The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly; DMs and how not to suck.

[Lord of the Vine]

I've had the pleasurable experience of having Jester, the Clueless DM.

Now, Jester can be fun, but also completely moronic to have leading a game.

For the fun side, it allows you to work on your "fast talking the DM" skills. More often than not, Jester will be cool with a simple explanation.

For the moronic side, it lets players, more or less, bypass the rules for the sake of making their character look awesome.  

[RafeRavel]

Rachetgirl11

You've never had the Killer DM, have you? It is with reservation that I share this story, and so, I will stick to several fake names when I get the chance. And so, this is the tale of Munchkin, the Killer DM. There's another story before this of Munchkin the Godmodder, but we'll start here. It was after my first ever game of Wasted West broke up (I really sucked back then, and succumbed to the "too many people in game" trap). Munchkin offered to DM a game of Weird West Deadlands, and since everyone was hungry for a game, we joined in. Almost immediately, we started running into encounters far beyond our power level. Not so much physical encounters, but...there would be a virus in our food, and we'd have to make checks that were far beyond our level (for those of you who know Deadlands, we were supposed to make Incredible (11) checks-that's a DC 30 for those of you who aren't familiar.). We would also run into encounters that made no sense, and we would argue the illogical encounters to no avail. He ran several games of Deadlands, all of which made people unhappy and eventually resulted in one player tearing his sheet apart, something which had never happened before and never has happened since. Perhaps I should tell the tale of Munchkin the Godmodder as well, but yeah-this guy loved killing characters. We don't know why. We theorize that Munchkin was "competing" with us-which you'll notice the DM books say to NEVER do.

Ugh, Munchkin was just plain stupid. I mean, the boy isn't of low intelligence, per-se. He's just a ******** moron, with no common sense. Some of us came to the conclusion that he simply isn't capable of rational thought, just 'flame-logic', our term for the way he thinks. He would do something 'funny' and amusing to himself to make the game 'more interesting'. And he would definitely pick favorite players. He had a friend that joined us only for a couple games who always received special treatment. I understand that he was the new player, and needed things to be a smidge easier for him to really enjoy the game and want to continue. But it was too much, and made him completely overshadow the rest of the group. Once, he had a character with a sidekick (think Leadership from Pathfinder) who by Munchkin's control, proved to be more badass than everyone else, something that explicitly should never happen. It has gotten to the point where no one wants to game with him at all, GMing over him, or with him GMing. Hell, we play a lot of Fantasy Flight Advanced Board Games, and we don't like him joining us for that, just because he ruins the atmosphere. And for those who may be wondering, yes, Rachet and I are talking about the same person.  

[Salazar Neri]

TheAnneh

Damn. I thought I had some doozies.

Here's my 2 cents on the rapething. (Seeing as that was the biggest red flag in there IMO) When a group gets together you make a implied pact for one thing, fun. It should be fun for every player at the table. If everyone isn't having a good time then you're not doing your job right as a DM. So unless the whole table is good with the idea of rape, then it should probably be red flagged. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm not saying it's it can't be used for story, I'm just sayin that is going to bother someone if you don't clear it beforehand. Especially the rapee in question.

tl;dr version. That s**t is creepy.

Roilvn Whiro

Freeform is best form.
Though the most important part of it is the setting, making sure there is enough to do so that the players don't get bored. Worldbuilding is like one of the toughest things to do for me >.<

Anyways as for my stories...

I've had 2 DM's in my gaming experience.

Starting with my first DM. He was an okay guy, a little temperamental but overall he was a good guy. But he had a few problems.
He houseruled into oblivion, to the point where the game ended up being completely insane. It was a balance of things that beefed the character up and made it easier to get killed.
He had DMPC's. I just hate these. He always did them to the worst degree and fudged his rolls for them.
He played favorites. In particular with the girls of the group. Giving them better gear, making their DC's lower, etc.
Finally he just didn't know what wanted. The campaigns were sometimes railroaded, sometimes too freeform, there was even a day that he just had nothing planned and we relied on my antics to give us something to do
In conclusion, it was pretty bad.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

[The Shade of Casin]

For me I guess I more run life sims. I give exp for daily actions, you can train skills, I sometimes time skip weeks with training. And if you put your nose down you can find all sorts of quests. You can own a brewery, you can trade, play pure politics and no combat. Anything can go. Piracy, traders, bandits and hero's. all there for you.  

[Remo Ernesto Rotondo]

I've had my share of good and bad DMs but it's at least taught me a few lessons if i ever pick up the mantle and decide to run a game.

A word to the wise: If you create a campaign setting, make sure you have fun with it and if you come to a decision you can't make, let the dice decide. A good or great DM will find a way to make everyone happy without sacrificing much if any.  

[Lord of the Vine]

Things that I've learned as a DM:

-NEVER have DMPCs. If your party is not a sufficient size, either ask a player to run two characters, or get more players. Even if you feel it is necessary to have one, keep their role at a minimum (in the case of 4th, use them strictly in combat/skill encounters).

-Railroading is a good way to start a game, but not a good way to play an entire campaign. Give the party a main plot point that they should try to follow, but don't necessarily need to abide by strictly. This gives the game a sense of direction while still being a free-roam.

-When a player looks like they are opening up an avenue for a quest that you didn't think about, don't readily dismiss it. Players want to contribute to a game they're in, and the more they want to expand on your ideas, the better overall game experience you will have.

-Keep your dungeon crawl simple. We know that dungeons can be huge and expansive and have several chambers, but that doesn't mean your players should scour the entire place in the off chance they'll get good loot. I have never gone more than 5 rooms in a dungeon, and that many rooms can be chalk full of traps, skill encounters, and your general smashing of goblins for your players to enjoy.

-Listen to your players, and get to know each one outside of the game. Knowing a player gives you a better idea of how they operate in a game. If you're bringing in someone new, have them watch a game or two first before bringing them into a game; that way, they won't try to, say, force the Lawful Good paladin to kill a basket of kittens.

-Knowing the difference between a challenging encounter and an impossible encounter is the sure sign of a DM; be sure you look over your encounters after a session to better prepare them for the next session. It might sound like a menial and redundant (not to mention dull) task, but knowing what you threw at them before can give you a chance to toss a curveball the next time.

-(For 4th) Have your group write down their AC, Fort, Ref, Will, and Passives on a sheet of paper. This will speed up encounters by preventing the DM from constantly asking "and your AC scores is...."  

[BegrudginglyGood]

Not to say this DM was bad or anything, but it was a disappointing aspect of a really interesting game. It was my first go at L5R in a group, and I loved the idea of playing a Utaku Battle Maiden, you know, charging into battle atop powerful steeds. It was exciting! I made the character with DM tips and hints, although the Clan and Family was my choice.

So my character ended up being spiritually bonded to her steed, and got epic bonus' to AC and attacks whilst on horseback.

Problems started on the very first night, when we were deployed overseas by boat. That was fine, my horse was in the storage alongside many other fine animals.

Then the fleet was sunk...and my horse died.

My character lost its main pro, and I had to RP the anguish and pain of losing her closest companion. Like losing a brother, or a sister. Since they share such a strong bond.

Luckily, when we returned to our homeland I was able to reclaim another steed (a twin), so it worked out okay.

I've never made a horseback dependent character since though. Probably for the best, campaign variety wise.  

[Lord of the Vine]

BegrudginglyGood

Not to say this DM was bad or anything, but it was a disappointing aspect of a really interesting game. It was my first go at L5R in a group, and I loved the idea of playing a Utaku Battle Maiden, you know, charging into battle atop powerful steeds. It was exciting! I made the character with DM tips and hints, although the Clan and Family was my choice.

So my character ended up being spiritually bonded to her steed, and got epic bonus' to AC and attacks whilst on horseback.

Problems started on the very first night, when we were deployed overseas by boat. That was fine, my horse was in the storage alongside many other fine animals.

Then the fleet was sunk...and my horse died.

My character lost its main pro, and I had to RP the anguish and pain of losing her closest companion. Like losing a brother, or a sister. Since they share such a strong bond.

Luckily, when we returned to our homeland I was able to reclaim another steed (a twin), so it worked out okay.

I've never made a horseback dependent character since though. Probably for the best, campaign variety wise.

I've done it once (reflavored a mounted ranger as a Centaur). After that, I preferred not having a mount-based character.  

[WhimsicalXellos]

A long time ago, we used to occasionally make characters with some kind of pet/mount, but there are too many situations when either the animal gets left behind, killed, or just taken out of its element to make that kind of character a good idea. Mounted characters specifically suffer the very moment they learn that a majority of the adventures are going to take place indoors or underground. So we just stopped making them.  

[BegrudginglyGood]

Very true.

I suppose I was initially drawn towards the concept because the DM said we would be using the Mass Combat system, and it was more of an IC bonus to get to charge in, literally.

And I lied, I'm currently playing another Battle Maiden, just not so mounted specific.  

[The Demon Dreamer]

Well, let me pitch in my story about my DM's.

I started playing Tabletop Games about 3-4 years ago, and since then, have only had two DM's. I know that may sound a bit weird, but where i'm from, a small town in the Costalbend of Texas, we don't have to many people that like to play that kind of stuff.

Sadly, my first DM was a total douche-bag. Now, when I made my first character, we only had to get approval if we had an outrageous or outlandish concept for a character. We where playing a 3rd edition game, the only good thing about that game for me, and I was still a little bit fuzzy on the game mechanics. He didn't help me, but a few of the other players did, so I didn't do to bad on character creation for the first time. However, when the game started is when it got bad, I had walked up to a fence leading into an extravagant castle, and he told me that their where no guards in sight, and that it looked fairly simple to open. I opened the gate fairly easily when two guards appeared, from where, the DM wouldn't say. I used a Diplomacy check, and managed to roll my first Critical, and I still failed, even with my plus 5 bonus. I was literally sliced in half. No questions asked, no explanation for why. I was then latter picked up by one of the other PC'S and brought back to life... As a bound soul to that Cleric, who was under the Raven Queens jurisdiction. I had to do anything he told me, no questions asked, no matter how bad or weird it was. I couldn't roll any checks against his request either and I could never be set free, and I had to be within at least 5 feet of him, or I would die. Still, the game got even worse. I was then latter forced to attack an innocent village of people, where I was then arrested, sentenced to death and burned at the Stake. All because the DM didn't like me, in real life.

Now my second DM wasn't actually that bad. He was an amazing story teller, and always had a fairly interesting game. We where generally allowed to play OP characters, because his games where always crazy insane, and full of deadly monsters. With this current DM, I've played everything from Shadowrun, to Pathfinder, to 1st edition D&D, even a World of Warcraft game. I've made entire homebrew books with him, and he's kinda become like a brother to me since I started. Although he has his bad days, he honestly one of the best DM's I think a newbie could ask for.

I've even been the DM a few times, not really my thing, but I still enjoy it from time to time. As for my two cents on the rape of another PC, I would have allowed it, if both players had been good with it, and one was not forced to accept allowing the rape of their PC to happen, and as long as the rolls had been high enough to allow that.  

[Lord of the Vine]

I'll throw my two cents on the whole rape discussion, and go one more and talk about controversial issues in general.

Anything that is controversial should be approved not only by the two players involved, but by everyone at the table in general. The two people directly involved might not have a problem, but another player could.

For example, I had a pair of players that were playing an interracial gay couple (Shifter and Githzerai), which developed throughout the campaign. Now, since the next session was going to take place in an area that was known as religiously moral and frowned upon other species, I asked the table in general how they felt about going into this particular village. The two had no problems with it, but another player spoke up saying they would be offended. Turns out they were dealing with their own religious morality and sexuality and didn't want to be forced into an uncomfortable position.

Just something to keep in mind.