GMing Tips

[jaegamer]

I'm participating in a panel on better GMing at Confusion (Troy MI, Jan 22-24, 2010), and I'm compiling a set of useful tips.  It's a one hour panel, and I'm sure I'm not the only one on it.  I'll be storing my own ideas in this post (and will be updating it as things occur to me), and I'd appreciate any tips any of you have.

In no particular order...

• It's not just YOUR story, it's THEIR story too (collaborate).
• Don't be wedded to your scenario.  If you plan for 4 possible choices, the players will take the 6th.
• GM ain't havin' fun, ain't nobody havin' fun.  (The inverse is also true.)
• Know your players and their characters.  Make sure there's an opportunity for everyone to shine.
• If you don't want them to screw it up, don't let them roll the dice (contsts/tests should be meaningful - if they need info/success/whatever to continue, *give* it to them
• Nobody likes a no-win scenario.  Make sure you've thought of at least one way to succeed.  Mind you, the players will probably come up with another.
• Failure can be even more interesting than success.  (differs from no-win, in that failure at a particular test means an unexpected outcome, as opposed to "too bad, you're dead".
• Players don't mind losing a character if the death is meaningful.
• Complicate their lives, complicate their lives, complicate their lives.
• Dependents, cohorts and NPC friends - snack food for monsters and ways to complicate their lives.

Stuff I've appropriated from other people:

• Failure is boring.  The credible but unrealized threat of failure is very exciting (Robin Laws)
• Say "yes" or roll the dice. (Vincent Baker)
• Try to give your players at least one meaningful choice in an adventure with no pre-determined conclusion. (@slyflourish)
• "The game must be fun shall be the whole of the Law." Making Light

Comments

[litagemini.livejournal.com]

This is a great post!

I wonder about the "dependants are snack food for monsters" philosophy, though. Taken to the extreme, this will discourage players from giving you any dependants in their background at all, since they don't want to give you any rope to hang them with. Don't get me wrong, some people WANT the rope, for the drama of the thing, but some people might get discouraged by that.

I also think some GMs take "this is improv, so don't negate" a bit too far. I think it IS acceptable to negate in certain situations, such as pregame ("Can I play a dragon?") or actions in violation of previously established social contract.

As far as, If you don't want them to screw up, don't let them roll, though, I couldn't agree more with this, and can't tell you how many modules I've seen where there's some junk like "players must succeed on a 25 DC perception roll to see the clue for the next segment..."

[varianor.livejournal.com]

Dealing with that in a game right now. Everyone's family has been involved to the extent that we're all related to murderous bastards, mass murderers, racists and in one memorable case, someone who became a lich. Actually, I didn't mind that so much except for the fact that everyone had a DNPC that we didn't get points for. ;)