GameMaster

I’m sure you’ve seen games fall apart because a GM lost interest in his story, maybe the setting in general, or even what the players were doing versus his or her original plans. As a player, this is very frustrating and hard to deal with. Sure, you can talk with your GM, but that’s rarely enough to keep the spark lit in them. Sometimes a bit more is required, and when players step up to the plate it can really impress and inspire some GMs, even if their game isn’t on the brink of being cancelled.

I separate these kinds of acts into two smaller categories - Active and Passive. Both work, and in very different ways to help any GM in subtle and interesting ways. It also is very dependent on how your GM runs things. If s/he prefers to plan everything out, passively helping is probably best bet. If your GM does his or her fair share of improv, active helping might be the route to go.

To elaborate, helping your GM in an Active fashion is making things, people, and places up in game, usually without warning your GM, and seeing if s/he runs with it. A good example would be a well-seasoned traveler. The traveler goes into town with his friends, and alerts them of an old acquaintance who might still reside here. It’s a really neat way to help build your world with your players, and allows the GM to remain in control without worrying about them mucking up his intended theme or setting. As a GM, you can not have him find his friend, as the town might have been sacked, burned, and rebuilt in the time the traveler has last been here. Or you can have him find his friend, and talk of old adventures and travels, making up new lore as the conversation goes on. Either way, the player is actively making new things for the players and GM to explore.

Now we get to Passive helping. Passive helping is usually out of game stuff, like keeping a journal your character might have, and writing out your travels. Maybe keeping a map of the world, marking cities, towns, landmarks and other things of interest. This can kick a GM into action, making him or her want to add that much more detail to the world you’re all in. Without players who ask questions, GMs might stop caring about the little stuff and move on. If that’s not what you care about, that’s fine and you shouldn’t need to worry about it, but if you want to get immersed and really get into a setting, some sort of real connection, like an adventuring kit that changes over time, might not be a bad idea.

I know this is generally a place to post about GMing advice, and although this is mostly player based GMs can learn from it too. By encouraging your players to do things like this, it can in-turn encourage you to make your worlds and people that much more interesting and alive. Just because the GM makes up the world doesn’t mean you can’t add to it in subtle ways.

How will you influence your world?

Taylor Shuss

A few months ago I was invited to join a Pathfinder game a friend was running. I don’t really play, I just GM, but he managed to convince me to join his game. I quit his game a week or two ago, but I enjoyed my time. This article won’t be me ragging on my friend, and yes we are still friends, but rather reflecting on what I’ve learned from that experience and how it may be able to help more than just myself.

It was interesting to see how he ran his game, from dealing with players, to scheduling, to combat - It was a world of different. Getting perspective can only be good, and while I prefer how I do things, knowing how they compare with his style and where we both stand on various issues and topics helped. I don’t think it will vastly edit how I run anything, but help in more subtle ways. 

For example, his games had more combat than mine, and although it was fun it wasn’t really my kind of game. I understand that his group is more combat-centric, and we talked about this and other issues, but seeing that first-hand was a good experience.

But really, my main point is that if you GM more than you play, or only GM like myself, it is good to get out and play. It lets you see so much more, giving you ideas of what you might be doing that players do or do not like, or maybe what you should be doing but have been missing it, being a GM for so long. The results might not be immediately obvious, but if you join a group with an open mind you can learn a lot, and grow as a GM because of it.

My other point is that it’s good to have multiple groups ran by multiple people. I love my groups, but I’m happy I am not the only option in town. I like that I have players who want games how I run them, and if they don’t they can go elsewhere and still enjoy a game we’re both passionate about. This is a large reason why I love it when my players at least try GMing. I don’t care what system, but if they give it a good shot then maybe they can find something they love as much as I do, or at least get perspective from my point of view.

Competition in this avenue, I would argue, is generally good. There are usually far more players than GMs, so ideally there will be enough to go around. Hopefully you learned something from my experience, and I wish you all the best of luck. If you have any suggestions for articles topics, I’d love to hear them in my ask box.

May you always get the best points of reference,

Taylor Shuss

One big issue I’ve heard GMs talk of, and it’s a hard one to pinpoint at that, is that they are merely content with the system they’re using. Maybe they started with 4th Edition D&D, or perhaps GURPS, but the specific system isn’t important - The main point here is to branch out.

I know for a good while I thought 3.5 was okay, and my groups wanted Fantasy so I gave it to them. But as campaigns went on and on, I began to realize that I didn’t like 3.5 (or Pathfinder), I was merely content with it. Once I knew that, I began branching off and it has been a very fun journey. Don’t get me wrong, Pathfinder can make for some fun times, but it just isn’t exactly what I want in an RPG, and in a world with so many options there is no reason to ignore them all.

I hear of GMs that complain that their groups don’t want to learn a new system. It’s too hard. Yada yada yada…. No, don’t take that. Or if they’re really not interested, find a rules-light system. Ideally new systems can get started locally through interest alone, but sometimes the need to be pushed in order for people to care enough to give them a shot.

What’s neat is that when you try out new systems with new mechanics, and begin to compare and contrast what you do and don’t like. I like this rolling method, and these types of modifiers, and this random mechanic makes perfect sense - It is these kinds of contrast that many GMs don’t have because they foolishly stick to one system. 

What I cannot understand is why one would restrict themselves like this. Would you read one book and then decide, “Naw, one was enough, I’m done.”? Would you play one game and decide, “Naw, the rest of the trilogy probably isn’t worth playing, or any other games for that matter”? No, people don’t do this. It allows them to discover themselves, what they do and don’t want, in all sorts of media, why should it be any different with RPGs?

So please, try out new systems, see if your players might want to try them as well. Maybe one will find that s/he loves GMing that game! At worst you find out you don’t like a specific game, and there is nothing wrong with that. At best, you find a new staple for you and your friends to play with for years to come.

Adventures don’t always need to be in-game,

Taylor Shuss

Sometimes it becomes hard to focus on the bigger picture in your games, and what would realistically happen, and instead only focus on the party. It can be tricky, because more often than not you’re thinking about where they’re going, who they’ll meet, and other minor things which end up important during your finale.

I feel many GMs almost flat out ignore consequences, and have seen people say, “They killed the entire town! What do I do!?” Well, the players need to see the consequences their actions have brought to life. Perhaps this town supplied weapons to a nearby port town, making adventurers come out and look for the trouble plaguing the land. Perhaps the town supplied silk to a nearby royal family, and now a bounty is on for whomever can find out who killed such a peaceful place.

I have always found it funny that most players ignore consequences to a ridiculous degree, and I think it’s because the game is in our heads, making it less real in a sense. Due to this common occurrence, I try to make sure that consequences feel realistic to a degree. If the players want to kill someone living in a town, the guards will notice the body eventually, and may be able to deduce it was them if they say them talking often and suddenly the party left town.

On a much larger scale, I have heard of parties chasing after a villain, and after a time they decided s/he wasn’t worth the trouble, said villain destroyed everyone and took over the world. Before I go into this example more, make sure your players care and are still interested in what is going on. It sucks to not care about a campaign, but it’s even worse to find something you like as a player in a campaign, and then find out you all die because you didn’t go on the DM’s wild goose-chase. Don’t let your players feel this way, and make sure you communicate with them openly. To continue with the example, this is not the best way to show your players consequences from a storytelling perspective. This doesn’t give them time to react and make a final, dramatic battle. This doesn’t make for a memorable campaign, all it does is reinforce the GM’s will over the group, which isn’t fun when it is so heavy-handed.

A better way to handle this would be to show the skies darkening, and foreshadow the coming doom and despair as the players rush to figure it out. If, they don’t care even then, then they probably deserve to face the consequences. Although open communication is key here, as it can key you in on why they aren’t caring. Maybe they forgot about what happened, and without a reminder they just started dicking around town.

It is, of course, important to know when and where it’s appropriate to have nasty consequences and when it is fine for lighter slaps on their hands. Be clear, and talk with them before and after sessions so they can at least understand why such consequences are occurring, and maybe they can weigh in on the matter and help you get better.

May all your old ladies be Ever-Glimmered Mindflayers,

Taylor Shuss

An issue I see more often that I’d like to is GMs who have a campaign idea, and slowly the players either go off and don’t do what the GM wanted them to do, or just get bored and stop playing, usually switching to a new campaign.

I don’t mind when players go off and do what they want to do - It gives me ideas on what to make important. Maybe my goldpiece-phylactery idea will have to wait, because the party is made up of idealists who don’t believe in money. That’s cool, if not ridiculously far-fetched. Maybe one of them starts, non-comically, hitting on people and begins looking for a date. There is nothing wrong with these, and they can make your campaign much more involved if you play into them.

However, the topic at hand is keeping those PCs interested, and there are a few common problems that need to be addressed.

1. The GM is focusing more on his/her story than the party’s story.
2. The PCs keep tripping over themselves and making no progress.
3. Sometimes your story is just not as exciting as you’d hoped.

The first problem is easily the worst one. The other two aren’t so bad, but this one is not only common, it is also toxic to RPGs in general. I understand that many times you want to tell a certain story and have it mean something big, but sometimes that isn’t the story the party wants to be a part of. If you’re going for a story focused on a dark world with no hope for humanity, and the players all play optimistic people ready to save and spare all wrong-doers, someone has to give way to make for a cohesive game (Although that could be a very interesting game). Many times GMs forget that this is a collaborative story, wherein everyone gets to be part of what happens. Please don’t do this, as railroading GMs can sour RPGs to many newer players, taking away from the new players we need to thrive and grow as a community.

The second issue is a bit awkward, as it is partially GM folly, and partially players just not getting it. It is hard to get out of, although getting out of it can make for interesting scenarios and conflicts. This is common when a GM isn’t flexible (or willing to be flexible) towards something in the game, like an item or information which may need to be acquired in a specific way. This can waste a lot of precious playing time, and I advise that if you ever find yourself in this spot to possibly rethink where and what your players need to do. Perhaps changing the objective, or making to easier to acquire will make them feel accomplished, and interested in where it’s all going? It depends very much on the specific group, so keep that in mind.

The final issue is a tragic tale of sadness and woe, of a GM and his/her perfect story with everything ready and perfect, but then the players just stop caring. The wait for the payoff wasn’t enough to them, whether it was because the GM decided to make all travel-time role-played, or due to his unwillingness to change or edit his special lore because you wanted a certain character concept, eventually getting bored of what you made instead. It is probably the saddest reason, as the players can feel the GM’s excitement, but they slowly get tired of what is happening, or lack of progress, and decide it’s time to ask that they just stop, or even worse stop showing up.

I hope that these have given you much to consider. The prevention towards players getting bored is simply asking them how they feel after sessions. I know it sounds simple, but if you don’t, the party leaving in-game might catch you off guard and break your heart. Even if the next session was going to be the climax, it doesn’t mean anything if your players didn’t care enough to be a part of it.

I hope you’re all interested in next week’s article,

Taylor Shuss

Last week I discussed how and why being flexible is not only a great skill to have as a GM, but can also be required with some of the stranger scenarios GMs will inevitably encounter. Sometimes you’re just not prepared for what the players did, and you’re not sure exactly what to do. Today’s article should help with situations like these, and parties that don’t always go where you expect them to.

Some GMs plan very meticulously, and make sure every possible scenario is accounted for. This is, in my opinion, a waste of time. Players are cunning bastards, that often come up with insane ideas that could have only come up in the heat of the moment in-game. Sure, it’s possible to plan for these situations, but I feel that time can be much better spent on other things. I like to plan using a method I call Island Planning.

Island Planning is a method of crafting stories that allows the GM to worry less about the minor details and tend to the bigger plot points that need to happen. The way it works is pretty simple - First you set up a few important points the party needs to get to, or an event the group needs to witness. For example, let us say that a party needs to resurrect a dead man for information (or just talk with his ghost), and the last important event was them seeing this man burned alive in a building by a blightress.

Well the plan looks like this - Seeing blightress kill NPC and run away —> Resurrect him/talk to his ghost —> He explains where the Blightress was from and why she killed him. Each point is called an island, and as far as the overall lot is concerned, they are the only things that matter (although the antics of the party and growth is important in other ways).

It doesn’t matter how the players get from the first point to the second one. Maybe they hear of a healer in the swamplands who turns out to be a normal non-magical healer, wasting their time. It isn’t important how they get from point A to point B, as long as they get there eventually.

This type of planning can be scary for newer GMs, but once you get used to it you can do some fun things with it. I’ve had occasions where a few islands didn’t need to be in any specific order, so I threw them at the party as they got to an area where each event would fit the best. They don’t know what story you have planned, or in what order, so you can shape and mold it as you please.

This style of storytelling allows for a lot of freedom on the GM’s part, and on the player’s part. Because the road is light and not always obvious, newer players tend to be scared making their own decisions without GMs to hold their hand. In an experienced playgroup, it all depends on the expectations on said group.

Basically, this technique allows the GM an amazing tool that can get around the most stunning, outrageous players, all while keeping a consistent and (hopefully) engaging story. It takes a lot of practice, and some experience with improv to pull off well, but when you do it can allow for amazing results.

GM —> Get Mad Bitches —> GM More

Taylor Shuss

If you’ve been reading this regularly, then you’ll remember that I think planning is the most important part of being a GM. Well this next part might not be the most important, but it’s up there, somewhere between 2nd and 5th most important, I’d wager.

To my understanding there are GMs who don’t use this skill, and that makes me sad. I understand that premades/modules are a good safe route, but stories begin popping to life when you become flexible, when you dance with the players together (metaphorically speaking), when you begin to use a most useful tool - Improv.

To explain, I’ve heard stories of GMs repeating modules word for word, monotone from the book. That is of course one end of the spectrum, and the other is total improvisation. Most GMs fall, by the time they pack up their books for good and stop, somewhere in the middle leaning towards the improv side, depending on how long the GM for, or at least that’s what I’ve seen.

Now, I understand how it can be scary. Going into a session without knowing what’s going to happen? Isn’t that for the players to do? Well yes, but if you ever get good enough you can do that too. Remember though, when I say Improv is important, I don’t mean “Never plan again,” I mean that you can ignore planning all the minor details and come up with those one your own.

Generally speaking, it’s always good to have a vague idea, at least, of where things are headed, but what happens, and who they meet, along the way don’t need to be planned. It can help, sure, but it won’t ruin your campaign if it’s irrelevant to your over-arching plot.

Some of you might bemoan how hard it is to get practice with improvisation without looking like a doofus, as experimenting with it in front of players can be scary and discomforting, as it’s not the easiest thing to get used to. The best advice I can give here is to try and run a simple, silly, quick RPG that makes you, the GM, think on your feet. Examples of games like these would be Paranoia and Inspectres. These kinds of games trained me to be quick, and it makes a world of difference once you get comfortable with it.

To those of you still worried about the issue, still hesitant on the topic - Remember your players don’t know what is going to happen, and they usually assume you do. That means there is no wrong answer, no door that needs to go unexplored as long as you have the imagination and skills ready to explore such an avenue. Don’t hesitate, be creative and embrace your role as the storyteller.

I hope those of you who haven’t been using such a powerful took in your arsenal begin to use it more commonly, as it can lead to quite a bit of interesting and fun scenarios you couldn’t have planned. Not to mention rolling with the player’s blows makes for a more dynamic, fluid campaign that can adapt easily.

May you always discover what happens as your players do,

Taylor Shuss

As I mentioned in my last post, a great way to characterize and stylize your world is to add not only a real history to it, but famous places. In this article I am going to discuss how those pieces can help make a beautiful picture out of your campaign.

History, real concrete history, can really attach players to your world. Maybe the world used to be devoid of magic? Maybe a ruler of a specific kingdom just won’t die? Facts like this, found in taverns and books, can not only help flesh out your world slowly, but they can reveal important clues you can use in ancient dungeons or old gods the may come across. Not to mention the fact that you can come up with it after they’re already in your world (depending on how much your players care, I suppose), and make it as important as you want. Ancient figures and kingdoms can become important areas for adventurers to go to.

Tying in with history, famous areas can add some great themes to otherwise boring areas. Would you rather go to those mountains over there, or the Redcap Mountains, known for being fought over so many times that some say the ice is stained red with blood? Not to mention you can get very creative and pique your player character’s curiosity, and get them to care about a city or temple they might get connected to.

When you begin to use both of these resources is when you can do some great foreshadowing for a coming battle, or perhaps an event that happens regularly like a comet passing, or a creature’s mating ritual? I know these may not sound the most exciting, but with the right setup I sincerely think anything can be.

I know some GMs want to have the history and such all thought of before-hand, and that’s wonderful. It helps to give the players a decent idea of the what the world they’re entering is like. I’d rather be a dwarf from Bleakstone Pass, than a dwarf from some random pass you’ve probably never heard of.

Some GMs, like myself, aren’t so keen on such preparations and would rather do them on the spot. It isn’t easy to do with consistency, but it can be done, and the more you do it the better you get. 

And to you players, or GMs who also play, reading this - Try to learn about the setting’s major players, history, and important areas. Ideally through in-game resources, as that promotes role-playing and can create interesting character interactions. It also shows the GM that you’re interested in what’s going on, and might cue him to add some more points of interest historically speaking.

So remember to not be afraid to add in historical details. They shouldn’t be inconsistent GM-wise, but in-game scholars get things incorrect just like we do, and that can add tension and intrigue to one’s “factual racism” or some other misguided intellectual in your party, or main villain.

Remember your world is what you and your players focus on, nothing more!

Taylor Shuss

A great way to give your setting (or someone else’s setting you’re using) life is by giving it characters out of the character’s sphere of knowledge a mention or two, and let those people continue doing their own things and maybe let the party hear about it once in a while.

For example, let’s say that the party is on a mission by a local duke, who asks the party to retrieve his daughter. He may mention he hopes it isn’t Harkall, the Bandit Warlord who is rumored to be able to seduce any woman, and explains that said man has been on a rampage in the Southern Wastes and is rumored to be approaching the Northern territories.

What’s neat is that because this is all hearsay, none of it ever needs to matter much besides a neat aside. But you can make it matter if you wish, or make it a part of your setting’s lore and history. Maybe they find the duke’s daughter with him, or maybe he isn’t heading North at all. Perhaps weeks later they hear of Harkall breaking into a council room at the Gryth Arcanarium, demanding for revenge or else he will destroy them and their precious magic.

In this example, Harkall is acting much like a player does. He is a major character in his own story, and acts out of (usually) self-interest. But to the players, he is a sidenote ideally, which can evolve and eventually lead into a dramatic conflict, considering the war-mages of the Gryth Arcanarium are not to be taken lightly. 

It gets even better when you sprinkle these around, and let the players take interest in others from afar. They may grow to care, hate, or even love these figures (although it’s tough) because of their deeds.

An issue with this way of storytelling (within your storytelling) is that players usually want to follow every obvious lead presented, so when a duke mentions a bandit warlord, often times they will run to defeat him even if he should be able to wreck them one-handed. I tend to make the people talked of far away, or of high position and prestige to keep the players away for a time, but it is a tricky path to follow.

This is also a great way to give players ideas on who might be able to help them on their journeys, as they shouldn’t be able to do everything on their own. So you can mention a nearby mage who collects trinkets right before they find a powerful artifact that they will need to decipher, and ideally the players will be able to connect the dots on their own, making them feel smart and quite clever.

But in the end, these ideas are all for making your background come to life, and allowing players to learn of the world around them without actually needing to be everywhere. It can really flesh out the important players of any world, and help understand the politics of who the party may need assistance from when you get to epic-levels.

May your background noise be as exciting as your party’s antics,

Taylor Shuss

For today’s article, I’m going to put out a rule I try my best to use, and explain why I GM by it. I feel it’s a very important rule to at least understand for every GM out there.

Rule - Keep out-of-character issues out-of-character, and keep in-character issues in-character

This probably sounds simple, possibly you’ve read or heard it elsewhere before? That’s because it’s a pretty necessary part of tabletop RPGs that we all need to understand. I recall once two of my players wanted some Gorgon horn or somesuch, and I decided the matter with some saves or skill checks. Well, it seemed that the losing party was still unhappy even after the session, so I asked him. He explained why he felt it was unfair, and that’s when I told him…

Losing Party: …and that’s why I don’t agree with what went down. I’m just mad about it.

Me: Mad about it? Do you mean in-character (IC) or out-of-character (OOC)? Because if you mean out of character we need to have a talk. It’s nice that you’re getting invested in our games, but everyone needs to be able to retract themselves from their characters, and let go until they return to playing them.

It’s times like these that players need to take a step back, breath a little, and remember ‘It’s only a game…’ I understand that it can be a game that we all work very hard on, one that connects us and helps us express ourselves, but people need to be able to understand and control those feelings, and realize they should remain IC.

A similar issue is keeping biases out of the game entirely. I feel like a game can work if you don’t like someone as a person, but you need to be able to stop being biased once you start GMing for them, which is easier said than done. My players know that they can bring me gifts and bribe me all they want, but I won’t help them or give them anything in-game because that makes no sense. Granted, I have broken this rule, but only for one game. (Questioning which game it is is TREASON, Citizen! Are you a commie mutant traitor?) And I make that clear to my players, as PARANOIA is a a different experience than most other games in theme, tone, and play-style.

But to continue, I feel like every GM needs to be able to treat all of their players fairly. I don’t care if you dislike Suzy but love Jeff, as long as you’re the GM and they are your players, the world shouldn’t favor either one unless they have earned it with their own actions and cleverness.

On a similar note, this is exactly why having significant others at a gaming table, where the boy/girlfriend is the GM, is usually a bad idea. I’ve heard stories go both ways, but they seem to usually end poorly. I think I could handle it, but I don’t know, and am very wary of trying it anytime soon. 

So be on guard, and if you think your GM is purposely helping someone or another - talk to him/her. It’s hopefully a misunderstanding, as many players don’t see things like their GM does, but sometimes a GM does like someone more, and wants to make that person do better, and that needs to stop. As a GM it’s hard sometimes, removing yourself to such a degree, but it’s better that way. Having a GM who helps someone over others can really ruin the fun of the game, and even kill the hobby for those involved.

Don’t be afraid to kill your closest friends and gift your enemies, it’s all a game,

Taylor Shuss