Being a good GM, the FAQ

[PhoneLobster]

So my exciting adventures in playing with a bad GM lately have made me think, hey, maybe there needs to be just a little but more advice about GMing out there.

Over the years I've learned from successes and failures, and have had the educational experience of being a 15 year old GM (the age at which all the worst possible GMing is done). So I'm thinking hey, I'll write a good GMing advice FAQ, of course it's just a thread really so people can just throw in their own advice too.

Q: I am GM, am I now God?
No. You are not god. Note the readily discernible lack of super powas. You are just another player at the table, maybe a sort of different type of player, but remember you are a person just like all your players are, you aren't magically better at "story telling" or "adjudication" or "making things fun" than they are, or than you normally would be without the title of GM.

Most importantly remember the position of GM does not provide you with powas or authority, it does not even entitle you to any more respect than anyone else at the table. In fact if anything the position of GM is one with additional responsibilities and is more about you earning and deserving the trust of the players, NOT the other way around.

Q: Is it true that the rules of the game do not matter and as GM I can solve everything with my powas?
You don't have any powas (see the "Am I God Now?" answer). The rules ARE important and you should try and learn them as much as possible. When a player wants to do something, however unlikely you should be prepared to answer in one of the following ways.

1) You know the rules about resolving their action.
2) You don't know the rules (maybe it's something obscure) but you know where you can quickly look them up
3) You don't know of that rule, (maybe it doesn't even exist) but you DO know the rules well enough to have at least a general idea of the way they would probably handle the action.

Knowing and using the rules is an important thing because it is the primary way you communicate with the players. "Mostly dead and over there somewhere" is a vague, subjective and useless description that leads to confusion and arguments. "4 HP left and in this square/position over here" is a rules based statement that players can actually understand and it will make for less confusion and arguments.

Rules also help you in many situations by keeping you within the agreed upon balance and frame work of the game. Not following them can create TPKs and other unpleasantness.

Q: So rules are ALWAYS good then?
Sadly no. While on the whole having rules and sticking to them is a good thing in general for your game it is important to realize that rules have a real impact on game play, and sometimes that impact is bad.

The only way to deal with bad rules is to know them well, to know what they do, how they do it and WHY they do it. Without extensive knowledge it is hard to recognize the difference between a good or bad rule properly, let alone know the proper way to deal with it. This is again a very good reason for you to learn the rules very thoroughly.

You cannot change the rules in a productive manner unless you know and understand them in the first place.

Q: So I can just change the rules however I like then?
No. Changing the rules is a big deal. It changes the agreed upon language and balance of the game potentially confusing players and undermining their trust in you.

This means that rules changes, even changes to bad rules, need to be treated in specific ways to ensure they don't hurt your game.

1) Inform your players of any and all rules changes as much as possible.
2) Make the changed rules of the game as open and as available to your players as the original rules of the game, if not more so.
3) Tell your players why rules are being changed.
4) If possible make changes in advance rather than on the spur of the moment. Once a change is made if possible make it permanent. Do not be afraid to simply state "this rule needs changing but for now we will just run with it" and defer changing the rule until later when you have the time to change it PROPERLY.
5) Never ever change a rule such that it goes in your favor, and then is changed and goes against the players favor. Rules changes can screw players or benefit the GM, but a change should never ever screw the players coming AND going.
6) If possible consult with the other players about the rule, why you think it is wrong, and what you think you should do. They will appreciate the consultation and may even help you improve the rules and therefore the game.

Q: The players keep derailing my precious story line and super cool narrative! What should I do?
Congratulate your players on being creative and unexpected in what is, in all reasonable honesty, their contribution to the SHARED story.

Yes, SHARED story telling is the name of the game here, that means they contribute actions, sometimes unaccounted for ones. If they didn't do that sort of "derailing" there wouldn't be any real point having them at the gaming table now would there?

You need to be adaptive and be prepared for players to make enemies of NPCs you intended to be friendly, or friends of ones you intended to be enemies. Expect them to potentially succeed at tasks you hoped they would fail at, or fail at ones you expect them to succeed at.

When the game goes in unexpected directions you simply cannot throw your hands up and say "the story is ruined there is no adventure to be had here!". Where ever the PCs take the story they must ALWAYS find more adventure, the story cannot just stop.

Using and KNOWING an extensive rules set will HELP you "wing it" when the unexpected occurs. As there will be rules for dealing with things like the PCs climbing your maze walls.

Do NOT under any circumstances go around shamelessly thwarting any and EVERY new and unexpected idea players have. You can make climbing the maze walls impossible, you can make teleporting through them impossible, you can make the walls invulnerable to all damage. But if you do ALL of that, if you do that with EVERY maze, even if you do most of that most of the time then the players will notice and they will NOT be happy.

Worst comes to worst if the players do enough to completely derail your plans and you for some reason cannot continue without further preparation then take a break. Declare the end of the game session, or take a 15 minute intermission while you hastily scribble up a new map or NPC or whatever it is you need to do. I mean sure don't go walking five minutes into the game and saying "game over go home, see you next time" but still, sometimes after the game has run for a while you can and possibly should get away with this method of dealing with the unpredictable.

Q: Things like CR guidelines seem lame and unrealistic, I want my NPC storekeepers to be LIKE UNTO THE GODS THEMSELVES
Many games put limits on how big and nasty the world around the PCs happens to be. They do it for good reason, which is that PCs can only survive and succeed against opponents of a certain power level, and due to the unpredictable nature of player contributions to the shared story basically anyone or anything they meet MIGHT become an enemy.

If you have a "helpful" high level bastard wizard or something clearly setting the players up for a fall and he is LIKE UNTO A GOD then should the players "unexpectedly" become offended by him and end up getting on his bad side you CAN'T have him and the party duke it out, because if you do it will kill the party as surely as "Rocks Fall You All Die". And that is a bad thing.

If your helpful bastard wizard was within an acceptable power range to be a potential opponent then if it came down to fisticuffs with the party that would be OK.

But, and here is a lesson to be learned, if he is within an acceptable level range the players will also probably be less likely to hate his freaking guts.

Why? Because players can tell when you are waving your dick around with big "fuck you guys" NPCs all the time and they hate it, and they hate you for it, and they most notably of all hate those dick wavy NPCs. Making the NPCs into sure TPKs perversely only makes players MORE likely to initiate that TPK.

So take that as a lesson and if you are concerned players are killing NPCs you don't want them to do NOT escalate the NPCs until they are LIKE UNTO GODS because you will only be making more problems if you do.

Q: Wait, terminology question TPK?
It stands for Total Party Kill. You know, having basically all the player characters completely destroyed, an event with will tend to be rather disastrous for your ongoing game.

This brings us to yet another reason you need to be really good with the game rules. Because if you aren't one day, sooner or later when you don't want it all the PCs will suddenly die all at once.

THIS is why rules are more important than narrative. Because without a sufficient grasp of the rules to prevent a TPK you can't have a narrative. Why? Because all the characters in your narrative will suddenly die.

Q: Rocks fall you all die?
It's a thing that bad GMs sometimes do. "Oh you pissed me off, rocks fall, you all die!/Super Lightning from the gods kill you/Cement donkey smites you/etc...".

It represents the GM arbitrarily and without recourse to rules or interaction or anything fair, sane or even nice going and killing off PCs or otherwise screwing everyone over with sheer arbitrarium bullshit. Often for the most petty and stupid of reasons.

It is a BAD THING TO DO. You should basically only ever resort to arbitrary hand waving of stuff when it is unimportant and in some way makes the game better, so "Yeah OK you successfully hit on the barmaid or whatever sure" THAT is OK arbitrarium no recourse to rules stuff. "You all die" is clearly NOT.

Worse still some total idiots out there will advise you that it is your "right" as a godly GM to declare "rocks fall you all die" against any and every player who "dare's defy you". This is REALLY BAD ADVICE. It will only escalate matters and will not solve a damn thing.

I repeat "Rocks Fall You All Die" is NOT an effective dispute resolution mechanic.

Q: But what if I do have a troublesome player, should I hit him in the head with a brick?
DO NOT HIT YOU PLAYERS IN THE HEAD WITH BRICKS.

Yes, this (and hammers and large metal dice and so forth) were popular things for places like the WOTC forums to advise you to hit "trouble" players in the head with.

THAT WAS REALLY BAD ADVICE. Violence is not the answer. But more than that, the very attitude promoted by those flippant responses is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you DO perceive a problem with a player and their behavior. Talk to them about it. Try and actually solve the problem openly and with everyone BEFORE resorting to extreme measures.

And remember the most extreme measure that IS acceptable is expelling a troublesome player from your group and never speaking to them again (and often expelling a friend from a game IS functionally equivalent to never speaking to them again SO BE WARNED).

And really it should be pretty absolutely unusual for any situation with almost any player to be so bad you really need to tell them to bugar off (unless they are someone so bad that you really shouldn't be hanging around with them at all anyway).

If you think the situation IS that bad, always take a brief moment to re-asses YOUR actions, and the actions of the OTHER players, just in case maybe it isn't really entirely the one players fault. Extreme dysfunction in RPG groups is more typically either the GMs fault or the fault of pretty much all of the group as a whole than the fault of any single player.

Q: I have this brilliant idea to make the game more "Realistic"
Stop right there! THIS IS PROBABLY A BAD IDEA.

Always remember the goal of any idea applied to the game should always be to make the game better NOT to make it more realistic.

But you say "isn't realism a way of making the game better?".

Well, you would be generally WRONG. The absolute vast majority of the time if some aspect of your game is "unrealistic" it is for good reason. Realistic rules tend to be complex, counter to exciting story telling, and most of all UNFAIR and UNFUN.

Realism is flavor, it basically should always be one of the last things considered when it comes to rules (and also to flavor actually).

Q: I have this brilliant Idea to make the game more "Deadly"
STOP RIGHT THERE DAMNIT.

This again, is almost certainly a BAD IDEA. Remember the TPK question. Remember how narrative and story is hurt by having all the PCs die?

Well things like deadly critical fumbles, removal of resurrection or healing effects, and all those other stupid stupid deadly things kill PCs and as such kill continuity, story, narrative and all those things people like to talk about all the time.

So really don't try and make the game more deadly, in fact you might want to consider the benefits of making it LESS so.

Q: What about Cthulhu and Paranoia
To be honest while people like to pretend Cthulhu is special and benefits from things like high PC death rates and such... it probably doesn't.

Paranoia IS an exception, but Paranoia is always an exception so consider it a very different kettle of fish in general.

Q: I have this brilliant idea to make the game more sexy!
Again, this might well be a bad idea.

There is a limit to how much sex and nudity you can throw around in front of most players.

As a rule of thumb "There is a naked guy here" or "That barmaid is sexy and has big boobs" or at a stretch "You spend the night making passionate love to a Were-walrus super model" is pretty much the limit of description you can get into before people start feeling the game is becoming alternatively juvenile, or offensive, or both.

If you start describing genitalia or making people role foreplay checks then things are probably going just a bit wrong somewhere. I'm prepared to give you some tiny amount of leeway in some sort of horror game where it might be vaguely OK for the players to come to the terrible realization that the hideous thing attacking them is attacking them with it's hideous penis but beyond that really... dude...

Q: I have this brilliant idea where the female player's clothes all fall off, er, I mean her character's clothes... teehee
I'm sorry but this is PROBABLY a bit of a bad idea. Sure there are some players out there who enjoy the whole exhibitionist "Whee! I'm Naked!" thing. And more power to them, and as long as things don't go beyond the limits of general vagueness that any such content can manage it's pretty OK for a player (female or otherwise) to decide that their character concept is "naked magic fairy girl" or something.

HOWEVER.

Inflicting nudity onto a character, especially a female character that belongs to a female player is in many ways a bad idea.

Yes, our society accepts female nudity more than male nudity, yes the stripped naked FEMALE sacrifice/captive/heroine in distress etc... is a common story trope accepted and well loved by our society.

But in addition to that this sort of thing can make women in particular feel offended, vulnerable and threatened.

It's something the better GMs learned when they were fifteen, the bandits stripping you naked when they capture you is (usually) no biggy for the male players, but some (if not most) female players are going to feel REALLY uncomfortable with that.

Yes I know we are all perverted fifteen year olds at heart and would love all the female player characters to be running around with their spectacular fictional boobs fictionally out all over the fictional place in our games, but it isn't just your fictional story land, it belongs to the girls at the table too and a lot of them don't want their characters to be your pornographic toys. Some won't even like it if you gratuitously litter the place with NPCs being pornographic toys.

On a related note, since I know a lot of male gamers are complete social retards, let me assure you the word "rape" is not a word taken as lightly among women as it is among the vile and disgusting 13 year old male fanbase of Halo. So you might just also want to keep it out of your games as well. And I mean the word itself, the actual fictional event of rape (especially role playing it as it happens) should really be right on out, but really you shouldn't even sit next to your female friends talking about how much you guys just "raped" those orcs or how much her character just got "raped" by that high level gorgon.

Also, "Pwned" is less offensive to women but still just plain massively stupid.

Q: I just had this brilliant idea to prevent the players from taking the uber powerful weapons enemies use against them!
OK this is probably also a bad idea.

Circumstances, curses, item limitations, bullshit evaporating corpses and all that are things you can get away with OCCASIONALLY.

But if you are seriously going around regularly using notable items, especially powerful magic weapons and such against player characters and repeatedly pulling some bullshit where by the items are weaker, won't work or are confiscated or WHATEVER to prevent the PCs from almost EVER getting the cool toys you hand out to your NPCs the players will rightfully get really pissed off.

So no, it is NOT acceptable to do that all the time, and even if you do it some of the time it is NOT acceptable to do that with the more exceptionally notable gear or to do it in an exceptionally gratuitous manner.

So no level 1 NPCs using Finger of Death wands that magically explode when PCs touch them Okay? It's not fair, it's not cool, it's not fun, and everyone will notice and everyone will hate you.

Q: The PCs seem to need some help, I can make a level nine million NPC come along and help them right?
NO!

The PCs want to be the main characters, they do NOT want your bullshit better than them dick wavy insertion to upstage them by rescuing their sorry asses.

Adjust the challenges, give the party some damn loot, talk to the players about strategies or character builds, but do NOT insert a Mary Sue okay?

Q: The players are stomping everything I throw at them! Help?
Maybe you don't NEED help, maybe this is actually a sign of success.

But then again maybe you do need help. Maybe you DO need to give them more of a challenge.

So do that, provide more of a challenge, but be CAREFUL. Know your rules, and check out all the opponents and challenges you throw at the PCs carefully. Once you start upping the challenge level of opposition one wrong move COULD suddenly tip a balance and cause a TPK.

If you feel that the player characters are just TOO damn good and you can't do anything or need to take away all their gear or something... DO NOT RUST MONSTER ALL THEIR GEAR TO HELL AND POLYMORPH THEM ALL INTO FIVE YEAR OLD HALFLING GIRLS WITH NOTHING BUT TWO LEVELS OF PEASANT!

Try just talking to them about the difficulty you are having they can help you out and will probably WANT to help you out. And you might STILL get to rust monster them and turn them into halfling peasant girls, but only if that is the solution you reach as a group to deal with a problem the entire group recognizes (and really you should probably just reach some compromise where a few item stats, build details or obscure rules change rather than going the whole rustmonster/mega-polymorphy balance scheme).

Q: Player X feels I am victimizing them
Well, are you?

Is it even close?

"But I decide all targeting of bad things with dice rolls!" is not an excuse you know.

Anyway, players will notice bad stuff that happens to them MORE than they notice it happening to others. So even if their view is a little unfair if they seem genuinely concerned try and throw some good luck or circumstances their way (or some bad luck or circumstances in the direction of someone else).

Q: One of my player's characters is failing badly!
So one player has their character under performing massively, they don't defeat enemies, they don't succeed at anything and they keep getting knocked out, paralyzed or KOed. They may or may not have noticed but it seems that YOU have. (which is a good thing).

Is the situation entirely bad luck? Are they bucking the trend, going against all predictable reason and failing all the time even though really there is no mechanical or decision based reason for it?

In that case you can cross your fingers and hope their luck improves OR you can actually keep stacking the deck in their favor for a while until things improve (though if you do DO IT CAREFULLY).

If however the player is failing because of a bad rule, a bad build decision or bad tactical decisions that is another matter.

You should instead then try fixing the root of the problem, so fix the broken rule or weak sauce character class, if you don't know how ask your group, or go looking on the internet, just try SOMETHING.

If it is a bad build decision talk to the player, try and get them to fix their build, or if they like their character concept and it is a GOOD concept the group actually WANTS then fix the broken concept with an improved rule, an extra bonus ability, a new helpful item, again just try SOMETHING and try it with consultation with your players.

If it is bad tactical decisions however... that is a bit different. You CAN try and "fix" it by rewarding their poor performance with better gear or bonus super abilities and junk, but that could easily be a BAD thing to do and could easily offend other smarter players.

So again, consult with the player, try and help them learn the rules, suggest tactics to them (presented as a range of explained options). Consult with the group as a whole. The best solution to this problem is to make the player a better and more informed player, it will open up new options and new potential for success and make them a happier gamer.

Q: Since this is an RPG the OTHER players don't need to know the rules right?
WRONG.

I mean sure, a well run RPG with an OK rules set CAN be played with about zero rules knowledge (on the side of a player, not a GM) just by role playing the decisions and letting the GM adjudicate everything on the rules side of things.

And that is probably how many players can and maybe even SHOULD start out playing the game. But they should learn rules as they go. And you as the GM should help them.

Because until they learn the rules the rules are not providing their usual benefits of fairness and transparency to that player, in effect as far as that player is concerned they are playing a game with no rules at all.

Worse still it creates additional work load for the GM, and once again YOU ARE NOT GOD so you don't have unlimited capacity to deal with that work load.

The more rules the players learn the better it will be for you, and for them.

Q: Aren't games about basket weaving peasants so much cooler than games about world shattering heroes?
NO THEY FUCKING AREN'T.

Also, while people out there wank over their basket weaving peasant games... basically no one actually plays games like that. IT'S A LIE.

So don't fall for it or any advice relating to how cool it would be if things were like that.

Almost everyone wanking about basket weaving is a liar and an idiot who will only lead you down the path to RUIN.

Q: I have this brilliant idea to make the game Low Magic by just removing all the silly magic item thingies!
You can't just do that you dumb bastard!

The game expects players to have those things, without them they can't fight appropriate enemies and overcome appropriate challenges.

If you want to do "low magic" you need a pretty much a full system over haul, otherwise you will get TPKs, high level player characters incapable of overcoming low level challenges, and some PCs suffering more than others due to variable item dependency.

So make damn well sure your players GET SOME GOD DAMN GEAR. No it is NOT cool in a 3.5 D&D game to give the players their first +1 Dagger at level 9. IT"S A BAD THING.

Q: Me and my players are all nice guys and friends and trust each other to 'do the right thing' and 'not be rules lawyer/munchkins/etc... so we don't need all your dirty rules and advice then right?
WRONG.

A gentleman's agreement isn't a defiance of rules and "the man" in general. It is the implementation of ADDITIONAL rules, however broad and unspoken.

And the more broad and unspoken your gentleman's agreement is the more it WILL fail.

So if you really DO want to keep your group on the same page do not leave your gentleman's agreement unspoken, MAKE IT INTO SOME FORMAL RULES YOU ALL AGREED UPON.

You know, just like the rules of the game itself. And for EXACTLY the same reasons.

Because even trusted friends get FUCKING PISSED when trusted friends screw them with an evaporating finger of death wand. Indeed, they are likely to get MORE pissed with a trusted friend doing that rather than "some dumb guy" they just met.

Rules are not "unessacary" or "bad" for your little circle of hugging buddies, they help you lovable little guys play together and stay together. SO USE SOME DAMN RULES BEFORE YOU CLUB EACH OTHER WITH CHAIRS YOU IDIOTS.

[TheFlatline]

Long list... But a lot of good, not "eat a bag of dicks" statements in there.

My short list:

* The GM is not the star of the game. He's more like the ringmaster. He sets the stage and gets the fuck out of the way.

* It is the tale, and not he who tells it. Meaning: If your players get involved and make a better story, this is a good thing.

* You will make mistakes. Accept this. Roll with it.

* When all else fails and you're stumped, call for a 5 minute break, and get away from the gaming group to think.

* A silly idea now that works is better than a perfect idea 30 minutes from now.

* The less you exercise GM fiat, the better. Ideally the rate of GM fiat per games should be zero, but the closer you can get it to zero the better, since we know this will always happen.

* Be up front with the kind of game you're running (IE: Bring 3 characters ready to go to each session, you're gonna need them. Or conversely, I reward dangerous, ballsy things with inordinate success rates if they're interesting/exciting)

* Be at least familiar with the locations of all the rules. Nothing destroys the pace of a game like a 10 minute page-flipping marathon looking for a simple ruling. If all else fails, wing it, and tell the gaming group you will look into the rule at the end of the session.

[Ice9]

Useless nitpick!

Yes, this (and hammers and large metal dice and so forth) were popular things for places like the WOTC forums to advise you to hit "trouble" players in the head with.

The hammer-gun was for shooting bad DMs with (started with the quote "___ should be shot. In the face. With a hammer."). Bad players got hit with a folding chair.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Here's some advice that I can give to any GM.

- Schrodinger's Gun. Chekov's Gun. Those are the two most important weapons in your arsenal as a DM.

- Ask your players if they have any relatives, ex-lovers, family members, mentors, and so-on that are important and you think would show up.

- Hell, ask your players for participation in the story. Darths and Droids' GM is actually pretty brilliant because he asks for input from his players and uses it to create cool stories--this doesn't mean making it go exactly how they want, but they get to plant the seed.

- Control the clutter at your space. One of the biggest reasons to know the rules is so that you can get to the table with as few distractions as possible.

- Even if you own hardcopies of the book, it's a very good idea to get .pdfs (legally of course) of books that you need to copy things out of and PRINT THEM OUT. One of the worst things that can happen to your organization as a DM is to have your space cluttered.

- Bring a snack to the table, or have someone else bring a snack. Just having a bit of food at the table will go a very long way towards getting people to enjoy your game. This is not strictly your responsibility as a DM, but since DMs in my experience frequently run things at their house you may as well be the 'last resort' for the food guy. My recommendation for food? Any one of: Pretzels, Tortilla Chips (not potato chips, they're too greasy), baby carrots, sliced-up and cooked frankfurters/sausage with toothpicks through them, crackers if you can stand the crumbs, etc.

[Prak]

I just want to add piece of advice:
Try to find ways to say "yes" to your players
Most players aren't trying to ruin the game. They're trying to have fun, and play out a concept, so when they ask for, or do something that you're unprepared for, or is completely out there, try to find some way to let them have it. Saying "No Goddamnit, you can't have nice things!" will just alienate them, saying "Yes, and this is how," or "Well... no, you can't quite do that, it doesn't work in the game/it'd break the game/it would make things not fun for the others/whatever, but you can do X, and here's how"

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also, I'd like to see some more advice on problematic concepts. Or rather, the concepts aren't problematic but they're done in such a way that they are.

- Someone roleplaying a character of the opposite sex. Actually, this is rarely a problem with female characters roleplaying male characters, but the reverse is often true because of insane double-standards. Some advice to the DM about a player who wants to play one of these characters in a less progressive group would be warranted.

- Give a warning about pulling a Chrono Cross on your party members. That is, implementing a moral table or lesson that causes the players to rethink everything they did--in a bad way. For example, the players kill a pack of orc bandits and then later find out that their village of orc women and children died out because they weren't able to get any money to buy food to survive the famine. And you never hinted at a famine or that these raiders might just be hungry, because you wanted to implement some kind of twisted 'you're not as good as you think you are!' lesson.

- Players who are out of sync with the rest of the party. Either they're playing a character much weaker than everyone else or much stronger than everyone else.

- Players who want to play Chaotic Neutral/downright evil characters.

- What to do when a player springs a surprise paraphilia at the table. For example 'oh, occasionally my druid likes to fuck her animal companion' or 'when the party is out of the room, I rape the captive'.

- What to do when your players are faced with choice paralysis/don't NOT want to be railroaded. That is, you introduce about five plot hooks and the players are all 'uh, what to do next?'

- What to do when your players are facing an imminent TPK due to bad luck or whatnot and your only way to save them is with a deus ex machina.

[PhoneLobster]

Also, I'd like to see some more advice on problematic concepts.

In my boundless arrogance I challenge many of these problematic concepts, and some other ones they made me think of with potential answers.

Q: Cross Gender Role Playing, what's up with that then?
As a general rule I find it is a good idea to "recommend against cross gender role playing".

Which is to say if a player is looking towards playing a character of a gender other than their own to simply suggest it is difficult and you don't recommend it.

That in and of itself is enough to prevent it happening a lot, and also to ensure that when someone does do it, they are at least putting some effort in and are aware that it could cause problems.

And it CAN cause problems of which there are basically two main ones.

1) "I attack him with my tits"
Cross gender role play can become an encouragement for players to flirt with the boundaries of what is acceptable sexual content, and possibly entirely screw those boundaries. And maybe even also be offensively sexist at the same time.

2) "Wait... I forgot what gender I am again... what gender were you again?"
Players as a rule aren't the greatest of immersive method actors or anything. Being sufficiently different means it makes it harder for them to identify with their characters, and harder for others to remember and like their character. Yes I know you are already being a half dragon elfish wizard or something stupid, but apparently it seems gender is a pretty big deal as a self identifier and sympathizer.

So how do you deal with it if it happens? Well the warning works to help people be a little more responsible about it, but for the self identifying business there is one simple trick that can help a little.

Make sure the player stops saying "I do this" and "I do that". No one wants to here Steve talk about getting his tits out (or preferably not getting them out), not even Steve will feel... altogether right about it.

But if Steve begins all his descriptions of his Characters actions with "Alice the Golden Sorceress does this, Alice says that, Alice gets her tits out (or not)" that will help disconnect the player and the character in the minds of all present. And it will also mean that if Alice DOES get her tits out the male players will feel slightly less icky and the female players will blame Alice for being a bit of a slut and forget just a bit that ultimately it's really Steve.

With a little luck you might promote just enough sense of schizophrenia in your player that he will start thinking of 'Alice' as a person in her own right and will let her 'make her own decisions'. No really this simple naming trick is a such a good tool I'm amazed it isn't advised more IN GENERAL.

NOW. There are a few additional complications with cross gender role playing...

Q: But what about the cross gender GM?
You see even if you pull a big fat ban on cross gender players... the GM is pretty much gonna HAVE to cross gender at least some of the time. And if your GM is a guy that's gonna potentially have all the issues.

So if you are a guy GM what do you do?

1) The naming trick. Remember for your female characters, indeed any character you want to separate from yourself in the minds of your players always talk in the third person "Alice the barmaid hits on you", "Leah the Elf Queen is not amused", "Betty the Orcess says she won't join your party unless you pay her as much as a man orc".

2) Remember to be responsible, give YOURSELF the warning, don't immediately make all your female characters get their tits out and jump up and down on trampolines.

3) If the players forget that character is a girl it isn't a big deal. Here is a secret, girls are people just like boys are, and they DON'T go around constantly doing things that remind you that they are girls. So if the shopkeeper is a girl and a player misses that or forgets it and you DON'T happen to be talking purely in the third person (it is easy to slip) then they may well default the idea of the shopkeeper in their head to either a stereotype of their own conceiving OR to the most basic character template they will see when you are role playing someone... YOU. And that is sort of OK, because then you AREN'T being too pushy and sexist on the whole "IMZ A GIRLZ" front. It only then becomes a problem if you suddenly jarringly insist on getting your tits out. Which you probably shouldn't be doing anyway...

Q: What about inflicting cross gender status on a player character?
Yeah, it's a legacy thing, that girdle of gender changing, oh how we laughed...

...When we were all fifteen...

... then there was the awkward silence after the laughing...

Here is a rule for a more adult group. Never inflict gender change on a character without consulting the player.

Messing with a player character's "image" especially anything related to the players image of "self", or whatever bullshit that is, is bad in general, and as already mentioned gender is a remarkably important concept to most people. So yeah, don't mess with it, for some players it IS essentially emotionally the same to them as you pulling a "rocks fall and you die" on their precious and valued character and personal narrative.

But there is another potentially bad way beyond transformation that enforced or involuntary cross gender role playing can occur.

The "you are all girls" campaign/adventure.

Themed adventures can be fun, the "all wizards" game can be fun for instance. And all girls could work, at the very least as a one off for certain types of game. Just be aware of the risks you are taking, some players aren't mature enough, others are easily detached or offended, don't push it unless you are sure you and your group are cool with it.

In a similar manner a setting theme like "The very sexist kingdom of patriarchal assholes" could make it somehow mechanically or narratively advantageous to choose a specific gender (or alternately more challenging and exciting, or alternately alternately more annoying and frustrating). In this one case you might actually want to openly encourage the option of cross gender role play simply so people know "in this place it sucks to be a girl for story reasons and I'm letting you opt out of the gender up front".

I mean hey, it's still probably a bad idea for the setting to be SO DAMN HARD on female characters that it's worth ditching vast rafts of character concepts including the entire gender of characters one whole entire gender of players will be most familiar and comfortable with... but if you plan to do that at LEAST have the courtesy to warn everyone.

Also all rules about cross gender role play and many rules of good taste (or even good GMing in general) go out the window if you play Macho Women With Guns. But presumably everyone knows the freak show you are signing up for with THAT game.

Q: What about cross SPECIES role play? (And I ain't talking elves and centaurs baby)
Gender can alienate people from their own (and other's) characters enough.

But when someone is playing as a carrion crawler they are going to have issues.

I mean "no one knows what women really think like" is actually a bit of an ignorant statement, but "no one knows what CARRION CRAWLERS really think like"... is actually really rather accurate...

Still you can use many of the same tricks, so play Mr Crawly's actions in the third person, "Mr Crawly says 'Grarflglarg?'", "Mr Crawly scuttles under the fridge." "Mr Crawly eats some carrion.".

And while people may get a bit juvenile with an alien monstrosity (Lolz I'm a gelatinous cube!!!!) at least they are less likely to make an entire gender worth of players run from your gaming group screaming "NNNNEEEEEEERRRRRRDZZZZZ!"

Q: Can we all agree to hate Chrono Cross?
I have no idea about the specific game, but the concept, yeah.

Try to limit the number of times and the extremity of ways in which you snatch defeat from the jaws of your players victories.

It's like the treasure denial thing. You can do it a tiny bit, in small and inoffensive ways. But even ONE big "and the kingdom you rescued all turn into zombies and eat the brains of the world" moment is enough to make everyone sad.

Let players WIN. And let the majority of their wins retain their winny type status and winny type feel. Have guys wandering around from time to time recognize them as known winners and congratulate them on winning and offer them a free drink with a +1 toy surprise in the bottom.

Especially make the gratuitous reminder guys wander over and say hi if you DO pull a Chrono cross of any form however minor, so even if you pull a little "Ahahahaha not this time gadget!" moment you can remind them that over all they have had good times.

Q: What if 'that' is just plain wrong?
Yes indeed, what IF a player pulls a "I sex it up with my familiar, let me enumerate the ways..." "I ask the bar maid if I can pee on her in public" or even the all too alarmingly common "I slaughter the innocent orc child in front of her screaming family and wear her severed blinking head as a hat".

What DO you do when such moments occur?

I mean that shit is sorta just wrong, and even if no one else at the table is finding themselves thinking '...urk...' it seems that YOU at least noticed...

Well it's a challenge you should try to...

1) Quietly discourage it using you know WORDS, yeah talk a little to your players and say things like "Do you REALLY think Dragnar the noble hero of the orphans would do that to an orcish girl child?", try throwing the whole "too much information" talk out there. But don't push it too hard because the back up plan is...

2) ... and we shall never speak of this again. Only you will speak of it, by means of saying "...and we shall never speak of this again...". Try not to make too big a deal of it, or it will become a "classic story" which is the last thing you want, but you CAN quitely and firmly note, as many times as required, "... and we shall never speak of this again..." Do it just right and the players might just get the hint and learn their lesson.

What you absolutely should NOT do...
1) Hit the player in the head with a brick.
2) Disown your otherwise seemingly sane friend.
3) Silently feel uncomfortable as the game spirals into FATAL
4) Rocks Fall You All Die
5) Dick waving level nine million morality police attack!

Worst comes to worst you can try the dreaded and challenging strategy I'll describe later for dealing with interplayer conflicts and "Stupid Evil" characters/parties, which I might talk about later with some of those other points...

[Princess]

This have to be memoed.

[Sir Neil]

Good advice, PL. And "Cement Donkey" is the name of my next supervillain.

[Josh_Kablack]

And really it should be pretty absolutely usual for any situation with almost any player to be so bad you really need to tell them to bugar off (unless they are someone so bad that you really shouldn't be hanging around with them at all anyway).

PL, I know you've had some issues with your prior groups, but I think you probably mean UNusual there.

[Koumei]

What the hell, I can't sleep so I'll chip in.

Q. What kinds of GM actions shit the players the most?

I'm glad you asked, Bill - I can call you Bill, right? Players really hate it when you alter their characters, as noted above (see: gender swapping). Also, in games where equipment matters a lot (such as D&D), attacking their gear will be seen as a worse thing than attacking them. Some would rather you actually punch them, the player, in the face.

Worst of all is saying "Make a character for ___ game!", letting them spend half an hour choosing gear, then starting the game off with "You get arrested, stripped of your magic gear and thrown in a dungeon, lol".

Anything that triggers their bullshit-rader will also ping that. So if it sounds like it's not a real rule or spell or whatever, that's going to make trouble. Yes, this means the more books the players read through, the more you can get away with, but basically it's "What, no save?" that triggers it.

And finally, excessively targeting one PC, or worse still, their Cohort or Familiar (seen as equipment) will cause sour feelings, no matter how it happened.

Q. What player activities are "warning signs"?

Well, Bill, first you need to remember that these are only warning signs, nothing more. They don't have to mean bad things, but they often do.

1) "I want to play a [Monster]!"

Yes I know, under the regular rules it's like asking to be given a penalty to all actions ever because "Fuck you", and sometimes we do just want to try something different. Who hasn't wanted to try to get into the mindset of what it means to be a snake-person who is also on fire?

However, something to look out for is that for some, it's seen as the easy way to be interesting, and as such, they may get bored quickly and want to try something else - a constant stream of novelty races. And for others, it's part of attention-whoring. Know the kind of person who is a vegetarian simply because they get to say "I CAN'T EAT THAT, I'M A VEGETARIAN, THAT MEANS I DON'T EAT MEAT." so people have to take special consideration for them? Yeah, it's often that.

2) "I want to grow/lose boobs!"

Apparently crossplaying is a big deal (see above). I have only known of one person to be creepy and offensive about it, and he is creepy all the time and someone I actively avoided at an old club. But yeah, some people you just know should not be allowed to play as members of the opposite sex, because they have issues or something. I mean, can you imagine Robert Jordan sitting down and playing as a girl? Ignore that he's dead. Yeah, it would be precisely as bad as it sounds. Just like getting McCain to play as a black person.

3) "My name is Koumei"/"I am kongming"/"They call me Sister Acacia"/"Hi, I'm Zae"

This person will make your life miserable as a DM, trust me on it. Avoid her at all costs.

4) "Yeah, we did Vampire and I got to be Malkav, lawl"

Do I need to explain it? Mental illness is serious business, and there are two ways it can be played: seriously, in which case it is not enjoyable in the slightest, for anyone, and "for laughs", where the group is stuck with Daffy Duck on cocaine for the whole thing. Neither is good. Some people like playing nutbar characters. And this is a bad thing.

5) "Well my Alignment means-"

Yeah, no. Anyone who think their alignment means anything is likely to use it as something to force their character to be annoying - Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil and Lawful Stupid are the most common ones, but don't forget "Oh, X PC is alignment Y? In that case I WON'T WORK WITH THEM!"

True story, in one game there was a LE cleric and a NG fighter in the same party. The group encountered a NE necromancer, and the cleric decided "Our alignments are more similar, so it makes sense to work with him and help kill the fighter, who I only travelled and worked with for several weeks".

Q. Wait, you game with friends? Then how do you handle asking them to leave?

Usually I don't ask them to leave, because I don't befriend people who piss me off. You'll have to ask someone with more patience than me. But yeah, if you choose your friends the right way, it should never even be a problem. That said, if a player decides the game isn't right for them (because they hate X system or just feel the theme/mood of the game isn't their style), then it may be a bit awkward as they try to bow out without offending you. Watch out for "It's not you, it's me" or "I just need more personal space". Just be cool with it and tell them it's okay - you may need to bow out of their game one day.

Q. Question about cheating/DM fudging

No, Bill, don't fudge it. Just let the dice fall as they do. If you notice things are going awry, then certainly consider having less bad shit happen down the road, and try to avoid that problem in future (no use if it's caused by the RNG playing funny buggers). You'll know it's time to magically change things if the players passive-aggressive you into doing it, but even then, they're only likely to do that (or at least I am) if they feel you were being unfair to begin with, in which case you already fucked up.

So if the dice say it's a cakewalk? Then this time it is. If the dice say the PCs get slapped about/there's an hour of everyone missing each other/a PC or two die? Well, roll with it, and if need be take a quick break, maybe discuss how to handle it with the players.

Players cheating? Well, I'm not the right person to ask: I don't give a shit if my players do. They probably don't, I wouldn't think they do, but if so, well, good for them. Seriously, even in online games I let people roll their own dice that I can't see, and if someone needs to cheat to enjoy it, then what the fuck ever. But as I said, they probably never have, and I doubt your players really are, either.

Note: if you still think they are, then consider implementing some kind of Action Point system in future. Because it's a sort of "legal cheating", where you have a limited amount of "No, fuck the dice, I rolled X!", then people seem to find it as being more fair and won't do any actual cheating. Just a hunch - in my experience, people accept bad rolls more if they have that option there.

Q. I saw this cool rule in ___, shoul-

No. Don't implement it all of a sudden. Likewise, don't suddenly jam in a monster or something that you saw in a recent article online, and don't fucking steal a character from a movie you just saw and introduce them as an NPC.

Q. I had a character in a game with the same system, should I use them as an NPC?

And we were doing so well, Bill! No, don't do that. You'll just get too attached to your NPC and focus on them and wish you were playing. Then either you'll get moody and annoyed because you're not playing, or you will play them, and the players basically have to sit and watch you masturbate at the table.

What term should I use for myself?

Good question, Bill. Not Story Teller. Never that. That implies "I am telling you the story, now shut up and listen". Game Master is perfectly acceptable, it has implications of Referee or "The guy who runs about trying to keep everything in order." Actual Referee works just as well, but don't take a whistle and red card, or they'll bring vuvuzelas.

Dungeon Master is even better, because it really says "I play the monsters in the dungeon", without saying "I control the world, the game is under my power, HAHAHA!"

But obviously, the best is Mister Cavern.

[Roy]

Action Points are actually bonuses to dice. Which isn't really the same thing as declaring the dice rolled x.

[Neurosis]

Yikes.

The general consensus here about being a good GM is very different from my own opinion on being a good GM on several points, so much so that I probably shouldn't say anymore. I've seen people try to argue with the Den, as a whole, before. It isn't pretty. I wouldn't recommend it. Especially to myself.

I could enumerate all the points that I DON'T disagree with, but that wouldn't be super productive either.

[Leress]

Yikes.

The general consensus here about being a good GM is very different from my own opinion on being a good GM on several points, so much so that I probably shouldn't say anymore. I've seen people try to argue with the Den, as a whole, before. It isn't pretty. I wouldn't recommend it. Especially to myself.

I could enumerate all the points that I DON'T disagree with, but that wouldn't be super productive either.

What, why not argue and say something? Pointing out that there would be an argument is pointless. Saying you don't agree but not tell why is even less productive than the other two options you said. Now it sounds like you want to disagree but want to play nice.

[TheFlatline]

I'll disagree with fudging dice rolls in that they're going to happen. I classify those as GM Fiat. It's bad to introduce and horrible to get in the habit of, but sometimes it's necessary or even desirable to the overall experience.

I'll fudge die rolls for certain things:

* When an enemy needs to show up again for the story and needs to survive long enough to get away (but he ALWAYS gets a memento of the fight: He loses his uber-weapon, they gouge out his eye, he loses a hand, whatever. The players have to feel like they accomplished *something*)

* When a character, through no fault/action of his own, is going to get killed, and the player himself can't avoid it. (Rare, but it happens, usually from a screw up I did, or someone who decided they really want to destroy the adventuring party, and probably won't be around for more than a few sessions.)

* To avoid TPK. Nothing destroys your game quite like a complete wipe.

* To *cough* ensure success *cough* when a player has come up with something that is incredibly badass and creative and you want nothing more than to see it happen so you can encourage other players to get creative.

* To avoid pushing a n00b through the meat grinder on their first couple sessions.

* When the dice have ensured that there is absolutely no way forward in the story. Fuck the dice in that case.

However, that's about it. I might fudge something to that extent every half dozen sessions or so. Generally the most common fudge is the last one, where the dice blow skill check after skill check for the entire and there's just no clue where to go or what to do any more. When nobody's having fun, it's time to get the game back on track.

I'll also issue a warning of my own...

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.

Last time I saw this a player came into a game, and in one session made the story impossible to finish, killed two players, and then never came back to play another session ever again. These types of players are relatively more common than you'd expect.[/b]

[Psychic Robot]

Most importantly remember the position of GM does not provide you with powas or authority, it does not even entitle you to any more respect than anyone else at the table. In fact if anything the position of GM is one with additional responsibilities and is more about you earning and deserving the trust of the players, NOT the other way around.

This is what players with entitlement issues actually believe.

[PhoneLobster]

And really it should be pretty absolutely usual for any situation with almost any player to be so bad you really need to tell them to bugar off (unless they are someone so bad that you really shouldn't be hanging around with them at all anyway).

PL, I know you've had some issues with your prior groups, but I think you probably mean UNusual there.

Good catch. It's fixed, other typos and spelling errors however are still there and I know it, but that one seriously changed the meaning of the statement so...

[Orion]

Flatline,

I have trouble imagining how a D&D story could ever require aparticular character to come back. Besides letting his sidekick take over or a vengeful child try to finish his work, someone could contact his ghost or commune with his god, be given a vision by dark powers, or whatever. It should be dead simle to slot someone new into the antagonist chair.

[Roy]

Yikes.

The general consensus here about being a good GM is very different from my own opinion on being a good GM on several points, so much so that I probably shouldn't say anymore. I've seen people try to argue with the Den, as a whole, before. It isn't pretty. I wouldn't recommend it. Especially to myself.

I could enumerate all the points that I DON'T disagree with, but that wouldn't be super productive either.

My Paizo sense is tingling.

Out with it. Even if we kick your dog, rape your wife, imply that the llama that birthed you should have been aborted via a good swift kick, steal your car, and say mean things to or about you on the internet everything we say about the game will be right.

Actually we're generally not that offensive unless the person is being a fucktard about it. And you haven't gone there yet.

[Prak]

Yikes.

The general consensus here about being a good GM is very different from my own opinion on being a good GM on several points, so much so that I probably shouldn't say anymore. I've seen people try to argue with the Den, as a whole, before. It isn't pretty. I wouldn't recommend it. Especially to myself.

I could enumerate all the points that I DON'T disagree with, but that wouldn't be super productive either.

My Paizo sense is tingling.

Out with it. Even if we kick your dog, rape your wife, imply that the llama that birthed you should have been aborted via a good swift kick, steal your car, and say mean things to or about you on the internet everything we say about the game will be right.

Actually we're generally not that offensive unless the person is being a fucktard about it. And you haven't gone there yet.

Dibs on the car, I need one.

[PhoneLobster]

Here are some more answers from my vast supply of talking crap.

Q: Choice Paralysis, my players cannot answer 'What Now'?
Good news, this is a MINOR problem. By saying 'What Now?' you are asking the right question (an open one) and practicing some pretty good GMing right there.

The problem here is player indecision. But that isn't a big problem, sure you outlined five ideas and they can't decide, but if they are umming and aahing then BAM you have the opportunity to step in and push them in a direction of your choice.

Pushing (gently) to a particular decision is something you might do regularly, or not, it's OK it's not like railroading them into a world with no choices, and when faced with genuine choice paralysis you will find the players will typically be GLAD to have encouragement to walk down a particular path. Of course it helps if you have developed some player trust, otherwise they will blame you for everything bad that happens due to that choice... so be careful and always suggest the BEST choice for them.

Now if the choice paralysis is actual DISAGREEMENT between the players... well you pretty much have to let them decide this on their own. But you can help in two ways 1)Provide more information on the choices in dispute (maybe if they discover an extra giant in the guard room the fighter won't want to go with the charge into melee plan) 2) Suggest to them additional options or a compromise option they haven't thought of that might break the decision dispute.

But ultimately as long as disagreements on plans of action aren't violent or hateful they are GOOD things, it means people are bringing diverse ideas to the table and care about your game. So while you sit there grinding your teeth waiting for a decision at least be glad that your players are happy and your gaming group is healthy.

Q: Oh No! My player characters are Stupid Evil alignment The Horror!
And it CAN be horrific. Players will often play even 'good' aligned characters as a bunch of antisocial psychotic killer jerks, they stick evil on their character sheet and some goth make up on their character and BAM anything suddenly goes.

Well. There are several things at play here.

1) 'Alignment systems' (whichever one you are using) are typically stupid as all hell and feed in really stupid character decision making. Have a talk with your players about how dumb alignments are and how really it should be a sort of vague "Team Chaos" badge sort of thing that your are born with but maybe doesn't influence your character's behavior as much as being a Druid or growing up in a certain culture or being you know the cool exciting hero of the story. Talking down and generally down playing alignment rules IN GENERAL is a good idea, not just for the Stupid Evil situation.

2) Stupid Evil sounds like totally cool fun. And this is a challenging one because it DOES sound like a bit of a riot doesn't it? The problem is it rarely does turn out to be fun. So you have the simple option here. Let them give it a go, and find out it isn't fun. Of course... that means spending time not having fun so you could instead try and MAKE it fun by having a bit of a talk about making things slightly more "Sensible Evil" and maybe having some gentlemens agreement where by their brotherhood of evil has some ground rules to prevent unpleasant party implosions and excessively graphic "OH MY GOD WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY YOUR CHARACTER DID!!!!???" moments.

Q: Help! My player characters are fighting each other!
Yeah this can happen, especially with stupid evil parties or alignment disputes. And also with the whole "Thief" character class and confusion over how to handle THAT well.

It can also happen as a sign of dissatisfaction among the players, if they hate your game, or if they hate each other, they may well set their characters at each other's throats.

If it IS a sign of dissatisfaction I am afraid you must resort to talking it out.

But if it is just alignment and confused ideas about how they should be role playing interaction with each other and so forth then there are ways to deal with it.

1) Talk it out, tell the players it is cool if you as a group hand wave a few disputes to facilitate party co-operation. Not every stupid little alignment difference or imagined slight has to escalate to a duel to the death, maybe they can just make snappy remarks at each other occasionally for the good of the party?

2) Let them fight.

Yes. Let them fight is a real option. Traditional (and bad) advice commonly is the reverse, prevent it from happening, use Rocks Fall you all die, throw in level 9 million dick waving NPC police, boot players from the game etc...

But seriously you CAN JUST LET THEM FIGHT. This may have some short term bad results. Like say lost characters or hurt feelings. But if done right (and I admit it can be hard to do right) it can have real benefits.

1) Players actually often expect a Rocks Fall or some such thing to prevent PC vs PC combat. Make it clear that the only thing preventing it are their own decisions and players often suddenly become a lot more responsible and co-operative.

2) Players will be impressed by how easy going and free you are with their choices of action, I mean hey you let them fight to the death with Joe's character... that's a pretty big deal...

3) Maybe if they cause enough trouble they will realize just how much trouble they are causing AND NOT DO IT AGAIN. Sometimes lessons just have to be learned through failure.

Of course it never hurts to present the option as "Well you could do that but are you sure it's a good idea? Do you realize that the consequences will be... etc..."

Q: Can I fudge dice rolls?
Ideally no. Sadly the game isn't ideal so maybe you should.

The simplest rule is this. As absolutely much as humanly possible you should never fudge a dice roll. Only in the worst of the worst of the worst of situations should you do it and then only as a LAST resort.

Breaking the rules by fudging hurts the game in many ways and breaks down player trust in the GM. Stopping Fred from getting KOed the fifth fight in a row is not worth that loss in trust if they notice you cheating.

However there ARE some things were players SHOULDN'T fail. A good example is a character jumping a deadly pitfall ravine (especially a fairly narrow one without combat or time pressures) or something similarly negligible but with absolute story breaking potential failure.

Jumping the ravine is COOL so they should be able to do it. The story ending suddenly because the main character fell into a ravine like an idiot for no reason is NOT cool so it should never happen.

But if you just fudge it... that isn't cool either. So fudge it openly and in advance NEVER CALL FOR THE DICE ROLL.

If you KNOW that if they fail you MUST fudge a success, just tell them that and give them a god damn free success. Everyone will feel better about it. Don't make it happen too often.

Q: OMG! Incoming TPK! What now!
Right. TPK, it can happen to the best of GMs, the party is losing a combat hard, maybe it was bad decisions, maybe it was bad luck, maybe you foolishly threw something somehow too hard against them.

Option 1) LOW BALL! LOW BALL! LOW BALL!
Knock down critter stats and abilities off the top of your head as required. Doing this at the START of an encounter, being up front about it and not too extreme is no big deal, it's just like throwing a weaker opponent or "reduced level" opponent or whatever at them. But making low ball changes on the fly mid combat is BAD BAD BAD. Players will feel they cannot lose and that you are treating them like weaklings and idiots... BECAUSE YOU ARE.

Option 2) My strategy is... STUPIDITY!!!
Have the enemy make sub optimal decisions. This is SORT of OK, but again you need to be careful not to have it noticed too much. If every enemy is a total moron players will treat them (and you and the game) like that too. It's sort of OK to have enemies make decisions based on personal role play decisions rather than optimal tactics (ie "I hate you PC number 1, I am coming for you GRRR!") but remember that "I want to win this fight and not die so I should make optimal decisions" IS a role play motivation too! So ultimately this might not be great option.

3) LET THEM LOSE!
So TPK can be a little misleading. Often even a lost fight will see most or all of the party merely knocked out or disabled in some way rather than all outright killed. If you can by ANY means reason that the opponents won't then kill the helpless party, (even monsters aiming to eat them might store them in a larder or something for a while first), it can just become "an exciting thing that happened during our adventure". So from time to time the bandits can win and steal your valuables and tie you to a tree, the troll can take your weapons and drop you into their food storage cave, the evil king can lock you up in the dungeons of improbable escape adventure and so on.

Now option 3 can't be used in every fight or every day, if frequent at all the party will feel like a bunch of serial losers in a world out to get them. BUT if used sparingly it will actually ENRICH your game by providing minimal but real failure for the party to measure it's success against. One step back and two steps forward and all that.

One thing to remember, enemies will quite reasonably strip the party of valuable or dangerous possessions in some of these sorts of situations. As a general rule never permanently take all the PCs stuff tell them not to rub their equipment off their character sheet. Let them get most or all of it back, or find similar or BETTER stuff in the process of escaping their terrible peril or imprisonment later on.

No one likes to just lose all their cool shit every week or two, that's just wrong.

Also remember that if just SOME characters actually DIE as part of a TPK or just you know, in general, it isn't too big a deal, many games have readily available resurrection, so make it readily available like it should be and just have the party cart the body back to the temple of respawn. Some people don't like death's revolving door, but generally it is often far better than the alternative. If people really whine on about not feeling dead enough give them a cool scar to remember it by.

[Maxus]

C'mon, Schwarz, grow a pair and list what you disagree with and why. You can get away with saying about anything on the Den as long as you can back it up with understandable reasons for thinking it. We're not actually as bad as the folks over at Paizo would have you believe. And we're usually more civil than, say, Kaelik in a bad mood.

F'rinstance: I don't like low-level D&D games. My reasons? HP is so low that combat becomes really swingy with makes it easy to lose a character or two thanks to a bad roll. Level 5 or so is fine. I also like having at least a few options. So, at level 5, that's enough leeway to put together something at least halfway unique, rather than the usual level 1 bit of "Longsword + Weapon Focus" or some similar cookie-cutter piece of stuff.

But I can understand why some people dig E6 or playing D&D to level 5 or 10.

And I can't find any major gaps in PL's list. What do you have?

[Kaelik]

Probably like PR, he's a "Player entitlement" dick.

They are the types of dicks who use the words "Player entitlement" like it's a bad thing.

Yes, I am entitled to enjoy myself. Yes, I am entitled to design a character that does X within the rules, and then have that character actually do X, where X is his main shtick, the main shtick I explained to you when I showed you the character. No, "Haha, no you can't cast Kelpstrand into an AMF even though you showed me the exact rules for how that works when you showed me the character and I said it was cool." is not an acceptable response to my first usage of Kelpstrand.

[TheFlatline]

Flatline,

I have trouble imagining how a D&D story could ever require aparticular character to come back. Besides letting his sidekick take over or a vengeful child try to finish his work, someone could contact his ghost or commune with his god, be given a vision by dark powers, or whatever. It should be dead simle to slot someone new into the antagonist chair.

"Son of Big Bad Evil Guy" is one of those cliches that needs to die a horrible death.

Retreating from a fight in my experience tends to induce less groans than bringing out Hobgoblin, Son of Sauron, or Gomer Pyle: Dark Lord.

[Psychic Robot]

They are the types of dicks who use the words "Player entitlement" like it's a bad thing.

The DM is God. He's free to change rules or make things up as he pleases. Deal with it. If you don't like it, don't play; there's a free market on DMing.