Artifacts of Amber:

I've done that too. Simple questions, complex questions, and so on.

Still "it was good.." bleh.

I've been told my combats are boring, because I sort of drift to wargame "roll for hit, roll for damage, move on" mindspace if no one else is actively trying to provide description. So I'm trying to work more on the color commentary.

"We know you are not going to kill us, ever. Stop doing that."

I've received several other important criticisms (I think that in almost 30 years I've made every possible mistake), but this is the most important, IMO. I always roll in the open since then, and mygames are far better.

For me, it was probably when I was told that I needed to let the PCs be more capable of affecting their world, and particularly that my planned timeline was not more important than the PCs being able to accomplish things.

My big issue is not finishing the adventure. Most of GMing is one-shots or short arcs because of my schedule and my friend's schedules. I do a great job setting up these badass first acts, but need to continue focusing on my pacing to make sure that every arc gets an ending on time. My players love the setups, but they want me to watch the clock and make sure we reach the finish line in an entertaining and interesting manner. Even if that end is a TPK.

I have gotten better at it over time, but I still need to watch my timing to make sure I can get an organic and interesting and non-railroad Beginning / Middle / End in a 4 hour convention game. I want to do so much, but I have to remember to keep things tight with a fast pace.

i was told that i suck at speaking in different accents for different characters, so i quit doing that. there are plenty of other things that i have been told i'm strong at, though, so i don't feel that dropping the silly accents hurts my games overall.

Quote from: ICFTI;668981i was told that i suck at speaking in different accents for different characters, so i quit doing that. there are plenty of other things that i have been told i'm strong at, though, so i don't feel that dropping the silly accents hurts my games overall.

When someone asked if my italian cardinal was Irish, I new there was a problem with my accents. My issue has always been consistency. Sometimes I can do accents just fine, other times I am in and out, or just completely do the wrong one.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;668998When someone asked if my italian cardinal was Irish, I new there was a problem with my accents. My issue has always been consistency. Sometimes I can do accents just fine, other times I am in and out, or just completely do the wrong one.

i was specifically told that the issue with my accents was that i had only one other than my own - generic old british guy. so it wasn't so much that my annunciation was horrible as it was that my repertoire was severely lacking.

"I know you like writing plot and setting stuff, but will you please fucking finish your skills in the rules so the rest of us know what you mean??"


Ouch.  Yep.  Finish the stuff the players say that matters.

Quote from: Spinachcat;668977My big issue is not finishing the adventure.

Related to that, the notion that one particular conspiracy or mystery in the game just goes on and on down the rabbit hole without any form of closure for the players, this occasion to say "OK, at least THIS part of the setting, we get what's going on now!" It's something I've learned with the first incarnation of my Paris by Night setting, and since then I try to structure my mysteries and background and conspiracies in such a way that there is still a rabbit hole which, if you are interested, could go on and on and on and may be very convoluted when you look at the big picture, but parts of that big picture can be "solved" or comprehended individually from the others, so the players can get this short term feeling of going somewhere, learning something, and progressing through the web of lies and half-truths and mysteries throughout the campaign.

Ha! I'm great at accents. Its one of the things I get praised for.  NPCs in general.

Back on topic, on that note, I'm pretty sure that somewhere very early in my career as a GM I was told that the adventures where I had a lot of recurring NPCs were more interesting than the ones where the PCs were just passing through somewhere.   That's something I certainly took to heart.

Silver Lion

"I've done that too. Simple questions, complex questions, and so on.

Still "it was good.." bleh."


Well then you have to actually name things. "Did you like the time I . . ." And let them know you are not going on until you get a better answer or else why try. My players know I take my game serious in the sens e I want everyone to have a good time and without feedback I will assume I am failing instead of assuming I am succeeding. Tell me not only what you liked but why. If you can't articulate at least one answer for three of my questions then I have failed in communicating what I need to keep running a game. Sounds harsh but it worked, for me. Now my players know I want good and bad comments on what I do otherwise I'm done. If it is not important to them then I am not wasting  my time.

Sometimes you have to be blunt to get any real answers. Of course flip side is you have to be able to take the criticism and do something to improve it  if possible. Usually half my criticisms are beyond control such as our short sessions> I run middle of the week and start late so it can only be 3 hours. It is an environmental thing I can't help and wish I could.

Just my thoughts!

I was fortunate to have a player tell me when I was a novice gm that:

"Bill. Your adventures suck. All we ever do is go into a dungeon and kill monsters."

That's when I realized tactical combat was not the point of the game.

So I then learned to do amazing things, like you know, give npc's personalities and motivations, flesh out a coherent setting, crazy stuff like that