So, I'm going to start by saying I've only DMed for about a year and a half and have had only 4 groups (2 ongoing), but when I first came to /tg/ back then for DMing advice, one of the most consistent points I got told was
>No plan will ever survive contact with the players.
You got differing perspectives on how much and what to plan anyway, but it was pretty unanimous that the players will run off in weird directions I'd never even thought of.
So far, at least, that hasn't happened. I mean, I obviously can't plan their moves to the tiniest details, but when it comes to narrative points, as to how they're going to get from A to B to C to D and the end of the adventure, I've pretty much been spot on. The closest I've ever gotten to having to do serious improvisation was one low level adventure, when the players missed all of the clues I had scattered about town as to how the plague of giant bugs attacking had a link to this abandoned church, and they went there anyway on the logic of "Well it's a weird haunted site and I bet it has something to do with the other weird occurrences here"
Am I doing something wrong? I definitely haven't been overtly railroading, but I do sometimes wonder if I'm a bit too heavy handed in presenting information, because I haven't had nearly as much trouble as everyone assured me I would.
Pic unrelated but bunnies are cute.
>>47789298
Have your players complained?
Have they expressed any concerns as to your DM style?
If not, shine on.
>>47789352
I've gotten complaints, but not relating to railroading or being too directional.
Most of my complaints I get is that I put in too little action and too much dialog or investigation. And that my fights can on occasion, be too "puzzle-like", that there's a right approach or way to ambush the enemy, and if you don't do it, the fight is too tough.
The advice you're given stems largely from the fact hat 99.999% of players are complete fucking retards and ridiculous spergs who care nothing for the plot or the tone of the game and just want to muderhobo their way through a session and make bad jokes out of everything they encounter.
The corollary to this is that if your players aren't the ACTIVE type of stupid that is described above, they're more likely to be the PASSIVE type of stupid, and require you to drag them by the nose through a plot because they can't choose or figure anything out on their own.
The inevitable question is "Are any players not stupid?" to which the answer is, no.
>>47789298
Are your players having fun?
I mean, there's no golden rule, Anon. Every game is different, and every group wants something different. In my experience a normal group is quite often ready to follow up on plothooks and the like for the sake of doing so, because it's what's expected. See, you already told them about this haunted site. That's a hint in itself that they should go there. Generally you only mention stuff that's important in some way. I mean, you don't tell them about the little village down the road.
And to be honest, /tg/ is just as autistic as the rest of 4chan.
>>47789298
>Am I doing something wrong? I can predict my players choices
Fuck you and your lucky intuition motherfucker. Most of us only pray to be able to plan so little.
>>47789298
If your plans work that's good. However improv is usually preferable to heavy handed railroading. You should take it as "One shouldn't expect their plans to survive players".
Well, are you going for simple stories and tropes( which are great fun, I love some Saturday morning cartoons), or a GOT 'open world, gritty bbeg who plays real dirty and sneaky' game?
Cause as much as I the dm love to write and play the latter, I have waaaay more time invested into the world and I can see everything, many people in this position (myself included at times) lose sight of what the players can see and be bothered to remember from session to session. This makes for a disconnect in perspectives on what's happening in the world.
Also, I have totally had players that will run in the opposite direction of the story just to see what you will do.
It sounds like you have a good group and are doing a decent job of presenting your game though, score for you.
>>47789298
YOU CAN NEVER PREDICT PLAYERS
SOMETIMES THE MOST UNPREDICTABLE THING IS TO FOLLOW THE PROPER CHANNELS OF THE CAMPAIGN WITHOUT DEVIATING
IT'S BRILLIANT, NO GM WOULD EVER EXPECT THAT
>>47789488
>Well, are you going for simple stories and tropes( which are great fun, I love some Saturday morning cartoons), or a GOT 'open world, gritty bbeg who plays real dirty and sneaky' game?
Not quite at either pole, really. I try to go for a sort of setting where there's a huge wide world, but one that is fairly standard adventuring tropes, with lots of regional interests and plots, but no real world spannning ones.
For tone, I'd say I'm mostly inspired by Moorcock's lighter stuff, the Von Bek and Hawkmoon style adventures, although without any of the cosmic god or world destroying empire stuff.
>>47789298
don't you see anon, your plan was that they would run off in some crazy direction. and now even that plan has failed
>>47789298
90% of the players are dumb, and only want and enjoy campaigns on par with on-rails shooters.
>>47789381
In that case you can approach "too much dialog" and "lack of action" with an appropriate villain.
>No nonsense Robber Baron, Barbarian Chief, Sea-Dog Pirate type that raids, murders and moves on.
>Villain is a man if action and his methods are simple, brutal and effective.
This can give your players a little less "talk and investigate" and a little more "think on your feet and carry a big stick".
>>47789298
Sounds like your players are all pretty passive. A lot of players will intentionally try to go off the rails, make totally off-the-wall conclusions, or work towards a goal completely contrary to the premise of the campaign. You're not doing anything wrong since it sounds like they like staying on the rails and having a clear next step presented to them.
>Most of my complaints I get is that I put in too little action and too much dialog or investigation. And that my fights can on occasion, be too "puzzle-like", that there's a right approach or way to ambush the enemy, and if you don't do it, the fight is too tough.
As a GM there's a tendency to find making clever puzzles more fun than your players have solving them. I'd tone it back a bit and add some more straight up combat if that's what they want.
>>47789298
At the end of each session I have the players write down one suggestion for how it could have been improved in exchange for xp. I've found that helpful in getting concrete feedback.
>>47792014
Genius.
>>47792014
That's an awesome idea as long as they aren't just making up stuff for xp. Do you offer more xp if they are able to articulate specific instances or if suggestions are unanimous or less if it's super vague and look like they're just saying 'stuff'?
>>47792180
They get the xp no matter what. I don't think making stuff up is a problem - everyone always has something that they would have rather I'd done differently, but in my experience players often won't speak up about it unless forced to.
![Festivus_Pole[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/erCEv8A.jpg "Festivus_Pole[1].jpg")
>>47792214
Hm, fair enough. As long as people are airing their grievances and you're getting constructive feedback, that's what matters.
>>47789298
People are so melodramatic about how much players go off in crazy directions. I know people who refuse to plan absolutely anything in an RPG, whether they're running or playing, just because they believe it's pointless.
Those tend to be the same people who do their best to destroy any plans they think the GM might have, or "go off the rails" just because they feel like it.
>>47792014 #
>>47792180 #
>>47792214 #
>>47792492 #
Why the exp carrot? You can approach your players like adults and ask them what they thought of the session. If they want to offer feedback, fine. If not, don't worry about it.
Everyone has a "better" way or "different" way of running a game. Especially when they haven't, or aren't willing to run a game of their own. Don't take too much to heart.
Just because your players disagree with you, doesn't mean you're wrong.
>>47789381
>want more fighting
>want simpler fighting
>don't like dialogue
>don't like investigation
>never go far from the beaten track
They sound like plebs to be honest.
>>47789298
Because a lot of the most active people on /tg/ have probably mostly played with shit groups, have played for a fairly short time, haven't played in a while or sometimes have never played RPGs at all.
So you get that sort of pointless, bland and nonsensical advice. Because they do want to help you, but can't really do better than that since they most likely lack experience.
And I am one of these people who have not played in a while, but if there is one thing I have learned from my three-and-something years of tabletop gaming it is that players systematically derailing your games is a myth. Derailing happens, even when you're not playing with assholes, but not as often as /tg/ could make you think, and most of the time it is easy to get back on tracks. Even easier if you actually prepared your game like any good GM should.
>>47793172
They sound like a Beer'n'Pretzels group.
Maybe I'm giving OP the benefit of the doubt, but maybe his players are just tracking the right bread crumbs instead of outright hand-holding?
>>47793241
Been playing for 20 and yes there are nightmare players that want to beat the game by any means necessary, and will purposely derail any campaign to do it. Luckily they are few and far between, or gain a reputation and no long warrant invites.
>No plan survives first contact with players
This is a wonderful, if a little vague, piece of advice.
In my early years I would spend ridiculous amounts of time fleshing out worlds no one explored. For a few years I ran games of ad&d that were basically 4e, a decade before it was invented (will never game with JRPGers again). So everything was carefully mapped and "video gamed" to appeal to my players. Don't do this.
Have a rough gameplan. Have a plot you want to move forward and focus on interesting characters and the set pieces they inhabit and go from there.
Above all, learn what to expect from your players. Don't run a game of political intrigue for beer'n'pretzels players, and vice versa.
>>47792969
Because then everyone's feedback ends up being "it was good."
>>47793458
Maybe it was good?
>>47793458
Why do your players have to find fault in your game for you to consider it a success...if no one offers feedback of their own volition, then you have nothing to worry about.
>>47793541
This has nothing to do with it being considered a success and everything to do with the GM's drive to do even better. There can be no growth without some form of positive criticism (e.g. "X could have been done better" vs "this sucks you suck").
>>47793661
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I agree that growth follows constructive criticisms, but fishing for criticisms can be disingenuous when the player is put on the spot instead of legitimately offering something.
So people always give vague general advice like "Don't railroad your players." or "Don't be afraid to borrow material from other sources." But does anyone have any practical advice for actually building encounters and a coherent environment for my players?
What should I be reading aside from the DM's guide?
>>47793794
I'm certainly not good enough to have ever run anything close to a flawless session. I want to know how what I think I should change compares with what the players think I should change. It's my experience that a lot of the time players think their complaints are too small or petty to voice, or they don't want to insult the GM even if they absolutely hated the session, or they don't want to disagree with someone who's louder and more assertive.
>>47793416
I totally agree with you.
But:
>This is a wonderful, if a little vague, piece of advice.
Yes, it is vague, and that is the issue. When you ask for advice and twenty anons come in the thread and say "No plan survives first contact with players" or some variation, with little to no explaination, it is'nt useful at all. And worse, some of them are probably going to say "do not plan anything" because they really believe players are going to derail the game, no matter what. And when you're a new GM, that's terrible advice. Not planning anything is as stupid as trying to plan everything.
>Above all, learn what to expect from your players. Don't run a game of political intrigue for beer'n'pretzels players, and vice versa.
This is actually useful advice for new GMs. It may seem obvious, but sometimes you need someone or something to point out things that might seem self-evident. Because it is so obvious it becomes forgettable.
>>47793971
Fair enough.
What I'm trying to convey is don't get too hung up on your perceived flaws. If you think something needs to be changed then do it and see how your players react. Don't make the mistake of assuming you're doing something wrong. Don't get paranoid.
Be confident in your game and how you're running it. If a player wants to bring something to your attention then that's cool. Other than that a simple "what did you think?" will suffice. Otherwise people get nitpicky.
>>47793888
>What should I be reading aside from the DM's guide?
PreMade adventures. Seriously. They can be a good tool to base your encounter structure on, until you find your own style.
>>47789298
I know jack-shit about rabbits, but I can't shake the sense that this one would rather be dead.
>>47793512
It doesn't matter if it was good, that feedback is always always terrible.
Even if your game was great, you can still always do something better, so there's always room for feedback.
>>47793888
Step 1: Come up with a plot that engages all your players with different motivations (they do have backstories, right?)
Step 2: Arrange for various events to happen based on character backstories that set things in motion that will kill that character if left alone (ensure the characters know this).
Step 3: Pick a random but mythical goal for these characters to be pushed towards as part of the resolution of their troubles
Step 4: Have setbacks that leave the characters helpless so the players start bitching about being railroaded but give them the tools and the connections to get out of these situations without necessarily fighting their way out
Step 5: Your game will probably be over by this point because few games last longer than 6 months
>>47789298
Depends some players like to go through narrativesome and play well more liner stories or at least you give a quest and they want to see how it's going to play out.
I actually wrote a the first part of my campaign as a honey pot for my I am so crazy random player (basically he would try and do the exact opposite of what he thought I wanted the players to do) but anticipating this I basically wrote in big red buttons saying don't push and he got killed after hitting the first one, go mad and quit.
Kinda disappointed cause the rest of the players don't take the bait.
>>47795608
Fucking autocorrect
