Hey everyone,

As some of you may know I started running a PBP Keep on the Shadowfell module here, but I'm looking to try my hand at running stuff in a homebrew world as well at some point.

What are the best bits of advice you have for new DMs? Anything from quick tips, cliches to avoid, general advice etc. Or what do you wish someone had told you when you were first starting out?

Thanks.

Keep your plans flexible. Your players will do the unexpected, so keep things open ended and have a basic idea of what you can do for things in the area. Think up some basic adventure hooks, know the region of your setting the party is in very well, and, write out common NPCs' stats. Knowing an NPC's character traits and motivations is always better than making a scripted conversation.
Railroading (forcing players down a single, linear chain of events) is hard to avoid for new GMs. This method helps.

Hey, thanks for your input!

I've beginning to notice that scripted isnt exactly my cup of tea, just by running this module. I know that its to make things easier but I'm often finding myself looking at the 'what the NPC would say' in the book and then going, "Nah, I'll make him say 'blah blah blah' because it better fits the situation while still providing the information". I've tinkered around and watched a few of the videos with Chris Perkins talking in some of his workshops, and can very much see that players will do the unexpected and trying to be ready for it without over preparing.

Since my games will most likely be PbP I think it give me more time to pull random maps, npcs, and events out of thin air when the players go off the beaten path, so at least I have that going for me.

What do you think is the best way to deal with a player or players who specifically jump off the track, without making it seem like you're railroading? Do you steer them back on with in character events, or do you call knock it off as a DM? For example, a player in my KotS decided to take the lord of the town hostage, so I ended up playing out the events that lead to him being arrested and now the party must figure out a way to talk the lord into releasing him. Should I have done so? Or should I have stuck with the railroad and said "sorry, but you cant do that"?

My biggest one: Know your party's power level. **** this one up can end a campaign within five minutes.

Re:Railroading: Give the illusion of choice. Multiple obvious options that all manage to lead to the same place, the place you want them to go. If it looks like there are multiple options, the players are much less likely to go crazy.

The illusion of choice is probably my favorite method in that situation. The player taking the mayor hostage is a wonderful opportunity. I'm not familiar with KotS (or any of the 4E adventures, really). Is it likely that the mayor wants something very badly from the next planned adventure part? Badly enough to offer a pardon or at least to drop execution down to exile? Because that gives you an option to turn that to your advantage.
When players do something spectacularly stupid, I prefer to respond first by asking if they're sure they want to do that. If they follow through, consequences happen. Seems like you have a good start there.

Yeah, I agree about the illusion of choice, even in the module they have multiple "hooks" they could be starting on but in the end they're of course going to end up in the same place. I planned to more or less do the same thing in my first homebrew, have two or three "reasons" for the characters to be in the area but regardless of the choices they make have them subtly steered where I need the party.

Regarding the hostage situation, you're basically dead on, which is why I let it play out. For the hook they're on, they're in town to find some cultists, but were attacked by kobolds on the road that have been raiding the town. Now that he's in jail, they party will have to barter with the town exchanging his freedom to go kill the kobolds on the side quest, before hunting down the cultists.

I must agree with Cyclone and Ragnar about the illusion of choice, especially when playing a pre-built module. It's different if you're playing sandbox, and can just react accordingly.

Other tips:
If you're playing 3.X, the best resource I've ever had starts on page 49 of the 3.0 DMG. There are 11 tables and description blocks for sample NPCs of each of the PHB1 character classes, each from level 1 through 20. Is the Lord a level 8 Wizard? Is the Guard Captain a level 6 Fighter? Is that bartender a retired level 18 Ranger? Is that random townfolk a level 2 Cleric? You don't even need to make sheets when something random that the players do involves other NPCs.

Don't be hesitant to mod the rules, even only a little. For instance, while I am not a fan of 4.0, I like the cleaner concept of having Spot/Listen rolled up into a single skill of Perception; while at the same time I like the difference between Spot/Listen (WIS-based) and Search (INT-based) from 3.0. So, when running either edition, I use Perception (WIS-based) and Search (INT-based).

Allow your players to make mistakes and focus on how those mistakes adjust the world. If you're really trying to give them free reign to do what they want, then they have to be allowed to screw things up. In my experience, players will run from the first sign of danger, and leaving quests incomplete and things undone will adversely affect the people and cities of the world.

~SE++

Don't make failure bad, make it different, they can be great plot hooks.
And word of advice from when I tried: Don't focus on what makes the most sense, focus on what makes the most fun. And while at it, this shouldn't have to be said, but remember that you're not playing against the players, but with them. You don't challenge them because you want to win, you challenge them because it's fun to find out how to overcome it.

Don't be afraid to say no, and god's sake, don't be afraid to talk to your players. They are your friends, and can (hopefully) be reasoned with. If there's a problem with a player, find out the root of the problem and solve it, don't escalate it with passive aggressive bs.

Post copied from the Other Forums

Here are my hard-learned lessons on being a good GM

#1) Always Have a Plan
This is sort of in opposition to the "Be Reactive" statement that gets thrown around -- if not the sentiment behind it. I've found that if you don't have some idea of a meta-plot, things tend to die off very quickly. Perhaps your plans reach as far as the next town, or perhaps you have a big bad in mind who will lead the party to epic. The best D&D games and campaigns I've run have been carefully planned, but...

#2) Never Rely on it
No plan survives first contact with the PCs. If you think you have contingencies for all five ways the players could approach a situation they discover, you can bet good money that they will take a sixth that you did not intend. This is when reactivity comes into play. Whatever the PCs do, be ready to keep your cool, roll with it, and act like you had a plan for this eventuality the entire time. This means your real plan, the one at the heart of everything, needs to be very flexible: have an idea of who the big bad is and what the big bad wants. Everything else can and will change on average. You plan out those minor details because if you don't have a plan to be changed and interacted with, things get confusing real fast.

#3) Understanding the DM's Arsenal

Carrot: Temptation. Reward. The bait on the plot hook. Especially with more neutral parties, you need to give them some reason to actually adventure. I like to be generous with carrots, laying down a string of minor goals to be achieved

Stick: Aversion. Punishment. An in-character reason to *not* do something. When the PCs get an audience with Lord Vyle O'Kittensquisher, the fact that the audience chamber is filled with his elite guards is a Stick telling them to not consider "parley" to mean "The other guy is disarmed and flat footed". Sticks should be present where logical. Sticks serve as a punishment only to the characters. To the Players, they serve as a warning, and they should be treated as such. Asking "Are you sure?" before the stick comes down is only proper. Never wield a stick you are not prepared to strike with.

Schrodinger's Gun: "Any element that has not been observed by the PCs is subject to change without notice". Schrodinger's gun is a very powerful tool, and like most powerful tools it can be used for good or for evil. Using Schrodinger's Gun for good entails putting something somewhere (potentially moved from somewhere else), where there was nothing before. This stops the session or even campaign from grinding to a halt because, frankly, you weren't able to fill every corner of the map. Using Schrodinger's Gun for evil is basically railroading. If the PCs are deliberately and directly avoiding something, moving that something into intercept position is not kosher.

DM Hammer: Punishing players by smiting characters. DON'T EVER DO THIS. It's immature and tacky. Threatening it to handle a table that's descended into Monty Python quotes is immature and tacky for about five seconds before everybody gets on with it, and is therefore somewhat acceptable.


#4) Never ever ever EVER run the GMPC
This was my first lesson in DMing. I learned it while I was still a mere player. The Overpowered, Plot-Centric NPC is a blight on the D&D game. Any such NPC, if introduced, ought to get killed off within 5 minutes of introduction to prove that serious **** is going on. Any NPC the players have regularly helping them ought to be somehow weaker than the PCs, inept in such a manner that they cannot save the day1. If any one NPC gets > 10% of the "face time" of any one PC, something has gone terribly pear shaped. You can usually tell if an NPC has hit this level when the Players dislike their appearance. The only known cure for GMPC-itis is death, preferably entirely justified and by PC hands as their players will no doubt desire in advanced cases, or unceremoniously and irretrievably if the character was still in the early stages.

#5) Know when to say 'No'
By corollary, Know when to say 'Yes' as well. All four primary answers (No, No but, Yes but, and Yes) have their place in the D&D game. Briefly
No: Used in case of obvious impossibility/faleshood. "Your wand is out of charges" "You already used all your Nth level spell slots" "The Wererats do not believe your Mickey Mouse ears make you one of them." Creating no-situations often is tacky. If the walls are to slick to climb once, it's in obstacle. If they're usually too slick to climb, people wonder why they took the climb skill.
No, But: The most common answer, in the form of "No, but you can try". Represents a call to roll the dice. Can also be used, more rarely, in a case of failure with unintended consequences -- where fate or the Dice closed a door, they opened a window ("No, the usurper king does not believe your ridiculous lies... but finds them amusing enough to have you made jester, rather than throwing you to the owlbears"
Yes, But: Some people consider my primary designation of "no, but" to be a "Yes, but" instead: "Yes, but you'll have to do something first"2. I suppose it's a valid interpretation. Also represents Unintended Concequences ("Yes you can enter the castle through the sewers, but you'll be covered in foul-smelling water. Even the most nose-deaf guards are sure to notice if you don't do something about it")
Yes: Used in cases of unopposed success/obvious truth. "You can cut off the dead dragon's head without much trouble." "You climb the ladder". If unrestricted No is tacky, Unrestricted Yes is unfun: Automatic success quickly becomes as unsatisfying as automatic failure. Of course, just like No, Yes should be said where it is appropriate.



1 This is something I've had to fight with, a lot. I've been asked, for instance, to run an NPC cleric with an undermanned party. Said cleric never talked and only ever prepared cure spells. Sometimes, the plot requires an important NPC. Said NPC should be the model of helplessness and incapable of doing anything right without the help of the PCs. They should also have the common decency to stay out of the spotlight whenever even remotely possible. If none of the PCs for some reason can be the sacred whoever destined to blah-de-blah, the NPC who is has the job of sitting around and waiting for an endgame escort quest, NOT being the NPC the PCs interact with most. If the PCs befriend a powerful personage, said personage should have a damn good reason to not be showing them up: In one game I'm running, the PCs are in the good graces of a High Priest many levels higher than they are. He's 108 years old (as a human) with a CON score of 2, so he doesn't leave his temple.

2 It's a matter of the request's phrasing, really. "I kill the dragon" responded to by "Roll for initiative" is saying "No, you do not automatically kill the dragon, but you can fight it and try to kill it in combat". "I attack the dragon" responded to by "Roll for initiative" is saying "Yes, you may attack the dragon, but it's going to attack back". Since the intent of attacking is presumably to kill/subdue, or any other uncertain attempt to succeed, I consider calls to roll the dice a "No, but" answer, since success has been denied until the dice say otherwise.


Addendum
Interestingly, I think you can learn a good deal about DMing (both good and bad) from computer games -- the King's Quest series (or similar games, like Might and Magic) in particular. Analyzing how these work ban provide you with some of what's bad and what's good in a DM, based on the quality of the game and the limits of a computer

Good: The spotlight is essentially always on the player -- Most of the time, your players will know what kind of story they want to tell, and it's important that they can tell it alongside whatever meta-plot you've prepared for them (when the two don't interact -- often they will). Actions have consequences. Not always the most logical consequences, but consequences all the same. The player can effect the game world invarious ways and what they do has meaning along the way (this is more notable in later King's Quest games. It's one of the ways they improved)

Bad: Puzzles can only be solved in a couple pre-defined ways. A computer, by its nature, cannot "wing it" and allow for a creative solution. Sometimes, you might be given more than one path to achieve your goals, other times it's figure out what the developer intended or die. Part of the fun of a TTRPG with a real live DM is the fact that you can come up with a clever or zany scheme, and it can work just as well or possibly even better than the foreseen paths1. Death is everywhere and often comical (and if you're good at knowing when to save, often a slap on the wrist) -- this works for Paranoia, but not for most Dungeons and Dragons games where even if it is reversible, death should generally be dramatic (either in its cause or in its results) to line up with player expectations, whether it's common or rare.


1 I will sometimes include a scenario where I know the main goal can be completed but have not personally figured out a way to do so without a painful cost or the failure of a secondary goal. For instance, my players were sent to Carceri to rescue a girl, and given enough portal-key items for their number and one other person to return... and met a decent NPC there who helped them on the condition of being let out. The players managed to avoid screwing over their temporary friend by pulling a "That wolf will eat my goat" logic-puzzle-esque back-and-forth through the portal. So far, I've never seen a full table fail to come up with a way to take a third option.

How does #4 work in the context of a rival or other form of antagonist?

Hey Tevish! Long time no see.

Gonna give your post a good read after dinner, but just wanted to say hey again. Thanks for the input in advance.

First time I'm using the "Like" button here, not that anyone notices it, but your post deserves it Tevish Szat.

~SE++

Tevish, might I have permission to use that for various nefarious moderator reasons? I may include a link to it in my guides or FAQs. I will of course site my sources.

Absolutely.

I would say that you can throw a bone to your guys every now and then. Even if the rolls are telling you to kill the guy, they don't have to know that you just saved them. If your guy is getting held down again and again, it can get really frustrating. It's totally OK to give 'em a moment, as long as you're not guilty of always doing it. Sometimes, the player is guilty of doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results than the last time it failed. No fault of yours, there, if you keep saying "no".

Also, don't let the rules and rolls get in the way of a good story. Seriously. I believe the rules are there to help you facilitate, not tell you how to run your game, and not there to ruin your game. As a template for how to model things, they keep things consistent and are therefore good and useful, but I don't always hold to the literal rules all the time. I read rules like crazy, and interpret them as best as I can, but I am known to sometimes chuck it out the window with an "aw shoot!" for good measure. Indiana Jones beats the laws of physics in my games every now and then. It keeps things fun for me, and hopefully for the players, too.

Trust your gut. If you know something is right, because it is, just remember that you are the GM, and all rules are subject to change by you, as are all elements within the world.

I believe others have covered this, but collaborate with your players. Get them involved and give them a stake in the game. If they raise a good or else novel creative point to consider, then consider it. You always have the final call, but I seek every possible way to help someone do something they want to, so long as it makes sense. If not, after I've exhausted options, I don't hesitate to say no. While it is my world, I don't believe you just live in it. Without you as a player, I don't have a world, just a bunch of notes and nerd maps/tables and ideas in my head. Therefore, the players are always the center of my consideration, and I try to keep that in mind.