Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... and if the party has no one capable of stealth or lockpicking?

Then he doesn't have the skills or tools to break someone out of jail.

Are you... quite sure? Bribery, sapping, various magical(/technological, depending on setting) shenanigans, contracting local criminal element... the list goes on. Maybe lure something big and nasty into town to rampage down the walls. Etc., so forth, so on. If the group wants to break someone out of jail and they think they can pull it off...

[dewboy]

So. For a quick wrap up: Stay Flexible, Don't be controling, Its about the players, Know your stuff.

[Neonivek]

... and if the party has no one capable of stealth or lockpicking?

Then he doesn't have the skills or tools to break someone out of jail.

Are you... quite sure? Bribery, sapping, various magical(/technological, depending on setting) shenanigans, contracting local criminal element... the list goes on. Maybe lure something big and nasty into town to rampage down the walls. Etc., so forth, so on. If the group wants to break someone out of jail and they think they can pull it off...

They don't they are just intentionally wasting time just to see what happens.

As well their bribery attempts will be paltry at best, besides most jails let you bail people out wholesale with wads of cash. As well if there was a "big creature" it wouldn't be close to town and if there was the town has guards and jailors.

DANG I need to DM with some better players... >_<

I think I am not surprised simply because I just expect the worst out of them now by default. Then again given that group I played with... (not the one from here)

[Mephansteras]

So. For a quick wrap up: Stay Flexible, Don't be controling, Its about the players, Know your stuff.

Pretty much.

Other good advice:

1) Bookmarks of some sort to the various tables you'll need frequently is a good idea. Speeds things up a bit when you have to look things up, which you will a lot.
2) When in doubt, remember that you're in control of the universe and have the final say in everything. Doesn't matter what the rules say. If someone really wants to argue about it, tell them that your ruling is what you'll go with for this session and you can take a deeper look at it later. Nothing is more annoying than pausing the game for an hour while people look up obscure rules that, generally, don't even matter all that much.
3) When someone wants to do something that the rules don't account for, let them try anyway. You can make it difficult, require a series of successful checks, whatever, but the game is generally more fun if people can at least try to do anything even if they don't succeed.

Spoiler: Side discussion not related to New DM Advice (click to show/hide)

... and if the party has no one capable of stealth or lockpicking?

Then he doesn't have the skills or tools to break someone out of jail.

Are you... quite sure? Bribery, sapping, various magical(/technological, depending on setting) shenanigans, contracting local criminal element... the list goes on. Maybe lure something big and nasty into town to rampage down the walls. Etc., so forth, so on. If the group wants to break someone out of jail and they think they can pull it off...

They don't they are just intentionally wasting time just to see what happens.

As well their bribery attempts will be paltry at best, besides most jails let you bail people out wholesale with wads of cash. As well if there was a "big creature" it wouldn't be close to town and if there was the town has guards and jailors.

DANG I need to DM with some better players... >_<

I think I am not surprised simply because I just expect the worst out of them now by default. Then again given that group I played with... (not the one from here)

Heh. My players would not be stopped so easily. The bard would have tried to start a mob revolt against police brutality against the jail, or the mage would have used suggestion, or someone would have tried to bluff there way in, or...I don't even know. Generally speaking, they'll find some interesting and outrageous way to get things done that would actually work. Or at least has a chance to, depending on the whim of the dice.

I'd never think of simply telling them 'no, you can't even try that'. It'd be a disservice to them and probably ruin the fun of the game. Besides, even the consequences of failure can make for a great adventure!

[Neonivek]

Stay Flexible, Don't be controling, Its about the players, Know your stuff

I've spoken to some DMs who have been doing this for a very long time and there is another aspect that is rarely spoken about.

Remember that ultimately it is your game and that you have a story to tell. It can end up being a completely unfulfilling experience letting the players walk all over you. The players decided to play with you and to play within your campaign, you are the DM. The DM is just the player who plays from the other side of the table.

Mind you that isn't my personal style. I like to start with something very me oriented until I get to know the players and characters enough to craft around them.

But ultimately don't take the "Its about the players" to its logical conclusion. You ARE one of those players essentially. It is something that is often completely lost upon players who don't DM. Just make sure they know coming in what the game is about.

Flexibility is more about rolling with the punches then rolling over.

[dewboy]

Thanks guys, You've helped me a lot and done so quickly. I tell you how the session goes in a few weeks and I'll probably be asking more specific questions soon. Thanks again

[nenjin]

If you boil away the unimportant details you get very broad actions players will do.

You also get 10 second scenes that are literally:

Sneak check, pick locks check, then another sneak check. Against DC: 25, then a DC: 35, Then a DC: 30

Which I think most GMs will tell you, it's not that simple. There are a dozen things you or they could do that in that sequence that completely alter things. It's the "unimportant details" that are the hooks, that lead to divergent paths and outcomes.

Stay Flexible, Don't be controling, Its about the players, Know your stuff.

How controlling you need to be is really up to you and your players. New players are waaaaaayyy more willing to be lead by the nose and told "yes you can" or "no you can't", because they appreciate the guidance and the sense that someone is in control. Experienced players tend to be the opposite. Wall flowers often need to be coaxed into doing something. Provocateurs are often seeing just how much they can get away with. Generally though, with engaged players, you want to be hands off if you can be.

3) When someone wants to do something that the rules don't account for, let them try anyway. You can make it difficult, require a series of successful checks, whatever, but the game is generally more fun if people can at least try to do anything even if they don't succeed.

Also can be subject to change depending on how the game is going. Have things be slogging along? Maybe lower the difficulty threshold of something novel someone is trying to do, just so the players can have a moment.

One last thing another GM said to me that really stuck with me:

Have the players roll dice only if you're willing to accept either outcome.

It seems self-evident but often times GMs ask for rolls for no good reason, or they regret the outcomes immediately. If someone is trying to get info, only have them roll if you're ok with them NOT getting that info from that person. Or only have them roll if you're willing to be surprised by the outcome. This is a judgment and experience thing, but generally, combat is something you stick to dice rolls for because that's the "game" part of it, and deciding not to have people roll is violating the shared rules expectations of everyone. The roleplaying part of it often contains dice rolls too, but that's where players are way more willing to accept you waiving dice rolls when it fits the story/moment/chances of success.

Put another way. A big beefy fighter wants to smash down a medium door so the party can enter this house. You *could* have him roll and possibly fail, but only do so if you're willing to entertain other ideas about how to get into the house. Otherwise, he's a big beefy fighter, it's story appropriate that he smashes the door down. Objective gets completed, player feels empowered, story moves on. There's no use to having him roll dice and fail, only for you to go "uhhh....now you uh....man, there's no windows on this house. Oh, uhm, yes there are! You find an open window."

Flexibility is more about rolling with the punches then rolling over.

On this, we agree.

Neon is cutting straight to the great schism in serious roleplaying games: whose enjoyment is ultimately the most important? It comes down to the kind of GM you are. Some people approach GMing like a writer. They build a huge world, tons of details, a long story arc and prominent characters. Consequently they're very attached to their work and their vision. Others are improv artists, who thrive on the spontaneity for fun, who believe that without engaged players, you have no game. Neither are wrong, but they produce two very different styles of GMing.

Most GMs fall somewhere between the two extremes.

[Knight of Fools]

Sometimes, as a DM, you need to put your foot down and say, "Okay, I know that you, as players want to do this, but why do your characters want to do this? What brought them to this decision?" If they manage to come up with a good excuse and it sounds like a legitimate plan, there's a few things you can do.

1) Pretend to go along with it and throw a "random" encounter their way that you prepared for just a situation. This is your panic button, and should be used sparingly. The encounter should have some relevance to the scene, but be strange enough to warrant further examination by the party. It's essentially a side quest to divert them from something you're not prepared for.

Keep in mind that if they ask you if you're steering them from their unexpected adventure, it's best to tell them that you are, but you'll have prepared for their quest next time so it won't suck as much as it would have if you'd done it that day.

2) If you feel confident enough to do it and have the resources to do so (Such as a map, some random "important" NPCs you can throw in for flavor, and generic NPCs), go for it. If it makes sense, try to twist it back on them and help them realize the extent of their bad idea (If it truly is bad). I'm not saying throw in an invincible NPC guard at the prison: That's a little too heavy handed. Depending on the setting, you might have the majority of the prisoners be legitimate scum, with a few really bad apples claiming to be innocents that have been wrongfully imprisoned. Naturally the players will joyfully bite, freeing a number of serial killers, rapists, and career criminals into the world.

This will initially only surface in the form of town criers spreading news about the prison break lead by an evil gang to wreak havoc on the innocent masses, but if that doesn't work, have it bite them in their rear in the worst possible way. Someone discovers that it was the players who released the prisoners, turning the general populace against them but making them a magnet for the worst of the worst... Who just want to join the players' "gang". Now the players have to deal with a band of murderers and rapists following them around, performing evil in their name.

Such an action would also be considered, in the least, chaotic, and depending on the players' intentions, evil. Any character who repeatedly participates in that kind of stuff runs the risk of losing powers linked to their classes, or at least an unpleasant surprise for the afterlife.

Naturally, only go for this if you're sure you can pull it off without pissing the actual players off. Only take it as far as your confidence, skill, and preparation can get you. This should only be taken to the extent that it makes sense, too. Punishing your players because they had a legitimately good idea to defeat the Big Bad or bypass one of your puzzles is a very bad idea.

3) This kind of goes along with #2: Prepare a bunch of generic crap you can throw into any situation. This is strictly on a "as you think of it or feel like it" basis, do not overwork yourself.

Think of things that the players might run into in your setting. Bandits? Guards? Orcs? Monsters? Inquisitors? Have a few meat grinder NPCs that you can toss at the players if they diverge from where you thought they would go, and, if you're feeling particularly adventurous, you can make level appropriate encounters, too. Don't go too overboard, but remember this is a good fallback if the players just want to kill some dudes.

As I mentioned earlier, have a few generic NPCs you can use in a pinch. They should consist of names, basic combat abilities, and a broad overview of their equipment. Having two "quirks" would be great, too. They are, essentially, a meat grinder NPC with a little bit more flavor attached to them. Need to flesh out a shopkeeper? Choose a random dude from your list of NPCs, and role play him based on his quirks. Your players are more likely to remember Smith the stuttering, sneering prison guard than Luke, the guy you took five seconds to think of a name for. More powerful characters can also make great on-the-spot bad guys or even folks who help the PCs when they're in trouble.

Ideally, you should have this list within arms reach so it seems like you prepared for introducing a character all along, and the list should have room for notes so you don't accidentally reuse NPCs and so there's some consistency if the players run into the same NPC in the future. Don't beat yourself up about it, though: Just do a couple NPCs whenever you have some spare time. They're not super important, since they're just flavoring, but they can bring a random campaign to life.

4) Finally: Be honest with them out of character. Tell them, "Sorry, I'm not prepared for that. Could we do X, instead, and I can prepare for that side quest next week?" Don't do anything you're not comfortable with. If the players are insistent, it's time to start thinking about whether or not they're good players or not. Sometimes people do things just to be douche bags, even without noticing it - But that's a whole different advice column.

Used sparingly and with a good reason, "No" can be very powerful. Just be sure to explain why, and have an open mind about whatever answer they give.

Just remember that these guys are your friends, and you're hanging out to have fun. If they're not being very friendly and you're not having fun, it's time for some introspection.


Fear the Boot has a variety of podcasts and forums that are invaluable resources. If you have time, browse through the podcasts for the topics that cover first-time DM'ing, or at least check out the forums. There's usually a "New DM" topic going at any given time, and if there isn't a quick search will get you what you're looking for.

[nenjin]

Oh yeah, one other thing: table talk interrupting the game. Know when to be heavy handed. Know the difference between fun table talk that is a result of your game, and non-game table talk that's because people are distracted and not interested. If you're ready to keep going, don't be shy about going "Ok guys, back to the game." Sometimes table talk can even be helpful, if you need a moment to think, gather your thoughts, refamiliarize yourself with the next part of the adventure, ect....

You're the adjudicator of pacing, not them, and nothing sucks the life out of a session more than players who are too distracted to know: the names of NPCs, when it's their turn in combat, what just happened 10 seconds ago, ect.... Almost no one is ever being intentionally rude, but you can generally deduce how interested people are in your game by how much they're talking about something else. Don't take it personal, just get them back on track and engaged.

[Neonivek]

Most GMs fall somewhere between the two extremes

I fall on both extremes unfortunately.

As well believe it or not a game that is both extremes at the same time does exist.

Each DM style has its own pitfalls and not JUST for the GM.

For example a GM who doesn't give his own input and lets players decide can easily bore the players and leave them aimless and lost.

And even the "Controlling style" which is almost always condemned can easily work very well in providing the players with a high quality controlled path, similar to those campaign modules you can buy.

The major pitfall of a Player Centric Controlling GM is that they have the problems of both: They leave the players lost, bored, and confused while at the same time making them feel trapped and unimportant.

Oh yeah, one other thing: table talk interrupting the game. Know when to be heavy handed.

Honestly just find your style and don't be shy about your style.

Once you know what you want to do. Find a way to do it.

As a new DM the first thing you need to do is learn the basic grasp of the rules, the basic grasp of gameflow, but the hardest is just to know what kind of DM you are.

For myself I need to work on my emotional and mental state, I easily break apart.

[dewboy]

One quick note. I'll have my laptop with me during this. Are there any programs that might help me (this is 3.5 remember) with NPC's, combat , player sheets, ect.

[Neonivek]

One quick note. I'll have my laptop with me during this. Are there any programs that might help me (this is 3.5 remember) with NPC's, combat , player sheets, ect.

The 3.5 SRD for quick references if you NEED it is very helpful.

[nenjin]

The major pitfall of a Player Centric Controlling GM is that they have the problems of both: They leave the players lost, bored, and confused while at the same time making them feel trapped and unimportant.

Yeah, like I said, you gotta be flexible. Even with the same group, week to week. Some weeks people are pumped and need very little prodding to move the adventure forward. Other weeks, they're not. (I suspect this is an issue with adult roleplayers more than younger roleplayers.) Some styles of adventure (modules) require a different GM styles than very free form games (sandbox worlds.)

Really though it comes down to the player personalities you have to deal with. Some players dislike passive, narrative activities. They crave the action, the decision making, the dice rolls. Other players love character time, where they get to pursue character motivations, roleplay and interact with NPCs and such. Other players loathe that because they feel like it's taking up time from "the adventure." And some players you will struggle to figure out why they're there, because they do nothing the majority of the time.

I fall on both extremes unfortunately.

Well, I did say you were special.