The only way you will get better is practise.

One guideline I've seen is that you should aim for one hour of prep work for every hour of playing time. At least until you figure out what you can and can't make up on the fly.

Asking your players for feedback at the end of each session is useful. One thing I picked up from Ironclaw to encourage feedback was that a decent chunk of the per-session XP comes from giving feedback. Any feedback, from "the session was good"* to details about what exactly a player didn't like gets the full feedback XP.

*My players usually thought that my sessions went much better than I did. But I only knew that because I was asking for feedback.

Unless your system your running is very combat oriented, don't add needless fight encounters. For example, in 5e dnd only add an encounter if it 1)makes sense and 2) would add something. Sure having them fight a small pack of wolves or something every now and again is good but do it in moderation. Aim for an encounter furthering the story

Also try and build your world from what the players introduce. Build a good base world with lore and current on goings, but from there incorporate their backstory into the current story. Maybe brig up someone they know or a piece of lore from their background. Maybe even (a bit risky) turn their background around a bit and have them turn out to be Lost royalty or aomethin. My players love that stuff

The game we are playing is mutants and masterminds in a modern day setting about superheroes and mages. The last session actually had zero combat encounters which I think was one of the problems.

Add variance even if it might be a bit silly. My first campaign was a necromancer's tower the players had to climb and it ended up quite dull even though it had different kinds of encounters and a few puzzles. I dug up a one shot from like 7 years ago and it was some silly demented wizard's house with stupid stuff like a huge magnetic ball in the middle of the room for no reason, and my players liked it a lot more. Current campaign is a whole new setting with more questions than answers. It makes it harder to meta game and adds that sense of wonder that's missing if the player's have already read the monster manual or if the encounter is just a "you happen to come across some wolves in the forest".

>>47674758
>>One guideline I've seen is that you should aim for one hour of prep work for every hour of playing time. At least until you figure out what you can and can't make up on the fly.

i'm not an experienced GM but this seems like both a waste of time and a good way to accidentally railroad your players bigtime. i don't think you need that much prep time unless you have 0 improvisation ability or if you're in a very weird place with your campaign

i personally just focus on creating the world the players are in, putting interesting stuff into it as well as people with different wants and needs, and then i call upon that knowledge when the players explore.

in the end, the players are the ones writing and playing out the story, i'm just the guy building the sets.

i don't know if this is how everyone does it, but i feel that it works very well for me

>>47675244
I don't think you can be over prepared. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it and all that. When the players inevitably go off the rails what I've prepared mostly just gets rearranged.

File: Londo.jpg (56 KB, 1024x576) Image search: [Google]

56 KB, 1024x576

>>47674401
Sounds like you're planning wrong. Story develops with the players, there's only so much you can plan. Stay flexible.

For plot, focus on hooks and see where the players bite. Always present more than they can follow up on, it makes the world seem bigger and alive. And it ensures that the players are the ones who decide where to go.

Play into your players' expectations. See what characters they make and then present opportunities for those to shine. This can be as simple as preparing a sneaking challenge for the rogue, or as complex as having the fighter rise to general and maybe ruler eventually.

Also facilitate their personal style. A player who needs action to feel involved gets action, even if it's sidelined by scheming or investigation. A player who'd rather line up NPCs gets a bunch of those with different power bases, secrets, and tensions to other NPCs so he can develop a social network and solve challenges by knowing who to talk to and how. Someone who always suspects sinister motives behind every smile finds some. And the happy-go-lucky first time roleplayer won't encounter too intricate plotwork so as not to overwhelm them, saving the princess from the dragon is enough, no need to question motives.

But all that doesn't matter much, you just have to keep the ball rolling. Refocus your scope regularly. If the players never leave the city then it's urban adventuring all the way with the town getting more and more fleshed out in the process. If they in turn venture out and follow rumors to the forest, hills, or next settlement, then the plot gets bigger and involves forgotten temples, orcs, or realm politics. Pacing is always more relevant than coherence.

Take notes! Make a sheet for each scene you played and write down what happened in two sentences, which NPCs appeared and how they developed, clues or goodies the PCs picked up, where the tension was, what action occured, and which atmosphere was established. Include how the players reacted.

>>47675244
>this seems like both a waste of time and a good way to accidentally railroad your players bigtime

That depends how you do it. If you spend all that time planning out a single event chain, you're likely to railroad.

If you spend that time thinking about where the players get to make significant decisions, then planning for all foreseeable outcomes of those decisions, you'll do better. While getting used to planning content that you have to throw away because players picked another choice.

>>47674401