Your biggest weakness as a DM

Hell I WISH I was that good at applying myself to my writing, keep your chin up. Maybe try to find a new angle to get players interested in the rest of the goods. As long as its there organically. Making players go through fluff is like putting a dress on a cat. Yeah you can force it, but no one is gonna walk away happy.

I burn out really easily. Players have to be interesting in order to keep my attention.

I tinker and homebrew way too much, and when I finally decide on a system to run I either bury it under houserules or wish I chose a different, more customizable system. I can't even run Risus without houseruling it. Hell I have a houserule document for each and every game I want to run.

I am legitimately the worst at prepping for GMing in the history of roleplaying games and only my half-decent improvisation allows me to get through a session without significant spaghetti reactor containment issues. I just, I put off reading and imagining the dungeons and describing them is difficult for me. I know I need to work on it, and people enjoy my games but it's difficult to really figure out what to do prep-wise.

This, I have disappointed my fiance with so many one on ones that fizzled out.

I know that feel bro. Any good/bad stories you want to get off your chest? I know you can't really say shit to your players.

The last BBEG was an ancient red dragon I spent 15 hours writing up, and upon their first meeting with her at a negotiation between her and the kingdom they lived in, at which point the Thief tried to seduce her, grabbed her boob when she turned him down, and she effortlessly wiped the whole party when they tried to save the thief from the (not at all) inevitable consequences.

If you have to force yourself on IMAGINARY woman, there's just no lower to get.

I have a bad habit of giving players too much of what they want to happen and overcorrecting with too much of what they don't want to happen.

All my NPCs are
>[guy described only by his trade] walked by and [dialogue explaining the scene to the PCs] then walked away

Pretty much. And then he raged at me because he didn't get that a group of lvl 1 nobodies who are literally just working as staff at a diplomatic summit shouldn't be able to defeat an eleven thousand year old red dragon who has singlehandedly killed gods.

>But we never even had a chance to win! Railroading much, fucker? You're just punishing us (him) because we (he) didn't want to follow your stupid plan!

Well, Was the diplomatic summit set to explode?

I let the players sandbox too long before I drop hooks, sometimes it gets awkward.

I just keep hoping they'll take a bit of agency.

Depended quite a bit on what the players did. There were multiple factions present, and the players had privilaged information they could give to any of the major political movers to help set off the plot, based on what they thought was a smart thing to do with it. They could even give it to aforementioned Red Bitch BBEG to gain her favor. They just thought it would be better to pick a fight with a demigod and get their home city destroyed.

This. My "acting" isn't just subpar, it's not even on the scale.

My players don't seem to mind, but it really bothers me, especially when I've spent time writing up a unique/important NPC and "present" them like "HI, I'm Boring Guy #26 the Blacksmith..."

I like to present myself as a knowledgeable and clever DM, who also happens to be a cheerful and nice guy.
In fact, I've got a huge complex revolving around making people happy that prevents me from being a hardass when I really need to be a hardass. I also barely read modules ahead of time because I always just shrug it off and saying I'll improvise when I need to.
My campaign setting is my baby, and I would shank a motherfucker if they took it too far away from my intentions.

Whenever I make dungeons I have trouble making it so everyone can contribute in their own way. Most of the encounters are either something that everybody can handle, or just the same one or two party members excelling at it over and over again.
Especially the rogue. I feel really bad for him since I don't think I let him do rogue things enough.

I mostly GM late at night on Roll20, so to be considerate to the other people in my house I keep my voice low. Because of that I now have a habit of slipping into a monotone, even when I GM face to face. It doesn't sound like a big problem but if I forget to make my voice interesting my players lose their enthusiasm.

I'm terrible at planning out a campaign. I have a barebones idea of how it'll start and where I expect it to end, but I hardly put anything on paper and I very quickly throw together material the day before the session.
My group hasn't really had any major criticism on my DMing so far, so I guess I'm doing something right.

I feel you guys. The vast majority of my NPCs feel so flat to me, and I know it's not just my anxiety because my players are always asking me "Who?" when I give a name they've encountered before.

>an eleven thousand year old red dragon who has singlehandedly killed gods.

*wanking hand motion*

I was trying to convey 2 hours worth of in-game buildup in one sentence. Over the course of the previous session it had been made clear to them that she was thoroughly badass, with all but bright neon signs saying "BBEG, DO NOT FUCK WITH ME YET!!!" but he did it anyway.

This describes my longrunning Dragonball Z Hero 5e/6e campaign. I even jokingly say that is the game where the rules keep changing and the points don't matter. It's permanently in beta testing. However, I compensate by focusing that much more on the less mechanical elements - story, worldbuilding, NPCs, etc and between the consistent fluff and evolving mechanics it delivers a DBZ experience every time.

Also, there is literally nothing wrong with hacking Risus. It functionally is a core mechanic that you can build a greater system around. Kind of like how GURPS says that it is 3d6 roll under at its core.

It will vary, of course, from group to group, but each group has an ideal level of GM "intervention", for lack of a better word, you know, when the GM supplies them with ideas or restricts their actions in some manner to try to keep things in some way or another.

I don't always do a good job gauging my current group. I've had ones chafe at me being too controlling, but at the same time, also had ones disintegrate into fratricide or just aimlessly wandering around because I wouldn't do anything directly GM to players, just filtered things through NPCs without any sort of authority over the PCs, who generally got ignored.

>"Sorry guys I can't talk loud my mom is sleeping in the same room."

That's the best way to do it. I used to plan things beat by beat but eventually I realized that the players are rightfully too confounding a factor to rely on intricate plans. Instead I just figure out a problem that the PCs need to solve and then who or what needs to be confronted in order to solve that problem. I set the PCs loose, have the setting and NPCs react to their actions, and just improvise as the game goes on. New ideas will spring forth session by session as I think about what would be logical and what would be interesting new developments along the way. Eventually at some point the narrative momentum of all of these processes will gel together and the conclusion will become more and more organic. I don't know much more than the PCs about what will happen next and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Most groups are like this. Not all, but most. The more effort you put into the story, the more your players will receive, but at a less than 1:1 ratio, so the more effort and detail you put in the more they miss, too.

To any GM who thinks this doesn't happen to them, ask each of your players individually to describe the main non-player characters of your current campaign arc, including full name, occupation, role in the story, relationships to other characters, and important biographical information.

Don't be surprised when that guy you have three pages of notes on is described as "That one guy who did the thing in that one town."

One thing I've found that really helps is providing the players with notes.

A couple of my players are the shrinking-violet type that feel bad having to ask "who was that?" or "do we know this guy?" or "what were we doing last week?" and thus get even more lost, which creates a feedback loop that only comes up way too long afterwards when they have no more investment in the game. It's frustrating as fuck to GM in this situation and I do try to call them on it when it's clear they're doing it, but you can only change a player's behavior so much, I ain't here to lay a player on the couch and talk about why their feeling embarrassed to have to ask questions stems from their mother's upbringing or whatever the fuck.

In exchange for asking them to work on it more I promised to write notes for them. I ended up finding it really helps.

>but user, shouldn't players just take notes themselves if they need them?
The couple in question actually tried this, but often found they failed to take note of a significant detail that slipped past their attention, or couldn't find notes later, or misunderstood something, or etc etc - any long-running social activity will eventually have minor misunderstandings. As the GM, you inherently know what details are or aren't relevant and what is likely to come back up in the future, meaning the notes you supply are more on point, have less "noise," and just as importantly, consistent for all players. I've found it's a great way for me to reinforce important details (or even remind players of seemingly-insignificant details that were actually foreshadowing) and allows everyone to catch up or consult when needed without feeling like they're being a drag on the group or feeling dumb or whatever.

I've found the most effective notes for this start with the immediate calls to action (What is the party's goal? What did you decide to do next, and why?) etc and then move on to a list of entries of important people, places, factions etc.

A decent plan, but that falls apart a little bit when I'm pumping out 25-50k words worth of text for each session to make sure I have all my bases covered if my players wildly veer off course.

I suppose I could make a cliff notes version with just the essentials to hand out after each session.

>I suppose I could make a cliff notes version with just the essentials to hand out after each session.
That's the idea. Make it as short and direct as possible and only containing information that will be necessary to know in order to progress in the story and understand what's going on. Preferably in a list form so it can be rapidly consulted in mid-game for "Wait, who was that...?" kind of questions.

I hand them out between sessions, making minor additions or alterations from session to session to reflect new NPCs or locations or factions, or new events in the world, or new information the party learned, etc.

I'm a new dm but I'm terrible at improving

It's a skill you'll pick up over time user, don't worry about it.

Don't try to blank slate improv. Build the world. When you have a good background of different people ,places, interests, resources, etc. you have all the building blocks to make new material as needed.

seconding Blank slate is the worst possible scenario for improv. If you have a solid understanding of the world and how the people in it act, it's much, MUCH easier to improv by deciding how they would realistically respond.

Be sure to give all NPCs at least a couple defining characteristics and a motivation each (even if it's something obvious, like say, a bartender's motivation is to stay in business) - it really helps a ton in deciding what they would do in an unexpected situation.

I also like to keep a "slush pile" of ideas I never got around to using and yet liked - anything from a character concept to a story arc to a dungeon to a theme, anything at all. Over the years I've built up a solid slush pile of something I can quickly reach for when caught flat-footed by an unexpected player decision.

>improving
Improvising, user

Why does everybody think the full word of improv is improving?

Great advice from both these anons.

My voice is impossible to take serious.

But of things that can be overcome.
I have a problem with connecting cool ideas. Like I'll have six hundred ideas for cool shit that happens in the campaign, but no real idea of how to actually connect them together.

>improvising
Please, improvisation, we're not mongoloids here.

Improvising - verb
Improvisation - noun

Perfectionism. It leads me to be dissatisfied when games are anything less than solidly good. It also means that I have little patience for player shenanigans, making me a "serious business; no fun allowed" kind of GM. Additionally, I work on things for obscenely long periods of time, trying to get them perfect before I play them.

I kind of think that's what you should do. Why wouldn't you customize games to fit your play-style, circumstances and preferences?

I hate doing combats.

I feel like my combats are bland and uninteresting, it takes forever, it's just a bunch of pointless die-rolling, I'm bad at balancing and it often gets harrowingly close to murderizing PCs (and then I try and overcompensate the other direction), and I can't design interesting locations or mechanics. I worry a lot of my enemies, especially the ones that aren't straight out of a book, are me sitting there with a notepad, pulling an HP number out of my ass, and then waiting while they whittle that down. I actively avoid giving them intelligent tactics because I don't really want to kill these PCs I'm telling a story with and trying to weave backstories into the game with.

Oh, and I forget to add loot unless reminded, or they fight something that very obviously necessitates loot. But fighting cheap raiders, trogs, vegepygmies, and orcs and the party has gone five levels without magic items or significant wealth.

My biggest weakness as a DM is I like to challenge the players too much, I think. I never design a challenge I know that they will easily overcome. I average one player throwing death saves per session.

Challenging players is meant to be a good thing but I feel as if sometimes a challenge should just be simple task that they easily overcome since they are basically superheroes.

I inadvertently make my PC's too integral to the plot, and can't kill them. Or when I do kill them, new PC's have no reason to be doing what the other PC's are.

I feel my biggest weakness is overpreparing. I spend an insane amount of hours preparing my setting, writing houserules, writing adventure hooks, drawing maps, creating machiavellian villains, and imagining complex and unique things about each culture and area to distinguish it from every other. Once the campaign gets going I spend many hours preparing for all possible eventualities, which is a largely futile venture.

Most of my setting and preparations the players never encounter because a decent half of them like to do more gonzo and muderhobo things that I could never account for properly.

I've been reigning myself in as I gain experience improvising and having enough bulletpoints and lists prepared for whatever eventuality.

The best way to handle bbeg vs 1st level parties is to have the bbeg simply treat the party as beneath their notice, ie, they do not kill the party, they simply smite them enough to knock them all unconscious if they attempt anything aggressive.

High lvl badguys are actually great to encounter early on, because it creates tension for the players, because they want to do something, but know they can't possibly win a straight up fight, it also gives them a chance to interact with the badguy in ways other than combat.

I actually get one of the players to recap the previous session instead of me. This is useful for two reasons, one it shows me what their interpretation of events were, and two it shows me what they find most interesting and relevant so I can push things more in that direction.

When I recapped instead of them, it made them feel like their perspective was invalid, because obviously my views have to trump their own, so I don't do that anymore.

>PC's too integral to the plot

That's fine. Have the next party play in the setting where the chosen one's died, and now they have to deal with that. Could be even more interesting.

Coming close to killing party members isn't necessarily a bad thing. My current DM tends to completely ignore my character in combat, and while that makes her job very easy, I wish that I felt like she was in danger every now and then.

Fuck man, are you me?

I don't know. I try to work on every flaw I discover, and I think I've done a decent job, but in ten years of GMing, I'm starting to feel like I've taken care of everything. My players never give me any feedback, so I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

>The best way to handle bbeg vs 1st level parties is to have the bbeg simply treat the party as beneath their notice
That was very much the idea, but our thief thought it would be a good time to go out of his way to her the attention of something that could horribly murder him. Most mice are smart enough to hide from a cat when they see one, or count themselves lucky if one sees *them* first and doesn't want to kill them. This mouse decided to insult the cat and grab her boob.

I have trouble knowing when to let the party just fucking have a thing, or just fucking win.
I toss on a "well, but" to make things interesting and then realise they've spent four hours trying to complete a random fucking fetchquest that was supposed to be over in ten minutes.

I may be slowly infecting my players with my degenerate fetishes. I don't know how or why I do it, but I can't stop.

I hear you. Perhaps the thief should have been made an example of, but the rest of the party should have been left alone.

Again, that was the idea. The king graciously offered to have the scoundrel thrown in the dungeons for his insolence, to which she agreed, after of course tearing out one of his eyes as a reminder. After all, it would be impolitic to murder the king's subjects while she's there on diplomatic matters, but she could hardly let such a public display go un-punished. The group was pretty happy to just accept this and count themselves lucky, but our intrepid rogue player decided to whine and bitch until they "came to rescue him", RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DRAGON HE JUST PISSED OFF, at which point they got three warnings and a demonstration of their helplessness before being horribly murdered.

The whole situation can just be chalked up to a shitty player, and I'm at peace with that. Originally user just asked me if I had any particularly annoying examples, and that is the one that lept out at me because it's recent.

I get wasted during my sessions. One time I blacked out and when I woke up I found out that I almost derailed my entire campaign. My players have also learned what to expect from me as I get more and more drunk, and avoid death/punishment.

Can't get hype about a setting or game system anymore, at all. I like certain stuff, I do not love it if it's RPG-related. Anyone got any suggestions? It's limiting my creativity and I'm not having fun designing missions.

Play something else? Read some books instead of gaming? People get burned out, it happens.

Been reading. Black Company is overhyped and thoroughly mediocre, think I'll try Count Zero next. What new RPG what you recommend? I've already run 3.5, Pathfinder, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Cthulhutech, WoD, Fiasco, and Scion. I'm not into Savage Worlds or most mechanically lighter systems.

I'm really sad (not actually really sad, but you know, hyperbolic 'sad') because in the last game I played, I kept really good notes that were pretty complete (with the knowledge I had anyhow). But then my un-backed-up hard drive frizzed and I lost my notes. Started playing a new campaign with other people roughly at the same time, didn't keep notes at first, and now I'm one of those people that regularly forgets the only god in the setting beside my own's name. I've started trying to keep notes, but it's a bit too little, too late.

I put to much into everything.
I cannot leave the most insignificant NPC alone without him at least having something that makes them different and memorable. I plan for every possible outcome so much that I have not been surprised in many years.

Well, that's unfortunate. All I can say is be more picky about who you'll gm for. Players are literally a dime a dozen, and even shitty ones can find somewhere else to go muderhobo in where that's acceptable.

I've started doing session zero's so everyone is on the same page so to speak, but there is no perfect process. Sometimes you just have to kick someone out.

I've recently started playing something called Hackmaster. I like it because the combat is lethal and fast, magic is limited and has drawbacks, progression is slower and measured, and it's still mechanically crunchy.

Maybe you'd like something completely different, like a western or scifi or postapocalyptic?

Yeah, honestly, kinda sounds like you entertained a troll for far too long. Either that, or this player was extra retarded, even moreso than usual. Either that, or you didn't communicate it as clearly as you thought, which some GMs do have an issue with even if this doesn't sound like such a case.

>But then my un-backed-up hard drive frizzed and I lost my notes.
Dropbox or a dropbox-alike, man. Written stuff takes a few kb max and having it accessible anywhere (and even able to generate a share or collab link) is really nice.

Killing characters from time to time isn't a bad thing. Especially if the group isn't exactly playing in a way that is tactically sound.

Here's my two cents: when they confront a dangerous villain, usually try to plan and make him so strong that, if the rolls are average for both sides, he kills one PC and maybe grievously injures another.

That way, it will make feel the combat with villains all the more dangerous.

Oh, and remember that sometimes villains do not fight themselves, as they let everything up to their minions and henchmen. So you whould also be okay with sending a whole lot of mooks at the party.

I hope you improve on that.

Speaking from my player perspective, I feel there is not much sense in leveling when everything will be just as challenging as before. Sometimes it is good to be reminded that now that you have been playing for half a year you have become so strong that no mortal man can hope to face you alone and win.

You know in a job interview when they ask you what your greatest weakness is, some people say what you should do is find a way to make it into a strength, like "I'm too much of a perfectionist" or other non-weaknesses hiring managers see right through because they hear it from 90% of applicants?

You appear to be doing that to this thread, which is even more pathetic than if you were in a job interview.

>I feel there is not much sense in leveling when everything will be just as challenging as before.
It's fine so long as the level of challenge stays relatively static but the scope expands.

You may be struggling jjust as hard, but against bigger and badder foes. Fighting a legion of demons and remembering that time a handful of bandits seemed this daunting is amazing.

>I feel my biggest weakness is overpreparing. I spend an insane amount of hours preparing my setting, writing houserules, writing adventure hooks, drawing maps, creating machiavellian villains, and imagining complex and unique things about each culture and area to distinguish it from every other. Once the campaign gets going I spend many hours preparing for all possible eventualities, which is a largely futile venture.
One thing that helped me in this regard is changing my thinking a bit, re-orienting how I thought of it.

Think of time as a finite resource. Obviously you already know time is finite, but really take it to heart and see an hour spent on development work for the game as a limited amount of them.

What this means is that spending five hours on five encounters to cover five possibilities is not as good as spending five hours on one encounter that would therefore be significantly improved as a result of the extra time. You will always have a tradeoff between depth and breadth of planning, and it might not hurt you to put the same amount of energy into planning more ambitious rather than more expansive things - because plans that go unused are a waste.

It might also help to think of things in a more modular capacity - the ability to re-use an earlier plan, or map, or counter, et cetera is a great time-saver and to be honest, your players aren't going to notice most of the time if you have even the slightest bit of prepwork to make an encounter fit a new context.

A lot of people run low- or no-death campaigns. I have not killed a PC which was not previously planned out in years and, while I'm not saying this way is superior, it works for my group and is perfectly viable if done correctly.

One thing to consider is alternatives to death if characters lose encounters. You may need some house rules, but any character who falls in battle can usually be captured just as easily as killed and that leads to interactivity rather than loss.

I feel my biggest problem is that my mouth and brain short out when i'm under pressure or stressed.

Like, I plan for cool thing X to happen sometime during the session but when i sit down and GM my mouth runs amok without consulting my brain, leading to me wracking my brain after the session on how the hell I can bullshit my way out of the mess my mouth put me in plot/storywise.

Several times this has caused me to throw out all my to-happen campaign notes and pretty much start from over scratch halfway into the campaign.

Pingas

A loathing for planning, bookkeeping and winging the rules.

The first is little problem with my group as then tend to take the game of thee rails early so planning.

The second is an issue as I have a gameist type player who more or less maths out every battle pretty much declawing anything but massively overtunef encounters.

As for winging it that's a real issue as said gameist will know the mechanics and how to use them and how to force me outside them, combines with the dedicated doodler who barely even remembers what dice to roll for her token "basic melee attack" that she uses every turn.

Mostly DMs in the thread right now, but i'll shoot from a PC's perspective.

I have real issues making interesting characters. I have a tendency to minmax, so I end up with well put together characters that are useful and benefit the party...and are completely forgettable and bland.

It's not so much backstory or anything, I can write that for days, but when it comes to personality/interacting with the world I just draw a blank.

It's not that I hate RP or anything, I just...can't do it.

help

My players have such reasonable IC arguments that I really have a hard time having NPCs tell them "no, I won't help/join you". They have truly mastered the power of friendship and I cannot resist.

People aren't always reasonable and logical.

I don't DM in my native tongue so I can't be as eloquent or vocally varied as I want to. Plus it makes describing people and places an annoying (but not difficult) chore. That said I use my computer and her dual monitors to just show how a person/place looks like, but that tends to make me go
>Then a tall white bearded man enters the tavern, he has a strong but subdued presence about him and...

Thanks for the advice. I do already reuse some stuff that the players missed and put it into new places as appropriate.

Usually I roll up some quirks and flaws, consider the upbringing of the character, and then start writing up some descriptive adjectives, like principled, or cautious, or constantly smiling. Once I have this, I write up a two or three line quotation that this character would say, that captures the spirit, and I would recite this everytime I would want to get into character (it's fine if you recite it in your head but it's better out loud). This is a simple method that works equally well for GM or for players.

Now if you really have trouble, then the alternate method is even better if a bit risky. Take a character from a tv show, or a book, or whatever, one that you know really well, and simply play that character. The better you know this character, and the more obscure it is, the better it will work. Don't let anyone know you're doing it.

I've played transplanted versions of everything from Captain Sisko and Elim Garak from DS9, to Londo Mollari from Babylon 5, to Jimmy the Hand from Betrayal at Krondor, to Phil Ken Sebben and Mentok the Mindtaker from Harvey Birdman, to Al Swearingon from Deadwood. Any character so strong and clear in your mind that you know exactly what they would say or they would do, is extremely easy to play.

pic very related

This amuses me greatly. That said, npcs often have attachments, superstitions, fears, and responsibilities, that prevent them from running around adventuring with the PCs.
If they insist, don't be afraid to spring the occasional dead weight on them, perhaps someone turns out to be a glutton, an alcoholic, a coward, or who's clumsy with items.

As for providing aid, I think that's fine. If the PCs have a good reputation, some people should want to help them. But 90% of the population should have very limited resources to offer.

My biggest problem is that I have grand ideas for what players can do and will want to do for then in turn for the players to not enjoy the plot hooks or want to dig any deeper into the plot at hand and end up getting bored or trying to find something else to do.

Granted I could railroad things and make them do it, but if they are already not enjoying things I can't force them to enjoy it.

I am new to being a DM and both campaigns I have ran end up with a player stating "My character does the thing that advances the plot." So that to me says that my plots are either too convoluted or uninteresting.

I suppose I should just run a module instead of trying to come up with my own stories, because clearly my writing style sucks.

I tend to homebrew things that make games more simulationist when they invariably play better when I keep extra rules to a minimum and keep them simple at that.

I'm also terrible at introducing new players to TTRPGs, apparently. Either that or my two new players have the creativity and wit of a dead fish. I think my mistake was playing a very flexible system with no classes, and not giving them any templates or general archetypes to go off of. Might be better running a more rigid system first, like S&W or some shit. Experience tables and pre-defined classes and all that.

I would have to say that my biggest weakness as a GM is my sense of pacing.

I don't like to skip over too much, so my games wind up moving along like a cruise ship, rather than a speedboat.

My players seem to be enjoying the game though, so maybe it's just me being self-critical.

I am bad at running combat.

The friend I invited in to the game is a total arsehole.
He rolled a cleric, outright refused to roleplay in his 1st session. I asked why
>Religion is stupid, I can't imagine being stupid enough to be religious.
I asked him why he rolled a cleric.
>Looked like the group didn't have a healer, didn't realize I'd have to act religious.
I explained that belief in gods in a setting where they actually answer prayers and you're a living conduit through which their powers manifest isn't faith based religion at all.

He's basically given up on roleplay completely, hasn't read the players guide 6 months into the campaign and now he's getting jealous because two of the other party members have been given unique sidequests tailored to suite them(But they were actually excuses for me to rebalance the campaign and introduce new minions of the BBEG etc). He also gets shitty about loot even though he's wearing all but one of the magic items they've found during the 6 months of the campaign.

I bet it's going to fuck him right off when I set our druid up with something sweet next session. Even though it will be the 1st item they've had full stop and they are all level 7 at this point.

I am awful at planning any narrative beyond the immediate. Whenever I start a campaign I never start it knowing where I want it to go, I just sort of wait for myself to have thrown out enough plot points that it just sort of falls into place as a plot.
For instance when I ran pathfinder the main bad guy was going to be a one-session bad guy until the PC's screwed up royally and he ascended to be the main bad guy. Similarly when I did Rogue Trader, the main plot of being used as a weapon against a Rogue Trader by a second Rogue Trader was cobbled together five months in when I realised I needed to give the PCs some direction, and to create some conflict that couldn't just be resolved by shooting it.
I am terrible for this. Hell, some of my campaigns fizzle out due to lack of direction because the players and I get bored before the oppurtunity to pull a plot out of the air occurs to me.
I mean, the advantage is that when it works it feels much more organic, but when it doesn't work it ruins the whole campaign.

Why are you friends with such a piece of shit?

Right side of my face is paralyzed and therefore fucks with my speech. I really like being the DM but new players sometimes seem to assume I'm dumb or otherwise handicapped.

Life is suffering. I will probably kill myself sooner or later.

I'm terrible with small details, and I'm fairly bad at in depth adventure planning. Let me provide an example. There's a game called Don't Rest Your Head, and it's one of favorite things to run. I love mindfucking my players, I love creating shit that gets them into their characters so much that the knee jerk reactions and between player convos are all done in character without them thinking about it. I'm a wall flower and so I love to watch people's reactions to situations.

I've created a few special NPC's and even custom tailored a BBEG for each player. pic related is one. But I don't even have a fucking map. Everywhere they go it's very general, like the background descriptions in a Gibson novel, more what it feels like than looks like. It's hard as fuck for my players to interact with the environment if I'm shit at describing it.

I think you should just run with that as a strength. If it's you and your pals goofing off, you shouldn't be sorry for not having a serious game.

I just run very silly games with friends because trying to be serious isn't for them. My biggest weakness is being a little bitch and not organizing when the next game is up and being annoyed that I'm pretty much the only one who really wants to do this, everyone else has family/work/gym/shit put way the fuck ahead of the game. Being blown off because you've freestyle dance training sessions hurts like fuck. I'm not tough and when I feel that players are down, I just shelf the game.

When I was on vacation with family we gamed every day for hours and it was great, but as soon as we came back it kinda dwindled and got snuffed out.

I'm really fucking lazy. I want to prepare, but never get around to it. So every session is highly improvised, and I think I could improve a lot by prepping a little.

I get upset when I see players are making metagame decisions and not character decisions

I love and hate rules lawyering. I mean, if the rules are there lets go with the rules so there's no favoritism, but at the same time some games (shadowrun) have rules that go through 5 or 6 references before you get a clear idea what it was trying to say

Historically my rolling average is substandard, so I have to resort to fudging dice rolls

When my players wreck an encounter I set up for them, I get upset at myself for not making it a challenge for them

If I see an oppertunity to make a jokes I take it, and that interferes a lot with the game atmosphere

Weaknesses? My players merely don't understand my genius.

I have the same problem. Like, last week there was a major encounter with two major NPCs at the top of a mountain. So two hours before the session, I just wrote them up in a quick, half- assed way and improvised the rest.

I don't think the PC's noticed. They said it was the best session in our campaign yet. However, I'm really good at keeping tons of information in my head, so if I think about things before hand, i have a pretty good grasp on things. But the lack of planning is starting to bite me in the ass.

Loke, next session, the party will be split up between a simple, yet plot important fight and some sort of B plot that I have yet to figure out. And between work, family and life, I doubt I'll make time to come up with one.

Sometimes when I have really good plot ideas I fudge my dice rolls in order to make them happen.