The Art of the DM

This article disadvises to get too immersed into details of an adventure, since wanting the players to fully experience all those ingenious ideas that one has come up with may lead a storyteller to prod the players along a certain path at which time all those ideas will feel force-fed to the players, something that is rarely enjoyable, even if the meal itself is delicious, if you will pardon me getting alegorical.

Here is my answer to that: while this may be true for unexperienced storytellers, i think there is a different way to approach and to use it. I tend to amass an excessive amount of background information ere i start any adventure. I rarely plan an adventure in advance, as in my experience players are creatures that are prone not to confer to plans but rather find some unimaginable loop-hole to leave whatever you thought was an absolutely fool- and idiotproof path and either bypass half of the adventure or get themselves into far more serious trouble than they can possibly handle. I also want to avoid keeping the players in leading strings as far as i possibly can – in my opinion players should not have more restrictions placed on their actions than in real life, rather less (with the possible exception of something like mental disadvantages or similar things that they should honor to remain true to the character they have chosen to play). Also i prefer to acknowledge it if a player comes up with something that i have not thought of and rather make it easier for them than put stones in their path – creativity is something that should in my eyes be rewarded rather than frowned upon. That of course makes it normal that players just choose to walk past some part of the adventure i have designed, either missing it or simply ignoring it (i still vividly remember an adventure in which they stubbornly ignored any of the lucrative eight sidequests that i offered them during the adventure). To answer the question „But isn't that frustrating?“: No. The easiest thing to do is what i already hinted on in the title: anything that i do not use in one adventure i can, if i want to, use in another adventure. Just because the players managed to avoid the fifty Death Traps of Doom you prepared for them in advance by going over the rooftop of the castle does not mean that your designs are wasted – they just get passed on to the Underground Caverns of Horror. This is the most obvious way of reusal. There are far more difficile ones, though: single phrases of the speech that you have prepared for an NPC (do you do that? I generally rather try to get an impression of the NPC and make up an impromptu speech, because in general you are not holding a speech but a conversation.) may reappear in someone elses mouth, accessories that you have drawn for the elven princess of Filarnia might be found in a treasure chest on Micol Island instead, and so on. While this is the next level of abstraction, it still is not the last: whether you want it or not, you will reuse part of your adventure – but in the least obvious way: you learn from them. Even if you throw away the sketch of the Orc-Inn, your drawing skills will have improved. Whether or not you reuse the riddle that you have come up with – it will be something that sharpened your mind and wits. Thus, ultimately, even if the you do not even play the adventure you had in mind, simply preparing it will not be in vain. With that mindset, there is no need to get the players to notice and acknowledge all the details you have prepared – and even beside the fact that ultimately all that work is for you, if they do not notice your ingenuity, your brilliance and your skills today, they will if you keep working on yourself to improve your gaming and do not abandon the group.

Pax vobiscum

IcewindDragon

A Player's guide to DMing by Michelle Matthews

I never played D&D in high school like the rest of my friends. I actually thought it was kind of dorky, but I did used to watch my friends play, and most of the time it was amusing to listen to them. Then one day, a few years ago, my friend Sean called me and said “Michelle, I need you to do me favor. Go down stairs in my old room and grab a spare bag of dice, a piece of paper, and a pencil and come to my apartment. So I said sure, grabbed what he asked and then drove to his place. All the usual ‘gamers’ were there when I arrived and Sean said “Good you’re here, now sit down and make a character.” I started to resist but he said “Look you watch all the time, you might as well start playing. Now follow the rules in that book,” pointing at a 3rd edition Players Hand Book “and if you have any questions just ask anyone here” and continued to look over the mountain of books in front of him.

That’s pretty much how I got started playing. Sean was the first DM (Dungeon Master for those that don’t play) that I have ever had, and to this day he is still one of the best I have ever played for. For me, in order to be a great DM there is several criteria one must meet. Knowing the rules whether they are from the book or they are house rules is very important, and you have to stick to them. You need to be fair, but strict. But to me, the most important thing you must have is a vivid imagination but not one that runs rampant.

Just like any game D&D has set rules, but just like every game played at a table, most of these rules can be bent or broken. Knowing what rules to bend and which ones to break and when, is a sign of a really good DM. If you never break any of the rules the game could start to feel more like a chore and less like a good way to spend a mid week night. Though on the other hand; if you bend or break too many, you could easily loose control of the game all together, or make the game seem unbalanced and unfair to some players. Finding this balance can only come from trial and error, and many nights of listening to the players arguing with each other over the rules.

Have you ever heard the phrase lead with a firm but gentle hand? This phrase could also apply to D&D. You have to maintain control over your players, but in such a way that they feel like they are in control and not you. Out of character conversations can be distracting but they happen, some times you have to let it go and laugh with your players, other wise they are likely to think of you as that old crazy teacher from high school that you swore would have hit you with a ruler if she could get away with it. On the reverse of this; if you let them play around too much then you loose control, just like that other teacher that you used to lock out of the classroom. A good way to keep the ‘gamers’ in character is to turn off all other stimulation in the house, and maybe even add some back ground music to set the mood. No matter what happens, keep your cool and laugh sometimes, your players will appreciate it. Always keep in mind that it is a game and games are supposed to be fun.

These things are nothing if you don’t have a good imagination, and a creative but controlled way of expressing it. Would “Lord of the Rings” had been half as good if Tolkien hadn’t spent many years attending to every detail of the world that he created? Sure it would have been a good story, but it would have felt like it was missing something, and that can make any story less enjoyable. That is exactly what being a DM is, it’s being a storyteller and your main characters are your players. Being the main characters, your players deserve to have a richly planned world, so that they can explore who they are and what is going on with in the world you have created. On the other hand, you do have to be careful on how much you give them. Your world can be as big as your imagination allows but if you make it too complicated, they will often spend entire sessions trying to figure it out, just so that they know where to go next. Imagine how boring and frustrating it would be to try and read a book that was wonderfully descriptive only to find that there really is no plot and the characters spend most of the book toiling around from town to town, instead of bettering themselves. It wouldn’t be much fun to read, so it probably wouldn’t be much fun to play.

I’ve been playing D&D for several years now and have enjoyed it immensely. I feel like I’ve traveled to distant worlds where anything can happen. It’s like taking a vacation a couple of times a week, and not just a vacation from my home, but a vacation from me. With out the DM’s calculated control over the rules, the players and the world; gaming would just be a couple of people sitting around a table rolling dice, instead of them being part of an epic story laid out by the DM.

Evil Party Cohesion by Jason Salyards

Evil parties are kind of an enigma. Evil characters, more than any other type of adventurer, are solitary creatures, particularly when it comes to undead. They have a tendency to stalk the nights alone, mostly because evil tends to chafe against other evil- especially when faced with opposites on the law/chaos axis of alignment.

There are ways to get around this. A great resource I've found, which has been under my nose for quite some time, is the Guide to the Sabbat, a sourcebook for Vampire: the Masquerade. There are parallels that run between a pack of Sabbat vampires and any other evil (and particularly evil and undead) party.

Despite their solitary nature and their frequent ambition, evil characters have very few options for those they can socialize with. Good characters will invariably refuse to treat with them, while neutral characters may find them distasteful or their methods a step too far. This leaves only other evil characters to associate with, despite evil's tendency to work against itself more often than not.

Regardless of this, no evil character, no matter how misbegotten, forsaken, or vile, can completely sever the tie they have to things that are "good", or "normal". They have trouble leaving behind what they once were. They desire some of the same things that characters of other alignments desire. They want power or wealth, companionship, maybe love, or at least the feeling that they're not alone. Being alone, for an evil character, spells more than just lonliness- it's danger. There's little safety in being alone.

So, an evil party can, should, and almost must act with a pack mentality. A group comprised of undead characters will find this easier than other evil folks, as they are already united by something in common. Simply put, evil is an individual thing. It's rare that someone's whole family is evil. It's more rare that an entire society is evil. Evil characters must have left family and friends behind to try to fufill their evil ambitions. Even in an evil society such as Xaiphan, friends are hard to find because the evil there is almost always in conflict with itself (in a subtle way).

True friends are hard to find. And while trust can be an issue among evil peoples, if it's built, it tends to go deeper than trust formed among neutral or even good people. Five evil undead can find companions, and even a surrogate family to replace the one they lost, among each other.

This unity (whether for a purpose like accumulating wealth or retrieving an artifact, or simply to bypass lonliness and fight ennui) does not imply that the surrogate family isnt dysfunctional- a group like that may be one of the most hellish conglomerations of savage personalities in the multiverse- but some level of sympathy always exists. Who else could possibly understand the weight of an evil character's troubles?

A "pack" mentality can also serve as a spiritual guide. Evil clerics (such as Jareth and Cyr'ri) help to lead the individual members of the party on a journey into what it means to be evil, and particularly what it means to be undead. The family that prays together stays together, and there are evil gods out there. The cleric of the party provides a spiritual backbone on top of the healing and magic. They'll tend to be careful about being too preachy, but still, the presence of an evil cleric should be comforting to an evil character. The evil priest is one who the rest of the party can see as someone they can TALK to, about anything, because they are a confidante. Even someone who doesnt worship a deity at all, or worships a different deity (so long as it's an evil one) can talk to a cleric- they are the shepard of the party. This group will have seen one another at their worst, and they'll depend on each other to help them deal with any spiritual dissonance they might encounter.

Obviously, the party offers protection, as well, even going beyond "fighter stands in front, wizard stands in back". Being that evil folks loathe almost everything that's not very similar to them, and their frequent competitive urges, it's not surprising that evil often runs afoul of other evil. In an evil party with a "pack" mentality, the members watch each other's backs mutually. The trust pays off. More so when the group doesnt just have to fear other evil entities, but when faced with marauding paladins, enraged metallic dragons, and the wrath of angelic might, the group offers it's members safety in numbers.

The group is also the equivalent of a social circle, as mentioned above. It adds a lot to the credibility of an evil character when he or she has four other equally powerful and equally evil characters to back up what she says. Not to mention there will always be at least as many things the party has in common as they have differences. The party's wizard might be fascinated by the cleric (particularly if this is a cleric of an arcane-oriented god, such as Vecna). Rogues and fighters can learn from one another and improve the both. Soon, the party learns to rely on one another, so long as they are confident of their place and role in the group. The party can't track without the ranger. They can't pick locks or disarm traps without the rogue. They can't dispel magical obstacles without the mage. Their healing is limited without the cleric. This puts at rest a lot of the fear of backstabbing among evil parties.

Of course, in the end evil creatures still pursue their own agendas, make their own contacts, deal with people they prefer (which should be the party above all), and otherwise lead private lives (or unlives). The role of the individual is equally important to the role of the party. It's only when the party takes a backseat to the individual that cohesion is in danger of breaking down. It's a careful balance, and players are as responsible for maintaining it as the DM, but when it works... it works like a charm.


Labor of Love by Jason Salyards
DMing is just that. First and foremost, a DM must remember that it's not always fun. If you're a DM to have fun, you should be a player, plain and simple. Referees don't have fun. Judges don't have fun. Mediators don't have fun. The part of being a DM to remember is that it's the storytelling that's fun, and when you can construct a game in which you don't have to play referee, judge and mediator constantly, then you're going to have fun and so are your players. It's all about the plot. What furthers the story along? If you ask yourself this question, you can easily bypass things that slow the game down. What do the players want- both out of your campaign and their characters? Are they combat monsters, who'll fight anything you throw at them? Do they want political intrigue? Some dungeoneering? Steamy romance? Do they want you to scare the bejeezus out of them? Find out. Give them what they want. It's their story too. But remember, you are the DM. You don't have to make it easy on them.

D&D is a fantasy game, which brings up my next two points: Dreams & Desires, and Realistic Suspension of Disbelief.

When a player has something personal invested into their character, you can always tell. Those are the characters that players remember, the ones that meant something. Often, a favorite character dictates what a player's favorite campaign was- even if all the other players thought the game sucked. The point is, as a DM you have to look inside the character to see what the connection is to the person playing him/her. There's something in there that's attached to your friend sitting across the table. That being said, the world you create for the character is one that can be very pleasing to the player. Allow your friends to live vacariously through their characters. Let their dreams come true and fufill their desires. Sounds cheesy, but it isnt. That's why we play the game. It's a fantasy. As long as someone is willing to risk it all, life and limb, he can achieve anything. We rarely get opportunities for this in the real world. We cannot say "I'm going to conquer the evil barbarians, save the princess, woo her with my charms, and inherit the kingdom." But our characters sure can. They can set goals so lofty they reach past mortality. Chris's 1st level fighter could aspire to become the God of All Fighters. Molly's 1st level rogue could have dreams of epic power, being able to steal from the gods (the Fighter god's shield, perhaps). Joey's 1st level wizard may want to rule the Material Plane. That's okay, even if he doesnt accomplish that in the length of the campaign. If he's on track, he's happy. Vecna was a 1st level wizard, once. But we DMs and Players don't have thousands of years to track character progression.

Suspension of disbelief goes like this. "I cast Magic Missile and three bolts of magic energy stream from my hand to that orc over there." Everyone says, "Ok." Simple, right? We've never seen anyone throw bolts of energy, but we're playing a game, so we suspend our disbelief about what's possible and what's not. We can do this, and feel good about it, because of the level of realism and consistency that's put into it. Magic Missile has the same effect whenever I cast it. The mayor's name doesnt change from session to session. Our town has a name and is on a map and has the same towns surrounding it as it always has. This creates a stable world, which adds to our ability to suspend our disbeliefs. The DM is responsible for doing this, and when he doesn't, bad things happen. The world will seem to chaotic and random. Or it will be featureless and flat. It's not exciting to have new things pop up every second. It's tragic. Saying "There's always been a staircase there" about a room the party has been through 40 times (and never before had a staircase), is unrealistic unless there's a good freaking reason why it appeared all of a sudden. The party's wizard arch-nemesis created it to lure them into a trap: OK. The DM put it there to screw with the players, or to arbitrarily add another level to their dungeon/hideout/fortress: NOT COOL. Basically, what this means is that as a DM, you need an appropriate cause for everything that happens. It's a decent strategy to just say to yourself "I don't do anything. My NPCs do." Then, when you want the party to uncover the demon cult under the temple, you've got so many options. Who's the cult leader? An NPC bad guy you get to create. Who's the demon the cult worships? Yup, it's an NPC bad guy you've created. The cult followers, are they evil or misguided? You decide. But no one the party ever considers an ally or an enemy should be just an empty shell. They need to have reasons why they're an ally or an enemy. You can make up those reasons out of the blue, just make them consistent. The blackguard that just came to town is seeking revenge on the PCs? Why? Not because you think they need to fight a blackguard. Because they killed the Blackguard's mother, an evil priestess of the dark temple, in their last adventure. The PCs have motivations. NPCs need them too. It falls on the DM to make sure that happens.