Wishing to be a GM and I would like some pointers.

Basically what i need to know from people who either GM a lot or play under GM's a lot is: 1. What Makes a GM Fair/Unfair? 2. Does it matter how many classes there are, or if you allow people to make their own? 3. Should the rules be set in stone and not change, or change as needed/required? 4. Does it matter what universe the game is set in, or if you have proper maps? 5. Any other tips you can give me? Thanks for your time! ~Sonnitude

1. A lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. But ultimately, it can be said that a GM who accepts player ideas and adds onto them while adjudicating mechanics fairly in accordance of the game's rules is a fair GM. You start getting into unfair GMs when they prejudge your plans and make them impossible (or even too easy) or shuts down your ideas directly or indirectly in favor of his own. In most RPGs, the dice determine outcomes, not the GM. A fair GM knows this and does not pre-judge because judging the efficacy of ideas is the dice's job. 2. No, it does not matter outside of thematic concerns. You can choose to allow players to create their own classes if you want, but they should be subject to the group's approval. 3. The rules should be set in stone before the game. You can change them between sessions if everyone agrees. What you don't want to do is change them unilaterally without player approval, nor do you want to be inconsistent in their application. The rules are part of the way players make decisions in the context of the game. They need to be consistent so the players' choices are meaningful. 4. It does matter what universe the game is in because it forms the context for all things that follow. As for maps, some games use them, some games don't. 5. Think of it as "our game" not "my game." Read up on the "Yes, and..." improvisational technique and work toward learning to roll with player ideas and make them fun rather than block or stymie them to protect your own ideas. Collaborate with your players on all facets of the game and embrace transparency to make the game flow more easily. Be like water, not like stone.

Iserith said: 1. A lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. But ultimately, it can be said that a GM who accepts player ideas and adds onto them while adjudicating mechanics fairly in accordance of the game's rules is a fair GM. You start getting into unfair GMs when they prejudge your plans and make them impossible (or even too easy) or shuts down your ideas directly or indirectly in favor of his own. In most RPGs, the dice determine outcomes, not the GM. A fair GM knows this and does not pre-judge because judging the efficacy of ideas is the dice's job. 2. No, it does not matter outside of thematic concerns. You can choose to allow players to create their own classes if you want, but they should be subject to the group's approval. 3. The rules should be set in stone before the game. You can change them between sessions if everyone agrees. What you don't want to do is change them unilaterally without player approval, nor do you want to be inconsistent in their application. The rules are part of the way players make decisions in the context of the game. They need to be consistent so the players' choices are meaningful. 4. It does matter what universe the game is in because it forms the context for all things that follow. As for maps, some games use them, some games don't. 5. Think of it as "our game" not "my game." Read up on the "Yes, and..." improvisational technique and work toward learning to roll with player ideas and make them fun rather than block or stymie them to protect your own ideas. Collaborate with your players on all facets of the game and embrace transparency to make the game flow more easily. Be like water, not like stone. Thank you so much! This helps quite a lot! I was thinking about making a PMD type roll20 game. You think it could work?

Depends on what you mean by PMD! :)

Hopefully this alignment chart that was made by someone on /tg/ makes sense.

Iserith said: Depends on what you mean by PMD! :) Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. Been wanting a roll20 game of that, and I think I want to make one if I can't find one.

Pleinair Allaprima said: Hopefully this alignment chart that was made by someone on /tg/ makes sense. hah! It does make quite a bit of sense. I assume that depending on the person, some people like various alignments better?

1. What Makes a GM Fair/Unfair? Consistency. Whether you know all of the rules or not or have your own house rules. Consistency = fairness. 2. Does it matter how many classes there are, or if you allow people to make their own? As a GM, I tend to think boundaries are good; especially if you're just starting out as GM. You'll want to have a grasp on what's available to characters and I'd suggest not letting players invent classes. There's plenty of well-thought-out, written material to choose from. Make your life easier. You've got to run the game. 3. Should the rules be set in stone and not change, or change as needed/required? Just be consistent. Be open to discussion, but be consistent. 4. Does it matter what universe the game is set in, or if you have proper maps? It matters because that's where your material comes from to create the world and campaign for your players. Whether that's the Inner Sea, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk... whereever. I wouldn't recommend a complete homebrew for your first experience. Run an Adventure Path or a written module to start. I always use maps. Some are custom and others are pulled from written modules or other D&D and fantasy resources. I think it helps you and the players to have a visual, like a map, upon which to base role play and combat. 5. Any other tips you can give me? I have more fun as the GM (DM) than I do playing. Why? Because I enjoy creating the campaign with its NPC's and monsters. Establishing motivations for the latter and see how players act and react in that world. Remember that the players are the heroes. Challenge them but don't upstage them with your own NPCs. Have fun! This is a game, not work. The moment it feels like work, step back and run some crazy side quest or change your approach. Be creative. Use your imagination. Have fun.

I'm not familiar with the system or genre, but Roll20 is pretty adaptable. I would recommend you sketch out some basic ideas for what you're going for and try to find a group that is excited by the idea. Then work with them to come up with a finished product that everyone is engaged by. Involving your players in the creation of things and getting on the same page with regard to the expectations of the game prior to play generally means the game will simply run better.

Iserith said: I'm not familiar with the system or genre, but Roll20 is pretty adaptable. I would recommend you sketch out some basic ideas for what you're going for and try to find a group that is excited by the idea. Then work with them to come up with a finished product that everyone is engaged by. Involving your players in the creation of things and getting on the same page with regard to the expectations of the game prior to play generally means the game will simply run better. fair enough, thank you.

Sonnitude said: hah! It does make quite a bit of sense. I assume that depending on the person, some people like various alignments better? Alignment has a long sad history of being used by GMs as an in-game behavior modification tool to the detriment of their games. I would suggest you don't use it. It should be noted that this is not the intent of alignment, but it's often the end result and very few players and GMs know how to use it properly. (For example, the longtime trope of giving paladins moral conundrums so that they fall from grace is actually the wrong way to use alignments.)

Pretty much, some players like old school. Some players like loose rules. Some like meat grinders. I'm going to tell you the one way that all DMs screw up one way or another at some point, and players too. Alignment is a measure of how someone acts, not how they must act. If a Lawful Good guy wants to do something evil, doing it will slowly shift his alignment towards evil. Saying "You can't do that, it's not your alignment" is the EXACT same as saying "You can't enter battle, your health is too low". Do evil, it shifts towards evil, do good, it shifts towards good. Iserith said:  (For example, the longtime trope of giving paladins moral conundrums so that they fall from grace is actually the wrong way to use alignments.) And this is the exact reason why a Pathfinder God of Paladins is also a God of Common Sense. Any DM that throws such things at Paladins should hand in his DM screen and never touch the game again until he has redeemed himself by surviving the Tomb of Horrors without metagaming. There's actually an unwritten third axis that everyone forgets about. "Ally" and "Enemy".

Sonnitude said: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. Been wanting a roll20 game of that, and I think I want to make one if I can't find one. Yeh... can't help you there. Enjoy.

DyerMaker said: Sonnitude said: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. Been wanting a roll20 game of that, and I think I want to make one if I can't find one. Yeh... can't help you there. Enjoy. heh. I figured. I'll have to make it :P

Try looking up Pokemon Tabletop Adventures.

Pleinair Allaprima said: And this is the exact reason why a Pathfinder God of Paladins is also a God of Common Sense. Any DM that throws such things at Paladins should hand in his DM screen and never touch the game again until he has redeemed himself by surviving the Tomb of Horrors without metagaming.  There's actually an unwritten third axis that everyone forgets about. "Ally" and "Enemy". I much prefer to be an atheist when it comes to alignment. But it does have a mechanical niche in pre-4e editions of D&D where Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are as much a force of nature as gravity.

Try to lower your expectations when it comes to roll playing. You may have written a great dialogue for one of your npc but your players find away around prompting the conversation. You might be tempted to say to your players "why don't you ask him about ........." This is called Meta gaming. Try not to do it. Experienced gamers will call you out and loose respect for you.  If you are a 1st or 2nd time GM, don't be afraid to restrict your game to novice players or PM (private message) a veteran player asking them to either be more helpful or less aggressive.  Your novice players will just let the vetaran take over the game and then just become spectators.  If the veteran doesn't stop taking over your game....politely tell him why your uninviting them and kick them out. Say yes to your players as much as possible. If they want to search a cupboard for treasure, don't say "no, you find nothing" have them roll, If they roll a natural 20 give them something . A potion, silverware, a scroll or a clue. if not say "you find nothing  If they want to use enlarge person in a hallway say ok and then they might be severely stuck for as long as the spell lasts.  Don't say no.  By saying yes as much as possible they will learn more about what they can and cannot do in your game. Scale back, If you start out with 8 adventurers and for 1 reason or another some leave (bad internet) Scale back your monsters. You can do this by having monsters retreat, fall in a trap or just in stead of 15 go with 10.  Ultimately, this is an online game. Take Diablo for example, if you have 3 in your party and 2 join, the monsters health and power level increases and vice versa.  Your not sitting at your kitchen table.  DON"T KILL YOUR PARTY. If they die it should be because of something stupid they did. They didnt heal, they rushed into an ambush, not because your cleric and wizard decided to leave at the same time in the middle of a fight.

Experienced RPG enthusiasts actually know what metagaming is and that it's useful and necessary in order to play the game. What most people object to when it comes to metagaming is using the concept for abuse , which is the same as using the rules (or anything else) for abuse. In other words, it's a player not acting in good faith which is an out-of-game problem. Unfortunately, some players and DMs throw the baby out with the bathwater and eschew metagaming entirely (or at least, they think they can) instead of understanding how to use it properly. I have found such games to be boring and contentious at the best of times as everyone plays metagame gestapo and ignore obvious ways to move the game forward because they don't want to be called out for metagaming. Use the metagame properly and your game will soar. When to roll is more important to know than what to roll. You shouldn't call for rolls for mundane situations like searching around a room unless the characters are acting under fire, which is to say, they are in a tense situation whose outcome is unknown. Also, only call for rolls when success and failure can both be interesting. If the response to a roll is "nothing happens" or "you don't know" etc., then it's not a roll. This little concept right here will completely set your game apart as being exceptional when compared to others. If the characters die, it should be epic and heroic, not because they're being punished for "being stupid." It's not the DM's role to punish people for any reason whatsoever, even if it seems logical and reasonable. Also, consider that the default victory/defeat condition of kill/be killed is a very limited way of thinking about encounters. There's more to it than this, or there can be, anyway.

1. What Makes a GM Fair/Unfair?   Consistency, not having favorite player characters and treating them better.  Either be kind or cruel unilaterally and most evenings be a little bit of both.  2. Does it matter how many classes there are, or if you allow people to make their own?  Yes, depends on game system but especially when first starting out keep options to a minimum for you and your players.  You want to get a good foundation of the rules to build on before throwing a bunch of crazy options into the mix. 3. Should the rules be set in stone and not change, or change as needed/required? Tough one, the rules are our shared language when all the players and DM sit down at the table.  If you are going to start to change that language do so mostly before the game starts not on the fly.  Dramatic license,  if you change a rule in game or ignore one mostly do so for the enjoyment of the players and let them understand that in this situation right here and now this is how you are going to rule this.  Don't do it for example to force your plot on them if they come up with a creative way to mess with it. 4. Does it matter what universe the game is set in, or if you have proper maps?   Universe not so much, if you run a published world sometimes the players may know more about the world than you do which can be bad, but there will be more resources for you to build your game on which is generally good.  Maps, not exactly sure what you mean by proper?  Have I re purposed maps from one adventure into another campaign that was set in a different styled world yes.  If you are talking about just using hand drawn sketches I would not. 5. Any other tips you can give me?   Put effort into your game it shows, If the session is going to run 6 hours at least put 3 into getting ready through out the week before the game.  Maps, Tiles, ect  there are a ton of them for free on the internet and through the library feature your players should never have to see hand drawn lines as walls and stuff in roll20 it is so easy to spend a few minutes to make it something so much more.  Proper tokens hidden on the DM layer are so much better than hunting for the right token at the start of a fight.  You can write notes on the DM layer for trap DC's, hidden objects, ect.  Use the tools roll20 gives you, handouts for npc images, maps, and notes found throughout the game are all great and add a good visual to everyone's experience.  Have a player keep notes on the game, rotate the job if necessary this keeps them involved in some book keeping and encourages more focus from at least one player. General DM tip:  Don't say "No" say "Yes, but...." when a player asks to do something.

Iserith said: If the characters die, it should be epic and heroic, not because they're being punished for "being stupid." It's not the DM's role to punish people for any reason whatsoever, even if it seems logical and reasonable.  Not to start a debate, but I have PCs that die from stupidity or through some series of events they initiate which are neither epic, nor heroic. It's not a punishment, but a realistic aspect of the game that they are fully aware of and warned about. It's risk v. reward and an element of my campaigns. No complaints thus far.

Good advice, John R. One quibble - "Yes, but..." should only follow the result of a roll that indicates success with a complication such as with a weak hit or middling roll. ("Yes, you jump over the crevasse like you set out to do, but the middling roll means you've fallen prone and dropped your spear into the Abyss.") Otherwise, the GM (and group) is much better served by saying, "Yes, and..." A lot of the things you think should be "Yes, but..." can actually be rephrased to be "Yes, and..." mind you. "No" and "Yes, but..." are the exact same thing if they precede a roll when you think about it. "And" means the idea is accepted as valid and added onto in a way that creates new fiction. "But" means the idea is accepted but disincentivized in some fashion and in a way that may or may not create new fiction (usually the latter).

DyerMaker said: Iserith said: If the characters die, it should be epic and heroic, not because they're being punished for "being stupid." It's not the DM's role to punish people for any reason whatsoever, even if it seems logical and reasonable.  Not to start a debate, but I have PCs that die from stupidity or through some series of events they initiate which are neither epic, nor heroic. It's not a punishment, but a realistic aspect of the game that they are fully aware of and warned about. It's risk v. reward and an element of my campaigns. No complaints thus far. There is no debate. This is an out-of-game conversation to determine the player's real intent (especially if the GM or group thinks a given player is not acting in good faith or is yanking someone's chain or testing the GM's limits), not an in-game simulation of reality or a test of what the GM thinks is stupid. As I said above, GMs should not put themselves in the position of judging whether or not something is "stupid." The dice determine that. Sometimes great plans fail and stupid plans succeed, just like in life and art. If you put yourself in the position of judging the plans of the PCs and then doling out consequences or hanging disincentives (such as high DCs or the like) around those actions, what your players will learn to do is play the GM instead of playing the game . I'm fantastic at playing people; I'm not so great at getting the dice to roll what I want. Get someone like me in a game with a GM who prejudges things like that and I'll learn exactly what I need to do and say to get what I want and then I'll win. I could go on about such a game for pages and pages, but suffice it to say OP, don't put yourself in this position. Many GMs do and some can make it work; however, I think the best way is to not get into this in the first place. As well, in most RPGs, realism need not apply. Or rather, it takes a back seat to fun. I'll concede that what you may mean to say instead of "realism" is "consistency" and, if so, we agree on that score, provided that consistency leads to fun.)

I disagree, players can make very bad or stupid decisions for their characters. Some of these have consequences for said character. The great classic example is the player who enjoys thumbing his nose at in game authorities. Player is told that nobles in the kingdom have the right of summary judgement. Player has his character attack the king because he thinks it will be funny. As a GM he is warned and told what will probably happen. The rest of the party knowing this is a bad idea take great pains to put distance between themselves and the character. Said character is detained and executed that day. The player whines on how it was unfair. There are quite a few instances where players make stupid decisions in the game that get them killed in a very unheroic manner.

Iserith said: As well, in most RPGs, realism need not apply. Or rather, it takes a back seat to fun. I'll concede that what you may mean to say instead of "realism" is "consistency" and, if so, we agree on that score, provided that consistency leads to fun.) No, I meant realism... as in, its not realistic that everyone will agree on which approach is best to GM a game.

Michael of the Licktoad Tribe said: I disagree, players can make very bad or stupid decisions for their characters. Some of these have consequences for said character. The great classic example is the player who enjoys thumbing his nose at in game authorities. Player is told that nobles in the kingdom have the right of summary judgement. Player has his character attack the king because he thinks it will be funny. As a GM he is warned and told what will probably happen. The rest of the party knowing this is a bad idea take great pains to put distance between themselves and the character. Said character is detained and executed that day. The player whines on how it was unfair. There are quite a few instances where players make stupid decisions in the game that get them killed in a very unheroic manner. Emphasis mine. This is an out-of-game problem of a player yanking your chain and testing your limits. It's called improvisational blocking, too, and groups that understand what that is don't do this sort of thing. It's a player problem, not a character problem, and thus in-game consequences are wholly inappropriate and inherently passive aggressive. OP: A good GM knows when to handle things in-game and when to handle things out-of-game. As for realism, I would hope that the OP's * Pokemon*  game will focus on fun, not necessarily what is realistic. Same goes for any fantasy-based game. If you're focused on realism in such a game, you're going in the opposite direction of the genre. Consistency, however, is a different story.

Iserith said: Emphasis mine. This is an out-of-game problem of a player yanking your chain and testing your limits. It's called improvisational blocking, too, and groups that understand what that is don't do this sort of thing. It's a player problem, not a character problem, and thus in-game consequences are wholly inappropriate and inherently passive aggressive. OP: A good GM knows when to handle things in-game and when to handle things out-of-game. As for realism, I would hope that the OP's * Pokemon*  game will focus on fun, not necessarily what is realistic. Same goes for any fantasy-based game. If you're focused on realism in such a game, you're going in the opposite direction of the genre. Consistency, however, is a different story. In so far as I made the distinction between player and character, we can agree that it is a player problem. That said, players and the characters they play should have consequences for their actions and choices. These can either be good or bad and fall inline with players affecting the campaign world they play in. In fact without any ramifications for their in game decisions the story aspect would be quite linear. So the idea that players choices having no casual-effect on the game far more inappropriate. Out of curiosity how does a  good GM handle situations like this in your opinion?

@Michael: Of course, I'm not making the case for actions without consequences. I'm making the case for actions having interesting consequences because consequences that aren't interesting to everyone aren't worth our precious entertainment time. Interesting is in the eye of the beholder and, when in doubt, the players should be consulted to be sure the scene is heading in a direction  everyone  finds fun. What we see all too often, especially in games like D&D, are DMs that unilaterally hand out punitive, boring consequences (town guard much?) for actions they deem stupid. This is a form of improvisational blocking that can hurt the game by burning trust in the group. The action the player is taking that the DM deems worthy of "logical consequences" may also be a form of improvisational blocking. This is how things move toward the adversarial player-DM dynamic that is so common. This is why groups who understand the rules of improv ("Yes, and..." is its foundation) don't have these issues. How a good GM would handle this in my opinion would depend a lot on context, so I'll have to make some assumptions about the situation in my response: A fact has been established in the fiction - nobles have the right of summary judgment. The player states that his character, Ragnar, wishes to ignore it and attacks the king. If this seems out of place for the scene, for Ragnar, or contrary to previous agreements the group has made as to the tone or content of the game, the game is paused and an out-of-game conversation ensues to determine the player's real intent and to clarify the situation. Much of the time, the player is acting out because of pacing issues especially as it relates to playing out scenes that lack tension or a dramatic question. In other words, the game is boring and the player wants something to happen, but doesn't want to or know how to express that directly. (I think we've all been there as players and can empathize, right?) This is something the DM can actually fix, right then and there, by offering to increase the action and asking for player input as to how they would see that working (with or without offing the king). The rest of the time it's a personality issue which may or may not be resolved because the player isn't a fit for the group. I'm sure you know what to do in this case. If by some miracle it's determined that Ragnar really does have beef with the king, makes perfect sense in context, and doesn't run contrary to the group's pre-game agreements, then Ragnar kills the king (or maybe there's a combat). What's a good consequence for that? Your mind races immediately to his plate-mailed and eager royal guards, right? Well what if instead, I chose to Reveal an Unwelcome Truth : "The king is run through and dies, turning back to its original form... a doppelganger! The guards and assembled nobility stare in stunned silence. What do you do?" Now that's an interesting scene and it suggests adventures that follow. So, back to tips for the OP: Handle out-of-game issues outside the context of the game. Handle in-game issues in-game, and use your players' ideas for inspiration so that consequences for actions and dice rolls are fun for everyone. Don't block player ideas. As long as they themselves are not blocking, then their idea is just as true and valid as yours. Use your imagination to figure out a way to say "yes, and" not "yes, but" or "no." "Yes, and..." generates fiction; the other two block it. (Players: Don't block GM ideas either. RPGs are improvised collaborations operating in a framework of mechanics.)

Thanks for the reasoned and well articulated response. While I a still disagree with your point of view it definitely gives me something to think about. I came away with two things from reading your response, and please forgive me for my generalized simplification of your position. First, that the bad players are the GMs fault for not being as responsive to his players wants and needs. Second, that a player should kill everything to get a cracker jack surprise. By using your example you set the precedent that there is always a golden lining to doing what you want in game. That any overt action against authority or story convention should be rewarded with a creative positive consequence even if it potentially derails the game or campaign storyline. I don't believe the role of a GM is to say yes to everything a player wants in the game. The phrase "yes, but" seems far more appropriate in the context of coming up with ways to provide the players the type of gaming experience they want while maintaining game balance. I appreciate your response and the input contained.

Thank you as well and I'm sure the OP can appreciate the diversity of opinions. There are, however, a few points you mention that could not have been reasonably distilled from my response above: Bad players are not always the GM's fault. But neither are they always bad players because they don't share your expectations for the game or the love of your plot or approach to DMing. Hopefully these are ironed out before play begins; however, many GMs don't seem to do this for some reason. A character can and should try to kill anything the player wants, provided the player is not blocking in doing so. Where it is not blocking, killing things is a valid choice in the context of the game. The GM should support valid and meaningful choice with fair and consistent adjudication of the game mechanics with an eye toward what's interesting for everyone. There should always be a golden lining to doing what you want in the game for the players (and GM) , not necessarily for the characters . Do you see the difference here? The characters can be up to their necks in trouble and it can still be fun for their players. It can be negative for the characters but positive for the players. It should never be negative for the players.  That's  the balance you want to make a compelling game. Having a plot or storyline in the first place is the most common reason GMs block player ideas and why players rebel. If you do have a plot or storyline, it must be made clear to the players that this is the case and they must give you their explicit buy-in to remain engaged with that plot. Otherwise, you risk them moving off your prepared storyline and having to use increasingly heavy-handed tactics to get them back to it. Many GMs fail by having a plot then presenting the players with illusion of choice. Once that illusion is broken, Ragnar kills the king to test your limits. You can set your watch by it. Be honest, get buy-in and you won't have players that try to derail your planned storyline. "Yes, but..." is blocking unless it follows a dice roll. If you and your players are okay with it though, then you have the buy-in you need for that particular tool. I hope that further clarifies my position. You seemed to draw some erroneous conclusions above.