Café de Nuit

Most of us here (if not all) have sat in the "big chair" and gazed menacingly at a group of friends from behind our cardboard screens, while they waited in anticipation for what would happen next.

The fine art of DM-ing, in my humble view is often a very overlooked aspect of gaming when it comes to research and development. Oh sure, there exist a myriad of resources like the DMG's and special DM sections in supplements to help the storyteller better convey his tale, and 3e Ravenloft designers in particular have taken the initiative to tackle the surface on building DM-ing skills.

Still, I sometimes feel like DM-ing itself doesn't often get dissected and developed as much as it should. After all, the rules have been evolved to suit the new age of role-playing, the look and feel of fantasy rpg's has gotten a facelift (and a few tattoos!), even the classic monsters we've faced in the past have shifted skins. That bring me to question, shouldn't DM-ing be laid out and re-defined/evolved as well?

Maybe this is already happened and I'm just not seeing it in the products that I've flipped through recently (3e Rav products, to their credit have scratched the surface on this topic however). I guess the discussion I wanted to open here was as follows:

What are some of you favorite non-traditional or innovative approaches DM-ing, or what kind of new perspectives would some of you bring up if someone asked you to take it to the "next level"?

I look forward to your answers...

One DMing trick I recently used (but only once) is to roleplay character creation. The player was doing a wizard apprentice so I roleplayed his master asking him what he wanted to learn, what feats he practiced and spells he mastered. It was better than to look up a list of feats/skills/spells.

Why is the fine art of DMing overlooked? Or is it?

I think the reason it's hard to find good writing about DMing at times is that so much of it is gut feeling. You can prepare all you want (and preparation can definitely be something to help you as a DM) but the REAL art of DMing is in the little, subtle things you might do. It's a gut feeling sort of thing. It's knowing when you should let the characters sit around the campfire and talk about their lives, ;let them go through their little depressions, and knowing when that's been going on just long enough to build up some tension for you to throw something new into the mix for the PCs to grapple with.

And it's different for every group.

So, all any writing about DMing can do is provide you with a bag of tricks to sort of try out, and occasionally surprise your PCs with.

I realise I have said nothign meaningful.... so take two!

If I had to pick one thing to suggest to Dms to work on to have really sodil games it's NPCs (and by extension PCs for the players.) You need to make them believable. Which means both their behaviour, but also, you need to make sure they have a "place" in the game world that isn't too much of a stretch too often. because your NPCs is how you present the culture and ways of thinking of the various gruops in raven;loft (or any other world) and that's where the real role-playing can happen.

IMHO.

Question: If we're talking about the fine art of DMing...what specifically would we talk about? What kinds of things do you need to run a good Ravenloft game?

I think that alot of DMing is more than gut feeling. I think it can definatley be an art, and I think you can definately learn to become better.

>>Question: If we're talking about the fine art of DMing...what specifically would we talk about? What kinds of things do you need to run a good Ravenloft game?<<

Well, one certainly needs to understand the genre they are getting into, so as preparation for any new game the gm should read - or barring that, watch - stories about the genre they are tackling. It is usually a good idea to reacquaint yourself with the material every few months as well - so you don't stray so far from your source that it becomes something different. (unless that is what you're after)

I think the most important thing a gm can do is listen to his/her players. Take clues from the things they say and work the game to reflect their interests. The only problem here is that occasionally the interests of the gm and part of the group may contradict. This recently happened to me. Where I love a rich campaign, with multiple interwoven storylines and vastly complex plot interdependancy, two of my players were unable to connect with the game. (each for different reasons, which makes adjusting to their needs even more difficult) Ultimately I had to drop that campaign (two years of building the game world and storylines down the drain) and run something simpler. At least now one of the estranged players is enjoying himself. (the other doesn't seem happy with anything, she wants the game spoon fed to her and makes no efforts whatsoever ... I've taken to not caring about her hangups ... I have three other players to think about)

A gm should study language and speaking skills. They should be aware that their own tendancies in speach sometimes distract from description and need to be evaluated. For example, if the person often utilized internet shorthand in conversation, or makes heavy use of slang, that these may well detract from the atmosphere one is attempting to create. (on the other side of that, if the game is one in which these elements are most appropriate, such as in a cyber-punk setting, then the gm should make an effort to broaden his vocabulary into that domain.)

A gm should be versatile and willing to make changes on the fly, as they are needed. Preparation is a matter of taste, but usually it is best to do base line preparation for an adventure - set the foundation and plan for events you expect to occur - but leave enough room for the sometimes unpredictable actions of pcs.

But none of this is actually innovative. I don't know what to offer on that front. One could remind the gm that it is important to occasionally challenge preconceptions and set the stage at different angles. For example, one session he might have the players portray their enemies so as to give them a sense of who they are fighting. Another he might require that the characters describe combat to one another instead of having the gm do it. He might pick one character per hour during the game and narate entirely from that individuals perspective, allowing the players to portray his inner voices, conflicting emotions, etc. Basically, it is important to stir things up, so players don't become complacent.

While you may not see a great deal of books written for evolved gming methodology specifically, one can find a wealth of ideas in independant gaming systems. A very popular approach at present is "shared naration". In this method the gm empowers the players to direct the game to some extent. The level of involvement may vary, from allowing the pcs to play tokens that change minor details, to giving the pcs complete control over anything not related to the underlying plot. For example, I just recently encountered a system in which the players were responsible for creating all the side stories for one another. Another system suggested that the gm should only design the basic setting but allow players to define detail through their own actions. For example, if the players are in a town and want to get something to drink, it is left up to them to decide upon the tavern they visit, the type of place it is, the clientell it attracts, the drinks it serves, etc. Another example allows for the players to construct historic or even current - though peripheral - events in their universe on the spur of the moment. So if a coversation about warfare comes up the character could make up an historic anecdote or draw parellels to a minor war being fought in a distant region - both derived from his own ideas rather than any direct imput from the gm.

As a note on this, I'm only passingly comfortable with the idea of "shared narative". While it can be enjoyable in some games, the extent of control some systems recommend one gives the player can take all power from the gm. Hell, I've seen systems which basically disparage the concept of a gm, suggesting that it is a tyranical mechanic for the power hungry. They seem to forget that someone needs to tell the story and players come to a gm not so they can make up their own adventures, but so someone can write the novel they star in. The divide between player and gm is not so confrontational as some would portray it ... each must depend upon the other for their evenings entertainment, after all, and either can ruin the experience for their counterpart.

There is probably more I could say on this topic, but I've rambled enough and don't want this post to become so long that it gets ignored.

Jason, this is a good topic in that one could potentially write an essay on it.

I agree that GMing is indeed a form of Art. The best allegory I can think of is writing for a T.V. show. You have a fan base: your players. Your players have certain interests; all of which you should get to know. Once, or twice every week your show is hosting a new episode. Your audience is relying on you to deliver something that will satisfy them.

Purists might agrue that gameplay, a campaign setting, a certain type of monster, or the rules behind game play 'should be THIS way'. This works if your players are purists themselves (albiet, there is a fine line between 'purist' and 'rules lawyer', some would argue they are the same). But generally speaking, your players are there to be entertained; not to grade you (if a player is indeed grading you, sack him!).

My recommendation for Gming is this: don't be afraid to change anything. However this should be a fundamental concept for role-playing, I find that most recently there have been notions that the rules printed by WOTC are these divine tablets that are far beyond any of us. Nobody cares if you act outside of the text. The only people that matter are the players themselves, and whether they are having fun. In my campaign, I have awarded powers check failures as non-random plot devices. Does this go against what the original text said: of course. But this also helps me make the plot much more 'meaty' for the players, and avoids Powers Checks being awarded for anti-climactic reasons.

Gming, as a form of art, is reliant heavily upon creativity. The books printed for Dnd are there as guidelines only, and not something that MUST be followed. This is why I think its best that no more 'GM help' manuals are produced (unfortunately, WOTC decided to milk the cow a little more by producing the DMG 2). This is your world: 'Go Nuts!'.

If the dark powers in your world are nothing but a bunch of dogs playing poker: well I hope your players find it funny.

Jack of Tears wrote: A very popular approach at present is "shared naration". In this method the gm empowers the players to direct the game to some extent. The level of involvement may vary, from allowing the pcs to play tokens that change minor details, to giving the pcs complete control over anything not related to the underlying plot. For example, I just recently encountered a system in which the players were responsible for creating all the side stories for one another. Another system suggested that the gm should only design the basic setting but allow players to define detail through their own actions. For example, if the players are in a town and want to get something to drink, it is left up to them to decide upon the tavern they visit, the type of place it is, the clientell it attracts, the drinks it serves, etc. Another example allows for the players to construct historic or even current - though peripheral - events in their universe on the spur of the moment. So if a coversation about warfare comes up the character could make up an historic anecdote or draw parellels to a minor war being fought in a distant region - both derived from his own ideas rather than any direct imput from the gm.

I like everything you said, btw - very well-reasoned and imminently readable.

As for this quote - particularly what you were saying about "shared DMing" - that sounds a lot like how out group plays. but the key, is that it's not forced - no player steps on the others and the DM fels free to pipe up and intorduce variances to the player inventions - and we generally simply accept them and run with the ball, so to speak. It's sort of flows naturally. I can see the potential for abuse, to be certain, btu in our group this has just been as natural as walking.

Sometimes the Dm comes up with the in names, sometimes we do. If one of us has a great idea, we feel it should be aired. and 9 out of 10 times, it's bang on, we get excited abiout the idea and voila! There are so many moments where these accidental contingencies just worked out in the end in a way we could have NEVER planned that it's great!

As for peripheral non-plot events: we play in such a way that we are just encouraged to flesh this stuff out. We know enough about canon to sort of understand what to stay away from... and what to purposefuly connect out charactes to in ways THEY don't even understand.

Which brings me to a touchy point I was actually going to start a forum on: positive metagaming. yes, you heard that right - positive metagiming.

the idea is this - in so many great works of literature (and movies) the great scenes are those where, as readers, we realise that more is being communicated, more meaning is gettign through than the characters "in game" or in the story often appreciate. These moements generally set up, underline and forshadow the significant actions of the narrative.

We aim for somethign similar in our game. Example: I am playing this fighter whose friend has killed a Renier unknowingly (before they ever met) and then, one day, in Nova vaasa somewhere, a renier family member shows up wantgin vengeance with a few cronies. I have a dagger called "la Griffe du Chat" which is a dagger for killing wererats, essentially. it should be noted, my PC has no knowledge of the Renier/rat connection.

Anyhow, so they fall upon us and I have left my axe at the in, so all I have ids this dagger. So I whip it out and instantly recognise that they seem to fear it. So I go on this long, intimidating rant about how I am going to skin them like the rats they are and leave them to rot in the streets or something to that effect. And then, later, when we actually discover the renier/rat connection in-game, that moment is SO much more powerful to the character's experience because you, as a player, sort of set it up (knowlingly) for it to add to the future climax of the story. Your character is sort of forced to act out that drama in a very realistic way. (if you're playing a serious game, anyway.)

So, it's strange, but in many ways, I think that (for the games we enjoy, in any event) the best player has to be an aid to the DM - because he/she can act on this little impulses like that to make relatively minor moments fit into the story nicely. another job of the player, in our games, is to tell the DM - "if you kidnapped my family while I was away on this quest to save my family estates, that would destroy my character. Please take away his family, DM, so I cna really mess with him and enjoy playing the highly dramatic consequebnces. Like, if the player knows his character best, he ows it to the story to rat on him and provide the DM with the BEST ammo possible. )

The DM's job, then, to get back to our topic at hand, is a role of guidance - knowing when to say nothing and let the scene of the man returnign home to his deserted and ransacked house play out, before thrusting onto the PCs the next plot element. This also allows the DM to have more fun playing NPCs, just enjoying the experience, rather than alsways needing to keep his eye on the prize, so to speak. because he knows the players can ALSO direct the story, in small ways that deepen the main storyline of the game. ( i don't mean to imply that the DM does nothing - there are definitely times where his job is to force things to happen, but we all know that, I think.)

There are innumerable examples of great moments in our games, but the best ALWAYS involve the creative input of everyone at the tabel: if my friend didn't play his being charmed by Mallochio Aderre to the hit, by deciding the lure me in, only to shoot me in the back as I was charging the Dukkar; if my other companion had not chosen to decide his character was dead at -2 hp even thoguh he was not, then he would have been burried in the cemetary on my estate, would not have died like the hero no one thought he was but my characert... It would not have been a great game. (Jason Am(brus) knows all about this stuff, but writing out all of the particulars would take a while. )

the best DMs are the ones that ralise thay they play a role, just as the characters lpay a role, in building the story and everybody meets as equals and has a blast making stuff up! Planing is great asnd helps, all of the other advice as well, but the TRUE art of DMing is built upon great relationships with the people you play, understanding their limits and also, playing (as players and DM) to other players' sense of style as much as your own...

Whew. I'm out of (virtual) breath after that!!! (I'm so tired, I realize this is very disjointed, but I am sure it will prompt more posting. )

I think there is enough material, it's only overviewed. A good DM learns from experience, both as DM and player. Then, you combine those abilities into a fresh and new style. A good DM is also innovative.
I will tell you a secret. After your sessions, review your notes, make a few more, and rescue what you liked the most, or you will lose it. Then, rework that, and you will eventually find a flawless work, a piece of art.
Then, you share it with me...

Here are the classical tips I always give prospective GMs:

- If you want to be a GM, you have to do it for the right reasons (as mentioned above)
- Ideally, before you GM, you should play under atleast one good GM (more would be better) and one bad GM. Good GMs will give you ideas for how a good campaign is run, a bad GM will give you some ideas of exactly what your campaign SHOULDN'T be.
-Nevertheless, even if you haven't played under one good and one bad, play under at least two different GMs to experience two different styles.
- Read: not just DnD material, but novels, short stories, campaign journals, etc. GMing is a lot like writing, and likewise in order to be a writer you have to read A LOT!
- GMing is not an earned privalledge, but a responsibility taken by someone to create a game for others. Nobody 'deserves' to GM.
- Never have your players rescue a beautiful princess trapped in a dark dungeon from a fire breathing dragon. However, rescuing a beautiful dragon trapped in a cheery castle by a fire breathing princess is fair game.

Undead Cabbage wrote:Here are the classical tips I always give prospective GMs:

- If you want to be a GM, you have to do it for the right reasons (as mentioned above)
- Ideally, before you GM, you should play under atleast one good GM (more would be better) and one bad GM. Good GMs will give you ideas for how a good campaign is run, a bad GM will give you some ideas of exactly what your campaign SHOULDN'T be.
-Nevertheless, even if you haven't played under one good and one bad, play under at least two different GMs to experience two different styles.
- Read: not just DnD material, but novels, short stories, campaign journals, etc. GMing is a lot like writing, and likewise in order to be a writer you have to read A LOT!
- GMing is not an earned privalledge, but a responsibility taken by someone to create a game for others. Nobody 'deserves' to GM.
- Never have your players rescue a beautiful princess trapped in a dark dungeon from a fire breathing dragon. However, rescuing a beautiful dragon trapped in a cheery castle by a fire breathing princess is fair game.

Lol, love the notion of rescuing a dragon from a fire-breathing pricess!

Great responses once again (good msg board).

To branch into some the ideas that were discussed here, I think in the end, DM-ing a good game is like directing a good movie. If you have the right kind of actors at your command that will sense of what you want from them, and more importantly, what the story/character demands, then you are more than half-way there.

It just occured to me what a fantastic DM tool might be. I never realized just how insightful DVD special features can be to a stortyteller. I'm talking about those featurettes where you really get to see actor-director dynamics, with both members working together toward a greater goal. Letting everyone in the room contribute to the outcome of the tale is a great way to instill a feeling of ownership of the game in all parites present. Everyone cares about the story and therefore by extension, everyone puts their best foot foward.

If I think of the group I play with, this is very true.

Yes, that's definitely it.

Actually, I think the most important guide for a gm would not focus on style, or gimicks, but on teaching self confidence behind the screen. More often than not it is the lack of that which hinders a gm. All the gimicks in the world can't make up for faith in yourself.