DM Do's and Don't's

Do: IMPROVISE
Don't: Plan, take notes, build a world, try to tell a story, straitjacket your players (by doing the above don'ts), or play anything other a sandbox, which is the highest form of roleplaying.

The guy on the right is the best

What's an example of a plot who's outcome or story beats aren't important/are moldable enough to making an engaging story

This nonsense was poorly crafted and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You've obviously never played in a game, then.

Kill yourself.

My players like being railroaded. I tried a sandbox once and they just ended up fucking about and getting 0 done and everyone was bitter and annoyed. I gave them dangling plot hooks and everything. I've had other tables who loved it, but some people just want a story.

Sandbox is a delicate art form, and generally requires the party to be shoved in one direction or the other to actually get them involved and on the same page

Yeah, and if they need a lot of shoving it turns into a railroad.

Well yeah. If your players aren't the sort to self motivate and take initiative, if the area being sandboxed isn't interesting to them, if you aren't good at improving and basically turn it into a game of find the plot ft. random encounters, or if you have a specific thing you want to do, then a more structured game is clearly the answer. Maybe not railroading per se, but more the Telltale games approach: you have multiple avenues to take, and it may change the journey some, but it ultimately makes the same stops and ends at the same location.

Do: Take the time to properly plan out the major beats of how you want your campaign to go.

Don't: Improvise the entirety of the session and think that your players won't notice eventually.

There is no bigger turn off to a long-running campaign than your players not giving a shit because nothing they do matters.

Do: Be willing to let go of your ideas if your players come up with something cooler
Don't: Rigidly adhere to what you've come up with

The players don't know what you have planned. They can only guess at it based on information you share with them. Whether you make it clear that they've thrown your plans completely off the rails or act like all was just as planned, do it with confidence, take their actions in stride, and roll with whatever happens. Truly memorable moments are those the players feel they themselves made happen.

DO have fun.
DON'T not have fun.

Do: have a fun game WITH your players

Don't: become a masturbatory life simulator for a bunch of ingrates 'that guys' (or vice-versa)

Then your players are shit, likely ruined by you or other shit DMs training them badly.

No, all it requires is to not have players be so inured by years of playing shitty railroad games that they lose all initiative and get too used to playing mother may I to function as roleplayers.

>Badwrongfun.jpg
God forbid anyone play the "wrong" way, amirite gentlemen?

It's not badwrongfun. Any random 5 year old child is capable of the initiative a sandbox requires. It's not something that's innate to only a select few. Rather, years of shitty DMing saps people of their drive, and turns them into objectively bad players for any sort of game where the DM doesn't tell them what to do.

>Only bad players are indecisive.
If you tell people that they have an infinite number of possible choices to an answer, they're going to end up choosing nothing because a) people want to figure out what their choices are and b) people won't commit if there are multiple choices that both sound equally appealing.

It's why you can end up with a dude who spends five minutes figuring out what he wants to eat before defaulting on the same shit that they've always eaten every other time they decide to eat at a particular restaurant.

It's just how some people are man, it's not always some conspiracy to produce shitty players or whatever the fuck you're going on about.

user, what kind of nonsense are you on?
A person gets their decision making ability thru life, not gaming, and many people lack the will and intent to make a decision when presented with options as a whole; people actively fear choice and chance because they can lead to failure, and people fear that enough to choose nothing if it means they will not have to face failure.
Dummy.

You're as wrong as a guy claiming 2+2=5 It is not "just how some people are". It is how you, and people like you, train people to act.

Seriously, try it in the next few weeks. Volunteer at some sort of child daycare center. Watch a bunch of small children playing their lets pretend, hell, even introduce them to a simple RPG system if you think they can follow the mechanics, or just water it down for them while keeping the basics. You won't find them paralyzed with indecision, even though they'll have near limitless vistas of opportunity and will barely understand the differences between their choices.

If you get to someone early, especially early in their roleplaying experiences, you won't find them numb and indecisive. The only people who are are the ones who have been latched into railroads in games, or latched into shitty school and education systems outside of games, and consequently can't think along the very simple lines of

>I want X
>I will move to get X.
Without some higher authority okaying it.

>A person gets their decision making ability thru life, not gaming, and many people lack the will and intent to make a decision when presented with options as a whole; people actively fear choice and chance because they can lead to failure, and people fear that enough to choose nothing if it means they will not have to face failure.
See the following post; yes, it's also something enforced by society at large. That's why you have to screen carefully when you GM, in order to avoid the defective people that have been warped into being unmoving lumps of meat. Fortunately, RPG groups are somewhat self selecting, so you can usually avoid the very worst of them.

user I don't know why it's so hard to grasp for you that some people dislike choice and like guidance.
There are people who literally dislike being creative.

I had to streamline my DMing a couple of times, because people DEMANDED to be driven towards something.
Some people just play to turn off their brains, chuck a few dice and do silly voices.

>user I don't know why it's so hard to grasp for you that some people dislike choice and like guidance.
Because it's simply not innately true. People that dislike choice and want guidance are that way for a reason, and it's because they were pushed into that shape by outside forces.

>I had to streamline my DMing a couple of times, because people DEMANDED to be driven towards something.
I feel very sorry for you, although you brought some of it on yourself by not screening better.

>Some people just play to turn off their brains, chuck a few dice and do silly voices.
It's usually the people who are turning off their brains and acting silly that have more initiative. Often it's ridiculous initiative towards a disastrous goal, but hey, that just sets up the consequences to play through.

The problem with your reasoning is that you're basing it off of children when children generally don't have enough development to properly grasp the concept of choice and consequences, which is why children are unable to give consent by law.

I mean, if you want to have a game where you play with children then that's all well and good, just don't be surprised when Johnny Law knocks on your door and asks you why you had a group of children in your basement for a few hours every week.

>The problem with your reasoning is that you're basing it off of children when children generally don't have enough development to properly grasp the concept of choice and consequences, which is why children are unable to give consent by law.
Great false equivalence there. And it's not like most adult players are capable of properly grasping the consequences of their choices in RPGs, since they're usually stumbling about in the proverbial dark anyway.

You don't need to actually play with children you fucking retard. You just need to play with people who haven't had their initiative leeched out of them.

>And it's not like most adult players are capable of properly grasping the consequences of their choices in RPGs, since they're usually stumbling about in the proverbial dark anyway.
Unless you're working off of some weird warped logic where stepping on a pebble causes a chain reaction that causes the second coming of Satan, the player's choices should operate on a level that emulates the causality of our reality.

If there's a tavern to the east, going east should lead to the tavern. The tavern should also have booze, food, and a place to sleep as well. It's basic cause-and-effect user.
>You just need to play with people who haven't had their initiative leeched out of them.
Which is apparently before outside forces (such as society, as you mentioned) teaches them that their actions have consequences, and the only demographic that would fit within that concept are children.

>haven't had their initiative leeched out of them.
Some people never had it to begin with.
Not everyone has courage, user, and no amount of gaming is going to take it if it is there, because courage implies being able to accept failure, and won't create it if it wasn't there to begin with in some form.
You are a fool, an ass, and swine, and certainly not mah nigga, so away with you.

>Unless you're working off of some weird warped logic where stepping on a pebble causes a chain reaction that causes the second coming of Satan, the player's choices should operate on a level that emulates the causality of our reality.
Yes, it does, retard. The thing is, that the player characters often don't know everything that's going on, and thus lack the information to make properly informed decisions.

To put it in a concrete example, since you don't seem very bright, suppose I gave you 10,000 dollars and told you to make some good buys on the stock market for me. Unless you actually work in finance, you probably have very little idea of a good buy vs a bad buy. We're not working on some sort of "warped logic" in stock trading.

>If there's a tavern to the east, going east should lead to the tavern. The tavern should also have booze, food, and a place to sleep as well
And in that tavern, you see a knot of armed men fighting, intent on actual murder, while the staff and owner wring their hands helplessly. Which of the three factions all intent on killing the other two do you think are most on your group's side?

>Which is apparently before outside forces (such as society, as you mentioned) teaches them that their actions have consequences, and the only demographic that would fit within that concept are children.
You're incredibly stupid. Do you not understand what "screening" means? I can tell, for instance, that you have a poor grasp of logic and scope just by exchanging a few short text messages with you. You can tell if people have initiative by a casual conversation, it's really not hard. If they don't, you direct them to another game, get them out of your hair.

>Some people never had it to begin with.
This is wrong.

It seems to me that you have an ideal view of how people "are naturally" or "should be", and are unwilling to accept that I met people different from your ideal model.

Even if I told you that I started with your same preconception "everyone deep down is creative unless they were molested", and reality slapped me in the face, you just won't believe me.

My suggestion is that when information you get contradicts a general idea or general law you made up, then that very general idea and general law should be put into question. That's what I did.
"All cats are black" shouldn't be an absolute certainty once you see several people in a thread telling you "I have met white cats".

>this is wrong because I think it is
Cute.

>The thing is, that the player characters often don't know everything that's going on, and thus lack the information to make properly informed decisions.
They should still be able to order a pint of ale on the assumption that the ale is good, or at least drinkable. If that isn't the case, dole out a reasonable response (roll a CON save everyone) and consequence (you fall unconscious) based on what's happening.
>Unless you actually work in finance, you probably have very little idea of a good buy vs a bad buy.
Alternatively, since we live in the year 2017, I can use google to figure out some rudimentary knowledge on what a good buy is and make decisions based on that.
>Which of the three factions all intent on killing the other two do you think are most on your group's side?
Subdue the armed men with non-lethal force, tie them up, and alert the authorities.
>You can tell if people have initiative by a casual conversation, it's really not hard.
Elaborate.

I don't want to build my destiny from scratch after a hard day's work, I just want to be entertained and toss some dice okay?

>It seems to me that you have an ideal view of how people "are naturally" or "should be", and are unwilling to accept that I met people different from your ideal model.
No, you need to pick up reading comprehension. I am well aware that there are large numbers of people who are unwilling or unable to take initiative. All that I've been saying, and you seem to be too stupid to grasp, is that this characteristic is not innate, it is learned.

With great effort, you can cause people to unlearn it. With considerably less effort, you can avoid the people who have learned these lessons and have a good game. These are positive statements, not normative ones; I'm dealing solely within the realm of how people are and what forces cause them to tick, not what they should be.

>Even if I told you that I started with your same preconception "everyone deep down is creative unless they were molested", and reality slapped me in the face, you just won't believe me.
You did no such thing. You made a bunch of bizarre comparisons and strawmen.

>"All cats are black" shouldn't be an absolute certainty once you see several people in a thread telling you "I have met white cats".
Like this one, displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what I've been saying. Let me amend it

>All cats naturally have four legs
>I ONCE SAW A PSYCHO CUT OFF A CAT'S LEG AND NOW IT ONLY HAS THREE! CATS HAVE THREE LEGS AND I'M RIGHT YOU CAN'T BELIEVE OTHERWISE!
Until you figure out the difference between innate characteristics and learned ones, I'm afraid we won't be having much of a productive discussion. You've not actually challenged the notion that people LOSE their creativity over time due in part to people like you; you've simply noted that it's the case, to which I agree.

It's wrong because it's simply wrong. If people, barring physiological damage, start off creative and then lose their creativity down the line, then they certainly had it to begin with and then lost it.

>They should still be able to order a pint of ale on the assumption that the ale is good, or at least drinkable. If that isn't the case, dole out a reasonable response (roll a CON save everyone) and consequence (you fall unconscious) based on what's happening.
Why aren't you making any more momentous decisions than what sort of drink to order?

>Alternatively, since we live in the year 2017, I can use google to figure out some rudimentary knowledge on what a good buy is and make decisions based on that.
Ahh, yes, those legions of amateur traders who, when taken on the whole, beat the market.

>Subdue the armed men with non-lethal force, tie them up, and alert the authorities.
What makes you think there are authorities? This is a world in which you have lethal bands of 4-6 mercenaries being at least a significant impact in local or even world politics. It also doesn't answer the critical question. How are you telling which ones are your friends and which ones are your foes (if any fall into either group) on the basis of very little information, maybe even no information whatsoever?

>Elaborate.
Get them talking. Find out how they think, ask them what sorts of things they like. Not just about the game, ask what their idea of a good time is, who their favorite artists/musicians are, what books they like to read, how they tick. If nothing else, the less you need to prompt them to keep a conversation going, the better off you're likely to be initiative wise. But too, the sorts of things that they want should also be indicative of how they'll play.

I fail to see how that contradicts anything I've said. You're making this out to be much more difficult than it in fact is. Just have a character, and have him want something, and have him try to get it. It's that simple.

Sandbox campaigns are total bullshit though, they shift all the work on the players, forcing THEM to make up the plot of the game, make up all the NPCs THEY want to meet, think of all the locations THEY want to see etc. while the GM sits on his ass and tells them to roll from the random encounter table.

Why does Veeky Forums always need to take a violent opposition against their definition of BADWRONGFUN?

I mean, does it really fucking matter if some people would rather be lead around than doing the leading? Is it really such a negative trait for some people to be content with being led around a story that the DM bothered crafting, so long as it's not so rigid that it stifles creative though as a whole?

It just seems like a weird thing to get hung up about considering that, well, more games have been killed off by people deciding to ignore plot hooks than from people biting onto the plot hook and actually doing the thing that the DM planned for them to do.

Yeah nope, when the GM asks "what YOU think the plot of the game should be" it means he doesn't have a game in mind he just wants to sit on his ass and eat your cheetos.

>this characteristic is not innate, it is learned. With great effort, you can cause people to unlearn it.

Yes user but with all due respect I'm a DM not a fucking psychiatrist, the players don't pay me enough to dwell on their past and change their fucking personality.
All characteristics and traits, from boldness to uncreativity to insecurity are learned.

None of this means that in the middle of a fucking D&D session they can be changed.

I guess when a group of players want a linear adventure I'll give it to them, and you'll call them (your words) "shit players" and try to psycho-analyze their personality in a long session of re-education just to play a sandboxy game.

>Why aren't you making any more momentous decisions than what sort of drink to order?
Because not every decision needs to be momentous.
>Ahh, yes, those legions of amateur traders who, when taken on the whole, beat the market.
You're the one giving me $10k and telling me to invest in "good buys," my methods may not be fool proof but at least I'm not going in totally blind.
>What makes you think there are authorities?
Why aren't there guards?
>How are you telling which ones are your friends and which ones are your foes (if any fall into either group) on the basis of very little information, maybe even no information whatsoever?
That matters less than making sure that neither side of the conflict gets killed user.
>Get them talking.
How exactly does figuring out their proclivities tell you if they have initiative? Most people generally love talking about themselves but that doesn't mean that they are or aren't indecisive by nature.

Also, players NEVER know what they want.

>20 should be a success because if you're rolling in the first place, there should be some chance they succeed.
No. There are plenty of cases when a player rolls for something he can't do but doesn't know he can't do the DM allows him to roll even though what he is trying to do can't work, but telling him this would give him unnecessary information.

Don't make every NPC in your game an unlikeable piece of shit.

This!

It's hard to get excited about saving the kingdom when every other person you meet is a self-serving jackass.

The best sandbox is one where people have an overarching objective, as well as certain restrictions and caveats they gotta look out for an navigate around. Humans were built to thrive in adversity, and this applies to RPGs, as well.

Rogue Trader, for example, is a game inherently made to be a sandbox. The players have a space ship, and great authority to go almost anywhere they damn well please. However, they also have a built-in objective: get richer. What other objectives emerge depends on the GM's ability to throw adversity their way, and the setting's inherent difficulties and road bumps the players must overcome in their eternal quest for ever greater riches.

Keep a copy of every player's sheet and make sure to update it when they level. If you think someone's math is suspect, then inspect their sheet. If they're cheating, kick them out and shame them in the local community.

Do: let your players try anything
Don't: let your players succeed at everything

In cases like these I just don't do what the NPCs tell me to.

This is only acceptable if you also enforce an often-neglected additional rule: don't let the players roll dice without your permission. Ever. Don't let them volunteer to roll dice. Dice that hit the table outside of your explicit orders don't count.

There are two related reasons for this. If the task the player is attempting to do would succeed no matter what, it just happens. If it would fail no matter what, it just doesn't happen. Dice rolls are only for those in-between cases where something could succeed or fail.

Do: Figure out a snacks plan beforehand. Spreadsheet that shit if you have to.

Don't: Assume host provides snacks. Bring weird snacks before asking if anybody dislikes them.

see above the post where I said that sometimes it's important the PC doesn't know he is unable to accomplish something because it might give him information he doesn't have (i.e. something is blocking him). Rare circumstance though.

>Which of the three factions all intent on killing the other two do you think are most on your group's side?
The exit.

Do: Ignore obviously shitty advice from this thread
Don't: Forget to ask your ACTUAL GROUP what they want to see in the campaign, what they want to see less of.

Seriously, a fucking child should be able to figure out that the "shy aloof nerd" thing DOESN'T WORK in group activities. Every group is different. People will have conflicting advice to give you, but the general guideline is, just be yourself.

You can't do that and also do the thing where a natural 20 always succeeds like people think it should. Either approach is fine, but they're mutually exclusive.