Hey Guys,
Some friends and I want to work up a list of ideas or tips for how to improve yourself as both a player and a GM. We've seen plenty of 'Advice for new Player/DMs' type podcasts, videos and lists. We're looking for things that will take us the next step, from Novice to Intermediate.
What can you offer, fa/tg/uys and ca/tg/irls? What advanced wisdom or advice have you garnered that most people don't consider?
Some examples to get people started, based on others I've asked:
1. Player Autonomy. Don't be afraid of it. If they've come up with a better solution to your puzzle than what you thought of, don't be afraid to lie and say "You're right, well done." There's nothing wrong with using the players ideas if they make the game better.
2. When in doubt or unsure how to proceed, it's okay to ask for a momentary break. You're one person, they're multiple. Tell them to get a sandwich while you think about what should come next. You won't have thought of every possible reaction or result to what they're doing, so don't act like you have.
Involve as many senses in description of areas as you can. Instead of "You enter the forest", do somethin like "Dead leaves crunch under your boots as you enter the forestl, the potent smell of the fauna and flora threatening to overwhelm you.
A good place to start with GMing advice is to read the Game Master's Guide section of the RPG you wish to play. The guide should include how to run the game.
From there, familiarize yourself with the rules of the game.
Your first game is going to be awful. There is no avoiding your first game sucking, nor your second. How a GM gets good, is by practicing for years on end.
Also, try playing with a group that has no idea how to play RPGs either. They're not going to notice the difference between a good and a bad GM. But if you play together long enough, you'll all improve.
Your job as the GM is to run the game. As you get lazier, you'll find yourself finding shortcuts to making things easier and easier.
Once you get familiar with being in the GM's shoes, that's when all the GM advice stuff will really start to make sense.
Just remember, the players as a whole want to like you and your game. They will do what they can to have fun in your game. Just remember that you as the GM need to be having fun too.
GMing is like sex, you don't have to be good at it to enjoy it.
Steal everything and discard what doesn't work for you. JKD at every level.
>GMing is like sex, you don't have to be good at it to enjoy it.
Mind if we use this line?
Not at all.
I have a player that keeps trying to contradict me over trite shit. It's mostly minor things and I definitely make judgement calls in their favor more often than against him. This player threatened to quit after the first session because his rolls were bad. After the second session he said he had a blast (coincidentally his rolls were good that night) but it rubbed me the wrong way that he kept arguing with me.
For example, I made the party roll to recognize an extremely old, worn figurine. The figurine was the cleric's chosen diety and the player (who is the party's druid) started bitching that they shouldn't have rolled because the cleric would have recognized it. Just pointless nitpicking when I was trying to establish how seriously old and worn the items were. Later I told him that the gelatinous cube that engulfed him extinguished his produce flame effect which was also the party's only light source. He whined and argued that it wasn't fair for a full minute. This kind of thing happened throughout the night.
My question is, how do you guys typically handle people that seem to throw a fit every time the slightest thing doesn't go their way? I don't want to kick him from the table but I'm not okay with being contradicted every time he decides he doesn't like how I'm DMing. If I make a mistake with the rules I welcome being corrected but it breaks immersion for everyone when this guy interrupts every single action telling me how he would do it differently.
> my friends and I want to create something but we're shit at it so we want Veeky Forums to do it for us.
This can actually be off-putting to some players, because not everyone enjoys lengthy descriptions. It's not a bad notion, but it's one that can be detrimental if the group isn't into it.
I think any advice in this thread always needs to be tapered with the idea that no two groups are identical, and the most important aspects of being a good GM are simply the ones that make you a good person.
Pay attention to your players and their moods, and learn as much as you can about them. Be sensitive. Fair. Caring. And all those other platitudes.
As far as advanced tips, part of being a good GM is being able to play a diverse range of characters, and an easy way to train that is to just turn on the television, flip through the channels, and any time you hear someone talking, take a moment to try imitating them. In fact, any acting exercises tend to be extremely helpful, and picking up books and instructional videos on acting might be all a person needs to take their game to the "next level."
Dont kick him out of the table
Just kick him
Very hard
I'm going to talk to him one on one tomorrow. I just worry that he might feel singled out and drop altogether. He isn't a bad guy and he commits to his character more than any of my other players and I really appreciate that. I just feel like he might be better suited to DMing because he doesn't seem to like how events unfold any other way. I might nudge him in that direction as well.
If you say it to him like it is, it'll be harder for him to take what you say as something other than like it is.
Don't embellish anything, just get to the point, and explain why you feel how you do. It ain't easy, but this is a skill one can get good at.
Yeah do that it's the best option
>Castree DMPC
That's a healslut if I ever saw one.
>mfw I'm rage in the second picture
Granted I have a set of system mastery where if I know the PC's, I can tend to make up NPC's on the spot.
I've an approach at my table, and I stick to it.
As a GM a core part of your job is to make rulings. It's healthy to incorporate the opinion of the players on those rulings, but like many tiered systems, roles are in place so decision making doesn't take forever, which in our case would be a detriment to the game in terms of flow and tone and whatever.
So when I make a ruling, players a free to negotiate a certain amount. When that amount is up, the negotiation might have convinced me or not, but the ruling stands, wherever it's at. The part I make clearest here is that it's for the flow of the game and because a decision needs to be made, even if it may be suboptimal. Making quick decisions is great because most of the problem decisions will be forgotten about five minutes later.
Players who negotiate too many rulings too long must do so with shorter and shorter negotiation times. The only way such a player can lengthen a negotiation, apart from being generally more sparing, is with support from other players, and sometimes to both speed things along and make a player feel like I'm not ignoring their perspectives, I'll open it up to the group. Then after that some decision will stand. Highly volatile decisions that seem to make everyone antsy go to a group vote and I abstain.
>Making quick decisions is great because most of the problem decisions will be forgotten about five minutes later.
As with many things in life, a bad decision now is better than a perfect decision later.
Intermediate GM technique: when a player rolls really well, let them describe their actions. Ask them "how do you finish off this orc" or "describe the sick acrobatics you do as you leap over the pit". You can even let them get away with stuff like "I slice the orc's head right off its shoulders, and the head hits another orc right in the face!" and you respond with "wow, it even did (roll d4) 3 damage to the other orc!"
Advanced GM technique: let your players narrate their critical *failures*. This requires a certain level of trust, and a certain type of player. But when it works, your players can be far more mean to their characters than you would ever dare. Player rolls a 1 on a spell: "Describe how the spell backfires on you." "I chant the fireball incantation, but I stutter a word at exactly the wrong moment, and my arms burst into flames! My robe quickly starts to light up, so I rip it off and throw it on the ground trying to stomp out the flames while wearing nothing but my boots!"
>A good place to start with GMing advice is to read the Game Master's Guide section of the RPG you wish to play. The guide should include how to run the game.
Ignore this advice, it's awful because 99.99% of a game's GMing section is written by people who have no idea how to effectively explain what GMing is, or rely on assumptions of existing knowledge that render whatever valuable insight they do have impossible to understand or digest. This results in Meme Advice like what had with his bullshit "Let players tell you the correct answer to your puzzle!" advice.
is similarly retarded, because GMing is not about making stupid fluffy descriptions. The problem people like him don't understand is that maintaining a game's atmosphere is *nice*, but absolutely far from the basics of GMing. Besides, most people just imagine what's going on in the game world based on your description to begin with, because that's how imaginations work.
Or with his "Let players describe stuff advice." It's like, really? This is advanced? No, this is having players willing and interested in doing so. The minute you get a wallflower in your game, watch the tense atmosphere you've worked so hard to establish collapse like a deck of cards as they stutter their way through things. This isn't a technique, it's recognizing you've found total suckers for players who are willing to adjudicate consequences for you. It's finding ways to be a lazy GM.
In fact, honestly? Ignore all the advice that is going to be posted in this thread. Your average nerd is absolutely terrible at explaining how to GM, and you will only become further confused if you try that stuff and it doesn't seem to really improve your game (and it won't). There will be zero "advanced wisdom" in this thread worth reading.
Here's your reply.
In fact, I can seriously say that the only advice I have ever found worth reading in my countless years of pouring over GURPS source books, individual GMing books ranging from those written by Gary Gygax to Brian Jamison to Avelon Games, to various blogs and podcasts and so forth, has come from two sources.
One, was the Dungeon World GMing section, because it is simply the only GMing advice I have ever found that sets up a structured format for a GM to follow that literally all GMing rulebooks I have ever found overlook, take for granted, or simply ignore. I would categorize this as basic GMing advice, because it walks you through what minute-by-minute adjudication and situation posing by a GM looks like, how to do it, and subsequently how to get the gears of a game rolling.
The second source would be basically every article posted on TheAngryGM's website. He is a very divisive figure, and his annoying writing style makes some of his articles hard to swallow, but his understanding of how to GM well is absolutely spot on.
At least people like this are open about the fact that they have nothing of value to add to the conversation, so for that, I am grateful.
So your advice would be that the most important element that a GM needs is a good group?
This is true enough advice, but sadly not everyone is in the position to pick and choose a good group.
What about those who can't choose their group? What tips would you give for GMs and players like them?
Best advice that people tend to forget?
We do this for fun. Players and GM.
If people aren't having fun, why you doing it? It's tricky, but a GMs ultimate job is to make sure people are having fun. They might have that fun by grinding dungeons and earning XP. They might get it from embroiling themselves in a political mystery. They might get it from having their characters suffer just enough to be interesting. Or they might get it from joking abuout lolmemes and randumb adventures.
There is no right or wrong way to have fun. If you want your players to see you as a good GM, find out what is fun for them and help give them that.
>So your advice would be that the most important element that a GM needs is a good group?
No, because players are essentially interchangeable. Sure, some are worse than others, but there exists no player that is "vital" to the function of a game. A good GM can make a functional game even with poor players. Perhaps not godawful ones that actively sabotage the game, but any others? Sure, a session will be had. It will likely even be entertaining.
>What tips would you give for GMs who do not have the luxury of selecting their group?
Reminding the GM that he always has the luxury of selecting his group so long as he can post on the internet, because even if IRL games are not a thing for him, online games are.
Supposing he was adamant about *not* giving up IRL games, then all I can say is he'd best develop his people management skills.
I would personally disagree with this piece of advice to be perfectly honest, because it makes it sound like the whole game hinges on the GM, and, while I know you don't mean it, it makes it sound like the GM's fun isn't really factored into this.
My stance is coming from how I see "fun". Fun is a byproduct of playing the game. By the GM running the game, and the Players playing the game, fun comes of those actions. The group has fun, when the group plays together.
With that stance in mind, I don't think it fair that the whole group's fun should hinge on the GM (Again, I know you don't mean that). A Tabletop RPG is a group game, and yes, the GM has more than the lion's share of duties. Still, the GM should only worry about their fun- while letting the Players worry about their own, because the Players are as much part of the group as the GM.
Besides, how do you make a person have fun? There's an old cliche, that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The same goes for people and fun. People have to have fun themselves.
I hope this is clear, because, I'm not quite at the stage where I can say this in only a few words.
The monster manual is just a bunch of suggestions to give you a sense of scope, and sticking to it will only encourage metaplay -intentional or not- in your players and a lack of creativity on your part.
Just don't use it as license to make up fudge stats on the spot to fuck with your players.
>Besides, how do you make a person have fun?
You ask what they would find fun.
> it makes it sound like the GM's fun isn't really factored into this.
Running the game and helping the group come together and have fun should be what the GM finds fun. If they don't - why are you GMing?
I think I get where you're coming from - fun isn't a goal, it's a result. But it seems counter intuitive. I don't play games because I want to micromanage a character. I do it because micromanaging a character is fun. If I'm not having fun, I'm not going to keep playing a game.
I have some .pdfs that might be useful.
Admittedly I haven't read most of these and am just going by the filenames.
Every little bit helps, cheers. We're basically looking for contentious ideas and thoughts to use as topic points for roundtable discussions.
...
...
...
>You ask what they would find fun.
This is a niggle, but this still cannot make the horse drink per say. It can get them closer to the water, but its still up to the horse to take in the water, and go through the motions of swallowing. In the end, its still up to the player to seal the deal.
And I agree, a GM who isn't enjoying what they're running, and isn't enjoying running it for their group should not be GMing it.
This next point is why it took me so long to respond to you.
I, as a forever GM, don't think its fair that the fun of other people- even the people that I love playing with, ought to be in my hands. The players are just as responsible for the group as the GM. The GM is part of the group, and while their role is unique in the group, their role is still just a part of the group as a whole.
The GM is not in charge of the group as a whole, but they are responsible for running the game.
I say, everyone in the group who is part of it is responsible for their share in the group. The group is greater than the sum of its parts.
Enjoy.
>The players are just as responsible for the group as the GM.
I agree with this point, which is why I agree with the ideas of .
>You ask what they would find fun.
This person is a retard, because he relies on A: His players accurately understanding what they find fun and not merely what they *believe* they find fun, B: Them conveying this information accurately, C: You understanding this information accurately
The "Just talk to them!" retards do not understand just how many failure points there are in something as abstract as "What do you find fun in a game bro."
Oh sure, you can *figure out* what players find fun by seeing what they respond to, but asking them does not work 9 times out of 10. For this reason, don't bother asking players about shit like this; just pay attention to what they latch onto, and the answers will become self evident.
>Talking to your players is bad advice!
Confirmed for troll.
6/10. One of the better trolls I've seen in a few days. Only major failing was his choice to only nay-say other posters, rather than offer his own thoughts and opinions on the subject matter - thus outing him as a troll AND missing out on an opportunity for more impressive bait. Shows very real promise. I'd watch out for this poster in the future - he could be the troll to beat.
He isn't entirely wrong though.
Aye, but he could have done it with a lot less name calling.
Not the guy he was responding to, but the other guy he was talking to.
Don't be afraid or ashamed to ripshit off. You're not perfect and you're probably not a genius. If you find a great idea somewhere and you think you can get away with using it, use it. At the end of the day, it's better to have a good time and be unoriginal than to have a shit time with integrity.
Building off of that, everyone gets their ideas by stealing it from somewhere. The honest artist will admit that they stole all of their ideas.
But what the artist does is build off of all of this, in order to make it authentic.
Originality is the booby prize. Authenticity is much closer to where you want to be. To make something authentic is to make it your own and make it fit in organically within your medium.
(I'd welcome some debate here. I'd like to refine what I just said.)
>Aye, but he could have done it with a lot less name calling.
Welcome to Veeky Forums, buttercup. Don't expect people to coddle you when you give bad advice.
In fact, my advice is infinitely better than yours, because when it comes to figuring out what players want out of a campaign, there is zero, and I mean LITERALLY NOT ONE SINGULAR better way to figure that out than seeing how they react to quests that appeal to people in a variety of ways. Maybe the PCs find themselves looting a priceless artifact from an otherwise destitute family's house; if they pawn it over returning it to their rightful owners, it is plain that they value monetary gain over ethics. You now know something you can hook them with.
Now, they *might* tell you "Yeah, we want all the shekels" if you ask them what they want out of the campaign, but it is far more likely that you won't. You will get information that ranges from vague to useless. You are wasting both your time and the time of others.
This is why you are a retard.
Classic troll mistake, responding to bait and feeling the need to defend their points. An unfortunate hiccup, but he still shows promise. With a little training and patience, he may one day rise to the loft heights of Red Machine D, Anymouse or even that much applauded poet JimProfit.
Posting this; you might find it useful.
>I have no argument and I must post
k buttercup
>A: His players accurately understanding what they find fun and not merely what they *believe* they find fun, B: Them conveying this information accurately, C: You understanding this information accurately
this problem is generalizable to all communication, but most people manage
>Welcome to Veeky Forums, buttercup. Don't expect people to coddle you when you give bad advice.
I'm not expecting otherwise, but I still think that you can correct bad advice without resorting to petty namecalling. In fact, I say it's more likely to keep the person reading your disagreement if you don't resort to it to show that you're at least taking their argument seriously.
Yes, it is Veeky Forums, and I expect nothing less than spaghetti-spilling from sperg-burglars, but that doesn't make my point untrue.
>And the award for Most Accidentally Self-Referencing Post by a Rookie Troll goes to...
There's nothing to take seriously when you're so offensively wrong.
I'm saying to take their argument seriously, whether or not what they say is stupid to the Nth degree.
If you know the truth, and if you know where to stand in an argument, then why not just let someone say their piece? When they do that, you- as the truthbearer- have a better means to correct their falsehoods. Then if you show that you're open to their views, they'll likely be more open to your own. Through that, you can better reach them, so that they stop being said stupid ass thing.
Maybe I'm being too idealistic for Veeky Forums, but I believe in improving things rather than put them down for my own amusement. I do so with the hopes people will do the same back to me, whether it is on Veeky Forums, in real life, or whatever the fuck. Anonymity be damned.
>If you know the truth, and if you know where to stand in an argument, then why not just let someone say their piece? When they do that, you- as the truthbearer- have a better means to correct their falsehoods. Then if you show that you're open to their views, they'll likely be more open to your own. Through that, you can better reach them, so that they stop being said stupid ass thing.
Because fuck you, that's why. I don't post to try to bring you enlightenment, I post because it mildly amuses me and others may benefit from my magnificent wisdom. Whether you personally do or not is immaterial to me, and in any event, when you come off the rag and check the thread or think back to the conversation the next day after all the hot and botheredness has passed, you'll see I'm right anyway, so being nice to you in the short term doesn't really matter anyway, even if my explicit purpose *were* to "better reach you."
In short, the only reason to be nice is because it makes *you* feel good, and call it tough love if you'd like baby, but I aint about the meaningless niceties.
You are not alone.
Proper, positive discourse can still be had on Veeky Forums.
But only with those willing to listen.
Trolls that spew anger, insults, and nonsensical arguments are not interested in improving anything, not even their skills at trolling or arguing.
They just want to argue for the sake of it.
See
>nonsensical arguments
None of your other bullshit matters because it's nicey feely crap. Literally "muh feels."
This, however, deserves substantiation. So substantiate it.
What arguments have been posed would you describe as nonsensical, and why are they nonsense?
By the way, for the kids keeping track at home; this is about to be a lesson on why blunt arguments of substance always trump meaningless niceties devoid of meaning.
>I have a player that keeps trying to contradict me over trite shit
We have them on Veeky Forums too. See this fellow Listen to and resolve it as quickly as possible then if the individual continues arguing, agitated at your ruling, just continue the task at hand, ignoring his attempts at distraction.
>>nonsensical arguments
>This, however, deserves substantiation. So substantiate it.
>What arguments have been posed would you describe as nonsensical, and why are they nonsense?
Okay real quick:
Your argument for not allowing others to say their piece was, “Because fuck you, that’s why.”
I cite this as a nonsensical argument. Why?
Because fuck you, that’s why.
See, if you disagree that that’s a valid argument, you prove my case. If you accept it, you prove my case.
By the way, all niceties are not devoid of meaning and being insulting is not somehow superior. There is more meaning than what you grasp at. This is about to be a lesson in just that.
>Your argument for not allowing others to say their piece was
Incorrect assertion. By definition of being able to post, you are in fact being allowed to say your piece.
Do you have something that is not demonstrably wrong to say?
>Post on Veeky Forums looking for talking points on how to be a better player/GM
>Devolves into silly arguments
DANCE, YOU FUCKING MONKIES.
I'll keep biting this bait, because I know you're enjoying it, and I'm enjoying the opportunity this is providing to discuss this in further depth, even though I'm sure you're intending otherwise.
I'd like to address the strawman that I'm being "nice", and advocating for such. I'm advocating instead for being the things that you preach. I preach doing my part in carrying out the highest level of dialogue I can, and I try to practice that too.
I want to differentiate that from being "nice", because a "nice" person acts in accordance to how they feel someone would want to be treated. By practicing what I preach, this involves getting to the nitty gritty of what people hold close to them, and potentially attacking or at least shake it. "Nice" people don't do that to anyone, because they know that nobody wants to be questioned.
But for all we're saying about how being nice is stupid, it does have its uses in terms of pleasantries and first impressions. The first impression is extremely important, because it sets the tone for how somebody is going to take you as a person from then on out. It is very difficult to turn the first impression around.
I also want to ask you this question, but what reason is there to be condescending? There is no point in being nice, but I haven't seen your argument for being the opposite, or something else instead. Why take the magnificent wisdom from someone who doesn't even care to provide even a token gesture towards making a connection with someone, even if that someone is on an anonymous message board in a thread that will be pruned in a matter of days? That is, as you say, being nice and making *me* feel good?
And you see how that works?
It’s important to be firm.
Of course sometimes, the arguing player will not just be arguing with you.
Sometimes a perfectly nice player will get distracted and become invested in arguing with the other player, even after your ruling.
At this point you have to make it clear to them that if they are going to keep arguing, you will have to end the session.
They are free to decide if they’d rather be involved in traditional gaming or arguing, but you don’t have to engage your time.
Being firm is important.
This applies to other distractions too. If a player cannot be bothered to put their phone away even for a moment, then you are better off without them in the future.
How much of that is the players fault and how much is the GMs?
If the player has been motivated enough to come to the game, why have they drawn the line at paying attention?
There was a quote attributed to General Dwight D. Eisenhower that states something like: "In my experience in the military, I found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable."
I love this quote, because you can apply a parallel to this for when it comes to GMing. As a GM, all the plans you are making for an adventure will be useless. Your Players are too chaotic a force to make your plans mean anything.
So what then in "planning"? "Planning", in the GM sense is you getting to know and understand the adventure that you made.
As a GM, you need to prepare for the chaos that is your players. You cannot counter this chaos by forcing it into the order that is your "Plan". Instead, your understanding of the adventure as per "Planning" will help you come up with solutions and things to do on the fly for when the players come across them.
So seek and understanding of your adventure, and know how it came to be the adventure spot that the Players are now entering into.
Reward positive behavior. Gaming is about having fun, so don't be a bitch when people have fun.
If people bring food and drinks, thank them. Shit, hand out some bonus XP for it.
If they make the group laugh, same again.
If they keep the game running smoothly and stop fights from breaking out - guess what, ring that bell and bring on the sweet stuff.
For starters if the player can't pay attention then their motivation to come to the game is suspect already. RPGs are a communal hobby, and it's just plain rude towards the GM and other players to tune out whenever it's not your turn in combat. Also those kind of players often tend to disrupt the game by asking things (re)explained to them that they would've gotten just if they had listened the first time like normal people. Even worse is if they start interrupting other players to show them epic may mays on their phone or playing music.
Bottom line they just don't bring much to the table and can possibly be an active deterrent towards a smooth gaming experience.
And again, how much of this is the players fault and how much is the GMs/groups?
Depends on the person. I've got a friend who loves the IDEA of playing a tabletop rpg. But that's at least partly because they have this mental image in their head of them only ever rolling 20s in dramatic moments, and getting to play out a badss hero. So if the game ever strays away from swinging away from an exploding castle via a conveniently tied rope with a cutlass clenched in their teeth and a buxom elven wench in one arm they get easily distracted. Shows up for every god damned session, but if anyone's ever rolling a persuasion check he's on his phone not caring.
In my estimation I'd that say it's 99% player's fault.
Are you a GM or a player?
>How much of this is the players fault and how much is the GMs/groups?
I see what you’re driving at, but even if the player’s disinterest is partially caused by the GM or group, how that player responds is all on them.
There were times when I was a player that I had to sit out for whatever reason, such as a party split, other players were handling minutiae that did not involve or interest me, or whatever.
When that happened, I doodled, wrote notes about the session, read old notes, read the books, or quietly chatted with another player.
I did not browse the internet, play another game, or otherwise fuck around distractedly.
My focus was still the game at hand.
Put your phone down.
If you're the GM, don't be precious about your game.
Good point - no plan survives contact with the enemy, and no game survives contact with the players. Don't expect it to.
In the short term, any obstacle has only 4 solutions.
1: Players destroy obstacle
2: Players avoid obstacle
3: Players befriend obstacle
4: Obstacle defeats players
Plan for roughly what will happen in the case of each eventuality, and what obstacle will the players lead to next, along with any consequence of defeating an obstacle in a particular way.
Let the players work out how to deal with the obstacle, you just need to make it something entertaining and go with your gut for that part. Your job is to see how well they carry that out as per the dice, and then let them go to the next obstacle.