I'm appalled at the shitload of utterly terrible advice floating around on the net (some of them from widely acclaimed GM-advice-givers). I know Veeky Forums loves to complain, so here's a thread for that.
>"build a world" One of the most absolutely stupid things you can do is creating a whole world. Just build a shitton of content that will never be used at the table, take away time from the things that actually will be used, and when your players come up with interesting stuff, be forced to tell them no because it doesn't really fit in your world. Better to start with a small region of 60x60 miles at most, and paint the rest of the world with broad strokes
>day-travel sized hexes/squares on a map Unless this is a continent/country sized map, this advice is absolutely bonkers and demonstrates no sense of scale. Just grab Google Maps and draw a 24-mile hex, see the staggering amount of things that fit within.
>"start with a published adventure" (Unless this advice is followed by a recommendation of the Keep on the Bordlerlands or similarly open adventures) Yeah, sure. Show the newbie that GMing is about following your notes to the letter, having absolutely everything prepared before the game, and writing down endless paragraphs of purple prose description to read at the table.
I personally hate this one. Sure, 90% of the time it's better to say "Sure, but..." BUT, there are things people try to do that is retarded. Like, if a player wants to hack a computer system remotely that's be established to be a closed network requiring physical connection to a computer on said network.
Gavin Hill
>>day-travel sized hexes/squares on a map This one does seem dumb to me. Why have hexes on a world map, maps have scales or you can just say "Capitol City is two day's ride to the north."
Brody Thompson
>Improvise everything >Don't make a plot >Don't worry about setting inconsistencies, plot holes, forgetting names, etc. Your players will never notice! >If they do notice, quickly spin something on the spot to try to retcon it. They won't notice *that*.
If you're playing with a bunch of hobgoblins you picked up at the dregs of an LGS or a roll20 ad, then maybe this applies. But at least in my experience, banking on the stupidity of your players to not notice details while simultaneously expecting them to come up with interesting motivations for their characters simply doesn't happen. If you want to run a cycle of get mission, run mission, get paid, with some random acts of murdurhoboism and lolrandumb in the middle, then yeah, this is decent advice, but if you want to run a game that's actually good, or if you have players who can actually figure out what's going on behind the screen, you'll be left with a very bland and unsatisfying game for all concerned.
Lincoln Smith
>build a world Completely agree, this is the worst thing a beginner dm can do. It should be small scale at first. >hexes This is good for open camapaigns and shouldn’t be a problem if you keep it in a somewhat small area. >start with a published adventure Premade modules are a great place to draw ideas from and play. Not every game has to be a sandbox and an actual story can be a welcomed thing. Especially if the players are also new, dumping new players and telling them to go wild with no actual direction is stupid.
Mason Stewart
I agree with you. This is okay advice for a beer and pretzels episodic dungeon-delving game with no overarching plot and no direction other than kicking in doors and accumulating wealth.
If you want to tell a collaborative story with the PCs as the main characters, then maybe start figuring out who came from where and why they're here and what the goal is. My usual strategy is to make all the players members of the same organization, such as knights of a kingdom or part of an archaeology society or monster hunting band.
David Wood
The idea of this advice is to let the player figure out themselves why what they want to do is impossible. They want to hack into a closed network? Sure. Explain how. It's the same methods you use to teach children.
Kevin Reyes
Railroading shite detected.
Joseph Carter
1. So you don't have to take out the rule to figure out where you can travel. Like grids in tabletop combat instead of going by inches. 2. To determine where certain features are found.
Owen Moore
allow X-cards remember, games have winners and losers, as GM it is your task to WIN! the players are your enemy, take every chance you have to beat them
David James
"Muh Story" fags have to take every advantage they can whip up in order to shore up their shaky arguments.
Jayden Foster
Damn, but you're boring.
Julian Green
You're misreading the concept there. An answer to that would be 'Sure, but how are you going to do that when it's established to be a closed network requiring physical connection' At which point the players open their mouths and go 'huh, good point my dude...what if we got one of those little mini-droids and sent it in with an antenna so it can connect wirelessly once the robot hooks itself into the system or some shit' Then you go 'Sure but it only has a limited range so you'll have to be close by' The players are then pretty much where you need them to be, close by to the location having come up with their own, clever, risk averting idea and they get to feel they did something clever. Everyone wins. Think of it as GMing judo, you get the player to come up with their own plans.
Brandon Fisher
Is it alright to still go ahead and build said world if you're going to also use it for non-tabletop/semi-tabletop purposes? (i.e. writing shit about other parts, or just selecting locations in-game to set each adventure).
Charles King
I'd say that's fine. If it's fun for you to do or you have some use for it, knock yourself out. He's just warning people against doing a ton of hard work on stuff that will never actually be useful to them. That and watch out for pre-emptively straightjacketing your players. >No you can't play an elf, or a dwarf, or a halfling, or a gnome, or whatever. You can play a humonne or a snozzboglin, but you'll need to read the twelve page writeup on whichever one you choose, so you don't play them WRONG.
Evan Bailey
What races are good and what aren't? I'm reluctant to include things like halflings and gnomes, since I don't want more than 10 playable races at the most in the setting (justification being for the same reasons that we don't have homo erectus and neanderthals coexisting with sapiens today; prehistoric competition just killed most of them).
Zachary Taylor
Depends on your tastes, but players like a bit of variety. The big thing is just making it easy to make a character, if you put up too many barriers, players will start to nope out.
Asher Stewart
Sounds cool.
Anything else that an absolute beginner should avoid at all costs?
Michael Anderson
That's an entirely different can of worms and something you're going to get as many answers to as people you ask. Some people swear by the classics, others think the token Tolkien lineup is overdone trash. I personally like to lean towards the weird, or at least heavily alter the common races to fit the setting as opposed to vice versa
Nicholas Martin
What are your thoughts on beast races?
I'm going to get fucking crucified for that aren't I
Hudson Phillips
Use 'em if you want, they can be a good way to screen out some types of meme-spouting faggots. If you're the sort who can't bear to kick people out ever, then maybe skip 'em since some folks will be encouraged to bad behavior by playing them, but they're not as bad on that front as Kender. But you should be ready to kick people who act like retards and won't rein in their bullshit when warned, regardless of what brand of That Guy they are.
Cooper Sullivan
I think they can be cool so long as you put in the work to make them a fleshed out culture instead of just animal stereotypes on a furbait body.
Oliver Perry
Tell each player to pick a different fantasy race, reject anything too strange or unbalanced.
Then, tell them those are the races in the setting, and each one has been specially chosen to perform a joint-race mission combining all of their greatest strengths.
Charles Foster
Building a world is never a waste because it is an enjoyable hobby in its own right.
Kevin Bennett
No, keep your hobbies seperate. Your players will ruin your world or you will ruin the campaigne to perserve/advance the world.
Jaxson Roberts
This. Anyone who says this has never had to play with autistic tards who do the dumbest shit they possibly can with the intention of derailing the game 'for the lulz'
Agree with not bothering to build a world. Easiest first campaign idea: Give PCs a ship and a reason to sail out over the edge of the world. Railroading? Well shit, you didn't have to land, did you? Throw in whatever modules or original content you want, adapting them a little for circumstances. Done.
Jayden Flores
Most of GMing advice on Veeky Forums is terrible, and clearly written by people who aren't GMs. Most of it starts out as sensible advice but parroted by people who don't know what they're talking about, to other people who don't know what, and gradually morphs into retardation >Don't overplan Perfect example. I spend about as much time planning sessions each week as running them, and I only play lighter systems that make prep easy. The problem isn't too much planning, it's doing it incorrectly. Novice GMs tend to try to plan out exactly how every scene is going to go, then get frustrated when it doesn't go the way it was "supposed to." You need to keep your planning flexible and not assume you know how the players are going to react to things or what the dice will do. Come up with people, locations, and situations, not exact series of events. It's not that overplanning is impossible per se, I don't use all the content I come up with. But if you do it right, your "wasted effort" is just an inherently near idea you can use later >Feelsgoodman.jpg This is textbook railroading, and fucking attrocious GMing. Let me reframe the story another way >John gives the players a horribly bland and cliche plot hook >Players aren't interested, go along with literally the first idea someone blurts out >It's stupid, but everyone likes their characters and they have fun >John is buttblasted they didn't like with his story that definitely wasn't the least bit shitty, but goes along with it for weeks or even months without saying anything, because he's exactly that kind of cowardly, insecure bitch >Passive-aggressively fucks them over at the very end, because he's STILL salty about it.
Logan Powell
op is not wrong tho
Charles Turner
He very much is
Dominic Davis
Hi OP
Gabriel Edwards
>Breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide Dunno WHAT people are thinking with this.
Jace Baker
i wish i started this thread so i could be as right as op
Dominic Cruz
>If you're playing with a bunch of hobgoblins you picked up at the dregs of an LGS or a roll20 ad, then maybe this applies. But at least in my experience, banking on the stupidity of your players to not notice details while simultaneously expecting them to come up with interesting motivations for their characters simply doesn't happen. If you want to run a cycle of get mission, run mission, get paid, with some random acts of murdurhoboism and lolrandumb in the middle, then yeah, this is decent advice, but if you want to run a game that's actually good, or if you have players who can actually figure out what's going on behind the screen, you'll be left with a very bland and unsatisfying game for all concerned. Only good groups I've played in in 10 years have actually been roll20. I've wanted to kill all other players.
Nathaniel Turner
>If you're playing with a bunch of hobgoblins you picked up at the dregs of an LGS or a roll20 ad, then maybe this applies. But at least in my experience, banking on the stupidity of your players to not notice details while simultaneously expecting them to come up with interesting motivations for their characters simply doesn't happen. If you want to run a cycle of get mission, run mission, get paid, with some random acts of murdurhoboism and lolrandumb in the middle, then yeah, this is decent advice, but if you want to run a game that's actually good, or if you have players who can actually figure out what's going on behind the screen, you'll be left with a very bland and unsatisfying game for all concerned. I only run campaigns where players get motivations of their own. Works out fine.
Brody Carter
You lie! Obviously you have to railroad the shit out of players because he always does!
That has nothing to do with what I warned against.
I do not advocate railroading in the slightest. What I do advocate is serious setting building, creating a world or at least a location where things actually fit together and not just hoping that your players don't notice the inconsistencies.
Christian Adams
That's what OP's advocating.
Tyler Nelson
Lesson #1 got me off on the wrong foot in a campaign I ran. Now I'm trying to get out of it so I can run the hexcrawl I want. Lesson #2 took me a while but when I started thinking about it I realized... holy shit that's huge. Lesson #3 is kinda true sometimes because it helps the DM be slightly less overwhelmed, but yeah most published adventures are shit.
