Alright, so to summarize:
I've been playing with a group for a few months now, and our GM is quitting. I wont use this space to gripe about him: In his words he's upset with the game because we've been playing like 'beer and pretzels' gamers - just show up and roll the dice. Not interested in plot or RPing, just eating treats and having a good time.
Now, while we do have a very good time and it is true that we bring food (it's a six hour session every other week, what do you expect?) I humbly disagree with him. I think it is a very good group that is interested in plot and RPing - the problem is that there are too many of us to properly focus on any sort of plot. He's trying to run a game with nine players! To further complicate things, we weren't really encouraged to get together and discuss our backgrounds with each other, so we have a group of people with very different ideas about good and evil who are still trying to reconcile the group mentality...
I explain this not to gripe, but because our possibly former GM seems to be more interested in griping and quitting the group than saving the game. The rest of the group who've really enjoyed playing together would like to salvage the situation, even if it means one person we enjoy playing with (our former GM) walks away from the table. So, since I've been thinking of starting a campaign of my own for some time, I'm nervously stepping up to the bat. Or at least trying once the dust clears, since we only have strong suspicions as to how this will all end.
Here's the thing though: Just because our GM isn't really trying to fix the problems doesn't mean that I don't agree that they're there. If I end up running a new game I want to give myself the following advantages:
1) Game will be shaved down to 5-6 players. 4-5 would be more ideal (since I'm new at this) but I'd rather cut out as few people as possible.
2) I will ask the group to roll new characters and to discuss basic strategy before hand - I don't want people constantly infighting because it's IC - it wastes time. I'm not going to demand any specific traditional roles, but a group that synergizes with each other both in backgrounds and strategy seems like it'd go a long way towards keeping a good group mentality.
3) I'm going to ask that everyone roll a 'good' character - I'll allow exceptions only if I can be given a very good reason why they'd be loyal to the rest of the group. This is partially to avoid the whole 'infighting' thing, and partially just a personal preference - I want a heroic campaign. I want to write a story around a group of heroes, not a group of people of interest who want to search dungeons for treasure. I don't want to get into moral debates about this: I like the idea of heroes defeating villians so I want to schew things in favour of the PCs trying to do the right thing.
Any other suggestions? Any tweaks to my rules? This is my first time playing and I'd like to sort out some ground rules that'll give me a strong start so that this sort of GM drama doesn't repeat itself.
|
Keep water close by and lots of it, your mouth will get dry GMing.
Only thing I can add is don't get frustrated if your players turn out to be "kick in the door" style players and want to just explore for loot. To me it seems that if I get together with people IRL to play any form of D&D (Pathfinder, d20, 3.5), then it will result in "roll players". Not that its a bad thing.
If I want to have a good story with "role players", I make an online campaign.
Sounds like a bit of a GM/player style conflict. It happens. For a GM people not following your carefully crafted plot and story can be depressing and frustrating, especially if you put a lot of work into it and got all excited. Hopefully a split will work out better for both parties.
1) Have you considered making two groups? Nine is easily enough for two, and with less players everything is easier to run as a GM. You might even find people get more into the plot and roleplay aspects when they don't have to compete as hard for attention at the table.
2) Always a good idea. Not that in-character-in-fighting can't be fun, but if you are frustrated by the extent of it as a player, you will probably be driven mad by it as a GM.
3) Also a good idea. Evil characters can be fun, but some players take it as an opportunity to release their inner psychopath. The only thing I would suggest is making sure the players are interested in the same heroic campaign you are. That little "NG" on their character sheet is surprisingly ineffective at making players act like anything but rampaging bandits if that is how they prefer to play. If you get too invested in the idea of a heroic campaign about fighting evil villians, and your players don't live up to that ideal, you are liable to become upset like the previous GM.
Remember that you are not versus your players. Many new GMs make the mistake of thinking like a player in that you want to win.
YOU, the GM, are showcasing the players. If they WTF stomp your encounter its ok as long as they have fun doing it. Take what you learned to the encounter building table for next time. Do not arbitrarily nerf your characters if you can avoid it. It's all about having fun for everyone.
Design a premise and tell all the players to build a character that fits the concept: example...
A great time of troubles have settled over the Kingdom of NAME; monsters rampage through the countryside and bandits prowl on the roads. You, and your companions, have joined forces to put an end to these villainous times or die trying.
Something like that before or during character creation will generally make players build a character to the theme of co-operation that you want. Also making restrictions on good and promoting general teamwork also helps for new-DMs.
I would also pre-face the game for any power-gamers or min-maxers you might have with the following: "I don't mind if you power game. You are supposed to beat my monsters. But please think of your fellow players and try not to ruin the fun for them. It is never fun to feel useless. Think of them."
I think those are the major pitfalls new DMs run into as far as promoting overall co-operative play and overall fun. There are rules to learn and tricks to employ but you can learn those as you go. What I just said really should be said before the game starts rather than part way through.
Just try and get everyone to have fun (this includes you!). That is your number one priority. Everything else comes second.
To help you get started, be sure you are intimately familiar with the Combat chapter and Magic chapter of the Core Rulebook.
I also highly recommend picking up the GameMastery Guide if you don't already have access to it. It is a WONDERFUL guide to running games.
You may also want to read up on any sections relevant to your players' characters and/or your campaign elements (e.g., if there are going to be dragons and volcanoes, you want to know all about dragons, volcanoes, lava, catching on fire, smoke, etc.).
Remember that you are the GM, and that your word should be final when it comes to any ruling or important decision. If the players want to discuss/debate it, it can wait until after the game or during the next break (and even then, the discussion should remain calm and level-headed on both sides--it's only a game after all, and everyone WANTS to get along). Make sure the players know this. You are making a point on being the most knowledgeable person in the group (you are, right?) and are doing all of the leg work and adventure design for THEIR enjoyment after all. Respecting your authority as GM should be understood. That being said, strive to say "yes" to your players far more often than you have to say "no." Don't disallow/house rule something because it may strike you as a little weird. Disallow things on the basis that they will somehow be disruptive to the game, or otherwise impede upon the fun of another. When you do disallow something, state clearly you reasons why, don't just say "because I said so" or "because I'm the GM."
Speaking of house rules, if you have any, please discuss them with your players well in advance of their implementation. Nothing ticks people off more than the GM 'making up' rules on the spot (especially when it is detrimental to the players' characters). It breaks the unspoken social contract that you've all come together to play the SAME game.
That's all the advice that I could think of off the top of my head.
|
QFT:
Paul writes,
Remember that you are not versus your players. Many new GMs make the mistake of thinking like a player in that you want to win.
YOU, the GM, are showcasing the players. If they WTF stomp your encounter its ok as long as they have fun doing it. Take what you learned to the encounter building table for next time. Do not arbitrarily nerf your characters if you can avoid it. It's all about having fun for everyone.
The big thing I see myself and some other newer GMs doing is getting genuinely disappointed when the group stomps through an adventure completely bypassing the tricky parts or suspenseful mechanics.
The best GM I play with lights up and cheers when we, as players, beat the bad guys and come up with creative solutions to the challenges.
I really have to remind myself to cheer with my players, and it's OKAY if every fight doesn't have them sweating. Because when I'm playing and I think of something great to completely own the BBEG I'm super excited and proud of the character I built.
You really have keep that in mind. I've only GM'd a few times, and I find myself getting upset that they are demolishing my baddies, but I KNOW that a key to becoming better as a GM is to not get caught up in that and just let the players tell their stories and my job is to make them feel like heroes.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
1. Split the group. GM + 9 players = 2 groups of GM + 4 players. You are wise to do this.
2. See #1. I cannot overstate this. PF seriously breaks down for more than 6 players. No amount of encounter balancing will fix bored players who wait 30 minutes in between turns in combat. It also makes it much harder for players to get "face time" with the GM and time to shine in their respective roles. No matter how much your players plead and beg, do not let the group get above this size. It's like feeding them after midnight.
3. Expectation management. Let everybody know up front what kind of game you want to run. Take into account your players' preferences, but ultimately it is your game and you are responsible for it. Own it! This includes stuff like published material vs. free-form, railroad/sandbox (and railroads are fine as long as you can hide the rails!), house and table rules, and tone of the game (is it fantasy noir or superhero anime or something else).
4. Shared experience. There's hundreds of collective years of GMing experience on these boards. Ask questions! Try to ask before it comes up in play. Also check out sites like www.roleplayingtips.com.
Yeah, smaller groups is always nice. I once hosted for a group that was so large, two of my players wondered off and started a relationship because they were tired of waiting for their turn (which rarely came as they had low initiative and the encounters were often over before it arrived).
|
For your first forays into running things as a GM, you might try using a pre-published adventure or Adventure Path.
Buy a couple of Modules or PFS scenarios and run your players through them as one-shot events to get your feet wet. Once you have a feel for the more mechanical aspects of GMing, you can shift your focus to creating your own world and campaign.
Running a home-brew campaign can be time-intensive, but when you get it right and your players become heavily invested in the stories and NPCs it becomes totally worth it.
The GameMastry combat tracker or the Initiative Board app (if you have an IPad) is a major help for managing combat.
If you have a large group consider what classes might bog down combat. A summoner can slow down combat paticularly if the player running the summoner is not organised.
And have fun
Just for clarification - I don't think the concern in our case is slow combat in the case of too many characters - although it annoys me that our previous games meant combat was over in 1-2 rounds due to sheer number of players. The issue is more face time - 9 players means it's hard to have a real role in game and PC plots get more time than the plot of the game for the most part leading to a slow plot and PCs not paying much attention to the plot. I find myself nodding off while other players have small RPs that have absolutely nothing to do with my PC because I'm not around to participate.
Either way - the shaving the game down to 6 players is more out of my hands in the above scenario. One player of the 9 has already walked away, and another 2 would be lost in the changeover (GM and wife.) I wouldn't really want to take on the responsibility of running 2 different games anyways personally.
|
Haven't read all the replies, but you easily have enough people for two groups there. Since you have a specific idea of what type of campaign you'd like to run (good only, heroic, not just tomb raiders out for treasure), I'd suggest getting everyone together at once to discuss it. Tell them that you want to split into two groups, and volunteer to run that type of campaign for the players who are interested. That will weed out the players who would rather play treasure hunters than heroes, and get you only the like minded players. Then, the rest can make up the second group without you.
|
My advice...buy one of the wonderful APs offered by Paizo. Council of Thieves is simple and straight forward since it was the FIRST made before any of the extra books were put out.
I'd restrict the Master Summoner class...seriously eff that guy...
Remember that if you don't know a rule to make a ruling at the table and tell everyone you will look it up later. Tell them not to argue or gripe because you are doing it so EVERYONE gets more play time. Oh and make sure you read the spells your players are using...players tend to embelish a bit...
Edit: All Paizo APs and stuff assume a 15 point buy. :)