GM advice thread

Be flexible and ready to improvise. Know who your characters are and how they see the world. Factor that in when the PCs laugh at your plans and go off the rails.

Session Zero.

Before anything else, sit down and talk with your group. About your ideas for the game, what you hope for it, ask about their ideas and how they can blend together, general preferences or dislikes, all that stuff.

It's such a simple thing that I didn't really have a name for it until I saw someone else describe it, and it astonishes me that some groups do it. So, so many problems I see come up in discussions would have been solved by people just talking things over beforehand to ensure everybody is on the same page.

Don't be afraid to pause for a minute or two if you need to prepare something.

Do NOT overprepare, it's easier to improvise shit when your details are not set in stone. It also consumes less time.

If you speak confidently, players will never know you're pulling things out of your ass on the fly.

File: drawbleh.jpg (101KB, 790x559px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 790x559px

>>53300603
Don't play Pathfinder, DnD, or anything derived from those systems. In fact, avoid D20 alltogether. Yes, it will be hard to find groups. Yes you will have to do alot of bullshit to get your friends to play. But in the end you will save yourself so much frustration and unfun. D20 systems are cancer, and DnD and Pathfinder stuff even more tumors into the mix like alignments, caster supremacy, trap-builds pretending to be viable options, RNG-based gameplay and so so very much more.

It took me a couple of years to realize I was miserable DMing for DnD groups. Don't be me. Get out there and try other systems now, I can guarentee like 80% of them will genuinely be more fun and wayyy more easier to set up and run.

>>53300603
>Optionally, restrict it to one system of your choosing
>D&D
Play something else.

>>53300700

Sounds like you play with awful people.

While I agree D20 are fucking shit, my group just ignored a good %60 of the rules

>>53300738

Having to ignore a huge chunk of the system is in no way an endorsement of or a reason to play said system.

>>53300700
>>53300709
This anons get it.
D&d is awful specially as a first timer.
Run some other thing, ideally rules lite so you can focus on mastering your gm skills and not a fucked up system.

File: YOU BROKE IT.gif (1MB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x270px

>>53300738
If you have to ignore 60% of the rules to have a good time, then you should probably be playing a different game, one that doesn't require you to read 300+ pages of rules, dozens of spaltbooks, expansion content, and erratas, and who's rules actually encourage and contribute to roleplaying instead of being an obstacle to it.

I have good players, we played DnD for years, right up until 5th edition (which was a step in some good directions, but shit with sprinkles is still shit), but it was still miserable to run. Just do a google search, pick up a good 100-page-or-less system that looks interesting, and try running your next game with it. Like I said, 80% of them will be easier to run and more fun to play, and that's a good thing regardless of the quality of your players.

Having to ignore over half the rules to have fun with a system means the system isn't good, and the only reason to play it is because nobody is familiar with anything else... a problem that will never will get better unless you take the initiative and be the one to at least TRY something different.

>>53300824
>>53300790

Lol too long didn't read.

We have fun ignoring the rules, if we wanna play something lighter we will.

Write as if every session will be your last.

>>53300630
Double on this

File: ok.png (20KB, 122x127px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 122x127px

>>53300700
>>53300738
>>53300813
>>53300824
Can confirm. I've played in forum RPs where the entire rules were laid out in like 5 pages in and where the stats in the game were on the complexity level of Paper Mario (No numbers over 10, no need to roll anything larger than a 6-sided dice, no spell or class lists that took more than a page or two, ect) and I've honestly had more fun with some of those than I've had with DnD/Pathfinder games where I've spent dozen of hours reading/learning the rules and how to "play" the "game".

I'm not going to be so harsh as to say as DnD flatout sucks. It's designed to be a crunchy combat simulator that evolved from a wargame, and it does that well... but nowadays that's not the kind of roleplaying experience I want anymore, and I don't recommend it to first-timers by any stretch of the imagination.

If you can't find a system that does what you want, spend a night and make one, it's really not that hard, and can be a pretty rewarding experience.

>>53300813
>ideally rules lite
Ignore that, run something with a good solid rules base when you're starting out. The less you have to make up as a newbie the better. Once you're comfortable doing shit with rules as a backup, then try removing rules you think you don't need.

>>53300934

>If you can't find a system that does what you want, spend a night and make one, it's really not that hard, and can be a pretty rewarding experience.

This only applies to the most ultra-light stuff possible, and even then it's not ideal.

There is a staggering difference between the best and most interesting rules light games and games which just don't have many rules. The latter might work vaguely okay, but I'd always prefer to play a system with actual design focus and effort behind it, and if you're going to make your own system I'd really recommend against half-arsing it.

The game isn't you VS the players. You don't win if all the PC's are dead.

>>53300934
Honestly, DnD is too abstract to even do combat simulator right, it's certainly crunchy, but it's by no means a "simulator" in the sense of being remotely realistic. It's really just a crunchy arcadey combat game in between some role playing now and again.

File: 1455690822906.jpg (17KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 680x383px

>>53300851
>Can't read a 3-paragraph reply
>Plays a game with a 300+ rulebook

Anon, really?

>>53301027

Why do people always assume roleplaying stops when combat starts?

I seriously don't get it. Isn't how your character reacts to a crisis a really powerful tool for conveying their personality? Aren't the choices they make under pressure and how they respond to friends in danger or a sworn enemy in front of them really fucking amazing situations for roleplay?

>>53301052
Well it usually in this specific case of "hey here's the boss" or "he's your sworn archnemesis and this is the final showdown!" but i've seen a lot of people have a hard time roleplaying "I shoot the badguy" if it's a normal combat encounter with some mooks.

>>53301052
They WOULD be amazing situations for roleplaying if you didn't have to think about how your actions and choices have to play into hundreds of pages of rules and action economy and probability calculations.

>"OK, so my character wants to kick over the table and hide behind it before firing back with his crossbow."
>"Well... OK, but kicking over the table costs your action because it's basically the same amount of effort as attacking something, and ducking behind the table takes your movement so you can't actually draw your crossbow this round, and by the time you can draw it next turn the enemy can move 60 feet and flank you. Oh, also I'm pretty sure your character can't actually shoot a crossbow because it's not a class feature, and even if you could your class is so mediocre at it that you're probably better off just using your fists anyway.

Like for serious, DnD turns roleplaying into a fucking chore because you have to do so much fighting around the rules to even be useful (especially if the other players know how to play the "game" well) that roleplaying is the last thing on your mind.

>>53301052
Adding rollplay to combat is my favourite bit, especially when it gets under the skin of the powergamers that can't fathom why I'm not making the optimal calculated moves

stories are not static things. you don't just plonk the fuckers down and expect them to run clockwork. gotta be flexible. making shit up is better than not being able to change.

>>53301099

While I agree in most cases, 4e actually works well for that stuff. Probably because it's not 'real' D&D, as the purists say.

>>53301099
>"OK, so my character wants to kick over the table and hide behind it before firing back with his crossbow."
>"Well... OK that's cool! You can do everything you want to with no restriction and no intervention because you're character is super awesome."

File: Ivory Tower Game Design.png (313KB, 1060x1423px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1060x1423px

>>53301125
Nice strawman.

The point here is that DnD/D20 combat, by it's very nature, inhibits roleplaying because it's designed to function in a very calculated, cold, sterile way that doesn't allow for much creativity or originality... and if you;re a player who attempts to do that, you often get punished for it. There's an optimal way to do everything, and the game itself is designed so that you're punished for not playing in the calculated, cold, sterile way that it wants you to play.

I want to make a fucking wizard and shoot fireballs at someone. I don't want to spend 2 weeks studying the optimal way to play a wizard just so I'm not dead weight to the team, and then have no fun playing said wizard because the most optimal way to play them is to spam save-or-suck spells which exploit loopholes in the endless web of rules to be brokenly good and outweigh all other options anyway.

>>53301166
Holy fuck the cringe in that picture.

>"Yeah, we put in bad options on purpose because players learning our rules is a more important design priority for us than players being able to roleplay in a fun or creative way."

Like... holy fuck...

>>53301099
That really only applies to certain editions.
5e would be more like
>okay, now you've got half cover, make your attack roll

>>53301052
Because they think what they do is what everyone else does.
My current pc is ded 'ard and choppy, but not too quick, so he usually waits for the enemy to close the gap, then smashes face. If the enemy doesn't wanna close the gap, then there are those fast gits on my side that can slap their shit while I protect the useless cleric.
However, if someone in the group is in trouble, then tactical caution goes out of the window and I rush in, because I protect my minio- er, friends!
>>53301166
Anon, what you said only comes into play in 3.pf, and ONLY if you play it in the most optimal fashion possible. Yes, blaster wizards are the weakest for of wizard, but they are STILL A WIZARD, and thus still have a lot to offer most parties. Knocking over a table for cover, giving a flat 20% miss chance to any attack your way or a bonus to AC/Reflex is still worthwhile, just not all the time.
Stop treating the outliers as standard occurrence.

>>53301166
The more you post, the more clear it becomes that the only editions you've played is 3.5
Yeah your argument was valid once, about 15 years ago

>>53301272

Being fair, 3.5 set the standard for a long time, and its expansion into 3.PF has kept the same bullshit prominent far past its time.

>>53301245
>>53301252
>>53301272


Maybe that exact specific situation only applies to 3.pf (I disagree, but that's not the point) but DnD and D20 systems in general tend to have dozens if not HUNDREDS of situations like that one.

Why not just play a less autistic system with more wiggle room instead of "here's one way to play and we're gonna punish you for doing anything else.

>>53301272
The more 5e fanboys post, the more it's obvious how utterly blinded by their biases they are.

Shit with sprinkles is still shit.
5e is 3.5 with sprinkles.
It's a step in the right direction, but it's still shit.

>>53301286
>here's one way to play and we're gonna punish you for doing anything else.
Because that exists in many systems, anon, but only if you decide to adhere to that philosophy yourself.
It's like saying "why don't you choose the best chargen options every time instead of things that are flavorful/fluffy, why are you doing it wrong?".
The best thing to do is something, and you need not always do the exact right, optimal thing at the optimal time lest the entire battle fail because you dared to do something that wasn't "right".
In my game right now, we are pursuing rebels. The cleric wanted to stop and rest, I wanted to pursue them to their stronghold. The party voted to rest, and I am fairly sure we are going to arrive to an empty fort. IC, I'll be fucking furious at the cowardice of the cleric, but he will counter that cautious advancing keeps us alive.
No one is right or wrong, it comes down to what you want to do as a pc.

>>53301349

Being fair, it's a question of how well the system itself supports non-optimal play.

In 3.PF, with its busted as fuck CR system, not making at least mid tier characters makes it really fucking hard to actually enjoy the game at a mechanical level. Other games at least make it easier to not fuck up and make low optimisation play still function without a lot of extra work from the GM.

>>53301349
In a good system, every option presented to a player is viable and has a use, and creative thinking is rewarded with things like an advantage or small bonus.

In D20 systems you're presented with options that exist for no other reason than to punish players who haven't autistically mastered the system and who focus more on rules-lawyering than actually roleplaying.

Even systems that attempt to stay away from these things end up falling into those traps anyway. The more complicated you make something, the more ways it can break, and D20 systems are so very very complicated, to the point where breaking the system is actually encouraged because it's the only fucking way to mitigate the RNG-randumbness that is basing every single action in the game on a non-bellcurve 1-20 result anyway.

My group runs 3.0/3.5/pathfinder depending on who is dm'ing and we have never had any problems.
You want to overturn the table and duck behind it whilst drawing your crossbow? Sure, go for it.
It's all about using a bit of common sense. Oh and >>53301166 that only ever applies if you are running a minimax style character, in which case it is YOU whom is the cancer.

>>53300604
Plan for the players to screw up your plans. Plan for them to miss obvious plot hooks. Plan for crazies.
Don't plan. Improvise.

>>53301373
And I will not dispute that for a second.
Shit, my favorite edition of D&D is 4e, followed by early 2e.
3e unfortunately requires learning experience for both the DM and the players, making it very rocky.
>>53301385
Anon, we get it, you don't like 3.pf, because that is all you are complaining about. What I am saying is universal, that you need not do "the right thing" in any game, you should do what your pc would be doing. My current pc is a shield wall soldier until he loses his cool and turns into a berserking linebreaker. Yes, I accounted for it, but following your pc's inclinations > all else, unless those inclinations make the game less fun for others.

File: 1493098944899.jpg (39KB, 478x317px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 478x317px

>>53301416
So why not play a system that says "use common sense" instead of a DnD system then?

You're falling back on the same tired non-sensical argument of "Yeah, the rules are really good if you just ignore them all the time!"

>>53300700
This is wrong, but it's a symptom of something that very much is a real problem.

Play the system which best suits your campaign. Do NOT default to D&D. No, D&D is not better for new players. No, D&D is not some mystical one-size-fits-all system. D&D (especially OSR style) is good for dungeon crawls. It is not good for intrigue. It is not good for survival. It is not good for gritty realism. KNOW YOUR SYSTEMS.

I think this is 90% of the reason why people hate D&D; they realise it is shit for the kinds of games they want to play.
>>53300738
I have seen people legitimately make the argument that D&D is good because you can ignore 60% of the rules and it is so fucking triggering
>>53301052
Sure, in, say, Song of Swords. Not so much in a game as arcadey as D&D.

>>53301435
Because the rules are good, tight, and we enjoy using them. They cover everything we need and the group has plenty of experienced players to help beginners in.

>>53301533
Clearly they're not good or tight.

>>53301533
>"We enjoy using the rules when we ignore them all the time!"

>>53301125
You could have done that in Song of Swords. In fact, it's encouraged.

Are you going to argue that Song of Swords is the kind of game to say "You can do everything you want to with no restriction and no intervention because you're character is super awesome"?
>>53301416
who*

>>53301527
I feel like 90% of people hate DnD because they don't actually know the kind of game they want to play. They have a vague idea... but then DnD drags them away from that idea, promising things it never delivers on, and the poor victims are left wondering why everything feels... wrong.

Maybe that was just me.


Much better off playing a system that's geared for something other than Dungeon Crawls though, you're right about that. Even if the other systems aren't the kind of game you want either, they're at least expanding your perspective on RPGs and not lying and promising to be that mythical "best at everything" game like DnD does.

>>53301527

What stops you roleplaying in an arcadey game? Why does the ability to convey your character in combat in any way require 'realism'?

>>53301611
The whole idea of crisis gets pretty stretched when gameplay consists of several turns and all your options are vidya-tier abilities.

For me, anyway. Maybe you somehow roleplay around that or whatever, but I've never been able to roleplay in-combat in D&D.

>>53301659

I've just never really had a problem with it. The system (when it works, either through good edition choice or a skilled GM with hard content limitations) conveys the idea of heroic, pulpy action fantasy very well. Mechanics are an abstraction representing my characters actions, but you can be very loose in how you fluff, adapting to context and improvising where necessary.

But yeah, might just be a style/preference thing.

File: 1421564460007.jpg (28KB, 303x322px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 303x322px

>>53300603
The best moments in a game are the ones where the dice don't matter, nothing on the char sheets matter. The moments when it's just you, giving your players a genuine moral or ethical quandary

Perfect example from a Deathwatch game I was in: The Tryanids have, for unknown reasons, started drifting into the center sailient, instead of continuing on the top one. Our kill team gets sent in ahead of the advancing nids to see if we can find what got their attention. After a few fights with some gaunts, and almost getting my head exploded by a zoeanthrope, our Rune Priest picks up a giant pile of warp energy that the nids warp noise had been concealing.

We go check it out and find a motherfucking hive tyrant. Chained down with psychic energy. And surrounded by by warlocks, along with a far seer.

I'm the leader this time around, so I look at the rune priest. He looks at the weird eldar shit going on, and gives me a very definitive "Fucked if I know what the hell is going on." So I take a gamble. I ask the air what I'm lookin at.

The ranger that we couldn't see pops out of nowhere, as rangers are wont to do, and explains that the farseer is conducting a ritual that will divert the path of the tyranids into the center salient, sending the straight into the hadex anomaly, because otherwise their craftworld would cross paths with this splinter fleet.

So, we've got filthy xenos making other filthy xenos a problem for filthy chaos worshipers instead of eating IG for breakfast, and I can't be certain what will happen if we disrupt this ongoing space elf warp fuckery. or how many more eldar I can't see are lurking with weaons locked onto us at this point.

And my squad all look to me for their orders.

>>53301611
The same thing that stops me from roleplaying in Skyrim. The way you're meant to play the game often forces you to do things your "character" wouldn't often do, because mechanics.

>>53301610
I can understand getting burned on a game, the same happened to me with V:tM, but having an idea of what you want and not forcing the game to be what you want it to be is important.
>>53301659
You don't communicate to your fellow pcs in a fight? Describe your attacks? Have bantz with your enemies?

>>53301688

In the first case, that's your own fucking fault for making a character flagrantly inappropriate for the system.

In the latter... Yeah, in general the rules for that kind of thing suck, it's an ongoing problem.

>>53301716

...How does that have anything to do with whether a system is arcadey or not?

File: 1477695609293.jpg (107KB, 644x830px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 644x830px

>>53301738
>Why can't you roleplay in a videgamey system, anon?
Because the system doesn't encourage or allow for any degree of roleplaying except being a killbot.
>THAT'S YOUR OWN FAULT FOR PLAYING A CHARACTER WHO DOESNT FIT THE SYSTEM, LOLOLOLOLOL!


Ok.

>>53301742
Because arcadey is just another way of saying of saying "these are the options presented to you, fuck what you actually WANT to do. Even if it's otherwise reasonable or makes sense, we either don;t have rules for it, or the rules for it are so autistically specialized that you can't do it unless you build a gimmick character around it!"

>>53300603
Don't make rulings based on gut reactions. Think about the impact your decisions will have on the game, rather than what you feel like at the moment.

This is advice I'd give to anyone in general, but it applies to GMing too.

>>53301688
>Kinda ruins the sort of character I want to play, y'know?
You do shit when adrenaline hits, and if your pc wasn't at least willing to defend themselves, WHY ARE THEY PUTTING THEMSELVES IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS?
You created your cognitive dissonance by making a character at odds with the basic assumptions of the game, like making a printing clerk in Song of Swords.
Your other example is entirely a 3e problem that doesn't exist in any other version of the game, so how about you stop relying on what everyone knows is the most mechanically broken version of the game to hedge your arguments.
>>53301716
Like I said, anon, you are actively choosing the optimal choice over what your character would do in their situation. Your pc need not always be stony rational, you need not actively choose the thing you are complaining about.
>>53301765
>THAT'S YOUR OWN FAULT FOR PLAYING A CHARACTER WHO DOESNT FIT THE SYSTEM
Yes, you enormous faggot, you make a pc that meshes with the tone of the game, the setting, and the theme the GM is presenting. When you choose not to and complain about it, we call you a That Guy, or merely an idiot, tell you to make a new pc or fuck off.

>>53301765

That is an absurd and blatantly false dichotomy. Would you like to try again?

>>53301784

...Well then I don't think any 'arcadey' RPG systems actually exist.

>>53301801
>>53301790

It really just reinforces the necessity of session zero, mentioned above. Making sure people know the tone of the premise and system so people can come up with appropriate character concepts.

>>53301801
>>53301816
I think the argument was looping back to "DnD is only good for dungeon crawls".

Which again loops back to "People need to stop playing DnD if they wan't a campaign that's anything besides Dungeon Crawls". Because alot of people want that, but then they just default to DnD because it's super popular/mainstream, and then end up saying DnD sucks because they're trying to use it for something it wasn't meant to be used for.

[Spoiler]All reasons why a new DM like OP shouldn't fucking start out with DnD, or ever go down that rabbit hole ever.

>>53301723
>You don't communicate to your fellow pcs in a fight? Describe your attacks? Have bantz with your enemies?
That's...not what I would call roleplay on the level of what anon was describing, at least.

Honestly, I think D&D only got "bad" from 3e onwards. I mean it had huge problems before, but its intent was good. Post 3e it started trying to do too many things at once.

>>53301816
I wagered most people already knew that, anon, or at least would listen to the GM when they explained the basic underpinnings of the theme.
>>53301832
I think it was looping back to shitposting.
D&D does high fantasy heroics/villainy. That's what it does, and everything in the game supports it. Screaming about how it's only good for dungeoncrawls says more about you than the game itself, I think, and actively sells the game short because you have a hateboner.

>>53300934
>the complexity level of Paper Mario (No numbers over 10
Look at this scrub.

My Mario could beat up your Mario.

>>53301832
>>53301864

Well, what is being meant by 'dungeoncrawls'? Literal zero roleplay/character meatgrinders through rooms full of monsters?

Or just a general term for pulpy heroic fantasy with a focus on beating up the bad guys in the course of events?

>>53301166
100% with you. Why is it so hard to find a game with satisfying crunch, an acceptable amount of options, that doesn't turn into a festival of synergy abuse with every fight ending within two turns?

>>53300700
Where do I start?

>>53301907
Because your players are munchkins.

>>53301907

4e

>>53301844
>That's...not what I would call roleplay on the level of what anon was describing, at least.
Then what was he describing?
I assumed he meant playing out your character even in a fight. Taking actions that reflected their personality and temperament, be they flashy and ostentatious or cautious and stoic.
It seems more like you have issues with the whole of D&D itself, issues that many people do not have. My truck with is how people who have never played anything else bring a D&D mindset to games where it doesn't apply, but that can be resolved. Hell, I did a 4e oneshot where most of the group, having gotten their start in WoD or Dark Heresy, did not even bother trying to loot enemies or search rooms as they were being chased by a monstrous horde. Only the "D&D" players attempted to do so, and it cost them. Those same players did the same looting in Dark Heresy whereas everyone else, myself included, only grabbed grenades and ammo if present from the fallen. Meanwhile, those 2 are stripping the golden carapace armor from the dead and trying to put it on when we were on a tight schedule.
>Idiots almost got us killed
>>53301898
The former.
>>53301913
This.

>>53301286
Probably because game developers seem unable to create anything between DnD's stupid rigidity and pure Mother May I. I don't see the point in even having rules if it's all going to come down to whether the GM feels like my action should succeed.

>>53301918
>Then what was he describing?
Really fucking amazing situations for roleplay drawn from crisis, pressure, friends in danger &c. Bantz doesn't quite spring to mind.

>>53301934

Why not? Those moments of camaraderie can be just as fun as epic drama.

>>53301052
>Why do people always assume roleplaying stops when combat starts?
You sir, are welcome at my table anytime.

>>53301099
>They WOULD be amazing situations for roleplaying if you didn't have to think about how your actions and choices have to play into hundreds of pages of rules and action economy and probability calculations.
>if you didn't have to think about
>have to
Why do you *have to* again?
Are the fun police packing weapons now?
The rules of any system are there to help facilitate the enjoyment of the game, not get in the way of it.

I never understand this issue where everyone playing the game is hassled by the rules.
Playing a rules lite game is fine.
But playing a game with a bunch of rules is fine too.
Ignoring the ones you don't care for can work great.
Y'all should try approaching the system like playing GURPS, instead of approaching it like an old foe that robbed you years of your time.
You never use ALL the rules ever written for GURPS.
Use the rules you want to use and are relevant to what you want to do in your game.

A system that is too light, is always going to be too light.
A system with more density, can always be more light.

I'm not saying D&D is the best system or that people shouldn't try other systems.
They absolutely should and D&D is not great for a lot of different kinds of games.
I'm saying that if you want to eat a carrot and somebody gives you a snowman, bitching about having to eat snow and coal makes you look silly.

>>53301688
>I wana try to slam this bitch rogue who's threatening my friends into the ground and basically keep him there under my boot, something I should easily be able to do because I probably weight 2-3 times more than the guy.

So I'm assuming you have no actual experience of weighing 2-3 times as much as anyone else, unless you count fat. Just because your backstory says "I'm big" doesn't mean you got shit on someone who's actually trained for this shit.

>>53301934
Shit talk is always a thing, especially if you are an arrogant fuck.
Not all rp needs to be some incredible moment, mang, it can be the small shit, the short moments that build up into solid personality.

>>53301711
Let the Eldar finish their ritual, then rip and tear. How is this difficult?

>>53301947
Because that's not what he was talking about.
>>53301967
Can be, but we're talking about the big shit.

Oi you faggots, here's the thing all of you are missing:

Any system will be fun in a good group. Any system will be shit in a shit group. People are more important than any other factor.

>>53300700
What's wrong with RNG?

>>53301996

That is a stupid non-argument that has no actual bearing on the discussion.

People matter. Of course they do. But the system also matters, and it can have a significant effect on your enjoyment of the game. Being able to understand the properties of various systems, being aware of what they're good at and how to pick one that's appropriate is an important and useful skill to develop.

A system doesn't necessitate an experience, that's true. But what a system does is increase or decrease the amount of work a GM has to do to create a good experience. A good system which supports the GM makes their job easier. A bad system that the GM has to struggle with makes their job harder.

>>53302028
A lot of people don't like feeling screwed by the dice, even if they could limit the risks.

>>53302028

Because some people endlessly wank over bellcurves rather than realising that both swingy and stable dice systems have their own uses and create different experiences. Neither one is better, it's just a matter of knowing which one works best in a particular context.

>>53300603
Don't play 3.5 or PF.

>>53301099
That's too much bullshit to even argue with. Have you even opened a D&D book that's not 3.5?

>>53302033
What if I told you one factor being more important than another doesn't preclude the other factor's importance.

>>53302048

Then it's still an irrelevant non-argument that adds nothing to the discussion?

File: enough.png (65KB, 295x390px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 295x390px

>>53302028
Reminder that 5e thinks it's acceptable a level 20 character with proficiency in a task has only a 20'ish % chance more of accomplishing a task than a character who's completely non-proficient and somehow this is seen as good game design.

>>53302066
>Hey OP don't forget this
>IRRELEVANT TO MY CURRENT CONVERSATION
Did you forget what this thread was about

>>53302028
>What's wrong with RNG?
I for one love it.
I love having the outcome be not entirely decided by either the players or the GM.
It makes the world feel more real, like agents of the setting are exerting their will upon the game, disregarding the will of those playing.

But there is something to be said for a game, like chess, where success is wholly dependent upon the willful actions of the players.
And doing everything right but losing hard because you have bad luck can be disheartening as hell.
Then, there's my friend Evil Keen, who literally rolls ones 60% of the time whenever he's playing Risk or similar games.
I've seen it happen and it's absurd.

>>53300630
This, and use the easiest system your group can agree on.

>>53301974
You can't force the big shit tho, it happens when it does.
>>53302035
I play 40k rpgs, you get used to it, and you find ways to beat the odds, but the dice will fuck you.
I've had days where I didn't roll less than a 80 on the dice, and days where I passed all but a handful of tests, like the day I took on 12 dudes and 3 turrets in a stone hallways by going full RULES OF NATURE on them. GM was confounded, but my dice were hot.
>>53302067
>solid mechanics that restrict runaway numbers is bad because I say so
Anon, 5e has been out long enough for us to know what is bullshit and what isn't. That's right up there with the 4e trolls saying that everyone uses magic.

>>53302048
System is a bad one if it produces results that go against group expectations or are just plain nonsensical. If you try to play shit eating peasants with a system meant for big damn heroes you're going have a bad time, and vice versa.

>>53302075

...What? How is 'Playing with good people is fun, playing with shitty people is not fun' in any way GMing advice? It's a statement of the blatantly obvious which leads nowhere and says nothing.

>>53302084
>You can't force the big shit tho, it happens when it does.
Certain systems encourage it more than others.
>>53302087
Telling GMs to be a people person is not blatantly obvious, although congratulations if you think it is, and it is the "one" advice I'd give.

>>53301807
Dnd

>>53301299
Bitch please. 5e is vanilla 3.5. It's fucking boring compared to early editions. The only good thing it has going for it is it's easy for new players to learn because it's so fucking basic.

>>53302087
>'Playing with good people is fun, playing with shitty people is not fun' in any way GMing advice?
Not that anon, but try to stop arguing every so often and actually read meaning instead of seeking out weak points to argue against.
How is it advice?
"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

If your group is shit, changing systems won't help.
If your group is great, stressing over finding the perfect system isn't necessary.

>>53302113

The given description doesn't apply to any edition of D&D I'm aware of.

File: Dissapointment sets in.gif (1MB, 478x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 478x360px

>>53302028
>20 strength fighter tries to force open a gate
>Rolls a 1
>Falls on his ass and breaks his weapon or whatever other retarded shit is on the critical-fail table
>Timid little healer cleric waifu character with 8 strength tries it
>Rolls a 20
>Rips the gate off it's hinges

Yeah, no problem here at all. I love not being able to do things my character should be able to do and being shown up by characters who SHOULDN;T be able to do that thing because success and failure is weighed entirely on a non-curved 1-20 result.

>>53302139

Except crits on skill checks is not and has never been a rule in D&D.

>>53302139
Skill checks can't crit.
Attack crits are just miss or hit with more damage.
Stop making up unexisting rules.

>>53302139
Which actual system are you citing again?

>>53302152
>>53302154
>>53302155
Literally missing the point this hard because I made a reference to retarded crit-fail tables, which tons of bad DnD DMs LOVE to use for some reason.

>>53302173

Which are also completely unofficial and irrelevant to the original point about RNG?

>>53302107
I mean the player still needs to buck up and own the moment for big shit to happen, but you shouldn't judge roleplay on major scenes alone.
>Telling GMs to be a people person is not blatantly obvious
I think a lot of group problems would be settled if GMs knew that yes, in the group, you have a responsibility to manage people and settle situations. No, it's usually not fun, but it actively helps keep a group strong when you establish yourself as an authority.

File: double screech.png (1MB, 1673x976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1673x976px

>>53302139
GODDMANIT I'M SO FUCKING ANGRY
DID YOU EVER READ THE FUCKING BOOK YOU тpиcyчьeпaдлoвaя выccaкa, мнoгoблядcкaя пpocкoтoшлюхa, гнидcкoe выeбoпpoпиздищe, мнoгoeбoзный хepyн, cтepвoзнoe тpигнидoпpoгoвнo, гaндoнcкий пpoпepдoк, тpигoвнoгнoйнaя тpипиздoпpoмaндa, пpoпepдaнyтoe блядoдepьмo, выcpaнoмyдoвaтoe дepьмищe, хepoпpocкoтcкoe дepьмищe, пpocвoлoтoпpoхyeвoe зaдpoчeпpoгнидищe, зaлyпcкий пpocтepвoпpoхepyн, гoвнoзaлyпcкий блядoк, дpoчeпpoпepдoвaтaя мaндa, выeбyчий тpипиздoдpoчyн, cpaнoгнoйнaя cвoлoтa, выcpaнaя cвoлoтocyкa, пpoгнидcкaя гнидa, гaндoнoхepoвaя мaндoгнидищa, пepдoмyдoвaтый зaдpoчeпидep, выпepдoгoвeнный хyй, пpoccaнaя cyчьecкoтинa, тpипepдoвaтaя тpиccaнoхyинa, пaдлoпpocpaнoe мaндищe, выпepдoвaтoe пepдoпpoмyдищe, выпepдoпpoccaнaя гнoeпaдлa, мнoгoeбyчий хyeплёт, пpoмyдoвaтaя зaдpoчилa, пиздoпpoгoвeннaя хyeпpoпaдлa, гaндoнocкoтcкaя тpиccaкa, мнoгoeбoшлюхcкaя мнoгoпиздoпpoпaдлa, пpocвoлoтoхyeвaтoe тpимyдищe, тpимaндoпpocтepвoзный пиздyн, выccaнoгнoйнoe гoвнoдepьмищe, мнoгocтepвoпpoвoднeннoe пpoгнидищe ,пaдлoвый тpипиздoпpocкoтлoжeц, ccaнoe гoвнoдepьмищe!

>>53302139
Take out the part about crit-fails and you've kinda got a point, but then again I don't even allow non-proficient characters to even ATTEMPT skill checks in skills they're not proficient in. Doesn't matter that you have 20 Dex, if you've never picked a lock before I'm not going to let you pick your way past a locked door with a rusty nail, sorry.

>>53300603
okay so
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: be on board with players. Serious heroics or farting on goblins? Silly fun or drama? More talking or more combat? You have to agree on it beforehand.

>>53302189
>that Cyrillic
You have successfully stumped Google Translate.

If you're trying to get your friends to play, and their reason for not playing is because "It doesn't look professional enough" don't bother throwing money and time at it. They weren't planning on playing anyway and were hunting for excuses.

>>53302139
Your attempt to complain about the swinginess of a d20 is preaching to the choir, and basically meaningless.
Further, your strawmen are suspiciously similar to the anon that has been going on rants about alignments, making similarly egregious statements when they made it clear they didn't play the game.

>>53302139

Why is the possibility of this happening a problem?

It isn't likely, the modifiers you have swing the probability significantly in your favour, and when it doesn't, isn't that just another chance for some fun RP?

Your mighty, muscular warrior grips the bars and pulls, gritting their teeth, tension building, metal creaking... But failing to give way.

And then the Cleric walks up and gives it a push, the grate falling inwards.

Just off the top of my head, that's how I'd fluff that sort of thing as a GM.

>>53302235
Don't tempt the alignment-posters, I'm content with the fact that alignment has only been mentioned like twice in this entire thread.

>>53302235
>What's wrong with RNG
>Literally gives an example of what's wrong with RNG
>STRAWMAN AND ALSO YOU DON'T PLAY THE GAME AND YOU ALSO TROLL ABOUT A TOPIC NOBODY HAS EVEN BEEN TALKING ABOUT REEEEEE!

Ok.

>>53302274
Look here, faggot >>53302154

>>53302286
Still missing the point, but this topic has already devolved in rampant DnD fanboy butthurt anyway. It is at this moment I realize, far too late, that there is no point in replying to you or them any longer. So congratulations on winning I guess.

>>53302274
You are, or that anon is, trying to explain what's wrong with drinking and driving by describing someone getting loaded and stealing a tank.
Pretending the point was made well is not going to work.

>>53302312
>what's wrong?
>Here's what's wrong: *thing that actually isn't in the system*
>It's not in the system, it's not a problem
>haha missing the point
Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.

>>53302312
Maybe if you'd made a point based on actual game rules and not 'but shit GMs do this' people might have listened to you.

File: Deathwing_WC2_Icon_Updated.jpg (4KB, 46x38px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 46x38px

>>53302255
>I- I softened it up for you!

>>53302361
But he wasn't talking about a game but about a dice system. Learn to read

>>53302408

The theoretical dice system he was describing does not, as far as I'm aware, actually exist.

>>53302347
Okay. Fighter rolls 2, for a total result of 7 and fails. Cleric rolls 19, for a total resul of 18, handily beating the DC 15. See the problem now?

>>53302450

No, for the reasons stated in >>53302255

File: 1456602517232.png (223KB, 405x797px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 405x797px

>>53302466
Just because there are ways to roleplay around it doesn't mean it's not retarded. >>53302450 is completely and 100% right about it being a problem.

It is NOT FUN to lose at something your character is good at just because the dice decided to fuck you. Bell-curve and dice-pool systems suffer this alot less often because they work off averages instead of an equal chance at blowing the roll out of the water or failing it miserably.

>>53302501
>It is NOT FUN to lose at something your character is good at just because the dice decided to fuck you.
Says you. People who are less of a little bitch can accept that sometimes that happens.

>>53300603

If you're playing off of someone else's adventure, read the entire thing before hand. Have a sheet of paper with a list of absolutely key things about the adventure. Every time one of my friends wants to give GMing a shot I tell them this and it is still obvious they didn't do it. If you don't do it , it will be super obvious, the world will feel half-assed. Just read it. Please. This triple true for call of cthulhu, please don't try to solve the mystery with the group.

>>53300603
Don't listen to /tg/

>>53302139

>Warrior not immediately retorting with "...well I loosen it"

Come, the classic

>>53302514
Flimsy cleric succeeding where burly fighter failed goes against my suppression of disbelief, and is bad for verisimilitude. It just makes the game feel stupid and arbitrary.

>>53300813
>D&d is awful specially as a first timer.

How is it awful?
First timer as in someone who has no fucking idea about anything? Because I agree in that sense but for people that play video games or w/e they should be fine with 5th ed.

>>53300603
Watch some of this guy's stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkVdb9Yr8fc05_VbAVfskCA

>>53302537
>It just makes the game feel stupid and arbitrary.
If you don't justify the results of rolls in-universe, what the fuck are you doing in your games? The answer's nothing, you gameless fuck.

>>53302534
The fact of the matter is, with a DC of 15, the fighter with 20 strength succeeds on a roll of 10 or higher. The average person with average strength succeeds on a roll 15 or higher.

So the person with superhuman strength can pass 50% of the time and the avergae person can pass 25% of the time. Wow... huge fucking return on my investment in strength. Way to make me feel like an epic hero.

>>53302542
DnD is bad for first timers because it teaches them all roleplaying games are bloated piles of rules and exploits that are only really good for combat and nothing else and that being a rules-whore is more important than than having fun (see image >>53301166 where the game's creators even fucking admit this in the most pretentious way possible.)
.
That's not even counting all the garbage traditions that have grandfathered in like alignments, casters being able to solve encounters with a spell or two and generally having tons to do while martials are useless, awful d20-based success/fail mechanics, certain stats being useless to classes instead of them all having uses, needing feats to do things you should be able to just RP normally, and so, so, soooo many other things that are just fucking awful and should have been left behind ages ago but wern't because of nostalgia and fanboy grognards.

>>53302576
>local man thinks 3.PF is every edition of D&D
I think a reminder about this should be stickied.

>>53302553
I know from real life that if a bodybuilder can't lift something then most definitely a cheerleader cannot, and dice allowing that to happen is just stupid and makes the game unfun for me.

>>53302607
This is literally how 5e works too though...
LITERALLY HOW 5E WORKS TOO...

>>53302576
I see what you mean, that's true.

My first ever rpg was an indie one called Full Light Full Steam, I had great fun, rules weren't complicated either.

>>53302607
>local 5e fanboy thinks 5e is completely unrelated to 3.pf and doesn't share like 90% of it's problems just covered up a little bit better.

At some point you gotta stop falling back on "LOL 3.PF" as an argument, because anyone who got off the DnD train isn't buying that shit anymore, and believe it or not some of us actually DID give it a chance and know what we're talking about.

>>53302612
Maybe you should never roll for anything, then. Go play Amber Diceless.

>>53302619
>>53302638
>5e
Sorry nerds, I play the greater than half of all D&D editions not built by retards.

>>53302655
If I were the GM I wouldn't let the weaker character roll after the stronger failed because him succeding wouldn't make any sense, simple as that.

Tell your players the target numbers they're aiming for, unless their characters have no way of assessing the situation. I know it feels immersion-breaking, but those numbers reflect reality. A difficulty of 15 means something different than a difficulty of 20, and their characters can recognize that difference by actually looking at the world in front of them. All hiding the numbers does is keep your players from making meaningful decisions.

Exceptions are mainly limited to rolls where the character isn't sure if the task is possible, like trying to find a secret door that may not exist.

>>53302683
This sounds familiar?

Oh right, the "THE GAME IS GOOD IF YOU JUST IGNORE THE ACTUAL RULES" argument... again... sigh...

>>53302683
>him succeding wouldn't make any sense
It would if you applied your creativity for a second.
>the stronger character wasn't able to get it open, but just as he tired himself out, he managed to pull it into a configuration where the weaker character can open it easily

>>53302501

Play diceless then, you Fucking manlet snowflake

>>53302699
Multiple people already explained why this was stupid as hell and arbitrary, making up a non-mechanical explanation for it doesn't mean the mechanics aren't stupid as hell and arbitrary.

>>53302706
Kinda what half the people in this thread seem to be saying: Play a game that isn't DnD. Glad you agree.

>>53302714
If you didn't want to engage this randomness WHY THE FUCK DID YOU CALL FOR A ROLL IN THE FIRST PLACE

>>53302699
I trust my own judgement more than random die roll. If there's a possibility that the die roll results in something ridiculous and nonsensible then it won't be made in the first place.

>>53302693
Why don't you just say it's difficult?

>>53302739
Randomness is good, but D20 randomness isn't balanced well in most systems. A bell curve, like what you get using a 3d6 system, gives randomness that's much less extreme and arbitrary. But people screech because it's different and don't even give it a chance, which is a damn shame and only serves to highlight how willfully ignorant or overly-invested most of the DnD fanbase is, because they've sunk so much time into their pet system that the idea that anything else might be fun or have merit scares them.

>>53302785

Just do the M&M thing where with routine checks you get an auto ten.

Any generalized advice on how to kick off a shadowrun campaign?

>>53302824
/srg/ has a How To GM file in their pastebin.

>>53300630
Best advice you can get.

since most important things have been said already, something I feel makes things a lot easier
>make up most of the characters, their motivations, personalities and interpersonal relationships beforehand, but only show the players as much as is reasonable - all those traits are for YOU, so you can present them in an interesting manner and improvise easily. If your worldbuilding is sound, you won't have to plan everything in detail, you just know what the NPC would react like.

>>53300603
Learn to accept criticism and use it to provide a better experience next time around. However, just because your players didn't like what you did, doesn't mean you're doing a bad job either. One of the hardest things to learn about dealing with people, is how to filter out the whining bullshit, from legitimate feedback.

When it comes to non combat encounters don't plan solutions, plan problems. Don't expect your players to find the note with the secret hint, or figure out the right sequence of levers. If they find their own way around the problem, let them have it.

>>53302770
Does difficult mean they need a 12, 15, or 18? Does your player understand which you mean by that?

>>53302862
Why does it matter?
>It's difficult
>Okay so I'll need to get a high score

Do you play with retards?

>>53302834

This, also realize you wont be good after one session. It takes some experience to give a really great game for the players and become comfortable in the role. Something my players never understand when one of them try and it's not as good as my sessions.

>>53302785
The bell curve is a lie. If you set the difficulty along the bell curve rather than sticking with the same target numbers as a d20 it still ends up close to linear.

>>53302870
It makes a difference if the maximum your character can get on something is thirteen and the goal is fifteen. It makes a difference of one player can maybe possibly make the check this turn, or the specialist can definitely make it after he takes two rounds to get over here. Those are meaningful statistics.

>>53302940
I see, I'm not sure if I would tell the players what they need to get but each to their own.

>>53302832
Strongly disagree. That's a great way to do a lot of extra work for no real payoff. Don't flesh out NPCs any more than is necessary, but remember how you've fleshed them out.

The most important one of them all.

>If you are not having a good time, tell your players and wrap up. They will understand. If they don't, good riddance.

>>53302870
See >>53302940. But there's other times it makes a difference. Sometimes your characters might have scarce resources they can burn to assist in their success. If they need a 15 they might want to use a potion or a tool, activate an ability, or cast a spell. They might decide to spend some time trying to reduce those odds or mitigate failure. If they need a 12, on the other hand, they might just chance it. And if they need an 18, they might decide it's too risky to bother and they'll try another tactic. These are all choices that require the ability to assess the risks of failure to be meaningful.

>>53302954
depends, its hard to convey over text how much you plan. For example I write down the most important NPC's with notes like "wants to become the new Prince" "Has a long-standing feud with the anarchs of the city" "Is always soft-spoken and well mannered" and make up who they are allied with, who they hate and what their immediate plan is. Obviously only for major players. For the smaller characters its like "Loyal to x, tries to protect y, thinks hes a rockstar, talks like z"
It works well for me, but obviously it can be a bad thing if you are fleshing out the details to much.

>>53302824
I genuinely think cliches are best here, keep it really simple:
>Start with a phone call, meet at a bar, new team, new job. If you're feeling adventures ask the player to describe where the character answers the phone, why they're there and what its like. Even if somebody quips "I'm at home in bed", you can start pulling out details
>Meet at bar at this time, what time do you get there, what do you do. Make it a bar without a bouncer, you don't want an idiot player getting into a fight before the game has started
>Generic Johnson A calls you all to a private booth and does some security/paranoia stuff. Describe him, what he does etc.
>The simplest mission possible; retrieve briefcase from baddy A, we know its being exchanged to baddy B but we don't know where. Speak to NPC at this interesting location and find out.
>Bit of detective work, location to exchange, big fight, twist, beers and backslaps

The players will add the depth, just throw the odd quandry at them.

DO NOT do anything more than hint at a larger campaign. Throw little bits at your players, if they find one of them interesting they'll bite at that, write your next session around the bit they bite at.

Grand overarching campaigns are all well and good, but your first mission objective is to let everybody test their characters and see if they click. There's a high likelihood a player will want to rewrite after the game etc

>>53302824
Don't start with your Johnson betraying the party. Or have the Johnson betray the party, really. Johnson betrayals should be unexpected and devastating, but people are shit at them so it's now a cliche.

>>53300700
So you don't know how to run a good D20 game? Why not just say that anon?

>>53302860
>>53300630
>>53300682
These should be in some sticky

>>53300603
Your players are likely going to be myopic, selfish, irrational dipshits. Learn to deal with it.

>>53302660
Older editions are no longer what people talk about when they talk about DnD. And are played by far less people that some "indie" games. Grognards need to understand that their relics are no longer relevant in discussions outside of studying the history of the hobby.

>>53302860
This, but expanding on it. Don't plan combat and non-combat encounters, plan problems. If your players find a way around that cool fight you had, then they aren't trying to skip the fight, they solved the problem in a way you didn't think of. That's a good thing.

>>53301545
Clearly that is an opinionated statement with zero cited reference and therefore about as relevant as a fart in the wind.

>>53301557
Assuming we ignore the rules without anyone having said that.
Nice asspull, queerbait.

>>53302612
>Go to for lifting heavy stuff is bodybuilder
>Not weightlifter.

>>53302881
Which is why you stick with the same target numbers as a d20. Why would you think otherwise?

>>53301099
Why is kicking a table over not a free action? I GM and I would consider it as one and then give a mild +AC boost to reward my player for using the environment.

>>53302697
Have you tried being less autistic?

>>53300603

You're not the writer of a play, nor are the players your actors.

>>53300603
For the love of god, don't spend hours upon hours crafting the "perfect" campaign, then get pissy when the players don't want to go along with your "canon" or whatever. Make a loose outline and play off of that.

Make guidelines, not plans.

>>53302824
The campaign opens with corp mercs or other bad guys attacking the bar your players are in. They're there to get a macguffin, or cause a terrorism scare, or assassinate the players or bar owner, whatever.

>>53300603
Make sure to have fun with it. If you aren't having fun, don't keep running the game. Even if the players seem to be having the time of their lives, you have to enjoy yourself too. So if you don't enjoy the campaign you're running, be vocal about it, and find a compromise. Otherwise you'll be miserable.

>>53301557
We don't ignore or avoid them and we enjoy the game. Odd that.

>>53300630
>try to make session zero
>players say they'll be fine with whatever

File: tmp_18083-1492485077492562159981.jpg (167KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x1024px

>>53300700
>RNG
Back to /v/ with you

>>53310079

People always have preferences, but getting them to really think and open up about them can be difficult. What techniques will actually work very much depends on your group and your relationships with them, but sometimes you need to push.

File: handjob.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>53300603
Experiment and find your own way. The commonly-accepted approaches to GMing are no more sacrosanct than the individual rules in the book. In the end, you're just playing a glorified game of pretend, and since you're the guy in charge, you have a lot of leeway in what you can do. By all means, try out what the system tells you to do and see how it plays, but don't be afraid to improvise and change things. In the end, it's kind of like getting advice on how to jack off; maybe you can pick up some tips, but in the end, only you can figure out what works best for you.

>>53305223
His point is that if a GM has to ignore or fix a rule for a system to get better, this is a point in favour of him being a good GM, but one against the system

>>53301272
5e has plenty of trap options. They're just so obviously worse than the true builds that only really stupid players fall into them.

4e was pretty fucking brilliant, but you probably masturbate to posts talking about how it's tabletop WoW.

Get out of adult threads, D&D kiddies.

>>53300603
Games can be run without players. They cannot be run with the Master.

>>53312754
>Games can be run without players
what?

>>53312784
I assume anon means "without a player" or "these players".

>>53312754
I am curious as to what conclusions you're implying should be drawn.
Because most everything I can think of is asinine and stupid.

Newbie DM here shepherding a bunch of newbie players (I've played plenty of 3.5, but haven't really DMed it. They wanted to do D&D because of TAZ, and I at least know 3.5's problems well enough to try to work around them+I have the stuff for it). There's kind of two things that I've got questions on:

1) What do you do to encourage new players to start being more proactive? So far they've been incredibly tentative about everything, kind of like they're assuming that I'm actively looking to murder their characters, and even in clearly nonthreatening situations they're phrasing things they want to do as 'can I' (as in, 'can I go talk to this person?) instead of describing what they try to do and going from there.

2. Is there a good resource for encounter design? It feels like anything that has enough HP to not get murdered super quickly by the party duskblade so that it can actually try to get its gimmick off does too much damage for the PCs to cope with. Last session I tried a Harpoon Spider backed up by Ettercaps, which worked pretty well, except that it came pretty close to murdering the artificer super-quick. Do I just fudge health up and damage down?

>>53300603
jerk off before you brainstorm

>>53314965
>1) What do you do to encourage new players to start being more proactive?
Scatter seedling plot hooks everywhere and make whatever they decide to do end up being the best choice.
Not great to do all the time, but it can help build confidence.

>So far they've been incredibly tentative about everything, kind of like they're assuming that I'm actively looking to murder their characters, and even in clearly nonthreatening situations they're phrasing things they want to do as 'can I' (as in, 'can I go talk to this person?) instead of describing what they try to do and going from there
I'd recommend a variation on session 0, where you sit them down and explain to them it's okay to take risks and be adventurous.
Maybe run a high lethality one-shot where they play peasants encountering, and trying to escape from, a monster their regular PCs are going to encounter.
Gets them used to risk and death as the cycle through expendable peasants and also shows them how much more capable a PC really is.
Maybe.
But definitely explain to them that they are in full control of their PCs.
They can jump off a cliff and try to fly by flapping their wings if they want to.
Not that it will work, but they can TRY anything.
Just act like their characters would.

>2. Is there a good resource for encounter design?
Great question!
No idea.

>Do I just fudge health up and damage down?
You can always adjust creature stats to fit the situation.
Perhaps that ogre is weak from starvation.
Perhaps these kobolds are an elite squad.
They vary.
Once you got a feel for it though, try not to fudge rolls too often.
It's a bad habit to dictate what rolls should end up as.

>>53300603
GURPS is a toolbox, not a system. You pick and choose the rules you want.

>>53316576
It's hardly presented as a tool box. I love the system but it's mostly holistic. Unless you mean just ignoring stuff when you don't feel like it, which is different

>>53300603
>If you could give only ONE piece of advice to a beginner GM, what would it be?

No DMPC. Repeat: NO DMPC.

>>53301911
I recommend FFG star wars if it really is your first time and you want a cool star wars experience
Alternatively look at Stars Without Number for a different more "Hard" sci-fi feel
If you want something more medieval try Blades in the Dark, though this is going to be a game about terrible people.

File: This-cat-still-feels-empty-inside-2tr3on9dktqiqas5utm9s0.jpg (97KB, 720x636px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 720x636px

For a beginner GM?
A two-part piece of advice.

Don't let your desire to please your players ruin the game. Don't go down the Monty Haul route, and hand out to much magic items.

Don't go too far in the other direction, and be a miser with magic items, and cool rewards for your players. Especially don't take these things away from them without any justification, unless you like salty players with the GM vs Players attitude now seething in their minds.

>>53300603
>>53300603
Never expect things to go as you plan, learn to improvise or have a few backup plots

>>53317454
>No DMPC. Repeat: NO DMPC
I disagree 100%
nearly every campaign I've had a DMPC, though they are usually under leveled compared to the party and only exist to fill a role the players didn't want.

That and they usually are someone connected to the main plot but can be strung along, its their line back to the story.
I have had parties kill my DMPC before just to check if they could

>>53317701
>Alternatively look at Stars Without Number for a different more "Hard" sci-fi feel
Traveller's better.

>>53312367
>one against the system
Which honestly was the point >>53302139 was making in the first place.

>>53302152 >>53302154 >>53302189 >>53302255
These guys' arguments are bad.

>>53320010
>Which honestly was the point >>53302139 was making in the first place.
Perhaps that was the point they were *trying* to make.
The point they primarily made was how to post and make points poorly.
The secondary point they made was that they feel a 1d20, and a fictional crit system using one, is a poor method of determining success.
That's it.

>These guys' arguments are bad.
Well, one argument was weak, sure.
Two were absolutely fine.
And one wasn't even an argument.

Well, you tried I guess.
Do better next time you post.
Party on.

>>53318773
eh, depends on the definition
for most people here a GMPC is more than just a NPC that goes with the party
it's a NPC that everything revolves around. Where the PCs are just there to be amazed about their ability

>>53300603
The game is about the PCs. If the book says someone else discovered something, it can't stop you changing that someone into the PCs. If some races are rare in the starting location, maybe only the ones the players picked exist at all. Even if the loot table could roll a particular item multiple times, the one your party just found might actually be the only one, or at least the original.

Now, main characters can fail, even die, and there are other characters in the story than the heroes. But don't feel like the previous events of the lore have to be true for your group.

>>53300700
You're correct. Our first rpg was D20 and we have a lot more fun with other systems.

>>53300603
>If you could give only ONE piece of advice to a beginner GM, what would it be?
Dont

>>53300603
>come to thread looking for advice
>it's just D20 and DnD haters shitposting and responding to obvious bait making them assmad

Never change, /tg/

i dont understand why people hate d&d or any other d20 system. These are simply a set of rules that you can use to tell a story and allow player to interact with said story. When i started playing it was a fantastic way to start. It provides a set of rules so that new DMs dont have to ad lib all of their content or be supper pressured into creating their own rules. If you dont like a part of any system just exclude that, dont write off the system as a whole

>>53327989

This is kind of why people dislike it. D&D is a bad place to start because it gives you some false expectations and bad habits that aren't actually reflected in most RPGs as a whole.

I'm not as vehement about it as most, but I do think they have a point, even if they convey it badly at times.

>>53300603
Read the table.
READ THE TABLE.
Read the mood of the players and play to it. That doesn't mean you should always give them what they want (that takes out the challenge) but you should be able to read the mood and supply something interesting to cater to it.

>>53300603

Also, don't be afraid to call a 5 minute break whenever you need it. Sometimes what is needed is a breather.

Also building off of >>53328078, if the players seem apathetic to everything you throw at them, it might be time to call for a break.