And we're all like "(sniff) we should have staged an intervention. We should've known he'd run amok dressed as a gangster from the twenties and trying to kill people by hitting them over the head with the 7th edition slip case!"
"I am always looking for traps" "If I am looking for traps then I'm crawling" There fore he is always crawling, at all times, carefully looking for traps.
PRONE CHARACTER YOU SAY!?!?!? - me, a DM thinking of how bad it's going to be for this guy when the ceiling falls on him and he CAN'T possibly move because prone and can't see it because looking for floor traps
This is where I like the concept of Instincts from burning wheel. A few things that your character always is assumed to do (ie. I always put my armor on when I'm on watch)
That happened in our last CoC game. Not to me, but another player failed his SAN roll, started shooting the other PCs, then when the local police surrounded the clock tower decided to bite a bullet.
Corey L you think that’s bad, in my CoC game a player blew his brains out playing Russian Roulette, he died but he came back to life, lost sanity from dying, had a bit of madness in which he decided to go a second round in Russian Roulette, he blew his balls off and died again
*forgets the rules* *Forgets the npc's names* *Forgets the pcs' names* *Forgets past events* *Forgets the name of the continent* BUT I'M TRYING SO HARD
@@METALGEARMATRIX I have all of it right in front of me on my DM Screen but I'm to busy to look at it or lose orientation, because the rules of a whole book are shrinked together on 4 sheets of paper.
@@alias9731 the more difficult the crunch, the more I can deempathize the rules and give more leeway to the players' actions. Don't always need to do it, but if it keeps the adventure going and the players engaged, that is better than inconsistent calculus. But you need the players to like this solution's style, as well.
I recently ran a game where a major NPC was named Arthur. My PCs kept screwing up his name and calling him Alfred. So, in the middle of the second session of two, I kept screwing up his name because they had, so I joked their characters had so little respect for him that they just called him Alfred and so as far as they’re concerned, he’s Alfred. Names are always the hardest for me anyways.
have that done properly, in fast and meaningless games where (if its D&D) everybody starts around level 6 at least, it can be fun, but it need to be an exception e kinda requires experienced players
uhh... no... the threat needs to be there, my players have reached level 6 and are starting to overpower encounters i already had more... lowered in a way, i didnt wanna overwhelm them at once but hey now i have to make it harder.
I would totally let the player get away with the #3 scenario, but then make it so that he has to crawl EVERYWHERE. Afterall, if he's always looking for traps, and looking for traps means crawling, then he's always crawling.
I had a GM who would get bored with his own campaign rather quickly, but instead of saying to us "let's do something else" the world would get progressively harder and hostile till he forced a tpk.
What about the sin of the obvious object? The one and only time I played Call of Cthulhu my character found a set of keys in a house. I assumed they were house keys and tried them on every locked door in the place, but they did not fit the locks. Much later in the game the GM revealed the keys were actually car keys. Anyone picking up car keys would know they were car keys, especially after trying to unlock a house door. I am not sure why my friend specifically targeted me in this manner, but there were several other incidents like this during the game which is why I never played CoC again.
Damn. You're absolutely right. I've had that one, too. The GM gets all, "Well I didn't tell you because you didn't ask the specifics," even though the specifics should have been extremely obvious to the PC
I think a good way to phrase it is this: "The GM is the eyes and ears, and as such, must make obvious all that is obvious on just sight and sound alone". This means you don't have to explain what the scratchmarks mean, only that anyone 'in the scene' would notice them.
First, I would have told you they were car keys. That said, if this did happen, as GM I would have gotten sick of telling you the keys didn't work and said, "You come to the sudden realization that these are car keys and you probably won't accomplish anything using them in the house" just so I didn't have to field the same crap over and over and over.
9:42 "Player Characters die all the time for a whole wide array of reasons..." I remember when my first character died. She was a Halfling Rogue in DND 5e. The monk, and jerk (the pc not the player), of our party, was going through all of our things as we slept and managed to steal the journal of a dead pc from me. I woke up and discovered that he took it, and the bard charmed him to make him give it back. After this, the monk made an unarmed strike in a fit of anger, the player only wanting to do a little damage. After a critical hit from him, a 100 rolled on percentiles, a failed constitution score from me, and a frantic scramble from everyone to try and help me, my character dropped dead in the middle of our campaign. That was the only time a 100 was rolled on percentiles for the entire campaign.
7) Too Rigid to the Rules 1:06 6) Not Knowing the Rules 3:30 5) Too Eager to Assist 6:41 4) Murder happy 8:31 3) Letting Players Push Them Around 10:33 2) Commitment Issues 12:43 1) Never Scheduling the Game 16:12
I think you should add one called “inability to take criticism”, me and a bunch of players recently backed out of a campaign where the gm was committing a lot of the “gm sins”, but instead of just outright quitting, I decided to help him, me being an experienced gm myself, with some critiques on the recent session(s) that caused a lot of problems with the players, he did not take it well the first time I tried to critique him and straight up kicked me out of the group in a fit of rage (you may be asking yourself, “well, did you insult him/raise your voice/ ect...” I assure you that none of that happened) a day later he calmed down and invited me back into the group, I forgave him and decided to come back, but now everybody is too afraid of the gm to question him at all. And the campaign ultimately came to an end later on in the most spectacular rage quit I have ever seen from a gm. I believe his anger came from his pride, he was too attached to his campaign to the point that to admit any fault was to imply a lack of intelligence or just bad gming, so therefore any critique to the game is a direct insult to him.
I wouldn't have gone back. Even if your criticism was invalid, that's a sign that either the GM is too unstable to have any fun in his game, or the GM has decided that you're a bad fit for his game. Either way there's no reason to return.
There's also the reverse, from the DM's side, "inability to provide feedback". I've been trying to get my players to tell me what they think of the game, what they'd like to do, or if I'm on the right track with my GM / writing style. All I get is, "Yeah, it's fun! I'm easy-going, no suggestions." I mean, I guess it's good that they keep coming and saying they look forward to it. But I also think that I've learned a lot of the previous campaigns that didn't go well or fell apart because of those DM'ing errors.
One thing you might try is a review of the game session that the players write. We do this in my campaign, and it is helpful for both GM and player. Our GM gives a bonus if we do it. Something like an extra advantage for the next session (my GM wrote cards that were related to the campaign, and that's the reward, but I don't expect every GM to do this) or, if the game has hero points or an equivalent, something like that. Nothing too huge, of course, but a reward like that could induce the feedback.
Yeah, getting a player to give a recap means you get to find out what the players think is important, and avoids giving away what you think is important, and gives them a bit more ownership over the campaign as well.
Another option is to see whether you can convert the things that are getting you excited about the new game into the existing one. Some things are easier to translate than others, but you can bring a surprising amount over with a bit of creativity...
I run 4-5 systems, but yeah I define specific session slots over the course of a month dedicated to what system and group I play with. I have a couple D&D 5e, a Starfinder, a VTM 5e, and a Call of Cthulhu, I also run the occasional random one shot on top for new players or try new systems. Both D&D are twice a month, alternating weeks in the same time slot. The other three are all once a month on the same day of the week and time slot, just alternating by week. I use the fourth week on the monthly slot to run my one shots or just take a day off LOL.
Golvic I think switching systems is fine, but it needs to be done only after a campaign, not in the middle of one, unless switching systems is a integral part of campaign but I doubt it
I had a case of a murder happy GM, where I changed 6 characters in 6 months, and a friend that was also playing changed ELEVEN CHARACTERS in the same time. Let's just say that after the campaign had ended, when the GM suggested we play a new one in the same setting, we outright refused And that is how I started GM-ing, haha So far, no complaints Keep up the videos, love them all!
Once in a Shadowrun campaign it became a running joke for my character to die or get caught every time I every play, because I lost 7 characters in about 4 months due to bad luck, bad planning and/or my own stupidity. I ended up making characters who get hired for one run then switch to another character for the next game regardless of their fate (I was more a guest player by that point than a regular so it worked out.) By the way if you’ve got awful luck don’t ever play an demolitions expert with practically 0 edge
Only time I've let that happen as a DM is when I'm purposefully putting them through the grinder in a oneshot, such as putting them through the Tomb of Horrors.
I feel that, if schedule is such a killer, there should be a shift towards the players to, if need be, take the responsibility onto themselves. Like, I know GMs who are... really good, but they don't have the social skills to handle proper scheduling (disappointment anxiety can run rampant when people say no to a bunch of dates), or the guesswork involved with more 'free' players. This isn't a preferable scenario, but a group of friends I play with has a few wise words about it: "It's easy to blame someone else, especially if it's expected of them, even if you could've solved it yourself trice over." After all, you play in a group, and shouldering each others weaknesses so their strengths shine all the stronger is key! Admittedly, that phrase refers to players who play other people's classes better (such as the giant barbarian gnoll sneaking like a shadow, whereas the rogue runs gunsblazing into situations), but it works on this situation as well.
I agree. My GM does a good job of GMing, but planning is hard and some players have a lot of reasons why they can't always play. Since I'm usually the one who is most eager to play again and I do have some free time, I usually start planning the next session.
I seriously feel like it's not entirely on the GM to schedule. As a player, I take an active role in planning. As a GM, I expect my players to do the same. I host a lot but I expect other people to offer to host as well
I had/have a group that, when I start planning next session too much in advance, no one knows if they are going to be "free", (and then usually aren´t) and if I go for "Let´s meet tomorrow", everyone is busy. So we only play when they actually call me, which is not nearly as often as I´d like.
I do most of the scheduling, but I try and ask all of my players when they'll be available so that I have a decent time-frame at the least. I've also noticed stuff like Facebook groups and apps like Doodle and the like are really helpfull in getting the game scheduled.
"My character went insane and shot himself" I laughed way too hard at this. Thanks for the vid, this one is also my greatest sin, in RPGs and in life. I ready a personality profile somewhere once that described the phenomenon. It said something along the lines of "You get exceited about new ideas and ventures, but your enthusiasm wanes as you begin to realize the outcome in your mind, and you don't need to actually reach that outcome to be satisfied. Thus you move on to another project."
God, I can't stand rules lawyers. I remember playing as a druid. Everyone else had been captured, but since I'd transformed into a flea, nobody had seen me. Dm was making me do normal stealth rolls for EVERY SINGLE enemy I went past, and I got spotted crawling past a guard in a dark dungeon just because the rules said so. Dm even said "it doesn't make sense, but that's the rules."
"Cheating" I had a gm that would cheat CONSTANTLY. The most egregious example was when he had a druid cast stoneskin before the party showed up. He was new to gming 3.5 so he was looking thorugh how it worked. he asked me (The most experienced with 3.5) how the spell worked in this edition, I explained and he mentioned the druid's level of...5. "Then he can't cast stoneskin." "WHATEVER! a druid would know stoneskin, he had a scroll so it's at the minimum level." I would say that this was a one time thing, but it was constant. Especially with things casting spells that they don't have to negate whatever my character just did. I cast Fear on the ogres, and the hag watching from the shadows that nobody saw casts dispel magic immediately afterward. Pissed me off so much. I never wanted to play an area control caster ever again after that.
I've had a few games where game masters fell into the opposite of the "too eager to assist", too eager to gimp. Maybe it falls under the "too controlling" from the first video, but I think there's some difference. In some cases, I've understood as a player I've made mistakes, but I think the most obvious instance of it was recent. It was D&D 5e, I'd built the team's rogue with my biggest worry being traps. I don't like traps, so I made sure I still had a decent Wisdom and took the Observant feat, so my passive perception was calculated with a 15 instead of a 10. The very first instance of a trap in the game, despite my wasting the time to look in about three of four different ways while the rest of the party had been kidnapped, I was denied even manual searching because "it was on the other side of the door". I accepted this but then decided my character would be paranoid of it afterwards, not to be caught twice. Fast forward to the moment that broke the campaign, we were dealing with a thieves guild and we had to solve their labyrinth. Less than a round in, a trap is sprung by one of the other players. Knowing we're dealing with traps, I want the rogue on edge. So I take point, light up a light source so that it removes darkness from the equation at the cost of us being obvious going through the halls and... Flip a trap. I ask why my at this point 20+ passive can't detect the trap in obvious light and am given no real answer. I pull out my wand of detect magic... No magic preventing me... Etc, etc. The reason given was "they were layed by thieves, so they're tougher", because he wanted it to be a challenge and make us roll perception every player, every turn. It was a massive slow down to the game, and made any of our preparation feel useless. It wasn't the only sin of the game, but it was the one that broke our backs as the players.
Personally, a good trap isn't a tax, but something players realize. Scratch marks, blood stains, oddly clean tiles. I hate the concept of perception rolls being a constant, so I usually shorthand taking 10 and only roll when attention is taken or the keenness of the sense matters (in combat, or hearing a faint noise behind a door). This makes players less paranoid, saves time, and makes traps THEIR fault for not figuring out the decapped corpse next to the slit in the wall. Of course, that requires some degree of prep or skill to pull off. But hey, beats people nagging about traps being anti-player.
I could probably host a series for months on end about traps and trapping practices in the confines of D&D alone... Sorry to hear about your experience, but you've got an under-educated GM (regarding traps anyways)... As for the challenging to "checks" ratios... I was in from 2nd ed. so we based most or all perceptions on IQ... but the source doesn't particularly matter. (just pointing to where my terminology comes from) The way I usually go about traps, ploys, and decoys, for players... Is with a general description of the locale (first pass) based on passive perception (I usually went with "party pool" or an average, but I can get behind the 5e method)... Then comes the players' actions and perceptions as they learn to ASK QUESTIONS AND INVESTIGATE... This is (second pass) and works simply, roll IQ, call a number (pass or fail and by how much)... Then I explain what you "learned" as a character based on that... Third passes and further depend on this result and work basically the same way. Here's the nuance. Players will be allowed to visualize and figure things out as they do. Characters do the actions as called. BUT if the player is concerned for "miscommunication" or "misunderstanding", he or she can always roll IQ and ask something new... OR hope for a reasonable enough result to convince me to help with visual aids or whatever... Once they make an action, whatever it is, however, it's an action... with consequences.... SO I'm not hard to get along with, but it pays dividends to be able to explain clearly HOW exactly you're studying or probing something you find suspicious. That's the fun of the role-play... getting people to actively engage with demonstrations and theater. ON THE TRAPS THEMSELVES... Did it occur to you or your GM that not all traps have to be deadly or horrifically dangerous? The military classifies traps three ways. Offensive traps try to injure or kill... Defensive traps just try to hinder (any damage caused is coincidental)... AND Distractionary traps are there to confuse or cause alarm (no real harm even intended)... Clever use of those tactical principles can make a game FAR more entertaining and truly more difficult and mind-boggling than just a linear series of HP-taxing defeats and lack-luster explanations of what's even "hard" about the ordeal. :o)
That is a very dangerous mentality for a DM to have; The kind of DM that never let's players exploit a thing or take advantage of a cool skill. The logic with these DMs is sound enough. They are simply concerned about making things too easy and wanting players to earn each victory. However, an equally integral part of a healthy game, especially important during early levels, is giving situations that are completely avoided thanks to the player's unique set of skills. If I was running that game, I'd have made sure that session 1 had a handful of wired traps for you to spot and disarm. Not just because I'm me and like small traps here and there (#Koboldsrule), but because that gives you the opportunity to display how cool your character is, give you a moment to shine, justify your specialization route and help you make a connection to your character, which leads to better, more in-depth roleplay. If you're going to make someone with a passive perception and investigation of 22 at level 1 roll every time he wants to identify that the carrot sitting below a box held up by a stick with a string on it is a trap, you might as well have not even had that player choose a class and tell him he's playing a farmboy.
My old GM would NEVER let me roll to stay up a night, instant exhaustion, all the time, always punished... no due roll at all even on a character who could literally stay up without being sleep deprived... Even worse when we switched i.e characters from 4th to 5th edition and all the other players got customizations or changed playstyles, I couldn't spend 2 WHOLE FEATS just to use a shield on my warlock... medium armor training and war caster... it WASN'T allowed... he considered it meta gaming/ min maxing...
Heh, I definitely fight with myself on the "being too helpful" error. I think I've mostly gotten over it, but it's still a strong impulse. There's a moment of panic when you realize that the critical clue the players need is hidden in a particular place and... they didn't look at it. So now you've got to choose: do you awkwardly have one of them "notice it", or do you let the PCs come to the wrong conclusion and potentially screw up the adventure? Now, whenever I have a puzzle or mystery, I make use of the axiom, "The players are never as clever as the DM thinks they are." It's not meant as an insult, just that the DM has the advantage of a god-like overview of, well, everything the DM built. What's obvious to the DM can be easily overlooked by a player when a sly hint flies over their heads. Either the puzzle/trap/whatever needs to be designed not to punish the players too harshly for failure or ensure that the linchpin is made interesting enough to investigate fully. Dial that cleverness back 1 or 2 notches.
Course, with #1, my players never could be bothered until the last second to TELL ME IF THEY WERE COMING OR NOT even when I tried to schedule weeks in advance.
I kinda stopped a Call of Cthulhu campaign to make a OneShot of RuneQuest, to try something different. Now, the idea was never to stop the Cthulhu game, even though I expressed that I think the story I've been writing is a bit stale and not that well done. BUT, I also told them that it was a OneShot, and it was just to test another system so I can learn and improve more as a GM and after that we were back to Cthulhu. Then one told me - "What about if we like this one and want to continue this?" - "Well, then it's up to you". I wasn't really thinking about cutting the campaing to jump into another thing it was more like a break to try something different, a different experience. But if they're willing to do this other thing, then I'll see what can be done.
Karanthaneos best way to do it if you're a GM with the above problem tbh. A one shot is a self contained adventure with everything you need to have a fun time with the new system all in one session. It's a good way to take a break and try new things and let the players decide what they want to play. Game sessions, with all the work that come with them, are still supposed to be just a fun game night. And it's supposed to be a fun game night for /everyone/ GM included
Just something to think about... You mentioned directly that you thought the CoC campaign was getting a little stale, yourself... Maybe the player who nudged you with the idea of liking the new one is inclined to agree. It's not a bad GM move to probe the players a little off-table about what's working and what's... well... not so much. In fact, there's really no better way to find your strengths as a GM and play to them... while taking authentic critique as you go and figuring out where you can experiment to improve. Maybe the storyline is the problem, but maybe it's an enthusiasm/energy thing. Some GM's take YEARS to get around to running a full-on multiple layers of thinking and plots, and over-arching themed campaigns... They instead run campaigns that go for a chapter or two, and then let someone else handle some of the "heavy lifting"... OR they just work on "one-shots" for a long long time before really getting ambitious... OR... or ,...or... So it's perfectly okay to close a campaign as "it was fun while it lasted"... We're GM's and Players here... NOT Shakespeare nor Tolkien (as much as some of us would like to be)... lolz... Lots and lots of campaigns have faded out just the same as they've ever been "killed". So don't forget to breathe and relax a moment, and then take on new and exciting experiments while you test yourself and ask players how it's working... or not. You honestly will only be better for it. :o)
Been talking with some of my players about this and it basically boils down to "The idea seemed interesting, but it wasn't as cool as expected". So maybe it was just a matter of the setting that ultimately wasn't that catchy. After we finish the OneShot (everybody been with lots of exams and stuff so we could just do half of it. It kinda defies the idea of a OS, but whatever), we'll see if it's something they're interested in continuing with the setting. The original idea was Call of Cthulhu in the 90's with more familiar places that we frequent or know about so it had more of a closer connection to them, but ultimately I felt more of a connection with the standard game of Boston in 1920. The new setting of RuneQuest is homebrew. I asked them which time would they want to try it and the fuckers told me the Paleolithic, so we're on a custom world I made up where not even the wheel, domestication and farming have been invented. Until now, except for a couple details, they quite a good time, and there's a possibility we might keep doing that one.
I would say know the rules as well as the average player. Often you will have players who deep dive into the rules you don't need to out rules them. In fact asking them if they know a ruling is often a good way to get reminders when you aren't sure about something obscure.
I think you should follow the same standard as the requirements for domain knowledge for an official research project: Enough that you don't look like a fool at a birthday party while chatting to an expert in that domain. Simply put: Know your basics, know the general layout of the rules in the book, know the terms so you can master the index for looking stuff up, and whatever extra you know from there is gravy.
Yeah, you only need one person at the table to know the rules well - if it's the GM, then that's great, but it's more important for the GM to be good at managing the game than for them to know all the details of the rules. Of course, it assumes that the rules-monkey is more interested in getting the rules right than in munchkining their way to victory - the guy who argued his way out of the trap definitely isn't a good resource for this sort of thing! The same thing applies to a lot of the GM tasks - the GM's most crucial role is to present the adventure. If players are better at tracking rules, or scheduling sessions or defusing interpersonal issues, or world-building, or whatever, then it's fine to let them take point on those things. The GM's the obvious person to have responsibility for making sure these things are taken care of, but delegation is a perfectly good way to do that.
I guess I commit the sin of "commitment issues" too, but I think its unavoidable. When you run the same game every week for years, you get really burnt out on it as a GM and end up wanting to try other things. Burnout happens a lot slower for players because they don't have to do as much work to run it, but for a GM when you're bashing your head against the same rules, same world, same story so much and so often you end up needing something fresh.
Clay Harrison We have a nice way around that. We have 2 campaigns or systems at the same time and switch them each session. That makes it kinda easier to not get burnt out ^^
In my first campaign I ever ran (5e), I wiped the party on the last planned session. They loved the ending, because of the way I executed it. So fellow GMs, if it's the last session of a campaign you could finish it in them all living healthy lives, or dying in a blaze of glory. The party consisted of a Druid, Rogue, Ranger, Bloodhunter (Matt Mercer's) and a mimic... Yes a friendly mimic... Anyway their original mission was to raid an orc camp and as they walked in there were maybe 4 - 5 orcs, halfway through killing those more noticed, and I slowly ramped up the amount they came. The players really loved this as it let all of their characters shine as they ended stood on a HILL of bodies (It was a big camp) and as they all dropped one by one, not one of the players even mentioned running away. They all died, The mimic was shattered across the ground, the druid - Decapitated, the ranger - Sacrificed himself to rugby tackle the chieftain into a pit of spikes, The rogue - Beat to death by an orc with bear fists, and finally the bloodhunter - Died by execution, as he was dragged aside he took a moment to notice all the friendly bodies on the floor. Since then I've ran several campaigns but none of the players liked the endings when their characters lived more than the one where they all died, back to back and fighting. So for any new GMs or experienced ones, try this out IF it's the last session of that campaign for definite and none of the players and thinking about using the characters in later campaigns. If you've ever done this please give me feedback on how it went for you, or if it just completely failed and my players are just straight up weird.
OMG I about died laughing with the Campaign-Hopping. That's MY worst sin too. This year alone I think I bounced from Burning Wheel to Fantasy AGE, to Star Wars, to Phoenix: Dawn Command... and I am all jazzed about this new game I want to switch to in late December/January... and even NOW, pumped up for THAT campaign... I am circling Symbaroum like a shark... I SWEAR that I won't want to run a Symbaroum game in 4 months! No, I'm not crossing my fingers behind my back... I am just uh... getting a thing out of my pocket... yeaaaah, that's the ticket...
For those with a taste for trying out newer and newer rulesets (pokes to the image in mirror) GMless games are okay, and I mean those that are clearly one-shots. Like Fiasco, Protocol, Primetime Adventures...
that was why (long ago) i liked "Steve Jackson Games: G.U.R.P.S./The Generic Universal Role Playing System" you tailor any kind of custom campaign from easily modifiable "generic" items/enemies/skills/feats. you could reverse engineer any other game system, OR easily add aspects of other games into an existing one... like halflings ON flying carpets BATTLING MECHS... pew-pew-whoosh-grumble-ewww second lunch... light foot your way up a mech, and lock pick your way into a battlemaster so you can stab the pilot in the face xD screw "death from above" FEAR the death already creeping inside your goofy egg-shaped head, you big heap of gorgeous recyclable scraps... only to hear an army fremim chant "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, SHAAAAAAAI-HULUUUUUUUUD!" as a great Sandworm swallows and runs off with your spoils of war, but then superman swoops down and uppercuts the worm, causing it to barf up the battlemaster - it lands on your dropship, killing your party and ending your campaign T.T the GURPS struggle is real 8]
About commitment problems, a good advice is to declare upfront to the plays that you are planning to run only a small campaign, 5-10 sessions. Even if you want to run more, if you know you have history of lack of motivation, you should do it anyway to set players expectations. You can always extend the campaign later if you are feeling motivated.
And on the flip side of GMs who don't schedule their games are the players who say that they'll be at the game and then pull a no call, no show. As a GM myself that one really pisses me off. We would schedule the games on the same day at the same time every week, as it was the only day of the week when all of the players could make it. I used to call my players THE DAY BEFORE GAME DAY as a courtesy, to confirm that they were in fact going to be there, and they would always say "Yeah, sure. No problem. Same time, same place." etc. And with some of those players, damn near every game day, they wouldn't show up and we would delay the game for sometimes over an hour waiting for them to arrive. Then I would call them and they'd be like "Huh? What? There's a game today? Okay, I'll be there in an hour." I'm like "DUDE! I LITERALLY CALLED AND CONFIRMED WITH YOU YESTERDAY THAT YOU COULD MAKE IT TODAY!!!!" After a few weeks of consistent No Call, No Shows I just stopped inviting them. If you have no intention of playing, please don't lie to me and say that you do.
Or when they do show up, but decide they don't want to play ... Anything. Not even a damn game of go fish. Then those of us who are here for it either do what we came for, and feel like dicks. Or, cave to those who decided they want to be here but not play, and get frustrated because we all planned for this for a fucking week, Becky. I didn't spend hours awake at night plotting out how you guys can face Dracula, the Wolfman and the fucking Keebler elves, for you to blow it off, Becky!! Our gracious host spent hours making amazing pot stickers and stir fry, just for us, Becky, and now you want to come and eat but not participate? FUCK YOU BECKY!!! (I apologize to anyone named Becky, she was my most recent problem player.)
As to that last one, I have something of a flip to it. My one friend that I've played with for over 20 years - he's in my current Dragon Heist game at my local gaming store - has always had something of a low self-esteem problem. About 15 years ago, when he was running his Buffyverse game, if one of his players called him to cancel (and it was almost always the same player) he would then panic and call up all the other players to make sure they would be showing up. I was constantly telling him "Look, if he can't make it he can't make it, no big deal.", but I got the impression that if someone canceled on him, then he took that as a commentary on him as a GM. Also, as to your comments on keeping track of modifiers. That was the same game where I finally suggested to him that I handle the modifiers to help keep the game running along. So once combat started, I took the one half of the GURPS GM screen with the modifiers, and would just have each player call out what they're using, how they're using it, and what specific location if any.
some kinds of rules are just anti-player in general, like the DnD rules for golem creation, I get not wanting to have players making golems willy nilly, how many players are gona spend like half a year to make a golem when they could be enjoying adventures. Or basic crafting... not being able to craft more than 5gp worth of items in a day... 300 days to make a fricken suit of plate armor? What kind of armorsmith takes an entire year to make one suit of armor? how would they be able to support themselves, no wonder there's so many roving bands of bandits, because the rules of the world make it impossible to live honestly.
I would point out that this complaint can go two ways... First of all, RPG's in general are supposedly adventure games, so to advance a crafting means of income is... well... kinda pointless, so that's the "WHY" for the rules being written the way they are... However, there is also that point about the GM-sin of being "ALL THE RULES ALL THE TIME!!!" and it's just a pain in the @$$... Sometimes, the party comes to a problem that can just be best resolved with a "crafting" solution. Sometimes the party (the table general consensus) is that "We need a golem... damnit." and that's it. In these cases, I personally refer to the very first edition of the original AD&D series DMG, right down to Chapter 1. "Never EVER let the rules get in the way of the game." So the theory goes (something) like this... When the party consensus is that crafting must be the answer, and they either agree to the down-time... So be it, fast-forward and (appropriately) cost them time... OR if the party consensus reaches the crafting solution and they team up, you can allow the teamwork to be worth considerably more than the sum of the players (parts?)... Fast forward, since there's little point in arguing and stifling the game... Simple as that. You don't have to encourage crafting, but once in a while, characters most certainly SHOULD be allowed any fullest use of the system... and even occasional abuse. :o)
Torys Account it takes longer to make leather armor than plate in real life, even during the medieval period, several pieces of plate can be made in a day by a skilled blacksmith, leather needs a long time to Tan.
Stirgid Lanathiel Honestly though if you're a roving adventurer and trying to make an armor plate or shield (or in my characters case a druid dart) the whole thing back fires and creates the same issue it's trying to prevent, especially if you find tools or a shop somewhere.
I think that the problem with DnD is that it usually handles the healing and time consuming stuff as a hinderance to the adventure. Yes, when you want to play a fast paced adventure, things like crafting are quite hard to use, but I think that with some management it can be done. It's ok for the characters to take a couple days of rest between adventures so they can have some down time to prepare their gear, maybe try to socialize with people in the town, etc, but it should be done in a way that it doesn't take that much time from what your players want to do the most. I think that you can fastforward that stuff and sort it out with a couple rolls, unless they want to explore on other stuff more character related while the other player is on his crafting, taking enough time bewteen their actions to not leave anybody waiting for too long. It's kinda hard, but I think it's perfectly doable
one of my players showed me your vids a while ago. i started DMing pathfinder in 2019 after playing DnD on and off for 20+ years. quite helpful. thanks for all the advice and perspective.
Once again, just found this channel, love your videos. For #6, while the GM should totally know the main rules of the game, by experience it is not mandatory for the GM to be the one who knows the rules the best. See, I'm not a math-head, I'm a storyteller. My friends often want me to DM because I am good at creating an interesting story. My friends, however, ARE math-heads. So they often know the rules better than I do. And this actually works to our advantage - I know the rules well enough to build a good adventure, and whenever we encoumter some corner case, one or two of my more rule-savvy players just pipe in and give us the rule we need. I think of it this way: I'm the ship captain. I need to know how my ship works. However, if there is an engine problem, I can count on my engineer to take care of it and can focus on all the other things happening on my ship. Of course, not all play groups are comfortable with this.
The greatist joy of a real DM is to sit quietly on the side and listen tonthe players recount the adventure in boisterous tones and laugh and kid. You know they had a fun time. And you did as well because your players have been chalenged, have overcome that chalenge and been rewarded with some cool loot afterward. The best DMs let the players run the story.
Had a DM that was running a module, but instead of just doing the module he added a bunch of monsters. It went from being a challenge to having one combat encounter, us heading back to town to rest up, returning to the stronghold only to have another single encounter that trip in almost the same exact place. We made no progress and the DM ended up losing interest before the next session.
I have a couple more that may have been covered in other videos, I don't recall at the moment. One, is the GM forgetting where the last session left off or events that happened. Sometimes some times passes between sessions. A simple notepad will fix this. The other is lack of preparation on the GM's part. My group and I are playing are currently playing an extensive 2E Forgotten Realms campaign. For each chapter of the campaign, I try to have so much material ready the the PCs will probably see about 2/3 of it at best. This does make more work for the GM away from the table, but no matter what crazy things the players do that surprise me, I more than likely have something already prepared that I can just toss in. Also, it seems that it adds depth to the game world for the players when they know that there is more there than they will ever see. Keep up the good work Seth! My players and I yell "For Thor!" at each other when we see each other in the real world. Lol
I remember being DM for what was probably my first game of D&D at the age of 9, maybe 10. My friend tried to open a door and failed the roll. And that was the end of the game. It never dawned on me that the player could keep trying, which took time and made noise, or to play out the possibilities. Nope. He failed the roll and the game was over.
Yeah, when it comes to "knowing the rules" I think that unless you're playing an extremely light system, what you want to do is get the feel for the _structure_ of the rules. You don't need to know every rule if you wind up figuring out how the rules typically function and how mechanics are typically implemented. Once you've got that, it becomes pretty easy to make rulings on-the-spot. And at times, you'll end up with the actual rule that's in the book -- if you double check later, after the session ends. But to keep that level of understanding, you have to play that system at least somewhat regularly. I used to know _new_ World of Darkness that well, but after a 7 year break, I've discovered that I need to get the feel for it again. But I'm at that spot right now with 5E, though in that system I actually am more okay with a little bit of "looseness" in some rulings than the base rules like to allow, provided it follows the spirit of the game and keeps things flowing without much turbulence. Better than grinding things to a halt for 5 or 10 minutes to find out the specific rule, because that almost always winds up be super anti-climatic and someone says "we should've just stuck with what was suggested at first."
I can't believe I just found your channel. These videos are pure gold! My one bit of advice for scheduling is to pick a day of the week and pick a time, and say that's when you're running your game. For example, say that you are always playing on Tuesdays at 7pm. Obviously be open to input from your players, but once you all decide on a time to play keep it consistent. That consistency helps keep people engaged and excited for each session.
The last two are definitely my main GM sins, often overlapping. The main coping strategy I've found for both is one shots, especially those with a strong theme.
I mean, I have clicked a video faster, but... only a couple videos. And mainly cause my computer wasn't loading properly so it took extra time... *sigh*
A tip I got from a more experienced Game Master when it comes to referencing the rule book is to abuse the crap out of color-coded sticky notes/bookmarks. If you're still learning the rules and need to quickly reference back to something specific, marking it with a special color will help you flip open the page, look at what you need, and then jump back into the game.
I used to always imagine I was an invisible "silent partner" in the players group. I could look at things from that point of view to keep both players and myself in check.
trick for game scheduling: use Doodle. it's an shared online calendar that allows every participant to indicate their availability. once done, everyone has an easy and quick visual representation of which date would have everyone free and available. I did not know I badly needed this in my life until I knew about it.
I'm sharing my GM story. I am new being a GM and i made a Cthulhu one shot a while back. The thing is, i didn't prepare anything, i had a vague picture of what to do but nothing else... and i was conscious it was a bad move. i've seen the game master sins videos but... it went great ! I'm not saying it was the right thing to do ! Not at all ! but my players loved it... i still don't believe it. But apparently they did. I will be making a campaign for them. i will plan it from now on of course... the thing is i thought it was not that bad... (i had to improvise like crazy but i did it). I still apologized to my players about that but they didn't mind. i've been lucky. Extremely so ! Still i want to thank you Seth. you motivated me to become a GM and it's a wonderful feeling ! i'm forever grateful for that. You rock dude !
I really enjoy your tabletop RPG videos. I especially like videos in the “Do’s and Don’ts” category, as I can ask myself “do I do that” as part of my efforts to constantly improve as a player. I’ve had a seat at a VERY good table for a few years now, and I’m fully aware of how fortunate I am to be a part of the group. Videos like yours help me to improve and be a better player.
Years ago in 2e we had a DM who every single game would try to kill the players as quickly as possible. Case in point: in one session, as a group of Lv. 1 characters, we came across a village within the first few minutes of play. We bartered with a merchant, and kept haggling with him until he got angry. So, the merchant transformed into an evil Gold Dragon. Yes, a Gold Dragon. That was somehow evil. And was also, for some reason, a merchant. All three of us quit right then and there. The DM didn't understand why we were so upset.
I've definitely had the issue with the commitment one since I started. I've always been one to find and look at all the different TTRPGs I can find, so when I was younger, I was always suggesting new games to play with my friends. Even now, because I've been watching your CoC videos, I'm dying to put my long-term D&D campaign on hold for a one-shot. Just a one shot, I swear.
Been DMing less than a year - your videos are among the many resources I've been using to make sure I don't completely ruin everything for my players. Thank you!
#2. To be clear I haven’t committed this particular sin but in the examples of player deaths it reminded me of a challenge I threw at one of my players while he was solo. Now this was meant to be a minor challenge and he almost died, it follows thusly. He was looking for a safe place to bed down for the night and spotted a hollow in a tree but didn’t look to see if it was safe, so he goes to sleep only to be awakened by a tiny cute looking sugar glider possum thing (it was kinda also a spider 🕷) that was reaching out to touch him (its poison “fangs” were in its fingers) so as he seats it away he ends up getting scratched and poisoned by the hidden “fangs” at which point the “cute” thing stopped being cute revealed some of its hidden ugliness and fled. The player at this point decided to go back to sleep even with hints that it might not be safe to do so only to awake later paralysed by the poison and trussed in spider silk and vines anchored to a different part of the hollow tree and the tree itself was sucking his lifeforce (the spider sugar gliders were symbiotic with the tree and ate the blood and flesh once the victim died) and thus proceeded the most epic series of critical fails I have ever seen. He ended up poisoned, drained until almost dead, impaled and bleeding out and only a last minute save to take a medical pill saved him. Had he failed that last roll he would have died (I was being very generous at this point by giving him this roll and he should have by all rights died 3 rolls ago)
LOL, the commitment one is totally me and it's gotten to the point where my players keep bringing me back in to finish my current game. I've learned to adjust to my players and their wants, so now we have no problems. Thanks for the vids!
Idea for helping to mitigate #2: Run a one-off. If the GM is feeling bored with the current campaign, they should ask if the players want to run a single session for a different setting or game in the near future. That can give both the players and the GM a change of pace, leaving them ready to continue the campaign, or determine if players want to continue with the one-off's setting/system instead. Can work especially well if there is a temporary scheduling conflict; the player(s) that show up have something to do that doesn't interfere with the main game, and the absent players miss nothing in the main campaign.
Just found your channel Seth. Subscribed. Great advice. I enjoy your acting scenes and your humility and the fact you dont jump to calling people who do these things bad or stupid. Several other youtube DMs are much more harsh, as are most RPG players.
The scheduling issue, for viewers who get down here, can be a nightmare. I once had a game end before the first adventure for two reasons: 1. Nobody had the same day off. Period. I went weeks out and nobody was in sync. Finally, we managed one date at the end of the month... 2. … and had the people whose apartment we were supposed to be gaming at back out because I didn't want to use their favorite rule supplement when I was still very new to the system.
For a Combo bonus: Run a campaign til they reach mid-level before going for the TPK. "That's too bad! But on the bright side, I just got this brand new game we can try out next time that looks super fun!"
Scheduling issues are not always as one-sided. For the first session, this is most often the case. But on subsequent sessions when they are burned out/life gets in the way nagging your friends for "when do you guys have the time to play?" gets boring quick as well as annoying and at some point, you just say "Message me/send a message in the group chat when you want to play?"
I've had troubles with scheduling games but not from lack of effort. There were a lot of times when I've asked quite a few friends who were interested when they were available, figured out the only day that a minimum number of players could get together, and then have them be unavailable at different intervals. At the time, that was probably just the people and how everyone was in college, but I've still had troubles with that.
Great video again. As a quite greenhorn GM myself I've found your content to be really helpful and reassuring. The first point about being too rigid about the rules is something I definitely worry about myself. We play Warhammer Fantasy 2nd Edition. Today during the session I had a player start up a tavern fight that caught me really out of the blue and he really wants to do specific actions in combat that don't really translate well to the rules themselves. "I want to grab his leg as he's kicking me and cut his hamstring with my dagger" is fun and descriptive combat but I struggle with what to allow and what I should try and rein in. The game mechanics for the combat allow for a lot of these actions but they're often quite specific instances and balanced out into things like feats and talents that you acquire as you get stronger. But if somebody wants to, say, disarm an opponent with a flourish I don't know whether to tell them they can't since it's a talent they don't have or allow it thus removing the point of having the talent system in place or to allow it with a penalty?
The Murder Happy... This nightmare of a DM said he was going to kill my character before session; I asked why and he told me it was because he thought it would be hilarious and was upset I didn't cried when he did it, because he completely thought that would make me cry. In other campaigns where he DM'd, he was always happy to kill PCs in the most gruesome ways or put them in situations where either we would agree to it, or we would end up dead - he did it so often he could not understand why I was not really excited to play in his campaigns. He also always has a different excuse to ignore all criticism so I just decided not to play in his campaigns anymore.
Yknow the first time I saw those skits I thought they were a little cringey...but damn I've come to love them! I think the fact that it's the same characters adds a lot of charm and it gives a great example of what you're talking about, not just from some hypothetical other people but from this group we've seen that sometimes does good and sometimes does bad. I love it!
It's a shame that my first job as a DM ended in a bit of a tragedy. I had this really awesome idea for a campaign about sky-pirates sailing between floating islands, collecting treasures and getting into trouble with the law and a number of different pirate captains. I got 5 people in, everyone was making these awesome characters that I was looking forward to exploring as I built adventures around their specific backstories and best of all, my players actually enjoyed the first session, blemishes and all. However, after just that 1 session, I realized I couldn't do it. While the social contract is something you swear an oath to, I went ahead and made it a pact of blood. The idea of being responsible for so much of the players' enjoyment just kinda weighed over me, creeping into my mind. I knew I had tendencies towards perfectionism with things that I have a passion for, but this was the first time I was losing sleep over how much I feared not living up to standards. I thought it was just being nervous about session 1 and that it'd get lifted after that, but nope. After a night of contemplating on it, I had to cut my losses, apologize for getting everyone excited and admit that all of that wasn't worth the headache. From that one session though, I can say that my greatest weakness was being a pushover. Granted, I managed to down one of my party members from max health within 1 turn-cycle, but I over-compensated on the patch-up with reinforcements and help when they got even the least bit impatient. I also realized that had I continued, that would probably have become a recurring thing.
Too eager to assist: When I present a puzzle to the group, I usually explain what it is and then add, "If you need a hint, the player with the highest Intelligence can make a check." Some players HATE puzzles and get frustrated in seconds, other player HAVE to solve it without any hints no matter how long it takes. What urges me on to assist is the boredom on some of the player's faces rather than a fear that they won't solve it. I try to design puzzles to include some aspect of a PC from the "I hate puzzles" group to get them engaged but that's not always easy. Even then, I find that puzzles tend to grind the game to halt and I tend use them infrequently. I favor mysteries and clue collecting instead.
I'm a bit eager to assist my players I'll admit. One way is a GMPC who's task is to fade into the background, giving a helping hand in combat when necessary (A 4 character campaign with 3 people makes it slightly skewed against them) and literally fade into the background unless acknowledged by other characters. I try to keep him in character when he does talk, but also mention things such as spells the characters have in their arsenal or abilities they have through them even if they probably wouldn't know that the ranger has wind wall since they never saw them use it before. Puzzles I usually try to keep quiet in. Usually, because I enjoy watching players try and figure it out. "Rise of Tiamat" has a fun one in the form of the worlds douchiest hedge maze. I love that one so much.
Do you think players are more forgiving about a gm not knowing some of the rules if he is a new gm? I am a new gm and even though i have played many games as a player before I know im going to forget some, maybe even fundamental rules especially when it comes to combat. What are your thoughts on that?
They should be. Learning the rules and process of running a game is a definite curve. When ever we change to a new rules-system we always spend the first 3 games or so being cautious with rules, sometime double-checking just to be sure we're all doing it right while committing it to memory. As long as the GM is making a sincere effort to learn to rules, especially between games, then the players should be forgiving while they're getting used to it. Having players that are more experienced than you can be intimidating, and i remember when I first ran my original GM and he was very patient with me and offered advice/feedback after the session was done (He'd been playing for 10+ years and I was an awkward teen). If they're experienced and good players, then they'll help you out as you learn the ropes.
Doug E absolutely they should be lenient. If anything, your players should helps you out with the rules. My dm asks for a clarification on a rule from us all the time because it’s near impossible to remember everything and how all the rules interact with each other. At any rate, the story is more important than the rules.
If you watched Seth's videos about bad PCs, you should also look out for the odd PC who might try to take advantage of the fact that you don't know the rules very well. I've seen players not only lie about rules from one game to the next, but actually contradict their own lie to suit their needs: they said the rule worked one way in one game and then claimed the rule was completely different in the next game (in order to gain an advantage). Also, players are people and people are lazy... I've seen a player tell the GM that they "think" the rule works a specific way (because no one feels like looking it up right away, or they wanted to keep the game moving) only to find out later (when they finally did look it up) that it doesn't work anywhere close to how they thought it did.
There's a difference between not knowing the rules due to inexperience and not knowing the rules due to laziness. So long as you can improvise a little bit to fill in the gaps, you'll be fine. =)
There may be difference if players see the GM advancing in rules lore. I have a personal issue with that, because I have hard time memorizing all the stuff - especially with the crunchy games. Even Dungeon World is not easy for me. Y'know, I got to know tabletop RPGs (contrary to most folks) at the age of half-century. Learn some stuff... just to have it forgotten a week later. Thus I love rules-light games.
Good god this all brings back some bad memories to this one terrible Shadowrun session: The party was in Sydney Australia and the GM causing an overnight zombie apocalypse, followed by this massive mercenary force quarantining the whole city. GM was openly murder happy, casually sending millions in Milspec hardware at us. Saying to our faces that he wanted to kill some PCs (He didn't, but the lazy unfairness of the challenge left a bad taste in our mouths). At one point he Interrupted it with an atmospheric EMP that wasn't in the rule books and should have fried all the electronics on earth, but was really just him being too lazy to learn how to properly throw hacking threats at us. After surviving his barrage of missiles and Heavy machine gun fire, he was then too generous by giving us a massive gun ship to replace the party's beloved boat he sank with barely a thought. On-board their was millions worth in loot on-board (In a system that considers 100,000 to be an outrageously good payday), Direct quote "You all find better versions of all your gear" Which is something NO GM should ever say EVER. Also, apparently his mercenary group was a pop culture reference to Aliens that no one got. To top it all off, he detonated a nuke on Sydney. It was all so lore unfriendly and immature. It's not like maybe Sydney was an important setting where more adventures could have taken place. Worst of all he was a guest GM to MY campaign, and I had to retcon allot of it.
I'm definitely 100% guilty of not scheduling, I'll admit that part of it is because I'm never enthusiastic about anything until the moment I start and I spend most days prepping to run my session while at the same time dreading it, feeling like it's going to be a disaster and at the last minute (An hour before the session) I just send a message to everyone to ask them if they are coming, if they are we move on and most days we end up having a really good time and it works out, sometimes it doesn't because I don't think I'm a particularly good GM, especially since despite extensive prep I'm very likely to just improvise instead disregarding all I had prepared and that definitely doesn't work 100% of the time, and there are times it's pretty noticeable that I'm making it all up as I go along while some other times it isn't. Like for example I spent months planning this murder-mystery CoC campaign that was about investigating the death of a loved one, and the day of the session I happened to read an article of a terrorist attack that happened on the 1920s and was never solved and I decided it was going to be about that instead, however I was at work and had 0 time to prepare as the session started about an hour after getting back to work, so instead of doing the reasonable thing which was using what I already had prepared and finding a way to link it to that event at a later session (Would have worked since it was in the same city anyway), I just started there, on the event making everything up as I went along and getting a lot of shit wrong because I didn't have time to do all that much research other that what I was able to google at lunch break and while going on my ride. I mean we had fun but that was definitely poorly handled on my end, that being said running a game that is not D&D is so much more my style, it comes much more naturally and is way more enjoyable to me, it's a shame that most of the people I play with aren't willing to try new systems since I've realised that I don't particularly care for D&D, but I'm very much guilty of having a wandering eye, I'm already trying to convince people of playing a Cyberpunk homebrew campaign and we've just started CoC around 2 Months ago, which is unfortunately on hold due to the COVID-19 thing but nothing can be done about that.
Been following your videos recently, which helped me get out of my DM funk and hiatus from 4th Edition (ugh). Your advice and insights for running games has inspired me to get back into the DM groove with 5th Edition. Loving Dungeons and Dragons again, so much I'm running 2 separate groups now XD.
In the first example, his requested action is to crash into the gate correct. Who is most qualified to crash a car than someone who doesn't know how to drive. He should get a bonus to crash a car right. I mean even if he gets a negative wouldn't that just increase the chance of crashing, acting as a bonus in this case.
#7 was the reason I couldn't run Tyranny of Dragons for 5E D&D. It was our first adventure book and I kept wanting a rigid structure with exact information, but it was more like the framework than a full house. I gave up after 2 sessions and we haven't played ToD since. Edit: And now a friend is running us through it. Her very first time running a game, and she did very well. Only issue was the first chapter has extreme combat heavy potential, so we had like seven fights, but she let us long rest after the first 3 so a bunch of level 1s didn't die immediately.
The driving example's a funny one. Personally, I can't drive - keep failing that Test for one reason or another - but I know enough to turn the car on, shift it to Drive, and step on the gas. Of course, my uncles don't want me to drive their trucks - although in my defense, the silly thing was in reverse - almost hit another vehicle and the garage the one time I tried one of theirs. As for my brothers - they don't share with me too well. Still, I've driven a farm tractor a little!
#4 I have set out to learn a game, as the GM, alongside a group of players. I did not study the rules in advance. I read some of the book and I generally understood the basics. I told the players that I know as much as them, and we all learned the rules together. It was a little awkward, but if I had taken the time to try to study the rules without playing the game, we wouldn't have started playing the game for another six months, or more. Legend of the Five Rings 5th edition is not a simple game. We are all learning the rules together and that means we're learning them much quicker as well.
The thought of me and my players all growing up in a few years, getting married and having full-time careers gave me a huge pit of anxiety watching this. We're still in that period of time where most of us at the very least aren't married with kids (with one of our guys being the exception but his wife and kid also plays D&D so they're all cool about it), so to think that one day it'll get harder to schedule it makes me sad.
Two of my players started gaming with me in college. Most of our original group has long-since moved away, but 3 of the original crew are still playing together (once a month now instead of weekly) Next month will be our 19th anniversary. It's very weird how time speeds up. Just stay young at heart and keep making the effort to keep the game schedule going.
Thanks for the reply! Yeah, I'll try. We've kept to a weekly schedule so far with no signs of that changing in the future, but responsibility will strike one of these days. I think once I get high up in the years of our group being together I'll feel reassured about it all.
I just started a new group with some friends after the previous one got put on hiatus due to a player moving out of state and another buying her first house an hour away. We did our session 0 and then scheduled our first session. Two of the four players bailed less than two hours before that session with...reasonable excuses. Now it’s been over a month and I haven’t bothered scheduling the next session. Don’t let pride stop you from having fun even if you do as much prep as I did, which was about 12 hours on Curse of Strahd. As disappointed as I was, I feel like scheduling our sessions now and hope they don’t half ass it. If I do my part, it’s on them to meet me somewhere halfway, right? Lesson: don’t give up AND GMs schedule your sessions.
You know, I think that the best way of trying to curb the commitment issues is to instead of doing full jumps to other campaigns, to just doing one shots of your fancy new systems.
Maybe seth has no players, it's just him and his multiple personalities
Rathtwin_Los 026 bro I'm dying 😂😂😂😂
Failed his sanity check? :)
And we're all like "(sniff) we should have staged an intervention. We should've known he'd run amok dressed as a gangster from the twenties and trying to kill people by hitting them over the head with the 7th edition slip case!"
Rathtwin_Los 026 That’s fairly convenient for Seth. Doesn’t have to worry about players not showing up unless he takes his pills.
I'd love to have that, just think how much more you'd be able to play =)
"I am always looking for traps"
"If I am looking for traps then I'm crawling"
There fore he is always crawling, at all times, carefully looking for traps.
PRONE CHARACTER YOU SAY!?!?!? - me, a DM thinking of how bad it's going to be for this guy when the ceiling falls on him and he CAN'T possibly move because prone and can't see it because looking for floor traps
AMD here I was expecting this to go the way of anime traps
@@Xenibalt I felt pretty empathetic for the first request, it was reasonable, the second one had me laughing.
Seems legit.
This is where I like the concept of Instincts from burning wheel. A few things that your character always is assumed to do (ie. I always put my armor on when I'm on watch)
"Yeah my character went insane and shot himself AND I still had a good time." Hilarious.
That happened in our last CoC game. Not to me, but another player failed his SAN roll, started shooting the other PCs, then when the local police surrounded the clock tower decided to bite a bullet.
One of my players had a character go into a depressive spiral that ended in suicide. It was one of the funnest sessions he ever played, his words.
I will take all of this as advice, if I'm ever a GameMaster
If you aren't planning on going absolutely insane as soon as possible when playing CoC, then you aren't doing it right.
Corey L you think that’s bad, in my CoC game a player blew his brains out playing Russian Roulette, he died but he came back to life, lost sanity from dying, had a bit of madness in which he decided to go a second round in Russian Roulette, he blew his balls off and died again
*forgets the rules*
*Forgets the npc's names*
*Forgets the pcs' names*
*Forgets past events*
*Forgets the name of the continent*
BUT I'M TRYING SO HARD
*Forgets the game's name*
*Forgets they're playing a game*
*Forgets their players' names*
*Forgets their own name*
*Forgets*
Notes my man. It helps so much
@@METALGEARMATRIX I have all of it right in front of me on my DM Screen but I'm to busy to look at it or lose orientation, because the rules of a whole book are shrinked together on 4 sheets of paper.
@@alias9731 the more difficult the crunch, the more I can deempathize the rules and give more leeway to the players' actions. Don't always need to do it, but if it keeps the adventure going and the players engaged, that is better than inconsistent calculus. But you need the players to like this solution's style, as well.
I recently ran a game where a major NPC was named Arthur. My PCs kept screwing up his name and calling him Alfred. So, in the middle of the second session of two, I kept screwing up his name because they had, so I joked their characters had so little respect for him that they just called him Alfred and so as far as they’re concerned, he’s Alfred. Names are always the hardest for me anyways.
I used to have this DM who used to think that the quality of an adventure was measured by the number of PCs it killed... Yeah, that was fun...
So... Your DM was George R.R. Martin? That sucks!
tbh that’s my greatest fear about playing d&d
have that done properly, in fast and meaningless games where (if its D&D) everybody starts around level 6 at least, it can be fun, but it need to be an exception e kinda requires experienced players
Sounds like someone secretly wanted to play Paranoia...
uhh... no... the threat needs to be there, my players have reached level 6 and are starting to overpower encounters i already had more... lowered in a way, i didnt wanna overwhelm them at once but hey now i have to make it harder.
I would totally let the player get away with the #3 scenario, but then make it so that he has to crawl EVERYWHERE. Afterall, if he's always looking for traps, and looking for traps means crawling, then he's always crawling.
😂😂😂
Was he raised by bears?
*Linkin Park intensifies*
That's sadistic! I like it.
I had a GM who would get bored with his own campaign rather quickly, but instead of saying to us "let's do something else" the world would get progressively harder and hostile till he forced a tpk.
What the ever loving hell? Wow that’s a very insane roundabout way of doing it.
What about the sin of the obvious object? The one and only time I played Call of Cthulhu my character found a set of keys in a house. I assumed they were house keys and tried them on every locked door in the place, but they did not fit the locks. Much later in the game the GM revealed the keys were actually car keys. Anyone picking up car keys would know they were car keys, especially after trying to unlock a house door. I am not sure why my friend specifically targeted me in this manner, but there were several other incidents like this during the game which is why I never played CoC again.
Damn. You're absolutely right. I've had that one, too. The GM gets all, "Well I didn't tell you because you didn't ask the specifics," even though the specifics should have been extremely obvious to the PC
I think a good way to phrase it is this: "The GM is the eyes and ears, and as such, must make obvious all that is obvious on just sight and sound alone". This means you don't have to explain what the scratchmarks mean, only that anyone 'in the scene' would notice them.
That reminds me of the old "Adventure" game on a mainframe
:You are walking beside a rocky stream:
"I pick up a rock"
:I see no 'rock' here:
First, I would have told you they were car keys.
That said, if this did happen, as GM I would have gotten sick of telling you the keys didn't work and said, "You come to the sudden realization that these are car keys and you probably won't accomplish anything using them in the house" just so I didn't have to field the same crap over and over and over.
StutleyConstable
It's 'cause your character is stupid. Boom, bitch!
"I'm gonna whoop your ass." The mustache man is my new favorite character. XD
9:42 "Player Characters die all the time for a whole wide array of reasons..."
I remember when my first character died. She was a Halfling Rogue in DND 5e. The monk, and jerk (the pc not the player), of our party, was going through all of our things as we slept and managed to steal the journal of a dead pc from me. I woke up and discovered that he took it, and the bard charmed him to make him give it back. After this, the monk made an unarmed strike in a fit of anger, the player only wanting to do a little damage. After a critical hit from him, a 100 rolled on percentiles, a failed constitution score from me, and a frantic scramble from everyone to try and help me, my character dropped dead in the middle of our campaign.
That was the only time a 100 was rolled on percentiles for the entire campaign.
You must have bought that shirt at the mountains of radness.
Funny because these weren't in MoM.
7) Too Rigid to the Rules 1:06
6) Not Knowing the Rules 3:30
5) Too Eager to Assist 6:41
4) Murder happy 8:31
3) Letting Players Push Them Around 10:33
2) Commitment Issues 12:43
1) Never Scheduling the Game 16:12
Thanks
I think you should add one called “inability to take criticism”, me and a bunch of players recently backed out of a campaign where the gm was committing a lot of the “gm sins”, but instead of just outright quitting, I decided to help him, me being an experienced gm myself, with some critiques on the recent session(s) that caused a lot of problems with the players, he did not take it well the first time I tried to critique him and straight up kicked me out of the group in a fit of rage (you may be asking yourself, “well, did you insult him/raise your voice/ ect...” I assure you that none of that happened) a day later he calmed down and invited me back into the group, I forgave him and decided to come back, but now everybody is too afraid of the gm to question him at all. And the campaign ultimately came to an end later on in the most spectacular rage quit I have ever seen from a gm. I believe his anger came from his pride, he was too attached to his campaign to the point that to admit any fault was to imply a lack of intelligence or just bad gming, so therefore any critique to the game is a direct insult to him.
Vozzici , A GM who goes into rage upon slightest criticism needs a psychotherapist...
I wouldn't have gone back. Even if your criticism was invalid, that's a sign that either the GM is too unstable to have any fun in his game, or the GM has decided that you're a bad fit for his game. Either way there's no reason to return.
There's also the reverse, from the DM's side, "inability to provide feedback". I've been trying to get my players to tell me what they think of the game, what they'd like to do, or if I'm on the right track with my GM / writing style. All I get is, "Yeah, it's fun! I'm easy-going, no suggestions." I mean, I guess it's good that they keep coming and saying they look forward to it.
But I also think that I've learned a lot of the previous campaigns that didn't go well or fell apart because of those DM'ing errors.
One thing you might try is a review of the game session that the players write. We do this in my campaign, and it is helpful for both GM and player. Our GM gives a bonus if we do it. Something like an extra advantage for the next session (my GM wrote cards that were related to the campaign, and that's the reward, but I don't expect every GM to do this) or, if the game has hero points or an equivalent, something like that. Nothing too huge, of course, but a reward like that could induce the feedback.
Yeah, getting a player to give a recap means you get to find out what the players think is important, and avoids giving away what you think is important, and gives them a bit more ownership over the campaign as well.
"My character went insane and shot himself but I still had a great time!"
I limit myself to 3 systems. I am only allowed to run one system per time slot. That is how I work around my GM "ooh look at the kitty" moments.
This is a really good idea. Thanks for the advice!
Another option is to see whether you can convert the things that are getting you excited about the new game into the existing one. Some things are easier to translate than others, but you can bring a surprising amount over with a bit of creativity...
I run 4-5 systems, but yeah I define specific session slots over the course of a month dedicated to what system and group I play with. I have a couple D&D 5e, a Starfinder, a VTM 5e, and a Call of Cthulhu, I also run the occasional random one shot on top for new players or try new systems. Both D&D are twice a month, alternating weeks in the same time slot. The other three are all once a month on the same day of the week and time slot, just alternating by week. I use the fourth week on the monthly slot to run my one shots or just take a day off LOL.
Golvic I think switching systems is fine, but it needs to be done only after a campaign, not in the middle of one, unless switching systems is a integral part of campaign but I doubt it
"Shh, I'm lying." Best RUclips line of all time.
I had a case of a murder happy GM, where I changed 6 characters in 6 months, and a friend that was also playing changed ELEVEN CHARACTERS in the same time. Let's just say that after the campaign had ended, when the GM suggested we play a new one in the same setting, we outright refused
And that is how I started GM-ing, haha
So far, no complaints
Keep up the videos, love them all!
Crazy! Sometimes I appreciate those types of GMs because now I know what NOT to do for the games I run.
Are you sure you were the good guys and not the goons?
Once in a Shadowrun campaign it became a running joke for my character to die or get caught every time I every play, because I lost 7 characters in about 4 months due to bad luck, bad planning and/or my own stupidity. I ended up making characters who get hired for one run then switch to another character for the next game regardless of their fate (I was more a guest player by that point than a regular so it worked out.)
By the way if you’ve got awful luck don’t ever play an demolitions expert with practically 0 edge
1 character death per month? in a group we had 1 death per play session ;-)
Only time I've let that happen as a DM is when I'm purposefully putting them through the grinder in a oneshot, such as putting them through the Tomb of Horrors.
I feel that, if schedule is such a killer, there should be a shift towards the players to, if need be, take the responsibility onto themselves. Like, I know GMs who are... really good, but they don't have the social skills to handle proper scheduling (disappointment anxiety can run rampant when people say no to a bunch of dates), or the guesswork involved with more 'free' players.
This isn't a preferable scenario, but a group of friends I play with has a few wise words about it: "It's easy to blame someone else, especially if it's expected of them, even if you could've solved it yourself trice over." After all, you play in a group, and shouldering each others weaknesses so their strengths shine all the stronger is key!
Admittedly, that phrase refers to players who play other people's classes better (such as the giant barbarian gnoll sneaking like a shadow, whereas the rogue runs gunsblazing into situations), but it works on this situation as well.
I agree. My GM does a good job of GMing, but planning is hard and some players have a lot of reasons why they can't always play. Since I'm usually the one who is most eager to play again and I do have some free time, I usually start planning the next session.
I seriously feel like it's not entirely on the GM to schedule. As a player, I take an active role in planning. As a GM, I expect my players to do the same. I host a lot but I expect other people to offer to host as well
I had/have a group that, when I start planning next session too much in advance, no one knows if they are going to be "free", (and then usually aren´t) and if I go for "Let´s meet tomorrow", everyone is busy. So we only play when they actually call me, which is not nearly as often as I´d like.
I do most of the scheduling, but I try and ask all of my players when they'll be available so that I have a decent time-frame at the least. I've also noticed stuff like Facebook groups and apps like Doodle and the like are really helpfull in getting the game scheduled.
Johny Shadow, "everyone is busy" sounds so familiar...
I've found that scheduling a game at a consistent time each week REALLY helps keep it together
"My character went insane and shot himself" I laughed way too hard at this. Thanks for the vid, this one is also my greatest sin, in RPGs and in life. I ready a personality profile somewhere once that described the phenomenon. It said something along the lines of "You get exceited about new ideas and ventures, but your enthusiasm wanes as you begin to realize the outcome in your mind, and you don't need to actually reach that outcome to be satisfied. Thus you move on to another project."
God, I can't stand rules lawyers.
I remember playing as a druid. Everyone else had been captured, but since I'd transformed into a flea, nobody had seen me.
Dm was making me do normal stealth rolls for EVERY SINGLE enemy I went past, and I got spotted crawling past a guard in a dark dungeon just because the rules said so. Dm even said "it doesn't make sense, but that's the rules."
That GM just wanted to bust you lol neglected the fiction. So dumb. I am paying attention to every flea hopping around too throughout the day!
"Cheating" I had a gm that would cheat CONSTANTLY. The most egregious example was when he had a druid cast stoneskin before the party showed up. He was new to gming 3.5 so he was looking thorugh how it worked. he asked me (The most experienced with 3.5) how the spell worked in this edition, I explained and he mentioned the druid's level of...5. "Then he can't cast stoneskin." "WHATEVER! a druid would know stoneskin, he had a scroll so it's at the minimum level."
I would say that this was a one time thing, but it was constant. Especially with things casting spells that they don't have to negate whatever my character just did. I cast Fear on the ogres, and the hag watching from the shadows that nobody saw casts dispel magic immediately afterward. Pissed me off so much. I never wanted to play an area control caster ever again after that.
I've had a few games where game masters fell into the opposite of the "too eager to assist", too eager to gimp. Maybe it falls under the "too controlling" from the first video, but I think there's some difference. In some cases, I've understood as a player I've made mistakes, but I think the most obvious instance of it was recent.
It was D&D 5e, I'd built the team's rogue with my biggest worry being traps. I don't like traps, so I made sure I still had a decent Wisdom and took the Observant feat, so my passive perception was calculated with a 15 instead of a 10. The very first instance of a trap in the game, despite my wasting the time to look in about three of four different ways while the rest of the party had been kidnapped, I was denied even manual searching because "it was on the other side of the door". I accepted this but then decided my character would be paranoid of it afterwards, not to be caught twice. Fast forward to the moment that broke the campaign, we were dealing with a thieves guild and we had to solve their labyrinth. Less than a round in, a trap is sprung by one of the other players. Knowing we're dealing with traps, I want the rogue on edge. So I take point, light up a light source so that it removes darkness from the equation at the cost of us being obvious going through the halls and... Flip a trap. I ask why my at this point 20+ passive can't detect the trap in obvious light and am given no real answer. I pull out my wand of detect magic... No magic preventing me... Etc, etc. The reason given was "they were layed by thieves, so they're tougher", because he wanted it to be a challenge and make us roll perception every player, every turn. It was a massive slow down to the game, and made any of our preparation feel useless. It wasn't the only sin of the game, but it was the one that broke our backs as the players.
Personally, a good trap isn't a tax, but something players realize. Scratch marks, blood stains, oddly clean tiles. I hate the concept of perception rolls being a constant, so I usually shorthand taking 10 and only roll when attention is taken or the keenness of the sense matters (in combat, or hearing a faint noise behind a door). This makes players less paranoid, saves time, and makes traps THEIR fault for not figuring out the decapped corpse next to the slit in the wall.
Of course, that requires some degree of prep or skill to pull off. But hey, beats people nagging about traps being anti-player.
I could probably host a series for months on end about traps and trapping practices in the confines of D&D alone... Sorry to hear about your experience, but you've got an under-educated GM (regarding traps anyways)...
As for the challenging to "checks" ratios... I was in from 2nd ed. so we based most or all perceptions on IQ... but the source doesn't particularly matter. (just pointing to where my terminology comes from)
The way I usually go about traps, ploys, and decoys, for players... Is with a general description of the locale (first pass) based on passive perception (I usually went with "party pool" or an average, but I can get behind the 5e method)... Then comes the players' actions and perceptions as they learn to ASK QUESTIONS AND INVESTIGATE... This is (second pass) and works simply, roll IQ, call a number (pass or fail and by how much)... Then I explain what you "learned" as a character based on that... Third passes and further depend on this result and work basically the same way.
Here's the nuance. Players will be allowed to visualize and figure things out as they do. Characters do the actions as called. BUT if the player is concerned for "miscommunication" or "misunderstanding", he or she can always roll IQ and ask something new... OR hope for a reasonable enough result to convince me to help with visual aids or whatever...
Once they make an action, whatever it is, however, it's an action... with consequences.... SO I'm not hard to get along with, but it pays dividends to be able to explain clearly HOW exactly you're studying or probing something you find suspicious. That's the fun of the role-play... getting people to actively engage with demonstrations and theater.
ON THE TRAPS THEMSELVES... Did it occur to you or your GM that not all traps have to be deadly or horrifically dangerous? The military classifies traps three ways. Offensive traps try to injure or kill... Defensive traps just try to hinder (any damage caused is coincidental)... AND Distractionary traps are there to confuse or cause alarm (no real harm even intended)...
Clever use of those tactical principles can make a game FAR more entertaining and truly more difficult and mind-boggling than just a linear series of HP-taxing defeats and lack-luster explanations of what's even "hard" about the ordeal. :o)
That is a very dangerous mentality for a DM to have; The kind of DM that never let's players exploit a thing or take advantage of a cool skill. The logic with these DMs is sound enough. They are simply concerned about making things too easy and wanting players to earn each victory. However, an equally integral part of a healthy game, especially important during early levels, is giving situations that are completely avoided thanks to the player's unique set of skills. If I was running that game, I'd have made sure that session 1 had a handful of wired traps for you to spot and disarm. Not just because I'm me and like small traps here and there (#Koboldsrule), but because that gives you the opportunity to display how cool your character is, give you a moment to shine, justify your specialization route and help you make a connection to your character, which leads to better, more in-depth roleplay.
If you're going to make someone with a passive perception and investigation of 22 at level 1 roll every time he wants to identify that the carrot sitting below a box held up by a stick with a string on it is a trap, you might as well have not even had that player choose a class and tell him he's playing a farmboy.
My old GM would NEVER let me roll to stay up a night, instant exhaustion, all the time, always punished... no due roll at all even on a character who could literally stay up without being sleep deprived...
Even worse when we switched i.e characters from 4th to 5th edition and all the other players got customizations or changed playstyles, I couldn't spend 2 WHOLE FEATS just to use a shield on my warlock... medium armor training and war caster... it WASN'T allowed... he considered it meta gaming/ min maxing...
Heh, I definitely fight with myself on the "being too helpful" error. I think I've mostly gotten over it, but it's still a strong impulse.
There's a moment of panic when you realize that the critical clue the players need is hidden in a particular place and... they didn't look at it. So now you've got to choose: do you awkwardly have one of them "notice it", or do you let the PCs come to the wrong conclusion and potentially screw up the adventure?
Now, whenever I have a puzzle or mystery, I make use of the axiom, "The players are never as clever as the DM thinks they are." It's not meant as an insult, just that the DM has the advantage of a god-like overview of, well, everything the DM built. What's obvious to the DM can be easily overlooked by a player when a sly hint flies over their heads.
Either the puzzle/trap/whatever needs to be designed not to punish the players too harshly for failure or ensure that the linchpin is made interesting enough to investigate fully. Dial that cleverness back 1 or 2 notches.
I like how the backgrounds kept changing as you did your "time skips" switching campaigns - very high production values there!
Player: Why can't I ram the gate?
GM:
"Papa WotC, will DnD 6th edition have fun melee combat?" "Why yes Jimmy of course it wil- 16:10 "
Course, with #1, my players never could be bothered until the last second to TELL ME IF THEY WERE COMING OR NOT even when I tried to schedule weeks in advance.
I kinda stopped a Call of Cthulhu campaign to make a OneShot of RuneQuest, to try something different. Now, the idea was never to stop the Cthulhu game, even though I expressed that I think the story I've been writing is a bit stale and not that well done. BUT, I also told them that it was a OneShot, and it was just to test another system so I can learn and improve more as a GM and after that we were back to Cthulhu.
Then one told me - "What about if we like this one and want to continue this?" - "Well, then it's up to you". I wasn't really thinking about cutting the campaing to jump into another thing it was more like a break to try something different, a different experience. But if they're willing to do this other thing, then I'll see what can be done.
Karanthaneos best way to do it if you're a GM with the above problem tbh. A one shot is a self contained adventure with everything you need to have a fun time with the new system all in one session. It's a good way to take a break and try new things and let the players decide what they want to play. Game sessions, with all the work that come with them, are still supposed to be just a fun game night. And it's supposed to be a fun game night for /everyone/ GM included
Just something to think about... You mentioned directly that you thought the CoC campaign was getting a little stale, yourself... Maybe the player who nudged you with the idea of liking the new one is inclined to agree.
It's not a bad GM move to probe the players a little off-table about what's working and what's... well... not so much. In fact, there's really no better way to find your strengths as a GM and play to them... while taking authentic critique as you go and figuring out where you can experiment to improve. Maybe the storyline is the problem, but maybe it's an enthusiasm/energy thing. Some GM's take YEARS to get around to running a full-on multiple layers of thinking and plots, and over-arching themed campaigns... They instead run campaigns that go for a chapter or two, and then let someone else handle some of the "heavy lifting"... OR they just work on "one-shots" for a long long time before really getting ambitious...
OR... or ,...or...
So it's perfectly okay to close a campaign as "it was fun while it lasted"... We're GM's and Players here... NOT Shakespeare nor Tolkien (as much as some of us would like to be)... lolz... Lots and lots of campaigns have faded out just the same as they've ever been "killed". So don't forget to breathe and relax a moment, and then take on new and exciting experiments while you test yourself and ask players how it's working... or not. You honestly will only be better for it. :o)
Been talking with some of my players about this and it basically boils down to "The idea seemed interesting, but it wasn't as cool as expected". So maybe it was just a matter of the setting that ultimately wasn't that catchy. After we finish the OneShot (everybody been with lots of exams and stuff so we could just do half of it. It kinda defies the idea of a OS, but whatever), we'll see if it's something they're interested in continuing with the setting.
The original idea was Call of Cthulhu in the 90's with more familiar places that we frequent or know about so it had more of a closer connection to them, but ultimately I felt more of a connection with the standard game of Boston in 1920.
The new setting of RuneQuest is homebrew. I asked them which time would they want to try it and the fuckers told me the Paleolithic, so we're on a custom world I made up where not even the wheel, domestication and farming have been invented. Until now, except for a couple details, they quite a good time, and there's a possibility we might keep doing that one.
Thanks for all the replies, they've been super useful guys
I mean it helps that Runequest/Mythras is an awesome system.
One day I'll run a Conan game in it. One day...
I find myself watching these videos just for the skits!
I would say know the rules as well as the average player. Often you will have players who deep dive into the rules you don't need to out rules them. In fact asking them if they know a ruling is often a good way to get reminders when you aren't sure about something obscure.
I think you should follow the same standard as the requirements for domain knowledge for an official research project: Enough that you don't look like a fool at a birthday party while chatting to an expert in that domain.
Simply put: Know your basics, know the general layout of the rules in the book, know the terms so you can master the index for looking stuff up, and whatever extra you know from there is gravy.
Yeah, you only need one person at the table to know the rules well - if it's the GM, then that's great, but it's more important for the GM to be good at managing the game than for them to know all the details of the rules. Of course, it assumes that the rules-monkey is more interested in getting the rules right than in munchkining their way to victory - the guy who argued his way out of the trap definitely isn't a good resource for this sort of thing!
The same thing applies to a lot of the GM tasks - the GM's most crucial role is to present the adventure. If players are better at tracking rules, or scheduling sessions or defusing interpersonal issues, or world-building, or whatever, then it's fine to let them take point on those things. The GM's the obvious person to have responsibility for making sure these things are taken care of, but delegation is a perfectly good way to do that.
I guess I commit the sin of "commitment issues" too, but I think its unavoidable. When you run the same game every week for years, you get really burnt out on it as a GM and end up wanting to try other things. Burnout happens a lot slower for players because they don't have to do as much work to run it, but for a GM when you're bashing your head against the same rules, same world, same story so much and so often you end up needing something fresh.
Clay Harrison We have a nice way around that. We have 2 campaigns or systems at the same time and switch them each session. That makes it kinda easier to not get burnt out ^^
14:58 "i'm going to whoop your ass" lol that gets a like
In my first campaign I ever ran (5e), I wiped the party on the last planned session. They loved the ending, because of the way I executed it. So fellow GMs, if it's the last session of a campaign you could finish it in them all living healthy lives, or dying in a blaze of glory. The party consisted of a Druid, Rogue, Ranger, Bloodhunter (Matt Mercer's) and a mimic... Yes a friendly mimic... Anyway their original mission was to raid an orc camp and as they walked in there were maybe 4 - 5 orcs, halfway through killing those more noticed, and I slowly ramped up the amount they came. The players really loved this as it let all of their characters shine as they ended stood on a HILL of bodies (It was a big camp) and as they all dropped one by one, not one of the players even mentioned running away. They all died, The mimic was shattered across the ground, the druid - Decapitated, the ranger - Sacrificed himself to rugby tackle the chieftain into a pit of spikes, The rogue - Beat to death by an orc with bear fists, and finally the bloodhunter - Died by execution, as he was dragged aside he took a moment to notice all the friendly bodies on the floor.
Since then I've ran several campaigns but none of the players liked the endings when their characters lived more than the one where they all died, back to back and fighting.
So for any new GMs or experienced ones, try this out IF it's the last session of that campaign for definite and none of the players and thinking about using the characters in later campaigns. If you've ever done this please give me feedback on how it went for you, or if it just completely failed and my players are just straight up weird.
Max Evans I'm not going to lie.
That sort of ending sounds absolutely amazing.
Agreed. RPGs should be about doing things you can't in real life. Going out in a blaze of glory sounds absolutely epic.
"Damn I was just about to suggest that"
OMG I about died laughing with the Campaign-Hopping. That's MY worst sin too. This year alone I think I bounced from Burning Wheel to Fantasy AGE, to Star Wars, to Phoenix: Dawn Command... and I am all jazzed about this new game I want to switch to in late December/January... and even NOW, pumped up for THAT campaign... I am circling Symbaroum like a shark... I SWEAR that I won't want to run a Symbaroum game in 4 months! No, I'm not crossing my fingers behind my back... I am just uh... getting a thing out of my pocket... yeaaaah, that's the ticket...
Yep, biggest sin committed too.
For those with a taste for trying out newer and newer rulesets (pokes to the image in mirror) GMless games are okay, and I mean those that are clearly one-shots. Like Fiasco, Protocol, Primetime Adventures...
that was why (long ago) i liked "Steve Jackson Games: G.U.R.P.S./The Generic Universal Role Playing System" you tailor any kind of custom campaign from easily modifiable "generic" items/enemies/skills/feats. you could reverse engineer any other game system, OR easily add aspects of other games into an existing one... like halflings ON flying carpets BATTLING MECHS... pew-pew-whoosh-grumble-ewww second lunch... light foot your way up a mech, and lock pick your way into a battlemaster so you can stab the pilot in the face xD screw "death from above" FEAR the death already creeping inside your goofy egg-shaped head, you big heap of gorgeous recyclable scraps... only to hear an army fremim chant "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, SHAAAAAAAI-HULUUUUUUUUD!" as a great Sandworm swallows and runs off with your spoils of war, but then superman swoops down and uppercuts the worm, causing it to barf up the battlemaster - it lands on your dropship, killing your party and ending your campaign T.T the GURPS struggle is real 8]
About commitment problems, a good advice is to declare upfront to the plays that you are planning to run only a small campaign, 5-10 sessions. Even if you want to run more, if you know you have history of lack of motivation, you should do it anyway to set players expectations. You can always extend the campaign later if you are feeling motivated.
And on the flip side of GMs who don't schedule their games are the players who say that they'll be at the game and then pull a no call, no show.
As a GM myself that one really pisses me off. We would schedule the games on the same day at the same time every week, as it was the only day of the week when all of the players could make it. I used to call my players THE DAY BEFORE GAME DAY as a courtesy, to confirm that they were in fact going to be there, and they would always say "Yeah, sure. No problem. Same time, same place." etc. And with some of those players, damn near every game day, they wouldn't show up and we would delay the game for sometimes over an hour waiting for them to arrive. Then I would call them and they'd be like "Huh? What? There's a game today? Okay, I'll be there in an hour." I'm like "DUDE! I LITERALLY CALLED AND CONFIRMED WITH YOU YESTERDAY THAT YOU COULD MAKE IT TODAY!!!!" After a few weeks of consistent No Call, No Shows I just stopped inviting them. If you have no intention of playing, please don't lie to me and say that you do.
Or when they do show up, but decide they don't want to play ... Anything. Not even a damn game of go fish. Then those of us who are here for it either do what we came for, and feel like dicks. Or, cave to those who decided they want to be here but not play, and get frustrated because we all planned for this for a fucking week, Becky. I didn't spend hours awake at night plotting out how you guys can face Dracula, the Wolfman and the fucking Keebler elves, for you to blow it off, Becky!! Our gracious host spent hours making amazing pot stickers and stir fry, just for us, Becky, and now you want to come and eat but not participate? FUCK YOU BECKY!!!
(I apologize to anyone named Becky, she was my most recent problem player.)
My first GM had the opposite problem of too rigid to the rules. He always homebrews absolutely everything and is hilarious surprised when things break
I love the bro player having a valid and viable plan.
As to that last one, I have something of a flip to it. My one friend that I've played with for over 20 years - he's in my current Dragon Heist game at my local gaming store - has always had something of a low self-esteem problem. About 15 years ago, when he was running his Buffyverse game, if one of his players called him to cancel (and it was almost always the same player) he would then panic and call up all the other players to make sure they would be showing up.
I was constantly telling him "Look, if he can't make it he can't make it, no big deal.", but I got the impression that if someone canceled on him, then he took that as a commentary on him as a GM.
Also, as to your comments on keeping track of modifiers. That was the same game where I finally suggested to him that I handle the modifiers to help keep the game running along. So once combat started, I took the one half of the GURPS GM screen with the modifiers, and would just have each player call out what they're using, how they're using it, and what specific location if any.
some kinds of rules are just anti-player in general, like the DnD rules for golem creation, I get not wanting to have players making golems willy nilly, how many players are gona spend like half a year to make a golem when they could be enjoying adventures.
Or basic crafting... not being able to craft more than 5gp worth of items in a day... 300 days to make a fricken suit of plate armor? What kind of armorsmith takes an entire year to make one suit of armor? how would they be able to support themselves, no wonder there's so many roving bands of bandits, because the rules of the world make it impossible to live honestly.
Well Armor took very long to be made, however it was as expensive as a whole farm including cattle and the house. So, yeah, realism is not always fun
I would point out that this complaint can go two ways...
First of all, RPG's in general are supposedly adventure games, so to advance a crafting means of income is... well... kinda pointless, so that's the "WHY" for the rules being written the way they are...
However, there is also that point about the GM-sin of being "ALL THE RULES ALL THE TIME!!!" and it's just a pain in the @$$... Sometimes, the party comes to a problem that can just be best resolved with a "crafting" solution. Sometimes the party (the table general consensus) is that "We need a golem... damnit." and that's it. In these cases, I personally refer to the very first edition of the original AD&D series DMG, right down to Chapter 1. "Never EVER let the rules get in the way of the game."
So the theory goes (something) like this... When the party consensus is that crafting must be the answer, and they either agree to the down-time... So be it, fast-forward and (appropriately) cost them time...
OR if the party consensus reaches the crafting solution and they team up, you can allow the teamwork to be worth considerably more than the sum of the players (parts?)... Fast forward, since there's little point in arguing and stifling the game... Simple as that.
You don't have to encourage crafting, but once in a while, characters most certainly SHOULD be allowed any fullest use of the system... and even occasional abuse. :o)
Torys Account it takes longer to make leather armor than plate in real life, even during the medieval period, several pieces of plate can be made in a day by a skilled blacksmith, leather needs a long time to Tan.
Stirgid Lanathiel Honestly though if you're a roving adventurer and trying to make an armor plate or shield (or in my characters case a druid dart) the whole thing back fires and creates the same issue it's trying to prevent, especially if you find tools or a shop somewhere.
I think that the problem with DnD is that it usually handles the healing and time consuming stuff as a hinderance to the adventure. Yes, when you want to play a fast paced adventure, things like crafting are quite hard to use, but I think that with some management it can be done. It's ok for the characters to take a couple days of rest between adventures so they can have some down time to prepare their gear, maybe try to socialize with people in the town, etc, but it should be done in a way that it doesn't take that much time from what your players want to do the most. I think that you can fastforward that stuff and sort it out with a couple rolls, unless they want to explore on other stuff more character related while the other player is on his crafting, taking enough time bewteen their actions to not leave anybody waiting for too long. It's kinda hard, but I think it's perfectly doable
one of my players showed me your vids a while ago. i started DMing pathfinder in 2019 after playing DnD on and off for 20+ years. quite helpful. thanks for all the advice and perspective.
Much respect for the time you put in to film the scenarios; They're dope! Thanks for the tips too!
Once again, just found this channel, love your videos.
For #6, while the GM should totally know the main rules of the game, by experience it is not mandatory for the GM to be the one who knows the rules the best. See, I'm not a math-head, I'm a storyteller. My friends often want me to DM because I am good at creating an interesting story. My friends, however, ARE math-heads. So they often know the rules better than I do. And this actually works to our advantage - I know the rules well enough to build a good adventure, and whenever we encoumter some corner case, one or two of my more rule-savvy players just pipe in and give us the rule we need. I think of it this way: I'm the ship captain. I need to know how my ship works. However, if there is an engine problem, I can count on my engineer to take care of it and can focus on all the other things happening on my ship. Of course, not all play groups are comfortable with this.
The greatist joy of a real DM is to sit quietly on the side and listen tonthe players recount the adventure in boisterous tones and laugh and kid. You know they had a fun time. And you did as well because your players have been chalenged, have overcome that chalenge and been rewarded with some cool loot afterward. The best DMs let the players run the story.
Had a DM that was running a module, but instead of just doing the module he added a bunch of monsters. It went from being a challenge to having one combat encounter, us heading back to town to rest up, returning to the stronghold only to have another single encounter that trip in almost the same exact place. We made no progress and the DM ended up losing interest before the next session.
I have a couple more that may have been covered in other videos, I don't recall at the moment. One, is the GM forgetting where the last session left off or events that happened. Sometimes some times passes between sessions. A simple notepad will fix this. The other is lack of preparation on the GM's part. My group and I are playing are currently playing an extensive 2E Forgotten Realms campaign. For each chapter of the campaign, I try to have so much material ready the the PCs will probably see about 2/3 of it at best. This does make more work for the GM away from the table, but no matter what crazy things the players do that surprise me, I more than likely have something already prepared that I can just toss in. Also, it seems that it adds depth to the game world for the players when they know that there is more there than they will ever see. Keep up the good work Seth! My players and I yell "For Thor!" at each other when we see each other in the real world. Lol
I remember being DM for what was probably my first game of D&D at the age of 9, maybe 10. My friend tried to open a door and failed the roll.
And that was the end of the game.
It never dawned on me that the player could keep trying, which took time and made noise, or to play out the possibilities.
Nope.
He failed the roll and the game was over.
Yeah, when it comes to "knowing the rules" I think that unless you're playing an extremely light system, what you want to do is get the feel for the _structure_ of the rules. You don't need to know every rule if you wind up figuring out how the rules typically function and how mechanics are typically implemented. Once you've got that, it becomes pretty easy to make rulings on-the-spot. And at times, you'll end up with the actual rule that's in the book -- if you double check later, after the session ends. But to keep that level of understanding, you have to play that system at least somewhat regularly. I used to know _new_ World of Darkness that well, but after a 7 year break, I've discovered that I need to get the feel for it again.
But I'm at that spot right now with 5E, though in that system I actually am more okay with a little bit of "looseness" in some rulings than the base rules like to allow, provided it follows the spirit of the game and keeps things flowing without much turbulence. Better than grinding things to a halt for 5 or 10 minutes to find out the specific rule, because that almost always winds up be super anti-climatic and someone says "we should've just stuck with what was suggested at first."
I can't believe I just found your channel. These videos are pure gold! My one bit of advice for scheduling is to pick a day of the week and pick a time, and say that's when you're running your game. For example, say that you are always playing on Tuesdays at 7pm. Obviously be open to input from your players, but once you all decide on a time to play keep it consistent. That consistency helps keep people engaged and excited for each session.
The last two are definitely my main GM sins, often overlapping. The main coping strategy I've found for both is one shots, especially those with a strong theme.
Never clicked a video so fast
ikr
I mean, I have clicked a video faster, but... only a couple videos. And mainly cause my computer wasn't loading properly so it took extra time... *sigh*
FastSniperfox same
pfft, this doesn't apply to me. I'm the perfect GM.
Who's ready to switch from d&d to Polaris?
Nobody! Thats the problem! You think i ever find players for Battle Centruy? It´s always D&D or maybe Warhammer....
Sebastian Abele Funny thing. I just got my group to agree to it yesterday
Anyone wanna switch from Polaris to nobilis? I found it in a random store I won't tell you where it is!
Anthony Teasley No no no noooo, I've seen the puffin forest. I know what it's about.
Was that the game with the edgelord death god who is sooooo EVIL!1!!eleven that he doesn´t even have to try to be EVIL!!1! ?
A tip I got from a more experienced Game Master when it comes to referencing the rule book is to abuse the crap out of color-coded sticky notes/bookmarks. If you're still learning the rules and need to quickly reference back to something specific, marking it with a special color will help you flip open the page, look at what you need, and then jump back into the game.
I used to always imagine I was an invisible "silent partner" in the players group. I could look at things from that point of view to keep both players and myself in check.
trick for game scheduling: use Doodle. it's an shared online calendar that allows every participant to indicate their availability. once done, everyone has an easy and quick visual representation of which date would have everyone free and available. I did not know I badly needed this in my life until I knew about it.
I'm sharing my GM story. I am new being a GM and i made a Cthulhu one shot a while back. The thing is, i didn't prepare anything, i had a vague picture of what to do but nothing else... and i was conscious it was a bad move. i've seen the game master sins videos but... it went great ! I'm not saying it was the right thing to do ! Not at all ! but my players loved it... i still don't believe it. But apparently they did. I will be making a campaign for them. i will plan it from now on of course... the thing is i thought it was not that bad... (i had to improvise like crazy but i did it). I still apologized to my players about that but they didn't mind. i've been lucky. Extremely so ! Still i want to thank you Seth. you motivated me to become a GM and it's a wonderful feeling ! i'm forever grateful for that. You rock dude !
I really enjoy your tabletop RPG videos. I especially like videos in the “Do’s and Don’ts” category, as I can ask myself “do I do that” as part of my efforts to constantly improve as a player.
I’ve had a seat at a VERY good table for a few years now, and I’m fully aware of how fortunate I am to be a part of the group. Videos like yours help me to improve and be a better player.
Years ago in 2e we had a DM who every single game would try to kill the players as quickly as possible. Case in point: in one session, as a group of Lv. 1 characters, we came across a village within the first few minutes of play. We bartered with a merchant, and kept haggling with him until he got angry.
So, the merchant transformed into an evil Gold Dragon. Yes, a Gold Dragon. That was somehow evil. And was also, for some reason, a merchant.
All three of us quit right then and there. The DM didn't understand why we were so upset.
I've definitely had the issue with the commitment one since I started. I've always been one to find and look at all the different TTRPGs I can find, so when I was younger, I was always suggesting new games to play with my friends. Even now, because I've been watching your CoC videos, I'm dying to put my long-term D&D campaign on hold for a one-shot. Just a one shot, I swear.
Been DMing less than a year - your videos are among the many resources I've been using to make sure I don't completely ruin everything for my players. Thank you!
#2. To be clear I haven’t committed this particular sin but in the examples of player deaths it reminded me of a challenge I threw at one of my players while he was solo. Now this was meant to be a minor challenge and he almost died, it follows thusly. He was looking for a safe place to bed down for the night and spotted a hollow in a tree but didn’t look to see if it was safe, so he goes to sleep only to be awakened by a tiny cute looking sugar glider possum thing (it was kinda also a spider 🕷) that was reaching out to touch him (its poison “fangs” were in its fingers) so as he seats it away he ends up getting scratched and poisoned by the hidden “fangs” at which point the “cute” thing stopped being cute revealed some of its hidden ugliness and fled. The player at this point decided to go back to sleep even with hints that it might not be safe to do so only to awake later paralysed by the poison and trussed in spider silk and vines anchored to a different part of the hollow tree and the tree itself was sucking his lifeforce (the spider sugar gliders were symbiotic with the tree and ate the blood and flesh once the victim died) and thus proceeded the most epic series of critical fails I have ever seen. He ended up poisoned, drained until almost dead, impaled and bleeding out and only a last minute save to take a medical pill saved him. Had he failed that last roll he would have died (I was being very generous at this point by giving him this roll and he should have by all rights died 3 rolls ago)
LOL, the commitment one is totally me and it's gotten to the point where my players keep bringing me back in to finish my current game. I've learned to adjust to my players and their wants, so now we have no problems. Thanks for the vids!
Idea for helping to mitigate #2: Run a one-off.
If the GM is feeling bored with the current campaign, they should ask if the players want to run a single session for a different setting or game in the near future. That can give both the players and the GM a change of pace, leaving them ready to continue the campaign, or determine if players want to continue with the one-off's setting/system instead.
Can work especially well if there is a temporary scheduling conflict; the player(s) that show up have something to do that doesn't interfere with the main game, and the absent players miss nothing in the main campaign.
Just found your channel Seth. Subscribed. Great advice. I enjoy your acting scenes and your humility and the fact you dont jump to calling people who do these things bad or stupid. Several other youtube DMs are much more harsh, as are most RPG players.
Right. I like RPGs used for social improvement, in contrast to an excuse for consuming beer together. :)
The scheduling issue, for viewers who get down here, can be a nightmare. I once had a game end before the first adventure for two reasons:
1. Nobody had the same day off. Period. I went weeks out and nobody was in sync. Finally, we managed one date at the end of the month...
2. … and had the people whose apartment we were supposed to be gaming at back out because I didn't want to use their favorite rule supplement when I was still very new to the system.
For a Combo bonus:
Run a campaign til they reach mid-level before going for the TPK. "That's too bad! But on the bright side, I just got this brand new game we can try out next time that looks super fun!"
Great video. Love the skits, and how the map on the whiteboard changes with each campaign. LOL.
I suffer from the waning enthusiasm issue, but I basically now run limited campaigns that have a given story arc and then onto the next thing.
so im a gming a game for the first time and ur channel has been a wealth of information. keep up the awesome work and thanks for the tips.
the little *added bonus* - JUST ROLL THE DICE!! completely agree! lets keep the game moving!!
Scheduling issues are not always as one-sided. For the first session, this is most often the case. But on subsequent sessions when they are burned out/life gets in the way nagging your friends for "when do you guys have the time to play?" gets boring quick as well as annoying and at some point, you just say "Message me/send a message in the group chat when you want to play?"
I've had troubles with scheduling games but not from lack of effort. There were a lot of times when I've asked quite a few friends who were interested when they were available, figured out the only day that a minimum number of players could get together, and then have them be unavailable at different intervals. At the time, that was probably just the people and how everyone was in college, but I've still had troubles with that.
Great video again. As a quite greenhorn GM myself I've found your content to be really helpful and reassuring. The first point about being too rigid about the rules is something I definitely worry about myself.
We play Warhammer Fantasy 2nd Edition. Today during the session I had a player start up a tavern fight that caught me really out of the blue and he really wants to do specific actions in combat that don't really translate well to the rules themselves. "I want to grab his leg as he's kicking me and cut his hamstring with my dagger" is fun and descriptive combat but I struggle with what to allow and what I should try and rein in.
The game mechanics for the combat allow for a lot of these actions but they're often quite specific instances and balanced out into things like feats and talents that you acquire as you get stronger. But if somebody wants to, say, disarm an opponent with a flourish I don't know whether to tell them they can't since it's a talent they don't have or allow it thus removing the point of having the talent system in place or to allow it with a penalty?
One of my favorite DND youtubers
The Murder Happy... This nightmare of a DM said he was going to kill my character before session; I asked why and he told me it was because he thought it would be hilarious and was upset I didn't cried when he did it, because he completely thought that would make me cry. In other campaigns where he DM'd, he was always happy to kill PCs in the most gruesome ways or put them in situations where either we would agree to it, or we would end up dead - he did it so often he could not understand why I was not really excited to play in his campaigns. He also always has a different excuse to ignore all criticism so I just decided not to play in his campaigns anymore.
Yknow the first time I saw those skits I thought they were a little cringey...but damn I've come to love them! I think the fact that it's the same characters adds a lot of charm and it gives a great example of what you're talking about, not just from some hypothetical other people but from this group we've seen that sometimes does good and sometimes does bad. I love it!
It's a shame that my first job as a DM ended in a bit of a tragedy. I had this really awesome idea for a campaign about sky-pirates sailing between floating islands, collecting treasures and getting into trouble with the law and a number of different pirate captains. I got 5 people in, everyone was making these awesome characters that I was looking forward to exploring as I built adventures around their specific backstories and best of all, my players actually enjoyed the first session, blemishes and all.
However, after just that 1 session, I realized I couldn't do it. While the social contract is something you swear an oath to, I went ahead and made it a pact of blood. The idea of being responsible for so much of the players' enjoyment just kinda weighed over me, creeping into my mind. I knew I had tendencies towards perfectionism with things that I have a passion for, but this was the first time I was losing sleep over how much I feared not living up to standards. I thought it was just being nervous about session 1 and that it'd get lifted after that, but nope. After a night of contemplating on it, I had to cut my losses, apologize for getting everyone excited and admit that all of that wasn't worth the headache.
From that one session though, I can say that my greatest weakness was being a pushover. Granted, I managed to down one of my party members from max health within 1 turn-cycle, but I over-compensated on the patch-up with reinforcements and help when they got even the least bit impatient. I also realized that had I continued, that would probably have become a recurring thing.
Too eager to assist:
When I present a puzzle to the group, I usually explain what it is and then add, "If you need a hint, the player with the highest Intelligence can make a check."
Some players HATE puzzles and get frustrated in seconds, other player HAVE to solve it without any hints no matter how long it takes.
What urges me on to assist is the boredom on some of the player's faces rather than a fear that they won't solve it.
I try to design puzzles to include some aspect of a PC from the "I hate puzzles" group to get them engaged but that's not always easy.
Even then, I find that puzzles tend to grind the game to halt and I tend use them infrequently.
I favor mysteries and clue collecting instead.
I'm a bit eager to assist my players I'll admit. One way is a GMPC who's task is to fade into the background, giving a helping hand in combat when necessary (A 4 character campaign with 3 people makes it slightly skewed against them) and literally fade into the background unless acknowledged by other characters. I try to keep him in character when he does talk, but also mention things such as spells the characters have in their arsenal or abilities they have through them even if they probably wouldn't know that the ranger has wind wall since they never saw them use it before. Puzzles I usually try to keep quiet in. Usually, because I enjoy watching players try and figure it out. "Rise of Tiamat" has a fun one in the form of the worlds douchiest hedge maze. I love that one so much.
"Do the Windy Thing"?
Do you think players are more forgiving about a gm not knowing some of the rules if he is a new gm? I am a new gm and even though i have played many games as a player before I know im going to forget some, maybe even fundamental rules especially when it comes to combat. What are your thoughts on that?
They should be. Learning the rules and process of running a game is a definite curve. When ever we change to a new rules-system we always spend the first 3 games or so being cautious with rules, sometime double-checking just to be sure we're all doing it right while committing it to memory. As long as the GM is making a sincere effort to learn to rules, especially between games, then the players should be forgiving while they're getting used to it. Having players that are more experienced than you can be intimidating, and i remember when I first ran my original GM and he was very patient with me and offered advice/feedback after the session was done (He'd been playing for 10+ years and I was an awkward teen). If they're experienced and good players, then they'll help you out as you learn the ropes.
Doug E absolutely they should be lenient. If anything, your players should helps you out with the rules. My dm asks for a clarification on a rule from us all the time because it’s near impossible to remember everything and how all the rules interact with each other. At any rate, the story is more important than the rules.
If you watched Seth's videos about bad PCs, you should also look out for the odd PC who might try to take advantage of the fact that you don't know the rules very well. I've seen players not only lie about rules from one game to the next, but actually contradict their own lie to suit their needs: they said the rule worked one way in one game and then claimed the rule was completely different in the next game (in order to gain an advantage). Also, players are people and people are lazy... I've seen a player tell the GM that they "think" the rule works a specific way (because no one feels like looking it up right away, or they wanted to keep the game moving) only to find out later (when they finally did look it up) that it doesn't work anywhere close to how they thought it did.
There's a difference between not knowing the rules due to inexperience and not knowing the rules due to laziness.
So long as you can improvise a little bit to fill in the gaps, you'll be fine. =)
There may be difference if players see the GM advancing in rules lore. I have a personal issue with that, because I have hard time memorizing all the stuff - especially with the crunchy games. Even Dungeon World is not easy for me. Y'know, I got to know tabletop RPGs (contrary to most folks) at the age of half-century. Learn some stuff... just to have it forgotten a week later. Thus I love rules-light games.
Good god this all brings back some bad memories to this one terrible Shadowrun session:
The party was in Sydney Australia and the GM causing an overnight zombie apocalypse, followed by this massive mercenary force quarantining the whole city.
GM was openly murder happy, casually sending millions in Milspec hardware at us. Saying to our faces that he wanted to kill some PCs (He didn't, but the lazy unfairness of the challenge left a bad taste in our mouths). At one point he Interrupted it with an atmospheric EMP that wasn't in the rule books and should have fried all the electronics on earth, but was really just him being too lazy to learn how to properly throw hacking threats at us.
After surviving his barrage of missiles and Heavy machine gun fire, he was then too generous by giving us a massive gun ship to replace the party's beloved boat he sank with barely a thought. On-board their was millions worth in loot on-board (In a system that considers 100,000 to be an outrageously good payday), Direct quote "You all find better versions of all your gear" Which is something NO GM should ever say EVER. Also, apparently his mercenary group was a pop culture reference to Aliens that no one got.
To top it all off, he detonated a nuke on Sydney. It was all so lore unfriendly and immature. It's not like maybe Sydney was an important setting where more adventures could have taken place. Worst of all he was a guest GM to MY campaign, and I had to retcon allot of it.
Even though I already know some of this stuff, I most enjoy your skits, so that's definitely something to watch this for.
I'm definitely 100% guilty of not scheduling, I'll admit that part of it is because I'm never enthusiastic about anything until the moment I start and I spend most days prepping to run my session while at the same time dreading it, feeling like it's going to be a disaster and at the last minute (An hour before the session) I just send a message to everyone to ask them if they are coming, if they are we move on and most days we end up having a really good time and it works out, sometimes it doesn't because I don't think I'm a particularly good GM, especially since despite extensive prep I'm very likely to just improvise instead disregarding all I had prepared and that definitely doesn't work 100% of the time, and there are times it's pretty noticeable that I'm making it all up as I go along while some other times it isn't.
Like for example I spent months planning this murder-mystery CoC campaign that was about investigating the death of a loved one, and the day of the session I happened to read an article of a terrorist attack that happened on the 1920s and was never solved and I decided it was going to be about that instead, however I was at work and had 0 time to prepare as the session started about an hour after getting back to work, so instead of doing the reasonable thing which was using what I already had prepared and finding a way to link it to that event at a later session (Would have worked since it was in the same city anyway), I just started there, on the event making everything up as I went along and getting a lot of shit wrong because I didn't have time to do all that much research other that what I was able to google at lunch break and while going on my ride.
I mean we had fun but that was definitely poorly handled on my end, that being said running a game that is not D&D is so much more my style, it comes much more naturally and is way more enjoyable to me, it's a shame that most of the people I play with aren't willing to try new systems since I've realised that I don't particularly care for D&D, but I'm very much guilty of having a wandering eye, I'm already trying to convince people of playing a Cyberpunk homebrew campaign and we've just started CoC around 2 Months ago, which is unfortunately on hold due to the COVID-19 thing but nothing can be done about that.
Been following your videos recently, which helped me get out of my DM funk and hiatus from 4th Edition (ugh). Your advice and insights for running games has inspired me to get back into the DM groove with 5th Edition. Loving Dungeons and Dragons again, so much I'm running 2 separate groups now XD.
In the first example, his requested action is to crash into the gate correct. Who is most qualified to crash a car than someone who doesn't know how to drive. He should get a bonus to crash a car right. I mean even if he gets a negative wouldn't that just increase the chance of crashing, acting as a bonus in this case.
I just realized ... All of these guys are you
#7 was the reason I couldn't run Tyranny of Dragons for 5E D&D. It was our first adventure book and I kept wanting a rigid structure with exact information, but it was more like the framework than a full house. I gave up after 2 sessions and we haven't played ToD since.
Edit: And now a friend is running us through it. Her very first time running a game, and she did very well. Only issue was the first chapter has extreme combat heavy potential, so we had like seven fights, but she let us long rest after the first 3 so a bunch of level 1s didn't die immediately.
The driving example's a funny one. Personally, I can't drive - keep failing that Test for one reason or another - but I know enough to turn the car on, shift it to Drive, and step on the gas. Of course, my uncles don't want me to drive their trucks - although in my defense, the silly thing was in reverse - almost hit another vehicle and the garage the one time I tried one of theirs. As for my brothers - they don't share with me too well. Still, I've driven a farm tractor a little!
Giant ROOOBOOTTTS! *pew* *pew* *pew*
I'm gonna whoop your ass
CHICKS! DIG! GIANT ROBOTS!
WE! DIG! GIANT ROBOTS!
YOU! DIG! GIANT ROBOTS!
-"Megas XLR" theme song
I'm about to start running an Alien RPG game with a group of friends, I've never played a TTRPG before and these videos have been very helpful.
Best of luck with the game.
#4
I have set out to learn a game, as the GM, alongside a group of players. I did not study the rules in advance. I read some of the book and I generally understood the basics. I told the players that I know as much as them, and we all learned the rules together. It was a little awkward, but if I had taken the time to try to study the rules without playing the game, we wouldn't have started playing the game for another six months, or more. Legend of the Five Rings 5th edition is not a simple game. We are all learning the rules together and that means we're learning them much quicker as well.
A another great video man keep them coming. number 7 is the one mistake most beginner GMs make for sure.
"Giant robotssss."
"I'm gonna whoop your ass."
The thought of me and my players all growing up in a few years, getting married and having full-time careers gave me a huge pit of anxiety watching this. We're still in that period of time where most of us at the very least aren't married with kids (with one of our guys being the exception but his wife and kid also plays D&D so they're all cool about it), so to think that one day it'll get harder to schedule it makes me sad.
Two of my players started gaming with me in college. Most of our original group has long-since moved away, but 3 of the original crew are still playing together (once a month now instead of weekly) Next month will be our 19th anniversary. It's very weird how time speeds up. Just stay young at heart and keep making the effort to keep the game schedule going.
Thanks for the reply! Yeah, I'll try. We've kept to a weekly schedule so far with no signs of that changing in the future, but responsibility will strike one of these days. I think once I get high up in the years of our group being together I'll feel reassured about it all.
Dang now I want to play Mechwarrior again.
Commitment issues? *raises hand*
I just started a new group with some friends after the previous one got put on hiatus due to a player moving out of state and another buying her first house an hour away.
We did our session 0 and then scheduled our first session. Two of the four players bailed less than two hours before that session with...reasonable excuses. Now it’s been over a month and I haven’t bothered scheduling the next session. Don’t let pride stop you from having fun even if you do as much prep as I did, which was about 12 hours on Curse of Strahd. As disappointed as I was, I feel like scheduling our sessions now and hope they don’t half ass it. If I do my part, it’s on them to meet me somewhere halfway, right?
Lesson: don’t give up AND GMs schedule your sessions.
You know, I think that the best way of trying to curb the commitment issues is to instead of doing full jumps to other campaigns, to just doing one shots of your fancy new systems.