The Deathless Thread of DM Advice

[Benicus]

We all know at some point we need advice when we're a DM, I am starting this thread for you all to give little bits of insight for DMing whether in real life or in Play by Post games.

So what have you learned in all your DM years?

I have learned this:
Be descriptive, even 'He hits you with a gashing wound for 8 points of damage', is better than 'You take 8 damage'.

Also, munchiking player-characters is fun, munchkining NPC's is not. Munchkining bosses is just plain sick.

[Doomsmile]

You kinda' hafta' munckin bosses if your PCs are munchkining. Then again, I just hate munchkins (with a vengence), so want to see their characters die. Die horrible, ignoble deaths.

[nightinverse]

Three plans are not enough. n plans, where n is equal to the most plans that could possibly be skipped over, plus one, is not enough.

A dynamic world is what you need. If the characters do something unexpected, it is your role to accommodate that to some extent. Flexibility in creating a living plot is more valuable in a roleplaying game than detail in creating a set and deceased one.

[LynMars]

Here's (http://nice.purrsia.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=003293#000000) a GMing Advice thread on the freeform RP community I also post on. Some things are slightly different, but a lot of GM advice is pretty universal. Though in the end, it's all about what works for you and your own play group.

If curious, "Karina" is me, and "Coffin Ektar Johnson" is TreyKincaide. And yeah, I'm just too lazy to repost and reword a lot of what I wrote there.

[Oneiros]

I never write anything down in any sort of detail until I have an idea of where my players are going.

Even then, I outline it and refuse to start seriously crafting a plotline until they've already stumbled upon it, are partway though it, and I've already ad hoc'd the first bit.

Then I go into detail and do all sorts of things. The end result is, my worlds seem more dynamic, my players get to do exactly what they want, and all my games are rail free.

In short, I only devote my time to events that are already in motion. It takes a bit of lateral thinking and quick wit, but with enough practice anyone can do it and it breathes life into games that would otherwise flounder when a group of players blazes off their hardworking GMs best made trail.

[LynMars]

Not everyone can do that though. Me, I walk in with an outline of ideas, some NPC write-ups, give the players the hook, and see where they pull the string. Then work my outline around that, using it more for ideas of responses if they really deviate. I also keep a couple ideas and NPCs around to help point back if I'm really lost, or to start on something else entirely if that's the case then. And I've learned how to think relatively fast in these cases (my wit is far better expressed written than spoken; I need time to think).

I think one of my best games though was when I set something up, hoping the characters would respond a certain way, and to my delight, they did, unwittingly following the vague outline and letting me fill it in with details as they went right along without knowing they were until the end, when I realized we'd followed my original plot idea exactly. That was a grand case of not railroading, but rather, knowing the characters and players well enough and hitting on what I needed to to not only pull their heartstrings, but go with the plot. Has never ever happened to that degree again.

But if one takes IC motivations and OOC player habits both into account when writing up adventures--after all, you're telling a story not just for yourself but for a whole group of people to interact with--those vague outlines and plot ideas work way better in the long run, for you and for them.

Integrate their weaknesses, their backstory, friends and foes...Players love when the GM remembers that stuff, and makes them want to add more and put an effort into detailing their characters, because they know it'll actually see use in the game, and make them feel special as they've helped generate or affect plot, and turns the spotlight on them briefly.

[-J-]

I tend to be more goal orientated with my adventures. I get a general idea of what i want the adventure to be about then look at the characters my players make up to glean any side plot arcs (read also milk for angst). Once i get an idea of what their motivations are and their goals I make up my antagonists and their motivations and goals. From there things pretty much flow logically. If the PC's do X then the antagonists will respond to that action to the best of their abilities and in a manner consistent with their personality.

[LeadPal]

In recent times I've found that simply creating a very specific goal on which the entire campaign hinges on bypasses the entire issue of player participation. If you start a game that is all about trying to place the rightful king back on his throne, then you can be certain that all the characters that the players create will be designed to want to do so (unless, of course, one of those players happens to be a bastard).

Although this method somewhat limits your options for adventure in that one campaign, it's much less stressful to run than games where the PCs run wild.


Other advice...

Make the first couple of fights fairly easy, so that you can judge how effective each character is. If the characters are heavily powergamed, heavily powergame the NPCs to match; if the characters are gimps, gimp your NPCs to match. Not everyone is good at powergaming, and although there's a certain pleasure in designing a potent character, that's not the point of the game.

More advice coming as I think of it.