I have just made my own game using a world of my creation.

This motion was mostly spurred by being involved with many games that fail to be active enough for my liking.

As a new GM, I obviously have very little idea of what I am doing, so I post this in the hopes that some senior GMs might be able to lend their help and point me in the right direction in terms of setting up a fun and approachable game!

My own experience as a GM, and mind you it's been a few years, would be to consider a Co-GM, or a Moderator if you will. I find that some games don't always last, or start to lose interest because the GM's initial idea for a game can either be too much or too little depending on the scenario. Players are lost in both senses, and having a second GM/Moderator may help to curb this, as well as be that person to bounce ideas off too. If you do decide you want a Co-GM, be sure they understand where you want to go with your game, and is willing to take on the responsibility you want to give them.

Always good if you may not be around and need to deal with life or so too. Makes real life somewhat more managable. :)

I'm sure there are a lot of other things that make a good GM as well, but from my experience this is one of those big decisions that, should you find the right person, can keep a good game going for a very long time.

Establish expectations from the getgo.

How often should people post, and what happens if they don't?
What's the game setting? What resources are you using? Can players request stuff not in those resources?

Then prepare yourself for the natural ebbs of PbP. September is probably the best time to kick off a game, but it gets slow in November and winter break time. Expect a 25%-30% drop out rate (with no warning) and prepare yourself for it.

As for actually running a game? Do your homework beforehand. PbP is slow, and it's easy to forget why you were so excited, or what you planned to do next. Write that stuff down. If you don't feel like posting that day, you can just hit your notes, draft something up and keep stuff moving.

Find out what your players want and give it to them. I can tell you what makes for a great game for me, but that's not the same stuff that makes it a great game for you. Advertise based on what you enjoy, make sure your players are on board with your vision, and then figure out how best to deliver it.

Once you figure out broadly what type of story you're telling, come back and ask for advice on how to storytell in that style.

Neat. Both pieces of advice seem very relevant and should prove helpful (assuming I stick to them). I already have a clear idea of where/how the story starts and roughly what kind of path I want it to take. Of course, it shouldn't be exclusively up to me, I want my players to be able to add as much as they want into the story and I will try and encourage such a behaviour so that the game becomes a fabrication of more than one creative mind.

Couple of precepts for being GM of your own, original setting:

- Clear and open communication.
- Set expectations of post rate, and notifications around absences. Both GM & players should put their hand up and let the team know if there are any expected.
- Treat your players like humans, despite the anonymity of the interwebs.
- Encourage. Help. Give them as many opportunities to provide feedback or as questions as possible.

As for GMing with the intent of having a game that is more active and stable than the other games you had joined as a player... well...

I found the best way to ensure I always had a player to work with, was to run the players in their own solo threads. This means if someone needs a break, the whole squad isn't adversely affected.

I offer players the chance to play a multiplayer thread from time to time, but I keep those scenes short and punchy. I also allow the players to contact the other players via IC means, like letters, emails or phone calls.

Running multiple solo threads has given me a vastly increased sense of enjoyment, achievement and interaction.

don't try and put to much detail into the story your working on, if you put to much focus on it you will not like what happens when it falls appart on you and you have to wiggle around for a new way to work things out.....

#1 priority, working out the gaming world you are in.... If you have how everything works in the world you are in worked out you will do fine. You want to be able to answer ANY question and be able to tell how the world will react to ANY actions the players may take.... or not take.

The world is the foundation of your game and if it is sound and complete then it do not matter how much your game starts to fall apart you can pull it back together and start building it up again.

As for the story, my suggestion is to work out what you can and just make it into a rough draft in your mind and put down an outline on paper.... Yes, I said an outline. Back to middle/high school writing tactics.

Things WILL go off your story, players will never keep to your story unless you FORCE them and that is not a good thing, you never want to railroad something


Some Story Teller tricks I will pass on:

Have an NPC party member. This person can be used as a ST mechanism to balance a fight if things are not going the way you want and people might die, and if the story gets off track they can be used to push it back on track. This party member can change from time to time and they need not have one all the time, but it will help things out for you and if you make it so they have there own problems it will ether add more to the story or keep them from helping out to much. That way your not holding there hand to much and if you do for a bit, they earned it by helping some one out on a problem that had nothing to do with what they were doing.

Unless your in a game where resurrection is possible do not fall into the stereotype you hear of a GM trying to kill people. Unless this is what the players are looking for TRYING to kill people is never a good idea... Death brakes the story and leads to an imbalance of ability in the PCs.  You don't want to mess up the story with a player dyeing and the players don't want to hold the hand of a new weaker PC.

Now I say don't TRY and kill them.... but don't coddle them ether, if they do something incredibly stupid and it leads to there death well then that's there fult. However if it's just a cascade of crazy rolls, no one wants that to kill them.

Wich brings the point unless your DnD game has easily available resurrection you do not want to use save or die EVER. >.<  Even if you remove it completely the PCs will be happy to give up the affect's use to avoid seeing it used on them.

Start with a small group of players (4 at most) and make sure they have a reason to be together from the get-go so you aren't caught up with trying to find reasons for characters to play together.  You'll save yourself a ton of grief if you're not trying to keep a group of lone wolf characters on the same track or -- even worse -- having to run four separate games because everyone keeps running of on their own.

Thats a good point, as a new GM having some hook to keep people together rather they like it or not is a tinny bit rail road but long as you can fit it into the story it's a good way to go to make things easier on you.

Try and stay away from chalices though like being 'the chosen ones', they can be fated to do something but don't make it that you are chosen by the gods thing lol

I did something like it in a wraith game though but my twist was they all had a death mark (something to do with there plasmatic body, often a mark or discoloration, that don't ever go away that appears when they die or use a ghostly power a lot) but they all had a death mark that had something to do with time or infinity on them some where,  and the last time death marks like that were seen the world almost ended. Then here there are a group of people that all died around the same time and all have the (running out of...) 'time' death mark on them.

A good way common in WoD is a ritual that binds the group together and gives them stat boosts when they are all together.  GREAT method to encourage people to stick together there, everyone loves buffs. That and formally forming a team in a ritual is kinda encourages them to stick together in itself.

Like the wraith, aside from sharing a fate, you can make them share something that sets them apart from the rest of the populous.... that way they are only fully accepted by each other.  Like in the mortal=>hunter game I am running the PCs see the world as it truly is, the rest of humanity would not believe a word they said or at worse my commit them for being insane if they tried to explain whats going on. They are on the run from the law at times, and when it comes down to it the only people they can turn to is each other. Heck right now the cop is on the run from the law... though they don't know who it is they are chasing, so he still will have a job if he gets away. lol

Firstly, I would say that being the GM does not guarantee an active game, though it can help. Players post when they are available and when they can think of something to say - regardless of who's 'in charge'.

The only advantage to being the GM is that you can scene-change to move the action forward, but if you do that too often, players lose track and the game falls apart.

Note that EVERYTHING leads toward the game falling apart - that's the natural state, and only extreme effort will prevent a game from gravitating toward its natural state.

As Asraile said, a GMPC within the party is a good idea, it can be a useful tool for making suggestions when the players haven't picked up on that utterly obvious clue you left them, but do not, under any circumstances, make your GMPC the 'leader' or even a 'respected member' of the team, otherwise the players will do nothing, always looking to the 'leader' to make decisions, and you'll end up with effectively a solo game and it'll fall apart.

Players do not pick up obvious clues. They do not pick up very obvious clues. They may occasionally pick up utterly obvious clues, but often the only clues they will recognize are the ones you beat them over the head with. If players don't pick up clues, the game stagnates and falls apart.

Quite often, players have a very blinkered view of the game. All that matters to them is what their own character is doing or saying. You can find that PC 1 will state his intention to sneak past the orcs, PC 2 will, three hours later, state his intention to challenge the orcs to combat, and two days later PC 3 will log in and state his intention to cast an illusion that the PCs are a party of uruks. None of them will have any regard for the others' posts, none of them will make any attempt to negotiate an agreed tactic, either IC or OOC, and it's your job to try to sort out what's actually happening... before the game falls apart.

Good luck with your GMing. :)

Running a GMPC is generaly a bad idea.... but having a PC that goes along for the ride here and there works ok.

They shouldn't be a steady char, or one who's interest coincide with the PCs enough that they would go out of there way to help them.

Just some one that got wrapped up in the same mess as the PCs for a little bit and when what ever is done they will leave, unless the PCs can find some reason for them to stay.

I have found them being knowledgeable in one area works rather well because they have reason to turn to the PC but not reason to be defendant on them. They have some knowladge that may help out fethering the story, but when it comes what they should do with that knowledge there no help.

There main reason for existence is to point the way back to the path if the players get lost, or jump in to save the day if things go WAY WAY WAY wrong.  And if they do have to jump in to save the day.... you can kill them off. ^.^





One of the other uses for NPC party members right there, giving a sense of heavy mortality with out killing a PC. Even if they char has next to no skills and is near worthless if he's around a lot the players can become attached enough for them to fell bad when the NPC dies.

A prime example was in a game I was in, the char was a 100% mortal taxi cab driver... only big advantage with him was we got a good roll on hailing down a cab and he had REALLY good driving skills.... but that was it.... he was just REALY good at driving and nothing else. But my char had a ridiculous amount of money so he gave him like a thousand dollar tip for getting them out of that situation. He said if your always going to tip like that then call me first, and shocking to him and the GM I asked him for his cell phone number lol..... he was then the parties transport from then on, we didn't tip him THAT much unless we where getting shot at or he got chased by the cops for braking traffic laws but we was paying him so well he would kick his fairs out and drive recklessly to get to us ASAP.  Well midnight carnival showed up in town and we asked for a ride to check it out, when we left him alone he desided to see what was going on too and we got to see him die horably on the fairies wheel.  Needless to say everyone was quite upset about this. We ended up putting most of our money together to make sure his family was taken care of.

I disagree.  Having a GMPC with the group can actually be a pretty good idea.

Especially if he is really there to make things harder for them.

Like a fighter who is a member of the group, except that, when it comes to the crunch, he turns out to have been bribed by the opposition to betray his "companions".  This works better if you don't let the players know that he's a GMPC.  The players keep handing good combat gear to Bob the Fighter, because he's going to get the best use out of it, only to have him use it against them when the time comes for him to reveal his true agenda.

Generally though GMPC's can lead to some OOC problems at times, best to stick to NPCs rather than playing a char with them and stuff...

Unless our terms for them are just mixed up...

From all the uses i've had GMPC is a char the GM has with char sheet, exp, all the same stuff, that is just a part of the party and played no differently than a PC.

While NPCs may have sheets and exp and the like but there no 'lead chars' so to say, while a GMPC is a lead char with the other PCs.

Besides if you want to have a char turn on the party you can get a PC to do it.

It's probably a label thing.
My worlds are full of developed characters rather than cardboard cut outs. The GMPCs are characters that are fully fleshed out with a character sheet, background, plot-purpose, etc. The GM is playing this part as a character in its own right, even if it only has a cameo role. The sponsor of the expedition, the arch enemy, the friendly knight who travels with you for a few days and whose wife you help to rescue (and whom you might meet again), the assassin who is secretly stalking you after you killed his brother; these are GMPCs. Kill them and you'll feel the GM's wrath. (Maybe that assassin's brother was a GMPC...)

For me, a NPC is a lesser character, a cardboard cut out with no character sheet, and very limited background. A store-keeper, the local blacksmith, the landlord's daughter. They are subject to collateral damage; you might get some bad karma for killing them, but that's all. But you might not know which are which.

Redshirts are another type of NPC to have with the party to soak up damage, but if an obvious redshirt suddenly starts having opinions, it must be the GM talking, whereas a GMPC could simply be expressing an opinion in character.

Keep it moving, right from the start.

Get player selection and character generation and such done quickly. I've been a player in a lot of games that died before the first scene because the GM let a couple of slowpokes bring things to a crashing halt during the preliminaries. If you have four players and one can't seem to get her/his character generated, start with the others. The last player can always catch up.

Let your players know that you WILL puppet their characters if they fail to post within a reasonable time. This might be a week during narrative scenes or it might be a day during combat. Also, require that they notify you when they anticipate being offline for more than a day or so OR if they decide to leave the game. Do the same for them, the disappearing GM is a bad trick.

If it's a system with a lot of grit in the combat rules (or spell casting rules or whatever), try to streamline the process. PbP moves slowly enough as it is. Taking a week to play a round of combat may be inevitable, but taking a month will strain the patience of many players, especially if they're not active in the round/fight. Let the players know how you intend to do this before game play begins.

Don't be the person slowing things down. I find it helps to know what I intend a scene to accomplish before it begins. Try to have any descriptive bits written out ahead of time so that, if RL slams you, you can cut'n'paste rather than having to create your next post from scratch. This includes descriptions and even dialogue for NPCs.

Keep the others moving forward in the story when a player drops out. NPC the character while you recruit. Hiatus = death in many cases. To that end, try to recruit at least 50% more players than you feel you need to run the story. Extra hands and voices don't really slow anything down and they help when the cast dwindles.

Finally, make a good game for whoever sticks with it. I ran one game that started with nine players. At the climax, there were two who hadn't run afoul of RL or simply vanished. I NPC'd those who fell by the wayside until I could give a graceful exit or tragic demise. The two who finished up really appreciated the trip and have played with me several more times.

I have to potently agree with this point.

Over time I have played/GM'd a few games, and found there are a handful of people who are reliably consistent and enthusiastic. Finding the right people on RPOL that you *click* with will inevitably pay off in the long run.

But this will take time, so keep it in the back of your mind.

--

Also - don't mix people with post rates of < 3 per week with those who can post much more regularly. You'll find "over-posters" scaring away "under-posters", thus ruining your game. This comes back to clearly setting expectations.

This. Very much. Everyone has a different idea of what an "active"/"under active"/"over active" game is. Tell people what rate you expect as a minimum and try to keep everyone at roughly the same pace. I even set a maximum post rate, because I only most about 3 times a week and don't want to have to retcon a page of posts because the PCs decided it was okay to ignore the Significant NPC in the room while they bickered.

One of the best pieces of advice I have to give is this:  once a game gets started (after character creation), try your best to say yes to as much as possible.

Your rogue wants to rope walk above the fight?  Give me an acrobatics check.  Your sorcerer has run out of level 2 spell slots for the day, but he needs to cast something else?  Have him burn some level 1 slots and gain the shaken/exhausted condition.  Generally, your players are going to move within your expectations, but let them be clever or suffer the consequences of their ideas.  Said rogue forgets that he needs to make a new balance check every time he's attacked, so he looks cool for about two rounds before he fails a check.  Said sorcerer manages to launch his key spell for the fight, but is limited to cantrips for the rest of day and loses a level 2 slot the following day.

Now granted, you have to have a limit.  No, Rogue, you can't use your allies as cover to make a stealth check.  No, good Cleric, you may not cast inflict wounds on non-evil characters and expect your god to be pleased with you.  But it's easy to say no to these things, because these are the players that think of you, the GM, as an opponent and not as the Storyteller.

Being reasonable and creative in saying yes to your players makes the game more fun, and it builds a good sense of trust between you and your players.  And it's usually easy to distinguish between someone that's pushing for extra power (because they're always bugging you to let them do such and such) and someone that's had a bit of inspiration (because they almost never ask for special treatment).

Don't be too rigid in your mental map of the world. For example, let's say the PCs are having a gunfight in the streets of Newcastle.

A player posts "I duck into a doorway and return fire".

You had pictured the street as classic row of terraced houses with no doorways to speak of.

Instead of correcting the player and asking them what they want to do instead just go with it. Change your mental map.

In reply to Vinny (msg # 18):

  On a similar note, don't get too hung up on the "right" way for the narrative to go.  Make the story about the party.  I've left my fair share of games (even RL ones) because the story was not about us.  We were bystanders there to witness the events the GM had decided would occur in order for him to tell his narrative.

  There are many gaming clichés where the NPC for whatever reason is capable of completely ignoring player abilities.  A classic example is players spend several adventures gathering x pieces of a powerful artifact, only to have the villain swoop in and take them.  There's no way to stop him, no way to immobilize him, no way to fool him with a fake.

  Don't be that guy.  No one likes that guy.  If a player rolls a critical strike that would kill the villain before he's "supposed" to die, don't deny them that achievement.  Work the story around it.  In a cinematic setting, there are a million ways to deal with it, and in a gritty setting, the possibility of unexpected/sudden death is often part of the appeal.

  In short, the story should be driven at least as much by PC actions as by NPC actions.

Great advice, Jarilye. One thing I wanted to say is don't ever make your players sit there and listen to two NPCs talking. Any such exchange should be over in about four lines. Also, don't imagine that the PCs will sit still for a long villain-tells-all speech, especially if they feel like they're about to be killed or if they have the drop on him. They aren't going to listen when they could be doing something.

I think one important thing to bear in mind as a GM is that whatever plans you might have, however you might be intending the story to go, expect the players to (inadvertently or otherwise) end up driving things in a completely different direction. You fill the haunted mansion on the hill with all sorts of ghosts and traps and a whole elaborate storyline, don't be surprised if the PCs take a look at it and decide they'd much rather go off and explore the nearby forest instead or something ;). I think it's best to have a vague plan of where you intend to go but don't get too bogged down in putting together the specifics before you actually start playing - you don't know how much of that planning might go to waste when the players mess it up for you by deciding to do something else or missing any clues you leave them or getting the important NPC killed or whatever ;).

Ameena has the right idea. No matter what you plan, some player will always fins the means to short circut it. This is a good thing IMO. Roll with the punches. Keep your plans loose. And be prepared to improvise. Some of my best game sessions came about because I had to make things up as I went along.

Bear in mind, though, that the GM needs to have fun, too, otherwise what's the point?

The PCs might prefer the forest to the haunted mansion, and you're right, you shouldn't railroad them, let them explore the forest. But sooner or later they will stumble across another mansion...

-Know what the players want
For example, a player who joins a superhero game and makes an invincible brick character with a ton of combat abilities and puts all his resources toward being good at combat probably wants to use his invincible brick character's abilities in combat.

-Keep the action moving
We all love that character interaction that makes a bunch of stats into a character, but if nothing ever happens and all you do is hang around talking about the action (unless it's that kind of game), people will get bored, they will check that game less and less often, and after a while of nothing happening that is of interest to them, they will stop caring and you're down one player.

-Avoid 'Deus Ex Machinas/Wet Blanket Tactics
Power nullifying villains, Antimagic fields, 'gotcha' monsters, unbeatable opponents: None of these things are fun except in specific circumstances and only when used sparingly.

And many more of the very good ideas and advice in this thread.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:39, Fri 19 Sept 2014.

These may or may not have been covered, consider them being covered more than once how important they are:

1) If a player has an opinion, it's just as valid as yours if they present it without being rude.

2) Taylor your game to your players, don't expect them to conform.

3) When someone says "Age is just a number", remind them that no... age is a word, 3.14 is a number.

4) Make every party member feel needed, or they'll get bored and leave.

5) Make logical rules, enforce them, and follow them yourself.

6) If your grand scheme is defeated easily, then just play it off as an oversight by the person scheming. Reforming your scheme to always be on point is called the Aizen Syndrome. (Aka: "I KNEW you'd turn the stone foundation of my tower to lava, incinerating my first floor, which is why I kept the one magical mcguffin you need to kill me in there! Haha! I win anyway!" ... That's just being mean to the players).

7) Player deaths should always be looked at as failures on the GM's part, or stupid choices and/or BAAAAAD luck on the player's.

8) If you expect your players to post a minimum amount of times per day/week, they expect you to.

9) Don't be afraid of players disagreeing IC, that WILL happen. If however a resolution can't be reached, have an NPC add insight that may sway one or both of them.

10) Add unique elements. We played in a campaign which ran a long time, and after hitting level 15, we had a few weeks where we RPed our character's history. We RPed them as level 0 characters with almost nil ability to defend themselves, carrying on tasks that were pretty much not dangerous, but that visiting the past was an interesting way to flesh out new futures, and gave our GM plenty of time to come up with new stuff.

11) Don't build a world, build modules that can fit in any world with minor tweaking. Players will often change your world making some of your ideas no longer fit.

12) Everyone immune 100% to acid? Change the beast that spits acid to spit lightning. If players feel too powerful they'll grow bored. Even if you REALLY wanted to use acid, if I can't be hurt by it by any means, I'll show off by drinking it right out of the acid trap just to spit in the face of the person trying to use it against me. But if he tries to use acid, sees I'm immune, then changes to lightning, well crap he's too smart for that, time to be serious.

13) Have fun. It's just a game. If you can't have fun, your players WON'T have fun.

In reply to mightyjake (msg # 1):

Be flexible. Once you introduce PCs it becomes their world as much as your world. Get regular feedback and discuss things where possible. Remember, it is supposed be fun for everyone. Bored or frustrated players will either quit or fade away, leaving you sat a a computer playing with yourself...

Aizen syndrome? Yah I would suggest going that route unless there is no other route. You should always have a backup plan or two or leave yourself some wiggle room. Try and avoid stuff like the "on the twelfth day of the twelfth month" kinda things. You can only put off they changing of an IC day so long. Set in stone elements should be minimized

And having modguals is fine but you still have to use them to build a world. Everything has to interconnect and affect everything else in ways that make sense. Your players will change the world but if you built it right you will know how all those changes will play out. If you just throw a bunch of random locations together or dig them up as you get to them then what your players do will lose a lot of depth.

And like I said what they don't do matters too. If they ignore a problem people may die... And in my Mage game they will soon. Heheh, not that it's there cult these events are playing out on there own and would happen no matter what they do, but there about to realize while there waiting time on personal problems and chasing people down the events are still playing out and the longer the take to interfere the more people die, and if they go on the side quest one what's to now its likey to prevent them from being able to save a few hundred thousand people or so.

Anyhow, if you have enough an understanding of the NPCs and the world they live in then you can figure the outcome of any action they take. But that takes a lot of reading or months of planning out your own game world.

However if you put in the time you will go a long way from newbie to pro. This is why good GMs tend to have systems and settings they prefure to stay in, because they know the world enough they just need a story and NPCs. They can phone in a fairly good game because it will have all the depth that the GMs knowlage permits even if the story was eh...

For exaample my friend knows V:tM, W:tA, WoD mummy, and Ravenloft the best and can run some amazing games out of them and people will say he's the best GM they have ever known. If he say ran a RIFTS game however I would not be nearly as good and would likely play out more like shadowrun being he knows that better.

You don't always need months of planning or prep. You simply need to understand how actions or inactions will affect the world and remember everything you tell the players. Sometimes you can even get inspired to explain past events with connections to current events or revelations.

Never spent a day of my life prepping a game, yet often I produce on the fly results the players see as having consequences in the world and even build the world during play.

For example, I have an entire race with a history called the Reaplings, and they started as a random encounter created on the fly cause I forgot my beastiary.

Of course this method is much easier to use, implement, and in my opinion more rewarding, but requires a bit more practice to get right. Not to mention a healthy imagination. I highly recommend it, and if you want to get better at this, try practicing improve acting.

Yes, but this takes knowlage of the gaming world for most people. I'm sure you have at least read the books too. Which probly don't take that long for most people so months is kinda to much a word to throw around.  I just read slow because of my problems, and I went over the books on my spare time. lol

Not everyone can create races and cities and worlds on the fly though, so think I think it's best to stick to suggestions that can help everyone. You have to do a lot on the fly, and knowing your game and world helps make that happen.

I have to say though stay away from mage if your new to running a game. lol

Making decisions on how they use there spheres to alter reality play out, rather they have the skill to pull off what they want to do, and how it works with the dice roll they get is not something for a new ST.... let along the vision quest like Seeking that you have to cook up every time a PC wants to 'level up'. Making sure each one of those is significantly mind blowing for the PC is a task.

It takes an understanding of how the world works, not the world (which can actually be built on the fly as well)

excerpt from a book recently linked in another thread,



 Well, point 2 obviously only applies if you already have set methods of play. Since the OP is a new GM, s/he can just start out this way instead of having to change nonexistant methods of GMing.

Point 3 was something I never had and never realized existed, so I guess some people may have issues with it.

In any case, the book this comes from is all about improvised play and is linked below,
http://anticheese.pojpo.com/Old/RPG/Play%20Unsafe.pdf

Only read some ways into it myself, having discovered it only a little while ago, but it is really good so far.

The book seams to asume that once you have an idea and plan in place you become so dedicated to it you can't stray from it.

Creating a world before hand or reading up on one helps a lot, paticuarly for a new GM. As dose having a plan, you just can't be afraid to throw that plan out the window.

Just because you have a story and a setting don't mean you can't do everything on the fly.

If you have the setting and the story doing things from scratch is easier.

Sure making everything up as you go is fine, but this is for a new GM and having no experience having a foundation to build on helps a lot.

That is debatable. Having an existing setting means there is a need to remain consistent with everyone's knowledge of the setting. But creating a setting on the fly means you only need to remain consistent with what has occurred in game, or at least provide a reason for any inconsistencies, and it will never conflict with player's expectations because they won't have knowledge of the setting that the GM might not.

Further, creating a new setting means no limits, whereas existing settings have limits that the GM needs to keep in mind, thus a new setting is easier since the GM doesn't need to worry about that.

I really appreciate all the advice given by everyone here, but I will say that it doesn't feel right to make mechanics up on the fly.

In my opinion, if I am to make something of quality for my players, I must take the time to think about it and polish up the lore/story/character/situation, whatever it happens to be.

Since I started my game, I had one goal and that is to provide the most enjoyable, reliable and active game I could.

As for my games system it is 100% unique to me. Yes it draws from various sources as influences which may or may not be obvious, but at the end of the day, the piece of work I have created is my own. I feel that setting certain limits can help by making sure that I am focused on the task at hand. However, I have already experienced that the players will want to push the bounds of the game out a little, and as a GM, I have seen the sense in allowing this to a degree as it makes the game theirs as much as it is mine.

Please bear in mind I was referring to the story side of things, not so much mechanics.

There is one more source you might want to check out. I can't link at the moment cause I'm on my phone, but look up The Alexandrian. It has lots of good info for games in general, such "Calibrating your expectations" which is mostly about dnd 3.x but the points he made are applicable to any system. There is also "Don't prep plots, prep situations" which is particularly good.

Also, I have made plenty of systems if you want some experienced eyes to look at it, of course I'd like to see it either way, as I'm always looking to see how other systems work.

Your mind is set that once people have there mind set they can't change things. I will tell you though if I can think of my own world and story and change it on the fly, anyone can. Rather funny if you ask me...

And if you have SOEMTHING to start with then all of that on the fly stuff has something to be based on, and when you put that something with what the players are doing it writes itself.

It's like a pearl, it needs something to grab a hold of and build on. You can think that up durring play but you risk quality on what ever your imagination brings up at the time. If you have something to start with then it just builds onto it naturally.

Nothing you start with matters to anyone but you, because your the only one that knows it, you are free to scrap and alter your world elements and story elements as you see fit.... it don't matter if you are playing from a known system or world. It's YOUR version of it.

The only set rule should be what the GM says goes.

I guess the best advice I have is not to over prepare. If you do, and the party goes off on a tangent, you either feel compelled to railroad them or throw away a ton of work.  Being flexible is the key to sanity, I believe.

In reply to Azraile (msg # 35):

One problem with that concept, other people. It doesn't matter that you can do that, what matters is that so few people accept it, particularly when trying for a ftf group, only online or at a convention can a GM afford to turn away players (there might be some rare exceptions, keyword, "rare").

Other people have expectations. Seen The Gamers: Dorkness Rising? The only player throwing a fit about he should be able to play an elf monk because they are in the book even though the GM didn't want elves or monks. The GM tried to change things but ran afoul of the players expectations.

If you use existing stuff that players might know, they will come expecting certain things, and these expectations will without a doubt affect their gameplay, storytelling, rp, and most importantly, decisions. Changing things up on them is like fixing one's car to go backwards when the shiftstick is in drive, they can learn to deal with it but it comes with problems and not just when driving that car, but going back to normal cars suffers as well.

This is the same effect as trying to play halo, but changing the control scheme every third match. Try it, your scores will drop like a rock.

In reply to mightyjake (msg # 33):

As long as you are clear about your expectations (of the players and "story") and the players do likewise, you'll be fine. Enjoy the creative side of things and kudos to you for making your own system.

My only comment here is on your "polish it up" statement. To which, I ask why? Have an outline. Know the general direction you want to go.

But, know your players. If they want to run off the rails, let them. If they want a "select yes or no" adventure, give it to them. And that will be the best game you can do. If you put 100 hours into development, half your players will leave (for what ever reason). If you put in 10 hours of prep ( half your players will leave). That's the nature of things on the web. The point? Prep what you absolutely need to. The rest? Play to find out what happens. That's how you have fun. Finding out if Jane will kill the priest. Or if John will choose to save the villagers instead of taking the cash. If you already know all the answers, then why play?

* maybe too many carbonated fermented beverages at the airport. Apologies.

If your going to make every game a blank slate because you don't think people are capable of changing there expectations the. Your even more jaded than me, which is kinda scary.

In reply to Azraile (msg # 39):

Well practiced GMs can handle the problems and issues that arise, for a new GM however, I would recommend not making things more problematic than necessary. Let them learn to run the game and story, they can learn dealing with problems as they arise, no need to invite more problems.