Being a good GM, the FAQ

[Psychic Robot]

What is it with theists looking at any authority at all and immediately invoking gods? I mean fuck, is your manager at Wendy's a god? He has some authority for the period when you are with them.

For fuck's sake, the fact that you have more responsibility and power for the duration of the game does not make "God". It does not even make you a god. You're still just some dude. A dude who happens to be trusted with some responsibilities for the duration of a table top game.

What is it with atheists getting all asspained about the use of the term "God" as a metaphor in this discussion?

The ability of players to leave is exactly why they are equal in power to the DM. It's far harder for a DM to replace lost players than it is for a player to find a new gaming group, or a gaming group to replace its DM

They aren't equal in power. They don't have an equal say. If the DM says, "We're not playing anymore," then the game ends. If a player says, "I'm not playing anymore," then there's a good chance the game will continue without him.

[Koumei]

In my joke campaign over the summer I told the players that I would accept blowjobs as DM bribes. Nobody felt the need to bribe me :(

I generally got bribed with soft drink, several years back. And one player showed me her knickers as a form of bribery. Seeing as I was flying interstate to game, walking a good distance of the way from the airport, the drink was the more important thing.

Though once I mentioned I'd accept crisps or whatever, and the next day I discovered a week's supply. I don't think bribes just scale upwards like that.

[Maj]

Wow. I never got any extra credit for providing all of the food for our games. And I don't mean Cheetos and Mountain Dew. I'd go all out and make stuff like lasagne and pad thai. I seriously drove two hours to game and spent the rest of the day prepping the "refreshments," so the next day we could spend gaming.

[Koumei]

Wow, that's going the distance, Maj. I mean, for my current game, my sister cooks something, but that's just as much because she likes experimenting with cooking as anything else.

[PoliteNewb]

Count me among the 'GM is no more special than any other player' crowd. I think the best response to 'the GM has more work to do' came from a 'bad DM' thread.

'Dude, no one asked you to do all that.'

Unless the players say 'we want an epic story with crazy things every session' all that work is your own choice. Your players might only want 'The Orc and The Pie' and don't really care that you're trying to write the next Lord of the Rings.

While I obviously can't argue against personal experiences, I don't think this is true for most gamers.

They may not ask you specifically to do a ton of worldbuilding or backstory, but they do expect you to pull important facts (about people, nations, cities, the name of the bartender, and where you can buy a suit of mithril armor, etc) out of your back pocket. Likewise, they need you to be able to react to whatever crazyass direction they want to take things in...so if they decide to hijack a camel caravan and ride across the desert, they expect you to know what's in the desert, and maybe what's on the other side.

If you're good at ass-pulling, you can ad-lib your way through that...but most people aren't that good at ass-pulling, and even if they are, an ass-pulled campaign never has the consistency and quality of a pre-planned one.

And that's beside the nuts-and-bolts work of rolling up HP, writing up spell lists, picking feats, and generally prepping opposition. Plus mapmaking, if necessary. Plus finding a place to play, setting a time, and assembling the crew (tasks which I find nearly always end up on the DM's shoulders, and are often among the hardest).

So yeah...I'm going to go with the idea that most people DO expect the DM to do a hell of a lot of work, at least in the sense that they're disappointed if he doesn't.

[Sashi]

The ability of players to leave is exactly why they are equal in power to the DM. It's far harder for a DM to replace lost players than it is for a player to find a new gaming group, or a gaming group to replace its DM

They aren't equal in power. They don't have an equal say. If the DM says, "We're not playing anymore," then the game ends. If a player says, "I'm not playing anymore," then there's a good chance the game will continue without him.

By that logic, the person hosting the game is the true power behind the throne and has an unlimited number of "get out of jail free" cards.

The fact that the DM role is harder and less desired than the player roll doesn't mean the DM has POWAH, it means the DM has blackmail leverage.

Nobody is saying that if a player doesn't like something the DM does the DM should apologize and take it back. We're not even saying don't totally fuck a player over or murder his (in game) dog. We're saying that you don't get to pull a Hera and make your player's character murder his family you had better have some kind of reason for it that drives plot and has some resolution instead of you just lording over the fact that if you say "Your character strips naked and dances on the tables asking Fulthar the Ugly if he'd like to fuck her ass." then that character actually does.

In other words, when Yahweh fucked Job over, Job said "It is gods will that I suffer." When the DM fucks the players over, the players say "this had better pay off.

A good DM is trusted by the players to have the times he fucks them over result in a payoff. A bad DM decides that "it amused me" is the payoff for fucking over his players.

[PhoneLobster]

Well now for some more happy fun answers.

Q: Do I actually need the rule books?
Yes. You do not need to own them but you do need to have ACCESS to them, in game and possibly during preparation.

You do not need every splat book a player uses on a constant basis but you do need access to every rule book covering the rules YOU intend to use on a regular basis.

You should also have read all relevant rules materials at least once. Even if you then go on to not use some or all of them, at least read the damn things once.

Turning up to run a 'core' 3.5 D&D game WITHOUT a current 3.5 edition player's hand book and without having ever actually read through one, or without even the common knowledge many gamers have of the most notable changes that exist between it and 3.0... IS NOT COOL.

Q: What else might I need?
Dice, paper, maybe some snacks, a large table, lots of guys like using grids, miniatures, white boards and white board markers and all sorts of other fun props.

Just be aware clutter beyond the basic minimum can be distracting and confusing, if you are new to it all try to work with less and build up to things like white boards and miniatures when you are more experienced.

Q: Is background mood music cool or what?
I personally hate the stuff. I'm not good with background noise, it makes it hard for me to focus. But some people seem to like background music.

Just be warned.
A) it can be distracting in a soft ongoing way
B) It can be distracting in a hard distruptive way when players are “OOOH I like/hate this track” or “uh oh, time to change the playlist”, or “Oooh, is this the song from...” or “yahahahaha this track is SOOO appropriate/inapproprate”
C) Some people play the stuff FAR TOO FUCKING LOUD. It's BACKGROUND music. Turn it down a notch, then turn it down another one just to be sure.

Q: How do you host a social event?
This is a little beyond the scope of the advice I intended to give, and others have covered it well, but let's at least make this clear.

D&D (or RPG gaming, and gaming in general) IS a form of social event. Interestingly while modern society somewhat strongly favours the direction-less game free 'party' that is largely only about chatting aimlessly and getting drunk throughout history it has been significantly MORE common for social events to incorporate games of various forms as their main features and events.

So yes, it IS a social event and you should treat it as one, include people you like and who like you and each other, try and have fun, be aware that you have to organize people, plan for convenience, supply food and seating, find a good venue, consider alternate and additional activities, take some time to chat out of game, be prepared to play a DIFFERENT game like a card game, or board game if there is a last minute poor turn out, if it gets too hot have everyone chuck off their clothes and jump in the pool for a bit, etc...

The most successful hosting of RPG games is in the form of hosting a small sociable party at which the game is just an event, maybe the main event, but not always the only event.

Q: Aside from knowledge and competency, how should I best prepare for running games?
The more familiar you are with the rules and your players and the more experience you have the less you will NEED to prepare.

However preparation is always still a GOOD thing. And you should do it.

Just remember you don't have to prepare EVERYTHING for EVERY eventuality. Try and prepare for predictable actions by your players, the unpredictable simply HAS to be dealt with as it unpredictably crops up, it is NOT a good idea to try to account for it in advance, by definition you CAN'T predict the unpredictable and all you will end up doing is producing a lot of wasted preparation on options or events that are unlikely to be used.

Centre your preparation on things like places, NPCs, Enemies and interesting ideas. The most important part of all that probably being some nice prepared NPCs or Enemies of appropriate level ranges.

Try not to let your prepared material go to waste, a lot of it can be used in a different context to the original intent. So they don't fight the kings private guard? So what, your level 4 halberd NPC warriors you whipped up could easily be of use some other time, maybe even in another campaign.

As for supporting story and narrative and such fun fluffy things, take notes on prior player actions and adventures, who they met, what they were like, how they interacted, just bits and pieces will do “Bard got on surprisingly well with cheerfully reckless Orcish Gun Merchant named Beauregard”. Then use that later to bring Beauregard back and say “hi buddy! Want some more boom sticks?”. This also helps you maintain continuity so you don't forget important characters and have the PCs complain that “hey wasn't the gun merchant in this town some other guy last week?”

Take notes of things that are important to story that happened “off screen”. If there is a complex web of alliances between cultural groups, you need that mapped out so you remember it and can answer player questions (or just plain hand it over). Similarly timelines of important events (ESPECIALLY for any form of “mystery” game) are useful, and also help maintain continuity and prevent contradictions.

Take notes of things that are PROBABLY going to happen, extend your timeline notes into the future. Be prepared to change them according to player interaction, but still if the bank robbery by the player's nemesis is probably going ahead at noon tomorrow, you want to know so you can mention it in a timely manner and not remember half way through the session that you failed to present or even mention an important encounter or event.

Q: Tell us about Shrodinger's gun and Chekov's gun like Lago said that one time to do...
This stuff Lago is going on about is some sort of trope's business. But still not entirely bad.

To a large extent Shrodinger's gun is about improvising and leaving details unknown until they become important, and then creating them so they fit nicely into your story when they do become known. This is another good reason not to OVER prepare,because sometimes, especially for trivial details, or for unpredictable enquiries the best answers are ones that can be informed by your most current information on the game world and what the players have been doing with it.

In addition it means that you can allow the game universe to provide for the players those things which they need, or which will be best for “fun” or “story” or what have you. If players are facing an enemy they cannot damage without a silver weapon, and lack somewhat in silver weapons, and a player chooses to search nearby unexplored rooms or cabinets or something for silver pointy things, or puts forward a reasonable argument that there will be silverwear in the kitchen they passed through but did not loot/search, even if you did not actually 'plan' to place those items there you can at the last minute let them find them there because the answer to the question “is there a pointy silver thing in the box” is unknown until someone goes and checks, and when they do check it is often BETTER to decide THEN what the answer is than rely on an answer you made up three weeks ago that might be WORSE for the game and the story than the answer you can make up RIGHT NOW.

Chekov's gun is some fancy foreshadowing business. The re-use of previously introduced elements within the same story. You took notes on Beauregard the orc gun merchant who the players sort of noticed? Well he is BACK and he is back stabbing you, or giving you a job, or in serious trouble, etc... You guys had a notable adventure in the city sewers? Well it turns out that mysterious dead end is an enterance to a secret underground monster lair, and you have to go back, and have new adventures against new enemies in the same place! You know that amulet your mum gave you when you were level 1? Suddenly it turns out to be the secret key to the hidden treasure vault of your ancestors...

You can litter your games with little hooks like this, take notes of which ones the players notice or like, and incorporate them back into the story to become more important, and you can Shrodinger them up to use both techniques at once in exciting explosive ways as well when someone casts detect magic and their family heirloom codpiece they were going on about unexpectedly starts glowing.

Q: What about Canned settings and adventures?
You can use them, they aren't exactly automatically better, or even good, or even a template of how to prepare or write your own material, but they aren't automatically a horrible bad thing for your game.

What they CAN be is a sufficient help for a newer GM to start out and learn the ropes a bit. I'm not saying they are where you HAVE to start out, but it's certainly an option.

And in the long run you CAN continue to use them, but as you gain experience and skills even if you stick to canned material you should start to use it more as a loose guideline and be prepared to improvise material, rewrite prepared material and incorporate player input into the material just like you would if you were using your own material, just because it's canned doesn't mean it is any more or less sacred and inviolate than your own home brewed mess of a setting or adventure, it needs to adapt to the needs of you and your players just as much as any other prepared material.

Q: Incorporating character backgrounds into the story, what's up with that?
It's a hell of a lot of fun is what it is. Let your players hand you some background material, names, places, friends, enemies, notes on their culture or personal history, indeed whatever ideas they might want to contribute to your game at all.

Then use it! Watch as player Nancy chortles with glee when you incorporate a reference to how her character Nancella's elfen people have a pathological group allergy to Strawberries and it was HER IDEA. This is a great way to further invest your players in caring about the game, their characters and your story, because it makes your story also become THEIR story that THEY put input into.

And yes, many players won't, or CAN'T come up with cool ideas and write this sort of material.

SO HELP THEM OUT.

I personally like to hand out a multiple choice character background sheet about a game or two into any longer running campaign. I mean sure EVERY question has a “or just make up an idea of your own” as an answer, and every little mini quiz has the proviso that entire new questions can be made up to boot, but if you give the player some prompts and some fun ideas to work with you can both give them some great options AND inspire them to think of more of their own.

By using a multiple choice background quiz you ensure that anyone who can't write their own ideas can still contribute CHOICE to the story, and you do it in the form of a fun quiz that ITSELF is a sort of cool little mini game! And in no way does it stop a creative player from substituting their own answers.

Here is a bullshit sample quiz!

Quiz For Tiffany The Chocolate Elf Night Witch
1) Your people are called 'Chocolate' Elf's because...
a) All elven peoples are named after the ice cream flavours their exotic skin and hair colourings most closely match.
b) That's what you taste like to trolls, when they horribly kill and eat you, alive, while still screaming, by the way you guys hate trolls
c) Your nation's primary produce and the pride of your culture are rich tasty chocolate treats of every shape and form

2) Your people's primary beast of burden and preferred battle mount is...
a) Displacer Beasts
b) Lesser Beholders
c) Tigers
d) Displacing Tiger Beholders
e) Other, much larger, chocolate elfs

3) When you were a child you ended up with a dramatic scar bisecting your body (mentioned off hand in character description) because...
a) You were torn in half in a tragic canoeing incident and only barely saved by a passing necromancer. In return the necromancer demanded your hand in marriage, he has not yet come to collect it, it is unclear whether he is taking the rest of you or just the hand...
b) It's where they removed your evil conjoined twin
c) Actually the desperate healing clerics in your home town made you out of the pieces of two other young elf girls who couldn't be saved by available healing magic, at night you sometimes dream that your left hand side takes you out on the rooftops and pursues a career as a sexy cat burgular.

4) You are a wizard, you gained your powers from...
a) An ancient cursed book you found in a mysterious forbidden ruin outside of town.
b) A bumbling mentor who was more than he seemed and mysteriously left you one night with nothing more than a hastily scrawled note saying “beware of the fish who walks, the time is...aaaarrgggh!”
c) Your mysterious faceless mentor comes to you nightly in your dreams, he, she, or it, almost certainly is training you,shaping you, and maybe subtly controlling you, for it's own possibly nefarious reasons.

Q: Should I listen to Flatline's advice?
From what I can gather, HELL NO.

There is a class of "gamer" who only enjoys showing up for one or two sessions, causing as much grief and drama in game as possible, and then never comes back. ... These types of players are relatively more common than you'd expect.

I mean he has said plenty of other incriminating stuff but notably he clearly has a history of failed games, dissatisfied rebellious gamers and “players of whom we shall never speak of again”.

I want to make it clear, the number one thing following my advice here leads to is not having that problem. This advice is about removing acrimony, frustration, conflict and hate from the game and making it a happier more inclusive and enjoyable experience for ALL. And it WORKS. If you go follow the GM is god advice of the sorts he is advocating, well, you get hate and tears, active rebellious sabotaging players and throwing of chairs.

But then... what did you expect when you declared yourself an invaluable 'god' and demand that the players suck your recurring villain cock?

Q: But how do I keep my recurring Villains alive if I don't cheat? WAAAAH!
Well... YOU DON'T.

Recurring villains are a challenging concept to work within and RPG. There are some ways they might be a good idea, but they are also a major problem in many more.

Players want to defeat their enemies, they want wins to BE wins and STAY wins, they do NOT want Dr Claw to jet away without consequence EVERY DAMN WEEK. You can do it some of the time but when you do be aware, players will NOT see any adventure or adventure arc as being “properly” or “successfully” resolved if the villain gets away!

More importantly still your villains SHOULD NOT CHEAT in order to become recurring. Run away? OK. Win the fight fairly and bugar off before the cops turn up? OK. Be such smart bastards that they are personally not at risk or provably accountable this time? Sorta fine. He has a buddy with the ressurection spell? Sure what's good for PCs should be good for him to some degree...

Even that sort of stuff you can't do often, but CHEATING to keep your villain alive for even ONE extra “episode” is a BAD IDEA. Because the players WILL see it as you showing favouritism to YOUR pet villain.

It doesn't matter even if it ISN'T favouritism, the appearance of cheating to save your pet NPCs is such an incredibly bad thing for your players trust in you as a good GM that you cannot even allow the risk of the mere appearance, let alone the act in truth.

So yeah. Bring back characters, Checkov's gun your familiar villain face from some guy the PCs already know, but do NOT fudge your villains natural life spans!

Q: But isn't son of Dracula a lame overdone idea?
No more so than Dracula himself.

You aren't a fucking genius artiiiiist so get the fuck over yourself.

You are NOT “better than” perfectly acceptable and workable cleche's.

Now on the other hand, sure, you can't make EVERY villian the son of some other villain out to get revenge or trying the same thing dad did or whatever, players will ultimately see more gratuitous or repeated instances as you being a railroading or vengeful DICK.

But SOME vengeance hunting offspring or repeat family customers of PC smack downs and the like are fun things that bring continuity, recognition of past player actions and input and other good things into the game. So I have no idea why the hell anyone would think Son of Dracula is magically automatically lame in your RPG.

Q: Maybe DM is half godly... I mean final arbiter and junk right, right?
“final arbiter” is not god. And the GM isn't precisely even “Final Arbiter” at best a good GM is really more of a Deciding Vote the tie breaker, and sometimes the Default or Provisional decision maker.

Seriously if there are two guys at the table who disagree with something you do and no one else at the table cares that's two to your one and screw it, that means that basically THEY are the ones who get to make the decision. You don't get extra votes, hell it's not even really a democracy it's a 'Fun-ocracy' in that at any time it is a contest between the GM and the fun of even ONE player the better GM lets the fun win.

I mean ideally though you use this advice and similar good practice to never ever BE in a conflict between you and fun, or at least reduce the amount that happens, but yeah.

So your “Extra” power work like this, decisions fall to you when
1) The group as a whole is undecided.
2) The group as a whole doesn't care.
3) The group as a whole CAN'T make the decision (typically things like decisions made in preparation, decisions that need to be secret or surprising to the players, etc...)
4) and finally decisions about YOUR SHARE OF THE STORY (the elements and characters you control, like you know almost everything except the PCs)

And really point 4 alone should be MORE THAN ENOUGH. Are you not SATISFIED with that? MUST you also tell your friend that their character isn't allowed to have nice things or achieve fun stuff? What the hell is wrong with you? How MUCH of a control freak can you possibly be? “Everybody in the universe other than like 5 guys” is not enough for you? Fuck you!

And you know what, point 4 can provide you with mountains of control and decision making. Enough to spare. Enough that you can TAKE parts of it and give it away to the players which let us remember have a SHORTAGE of control and investment in the story, what with their you know, one single character worth of control. And as generally mentioned in other points, every damn time you give a bit of control back to the players like that you improve the game for them, for you, for everyone.

By FAR I enjoy being the co-operative story GM with 5+ brains working for him than being the outdated overworked single brained Gygaxian tyrant. You want to be “god” START by using those extra brains over there, instead of you know, making them suck your cock.

Q: So what do we call the GM then?
Really if doesn't matter, I assume they have an actual you know, NAME you could try that occasionally.

Q: What if the DM is a restaurant that can kick out customers for no reason, like some sort of RPG Soup Nazi?
I hate those stupid restaurants, think you're better than me do you? Why I...

No but really? We should treat GMing like running a restaurant that reserves the right to kick out anyone for no reason (AKA the right to kick out black people). That's a model you WANT to emulate?

Here is an idea, why not treat your gaming group's meetings like a social event between friends you know, like sane people would.

And you know what? What the hell control freak are you? Your GM has the right to expell people without giving reason, the right to make people sit in certain places around the table??? WHAT? I mean seating isn't a big deal but... well... it wasn't until you just went all psycho control freak on us about it WTF???

Q: So seating doesn't matter then?
Actually come to mention it there is ONE context I can think of where you might want to ASK (I stress ASK) your friends to sit in particular arrangement.

Put inexperienced players near you or near a player who can help them out with their character sheet and the rules and rolling and stuff. THAT is a productive seating decision.

Demanding the gaming groups hotest girl sit's on your lap while that 'munchkin” you don't like sits in the corner with a dunce cap on in the uncomfy chair is just retarded.

(Pro tip: if the hot girl decides to sit on your lap of her own accord while you GM consider either agreeing and cancelling the game or regretfully postponing lap sitting until later. I have found it to be distracting, for myself as the GM and for the other players)

Q: Maybe players are the ones who should be worrying about being good or not have you thought about THAT? Eh?
Maybe they should, but this is about Gming advice. And you could have the bestest nicest most skilled players in the world and they will only hate a bad GM even more.

Q: Player entitlement, is that bad?
Hell no. They are entitled. Entitled to FUN!

This advice isn't a bill or rights being demanded by a bunch of 'uppity gamers'.

It's advice about how to best provide fun for yourself AND your friends.

Telling you not to throw around butt fuck level 9 million shop keepers is NOT me making an entitlement demand on behalf of 'greedy' or 'unworthy' players, it's me giving you some advice to help improve your game for everyone involved.

Q: No one else wants to GM so fuck them all I can fucking do what I fucking like right?
No you can't.

Yes, it CAN be hard to find GM's.

So fucking what.

Do you WANT to be a bad GM? Do you WANT to have unfun times? Do you WANT to inflict unfun times on your friends?

Do you really need to create conflict or frustration among your social group at your social gatherings just because of some sort of control freak GMing fantasy you have about them all sucking your cock and listening to your cool non-interactive stories about recurring uber cool villains who don't use the same rules they do?

No, you don't. If no one else is putting their hand up for the role, that just means you need to try and do it even better because in that situation you are as good as it gets.

Or is the plan to be such a bad GM that someone else you play with realises they couldn't possibly do worse and relieves you of the burden?

Q: No one else even CAN GM, so double fuck them! Right?
Again NO!

For the same reasons.

But also, other guys CAN GM, if they really want to, it isn't all THAT hard and players WILL forgive them some teething errors if they know they are new, and if the new GM is working with a good open CO-OPERATIVE philosophy the other players can even HELP the new GM learn the ropes!

So anyway if you think you are so god damn irreplaceable... well... you are SO wrong.

Q: What about intermittent GMing, GM rotation and stuff?
I prefer the mini campaigns and one off option.

GM rotation within the same campaign SO doesn't work from me, it probably means one way or another many campaign evenings will be “filler episodes” and that's ignoring all the potential confusion and conflict it could cause.

If I WERE inclined to rotate GMs I think they should run separate campaigns with separate characters, or at a stretch two vaguely parallel campaigns with different characters within a shared over arching setting. That seems to have hold more promise of working out well.

Q: So then how the hell should the GM go about having fun?
Well the GM certainly SHOULD have some fun, and just as the other players should expect sometimes to compromise just a little for the benefit of providing fun to each other they should also from time to time expect to compromise a little to provide fun to the GM.

But you can't go around abusing that allowance, you can't demand it, you can't expect it, you should just be aware the other players are ALREADY giving you a certain amount of leeway. Even as a GOOD GM, even as one of the BESTEST EVER GMs you are doing SOME things that you enjoy that the players are secretly groaning and rolling their eyes about. Even with some genuinely super human understanding and awareness of your players there is SOMETHING you are missing or foolishly insisting on that displeases them a little.

And it's OK, they understand, a bit. Until the second you push them too hard so you should always aim to MIMINISE your reliance on their charity and understanding, and you should try your best to get your fun from things that AREN'T relying on that charity and understanding but instead actually provide the other players with fun as well.

So you should get your fun from being a good GM. And while yes, to some extent that is the pure smug sensation of a job well done there is still PLENTY of opportunity to experience joy and fulfilment of various sorts during the process of doing that job well.

As I already mentioned, you have the greater part of the control over the greater part of the world and the characters of a fun, unpredictable, SHARED story, that is a lot of fun right there! A whole hell of a lot.

There is a lot of fun in learning to understand your players interests and desires and learning to fulfil, and better yet manipulate those interests and desires in ways that entertain you, them, and everyone else.

Even if you ARE a sick sadistic bastard who wants to stop the players down and laugh in their faces, SOMETIMES and within REASONABLE limits good GMing actually REQUIRES you to do that. Just a bit, but certainly enough.

But in the end GMing just ISN'T for everyone, I think that GMing, especially using the Good Advice ™ that you see here is for more people than many might think, but there are some guys who just won't enjoy it or just won't be able to manage it or both.

But then, maybe it's OK, not everyone has to do everything, not everyone HAS to be GM.

[Princess]

Q: But how do I keep my recurring Villains alive if I don't cheat? WAAAAH!

Also it helps to plan their escape routes, and starting escape before battle is totaly lost and villain being paralyzed and with one hp left.

it's a 'Fun-ocracy' in that at any time it is a contest between the GM and the fun of even ONE player the better GM lets the fun win.

You see, some player's don't care about challenges or story, they just want their charsheet penis grow larger. Yes, they have fun when their char blast everything in one round, like playing game with cheats and on easy mode. And it is possible other players stay silent when easy mode guy wants to play punpun astral shepherd - just because it's not their character and not directly related to them. Well yes, some time later they'll be whining, but on the moment you need decision you have one pro and no contras.

[Fuchs]

If it's a contest between the fun of the DM, and the fun of a single player... the single player loses. For if the DM has not fun, the group soon follows.

Compromising should be done, of course, but if push comes to shove, the single player has to give.

[PhoneLobster]

If it's a contest between the fun of the DM, and the fun of a single player... the single player loses. For if the DM has not fun, the group soon follows.

The GM isn't a single player too?

And he has to win the 1v1 player fun contest on an individual decision by decision basis?

He can't go get his fun somewhere else with his vast fun resources that the regular player with their single character lacks?

This is really just stupid, ultimately these player vs GM conflicts of interest just SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. And if you follow my advice they DON'T, but really if it comes up, taking the title of GM means you are the guy who damn well agreed to back down and let the players win, it is your role, it is what you chose, if you can't hack that give up the title and the responsibilities it entails.

[Princess]

This is really just stupid, ultimately these player vs GM conflicts of interest just SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.

But they DO happen. Player may want to be ubercool and crush any encounters including BBEG with little effort, while DM thinks that it's not interesting for him to work as self-esteem doctor. Player might do stupid things, and blame DM if he will have consequences - even if DM and other players told him that was bad idea. People often have different opinions.

[PhoneLobster]

People often have different opinions indeed.

But they also commonly share opinions and are frequently motivated by very similar and readily understandable goals.

As a GM you are not alien or strange to your players and you CAN understand them to the limited degree that you need to in order to provide a good gaming experience pretty easily.

And one basic thing that you can take as a genera rule is that NO the vast majority of players DON'T want really stupid things

So they DON'T typically like utterly effortless and unchallenged stomp romps.

And they AREN'T typically so stupid about their bad ideas that they can't even understand it when it is explained to them properly.

That is a total Strawman counter argument to the GM desiring to stiff over the players.

If you want to run with the "but sometimes a GM wants something and a player wants something different, it totally does happen" I am afraid the only REASONABLE realities of that in a well run game are the most trivial of quibbles.

But as with the advice already provided on things like say, defeating the party, taking their stuff and imprisoning them. The hypothetical Sadistic GM absolutely must ensure that "his fun" with that situation ends, and never even approaches "the players fun" with ultimately busting out of that situation, dealing just deserts and earning a happy extra bonus prize in the process. And a GOOD GM actually just enjoys the net total capture/bust out experience in pretty much exactly the same way the players should.

And if you CANNOT let go, if you CANNOT at SOME point manage to finally put the other 4+ players at the table ahead of your Sadistic defeat/theft/imprisonment fantasy then you just plain aren't the right man for the GM hat.

Because you have to understand, the players come first, you already get more than your 1/5th or less of the rightful spotlight so on the rare occasions that conflicts with the players turns in the sun YOU LOSE.

[Fuchs]

Point is: The DM is not there to sacrifice his or her fun for a single player. If he says "I don't want a Malkavian in the group", that's how it goes. If he says "I don't want to run a game where you can perfectly read everyone's thoughts at will, making me spend more time preparing each adventure just to compensate" that's how it goes.

[FatR]

Seriously if there are two guys at the table who disagree with something you do and no one else at the table cares that's two to your one and screw it, that means that basically THEY are the ones who get to make the decision. You don't get extra votes, hell it's not even really a democracy it's a 'Fun-ocracy' in that at any time it is a contest between the GM and the fun of even ONE player the better GM lets the fun win.

You know what? This advice is a stinking pile of bullshit. It is only applicable, if GM is getting paid for running the game. Otherwise, players are not entitled to have their fun at the expense of his. And because he does a much greater share of work and is much harder to replace, his opinion about what is fun has more weight. Just, de-facto.

By FAR I enjoy being the co-operative story GM with 5+ brains working for him

This looks good on paper, but does not work. Unless there is, in practice, one brain who makes all the key decisions in the party. By the way, most players don't want to take this role too. I can remember one or two games where there were squabbles for the leadership among PCs and many more games where no one wanted the responsibility.
And I have extensive experience with players taking turns as the GM too. So now I can say from practice, that such practice sucks. And does not, in fact, prevent random GM asshattery and dick-waving. (In fact, I never saw more of them than in one of such collective campaigns. Maybe because I was almost always stuck as a GM after things literally came to blows in that group.)

[FatR]

This is really just stupid, ultimately these player vs GM conflicts of interest just SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.

It is nice to live in your dimension isn't it?

Now, in our world, you can have players who not simply agree, but very strongly insist, that rules do not fucking matter, and therefore GM should just bend the story so that the party pulls through. And then use this as an excuse for not building a characters that can actually survive without GM fiat in their favor. Or players that presume that every NPC they meet should suck their PC cock and behave intentionally disruptive when this does not happen. Or players that presume that roleplaying depths of their PCs are the most important thing in the game, and totally entitle them to starting extremely disruptive inter-party confilcts, even if the game was advertised from the beginning as a challenging dungeon crawl, demanding high party cohesion. Or players who have an extreme opinion about a published setting and just flat-out refuse to listen when a GM says that, in general, and for this particular game, it is not correct.
None of these examples are made up, of course. So, no, even if you play with fairly close friends, instead of people you just met in the gaming club/on PBP forum, conflicts are bound to happen sooner or later.

[Princess]

By the way, most players don't want to take this role too.

True. Usually no one wants a responsibility, and cling to some npc or to other pc for decisions. But on opposite there is some players who wants to be leaders and suffers from a epic butthurt if some of other players wont follow their orders.

[souran]

PL

Your whole thing seems like excessively whiney player bitching to me.

The game master has to be having fun or they won't run the game any more. That is bad.

Also, players are quite often fairly stupid about what they actually want. Montey Haul games do not last but players will always basically beg for the game to go in that direction.

The game master must present a challenge, and when the game is no longer challenging it becomes a waste of everybodies time.

So yes the players should expect scaled challenges. Additionally, role playing as a game is not "fair" and the game master can make the challenges harder as needed.

However,

It is bad for the game master to adjust the rules becaue they are pissed over something.

It is bad for the game master to include characters that exclude the pcs.

It is bad for the game master to pick on a certain player.

However your stuff goes way beyond that and into the realm of who would be the dm?

[TheFlatline]

As far as the potshot at me goes, I actually don't have the problem with players who come in and party kill to disrupt. Other games in the past have with a surprising frequency. If you're new to GM'ing you will sooner or later encounter people who want to wreck the game because being disruptive is fun to them. We've all been there.

And you're right about listening to my advice. I originally said you had a lot of good, common sense ideas about GMing, but as you go on, I"m going to suggest you go ahead and disregard that endorsement.

In the end, I run successful games. I'm one of maybe 3 people left in our gaming group who actually *does* run games. Throw your feces at me all you want dude, but at the end of the day, I have fun, my group has fun, and we don't encounter a lot of the problems that you're listing. It don't bother my ass none, and it reminds me of why I had you on ignore to begin with.

PS: Maj, you needed either a big fat thank you from your gaming group, or at least had your groceries for dinner bought for you. That's really awesome of you to put up your cooking efforts routinely like that.

[PhoneLobster]

PL

Your whole thing seems like excessively whiney player bitching to me.

...However your stuff goes way beyond that and into the realm of who would be the dm?

I would.

Any day and almost every day, as I have been any game and almost every game for over 15 years.

This is NOT advice from my vaunted position as a player. This is advice from my very extensive experience as a GM.

Every aspect about what I am telling you you should do is stuff that I routinely DO.

Every aspect about stuff I am telling you NOT to do is about stuff I have one way or another had experience with, when I said I have learned from failures, I assure you I HAVE DONE A LOT OF THE STUPID STUFF I AM CRITICIZING, admittedly some of it was back when I was fifteen, but I have done it.

And again I remind you I did all this stuff, good and bad, from the seat of GM.

And one last time, what sort of fucking lunatic control freak must you be that every character in the universe minus like 5 guys is not enough and you go on a whining trip about "Waaaah! who would want to be GM in that case?" when you don't get to shit all over the last 5 guys in the game universe?

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

[PhoneLobster]

and we don't encounter a lot of the problems that you're listing

Except for you know... all those players you seem to be going on about who routinely freak out and try and destroy or sabotage your game and stuff... Hmmm.

Anyway, this clearly calls for only one thing. MORE ANSWERS.

Q: So... is there such a thing as a bad player?
The short answer is NO.

The long answer is Yes, but you have to be pretty damn unlucky to have a genuinely bad player at the table.

As a general rule when you are GM you are better off following the motto "There is no such as a bad player, only bad GMs".

This is not precisely the most technically correct motto, there ARE exceptions out there, but it is the most USEFUL motto because it impresses upon you two important lessons.

1) Most people just aren't THAT stupid, mean or nasty. They are NOT here to make you or anyone else have a bad time, they DO want to help you provide them with a good time, they do NOT mind if you and the others have a good time, if anything they ALSO want you and the others to have a good time, they ARE reasonable and open to reason. You CAN solve most if not all problems that arise between you and them if you are reasonable and fair.

2) It IS ultimately YOUR duty to fix problems with the game. If for no other reason than the fact that if it isn't YOU who fixes the problem player (or the player's problem) then who will?. And really what IS the alternative to taking responsibility for the situation and ensuring it is fixed? Leaving it unfixed? Expelling players and ostracizing friends? Having arguments? Ruining the entire campaign for everyone? Throwing chairs? At some point someone has to do something and as GM you are that someone. So man up and solve your groups problems amicably before everyone gets utterly pissed.

So yeah sometimes there are players who have problems, but there are almost never actual problem players and the people who CONSTANTLY go around blaming players for the failures of their campaign, their gaming and their social group typically are also the ones who have encountered those failures due to using and promoting authoritarian suck my cock style GMing techniques.

As evidenced by how the guys whining on about problem players here are largely using these mythical beasts as a straw man to support their argument that players should just be fucking grateful and kneel down and suck their god damn cocks.

But all things aside there CAN be situations where a player has a problem and you may want to know how to deal with that problem.

Q: So my player is an aggressive basket weaver, what do I do?
OK so you have someone who says "the rules don't matter man!" and then tries to use "real roleplay" or some such thing to dominate the universe and complains that you are "rules lawyering" them if you ever dare oppose them? (and in addition to that this is specifically a PLAYER not the GM)

OK first up bullshit. That is probably an exaggerated and unreasonable scenario. You might be unlucky, you might be the one in a million that gets the one actually guy out there that does all that, but it is unlikely.

More likely you are mistaking or exaggerating one of several other situations.

Problem 1) You have a common or garden variety Basket Weaver, they dislike rules and disagree with your style and philosophy.

But fortunately they believe in the GM is God personality cult so failing anything else they will actually just surrender to the authority they imagine you have. And that's just grand because the basket weaver philosophy is a false one, and even if the player never realises it, and never accepts it, they will benefit from your superior play style and they will co-operate and participate in it. And they will do so increasingly with experience as ANY player does.

And even if they are "narrative" wankers, guess what, following the sorts of GMing advised here you will support story wanking better than actual story wankers do. Especially if you ensure that you maintain PC survival rates (with your mighty rules fu) and compromise your godly control freaking with extensive player input and feedback. All of which have already been advised.

In no time your basket weaver will be spreading stories of the totally awesome baskets he his weaving in your campaigns and how you made baskets an integral part of the setting and it's history.

Problem 2) Actually it's all just the fact this guy is really crap with the rules.

This "problem player"'s only real problem is that they just don't know the rules. But hey they played the game before and were told it was totally fine!

This breaks down to two main problems, one may be that their former experience was too brief or their former, apparently basket weaving, GM was totally crap enough that they learned little or nothing useful about the rules of the game and if anything learned only a few of the worse cultural attitudes from certain groups of gamers.

In that case they are basically just the same as a beginning player (many of whom may also have a few strange ideas about role playing games). Treat them like a beginner, have someone help them with the rules and dice rolls and such, if no one else will that's your god damn job as GM. Inform them of available options as they come up, how they work, how likely they are to succeed. You know, all the hand holding you do with any beginner. That hand holding is, functionally, identical to the entire GMing philosophy of the "no rules, GM is god" crowd anyway. The difference is while you are doing this you introduce the player to rules and genuine co-operative story telling and they WILL learn, even if they don't mean to.

In the worst case version of the guy who knows no rules however you have the guy who just CANNOT learn the rules well enough.

Effectively you have a beginner who is NEVER going to pick up the rules of the game at some level, possibly an early one. Such people, especially the extremes, are rare. I mean sure many people will never learn the rules well enough to GM, but it's pretty rare to have someone who can't learn enough to be an at least semi competent player.

But if it happens what you basically have on your hands is a beginner who will always be a beginner at least as far as using the game rules.

That is not a huge problem, you can baby sit them forever just as you baby sit a regular player while they learn the game.

The only issue there is work load. Can you handle it? Do you have too many players needing baby sitting already? Is it worth it? Is whatever social loss from kicking them out worth the reduction in work load? Etc...

Problem 3) The player wants to control the game and is trying to take over!
Again. A rarity. Tyically a GM who complains this is suffering from subjective bias and is observing a player who is just trying to do you know stuff as being an evil rebel out to get them.

And again, the GMs most likely to have this problem and perception are, again, GM is god types, because for them ANY player action/attempt at contribution could well be treason.

But. As a more reasonable version of the scenario there COULD be a player who is just a BIT too pushy.

But if it important to divorce the pushy player "problem" from the basket weaver/rules don't matter man player "problem".

A player who wants to take "more than their fair share" of control of the game (whatever the hell "their fair share" may mean) will NOT limit themselves automatically to using basket weaver "real role player" arguments and methodologies to do it.

They can use rules, cheating, blackmail, sexual manipulation of other players (shout out to the Count there) and what ever the hell method they think might succeed.

Once in a blue moon one of these guys is that almost mythical but genuine and rather extreme "problem player". And yes, there is little you can do. Most of the time it's only a minor issue and just god damn talking about it is a workable and effective solution.

Q: What about players feel entitled to build utter weakling characters that will totally die and ruin everything?
Again, a rarity, again if you are seeing this in any significant amount ESPECIALLY with players that have prior experience with you as a GM this is PROBABLY a form of rebellion against you because of some past failings of YOURS.

However there are times players just REALLY want to play a Bard or a Monk or what have you.

And that is not automatically indicative of a "Bad" player.

The belief that a cool and setting appropriate character concept should be enough to justify choices about their character is NOT an entirely incorrect belief.

Cool and appropriate character concepts are in and of themselves RIGHT. The 3.x D&D Monk is not a bad concept.

The problem here is NOT with the player it IS with the rules and it IS your responsibility as GM to so SOMETHING.

Why? Well again, because no one else will.

So you need to sit down and show the player why the rules screw them and HELP the player find something else they will enjoy as a character concept that might actually work.

Or better yet you should sit down and help the fix their character build so that it works while still representing their character concept. Whether that means fishing around for weird splat book build components, giving them silly "Artefact of Monk Not Sucking" items, writing a bunch of house rules or entirely rewriting the monk class.

So again, players with a non viable character class or some similar problem aren't problem players, they are players with a problem, and they look to YOU for the answer. And they will be glad, and eager for you to provide it and will actively HELP you provide it. But didn't I cover something similar to this already?

If they ARE actively building suicide characters on purpose and "suicide character" is their character concept, man up and ask them what the hell is wrong. They either hate your game (and WILL have reasons, reasons you might be able to deal with if you ask about them), or they maybe have some weird character or story arch idea and maybe you can help them out with that.

Q: What if they expect to win automatically no matter what? What then hey? Huh? Huh?
This is largely a straw man commonly constructed by GMs trying to defend occasions when they needlessly screwed their players.

Players DO expect to win. And they are right, it IS your job to lose. But they don't except to win EVERYTHING EVER AUTOMATICALLY. They to win over all and eventually they expect to come out of the game generally feeling more "winny" and less "losey". They expect you not to go around "chrono-crossing" all their wins, etc...

But you sit down and ask them, and they want a challenge, they want a story, they want adversity to overcome, they want a feeling of risk and a sense that (even if ULTIMATELY it isn't there) that there is some sort of potential for some sort of failure.

And we have seriously covered this already. It IS OK to have bandits score a (hopefully not entirely fatal) TPK, take the PCs stuff and tie them to a tree. PCs DON'T have to win everything, they just have to be allowed to get their shit back, get bigger and better and ultimately deliver the rightful comeuppance to their hated enemies.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

So the only REAL dispute you are actually LIKELY to encounter on this issue is the much more likely disputes of either "GM who screws the players vs Players who dislike that" and the one even good GMs may encounter "GM thinks the players win a little too much vs Players think they lose a little too much".

One of those scenarios is your fault for being a bad GM while the minor difference of opinion scenario is only a minor problem and NOT a justification for the GM is god bullshit that it is exaggerated to support.

But a minor problem IS still a problem and you should try and fix it. And it works JUST like the advice already provided for a player who is failing a lot or the whole "Chrono crossing is bad" answer.

If players think they should win more either.
1) The dice just screwed them a bit, it should get better by itself, though you COULD help it a little.
2) They are right and you have perhaps been slightly too harsh on them, and you should fix that.
3) Right or wrong they need reminding and reinforcing of their wins, their wins need to be more winny, they need more fans and rewards or just reminders and name dropping and such. "I killed a dragon and all I got was this lousy +1 T-shirt", players will often be more impressed with the princess or the repeated recognition of awe-struck NPCs or something than getting that lousy +1 shirt. Hell. Give them both, it's only a lousy +1 shirt and some fluffy role play remarks by the odd NPC.
4) Maybe they suck a bit at the game and you need to either start adjusting the difficulty of your encounters or adjusting the competence of your players. As usual the little talk may be the most productive option ever.

And yet again, OK, so one or more players believe their characters and gaming experience is to "fail flavored" or whatever. Right or Wrong, what are YOU going to do about it as GM. Because even if it isn't your fault it is YOUR responsibility to fix it, and odds are good no one else will.

They sure as hell won't if you refuse to talk to them about it and TRY SOMETHING.

Q: My player's character's are fighting! They are bad for fighting each other GRRR! It justifies me being god to stop them right?
You know what we DID the "PCs are fighting help!" question already.

The answer is still the same.

But lets throw in some extra.

Players set their PCs at each other's throats for three reasons.

1) You are a crappy GM and they intend to punish you. This is your fault so suck on it or fix it. Your choice.
2) They think it might be cool. Talk to them about how it is not cool, or talk to them about finding a way to make it be cool.
3) They are testing boundaries and learning what they can or should be doing. Help them learn, if all else fails let them learn through experience as already discussed LAST time I answered this.

Q: What about players who can't hold together to fight my uber 'leet challenges that I totally warned them about in advance, fair is fair, they signed up for me to fucking screw them!
You play with what you get not what you wish (or even ask) for.

If your players are not up to your "super hard" adventure you painstakingly planned to be a challenge to super competent super dudes like yourself even if you aren't to blame for the arising problems, and you might well be at fault, but even if you aren't...

...YOU still have to deal with the results.

If they CAN'T handle your difficulty level then once again you need to talk to them, you need to lower your difficulty level, or you need to help them raise their competence and cohesion.

You do NOT get to just throw up your hands and demand Godhood and that they respect your Authoritaaaaay. You do NOT get to complain that they "signed up for this", you do NOT get to throw blame on your players.

Because none of that will help you fix your problem. What WILL help you fix your problem is adaptive and co-operative communication with your players.

And as GM is is YOUR role to initiate that sort of thing. Because if you don't then maybe no one else will.

And what are the consequences of no one stepping up and fixing it? Hurt feelings and failed games. And you DON'T want that.

Q: What about the conflicts that arise even between close friends the only solution then is they suck my GM is god cock right?
Conflicts CAN arise between friends, and you want to minimise those conflicts and deal with them with the minimum fuss and angst.

Panicking and demanding your are GM God man and they need to suck your cock isn't going to help.

Following the basic advice here, starting with the advice, not to do that WILL.

[Princess]

This is not precisely the most technically correct motto, there ARE exceptions out there, but it is the most USEFUL motto because it impresses upon you two important lessons.

There are too lot of exceptions. There is lots of crappy gms with godlike npcs, who are the main focus of story/constant roll fudging and cheating for story which is actually a railroading, etc. And bad players is not exception, they exist just because some peoples are dicks and you need to punch them in to face to persuade them to stop being dicks.
Yeah, surely you can turn bad player who generally had bad experience with bad dm in to a good player.. but it will take around a year of mutual evening IM brainfuck where you will persuade him for example to stop playing paranoid orphan so the dm have less opportunities to fuck him up, because you don't plan to fuck him up.

[PhoneLobster]

where you will persuade him for example to stop playing paranoid orphan so the dm have less opportunities to fuck him up, because you don't plan to fuck him up.

Don't persuade by IM.

Persuade by DOING. You can be certain that if he HAS had bad experiences with GMs before and is playing a paranoid orphan for those stated reasons that other GMs have tried the "trust me man!" line and then screwed him.

Just SHOW him you are different. Let him play the paranoid orphan to whatever degree that it can be accommodated, and without further zany information I can only assume that it CAN be accommodated.

If after playing with you for some or all of the paranoid orphan's career he STILL insists on playing paranoid orphan for the same reason... well then you failed in proving your case through doing rather than saying and that may mean you need to re-examine a few things.

But if you do it right he will gain trust in your skills and your good intentions, and the paranoid orphan option in particular is probably not a bad option here because if he starts to open up to your suggestions then you can start fleshing out his man of mystery background once he is ready to believe you won't use that as an excuse to transform his character into a stark naked hermaphroditic shit elemental with levels in the nerf launcher character class while pointing and laughing at him.

Most notably this example not only doesn't sound like a problem player who cannot be reasonably dealt with, and in addition is a good example of exactly what GM is god "screw you mere players" ideas will DO to gamers and gaming.

[FatR]

As a general rule when you are GM you are better off following the motto "There is no such as a bad player, only bad GMs".

Sure, as soon as I'm, again, paid to run the games. Otherwise (barring special circumstances), players are not entitled to have me bend over for them, including running the games I don't like, or using a GMing style I don't like.

they ARE reasonable and open to reason.

Ahahahahaha. It sure is nice to live in your dimension. Now, in our one, we right now, on this very forum, have people complaining that it is flat-out impossible to prove to their friends that Pathfinder rules suck balls. And this is a question of math and mechanics, where a proof based on logic, math and reason is theoretically possible. Most unlike the situations where the player just has completely different preferred playstyle and expectations, and doesnt want to change; or tries to demand from you something completely unreasonable, like letting her 7-years old son in the game, on the pain on quitting right away.

As evidenced by how the guys whining on about problem players here are largely using these mythical beasts as a straw man to support their argument that players should just be fucking grateful and kneel down and suck their god damn cocks.

Fuck you and your strawmen.

OK first up bullshit. That is probably an exaggerated and unreasonable scenario.

Willfull blindness does not make a good argument. Try to meet actual players someday, before giving insane advice. Particularly, women (not saying all women play like that - only about 3/5ths of those I've met).

Problem 1) You have a common or garden variety Basket Weaver, they dislike rules and disagree with your style and philosophy.

But fortunately they believe in the GM is God personality cult

It bears repeating, that leaving in your dimension sure is nice. In our one, drama queens, special snowflakes and roleplayers, not rollplayers, operate exactly on your assumption, that the player is always right, and that the GM should accomodate for players' antics unfailingly. (So probably are outright crazy loonies, but I've thankfully managed to avoid those.) In fact, that's what allows them to thrive.

[PhoneLobster]

Well I'd disagree more and make a fool of you FatR, but I'm not sure I could compete with your own post.

One note however, I AM rather familiar with female players, I have had them in most of my gaming groups from the very beginning and also ran for an all female group (barring myself) for a couple of years. And your ridiculous statement about them is... ridiculous.

But you know, don't let that prevent you from blaming every imaginary player stereotype in existence for your acrimonious GMing failures or prevent you from your ridiculous insistence on dismissing such "insane advice" as "talk to your players" or "stop being a stupid dick".

[Koumei]

Ahahahahaha. It sure is nice to live in your dimension. Now, in our one, we right now, on this very forum, have people complaining that it is flat-out impossible to prove to their friends that Pathfinder rules suck balls.

The case where I said that? True. They will likely always believe it, largely because everyone has issues with something, and their issues are with players and regular D&D, both things they think PF helps them with. But they're enjoying my game a hell of a lot more than the PF one, which may convince them otherwise, and if not, supports this:

Koumei is a fucking awesome DM and her games are fun. Be like her.

As for girl gamers, I may be biased here but I find they're pretty much like the others except possibly more demanding (not "entitled". Less "I should have this!" and more "I want X, can I have X? What would I need to do to get X?" - which is something you can work with) and less annoying (less instances of rocking up drunk, or constantly shouting "YARR" or whatever).