The longer you've been GMing the "average" competence level tends to shift, but not too much, it depends on your own self-awareness level, then those difference run into deep emphasis on nuance.

I'm general believer (but not so firm I could be wrong) that GMing is a developmental set of skills. In some ways I think there are great divides between people that GM and those that don't and they have to do with mindset.

1) the first divide is *why* are you GMing? The GM's that do it because "no else will", will prove the least likeliest to go the distance. By that I mean "become Above Average GM's" and/or spend their lives in the hobby beyond a certain window.

2) Those that GM because they realize it is something outside of being a player and is its own sort of "sub-hobby" within the hobby, they got a decent shot to get there.

Where is There?
"There" is that place where you as a GM come to find actual pleasure in the act of GMing. It's thankless. It's misunderstood by most (even by other GM's), it's often irritating as fuck, it forces you to deal with people's issues extraneous to the game - even when you swear that's not your job. Your players will be both enthralled by your heartbreaking awesome moments that come few and far between, otherwise they'll mostly shit on you and your attempts when things don't go their way. The only time you'll see any overt gratitude is when you're *not* running your game, then they realize what they're missing. And you'll do it all over again.

"THERE" is when you come to accept these facts. You have to put your ego aside, you have to nut the fuck up and always be searching for new ways to make the best goddamn new rat-trap of a campaign that your players will be talking about for years. It doesn't matter who the players are, it just matters that you got the game to that level and maintained it. Until it ends. Then you do it all over again.

What is an "Average GM"
In relation to what? To people that don't GM an "average GM" is whomever consistently shows up and sits in the chair to adjudicate rules to the players general sense of satisfaction. To GM's that are obsessed with GMing as an "art" this definitely means something else. I use the word "art" loosely, but I'm not here to argue that, as it's a distraction. Painting is an art. But talking about "average painters" is pointless. Talking about the skills that make up a "painter" is more useful.

To that end an Average GM should, to me, an obsessed GM that holds that GMing like any skillset is developmental should ideally be decent (note: not necessarily GOOD) at the following in no particular order:

1) Rules proficiency - the Average GM should fundamentally understand how the task resolutions of their system of choice operate.

2) Improvisation - At minimum they should be prepared for the inevitable eventuality that their players *will* take the game in directions you did not immediately forsee. Further, that GM has to accept this is PERFECTLY FINE as your basic improvisational skills, be it rolling a few handy tables, or your sharp perception or your silver tongue (maybe ALL of the above) seamlessly keeps the train moving.

3) Preparation - Everyone has their own utility belt. You arm it with your weapons of choice. And you master them between sessions to cover any and all circumstances, especially the circumstances that require Improvisation. Good prep keeps you from having to dive deeply into the Improve Toolshed. Learning and accepting your own weaknesses and prepping accordingly will elevate you from being average to being Good or Great.

4) Consistency - An average GM should understand consistency in *all* things is the baseline foundation upon which all games are ultimately judged. When you run your games without consistency, you *will* be judged as a shit GM. It's not until you as a GM realize you can mitigate a lot of your problems by establishing a consistent "tone" in your games, especially in your adjudication of your rulings - consistency is life.

5) Player Expectations - This is a tough one... but it's something an average GM should start working on: managing expectations. I don't mean managing their characters, I mean managing the players and their attitudes towards what your game is about *before* the game starts. I've seen it many many times, often GM's with their friends that have never played with them before, and those players turn into real assholes. Average GM's will not be good at this, but I'd expect this is where you start learning and proactively start addressing bad-faith players with the Choice. The Choice is - Do you rehabilitate this player into your style of GMing? Or do you cut them the fuck loose less they poison your sweet-ass campaign with their shenannigans? You won't get this right perfectly, but an Average GM should start on this. Noob GM's have no clue, so this isn't an issue for them.

Average GM's have to start to learn to flex their own voice. This means managing the players thoughtfully and accordingly. You're not a therapist. Nor are you jack-off fantasy peddler of their dreams.

Good GM's have a lot more to consider that require more nuanced discussion. I have a list of GMing Principles that I give to GM's that want to keep in mind when asking me for some formal advice.

Quote from: ReginaHart on January 02, 2025, 05:34:25 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2024, 04:32:07 PMScenario writing can do a lot to improve your at-the-table technique, especially if you game out the possible directions your scenario might go in your head while writing. The same is true of working up monster stats or NPCs. The trick is to not just come out with ideas in the abstract, but to actively consider how they're going to play out when they make contact with your players.

This is actually really helpful to hear.  All the advice out there talks about preparing scenarios - people, places, and things.  No one really gets into the part about thinking through how all of those things are going to interact and what might happen when the PCs enter the mix. 

Honestly, I find that aspect of planning very difficult, and I would welcome some guidelines, suggestions, and examples.  It sounds like a simple and obvious thing to do until I sit down and find myself staring at a list of story elements but not knowing how to think through what is going to happen with them.  The closest I've found is the Angry GM's recommendation to "script"  (not to write a railroad plot but to consider the most likely scenario progression.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2024, 04:32:07 PMAn underappreciated but critical GM-ing skill is packing information and flavor into as few words as possible. ... Another thing that can help practice conciseness is writing post-game summaries. I do a roughly 150-word recap after each session that I keep as an ongoing log for my players.

This is another skill that is very challenging but very important.  I like the suggestion of writing concise recaps for practice.  I write recaps, but hoo boy do I struggle to make them concise.

Thanks for taking the time to write your post.  It speaks to a lot of the issues I struggle with in trying to become a better GM.

Quote from: ReginaHart on January 02, 2025, 05:38:41 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 30, 2024, 03:19:24 AMBe prepared enough to run the game at least somewhat smoothly.

I swear I'm not being a jerk, but what are the key components of doing so?  Obviously, you should know the rules and you should have some scenarios prepared.  But it's still really easy to fall flat.  What do you do to make sure a game runs smoothly?

So, I'm going to hard disagree with the first advice.  You should NOT play out how the interaction, encounter, or adventure is going to be resolved by the players, even speculatively.  When you do that, you are making two ... mistakes is too strong a word, but it's the best one for this.  First, by determining a possible path or resolution (or even 2 or 3) you are weighting (even if only subconsciously) the players' choices in the abstract, not the moment.  You are picking a "best path" even if you don't mean to.  Second, you will naturally prepare for those outcomes more than those that you don't think of (which will inevitably be the option picked by your players).  So you'll end up wasting time on things that don't happen, or you will consciously or unconsciously steer your players towards where you have prepped more.  I'm not saying that it won't work (in fact, some gaming tables enjoy being led by the nose... every table is different); I am saying it is novice-level DMing.  It's railroady, it's inefficient, and it squanders some of the potential that only exists in an RPG.

But you're right about advice: there are an infinite number of things that won't work well, so telling you what not to do is of limited utility.  So, I'll tell you what I teach my students (I run an after-school D&D club with an average of 50+ kids split into 10+ groups, many of whom I've run for before cutting loose to run their own groups).

First, the rules are tools, nothing more.  They help give a consistent mechanic for resolving questions ("Do I hit?  Did I open the lock?").  You don't need to know all the rules.  You only need to know how you want to handle the most common actions in your adventure.  For example, if you are running a sandbox hexcrawl, you'll want to decide how you are going to handle speed of movement, getting lost or hungry/tired, when the players can take a rest, etc.  If the rules help you with this, great!  However, you'll be surprised at how many player actions fall outside of the exact rules, so don't sweat them.

Second, put the onus of the rules on your players.  If they have some special ability or rule-breaking power, they need to know that.  You don't.  If they forget, it's their problem.  They have only one character to run; you have an entire world.  So don't worry about what the players can do.  That's their job.

Also, if the players do something and you don't know what "rule" applies, decide how you think it should be resolved and do it.  If the players bring up a rule (or what they think is the "rule"), you can use it or discard it.  But always tell them, "This is how I'm going to apply this for this session.  I'll think about it before next session and we'll decide how to handle this going forward from there."  Then actually think about it, look up the relevant rules, etc., before the next session.  You can get their input if you want (I often do), but in the end, you decide how you'll rule the action going forward.  Period.

Start your adventure in a small village that can act like a hub.  Come up with names, basic motivation, and a personality quirk or two for the denizens that they are most likely to interact with (innkeeper, blacksmith, priest, etc.).  Come up with a handful of interesting locations within a day's travel from the town.  Decide who/what is there, their motivations or goals, and their general strength or composition.  Decide who in the town would know about each of these thing/places.  Drop in the players with a few hints that they've already heard (or a simple task that they've been hired to perform).  Play.

Take lots of notes during play.  If the players decide to visit the herbalist (who you haven't prepped), make up a name, motivation, and a quirk on the fly and write them down immediately (if you wait until the end of session, you'll forget).  You can organize after the session is over, just jot down the important stuff as you are narrating.  Do this with EVERYTHING.

Think in the moment, not ahead or behind.  Don't consider where the players have been or where what they are doing will take them.  Think about what they are doing right now, and how the monsters, NPCs, environment, etc. will react. You can tie things together later, after the session ("Hmmm, what if the messenger they saved is taking a note of importance to Lord Farquod, and Duke Unraed will be angry that the message arrived?  What if the monsters attacking the convoys are doing so because they've been driven from their lairs by something even worse?").  Sometimes it will hit you mid-session; take a quick note, but don't commit until you've thought about it.  Expand your world by tying together loose ends and creating more places, creatures, and motivations while prepping, NOT more "scenes" or "encounters."  Will some of this never get used?  Probably, but no more than the stuff you would have prepped if you were trying to anticipate the players' actions, and probably much less.  All you need is what creatures are there and what they want.  Any more prep than that is wasted.  The players' actions will determine what happens next.

The most used words in your vocabulary need to be "What do you do?"  Badger the hell out of your players with it!  Whenever the pace slows too much, whenever they are lost in the weeds, whenever they are arguing about their next course of action, you ask it.  And then you decide what happens, even if they don't do anything.  The world moves with or without them.  When a player get distracted, you ask them specifically.  When someone is getting "overshadowed," (this is modern RPG bullshit, but that's a different rant) ask them personally.  What do you do?  Then you decide what happens.

That's it.  That's every RPG in a nutshell.  Tell your players where they are, who is around them, and what is happening.  "Now what do you do?"  Will it work perfectly every time?  Hell, no!  It's a skill you improve with practice.  But you can't practice before the game, or after the game.  So running the game is the only way to get better, faster on your feet, more decisive and fluid.  You'll learn it by doing (and not doing what didn't work... or maybe it will next time).

Thus endeth the lesson.

Quote from: tenbones on January 02, 2025, 07:09:13 PMThe longer you've been GMing the "average" competence level tends to shift, but not too much, it depends on your own self-awareness level, then those difference run into deep emphasis on nuance.

I'm general believer (but not so firm I could be wrong) that GMing is a developmental set of skills. In some ways I think there are great divides between people that GM and those that don't and they have to do with mindset.

1) the first divide is *why* are you GMing? The GM's that do it because "no else will", will prove the least likeliest to go the distance. By that I mean "become Above Average GM's" and/or spend their lives in the hobby beyond a certain window.

2) Those that GM because they realize it is something outside of being a player and is its own sort of "sub-hobby" within the hobby, they got a decent shot to get there.

Where is There?
"There" is that place where you as a GM come to find actual pleasure in the act of GMing. It's thankless. It's misunderstood by most (even by other GM's), it's often irritating as fuck, it forces you to deal with people's issues extraneous to the game - even when you swear that's not your job. Your players will be both enthralled by your heartbreaking awesome moments that come few and far between, otherwise they'll mostly shit on you and your attempts when things don't go their way. The only time you'll see any overt gratitude is when you're *not* running your game, then they realize what they're missing. And you'll do it all over again.

"THERE" is when you come to accept these facts. You have to put your ego aside, you have to nut the fuck up and always be searching for new ways to make the best goddamn new rat-trap of a campaign that your players will be talking about for years. It doesn't matter who the players are, it just matters that you got the game to that level and maintained it. Until it ends. Then you do it all over again.

What is an "Average GM"
In relation to what? To people that don't GM an "average GM" is whomever consistently shows up and sits in the chair to adjudicate rules to the players general sense of satisfaction. To GM's that are obsessed with GMing as an "art" this definitely means something else. I use the word "art" loosely, but I'm not here to argue that, as it's a distraction. Painting is an art. But talking about "average painters" is pointless. Talking about the skills that make up a "painter" is more useful.

To that end an Average GM should, to me, an obsessed GM that holds that GMing like any skillset is developmental should ideally be decent (note: not necessarily GOOD) at the following in no particular order:

1) Rules proficiency - the Average GM should fundamentally understand how the task resolutions of their system of choice operate.

2) Improvisation - At minimum they should be prepared for the inevitable eventuality that their players *will* take the game in directions you did not immediately forsee. Further, that GM has to accept this is PERFECTLY FINE as your basic improvisational skills, be it rolling a few handy tables, or your sharp perception or your silver tongue (maybe ALL of the above) seamlessly keeps the train moving.

3) Preparation - Everyone has their own utility belt. You arm it with your weapons of choice. And you master them between sessions to cover any and all circumstances, especially the circumstances that require Improvisation. Good prep keeps you from having to dive deeply into the Improve Toolshed. Learning and accepting your own weaknesses and prepping accordingly will elevate you from being average to being Good or Great.

4) Consistency - An average GM should understand consistency in *all* things is the baseline foundation upon which all games are ultimately judged. When you run your games without consistency, you *will* be judged as a shit GM. It's not until you as a GM realize you can mitigate a lot of your problems by establishing a consistent "tone" in your games, especially in your adjudication of your rulings - consistency is life.

5) Player Expectations - This is a tough one... but it's something an average GM should start working on: managing expectations. I don't mean managing their characters, I mean managing the players and their attitudes towards what your game is about *before* the game starts. I've seen it many many times, often GM's with their friends that have never played with them before, and those players turn into real assholes. Average GM's will not be good at this, but I'd expect this is where you start learning and proactively start addressing bad-faith players with the Choice. The Choice is - Do you rehabilitate this player into your style of GMing? Or do you cut them the fuck loose less they poison your sweet-ass campaign with their shenannigans? You won't get this right perfectly, but an Average GM should start on this. Noob GM's have no clue, so this isn't an issue for them.

Average GM's have to start to learn to flex their own voice. This means managing the players thoughtfully and accordingly. You're not a therapist. Nor are you jack-off fantasy peddler of their dreams.

Good GM's have a lot more to consider that require more nuanced discussion. I have a list of GMing Principles that I give to GM's that want to keep in mind when asking me for some formal advice.

I'm consistently amused by the fact that, as long as your post doesn't include the words "Savage Worlds," I can pretty much assume I'm going to agree with every damn word you post, sight unseen.  And it's true with this one, too...

ReginaHart, listen to this dude.  He won't steer you wrong (well, except with Savag... *grin*).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:09:38 PMSecond, put the onus of the rules on your players.  If they have some special ability or rule-breaking power, they need to know that.  You don't.  If they forget, it's their problem.  They have only one character to run; you have an entire world.  So don't worry about what the players can do.  That's their job.

I completely disagree on this. If it's on a player's character sheet, the GM must know what it is and what it does; how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly. Remembering to apply it is still on the player though; that why PC should start at level one, so players have time to learn everything their characters can do.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:19:52 PMI'm consistently amused by the fact that, as long as your post doesn't include the words "Savage Worlds," I can pretty much assume I'm going to agree with every damn word you post, sight unseen.  And it's true with this one, too...

Why he insists on the Savage Worlds nuthugging is inconceivable to me, given his other very valid and erudite views.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 02, 2025, 08:34:11 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:09:38 PMSecond, put the onus of the rules on your players.  If they have some special ability or rule-breaking power, they need to know that.  You don't.  If they forget, it's their problem.  They have only one character to run; you have an entire world.  So don't worry about what the players can do.  That's their job.

I completely disagree on this. If it's on a player's character sheet, the GM must know what it is and what it does; how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly. Remembering to apply it is still on the player though; that why PC should start at level one, so players have time to learn everything their characters can do.

Nope.  The worst thing a DM can do is to look at a player power and consider "how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly."  This is how player abilities get nerfed.  If the player has a power that proves massively useful against a certain foe or challenge... good!  That's what the powers are for.  That's how you make a player feel good about his character.  If your evil mastermind has his lair guarded by undead, deciding to "consider" how your cleric's Turn Undead will affect the scenario leads to taking steps to invalidate that skill or power ("Well, it won't be the challenge it should be... blah, blah, blah.").  If your player has the one spell that makes this particular encounter ridiculously easy, good for them.  When the players are all fire-based damage and run into a fire elemental, it'll even out (and your players will learn the value of running...).

Now, will a paranoid genius monster like a Beholder think of all the different possibilities and counters?  Sure.  But that's not directed at the players.  That's a feature of the monster and the world.  The beholder would have the same set of preparations even if the players' characters didn't exist.

I'm not saying that the DM should ignore what the characters can do or ignore the player-facing rules.  Knowing what the players can do will help with the flow of the session.  But it's not the DM's place to make sure that the party uses all of its abilities in an optimum manner (which is what the post that was quoted implied, if you are really supposed to play out the encounter in your head in advance).  If the cleric forgets to use Turn Undead (this actually happened in Wednesday's home game of mine), it shouldn't change anything with regards to your prep.  You decide what's guarding the treasure, not how the players will defeat or bypass it. 

There are too many fiddly rules in modern RPGs for a novice DM to study all of them.  Read the relevant ones, get a general idea of how to apply them, and let your players decide how to apply their characters to the situation.

Quote from: Brad on January 02, 2025, 08:40:52 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:19:52 PMI'm consistently amused by the fact that, as long as your post doesn't include the words "Savage Worlds," I can pretty much assume I'm going to agree with every damn word you post, sight unseen.  And it's true with this one, too...

Why he insists on the Savage Worlds nuthugging is inconceivable to me, given his other very valid and erudite views.

Hey, it works for him and his group.  I'm not knocking it (except in jest).  My group just bounced off SW like we hit flubber at light speed.  But if his group digs it, I hope they have nothing but great sessions!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 09:08:09 PMHey, it works for him and his group.  I'm not knocking it (except in jest).  My group just bounced off SW like we hit flubber at light speed.  But if his group digs it, I hope they have nothing but great sessions!

Of course, this is nothing more than some friendly ribbing.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:09:38 PM

Quote

QuoteScenario writing can do a lot to improve your at-the-table technique, especially if you game out the possible directions your scenario might go in your head while writing. The same is true of working up monster stats or NPCs. The trick is to not just come out with ideas in the abstract, but to actively consider how they're going to play out when they make contact with your players.

This is actually really helpful to hear.  All the advice out there talks about preparing scenarios - people, places, and things.  No one really gets into the part about thinking through how all of those things are going to interact and what might happen when the PCs enter the mix. 

Honestly, I find that aspect of planning very difficult, and I would welcome some guidelines, suggestions, and examples.  It sounds like a simple and obvious thing to do until I sit down and find myself staring at a list of story elements but not knowing how to think through what is going to happen with them.  The closest I've found is the Angry GM's recommendation to "script"  (not to write a railroad plot but to consider the most likely scenario progression.

So, I'm going to hard disagree with the first advice.  You should NOT play out how the interaction, encounter, or adventure is going to be resolved by the players, even speculatively.  When you do that, you are making two ... mistakes is too strong a word, but it's the best one for this.  First, by determining a possible path or resolution (or even 2 or 3) you are weighting (even if only subconsciously) the players' choices in the abstract, not the moment.  You are picking a "best path" even if you don't mean to.  Second, you will naturally prepare for those outcomes more than those that you don't think of (which will inevitably be the option picked by your players).  So you'll end up wasting time on things that don't happen, or you will consciously or unconsciously steer your players towards where you have prepped more.  I'm not saying that it won't work (in fact, some gaming tables enjoy being led by the nose... every table is different); I am saying it is novice-level DMing.  It's railroady, it's inefficient, and it squanders some of the potential that only exists in an RPG.

Valid point, so instead of disagreeing, I'll just add some clarification to my earlier advice:

I wouldn't suggest anyone sit down with their scenario and say "OK, how are my players going to solve this?". For the record, I find that an experienced GM can often predict with decent accuracy what approaches their players will try, but relying on that can absolutely be a very bad idea.

I was more suggesting you look at your scenario and ask how the moving pieces will react if the players do x, y or z. I suggest this not so that you can tweak the scenario to accommodate it, but more as a way of practicing how to think out those responses. It's important that such responses follow a logical through-line, because if your game world does not respond logically, your players can't make informed choices (more on that later).  One major issue a lot of inexperienced GMs run into is freezing when their players do something unexpected. What I suggested there was the best way I can think of to practice dealing with that scenario, outside of actually encountering it at the table. Admittedly, it's not something I've had to grapple with much (I am naturally a pretty good improviser), So others may have better techniques they can suggest.

Quote from: ReginaHart on January 02, 2025, 05:34:25 PMHonestly, I find that aspect of planning very difficult, and I would welcome some guidelines, suggestions, and examples.  It sounds like a simple and obvious thing to do until I sit down and find myself staring at a list of story elements but not knowing how to think through what is going to happen with them.  The closest I've found is the Angry GM's recommendation to "script"  (not to write a railroad plot but to consider the most likely scenario progression.

So to start off with, I would never recommend starting with story elements, at least in the sense of "plot beats". What you want to design is an organic situation your players can be injected into, and it will then change according to their actions. I use the word "scenario" for this reason. Thinking of it as a "story" can and will get you into trouble.

This one is going to very much fall into the "your mileage may vary" category, but personally I swear by what I guess I'll call a "naturalist" approach to scenario design. I.e., start by thinking things through in-universe, and largely without regard to the players.

Say you want to run an adventure in a ruin. I'd start with "what was this structure before it was a ruin?". That will inform the dungeon design, help me decide if/where there would be traps, what kind of treasure there might be, etc. I might then ask "how did it become a ruin?" That could inform more details about the location, and potentially who or what inhabits it. But lets say its been a ruin for ages, and whatever is there just happened to move in. Ok, maybe I design the location, and then start over with the denizens. A goblin shaman lives there. "Ok, what's he doing there?" "What does he want?" That can further inform the dungeon design (how have the denizens adapted the space to their use?) or springboard into other inhabitants (the shaman has underlings, pets, prisoners, enemies, whatever). It will also inform how he responds to any possible approach your players might take. Instead of asking "why are my players coming here?", it might be more useful to ask "why would anyone come here?", because that might get you thinking that your players aren't the only ones interested in the place, and now you have new NPCs, conflicts, etc.

Say instead of a more location-based adventure, you have in mind a more character-based one. My favorite example is "someone is plotting to assassinate the king". Ok, figure out the conspiracy. Who? Why? How? Using what resources? For that kind of adventure I personally love the timeline approach. That is, "on Monday, the plotters plan to do X. On Tuesday, they will follow it with Y", and so on. All the way up to the successful (or failed) assassination attempt. Don't worry about how your players will thwart the plan. Map the plan out, set it into motion in a way that the players are likely to notice, and then let them find a way to muck up the works. You shouldn't need to worry about your players going "off script", because if you know what the NPCs' plan was, and what resources they have at their disposal, you can figure out how they'll change their plan to respond to the players.

This is getting waffle-y. Sadly I won't have time to draft out a better considered explanation for a few days, but I'll try to summarize: The goal of your scenario prep in this method should be to put the pieces on the board and have as thorough of an understanding of those pieces as is practical. Everything that happens in-game proceeds as a consequence of the in-universe situation. As you get more experienced with it, you can skip a most of the prep and make a lot of it up on the fly, or apply it where it doesn't already exist in a published scenario. Get this approach right, and you will find entire adventures springing off of as simple an idea as "I want to do a haunted castle". It's all about building one element off of another.

I see this as having two main benefits. 1) It makes improv easier. Instead of winging your responses to player action, you are reasoning them out from known facts about the elements in play. 2) It makes the game more coherent to the players This is what I was referring to before about logical through-lines. If there's an underlying rationality to the way elements of your game world react to PCs, even if the players don't actually see it, they can start to guess at it and plan accordingly. Tastes vary, but to me that is where the most fun to be had as an RPG player is: grokking the situation from context clues and then figuring out how to navigate it. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 09:42:30 PMSay instead of a more location-based adventure, you have in mind a more character-based one. My favorite example is "someone is plotting to assassinate the king". Ok, figure out the conspiracy. Who? Why? How? Using what resources? For that kind of adventure I personally love the timeline approach. That is, "on Monday, the plotters plan to do X. On Tuesday, they will follow it with Y", and so on. All the way up to the successful (or failed) assassination attempt. Don't worry about how your players will thwart the plan. Map the plan out, set it into motion in a way that the players are likely to notice, and then let them find a way to muck up the works. You shouldn't need to worry about your players going "off script", because if you know what the NPCs' plan was, and what resources they have at their disposal, you can figure out how they'll change their plan to respond to the players.

This is very much the way I would plan this scenario, too.  The plotters plan to do X, then Y, then Z.  The players then wreak havoc on the plan and the plotters adjust.  So we agree on the basic ideas.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 09:06:02 PMNope.  The worst thing a DM can do is to look at a player power and consider "how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly."  This is how player abilities get nerfed.  If the player has a power that proves massively useful against a certain foe or challenge... good!  That's what the powers are for.  That's how you make a player feel good about his character.  If your evil mastermind has his lair guarded by undead, deciding to "consider" how your cleric's Turn Undead will affect the scenario leads to taking steps to invalidate that skill or power ("Well, it won't be the challenge it should be... blah, blah, blah.").  If your player has the one spell that makes this particular encounter ridiculously easy, good for them.  When the players are all fire-based damage and run into a fire elemental, it'll even out (and your players will learn the value of running...).

I'm not suggesting modifying the scenario, but knowing if an encounter is going to be challenging and drawn out or a quick curbstomp is important for planing and pacing. I don't need to prep the next three encounters if this one ought to take the rest of the session, but I do need to be ready to run more if this one is expected to at most be a speedbump. Designing the scenario is a different question, but that is tied into system conceits.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 09:42:30 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:09:38 PMSo, I'm going to hard disagree with the first advice.  You should NOT play out how the interaction, encounter, or adventure is going to be resolved by the players, even speculatively.  When you do that, you are making two ... mistakes is too strong a word, but it's the best one for this.  First, by determining a possible path or resolution (or even 2 or 3) you are weighting (even if only subconsciously) the players' choices in the abstract, not the moment.  You are picking a "best path" even if you don't mean to.  Second, you will naturally prepare for those outcomes more than those that you don't think of (which will inevitably be the option picked by your players).  So you'll end up wasting time on things that don't happen, or you will consciously or unconsciously steer your players towards where you have prepped more.  I'm not saying that it won't work (in fact, some gaming tables enjoy being led by the nose... every table is different); I am saying it is novice-level DMing.  It's railroady, it's inefficient, and it squanders some of the potential that only exists in an RPG.

Valid point, so instead of disagreeing, I'll just add some clarification to my earlier advice:

I wouldn't suggest anyone sit down with their scenario and say "OK, how are my players going to solve this?". For the record, I find that an experienced GM can often predict with decent accuracy what approaches their players will try, but relying on that can absolutely be a very bad idea.

I was more suggesting you look at your scenario and ask how the moving pieces will react if the players do x, y or z. I suggest this not so that you can tweak the scenario to accommodate it, but more as a way of practicing how to think out those responses. It's important that such responses follow a logical through-line, because if your game world does not respond logically, your players can't make informed choices (more on that later).  One major issue a lot of inexperienced GMs run into is freezing when their players do something unexpected. What I suggested there was the best way I can think of to practice dealing with that scenario, outside of actually encountering it at the table. Admittedly, it's not something I've had to grapple with much (I am naturally a pretty good improviser), So others may have better techniques they can suggest.

"Visualization" is a very powerful technique for many people when you need to mentally practice something ahead of actual practice. It lets you get some of the mental version of muscle memory worked out without the pressure. However, visualization is most powerful when it is repeated on discrete, isolated things, not the crazy hodge-podge that is an RPG session. 

Rather than try to anticipate what your players will do in scenario X, when confronted with monsters Y, in location Z--it's better to visualize a little more generic.  For example, what if I assume a room with a balcony, and characters could certainly enter at the balcony level or the ground floor.  How might they take advantage (or not) of the levels? How would my creatures with ranged attacks act versus those with only melee? How about stealthy characters/creatures versus those that charge in?

Play those kind of scenes out in your head--not specific to your PCs and your monsters and your location but generically. Do it several different ways. It's just another way of thinking about "having the high ground" that is a bit more grounded than the pure abstraction.  For people that have a hard time doing this visualization, it can help to setup up something more specific that has nothing whatsoever to do with an adventure you have planned, and game it out multiple times, playing both sides.  That will also teach rules.

Visualization that gets too specific absolutely does put your brain in a rut.  Visualization that is too abstract doesn't teach you anything.  So find the proper balance.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:19:52 PMI'm consistently amused by the fact that, as long as your post doesn't include the words "Savage Worlds," I can pretty much assume I'm going to agree with every damn word you post, sight unseen.  And it's true with this one, too...

ReginaHart, listen to this dude.  He won't steer you wrong (well, except with Savag... *grin*).

I swear to Galactus, I'm tired of saying Savage Worlds too. My players are addicted to it, now I can't them to play anything else outside the Savage Worlds rules *except* Marvel Super Heroes...

Quote from: Brad on January 02, 2025, 08:40:52 PMWhy he insists on the Savage Worlds nuthugging is inconceivable to me, given his other very valid and erudite views.

I love you guys. We *really* should make this a thread where you guys cure me of Savage Worlds relationship. I'll make the case later this weekend...

She's just so hot to me. She does... these...things!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 09:06:02 PMNope.  The worst thing a DM can do is to look at a player power and consider "how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly."  This is how player abilities get nerfed.  If the player has a power that proves massively useful against a certain foe or challenge... good!  That's what the powers are for.  That's how you make a player feel good about his character.  If your evil mastermind has his lair guarded by undead, deciding to "consider" how your cleric's Turn Undead will affect the scenario leads to taking steps to invalidate that skill or power ("Well, it won't be the challenge it should be... blah, blah, blah.").  If your player has the one spell that makes this particular encounter ridiculously easy, good for them.  When the players are all fire-based damage and run into a fire elemental, it'll even out (and your players will learn the value of running...).

Now, will a paranoid genius monster like a Beholder think of all the different possibilities and counters?  Sure.  But that's not directed at the players.  That's a feature of the monster and the world.  The beholder would have the same set of preparations even if the players' characters didn't exist.

I'm not saying that the DM should ignore what the characters can do or ignore the player-facing rules.  Knowing what the players can do will help with the flow of the session.  But it's not the DM's place to make sure that the party uses all of its abilities in an optimum manner (which is what the post that was quoted implied, if you are really supposed to play out the encounter in your head in advance).  If the cleric forgets to use Turn Undead (this actually happened in Wednesday's home game of mine), it shouldn't change anything with regards to your prep.  You decide what's guarding the treasure, not how the players will defeat or bypass it.

SPOT ON.

Player agency is always a top priority for Good GM's. Average GM's need to learn this ASAP. There are several emergent realities from this principle that will elevate an Average GM to a Good GM.

So upthread when I said an Average GM should be proficient in the basic task-resolution-mechanics for their system of choice. This becomes an *imperative* when a GM is choosing their system, because downstream the mechanics tend to get steeper and more varied, and you'll soon learn how well put together a system is if your campaigns get to "higher level". This is precisely why 3.x D&D is so fucking brutal post 10th-lvl. And, you bastards, it will explain my adoption of Savage Worlds as my go-to system, but I *DIGRESS* /snort...

So for Average GM's, the goal should be learning to play the ball where it lands. If you handed out a magic item, that son of a bitch is now running rampant in your world, in the hands of a player that is going to do nothing or abuse the hell out of it. Or they level up and pick some spell that effectively starts laying waste to your best laid adventures. The first great lesson of an Average GM on their way to being a Good GM is this: It's ALL FINE.

Your adventures are not these precious things to remain pristine. They are a *possible* narratives that you hope and plan for that your PC's will undertake. But Average GM's only see that adventure as the only possibility. This is why my other rules come into play - it's the shit you *didn't* plan for where you have to Improvise and maintain Consistency of your setting to try and either figure a way to get them towards the adventure you planned (mind you, Good and Great GM's don't necessarily do this) OR you start paving the way ahead of them for whatever a new improvised adventure is.

THIS is the first ingredient of the secret sauce is for being a Good and Great GM. It's the realization that it's not your adventure that is important. It's the Players and their PC's and what they do that matters. The setting reacts to them and their antics. Player agency - what they do with their toys and powers is the actual game... when an Average GM realizes that, they start evolving once they discover the other portion of that principle.

The second great ingredient to the secret sauce of Great GMing is that YOUR setting and its inhabitants also have their own agency. Yes, you gave your player a +3 Vorpal sword, and now they're going around smoking fools, and letting it go to their head (rightfully or not). But your setting now has established that +3 Vorpal Swords are a thing, whether you intended it or not, the world should now reflect that. Your NPC's that rule the world - good ones and bad ones presumably already knew that. Surely they were prepared for that eventuality? The world *reacts*. That's when it becomes incumbent on you as the GM to know as much about your setting as possible.

This is why you can't run your game like a video-game, why having "magic item shops" would so fundamentally change the larger world that narratively exists *outside* your adventure.

This is why I say GMing is developmental skill. Most GM's start out Dungeon-crawling. Then they start doing "adventures" which is merely Dungeon-crawling across multiple dungeons and traveling through hallways to other dungeons (those "dungeons" are town set-pieces, with pre-scripted encounters). MOST Average GM's settle here. If they stick with it, they start realizing at this point PC's are offroading so much they have to adapt or quit. That push beyond the "adventure" inevitably leads to sandboxing. You see this in the development of modules from the earliest eras of D&D. GM's that go the distance will inevitably land here, or they become facile and happy running smaller games like one-shots, con-tournaments etc. The skillset remains the same. <--- album title.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 09:06:02 PMThere are too many fiddly rules in modern RPGs for a novice DM to study all of them.  Read the relevant ones, get a general idea of how to apply them, and let your players decide how to apply their characters to the situation.

Absolutely!!! This is why I became a Savage Worlds guy. The rules are simple, they have fidelity (not perfect, RAW they lean heavy on swashbuckling super-badassery which is not my default desire), but it's intensely easy for new GM's and very advanced GM's to master. It's likewise easy as hell for new players to get into without all the fuss.

As as fairly advanced GM, speaking for myself, my love for the system is simple: I don't run it "RAW" as it's not meant to. It's meant to be tuned to how you want to express your setting. Once you know what that is, you establish "Setting Rules" which are all in-lockstep with the core task-resolution (which never changes), all my normal GMing rules fall right into place. I can make Savage Worlds do D&D Fantasy, Mega-powered Rifts, low-magic Noir, wild west shootouts at the OK Corral without any magic whatsoever. Grimdark low-magic Hyborean fantasy horror? I can do it all at the same time without breaking a sweat. The system, while not perfect (I'll address this my "Why Savage Worlds" thread) its upsides are too good for me to pass up vs. other systems and wrangling with their issues pound-for-pound.