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.
