DM resources

[Llyranor]

Let's say, for an aspiring DM, what kind of online resources would one need to learn? I know of http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 , but is there DM-specific stuff elsewhere as well?

 

How well-tuned to the ruleset would a DM really need to be?

 

Any DMs out there mind sharing their experiences?

[metadigital]

As long as it is consistent (logically and referentially), then there is no problem with any house rules ...

[Judge Hades]

Got your PM and here we go.

 

First off, know the rules of the game. I am not saying to memorize the books. That would be silly but know the basic gist of of the game mechanics and know where to look when you do need to look something up.

 

Second, keep notes during the game. Make sure you know what is going on with the players. If you don't have good notes things can get a little chaotic, especially if you have a large group.

 

Third, before starting make sure you have all your house rules down. DMs like to tinker, but don't tinker midgame. One thing that kills a campaign is inconsistancy.

 

Fourth, if you do need to change a rule or three midgame consult the players first. make sure they are in the know and get their opinions. They just might like how things are, but be careful that the house rule isn't in their favor too much.

 

Oh, if you can bring a computer to the session or make use of one they are very nice tools to have. When I run a campaign I do so behind a computer screen instead of a GM screen. There are a lot of tools one can find online to aid in game mastering. Also if you need more resources you can't do better than http://www.enword.org if you are doing a d20 System campaign.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Cantousent]

I use PCGen because it's a fast way to create NPCs and it keeps track of the attack bonuses, items, and what not automatically. It has some limitations, including a pretty wretched item creation system, and it doesn't include all the splatbook feats, skills, spells, etc. Still, it's mighty useful.

 

Also, if we're working together on a campaign, you'll pick up enough of the rules quickly to run something. If we can just get started, I'll start letting you run more and more and I'll just private chat with you for quick answers. So, at first I start and then you'll take over a little bit at a time. If the group keeps going for a while, you should be in good shape to run the whole thing without a single word from me. My happiest day will be when you basically tell me "thanks for the help, but I know what I'm doing." heh heh heh.

 

here's the link for PCGen: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net/01_overview.php

[Llyranor]

Also, is there another setting that's easier to learn (and overall better, I guess) than DnD?

 

Also, do I need to read the Dungeon Master Guide or something?

Edited April 16, 2006 by Llyranor

[Judge Hades]

The three main books you need are the PHB, DMG, and MM. The SRD has the majority of the info you will need but there are some key items missing, of course. It also depends on the campaign. The d20 System is easy to learn and master, but kind of quirky.

 

Other system you might be interested are GURPS from Steve Jackson Games, HARP from Iron Crown Enterprises, and Earth Dawn from Wiz Kids (formally was from FASA).

[Cantousent]

I'm actually fond of RoleMaster. I enjoyed Paranoia immensely, but talk about something that requires a deft GM! Another one my favorites is Gama World.

 

I think DnD is the best choice simply because more people know it. If you ever try to get a group going in real life, DnD has the best chance of getting off the ground. On the other hand, you might want to see what other folks play. If there's an established group, you can join their sessions. However, there is one thing about that. A lot of established groups include the "My fighter is 78th level and has the sword of ultimate doom and ass-kicking" type players and a lot of "The rules state, on page 253, two paragraphs down, second line, fifth word: 'might.' That means that it didn't and I'm going to argue with you until you agree with me" type players.

 

If you can get other people into your group, you can choose.

[Llyranor]

Hmm, if I do DM, I'd probably go the low/minimal/inexistent magic route, low-level, and dealing with more 'human' society (no dragon/goblin crap or saving the world, murder is murder), and focusing more on storytelling/roleplaying/improv than fixating over specific rules. I'd tagteam with Nick, too.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Llyranor

[Cantousent]

There's actually a good chance that I've DMed more than anyone here. Not a great chance, mind you, as Hades and some of the old timers have been around for a while.

 

You can create the setting you want and write everything superbly, but the trick is always always going to settle on your ability to run the game. I write my campaigns extensively as possible. I don't pigeon hole the campaign, and heaven knows the players will often go off in an area you hadn't expected, but a good graps of the rules, quick thinking, and the ability to improvise will serve you best.

 

I think, from what I can tell, you could do the story and planning very well. As far as running the game, I think you can get the characters to buy into the whole "low magic" theme as long as you sell it to them properly. What you don't want to do is discourage your players. You want low magic? Fine, be up front. Tell them your setting, give them background, but warn them of significant breaks from the established conventions. Similarly, if you dole out experience based on "mission markers" (I do) then you might want the players to understand that killing an extra twenty orcs at first level won't get them any more experience.

 

Tag teaming is good, but it does mean that two people out of your group of potential players are going to be stuck running the show.

 

I don't think you need to sit down and read the books. I think you need to be a player for a while in a situation where you can ask the DM why he did certain things. As you play, you'll get a grasp of the rules. Moreover, the DMs guide is far less important than the Player's Handbook, even for the DM. Even for a DM who's been running games for some twenty years.

[metadigital]

You can have a character and be the DM, too. It can get awkward, though, especially if the DM's character suddenly decides to start checking for traps (when they are a cleric) and absolutely WON'T follow the group into that little innocent looking room ... "

[Kaftan Barlast]

Our GM tried to do that with us. Had this weird bard follow us around, but we accused him of practising withcraft and had him hung, drawn and quartered. Sadly, it was one of the PC's that was the witch so we had put an innocent NPC to a most excruciatingly painful death.

 

 

Naturally, we dealt with the PC too as soon as we found out. She had to manage with a simple burning alive.

[Judge Hades]

I don't like Rolemaster. Severely complicated to create a character which takes hours with two seconds the campaign starts he is dead and you have to take hours out of the game to make a new character.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I like huge and complex game systems, the more detailed it is the more I like it. Thats why Ive always wanted to try rolemaster but Ive never met anyone whove played it and could explain the rules properly. Ive got a PDF of the 4th ed rulebook but I cant seem to get it in my head

[Llyranor]

I now, er... have the required 3.5e PHB/DMG/MM.

[Judge Hades]

Sure you do. *winkk wink*

[Jediphile]

I like huge and complex game systems, the more detailed it is the more I like it. Thats why Ive always wanted to try rolemaster but Ive never met anyone whove played it and could explain the rules properly. Ive got a PDF of the 4th ed rulebook but I cant seem to get it in my head 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I like huge and complex game systems as well, but I've learned over the years that it becomes pointless to deal with them if the rules are not easily referenced. It's just no use that there precise and exact details for how that particular armor is affected when struck by this specific weapon under water, if you cannot find the rule and use it in a few seconds during a game. If the game complexity begins to interfere with the pace at which the game evolves, then the rules need to go. It's a shame, but it is true, I think.

 

As for the GM having a character himself, I cannot agree with it. The danger of that character becoming omniscient and never doing something wrong because the GM doesn't want to lose "his" character is just far too great. I've used an old favorite PC of mine as an NPC in my own Mystara campaign, but I was very wary of the danger and think I managed to avoid it. Besides, I used him more as conduit to connect different things in the plot, as my players explored it. On the contrary, if the players think the GM will protect his own characters, then make sure to introduce a new NPC that goes with the PCs, and then promptly kill him off at the first opportunity

 

Generally the rules you choose to use don't matter. It's nowhere nearly as important as the GM's own ability to maintain internal consistency in his campaign and how well he can get his plots to unfold at the right pace.

 

The most important part of rules is that they are consistent. If you don't like the rules you have, then change them. But try to do it before play begins, and make sure the players know what has been changed and why. Nothing is worse than creating a new character on the basis of the game foundation that later turns out to have changed. If anything is worse, then it's the GM suddenly having changed his already established rulings, that you have come to rely on as a plyaer, only he forgot to inform you of it. That sort of thing can kill the game and make players leave in seconds, and rightly so.

 

Of course, you could become aware that something needs to be changed only after the campaign has started. In my experience that will almost certainly happen at some point. Even then it's okay to change things, as long as you don't try to use your authority as a GM to impose it upon the players. I find that most players are reasonable people, if you explain to them why something is causing problems and needs to be changed. In most cases the players just don't like being bullied...

 

And if you change the rules during the campaign, invite the players to suggest revisions to their own characters, if they feel like it. This doesn't mean giving them a card blanche to rewrite their characters, though. Whatever they wish to change should be consistent with the character's, well, character

 

And don't outlaw min-maxing. It's not a bad thing per se, because naturally the players will speculate about how to make their characters most powerful. If they do not, then chances are that they're just not very interested in the game, and you really don't want that either. Sure, be aware that min-maxing doesn't go to far, but don't treat is as criminal behaviour either. Many GMs do, and I think they're wrong.

[Jediphile]

Let's say, for an aspiring DM, what kind of online resources would one need to learn? I know of http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 , but is there DM-specific stuff elsewhere as well?

 

How well-tuned to the ruleset would a DM really need to be?

 

Any DMs out there mind sharing their experiences?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you're having trouble thinking of something to do in your campaign, take a look at the Net Book of Plots. I find it to be a good source for inspiration, even if I do always change them beyond recognition before I use them...

 

As for rulesets, I always advice that you know the rules well. However, that doesn't need to be a problem. You can make very simple rules and be just fine, since they're easy to keep in mind. Heck you could make up your own rules, for that matter. Call of Cthulhu (5th edition, not d20) has very simple rules, for example, but it's still a great RPG (but it's horror, which is not everybody's cup of tea).

 

Even for Fantasy, there are alternatives to D&D, though that is by far the most popular. I've played White Wolf's Exalted, and it's excellent if you like manga/anime. The system also isn't so difficult, I think. The biggest problem with Exalted is that there is a huge (albeit interesting) backstory that the GM needs to be familiar with (but not the players so much), before play begins.

 

If you're just looking for a rule system, then there is no need to pay for it. For example, Fudge is free, and you can get free versions of Fudge and GURPS (lite). GURPS is sometimes a good choice, because you can use it for any setting and can expand from the free version (lite) to the full version later, if you like it.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I like huge and complex game systems, the more detailed it is the more I like it. Thats why Ive always wanted to try rolemaster but Ive never met anyone whove played it and could explain the rules properly. Ive got a PDF of the 4th ed rulebook but I cant seem to get it in my head 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I like huge and complex game systems as well, but I've learned over the years that it becomes pointless to deal with them if the rules are not easily referenced. It's just no use that there precise and exact details for how that particular armor is affected when struck by this specific weapon under water, if you cannot find the rule and use it in a few seconds during a game. If the game complexity begins to interfere with the pace at which the game evolves, then the rules need to go. It's a shame, but it is true, I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I dont really mind that, you just need to improvise on the core of the rules and look up specifics if the players demand it.

 

As it is, if a system does not allow me to hit/target a specific body part, it doesnt meet my minimum requirement of complexity and I wont use it. Also, I cant stand system where you pit an abstract "attack value" against an equally abstract "defense value"

[Jediphile]

As it is, if a system does not allow me to hit/target a specific body part, it doesnt meet my minimum requirement of complexity and I wont use it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but where do you draw the line? I mean, is it enough that you can hit the arm, or must you be able to specifically hit the hand as well? Or even the finger? How about the head? Must you be able to target the throat or the eye as well?

 

Also, I cant stand system where you pit an abstract "attack value" against an equally abstract "defense value"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. As I have said before on these boards, D&D's abstract AC rules just don't make any sort of logical sense. They are simple, yes, but they are also too simple. It makes no sense that it's easier to hit a man in leather armor than a man in full plate mail, since it's rather more difficult to dodge blows in the latter case. I'd go for GURPS' damage reduction any day of the week. It makes far more sense and isn't really a complication to work with. And I dare say most people who have played Fallout will likely have arrived at the same conclusion.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Yes, but where do you draw the line? I mean, is it enough that you can hit the arm, or must you be able to specifically hit the hand as well? Or even the finger? How about the head? Must you be able to target the throat or the eye as well?

 

The minumum requirement is arm/leg/torso/head but its good to have specific and detailed hit locations aswell. I know a Swedish RPG called "Western" used a rather complex system where you placed a transparent plastic diagram over a large drawing of a man to get EXACTLY where a bullet hit. That was a bit extereme, but fun.

The way I use it in the system Im working on is a basic table where you use the lower dice of a d100 roll to get a 1-10 value where you hit and then theres an optional table with very detailed hit locations that you can use if you like.

 

 

..D&D's abstract AC rules just don't make any sort of logical sense. They are simple, yes, but they are also too simple. It makes no sense that it's easier to hit a man in leather armor than a man in full plate mail, since it's rather more difficult to dodge blows in the latter case. I'd go for GURPS' damage reduction any day of the week. It makes far more sense and isn't really a complication to work with. And I dare say most people who have played Fallout will likely have arrived at the same conclusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The AC system was mind-boggling the first time I encountered it after playing Swedish systems that are quite GURPS-like. "So, if I put on a huge armour the arrows will just magicly turn mid-air and miss me?"

 

Yeah, overall I think we need to fight abstract contructs in RPG rule systems. Most peopole just take the wrong approach to "quick & easy" rule systems. White Wolf's Dot system is simple and quick but still makes perfect sense.

[Cantousent]

I don't think simple rules are bad. In fact, for some people a simple rules system is the best choice. Probably for most people.

 

On the other hand, having truly complex rules isn't bad. The necessity to look up rules and go through charts isn't bad as long as the players and the GM enjoy the rules as much as the setting or the gameplay. I'm not joking. Some players enjoy making characters more than playing them. Some players look forward to spending a couple hours on one fight, using every little trick and going through tons of charts and using diagrams.

 

The point is, don't bash DnD rules for being simple (although I've seen simpler rulesets). Perhaps that's the point. Don't bash a system that uses character classes or levels just because you prefer one that doesn't. It's one thing to prefer complex system and another to attack someone else because he doesn't. Well, Kaftan's just stubborn and pig-headed, so it's alright for him. ...But everyone else should be understanding. :Eldar's poking fun at Kaftan icon:

[Jediphile]

I don't think simple rules are bad.  In fact, for some people a simple rules system is the best choice.  Probably for most people.

 

On the other hand, having truly complex rules isn't bad.  The necessity to look up rules and go through charts isn't bad as long as the players and the GM enjoy the rules as much as the setting or the gameplay.  I'm not joking.  Some players enjoy making characters more than playing them. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think I may be one them. Not that I don't enjoy play or particularly like complex rules, but I love spending hours and hours building up a complex new character. Not so that he becomes powerful, but more so that he has a very rich background. For example, I don't like how sometimes an old friend conveniently jumps into the plot with never a word about his existence before. In one Trek RPG game I played, I actually wrote down all my character's old friends beforehand and gave the list to the GM. He still didn't use it, though... :">

 

Anyway, tweaking a character, giving him strengths and weaknesses is great fun. I like the absolutely *huge* sections of advantages and disadvantages in the GURPS 4th Ed. Characters book - I can get inspiration just from reading the very extensive rules. That's what good rules do - they should inspire as well as decide stuff.

 

Some players look forward to spending a couple hours on one fight, using every little trick and going through tons of charts and using diagrams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's where I disagree. AD&D 2e fights can take awful amounts of time once the characters gain multiple attacks, and I prefer the game to be fast-paced.

 

The point is, don't bash DnD rules for being simple (although I've seen simpler rulesets).  Perhaps that's the point.  Don't bash a system that uses character classes or levels just because you prefer one that doesn't.  It's one thing to prefer complex system and another to attack someone else because he doesn't.  Well, Kaftan's just stubborn and pig-headed, so it's alright for him.  ...But everyone else should be understanding.  :Eldar's poking fun at Kaftan icon:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I will not be kind on systems that enforce a rigid class and/or level structure, as that is just not helpful to role-playing in my experience. Besides, that sort of thing just spawns the usual "how can Obi-Wan defeat Darth Maul as a padawan (=below lvl 7) when Obi-Wan couldn't as a master (lvl 13+) and was even killed"-types of silly arguments. Levels don't make sense, and classes are just restrictive. I will never support either.

[Cantousent]

The point is, some folks like levels and classes. You might not like them, but that doesn't mean they're not a perfectly valid structure for someone else.

 

Now, you can argue that one system allows for more actual "role-playing" than another. After all, levels and classes are restrictive. I agree. They also allow for some oddities during gameplay. Of course, there are oddities in real life. I don't find that classes and levels are bad because they allow one person to defeat another at the wrong level. They usually make it near impossible for low level monsters or NPCs to kill high level characters. A twentieth level character can run through a horde of orcs like a wheat thresher.

 

I don't tend to like extended battles, but you must know some folks really do. For some people, DnD is nothing more than an excuse to run through battles. We might think it's boring, but that doesn't change the fact that some people love it. Not only that, but they're perfectly right to enjoy the game in whatever way they like. If they want nothing but 2 hour battles, they're not going to game with me, but I don't resent them for it. :Eldar's wry grin icon:

 

That's one of the things I like about Paranoia. Combat is most definitely not the main activity during the game.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I didnt use to so anti-simplicity until I came across some truly horrible examples of when people had simplified rules to such an extent that they broke the game itself. The most well-known system guilty of that is the "GURPS for anime" system called BESM, which more or less tries to be GURPS with a rulebook thin as a postcard.

Not only were the rules incomplete, but they were unbalanced and broken in every respect. You did everything using 3 stats and rolled a 2d6, it had fixed damages and so on. Its no wonder they flushed the whole system straight down the toilet and swicthed to d20.

 

 

But the real reason I like complex is because I believe that in order for the game to be fun, the rules have to be fun to play by. And the more options you have, the more fun it is to play around with it.

 

 

 

It's one thing to prefer complex system and another to attack someone else because he doesn't.  Well, Kaftan's just stubborn and pig-headed, so it's alright for him.  ...But everyone else should be understanding.  :Eldar's poking fun at Kaftan icon:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Im not stubborn and pig-headed, and I can prove it. " Just look at all the gall I spewed over Oblivion before it was released and look at me now, not only playing it and having fun but actually admitting to playing it and having fun

 

 

(although its just an "ok" game, its by no means brilliant: 3/5 )

[metadigital]

But the real reason I like complex is because I believe that in order for the game to be fun, the rules have to be fun to play by. And the more options you have, the more fun it is to play around with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kaftan likes Calvinball?