Bront's Forums

Your first question is a loaded one, Jovis. I am going to fire off a few ideas that I have (with the foreknowledge that my GameMaster's Card has not been renewed lately...)

1)a]Confidence in knowledge of rules. Knowing every single cliff note is unnecessary, and if there is a question, you have a table full of players to help 'look it up'.
b]bending/breaking the rules to suit your plotline. I like the example given in the Epic Level Handbook about blotting out the sun. There isn't a rule to do it, there isn't a spell that does it either. But if the big bad nasty is going to blot out the sun for the plot of the adventure, dang it, the sun is going to be blotted out. It is your world, you tell the story. And woe to the player that tells you what you can and cannot do.
c]Having a plotline within the campaign, but allowing the adventurers to follow the path they want. I actually read an article in KoDT about this, and i have been thinking about copying it here for all to see.
d]Working the player's notions/self direction into the story...more on this in a bit.
e]Being colorful. That is one of mine, not sure how everyone else feels about flavor text. When I game, the more I know about the environment the easier it is for me to roll up my sleeves and get in character.
f]If it would please the court, I would like to reserve the right to return to this topic at a future time, when more ideas come to me.

2)a]Entertain me!
b]But seriously. Listen to my ideas, thoughts and concerns. Let me feel integral. (This is a double edged double axe-as players, we need to HAVE a good background, quirks, and direction for the GM to work with us.) And when we give these things to Joe, he gets a bit excited. It is giving him ammunition, and it lets him know that we are investing into his brainchild.
c]75% hack, 25% parley. Lets face it. In 3.5, the only good feats (Tony, notice i did not spell it feets? ) are combat ones. Oh, i can take 'silver tongue', and get +2 to diplomacy and bluff. Woo. when you are rolling a d20, +2 is a waste of a feat. You all know how my dice are. And the more I try to tip the scales to be cool with..well, anything...the more the dice mock me. Where was I? Ah, yes. You can take 'silver tongue' or 'point blank shot'. PBS waaay cooler. But anyway, all hack is a bit..monotonous. And if over 1/2 the night is spent roleplaying, that gets tiring. Need combat to give a breather from the energy expended staying in character.
d]Be fair. Favoritism sucks for the table. And having been at the SGC for..a while now..I can honestly say that Joe does not show favoritism with the one person no one would blame him for showing it to...his wife.
e]Be honest. Feeling burned out? Not looking forward to running X campaign? Let us know. We are (most of you are, i am depending on the day) mostly adult-ish, and reasonably understanding. If you need a break, no problem.
f]If it would please the court, I would like to reserve the right to return to this topic at a future time, when more ideas come to me.

3)a]Having a good reason for the characters to be adventuring together. I hate hate hate hate hate! the barroom brawl introduction.
b]A pinch of in game friction between characters is not a bad thing. When ppl start taking things personally, it is time for everyone to take a step back and reassess the situation. (peers at Tony-Mandolin bane).
c]If there is a lack of 'roots' between certain members of the party, approach one or more of the ppl, and discuss options. Unless the character being run is evil/selfish, there should be a certain amount of endearing going on. Try to arrange a situation where the two (or more) characters need to rely on each other for survival, above and beyond the normal scope of dangers faced previously. (Please note-this is a character development thingy. Getting to use the 'Rubber stamp of Character Doom' should not come up..hopefully.) I want to make a special note about this-In our greyhawk game, the characters with the...highest personality difference...imo was (C)(B)rell (?) and Timaus/Helena. But as the last few sessions have rolled past, I have been pleased that not only has she not killed my guy, but actually interposing himself with my character. Digging roots, man...
d]Before the campaign begins, give the players a syllabus (sp?) of sorts. What they can expect with the setting, etc. It lets us know what will be effective, and less so. So no one is frustrated with building towards a specific prestige class, only to never use it. (Dungeon delver comes to mind). And if the world we are going to be in is mostly rolling hillsides, farmlands, and the occasional orc warband, having alchemy would be next to useless, as there would be very limited time in the lab. Am i prattling yet?
e]If it would please the court, I would like to reserve the right to return to this topic at a future time, when more ideas come to me.
Drew

Thanks, buddy! ...Right, your backhand in that compliment was minor, right?
Yep, you are right. We talked about it. And I thought it was an ....interesting way to introduce your character. Should provide for interesting roleplay.

I speeled sillybus right, my first try!

Nothin' but props for ya man.

Geee where should I drop my two cents on this debate when it's all be said? I'd have to agree with Drew, Tim and Joe. Those are the things I strive for when running. I don't think I always hit those marks but I keep trying. 

Players feed the Game Master, else he feeds on their souls.  That's how it's always supposed to work.

Seriously, a good Game Master is:
1) Prepared - Prepared for his gaming group to go straight, or take wild detours.

2) Can Improv - Because you can't prepare for every wild detour

3) Can Balance Speed and Accuracy - We all want to be correct 100% of the time, but let's face it, we came here to game and not argue over rules with our friends (we can do that later).  A good game master knows the rules, but can balance them with speed in playing a game, so that nothing bogs down the gaming experience.  This is particularly noticable in combat, where a good GM can keep things moving at a quick pace.

4) Listens to his players: Players are there to have fun, and a good GM can listen to them, and give them what they want.  It won't be all the time, but enough to keep them happy and hungry for more.

5) Is willing to say no: A GM who fails to say no to his players will lose control of the game.  It might be letting someone create a particular character, use a particular item or power, or just try something that just won't work.  The game is to help the players have fun, but the game master needs to retain control in order to be effective.

6) Try to get everyone involved: Not nessessarily in every session, though it's best to try that too, but make every player feel important.  One player may shine in one session, and another in another session, but giving them all a chance to shine at some point is best.  This also means watching out for players who try to monopolize a situation or game.  Getting players to work as a team is one of the most effective ways to do this.

It also helps to try to steer players from self-suficient "I can do everything" characters, as they also tend to be overly dominant (Of course, they also tend to be the more boisterous ones too).

 
And they say MY sense of humor is bad...

It is!! 
 

It is! I actually laughed at Ash's post!  You just still get the crickets.

Yeah, I agree, it might be the group I play with is veteran enough we just play as a team.  When I'm involved with my sons games, helping them design a campaign or running one for them, we do the horror thing.  We make jokes about the leaving the party, what happens when the party breaks up to look for something.  We run the rookies through, all that, and it works well.  Someone will start to do a rookie mistake and someone else will make the well worn joke and it works out.  If they insist on going alone, our GMs tend to kill them making a very real safty in numbers thing.   The show hog person should mostly be covered by the above GM comments from Drew and company.

We also emphasize the character, so we naturally turn to the tracker to track, and the healer to heal, and Streetwise character to gather information, etc...   The 'do it all' simply can't keep up with the specialist.  Our GM's are good at allowing mass confusion to reign when multiple unskilled people try something, so the players become good at simply paying attention to the Character that is suppose to do a job rather than someone who just wants to roll and take the spot light.   For instance several people want to track, we generally ask the players what their skill is and roll for them, telling each player seperately what they know and allowing them to tell the rest.  This results in different players with different levels of possibly wrong knowledge.  After a while the players learn to simply ask the specialst and the GM can just let them roll.   

Everyone likes to roll, that's why combat is a good thing, almost everyone is rolling dice in combat.  If other parts of the adventure involve all the players like combat does, then the ratio of combat time can be lowered.  The GM has a huge amount of control here.  The 'do it all' can splash dramatically on the seen, and have some fun.  The GM can then have the little orphan with the Plot Hook, talk to the player who hasn't had a chance to shine. 

In our champaigns we have an inside joke Called "you have a hobby".  So when the 'do it all' takes the spotlight we let them run with it while the group is having fun, laughing, contributing.  Once it gets to where people are not invovled we tell the spotlight person "You have a hobby" doing whatever it was and shift the story line to a different focus.  Momentarilly excluding the 'hobby' person because they are busy, and involving a different player in the storyline.  This focus shift, while the 'do it all is busy' works well because the less extroverted players have their moment to shine, and then the whole party, now with a mission, joins forces to go on the adventure...

And remember, feed the Game Master... you;ll live longer.       

As anyone who has played 3.5 w/me in the last few years will tell you, I am kinda...backwards... My favorite class is the bard. In the class description it states 'jack of all trades, master of none.' Should bard characters be outlawed? Heaven forbid the day. In fact, very few ppl play that class because, well, it kinda sucks. I mean, c'mon...even the holy men (clerics) have more offensive capabilites than the bard. They are dead last for offense. But in every other area...they can play second fiddle to every other key class. Party buffs? Check. Bigtime. Healing? Check. Infiltration? Check. Most of the non-dmg dealing arcane stuff? Check. Obscure lore/linguist/information gatherer/fund raiser? Yep, check. If you do not mind not being able to wade thru a bunch of baddies, and not being able (without the use of the Use Magic Device skill) to call arcane pwnzer down on your foes, it is a pretty decent class. If there is no cleric, thief, or mage, they will be missed. But the bard can almost fill their shoes.

What the true point my prattling prose is trying to do is this...

If the GM can give the players the freedom to pursue their own goals, and at the same time keep their growth at a steady incline, everyone will have fun. I know I enjoy playing my wussy bard...

 
Agreed!
I think a good exercise would be to give examples..

I've seen characters made within the rules that manage to infringe or overshadow several other characters in their concept by either closely matching or surpassing specialist characters.  A good generalist, the "Jack of all trades, Master of None" is not the problem, and only becomes a problem when it evolves into the above.

I remember that.  That little gem cost one of my characters 3-4 endurance and 2 strength.    (I admitedly chose to obay the rule and was not forced to, so no hard feelings)

Not saying it's a bad idea either.  Means other players need to keep their mouths shut sometimes.

In more casual games, I encourage some Kibitzing though, as often players less familiar with the rules or their character do require some help with the game, and friendly encouragement that can result in Kibitzing isn't always bad.

The ranger wanting the switchblade was an example I actually encountered (we were 10-12 at the time), and was an example of out of setting.  He knew how to make it, and technology was in theory there, but the GM said no.

As for the other stuff, I'm going to drop that, mostly because I can't explain my case any more without bringing in specific people, situations, and names, and that's not needed nor productive.

Did you get grevious'd, and forego burning your shield to ignore the effects of the grevious table?


Sure am. You couldn't possibly be thinking about Dink, could you???