Master of the Game

[standokan]

Thanks for all the info, i'm thanking about starting DnD with some friends, maybe i'll become dungeonmaster myself, even though it sounds like a though role to fill, especially because DM's can't allways play a guy themselves (which wouldn't matter much because they are like any other thing in the game. I only got a problem with finding D20's.

 

[Tarkand]

I find it funny that you say Storytelling is the less important aspect...

I can deal with a DM who 'cheats' or doesn't know the rule all that well. I've been in several p&p rpg session where we never even roled any dices as a matter of fact.

However, if you want to turn me off your game, a poor plot and a rigid mindset when it comes to players idea are the best way to do it.

Your column is often geared toward the new players, so I can understand that for them, the DM being a rule encyclopedia is important. But once you've been playing the same system for half a decade (or more), even the absent-minded player in the group has a pretty good grasp of it.

Regardless thought, when people start babbling about their favorite game, they'll usually mention some brilliant piece of roleplay brought about by the DM's plot/story... now how awesome of a rule lawyer or adversary the DM was in that one campaign.

 

[aegios187]

Thanks for all the info, i'm thanking about starting DnD with some friends, maybe i'll become dungeonmaster myself, even though it sounds like a though role to fill, especially because DM's can't allways play a guy themselves (which wouldn't matter much because they are like any other thing in the game. I only got a problem with finding D20's.

You can put in a PC-like NPC in the party that is controlled by you as GM. However, if you're just starting, I wouldn't recommend jumping that hurdle just yet, it has to be handled with kid gloves. I've seen too many games where the party tries to make that NPC the de facto party leader which puts the DM in a do-loop. I've also seen where the DM grew too attached and played it as an equal to the PCs and overshadowed them in some cases, which is equally bad mojo to a campaign. Usually, a happy medium is playing as one of the Party's henchman and giving it some flair other than another dice roll in the combat round.

 

[findelhe]

Having planned encounters, for example, is fine but you have to willing to discard them if the players go a different way with the story, rather than "railroad" them there.

You never railroad your players into anything. Planned encounters are wonderful the main thing you must remember is they must be fluid in their use. What I mean by that is the capability to use the encounters in any situation. Sometimes you use them right away other times the group chooses another path and you file the encounter in the, "use later," bin. Some spontaneity is great but if the GM doesn't have at least a footnote on where the plot is going then it is highly likely that the group will get bored or feel that the GM really doesn't care.

To tell you the truth my group loves to see me sitting at the end of the table with pencil and paper and take an hour or so to plan out a combat or encounter. When I take time to sit and compare characters and situations the game is much more entertaining for me and them...whereas the sessions I've been lazy on and just throw in things that I think might work the session usually isn't as much fun because something just doesn't work out.

Both ways are fun but I find that if you have a GM that constantly works with his players, plans ahead to make sure the main plot is intact, and is flexible in what happens everyone has a great time.

 

[Kaihlik]

I have only GM'ed one game in my life and im still running that same game over a year later (i'll be running it tomorow as a matter of fact). I run a Dark Heresy game which for those who don't know is one of the RPG's set in the 40k universe. I plan on starting the other 40k RPG system Rogue Trader in the summer and am planning a very different experiance for my players.

No one taught me how to GM and tbh you don't need to be taught how to do it. As a GM you are providing a background for the players to interact with. To know if you can do it or not you just need to try. Play as a player for a while and then find a game system you like and an idea for your game and just go for it. Success means you can GM although if the game fails it doesn't mean you can't do it just that you may need more practice or that the game you wanted to run was not necissarily the game people wanted to play or a number of other reasons.

Talk to the players, find out what they want, observe the way they play and attempt to adapt the game to fit that style. Roleplaying is a colaborative process you need to find something that works for all participents. It may be that your GMing style is just incompatable with the group you are playing with which. If this happens then you can either change your style, give up GMing and just play or find a group which matches your GM style.

I am rather privilaged in that almost everyone I know wants to run a game of some sorts whether its WFRP, nWoD, Exalted or 40k RP but even then alot of the time games don't work out. One of our group just has tastes that don't match with the rest of the group and so the games he wants to run tend not to be the games we want to play.

I do wish that The Escapist would branch out its coverage to other RPG systems other than D&D, they present a rather one sided view of roleplaying and alot of the common DnD tropes that get mentioned in Escapist articles I would find abhorant in any game I played in.

Kaihlik

 

[Archon]

I find it funny that you say Storytelling is the less important aspect...

I can deal with a DM who 'cheats' or doesn't know the rule all that well. I've been in several p&p rpg session where we never even roled any dices as a matter of fact.

However, if you want to turn me off your game, a poor plot and a rigid mindset when it comes to players idea are the best way to do it.

Your column is often geared toward the new players, so I can understand that for them, the DM being a rule encyclopedia is important. But once you've been playing the same system for half a decade (or more), even the absent-minded player in the group has a pretty good grasp of it.

Regardless thought, when people start babbling about their favorite game, they'll usually mention some brilliant piece of roleplay brought about by the DM's plot/story... now how awesome of a rule lawyer or adversary the DM was in that one campaign.

5 years ago I thought how you did, but I don't any longer.

My own evolution as a gamemaster has gone in precisely the opposite direction. I started off running games that were very story-focused: Dragonlance series of modules, with premade characters who couldn't be killed off until the plot said so. Star Wars RPG by West End Games, where the games actually included scripts and cinematic cut scenes. Cyberpunk 2020's marathon module Land of The Free. DC Heroes by Mayfair Games, with its comic book story plots.

As my DMing style has matured, I've come to believe that plot should not be imposed on the players, and that it isn't a DM's plot/story that makes the game good - it's the choices the players decide that makes the game good. So now I focus on games that maximize player choice.

For player choice to be meaningful, rules have to be consistent - that means the DM needs to know them and apply them consistently. You cannot have meaningful choice if the outcome of your choices is subject to arbitrary DM fiat. And for player choice to be meaningful, it must be able to impact the setting and the character. You can't impact the setting if the DM puts his plot ahead of the character's actions - railroading. "I need the players to get to the mountain" "Tim's character can't die, I need him to introduce the second act" - it's all railroading.

So now I run what are called "sandbox games" with no plot, just backstory. There's story behind but no story ahead, save what the players do. And these are by far my most wildly popular campaigns that I've ever run. It is from this perspective that I am writing the article. I'd have written a different article when I was in a different stage of my DM style.

 

[Tarkand]

5 years ago I thought how you did, but I don't any longer.

My own evolution as a gamemaster has gone in precisely the opposite direction. I started off running games that were very story-focused: Dragonlance series of modules, with premade characters who couldn't be killed off until the plot said so. Star Wars RPG by West End Games, where the games actually included scripts and cinematic cut scenes. Cyberpunk 2020's marathon module Land of The Free. DC Heroes by Mayfair Games, with its comic book story plots.

As my DMing style has matured, I've come to believe that plot should not be imposed on the players, and that it isn't a DM's plot/story that makes the game good - it's the choices the players decide that makes the game good. So now I focus on games that maximize player choice.

For player choice to be meaningful, rules have to be consistent - that means the DM needs to know them and apply them consistently. You cannot have meaningful choice if the outcome of your choices is subject to arbitrary DM fiat. And for player choice to be meaningful, it must be able to impact the setting and the character. You can't impact the setting if the DM puts his plot ahead of the character's actions - railroading. "I need the players to get to the mountain" "Tim's character can't die, I need him to introduce the second act" - it's all railroading.

So now I run what are called "sandbox games" with no plot, just backstory. There's story behind but no story ahead, save what the players do. And these are by far my most wildly popular campaigns that I've ever run. It is from this perspective that I am writing the article. I'd have written a different article when I was in a different stage of my DM style.

Being a storyteller doesn't mean you'll refuse your character the ability to change the plot - that's where 'winging it' comes in... if your player totally wreck your plans by killing Lord Fancy Pants 10 game session early, a good DM will be able to cop with it... a bad DM will either shut it down or let it happen but lose control.

You mention a sandbox game, and while a huge part of a good sandbox game is is the world building aspect, the second most important part is the Storytelling - when your players do something crazy (or just something really mundane), you have to make the world and the npc in it react.... call it 'acting', call it 'roleplaying', call it 'winging it', the fact of the matter is it all falls under the storyteller aspect of the job. Unless of course, you solve every single interaction with a die roll. And while there's nothing wrong with that, the great strenght of p&p rpg over CRPG is that not everything is resolved by a die roll or by having a high enough statistic in Charisma (or whatever).

I also prefer the sand box style... I'll create a setting (for example, in a Vampire game, it'll be a city, with the Sabbat/Camarilla situation already underlined and a description of every key characters). I'll than have some event happens to create some conflict, and than let the players roll with whatever it is they want to do. I still consider myself a storyteller fist thought.

I guess what we disagree on tho, is how important it is. I'd personally settle for a DM who doesn't know the rule and build a crappy world (or even just borrowed one from a setting book) but who can spins an incredible tell and/or make his npc come to life over one who's essentially a computer running a rule system at me.

Than again, I always assume people playing D&D are friend in the first place, when playing with stranger at a hobby store or what not, the DM's role as a referee becomes much more important, that's a given. However, if the group sticks together more than one campaign, friendships usually develop and people become much less scared of being screwed over and that role once again fall back to the less important spot.

Again, this is all about opinion - I'm what you'd call a rule 'lawyer'. I tend to remember obscure and useless system very well, and I enjoy reading, understanding and ultimately breaking them - I enjoy War Gaming precisely because of that, and when I go to RPG, it's usually not because I'm looking for a system to play, but a story to be a part of. As a result, I usually have a much better understanding of the system than the DM does and really couldn't care less about weither he remembers the rules for D&D 3.5 grappling rules or not.

 

[exp. 99]

5 years ago I thought how you did, but I don't any longer.

My own evolution as a gamemaster has gone in precisely the opposite direction. I started off running games that were very story-focused: Dragonlance series of modules, with premade characters who couldn't be killed off until the plot said so. Star Wars RPG by West End Games, where the games actually included scripts and cinematic cut scenes. Cyberpunk 2020's marathon module Land of The Free. DC Heroes by Mayfair Games, with its comic book story plots.

As my DMing style has matured, I've come to believe that plot should not be imposed on the players, and that it isn't a DM's plot/story that makes the game good - it's the choices the players decide that makes the game good. So now I focus on games that maximize player choice.

For player choice to be meaningful, rules have to be consistent - that means the DM needs to know them and apply them consistently. You cannot have meaningful choice if the outcome of your choices is subject to arbitrary DM fiat. And for player choice to be meaningful, it must be able to impact the setting and the character. You can't impact the setting if the DM puts his plot ahead of the character's actions - railroading. "I need the players to get to the mountain" "Tim's character can't die, I need him to introduce the second act" - it's all railroading.

So now I run what are called "sandbox games" with no plot, just backstory. There's story behind but no story ahead, save what the players do. And these are by far my most wildly popular campaigns that I've ever run. It is from this perspective that I am writing the article. I'd have written a different article when I was in a different stage of my DM style.

If I'm honest, I'm with you on this one about 75% of the way. I agree wholeheartedly that railroading is a bad thing; sticking the players in a world they cannot have any effect on is something akin to the DM wanking in the player's faces. They can look at what the DM's come up with, but it's hardly any fun (at least, for most groups. Some people seem to prefer this, but hey..).

But honestly, I still think a good plot is damn near essential to the game. One that has a predefined start and end, with a loose series of events that will define how the plot turns out. The big thing to remember about this plot, though, is that it WILL change. Have your BBEG's schemes set out, and have all the different facets of the war plotted, so if the players don't do anything about it, things will happen to progress the game along. New events rise to the present, and the scenario evolves. On the flip side, be ready to improvise; unless the players are incompetent, bored, or have found something wholly unrelated to run with, odds are they'll get involved in your story. By getting involved, they'll leave their own footprint on the chain of events, meaning you'll need to edit things as they go. I honestly have never met a good DM who couldn't improvise on the fly to begin with; there's always bound to be that one idea from the party that, while perhaps brilliant or stupid, is so completely off the wall as to catch the DM with his proverbial pants around his ankles. This is where it's just about essential to have a solid grasp of the rules, as well...a game without some form of rules can be fun, but in a general sense, it just doesn't work too well.

So. Basically, plot/story good, railroading bad, improv good, rules good.

On a final note, I should probably make the point that there's no "right" or "wrong" way to DM. As long as the end goal is reached (you and your players enjoy the game and have fun), then you're DMing well enough to enjoy it. Past that point, there's only differences of style and opinion, ranging from one group of players to another.

 

[Nightfalke]

I am GMing a Shadowrun 4E game right now, and I feel that my grasp on the rules is lighter than it should be, but I handwave well enough at this point to get by. The players don't seem to mind, but the biggest thing is it breaks the flow of the game when something comes up that none of us know how to handle.

I will do my homework this week.

 

[Joshic Shin]

Hmmm, I would agree with the premise of non-StoryTelling GMs, and follow on that it is players who should be Storytellers, since they want to tell the story of their characters. The GM needs to provide a consistent setting and set of NPCs, and perhaps seed a few ideas or create an environment of tension so that players pro-actively engage, but I think it falls to the players to weave the tales they want to weave.

I look at the DM as a living simulator. Their job it to provide a compelling environment with consistent rules with which the players can tell their own story. I made the mistake of scripting out my first campaign down to the NPC dialogs in advance. Now a days I draw up dungeon maps and give NPC's names, hit points, a few character traits, and just wing it from there.

I used to wing it a lot but I have found that causes a quick slam into the wall of writers/creators block. While winging it makes sure that your ideas are not undo by players at the same time it can cause a lack of interest and a lack of consistent story if there is not some story that is for the base.

I'll say that both you guys have points - it's important for the GM to have a firm setting with NPC motivations, and also an overall story perspective (e.g. "Evil Mage goes grocery shopping in town and causes chaos") but "winging it" serves the important function of allowing players to influence story and events in an organic way. Having planned encounters, for example, is fine but you have to willing to discard them if the players go a different way with the story, rather than "railroad" them there.

I've also run an infinity of sessions with no backstory, just a setting and a some PCs, and telling them "right, what do you want to do?". Seems to me most players already know what they want to play and will tell you

I think this is where you can learn something from video games. Two of my favorite video games are Pirates! and Mount & Blade. Both of these games give me a fully fleshed out world, a large cast of characters with stories of their own, and ask me, "So...what do you want to do with it?"

I can understand saying the plot is not the quintessential most important task for the DM, but in my view it is. You must construct a world, it's stories, and it's people. You must be able to explain to your players why they should give a damn, and why they should help those poor peasents/lords/ladies/etc. It's nice to fully understand the rules, but I assure you that one player at your table will rule lawyer with you, meaning that knowing all the rules can merely get you into an annoyingly long fight. Honestly though, take a page from Paranoia about rules. They are there to give a semblance of order, but if they get in the way ignore them.

So, I liked this article, and I hope you don't try and downplay the importance of storytelling in RPG's. Remember, it's the story that allows you to...well, role-play. Otherwise it would just be a miniature game.

 

[Archon]

Joshc Shin, we may perhaps be arguing semantics at this point as I don't think we actually disagree in fundamentals.

In my mind, a game like Mount & Blade, which I loved, is an example of a game that is NOT about storytelling. It's a sandbox game where the story is what emerges from your actions. It's a game about story-emerging. Contrast this with, say, the Final Fantasy series, where the story has been written in advance, and your actions "unlock" progress towards a pre-scripted ending.

What I am saying is that as a DM, your job is not to sit down and write a novel and then figure out how to plug your players into it and "get them to your ending". Your job is to create a fleshed-out world (worldbuilding) with interesting adversaries and clear-cut rules, and then let the players have fun within it.

Stories can be told about what happense, but they are the player's stories, not your stories, and the stories emerge after the fact.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

There are two things that I believe exemplify the role of DM: familiarity with the rules and flexibility in response to players.

DMs not only have to rule in a manner that is "fair" in the context of what the players feel is appropriate for the game they also have to apply the rules in a fun manner. This also goes back and forth as to how much the rules should promote/interfere with the play of the game.

A truly skilled DM should be able to go from one group to another shifting from min-max number crunching to freeform talk-fest.

The above flexibility is the main variable that sets a DM apart from a computer during arbitration and flow of a game (and therefore the major difference between the two mediums).

 

[7ru7h]

It's been my experience that most people who like games, given the chance, will participate in a tabletop RPG, and once they start participating, continue to enjoy it. But most people don't get to ever even try an RPG, simply because there is a worldwide shortage of Dungeon (or Game) Masters.

This.

I have been wanting to play a tabletop RPG for a while (I did play WH40k for a while, but there was a shortage of non-asshat people to play against...) and the only thing that has stopped me is the fact that the only person that I knew who could DM was a friend of a friend, and he has been way too busy to start the game up because he's trying to get into grad school...

Anyway, keep up the awesome work. I really like what you're doing with the column, and I can't wait for the next one.

 

[reese522]

I'm a novice DM who is just starting out. I enjoyed reading this column and I'm looking forward to the next.

 

[Rathy]

My group actually deals with this a lot. We've been getting looser on the storytelling, and moving much more into campaigns where very little is planned. Theres is a setting, some kind of antagonist, and a vague idea of the end of it. From there, the players get dropped somewhere, and then meander about, following whichever breadcrumb trail intrigues them the most.

The way we tend to handle this is treating it like the old saying, "All roads lead to Rome". Theres a beginning, and there is a destination, but no one knows what will happen on the way there. Theres a good one or two encounters planned ahead of time, that the party will reach through there own means, with any other encounter happening on the volition of the party. And if the party does something crazy on their own, I adapt the campaign to it. The less of a set plan I have, the more fun it is for me and for the players.

As for DMing, its very much a practice thing in my eyes. I come from a group that had only one experienced DM at the time. He was a master at baiting, and railroading in such a way that the players barely noticed. It was there, but there was always player incentive to follow along. That DM left after the first 4 years do to college, and we got another skilled DM then. He was the opposite, and is the person I take my running philosophy from. He has a beginning, a vague end, and will re-write parts of the campaign based on what players come to him with in their characters.

Over those years, I had tried DMing to very little success. My first campaign, with 2 years of experience role-playing, I kept switching between too loose and too controlling. As a result, the characters had no reason to follow the plot or to deal with the antagonist, and ended up sinking a small continent. My second campaign, with 6 years of experience role-playing, I was a bit too loose, and lacked the world for the players. I was on my heels far too much, and it ended prematurely. As for my current attempt, with 8 years of playing, it is going well, but I still have a ton of room to improve. It is open, in a developed world. The players have incentive to be interested in the antagonist, but are also very driven by their own personal goals in the world, which is a good medium for me right now.

/ramble

 

[Spadge]

Speaking from a the PoV of a long serving DM, being viewed as an adversary is only good if you're running nothing more than a combat simulator. That being said, if all the players want IS a combat simulator, then go for it.

My experience is that my players have fun when I work with them to craft a story. When they refer to villians with hatred, looking back over recent events wondering how the didn't see it coming, I know I've succeeded. I haven't railroaded them into a situation, I've given them plenty of opportunities to see the betrayal coming. The times that they see it coming, I have either winged it or used a contingency plan, as the villian's plan falls apart.

The DM's only job is to make sure everyone is having fun. I have a player who prefers combat, so I never go too long without combat. I have a player who inevitably plays a chaotic and/or evil character so I don't force them to play like a LG party. When you're running something more complex than a combat simulator, the DM is more of an ally than an adversary. When we're trying to tell a story, it's no good to have Random Orc 3 crit and kill a character through no fault of thier own. An orc (CR1/2, IIRC) has a battleaxe and 16str and can crit for 33 damage, which will kill most low level characters (and mid level character who are a little low on HP) outright.

Now, if a character charges in without considering dangers or wanders into a battle when he's already near death, then I'm not going to help them. But heros deserve a heroic death, so it's very rare I let a character die from a big crit from a little monster when they haven't done anything wrong. It slows the story, it forces the player to make a new character and is generally not so fun. So, I (and my players) feel that I am far more of an ally than an adversary, and this is something most new DMs do not see.

I'm going to be a little self-indulgant and go with an example; I had a low level party walk into a room, knowing there were orcs inside, and ready for them; the orcs won initiative and one charged the rogue and crited for 30damage. We had recently been building on that character's story and it would've been a waste to say "well, how much health do you have, 20/24? well, you're dead now.". Turns out, that wasn't a crit - 10 damage was enough to give the rogue reason to go and get behind the fighter. When I started doing this, I was concerned that they'd lose a little fear, but the result has been quite the opposite - it makes main villians a big monster more fearsome, because at anytime they can land a big attack and players know I won't pull any punches.

 

[Ikuraut]

Oh btw. Some of the most fun I've ever had DMing was dropping Shadow run extraction missions on the party. All you have to do is provide the setting, gaurd routes, and time frame for completion. Past that you sit back and watch the players plot, and try to manipulate your NPC's. Their solotions can be fairly suprising(that is if the planning session doesn't end with 2hrs of planning then every one saying screw it).

 

[Ganthrinor]

Good stuff.

It's never too early to try out DM'ing yourself. Just remember the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple Stupid), try to keep yourself and your players honest to the workings of basic game mechanics, and don't be afraid to improvise and adapt if things start getting a little weird (and they will, trust me) because even the simplest and well-laid out campaign or module is no match for obstinate PC's.

As far as Dungeons and Dragons go, all you ever really need is a set (or two) of the Core books, (Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide) some dice, maybe some occasional atmosphere music, a couple of friends (or strangers) and a decent table. It's been my experience that the extra source books, while occasionally fun and neat tend to to more harm than good for a party's balance of power (D&D 3.5's "Book Of the Nine Swords" comes to mind here).


Tabletop RPG gaming a a blast. I encourage everbody to try it at least one or twice. Get your Geek on.

 

[domicius]

I can understand saying the plot is not the quintessential most important task for the DM, but in my view it is. You must construct a world, it's stories, and it's people. You must be able to explain to your players why they should give a damn, and why they should help those poor peasents/lords/ladies/etc. It's nice to fully understand the rules, but I assure you that one player at your table will rule lawyer with you, meaning that knowing all the rules can merely get you into an annoyingly long fight. Honestly though, take a page from Paranoia about rules. They are there to give a semblance of order, but if they get in the way ignore them.

So, I liked this article, and I hope you don't try and downplay the importance of storytelling in RPG's. Remember, it's the story that allows you to...well, role-play. Otherwise it would just be a miniature game.

I distinguish plot ("The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.") from setting (NPCs, backstory, places).

Perhaps a different angle is looking at Oblivion and Fallout. Those games have a lot of plot in them (missions; an overall campaign) but there's also the ability to just ignore it all, and do your own thing with lots of NPCs, places and items. For me these games encapsulate the best things about an RPG, whether p'n'p or crpg: the freedom to do what you want to do, with the structure to give you something to do when you need that.

 

[Joshic Shin]

I can understand saying the plot is not the quintessential most important task for the DM, but in my view it is. You must construct a world, it's stories, and it's people. You must be able to explain to your players why they should give a damn, and why they should help those poor peasents/lords/ladies/etc. It's nice to fully understand the rules, but I assure you that one player at your table will rule lawyer with you, meaning that knowing all the rules can merely get you into an annoyingly long fight. Honestly though, take a page from Paranoia about rules. They are there to give a semblance of order, but if they get in the way ignore them.

So, I liked this article, and I hope you don't try and downplay the importance of storytelling in RPG's. Remember, it's the story that allows you to...well, role-play. Otherwise it would just be a miniature game.

I distinguish plot ("The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.") from setting (NPCs, backstory, places).

Perhaps a different angle is looking at Oblivion and Fallout. Those games have a lot of plot in them (missions; an overall campaign) but there's also the ability to just ignore it all, and do your own thing with lots of NPCs, places and items. For me these games encapsulate the best things about an RPG, whether p'n'p or crpg: the freedom to do what you want to do, with the structure to give you something to do when you need that.

There are certianly parrelles to be drawn, but I would say that in story for RPG's there are to three styles done with story.

1. A main plot with a few side quests but the focus is the main story. A lot of tabletop games fall into this category or....

2. A world in which there are plenty of quests, with a main story that is left pretty loose and open, the players can ignore or modify it at their leisure. This is probably the most common with American rpg's, but most tabletop games have a strong emphasis on the main story over the side quests.

3. This is one where there is no story, not a main one at least. A world that has stories, history, and characters that the players are frees to find and do with as they please. These games I find are the rarest to fond, because most developers want to tell a story. I think though that games that have no main story tell some of the strongest, because the developer or the DM has given full story control to the players. This is no longer some other person's story, but you're own.