more like connecting them to specific situational advice. That about right?

Yep.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Game designers seldom offer good advice (Except occasionally Kevin Hite). Part of it is that most are too plugged into a 'world' mindset, where they have to appeal to the very width and depth of the hobby.

Whereas I want advice that applies only to my table.