Going The Distance

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

Switching Gears

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

Changing It Up

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

Consequences

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

GMing Basics - Keeping Your Players Interested

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

An Archipelago of Adventure

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

GMing Basics - A Key Weapon

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

Lights, Camera, Action! - A Whole New World

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

Lights, Camera, Action! - Background Noise

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

GMing Basics - Gotta Keep'Em Separated

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

Making Evil

So you're writing up ideas for your campaign, thinking about the geography and who governs what and so on when you realize something - I need a driving force for my players. I need to give them a good reason to go on their journey, and not stay at home and watch the world burn.

How can you do this? Well the standard go-to answer most GMs use is something along the lines of villains, however this concept can be very broad, ranging from a specific person to concepts and even ideas, not to mention forces of nature.

Considering any given villain, who is supposed to stick around, needs a lot of work to make memorable and decent. Here are a few tools and ideas on how to help with your villains.

• Make something about them stand out. Perhaps a piece of clothing, how they talk, or how they fight. Either way, it's easier to remember something you can visualize well then another commoner.
• Make them relatable. Unless they are a concept or incarnation of an idea, they will inevitably have feelings, emotions, and everything that comes with that. So having players understand that who they are working against isn't some infallible, all-knowing being can give them courage in their fight, and sometimes even sympathy for the character, and if you're particularly lucky they may try to redeem them.
• Don't hide them, generally speaking. I have tried making my villains more of a "hidden in the shadows, pulling the strings" kind of people before, and it's never worked too well for me. I understand it can be done well, but I think it takes a lot of decent foreshadowing, and proper understanding from the party to really get a worthwhile effect from it all.
• Make them a challenge, in at least one way. By this I mean that villains don't always need to be strong in combat, as long as the players face them in another arena (ex. social situations) and can lose, in a matter of speaking.
• Make sure they're beatable for your party, and if they have a specific weakness or way to defeat them try to let your players figure it out before having an NPC ruining their "Aha!" moment. Don't let an NPC kill them either unless there is an amazingly good reason why s/he should get to final blow. The players are here for their story, their adventure, and their glory, not the story of Dwayne the Ex-Commoner.

One other thing I'd like to note is an idea I ran across a short while back. The idea was that GMs don't need to use villains anymore, they are an archaic ingredient to the GM's gameplan, and can be thrown out.

I find this train of though fascinating, and in a sand-box style of game I'd almost be inclined to agree in a way. There doesn't need to be a big evil guy or girl threatening people, the party should be self-driven, but many groups don't want such a freeform type of game, preferring to see what kinds of plans the GM has next, and how the story will unfold.

What do you think of the idea? Have you ever done a game without a proper villain? How'd it go? And if any of you have questions or suggestions for articles, I am more than happy to see what's on your minds.

I hope your creations lay waste to all who oppose them,

Taylor Shuss

Ending a Campaign - Tips and Tricks (Mostly Tips)

So let’s say you are your group have been meeting for a year, maybe even two, and it’s become clear the game is slowly coming to a close. Before I go any further, that’s amazing! I hear of so many games going downhill that actually managing to finish one is quite the accomplishment! However, it’s not over yet. I find ending a campaign to be a daunting task, and try to keep in mind a few pointers to make sure you don’t royally ruin the ending considering everyone’s (the player’s and GM’s) hard work.

Tip #1 - Try to keep your final note within the theme and mood you’ve setup. This may seem obvious, but it is necessary to remember, lest you overlook it and botch it all by turning your social political intrigue-based game into one of cartoon-like villains and antics.

Tip #2 -  Don’t force the campaign to end haphazardly unless you have the best ending ever ready to go right now. I was recently in a game where this unfortunately happened, and although I understand the GM’s reasons, the closure it gave us wasn’t good enough to merit ending it the way it did. Most players get unhappy, and may even leave if this happens, even if it’s for a perfectly understandable reason.

Tip #3 - Make sure to have a definite ending point - don’t allow the campaign to continue, especially if you don’t have much more material to give your players. It’s understandable to have players who want to continue, however as the GM you know better than most anyone when done is done. I recall doing this many years ago, and it just made the campaign go from “decent story” to “we have no idea what to do now,” and it was all my fault. 

Tip #4 - Remember that sometimes a traditionally bad ending isn’t bad for your campaign. Sometimes everyone getting killed can work, if it’s done well. A GM needs to properly setup everything, make sure you and your players are on the same mindset, but if it’s readied properly, don’t be afraid to try something traditionally seen as inherently bad. The best part is - if it works, you learned you can stray from the beaten path! Good job! If it doesn’t work, then talk to your players, learn what you did poorly, or what you missed, and maybe try something similar in concept later, ideally being cautious of what happened last time.

Tip #5 - Tie up every loose-end you can think of. I recall ending one of my first full campaigns, and one of my players was annoyed that I hadn’t finished a story-arc or two that he wanted to see ended. I was caught off-guard, being somewhat new to ending campaigns, and felt pretty stupid. Since then I’ve tried to really wrap things up, and so should you. A decent way to make sure you have every loose end is to either write them down as they come up, or ask your players what they want to see in your ending. If you ask your players, you also get to see if they’ve forgotten anything, as sometimes you can bring someone back and clean up whatever remained in their story, but make sure it’s actually relevant and not completely unrelated to the ending you have planned.

Tip #6 - Don’t force your ending. It feels much more natural to everyone when they come to the decision to approach such large and meaningful matters, as opposed to having an NPC suggest, or even worse, tell them to do whatever your plan is. I understand that most GMs want to tell a good story with the help of their players, however what a lot of GMs forget is that RPGs are a collaborative story, where both sides move and sway what happens, and removing that kind of free will, in my opinion, basically ruins the entire point of it being a game as opposed to a book or movie.

Don’t get me wrong, magical items and spells can force PCs to do quite a bit, but that should be used sparingly to allow for maximum freedom on the PC’s side of things. And if a player wants to act stupid and go hug the mindflayer, then s/he’s asking for what will inevitably ensue. But in most occasions, don’t force your players into where you want them to be, or what to do, especially in the ending. Such things can really tarnish an amazing campaign’s run in many people’s minds.

Tip # 7 - Try to make it memorable. I’m not saying you should pull every little trick out of your hat and do a dance for your players, but a forgettable ending can be pretty upsetting to players and GMs alike. Right when they think they have the villain down on the ground, have him up the stakes. Suddenly they’re in a do-or-die situation, and in those types of situations the player’s ultimate weapon truly emerges, Player Ingenuity. Players aren’t always the craftiest or quickest, but sometimes they can think up some crazy ideas which can work better than anything most GMs would ever see coming. These solutions can make a character, as well as an ending, very memorable.

May you and your players bask in such Ingenuity,

Taylor Shuss

GMing Basics - Unwritten

This week we're going back to the basics to talk about your players, and how important they are. Obviously you can't have a game without them, but there is much more to it than that.

In your games, usually the idea is that everyone wants to have fun. And unless your group plays the Tomb of Horrors over and over trying to get further, it probably happens. However, even with a great story and a memorable cast of NPCs, things can still go very poorly. The cast of players, not their characters but the players themselves, can make or break any game. Party Makeup is how I like to refer to this, although usually it refers to the in-game party, not the players themselves. I will be using it for both, although mostly out of character for this post.

The Party Makeup is insanely important because if everybody dislikes one guy you invited to tonight's game, before you know it there may be no more PCs in your future. Thankfully not all groups are that quick to draw their guns, but it is very important to listen to what kinds of people they want to have as other players. And if you're trying to get someone to join, tell everyone if they know them to make sure they're welcome. If they don't know the newcomer, maybe setup a meeting beforehand? I understand that's not always plausible, but with a newcomer nobody knows, generally it is better than inviting a friend to join without telling anyone. Although it seems like that shouldn't be the case, people hold grudges and biases that can be really halt games until the problem is dealt with.

If a player or players is/are unsure of someone you feel would be good in the group, talk with them. Make your points for why they would be decent in the group, and let your player(s) make their points as well. While a GM is in full control (to a degree) during any given game session, outside of those it usually isn't the case, and making it feel that way is generally a bad idea (With the sole exception of PARANOIA, THE BEST RPG IN ALPHA COMPLEX, CITIZEN). On the flip side, if a player feels that someone you or they know could be good in your group, try to be receptive. If it's a friend, then you can talk about why s/he could or could not fit into the group. If it isn't a friend, then it's much more of a risk, but can definitely pay off. I've done all of these, and the results have been varied, all dependent on the people invited, and not the method used.

However, sometimes bad things do occur - Maybe a player got upset because the Cleric stole their thunder (literally?) in the last battle, or because you ruled in someone else's favor. No matter the case, it is your job as the leader of the group to settle things. I want to be clear though, I mean this all out of game. Even if normally you aren't leading the group of friends, if someone gets a call and starts crying off in the corner, you as the GM need to understand it's your job to help work things out where you are, perhaps by taking a break. You don't need to have nightly conversations with the player with issues, but when people at your table need you to control the situation, it is your job to. If two players are having a problem, you need to be able to sit with both of them and talk it out, ideally as the neutral party between them. If a mutual agreement can't be found with honesty on both sides, then something needs to happen. Maybe someone needs to leave the group, quite possibly one of them has to take a break or make a new character, all depending on the issue, but the key point here is that you need to try to settle problems between players, hopefully with everyone acting like mature adults about the issues at hand.

This isn't really something people can get around. The GM is naturally seen as the leader in most every tabletop role-playing group I've ever seen. And it may take some time to get used to the role. Yes, these are unwritten rules, and no, they aren't fair - I mean you need to plan for the session, plan the where, when, and who, bring materials, make rulings, deal with the universal problem player, AND help the guy with his issues which happened when you were supposed to be playing your game to have some fun?

When you do a good job helping out your players, they will begin to understand that you're willing to help them, and that you're there for them. It makes a great GM/player bond that can translate into friendship if you're not at an all-friends gaming table, or an even stronger friendship than before. And perhaps your players might understand and be grateful, and be there for you when you need someone to be in charge while you freak out for a little bit. It's all depends on them and you, and how the relationship morphs and evolves. Maybe they'll learn how to handle it with your guidance when they finally take the dive and try GMing that system they always go one and on about?

Take pride in your duties though, and try your best to help out your players in their time of need. Whether it's with a player having problems with how another players acts, or maybe someone wants to join but you know they aren't a good fit with the other players in the group, it's your responsibility to handle things like these as a mature GameMaster. The pressure might be high, but these things come up randomly, and you need to be able to deal with them. Before and after sessions issues like these are less of a priority, but while you're in charge people look up to you for guidance, so reassure them in stride with your actions for the betterment of your friends and group.

May your players never quarrel, and your rules be clear-cut and easy to grasp,

Taylor Shuss

NPC-Crafting

Welcome back to another article that will ideally help your GMing skills. This week I'm going to talk about how to make good NPCs, not in a mechanical sense but as characters the players like, care for, and remember. This is very tricky and not a science, so some of my advice on this matter may not fit with how your group approaches people/things. I would also like to note this for your more run-of-the-mill folk, not the main villain of a campaign, which is another topic I definitely want to cover sooner or later.

Let's make a list that most memorable NPCs have or need to work:

• Some sort of quirk, or character defining trait that removes them from the bulk of nameless NPCs
• Relatability, that is the ability for the PCs to talk to and communicate with him/her/it.
• Ideally has similar goals to the PCs, or is at least willing to help them along the way to the PC's goals.

Think about a movie, say Disney's Aladdin, and then think about the most memorable NPC in said movie (of course trying to specify who is a PC and an NPC). I'd probably say that the Genie is the most memorable one, and I'd definitely qualify him as an NPC because he has either way too much power for a PC, or due to how few times he gets to do what he wants to do (which is important that players get to do within reason). What separates him from the other people in Agrabah? Well he isn't a human, he's a genie. He has no free will and must obey his current master. He can also grant wishes, not to mention I'd say he has the best song in the movie. So he has a lot going for him on the side of "Stuff Most NPCs Don't Do."

To continue on that train of thought, the genie sits down and talks with the protagonist about how hard life is being a genie allowing the audience and Aladdin to see that although he is a magical being, he has problems just like the rest of us. A good NPC can talk with the players and feel like a real person, although that depends on what style of game you're running. An RPG based on serious film noir doesn't want cartoon characters running around (unless it's the Roger Rabbit RPG) because that would ruin the theme, just as a character with severe depression would hurt the mood of a game based on the Animaniacs.

I would say this is the most arguable here, as sometimes NPCs who are actively working against the players can be likable, even lovable, if done right. But in general, many beloved NPCs work with, or for, the players and their goals. I would probably say a large factor in this part of it all is how experienced the group you're playing with is, as many newer groups tend to jump to violence as the answer because it's all new to them and they can do WHATEVER they want in this world. Whereas older, more seasoned players tend to talk diplomacy and peace before gunning down people who would try to stop the party.

With all this information I would like to reiterate - Sometimes players just kill that really cool NPC before s/he has a chance to shine and prove themselves. Just keep on running the game, and remember you can always throw the NPC back in because players don't know what you never described. You shouldn't always do that, but it is definitely an option if you feel it's truly that important.

Don't forget to throw in random details for the PCs to latch onto. You can expand on these as the party asks more about them, adding depth to the NPC. When I describe a group of NPCs, it's generally best to describe the most notable people and see where they go from there (although that can easily change depending on what exactly they're looking for). This allows you plenty of options without having to worry about every last detail, although there are times when the party splits into 3rds and talks to all three of the NPCs you mentioned. So I suppose it may not be a perfect method, depending on your style and quickness, but it tends to work well for me.

I hope you found this helpful, and please feel free to message me or comment on this if you feel I missed something. If you want to hear about specific topics, commenting works.

May Trenk, Jenky, and Chubbs live on in memory alone,

Taylor Shuss

GMing Basics

Today I'm going to talk about the most important part of GMing, in my opinion. I know some who prefer crunch over fluff, and others who try to get the crunch to fit how the lore works as accurately as possible. I recall others who want to make each party question their ideals, and others who just enjoy throwing shit in the group's face. None of these are as important to me as planning.

No, I don't mean planning out the campaign's villain's backstory, the session, or a certain story arc. I mean figuring out when and where you and your 5 other friends can all meet up, relax for a few hours, and play the damn game.

Don't get me wrong, other bits are pretty important too, but I consider planning the when and where a serious and important issue because without those figured out you will probably never have a game, no matter how well you know the system, or how perfect your story is, you need to know when you're playing and where.

Many moons ago, when I was new to tabletop role-playing games, the group I was in wouldn't plan their sessions out. Instead, they would hang out, see if anyone wanted to play D&D or what have you, and if enough people were down for it the game would go on.

This was in probably the worst stage of mine, as a player of pen and paper RPGs, because I was what's known as a player (A joke, I swear...) Looking back, I am surprised at how often they played, but the real issue was continuity. New campaigns would spring up sporadically, and old ones would almost never get finished. As a new player at the time, it took me awhile to get that what we were doing wasn't the norm, and after a time the inevitable happened. I got lucky and was able to DM before it fell to bits, thus leading me to making my own group shortly thereafter. But looking back, the constant flow of new games being run did help me in one big way - I got pretty decent at making characters.

Any given GM must also take note of another planning issue that can come up. You can only have so much of a time gap between games before most groups get bored of, or forget about, your campaign. I would argue no matter how interesting your story (or theirs, rather) was, a good month or two without any gaming can kill about most groups. This can change, depending on how much the people talk about it, but it all comes down to a simple point: Work with your players, and be open about scheduling to try and work things out.

I remember when half of my first D&D group, the one I first full-timed DM for, got seasonal jobs including me, I talked with everyone and we wrote up a schedule. It seemed that nobody could play for a while month! I said no, look right here, and they noticed right after work, at 3AM to 6AM we could play, and we played all but one week out of that month. It was tiring, and the sessions could have been better, but we all still kept on playing thanks to decent planning abilities.

I've seen groups that have a player who schedules things, and the DM just follows those instructions. While that may work, I find it less than attractive primarily because ideally the GM is the most invested in any given game - it's his or her world, that s/he put a lot of effort into making and letting players run through. With that logic, the GM will care the most, and will prioritize getting everyone together and playing. I'm not saying that a player-scheduled can't work, I just feel it may not be the most optimal setup. If you find a way for it to work, more power to you.

So remember, no matter how annoying it is to have to set everything up, and make sure everything is fine with everyone, it's all worth it. Without that seemingly annoying task out of the way, there would be no game, no wizards and dragons to challenge your friends.

On a side note though, I would like to say that it's also important not to force a game. By that I mean, make sure people can reliably go to your game. If not, you're asking for trouble. Just wait a month or two. I know that can be difficult, but your amazing story will probably get derailed anyways so just cool down, work on the nearby civilizations or what kind of wildlife is in the area. The wait is usually worth it.


I plan on seeing you next week,
Taylor Shuss

The Player Who Could

Hello and welcome to my blog. I'm going to share stories, tips, and other things here. Although the focus is on GMing, I may drift into board games once in a while.

For my first post, I am going to regale my best, proudest moment as a DM to you, and talk about what lessons can be learned from it.

This event happened years ago, back when I was content with only running one game a week, and when I was content with only running fantasy games. I had 5, maybe 6, players who I really enjoyed playing with. One of them, Kyle, was a pretty cool guy. He's long gone now, moved away and got married, but his impact is something I'll make sure to never forget.

So the party had just arrived at a new town, a town that was celebrating some big victory or some-such. The party noticed a Grey Render outside of the town, and was pulled into the party the town was throwing. There were stands with free meat, fruits, ale, water, everything a party could really want in the ways of hospitality. They were told of a great victory long ago, of the town's men attacked and slaughtered a group of evil octopus-people to the West. One of the party was told of a few people who had gone missing recently, but dismissed it as nothing. Most of the group got drunk and passed out, and one of them found himself being carried west-ward by the Grey Render, to supposed protector of the town. Said member discovered a lone mindflayer out in what seemed to be an old cavern of sorts, with a few human cohorts, all under his command.

Another party member woke up in the middle of the night, and discovered his travelling companion missing. After alerting the others, they found the rather large footprints headed West and followed them. They arrived at the mindflayer's lair, and he paralyzed them while explaining that although they had found him, he was going to slowly ruin the town by making them all his slaves as revenge for destroying his brethren. Some of the members of the party managed to get out of his mind-controlling clutches, and he escaped via Grey Render. They watched as his slave carried him over the nearby mountains, easily escaping the party's reach.

A few sessions later, the party had a new friend, an old man. They came across what looked like a mine, but as they went further in the mine became a sort of dungeon. The party, and the old man, got through the dungeon and found what looked like a slide downwards. There were three slides, and after Kyle went down one bravely (they thought they were trapped, not that I blame them) he saw an incredibly long hallway, filled with three rows of people of many different races in robes, all drawing some symbols on the ground beneath them, chanting altogether. At the end of the hallway was a mindflayer.Then the following series of events happened.

Kyle: Alright,  I'm gonna run up to one of the robed guys and see what kind of symbols he is making.
Me: Okay, roll SpellCraft.
Kyle: 17, 22.
Me: You look them over and can clearly make out that the man is drawing Necromantic symbols.
Kyle: Aw crap, guys I know what he's doing! He's going to resurrect his old mindflayer friends if we don't figure out a way to stop him ASAP!

I was pretty taken aback. It's like he read my mind, but he just used his head and figured it out. I know it's not a crazy conclusion, but players and DMs tend to think of different wavelengths in my experience, so having a player just GET it like Kyle did was amazing to me.

How can this be applied to your GMing? Well first of all, don't expect the vast majority of your players to figure out what's going on, or why it's going on like my friend Kyle did. Expect your players not to pick up on many clues you drop because they're focused on other things. Whether or not the other things are their cell phones or Grimlak's answer to their duel invitation is for another time, but players have a hard time seeing things as clearly as you do. Because of this, feel free to drop a few more clues than one might expect, because odds are they won't notice, or even care, about them all.

Secondly, although it's harder to show the players what's going on, it is more rewarding to the player (and in my opinion to the GM) when they figure it out themselves. It gives a sense of pride, a reason to be more invested in the outcome of things. I mean, would your players care more about a treasure map they were asked to look into by a friend, or one they found, deciphered, and barely got out alive with while exploring other ruins? So remember, whenever possible - Show, don't tell.

This first article is hopefully helpful, and if you want to leave feedback that'd be much appreciated. The ending to the story may be told in another article, as I can definitely find a lesson to be learned there as well.

Best of luck story-crafting,
Taylor Shuss