Quote from: BagpussRecap at the start of a session.

You know, I'm playing now this pretty cool campaign, great setting and plot, but for a number of reasons sessions became pretty chaotic and boring for a while. Characters being the leaders of a big group of people, they are often forced to make life-or-death decisions in counsel-like meetings. In those meetings, a great number of issues are dealt with, and often forgotten in the week between sessions. The GM, then, came up with this idea for doing a recap, set the tone and put us on-char: at the beginning of the session, we all roll a die, and higher number starts the recap, and so on. Often, we don't only recapitulate, but elaborate a little on characters conclusions and feelings on last time's events. There's 100 xp a head (it's D&D 3ed) if the recap/introspection is good/in character. So far, it's working nicely.

And now to something completely different.

In my opinion, there's three big things on GMing.
1. Improvisation. It's already been told, but one cannot say it enough. Look: ImprovisationImprovisationImprovisationImprovisationImprovisation. See? Not enough.
2. Feedback. If players are looking for something somewhere, there is something. Elaborating: You can't say: "Nope, nothing there" or "Well, the guy doesn't tell you anything useful" or "You clearly notice that that won't take you anywhere". There's always... things around. The fact they're useful or not, is up to the players. People always say things... or not. But zero is information as well. Does it makes any sense? And if some guy want's to follow some lead, either a red herring you planted or something completely out of Uranus, well, they can. Let THEM say when it's enough.
3. If some guy just "goes home and trains", or "reads his/her spellbook" or "sits and watches TV", well, you can only throw so many hooks. Don't obsess with giving everyone something to do if they don't want to do anything. (Of course, this is only for open campaigns). Players are as responsible as you for their characters, and if they get bored for lack of interest... well, screw them.
4. Yes, I know I said three (insert Monty Python joke here). NPCs make the setting believable and fun. Seems obvious, but who hasn't played a campaign full of "uh... John. Yes. John. He seems really average."

Well... I'll shut it now.

Quote from: David RLet's discuss specific issues.

Good idea, I'll mention a couple of ideas for a some of them.

Pacing the session/campaign
I personally like to end at session on a cliff-hanger. If I'm approaching the end of an evening, I'ld rather stop just as the a big fight starts than as it ends. This allows the next session to start in the middle of a fight which is another great pacing tip from movies.

I think this idea is taken from the old black and white movie serials (Flash Gordon, Rocketeer, etc) they use to have in the theatres and later on Saturday morning TV.

Basically it makes the players eager to get back to the next session, because they want to know what happens next to their character, do they live or die?

Creating NPCs
Give most recurring NPCs a quirk. It's too much trouble to give every NPC a quirk, but for recurring ones it makes sense. A quirk needs to be auditory or visual or even a prop of some form. Personally I'm crap at doing accents, so I tend to slip in catchphases, instead for my auditory quirks. I have one NPC that I always get out a fat cigar for (I don't actually smoke), and lean right back in my chair while talking.

More tips on quirks

Quote from: BagpussPacing the session/campaign
I personally like to end at session on a cliff-hanger. If I'm approaching the end of an evening, I'ld rather stop just as the a big fight starts than as it ends. This allows the next session to start in the middle of a fight which is another great pacing tip from movies.

I think this idea is taken from the old black and white movie serials (Flash Gordon, Rocketeer, etc) they use to have in the theatres and later on Saturday morning TV.

Basically it makes the players eager to get back to the next session, because they want to know what happens next to their character, do they live or die?

Cliffhangers are great. Besides fights, I also use them in terms of shocking discoveries - the pcs realize they have discovered the spy ....credits roll - and a host of other tension filled moments. Some would say, that this deflates the suspense, but IME it's the exact opposite, or I should say it works for my group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RLet's discuss specific issues.

Cool. Here are mine; mostly stolen from other sources, over the years

Pacing the session/campaign
My main thing here is to cut out all the "boring stuff" between scenes. You want to stay in a tavern? Sure, you find one a couple of miles down the road. You need to meet a contact at a certain address in Mexico city? Cut past the packing, flight, getting a taxi and finding the address, etc. with a short "montage" description and cut to the PCs outside this address with something interesting about to happen.

(What counts as "boring stuff" will vary from group to group and game to game, obviously.)

Also, when the PCs are split up, cut from character to character, making progress until a player needs to make a die roll (or will need to react a roll that will be made against them). Don't make that roll yet, however. Leave that character there, and then switch your attention to another character, and then another, until every player will be ready to roll (or react to one). Then everybody rolls dice at once, and you go back cutting from character to character.

This means that you could have things like one character trying to desperately jump from the top of one train car to another, whilst another character might be sweating it out at a checkpoint, hoping his forged papers will get him through, and yet another might be trying to convince his not-too-bright friend to flee the country. I find that this cutting technique makes people more involved in the rest of the group and increases tension, as the rolls happen all at once, and players are waiting to roll with their characters 'waiting' at a mini-cliffhanger.

(This is taken from Zero at the Bone, originally)

Establishing/Sustaining tone/atmosphere
Describe everything in the world with just three distinct details: A man is short, bald, and sweaty. The car is creaky, dusty, and loud. The room is cavernous, plunged in darkness, and disturbingly warm. Your contact is a hot chick with spiked heels who's wearing a tight black catsuit unzipped to her navel. And so on.

Any less than three, and I find the vagueness and lack of colour can lead to feelings of disconnection and boredom. More than three, and I find you will start to get a glazed look from your players (Remember the long paragraphs of "box text" in published scenarios? Me and my players would never pay attention to anything more than the first couple of sentences.)

(This is shamelessly stolen from octaNe, by the way)

EDIT: Another thing. Make the environment have an impact on the game rules, if you want that environment to be memorable. A description of "A frozen mountaintop covered in deep powery snow. The ice-cold gales cut straight through you" is good. But a regular fight in that terrain won't be as memorable as the same fight where Bows are ineffective (due to the high winds) and movement speeds are halved (due to the deep snow) and all Cold-based spells are doubly effective.

Creating NPCs
A set of random male & female genre-specific names is vital. NPCs called "Mykola Vlascenko", "Lilia Koval" & "Sergi Ossovitch" give you a real flavour for the setting (compared to "Bob the Russian" and so on).

Don't be afraid of stereotypes (to begin with). I usually use the old Star Wars D6 technique of "(personality trait) (profession)". A forlorn pirate, A vengeful princess, A corrupt noble, and so on. They are a lot easier to portray for the GM, which makes each one more distinctive and memorable to the players. And they can grow and gain depth from this start as they interact with (and are changed by) the PCs.

Give every NPC a motivation that interacts with the PCs in some way. An NPC who actively wants something (help, information, money, them dead, whatever) from the PCs, and is willing and/or desperate enough to do something about it, is a lot more interesting and engaging to the players than NPCs which don't. (NPCs without these motivations feel like the "click me to get plot and/or equipment" characters you get in CRPGs to me.)

Warren, great ideas. I run my games much the same way. I'm sure, your post will be helpful (and also the ideas of all those who have posted so far) to lurkers (you know who you are) and memebers of this board

Regards,
David R

the day after (or asap) I write up the events of the last game and post them online. If someone had to miss the game, or if someone wasn't paying attention, then they have all the information they need, especially my rating of how they did, and stressing/foreshadowing the important bits.

Then at the start of the next game I have the player with the least amount of XP recap for the group. Then ask the player with the next least XP what the first player forgot, and so on, until all the details and NPC names and goals have been firmly embedded.