My GMing style can be broken down into several distinct gimmicks.  I think most GMing styles do this to some degree, but I'm going to post mine here.  

I would like some criticism of my style, try to make it constructive.  I would like you all to help me improve my games.  Hopefully, we can all benefit from a thread like this.

So, joewolz's GMing style for campaigns:

Before I game, I make sure I'm gaming with people I trust.  If they are not already friends, I usually have a meal with the person, or go out for coffee or some such, in order to best ascertain what it is they like in a game.  I'll tell them what I expect from characters (not players) and how I will be running my game.  Assuming I choose to invite this person, they can join the rest of the group on the first session.

My first session is always one of setting and character building.  First, we all talk about what the setting will be, and what kind of feel we want from the game.  Then we build characters, usually meshing them together so they have a good reason to be working together.  I don't actually make a character during this time, but try to guide the character creation process and flesh out some NPCs that everyone made together.  We also solidify the date the game will be played on (usually what night of the week) and decide who will bring what next week (chips, pop, etc.)

In my games, I try to make NPCs memorable.  I give them accents; change my speech, position and body language.  Generally, the players know who they are talking to without me having to tell them after the first time.  I try to make each major NPC distinct, and sometimes the players want a minor NPC to be more important, so I'll make them more distinct.

When I describe a location/setting/scene, I try to use all five senses at once, unless I'm going for a certain effect.  For instance, in a horror game, I'm more likely to only describe smell and sound, and let the player's imagination fill in the sight beyond the most basic attributes of the scene.

I like to be on the ball as a GM.  Meaning, I like to keep the game within the boundaries we all set at the First Session.

That's about as general as I can get folks.  I'm more than willing to answer questions/clarify positions.  Make me a better GM folks!

Most of my gaming theories are in this thread.

For your specific case, is there some problem you want to work on?  Or are you just looking for GM advice in general?  Your style looks pretty good - you trust your players, make sure everyone is on the same page, and give vivid descriptions.  How important are conflicts in your game, both between the characters and with the characters and the antagonists/other NPCs?  I've had a lot of success doing that, as well as using dramatic structure.

This thread might have made more sense in either the "Theory" or the "Craft" section, depending on what you were gunning for here.  For now, I'll keep it here, until we figure out which way its going; unless you specifically want me to move it to one of these.

RPGpundit

Wow, dude.  It sounds like you're doing everything right.  The number of times I forget that description doesn't just have to do with vision...I mean, what you posted looks like a checklist for good GMing!

Like Maddman says, what is it you'd like to improve?  What makes you think you need to improve your GMing?  Are you looking to break out of a rut?

Quote from: MaddmanFor your specific case, is there some problem you want to work on? Or are you just looking for GM advice in general? Your style looks pretty good - you trust your players, make sure everyone is on the same page, and give vivid descriptions. How important are conflicts in your game, both between the characters and with the characters and the antagonists/other NPCs? I've had a lot of success doing that, as well as using dramatic structure.

I'm looking for advice in general.  In regard to conflicts, they are really important!  But it's hard to generalize them.  For a current example, in my C&C game right now one PC Quentin (the character's naem) is one of the last of the deposed princes hounds, a secret organization of thugs and assassins.  Think secret police.  There was an issue about 30 years ago in which he and his wife were killed while at home.  Their only daughter was at the grandmother's house when the attack came.  Being a loyal Hound, the Prince ordered Quentin Resurrected, but not his wife as this was too expensive.  His daughter has never forgiven him.  Ten years after that the city fell during a siege and was taken over by a military government from the north.  The city has been twenty years in the grip of amilitary government.  He is now a drunkard who has only recently begun reusing his skills.  

The monkey wrench I've thrown in (he made all the preceding into his character):  The daughter Lucianne, has become a staunch supporter of the foreign regime, rising to the rank of captain in the watch.  In the last session, she revealed to her father that she was engaged to one of the officers in the foreign garrison.  She is also in charge of the spy network that has been watching him and his friends, and is ready to denounce him before the foreign court.  However, what she doesn't know is that Qunetin has recently joined an underground movement of revolutionaries who are ready to institute by coup a local government.  Quentin (and his player) doesn't know that she is one of the first to be sent to the guillotine.

I have three players in my current game.  They all have plots similar to this.  Betrayal, paranoia, and intrigue are three of the things the players wanted...so they get a revolution.

I have also had a lot of sccess in the past with this kind of thing.  Do you have any cool ideas that could improve this?

Quote from: KenHRWow, dude.  It sounds like you're doing everything right.  The number of times I forget that description doesn't just have to do with vision...I mean, what you posted looks like a checklist for good GMing!

Thanks for the kind remarks.  I believe that any craft can be refined through practice, and GMing is a craft.  My ulterior motive with this thread is for a bunch of us to make some real, hands on, advice about GMing.  I'm sure there are some ROCKING GMs here on the board, and I want to be more like them!  

Quote from: KenHRLike Maddman says, what is it you'd like to improve?

Everything.  No one is ever the master of anything, and there are always ways to improve.

Quote from: KenHRWhat makes you think you need to improve your GMing?

See above.  I think there is always room for improvement in any skill.  There is no "best" in a hobby like ours, one can always get better if they want to, which is what I'd like to do.

Quote from: KenHRAre you looking to break out of a rut?

Nope, I'm very happy in my gaming.  I'm hoping we can all help each other become better GMs.  Someone in another thread mentioned, essentially, a brain drain of good GMs over to forge type games.  I think this may be true to an extent, and I want, in my small way, to help curtail it.

@pundit- You're the Admin.  If you feel this is more of a Craft post, feel free to move it.  You may be right, but since I never go into that particular forum, I didn't think to post there.

In an episode of Futurama, bender the robot meets god and they have a talk. During it god tells bender the secret to playing god: it requires a light touch. if you do too much for people they become dependant on you and lose their free will, but if you don't do enough they lose all hope and faith and become depressed or angry.

If you do it just right, people won't be sure if you did anything at all or not.

Same with GMing: You never want the players to know if you flubbed things in their favor or not, they should never be sure if you're straight rolling or fudging.

Joe, I don't know that I can give you any advice in particular, because your description sounds okay to me. What's even more important is that you're searching. Like philosophy, you put your own together from your experience and observation, as well as reading other people's ideas. The way you put it all together might not be a lot like anybody else.

I think that my style is quite conversational, more so than a lot of people I've played with. I've searched most of my roleplaying career for ways to put the game on a more democratic footing. I feel uneasy with exercising fiat, fudging and ignoring rules. Because of all this, I'm part of the 'brain drain', which doesn't really help you.

I've been known to sexually molest my players with a broom handle and shout at them until they break down in tears.

(well not really but I know a couple of members of my group read this forum and I'm going to be running my first game for them in a while).

Quote from: droogI think that my style is quite conversational, more so than a lot of people I've played with. I've searched most of my roleplaying career for ways to put the game on a more democratic footing. I feel uneasy with exercising fiat, fudging and ignoring rules.

Could you explain a little more?

Quote from: droogBecause of all this, I'm part of the 'brain drain', which doesn't really help you.

You'd have to be a good GM to be part of the brain drain.  I'm not saying you aren't, but I'd like to hear a little more about your particular style (or a link to it, like Maddman gave).

Quote from: joewolzCould you explain a little more?

Maybe...which part?

Quote from: joewolzYou'd have to be a good GM to be part of the brain drain.  I'm not saying you aren't, but I'd like to hear a little more about your particular style (or a link to it, like Maddman gave).

I'm not going to claim I'm a 'good GM', because that way lies insanity. I reckon I'm all right.

I don't know how to describe my style any more than I have. I can talk about specific techniques, but a lot of that comes from the Forge, or ancient magazine articles. My actual play posts tend to be either about technical issues, or the people at the table; not about me.

I think it's a highly personal thing – as personal as the way you talk or write.

Quote from: droogMaybe...which part?


I'm not going to claim I'm a 'good GM', because that way lies insanity. I reckon I'm all right.

I don't know how to describe my style any more than I have. I can talk about specific techniques, but a lot of that comes from the Forge, or ancient magazine articles. My actual play posts tend to be either about technical issues, or the people at the table; not about me.

I think it's a highly personal thing – as personal as the way you talk or write.

Well, the "democratic footing" would be a good start, I'd like to hear how that works...is it game dependent?

I've seen bad GMs, but in my experience, most of the posters on fora such as this tend to be the hard core.  I'm fairly certain you're at least a good GM, but I'd like to know more

Quote from: joewolzWell, the "democratic footing" would be a good start, I'd like to hear how that works...is it game dependent?

I'm not comfortable as a figure of authority. I used often to throw open rules questions for debate, for example (and sometimes put it to a vote). I've never dictated things like time and place for playing. I'm very laid-back in communicating. I'll sometimes deliberately sit in a slightly peripheral location, rather than at the head of the table. I like to get as much player input as possible. I like to rely on the rules to keep things 'fair'; ie I don't like to use fiat to solve problems (rule of law, you might say). I use the language of requesting, rather than telling. I compromise. I defer.

I'm not a president, I'm – at most – a prime minister.

Does that make sense? Anyway, I've got to go to bed now, so hopefully we can continue this tomorrow.

I'm not sure that I'm an uber-GM type.  I must do something right, as folks always come back to my games.  But I'm not sure what it is exactly that I do right....

I suppose my big thing is to have a dynamic world working in the background.  I rarely plot out a campaign arc that my players must follow, but sketch out several events that will play out once the game begins.  Big stuff: revolutionary plots, political wrangling, mercantile competition, etc.  These events will naturally tend to spawn adventure opportunities.

Frex, in the Trav campaign that I'm still planning - schedules will allow us to start Real Soon Now...I hope - there are at least three major high-level events going on: a major insurgency is starting on a local moon, two trade corporations are gearing up for a trade war that has political/ideological overtones, and a scientific outpost has made some strange observations about a local star.  I can tangle my players in any or all of these plots; they're keen on the space pirate idea, so I could have them smuggling arms to the insurgents...or they could acquire a letter of marque from one of the corps and ply the trade routes in-system...or they could find a scientific expedition adrift in space with a nasty surprise on board...etc.

I try to construct all these plot arcs to appeal to a variety of play styles and interests (military/trade/mystery/espionage/whatever), and leave it to my players to follow one of these threads (or ignore them all).  The course they take will allow me to know where to concentrate my creative effort; the other arcs play out in the background, their progress marked by rumors or news headlines.

A few things come to mind, but I'll toss this suggest out. It's something that I know I've not done as well as I have in the past, but I've been working on. Pacing.  Sometimes refered to as flow.

A rough analogy here is to a movie.  Good pacing is spending time on things that matter, moving quickly through things that are peripheral, and cutting the things that don't matter.

Incidentally this is one of the things I really like about the Burning Wheel rules is how it facilitates this. In a lot of places they have two (or more) different mechanisms available to handle a situation depending on how important it is to the players/GM. So I'll give an example from there, and you can implement it with whatever tools the RPG you are using provides or that you can work into those rules.

I BW combat can either be a fairly detailed set of actions describing individual blows, parries, etc. (one notch more detail than D&D rounds), it can be several seconds to a minute long per action (long distance ranged combat), or the complete combat can be done with a single opposed role (and a second followup roll if the winner of the first roll wants it to push the combat to a life or death decision).

The first is great for those really key in your face battles. In movie parlance this is the classic 10-15 minute fight scene at the end of the movie. Not to say it has to come at the end, or that you only use it sparingly. If you and your players want to get your techincal grognard wargame on this is how you turn that up.

The second still gives you the satisfaction of killing somebody, but it moves faster than the first.

The third is for dispatching mooks. It is also great when a player/PC has split out from the rest of the group. Those times you really have to keep moving fast because your game has become a spectator event at that point. It should be engaging not only to be involved in but also to watch from afar.


Another example is what is called in BW "Let It Ride" for skill checks and the like. What it does is that when you roll your skill check that single roll applies for a much longer period time. I don't know C&C's rules here, they might already have the equivalent, but for example in RAW D&D you do a check every 10' when climbing. In BW you'd do one roll no matter the height you are trying to climb. In fact if you were climbing up one side of a wall and down the other, or climbing a few walls you'd still likely have only one roll.

Same thing for sneaking type rolls. You'd often do one roll to sneak in, do your thing, and sneak out. Once again this is important if you've got only one or two PCs off on a scouting trip or such. All in all it makes it easier to have more split up time, thus indivudualized events, without boring everyone else to tears or having them get up to go for a pizza.

That's "Let it ride", IIRC. Once again, elevating GM tips to mechanics...

D20 let's you move one quarter your speed for each climb roll, but nobody will use that for mountaineering. The frequency of skill check increases the more action happens, so in a combat situation rolls for each part of the movement might apply. BW has quite a lot of rolling in combat, too.