To DM or not to DM. That is the question. Any advice?

[pemerton]

I don't think that trying GMing will do you any harm!

My advice, based on my personal experience as a GM and as a player, would be not to focus too much on your "world" or your "plot". I would suggest coming up with an interesting situation, forming a few ideas about antagonists or further situations that might springboard from that, and then seeing what happens when you frame the PCs into it. Assuming that you have active players who are enthusiastic about playing their PCs, I think you'll find that a little bit of situation can go quite a long way.

It sounds like your group is playing D&D, and obviously the default situation in D&D is a dungeon. But other good starting situations can include someone in distress; mysterious events in a graveyard or a temple; or having to defend a village or homestead from attack. What they have in common is that (i) they easily engage some fairly standard PC motivations (like protecting innocent people, preventing descration of a holy place, etc), and (ii) they invite a range of PC responses none of which is too likely to bring things to a dead-end (eg there are different ways to defend a homestead, both in terms of tactical preparation and also decisions about whether to sally forth, etc; and the attackes can also do things to try and lure the PCs out).

In my experience, the most common way for new GMs (and also experienced but not-so-good GMs) to kill the game is to have a preconceived conclusion or resolution in mind, and to try and short circuit play towards that outcome. Try to avoid that.

And a related point - I wouldn't encourage you to use opposition or antagonists that the PCs can't defeat, or that they can defeat only if they work out the particular solution that you as GM have written into the story. What counts as able to be defeated will be table-variable - at some tables that will mean fighting; other tables, which take social action as seriously as other types of conflict, will include outwitting or charming someone as a standard mode of defeat. At the first sort of table, I would discourage using (say) a local baron as an antagonist, because - if the gameworld is a typical one - low level PCs can't defeat a baron in a fight, given the baron's guards etc. At a table that takes social conflict seriously, then a baron can make a fine antagonist because while he is probably safe from attack he is certainly fair game for being tricked or persuaded!

But an antagonist who can be defeated only if the PCs learn the special secret and then collect the special ingredients is, in my view, a recipe for GM-driven railroading to a foregone conclusion and is a good way to kill the game. I wouldn't encourage that. Make your situation, and its resolution, open-ended. And then let your players dig into it.

 

[Zethnos]

Yeah, understand this: once you decide to DM, it will become increasingly difficult to find games in which to be a player. Especially if people really like the games you run. Being a is awesome and amazing, and I say absolutely do it, but the most common gripe I hear from every single DM I know is that they wish they could be a player more often.

That said: do it. You won't regret it.

Yeah the good DMs I have played with all said the same thing about not being able to be a player for so long. I mostly use roll20 so I'm used to playing with complete strangers a lot. If I did DM for a long time I'd probably just go on there and find a game as a player like I have been doing haha.

I don't think that trying GMing will do you any harm!

My advice, based on my personal experience as a GM and as a player, would be not to focus too much on your "world" or your "plot". I would suggest coming up with an interesting situation, forming a few ideas about antagonists or further situations that might springboard from that, and then seeing what happens when you frame the PCs into it. Assuming that you have active players who are enthusiastic about playing their PCs, I think you'll find that a little bit of situation can go quite a long way.

Yeah I'm finding it rather difficult to balance. Like so far I have an overall idea of what the world is and what's happening on a grand scale. But I also find myself worrying about small details (though it's mostly for my enjoyment that I do this) such as, how many villages are near each major kingdom or city and how their economy works. It wouldn't bother me a bit if none of that information comes up at all, I just like doing the research for it. With that in mind though I have no real direction I want the players to go or any planned encounters yet. I plan to use a random encounter generator based on environment for the most part unless it's something for the story itself.

I'm actually very interested in posting all about my "world" for feedback, I just am not sure which thread that would go in or if people would be interested in hearing about it. It would be an extremely long post.

It sounds like your group is playing D&D, and obviously the default situation in D&D is a dungeon. But other good starting situations can include someone in distress; mysterious events in a graveyard or a temple; or having to defend a village or homestead from attack. What they have in common is that (i) they easily engage some fairly standard PC motivations (like protecting innocent people, preventing descration of a holy place, etc), and (ii) they invite a range of PC responses none of which is too likely to bring things to a dead-end (eg there are different ways to defend a homestead, both in terms of tactical preparation and also decisions about whether to sally forth, etc; and the attackes can also do things to try and lure the PCs out).

Yeah I have only really played D&D though I just joined a Starfinder group. The game I would run would be D&D 5e. I'm not sure at all as to how I would have it start yet. I have a general idea what I want the first few sessions to be able as far as setting the story, but it could really be started in any way. I don't really want to do the warn out things like you were all hired for x. The campaign I'm planning is mostly going to be about adventure and discovery.

In my experience, the most common way for new GMs (and also experienced but not-so-good GMs) to kill the game is to have a preconceived conclusion or resolution in mind, and to try and short circuit play towards that outcome. Try to avoid that.

Oh I have absolutely no clue at all as to what kind of an end this will have. In the start there will be like two main choices as to how the campaign will go based on their action. One of those choices will have like 6 sub choices and from there it's 100% up to them.

And a related point - I wouldn't encourage you to use opposition or antagonists that the PCs can't defeat, or that they can defeat only if they work out the particular solution that you as GM have written into the story. What counts as able to be defeated will be table-variable - at some tables that will mean fighting; other tables, which take social action as seriously as other types of conflict, will include outwitting or charming someone as a standard mode of defeat. At the first sort of table, I would discourage using (say) a local baron as an antagonist, because - if the gameworld is a typical one - low level PCs can't defeat a baron in a fight, given the baron's guards etc. At a table that takes social conflict seriously, then a baron can make a fine antagonist because while he is probably safe from attack he is certainly fair game for being tricked or persuaded!

Yeah I always hate playing situations like that. It's extremely annoying.

But an antagonist who can be defeated only if the PCs learn the special secret and then collect the special ingredients is, in my view, a recipe for GM-driven railroading to a foregone conclusion and is a good way to kill the game. I wouldn't encourage that. Make your situation, and its resolution, open-ended. And then let your players dig into it.

But what about setting a problem up that would require them to go out and train and get stronger to defeat? Like say I put something that they either can't defeat on their own (right now) or they could if they were like 5 levels higher. Something that doesn't require you to really do it one certain way, but something that you put a lot of effort into working towards being able to defeat. Not necessarily fighting a boss but just something they will have to come back to and can't solve within the next few sessions.

 

[pemerton]

Zethnos, some further thoughts in response to your post. I'll preface them by saying that they're my thoughts based on my experience, and whether or not they generalise to your experience and goals in RPGing is something for you to judge:

I have no real direction I want the players to go or any planned encounters yet. I plan to use a random encounter generator based on environment for the most part unless it's something for the story itself.

If you're a new GM I wouldn't encourage relying too heavily on random encounters, as they require you to establish situation in real time, and that can be hard if you're not used to it. I would have a few antagonists and situations worked up in advance. A good example of the sort of thing I have in mind is the Prince Valiant Episode Book (which I think is on DriveThruRPG if you have spare money - and here's a link to an actual play report about how I used it in a recent session).

Some ideas about situations and antagonists I think are much more useful than ideas about how things are going to unfold.

I'm not sure at all as to how I would have it start yet. I have a general idea what I want the first few sessions to be able as far as setting the story, but it could really be started in any way.

<snip>

I have absolutely no clue at all as to what kind of an end this will have. In the start there will be like two main choices as to how the campaign will go based on their action. One of those choices will have like 6 sub choices and from there it's 100% up to them.

<snip>

what about setting a problem up that would require them to go out and train and get stronger to defeat? Like say I put something that they either can't defeat on their own (right now) or they could if they were like 5 levels higher. Something that doesn't require you to really do it one certain way, but something that you put a lot of effort into working towards being able to defeat.

As a first time GM, I wouldn't recommend adopting the approach you describe here. Althoiugh you say you dont' have any idea about how it would end, you also say you've got plans for how the first few sessions would go - which is 9+ hours of play already pre-planned.

I would think hard about how you want to start, what springboards that will offer, and trying to make sure that those are interesting and can lead to further engaging situations. I wouldn't worry about how the second session will go until you've played the first. And I wouldn't encourage setting up 5-level goals: that looks like trying to pre-plan your players' actions for about 10 sessions (30+ hours) of play.

I think the Dungeon World rules have very good advice on how to run a first session, and how - once you've done it - to then prepare for a second session. Some of it is system-specific, but I think it's adaptable to other systems.

Another way to handle the starting session is to have each player write a "kicker" for his/her PC - in 5e this would integrate with race, class and especially background. I won't explain what a kicker is in this post, but will link to another actual play post which describes the technique and gives an example of how I used it to start my Dark Sun 4e game.

I think having a fun - exciting, engaging, I really enjoyed that! first session is far more important than planning for a long campaign whose true pay off will come many hours of play down the line. If you have a fun session then, even if the campaign ends up going nowhere, you got practice GMing and had a good time with the players. And if it was a fun session there's a good chance that it won't go nowhere because those players will want to do more fun RPGing with you!

 

[S'mon]

YI'm not sure at all as to how I would have it start yet. I have a general idea what I want the first few sessions to be able as far as setting the story, but it could really be started in any way. I don't really want to do the warn out things like you were all hired for x. The campaign I'm planning is mostly going to be about adventure and discovery.

I've recently been GMing Gygax's The Village of Hommlet for the first time (pdf on rpgnow) and IMO it's pretty much the perfect masterclass on how to start a D&D campaign. There are tons of hints to wider happenings and gathering dangers, but the scenario is entirely non-linear with well detailed friendly village (that includes lurking danger) and a really well done starter dungeon. Relationships between NPCs and even monster groups are all nicely mapped out, and even friendly locales get (great) floor plans, expanding the potential scope far beyond loot-the-dungeon. I would recommend looking at it and either use as a model or adapt to your own setting; eg I'm setting it in Damara in the Forgotten Realms 1359 DR, in the aftermath of the fall of Witch-King Zhengyi replacing the fall of the Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[S'mon]

I think having a fun - exciting, engaging, I really enjoyed that! first session is far more important than planning for a long campaign whose true pay off will come many hours of play down the line.

This is definitely true. OTOH I think nested bosses are a good idea, in my Hommlet game the F0 bandits report to the evil priestess Abrogail Clr-4 (replacing the Moathouse Ftr-4) who reports to Lareth the Beautiful Clr-5, who reports to off-stage Lolth Cult superiors, as yet undeveloped. And there are rumours of other villains like the Thayvan slaver the bandits have been dealing with.

Random encounters - I am a big fan, I certainly think that presenting situation in real time is a skill any D&D GM needs to develop. An encounter chart can be arbitrarily short though; the big important thing is not knowing when or if the bandits/bugbears/giant tick are going to show up. IME that uncertainty the GM has, feeds through to the players and creates excitement.

 

[pemerton]

This is definitely true. OTOH I think nested bosses are a good idea, in my Hommlet game the F0 bandits report to the evil priestess Abrogail Clr-4 (replacing the Moathouse Ftr-4) who reports to Lareth the Beautiful Clr-5, who reports to off-stage Lolth Cult superiors, as yet undeveloped. And there are rumours of other villains like the Thayvan slaver the bandits have been dealing with.

Random encounters - I am a big fan, I certainly think that presenting situation in real time is a skill any D&D GM needs to develop. An encounter chart can be arbitrarily short though; the big important thing is not knowing when or if the bandits/bugbears/giant tick are going to show up. IME that uncertainty the GM has, feeds through to the players and creates excitement.

Isn't Lareth 8th level? (Or am I misremembering?)

My view on nested bosses is handle with care - there's some space, but maybe not a whole heap, between enticing "wheels within wheels" and frustrating "it seemed like we won but we really didn't, and have to jump through some more hoops". I think as a first-time GM it might be better to have a clear sense of a here-and-now antagonist, let that resolve in the first session (or two), drop hints or allow developments as seems to make sense in play based on what the players do, and then retrofit the bigger picture onto the emergent chassis (to put it in clunky metaphorical terms!).

I agree that a new GM has to learn how to do real-time content-introduction and situation-framing. But for the first time, I'd probably have a couple of those already thought up - the thugs are an old standby, maybe the priest being robbed is another - ready to drop in when it seems appropriate. Like those two - and like some of the Hommlet elements - those all allow both combat and social approaches (either as first response, or in sequence).

But like I said, I can only speak from my own experience and what has worked for me. Every table, every player-GM dynamic, is likely to be different. (Both in how it kicks off, and even more in how it develops. That's part of the fun of RPGing.)

 

[S'mon]

Lareth is only C5. He does have a small army and a staff of striking!

He makes a good end boss for the module, but the adventure sets him within the context of a wider world. With his defeat there is a sense Evil has suffered a reverse but is far from defeated.

I am not using the adventure as rails to the next adventure, I have several ideas how things may go from here much of which centres on Damaran politics not dungeon bashing.

My main advice is to have the first adventure open (tbc)

 

[S'mon]

up the world and present choices and possibilities the players can pursue, while also being satisfying in itself. Main thing is NEVER start with a railroad, you are just training players to follow rails. It seems to work in crpg tutorials. In ttrpgs it is bad.

 

[Blackmoor_Film]

Everyone who has a set of rules should try to DM at least once. My experience is that it is easy to over think it.

You have a world? Well, maybe all you need is a one level dungeon.

Your players bailed out after 3 days of working on characters? Maybe you need to start beginners faster.

Dm'ing isn't a competitive art, it's just something one does and learns from. And perhaps being a DM sometimes, will give you a greater appreciation for other DM's when you play again.

If you think in terms of a one off game, you can have more freedom as a DM. I like giving people 2 characters in a one off. And I will even say something like: ok, everyone gets 40k experience points to play with. I also tell them: since this is a one off, we're gonna be playing in a super deadly way. No cake walk!

 

[Zethnos]

You have a world? Well, maybe all you need is a one level dungeon.

Your players bailed out after 3 days of working on characters? Maybe you need to start beginners faster.

Dm'ing isn't a competitive art, it's just something one does and learns from. And perhaps being a DM sometimes, will give you a greater appreciation for other DM's when you play again.

I made the world more out of fun, something to do when I had a lot of free time.

The players I was working with were close friends and there was literally no way to start them faster. They just wouldn't work on the characters, wouldn't ask questions, or let me give them advice or help in any way.

Competitive? Where did that come from? >_>
I respect DMs fully. Where are you coming from on this?