Advice for new DM

[Nereas]

A friend asked me to DM recently and having read the Tome series I'd been chomping at the bit to do something using it, so I agreed.

I've basically settled on either the Sunless Citadel or City of the Spider Queen, because my group is not especially RP-intensive. SC would be easiest for me to do, conversion-wise and I think they'd rather do low level too for the simplicity - it also ties in with Nightfang Spire which we are in the middle of (and thanks to me - winning )

I'd greatly appreciate any advice on what to watch out for, both generally and Tome-wise.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, there are a lot of sneaky tricks, but most of the ways that a melee character can do piles of damage invloves blitz, which is a self-correcting effect. In that they either don't Blitz all the time, or they die from accrued AoO damage.

Tell anyone that wants to play a fighter that they're playing the equivalent of a "combat rules wizard". So, if they don't know the rules of combat, they should play anything but the fighter.

I had a RoW fighter PC in an other game that didn't read his Juggernaut feat and was thus trapped in a 5-foot wide corridor, he didn't realize that he could simply enter one enemies square and then have them no longer flanking him.

I've also seen Rogues with point blank shot and sniper not adding their BaB to ranged attack damage.

Really, the bst thing to do is to have every player write down all of the abilities that their feats give them, that or copy the text from the feats that they're using and print them onto a sheet of paper that they can keep with their PC's char sheets.

If not, you'll have people who won't even use the feats that they got.

[User3]

Choosing appropriate challenges for a party is an artform - you won't get it right immediately. And the Tome changed everything, so even I don't always get it right. I aim for stronger than average encounters because my gaming group finds them more satisfying, and I figure I'm doing about right if I get 2 or more people close to death. (In my current campaign, where everyone has arbitrary free true resurrections between combats, I figure I'm doing about right when I kill 1-2 PCs in a 6-8 PC party).

The best advice I can give is this: Know your players creative agenda. Your DMing style changes dramatically if they are primarily gamists compared to simulationists compared to narrativists.

(A) Gamists - roll the dice in the open and what happens happens. They want a system bounded by rules, and the DM is also stuck within those rules.

(B) Simulationist - you have a little lee-way here. The players often want a level of obfuscation between the what's happening in-game and what's going on mechanically. Generally you should hide your rolls but shouldn't fudge anything. However, if the enemy is supposed to be totally bad-ass and fails an SoD round 1, that breaks the simulationist immersion - in cases like that feel free to decide he makes anyway, but perhaps give him some sort of disadvantage. This requires lots of creativity on the spot - ultimately, you should not cheese players out of their abilities, but you shouldn't let boss encounters just drop in the first round.

(C) Narrativist - You have enough rope to hang yourself with. The players want to be actors in a movie directed by you and written collaboratively by the group. This means that if the dice disagree with what would be appropriately dramatic, change them. If there's only one dramatically appropriate outcome, don't even bother to roll (or roll so the players hear a die but ignore the result). The rules of story are more important than the rules of the game.

This isn't *your* creative agenda we're talking about - this is the group's creative agenda. *Talk with your group before you start playing*.

If you have a particular creative agenda you want to run a campaign as, you need to advertise with that creative agenda specifically implied or mentioned. If you have a captive player base, they should have a say in the creative agenda. (Advertising campaigns with particular creative agendas works best at places like college, where the pool of potential players is large and you can find people who want to play the campaign you want to DM. If its you and your friends getting together to game every saturday, they get a say in how the game works).

Thats not Tome specific - but its good general DMing advice.

[Nereas]

Tell anyone that wants to play a fighter that they're playing the equivalent of a "combat rules wizard". So, if they don't know the rules of combat, they should play anything but the fighter.

Yeah, I went over the fighter and barbarian with one of my players and he preferred the barbarian for just that reason.

Really, the bst thing to do is to have every player write down all of the abilities that their feats give them, that or copy the text from the feats that they're using and print them onto a sheet of paper that they can keep with their PC's char sheets.

Good point - I'd planned on doing that for the named enemies, but they're likely to need it even more.

This isn't *your* creative agenda we're talking about - this is the group's creative agenda. *Talk with your group before you start playing*.

My only real agenda is to get some experience as a DM and have fun doing it - so no problem there.

[Judging__Eagle]

I guess my take on "simulationist" is not much what you describe.

Then again, I try to "make the story fit the randomness" than to "change the randomness to fit the story".

Mostly b/c I find that coming up with a plausible explaination for why the random stuff happened tends to result in something more memorable than: "the big bad boss makes his save, fight normally until he dies from chest slashes and kidney-stabbings."



On the otherhand I never let my players see my dice rolls.

I never say what AC a monster "hits" (I already know that, I simply ask them fro the AC that they have and then tell them the damage that they take or if the monster missed).

I don't give out the DCs that the players are trying to beat (I simply ask them what they got (counting 'down' to see if they saved; counting 'up' to see if they made a high enougs kill check).

Then again the way I do init counts (I count down from Init 30+, then 20+ then 19, 18, 17 ... 3, 2, 1 until everyone's init count and name is on an laminated sheet with washable marker or on a scrap piece of paper) is meant to do the same as the way I do skill checks and checkign to see who saved or not; the 'counts' are meant to keep everyone shouting and such.


Also, killing PCs on a regular basis is probably for the best. There's even a plausible way to bring them back after each encounter or combat: a contingent spelled Planeshift to Ysgard if a PC goes unconcious or says the 'safe' word.

I'm gonna have the PCs lose arbitary* XP to have their Patron add a bunch of contingent spells onto them.

1st: Planeshift to Ysgard if you say the word "...1" or get knocked unconsious

2nd: Planeshift to "Demiplane X" after you wake up and say word "...2"

3rd: Greater Teleoprt to the fortress of your Patron after the above Planeshift effect occurs.

*:Since the PCs aren't getting XP per session, instead, after 2-3 adventures they'll simply level up. Their Gold is capped at a value whatever the 'next' level's starting gold is however. So, they started at 6th lvl with 13,000 gp, but they won't get much more gold until they level up.

Magical item crafters are assumed to have 1/2 the XP that they need to get to the next level; all other PCs are assumed to have the same if the crafter wants to craft for other PCs and not use their own xp.

[User3]

1177442537[/unixtime]]

This isn't *your* creative agenda we're talking about - this is the group's creative agenda. *Talk with your group before you start playing*.

My only real agenda is to get some experience as a DM and have fun doing it - so no problem there.

Its just worth mentioning. Because it does matter.

I mean, my creative agenda as a player when i really get into a game is bizarre - I'm a narrative gamist - I compete with the other players via narrative coolness. I "step up" by doing narratively awesome things.

This means I totally hate being a player when I find the world-narrative awful. This can be a disjunct for either simulation or narrative reasons.

I can easily fall into a simulationist game, and most people don't perceive my gamism as competition - it just provides cool stories to tell later. I can also play pretty easily in a narrative game.

I can also go hardcore normal gamist - but then i treat it like a boardgame (which it sort of is) and not a roleplaying game. I find this satisfying in a different way, and don't really feel like I'm fulfilling any sort of creative agenda. The story stops mattering if I'm playing in this environment.

As a DM I tend to have narrative/simulationist impulses but can adapt fairly easily to the demands of the group - although I'll usually bundle gamist expectations into the framework of a narrative DMing experience - I just expect the players to "step up" against the monster or get creamed. Of course, the players only get that if they ask for it... The only thing i hate DMing for is a pure simulationist game - PCs are the superheroes/protagonists, not random schmoes.

Ie, most people don't have pure GNS preferences, and there are lots of weird permutations. But its good to know what your players expect regardless.

[User3]

1177448106[/unixtime]]I guess my take on "simulationist" is not much what you describe.

Then again, I try to "make the story fit the randomness" than to "change the randomness to fit the story".

Mostly b/c I find that coming up with a plausible explaination for why the random stuff happened tends to result in something more memorable than: "the big bad boss makes his save, fight normally until he dies from chest slashes and kidney-stabbings."

Simulationist is "we're simulating x as realistically as possible". These are the people who want to be able to lose eyes and arms in combat, because its realistic.

There are lots of flavors of simulationist, based on what they want to simulate. oWoD Vampire as written is a hardcore simulationist game focused on simulating the emotions of a new Vampire. It encourages some narrativism with regards to other elements of the game to maximize the simulation of that emotion. This doesn't mean you have to play Vampire that way, but that's what the game is encouraging.

AD+D 2nd is a world-simulationist game. They published a number of campaign worlds, and there was a bunch of focus on things being 'realistic' within the assumptions of those worlds.

Basically, simulationism is about exploring some facet of the game. Its also about maintaining a sense of realism. So if BBEG X is supposed to be a total bad-ass, it breaks the realism if he goes down to Baleful Polymorph round 1. Not because Baleful Polymorph can't do that realistically, but because realistically he's a bad-ass and that fight should be difficult. His minions *can* go down to Baleful Polymorph round 1 no problem, but if they make their save too bad. Simulationism demands the most fudges because you're trying to immerse your players in the world, and thus results that break that immersion ruin the experience.

(Contrast with narrativism, who might not even bother with a saving throw roll at all - the BBEG automatically makes, his unimportant minions automatically fail - because that's dramatically appropriate).

[PhoneLobster]

The simulationist, narrativist, gamist thing is a bunch of hooey.

Its was to my knowledge a meme pumped by some guy and his fan club on a forum ostensibly dedicated to RPG design that he has since basically shut down once achieving his stated goal of spreading that fricking meme.

And its DUMB. It allows someone who effectively is being some a bad player to walk off and say "oh its just because I'm a Simulationist/Gamist/Narrativist and you AREN'T..."

There is a simple truth, everyone fits into all categories declared by that system, not just a bit BUT ENTIRELY, its like the D&D alignment system, do whatever then pick an arbitrary category and make a bullshit justification.

I am very much against further propagation of that meme. I strongly suggest any new GM not even consider it.

Instead think of players simply as Good or Bad, and try and help the Bad ones learn to be good or at least limit their trashing of the gaming experience for everyone else.

Because there are only really two sorts of gamers. The one who plays nice and the one who plays like a jerk.

[PhoneLobster]

Infact I HATE this meme so much let me point its annoyingness out a bit...

Simulationist is "we're simulating x as realistically as possible". These are the people who want to be able to lose eyes and arms in combat, because its realistic.

OR... because its totally fun or appropriate for balance, (Gamist)

OR... because it makes for cool story hooks, angsty drama and plot advancement (Narratathingymastupid)

Pick ANYTHING and it does that crap, its so crap I can't begin to describe the crappyness. AAAAAAAAH!

I mean some guy on the internets gathered together one of the larger piles of people actively interested in home brew RPG design and THAT was all they came up with AND he shut up shop and declared THAT mission accomplished?

[MrWaeseL]

I mean some guy on the internets gathered together one of the larger piles of people actively interested in home brew RPG design and THAT was all they came up with AND he shut up shop and declared THAT mission accomplished?

Do you have a link to that forum?

[TGFBS] Inappropriate commentary deleted.[/TGFBS]

[User3]

1177490225[/unixtime]]Infact I HATE this meme so much let me point its annoyingness out a bit...

Simulationist is "we're simulating x as realistically as possible". These are the people who want to be able to lose eyes and arms in combat, because its realistic.

OR... because its totally fun or appropriate for balance, (Gamist)

OR... because it makes for cool story hooks, angsty drama and plot advancement (Narratathingymastupid)

Pick ANYTHING and it does that crap, its so crap I can't begin to describe the crappyness. AAAAAAAAH!

I mean some guy on the internets gathered together one of the larger piles of people actively interested in home brew RPG design and THAT was all they came up with AND he shut up shop and declared THAT mission accomplished?

Its certainly possible to arrive at the same conclusion via any of the three. (though I would guess there are times when you definitely expect two of them to disagree). But the end conclusion is not the important part - its the reasons they reach that conclusion that are important, and those are very different and have very different implications for how the people play the game.

I don't care about the original meme. I don't even really care for the original descriptions of them. But I do think the concepts meaningfully represent something about the way in which we engage in roleplaying. At the end of the game they could have accomplished the same thing (ie, save the princess), but the way in which they got there, including the IC and OOC behavior at the table, would be very different depending on their creative agendas.

Yes, there are some players who are just bad, and that has nothing to do with their gaming preferences. But there are some people who are perfectly happy in some games and downright miserable in others. This has nothing to do with a player being disruptive - a good player doesn't do that. This has to do with the player having enjoyed himself.

If you put a pure narrativist at a gamist table, the narrativist is going to have a miserable time. That's not the experience he's looking for. *And I know players like that*. But there's nothing wrong with him as a player, nor is there anything wrong with the gaming group - they just don't fit.

So you're looking at it all wrong. This is a case where its not the end conclusions that matter, but the road you travelled to get there. And every GNS playstyle, whether 'pure' or combination, finds some playstyle to be unpleasant. And that's ok. Its why we should talk about what we do when we engage in Roleplaying, and why groups should talk about what the creative agenda of their game should be. And especially why the DM should be attentive to the desires and preferences of his players.

[PhoneLobster]

I say, I say, I say WHAT?

Its certainly possible to arrive at the same conclusion via any of the three. (though I would guess there are times when you definitely expect two of them to disagree). But the end conclusion is not the important part - its the reasons they reach that conclusion that are important, and those are very different and have very different implications for how the people play the game.

The stated example had the effect on game play of cutting off arms and junk, IN ALL CASES.

That is not "very different implications for how people play the game".

Worse than that EVERY SINGLE argument I gave, which fit the various supposed gaming types ALL could be simplified into just saying "Because I think that would be cool"

There is no journey that is greater than the destination, the whole thing is a supreme wank job.

In other news AAAAAAAAH!

The RPG Theory section, the "GNS" model section, and anything ressembling anything but dumb section, is shut down, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO DISCUSS!!!!111!!!! THE FORUM HAS ACHIEVED THE GOALS HE HAD HOPED IT WOULD (the GNS model apparently)!!!!!!

It is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Sorry to any adherants but jeese, check the prescription on your eyeglasses and look at it a second time because GNS has giant glowing on fire radioactive letters all over it screaming out "Counterproductive Waste of Time"

Edit: Oh yeah, also its important to note that the whole GNS wankery thing was very much developed and lives its life as part of the whole "we are real role players and you are munchkins" meme. It was very much originally an attempt to marginalize supposed gamists as a fancier way of calling people munchkins but pretending not to be a prick about it.

Oh yeah, and the theory had the ADDED benefit of making every single thread that forum, and others, ever produced devolve into pure GNS wankery instead of anything remotely interesting.

Several years ago when I was VERY interested in finding I new forum to discus game design in I took a hard look at the Forge, which was then very active, and walked away because of its annoying and immature GNS obsession. I came here instead, people don't get bogged down in that kind of stupid around here.

[MrWaeseL]

Why is there a whole section called 'women in gaming' in that closed forum? What the fuck?

[RandomCasualty]

1177448365[/unixtime]] Of course, the players only get that if they ask for it... The only thing i hate DMing for is a pure simulationist game -

What exactly is a pure simulationist game? I guess I have some trouble seeing the difference between narrativist and simulationist.

[User3]

1177500686[/unixtime]]

1177448365[/unixtime]] Of course, the players only get that if they ask for it... The only thing i hate DMing for is a pure simulationist game -

What exactly is a pure simulationist game? I guess I have some trouble seeing the difference between narrativist and simulationist.

Simulationism is about simulating something. What you're simulating is important. (There are many flavors of simulationism).

Lets assume world simulation for a moment. In this type of simulationist game the world is structured independently of the PCs. That is to say that if there is a dangerous wilderness somewhere, that dangerous wilderness is always equally dangerous. Don't expect mercy if you go in weak relative to the area - appropriate CRed encounters happen because you go places that are level appropriate for you, not because the DM is supposed to create level appropriate encounters. He'll hit you with a CR+20 if you go to the wrong place because thats what that place is like.

Simulationist games tend to end up with a lot of random tables (including random encounter tables) because no one really has any control over what you'll run into on the road, wandering in the underdark, or whatever. If you die, you die. Too bad.

A narrativist game structures the world around the PCs based upon what is dramatically appropriate. Random encounters are non-existent, every encounter moves along the plot. Imagine the game as a movie rather than as people wandering around in a real world - the DM is directing the movie and is moving it towards some kind of satisfying climax. PCs don't just die. They die saving the fucking world.

[User3]

I can phrase that more succinctly:

In a simulationist game, the world is what's going on. Its the star. You're a bit player exploring that world. (For world simulationism... extrapolate for other types).

In a narrativist game, you're what's going on. You are the star. The world is your bitch.

[PhoneLobster]

What exactly is a pure simulationist game? I guess I have some trouble seeing the difference between narrativist and simulationist.

There is no difference.

In a simulationist game, the world is what's going on. Its the star. You're a bit player exploring that world. (For world simulationism... extrapolate for other types).

In a narrativist game, you're what's going on. You are the star. The world is your bitch.

See, two completely meaningless, utterly subjective and when analysed actually synonymous statements.

See, the only awareness the players have of the world is through their characters, and through the "narrative" (in the actual regular meaning of the word) they already ARE the world, the simulation IS the narrative.

Any existentialist could have told you trying to differentiate perception and reality (better yet percieved fictional perception and percieved fictional reality) like that is a waste of time.

Or alternately he means that in a simulationist game the players feel insignificant and frustrated and in a narrative game they feel important and powerful, but frankly that would be dumb since that has nothing to do with the purported definitions of the two terms.

[Judging__Eagle]

Yeah, I had this wierd feeling that peoples made-up narrative ruins simulation and thus ruins my view of what narrative should be.

I want there to be dangerous dudes and powerful monsters and weaksauce stuff and fiends and celestials all in wierd places, but if the dice say you've killed one with an SoD. He's dead. He wasn't lucky. That's it. End of story.

I guess the GNS model doesn't work so well b/c for some people, you use some of the elements to change how the other elements work, or you dont' want certain elements to dominate uncreatively so you leave those elements from dictating how the game flows.


I think with myself, I hate what most people see as "storytelling" or "narrative"; I can already do that, I'm a registered member of my countries storytelling organization, I read stories all the bloody time; I can usually tell where the stupid plot is going in an adventure.

So, instead of writing the adventure and running it, I get a framework, use random elements to tell me what I can put into that framework, and then write something that pulls all of those elements together.

So, if, for some reason I get a huge pile of vermin and a single giant nearby as an 'encoutner'; there's gotta be a reason why they're together... they're his pets and he's some druid that controls insects and does bug-like things. The giant with giant wolves has been done to death, a giant that burrows with burrowing gauntlets and uses insect minions is definately something new.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't want sessions that I would think are boring or that I'm seeing a scene that I've seen before.

[virgil]

Last I checked, HOW you get to your goal actually makes a difference. "Getting there is half the fun" is an appropriate turn of phrase here.

Gamists maintain a notable sense of detachment with their characters. They play the game in a manner not dissimilar to World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy. Yes, this category is their way of using smoke and mirrors to hide their disdain for 'munchkins', but it is a trait I've seen in gamers.

Narrativists think and mull over story, do all sorts of navel staring, talk about how to progress the story in what they think is a cool manner. They're detatched from their characters in a different manner from gamists, and are perfectly willing to throw them into an active volcano if they think it would work for theirfanficImeanthestory..

Simulationists like the details and discuss the mechanical rules heavily. It's also for those that are very hard-nosed on the rules at the expense of gameplay/story.

In one sense, these all describe highly annoying people if they fit in one category solidly.

I don't see how this viewpoint is an unhealthy meme. I truly know people who truly just see their characters as a list of numbers, people who barely remember stats and want to talk ALL THE TIME, and people that conceive of every possible result and what shoudl be the mechanical abjucation.

I liken it to the 'Type A' & 'Type B' personality mumbo-jumbo. They're broad (possibly overly so) archetypes where it's only on occasion that they readily fit solely into one category. And for some, it's just a way to sound smart when they look down on people.

[Cielingcat]

Like Timmy/Johnny/Spike in Magic.

[RandomCasualty]

Gamist is simply rules first as a resolution mechanic.

Simulation and narrativst both sound like the same approach. Both are story first as a resolution mechanic.

Only in simulationist, the story happens to focus on the world, or some other NPCs or whatever, and in Narrativist, the story focuses on the PCs.

I don't see how any of those promotes or removes roleplaying. It seems like they're just saying how rigidly you follow the rules.

Gamist - Rules are god.
Simulationist- Bend rules to save major NPCs to not corrupt story.
Narrativist- bend rules to save PCs.

[Judging__Eagle]

The funny thing is that, not bending the rules to let NPCs and PCs die ends up being more memorable.

Meaning that 'traditional' Narrativist and Simulationist ideals are corrupted by trying to be themselves. While Gamist tendancies end up craeting more realistic situations (not plausible, fiction is plausibile, realism is specifically random).

The players remember the one boss that the wizard took down with a lucky SoD than they will remember yet an other BBeG that they had to kill in melee after wading through his mooks.

I know that the playes in one of my games got a completely different story b/c they were tactical and sneaky. Instead of going in the front door, they went in the side, killed some mooks, snuck in and stumbled upon the goblin boss.

So, they ended up being the rulers of a goblin tribe. Having the Goblins fight to the death is what some people would do, which is dumb b/c it means that the PCs have no chance to make their own story. Meaning the "collelctive" element of "collective creative storytelling" is no longer there.

[RandomCasualty]

1177532735[/unixtime]]The funny thing is that, not bending the rules to let NPCs and PCs die ends up being more memorable.

Meaning that 'traditional' Narrativist and Simulationist ideals are corrupted by trying to be themselves. While Gamist tendancies end up craeting more realistic situations (not plausible, fiction is plausibile, realism is specifically random).

Yeah, I personally kind of get annoyed when you get people claiming that gamist games don't produce good stories and all that other kind of garbage.

You want some fights to end unexpectedly, it makes things more interesting. If every fight was a long drawn out Final Fantasy style boss battle, then things would get boring, because every fight looks the same.

[the_taken]

Unless you spend lots of money and time getting the right models and scenery set up. But then it's fun like a museum, or text book.

[PhoneLobster]

The funny thing is that, not bending the rules to let NPCs and PCs die ends up being more memorable.

Meaning that 'traditional' Narrativist and Simulationist ideals are corrupted by trying to be themselves. While Gamist tendancies end up craeting more realistic situations (not plausible, fiction is plausibile, realism is specifically random).

You know pointing out the bleeding obvious gets to be somewhat annoying.

But MAYBE, just MAYBE, that there is yet another sign that you know, the core terms of GNS are fvcking meaningless, misleading and dumb?