how do YOU DM?

[inuroku842]

Hey everybody, I just wanted to get a feel for other styles of DMing. I've not had a lot of DM's in the past, and the ones I have had, I literally learned everything I know from.
First off, I straight up do not use premade content for my games; everything is homebrew.
With my games, I usually don't have a rigid set outline for a session or even a capaign; I have a general storyline and from there I just wing it. That's just the way I learned. A lot of history and cultural stuff is made up on the fly as the players run into it. Yes, I know, this creates a lot of inconsistencies, and I am working to correct that in my future games. I am currently writing up a complete background for a small nation that will be the campaign setting in one of my upcoming games. This includes local and national economies, culture, politics, and history. That way I at least have something more to go off of when I do have to make something up on the spot.

I was also taught that as a general rule, don't plan more than one session in advance, for storyline, encounters, or anything. It's okay to make a general outline for future sessions, but not to commit to anything (what encounters they will have, monologues, etc). This is because the players are highly dynamic variables, and can steer the campaign in any direction. I had my DM as a player of mine once who helped to prove this point; he took the party to the complete opposite side of the continent and managed to set up a traveling theater group, just because he felt like it.

I was wondering how any of you other DM's out there run your games. Also, if you have any advice (constructive only please), it would be appreciated. I have gotten comfortable in my style, but really have not experienced anything outside of it.

[Griogre]

My constructive advice is don't limit yourself. It may seem a bit counterintuitive but you are limiting yourself a bit in your current style. You have a very freeform style but sometimes, as you pointed out, this leads to inconsistencies. It also means you will find it hard to tell an "epic" story arc since freeform often devolves down into gritty tactical play. By the nature of the beast, its also a bit harder to run freeform games on VTTs since lack of some things, especially lack of monster data, can just stop a game. Another problem with freeform play is that it also tends to get stuck in a rut.

As you are comfortable with your style I would just suggest you try adding a few things gradually to see what works for you and your group. One of the biggest advantage of a freeform style game is, over time, the group typically plays the things they like most since those are the type of adventures they tend to look for.

Some specific advice. Don't discount premade modules - even if you never use one you can mine them for ideas, encounters, monsters, NPCs, settings or even just interesting situations. The mental exercise of just thinking about what you would need to do to use something in a module can act like a brainstorming session where someone new throws out an idea you haven't considered before. Generally speaking, just one or two new ideas out of a module will more than repay the time you invest reading them.

[inuroku842]

You are right about finding it hard to tell an epic story arc freelancing, though I know it can be done. My favorite thing to do is a bunch of sessions with seemingly no relation that all contribute to a more grand story that reveals itself later on down the line. Not only does it give me general freedom to freeform throughout individual sessions, it helps the story mutate itself in my eyes and I can change it as I see fit while still keeping true to a general story arc. (i hope that made sense..)

I've never had a game devolve into gritty tactical play (I'm assuming that means just an endless string of combat encounters?) Mostly they end because I get fed up with players, mostly the uncreative ones, or run out of creative motivation (aka writer's block, lol). So I do have to agree with the stuck in a rut bit. What are VTT's?

I've mined a very few premade modules, but never really more than glanced at them. I think I stole a town from one once. Here's the ironic bit: I own just about every TSR module made on PDF (tsk tsk, i know..), but never looked throgh just about any of 'em. Will have to give that a try, thanks for the tip. The majority of my ideas spring from the books I read, also a trick I got from my former DM. (can't give those away though, potential players might catch the references, =D. I sometimes give out exp if they can catch my many various references.)

[Trenloe]

What are VTT's?

Virtual Table Tops - used for playing online. Fantasy Grounds is a VTT.

There are various different types of campaigns and in the end it is a balance based on you and your players style and desires.

What you've been describing above is generally what is known as a "sandbox" campaign where the players can make major decisions in what happens in the campaign, the direction it will go and can (as players sometimes do) completely change their minds and do u-turns, fly off at tangents, etc... This is obviously very hard for a GM to plan for and they need to think on their feet - hence you being told that as a general rule don't plan more than one session in advance.

There are plenty of homegrown campaigns I have played in that the players have understood that the GM has to prepare things in advance and so give warning of their plans and sometimes even say "well, if we don't go along with this to some extent then the GMs plans and preparations are wasted...". As I said before - it all depends what works with you and your players. Some players would hate being railroaded (even a little) while others (in my experience generally, but not always, the more experienced players and those who have GMed a lot before) won't mind as long as they have control over events within the current adventure the GM has prepared.

[dr_venture]

I would echo Trenloe's sentiments. As a GM I very much enjoy the aspect of RPGs where, in a sense, both the players and I are going along on a ride of discovery together, and I don't know exactly how things are going to play out. I love random encounters, and the unexpected twists that sometimes pop up. As a GM, I see myself as a gardener of story and adventures, rather than a sculptor of them. I want to plant the seeds of interesting NPCs and situations and events, then see how they grow as the game progresses.

So, all of that said, I don't see the above ideas as inflexible sacred edits: in the end, it's a game with fun people, we have lives and schedules... if something I've prepared is going to really tick off a player, I'll try to change it, and if the players are going to just avoid something I've spent a lot of time on, I'll just let them know directly that, you know, unless you really, really don't want to go there, may I suggest you follow up on that lead, as I've spent some time on this and I think you'll enjoy it. Usually everything works out.

Insisting on player compliance seems pointless, but I have pointed out to players in the past that if they avoid a certain adventure set-up, that unfortunately they'll be skipping the materials I had prepared for the evening and I'll be winging it. It's just a game - we're all there to have fun, so it just seems like a practical thing to do. I don't have endless time and capacity for creating game content on-the-fly... especially with FG, where I like to be more prepared. So far, it seems to have worked pretty well, and once folks understand that "there lies adventure," they're usually happy to jump in for the fun of it.

[inuroku842]

Dr Venture, I've never thought of communicating with my players like that. To me that always seemed like leading them to where I myself wanted them to go. I guess I never thought of putting them in my shoes in that instance (it's never been done to me); I wouldn't really mind if a DM told me that sort of thing. I will have to give that a try. I suppose it does make sense to have more prepared materials and let them know directly hey, try going here. I am definitely well practiced at thinking on my feet and coming up with decent scenarios on the fly, but the constant change and formlessness does begin to wear at you after a while I've noticed.

[dr_venture]

It's just the practicality that we're just playing a game, and we all want to have fun. Really, over the years, it's only come up a few times... and when I have had to kinda come out of character, the players have been very casual about it... it's not a big deal. I'd much rather not break the spell like that, but if things aren't working out... every now and then... eh, no big deal. Then the rest of the evening is a lot of fun, which is what everyone wants anyway.

[NeoFax]

While I agree with both Trenloe and dr_venture, I wouldn't hit them with the clue stick OOC. I would present them with clues IC such as NPCs, notes found, wanted posters, even use PCs backgrounds. I never wing it because I have tried and almost always get writers block/stage fright from coming up with interesting plot...(when I mean wing it, I don't mean playing a NPCs reaction). Also, random for me is not random. By this I have prebuilt generic encounters that I can then drop my players in and use if the random roll comes up positive. I tend to use mood music and have a large library of music for this, so it helps get the players ready for an encounter or tell a story or help the scene(like birds chirping, waterfalls, rain...). Between sessions I will try to make up stuff like dream sequences, political goings on, rumors heard...this way it helps the players stay in tune with the game while they are between sessions.

[dr_venture]

I wouldn't hit them with the clue stick OOC. I would present them with clues IC such as NPCs, notes found, wanted posters, even use PCs backgrounds.

I agree - IC is definitely always preferable.

For me, depending on the situation, sometimes trying to influence characters by staying IC can backfire. For instance, if the players get the idea that I'm trying to influence them to change their previous actions, then they might feel like I'm trying to railroad them into doing something they don't want to (which I hate as a player). But even if they don't get that idea, it's not unlikely they will pick up on the idea that I am trying to at least direct their actions. To my mind, I might as well be OOC at that point, as people aren't thinking 'in story' anymore, they're thinking in a 'meta' fashion about the fact that I'm trying to influence them, rather than being absorbed in the story.

The other thing that has popped up once or twice is the idea that the vibe of the game is good, everything is rolling along, then something pops up that looks like it will disrupt the game's momentum. The characters are going off in some direction that looks like it will really kill the vibe and not really add anything to anyone's enjoyment... and trying to nudge them IC is going to slow everything down and kill the vibe. In such times I have just dropped OOC and given a little poke in the right direction in order to just get the game going or keep it rolling.

Here's a quick example: recently in my Old West game, I was introducing a new character in what I thought would be a interesting way. The main group had just finished up a gunfight with train robbers, one of whom was being tracked by a new Bounty Hunter character who was going to be introduced to the party... but at that point, no one had met him yet. The BH had no idea what had just occurred - he heard some gunshots but basically wasn't sure what was going on. It wound up being more aggressively confrontational than I expected: the BH wound up firing a warning shot, thus putting the characters on edge for more robbers. As the BH moved cautiously down a ravine, he ran into one of the characters - an official constable - coming the other direction. Both of them wouldn't budge from their "No, you put *your* guns down." posturing. I checked in with the constable (who had been clearly defined and previously played as kinda reckless and action-oriented) and asked what he wanted to do. I expected more conversation, but what I got was "I shoot him." And I'm thinking, "Uh oh."

So at that point, I can either try to intervene in some IC way, or let them quite possibly kill one or the other (not a great way to introduce a new character). The whole situation had already taken about half the game session, so I just chose option 3: I told the constable player, "Um, are you sure you want to shoot the new player's character?" The constable's player hadn't realized that he was about to shoot the new character - he thought it was actually pretty funny, and said of course not, thought about it, and came back with some suspicious questions for the BH, and the game moved forward with barely a hiccup.

That was most definitely OOC, but things had already taken quite long enough, and the fix was so simple OOC that it seemed worth it to me. I tried to make it work IC, but one quick sentence and the game was back on track without player vs. player confrontation. It was no biggie to me. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at with the idea of OOC nudges.

Sorry for the wordiness

[Griogre]

LOL, I'll have to remember that technique dr_venture. Introducing new characters into an ongoing adventures can always be tricky.