Aspects of Exemplary GMs... Turning the Good to Great!

[Natasha]

That's a lot to chew on.
I just started GMing though I've been playing for a long time. I've also designed a few campaigns for fun or the day I finally got to GM.

I'm not one for epic struggles of good and evil, like Kevin and some of the authors are. I'm far more interested in survival and getting through challenges. It really colours the scenarios, adventures, and campaigns I design.

I like maps. I use them as much as possible. I designed a campaign that didn't need maps at all, however.

I don't use music or multimedia.

I only GM in English so far so details are not a lot. Especially if I'm playing online. I can type fast but I think it's more important to keep the descriptions brief as possible.

I don't believe in censorship; with that said, I don't play with kids either. The gore depends on the game and the situation, really.

I limit the players to the particular game we're playing. If it's PFRPG, then that's what we choose from. Usually we are making characters to adventure together, so some attention to getting them to actually work together is necessary. Within that framework, however, I try to restrict the players as little as possible.

All actions, even stupid ones, have consequences. As GM I get to decide what they are. If an action creates an opportunity other than killing them or overwhelming then, then I go that route. Otherwise, sharpen your pencils it's time to create a new character.

I don't prefer NPCs in the party, at least not for an extended period of time. This takes the story away from the PCs. It also sets the GM up to develop a pet NPC. Also very bad for the PCs. Steering the party is fine but not necessary.

I design my campaigns specifically avoiding time-critical encounters and scenarios so that the players can direct things more. So if they need to discover something I keep it open enough that "the next time they go down any rural road..." rather than "alright, now it's time for them to go down Main Street out of town".

I don't believe in fooling the players. If they roll, it's because they need to roll. I don't randomly roll or otherwise grimace at random. I think that's kind of lame. You can inform the PCs without giving away the million dollar password, and that's better than keeping them in the dark or playing head games with the players. The GM and the players are a team, they're playing together. The GM should be as much a team player, in my opinion, as any of the players should be.

If they like the story and their characters, they'll come back.
They have to feel empowered to change the world in which they live in ways they want to change the world, whether or not that's some big epic change or putting out a fire at a local library doesn't really matter; it's the concept.

Great memorable games happen when everyone's in the same groove.

It boils down to everyone being on the same page and in the same groove: players and GM are playing off each other.

[Vrykolas2k]

Great ideas?
Really, too many to remember. I think the one the players most enjoyed was when they found a very small, isolated village and the GB pilot scared the townsfolf when he stepped out of the armour. Of course, the people were scared to begin with...

I use media betimes. Maps quite often minis... rarely. In fact, I've never been in a group that used minis to any great degree.

I skim obver some things, other times I go into great detail and the players become very immersed. I roll dice for random encounters quite often. As for "gore"... I don't go into more than the players can handle. Comfort zones are often stepped over, but nothing more than the players can handle.

I am a by-the-book kind of guy. My settings are canon. Players know more or less what to expect. They're not inundated with house-rules and crap from out of the freaking blue. I let them play pretty much anything they want, really. Although for Cosmo-Knights, they have to start out fallen and work their way back...

I'll let a new player know about consequences... after five sessions, it's word of action and they can doom themselves and eachother through stupidity or whatever all they like.

I use group NPCs if there's a small number of PCs; or if they're necessary for some plot. Most NPCs are peripheral otherwise.
I never run GMPCs.

I do a combination of free-form and planned. What's the game without free will? Just an ego-boost for the GM...

I do sometimes call for or make random rolls.

Incentives? A good, consistent and well-run game should be enough. Elements of a well-told story that the PCs affect, with a very minimal amount of rail-roading (in other words, no heavy-handed crap like the Final Siege book).
As well as just a good stress-relieving time with a group of friends.

[Warwolf]

My, but you are an inquisitive sort...

If I get the chance to sit down and type up a diatribe in response, I'll do so. Otherwise, just call me and I'll give you my views that way.

[Natasha]

Misfit, not those kinds of role playing table top games!!
We're talking about pen and paper

[Natasha]

Misfit, not those kinds of role playing table top games!!
We're talking about pen and paper

Then you're not doing it right.

Incorrect.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

I've found that some of my best games happen when I step outside my comfort zone of GMing and try a new technique or method. I'm a very "ordered" GM. I like all my NPC's to have names/methods/personalities and I do mean ALL. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker, doesn't matter how small. I also like to have maps of the area/towns/etc... a list of local shops and what they will and won't sell, a list of sub-plots or hooks for the area the characters are in, etc, etc... Needless to say this can take a lot of prep work and can burn me out pretty quick. So once in awhile I'll run by the seat of my pants and just come up with stuff on the fly, those turn out pretty interesting, some good, some bad, but always interesting.

I also like to play with different story-telling techniques every once in awhile. Like for instance, in a ShadowRun game I ran a few months back. I had all the players introduced in the game in their own mini-scenario, completely seperate and distinct frome each other, in one case the characters where even on different continents. Normally that would be labor intensive and boring for the players that weren't in the scenario, so instead I ran all three at the same time.

One character would get about 5 minutes of setup, getting them to an appropriate spot, then I'd suddenly switch to another player, getting them to a similar stopping point, then again I'd switch. One guy was infilitrating a jungle paramilitary encampment with his squad of Spec-Ops soldiers, who was then ambushed, captured, and tortured by the guerillas, another was a Go-Ganger (street bike ganger for the non-ShadowRun players) who was sitting around on his turf drinking soy-beer and enjoying the day, before a rival gang showed up to challenge them Akira-style. The last was a fire-inspector, who showed up at a chemical factory to make a surprise inspection.

Each of their scenes progressed for them at different intervals, when the action got really intense for the spec-op guy, I'd switch it to the fire-inspector character as he was being shown around the factory, then right before the energy waned to much, I'd switch over to the bike race with the go-ganger, then back to the action of the escape from jungle.
It all ended with the Spec-Ops guy launching a LAW rocket into the "tailpipe" of the last fleeing guerilla, while the Go-Ganger was exploding after a massive botch while racing between stopped cars in gridlock, while the fire-inspector was thanking the plant manager for his time.

The trick was riding the wave of energy of the game, allowing it to become really tense with the two action scenes, and then right before it peaked, slowing it down with the more social interaction scene and then before that got boring, throwing the game back into high gear.

I didn't really think it would work, but it was easily the best GMing experience I've had, as it worked perfectly, players enjoyed it, and I got to add a new trick to my GM bag.

[Spinachcat]

What are some of the great ideas you have run players through that really enhanced the game?

I don't play the rules. I play the tone and the setting. I could not care how modifier X affects skill percentage Y. I reward the cool and let the dice roll as they may. In general, I play the enemy smart and hard against the players AND then amplify the cool and smart actions of the players to make them cinematic heroes.

Do you use multi-media (e.g. music, sound effects, videos, etc.) and/or maps and miniatures?

I love minis and terrain, but not for measurement, but for visual stimulation and representation. I love the McFarlane figures. They fit Rifts well.

I love 99cent stores for the weird knicknacks you can find. Odd stuff like weird resin statues, odd import toys and especially crazy Halloween stuff. Its a buck so who cares if you use it once or twice. Some of the items have become staples for many games.

I like adding music and sound effects, but I have not found a way to do so 100% effectively without distracting the flow of play. I have actually had a player DJ my games. It was cool, but does distract as much as it adds. Also, the problem is everyone has different musical tastes so that limits the music's appreciation at the table. I love to run fights with heavy metal, but its too much for many people and even I find myself competing against the sound as the GM.

How much detail is used in describing action scenes (e.g. rolling dice encounters), skill checks and pivotal plot points?

As much as needed to convey the setting, the tone and the atmosphere of the encounter...and then a smidgeon more to cement the encounter as a memorable set piece.

I like to think as a camera. Give them the wide shot, pan across it so we all know what's going on and where and then tighten in on the major players in the scene.

How violent are your detailed descriptions or do you have to censor yourself with certain players?

GM stands for Gore Master!

I run either Rated R or HBO style. But I do censor myself . . . somewhat . . . for little kids. A few years ago I ran a Tunnels & Trolls game at a local convention and I got 4 players....all under age 12. Two sets of parents figured the RPG rooms were day care and just dumped them in the room. Here's a scene...

ME: With your torch you can see what may have been a huge feast table and many chairs, but they are all burnt and crumbling. In the far corner is a tall statue of dryad pouring water into a pool.

9 yr old girl: What's a dryad?

ME: Dryads are beautiful elf girls who can turn into trees.

11 yr old boy: Is she naked? Is she naked!!

ME: Not until you're 18.

How limiting are you as a GM toward other player character choices?

Depends on what kind of campaign I want to run. If I want to run a CS Dog Boy game, you have to pick characters who make sense to that game.

Personally, I like geographicly focused games. Yes, the rifts mean that anyone can show up anywhere, but I prefer more cohesion. AKA, if I run a Rifts Russia game, I want to see characters from those books and tech from those books. If someone really wanted to play the Capybara RCC from South America in the Russia game, they had better have a GREAT story and terrific character idea AND be prepared to have to constantly deal with local suspicions.

I find that Rifts geographicly has internal logic, but that often breaks down when you say "Play Anything". I think Phase World is a better venue for Play Anything than Rifts Earth.

Is the world pre-defined by the game books (e.g. Coalition States are evil, Free Quebec is autonomous, dinosaur swamps, old-Wyoming is "Demon Central", etc.) or do you allow your players to roam in an alternate Earth where other adventures and geographies await?

I make lots of homebrew settings, in fact, I am publishing one this year as my own game. But that's when I am playing generic systems like OD&D, Savage Worlds, Hero, etc. With Palladium, I really want to play inside their sandbox. I want to experience what Kev & da Boyz have written and translate that to the players. Much like when I run Warhammer, Shadowrun or other defined settings. Even within these defined settings, there is a HUGE amout of play room to design and create your own goodies.

Are players permitted to perform "stupid actions" from the get-go or does the GM remind the player of his/her consequences of the action before committing to it? (e.g. warnings of alignment change, killing the character, hurting a relationship, etc.)

It's a game and we are there to all have fun. I do sometimes point out the odds of success and failure or give out information that the character knows about that the player may have forgotten.

If the character is doing something against the alignment, the player must justify why the character is breaking their code. They must have a good reason. People do break their codes occassionally and it does have repercussions in the game.

I do however enforce tone and atmosphere. Characters need to do stuff that makes sense for their backgrounds and the setting they live within.

What do you feel are a good amount of NPCs running with the party? Is it lonesome (zero or one NPC) or "family-style" (six to eight other team members?)

This depends on the campaign. Adventurers are mostly their own wolf packs with external contacts. However, if NPCs are part of the group, they are all deeply lesser than the heroes. They may have one key skill that is lacking - say a Doctor, but that Doctor is not going to ever overshadow any PCs in their skill areas.

Is one NPC recommended to help steer the party during unclear or confusing moments or is it preferable to allow the characters to move blindly through an open adventure, even if it means not following the planned adventure ideas?

NPCs can help steer the party, but that NPC needs to make sense in the setting. In Chaos Earth, a NEMA superior officer and just order the PCs to go to place X and investigate. If the players get stumped in their investigation, the NEMA HQ could radio them and say, hey we just got another report and here's a freebie clue. Whatever you do, do not make the NPC the voice of the GM. Make the NPC a voice inside the game world who is doing something that makes sense for the NPC while progressing your story along.

Should the GM have a plan or layout for an adventure concept or should the concept flow freely from the players actions, forming a campaign from the player's decisions?

Both. You need to have a good outline with branches that lead the game toward the conclusion. I like having Act 1 and Act 3 figured out. The players can do whatever they want in Act 2. If I set up Act 1 well enough, the PCs have a sense of what Act 3 needs to look like to "win" and they find their way there.

BTW, I highly suggest that every GM study three act structure and basic storytelling techniques.

Do you ever have the players roll dice for the heck of it, just to instill paranoia or does that take up too much game time with senseless rolling?

No more than once per game. If you overuse the technique, it loses its power to scare.

What other incentives do you provide the players in the course of a campaign to "draw them back" session to session?

My well earned reputation proceeds me. I have been a GM for 30 years and I worked hard over decades to become very good at RPG storytelling. Storytelling is a talent and you only get better by practice.

For new GMs, you need to think cliffhanger. Try to end each session on a high note with lots of questions. End the game right before a big battle or right after a major NPC says something shocking or right when something utterly unexpected occurs.

Also, never be a pansy. The GM's best tool is the word "No!" so do not be afraid to use it. "No!" helps define the parameters of the setting, tone and atmosphere.

In essence, what characteristics separate a good game from a GREAT memorable game?

The interaction of the GM and the players where both are on the same page and riffing off each other's creativity and energy. That chemistry is all important and without that, the music never hits its stride.

[lostsoul336]

Me personally i like to run some smaller adventure that all interact with each other and hope the group figures it out. if after a while they dont really catch on i will throw them a bone or 2 and see where they go with it. i try to do big epic campaigns that dont seem like it. Basically doing small adventures until they get onto the big adventure that way they are "warmed up" for the main event. I like to have at a minimum 1 NPC and no more than 3. they are barely ever powerful generally a Medic type of character or a scout or somebody who has connections the group can use. I usually let the group go on the fly and see where they go with an adventure and make stuff up as i go but have a little bit planned for structure but ultimately they do what they want. a little stressfull but i like it and i know my group does as well.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

GM stands for Gore Master!

I run either Rated R or HBO style. But I do censor myself . . . somewhat . . . for little kids. A few years ago I ran a Tunnels & Trolls game at a local convention and I got 4 players....all under age 12. Two sets of parents figured the RPG rooms were day care and just dumped them in the room. Here's a scene...

ME: With your torch you can see what may have been a huge feast table and many chairs, but they are all burnt and crumbling. In the far corner is a tall statue of dryad pouring water into a pool.

9 yr old girl: What's a dryad?

ME: Dryads are beautiful elf girls who can turn into trees.

11 yr old boy: Is she naked? Is she naked!!

ME: Not until you're 18.

That is comedy gold

[Natasha]

That's a lot to chew on.
I just started GMing though I've been playing for a long time. I've also designed a few campaigns for fun or the day I finally got to GM.

I'm not one for epic struggles of good and evil, like Kevin and some of the authors are. I'm far more interested in survival and getting through challenges. It really colours the scenarios, adventures, and campaigns I design.

I like maps. I use them as much as possible. I designed a campaign that didn't need maps at all, however.

I don't use music or multimedia.

I only GM in English so far so details are not a lot. Especially if I'm playing online. I can type fast but I think it's more important to keep the descriptions brief as possible.

I don't believe in censorship; with that said, I don't play with kids either. The gore depends on the game and the situation, really.

I limit the players to the particular game we're playing. If it's PFRPG, then that's what we choose from. Usually we are making characters to adventure together, so some attention to getting them to actually work together is necessary. Within that framework, however, I try to restrict the players as little as possible.

All actions, even stupid ones, have consequences. As GM I get to decide what they are. If an action creates an opportunity other than killing them or overwhelming then, then I go that route. Otherwise, sharpen your pencils it's time to create a new character.

I don't prefer NPCs in the party, at least not for an extended period of time. This takes the story away from the PCs. It also sets the GM up to develop a pet NPC. Also very bad for the PCs. Steering the party is fine but not necessary.

I design my campaigns specifically avoiding time-critical encounters and scenarios so that the players can direct things more. So if they need to discover something I keep it open enough that "the next time they go down any rural road..." rather than "alright, now it's time for them to go down Main Street out of town".

I don't believe in fooling the players. If they roll, it's because they need to roll. I don't randomly roll or otherwise grimace at random. I think that's kind of lame. You can inform the PCs without giving away the million dollar password, and that's better than keeping them in the dark or playing head games with the players. The GM and the players are a team, they're playing together. The GM should be as much a team player, in my opinion, as any of the players should be.

If they like the story and their characters, they'll come back.
They have to feel empowered to change the world in which they live in ways they want to change the world, whether or not that's some big epic change or putting out a fire at a local library doesn't really matter; it's the concept.

Great memorable games happen when everyone's in the same groove.

It boils down to everyone being on the same page and in the same groove: players and GM are playing off each other.

Players are players and GM's are GM's.

I have been GMing for over 15 years and am now considered a VERY resourceful diplomat. The key to GMing is keeping ALL the players happy by being honest and logical. "What happens to one also happens to all" Keep it simple and the adventure will ALWAYS be great!

That's not really different from being on the same page and in the same groove.

Players should roll for the purpose of being afraid. For being UNSURE as to why they are doing what they are doing. Rolling dice in a roleplaying game is only required when CHANCE comes into it.

I'm sorry.
I don't really understand your counterpoint. I roll only when chance requires a roll.

How many time-critical games have you played?

Pretty much all of them.

Although time isn't always critical; it fluctuates.

Roleplaying has changed my life.

With it I have become confident and sought resons why things are why they are.

That's awesome.

I met some wonderful people as a result of playing RPGs.

[bigbobsr6000]

Keep charging, be professional and (most important) have fun doing it.