GM Tips, Tricks, & General Advice

[wmgabe74]

I just stayed up way past my bedtime to read through this post. Thanks loads!! I am going to bomb my test tomorrow in Macro.....*grin*

Great read Cailano and friends.

[RaistlinMC]

Fantastic! If we destroyed your appropriate study time with tons of DnD goodness then our mission is already complete, Gabe

Seriously, good luck on that Macro test! Better you than me.

[archmagi1]

Remember about Macros: put rolls in [] :P

[RaistlinMC]

This just occurred to me:

Most Unpopular 3.5 Class. Ever.

I was just thinking about those classes that people always seem to complain about playing (or they simply don't play them) in that edition, like monks. I decided to flip through my books, just to check out all the options to see what was more hated than the monk in 3.5.


Then I came to the Shugenja. Seriously, has anyone, ever, played one? I've been playing this game for...god, how many years?...and never, ever have I even seen a shugenja character sheet in an application, never mind played with one. And it isn't like it's some weird, random homebrew thing or even from a relatively unknown splatbook. It's from the Completes for gods' sake!


And why not? Why no mad scramble to get your shugenja application in to the next open game? Who wouldn't want a low HP, moderate divinely powered, low martial ability class that doesn't know how to use any armor at all and yet gets no bonus to AC for anything but Dexterity?


But now I think I have to make one. I just have to.


Imagine a useless Friar Tuck-like character, leaning somewhere between the drunken monk prestige class and Mel Brooks. By god, it could work. I could make him the single most useless 3.5 PC in history

[cailano]

Well I guess we could have Tkuk wander off in Tian Xia and a shugenja could pop up...

It's a good point though, I surprised you don't see more of them. With the popularity of Legend of the Five Rings you'd think there'd be more.

[cailano]

I just stayed up way past my bedtime to read through this post. Thanks loads!! I am going to bomb my test tomorrow in Macro.....*grin*

Great read Cailano and friends.

You're very welcome. Destroying people's school careers is one of my favorite pastimes.

(Kids... stay in school. Even your uncle Cailano has his B.S)

[cailano]

Thanks for the great advice about handling Psionics. Here is another question, somewhat in the same vane of keeping a game moving, especially in PBP. Again I'm completely new to the world of GMing. When we talk about a sandbox world, I understand that to mean that the PCs can literally go and do anything they want be it departing from the main story line, running off by themselves and leaving the rest of the group, etc. So what is the best way, in your collective experience to handle situations like that?

Running a sandbox game is definitely something for advanced GMs. I like having a strong idea of where I am going with a game, though I'm not afraid to let the players wander if they really want to. If you need some true expert advice on running a more open game, talk to Ra-Thalun. He started a game more probably close to two years ago and runs it to this day, and I believe the game started with "What you know of the world is this. What do you want to do?"

That being said, sandbox games don't have to be as wide open as that in all instances. In most cases there will still be a story line, or perhaps even several smaller storylines. Sometimes there is a central plot, but one without a strict time limit so that players can pursue side quests if they so desire.

The key is to let the PCs have the reigns of the story. Present them with options rather than a clear path, and let them tell you where to go next.

My last comment is that sandbox games are for advanced players just as much as advanced GMs. It's very easy to become lost in a game like that, and most PbP games that advertise themselves as "sandbox" die in a few weeks from lack of direction. "Sandbox" should not be synonymous with "The GM has no idea where this game is going."

[RaistlinMC]

Indeed. Sandbox should absolutely not mean that the GM has no idea what's happening or where things are headed. What it should mean, though, is that the GM is willing to toss away the vast majority of his/her plans in favor of allowing the PCs to choose their own paths.

For my own story and world, I created a framework (mysterious orbs 'wake up' after laying dormant for 1500 years, beginning a chain of events that would greatly affect two worlds that mirror one another in unexpected ways) and gave my players a 'choose your own adventure' sort of game. They have chosen to go down paths (and through interdimensional portals) that I never could have dreamed up, but when they do, I roll with it and make it work.

That's your job as a sandbox GM. Make that shit work, no matter what. You can't pull it off if you have a story you want to tell; you can only do it if you have a story that you're willing to frequently modify and change, depending on PC choices and rolls, both the good, natural 20 kinds that lead players to learn stuff they shouldn't...and the bad, natural 1 kinds that kill PCs. Life's tough; play the dice where they lay and have fun!

[archmagi1]

Sandbox are hard. You either find yourself running a frustrating game where you can lay all the breadcrumbs you want, but the party ignores them completely, or you play the questboard at town game. As much as 99% of players want to complain about railroading, not one of them really *really* wants to be in a game where the GM says. "Welcome to D&D. Go..."

[Blackfox42]

Couldn't really put it any better than Ra did, especially considering he is the man to talk to about Sandbox games (His 2 year long game has got be some kind of record. Which, btw, I'm still hoping a spot will open up in one of your games soon, Ra. )

The only thing I might add, is that as a Sandbox GM, your improvisation skills, by necessity, need to be sharper than your normal GM. To get a feel for this, try running a more standardized game, but don't plan out any but the most Major combats or encounters. The ability to run things like that, off the cuff, is integral to being able to run a good Sandbox IMO.

[jflo2415]

SO I am getting geared up to start my first campaign as GM. I'm planning on using Pathfinder because I find it to be my favorites system out of 3.5, 4e, etc. The premise of said campaign, simply put, is this: "Evil" has been eradicated from the world in an overt sense. Meaning that all of the "evil" races and monstrous races were, in effect, sealed away, and the forces of the evil gods were hunted down and destoyed. For 100 years or so after the fact, the remaining "Good" races enjoyed an unparallelled era of peace and prosperity. But obviously, ridding the world of evil altogether leaves a huge vacuum in the balance of the world and for the next 400 years after that the relationships between the remaining races of the world deteriorated until the world found itself in a constant state of war. Now a small faction has arisen that seeks to redress the issues facing the world and does so by recruiting a small team of highly trained individuals (the PCs).

That's obviously a super brief synopsis, I've already worked out a much more detailed version of the history and what not and a rough idea of the end state. But I'd love some help refining the idea or any critique or other suggestions. Be as brutal as you'd like. I don't want to start a game until I have a fully fleshed out idea.

[RaistlinMC]

Fox, truly, you're at the top of my list (Cai is too, but the dude is a DMing fiend and his love lies on that side of the gaming screen, I'm afraid). The thing is, I have five dedicated players who have stuck with me for two years. Not one of them has ever gone more than 48 hours without a post. Never.

Then again, neither have I...so that helps too. Whether you're in a sandbox game or playing a Pathfinder AP, pacing and frequent posting is key.

So I suppose then I need to disagree with Archmagi. Some folks do want that. Some folks want a whole world (or worlds) to play in and see what they can find. Some folks are proactive players who help form and create histories, gods, legends and geography. Some folks are looking for a game that does not railroad them; a game that allows for freedom to make mistakes, change alignment, explore the depths and die horrible deaths. Some folks want that. I've found five of them, and if you add me to the list, there's at least six kicking around somewhere

Oh, and JFlo? You already have more of an idea than I had when I started. Truly. Good luck, man; I hope it's a huge success and a blast! If you need a player...well, you know where to find me, bud.

[jflo2415]

Thanks, man. When I think it's ready to launch I'll give the people I'm playing in games with already first run at it.

[Blackfox42]

Heh, I understand Ra. I just like to give you a hard time about it from time to time to make sure you know I'm interested.

To be honest, I'm glad you have never had to get ahold of me. Finding a group that sticks together for that long is a hard thing to do, especially in PbP. Just the fact that you guys are still going strong gives me hope that I'll find a game like that.

To the topic at hand, I kind of agree with Ra, and kind of with Archmagi. There are people out there who enjoy, and even relish a true 'Sandbox', free will, player driven game. But the vast majority of people, in my experience, only THINK they want that. They want the Illusion of that. When it gets down to it, if you hand them a basic setting and a blank slate, most of them will sit around and stare at the rafters of the nearest bar, waiting for something interesting to happen because they don't really have the drive or motivation to go create/explore the world on their own.

On the other end of that, avoid what I like to call 'Box Text' situations. By this I mean situations that you have set into stone and give the players no control over them. This most often occurs in Pre-made Modules. I remember one module I played in where the GM was running whatever the Module said, despite what we might want to do. A specific example: We hhad been chasing this same person for the entire module. We finally cornered him in a courtyard. We all entered, weapons drawn, to confront him. At this point, the GM began reading the Box Text supplied by the module as the man began to monologue and do things. It was at this point that I, playing an archer with a drawn bow, arrow notched, stated. "I shoot him." and rolled the dice. I was told I didnt want to do that, because he was 10 levels higher than us. I said I didnt care (As my character wouldnt know that) and that i wanted to shoot him.

The dude was a Monk. The GM could have said ok, had him swat the arrow out of the air (Due to Deflect Arrows), and moved on. Instead, I was told I wasn't able to, because the Module didn't say that. He instead Railroaded us through the Box text of the Module, wherein the bad guy Monologued for several rounds, summoned 3 allies with a Bracelet of Friends, and then teleported away.

All without the party being able to do anything more than drool on ourselves....Because the Box text said that happened.

So in most games, with most players, you need to tread a fine line between true Sandbox and Railroading/Box Text. Don't tell your players that this certain thing HAS to happen, despite what they do, but don't give them 0 direction and expect your game to go anywhere.

Also, Jflo, Good luck with the game. Sounds interesting.

[jflo2415]

Well I have it in mind for the group of PCs to be essentially a military unit, and so the game will often be divided up into "missions" where there is an objective but the decisions about how to meet that objective is left up to the players, while between missions there will be time for RP and character developmen, for characters to wander off by themselves or in groups, etc. This will be easier for me as I have a good working understanding of how the military works and in a game setting I'll be able to cut out the BS parts that I wish I could get rid of in every day life.