Dang, tg, I love DMing. Nothing gives me a kick like running a session. Even in games I've joined I mostly thought about how bring in players shoes will allow me to get a new perspective and DM better. And steal other GMs ideas and tricks.
Anyone else feels the same way?
I love everything about DMing besides the prepwork. I'd love to just wing it with some premade stuff, but I feel like that'd give a poor experience. Also materials cost money, even if I am on roll20.
Man I love DMing
>>bard learns dance of ruin and two shots the final boss of a three week adventure. She's not evil (yet)
cutepaladin and her npc adventuring party who have turned the party's dead paladin into a saint and wrote fanfiction about him
>going to hand them the low level characters and throw them into an alien scenario
The only thing I dislike about DMing is when my players are less enthusiastic about playing than I am, which is an unfortunate side effect of not having a stable forever group.
Otherwise, yes, I love it. I'm a filmmaker though, so I think storytelling is just in my blood. I hate writing, but if I didn't, I'd do nothing but craft universes and write books all day long.
I like GMing, more than I like playing, but it's huge investment of energy and time to do it right; I love it, but I burn out reasonably quickly and need to let someone else have the helm.
Wait till you're the Forever DM like me, anon.
I feel like looping Sound of Silence during my party's games til someone gets sick of it an offers to let me play for once.
I offered to DM once and have never played a single game since, and that was almost 10 fucking years ago.
THESE PLAYERS ARE GODDAMN VAMPIRES AND I PRAY FOR THEIR DEATHS EVERY SINGLE DAY
THEY HAVE TAKEN EVERYTHING FROM ME, THEY HAVE DRIVEN A SPIKE INTO MY SKULL AND SPLIT MY BRAIN OPEN AND DUG AROUND WITH THEIR GREEDY, GRUBBY FINGERS AND DEVOURED ALL OF MY IDEAS
I HOPE THEY DON'T SUSPECT ME FOR NOT EATING THE HOMEMADE BREAD I BAKED FOR THEM NEXT SESSION
I HOPE THEY DON'T NOTICE THE CANS OF GASOLINE BEHIND THE COUCH
THE NEXT SESSION WILL BE THE LAST ONE
I WILL AT LAST BE FREE
I've never understood how this situation arises.
If you're the forever DM, you can do whatever you want. There's no story, setting, game, or structure you can't run, because your players have no alternative but to volunteer themselves.
That's huge power. Do you just choose not to use it?
I love it. It's great. Me and my friends mainly play home-brew stuff for whatever reason, and they let ms do the stuff. I'll admit it's annoying never to get to play, but I learned after one session thay noe of the others like DM'ing and I decides I'd just do it so everyone will stay interested. If I didn't they probably wouldn't want to ever do it and the sessions are really the majority of my social contact.
Of course, I'd let them DM if they want. I do think playing DM requires a certain kind of person, especially for a good DM.
I'm speaking from a new GM's perspective, unlike him. But I'm already being forced into "forever GM" status.
I hate preparing storylines with the knowledge they'll be ruined. I hate making characters when they're gonna meet a pointless death at the hands of lolrandum. I particularly hate making maps AT ALL, but even more so when they don't get used.
I can run any setting, story, game, or structure I want. But that doesn't mean the players won't ruin it.
Everyone gets real jazzed up to play D&d, but only one person DMs the first year long campaign. And so he has this space hollowed out for these monsters and mechanics which nobody else has, and so he keeps doing it
Honestly >>44574497 , start doing. games without GMs. Fiasco and so on. Take. A. Break. Play fiasco and board games for a month. You're the DM, if you say you're not running D&d, then you're not.
That's my only problem. I have a group of friends who've we all been around and are comfortable with. We've learned ro be open about everything so the game goes well. New people though can annoy the sit out of me. That being said they sometimes forget how much work I put into it. I prepare all this shit just so everytime they aren't being giventhe spotlight they start with their phone.
I've been blessed with really attentive players. They like their characters, are really interested in the storyline, and make space to be engaged in the game. Part of it is that popcorn initiative completely turns the dynamic of the game around
I had a PC go off to the store to sell some things. While I tabulated the gold they had, I asked him to role-play as one of the npcs, and he did, gave him a real sarcastic bent which is really different from his standard monk.
I rewarded him with a cool kung fu fight. While that was happening, the other players kept talking in character
I certainly don't mind playing. However, when I've got a play session coming up and a GM session coming up, I'm always more hyped for the GM session.
Even with the tedious prep I'm always enthusiastic to do it. However, the best thing about it always seeing the players reactions to my hand crafted plots, and them being enthusiastic about it.
I suspect it's different in other parts of the world but when I run my games my players either give amazing feedback or negative feedback. They tell me they enjoyed the game and if it doesn't happen for some reason they seem disappointed but they just don't seem as big into it as I am.
I have this weird conundrum where I love to DM, but I'm terrible with preparatory work. I barely prepare for sessions, which eventually causes me to lose interest, which leads to the death of the campaign. But at the same time, I have a lot more fun as a DM than a player. It's kind of frustrating.
I think DMs that don't like DMing are either :
1) DMing the wrong system
2) DMing for the wrong people
3) DMing the kind of game they wish they were a player in
4) Honestly not cut out to DM but no one else will do it
There's probably a lotta DMs suffering out there needlessly. I actively enjoy DMing, and if I'm not, I consider 1-4.
The bulk of my DM experience was with D&D 3.5, and then I moved on to AD&D/2E, Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, Promethean, some of my own homebrew, etc.
Gonna do Gamma World soon. We're all gonna make it bruhs.
Not sure if I'm the same, but I've always got a hard time of putting myself into the shoes of the character I'm playing as. I get their motivations and such, but I'm pretty horrible at anything like accents.
When I'm GMing, accents come to me naturally enough and I can probably get into the shoes of a character I'm portraying better than if I was playing.
You don't need to be a roleplayer or a guy with funny accents and shit to DM though. View yourself more like the narrator in an old fantasy movie/children's cartoon.
>Before you stands Grissen, the blacksmith. He scowls somewhat, but agrees to let you peruse his wares
Rather than "HELLO THERE LADDY, M'NAMES GRISSEN" and that kind of shit.
I think either is fine as long as you're consistent.
A lot of my players are more comfortable this way too; they don't want to speak as their character either, but rather just say what their character does.
>My character asks for directions to the town apothecary
vs "Good evening, fair sir. Might I inquire as to the location of the town apothecary?"
I don't feel like any substance is lost out between the two.
Also everyone fucked with a Lovecraftian god and the Elf Scout rolled a Nat 1 on a Will Save with a DC of 20.
He went insane, ripped his own ear off and is currently in the loony bin
Eh, I see it as an amalgamation of the two.
A good narrator makes his creations animate as well as well described.
Most of my GMing comes along the lines of;
'A British officer, well groomed and with a proper stature strides purposefully towards you with his hand outstretched.'
"Good to finally meet, my good man! The old B.A Bedford wasn't too rough for a gentleman such as yourself, was it?"
I'm a fan of the narrativist style however, so I prefer to craft a story than simply make X NPC for the sake of advancing Y goal.
I always hated/loved being the DM. Be it online or IRL, I always find myself with the GM hat one way or another.
I've been in a "big" European RP community for the past 6 or 7 years and encountered more or less 300 players. Might have been more, but you never know with the Internet.
I've never really been a player. One way or another, I was always working on a project, be it with someone or by myself. I always had the players in mind, and always wanted the players to experience new home-made stuffs coming from me. Settings and rules they couldn't find elsewhere, or with someone else.
My kick was trying to lure the player into investing themselves into their characters. The point of a role playing game is to role play, you need to invest yourself into your characters. I always try to make my players understand in subtle ways that their characters - and even every NPC - are human beings.
When the player is invested in a character, be it his or another, I know I've been a good DM. Because most players can't get easily into a character, even if they created him. They need a little bit of help from the setting, the universe - you, the game master.
The same way the player RP his character, I RP the world around him. Everything has a logic, nothing is left behind. And the world I play the role of need to move as fast as the world my players lives in to feel like they're home, to feel like their character.
If I know they feel that way, that mean I've done well.
You'll have to excuse me for shitty English, I'm normally more of a lurker. But damn baby, t'night, I feel like talking... to you.
Yeah, I figured as much, I was going to mention this.
I've never GM'd a D&D game and loot for me is a small part of the game etc, but I would understand the clear cut description style you use in your situation.
Prepare less. And run a system that doesn't require maps. Bust mostly prepare less.
I think the most intimidating thing about GMing is prep-time, and the biggest road-block for new GMs is not knowing how to prepare for a session. It's not as hard as it sounds, and a lot of GMs make it harder on themselves than it has to be by preparing the wrong kinds of things. The best piece of advice out there, I think, has been most effectively written in Apocalypse World. It is as follows:
>Play to find out what happens.
See, one of the most fun things that can happen to you as a GM is being surprised. You're God-at-the-table. All the characters are you, and all your statements are canon. The Duke might be rebelling against his King, two alien factions might be at war, or a vengeful spirit might be plotting their murderer's death, but ultimately it's you who decides how it turns out. You say how it ends. Until you add players.
That's their job. That's why they exist. They shake things up--and most of them are exceptionally good at it. That is their gift to you. Don't start GMing thinking you're going to write a novel, because all of the main characters are going to be written by other people. Approach GMing like a social experiment. Don't plan too far ahead. Think of things to throw at your players and do it, even if you don't know how it'll turn out--hell, *especially* if you don't know how it'll turn out. See what they do. Let your NPCs be empty vessels until a PC talks to them, and only flesh them out when you have to. Focus your preparation on things that the players are going to interact with right then at the table, because until you describe it to a player it doesn't exist. That cuts both ways, too. Keep everything subject to change, and change it if you think it'll be interesting--nothing is canon until a player sees it.
I think it's easy to think that you need to craft an expert story for your group to take part in, and to feel like you're responsible for it. It's easy to get caught up in the world you're making and get it stuck so rigidly in your head that you think the players are ruining it when they do the stupid shit players always do. But they're not. They're helping you. Hell, I rarely plan more than a session ahead, and it's usually a 50/50 split between neat stuff I want to have happen and the direct consequences of last session. My prep time is brief as hell, and the players' never "ruin" anything because what they're doing isn't destructive, it's part of my creative process.
Not the guy you replied to, but this depends on the nature of the map.
I never like using maps to display the interior of rooms and buildings. It restricts you as a GM and lets the players get ideas that you didn't intend for in planning.
Making maps, even simple ones of the world and area in general I approve of though. Especially when travel requires several days to achieve for example, adding in a map of the area with points of interest and different environments help the players get into the game in my opinion.
Here's an example of what I mean from my latest campaign.
My group are in the enemy tower and it's fairly dim. One way at a T junction leads to a dead end I didn't account for due to the small scale of this section of the campaign as well as a group attitude of 'do our job, get out of here' encouraged by the setting.
After finding experiment zombies they retreat from the place, but instead of going out the way they came they went further into the tower, into the dead end.
Because this was roll20, they ended up cornered in a hallway with zombies (not common enemies) coming after them, in a situation I could have easily guided them away from if they didn't have a map infront of them.
It's always nice to let the players use their initiative, but I'm not going to plan every contigency for a relatively small part of the campaign that the players would understand was a simple lack of map depth on my part.
While I understand what you're saying, it more likely ends in the players misinterpreting the map than thinking outside the box.
Speak for yourself, fuccboi.
I fucking hate DMing.
And not because it's a lot of work, and not because it's hard. I love acting out NPCs, and weaving plots and situations. I love all the stuff that DMs do.
What I hate is DMing FOR people, because people are ungrateful, stupid, and waste your time. People will break things over their knee for no reason other than because they can, and will disappoint in every way possible.
If it weren't for players, DMing would be something I could enjoy rather than something I have to do specifically because the only alternative is actually sitting through other people who can't DM for shit and hating the hobby because of it.
>Start off wanting to play more than I want to GM
>No one in my high school had ever played let alone GM'd a tabletop RPG
>End up Forever GM for 2.5 years because I'm the only one who's willing take a hit so the game can actually be played
>Starts off being shitloads of fun even though it's not what I would rather be doing
>Get to college, tired of being a GM
>No one else would even try it
>Barely play, nothing but a few half-assed pickup games for the next two years
>Transfer to new college with extended gaming group of 20-40 people who want to play at any given time
>I and 2-4 other Forever GMs run the show for all of these selfish cunts for the next three years
>We have an unspoken agreement where we always get to be players in the other Forever GMs' games because it's the only thing sustaining us
>We've never just gotten to tell our own epic story, have our own insane hi-jinks without paying a price by GMing for these assclowns
>We Forever GMs are the only people who can be guaranteed to show up on time, have their character sheets, dice, and pencils, not spend the session fucking around on a laptop, and actually know the very basics of the system for the game we're playing
>At the end of the third year I've completely burnt out and now resent every non-GMing player in this hobby like Nerull hates Pelor
Room, structure, and dungeon maps are literally the only kind of useful maps.
World and region maps are not only useless, but a waste of time and effort and everyone who tries to make "original" and "special" ones is a fucktard who needs to be removed from the job of DMing.
Because I'm a GM before a player, I understand this moreso than my players would believe.
I mostly play in campaigns in a pub while I GM mostly online, and I always make my appreciation for the GM known. I always offer to buy him a pint and thank him gratefully at the end of sessions because of my experience
Not respecting the GMs work is an easy way to majorly piss of a GM. Even if you think his stories are shit, at least give him credit for his effort.
That's not really what the post said, Anon.
Anyway, whether to use a map or not depends on a lot of stuff. System is by far the biggest one. If you're playing a game with attacks of opportunity and flanking and shit, yeah, you're going to want a map. There are plenty of games designed to be used without a map, though. They'll usually work fine without one.
Doodling on paper is helpful sometimes, mostly for combat stuff with a lot of guys running around. Even so, I'd still rather run most combats without one. Another Anon mentioned not using maps because they give players ideas. I've found the opposite to be true. I've played in Pathfinder modules before where most of the "combat"ish areas are mapped out in great detail, down to the chairs and rugs and everything. In a situation like that, it's hard to justify asking "is there a brazier somewhere in the room? I want to throw it at the ice monster." There clearly isn't one, look at the picture of the room right in front of you.
But in a game without a map, maybe I just forgot to say it. Hell, even if it *wasn't* there before, you can bet it's there now, because that's a great idea. Going mapless allows players to help you build the world just by asking questions. It gives them more freedom to interact with the environment because--whether they realize it or not--they're building it with you. I think that is super fun.
The only time I really "prep" maps is, if I'm really struck by inspiration, I might open up Photoshop and make a nice looking world-map or something. And that's mostly for fun more than anything else--I've never thought of world-maps as required. Battle-maps are either nonexistent or doodles.
I've been a ForeverDM for like, 3 years.
I just recently tried to be a player in a game. I made it one session, because it was so fucking terrible and unenjoyable, I couldn't possibly spend any time doing that.
The reason I won't ever be a player again is because I just don't trust anyone on the planet to care enough about quality DMing as I do and actually making an effort to run a decent game.
I'd rather not waste my time.
Well they entered the tower via that route in the first place, so it's unlikely they forgot.
In what way do region maps differ in use for RPG's than in real life? Last time I checked maps of nations are still quite common.
This guy is extremely correct.
This is why I only game with other DMs. This way, we all get turns of playing characters whilst not always knowing we'd be running this shit better, and we all know how not to make the DM's job suck even more than it already does. I really feel for those DMs who play with shits for players because they DM'd once and now do it forever and none of their player know their pain. Sorry guys.
Tell us about your awful DM which convinced you DMing is more fun
One of Mine kept trying to make everything epic and portentous for his big plan fifteen levels from now, the other had us in a plane shifting thing where we were going from blasted hell scape to blasted hell scape. I played a
lawful good necromancer who didn't use a single evil spell except once to bring his cat back as a skelletom. I bought a wand of web and it was awesome
Because "Here is an MSPaint scribble of HURDURRLAND, it shows you the generic mountains and cities of WHOGIVESAFUCK and IMADETHISLASTNIGHT which are full of randomly generated encounters for you to enjoy!" is not worth the time. No one cares about your world map, no one in the game will ever see any of it. It's just for you to jerk off over how special and unique you think your homebrew crap is.
No one has ever needed a map of Earth when they're spending their life in and around one city.
I would write if I didn't enjoy the characters other people make more than my own. I want to see them succeed, I want to see them hurt and grow and love and learn. I fucking love being a DM.
I know that sounds stupid and I'm probably being naive, but damn it feels good to be the Master.
I know a few very, very experienced GM's. This one guy in particular was having beers with Steve Jackson from GW and Chris Birch from Modiphius just the other month at Dragonmeet. While his main hobby is GMing for games in his home city, he is paid for it by influential publishers to run taser games.
He complains that he almost exclusively runs games rather than plays in them now, but after such a long time of running them he can't enjoy being a player as much any more. I guess the amount of different systems he's seen behind the veils of took its toll.
>Girl 1: Has massive plot holes in her stories, and as an exception to what I said previously, doesn't know some vital mechanics in the games she GMs because she tries to run White Wolf games with ALL THE SPLATS.
>Guy 1: You will never feel challenged in his games. Ever. He ran a 3.5 gestalt game with all 3rd party materials allowed and anything you wanted to custom make.
>Guy 2: Only runs pokemon games. They were alright, but not my thing. We played in each others' games quite a bit.
>Guy 3: Combat between our group and six level 7 fighters took 2.5 HOURS because this twat cannot and will not excercise any control over the group. Everyone yammers and does whatever the fuck while the game should be played.
They suck as players too. And in an attempt to be fair with how critical I am, I probably suck too: I don't prep enough, I let my players get away with ridiculous shit in games sometimes, and I have no concrete strategy for attaining the tone I want in a game.
Fuck if I even remember, it was too many shitty DMs I met when just trying to play a game. I realized all DMs I met were shit, and I knew I could do better, so I started doing it specifically so I can make sure I never do the shit they all do.
>This is why I only game with other DMs
I don't trust other DMs enough to play in their games. I know they're just gonna do something stupid and make it unenjoyable.
And DMs make shitty players too.
I understand your problem now. You play loot grinder games where the NPCs and the world are just a nice extra to explain the XP leveling.
Funnily enough, there are players that actually appreciate the world being explained and appreciate some life being given to the world.
I'm not sure if you have that view yourself of have seen it from your players, but I would really hate to be in a game that views the setting like that.
I got that slightly wrong, I think. It probably just works well for me because
I taught them how to DMso I know they won't pull stupid shit. And they were originally pretty good players anyway so that's not an issue.
Basically I lucked out, which is why I feel sorry for those that have not.
>You play loot grinder games where the NPCs and the world are just a nice extra to explain the XP leveling.
I barely give my players any loot, and we don't use XP at all. I run slow-paced, roleplay-focused games designed to tell coherent narratives that involve the players.
And I'm not retarded enough to believe that having a world map I whipped up for my "super special homebrew setting" is ever going to contribute to anything.
As with literally everything, Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) is true for players.
I've run games online for years. Always loved worldbuilding, weaving stories, roleplaying NPCs, but 90% of the players I've ever GM'd for have been absolutely fucking insufferable. Like, "inspires homicidal urges because this person will never realize how much they suck as a human being" kind of insufferable.
Fuck anyone who says otherwise, players DO ruin games by being ungrateful jackasses.
When I run my games the players use the world map to discuss what they might encounter or problems they might have along the way.
Enemy patrols? Take the longer, forested route rather than use the road. If they come out the forest at point X they can get into the town and travel in disguise the rest of the way.
In a game I had a few weeks ago one of the characters had developed a fear of water, so they neglected the idea of following the river and stealing a boat in order to use a longer and more time consuming route.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care for fantasy world maps that tell you where the fairy fucks live and where the big bad guys mountain lair is. I don't play systems that encourage shit like that for a reason. However, local area maps are an easy way to make a players experience more enjoyable.
>Literally bragging about how you handwave players traveling around your shit worldmap because you think them telling you that they frolic their way around Fuckface mountains instead of going through Dickfart forest somehow makes a difference when you're just going to throw some random encounters and then handwave them to your next city you got from Google Images.
Sounds like a solid game. I'm sure it's not the most generic fantasy schlock ever.
This. Fucking this. I failed to clearly outline this point. My problem is not simply being stuck as a Forever GM, it is that the players and even the other GMs I have access to are garbage. I could still enjoy GMing if I felt I could grow as a GM. I need that feeling of improvement because this is not something I chose. But I'm not going to grow as GM because I'm not inspired, and I'm not inspired because my players are retards.
While perusing /tg/, I see millions of stories of people with groups they call great, players they insist are different and awesome and not shit, and campaigns they swear up and down are amazing.
You can be pretty certain that they're all lying and the only reason they think their group is "different" than all those other shit people out there is because they themselves are shit and can't tell.
Not sure if you two have massively different players you meet than me, but this plain up isn't true. Yeah, players can do stupid stuff, but players are never trash. Doing annoying things or not necessarily being the best player doesn't make them bad.
My standards are as follows:
>We're playing Pathfinder, so you better be able to add a die roll and 3 - 6 modifiers. If you can't do that, bring a calculator.
>Bring dice, a pencil, and your character sheets.
>Know what a save, an attack roll, a skill check, an ability check, and a damage roll are, and know how to do them for your own character.
>Know how to use your character's special abilities and have their stats written down because you're eventually going to forget something.
>Pay attention to what other people are doing during their turns in combat and know what you're going to do once it's your turn.
>Show up on time and don't miss more than one in five sessions.
>Do not metagame.
>Get inside your character's head. If you can't do that you shouldn't be playing this game.
The people in my university's gaming group failed most of these criteria, consistently.
Neither. Mistyped there, my bad. I meant to say that players can do stupid stuff but that doesn't necessarily make them bad players.
I still disagree on your view that 90% of players are bad players however.
Seems like the latter points there are a lot more important in my opinion than the former. I can forgive someone if they don't know the rules, but being bad at roleplaying is harder to improve.
>My standards are as follows:
>We're playing Pathfinder
I don't care about the math stuff. I mean, I appreciate people who know the rules back and forth, but I'd much rather have someone who's capable of creating a simple, non-retarded character concept that fits the setting and gives them a reason to actually roleplay.
I would trade multiple organs for a group of people who all actually play a character, voice and actions and all, for the entirety of the session and avoids metagame shit, and actually wants to be there, and I'll be about as content as a DM can be.
The problem is, those people don't exist. All you ever get are excuses as to why that's all too much work.
I hate GM'ing. I'm horrible at it. The worst part is it's my own game. I guess that's why I had to have someone give the GM section a total overhaul. I can wrote for players all day but writing for GMs just feels strange.
No, fuck that.
I'd much rather have a player who knows the mechanics of the game, even if they're just in it for the combat, than a player always has to be told what to roll and what to add to it no matter how good their character concepts. At least the first guy won't slow down the game for everyone else.
I assume a baseline of system mastery for any player I let into my games. Doesn't have to be a memorized SRD in their head, but enough to function in the sessions.
But I cannot tolerate people who refuse to roleplay, or worse, who make excuses for why they can't or won't.
To be a good GM, you need the three F's:
Fluency in the system
Flexibility to respond to what your players do
Friendliness, because if you can't get along with your players, you aren't going to be able to provide entertainment.
It's not my favorite game but it's ubiquitous and serves to illustrate my point.
I didn't type them in that order with any particular intention. People were rarely incapable of roleplaying and rarely metagamed, the real problem was that they'd slow games down because 1) They wouldn't pay attention unless I demanded it, which gets very frustrating 2) They don't know the game system 3) They don't even know their own characters' abilities, despite having taken inordinate amounts of time to pick them.
And the only reason people not showing up wasn't a problem is because I booted them the fuck out of the group immediately. And for those of you who would tell me that I should just ban whoever doesn't follow my criteria, and then I'd have a work able group: That would mean I would have no players. And honestly, it may have been a better idea to do just that. I'm of a split opinion as to whether GMing for those three years in college was worth it. But at the time I was desperate to engage in my favorite hobby.
I love to DM. Since I don't have players I must suck at it.
The forever DM doesn't want to roll with because all he sees is how he could (legitimately mind you) do it better.
Players won't stay in because did you hear, forever DM is thinking about running and it might conflict.
Oh sure, you pull out dice when we are smashed so I can run the party games. You still talk about the awesome weeabo adventure and how you miss it, but if I dare suggest a revival its "other DM might be running that day, I gotta keep it free".
Never mind that I adore players crazy ideas, make food for you, work my brain meats to the bone coming up with props, events, room sized maps and give everyone a distinct story with their own theme.
Its because I am just not good enough for you. Forever B-team.
>stuck as GM because I'm the only one who cares about the hobby
>shitty group finally disbands
>stuck as a bitter recluse who lives vicariously through Actual Play and podcasts
End my suffering.
yes i absolutely prefer gm'ing
tfw players are shocked by the plot twist, get excited to play, and trust you to tell a great story and build a world you can all have fun in
that is way more fun
This is one of the few things that will warrant immediate ejection from my games. Players who don't know the rules will learn eventually (some of my best players started not knowing shit and have turned out great) and if the group isn't great at combat I can just adjust the game to have more social encounters and less combat.
If you directly interfere with my other players enjoyment, however...woe betide you.
I wish. Most people (and I do mean the huge, huge majority) are somehow not only incapable of even understanding the concept of roleplaying, but also actively offended by the request that maybe they actually try. It's always just "I feel awkward trying to talk in a different voice, so I will never ever try."
Sorry, if your concept of a "character" is just you talking like you, then you're probably never going to be a good roleplayer.
These types of players are my nightmare.
I'm trying to introduce a group to tabletop RPGs and one player, unfortunately probably one of my best friends, insists that it's all 'sad gay shit' while still insisting he's interested.
I went round everyone a day or so before the first session and asked them to explain their characters backstory. A lot of them were put on the spot and had trouble explaining their motivations and likes/dislikes but it gave them much better defined characters after I asked them.
I go to this guy and instead of struggling to make a backstory like the rest he improvises a silly background (albiet quite funny) about his character. After that all of the other players didn't bother to make up a proper backstory because they didn't feel under pressure to make a real and believable one.
Thankfully he shaped up to be a decent player but he's still the type to question everything the GM decides whether it interrupts the game or not.
>Even experienced RP players don't feel at ease doing accents
I don't care, it's about EFFORT.
Either you care enough to put in a little bit of effort, or you don't care. And if you don't, why should I? What motivation do I have for putting all this work into NPCs for you to interact with with distinct personalities, voices, actions, and mannerisms?
If I can, you can. So why are you all about excuses?
Making photoreal, overly-detailed dungeon and location maps is one of my favorite parts of being a DM.
Using them, less so. They tend to last only a few minutes, for multiple weeks of work, and there's no pay off from the players.
It's not enough of a negative to keep me from doing it, but I do wish it made a difference. It's just that to a player, it doesn't matter if it's a complex, detailed work of art, or a scribble on lined paper, since they don't pay attention anyway.
As a GM I find I can't do accents; but that's just me trying to explain that I get nervous and can't do character 'voice', accent or not, and tend to resort to a casual voice plus more swearing than usual.
You are horrible. You're a bad roleplayer with a terrible definition of what constitutes roleplay. You're a bad GM for forcing your shitty definition on your groups, and you're a bad person for shitting on that Anon there--doubly so because you're so wrong about it. You're bad all around.
It's not about doing "fake shitty Scottish accents", it's about actually giving a shit.
If your idea of good roleplaying is just half-assed, monotone delivery where nothing separates any NPC from any other, then you are failing, because you are refusing to put in the effort required to actually make the experience somewhat decent for those involved. And if you can't be bothered to put in the effort, it speaks volumes about how much the hobby means to you. Why expect other people to care about your game, your characters, and you, if you tell them you don't care?
Your storylines and characters aren't as interesting as you think they are. If you get butthurt about players ruining it with their agency you need to pull your head out of your ass.
I don't think my storylines or characters are interesting either. That's a large part of the point.
I hate GMing with a passion because I'm no good at it, yet I'm the only one who will step up to the plate.
>Wow this thread is fucking edgey
I'm a forever DM as well, not very good I'll admit but only one that'll put enough effort to. In reading a lot of this emo-DM-poetry going on though I kind of realized how to fix a good amount of "bad player" issues and a misunderstanding we might have about our players.
Yeah, the players are going to do their own thing and very few we find are going to be big on genuine roleplay and the such. If you have ones who do, great, but otherwise play with what you have because it can still be fun! How?
Meta-gaming. At the end of the day you are playing with living, breathing people, who have their own patterns, wants, fears, etc. Learn who the people across the table or screen are while playing the game because you'll get a lot more interesting things out of them.
My personal band is mostly either power gaming min-maxers who know the game but don't care about RP as much, or just the typical murder hobo.
BUT, every so often they do things in game, or with each other, that I've begun to play with and have actually been making the sessions a LOT more fun!
In one case, I let the players wing it out and do whatever they want, immediately it ended up in a "bar with chicks" and I was praying that I wouldn't be asked to describe some sick magical realm. Once I sent the girls over to talk to them (NPCs that they met before) it was incredibly interesting because 2 of the PCs were immediately stunned... They actually tried to roleplay it out and talk to them! All the while being socially inept as all hell suddenly. It was certainly odd, but repeating this again later I found that having a "dateable" NPC present was a sure-fire way to get them to shape up. Talking to them about it later, I found out that starting relationships was a huge issue for them as people, and we got a little closer that day which was cool.
>If you're a shit DM in an unenjoyable game with horrible players, here's how you can have fun!
>Just keep playing! It's shit, but pretend it's fun and it will be fun!
No game is better than a shit game.
For another PC, his hook was to somehow involve a cute animal into the story. I found this out while describing a den of fire cat elementals and I thought he had lost his damn mind. He immediately became an expert in the system, read the rules, and roleplayed his ass off just to have it as a pet. I made him describe how he would do it and the bastard practically gave me a novel. With anything else he doesn't give a crap and he's the typical murder hobo, so now I always try to have his pet or some other animal involved and he becomes a breath of fresh air.
Finally, there's my super meta-gamer. My only Evil aligned player who's actively plotting to TPK the rest of the party. Outside of sessions he asks me to send out fake messages of NPCs giving "offers" of information or special items that are actually bunk or cursed. I do try to make it up to the rest of the party so I don't seem like a total ass, but it helps the evil player get SO involved to the point where he's actually dming instead of me! Not only that, but he's pretty darn good at making these fake offers, it gets the rest of the party interested even on our off days.
Finally, a lot of the guys just like to start jokes or little memes about our group sessions. And I actually run several parties in the same world who sometimes share information that I never intended other players to have (IE if one group visits a dungeon that no other group has reached yet). Though having this "edge" often makes the players more interested.
Seeing this, I wanted to make a DMPC in my next game that actually gives an in story reason as to how all the characters can communicate if they want to even outside of sessions. So even while talking in our day to day lives we can feel like its all part of the game world still.
(Continued Pt 2)
I want to see one of your sessions.
Set up a camera, or record your Skype chat if you play online. Show us how it's meant to be done.
If you aren't willing to, then you have no ground to say you're a better DM without even showing your method, exactly as it's done in practice.
Bringing it back around, I feel that being better as a DM is recognizing that you're all fucking humans trying to enjoy yourselves and pass the time. No, you're not going to all find the same things appealing, so try to learn what it is that makes you all tick. Try throwing different things at your players and see what suddenly brings them to life, when you find it KEEP IT. They will be MUCH more bearable if you do and you'll actually be able to enjoy it once they're placated. Depending on what it is, you might actually make a friend and appreciate each other more.
Instead of constantly bitching about problems that are inherent in the system, find what you can do to turn those problems into advantages, hooks to the story, parts of the world.
If you want to "weave a story" or not want to deal with people, write a book.
IMO my only complaint is that I'd like to have a more permanent DMPC, since they keep getting killed or somehow made irrelevant by the party frequently, but if I was able to make 3 of my worst players my new favorites by trying new things, it's only a matter of time till that's fixed too.
TLDR; Be social and genuinely think about the other people at your table. If they're just soulless masks to you than that's all you'll get.
>describes a group of awful players amending their murder-hobo ways and actually being interested in the game
Yeah, sorry. As another forever-GM, I have to say it sounds like you're bending over backwards to polish a turdball of players into a mirror shine when you really ought to just be flushing them. Yes, I know you're patting yourself on the back at being able to get any kind of true "roleplay" out of a band of complete faggots, but it's pearls before swine.
He's not describing "amending their murderhobo ways", he's just explaining ways he found to stroke their boners to get them to keep doing it.
I mean, he checks every single box.
>I run many groups in the same setting
>They all talk to eachother and "make memes" to share meta-info
>Allows Evil characters
>Literally fucks with players specifically because the evil player wants him to
>Lets the Evil player run his game specifically to fuck with the rest of the group because that's what the Evil player wants in order to show up
>Meta-gaming is a positive thing that improves his gaming experience
>Thinks that he's making the game better because he's finding ways of keeping these people showing up, rather than just telling them to fuck off and finding players who actually want to be there
I can't imagine a worse situation to be a player in. This has to be the most miserable DM that anyone has ever met. I am certain that if you kicked him in the dick and said "Fuck you, give me magic items", he would do it with a smile, and then brag on /tg/ about how he's "improving as a DM".
>I am certain that if you kicked him in the dick and said "Fuck you, give me magic items", he would do it with a smile, and then brag on /tg/ about how he's "improving as a DM".
Maybe it's the alcohol, but this genuinely made me laugh out loud.
Not the guy you're responding to. But:
> thinks allowing evil characters is a bad thing
9 out of 10 times, it is.
> thinks disruptive players won't just play Stupid Good characters instead
Wrong. Disruptive players will just heavily disrupt the game right then and there by throwing a tantrum about not being able to "roleplay" his Chaotic Stupid character the way he wants to.
Eh, fair enough. Its my first game DMing and haven't had much else aside from that or this group. They are great friends of mine IRL, and one of them is legitimately a great player who doesn't try nonsense and is reasonably into the game so that's probably why I have Stockholm Syndrome to all of this. There's 1 session left to end the story so I was hoping to get a break and maybe be
Someone else's problema player for once.
On that note, any sites or communities I should check out to join someone else's game session?
never played D&D or anything like that in my life, but i dont fucking get these "lol ebil randum" who just murder people for no reason, thats so boring.
why do you guys even put up with that shit
someone please explain this to me
Most of us DON'T tolerate that shit. We smack those people in the face and either tell them to straighten their shit out, or kick them from the group and replace them with someone who actually wants to play and not be a complete faggot.
There are tons of people who will do shit like that, because that's their concept of fun, because they just wanna pelt eachother with dice and make stupid jokes and they think they are entitled to this.
These people are bad, and you should remove them from a group as soon as this behavior starts. They cannot be educated.
Not in my experience. In campaigns where evil characters are disallowed, there's always some asshole who plays a paladin and wants to destroy the loot because it was "made by evil hands".
>But when I DM evil characters aren't forbidden, I just make sure that their actions have consequences.
Like being kicked from the group. Because when you want to play specifically to fuck with the enjoyment of the DM and the other players, you don't get to play.
>In campaigns where evil characters are disallowed, there's always some asshole who plays a paladin and wants to destroy the loot because it was "made by evil hands".
I don't believe you. That might have popped up in exactly ONE of your games but it's not something that fucking happened as a common theme across different players and different campaigns.
Lol I remember having a thread early on asking for advice about the campaign and never got this kind of backlash before. Tough crowd tonight.
To help explain a bit more, I help run my school's board-game club. It was meant to introduce a lot of people into DND, but most of those original club members are now long gone and I'm the last one that actually knows how to read a .pdf, Magic cards have taken over otherwise. Having to teach a dozen newbies at once aint exactly easy. I set up a "good" and "evil" party and took it day by day from there in the club.
Yeah there's lots of chaos and BS that happens that won't fly elsewhere, but most of us are fairly new to this whole thing and despite violating some of these "cardinal rules" we do have good fun with it because we're not on about crafting this grand tale, we all just want to have fun.
Of course its not "good" by most standards, but I got people interested in the games, and I'm hoping to set up a new campaign now that I know to avoid basic pitfalls. One PC has even shown an interest in DMing himself so I can finally be a player in my own club.
Eh, s'all good in the end my side of the world. You all can go back to raging about how you never have fun now.
I don't care if you believed me, it happened. With three different groups. The people I played with really were that dumb. The best group I've played with is the one where no one plays Good characters.
>Of course its not "good" by most standards, but I got people interested in the games
>Eh, s'all good in the end my side of the world. You all can go back to raging about how you never have fun now.
You'll notice here on /tg/ on an almost daily basis, forever GMs constantly lament the fact that 90 of players are shit. Thanks for contributing and perpetuating that, Anon. I really look forward to the larger pool of assholes I have to wade through before I get a decent group of players next time I try to assemble a game.
Then you either have rotten luck or you're lying. Because in all the games I've ever been in, NO Paladin has EVER passed up the opportunity to get a magical item for himself or his comrades.
The people you play with are just shit.
>Make a post patting yourself on the back for being some kind of special DM who is making a shit group into a "fun" game
>"Lool who cares its just a game u dont even have fun"
Oh, you're trolling. Ok.
Unless you're not and you're actually being serious, in which case fucking hell man, you are the most smug fuckface in the world and you actually think you are accomplishing something by being shit and teaching a bunch of other faggots to be shit, and then bragging about it on /tg/ and getting upset when people tell you you're shit.
Not particularly outside of the that guy threads. Felt that /tg/ was pretty cool actually so long as it wasn't magical realm or something that'd be cancerous no matter what context it is.
But hey, if 90% of the time you're not having fun, maybe you oughta look for a different hobby anon.
And to OP, you keep having fun and learning bro~
I don't know if you realized, but he seemed to imply that at least three different games of his had players who insisted on playing evil characters, but then were rejected and went on to play intentionally-distuptive "good" characters, and then he also had at least one game where everyone was an evil character.
This implies a few things:
1. He goes through groups very quickly. No surprise here, they likely don't last more than a session or two due to shit players and DMs all causing problems.
2. He intentionally seeks out games or players who want games where evil characters are allowed and encouraged. This means he's already in the ballpart for a very specific brand of bad player.
3. His types of games are wacky hijinks romps of consequence-free madness because that's just how evil games go.
So yeah. With these assumptions, it's not hard to understand HOW he ended up experiencing that much shit.
How to feel like you won an argument:
>Be shit, and be smug about it
>Keep being smug until everyone gets fed up with your shit and leaves
>Congrats! You are the only one left, meaning you won! And you never had to consider that maybe you actually are shit! Win-win!
But yeah. You're part of that 90%.
I have no idea if I'm a good GM or not. I've had a few players I've GM'd for, a little in real life and a few parties online.
I do really enjoy GMing because making up new settings, characters/dungeons and game mechanics is really fun. Creating a fresh and interesting experience for my players that isn't really boring and typical shit is the fun part, but I do suffer a bit from forever DM syndrome and from the fact that my games don't stay together. I can't really blame anyone in particular for it though, its like each player usually has a good excuse as for why they may miss a session or two, and I may need to skip one, and pretty soon people stop responding and that's that.
Apparently my last session as DM was so bad that it burned our regular DM out and he isn't even sure if he wants to keep going.
I wasn't as prepared as I had thought and it ended up playing out like a Wes Anderson movie but without the charm because while I love dialogue I'm not great at it.
This was the third session in an arc that I ran within the setting of one of our ongoing campaigns with my sessions coming once every eight or nine months and having little bearing on the world events.
I run a game, or nothing happens.
My friends kinda just can't.
>Friend 1: Works a full time job. Mentally unstable at times.
He wouldn't handle the pressure of running a game well. Even if he ran one, it would be extremely half assed.
>Friend 2: Semi busy with school and other projects. Mentally unstable at times. Doesn't enjoy it.
In theory he could do it, but what games he has run didn't end well and he doesn't even function as well as a player at times and is irregular as such
>Friend 3: Full time job, very hard on himself
In theory he could possibly do it too, despite being only somewhat less busy than friend 1. He is a lot more stable. Unfortunately, he gets weird about himself and probably wouldn't handle the pressure well.
>Friend 4: Extremely inexperienced, doesn't know any systems well, very hard on himself, manages time poorly
It's not like he has a job or anything, yet, but he sucks at time management and acts really weak at times and I wouldn't want to see him flounder with a game.
>Friend 5: Has ran games before, decently experienced I guess, part time job
He straight up just doesn't want to with what free time he has.
>Friend 6: Extremely busy with school and work, can only do stuff monthly
As for me:
>Loser with no job or school atm
>Capable of preparing weekly games
>Manages time well enough without getting weak and emotional
>Want to role play
My players are all good players... Relatively speaker. They know how to role play. They aren't that guys (At least most of them aren't, and those that are only get that way very rarely). They'll follow my plot lines. They'll fuck around and try to do stuff without me telling them what to do if I ask them to. So I CAN run whatever story and setting I want.
Really, though. I do long to be a player. Not because being a GM is hard work. No. It's because I just want to be able to focus on a single character and do amazing things with him or her and work together with other players.
Seriously? Gasoline? Let me link you to http://murdercube.com. Post results, I need the entertainment.
I am a player in one of the games. He does alright considering our terrible players. I personally lower my RP standards to play with them. I am part of the "good" guys party. We act like fucking idiots but it is a lot of fun, and we talk about minmaxing but never actually do.
We have seperate subgroups that can actually roleplay. Though I DM one of those games.
I don't really get a lot of heads up, it's usually a week our DM doesn't feel like running or has to work late and won't be there when we all show up. Plus I have a tendency to only make notes of mechanics and keep my plans for roleplay in my head.
>dmpc killed or made irrelevant by the party
Ok? You're not supposed to outshine the players. If you can't provide them with a useful npc companion that doesn't take the spotlight then you're either new or shit, and you shouldn't be using dmpcs
I really enjoy GMing even though i haven't been a player in a Campaign for over 4 years and i tell ya, i am one thirsty motherfucker for a game to play in.
But regardless i still have fun to this day as i enjoy playing with my friends and sharing adventures.
They might be silly and kinda rude about some things but they have fun and so do i so its not that bad
Outside of 2 awful players (one literal lawyer who wants to always play as a fucking lawyer and other being a autistic memer who is LOLSORANDUMB) i've never really had trouble dming