Good GM Habits

[Mckma]

Good all around advise: never be a player if your GM is a language student.

I'm pretty nit-picky with semantics, but I also always allow the "Oh, maybe I misunderstood, let's just go back and say you shorted the rope."

I also usually ask "The bridge is only 40', so I am assuming you are not using the full length." Then if they say they are, it's all fair because I gave them a chance

I'm a dick, but I always give you a chance. Everyone else at the table usually laughs when these situations come up, as the player had fair warning if they were paying attention...

So what you're saying is you are a dick, but not a "Tricky Dick"?

(I guess we can't accuse you of being a crook?)

[robotkarateman]

GM: Oh, the rope held. But it was a 50 foot rope and a 40 foot bridge. You never said you shortened the rope.

Now, see, I would do something like this if the conversation leading up to the decision included "I've still got my 50' of rope" and someone had judged the distance fairly. If they had the information already, and ignored it, I would have him hit the ground. If they didn't, I would find it more entertaining to see him succeed and see where he goes with it next.

[Ulf]

All the best GMs I've seen have one thing in common; they like the setting and are well-versed in it. Nothing's worse than a GM who can't adapt to their players going even slightly off-script, or who runs a game that's not internally consistent, because they can't be bothered to give a crap about which political faction that one NPC assassin actually worked for.

I think knowing the world enough that you can improvise things or react well to player initiative is a key part to being a good DM.

And have some enthusiasm for the setting. If someone doesn't give a crap about L5R, then maybe they shouldn't run it, no matter how many of their players are crying about not being able to play Crane Clan courtiers in Shadowrun.

A really half-ass game that takes place in a really awesome setting is the worst kind of game. Expectations are too high, and if the DM can't deliver or doesn't care to put in the work, then it's better to just pull the plug on it before everyone's fun gets ruined.

But a really kick-ass game that takes place in a setting that maybe the players don't like as much, but that the DM can get excited about, will usually turn into something really fun, because it's the DM's job to keep things moving.

[Dogfish]

Well beyond the real basics; don't pause unless it's to allow a player to speak, never force a character but sometimes it's ok to coerce them, be consistent in everything from physics to NPC motives and always play the system as abstractly from the rules until you feel you need them to resolve a situation.

I'll elaborate on what I believe the basics are and provide some more of my personal insight.

'Don't pause'- comes from the ability for players to sometimes find themselves stagnating. If you aren't telling them something new within lets say 30 minutes then something is happening poorly in the game. Now I know there are times when in character debates can go on longer than that but you should always provide some insight (perhaps from a players personal musings on an NPCs motive when you think they may of misunderstood). This is especially true in combat situations. It's a sad fact that many of us can get caught in the lurch with modifiers at times and even in systems like one-roll when using 'gnarly' and 'awesome' powers. If you can crack the maths then you've cracked combat. Perhaps the best way to do this for yourself is to have little cards with the maths already worked out on them, ala 4th. ed D&D character builder.

'Never force the player' - This is very simple stuff. So to that end I'll focus on the other half of the sentence -'but it's ok to coerce them'. I think you should always give your players the number of quest/mission/diplomatic options they can complete...+1. While some people may think it is dis-satisfying to have an option that will never be played I think this is the best way to give the players the illusion of choice. An example would be offering a party of good players an incredulous evil option. If they feel there has always been another solution to the problem they haven't worked out then they will begin to seek all the options. I think we can all admit as GMs it is a gratifying experience to have our players try and poke around and fiddle in your world until they believe they have discovered every course of action...including making up ones you had never thought of.

'Be consistent'- Well again so simple that it doesn't require much elaboration but it is a basic that some GMs do slip up on.

Finally as a basic I have included is one you may disagree on. I am always one for role over roll play but some people define that differently. If you obey the above rule, being consistent in rules and NPC motives, then I feel the game mechanics themselves can always take a bit of a sideline.

For example if the party had been interacting with a diplomat on and off for awhile and had found him to be a staunch supporter of some ideal or another then you shouldn't let them roll diplomacy. You should only let them shake him from his views if they provide information so ground-shatteringly important to him that he would change his entire compass of opinion. When the person is rather contested on an idea and the party advocates one ideal then perhaps you should look to player logic. In the New World game when do the players agree and help people? When they are nice to them or have another appealing characteristic. It may sound stupid, as player logic often is, however I think it works far more interestingly than rolling a dice.




There are far more complex and specific things than those I outlined above but more often than not if you those basics down you're more or less set.

[malyss]

For example if the party had been interacting with a diplomat on and off for awhile and had found him to be a staunch supporter of some ideal or another then you shouldn't let them roll diplomacy. You should only let them shake him from his views if they provide information so ground-shatteringly important to him that he would change his entire compass of opinion. When the person is rather contested on an idea and the party advocates one ideal then perhaps you should look to player logic. In the New World game when do the players agree and help people? When they are nice to them or have another appealing characteristic. It may sound stupid, as player logic often is, however I think it works far more interestingly than rolling a dice.

I tend to use diplomacy as a short-term, nicer intimidate. For any long-term impact, you have to have actions, not just words.

[Flawless P]

Thread Resurrection!!!!

My favorite DM to play under has been doing this for quite a long time, and he has this technique.

He does alot of things that make you more interested, one of my favorites is when he roleplays one of our NPC party members.
Nessus is a fat fuck. Damn that man is a gluttonous pig, he is half orc and tips the scales in at a husky 300 lbs of pure fat. Another thing to know about Nessus is also a Rogue.

As long as the situation makes sense, he will grab any and all snacks on hand and any character interaction with Nessus is done while Nessus is pigging out, complete with him talking with his mouth full.

Also, when he is describing the situation to you, he does this subtle change of tone making his voice slightly deeper and more serious. He does this whenever something important is happening. It is very subtle, you don't really realize he has done it till after you've already gotten all worked up about the situation.

It sounds lame when I describe it but it totally works.