shilsen
Adventurer
A few things that work well for me:
1) Freedom: I make it clear to the players that their PCs are free to do anything they want (my only restriction being no actual PC vs. PC combat), and that the campaign is not about any pre-planned storyline of mine but about whatever it is that they choose to do and the plots they decide to follow. In my experience, any group of players given carte blanche to do what they want will quickly get themselves in way more trouble than I could have put them in. And since the trouble arises from their own actions, the effect is doubly entertaining for me (and the players, but not the PCs). One of the most important things a RBDM can do, IMO, is to give the players as much rope as they want.
2) Consequences: As Numion mentioned, consequences are really important and useful. Along with my previous point about freedom, I make it clear to the players that all of their choices (both of what to do and what not to) have consequences. This has a lot of advantages, not just for being a RBDM but from the points of view of plots in the game, giving players a sense their PCs are living in a real world, and tying the campaign together. The combination of freedom and consequnces means the PCs are perpetually creating enemies and trouble for themselves without me having to do that.
3) Greed: PCs (and players) are often greedy. And they like things that make them rich and/or powerful. So I like to provide lots of stuff in the game that benefit them, whether they be tangible (magic items, unusual special abilities, land, money) or not (fame, friends and allies). And most of these come with certain downsides to them. The trick is to make them just a little more positive than the inherent negatives, so the PC is likely to want whatever it is and keep it, even if he knows the problems that come with it. Of course, some of the time the negative emerges after the positive and surprises the heck out of the PC, but if it's an absolutely horrible negative, it's an easy choice. If it's a significant inconvenience but still overall a positive, the PC has a tough decision and is often likely to choose to screw himself some of the time. With full knowledge, which is even more amusing.
4) Schrodinger's DM: Sometimes I will put something in the game that I haven't fully decided the source or reason for, and I come up with the reason for it only when I need to. One of the big advantages with the method is that I can adapt what's going on below the surface based on what's going on in the game, what the PCs decide to do, and what would simply be most entertaining for all concerned (which often involves the greatest suffering for the PCs). And not deciding everything beforehand means it's much easier for me when I suddenly have a brainwave two weeks after the session about the most horrible thing that the event could actually mean, since I can now retroactively apply what I thought of and still have the eventual discovery be completely plausible.
1) Freedom: I make it clear to the players that their PCs are free to do anything they want (my only restriction being no actual PC vs. PC combat), and that the campaign is not about any pre-planned storyline of mine but about whatever it is that they choose to do and the plots they decide to follow. In my experience, any group of players given carte blanche to do what they want will quickly get themselves in way more trouble than I could have put them in. And since the trouble arises from their own actions, the effect is doubly entertaining for me (and the players, but not the PCs). One of the most important things a RBDM can do, IMO, is to give the players as much rope as they want.
2) Consequences: As Numion mentioned, consequences are really important and useful. Along with my previous point about freedom, I make it clear to the players that all of their choices (both of what to do and what not to) have consequences. This has a lot of advantages, not just for being a RBDM but from the points of view of plots in the game, giving players a sense their PCs are living in a real world, and tying the campaign together. The combination of freedom and consequnces means the PCs are perpetually creating enemies and trouble for themselves without me having to do that.
3) Greed: PCs (and players) are often greedy. And they like things that make them rich and/or powerful. So I like to provide lots of stuff in the game that benefit them, whether they be tangible (magic items, unusual special abilities, land, money) or not (fame, friends and allies). And most of these come with certain downsides to them. The trick is to make them just a little more positive than the inherent negatives, so the PC is likely to want whatever it is and keep it, even if he knows the problems that come with it. Of course, some of the time the negative emerges after the positive and surprises the heck out of the PC, but if it's an absolutely horrible negative, it's an easy choice. If it's a significant inconvenience but still overall a positive, the PC has a tough decision and is often likely to choose to screw himself some of the time. With full knowledge, which is even more amusing.
4) Schrodinger's DM: Sometimes I will put something in the game that I haven't fully decided the source or reason for, and I come up with the reason for it only when I need to. One of the big advantages with the method is that I can adapt what's going on below the surface based on what's going on in the game, what the PCs decide to do, and what would simply be most entertaining for all concerned (which often involves the greatest suffering for the PCs). And not deciding everything beforehand means it's much easier for me when I suddenly have a brainwave two weeks after the session about the most horrible thing that the event could actually mean, since I can now retroactively apply what I thought of and still have the eventual discovery be completely plausible.
?
