Intermediate GM tips
Mar. 19th, 2019 03:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack1. Don't plan a sequence of things, plan things you can slot together.
Don't plan a series of combats, or a series of clues, or a series of social encounters. Plan enemy groups, locations, clues, interesting NPCs with their own agendas. Things will never go how you expect. But if you have that flexible preparation, you can present something appropriate in response, as opposed to just forcing the party onto the next step of your original plan.
Pace too slow? You can have the goblin hit squad catch up with the party now, rather than waiting until the party get to the Expected Location For the Goblin Assassin Ambush. Player has a surprisingly effective way of finding stuff out? Throw one of the clues you'd expected to find later at them. Party not feeling challenged? Use some more of the enemy combatants they might not otherwise have encountered. Party flailing, not sure where the plot is? Let them find one of the clues you prepared. Party go somewhere you didn't expect? Have them meet one of the NPCs. Party talk to NPC? Have the NPC react in character, don't worry if that helps or hinders.
Soon you'll feel excited not depressed when the party do something unexpected and it will reveal interesting parts of your preparation you hadn't thought of instead of throwing it into disarray.
2. Keep a clear picture of where the party are, and be forgiving if people get something wrong
It will always be a little bit fuzzy if you and all the players are imagining the same thing, but if you get out of sync, take it as a cue to recap.
Avoid:
Player: I jump the chasm.
GM: You die.
Player: What? I rolled a 20!
GM: It's 100ft across, there's no way you can jump that whatever you roll.
Player: You never said that!
GM: Yes, I did!
Maybe they misheard. Maybe the the GM described it as a "vast" chasm and the player didn't understand that meant breadth as well as depth. Maybe the GM forgot something. Whatever. This is fun for no-one.
Instead:
Player: I jump the chasm.
GM: You can't do that whatever you roll, it's like 100ft across. What are you trying to do?
Player: But I have these magic boots we found?
GM: Oh yes, right. That's not quite what they do.
Player: Oh, ok. In that case, what if I...?
3. Keep a clear idea of what time is passing for which players
If one player does something, if it won't take much in-game time and the other players and characters will probably need to know anyway, it's sometimes easier to assume the other characters are just standing around watching, and then let the other characters have a turn to do something.
But don't do that when it matters. If the building catches on fire and someone dives out of the window, or one character mouths off to an NPC, or runs off on a personal side-quest, actively ask the other players what their characters are doing. If you need a decision from them, say so, and make them choose one way or the other, but don't assume a default of "stand there and do nothing" unless they say otherwise.
It's important to fairly allocate both player time (because everyone needs to be involved) and character time (because characters can act at the same time). It doesn't have to be perfect, just make sure characters aren't dragged along into the future without their players getting a say in it, because that breaks the player's sense of control over their character.
4. Strive for an appropriate tone in describing events as much as appropriate content
If the character has been a bit short of times to shine, you can make a fire-jet trap sound like a moment of heroism whether they technically pass the save or fail it. "Realising the danger at the last moment, you twist adeptly out of the way, letting the main jet go past you, but are grazed by a few stray puffs" works equally well for success or failure.
Conversely, if the player likes playing the clown, you can do the reverse, make either outcome sound hilariously slapstick.
Both forms of attentions are rewards for the player, if they're timed appropriately.
Either might be a reward for a player who was alert to clues in the GM description that a trap was coming. And you don't want to negate the trap in that case, but you might choose sometimes to give a bonus to the saving throw if the player was on the ball, and sometimes keep to the same rules but give the player the reward of good narration.
Err on the side of making characters look awesome as often as you can without it getting repetitive, but mix it up to provide contrast and variety.
5. Players usually want to achieve things, not just be given things
There's a spectrum here. When you first play DnD, winning a combat AT ALL is really exciting. Some people go on enjoying that just the same, but other people only get the enjoyment if they feel like they've earned it.
Be alert to what a player is likely to want. Sometimes you can straight up ask them, but also pay attention, if they keep trying to use a class feature, try to have occasions when it pays off, if they keep trying to chat to NPCs, try to have some NPCs with interesting problems.
Players will sometimes be rewarded if they have a snazzier sword than everyone else, and most will feel sad if they have WORSE abilities, but sometimes only be rewarded if they triumph through clever plans or better character builds. Be alert to what players might want and try to make it available.
6. Consistency -> learning -> fun
Lots of things only work when they're consistent. Players care about NPCs when they meet them multiple times and see how their life changes, because it feels like talking to them *matters*. They feel like combats matter when good tactics and good luck lead to good outcomes, and when good outcomes lead to good rewards. They feel like the world matters when what's going on in the world isn't undone with a wave of a hand. They get invested in the mythology or philosophy of the magic system when digging gets consistent answers.
The simplest example is, if you fight variants on the same monster several times, you learn what works, and can feel satisfied when you know what's happening and the best way to counter it. 5e supports this by having monsters with signature mechanical abilities, even ones that aren't clearly supported by some specific real world feature (e.g. some monsters get a specific bonus for attacking in concert, other monsters don't.) If everything is just "whatever people feel like" then that never happens.
But you can't just make that happen, it relies on a shared trust that the implicit rules developed that things will keep happening the way people expect will keep holding true, and you can't force trust to grow, you can only stick firmly to consistency and wait for it to grow organically.
Likewise, first sessions are always a bit wacky as different characters and different expectations of rules pull in different directions and need to come into consensus, and benefit from clear, obvious signposts "this is a bad guy" "go here and rescue these people". Whereas once the relationship between the players and the game has matured, there will be more opportunities for subtleties, subversion of expectation, players setting their own goals, and things which are awesome but only work when there's a foundation of understanding to build them on.
Does that contradict some of the improvising advice above? They pull in opposite directions, but they're consistent. I think it's fine to change the layout of somewhere the PCs haven't explored yet, if it makes a better story. But once they've mapped it, try to stick to that unless there's a good reason otherwise. And don't think that if they don't know the specifics, they don't know the message. If the party happen to be low on HP and blunder in the direction of a bad combat, decide if you'll let it happen or not. They won't know about THAT particular decision. But they'll know either "sometimes we do something foolish and die" or "if we just keep moving forward heroically everything will probably be fine" instinctively from what you allow to happen ever. I play both sorts of games, the "pay attention, you have something to lose" sort like poker and the "yay, awesome, cinematic" sort like watching a popcorn film. But you have to decide which and stick to it in order to get the effect: mixed messages will make a party who don't really believe their victories OR defeats.
Don't plan a series of combats, or a series of clues, or a series of social encounters. Plan enemy groups, locations, clues, interesting NPCs with their own agendas. Things will never go how you expect. But if you have that flexible preparation, you can present something appropriate in response, as opposed to just forcing the party onto the next step of your original plan.
Pace too slow? You can have the goblin hit squad catch up with the party now, rather than waiting until the party get to the Expected Location For the Goblin Assassin Ambush. Player has a surprisingly effective way of finding stuff out? Throw one of the clues you'd expected to find later at them. Party not feeling challenged? Use some more of the enemy combatants they might not otherwise have encountered. Party flailing, not sure where the plot is? Let them find one of the clues you prepared. Party go somewhere you didn't expect? Have them meet one of the NPCs. Party talk to NPC? Have the NPC react in character, don't worry if that helps or hinders.
Soon you'll feel excited not depressed when the party do something unexpected and it will reveal interesting parts of your preparation you hadn't thought of instead of throwing it into disarray.
2. Keep a clear picture of where the party are, and be forgiving if people get something wrong
It will always be a little bit fuzzy if you and all the players are imagining the same thing, but if you get out of sync, take it as a cue to recap.
Avoid:
Player: I jump the chasm.
GM: You die.
Player: What? I rolled a 20!
GM: It's 100ft across, there's no way you can jump that whatever you roll.
Player: You never said that!
GM: Yes, I did!
Maybe they misheard. Maybe the the GM described it as a "vast" chasm and the player didn't understand that meant breadth as well as depth. Maybe the GM forgot something. Whatever. This is fun for no-one.
Instead:
Player: I jump the chasm.
GM: You can't do that whatever you roll, it's like 100ft across. What are you trying to do?
Player: But I have these magic boots we found?
GM: Oh yes, right. That's not quite what they do.
Player: Oh, ok. In that case, what if I...?
3. Keep a clear idea of what time is passing for which players
If one player does something, if it won't take much in-game time and the other players and characters will probably need to know anyway, it's sometimes easier to assume the other characters are just standing around watching, and then let the other characters have a turn to do something.
But don't do that when it matters. If the building catches on fire and someone dives out of the window, or one character mouths off to an NPC, or runs off on a personal side-quest, actively ask the other players what their characters are doing. If you need a decision from them, say so, and make them choose one way or the other, but don't assume a default of "stand there and do nothing" unless they say otherwise.
It's important to fairly allocate both player time (because everyone needs to be involved) and character time (because characters can act at the same time). It doesn't have to be perfect, just make sure characters aren't dragged along into the future without their players getting a say in it, because that breaks the player's sense of control over their character.
4. Strive for an appropriate tone in describing events as much as appropriate content
If the character has been a bit short of times to shine, you can make a fire-jet trap sound like a moment of heroism whether they technically pass the save or fail it. "Realising the danger at the last moment, you twist adeptly out of the way, letting the main jet go past you, but are grazed by a few stray puffs" works equally well for success or failure.
Conversely, if the player likes playing the clown, you can do the reverse, make either outcome sound hilariously slapstick.
Both forms of attentions are rewards for the player, if they're timed appropriately.
Either might be a reward for a player who was alert to clues in the GM description that a trap was coming. And you don't want to negate the trap in that case, but you might choose sometimes to give a bonus to the saving throw if the player was on the ball, and sometimes keep to the same rules but give the player the reward of good narration.
Err on the side of making characters look awesome as often as you can without it getting repetitive, but mix it up to provide contrast and variety.
5. Players usually want to achieve things, not just be given things
There's a spectrum here. When you first play DnD, winning a combat AT ALL is really exciting. Some people go on enjoying that just the same, but other people only get the enjoyment if they feel like they've earned it.
Be alert to what a player is likely to want. Sometimes you can straight up ask them, but also pay attention, if they keep trying to use a class feature, try to have occasions when it pays off, if they keep trying to chat to NPCs, try to have some NPCs with interesting problems.
Players will sometimes be rewarded if they have a snazzier sword than everyone else, and most will feel sad if they have WORSE abilities, but sometimes only be rewarded if they triumph through clever plans or better character builds. Be alert to what players might want and try to make it available.
6. Consistency -> learning -> fun
Lots of things only work when they're consistent. Players care about NPCs when they meet them multiple times and see how their life changes, because it feels like talking to them *matters*. They feel like combats matter when good tactics and good luck lead to good outcomes, and when good outcomes lead to good rewards. They feel like the world matters when what's going on in the world isn't undone with a wave of a hand. They get invested in the mythology or philosophy of the magic system when digging gets consistent answers.
The simplest example is, if you fight variants on the same monster several times, you learn what works, and can feel satisfied when you know what's happening and the best way to counter it. 5e supports this by having monsters with signature mechanical abilities, even ones that aren't clearly supported by some specific real world feature (e.g. some monsters get a specific bonus for attacking in concert, other monsters don't.) If everything is just "whatever people feel like" then that never happens.
But you can't just make that happen, it relies on a shared trust that the implicit rules developed that things will keep happening the way people expect will keep holding true, and you can't force trust to grow, you can only stick firmly to consistency and wait for it to grow organically.
Likewise, first sessions are always a bit wacky as different characters and different expectations of rules pull in different directions and need to come into consensus, and benefit from clear, obvious signposts "this is a bad guy" "go here and rescue these people". Whereas once the relationship between the players and the game has matured, there will be more opportunities for subtleties, subversion of expectation, players setting their own goals, and things which are awesome but only work when there's a foundation of understanding to build them on.
Does that contradict some of the improvising advice above? They pull in opposite directions, but they're consistent. I think it's fine to change the layout of somewhere the PCs haven't explored yet, if it makes a better story. But once they've mapped it, try to stick to that unless there's a good reason otherwise. And don't think that if they don't know the specifics, they don't know the message. If the party happen to be low on HP and blunder in the direction of a bad combat, decide if you'll let it happen or not. They won't know about THAT particular decision. But they'll know either "sometimes we do something foolish and die" or "if we just keep moving forward heroically everything will probably be fine" instinctively from what you allow to happen ever. I play both sorts of games, the "pay attention, you have something to lose" sort like poker and the "yay, awesome, cinematic" sort like watching a popcorn film. But you have to decide which and stick to it in order to get the effect: mixed messages will make a party who don't really believe their victories OR defeats.
no subject
Date: 2019-03-26 09:46 am (UTC)