TheRPGSite

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 05:06:45 PMMy friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.

Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock. ;D

This dovetails with something I've been thinking about lately.

For most of my gaming career, I've played with people I knew from regular life, friends and acquaintances. A couple of them were bad GMs, but those only GM'd a couple of times, realized they were bad, and stopped. The people who stuck it out in the role were at least decent at it.

Then, a few years ago real life circumstances forced me to move my gaming online, and I started gaming on VTT with strangers. I've been in a couple of great campaigns, and met some great players/GMs. My own games have run smoothly enough, and I get very few complaints. However, a significant majority of other people's games I've joined have had serious chronic problems: internal drama, boring sessions, unprepared or obviously disinterested GMs, irritated players, almost every problem a campaign can be plagued with. What blows my mind is that often these aren't rookie GMs or even casual ones. Some of the people I've played with have been Gm-ing for decades and/or are running games every night of the week.

I've always considered myself a pretty good GM, but by no means an outstanding one. The shit I see on Roll20 makes it seem like I'm in the upper echelon by comparison. So for those of you who have done a lot more playing with strangers than I have, I'm wondering: Is this specifically an online gaming issue, or are most GMs actually terrible at their jobs?

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 23, 2024, 08:58:55 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 05:06:45 PMMy friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.

Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock. ;D

This dovetails with something I've been thinking about lately.

For most of my gaming career, I've played with people I knew from regular life, friends and acquaintances. A couple of them were bad GMs, but those only GM'd a couple of times, realized they were bad, and stopped. The people who stuck it out in the role were at least decent at it.

Then, a few years ago real life circumstances forced me to move my gaming online, and I started gaming on VTT with strangers. I've been in a couple of great campaigns, and met some great players/GMs. My own games have run smoothly enough, and I get very few complaints. However, a significant majority of other people's games I've joined have had serious chronic problems: internal drama, boring sessions, unprepared or obviously disinterested GMs, irritated players, almost every problem a campaign can be plagued with. What blows my mind is that often these aren't rookie GMs or even casual ones. Some of the people I've played with have been Gm-ing for decades and/or are running games every night of the week.

I've always considered myself a pretty good GM, but by no means an outstanding one. The shit I see on Roll20 makes it seem like I'm in the upper echelon by comparison. So for those of you who have done a lot more playing with strangers than I have, I'm wondering: Is this specifically an online gaming issue, or are most GMs actually terrible at their jobs?

To be pithy (yet I also believe there's a nugget of truth, too), there's a reason a lot of folks can't find a live group to run for...

The same law about "90% of X is crap" also applies to GMs in my experience and the Dunning-Kruger Effect is on full display.

Most such crap GMs don't actually realize they're crap GMs and so make no effort to improve. They keep trying again and again to rope people into their campaigns where they keep doing the same crappy things because whatever the crappy thing is is actually the reason they're GMing for in the first place.

For one GM it was entirely about his GMPC being the most awesomest ever. I ran across him years later with a group of obvious newbies and from what I overheard at his table he was STILL using that same damnable GMPC as the focus of that campaign.

Another I'm convinced was trying to use the sessions as therapy to work out his own issues in the same way authors will write to do so... he just wanted a crowd as he did so.

And some are just opportunists. I had one back in college whose day job was selling "enzyme-based supplements." He joined the scifi club I was in and offered to run a Star Wars campaign for us. Only the first thing that actually happened in the session was we were attacked by enzyme draining space creatures and if we didn't take special enzyme supplements we'd suffer penalties to all our actions.

That's right, he literally sold us on playing in a Star Wars game for the purpose of trying to sell us his enzyme supplements.

Related are the power-trippers; the ones who delight in throwing crap at the PCs to undermine them and make sure everything they attempt ends in ruin due to things they couldn't even see coming.

There are others who mean well, but just don't really have the chops for it. I've learned that the main tell for this type of GM is that they have a particular longer module that they mention having run before for other people and want to run it for you too. Its basically their crutch in lieu of deciding things for themselves (ex. I've seen Gygax's Hall of Many Panes or the 5e Infinite Staircase used as popular choices as both have a setup wherein once the PCs are on the ride they can't get off until the megamodule is complete or you just decide to stop showing up).

I've had the joys of playing under multiples of all of the above.

When I'm not drunk and incoherent, I run pretty good games. So I have read. There are people I consider much better than me, but honestly, out of all the games I've ever played, I think 3/4 of the GMs were mediocre or "not good". And that's okay. I am willing to deal with mediocre IF they are actually busting their ass and trying hard to run a good game. Sometimes groups just don't gel, the GM has trouble with how the game is progressing, whatever it happens. Then you have the truly shit GMs who Mary Sue the fuck out of the game with their hyper competent NPC who essentially just takes over the game, or the ones who run modules and don't even bother to read them beforehand. The worst one I think I ever had was a guy who ran Rifts, I played in one session. I made an actual PC, a couple of his friends made prototypical bs munchkin characters, few other newbies had regular PCs. Anyway, we're playing and another newbie did something completely reasonable, GM said no, that doesn't happen, you're "rushing the adventure". Then his buddies PCs did some horseshit that made no sense and got rewarded for it.

Or maybe the guy who killed my PC within the first 5 minutes then got irritated at me that I was going home.

Okay, but the enzyme salesman one actually sounds pretty funny to me since I wasn't there.

I've had one pretty bad experience of the typical railroad online, and several pleasent surprises.

I think since I'm not looking for 5e, most of the serious problems pass me by.
Not that there aren't crappy people elsewhere, it's just that most ctappy GMs seem to go for the popular thing.

I also tend to stick with a good group when I find it, so I'm not constantly joining new games

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2024, 09:52:42 PMAnd some are just opportunists. I had one back in college whose day job was selling "enzyme-based supplements." He joined the scifi club I was in and offered to run a Star Wars campaign for us. Only the first thing that actually happened in the session was we were attacked by enzyme draining space creatures and if we didn't take special enzyme supplements we'd suffer penalties to all our actions.

That's right, he literally sold us on playing in a Star Wars game for the purpose of trying to sell us his enzyme supplements.

That isn't the absolute worst by far but it is very creatively obnoxious. It actually sounds funny if you didn't sit through it.

There are so many minor but reinforcing skills required to be a good GM, that it necessarily takes a lot of practice, which means a lot of failure, before one gets good.  Not every person is cut out to do the kind of critical look at what they are doing, consistently, while also not cutting themselves down so much that they give up.

I haven't seen all that many horrible GMs.  I guess my local samples have been more the other way--people that might have developed into good, or at least decent, GMs, who gave up because of lack of confidence. Or maybe some of them were just people self-aware enough to realize they weren't going to be good for whatever reason, in which case more power to them for stopping. :)

When the haze of shrooms wears off I work on my every other week game and my players thank me after each session, which is a nice reward (I would take payments in absinthe and cheese, yet they never catch on to that). I have groups that range from college academics to deli/Walmart workers and it is fun to see the slice of life and the different dynamics brought into the game. Being appreciated, I appreciate my players in turn and try to be a fair referee, even if I snatch away the character sheets of the dead with glee.

It's easier to run for friends because they are forgiving (at first, even if they bust your balls), and its easier to run for the same group over time because you get to know what kind of games they want.

In thirty years I've known three GMs who were better than me, and a couple who were as good. And I don't consider myself that great a GM, but I sometimes run good sessions or good adventures.

All were offline, for whatever that's worth.

Online, what I'm encountering is GMs who are often technically better roleplayers than I am in the in-character sense, yet still run worse sessions than I'm capable of. Slow, railroady, only involving one player at a time. Multiple online GMs I've tried could have used a dose of first in, last out when resolving character actions - get an action or even an in-character speech from one player, pause it, and get actions from other players before progressing. I picked that up early from OSR dungeon crawling, but it seems to be a lost art for some modern GMs.

I do think the online element is definitely part of it. It's trickier to read cues, even with a camera. But I'm also blaming new school gaming generally, from 5e organized play adventures to Critical Role. There seems to be an emphasis on finding the right solution for the published or GM's homebrew adventure. And also an emphasis on giving one player at a time the spotlight, instead of involving multiple players in scenes.

Contra wanderer, I don't think 5e is the only problem since I have encountered bad GMing online in Traveller and L5R, and haven't even tried 5e online. Though again I do fault it's influence on players and GMs who started with 5e adventures and don't know any better.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in college sci-fi club that also had multiple campaigns run for each term, I can say spending time around other GM's is a good way to pull people to at least be a GM that runs playable games. People ask others for tips, how to do difficult stuff, get instant feedback etc. That is a huge advantage compared to asking internet randoms. Also weekly workshops that is "how to GM 101" so they start with the knowledge of what not to do. Another advantage of it is that if your game sucks, people will know since they have experienced better games. Depending on how bad the game was, people either improve with other's help or just stop GM'ing. And on the club, bad GMs were prevented to run games to newbies (they could do whatever rpg wankery they want to each other in private)

Online play with strangers is much more prone to bad games because there is no incentive to actually improve people. People can abandon games really easily with no constructive feedback. GM's can ignore criticism because they don't have to deal with those people again. Bad players can move on to the next game to kill with their bad habits. Bad GM's can retry their GMPC autofellatio with the next group of unsuspecting randoms.

I can't tell you how competent most people are at being a GM, only that I am not particularly confident in my own GMing skills, and have repeatedly stated such. The problem is not that I don't study the material or engage in discussions on how to do good GMing, but that I actually don't spend that much time at the GM seat. I spend a lot more time running a player character or as a game designer than actually GMing games, and so I will naturally fall back towards being one of those two positions instead of being a GM.

My experience with other people GMing is that most other people do not find it as awkward as I do, however. I don't think that most GMs I encounter are awesomesauce or anything like that, but most other people I've played with handle the GM seat rather well.

I do think it's a bit of a both that a great deal of DMs are pretty bad and also that a lot of DMs out there that are decent have imposter syndrome and think they are terrible. I also think compounding this a little is that what's a "good" DM is relatively subjective, and a "great" or "perfect" DM for one group might be awful for another.

I will be honest though, I've played with a lot of different DMs over the years, at least 30 that I've played in multiple session games, and perhaps I'm picky but all of them have been either meh or downright bad with exception of my first DM, my friend's dad, but that could also be nostalgia talking.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 23, 2024, 09:32:55 PMTo be pithy (yet I also believe there's a nugget of truth, too), there's a reason a lot of folks can't find a live group to run for...

Roll20 and DnD Beyond and other platforms have been plagued with fake DMs and fake players. People who have no intention of playing and are just luring players in to build hope, and then a session later, if even that, they kick them and put them on ignore.

I think we all define what a good DM/Gen is a little differently so it's a tough question.   I want a gritty realistic combat heavy game with minimal silly stuff and little non-combat role playing. So when a GM focuses on staying in character, humour and fast combat encounters I hate it.  Many like that style of GMing however. 

Does a guy run a game the players enjoy? He's a good GM.

What else matters?

Quote from: BadApple on December 26, 2024, 02:07:29 AMDoes a guy run a game the players enjoy? He's a good GM.

What else matters?

GM not busting a vessel in the process? >_>
just kidding. i do agree, there's still the question of how's one to improve, and what criteria to use to judge that, though.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2024, 09:52:42 PMMost such crap GMs don't actually realize they're crap GMs and so make no effort to improve. They keep trying again and again to rope people into their campaigns where they keep doing the same crappy things because whatever the crappy thing is is actually the reason they're GMing for in the first place.

This is where I add a caveat to my usual insistence that system is the least important aspect (after people, snacks, and setting); not unimportant, but the least important of the four.

Some systems are complete, and so require little imagination from the GM and players. Some systems are incomplete, and so require more imagination.

A long time ago I helped run a course where I was training women, and I lied to them and said the standards for women were now the same as for men. To my knowledge, I had more women achieve the men's standards than any course before. People tend to rise to the standards set for them.

I've seen a difference in the way people play systems like GURPS, which purports to cover ever eventuality, and systems like Risus, which purports to cover pretty much nothing. With regard to players, some have called it "the drop-down menu effect" - players used to computer games and given a system purporting to cover everything will, when the GM says, "what do you do?" look down at their character sheet so they can apply Skill X to Situation Y. Whereas if they just find "Fighter 1st level, Strength 15," etc there, they look straight back up and start thinking.

This is fairly well-known. What's less-appreciated is that the same applies to the GM too. Systems which cover everything discourage imagination and creativity. Incomplete systems encourage it.

Complete systems will make the GM think that they can get it right if they just apply the system right, if they obediently follow the adventure module and so on. Incomplete systems leave the GM to their own devices. In either case you find people rise to the standards set for them. With a complete system, the GM tries to follow the standards of the system; with an incomplete system, the GM tries to follow the standards of the people at the game table.

People can and do improve in their performance at whatever you care to think of - but someone or something must set the standards.

My experiences have been similar.  A lot of GMs are obviously unprepared and apathetic if they even bother to show up at all.  Unprepared GMs floundering around leads to bored, irritated players.  People constantly bog down the game with stuff that is marginally relevant at best.  Sometimes, players will act out in game just to try to make something happen because they are bored and disconnected.  They are bored and disconnected because the GM doesn't know what they are doing, both figuratively and literally, and the game is going nowhere.  This mostly isn't beginner GMs either.  It's people who say they have significant experience and, sometimes, even more experience than me.  It's amazing how long some GMs can string things out without anything actually happening in the game.  In one game, we went 2 1/2 hours out of the first 4 1/2 hours doing solo scenes with one of the players in which nothing happened while the rest of us sat around doing nothing.  GMs who run boring, meandering sessions where nothing much happens seem to be overrepresented among people who run Call of Cthulhu on Roll20.  People have praised by Call of Cthulhu games because, essentially, things happen in them and their characters get to do Call of Cthulhu investigator things like have a bout of madness.  It's a pretty low bar but apparently it's noteworthy.               

           

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 27, 2024, 08:02:40 AMMy experiences have been similar.  A lot of GMs are obviously unprepared and apathetic if they even bother to show up at all.  Unprepared GMs floundering around leads to bored, irritated players.  People constantly bog down the game with stuff that is marginally relevant at best.  Sometimes, players will act out in game just to try to make something happen because they are bored and disconnected.  They are bored and disconnected because the GM doesn't know what they are doing, both figuratively and literally, and the game is going nowhere.  This mostly isn't beginner GMs either.  It's people who say they have significant experience and, sometimes, even more experience than me.  It's amazing how long some GMs can string things out without anything actually happening in the game.  In one game, we went 2 1/2 hours out of the first 4 1/2 hours doing solo scenes with one of the players in which nothing happened while the rest of us sat around doing nothing.  GMs who run boring, meandering sessions where nothing much happens seem to be overrepresented among people who run Call of Cthulhu on Roll20.  People have praised by Call of Cthulhu games because, essentially, things happen in them and their characters get to do Call of Cthulhu investigator things like have a bout of madness.  It's a pretty low bar but apparently it's noteworthy.               

           

For a long time I had imposter syndrome running games.  Even today, I don't think I'm a great GM and I certainly see my own failings when running.  OTOH, I always do the best prep I can and I always care about running a good session.  Most of my players over the years have been excited for game night and I have been complemented by players that also run.

I'm absolutely convinced that the two biggest keys to being a GM is doing the best prep you can and doing the best you can to run a good session for your players.  Anything else is gravy and no matter what else you do without these won't work.

I don't think I am some great GM but I do have some idea what I am going to do going in to the session and try to make the game fun and interesting for my players.  I try to anticipate at least the most obvious possibilities and have some plan for them.  I would have thought that was the bare minimum.  Apparently not.   

my competence level is a 2 on a d20.  Maybe 3.

How would you measure this?

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:30:10 PMHow would you measure this?

From the base.

What is the base of competence?

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:36:22 PMWhat is the base of competence?

The opposite end from the tip.

Look. The length of the competence is not the only metric for success. We must also take into account the girth and degree of firmness of the GM's experience.

Quote from: BadApple on December 26, 2024, 02:07:29 AMDoes a guy run a game the players enjoy?

In a lot of cases, the answer is obviously no even if the GM doesn't seem to notice how increasingly bored and irritated the players are getting.

Quote from: Hzilong on December 28, 2024, 01:03:44 AMLook. The length of the competence is not the only metric for success. We must also take into account the girth and degree of firmness of the GM's experience.

It's also imperative to consider the refractory period needed between sessions.

The competence level of of the average GM is ...average.  What are the key characteristics of a competent/incompetent GM?  Some people have offered good examples, but it's worth discussing further.  If everyone' having fun (i.e. a sign of a competent GM), what is the GM specifically doing right?  If the players are irritated and bored, what is the GM doing wrong, and -more importantly- what can the GM do to fix it?  I want to be a competent GM, and I'm working really hard to try to make that happen, but GMing is an art.  You can't get better until you practice, but unlike playing an instrument, you can't practice on your own. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 27, 2024, 08:02:40 AMMy experiences have been similar.  A lot of GMs are obviously unprepared and apathetic if they even bother to show up at all.  Unprepared GMs floundering around leads to bored, irritated players.  People constantly bog down the game with stuff that is marginally relevant at best.  Sometimes, players will act out in game just to try to make something happen because they are bored and disconnected.  They are bored and disconnected because the GM doesn't know what they are doing, both figuratively and literally, and the game is going nowhere.  This mostly isn't beginner GMs either.  It's people who say they have significant experience and, sometimes, even more experience than me.  It's amazing how long some GMs can string things out without anything actually happening in the game.  In one game, we went 2 1/2 hours out of the first 4 1/2 hours doing solo scenes with one of the players in which nothing happened while the rest of us sat around doing nothing.  GMs who run boring, meandering sessions where nothing much happens seem to be overrepresented among people who run Call of Cthulhu on Roll20.  People have praised by Call of Cthulhu games because, essentially, things happen in them and their characters get to do Call of Cthulhu investigator things like have a bout of madness.  It's a pretty low bar but apparently it's noteworthy.               

           

A few years ago there were two of us paid by a local bar to run games on game night. $20/hour and free drinks. The other guy ran 3.5 exclusively, which is fine, he just went off on very bizarre and weird (sometimes current political) tangents, refused to prep, showed up stoned or drunk, drank more and was loud, abrasive and kind of stuck on being in a local rendition of 'CATS' from years prior.

Compared to that I could have run most anything and looked like DM of the Year. It did not take much, although I always prep and try to run the best game I can. In time people left his game and I was running 12+ players and the other guy threw a tantrum and dropped out. I ran a lot of DCC and MCC, S&W, Labyrinth Lord and even some 5e in there over the years. The reality is that 12+ players is not a hobby after a while, it is a job and sometimes you get people that are intentionally abrasive and difficult to work with, or players that show up when they want to and drag others away or bring more people in without warning, so there is no continuity. Now I run a game at home and one in public (NOT for pay). I try to throw in riddles, traps, puzzles and other things besides one combat after another and players thank me after the games and that is all of the payment I need.

Quote from: ReginaHart on December 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMIf everyone' having fun (i.e. a sign of a competent GM), what is the GM specifically doing right?  If the players are irritated and bored, what is the GM doing wrong, and -more importantly- what can the GM do to fix it?

This could be a very involved thread. Hell, many people have written books on it. Not remotely a comprehensive answer, but FWIW the single thing I attribute the success of my games to, relative to other people I've played with, is respecting players' time. I never show up unprepared, to the point that if I don't think I'm ready to run a good game I cancel the session. If something does happen I'm unprepared for, I improvise and keep moving along. I don't give my players homework. I keep book-keeping and downtime to a minimum. I try to avoid stopping the game for more than about a minute to look anything up in the book. Basically, everything about my games is designed around cutting out anything that gets in the way of the moment-to-moment roleplaying experience. Won't work for everyone, but it's been a successful approach for me.

Quote from: ReginaHart on December 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMI want to be a competent GM, and I'm working really hard to try to make that happen, but GMing is an art.  You can't get better until you practice, but unlike playing an instrument, you can't practice on your own.

I'd say it's more like learning martial arts. Yeah, if you never put the gloves on and throw hands, there's a ceiling on how much you can improve. At the same time, there's a lot you can do on your own time to improve technique.

Scenario 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.
 
Reading and listening to audiobooks can help improve your narration, particularly if you read short, plot-driven fiction. An underappreciated but critical GM-ing skill is packing information and flavor into as few words as possible. Reading the right authors can help you build up a mental library of pithy, expressive phrases to use when describing situations in your game. 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. Not only is it good brevity practice, it's probably good memory training for keeping track of what happened in the last session. Especially if like me, you don't take any notes mid-session.

Quote from: bat on December 29, 2024, 03:52:16 PMThe other guy ran 3.5 exclusively, which is fine, he just ... refused to prep

How the fuck can someone expect to run D&D 3.5 without doing the prep work.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 29, 2024, 05:31:42 PM

Quote from: bat on December 29, 2024, 03:52:16 PMThe other guy ran 3.5 exclusively, which is fine, he just ... refused to prep

How the fuck can someone expect to run D&D 3.5 without doing the prep work.

He had a table with books open on it and referred to them constantly. I had sat in one a couple of his games and (I am not the best DM, I am not claiming that at all) it was a really disorganized and jarring compared to what I have known for decades. He burned out fast.

Quote from: bat on December 29, 2024, 09:25:34 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 29, 2024, 05:31:42 PM

Quote from: bat on December 29, 2024, 03:52:16 PMThe other guy ran 3.5 exclusively, which is fine, he just ... refused to prep

How the fuck can someone expect to run D&D 3.5 without doing the prep work.

He had a table with books open on it and referred to them constantly. I had sat in one a couple of his games and (I am not the best DM, I am not claiming that at all) it was a really disorganized and jarring compared to what I have known for decades. He burned out fast.

Trying to run any game, but especially something as rules dense as D&D 3.5e, in that manner is almost a sure path to burnout.

There are games where you can get away with minimal prep but D&D 3.5 isn't one of them.  If he wanted to run low prep D&D, there are a lot of OSR games that would work a lot better and give him a lot less heartburn.  The Black Hack and derivatives come to mind.

Quote from: bat on December 29, 2024, 03:52:16 PMA few years ago there were two of us paid by a local bar to run games on game night. $20/hour and free drinks. The other guy ran 3.5 exclusively, which is fine, he just went off on very bizarre and weird (sometimes current political) tangents, refused to prep, showed up stoned or drunk, drank more and was loud, abrasive and kind of stuck on being in a local rendition of 'CATS' from years prior.

There are things that I would consider to be a bare minimum.  Be prepared enough to run the game at least somewhat smoothly.  Take a shower.  Be sober.  Don't act like an asshole.  I don't have high standards for GMs.  It's depressing how many people can't or won't live up to even the lowest standards.   

Quote from: bat on December 29, 2024, 03:52:16 PMor players that show up when they want to and drag others away or bring more people in without warning, so there is no continuity.

That's why I only run one-shot games or organized play stuff like Adventurers League or Pathfinder Society in venues like that.   

I will address both replies to my post here.
YES, it was awkward and I am honestly not sure of the particular vibe this guy was trying to give off. Beer and pretzels and a simpler game is one thing; hard alcohol shots when already stoned and a gibberish, unprepped game is totally different. His games were basically just like a video game run through of one combat after another, none of them made sense or were connected; he just picked monsters at random on the fly and adjusted them. This guy's behavior started to cause others to shun the place and eventually his books were confiscated in a coup by his other players and a new DM was established in his place and I moved on to quieter grounds. In defeat he switched to trivia night and then eventually drifted to wherever people like that flounder off to.

I haven't had one as a GM, but I've been the GM for a group with a couple of stoner D&D players. The first "smoke break" they took wasn't the end of the world, but the game went downhill in the long run. I think in their minds its just what they do to unwind, and why not play D&D while unwound? But like drunks with alcohol, they don't fully know how they look to people who are sober.

There are always the common issues like DMPCs, railroading, lack of preparation, etc. but what I have personally observed with people who are genuinely trying tends to be two things:

1. Running a module or attempting to design a module without the knowledge to discern what is good material and what isn't. Sometimes they do know which parts are boring but for some reason they won't cut them out, maybe because they don't feel confident tinkering with it. I had a newer GM run Storm King's Thunder and straight up tell us "these sidequests are boring but we'll knock them out so we can get to the good part." It can be a tricky skill to learn for GMs, and some never get it because they don't even grasp that it's an issue.

2. Letting the wacky, overexcited players monopolize all the time and attention, usually with trying to roleplay out minutiae like eating breakfast, sleeping at an inn, walking, buying stuff, etc. If the GM is too indulgent then the game is effectively halted for improv comedy hour. Critical Role and that whole cultural phenomena feeds into this because it perpetuates the idea that the game is about doing exaggerated voices and trying to impress an audience.

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 (https://theangrygm.com/like-players-do/)"  (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: 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?

Quote from: Spobo on December 31, 2024, 06:50:34 AM1. Running a module or attempting to design a module without the knowledge to discern what is good material and what isn't. Sometimes they do know which parts are boring but for some reason they won't cut them out, maybe because they don't feel confident tinkering with it. I had a newer GM run Storm King's Thunder and straight up tell us "these sidequests are boring but we'll knock them out so we can get to the good part." It can be a tricky skill to learn for GMs, and some never get it because they don't even grasp that it's an issue.

This is very good food for thought.  My current campaign is a mash-up of two modules that are pretty light on details, so I'm creating a lot and filling in the blanks as needed.  I have trimmed some dead weight, but it's good to keep in mind that a strong 'editing hand' might improve the game.  I think it's easy to think that a module is written by a 'professional' (or at least a published person), and we forget that we can improve it. 

Quote from: Spobo on December 31, 2024, 06:50:34 AM2. Letting the wacky, overexcited players monopolize all the time and attention ... Critical Role and that whole cultural phenomena feeds into this because it perpetuates the idea that the game is about doing exaggerated voices and trying to impress an audience.

Keeping the players' on track in this regard is challenging. Some people are more outgoing and others less so.  I've also noticed the tendency for some players to interrupt others or to interrupt/derail a scenario with questions and actions that aren't relevant to the scene at hand.  It's like being a traffic copy.  This article (https://theangrygm.com/everything-all-at-once/) offers some advice that I found helpful for that issue.

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

Knowing how the system works on a basic level helps.  Having some idea of what you are going to do and putting some thought into the most likely course of action for the PCs helps.  I don't have high standards here.  Go over the material a bit.  If you are using tables, have them ready.  A lot of people don't seem to have done even the most basic stuff.

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 02, 2025, 06:37:45 PM

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

Knowing how the system works on a basic level helps.  Having some idea of what you are going to do and putting some thought into the most likely course of action for the PCs helps.  I don't have high standards here.  Go over the material a bit.  If you are using tables, have them ready.  A lot of people don't seem to have done even the most basic stuff.

Yes.  Put in the effort. Then iterate through improvements. That is, pick 1 or 2 things you want to get better on next time, think about what concrete things you can try that might help, then do that. Evaluate afterwards.  If it works, great.  If not, try something else, or cycle into another thing to improve.

After the big one, lack of effort, the reason most people spin their wheels trying to improve on any set of skills is that they distract themselves with things that aren't that important (relatively, right now) or go chasing their tails trying to do too much at once. 

You can make a list of all the things you want to improve, but focus each session.  If you want to rotate through the list every session, sure.

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 (https://theangrygm.com/like-players-do/)"  (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 (https://theangrygm.com/like-players-do/)"  (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 (https://theangrygm.com/like-players-do/)"  (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.

Reading some of the replies, I remember a very specific incident that typifies why you shouldn't assume anything about player skill or PC abilities and just run stuff like it's a Real World. So pretty long-running Labyrinth Lord game with a kitchen sink of all sorts of house rules, custom classes, whatever. Sometimes (a lot of times) I would roll random treasure just because it's fun to see what weird crap the players get. They're like 3-4th level, one of the items in a black dragon hoard is a bolt of lich slaying. They successfully kill the dragon (rather easily I might add due to some clever play) but get almost TPK'd by its baby who took offense to the murder of the mother. Fast forward about 4 or 5 months of weekly play, they're around 7-8th level now. They travel to an area controlled by an evil overlord because, you know, they're greedy bastards and want to murder him and take his stuff but claim they're helping the peasants. Anyway, I had set this dude up to be a reoccurring villain and made him a pretty powerful lich because I like lame D&D tropes. After a few weeks of play, killing the lich's minions and making a ruckus, he invites them to his castle to have a conversation. I figured the lich would probably be interested in hiring them since they had been so effective at messing with his domain, and if that failed he'd enslave them or just kill them. In any event, there wasn't much the PCs could really DO to the lich and I liked the idea of legitimate parlay and was going to play it that way. Anyway, they are led up to a foyer and are waiting to be led into a sort of conference room to talk. I play the lich like he's a Bond supervillain and he makes them sweat out in the foyer for a good while. They're led into the room which is rather small and has a large table in the center filled with food, the lich sitting on the opposite side of the room from them; I'm envisioning Vader meeting Han Solo in Empire here, and in my brain I am thinking, this is gonna be cool. Well, the lich is cordial and stands, and suggests they take a seat and have dinner before discussing business. One of the players within two seconds says, "This is a lich," which results in the hunter PC pulling out his crossbow. We roll initiative, they win, the hunter shoots the lich with the bolt. The End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet. Instead the lich had honest intentions and paid the price and the DM (me) saw a couple weeks of planning thrown out the window in an instant.

So anyway, that's why we play RPGs instead of writing stories.

I don't think that I can give an informed opinion on this, because I haven't been a Player in over 15 years. Due to a combination of Real Life getting in the way and a disinterest in DnD 5E (whose Organized Play still sucks all the air out of the room), I've been just the Forever GM. I don't lack for Players, so I guess that I'm pretty good or at least good enough.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 02, 2025, 08:34:11 PMI 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: Wisithir on January 02, 2025, 10:13:55 PMI'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: Brad on January 03, 2025, 12:08:29 PMThe End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet.

To be fair to Wisithir, he isn't advocating that the combat not be allowed to take place. In theory, he's saying that knowing about the bolt could still lead to the lich's speedy death, but the GM is better prepared for what to do next.

However, I still disagree with Wisithir, and I agree with Eirikrautha and Brad. Psychologically, knowing about the bolt will generally lead to the DM thinking of a way to nullify it.

A lot of GMs instinctively try to shoot down player ideas that will short-circuit the action, because they feel they will run out of material and be stuck. I think the better way to approach this is to put less prep into any single plot, and prep more potential adventures. To learn to improvise, you have to prep less and deal with unexpected curveballs. If they avoid or short-circuit some material, just go on to other material.


Towards the end of my last D&D campaign, I had prepped the PCs dealing with a rival. I had expected them to return to their base to talk with their patron, and the rival had secretly beseiged their home base and patron. But I forgot that they had access to the "Sending" spell that was in the cleric list, which allowed long-distance communication, since they had never used it before. So they found out about their rival's plan and completely outmaneuvered him, instead going over his head to the emperor.

Quote from: Brad on January 03, 2025, 12:08:29 PMReading some of the replies, I remember a very specific incident that typifies why you shouldn't assume anything about player skill or PC abilities and just run stuff like it's a Real World. So pretty long-running Labyrinth Lord game with a kitchen sink of all sorts of house rules, custom classes, whatever. Sometimes (a lot of times) I would roll random treasure just because it's fun to see what weird crap the players get. They're like 3-4th level, one of the items in a black dragon hoard is a bolt of lich slaying. They successfully kill the dragon (rather easily I might add due to some clever play) but get almost TPK'd by its baby who took offense to the murder of the mother. Fast forward about 4 or 5 months of weekly play, they're around 7-8th level now. They travel to an area controlled by an evil overlord because, you know, they're greedy bastards and want to murder him and take his stuff but claim they're helping the peasants. Anyway, I had set this dude up to be a reoccurring villain and made him a pretty powerful lich because I like lame D&D tropes. After a few weeks of play, killing the lich's minions and making a ruckus, he invites them to his castle to have a conversation. I figured the lich would probably be interested in hiring them since they had been so effective at messing with his domain, and if that failed he'd enslave them or just kill them. In any event, there wasn't much the PCs could really DO to the lich and I liked the idea of legitimate parlay and was going to play it that way. Anyway, they are led up to a foyer and are waiting to be led into a sort of conference room to talk. I play the lich like he's a Bond supervillain and he makes them sweat out in the foyer for a good while. They're led into the room which is rather small and has a large table in the center filled with food, the lich sitting on the opposite side of the room from them; I'm envisioning Vader meeting Han Solo in Empire here, and in my brain I am thinking, this is gonna be cool. Well, the lich is cordial and stands, and suggests they take a seat and have dinner before discussing business. One of the players within two seconds says, "This is a lich," which results in the hunter PC pulling out his crossbow. We roll initiative, they win, the hunter shoots the lich with the bolt. The End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet. Instead the lich had honest intentions and paid the price and the DM (me) saw a couple weeks of planning thrown out the window in an instant.

So anyway, that's why we play RPGs instead of writing stories.

I'm really laughing at the "THIS IS A LICH" moment. And you know what? Kudos for accidently setting that up for your players. This was a cool story and it seemed more natural than some of the adapted movie tropes spiel we see most of the times on our games.

Quote from: Brad on January 03, 2025, 12:08:29 PMReading some of the replies, I remember a very specific incident that typifies why you shouldn't assume anything about player skill or PC abilities and just run stuff like it's a Real World. So pretty long-running Labyrinth Lord game with a kitchen sink of all sorts of house rules, custom classes, whatever. Sometimes (a lot of times) I would roll random treasure just because it's fun to see what weird crap the players get. They're like 3-4th level, one of the items in a black dragon hoard is a bolt of lich slaying. They successfully kill the dragon (rather easily I might add due to some clever play) but get almost TPK'd by its baby who took offense to the murder of the mother. Fast forward about 4 or 5 months of weekly play, they're around 7-8th level now. They travel to an area controlled by an evil overlord because, you know, they're greedy bastards and want to murder him and take his stuff but claim they're helping the peasants. Anyway, I had set this dude up to be a reoccurring villain and made him a pretty powerful lich because I like lame D&D tropes. After a few weeks of play, killing the lich's minions and making a ruckus, he invites them to his castle to have a conversation. I figured the lich would probably be interested in hiring them since they had been so effective at messing with his domain, and if that failed he'd enslave them or just kill them. In any event, there wasn't much the PCs could really DO to the lich and I liked the idea of legitimate parlay and was going to play it that way. Anyway, they are led up to a foyer and are waiting to be led into a sort of conference room to talk. I play the lich like he's a Bond supervillain and he makes them sweat out in the foyer for a good while. They're led into the room which is rather small and has a large table in the center filled with food, the lich sitting on the opposite side of the room from them; I'm envisioning Vader meeting Han Solo in Empire here, and in my brain I am thinking, this is gonna be cool. Well, the lich is cordial and stands, and suggests they take a seat and have dinner before discussing business. One of the players within two seconds says, "This is a lich," which results in the hunter PC pulling out his crossbow. We roll initiative, they win, the hunter shoots the lich with the bolt. The End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet. Instead the lich had honest intentions and paid the price and the DM (me) saw a couple weeks of planning thrown out the window in an instant.

So anyway, that's why we play RPGs instead of writing stories.

This may have been a total accident on your part, but is 100% perfect DM'ing.  Thank you for sharing :D

Wouldn't the average GM have the average competence level, by definition? If not, what is "average" referring to here?

I have played with many bad GMs, but tried to avoid think of myself as a good one. Sure, some people think I am bad as well.

But, objectively, I thinks it very hard to know. First, we have to establish a scale, or some kind of measure, and that sole thing is challenging.

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.

Wrong. As a GM, I have way too many things to keep track of during the game session. That's my responsibility. They players have a responsibility to know what's on their character sheet. It's an incredible waste of time for me to have to look up something they were too lazy to do on their own time before the game started. Plus, it helps them to learn the game more if they can look it up on their own.

Yeah. The players should know their characters.

But storygamer mentality has pushed that the DM should handle all that dirty "gamist" stuff and not break the players precious "muh immershun!"

It's SO easy to suck at being a good GM though.

I mean unless you as a player had a good GM, you're probably gonna suck running games at first. Then if your group is satisfied with you, you'll probably never get better. And why should you? The players aren't complaining. You're fine, until you start running games for strangers with different gaming tastes. Then you end up being labelled the Bad Guy Person.

That's why I go easy on bad GMs. I offer encouragement and point them in the direction of GM "do-better" materials. But IME "average" dominates the hobby. We can't all be Matt Mercer.

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oKIPE5jUcsLSdDHbi/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952f3d4j7x5r4brznnyze4474297b9orn71abzhvssp&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

QuoteRelated are the power-trippers; the ones who delight in throwing crap at the PCs to undermine them and make sure everything they attempt ends in ruin due to things they couldn't even see coming.

A good GM can at least hide their delight. Many cannot and come across as childish.

I used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

I worry that the x-card while good-intentioned, actually produces incentive to see how far people can toe the line and steers games in strange direction from the start.

Quote from: D-ko on February 06, 2025, 03:28:38 AMI worry that the x-card while good-intentioned, actually produces incentive to see how far people can toe the line and steers games in strange direction from the start.

Since that outcome is exactly the intent of the people who supply the x-card, you'd be correct.

Quote from: Omega on February 04, 2025, 02:23:23 PMYeah. The players should know their characters.

C&S is very specific about this: you are pretty much NOT allowed to play a mage unless you (the player) understand the magic system intimately. It encourages players to be experts which in turn leads to the PCs being experts. I'm good with this. Not with running C&S ever again, but just the mentality that if I want to run a cleric, I better know wtf Cure Light Wounds does when I cast it. The DM has waaaaaay too much to worry about, the player can just say, "I am casting CLW, rolling 1d8, I heal for 4."

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 04, 2025, 07:03:47 PMWe can't all be Matt Mercer.

Good. He sucks, he's a grifter, and a fraud. I can confidently say I'm a better DM than him.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 09:46:07 PMI used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

Listen to some of Colvilles DM tales and you quickly realize he is a really bad DM who is really good at making all his horrid DM practices seem like the best thing ever.

Quote from: D-ko on February 06, 2025, 03:28:38 AMI worry that the x-card while good-intentioned, actually produces incentive to see how far people can toe the line and steers games in strange direction from the start.

People in the community are starting to "officially" push back against the X-Card as it can be used to censor an entire group to the advantage of the "offended" player. Pundit made a vid on "safety tools" at least thrice(?)

X-Cards never made any real sense, unless you watch the world through Woke-Goggles (which is insanity).

Quote from: blackstone on February 06, 2025, 01:16:24 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 04, 2025, 07:03:47 PMWe can't all be Matt Mercer.

Good. He sucks, he's a grifter, and a fraud. I can confidently say I'm a better DM than him.

Agreed. But, he can be funny so I give him a little space.

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:19:15 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 09:46:07 PMI used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

Listen to some of Colvilles DM tales and you quickly realize he is a really bad DM who is really good at making all his horrid DM practices seem like the best thing ever.

Colville ....

(https://media.tenor.com/0_65276VLn4AAAAM/shark-tank-mark-cuban.gif)

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:19:15 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 09:46:07 PMI used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

Listen to some of Colvilles DM tales and you quickly realize he is a really bad DM who is really good at making all his horrid DM practices seem like the best thing ever.

I've never seen him GM anything. What makes him so bad?

TBF, I dont like his videos for the most part.

Quote from: Godsmonkey on February 07, 2025, 11:10:18 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:19:15 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 09:46:07 PMI used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

Listen to some of Colvilles DM tales and you quickly realize he is a really bad DM who is really good at making all his horrid DM practices seem like the best thing ever.

I've never seen him GM anything. What makes him so bad?

TBF, I dont like his videos for the most part.

He had a campaign he was running on his alt channel that was a riff on "The Black Company" called "The Chain of Acheron."   I wasn't particularly impressed with it.

There is a really wide gulf between: "I know what kind of campaigns I want to run. I know how to do that.  I do them pretty darn well."  Versus, "I'm a really great GM who can run anything. I've mastered the full suite of skills that any GM could possibly ever want."

I'm the first.  I'm never going to even approach the second, because--besides the obvious immense talent and effort involved (yeah, we'll just skip right past that)--there are whole sections of kinds of campaigns and games and options that interest me not at all.

A big part of the average GM's competence or lack thereof is playing to his strengths. Then the next part of it is examining his weaknesses and dividing those into something that matters to his game, and thus need to be improved or at least minimized, versus those that don't really matter all that much.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 07, 2025, 03:49:36 PMA big part of the average GM's competence or lack thereof is playing to his strengths. Then the next part of it is examining his weaknesses and dividing those into something that matters to his game, and thus need to be improved or at least minimized, versus those that don't really matter all that much.

I think this is a really great point, I know most DMs don't really work to shore up their weaknesses beyond their initial year or two of learning to run the game (myself included), you just kind of accept what you're good at and lean into that and don't really work on the rest. There's a very real thing with DMs that because this is meant to be a leisure activity, I think we are more than willing to accept "good enough" and be happy to coast on that for the rest of the time.

Quote from: BadApple on February 07, 2025, 01:21:25 PM

Quote from: Godsmonkey on February 07, 2025, 11:10:18 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:19:15 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 09:46:07 PMI used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

Listen to some of Colvilles DM tales and you quickly realize he is a really bad DM who is really good at making all his horrid DM practices seem like the best thing ever.

I've never seen him GM anything. What makes him so bad?

TBF, I dont like his videos for the most part.

He had a campaign he was running on his alt channel that was a riff on "The Black Company" called "The Chain of Acheron."   I wasn't particularly impressed with it.

If you dont mind elaborating, what was wrong with it. I heard part kf it back when youtube autoplayed it. It was background noise while i was working on some coding project so i dont even remmeber it.

Quote from: Slambo on February 07, 2025, 05:35:25 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 07, 2025, 01:21:25 PM

Quote from: Godsmonkey on February 07, 2025, 11:10:18 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:19:15 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 09:46:07 PMI used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.

Listen to some of Colvilles DM tales and you quickly realize he is a really bad DM who is really good at making all his horrid DM practices seem like the best thing ever.

I've never seen him GM anything. What makes him so bad?

TBF, I dont like his videos for the most part.

He had a campaign he was running on his alt channel that was a riff on "The Black Company" called "The Chain of Acheron."   I wasn't particularly impressed with it.

If you dont mind elaborating, what was wrong with it. I heard part kf it back when youtube autoplayed it. It was background noise while i was working on some coding project so i dont even remmeber it.

IMO, the two biggest issues were that he was trying too hard to create great scenes rather than run a good game and that he was trying to spin too many plates right from the beginning rather than letting his players grow into the role.  It was clear to me that his expectations of the game and the understanding of the players were on two very different levels.

It felt more like a guy that spent way more time thinking about running a game over the years than like someone that was really an experienced GM.  All in all, not a bad game but not nearly up to the level he built it up to be.  I played better campaigns when I was in the Navy.