GM peer-review: I'm set to go, right?

So generally what I'm asking here is for other GMs, DMs, STs, and whatever else there is out there, to give me a review of sorts before I'm locked and already out of the starting gate. If any of my players see this for my upcoming campaign, don't worry I think you already realize I'm more than confident about this and done more effort than the normal GM typically does. I've never quite been in the community with a lot of GMs, so I thought "you know why not just ask all these people and all these resourceful folks?". I think the best way of doing this - other than forcing everyone to play a campaign of my own - is to give my credentials and then explain my tenets of play style before any others start giving me healthy criticism or pledges of approval. I'm 19 and my upcoming campaign will be my third. I played about five role-plays, all of which are considered long campaigns. The campaign that is upcoming and I'm focusing my spare time into is for Warhammer 40K dark heresy. Using the 1.0 core rulebook, but given all the modifications I make I could consider it 1.5 . I'd say I'm one of the most knowledgeable person of 40K that I know but seeing as nobody knows who I know, let's just say I'm a lorehead. My big pastimes, other than RP, is writing and reviewing media. In a dreamworld those would be professions, but sadly we do not live in a dream world. Admittedly my big love for being a GM is because I get to run the show and "do it right ". With that out-of-the-way here's my golden rules list. The GM is always right A GM is fair Any RP is the PCs' story not the GM's A GM doesn't say no, he says "yes, but there will be consequences" A GM tries to be funny and clever, but never says "do you get it?" A RP should keep on rolling and keep on moving Rulebooks are guidelines, not laws; tools made to be altered by the GM Planning is essential, but plans are useless So that's about it, though I probably missed something that I never go without. I leave these open-ended though hope others will respond to them with criticism or confirm their validity. If you got any questions before you start the interrogation, shoot.

"The GM is always right..." only when the players agree. Without player buy-in on him being right, then there's really no point. "A GM is fair..." Agreed. And when it doubt about fairness, it costs the GM nothing to side with the players' idea of what fair is. "Any RP is the PCs' story not the GM's..." it's everyone's story that is created just by playing . Everyone has a responsibility to make it good. Also, here is the definition of roleplaying . "A GM doesn't say no, he says 'yes, but there will be consequences'..." No, he says "Yes, and..." "Yes, but..." follows a roll that indicates success at a cost as in "Yes, you sweet talk the NPC with that middling Diplomacy roll, but it costs you 100 gold." The only time "No" or "...but" comes out prior to a roll is if the player is blocking (i.e., contradicting existing fiction, negating or avoiding offers, or breaking existing agreements). "A GM tries to be funny and clever, but never says 'do you get it?'..." I'm not entirely sure what this means. I guess any joke that needs explaining isn't very good in the first place, so don't waste game time on it. "A RP should keep on rolling and keep on moving..." Agreed. Pacing is very important. Always be thinking as a player and GM, "How can I move the game forward?" and "How can I embrace complications to make this scene more interesting?" Failure should also never be a dead end unless everyone agrees that a dead end is interesting at that moment. "Rulebooks are guidelines, not laws; tools made to be altered by the GM..." Rules are there for a reason. They are the necessary framework for resolving outcomes for conflict in the game. If you are deciding outcomes yourself without using the rules as applicable to that specific game, you are engaging in illusionism - a family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. If you are doing this, the game you've chosen is no longer the game; instead, the GM is the game now. House rules are still rules, but it should be noted any house rules implemented can become illusionism if conflict resolution mechanics are eschewed in favor of fiat. House rules can also mean the game experience becomes something that was not intended by design. As with "The GM is always right...", players must give their buy-in on any rules changes for them to be valid. "Planning is essential, but plans are useless..." Agreed. The more prep and planning you do, the more likely you are to block player ideas. Blocking player ideas is the surest and fastest route to disengagement with the game. Learn to improvise and roll with what the players say. If you have a plot, get buy-in from the players to stick to the plot and not wander off it intentionally. (Or don't use plots.)

Thanks Jones for the tasty food for thought! I especially enjoyed the structure versus story article and I was thoroughly impressed by your definition of role-playing that you provided in the other thread that you linked. I haven't encountered someone who so accurately explains that combat can be role-playing as well. I think if I ever run into the arguments of role-playing versus combat, i'll be packing some heat provided by yourself. Though I would like to bring up a question regarding rules especially how much clarity I give to players. One of the methods I have been using to create mystery of the unknown and even tension is to not specify the damage results of critical or special damage and the penalties for bad rolls on the magic power use test. For example in dark heresy magic use is extremely dangerous and unpredictable to the point where magic users are heavily stigmatized and typically enslaved. To represent this unpredictable nature as well as its potency for destruction, certain rolls will results in a D100 check, with results that dramatically change the environment, if only for a short amount of time. In the first check is a 33% chance to go into a lethal territory, which prompts a further D100 check. While I've clarified to my players that this is extremely bad and the worst rolls can result in damage or even death, I've rewritten the results from the core rulebook and have dictated not to reveal the specifics of each result. Is this level of clarity considered bad GMing by taking illusionism too far?

Dodes said: Thanks Jones for the tasty food for thought! I especially enjoyed the structure versus story article and I was thoroughly impressed by your definition of role-playing that you provided in the other thread that you linked. I haven't encountered someone who so accurately explains that combat can be role-playing as well. I think if I ever run into the arguments of role-playing versus combat, i'll be packing some heat provided by yourself. Quite welcome! Always happy to talk GMing. Though I would like to bring up a question regarding rules especially how much clarity I give to players. One of the methods I have been using to create mystery of the unknown and even tension is to not specify the damage results of critical or special damage and the penalties for bad rolls on the magic power use test. For example in dark heresy magic use is extremely dangerous and unpredictable to the point where magic users are heavily stigmatized and typically enslaved. To represent this unpredictable nature as well as its potency for destruction, certain rolls will results in a D100 check, with results that dramatically change the environment, if only for a short amount of time. In the first check is a 33% chance to go into a lethal territory, which prompts a further D100 check. While I've clarified to my players that this is extremely bad and the worst rolls can result in damage or even death, I've rewritten the results from the core rulebook and have dictated not to reveal the specifics of each result. Is this level of clarity considered bad GMing by taking illusionism too far? It's not illusionism if you're using legitimate game mechanics (as written or as intended) to resolve the outcome of conflicts. If you are picking the outcomes (giving mechanical weight one way or another based on your biases is the same) because it fits your plot better or whatever, then you are engaging in illusionism. You've overruled the game and are no longer playing to find out what happens; rather, you are determining what happens. You are telling a story, not creating a story with your players by playing and have officially missed the point of an RPG. Based on the information you've provided, you do not seem to be doing this with your house rule. In any case, I advise being transparent with house rules because they do you no good if a change you've implemented does not result in fun for the player. Asking for buy-in costs you nothing; not asking for it can cost you your game!

Dodes at the end of the day there really is not "definition" on what a good DM is. If at the end of the day both your party and you are having fun then you are a good DM. The techniques that you use to accomplish this are entirely up to you. Just like all forms of entertainment, what is considered good or bad is up to each person. Some people love action movies while others flock towards love stories...some people like heavy metal while others rap...I could go on and on. The only thing I can honestly suggest is that you have a session zero, where the players and you work together on building the characters and you also explain to them the style you wish to use as a DM. At the same time ask them what kind of game they are looking to take part in and try and work together with them to create something they will enjoy. If they are not interested in your style nor you in theirs then you either switch up your style to fit theirs or get new players. Doing this will save you a lot of headaches down the road as you are catering to the audience.

Another GM rule for you ALWAYS Have a list of names. Tavern names, city names, npc names of all races.... Someone will always ask for a name.

Jason L. said: Another GM rule for you ALWAYS Have a list of names. Tavern names, city names, npc names of all races.... Someone will always ask for a name. Awesome. I do this myself. It's part of my Dungeon-World-derived GM Agenda & Principles: Name everything.

Alright I'll throw in my opinion. I agree with Jones, the GM is definitely not always right, you alone can't know and keep track of a game that encompasses an entire world, otherwise you'd just end up limiting the game to what you know. There will be times when a player knows more lore, remembers a rule better than you, or when you flat-out make a bad decision. If the players call you out, hear them out, see what other players think, be fair and unbiased, but don't be a tyrant. As for fudging a few rules being "illusionism" ..... sometimes..... my general rule is if I'm gonna change the rules to any large degree, don't do it secretly, tell the players, I think its essential for players to know how the game works, even if they don't know how the setting you've created does. Also, a simple tip from my own experience. "When in doubt, roll." I often play with a 1d10 luck system when I want to intervene as a GM, if the result is 6-10 something bad happens, 1-4 something good, 5 is nothing and the closer to 5 the lesser the severity. It lets me keep the game moving while keeping it random enough so that its not just me guiding them down a linear path and it stay their story.

I like to think I know what I'm doing I just needed some words of wisdom from some guys of heavy experience here on roll 20 because I rarely get to meet other GM's because I find that I'm usually the best GM among my local circle and I only have two notches. Thanks again Jones for the potent wording of telling alone versus creating together. You really seem like a good teacher when it comes to being a GM and RP tenets. I'm sure you definitely swing your weight around here now and I just talked to you. Phisto I think you're reading my mind. As I'm already thinking of a session 0 and I've already done some "interviewing" for each player of the applicants I got. Your voice backing my thought concepts helped as do all words of confidence that affirm my leaps into the unknown of my first online RP with roll20. Jason I find it funny because only last night I was writing down three sets of names for top Hiver's mid Hiver's and lower Hiver's. And finally, Nick, I am all for that as I am definitely a heavy roller I definitely realize one of my weaknesses is rolling too much for too many things and I don't streamline enough. Think that's for another day though. Thanks guys, this was definitely what I was looking for and I'd love to hear some more if anybody's willing, i'm one who very much enjoys criticism and knows the difference between criticism and insulting.

Dodes said: I like to think I know what I'm doing I just needed some words of wisdom from some guys of heavy experience here on roll 20 because I rarely get to meet other GM's because I find that I'm usually the best GM among my local circle and I only have two notches. Thanks again Jones for the potent wording of telling alone versus creating together. You really seem like a good teacher when it comes to being a GM and RP tenets. I'm sure you definitely swing your weight around here now and I just talked to you. Thanks guys, this was definitely what I was looking for and I'd love to hear some more if anybody's willing, i'm one who very much enjoys criticism and knows the difference between criticism and insulting. Good man! That's a rare talent in my experience. If you can spot the difference between a core concept of RPGs and a preference, you're way ahead of the game.

Glad we can help. You're definitely gonna be a good GM.