So this guy put up a new video in his series about running D&D. https://youtu.be/8Q8bVPpc84A
A lot of it was stuff I felt most GMs with some experience under their belts will already know (i.e. PCs will almost never surrender/flee, so don't make situations where you expect them to) but he hit on an idea I hadn't thought of before, which starts at 27:50 in the video.
"Tell your players what kind of GM you are at the start of the campaign."
I think that there is a list of questions that might come out of that idea to help current and future GMs. Here are the questions that he suggests but I think there are more we can think of.
"What kind of game do you like running?"
"What kind of behaviour do you value in your players?"
Not much to go on. Here are the questions I've come up with.
"When the PCs must act, do you give them suggestions or an open ended 'what do you do?'"
"Do you help the PCs openly, secretly, or not at all?"
"How reluctant are you to let NPCs die, especially villains?"
"How firm are your plans as GM?"
"Do you prefer crunchy combat or narrative combat?"
"What kind of plots to do you like to run?"
"How much detail, and how firm are those details, do you give to your setting?"
"How much player input do you appreciate in narrative details?"
I'm sure /tg/ can come up with more useful questions.
Bump with art
>>46754971
If it wasn't for the boardgames in the background, this guy would look like he was planning a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
>What kind of GM are you?
>IMMA GAMING JIHADI!!!!
"What sort of tropes or themes do you dislike"
And/or
"What sort of pet peeves you have?"
May be a bit blunt, but this is an excellent way to avoid problems with the GM or a potential player, and can give excellent insight on how to deal with that person. If anyone has a 'trigger' or something like that, they will say it at this point too. They can even tell you about past experiences you can use as reference or as a warning.
>>46755298
Good input!
>>46754971
You mean people don't do this normally?
What the fuck man
Its social interaction 101
>>46755887
Reasonable people do it.
Then, not everyone is reasonable. Or they are simply clueless (for example, the druid player from that campaign)
Id like to point out this guy GM'd right, and the concept of 'player agency' also means that if you fuck up, you fuck up and you have to take it like an adult. He doesnt need to think he did anything wrong except assuming novice players would know better.
>>46756330
I agree wholeheartedly, he GMed that just fine.
Art bump
"How much downtime will there be in the campaign?"
This is especially important for players considering characters that are focused on building stuff. You can't make a prototype spaceship or a wonderous item in a day.
>>46754971
"If a player does something really stupid that could wreck the party, a city or the entire campaign. Do you let that player, or ask him/her 'Are you sure?'"
>>46758271
OOOOOoooooh! I like that!
"Are the rules there to enable fun, or can the rules get in the way of haveing fun?"
I've got a gm at the moment who plays so loose with the rules it drives me nuts. They even seem to change from session to session sometimes. It's not that he's cheating or anything, just for him it's better to fudge a situation rather then let the rules dictate what happens. Personnely I hate this style.
>"Tell your players what kind of GM you are at the start of the campaign."
You've seriously never thought of this? This is not a concept that entered your brain?
Jesus fuck, /tg/ really is the worst group of people on the planet. No wonder every game you're in fails miserably, or consists of a bunch of fucktards spamming memes at eachother.
>>46758490
This shitty new-age "lol fuck da rules its all about fun anything goes!" shit is harmful to gaming because you're not actually playing a game anymore.
If you can't count on the rules mattering from moment to moment, why attempt to hang a narrative on them at all? Why pretend a character sheet is necessary if anything will fly as long as it's "cool"?
Either the rules matter, or they don't.
>>46758550
I think there's a balance to be struck entirely but everyone has to be on board, or at the very least the GM has to be consistent with when and what the rules will be broken for.
>>46758596
Who decides when the rules matter and when they don't? If you've already established at the beginning that "Rule of cool" is in effect, then what internal logic governs when the DM allows the player to ride a dragon crashing into an exploding castle just because it's a cool visual, or when the DM asks the player to roll a check to unlock a door?
It's too arbitrary, there is no "balance" because the concepts are mutually contradictory.
>>46754971
"Dare they enter your magical realm?""Dare you let them?"
>>46758668
I guess what I meant about balance was about how extreme the rule of cool was allowed to get. A single (or no) roll to ride a dragon crashing into an exploding castle is quite extreme. However, a GM might allow a character to vault over a waist high computer console to tackle a foe with a single roll for the tackle as opposed to adding in an acrobatics roll to get over the console. All that being said I think the GM and players should pick a rules system based on how tactical they want it.
Just bumping so the thread doesn't die while I watch the video.
>>46758752
>A single (or no) roll to ride a dragon crashing into an exploding castle is quite extreme. However, a GM might allow a character to vault over a waist high computer console to tackle a foe with a single roll for the tackle as opposed to adding in an acrobatics roll to get over the console
It's about increments. They're two opposite levels of "extreme", but functionally they're the same thing. If the rules say "It requires X roll/action/resource to jump a wall" and the DM allows you to do it for free, why would a player not ask to do more things for free? I mean, it's not "cool" if a player fails at something, right? So either you push the envelope every single time asking "Can I do this for free?", or you say that the arbitrary distinction of how long the campaign has been going on defines how extreme the things you can just do with no use of rules are.
>>46754971
>Watch an entire series of youtube videos to better prepare you for something you COULD have avoided by talking to your players like normal people.
It's just a marathon of assuming the worst of players and reinforcing the stereotype that D&D players are clueless murderhobos that can never be expected to behave like they are actually role-playing. Ugh.
>>46754971
I'm inclined not to agree with any advice he offers after his "Sociology of D&D" video where he argued the GM has a moral obligation to make all settings the same. Dumb advice from someone who takes their opinions too seriously.
>>46754971
There's something about this guys hair and beard that bugs the shit out of me
>>46761562
>where he argued the GM has a moral obligation to make all settings the same.
what? Then how does anything ever stand out in someones homebrew campaign setting? Is every campaign setting supposed to be an obvious western european with high magic with near 1500's level in technology sans guns?
I listened to this one podcast where these guys interviewed the author of some childrens book called Thrones and Bones and shit that guy at least talked about how he went out of his way to make his setting come alive and stand out from everyone elses.
>>46762103
No, his argument was that settings based on a narrow mythological set (his example was Norse myth) may alienate players because they may be unable to play characters like themselves (not a lot of gay people or black people in mythic Scandinavia), and because they live as outsiders in our society every day of their lives they aren't going to want to play the "traveler from a distant land."
His solution was that in his setting, The Empire had conquered lands of more or less every ethnicity and, to create a cohesive national identity, taken children from families all across the domain and fostered them in other regions. As he said: "In this setting, any type of person can be found anywhere, in any culture."
He then went on about how the GM has a moral and ethical obligation to do this or some similar mechanism because otherwise they are excluding and alienating minority players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHUCi6ZbVxU
>>46762237
So I am going to keep trying to wrap my mind around this since it is making my brain hurt. He doesn't want to have his players to immerse themselves in the culture of a setting since it might make them feel alienated since it may contrast with their political view in real life?
>He then went on about how the GM has a moral and ethical obligation to do this or some similar mechanism because otherwise they are excluding and alienating minority players.
Are there DM's who are actually like this video aside?
>>46755887
>Its social interaction 101
Not exactly the Tabletop Player's forte.
>>46762409
Well, the video has almost 1000 likes so I can only imagine. Though I'm willing to bet most of those are for the good ideas he talks about early in the video (don't get rapey at the table) and not the bad ones he talks about later.
>>46762588
>don't get rapey at the table
Shit I remember a Shadowrun podcast where the host said he had a ganger do exactly that and then banned the player from playing a female character since he didn't want to make a scumbag ganger go "shit lady, I like my girls freaky in the sack, but you are too weird for me, get the fuck out"
>>46758668
>>46758752
"Rule of cool" is just a variation on any old house-rule. When a player or GM rules that the rules don't apply to a certain kind of roll, or at a certain time, or that they're transplanting rules from somewhere else to allow someone to roll on something (grappling rules on a tank or whatever), that's a house rule. House rules set precedent. As long as the group sticks by the precedent, it's fine.
Of course, tabletop players are notorious for having retarded house-rules, but I think it's important to recognize them for what they are.
>>46762763
Most retarded one I ran into was the DM insists we all roll a D20 for no reason other than luck when I was taking a shot at an enemy. Apparently he then decided to randomly half the damage my heavy crossbow did to almost nothing.
>>46754971
Well, the biggest concern is probably the base assumptions or expectations that different people at the table might have. So the best idea would be to highlight what you are expecting or the method you intend to play to everyone else.
First, answer some basic organizational questions.
Where are you meeting?
When?
How long will the game sessions last?
How do people contact you?
How do they contact everyone?
How do you contact people?
When are you available to discuss something?
If there is something important that everyone needs to know, how is it spread?
What happens with a player cancelation?
What happens with a GM/game cancelation?
Next, move onto the basic assumptions involved with the game itself.
What game system?
What kind of a game is being run? One-shots, short adventures, long campaign adventure, lengthy campaign, etc.
What kind of a setting is it?
Does it differ from the printed material?
What are players expected to provide? Just a character sheet, backstory, NPC ally stats, etc.
What are players expected to do? Just run their character and respond, provide ideas for adventures, prompt quests, generate NPC relatives, etc.
(cont.)
>>46754971
>>46763407
(cont.)
And then, get into your GM style a bit to make sure everyone is on the same page.
Do you prefer to narrative actions or have players narrate actions?
Do you prefer making elaborate descriptions, or are those reserved for specific situations?
Do you direct players towards the quest available today? Do you offer several plot hooks and expect them to bite one? Do you wait for players to take an initiative on what to go out and do?
Do you need plans for next session from players, or work on next session's material on your own?
Do you prefer fast-and-loose (let's do it this way and check rules later) or prefer to look up the correct rules?
Do you prefer and reward unusual actions, or do you apply penalties to unrealistic situations?
Is the game combat heavy? Exploration heavy? Investigation heavy?
How much downtime do the characters get between missions?
How much downtime to players get between missions?
Do you use a playmat grid for combat?
>>46754971
>"What kind of game do you like running?"
>"What kind of behaviour do you value in your players?"
Superhero game and they should follow suit.
>"When the PCs must act, do you give them suggestions or an open ended 'what do you do?'"
Open ended.
>"Do you help the PCs openly, secretly, or not at all?"
I shoved a bunch of alternate effects down their throats so they won't have just damage and ranged damage for all they can do.
>"How reluctant are you to let NPCs die, especially villains?"
Game is nonlethal.
>"How firm are your plans as GM?"
Pretty firm. What are they gonna do, NOT foil villainy afoot?
>"Do you prefer crunchy combat or narrative combat?"
It's sorta crunch-ish I think?
>"What kind of plots to do you like to run?"
Fuck if I know it's my first time and it's a published adventure. Although I dislike the ending with not-galactus so I rip that out
>"How much detail, and how firm are those details, do you give to your setting?"
So-so.
>"How much player input do you appreciate in narrative details?"
I'm already incorporating one guy's immediate backstory as plothook, others will be offered to hook up with nemeses and the like as the game goes on.
>>46754971
>"What kind of game do you like running?"
I dunno, political/investigation games with a combat backdrop I guess?
>"What kind of behaviour do you value in your players?"
Roleplaying, trying to stay authentic even in the face of danger.
>"When the PCs must act, do you give them suggestions or an open ended 'what do you do?'"
Always the what do you do, never suggestions.
>"Do you help the PCs openly, secretly, or not at all?"
I try not at all, but sometimes it is necessary (for general fun, not my plans) to help them. Then I do it openly.
>"How reluctant are you to let NPCs die, especially villains?"
Emotionally? Very. In reality? Not at all. They get killed like anyone else.
>"How firm are your plans as GM?"
Pretty firm. Doesn't mean they don't get thrown overboard every two sessions because of players.
>"Do you prefer crunchy combat or narrative combat?"
narrative
>"What kind of plots to do you like to run?"
Big ones, with many threads players can independently follow, multiple game-spanning ones, political ones.
>"How much detail, and how firm are those details, do you give to your setting?"
Lotsa details, not all that firm in the face of the players wanting to give input.
>"How much player input do you appreciate in narrative details?"
As much as they can muster, as long as it doesn't contradict the basic established facts.
>>46754971
Isn't this the guy who said you should go out of your way to include fictional minority races in your campaign to not alienate actual minority players?
I like it.
And since I got nothing good to add, answers for fun:
>"What kind of game do you like running?"
Mid to high fantasy
"What kind of behaviour do you value in your players?"
Just act thoughtful and considerate towards everyone.
>"When the PCs must act, do you give them suggestions or an open ended 'what do you do?'"
Always open ended unless they seem stuck for ideas.
>"Do you help the PCs openly, secretly, or not at all?"
Yes.
I drop hints or clarify concepts I might not have made clear before, I fudge dice to avoid anti-climactic unfun, and when it really matters, I roll in the open and let the chips fall where they may.
>"How reluctant are you to let NPCs die, especially villains?"
Not at all.
>"How firm are your plans as GM?"
Like Jell-o with a lot of fruit inside.
>"Do you prefer crunchy combat or narrative combat?"
Descriptive narrative based on crunch, like describing a crit maiming a goblin in gory detail.
>"What kind of plots to do you like to run?"
Charged action adventure filled with convoluted mysterious events that I hopefully get to finish.
>"How much detail, and how firm are those details, do you give to your setting?"
Been building the same world for 12 years. Many core details are fixed, but I have yet to fully map out a road system.
>"How much player input do you appreciate in narrative details?"
In player actions, as much as they like. Roll before you resolve.
>"What sort of tropes or themes do you dislike"
Few. Any that clash with the world, like gunslingers and samurai.
>"What sort of pet peeves you have?"
Disrespect for others and their time. Contrarianism.
>"How much downtime will there be in the campaign?"
Depends on the plot, which depends on the players, but almost all of it would be between sessions.
>"If a player does something really stupid that could wreck the party, a city or the entire campaign. Do you let that player, or ask him/her 'Are you sure?'"
Always confirm that they are making an informed decision, then let it ride.
>>46767275
>"Are the rules there to enable fun, or can the rules get in the way of having fun?"
Both, so I roll or engage the rules as necessary, no more.
>"Dare they enter your magical realm?"
>"Dare you let them?"
No ERP. Not judging, I’m just not explaining erotic gameplay with dudes to my wife.
>Do you prefer to narrative actions or have players narrate actions?
Players can narrate themselves, see above.
>Do you prefer making elaborate descriptions, or are those reserved for specific situations?
Only use them for setting the scene or building tension.
>Do you direct players towards the quest available today? Do you offer several plot hooks and expect them to bite one? Do you wait for players to take an initiative on what to go out and do?
I remind them of where they were and what they were doing, start with a tiny event, and let them move from there.
>Do you need plans for next session from players, or work on next session's material on your own?
Only need input if there is a passage of time between sessions or if it is a really scheme heavy game.
>Do you prefer fast-and-loose (let's do it this way and check rules later) or prefer to look up the correct rules?
If we can’t resolve it in a few minutes, I rule and look it up later. If I was wrong, I make it up to the one I wronged later.
>Do you prefer and reward unusual actions, or do you apply penalties to unrealistic situations?
Everything needs to “make sense.” But I’m flexible.
>Is the game combat heavy? Exploration heavy? Investigation heavy?
I plan several combat encounters a session, whether combat happens is player dependent.
>How much downtime do the characters get between missions?
As much as they want that makes sense.
>How much downtime to players get between missions?
I try to end them at the end of sessions.
>Do you use a playmat grid for combat?
Not as much as I should/intend to.
>>46762237
>not a lot of gay people or black people in mythic Scandinavia
I thought self-inserts are sinful
>>46754971
The idea is a good one. I've asked GMs some of these questions or similar ones before to try and get a feel for them before I join their game or make a character.
The problem is that a lot of the time, the answers they give you are partially or entirely inaccurate. Most people are really bad at objectively describing any aspect of themselves or what they do, so their answers can be really off, even if they're trying to be honest.
I've had GMs tell me their game is "60% roleplay, 40% combat", and then spend the next year playing a game that is 90% combat. I've had GMs tell me they accept all alignments, then become angry that my character is not lawful good. I've had them tell me they don't like for PCs to die, but end up running meat grinders. I've had them tell me they want every character to have a lot of backstory so they can integrate it into their story, but never do it for any of the players.
So yeah, I'd certainly ask questions like these of any GM you're playing with for the first time, but expect the answers to vary a lot in their accuracy.
>>46767520
Self-inserting is fine as long as you're a cis het white male. Anyone else is bad for doing it though because it's not historically accurate for an imaginary fantasy world.
