Tips to improve my game

what are some little things you've learned over the years that help improve game night?

I've got about 1 years experience and I've found that making for available is always great.

1. Never let someone make a test to persuade/intimidate an NPC without telling you what he is going to say first, no matter what excuse he uses; what he says must at least have the potential to persuade the NPC in question.

2. NPCs should interact with PCs, and not with each other; i'm tired of games where the story basically revolve around other NPCs and the players are just there to fight for them without any saying in the matter.

3. Thinking on what will actually happen in your game is more important than thinking on the setting; if you prepared the setting but did not plan properly on the tests and encounters that will happen, your game will fail.

>1
Plan the beginning and the end of every session.
>2
Players will always choose the option that gives them awesome power at the cost of life and limb.
>3
Everyone at the table should have fun, even the GM.
>4
If someone's causing problems in a game, talk to them and let them know they're being shitty.
>5
If they don't improve after talking to them, kick them out of the group.
>6
Everyone railroads and fudge dice to an extent, if they claim they don't then they're lying.
>7
With that being said, you should only do so sparingly and as subtly as possible.
>8
The GM ultimately sets the pace of the campaign, including which options are available and which ones are not.
>9
Charisma checks are not a substitute to roleplay.
>10
Never host a game with strangers, especially online; never play with GM's who need to advertise at a local FLGS.

>Never let someone make a test to persuade/intimidate an NPC without telling you what he is going to say first
I disagree with this, as you are using the player's personal ability as a limit on a character's mechanical ability.
If you had said "explain what method of rationale you are using" or "how are you approaching it, either sweet words or threats of physical violence", that is far more palatable, because the character should be able to achieve this (that's why the dice roll is for).
I've seen enough players shat on by GMs who demand that the player be as knowledgeable as the character about a variety of subjects to be immediately annoyed by it.

>I disagree with this, as you are using the player's personal ability as a limit on a character's mechanical ability.
If you cannot, at the very least, give a cursory explanation for what you're trying to do then maybe you're playing the wrong character.
>I've seen enough players shat on by GMs who demand that the player be as knowledgeable as the character about a variety of subjects to be immediately annoyed by it.
The problem I see with people is that they try to separate themselves from their characters, which is antithesis to roleplay. I never play a character concept that I don't understand and if I do, I'll at least do some research on the relevant subjects just so I can say that I know enough to get by.

If people go into a game with the idea that the player and the character are one and the same, a lot of this bullshit about "metagaming" and "personal ability" would disappear overnight simply because people will stop going into game with a dual-mindset.

More than once the players rolled persuade to say stuff like "hey, you should stop man.." when the situation simply doesn't allow that; or at least the way he said it is just wrong. He can get a perfect test, if what he says doesn't make sense it means nothing; it won't make a thief stop robbing him. Being too shy is no excuse to speak nonsense.

Also, "your character just said something and it worked" is basically anti-game; it's his character, he must interpret it. I think most of the time is lazyness and not just the player being shy, why say "could you give me a gun or something?" when the player can go for "i see that you guys have an armory, and we will be invading the enemy base alone, could you at least provide weapons so we have more chances of success? we will bring them back.. if we live"

Also, if you force your players that way, they become better at it.

Know the tone and theme of the game you are presenting to the players, and make sure the players know, and are in agreement, with it.
>most character problems can be solved by this alone
Do not fear the authority being a GM invests in you. Be ready and able to silence others who are cutting into conversations not their own, demand that eyes be on you when you are speaking, and do not brook back talk from players when they don't like a ruling you have made.
>Players will walk on you if they think they can
People on this board promote the "Yes/No, but" idea. This is false. You, the GM, know what you want, and if the idea worked in the game you wanted, and you trusted the player to pull it off, you would not NEED to so "No, but", you would be saying "Yes". But you do not, so the answer is "No".
>Use No, it is your greatest weapon to prevent dumb shit
When problems with a player, or between players comes up, squash it. Call out the players involved, sit them down, hammer it out as soon as possible. Crushing the tide of drama before it rises keeps it from swamping your groups.
>Drama kills groups, kill Drama first
You, the GM, must be knowledgeable and be able to communicate your knowledge. Speak loudly, clearly, and with minimal interruption. When you speak to a player, look them in the eye and have them look at you.
>Speak to your players, not at them, and demand they do the same
Always have a back up plan or idea in mind, and be confident in the game's mechanics enough to create situations on the fly.
>the players will catch you with your pants down, prepare to flaunt your dick

>If you cannot, at the very least, give a cursory explanation for what you're trying to do then maybe you're playing the wrong character.
That is not what the poster was asking for. He was asking for "what you say", not how you go about it.
>The problem I see with people is that they try to separate themselves from their characters, which is antithesis to roleplay
I believe the exact opposite, that self insertion is what leads to wannabe main characters, power fantasies and snowflakes. I can easily play a female pc as well as male, and when I rp, I step into their shoes, their mind, but I realize that I, the player, am not them. They have supplanted me, my knowledge is not theirs, my mindset is not theirs, and so what I do, say, and act like is based on the character.
You speak against metagaming, but realize that metagaming is the player using their own knowledge of the world/mechanics/etc in order to gain an advantage the character could not truly claim to have, and it ruins immersion of BEING the character to do so.
>More than once the players rolled persuade to say stuff like "hey, you should stop man.." when the situation simply doesn't allow that; or at least the way he said it is just wrong
Then simply tell the player that isn't an approach that will work, or give them hefty penalties if they persist in that after being warned?
>being too shy
It's not a matter of being "shy", it's that some people simply do not have those skills. It's the difference between being a public orator but being a poor liar.
>Also, "your character just said something and it worked" is basically anti-game; it's his character, he must interpret it
It is not anti-game, it is precisely what the game makes an allotment for: players who have characters that with skill sets they don't have. I have seen GMs make the same argument towards players who had characters that were chemists, effectively restricting them from using their character's skills.

>You speak against metagaming, but realize that metagaming is the player using their own knowledge of the world/mechanics/etc in order to gain an advantage the character could not truly claim to have, and it ruins immersion of BEING the character to do so.
The people who subscribe to the main character, the power fantasy, and the snowflake are still people who separate themselves from their characters.

The reality is that your character only knows about as much as you do without rolls to supplement your shortcomings. They are not autonomous, without you, they're nothing more than details on a 8x11 piece of paper and thinking of them as an independent entity only makes it harder to truly immerse yourself within the game.

I myself have played characters that are nothing like me but I'm still able to roleplay them well because I think is "hmm, how would I act if I had this personality, these flaws, and these abilities" and then I just play it forward.

>I myself have played characters that are nothing like me but I'm still able to roleplay them well because I think is "hmm, how would I act if I had this personality, these flaws, and these abilities" and then I just play it forward.
So you do the same thing I do, except... you don't maintain the boundaries between yourself and your character?
>The people who subscribe to the main character, the power fantasy, and the snowflake are still people who separate themselves from their characters.
I have rarely seen this, and in fact, almost every incident of magical realm'ing from a player came expressly from self insertion.
>The reality is that your character only knows about as much as you do without rolls to supplement your shortcomings
This is assuming you as a player know little about the world, the setting. Even when the GM makes a custom setting, the players can still find themselves using familiarity as a crutch.