On reflection, have you overcome bad tendencies as a DM?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you once employ omniscient, all-competent GMPCs? Were you inflexible once you'd made a ruling and ignore any arguments to the contrary, no matter how reasonable? Did you not prepare for a session and then wing it when you're simply not Mr. Spontaneity?

What bad habits and inclinations have you left behind? How have you improved over the weeks, months, years and in some cases decades as a DM?


It took years of playing and being GM but I had to overcome a whole mess of tendencies. Here's a list of some things that were in games I used to DM.


  • Level inappropriate encounters (+8 CR) in games where the party is under equipped to face them or is low in power
  • Allowing roleplay XP too often
  • NPC centric campaigns
  • Designing monsters that were at a CR way higher than their actual CR (aka that damned crab)
  • Being a rules lawyer
  • Way too many memes
  • Poorly designed game mechanics

There's some things I didn't mention but those were the ones that stuck out the most.


Well, I've been GM-ing for a year. I've probably got some bad habits, but they havent shown up yet. Well see once I'm an old grognard.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely prepping for a session and actually sitting down and writing up statblocks (or finding fitting statblocks online) rather than trying to apply templates and make adjustments in my head on the fly. Sure there's less spontaneous WTF out of my players, but it makes up for it by making the events flow better and the combats not swing wildly between curbstomp by players and curbstomp by enemies.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

I'd say the biggest mistake I learned from was closing out the quest with the NPCs shutting out the PCs. The quest, from the conception of the campaign, was to "Go here and then find this object and then call me on this device to summon me to where you are." I didn't realize the mistake until the party arrived and summoned their patron, and I had them run outside the collapsing temple while the two NPCs worked out a solution inside. People left the game that night after the fulfillment of that quest somewhat blase, not triumphant at all, and I was puzzled as to why they hadn't felt like they'd accomplished the goal they had just done.

I saw the same thing in a campaign just a little while ago. The PCs were forced onto an inescapable sequence of events, only to be rescued by the NPCs after the predetermined events had played out. I just sort of nodded to myself and said "Yeah, done that. He'll learn."

I've also stopped punishing players for missing games. Once, player A complained that player B didn't show up and he got just as much XP as player A. I said I wanted to keep everyone even. He said "Well then, why even show up to the game?" I said "I guess you don't have to if you don't want to." Then he sagely nodded and saw the folly of the question. Or secretly started hating me, I never did figure it out. I stopped using XP at all in that campaign shortly after.

I think I've only once had an obnoxious GMPC, but I had thought the party liked him, as they insisted he come along at the beginning. I probably sensed too late they were bored with him, and dropped him off at the earliest convenience. In any case, I won't keep another NPC with the party that long.

I've also stopped overpreparing. If I'm running a prepublished module, I'll read it and see where it's generally supposed to go, and nudge them back on task when they get sidetracked, but I'll let them get sidetracked for as long as they seem to be having fun with it. In my homebrew, I barely prepare at all. I'll stat up a monster or two if I want to try a new combo or a template I made up. But there are enough pregens out there in the Codices and on various websites that I can find what I want with a quick search. This might be an overreaction to the time I spent 3 weeks making up a tower dungeon and the party just skipped it. But they don't complain, and keep asking me to run the game for them, so I guess they're still enjoying it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I was guilty of one huge crime and it made me a fairly bad GM till I learned to stand up for myself; That was being a doormat GM. You know the poor girl who is too afraid of her players to ever say no... even when it was obvious what they wanted was game breaking, The frightened GM who never questions a players interpretation of the rules even when she knows it's wrong. Well eventually I learned to say NO! I learned to study the rules and stand behind my efforts both in interpretation AND creativity. And you want to know what happened? Did my players run screaming away from my game with chants of tyrant on their lips? Nope. Did they complain about not being allowed total freedom to create crazy unthematic, overpowered mega-murder-hobos, or characters with a horribly abusive relationship with questionable rule interpretations? A little at first. I think they were more shocked that I had grown a backbone. But after a couple sessions all those jokes about how bad a GM I was stopped and were replaced by compliments on my game and requests to run more. I learned that players crave structure. They absolutely despite anything else they might say they want, really want a stable game with clear, fair and consistent rulings. A place where the GM isn't afraid to use the wonderful toolbox known as the rules to create vivid and amazing worlds for them to experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With 30 years of GM experience I can say that I used to (but no longer)

  • Take bribes for in game benefits
  • Attempt to reflect real world physics on my fantasy game
  • Run gmpcs that I would today consider 'glory/spotlight hogs'
  • Fiat the death of characters I didn't like
  • Have battles of will against my players over issues that I didn't expect them to enjoy
  • Allowed pvp feuds that spanned multiple years/characters/campaigns/gaming systems
  • Make rule changes without being able to completely explain/justify them to my players first.
  • Continued to run a campaign I wasn't having fun with anymore
  • Attempted to 'cure powergamers' by escalating the difficulty of encounters against them to prove that powergaming is futile

On the other hand I have never

  • Ran the game with a focus on my own amusement above the players
  • Ran a game that stomped all over player agency
  • Been unhappy or felt put out about having to improvise when the group got off the rails.
  • Told a player that they couldnt play a race or class they wanted to play 'because I didnt want them to'
  • Told a player that they couldnt play a race or class they wanted to play 'because it didnt fit my theme/setting.
  • allowed an npc to defy game mechanics

To this day I still


  • Find ways to wedge my favorite gmpcs into an incidental or party requested role wherever I can
  • Point out the policies of other gms that I disagree with because they create player misery to other players in front of the gm in question.
Being the open object of criticism may be undesirable to some, but it helped me overcome my own bad habits.


Better: I've gotten much better at prep work. I used to spend far to much time and energy on unused aspects of the game. Experience has taught me what parts of the game require focus and what parts of the game can be done on the fly.

Worse: My NPC's have only gotten worse. I used to act out all sorts of crazy voices and my players all enjoyed them. Now when I try it my voice cracks, My vocal range is much more limited, I get a head rushes if I strain to hard and to top it off they just sound stupid. So I don't do voices anymore.

Better: One thing I practice is visualization. I spend time before the game (normally on my drive to the game) meditating/daydreaming the various scenarios that could happen and mentally explore potentially responses to them. This simple exercise keeps me from being caught off guard by the players and loosens up my creative mind.

Before I practiced this I would get seriously stumped when players did the unexpected.


Muad'Dib wrote:
meditating/daydreaming the various scenarios that could happen and mentally explore potentially responses to them.

Best practice right here ^ . I'm a simulationist sandboxer, so 'expecting the unexpected' is the thing I've got more experience at than anything. Having a 'mind thats frontloaded to run through the dozen most likely outcomes' quickly is a super important skill in my particular style of running games. Nearly every unexpected player response you didn't think of can be handled by one of the dozen outcomes you came up with that you did expect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

-gotten rid of dmpc in the spotlight scenario-now it's dmpc as plot delivery item.

-been waaaay too lenient with players.

I finally snapped when one of them attempted to rape his cohort, and had him murdered off board by a known NPC assassin he had ticked off earlier that day.

Best part? Another PC hired the assassin to do the job when he found out about it.

I don't allow that kind of crap in my games. Not that I run much anymore.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

My main issue is overtuning fights. I haven't been able to overcome it, unfortunately, so I prefer to run modules where I don't have to touch any stat blocks.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dkonen wrote:

-gotten rid of dmpc in the spotlight scenario-now it's dmpc as plot delivery item.

-been waaaay too lenient with players.

I finally snapped when one of them attempted to rape his cohort, and had him murdered off board by a known NPC assassin he had ticked off earlier that day.

Best part? Another PC hired the assassin to do the job when he found out about it.

I don't allow that kind of crap in my games. Not that I run much anymore.

I'll chip in on that hit.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are few acts that would get you kicked out of my group on the spot, but that is one of them. I don't care how evil your character is. Some things I am not interested in tolerating.


Orthos wrote:
Definitely prepping for a session and actually sitting down and writing up statblocks (or finding fitting statblocks online) rather than trying to apply templates and make adjustments in my head on the fly. Sure there's less spontaneous WTF out of my players, but it makes up for it by making the events flow better and the combats not swing wildly between curbstomp by players and curbstomp by enemies.

+1


Aranna wrote:

I was guilty of one huge crime and it made me a fairly bad GM till I learned to stand up for myself; That was being a doormat GM. You know the poor girl who is too afraid of her players to ever say no... even when it was obvious what they wanted was game breaking, The frightened GM who never questions a players interpretation of the rules even when she knows it's wrong. Well eventually I learned to say NO! I learned to study the rules and stand behind my efforts both in interpretation AND creativity. And you want to know what happened? Did my players run screaming away from my game with chants of tyrant on their lips? Nope. Did they complain about not being allowed total freedom to create crazy unthematic, overpowered mega-murder-hobos, or characters with a horribly abusive relationship with questionable rule interpretations? A little at first. I think they were more shocked that I had grown a backbone. But after a couple sessions all those jokes about how bad a GM I was stopped and were replaced by compliments on my game and requests to run more. I learned that players crave structure. They absolutely despite anything else they might say they want, really want a stable game with clear, fair and consistent rulings. A place where the GM isn't afraid to use the wonderful toolbox known as the rules to create vivid and amazing worlds for them to experience.

interesting aranna. Very interesting indeed.


I don't know exactly why, but I've gained bad tendencies. I used to be an "on top of every moment" GM, but now it's all I can do to get through five rounds of combat between the good guys and the bad. I get distracted easily, I don't focus on the task, I don't plan well, and a lot of the time I don't remember to keep up with the abilities and spells a bad guy has in order to make the fight more difficult.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have gotten lazy. I used to read every rulebook cover to cover, knew almost every monster from monster books, read through every module I ran.

Now I just don't have the willpower to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

When I was younger, I used to be way too heavy-handed. I hung on to the old-school AD&D "GM vs. players" mindset for too long.

For example, if the PCs came up with a way to do something that I hadn't thought of, I'd often contrive a way for it not to work, forcing the players to do it the "right" way. In other words, I used to stifle player creativity.

I've gotten better.

Now, I see the game as a collective storytelling process. I love it when the PCs come up with things I haven't thought of-- it forces me to be creative and adapt the story accordingly. And sometimes they come up with an idea about what's going on that's so much cooler than what I had planned that they're right!

And it makes the players feel so clever when they "figure it out." Of course, I don't want to tell them that I've adapted the story because their suspicions were just so perfect they had to be right. I have to keep some level of mystique!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

I have gotten lazy. I used to read every rulebook cover to cover, knew almost every monster from monster books, read through every module I ran.

Now I just don't have the willpower to.

I've not gotten especially lazy, but I've developed some problems that interfere with concentration and memory and it's too frustrating to try and read and remember things now. And not things as complicated as Pathfinder; anything, really.

Sovereign Court

That sucks.
How can you deal with that?

I mean I bought the ACG a few days ago, and I opened it, read the first few pages and...just...lost interest? And I was the first to peruse any new rulebook.

I don't understand it.


I don't know how to deal with it, frankly. I think if I could come up with a way to do so it would make all the difference in my GMing skills.


I think 'variety bloat' is what does it to me. Lots of possible races or classes or feats or traits or skills that combine 'just so'... On the one hand too much to keep track of. On the other hand much of it 'doesnt really appeal to me personally' enough to bother researching.

I care about the game more from a getting together and adventuring standpoint than I do about the sheer unabashed (and continually inexorably growing) versatility of player options... Even when the new content isnt a splatbook. Even when the new stuff doesnt make the old stuff obsolete... I dont much care about 'exploring the crunchy gamist limits of the nuanced grippili grappling monk'...

I remember reading an article somewhere that 'Sometimes having more choices isnt a good thing.' Something along the lines of 'absolute wealth not as important as relative wealth' kind of thing. It would be better if we all had lamborghinis but if we all had lamborghinis then nobody would be happy because while everyone has a much cooler car than they used to have, nobody has a cooler car than 'anyone else'... and without a way to be cooler than your neighbor, some folks just can't find a reason to get out of bed in the morning...

Something like that. Me personally, I'd way rather everyone had a lamborghini. It would probably take an economics degree to help me understand why we still make cars that suck when we can also clearly make cars that don't. After we invented flat screens, it amazed me how long certain manufacturers continued to make and sell box televisions...

The nature of business is that a publisher will always come up with something new for you to buy... but not all of it is stuff that makes me go 'hey. I like that!' Its tough to keep up with an evergrowing host of options... Particularly when half of the options don't appeal to you personally. 'Something for everyone' is 'good for everyone'. But it means there's going to be a huge amount of content that 'just doesnt appeal' to me personally. Its a good thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I used to highball how difficult a challenge was needed for my groups far too often. I also used to have an aversion to any sort of player death and fudged things a lot to make sure people lived.

I've gotten better at judging the proper challenge level over time (though still goof up a bit and get carried away by building some boss NPCs the way I'd build one of my PCs...that often ends in a near death of a PC or two).

I also generally let the dice fall where they may more often, though will sometimes help things along in other ways if things are just conspiring to f&@# the group over. Like a combination of bad rolls on the part of the PCs, and god-like rolls on my end for a character in Skull and Shackles (Three turns. Three Falcata crits. One unconscious, two dead PCs.) I eventually just took pity on them and had their named crew members come to help, and one managed to hit him for enough damage to kill, and then deducted some money from their party fund and had Sandra Quinn pull a Breath of Life scroll from her bosom to save the most recent dead.

I don't mind killing a PC any more but a TPK is harder to recover from.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
I remember reading an article somewhere that 'Sometimes having more choices isnt a good thing.'

"As the number of options increases, the costs, in time and effort, of gathering the information needed to make a good choice also increase. The level of certainty people have about their choice decreases. And the anticipation that they will regret their choice increases." Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice

Sovereign Court

Ah yeah. I said what I do wrong.

What I grew out of:

- Stopped fudging whenever there was a chance of PC death. Just wasn't fun, plus I always got worried that they might notice and resent me for that

- Stopped giving ridiculously difficult encounters in a "on the rails" campaign. No need for those.

- Stopped giving easy encounters in a sandbox game if the players insist to go somewhere they've been warned about having dangerous monsters.

- Stopped using GMPCs altogether.

Grand Lodge

Better:

-Stopped prepping so much. I used to have enormous stories that I wanted to tell; grand-sweeping sagas that put the fate of the universe in the players' hands. I had booklets filled with information, world building, special rules --- and campaigns that fell apart after a few sessions. Now I've learned to go with the flow and let the story occur naturally. Start with a very simple setup and see what they want to do with it.

-Not letting people split the party and hog the spotlight. Party splits are inevitable, but when it happens I spend no more than 10 minutes with each and find excuses to get them back together ASAP.

Still needs improvement:

-Coddling players. I let too many things slide. I finally put the kibosh on god-stats and epic rolling. (2d6+6) But I'm still hesitant to let characters die. I think it's important to find the balance between feeling empowered and being challenged at alternate times in a campaign, but I've yet to find that balance.

(Am glad to say that in my last 5E session, the boss did take two characters to 0 HP and it was only a judicious use of Inspiration that saved them. Very proud moment for me as a GM.)

-Not describing things as well as I think I am. Obviously I have a very clear picture of what things look like, but communication is a tricky thing.

Worse:

-Flip side of that going with the flow is I too often try to let players dictate what happens next. My other great fear as a GM is railroading, so I try to leave things open ended enough that they always have choices. Unfortunately, those threads aren't always as visible as I think they are, and I end up having to push one way or the other.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I remember reading an article somewhere that 'Sometimes having more choices isnt a good thing.'
"As the number of options increases, the costs, in time and effort, of gathering the information needed to make a good choice also increase. The level of certainty people have about their choice decreases. And the anticipation that they will regret their choice increases." Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice

Thats the one. Good find!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I remember reading an article somewhere that 'Sometimes having more choices isnt a good thing.'
"As the number of options increases, the costs, in time and effort, of gathering the information needed to make a good choice also increase. The level of certainty people have about their choice decreases. And the anticipation that they will regret their choice increases." Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice
Thats the one. Good find!

I have no problem restricting player options right out of the gate. Just make sure that everyone's on the same page at the outset.

For example, my current campaign is:

Core Races only.
Core Classes plus the Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Magus, and Witch.
No alternate race or class features.
Archetypes considered on a case-by-case basis. Check with GM before proceeding. You may not take an archetype if it's the first time you've played that class in a regular campaign.
Feats from Core Rules plus Advanced Players Guide only.
Only spells from the Core Rules, plus any spells specifically on a class spell list in the class description from the book.
2 Traits, one must be a Campaign Trait.
No Drawbacks.
We are using Hero Points.
Other rules from Paizo sources will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
3PP sources will not be considered, nor will rules from any Paizo source that the GM does not own.
GM's ruling is final.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM I'm firmly against restricting player agency even at character creation.
I just cant say I see the appeal of some of their choices...
Thats the beauty of it though. If all my players were just another me it would probably be less interesting.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

As a GM I'm firmly against restricting player agency even at character creation.

I just cant say I see the appeal of some of their choices...
Thats the beauty of it though. If all my players were just another me it would probably be less interesting.

I'm kinda the same way. I do have a few races on a "bad list" due to the fact they don't really fit my vision of the world but I've told my players that is you have an interesting back story that justifies why he has come so far from his homeland or has turned his back on his people then by all means play him.


My main thing I don't want to deal with is learning about how some class types work like the Psionics and the Monk Ki ability thing. I prefer to keep it just basic magic or at least close to basic magic as possible.

Other than that, I don't really care all that much, but I only run One shots not campaigns so it's not as big of a deal since I usually provide the pre-gen character choices.


My own games are a mixed bag; I generally like to make thematic games, so I often give heavy restrictions (for example, an all-dwarf campaign). I'm mostly playing with whoever's interested, so I can generally get interested folks.

Within the lines I draw (general class & race restrictions) everything is open. Some campaign will have more liberty, some will have less, but I dont mind either way.

Though I still wont allow the summoner until I get the chance to play it, it's just such a labor-intensive class to make sure it's proper.


I've been DM for two different groups so far, but what works for one group doesn't always work for the other. That is the most important lesson I learned as DM. One group loves Adventure Paths, the other absolutely despises them. There are also differences in playstyle, such as one group loving combat while the other has no problems settling encounters with Diplomacy instead. However, I've learned not to be too harsh nor too lenient with my players, which is a very good thing to have as a DM. However, I will not limit player agency when it comes to character creation, because so far my players have NOT abused said freedom under my watch. Another reason why I am open to unusual races is because I am personally fond of them myself, and was rather livid when a previous DM not only banned my homebrew races, but also ridiculed them behind my back to the rest of the player group. He has yet to give me a proper apology for that, but I was kind enough to let him play at my table with me as the DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
I learned that players crave structure. They absolutely despite anything else they might say they want, really want a stable game with clear, fair and consistent rulings. A place where the GM isn't afraid to use the wonderful toolbox known as the rules to create vivid and amazing worlds for them to experience.

This, a thousand times THIS!

Edited, to actually somewhat contribute.

As for me, I'm still newish, I've learned a lot about bad GMing from being in failed game after failed game, and some from my own experiences GMing.

I've learned that:
-Making a special snowflake world where everything is just right, and the players are pegs for you to place in pre-existing slots almost always fails. That isn't to say it can't work, it can, but it's rare and requires equally huge amounts of luck and skill.
-As mentioned above in other comments, rating real world physics above game rules "Because they don't make sense" is the first step on the way to a bad game. :/
-Being afraid to/refusing to admit you were wrong, and not fix your mistakes, can be extremely damaging to gameplay.
-Forcing the players to use YOUR plan as the GM, or any other situation where you're effectively playing the characters for them, or forcing them to play your way, is a great way to kill your players interest, and kill your game. Horribly butchered quote (Tamora Pierce): "You can have it your way, or their way. Your way you feel good about the outcome, and they never come back, their way they'll bring their family and friends the next time."
-You need to be willing to Adapt, go WITH the story, but be aware of the need to guide and contain the story (If that's what you need to do). Letting it grow wild is just as bad as forcing it go grow stunted. But above all, be willing to let it GROW.

-Above ALL else, COMMUNICATE and HAVE FUN. If everyone communicates well, and every one is having fun, NOTHING else matters. The two greatest and most common failings I have experienced is poor or lack of communication, and people not having fun, and nothing being done about any of these.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I remember reading an article somewhere that 'Sometimes having more choices isnt a good thing.'
"As the number of options increases, the costs, in time and effort, of gathering the information needed to make a good choice also increase. The level of certainty people have about their choice decreases. And the anticipation that they will regret their choice increases." Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice

there is a reason they only have 31 of their flavors available in the store at one time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triphoppenskip wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

As a GM I'm firmly against restricting player agency even at character creation.

I just cant say I see the appeal of some of their choices...
Thats the beauty of it though. If all my players were just another me it would probably be less interesting.
I'm kinda the same way. I do have a few races on a "bad list" due to the fact they don't really fit my vision of the world but I've told my players that is you have an interesting back story that justifies why he has come so far from his homeland or has turned his back on his people then by all means play him.

Most of my house rules are actually allowing things that PF doesn't rather than restrictions.

OR
The player has to work with me to develop a way to bring that into being.

{{ Except the whole drunken monk thing. That just really torques me off for some reason and I just can't stand it. So I don't allow it when I am GM. }}

Occasionally I will take something out for story reason.

Like one time elves, guns, alchemists, and mystic theurges were not allowed because most of the mega plot revolved around finding out why there were none of the legendary X in the world.

Another time magic didn't work the way the older races remembered. Summoning and travel spells were 2 levels higher or just didn't work. It was a things the gods had done to keep the mortals in line.

-----------------------------------------------

Original topic:
Another thing brought up by Teatime42's comments on communication.
I have gotten no better at this over the last several decades and by this point I probably won't.

I am not a real empathic person. I will virtually never be able to tell that someone is not having as much fun as they say they are or would like something to be different if they won't tell me. Making real subtle hints does NOT work.
If you tell me you are having fun and the campaign is going great...
I WILL BELIEVE YOU and give you more of the same. If you don't like something you have to actually say it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:


Original topic:
Another thing brought up by Teatime42's comments on communication.
I have gotten no better at this over the last several decades and by this point I probably won't.

I am not a real empathic person. I will virtually never be able to tell that someone is not having as much fun as they say they are or would like something to be different if they won't tell me. Making real subtle hints does NOT work.
If you tell me you are having fun and the campaign is going great...
I WILL BELIEVE YOU and give you more of the...

Same here. I do not read people well. I never will because of the way my brain is wired. So if you try subtle, I'll miss it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:


I am not a real empathic person. I will virtually never be able to tell that someone is not having as much fun as they say they are or would like something to be different if they won't tell me. Making real subtle hints does NOT work.
If you tell me you are having fun and the campaign is going great...
I WILL BELIEVE YOU and give you more of the same. If you don't like something you have to actually say it.

This!!!

I couldn't catch a hint if you wrapped in around a brick and hit me in the face with it. If you don't like something I am doing please tell me.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh goddess, I could see the three of us in a game having no clue why everybody is unhappy. After all everybody says they love the game.


Everytime we finish a book of the AP we are playing I get on facebook and send all my players a PM asking them if they are having fun and what they feel I as a GM could be doing better. I pretty much give them an open forum for critiques and suggestions and so far everytime they all told me everything is great and they are having a blast. I guess I'm doing something right but I know there is always room for improvement.


I've never had a complaint from a character in one of my games that things were not balanced in their favor, God rest their souls...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
Oh goddess, I could see the three of us in a game having no clue why everybody is unhappy. After all everybody says they love the game.

Since I'm quoting psychological theories, that sounds like the Abilene Paradox. Often you get situations where groups of people put 'getting what they want' low on their list of priorities, compared to other things like 'sounding positive', 'making sure everyone else gets what they want', and 'not making everyone else feel bad by letting them know you're unhappy'.

The result is that people sometimes make collective decisions that none of them support, but which they all think everyone else supports, and wind up making each other unhappy as a consequence of trying to keep each other happy.

Scarab Sages

I learned how to say no.

A very important lesson.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:


Archetypes considered on a case-by-case basis. Check with GM before proceeding. You may not take an archetype if it's the first time you've played that class in a regular campaign.

I have a problem with this one, since there's a few classes I don't want to play without a certain archetype (I don't like regular Warpriests, but Sacred Fist is cool, I much prefer MoMS Monks to regular, etc.).


There is another kind of Monk beside the Monk of many Styles?

Shadow Lodge

Jaelithe wrote:
What bad habits and inclinations have you left behind? How have you improved over the weeks, months, years and in some cases decades as a DM?

I have no idea.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

When in doubt, err on the side of the players.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
Oh goddess, I could see the three of us in a game having no clue why everybody is unhappy. After all everybody says they love the game.

Make that four.

Though I'm also the kind of guy who will go to the players - often repeatedly - and ask to make sure, and regularly encourage them to be honest with me so I can make improvements if necessary. Thankfully I think we've all finally come to a point where we pretty much thoroughly agree on the kind of world, play style, and stories we want.

Shadow Lodge

Terquem wrote:
There is another kind of Monk beside the Monk of many Styles?

Zen Archer. And Qinggong but Qinggong goes with everything.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Haladir wrote:


Archetypes considered on a case-by-case basis. Check with GM before proceeding. You may not take an archetype if it's the first time you've played that class in a regular campaign.
I have a problem with this one, since there's a few classes I don't want to play without a certain archetype (I don't like regular Warpriests, but Sacred Fist is cool, I much prefer MoMS Monks to regular, etc.).

The idea there is to get an idea of what the vanilla version of the class is like before you start monkeying with it.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / On reflection, have you overcome bad tendencies as a DM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.