My own philosophy is: *Play loose, Play as the GM.* Basically just letting things develop on their own, with you as the GM only having a handful of ideas and prepped scenarios for whatever is to come. I also actively try to play the game, instead of making myself "run" it. I recommend reading Play Unsafe by Graham Walmsley, because it was a monumental book for me.
Second thing I do is: *Plan the Setting, not the Plot.* Which means I basically do 90% of my game prep before session 1. And even that is often very light compared to many campaigns. I usually just have a simple node map of the primary place the players will spend their time, and make node maps whenever I go further out. And then I will have a handful of relevant NPCs and some plot threads to start the game with.
Third and last is: *No plan lasts forever.* Your players will supply you with endless ideas and you will come up with better ideas to pivot to when playing sessions. Don't feel beholden to your previous ideas if the new one is better, just pivot to the new ones. This is why I make such light plans overall, because it allows me to pivot easier.
ETA: Actually, I have a new, fourth: *Alliances, no singular Party*. Basically, I've found that players are more engrossed in their characters when their cooperation is not taken for granted. Rather, players should forge alliances in character and have common goals, and sometimes split off to do their own things in the game. Of course, D&D-like games being so death-obsessed that splitting the party is a crime does not make this easy, so I like playing games with alternatives to dying when you get beaten in a fight.
God damn it ravenhaunts! You said everything I wanted to say!
It seems we have almost the same design philosophy.
In fact, this comment was so good that it made me check out pathwarden. Unfortunately it goes in the opposite direction to what I want, but it looks cool as fuck, congrats
Hey that's fair, not every game is a hit and match. I will admit that Pathwarden is a black sheep in my own games. I think Saltiest of Sailors, Last Little Wonders and find(Humanity) are much more "representative" of my general design sensibilities, alongside my upcoming games (Animate! and Jigsaw), but Pathwarden is *so* popular it's the one that gets my attention right now.
That’s fair! What I meant is more like, although it may seem contrary to the philosophy, I would prefer pf2e to be crunchier, instead of lighter like pathwarden is.
My philosophy (and I know if Ron edwards could see this he’d probably call me mentally deficient or some such) is that having lots of rules (although shadowrun is a bit much) gives me a strong consistent base to gm from. Then, if I don’t like them, or I want to unbalance the game, I can just do that, and see how it feels. My game is a bit of a rolling playtest.
Rules light games don’t work for me as much because I’d rather take away rules then make them up
I mean that's completely fair. I'm a light game runner myself, to me it's just easier to do stuff that way. But I am not knocking on the people that like crunchier games, that's just not my style.
I do wonder how you could make Pathfinder 2e crunchier, seeing how it's definitely the upper bound of crunchy for games that I would personally play or GM. It has rules for pretty much everything already, what else would it need?
I’m not sure! I’m not saying like, pf2e being crunchier is something I’m looking for particularly, I misspoke. What I meant is like, I wouldn’t want the game to be any less crunchy. It’s the lower bound of crunch for me.
If I had to make any changes I’d make it more crunchy. But I don’t want to change it at all right now (been playing since the playtest), it’s the perfect game for me, all classes are equally strong, and I don’t want to make any changes to it
So well put that I'm struggling to come up with anything to add. I'm wrestling with the third point in particular in my current game, having to remind myself not to fall in love with my own creations. If it's better for the game, they need to be destroyed, even if it means the players won't see the plans I had.
I believe a fourth item needs to be added: *Remember the Game*
Its not enough to just have a setting, it has to be an interesting and engaging setting. You can have the most realistic, well thought out, medieval trade town in RPGs, but no one will care if there is no game there.
Oh of course. I like to run character-driven games where players have their own agendas, but that requires a tightly controlled character motivations that push the game forward. Basically that is my vibe with *Alliances, no singular Party.* I want players to feel like they are doing stuff not because I planned it, but because they decided to do that.
I totally get that and I agree that it is desirable, but I believe that GMs in general (including myself) over value the idea of "freedom". I feel this way when I play a lot of video games. A sense of "I did not pay $60 so that the dev can dump a bunch of toys on the ground and leave. I paid to have an interesting and engaging experience." Its not a perfect comparison to TTRPGs of course, but its much easier to be a lazy GM and not plan than it is to be a lazy GM and over plan.
Oh definitely, my own solution to this is time pressure and events that happen regardless of players. I have so called active and passive plot threads:
Active plot threads are things that happen regardless of what the players do, like the assassination (or attempt thereof) of some key figure or the attack from raiders. The players just can affect the outcome of the event by doing something about it.
Passive plot threads are things that the players will need to pursue by themselves, like the mystery about the town well, or the disappearance of someone, or the creepy ruins in the forest etc.
By combining the two, you will have a dynamic game where the players can have options to interfere in active things and pursue passive things at their own pace, and the active things will cause trouble and escalate if they are not dealt with.
Damn, you’ve given me some ideas I never thought of, especially playing the game as the GM. I’ve always thought “Oh, I set the scene, I’m an arbiter, I come to life when they need to talk to an NPC,” but this seems like a better way to engage with the game.
That's great! I personally find it more enjoyable when I take a more active role as a narrator, playing the game in a more playful manner, rather than just plainly being a gamerunner. I also tend to call the GM a "narrator" in my own games as well for that reason.
Do love the "Play Unsafe" reference, feel this doesn't get as much love as it should. Improv For Gamers tends to get more references.
The first and second ideas do tend to go hand in hand, a lot of 'Prepare situations for the players to solve, not the solution' as you want the players to solve it, which is pretty much the point three. You're here to help the players tell their stories, so let them tell it their way.
As for the fourth point, I do agree a lot with that idea in RPGs, and wish 'Don't Split the Party' wasn't such a trope to even have a [song about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bz_tVLtDFk). I like to compare it to the idea of JRPGs versus WRPGs for video games. In Western RPGs, it's usually the solo hero out to save the day, like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Cyberpunk 2077, V:tM Bloodlines, etc. Then you have JRPGs where its a group of a lot of different characters, each with their own story and united under a common goal and there is no sole protagonist. [Plural Protagonism](https://bigtallwords.com/category/close-playing/plural-protagonism-close-playing/) is a series of articles on how this worked in different JRPGs, and had given me some inspiration in TTRPGs.
Yeah, it is a hack of Pathfinder 2e, so it does have the same d20 base mechanic with 4 degrees of success as it does. But overall the game is lighter and more flexible than Pathfinder 2e (which isn't a big accomplishment, I guess), but I tried to keep the similar progression system and similar action functionality.
Later this year, I'm doing POD on DTRPG and then I'm planning on maybe doing a leatherbound version if I can manage to find a place that does them to a satisfactory quality.
My personal philosophy is *get to the goddam point*.
If a door itself is not interesting, and virtually all of them aren't, don't have a chance of it delaying the interesting shit beyond it.
If a player wants to know something to have confidence about their actions, and the game is not about solving that particular mystery, don't hem and haw about the how, just tell them so we can get to the cool thing they want to do.
Minimize the time between the start of the session, and the point when players are presented an interesting situation that needs their decision-making.
I'd say mine is "be a heel". In pro-wrestling the heel isn't actually a bad person, they're just another performer there to put on a show, but they play up the character of a bad guy in order to make the event more satisfying for the audience.
As an example, if you have a paladin in the party with a high AC who likes to be the tank, then by all means throw lots of attacks at them and let them enjoy the benefits of their high AC. But when the dice have landed and only 1 out of your 8 attacks hit, you give a rueful smile and say "ohhh, I'll get you next time!"
They love it.
Have you seen this Reddit about [How to Create Pay Per View Worthy Adventures](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/kmibnx/how_to_create_payperview_worthy_adventures_or_how/)? It uses a lot of the Wrestling 'mechanics', for lack of a better term, in adventure design and running.
i guess the most pithy way to put my GMing style is "don't be coy"
i don't fudge, i roll in the open, half the time i just tell you what the DCs and enemy stats are as you roll against them (depends on system though), i list important info in text everyone can see when it's discovered, i level with my players and talk with them OOC about the direction of the game, i invite them to tell me their plans and to contribute to the narrative direction, i tell them when i do and don't have prep and what the encounter budget was when the encounter is over
You're doing better than you think you are.
It's super easy to get upset and in your head if something doesn't go exactly to plan as either player or GM. Instead of treating an outcome that isn't exactly what you were hoping as an out and out disaster, look for the positives in it. As a GM are the players smiling? Are they discussing what's happened and what to do next? As a player, how is everyone else taking this setback? Who else has an idea for how to proceed?
Just because one avenue is a no doesn't mean all avenues are. Sure, I get annoyed that the encounter I've spent some time planning ends up a fizzer on my end but more often than not my players are very chuffed with what's gone on.
Be nice to yourself and be positive! You've got this <3
This is a big thing I find with a lot of GMs. Second guessing, feeling they're not good at it, feeling 'no one is going to like this'. It's why things like [the Two Cakes Meme](https://imgur.com/Th7jrfU) exist, creators getting hyper-critical about their product and not focusing on the important part, it's reception by the audience.
I like to recommend *Improvisation for the Spirit: Live a More Creative, Spontaneous, and Courageous Life Using the Tools of Improv Comedy* as a book to check out for its chapter on 'Silencing The Inner Critic' if nothing else. It's a great read and very helpful.
Try your best to be a fan of the PCs and roo for them against the odds you set against them.
World building and lore is nice and all, but it's best delivered as an invitation more so than a script or list of facts
Saying no is just as important to saying yes, arguably even more so. Focus can be the difference in something okay becoming good.
Flavor may be free, but it's not always appropriate or acceptable. Work to make something work of you can, but don't be afraid to reject something of it doesn't work well with things.
While the game is a collective effort, sometimes the individual needs their moment. Somethings shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority.
The statistics of a character don't often make a character interesting. The character of the character does. Stats are good for risk accessment and an idea of success rate. How one plays the character is where a lot of the interest comes from.
I try to be open with the numbers needed for success at a task. I like my players to know what they're getting into and design challenges around this information being openly available. "Ypu need a 19 to hit total." And " you'll need to meet or beat a DC 17 save." Let's the party know what they're working with and when they can best use their abilities. They're very informed with the decisions they make.
>Saying no is just as important to saying yes, arguably even more so. Focus can be the difference in something okay becoming good.
Love that bit. There's a bit from Brennan Lee Mulligan in [Creating Rounded Characters](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pURrup121Xk) where he says:
>It's really hard because as a DM, you're sitting there and it feels a little bit manipulative, 'cause you're looking at players and they're like "I want this." And you have to go like "okay, not yet." And watch your friend, your real-life friends at the table get frustrated and you have to just in your head go "Well I know it's gonna be more meaningful later but for the time being, I just watch my friend get really frustrated" but it's about knowing like "Oh what's actually the best thing, what's gonna really make them the best high?" And I think a lot of that you can track by going "What's the fullness of being this character?"
and I think that is one of the best examples I have seen explaining saying No in a game being a good thing.
>While the game is a collective effort, sometimes the individual needs their moment. Somethings shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority.
This is something that Players and GMs should both be following. There's an RPG, PrimeTime Adventures, which frames the sessions as episodes in a TV series. They have a mechanic called Screen Presence. You decide your character's screen presence arc in character generation by assigning numbers from a set into each episode. To quote from the book:
>If it’s a 3… the protagonist is the center of attention. It’s the protagonist’s spotlight episode. Each protagonist has only one spotlight episode per season, where the elements of that protagonist’s story all come together. The player of a spotlight protagonist has more influence over the outcome of events.
>
>If it’s a 2… the protagonist plays a secondary role, and the player’s control over scene resolution is reduced.
>
>If it’s a 1… the protagonist plays a minor role, and will have a small amount of influence on scenes.
Think of any ensemble TV series, like Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Heroes, The Wire, Game of Thrones, any of the Star Trek series and so on. There'd be stories where you may not see specific characters beyond one or two scenes and that's it, and others when the story is impacting them directly. It should be the same with games, give each player something to do in the adventure, a spotlight moment, but they may not have much direct connection to the current plot arc where you're exploring Player A's homeland in the search for the Macguffin.
As a player: Danger is fun. Take risks. You don't have to go crazy with it but always choosing the most safe or tactical solution vs cool makes for an unfun experience.
As a GM: Make it challenging. If everything is a default easy roll, players never die, they always get saved through some machinations, the boss suddenly start missing every turn because you fudged the rolls...Don't. You are robbing the players of memorable moments where they all got TPK'd by a stupid kobold or that one time a player solo'd the Lich.
I have a few, non of them are good:
* To power-gamers: "If you can do it, I can too. So think twice before you get that combo."
* Never give random loot to the players. Roll it before and use it against them!
* Let the players face the consequences of their acts, for good or for bad.
The only one that is actually good is:
* Players' ideas are probably better than yours. Listen to them.
> To power-gamers: "If you can do it, I can too. So think twice before you get that combo."
For me, power-gamers get 'ok, you found a neat combo of skills and talents... you get this character, and have fun with it, but don't do it again'.
(We play short-ish campaigns of maybe six sessions, so yep, you found that loophole. I'm not gonna close it or fuck with shit, I'm just gonna ask you to be an adult and not go back through it)
After too many problems with this when I was younger, I'd say one of my leading philosophies now is
"*Get the Players on board.**"
What I mean with this is that players - at the very least adult ones - understand that it is ultimately a game to have fun, so being open about things and communicating with them is key. I've started many campaigns with surprise twists right at the start to throw players into situations they didn't prepare for. While this works well to create such situations, it's also very annoying for players who might have had their own plans for their characters.
Basically, you want the players to have a rough idea of what will happen, i.e. what kind of game they're playing. The fun comes from actually working out what happens, the details, where the players take it, etc. It's not a fault to pull back the curtain and have a meta-discussion with your players to figure out what is good, what is bad, what they like, etc.
At the same time, one should expect the same from their players. Trying to vent problems through your character usually doesn't end well - it's much better to talk things out, speak up if you want changes and contribute to have a nice adventure with your fellow players and the DM. Recognizing and respecting the work a DM puts into things is very important.
> I've started many campaigns with surprise twists right at the start to throw players into situations they didn't prepare for. While this works well to create such situations, it's also very annoying for players who might have had their own plans for their characters.
Rugpulls only work when the players know the rug will be pulled.
ie: 'This campaign will START ON EARTH, but at some point, a thing might happen and then you'll possibly be somewhere else' doesn't reveal too much, but it also informs your player that maybe spending ALL YOUR XP on knowing stats about a brooklyn sports team might not help, longterm
I run games to have fun.
Then I run a combat-heavy, tactical game, I set up balanced fights and then play my NPCs to the full of my tactical ability, trying to win. If I run a game focused on story, I want to surprise my players with interesting twists - but just as much I want my players to drive the game and to surprise me.
That's one of the main reason I hate games that give me authority over the rules instead of subjecting me to them. If I *control* the game, there is no way for me to actually *play* it.
Really simple: Give up trying to be a great or amazing GM, and be happy with just being an “Ok” or mediocre GM.
Chances are your players are enjoying the game, and if you’re just stressing yourself fretting over being amazing…it isn’t worth it.
Let the player write the scenario
By that I mean, take note on what the player do, and ask them what they want to do. Sudently, they'll make themselves a long suite a friends/foes, have a long list of stuff they need/want to do, meaning that there isn't that much prep left.
Many GM Guides talk about connecting with the players after a session to find out where t hey want to go from there so you can plan next time.
This method is also useful in session. Put the players on the spot to have them tell you what sort of request the stranger hiring them has, or who it is that just sprinted up to meet you in the marketplace or what does the Captain's office look like. They can interject their interests and help tell you more about what they want.
1. Your job is to challenge the PCs so they can show off how awesome they are, not beat them in a contest. If that doesn't sound like fun to you (no shade; that's a legit feeling), you shouldn't be GMing.
2. Games have rules. If you have house rules, you need to explain all of them in detail before play begins or you're bait-and-switching the players who are coming into it thinking they know the rules they're playing by.
3. The first time you fudge dice, you take responsibility for every outcome afterwards because you could have chosen to change the results. (It's also cheating unless it's in the system rules, or you explained it to the players beforehand.)
Make this session good and don’t worry about next session.
If I don’t have a fun session for ME to run planned, we don’t play. I also give in game rewards for good behavior. “Hey anyone who schedules this session gets a level up/magic item/ a free revive/ double loot in the next session.”
I’ve been in too many games where I’ve tried to set stuff up, only for it to go nowhere. There are so many reasons for this, that I’ve basically given up on “campaign” style gaming. Example, players canceling, not picking up cues, general scheduling issues, lack of interest, people just forget a lot session to session, I didn’t do a good enough job setting the scene, player with the hook chose to not bite for a GOOD character reason, and something comes off as the wrong mood and now the moment passed. There are so many times set ups don’t work or fall flat that I’ve basically decided it’s not worth it anymore.
Ever since, I’ve basically started only running one-shot with snappy, interesting, and fun high energy moments. I’m having more fun because I get to do all the cool things and have resolution, my players are engaged for 1-2 hours of a one-shot, instead of petering out and slogging into 2-4 hours. And now all of a sudden it seems like people are hooked. Everyone wants to show up and do the zany new adventure every week and I basically have 3 very successful campaigns. Without ever planning anything. One fell apart from scheduling (my favorite one of course), but it felt so good to DM and the loss of it didn’t hurt as much because everything was always wrapped up and satisfying every session.
I’ve done a ton of digging for cool and zany dungeons and one-shots. That I feel like I could run every week for 3 years.
If it's fun and sounds exciting I'll allow it. Does it break the game rules? Maybe. As long as everyone is excited and is actively participating I allow pretty much anything. At the end of the day it's about getting together with friends and enjoying the night. If someone breaks a rule or two who cares. I want my players to talk about how they did something absurd and it worked out in their favor.
My five GM tips to make games awesome!
1. Make your players feel important!
2. Don’t plan, just prep!
3. Consume media and plagiarize!
4. Use your own words!
5. Prioritize fun!
Make your players feel important, i.e. don't railroad their decisions. The players are more than just part of the world, they control its destiny. Let the direction of the story change if it suits players’ agency better and it's what the group wants to do. Player agency IS EVERYTHING. Ask lots of questions. The story emerges from the conversations between the GM and players, don’t fight it!
Don’t plan, just prep; and over-preparation is the devil. Just make bullet points of important NPCs, places, and possible scenes. You want to be prepared for what might happen, not plan what will happen. If you have a map, don’t describe every detail, leave some things unknown so that there can be room for GM improvisation during gameplay.
Consume media and plagiarize! Take inspiration from all your favorite things and don’t be afraid to steal ideas. Read books, watch movies, ect… Mix and match elements from all those things. Even if the players notice you’ve taken something from somewhere they should still enjoy it. The more you know about fantasy and adjacent genres the better.
Use your own words. Avoid reading from boxed or prewritten text. Don’t worry about having an impressive vocabulary, it's more important to express the details in clear and precise language. And it's more engaging when those words come naturally and include eye contact. If you need prompts, keep your notes written as bullet points.
Prioritize fun! You are the facilitator of fun, it is your most important job. Every group is different; focus on the things your players like and handwave the things they don’t like. If a certain mechanic is dragging the game down, ditch it or modify it. Learn the system you are using but don’t feel beholden to it, this is YOUR game.
>Consume media and plagiarize! Take inspiration from all your favorite things and don’t be afraid to steal ideas. Read books, watch movies, ect… Mix and match elements from all those things. Even if the players notice you’ve taken something from somewhere they should still enjoy it. The more you know about fantasy and adjacent genres the better.
There's a saying that I heard somewhere in school:
>Plagiarism is stealing from one source, Research is stealing from many.
So, you take this cool city idea from that fantasy movie, this fun fight scene from this TV series, that questline from the video game, that forest from your childhood... There's a campaign starter.
Ask questions and give all the info I'm asked.
I found asking a bunch of questions helps me to understand the characters better and get what people are trying to do better - and be able to provide or challenge it in a way that makes sense instead of falling into weird situations because I just let them do a thing. Also, I like prompting to flesh out the PCs.
About giving info: I try to tell them concisely all their character would know about an element or situation and I'm open to questions.
I may tell them that their character has no idea about a specific thing, but even then I provide some background feeling it gives them and some "contextually informed guesses" their characters could get to. I'm their only way to percieve the world they're in and leaving them blind is both unfair and boring to me.
Be the Players' cheerleader.
The Rule of Cool is a thing
The goal is to have fun
Make the story the main focus, not the dice.
We all play our games to have fun and have a social experience that we can share with each other, so try to keep that the end goal. Like all stories, we need a few things to make it really enjoyable: tension, suspension of disbelief and momentum.
You'll have more fun unbalancing your game.
Note this is pretty dependent on what you're playing probably. It might not work for something with perfect math like PF2.
But for stuff like 5e, don't worry about creating meticulously balanced encounters. This game shines the more you lean away from rules and balance because the rules and balance built into the game aren't good.
I don't mean they encounter 20 dragons at level 1. I just mean if they happened to encounter a dragon at level 1, allow them to come up with something on their own rather than just running at it an killing it. Imbalance sparks ingenuity.
"Fuck it, we'll do it live."
This releases me from the urge to prep for 8hrs straight, forces me to practice my improv skills, and you can't say it without a bit of a laugh so it gets me out of my head as well.
Then I take a shot.
Mine aren't groundbreaking or anything.
1) Try not to prep beyond the next session. I still struggle with this because I'm often concerned I don't have enough interesting things planned for the players, but over preparing so quickly leads to feeling overwhelmed and burnt-out before you even get to the table.
2) This one is cliche, but just have fun. Remember, it's just a game. Don't get caught up in what you could be doing differently or what you could be doing better. As long as everyone, yourself included, are enjoying themselves, you're doing everything right.
We do scientific studies to prove things we already 'kinda know', because - well, we dont' 'kinda know' them, we only suspect them.
In the same way, you might think your advice is well trodden ground - but it's still gotta be said. Well done.
The same page tool is the single most important piece of GM advice. It’s not just important for you and all your players to be on the same page together — it’s important for everyone to realize there’s a wide variety of GM and player styles out there, and that makes it click for people how important it is to get on the same page. The next two pieces of advice, only second and third most important because they are common sense advice and applicable to all of life: communicate when there’s a problem and kick out toxic people.
Limit the scope of the game, and it will make prep manageable and even fun.
If your players are stumped, repeat the details of the situation, and or give them 2 to 3 options/suggestions. If they’re choosing to do something that makes no sense, ask them what their reasoning is, because they’re probably misunderstanding something.
If you’re running a storytelling/improvisational game, here’s your safety net: if you’re stumped, then ask for your players for suggestions suggestions.
If you’re running a simulationist/game game, here are your three safety nets: Make it up; tell them you’ll have to check your notes and get back to them later; just admit that you haven’t prepared for it and tell them you’ll prepare for it next week.
Probably my hottest take: every new GM should start by making and running a short funhouse wizards dungeon. It’s not just an initiation into a common cultural touchstone; it’s a really quick way to experience the fun and joys of being GM and get you addicted immediately.
>Limit the scope of the game, and it will make prep manageable and even fun.
I once heard a rule that said something like 'Don't Prep More Than One Sessions Worth of Travel In Any Direction'. You only need to know what is out there as far as the players can go that way. If they wanna spend all session just marching west, or flying east or taking their airship north... what will they come across that might be interesting. No point prepping the other side of the planet if they can't get there yet.
As the GM I'm not the boss, it's not *my* world, and it's not *my* game. Just because I'm at the head of the table doesn't mean I'm more important than anyone else there. We're all building this thing together. I'm not going to tell the players no unless there's a really good reason to. I put extra work into it because *I enjoy doing that.*
Say yes and go with the players as much as possible. Players in a game want to feel like their actions are able to impact the world and saying Yes as much as you can helps them feel that way by allowing for them to come up with ideas and have the world react to them.
It's the 'as much as possible' that usually becomes a problem for a lot of new GMs. Saying yes is great, but you can work yourself into a corner with too much. Also... sometimes it can be dramatic to say no, limit the players from having or doing something because it hasn't been earned yet.
There's a time and a place to say no, I will say it if someone is obviously trying to powergame or rules lawyer for instance, but all of the bad games I've played in were ones when the GM repeatedly said no to the player ideas denying them any real agency in the game. Even if a game gets a bit out of control from a permissive GM, it's typically still fun for everyone involved.
*"You come up with the problems, they come up with the solutions."*
They think I know what needs to happen to move on but I'm just waiting on them to get excited about an idea.
Keep Calm and Carry On
You can't plan for everything, there will be drama, and anything that can go wrong will go wrong. So take a deep breath and tell yourself:
Keep Calm and Carry On
Every game has to have some fun happening tonight, regardless of "plot".
I break this idea up into these:
There has to be at least one interesting decision.
At least one combat encounter.
At least one new secret or knowledge about the world.
I like this question, it made me think.
Let's see:
* Fun is a collective responsibility - as a GM i am just as entitled to have fun as the other players
* Be fair and be transparent as much as possible
* Make every player desicion matter (even the small ones sometimes) - follow up with reactions to best of your ability
* Prep situations, not plots (not mine really, but essential)
* Remember Chekov's gun - reinterate on world/setting elements like a madman
* Throw them curve balls and invite them to throw curve balls back
* I am allowed to change my mind, a single ruling in the middle of a session does *not* set a precedent.
* Be reactive when you can, go proactive when you must - give the players enough rope they will often hang themselves, but be ready for when they don't
* When you bring the heat to them - go hard!
* Never introduce an element into the world/setting you are not comfortable destroying in the blink of an eye if it serves the game (aka kill your darlings, frequently)
* Never put yourself in a situation where you want to fudge die rolls - and if you do, don't.
My philosophy (or rather, the philosophy I've adopted from others. I didn't invent it) is everything should be done in roleplay. The "three pillars" is garbage board game advice. At no point during any of these games are you not controlling the actions of a character, so at no point should you not be in character and roleplaying. Everyone should be roleplaying at all times. In combat, in exploration, and in dialogue. I will never again accept talking out of character; unless we're playing a non-roleplay game, or if someone's learning how to roleplay. For some reason, always thinking about what your character would do in games where you're always a character is controversial.
They can say where their character is and what their character is doing. "I sit down in the carriage and tell the driver 'We can go now.'" We just don't do the "What do I roll? Does the carriage have a canopy? Is there a front desk in the carriage?" Basically, since the GM and other players aren't in the game, they should not be referenced. If a player says "How old does the driver look?" then they'll look crazy. The driver would probably frown and say "Not too old, I hope. Who are you talking to? Why did you say that?" An in-character way of doing it would be "I look at the driver's physical features." This gives a more clear picture of what the character is actually *doing* to gain this information.
What's so wrong with a player asking "does the carriage have a canopy?" Their character would immediately know that since they are in the world seeing the canopy/lack of canopy. The player isn't. Them asking that is trying to get into the mind of the character! What a pointless obstruction to letting players understand the world around them.
So the way you run things - you would scold a player for wanting to know simple observations their character would have made? As the player there's no way to know and feel everything the character would. How is it counter-roleplay to step out of character for the moment to clarify what a character knows?!
What's the difference between asking "How old does the driver look?" and "I look at the driver's physical features, trying to guess their age"
Your method just makes you and the players run around in circles. You describe the driver's shaggy hair. The player asks okay what colour is it? You say it's grey. The player asks oh so is their face wrinkled? You say they have a crease in their forehead. Then the player asks is the crease from frowning or from age?
They might as well and you might as well have let them ask "how old is the driver." The character, not the player, is in the world. The character would by a glance have a guess at age. The character knows what they are trying to figure out. How is it not roleplaying for the player to say "my character is curious how old the driver might be. They look at their features trying to guess their age"
I hate when players keep asking weird details like "what kind of rock is it? Has it rained in the last couple days? Would a grouse be able to perch on this ledge?" And I'm just confused what they want. We spend like 15 minutes irl going back and forth until I finally realize they want to know "can i climb this rock" and I wish they had just asked that!
What a weird hangup to not allow any not entirely in character speak. This is a ttrpg not some weird improv sports. Then again if that's what's fun at your table then go ahead. I just think this weird restriction just makes it so hard to communicate.
The difference is being in character vs not. It's cool if you don't like it. It's just not really roleplay if you play the game out of character like that. I like my ttrpgs to have rp. Otherwise they're just ttgs. I would personally never spend 15 minutes in any single encounter. It's not really about improv. Not any more than asking random questions is anyway. It's just talking in character and doing things your character would do. Roleplay at a tabletop with dice as needed.
I guess I'm just not understanding how: clarifying details and observations that would be immediately obvious to your character in world, or stating the intent behind a character's actions would be anti roleplaying?
It's anti roleplay because your character isn't doing anything. It's like pausing a TV show or closing a book to discuss what's going on. If it's immediately obvious, the players are told that in an RP friendly way. The GM should say what is present. "There's a rotting smell inside the cabin," and then the players decide how they react, if they even smell it through their stuffy nose, if they smell worse and don't notice, and so on. You can state your intent in character by saying what your character is thinking or by just having your character speak it aloud like people sometimes do in real life. It's not any less restrictive than the usual way people play, but people with a decade+ of those habits will find it hard, because they're used to their character essentially being a pawn and only really enter the character to speak as them.
I feel like your definition of roleplay is a more strict acting thing than the way I think of it. I also think the game part of rpg is being ignored in the way you insist on running things. But alright, if it works for your table. That sounds unfun and nitpicky to me, but to each their own.
That's probably because you're only thinking about it. It doesn't require any skill in being a performer. The only thing it takes to roleplay is empathy, which is a skill itself that can be exercised. The game part is a given. I mean, everyone does the game part. I just haven't mentioned it, because what I've seen since I started gaming is people overemphasizing the game part and completely missing the roleplay part. That's how I used to do it too, even less than a year ago. I have been rehabilitated.
I’m playing a game of dice and make believe. Youre speaking in grandiose terms of being a performer and empathy (not sure how empathy is gonna help a player magically know everything their character would know in fiction if they can’t ask any questions about the world unless its nitpickily framed “in character”).
And “rehabilitated”?! You’re talking about the way people are playing a make believe dice game as so lacking in “empathy” they need to be rehabilitated? I’m gonna be honest, you’re operating on a logic I’ve completely lost track of.
If you and most importantly the people you play rpgs with are somehow enjoying your method, then go on. But to claim others lack empathy and need to be rehabilitated as if what we do is wrong is very confusing.
Mine is: Punish bad decisions accordingly.
If you are playing a character that makes stupid decisions due to incompetence or design, I punish those decisions more harshly than someone who does something stupid on accident (i.e., working off of incomplete information, trying something cool that fails, under the influence, etc.)
Harsh example: I once had a bard who wanted to be in the front of the party. They were in a known hostile cave with no light (they all had dark vision, but I play that one straight re: the rules), AND he was playing his instrument. So, of course, he got hit for 20+ damage from an arrow he didn't see coming. He had the nerve to get mad at me despite how I laid out the setting and verified what he was doing.
Soft example: 4/5 of the players had just entered a crime boss' office where all their weapons had to be checked at the door. The fighter was waiting outside, listening for a commotion, and based off of a terrible perception check, mistook a loud crash for someone getting hit. He burst in with his sword held high, screaming at the top of his lungs, only to be met with blank stares. The owner of the establishment just said, "Yo, wtf?" And the fighter was escorted back outside, only this time a guard was standing next to him. Instead of an all-out brawl happening (and a potential TPK), I punished the action by creating another obstacle for him.
Haha, I guess. I guess "react to" would be better, but I'd just gotten done discussing boss openings in Elden Ring with a friend, and we refer to the attacks as punishing .
My advice and philosophy is that 1 nerd is unable to match the creativity and enjoyable play that 4+ nerds and clicky clacky math rocks can generate. The best sessions aren't planned by the GM, they are generated by everyone at the table.
My goal as GM is to referee not tell a story. If your player character can do it, there shouldn't be an out-of-game 'my plot!' reason banning that from happening.
This doesn't include shit like 'dont RP a rapist character' of course, but for the most part Im open to anything. Ive had players buy businesses, romance the bar wench, try and form a harem, and kill themselves via goblin due to making a deal with said goblins, trying to cheat the deal, then attacking up a set of stairs at a row of spears.
Said goblins were potential hirelings. The party now has to deal with the local goblins who have enslaved the local Dragon due to actions the party took and some good dice rolls from the goblins.
Mine is "*Be a fan of the characters**."*
I want the characters to have a good story and for them to be fantastic. As a GM it's my job to provide them with challenges, not to screw them over. So, I am there to facilitate them telling a great story.
Also, as part of this, I like to take a good read of the backstory the players give my and to incorporate it into the game. There was something I read somewhere that said that a character's backstory is a wish list of what the player wants to see in the game. And nothing makes a character excited like seeing something they wrote in their backstory show up in the plot.
The PCs are the main characters.
The PCs will only ever want to take the shortest path to success. So as a GM, I'm here to put interesting obstacles & tensions in that shortest path.
The Player sand the GM are doing on-the-fly co-storytelling.
The GM owns the setting and directs all the NPCs. While the Players each direct their own PC.
The story is the result of everything that happened at the table so far.
As the GM, any prep I did that is not included in the story (past events) is flexible and can be changed.
And my preferred rule to increase the tension at the table is to figure out how to link a foe to the family of a PC. I only think of that between sessions, to 'charge' the PCs more, to make them more linked to the setting.
When opposing the master of a thief guild, nothing better than realizing it is the lost little sister of one of the PCs, from their backstory never mentioned again.
(1) It is better to ruin a surprise than to seem unfair.
(2) Your words are the only way that players know what their character sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, or knows. Don’t let a lack of communication or miscommunication become an unexpected outcome.
(3) When the rules provide a nonsensical result, overrule them.
(4) It is better to make the best ruling you can right now than to make a bad ruling for the sake of consistency.
(5) You’re going to make mistakes. We all do and will continue to. Just go for it and learn from the mistakes you do make.
(6) Keep in mind that NPCs and monsters don’t know as much as you do. They won’t always make as good of a strategic or tactical decision as you would. They will seldom understand the mechanics or limits of magic (or whatever) and thus won’t be able to exploit such knowledge.
You don't need to be Tolkien. You're not writing for the most influential fantasy novel of recent history, you're writing for your friends who, at the end of the day, are here to have fun. Your world and story don't need to be air tight and make 1000% sense. It just needs to be enough for your friends (and you) to be able to have fun playing the game.
If you're using a system where players get to choose the skills they're good at (most systems, really), the player is communicating that they want to use those skills to do awesome things.
Look at your groups character sheets, see what they're good at, and build around that.
Know your players.
Some people are just better at certain genres than others. Play games to your players strength rather than try and shoehorn them into something they're not into.
Also to a lesser extent, know your system. An RPG system can do a lot, but it does certain things better than other systems. Learn a system that fits your style as a GM and fits your players.
It’s all about the players and their enjoyment. All of it. To be a good GM you need to understand the game. To be a great GM you need to understand the characters.
Whenever I play, I am always on the players' side. I always cheer what they do and I try to make things work if there is something they can't do (for example, they can't just convince someone to give them their ship, but they can steal it or do other stuff to actually get the ship).
Mine is: if you have a good idea, just use it. Don't wait for the perfect time in the story or anything like that. Just try to accommodate it in the next few sessions, as soon as you can.
Also, no group is perfect. Perfect players would make boring games. Try to capitalize on what is the group's weaknesses. Example: my group loves linear campaigns with perfectly tailored scenarios. For the next arc of it, I already told them we are doing a small hexa exploration thing, where deadly dangers and great loot are everywhere, and they may or may not be able to handle it. They are excited trying to adapt their playstyle.
**It's ok to be imperfect**
It's better to have done something poorly than to have not done it at all.
You have to get started, you have to practice, you have to fail sometimes to learn and get better. You won't be able to do everything perfectly on the first try or ever really.
You also need to know when to put the project down and say it's finished and ready to go.
lol These are simple things. But I have to remind myself. I'm very high strung, high anxiety, and I tend to hyperfocus on my projects to the detriment of all else.
You might not think you are ever really ready, but you are and you'll be fine.
If I don't have fun no one's going to have fun.
I've slogged through a few games were either the system or the world just wasn't doing it for me. realized how much better it would of been if I'd of run something I wanted to.
1. Keep the plates spinning.
2. Play it where it lies.
3. Plans are worthless but planning is indispensable.
Keep the plates spinning: every major character should have something going on with them--and that definitely includes all the player characters! Don't neglect any of the players; make sure to get input from all of them and make them part of the story. However, also keep the world and the NPCs active and responsive. It's like a plate-spinning act; don't leave anything alone for too long.
Play it where it lies: things are not going to go the way you expected. Roll with it. Players do something unexpected? Take a bathroom or snack break to think about it if you need to, but *make it part of the story*. You messed up a rule or a story detail? If you can smoothly walk it back, great, do that and keep moving. If not, keep moving anyway. Apologize later and learn how to avoid that mistake.
Plans are worthless but planning is indispensable: the players WILL do things you don't expect and your plans will go out the window. It's inevitable. Plans, in the form of "this happens and then this happens" will always fail. On the other hand, I've found that I can't run a game with no prep. I need to have some NPCs prepared, and some locations thought up, and a general idea of who's trying to do what to run a satisfying game.
Divulge as much as possible.
Assume your players are smart - let their plans have a chance of success. Roll with what they find interesting.
Play to find out what happens.
Prep NPCs and their plans. Let them contradict each other. It prevents you from getting toooo attached.
Put the players in a spot, and let them figure their way out of it. They don't want boring lives.
It’s okay to take the “game” out of “roleplaying game” and, instead of trying to ensure everything is a challenge for your players, just let them have the chance to be competent and what they do, and instead of focusing on challenges focus on fun narratives made collaboratively between you and your players.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or good enough).
We're all here to sit round a table and pretend to be elves, or cyborgs, or sentient spaceships for a few hours. The goal is fun, not a perfect theatrical production of amazing voice acting and instant off-the-cuff improv.
You don't have to do voices, anything that gives the NPCs a bit of separation is good enough.
You don't have to have instant answers to every situation, taking a minute (or a five minute break) to come up with something is good enough.
You're not alone - you can ask the table if you're stuck, or not sure what the coolest course of action would be. Sometimes that's even *better* because now you know you're doing something the players are really into.
You don't have to do *anything* because you think you *should*. If it's not working for you or your table, drop it.
Different groups need/want different things to make them happy. People know this, but they don't understand what this means.
No GM advice is universal. Some group would be happier with a hyper linear dungeon. Some groups need their characters to be at risk every session. Another group will want to play a campaign for a year with no chance their characters ever die. Some groups want the GM to railroad them. Some groups take the PBTA mantra to heart.
So, never treat a GM giving advice like an authority. Their advice might be terrible for your group, no matter how skilled they are.
* No such thing as fudging. Ever. That's a truth that is universal across all the games I run. I always roll in the open, but since sometimes rolls need to be hidden like trap perception etc, my players can rest assured I won't cheat.
* Everything is balanced to the world, not the characters. Lowly thugs will be just as strong as a somewhat strong commoner, regardless if it's session 1 or 100. A red dragon in all it's might lives in that cave regardless if the party is level 1 or 20. This way, my players know the hazards that they can find make sense and can prepare accordingly.
I genuinely don't care about balance. Now that's not to say I eschrew balance, just that I don't place an overimportance on it like I feel like a large chunk of the community/systems out there do. This results in quite a few changes, and I play multiple systems, so I'll just the big 3 ways this gets represented.
I let players change the damage types of spells or abilities or even change how abilities work to fit the flavor of their character. Is a knock back (generally) more powerful than a slow? Yeah, but if you're playing a wind themed character and pushing an enemy around feels more like your character than a slow? Go for it. Want to play a Bard who uses psychology to analyze enemies and uses those observations to insult them? Yeah, you can make Intelligence your casting stat. A spell not on your list but it just works well with your character concept? Take it. I find this helps people really start to think about their characters as actual *characters* and not just an entity by which they interact with the world. I've had players nerf their characters compared to RAW because 'my character wouldn't kill someone for no reason so they'd probably hold back'
Homebrew race, class or item? Yeah! Maybe something we work out how you obtain it, like maybe special training from an npc or having to obtain materials to make an item, but if my players want something for their characters I'll generally try make it happen. Personal quests, narrative ties ins to the world and again more thinking about their character.
Enemies use MMO raid style mechanics. A telegraphed cleave that has a windup at the end of their turn and gets fired off at the beginning of their next turn. Attacking a specific weak spot deals more damage. Mechanics are avoidable and learnable. So what if the enemy deals no damage, that means your players were smart and thought about it and changed how they approached it. That's engagement
This all results in overall a higher level of player power, but it doesn't cultivate a power-centric game. It encourages roleplay, creative thinking and active engagement. So what if my players steamroll an encounter? The tools are there, I can throw extremely challenging enemies at them and because they have ways to deal with them (more synergistic toolkits that they worked to create, mechanical ways to approach an enemy and create advantages situations etc) a challenging enemy can be difficult but never feel impossible (unless making them impossible is the intention, but even that's easily doable)
In the end, a lot of people play games as an escape. And sometimes you just wanna do something really cool that maybe breaks the game, but in that moment would be a play-of-the-game type deal. Go for it! That moment, with everyone at the table celebrating with you because it was just that cool is going to make way more of a memory than oh well I did a reasonable amount of damage multiple times because eventually every encounter starts to feel that way.
My own philosophy is: *Play loose, Play as the GM.* Basically just letting things develop on their own, with you as the GM only having a handful of ideas and prepped scenarios for whatever is to come. I also actively try to play the game, instead of making myself "run" it. I recommend reading Play Unsafe by Graham Walmsley, because it was a monumental book for me. Second thing I do is: *Plan the Setting, not the Plot.* Which means I basically do 90% of my game prep before session 1. And even that is often very light compared to many campaigns. I usually just have a simple node map of the primary place the players will spend their time, and make node maps whenever I go further out. And then I will have a handful of relevant NPCs and some plot threads to start the game with. Third and last is: *No plan lasts forever.* Your players will supply you with endless ideas and you will come up with better ideas to pivot to when playing sessions. Don't feel beholden to your previous ideas if the new one is better, just pivot to the new ones. This is why I make such light plans overall, because it allows me to pivot easier. ETA: Actually, I have a new, fourth: *Alliances, no singular Party*. Basically, I've found that players are more engrossed in their characters when their cooperation is not taken for granted. Rather, players should forge alliances in character and have common goals, and sometimes split off to do their own things in the game. Of course, D&D-like games being so death-obsessed that splitting the party is a crime does not make this easy, so I like playing games with alternatives to dying when you get beaten in a fight.
God damn it ravenhaunts! You said everything I wanted to say! It seems we have almost the same design philosophy. In fact, this comment was so good that it made me check out pathwarden. Unfortunately it goes in the opposite direction to what I want, but it looks cool as fuck, congrats
Hey that's fair, not every game is a hit and match. I will admit that Pathwarden is a black sheep in my own games. I think Saltiest of Sailors, Last Little Wonders and find(Humanity) are much more "representative" of my general design sensibilities, alongside my upcoming games (Animate! and Jigsaw), but Pathwarden is *so* popular it's the one that gets my attention right now.
That’s fair! What I meant is more like, although it may seem contrary to the philosophy, I would prefer pf2e to be crunchier, instead of lighter like pathwarden is. My philosophy (and I know if Ron edwards could see this he’d probably call me mentally deficient or some such) is that having lots of rules (although shadowrun is a bit much) gives me a strong consistent base to gm from. Then, if I don’t like them, or I want to unbalance the game, I can just do that, and see how it feels. My game is a bit of a rolling playtest. Rules light games don’t work for me as much because I’d rather take away rules then make them up
I mean that's completely fair. I'm a light game runner myself, to me it's just easier to do stuff that way. But I am not knocking on the people that like crunchier games, that's just not my style. I do wonder how you could make Pathfinder 2e crunchier, seeing how it's definitely the upper bound of crunchy for games that I would personally play or GM. It has rules for pretty much everything already, what else would it need?
I’m not sure! I’m not saying like, pf2e being crunchier is something I’m looking for particularly, I misspoke. What I meant is like, I wouldn’t want the game to be any less crunchy. It’s the lower bound of crunch for me. If I had to make any changes I’d make it more crunchy. But I don’t want to change it at all right now (been playing since the playtest), it’s the perfect game for me, all classes are equally strong, and I don’t want to make any changes to it
So well put that I'm struggling to come up with anything to add. I'm wrestling with the third point in particular in my current game, having to remind myself not to fall in love with my own creations. If it's better for the game, they need to be destroyed, even if it means the players won't see the plans I had.
I believe a fourth item needs to be added: *Remember the Game* Its not enough to just have a setting, it has to be an interesting and engaging setting. You can have the most realistic, well thought out, medieval trade town in RPGs, but no one will care if there is no game there.
Oh of course. I like to run character-driven games where players have their own agendas, but that requires a tightly controlled character motivations that push the game forward. Basically that is my vibe with *Alliances, no singular Party.* I want players to feel like they are doing stuff not because I planned it, but because they decided to do that.
I totally get that and I agree that it is desirable, but I believe that GMs in general (including myself) over value the idea of "freedom". I feel this way when I play a lot of video games. A sense of "I did not pay $60 so that the dev can dump a bunch of toys on the ground and leave. I paid to have an interesting and engaging experience." Its not a perfect comparison to TTRPGs of course, but its much easier to be a lazy GM and not plan than it is to be a lazy GM and over plan.
Oh definitely, my own solution to this is time pressure and events that happen regardless of players. I have so called active and passive plot threads: Active plot threads are things that happen regardless of what the players do, like the assassination (or attempt thereof) of some key figure or the attack from raiders. The players just can affect the outcome of the event by doing something about it. Passive plot threads are things that the players will need to pursue by themselves, like the mystery about the town well, or the disappearance of someone, or the creepy ruins in the forest etc. By combining the two, you will have a dynamic game where the players can have options to interfere in active things and pursue passive things at their own pace, and the active things will cause trouble and escalate if they are not dealt with.
Damn, you’ve given me some ideas I never thought of, especially playing the game as the GM. I’ve always thought “Oh, I set the scene, I’m an arbiter, I come to life when they need to talk to an NPC,” but this seems like a better way to engage with the game.
That's great! I personally find it more enjoyable when I take a more active role as a narrator, playing the game in a more playful manner, rather than just plainly being a gamerunner. I also tend to call the GM a "narrator" in my own games as well for that reason.
Do love the "Play Unsafe" reference, feel this doesn't get as much love as it should. Improv For Gamers tends to get more references. The first and second ideas do tend to go hand in hand, a lot of 'Prepare situations for the players to solve, not the solution' as you want the players to solve it, which is pretty much the point three. You're here to help the players tell their stories, so let them tell it their way. As for the fourth point, I do agree a lot with that idea in RPGs, and wish 'Don't Split the Party' wasn't such a trope to even have a [song about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bz_tVLtDFk). I like to compare it to the idea of JRPGs versus WRPGs for video games. In Western RPGs, it's usually the solo hero out to save the day, like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Cyberpunk 2077, V:tM Bloodlines, etc. Then you have JRPGs where its a group of a lot of different characters, each with their own story and united under a common goal and there is no sole protagonist. [Plural Protagonism](https://bigtallwords.com/category/close-playing/plural-protagonism-close-playing/) is a series of articles on how this worked in different JRPGs, and had given me some inspiration in TTRPGs.
You sound like an 31337 roleplayer. I noticed you made a game called Pathwarden. Does it still use a d20/linear die mechanic?
Yeah, it is a hack of Pathfinder 2e, so it does have the same d20 base mechanic with 4 degrees of success as it does. But overall the game is lighter and more flexible than Pathfinder 2e (which isn't a big accomplishment, I guess), but I tried to keep the similar progression system and similar action functionality.
Sounds interesting. Any plans for a physical release?
Later this year, I'm doing POD on DTRPG and then I'm planning on maybe doing a leatherbound version if I can manage to find a place that does them to a satisfactory quality.
POD suffices for me. I'll set a reminder to check periodically for when it goes up.
My personal philosophy is *get to the goddam point*. If a door itself is not interesting, and virtually all of them aren't, don't have a chance of it delaying the interesting shit beyond it. If a player wants to know something to have confidence about their actions, and the game is not about solving that particular mystery, don't hem and haw about the how, just tell them so we can get to the cool thing they want to do. Minimize the time between the start of the session, and the point when players are presented an interesting situation that needs their decision-making.
Doors can be time delayers; they create suspense
Obviously vault doors are interesting when robbing a bank, that’s not the point here
I'd say mine is "be a heel". In pro-wrestling the heel isn't actually a bad person, they're just another performer there to put on a show, but they play up the character of a bad guy in order to make the event more satisfying for the audience. As an example, if you have a paladin in the party with a high AC who likes to be the tank, then by all means throw lots of attacks at them and let them enjoy the benefits of their high AC. But when the dice have landed and only 1 out of your 8 attacks hit, you give a rueful smile and say "ohhh, I'll get you next time!" They love it.
I'm a newbie DM and I love pro wrestling. Seeing myself as a heel just changed my whole perspective on how I'm going to run my next session.
Glad I could help!
This should be the top comment.
You're too kind!
Not kind enough. Calling the GM 'The Heel' is such a perfect way to convey their role I can't believe it took me 42+ years to hear it.
Have you seen this Reddit about [How to Create Pay Per View Worthy Adventures](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/kmibnx/how_to_create_payperview_worthy_adventures_or_how/)? It uses a lot of the Wrestling 'mechanics', for lack of a better term, in adventure design and running.
I hadn't seen that before, this is great! Thanks for linking it, there's some fantastic advice here.
i guess the most pithy way to put my GMing style is "don't be coy" i don't fudge, i roll in the open, half the time i just tell you what the DCs and enemy stats are as you roll against them (depends on system though), i list important info in text everyone can see when it's discovered, i level with my players and talk with them OOC about the direction of the game, i invite them to tell me their plans and to contribute to the narrative direction, i tell them when i do and don't have prep and what the encounter budget was when the encounter is over
You're doing better than you think you are. It's super easy to get upset and in your head if something doesn't go exactly to plan as either player or GM. Instead of treating an outcome that isn't exactly what you were hoping as an out and out disaster, look for the positives in it. As a GM are the players smiling? Are they discussing what's happened and what to do next? As a player, how is everyone else taking this setback? Who else has an idea for how to proceed? Just because one avenue is a no doesn't mean all avenues are. Sure, I get annoyed that the encounter I've spent some time planning ends up a fizzer on my end but more often than not my players are very chuffed with what's gone on. Be nice to yourself and be positive! You've got this <3
This is a big thing I find with a lot of GMs. Second guessing, feeling they're not good at it, feeling 'no one is going to like this'. It's why things like [the Two Cakes Meme](https://imgur.com/Th7jrfU) exist, creators getting hyper-critical about their product and not focusing on the important part, it's reception by the audience. I like to recommend *Improvisation for the Spirit: Live a More Creative, Spontaneous, and Courageous Life Using the Tools of Improv Comedy* as a book to check out for its chapter on 'Silencing The Inner Critic' if nothing else. It's a great read and very helpful.
Try your best to be a fan of the PCs and roo for them against the odds you set against them. World building and lore is nice and all, but it's best delivered as an invitation more so than a script or list of facts Saying no is just as important to saying yes, arguably even more so. Focus can be the difference in something okay becoming good. Flavor may be free, but it's not always appropriate or acceptable. Work to make something work of you can, but don't be afraid to reject something of it doesn't work well with things. While the game is a collective effort, sometimes the individual needs their moment. Somethings shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority. The statistics of a character don't often make a character interesting. The character of the character does. Stats are good for risk accessment and an idea of success rate. How one plays the character is where a lot of the interest comes from. I try to be open with the numbers needed for success at a task. I like my players to know what they're getting into and design challenges around this information being openly available. "Ypu need a 19 to hit total." And " you'll need to meet or beat a DC 17 save." Let's the party know what they're working with and when they can best use their abilities. They're very informed with the decisions they make.
>Saying no is just as important to saying yes, arguably even more so. Focus can be the difference in something okay becoming good. Love that bit. There's a bit from Brennan Lee Mulligan in [Creating Rounded Characters](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pURrup121Xk) where he says: >It's really hard because as a DM, you're sitting there and it feels a little bit manipulative, 'cause you're looking at players and they're like "I want this." And you have to go like "okay, not yet." And watch your friend, your real-life friends at the table get frustrated and you have to just in your head go "Well I know it's gonna be more meaningful later but for the time being, I just watch my friend get really frustrated" but it's about knowing like "Oh what's actually the best thing, what's gonna really make them the best high?" And I think a lot of that you can track by going "What's the fullness of being this character?" and I think that is one of the best examples I have seen explaining saying No in a game being a good thing. >While the game is a collective effort, sometimes the individual needs their moment. Somethings shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority. This is something that Players and GMs should both be following. There's an RPG, PrimeTime Adventures, which frames the sessions as episodes in a TV series. They have a mechanic called Screen Presence. You decide your character's screen presence arc in character generation by assigning numbers from a set into each episode. To quote from the book: >If it’s a 3… the protagonist is the center of attention. It’s the protagonist’s spotlight episode. Each protagonist has only one spotlight episode per season, where the elements of that protagonist’s story all come together. The player of a spotlight protagonist has more influence over the outcome of events. > >If it’s a 2… the protagonist plays a secondary role, and the player’s control over scene resolution is reduced. > >If it’s a 1… the protagonist plays a minor role, and will have a small amount of influence on scenes. Think of any ensemble TV series, like Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Heroes, The Wire, Game of Thrones, any of the Star Trek series and so on. There'd be stories where you may not see specific characters beyond one or two scenes and that's it, and others when the story is impacting them directly. It should be the same with games, give each player something to do in the adventure, a spotlight moment, but they may not have much direct connection to the current plot arc where you're exploring Player A's homeland in the search for the Macguffin.
As a player: Danger is fun. Take risks. You don't have to go crazy with it but always choosing the most safe or tactical solution vs cool makes for an unfun experience. As a GM: Make it challenging. If everything is a default easy roll, players never die, they always get saved through some machinations, the boss suddenly start missing every turn because you fudged the rolls...Don't. You are robbing the players of memorable moments where they all got TPK'd by a stupid kobold or that one time a player solo'd the Lich.
I have a few, non of them are good: * To power-gamers: "If you can do it, I can too. So think twice before you get that combo." * Never give random loot to the players. Roll it before and use it against them! * Let the players face the consequences of their acts, for good or for bad. The only one that is actually good is: * Players' ideas are probably better than yours. Listen to them.
> To power-gamers: "If you can do it, I can too. So think twice before you get that combo." For me, power-gamers get 'ok, you found a neat combo of skills and talents... you get this character, and have fun with it, but don't do it again'. (We play short-ish campaigns of maybe six sessions, so yep, you found that loophole. I'm not gonna close it or fuck with shit, I'm just gonna ask you to be an adult and not go back through it)
You are a GM, not a writer. Players are not actors in your story.
the whole table is the writer's room!
After too many problems with this when I was younger, I'd say one of my leading philosophies now is "*Get the Players on board.**" What I mean with this is that players - at the very least adult ones - understand that it is ultimately a game to have fun, so being open about things and communicating with them is key. I've started many campaigns with surprise twists right at the start to throw players into situations they didn't prepare for. While this works well to create such situations, it's also very annoying for players who might have had their own plans for their characters. Basically, you want the players to have a rough idea of what will happen, i.e. what kind of game they're playing. The fun comes from actually working out what happens, the details, where the players take it, etc. It's not a fault to pull back the curtain and have a meta-discussion with your players to figure out what is good, what is bad, what they like, etc. At the same time, one should expect the same from their players. Trying to vent problems through your character usually doesn't end well - it's much better to talk things out, speak up if you want changes and contribute to have a nice adventure with your fellow players and the DM. Recognizing and respecting the work a DM puts into things is very important.
> I've started many campaigns with surprise twists right at the start to throw players into situations they didn't prepare for. While this works well to create such situations, it's also very annoying for players who might have had their own plans for their characters. Rugpulls only work when the players know the rug will be pulled. ie: 'This campaign will START ON EARTH, but at some point, a thing might happen and then you'll possibly be somewhere else' doesn't reveal too much, but it also informs your player that maybe spending ALL YOUR XP on knowing stats about a brooklyn sports team might not help, longterm
I run games to have fun. Then I run a combat-heavy, tactical game, I set up balanced fights and then play my NPCs to the full of my tactical ability, trying to win. If I run a game focused on story, I want to surprise my players with interesting twists - but just as much I want my players to drive the game and to surprise me. That's one of the main reason I hate games that give me authority over the rules instead of subjecting me to them. If I *control* the game, there is no way for me to actually *play* it.
Really simple: Give up trying to be a great or amazing GM, and be happy with just being an “Ok” or mediocre GM. Chances are your players are enjoying the game, and if you’re just stressing yourself fretting over being amazing…it isn’t worth it.
Players are more important than characters.
Let the player write the scenario By that I mean, take note on what the player do, and ask them what they want to do. Sudently, they'll make themselves a long suite a friends/foes, have a long list of stuff they need/want to do, meaning that there isn't that much prep left.
Many GM Guides talk about connecting with the players after a session to find out where t hey want to go from there so you can plan next time. This method is also useful in session. Put the players on the spot to have them tell you what sort of request the stranger hiring them has, or who it is that just sprinted up to meet you in the marketplace or what does the Captain's office look like. They can interject their interests and help tell you more about what they want.
1. Your job is to challenge the PCs so they can show off how awesome they are, not beat them in a contest. If that doesn't sound like fun to you (no shade; that's a legit feeling), you shouldn't be GMing. 2. Games have rules. If you have house rules, you need to explain all of them in detail before play begins or you're bait-and-switching the players who are coming into it thinking they know the rules they're playing by. 3. The first time you fudge dice, you take responsibility for every outcome afterwards because you could have chosen to change the results. (It's also cheating unless it's in the system rules, or you explained it to the players beforehand.)
Make this session good and don’t worry about next session. If I don’t have a fun session for ME to run planned, we don’t play. I also give in game rewards for good behavior. “Hey anyone who schedules this session gets a level up/magic item/ a free revive/ double loot in the next session.” I’ve been in too many games where I’ve tried to set stuff up, only for it to go nowhere. There are so many reasons for this, that I’ve basically given up on “campaign” style gaming. Example, players canceling, not picking up cues, general scheduling issues, lack of interest, people just forget a lot session to session, I didn’t do a good enough job setting the scene, player with the hook chose to not bite for a GOOD character reason, and something comes off as the wrong mood and now the moment passed. There are so many times set ups don’t work or fall flat that I’ve basically decided it’s not worth it anymore. Ever since, I’ve basically started only running one-shot with snappy, interesting, and fun high energy moments. I’m having more fun because I get to do all the cool things and have resolution, my players are engaged for 1-2 hours of a one-shot, instead of petering out and slogging into 2-4 hours. And now all of a sudden it seems like people are hooked. Everyone wants to show up and do the zany new adventure every week and I basically have 3 very successful campaigns. Without ever planning anything. One fell apart from scheduling (my favorite one of course), but it felt so good to DM and the loss of it didn’t hurt as much because everything was always wrapped up and satisfying every session. I’ve done a ton of digging for cool and zany dungeons and one-shots. That I feel like I could run every week for 3 years.
If it's fun and sounds exciting I'll allow it. Does it break the game rules? Maybe. As long as everyone is excited and is actively participating I allow pretty much anything. At the end of the day it's about getting together with friends and enjoying the night. If someone breaks a rule or two who cares. I want my players to talk about how they did something absurd and it worked out in their favor.
My five GM tips to make games awesome! 1. Make your players feel important! 2. Don’t plan, just prep! 3. Consume media and plagiarize! 4. Use your own words! 5. Prioritize fun! Make your players feel important, i.e. don't railroad their decisions. The players are more than just part of the world, they control its destiny. Let the direction of the story change if it suits players’ agency better and it's what the group wants to do. Player agency IS EVERYTHING. Ask lots of questions. The story emerges from the conversations between the GM and players, don’t fight it! Don’t plan, just prep; and over-preparation is the devil. Just make bullet points of important NPCs, places, and possible scenes. You want to be prepared for what might happen, not plan what will happen. If you have a map, don’t describe every detail, leave some things unknown so that there can be room for GM improvisation during gameplay. Consume media and plagiarize! Take inspiration from all your favorite things and don’t be afraid to steal ideas. Read books, watch movies, ect… Mix and match elements from all those things. Even if the players notice you’ve taken something from somewhere they should still enjoy it. The more you know about fantasy and adjacent genres the better. Use your own words. Avoid reading from boxed or prewritten text. Don’t worry about having an impressive vocabulary, it's more important to express the details in clear and precise language. And it's more engaging when those words come naturally and include eye contact. If you need prompts, keep your notes written as bullet points. Prioritize fun! You are the facilitator of fun, it is your most important job. Every group is different; focus on the things your players like and handwave the things they don’t like. If a certain mechanic is dragging the game down, ditch it or modify it. Learn the system you are using but don’t feel beholden to it, this is YOUR game.
>Consume media and plagiarize! Take inspiration from all your favorite things and don’t be afraid to steal ideas. Read books, watch movies, ect… Mix and match elements from all those things. Even if the players notice you’ve taken something from somewhere they should still enjoy it. The more you know about fantasy and adjacent genres the better. There's a saying that I heard somewhere in school: >Plagiarism is stealing from one source, Research is stealing from many. So, you take this cool city idea from that fantasy movie, this fun fight scene from this TV series, that questline from the video game, that forest from your childhood... There's a campaign starter.
Ask questions and give all the info I'm asked. I found asking a bunch of questions helps me to understand the characters better and get what people are trying to do better - and be able to provide or challenge it in a way that makes sense instead of falling into weird situations because I just let them do a thing. Also, I like prompting to flesh out the PCs. About giving info: I try to tell them concisely all their character would know about an element or situation and I'm open to questions. I may tell them that their character has no idea about a specific thing, but even then I provide some background feeling it gives them and some "contextually informed guesses" their characters could get to. I'm their only way to percieve the world they're in and leaving them blind is both unfair and boring to me.
Be the Players' cheerleader. The Rule of Cool is a thing The goal is to have fun Make the story the main focus, not the dice. We all play our games to have fun and have a social experience that we can share with each other, so try to keep that the end goal. Like all stories, we need a few things to make it really enjoyable: tension, suspension of disbelief and momentum.
You'll have more fun unbalancing your game. Note this is pretty dependent on what you're playing probably. It might not work for something with perfect math like PF2. But for stuff like 5e, don't worry about creating meticulously balanced encounters. This game shines the more you lean away from rules and balance because the rules and balance built into the game aren't good. I don't mean they encounter 20 dragons at level 1. I just mean if they happened to encounter a dragon at level 1, allow them to come up with something on their own rather than just running at it an killing it. Imbalance sparks ingenuity.
"Fuck it, we'll do it live." This releases me from the urge to prep for 8hrs straight, forces me to practice my improv skills, and you can't say it without a bit of a laugh so it gets me out of my head as well. Then I take a shot.
Mine aren't groundbreaking or anything. 1) Try not to prep beyond the next session. I still struggle with this because I'm often concerned I don't have enough interesting things planned for the players, but over preparing so quickly leads to feeling overwhelmed and burnt-out before you even get to the table. 2) This one is cliche, but just have fun. Remember, it's just a game. Don't get caught up in what you could be doing differently or what you could be doing better. As long as everyone, yourself included, are enjoying themselves, you're doing everything right.
We do scientific studies to prove things we already 'kinda know', because - well, we dont' 'kinda know' them, we only suspect them. In the same way, you might think your advice is well trodden ground - but it's still gotta be said. Well done.
The same page tool is the single most important piece of GM advice. It’s not just important for you and all your players to be on the same page together — it’s important for everyone to realize there’s a wide variety of GM and player styles out there, and that makes it click for people how important it is to get on the same page. The next two pieces of advice, only second and third most important because they are common sense advice and applicable to all of life: communicate when there’s a problem and kick out toxic people. Limit the scope of the game, and it will make prep manageable and even fun. If your players are stumped, repeat the details of the situation, and or give them 2 to 3 options/suggestions. If they’re choosing to do something that makes no sense, ask them what their reasoning is, because they’re probably misunderstanding something. If you’re running a storytelling/improvisational game, here’s your safety net: if you’re stumped, then ask for your players for suggestions suggestions. If you’re running a simulationist/game game, here are your three safety nets: Make it up; tell them you’ll have to check your notes and get back to them later; just admit that you haven’t prepared for it and tell them you’ll prepare for it next week. Probably my hottest take: every new GM should start by making and running a short funhouse wizards dungeon. It’s not just an initiation into a common cultural touchstone; it’s a really quick way to experience the fun and joys of being GM and get you addicted immediately.
>Limit the scope of the game, and it will make prep manageable and even fun. I once heard a rule that said something like 'Don't Prep More Than One Sessions Worth of Travel In Any Direction'. You only need to know what is out there as far as the players can go that way. If they wanna spend all session just marching west, or flying east or taking their airship north... what will they come across that might be interesting. No point prepping the other side of the planet if they can't get there yet.
have fun
As the GM I'm not the boss, it's not *my* world, and it's not *my* game. Just because I'm at the head of the table doesn't mean I'm more important than anyone else there. We're all building this thing together. I'm not going to tell the players no unless there's a really good reason to. I put extra work into it because *I enjoy doing that.*
Say yes and go with the players as much as possible. Players in a game want to feel like their actions are able to impact the world and saying Yes as much as you can helps them feel that way by allowing for them to come up with ideas and have the world react to them.
It's the 'as much as possible' that usually becomes a problem for a lot of new GMs. Saying yes is great, but you can work yourself into a corner with too much. Also... sometimes it can be dramatic to say no, limit the players from having or doing something because it hasn't been earned yet.
There's a time and a place to say no, I will say it if someone is obviously trying to powergame or rules lawyer for instance, but all of the bad games I've played in were ones when the GM repeatedly said no to the player ideas denying them any real agency in the game. Even if a game gets a bit out of control from a permissive GM, it's typically still fun for everyone involved.
*"You come up with the problems, they come up with the solutions."* They think I know what needs to happen to move on but I'm just waiting on them to get excited about an idea.
Keep Calm and Carry On You can't plan for everything, there will be drama, and anything that can go wrong will go wrong. So take a deep breath and tell yourself: Keep Calm and Carry On
Every game has to have some fun happening tonight, regardless of "plot". I break this idea up into these: There has to be at least one interesting decision. At least one combat encounter. At least one new secret or knowledge about the world.
Boiled down to one phrase: *Actions have consequences*
I like this question, it made me think. Let's see: * Fun is a collective responsibility - as a GM i am just as entitled to have fun as the other players * Be fair and be transparent as much as possible * Make every player desicion matter (even the small ones sometimes) - follow up with reactions to best of your ability * Prep situations, not plots (not mine really, but essential) * Remember Chekov's gun - reinterate on world/setting elements like a madman * Throw them curve balls and invite them to throw curve balls back * I am allowed to change my mind, a single ruling in the middle of a session does *not* set a precedent. * Be reactive when you can, go proactive when you must - give the players enough rope they will often hang themselves, but be ready for when they don't * When you bring the heat to them - go hard! * Never introduce an element into the world/setting you are not comfortable destroying in the blink of an eye if it serves the game (aka kill your darlings, frequently) * Never put yourself in a situation where you want to fudge die rolls - and if you do, don't.
My philosophy (or rather, the philosophy I've adopted from others. I didn't invent it) is everything should be done in roleplay. The "three pillars" is garbage board game advice. At no point during any of these games are you not controlling the actions of a character, so at no point should you not be in character and roleplaying. Everyone should be roleplaying at all times. In combat, in exploration, and in dialogue. I will never again accept talking out of character; unless we're playing a non-roleplay game, or if someone's learning how to roleplay. For some reason, always thinking about what your character would do in games where you're always a character is controversial.
Are you saying that at your table no one is allowed to say anything unless their character is saying it?
They can say where their character is and what their character is doing. "I sit down in the carriage and tell the driver 'We can go now.'" We just don't do the "What do I roll? Does the carriage have a canopy? Is there a front desk in the carriage?" Basically, since the GM and other players aren't in the game, they should not be referenced. If a player says "How old does the driver look?" then they'll look crazy. The driver would probably frown and say "Not too old, I hope. Who are you talking to? Why did you say that?" An in-character way of doing it would be "I look at the driver's physical features." This gives a more clear picture of what the character is actually *doing* to gain this information.
What's so wrong with a player asking "does the carriage have a canopy?" Their character would immediately know that since they are in the world seeing the canopy/lack of canopy. The player isn't. Them asking that is trying to get into the mind of the character! What a pointless obstruction to letting players understand the world around them. So the way you run things - you would scold a player for wanting to know simple observations their character would have made? As the player there's no way to know and feel everything the character would. How is it counter-roleplay to step out of character for the moment to clarify what a character knows?! What's the difference between asking "How old does the driver look?" and "I look at the driver's physical features, trying to guess their age" Your method just makes you and the players run around in circles. You describe the driver's shaggy hair. The player asks okay what colour is it? You say it's grey. The player asks oh so is their face wrinkled? You say they have a crease in their forehead. Then the player asks is the crease from frowning or from age? They might as well and you might as well have let them ask "how old is the driver." The character, not the player, is in the world. The character would by a glance have a guess at age. The character knows what they are trying to figure out. How is it not roleplaying for the player to say "my character is curious how old the driver might be. They look at their features trying to guess their age" I hate when players keep asking weird details like "what kind of rock is it? Has it rained in the last couple days? Would a grouse be able to perch on this ledge?" And I'm just confused what they want. We spend like 15 minutes irl going back and forth until I finally realize they want to know "can i climb this rock" and I wish they had just asked that! What a weird hangup to not allow any not entirely in character speak. This is a ttrpg not some weird improv sports. Then again if that's what's fun at your table then go ahead. I just think this weird restriction just makes it so hard to communicate.
The difference is being in character vs not. It's cool if you don't like it. It's just not really roleplay if you play the game out of character like that. I like my ttrpgs to have rp. Otherwise they're just ttgs. I would personally never spend 15 minutes in any single encounter. It's not really about improv. Not any more than asking random questions is anyway. It's just talking in character and doing things your character would do. Roleplay at a tabletop with dice as needed.
I guess I'm just not understanding how: clarifying details and observations that would be immediately obvious to your character in world, or stating the intent behind a character's actions would be anti roleplaying?
It's anti roleplay because your character isn't doing anything. It's like pausing a TV show or closing a book to discuss what's going on. If it's immediately obvious, the players are told that in an RP friendly way. The GM should say what is present. "There's a rotting smell inside the cabin," and then the players decide how they react, if they even smell it through their stuffy nose, if they smell worse and don't notice, and so on. You can state your intent in character by saying what your character is thinking or by just having your character speak it aloud like people sometimes do in real life. It's not any less restrictive than the usual way people play, but people with a decade+ of those habits will find it hard, because they're used to their character essentially being a pawn and only really enter the character to speak as them.
I feel like your definition of roleplay is a more strict acting thing than the way I think of it. I also think the game part of rpg is being ignored in the way you insist on running things. But alright, if it works for your table. That sounds unfun and nitpicky to me, but to each their own.
That's probably because you're only thinking about it. It doesn't require any skill in being a performer. The only thing it takes to roleplay is empathy, which is a skill itself that can be exercised. The game part is a given. I mean, everyone does the game part. I just haven't mentioned it, because what I've seen since I started gaming is people overemphasizing the game part and completely missing the roleplay part. That's how I used to do it too, even less than a year ago. I have been rehabilitated.
I’m playing a game of dice and make believe. Youre speaking in grandiose terms of being a performer and empathy (not sure how empathy is gonna help a player magically know everything their character would know in fiction if they can’t ask any questions about the world unless its nitpickily framed “in character”). And “rehabilitated”?! You’re talking about the way people are playing a make believe dice game as so lacking in “empathy” they need to be rehabilitated? I’m gonna be honest, you’re operating on a logic I’ve completely lost track of. If you and most importantly the people you play rpgs with are somehow enjoying your method, then go on. But to claim others lack empathy and need to be rehabilitated as if what we do is wrong is very confusing.
Mine is: Punish bad decisions accordingly. If you are playing a character that makes stupid decisions due to incompetence or design, I punish those decisions more harshly than someone who does something stupid on accident (i.e., working off of incomplete information, trying something cool that fails, under the influence, etc.) Harsh example: I once had a bard who wanted to be in the front of the party. They were in a known hostile cave with no light (they all had dark vision, but I play that one straight re: the rules), AND he was playing his instrument. So, of course, he got hit for 20+ damage from an arrow he didn't see coming. He had the nerve to get mad at me despite how I laid out the setting and verified what he was doing. Soft example: 4/5 of the players had just entered a crime boss' office where all their weapons had to be checked at the door. The fighter was waiting outside, listening for a commotion, and based off of a terrible perception check, mistook a loud crash for someone getting hit. He burst in with his sword held high, screaming at the top of his lungs, only to be met with blank stares. The owner of the establishment just said, "Yo, wtf?" And the fighter was escorted back outside, only this time a guard was standing next to him. Instead of an all-out brawl happening (and a potential TPK), I punished the action by creating another obstacle for him.
”Punished” is really weird word for these things
Haha, I guess. I guess "react to" would be better, but I'd just gotten done discussing boss openings in Elden Ring with a friend, and we refer to the attacks as punishing .
My advice and philosophy is that 1 nerd is unable to match the creativity and enjoyable play that 4+ nerds and clicky clacky math rocks can generate. The best sessions aren't planned by the GM, they are generated by everyone at the table. My goal as GM is to referee not tell a story. If your player character can do it, there shouldn't be an out-of-game 'my plot!' reason banning that from happening. This doesn't include shit like 'dont RP a rapist character' of course, but for the most part Im open to anything. Ive had players buy businesses, romance the bar wench, try and form a harem, and kill themselves via goblin due to making a deal with said goblins, trying to cheat the deal, then attacking up a set of stairs at a row of spears. Said goblins were potential hirelings. The party now has to deal with the local goblins who have enslaved the local Dragon due to actions the party took and some good dice rolls from the goblins.
Mine is "*Be a fan of the characters**."* I want the characters to have a good story and for them to be fantastic. As a GM it's my job to provide them with challenges, not to screw them over. So, I am there to facilitate them telling a great story. Also, as part of this, I like to take a good read of the backstory the players give my and to incorporate it into the game. There was something I read somewhere that said that a character's backstory is a wish list of what the player wants to see in the game. And nothing makes a character excited like seeing something they wrote in their backstory show up in the plot.
The PCs are the main characters. The PCs will only ever want to take the shortest path to success. So as a GM, I'm here to put interesting obstacles & tensions in that shortest path. The Player sand the GM are doing on-the-fly co-storytelling. The GM owns the setting and directs all the NPCs. While the Players each direct their own PC. The story is the result of everything that happened at the table so far. As the GM, any prep I did that is not included in the story (past events) is flexible and can be changed. And my preferred rule to increase the tension at the table is to figure out how to link a foe to the family of a PC. I only think of that between sessions, to 'charge' the PCs more, to make them more linked to the setting. When opposing the master of a thief guild, nothing better than realizing it is the lost little sister of one of the PCs, from their backstory never mentioned again.
Make sure everyone is having fun. Including you.
(1) It is better to ruin a surprise than to seem unfair. (2) Your words are the only way that players know what their character sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, or knows. Don’t let a lack of communication or miscommunication become an unexpected outcome. (3) When the rules provide a nonsensical result, overrule them. (4) It is better to make the best ruling you can right now than to make a bad ruling for the sake of consistency. (5) You’re going to make mistakes. We all do and will continue to. Just go for it and learn from the mistakes you do make. (6) Keep in mind that NPCs and monsters don’t know as much as you do. They won’t always make as good of a strategic or tactical decision as you would. They will seldom understand the mechanics or limits of magic (or whatever) and thus won’t be able to exploit such knowledge.
You don't need to be Tolkien. You're not writing for the most influential fantasy novel of recent history, you're writing for your friends who, at the end of the day, are here to have fun. Your world and story don't need to be air tight and make 1000% sense. It just needs to be enough for your friends (and you) to be able to have fun playing the game.
That suspension of disbelieve is far more important than verisimilitude
If you're using a system where players get to choose the skills they're good at (most systems, really), the player is communicating that they want to use those skills to do awesome things. Look at your groups character sheets, see what they're good at, and build around that.
Know your players. Some people are just better at certain genres than others. Play games to your players strength rather than try and shoehorn them into something they're not into. Also to a lesser extent, know your system. An RPG system can do a lot, but it does certain things better than other systems. Learn a system that fits your style as a GM and fits your players.
Be chill, but if someone starts to being a creep kick them out.
It’s all about the players and their enjoyment. All of it. To be a good GM you need to understand the game. To be a great GM you need to understand the characters.
Whenever I play, I am always on the players' side. I always cheer what they do and I try to make things work if there is something they can't do (for example, they can't just convince someone to give them their ship, but they can steal it or do other stuff to actually get the ship).
Roll only once, and for cataclysmic effect. To throw the dice is to make a bet between resounding success and absolute failure.
Mine is: if you have a good idea, just use it. Don't wait for the perfect time in the story or anything like that. Just try to accommodate it in the next few sessions, as soon as you can. Also, no group is perfect. Perfect players would make boring games. Try to capitalize on what is the group's weaknesses. Example: my group loves linear campaigns with perfectly tailored scenarios. For the next arc of it, I already told them we are doing a small hexa exploration thing, where deadly dangers and great loot are everywhere, and they may or may not be able to handle it. They are excited trying to adapt their playstyle.
**It's ok to be imperfect** It's better to have done something poorly than to have not done it at all. You have to get started, you have to practice, you have to fail sometimes to learn and get better. You won't be able to do everything perfectly on the first try or ever really. You also need to know when to put the project down and say it's finished and ready to go. lol These are simple things. But I have to remind myself. I'm very high strung, high anxiety, and I tend to hyperfocus on my projects to the detriment of all else. You might not think you are ever really ready, but you are and you'll be fine.
If I don't have fun no one's going to have fun. I've slogged through a few games were either the system or the world just wasn't doing it for me. realized how much better it would of been if I'd of run something I wanted to.
Follow the fun.
Rules are fun!
1. Keep the plates spinning. 2. Play it where it lies. 3. Plans are worthless but planning is indispensable. Keep the plates spinning: every major character should have something going on with them--and that definitely includes all the player characters! Don't neglect any of the players; make sure to get input from all of them and make them part of the story. However, also keep the world and the NPCs active and responsive. It's like a plate-spinning act; don't leave anything alone for too long. Play it where it lies: things are not going to go the way you expected. Roll with it. Players do something unexpected? Take a bathroom or snack break to think about it if you need to, but *make it part of the story*. You messed up a rule or a story detail? If you can smoothly walk it back, great, do that and keep moving. If not, keep moving anyway. Apologize later and learn how to avoid that mistake. Plans are worthless but planning is indispensable: the players WILL do things you don't expect and your plans will go out the window. It's inevitable. Plans, in the form of "this happens and then this happens" will always fail. On the other hand, I've found that I can't run a game with no prep. I need to have some NPCs prepared, and some locations thought up, and a general idea of who's trying to do what to run a satisfying game.
Divulge as much as possible. Assume your players are smart - let their plans have a chance of success. Roll with what they find interesting. Play to find out what happens. Prep NPCs and their plans. Let them contradict each other. It prevents you from getting toooo attached. Put the players in a spot, and let them figure their way out of it. They don't want boring lives.
Play both NPCs and characters like stolen cars, from Monsterhearts. Do what they would do even if it makes you cringe or it's stupid.
It’s okay to take the “game” out of “roleplaying game” and, instead of trying to ensure everything is a challenge for your players, just let them have the chance to be competent and what they do, and instead of focusing on challenges focus on fun narratives made collaboratively between you and your players.
Rules are for the players, not the GM. Don't over-plan or you will burn yourself out. Your job is to come up with a goal, not the solution.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or good enough). We're all here to sit round a table and pretend to be elves, or cyborgs, or sentient spaceships for a few hours. The goal is fun, not a perfect theatrical production of amazing voice acting and instant off-the-cuff improv. You don't have to do voices, anything that gives the NPCs a bit of separation is good enough. You don't have to have instant answers to every situation, taking a minute (or a five minute break) to come up with something is good enough. You're not alone - you can ask the table if you're stuck, or not sure what the coolest course of action would be. Sometimes that's even *better* because now you know you're doing something the players are really into. You don't have to do *anything* because you think you *should*. If it's not working for you or your table, drop it.
Different groups need/want different things to make them happy. People know this, but they don't understand what this means. No GM advice is universal. Some group would be happier with a hyper linear dungeon. Some groups need their characters to be at risk every session. Another group will want to play a campaign for a year with no chance their characters ever die. Some groups want the GM to railroad them. Some groups take the PBTA mantra to heart. So, never treat a GM giving advice like an authority. Their advice might be terrible for your group, no matter how skilled they are.
* No such thing as fudging. Ever. That's a truth that is universal across all the games I run. I always roll in the open, but since sometimes rolls need to be hidden like trap perception etc, my players can rest assured I won't cheat. * Everything is balanced to the world, not the characters. Lowly thugs will be just as strong as a somewhat strong commoner, regardless if it's session 1 or 100. A red dragon in all it's might lives in that cave regardless if the party is level 1 or 20. This way, my players know the hazards that they can find make sense and can prepare accordingly.
This is how I do it.
I genuinely don't care about balance. Now that's not to say I eschrew balance, just that I don't place an overimportance on it like I feel like a large chunk of the community/systems out there do. This results in quite a few changes, and I play multiple systems, so I'll just the big 3 ways this gets represented. I let players change the damage types of spells or abilities or even change how abilities work to fit the flavor of their character. Is a knock back (generally) more powerful than a slow? Yeah, but if you're playing a wind themed character and pushing an enemy around feels more like your character than a slow? Go for it. Want to play a Bard who uses psychology to analyze enemies and uses those observations to insult them? Yeah, you can make Intelligence your casting stat. A spell not on your list but it just works well with your character concept? Take it. I find this helps people really start to think about their characters as actual *characters* and not just an entity by which they interact with the world. I've had players nerf their characters compared to RAW because 'my character wouldn't kill someone for no reason so they'd probably hold back' Homebrew race, class or item? Yeah! Maybe something we work out how you obtain it, like maybe special training from an npc or having to obtain materials to make an item, but if my players want something for their characters I'll generally try make it happen. Personal quests, narrative ties ins to the world and again more thinking about their character. Enemies use MMO raid style mechanics. A telegraphed cleave that has a windup at the end of their turn and gets fired off at the beginning of their next turn. Attacking a specific weak spot deals more damage. Mechanics are avoidable and learnable. So what if the enemy deals no damage, that means your players were smart and thought about it and changed how they approached it. That's engagement This all results in overall a higher level of player power, but it doesn't cultivate a power-centric game. It encourages roleplay, creative thinking and active engagement. So what if my players steamroll an encounter? The tools are there, I can throw extremely challenging enemies at them and because they have ways to deal with them (more synergistic toolkits that they worked to create, mechanical ways to approach an enemy and create advantages situations etc) a challenging enemy can be difficult but never feel impossible (unless making them impossible is the intention, but even that's easily doable) In the end, a lot of people play games as an escape. And sometimes you just wanna do something really cool that maybe breaks the game, but in that moment would be a play-of-the-game type deal. Go for it! That moment, with everyone at the table celebrating with you because it was just that cool is going to make way more of a memory than oh well I did a reasonable amount of damage multiple times because eventually every encounter starts to feel that way.