GM advice thread

This anons get it.
D&d is awful specially as a first timer.
Run some other thing, ideally rules lite so you can focus on mastering your gm skills and not a fucked up system.

If you have to ignore 60% of the rules to have a good time, then you should probably be playing a different game, one that doesn't require you to read 300+ pages of rules, dozens of spaltbooks, expansion content, and erratas, and who's rules actually encourage and contribute to roleplaying instead of being an obstacle to it.

I have good players, we played DnD for years, right up until 5th edition (which was a step in some good directions, but shit with sprinkles is still shit), but it was still miserable to run. Just do a google search, pick up a good 100-page-or-less system that looks interesting, and try running your next game with it. Like I said, 80% of them will be easier to run and more fun to play, and that's a good thing regardless of the quality of your players.

Having to ignore over half the rules to have fun with a system means the system isn't good, and the only reason to play it is because nobody is familiar with anything else... a problem that will never will get better unless you take the initiative and be the one to at least TRY something different.

Lol too long didn't read.

We have fun ignoring the rules, if we wanna play something lighter we will.

Write as if every session will be your last.

Double on this

Can confirm. I've played in forum RPs where the entire rules were laid out in like 5 pages in and where the stats in the game were on the complexity level of Paper Mario (No numbers over 10, no need to roll anything larger than a 6-sided dice, no spell or class lists that took more than a page or two, ect) and I've honestly had more fun with some of those than I've had with DnD/Pathfinder games where I've spent dozen of hours reading/learning the rules and how to "play" the "game".

I'm not going to be so harsh as to say as DnD flatout sucks. It's designed to be a crunchy combat simulator that evolved from a wargame, and it does that well... but nowadays that's not the kind of roleplaying experience I want anymore, and I don't recommend it to first-timers by any stretch of the imagination.

If you can't find a system that does what you want, spend a night and make one, it's really not that hard, and can be a pretty rewarding experience.

>ideally rules lite
Ignore that, run something with a good solid rules base when you're starting out. The less you have to make up as a newbie the better. Once you're comfortable doing shit with rules as a backup, then try removing rules you think you don't need.

>If you can't find a system that does what you want, spend a night and make one, it's really not that hard, and can be a pretty rewarding experience.

This only applies to the most ultra-light stuff possible, and even then it's not ideal.

There is a staggering difference between the best and most interesting rules light games and games which just don't have many rules. The latter might work vaguely okay, but I'd always prefer to play a system with actual design focus and effort behind it, and if you're going to make your own system I'd really recommend against half-arsing it.

The game isn't you VS the players. You don't win if all the PC's are dead.

Honestly, DnD is too abstract to even do combat simulator right, it's certainly crunchy, but it's by no means a "simulator" in the sense of being remotely realistic. It's really just a crunchy arcadey combat game in between some role playing now and again.

>Can't read a 3-paragraph reply
>Plays a game with a 300+ rulebook

user, really?

Why do people always assume roleplaying stops when combat starts?

I seriously don't get it. Isn't how your character reacts to a crisis a really powerful tool for conveying their personality? Aren't the choices they make under pressure and how they respond to friends in danger or a sworn enemy in front of them really fucking amazing situations for roleplay?

Well it usually in this specific case of "hey here's the boss" or "he's your sworn archnemesis and this is the final showdown!" but i've seen a lot of people have a hard time roleplaying "I shoot the badguy" if it's a normal combat encounter with some mooks.

They WOULD be amazing situations for roleplaying if you didn't have to think about how your actions and choices have to play into hundreds of pages of rules and action economy and probability calculations.

>"OK, so my character wants to kick over the table and hide behind it before firing back with his crossbow."
>"Well... OK, but kicking over the table costs your action because it's basically the same amount of effort as attacking something, and ducking behind the table takes your movement so you can't actually draw your crossbow this round, and by the time you can draw it next turn the enemy can move 60 feet and flank you. Oh, also I'm pretty sure your character can't actually shoot a crossbow because it's not a class feature, and even if you could your class is so mediocre at it that you're probably better off just using your fists anyway.

Like for serious, DnD turns roleplaying into a fucking chore because you have to do so much fighting around the rules to even be useful (especially if the other players know how to play the "game" well) that roleplaying is the last thing on your mind.

Adding rollplay to combat is my favourite bit, especially when it gets under the skin of the powergamers that can't fathom why I'm not making the optimal calculated moves

stories are not static things. you don't just plonk the fuckers down and expect them to run clockwork. gotta be flexible. making shit up is better than not being able to change.

While I agree in most cases, 4e actually works well for that stuff. Probably because it's not 'real' D&D, as the purists say.

>"OK, so my character wants to kick over the table and hide behind it before firing back with his crossbow."
>"Well... OK that's cool! You can do everything you want to with no restriction and no intervention because you're character is super awesome."

Nice strawman.

The point here is that DnD/D20 combat, by it's very nature, inhibits roleplaying because it's designed to function in a very calculated, cold, sterile way that doesn't allow for much creativity or originality... and if you;re a player who attempts to do that, you often get punished for it. There's an optimal way to do everything, and the game itself is designed so that you're punished for not playing in the calculated, cold, sterile way that it wants you to play.

I want to make a fucking wizard and shoot fireballs at someone. I don't want to spend 2 weeks studying the optimal way to play a wizard just so I'm not dead weight to the team, and then have no fun playing said wizard because the most optimal way to play them is to spam save-or-suck spells which exploit loopholes in the endless web of rules to be brokenly good and outweigh all other options anyway.

Holy fuck the cringe in that picture.

>"Yeah, we put in bad options on purpose because players learning our rules is a more important design priority for us than players being able to roleplay in a fun or creative way."

Like... holy fuck...

That really only applies to certain editions.
5e would be more like
>okay, now you've got half cover, make your attack roll

Because they think what they do is what everyone else does.
My current pc is ded 'ard and choppy, but not too quick, so he usually waits for the enemy to close the gap, then smashes face. If the enemy doesn't wanna close the gap, then there are those fast gits on my side that can slap their shit while I protect the useless cleric.
However, if someone in the group is in trouble, then tactical caution goes out of the window and I rush in, because I protect my minio- er, friends!
user, what you said only comes into play in 3.pf, and ONLY if you play it in the most optimal fashion possible. Yes, blaster wizards are the weakest for of wizard, but they are STILL A WIZARD, and thus still have a lot to offer most parties. Knocking over a table for cover, giving a flat 20% miss chance to any attack your way or a bonus to AC/Reflex is still worthwhile, just not all the time.
Stop treating the outliers as standard occurrence.

The more you post, the more clear it becomes that the only editions you've played is 3.5
Yeah your argument was valid once, about 15 years ago

Being fair, 3.5 set the standard for a long time, and its expansion into 3.PF has kept the same bullshit prominent far past its time.

Maybe that exact specific situation only applies to 3.pf (I disagree, but that's not the point) but DnD and D20 systems in general tend to have dozens if not HUNDREDS of situations like that one.

Why not just play a less autistic system with more wiggle room instead of "here's one way to play and we're gonna punish you for doing anything else.

The more 5e fanboys post, the more it's obvious how utterly blinded by their biases they are.

Shit with sprinkles is still shit.
5e is 3.5 with sprinkles.
It's a step in the right direction, but it's still shit.

>here's one way to play and we're gonna punish you for doing anything else.
Because that exists in many systems, user, but only if you decide to adhere to that philosophy yourself.
It's like saying "why don't you choose the best chargen options every time instead of things that are flavorful/fluffy, why are you doing it wrong?".
The best thing to do is something, and you need not always do the exact right, optimal thing at the optimal time lest the entire battle fail because you dared to do something that wasn't "right".
In my game right now, we are pursuing rebels. The cleric wanted to stop and rest, I wanted to pursue them to their stronghold. The party voted to rest, and I am fairly sure we are going to arrive to an empty fort. IC, I'll be fucking furious at the cowardice of the cleric, but he will counter that cautious advancing keeps us alive.
No one is right or wrong, it comes down to what you want to do as a pc.

Being fair, it's a question of how well the system itself supports non-optimal play.

In 3.PF, with its busted as fuck CR system, not making at least mid tier characters makes it really fucking hard to actually enjoy the game at a mechanical level. Other games at least make it easier to not fuck up and make low optimisation play still function without a lot of extra work from the GM.

In a good system, every option presented to a player is viable and has a use, and creative thinking is rewarded with things like an advantage or small bonus.

In D20 systems you're presented with options that exist for no other reason than to punish players who haven't autistically mastered the system and who focus more on rules-lawyering than actually roleplaying.

Even systems that attempt to stay away from these things end up falling into those traps anyway. The more complicated you make something, the more ways it can break, and D20 systems are so very very complicated, to the point where breaking the system is actually encouraged because it's the only fucking way to mitigate the RNG-randumbness that is basing every single action in the game on a non-bellcurve 1-20 result anyway.

My group runs 3.0/3.5/pathfinder depending on who is dm'ing and we have never had any problems.
You want to overturn the table and duck behind it whilst drawing your crossbow? Sure, go for it.
It's all about using a bit of common sense. Oh and that only ever applies if you are running a minimax style character, in which case it is YOU whom is the cancer.

Plan for the players to screw up your plans. Plan for them to miss obvious plot hooks. Plan for crazies.
Don't plan. Improvise.

And I will not dispute that for a second.
Shit, my favorite edition of D&D is 4e, followed by early 2e.
3e unfortunately requires learning experience for both the DM and the players, making it very rocky.
user, we get it, you don't like 3.pf, because that is all you are complaining about. What I am saying is universal, that you need not do "the right thing" in any game, you should do what your pc would be doing. My current pc is a shield wall soldier until he loses his cool and turns into a berserking linebreaker. Yes, I accounted for it, but following your pc's inclinations > all else, unless those inclinations make the game less fun for others.

So why not play a system that says "use common sense" instead of a DnD system then?

You're falling back on the same tired non-sensical argument of "Yeah, the rules are really good if you just ignore them all the time!"

This is wrong, but it's a symptom of something that very much is a real problem.

Play the system which best suits your campaign. Do NOT default to D&D. No, D&D is not better for new players. No, D&D is not some mystical one-size-fits-all system. D&D (especially OSR style) is good for dungeon crawls. It is not good for intrigue. It is not good for survival. It is not good for gritty realism. KNOW YOUR SYSTEMS.

I think this is 90% of the reason why people hate D&D; they realise it is shit for the kinds of games they want to play.
I have seen people legitimately make the argument that D&D is good because you can ignore 60% of the rules and it is so fucking triggering
Sure, in, say, Song of Swords. Not so much in a game as arcadey as D&D.

Because the rules are good, tight, and we enjoy using them. They cover everything we need and the group has plenty of experienced players to help beginners in.

Clearly they're not good or tight.

>"We enjoy using the rules when we ignore them all the time!"

You could have done that in Song of Swords. In fact, it's encouraged.

Are you going to argue that Song of Swords is the kind of game to say "You can do everything you want to with no restriction and no intervention because you're character is super awesome"?
who*

I feel like 90% of people hate DnD because they don't actually know the kind of game they want to play. They have a vague idea... but then DnD drags them away from that idea, promising things it never delivers on, and the poor victims are left wondering why everything feels... wrong.

Maybe that was just me.

Much better off playing a system that's geared for something other than Dungeon Crawls though, you're right about that. Even if the other systems aren't the kind of game you want either, they're at least expanding your perspective on RPGs and not lying and promising to be that mythical "best at everything" game like DnD does.

What stops you roleplaying in an arcadey game? Why does the ability to convey your character in combat in any way require 'realism'?

The whole idea of crisis gets pretty stretched when gameplay consists of several turns and all your options are vidya-tier abilities.

For me, anyway. Maybe you somehow roleplay around that or whatever, but I've never been able to roleplay in-combat in D&D.

I've just never really had a problem with it. The system (when it works, either through good edition choice or a skilled GM with hard content limitations) conveys the idea of heroic, pulpy action fantasy very well. Mechanics are an abstraction representing my characters actions, but you can be very loose in how you fluff, adapting to context and improvising where necessary.

But yeah, might just be a style/preference thing.

The best moments in a game are the ones where the dice don't matter, nothing on the char sheets matter. The moments when it's just you, giving your players a genuine moral or ethical quandary

Perfect example from a Deathwatch game I was in: The Tryanids have, for unknown reasons, started drifting into the center sailient, instead of continuing on the top one. Our kill team gets sent in ahead of the advancing nids to see if we can find what got their attention. After a few fights with some gaunts, and almost getting my head exploded by a zoeanthrope, our Rune Priest picks up a giant pile of warp energy that the nids warp noise had been concealing.

We go check it out and find a motherfucking hive tyrant. Chained down with psychic energy. And surrounded by by warlocks, along with a far seer.

I'm the leader this time around, so I look at the rune priest. He looks at the weird eldar shit going on, and gives me a very definitive "Fucked if I know what the hell is going on." So I take a gamble. I ask the air what I'm lookin at.

The ranger that we couldn't see pops out of nowhere, as rangers are wont to do, and explains that the farseer is conducting a ritual that will divert the path of the tyranids into the center salient, sending the straight into the hadex anomaly, because otherwise their craftworld would cross paths with this splinter fleet.

So, we've got filthy xenos making other filthy xenos a problem for filthy chaos worshipers instead of eating IG for breakfast, and I can't be certain what will happen if we disrupt this ongoing space elf warp fuckery. or how many more eldar I can't see are lurking with weaons locked onto us at this point.

And my squad all look to me for their orders.

The same thing that stops me from roleplaying in Skyrim. The way you're meant to play the game often forces you to do things your "character" wouldn't often do, because mechanics.

I can understand getting burned on a game, the same happened to me with V:tM, but having an idea of what you want and not forcing the game to be what you want it to be is important.
You don't communicate to your fellow pcs in a fight? Describe your attacks? Have bantz with your enemies?

In the first case, that's your own fucking fault for making a character flagrantly inappropriate for the system.

In the latter... Yeah, in general the rules for that kind of thing suck, it's an ongoing problem.

...How does that have anything to do with whether a system is arcadey or not?

>Why can't you roleplay in a videgamey system, user?
Because the system doesn't encourage or allow for any degree of roleplaying except being a killbot.
>THAT'S YOUR OWN FAULT FOR PLAYING A CHARACTER WHO DOESNT FIT THE SYSTEM, LOLOLOLOLOL!

Ok.

Because arcadey is just another way of saying of saying "these are the options presented to you, fuck what you actually WANT to do. Even if it's otherwise reasonable or makes sense, we either don;t have rules for it, or the rules for it are so autistically specialized that you can't do it unless you build a gimmick character around it!"

Don't make rulings based on gut reactions. Think about the impact your decisions will have on the game, rather than what you feel like at the moment.

This is advice I'd give to anyone in general, but it applies to GMing too.

>Kinda ruins the sort of character I want to play, y'know?
You do shit when adrenaline hits, and if your pc wasn't at least willing to defend themselves, WHY ARE THEY PUTTING THEMSELVES IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS?
You created your cognitive dissonance by making a character at odds with the basic assumptions of the game, like making a printing clerk in Song of Swords.
Your other example is entirely a 3e problem that doesn't exist in any other version of the game, so how about you stop relying on what everyone knows is the most mechanically broken version of the game to hedge your arguments.
Like I said, user, you are actively choosing the optimal choice over what your character would do in their situation. Your pc need not always be stony rational, you need not actively choose the thing you are complaining about.
>THAT'S YOUR OWN FAULT FOR PLAYING A CHARACTER WHO DOESNT FIT THE SYSTEM
Yes, you enormous faggot, you make a pc that meshes with the tone of the game, the setting, and the theme the GM is presenting. When you choose not to and complain about it, we call you a That Guy, or merely an idiot, tell you to make a new pc or fuck off.

That is an absurd and blatantly false dichotomy. Would you like to try again?

...Well then I don't think any 'arcadey' RPG systems actually exist.

It really just reinforces the necessity of session zero, mentioned above. Making sure people know the tone of the premise and system so people can come up with appropriate character concepts.

I think the argument was looping back to "DnD is only good for dungeon crawls".

Which again loops back to "People need to stop playing DnD if they wan't a campaign that's anything besides Dungeon Crawls". Because alot of people want that, but then they just default to DnD because it's super popular/mainstream, and then end up saying DnD sucks because they're trying to use it for something it wasn't meant to be used for.

[Spoiler]All reasons why a new DM like OP shouldn't fucking start out with DnD, or ever go down that rabbit hole ever.

>You don't communicate to your fellow pcs in a fight? Describe your attacks? Have bantz with your enemies?
That's...not what I would call roleplay on the level of what user was describing, at least.

Honestly, I think D&D only got "bad" from 3e onwards. I mean it had huge problems before, but its intent was good. Post 3e it started trying to do too many things at once.

I wagered most people already knew that, user, or at least would listen to the GM when they explained the basic underpinnings of the theme.
I think it was looping back to shitposting.
D&D does high fantasy heroics/villainy. That's what it does, and everything in the game supports it. Screaming about how it's only good for dungeoncrawls says more about you than the game itself, I think, and actively sells the game short because you have a hateboner.

>the complexity level of Paper Mario (No numbers over 10
Look at this scrub.

My Mario could beat up your Mario.

Well, what is being meant by 'dungeoncrawls'? Literal zero roleplay/character meatgrinders through rooms full of monsters?

Or just a general term for pulpy heroic fantasy with a focus on beating up the bad guys in the course of events?

100% with you. Why is it so hard to find a game with satisfying crunch, an acceptable amount of options, that doesn't turn into a festival of synergy abuse with every fight ending within two turns?

Where do I start?

Because your players are munchkins.

4e

>That's...not what I would call roleplay on the level of what user was describing, at least.
Then what was he describing?
I assumed he meant playing out your character even in a fight. Taking actions that reflected their personality and temperament, be they flashy and ostentatious or cautious and stoic.
It seems more like you have issues with the whole of D&D itself, issues that many people do not have. My truck with is how people who have never played anything else bring a D&D mindset to games where it doesn't apply, but that can be resolved. Hell, I did a 4e oneshot where most of the group, having gotten their start in WoD or Dark Heresy, did not even bother trying to loot enemies or search rooms as they were being chased by a monstrous horde. Only the "D&D" players attempted to do so, and it cost them. Those same players did the same looting in Dark Heresy whereas everyone else, myself included, only grabbed grenades and ammo if present from the fallen. Meanwhile, those 2 are stripping the golden carapace armor from the dead and trying to put it on when we were on a tight schedule.
>Idiots almost got us killed
The former.
This.

Probably because game developers seem unable to create anything between DnD's stupid rigidity and pure Mother May I. I don't see the point in even having rules if it's all going to come down to whether the GM feels like my action should succeed.

>Then what was he describing?
Really fucking amazing situations for roleplay drawn from crisis, pressure, friends in danger &c. Bantz doesn't quite spring to mind.

Why not? Those moments of camaraderie can be just as fun as epic drama.

>Why do people always assume roleplaying stops when combat starts?
You sir, are welcome at my table anytime.

>They WOULD be amazing situations for roleplaying if you didn't have to think about how your actions and choices have to play into hundreds of pages of rules and action economy and probability calculations.
>if you didn't have to think about
>have to
Why do you *have to* again?
Are the fun police packing weapons now?
The rules of any system are there to help facilitate the enjoyment of the game, not get in the way of it.

I never understand this issue where everyone playing the game is hassled by the rules.
Playing a rules lite game is fine.
But playing a game with a bunch of rules is fine too.
Ignoring the ones you don't care for can work great.
Y'all should try approaching the system like playing GURPS, instead of approaching it like an old foe that robbed you years of your time.
You never use ALL the rules ever written for GURPS.
Use the rules you want to use and are relevant to what you want to do in your game.

A system that is too light, is always going to be too light.
A system with more density, can always be more light.

I'm not saying D&D is the best system or that people shouldn't try other systems.
They absolutely should and D&D is not great for a lot of different kinds of games.
I'm saying that if you want to eat a carrot and somebody gives you a snowman, bitching about having to eat snow and coal makes you look silly.

>I wana try to slam this bitch rogue who's threatening my friends into the ground and basically keep him there under my boot, something I should easily be able to do because I probably weight 2-3 times more than the guy.

So I'm assuming you have no actual experience of weighing 2-3 times as much as anyone else, unless you count fat. Just because your backstory says "I'm big" doesn't mean you got shit on someone who's actually trained for this shit.

Shit talk is always a thing, especially if you are an arrogant fuck.
Not all rp needs to be some incredible moment, mang, it can be the small shit, the short moments that build up into solid personality.

Let the Eldar finish their ritual, then rip and tear. How is this difficult?

Because that's not what he was talking about.
Can be, but we're talking about the big shit.

Oi you faggots, here's the thing all of you are missing:

Any system will be fun in a good group. Any system will be shit in a shit group. People are more important than any other factor.

What's wrong with RNG?

That is a stupid non-argument that has no actual bearing on the discussion.

People matter. Of course they do. But the system also matters, and it can have a significant effect on your enjoyment of the game. Being able to understand the properties of various systems, being aware of what they're good at and how to pick one that's appropriate is an important and useful skill to develop.

A system doesn't necessitate an experience, that's true. But what a system does is increase or decrease the amount of work a GM has to do to create a good experience. A good system which supports the GM makes their job easier. A bad system that the GM has to struggle with makes their job harder.

A lot of people don't like feeling screwed by the dice, even if they could limit the risks.

Because some people endlessly wank over bellcurves rather than realising that both swingy and stable dice systems have their own uses and create different experiences. Neither one is better, it's just a matter of knowing which one works best in a particular context.

Don't play 3.5 or PF.

That's too much bullshit to even argue with. Have you even opened a D&D book that's not 3.5?

What if I told you one factor being more important than another doesn't preclude the other factor's importance.

Then it's still an irrelevant non-argument that adds nothing to the discussion?

Reminder that 5e thinks it's acceptable a level 20 character with proficiency in a task has only a 20'ish % chance more of accomplishing a task than a character who's completely non-proficient and somehow this is seen as good game design.

>Hey OP don't forget this
>IRRELEVANT TO MY CURRENT CONVERSATION
Did you forget what this thread was about

>What's wrong with RNG?
I for one love it.
I love having the outcome be not entirely decided by either the players or the GM.
It makes the world feel more real, like agents of the setting are exerting their will upon the game, disregarding the will of those playing.

But there is something to be said for a game, like chess, where success is wholly dependent upon the willful actions of the players.
And doing everything right but losing hard because you have bad luck can be disheartening as hell.
Then, there's my friend Evil Keen, who literally rolls ones 60% of the time whenever he's playing Risk or similar games.
I've seen it happen and it's absurd.

This, and use the easiest system your group can agree on.

You can't force the big shit tho, it happens when it does.
I play 40k rpgs, you get used to it, and you find ways to beat the odds, but the dice will fuck you.
I've had days where I didn't roll less than a 80 on the dice, and days where I passed all but a handful of tests, like the day I took on 12 dudes and 3 turrets in a stone hallways by going full RULES OF NATURE on them. GM was confounded, but my dice were hot.
>solid mechanics that restrict runaway numbers is bad because I say so
user, 5e has been out long enough for us to know what is bullshit and what isn't. That's right up there with the 4e trolls saying that everyone uses magic.

System is a bad one if it produces results that go against group expectations or are just plain nonsensical. If you try to play shit eating peasants with a system meant for big damn heroes you're going have a bad time, and vice versa.

...What? How is 'Playing with good people is fun, playing with shitty people is not fun' in any way GMing advice? It's a statement of the blatantly obvious which leads nowhere and says nothing.

>You can't force the big shit tho, it happens when it does.
Certain systems encourage it more than others.
Telling GMs to be a people person is not blatantly obvious, although congratulations if you think it is, and it is the "one" advice I'd give.

Dnd

Bitch please. 5e is vanilla 3.5. It's fucking boring compared to early editions. The only good thing it has going for it is it's easy for new players to learn because it's so fucking basic.