So, i have an entire sci-fi universe and setting that i've worked on as the recent year or two passed, and i think it'd be amazing to use in either a free form or maybe AW or something.

Only problem is, i have NO clue how to DM Apocalypse Worlds, D&D, pathfinder, ANYTHING. Nope, not one thing. Sure, i can lead the Roleplay a bit and set up scenarios, but the bottom line is, i can't GM.

So, RPoL... what do i do?

In reply to RedTeamPyro (msg # 1):

Find a more experienced Co- Gm to help you along.

Most GMing is about building a world, leading the roleplay and setting up scenarios, so exactly what aspect of GMing do you have difficulty with?

In reply to icosahedron152 (msg # 3):

Word

First: recognize the difference between fiction and an RPG.  Everybody comes to roleplaying from fiction first, and that can set a template for dissatisfaction.  Why?

Because while you may want to recreate the fun and excitement of what you read/watched, fiction is plotted and the events in an RPG are decidedly not.  That may call for a duh response, but I've seen too many GMs struggle with what they perceive as their agency.  WTF is agency?

I've seen way too many times GMs coming to the "table" with Big Ideas about what they were going to accomplish.  They want to see the players dance to their tune.  They've got scenes they want to see played out a certain way, etc.

Sorry, but that's not why you're here.  Your sole job as the GM is to make the players look awesome.  Eff that!  I'm here to tell my story.

No, you're not, and that's where it's going to go pear-shaped if you proceed down that road.

When we read/watch fiction we want to see the heroes get put through their paces.  Whether they succeed (triumph!) or ultimately fail, is a function of the genre.  Maybe they succeed, but they die.  Maybe they come out without a scratch and have everyone yelling Mary Sue!  Whatever.  The story is still about them.

GMs need to get that into their head.  Sure, the GM creates the world, decides on the plot impetus and then guides the rule-playing.  Rule-playing?  Sure.  The GM judges what's legit.  Nope, you can't combine those two maneuvers when you're eating a mango, etc.

The GM encourages Yes, And... roleplaying.  It's the basis for improvisation.  Boy, it's cold outside.  Yes, and I'm glad I brought my coat.  Not this: Boy, it's cold outside.  No it's not, it's a warm sunny day.

How does the latter happen?  Typically it's because the GM is trying to control how things unfold because it's not meeting their pre-expectations.  IOW, the GM is running their own script in parallel to what the players are doing and it's not meshing.  Ooh, I can hear the death knell of that game already.

The GM needs to know the end point so s/he can bring the players back from the weeds.  Oh, and they will go into the weeds.  And that's okay.  The detective missed the clue check?  A) they shouldn't know they missed because that will cause them to meta-game.  Borrrring.  Give them another chance, but make them pay for it.  Have some bad guys come crashing in because they're looking for the clue, too.  Have a tasty fight and in the process the clue gets revealed after the heroes win.  What if they get taken out?  Moar chances to find it in the next scene.

There's no failure.  Repeat that as a bloody mantra, mate.  There's only the next scene.  When I realized this as something True, a felt a weight lift from my shoulders.  I used to stress over this.  Now GMing is fun and very light.  That's the ticket: GM with a light hand.  Let the players do their Thing and when they go into the weeds, create a scene that logically follows to get them back in the direction.  They're not on a path--they're on a journey.  It doesn't matter where they step, as long as they keep moving.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:18, Sun 14 Aug 2016.

In reply to badpenny (msg # 5):

Excellent advice. One of my favorite pieces of advice about gming is this. GM's are not the director, they are merely the stagehands. We handle the props, we set the stage. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, unless you count forking the bill of course. The players are the actors, the audience and the director.

Listen to a few AW podcasts?  I got a great feel for how to run Monster of the Week from RPPR (specifically http://actualplay.roleplayingp...ries-for-nightmares/ ).

Penny, you make a lot of excellent points, although I would disagree with one bit...

It's not necessarily about making them look awesome as it is making certain everyone has a good time. Whether than means their character dies a quiet death in order to reclaim their family's honor, or they defeat a god in single combat, or the gang manages to have a good conversation over ice cream, that's the core of it (as you mention yourself, all is genre-dependent). It's not that all of this can't be what people consider "being awesome," but when GMs are set up with the expectation the word "awesome" brings then they can go a little overboard (which is why I like a lot of your other advice about NOT going overboard).

But, more to the point, it's about everyone having a good time. Your job as a GM isn't to make yourself miserable or to feel powerless just because you're not a player. You need to enjoy what you're doing, and maybe that means you do something amazing with your NPCs now and then, or you do bring the players and characters into the story you'd like to actually run and play in instead of letting them run roughshod over everything. The players are not the only people at the table, and it irks me as both GM and player when people get it into their heads that players are the only ones that matter to the story. Yes, players are important, and without them you're writing a novel for yourself, but you need to find ways to enjoy the experience on your own. Maybe that means you need a group okay with being outshone on occasion, or maybe it means you need to run horror instead of adventure, or maybe it means that all you need is for someone in the group to say "Wow" by the end.

Whatever it is, never forget about putting a smile on your own face just because you're trying to make your players happy.

Of course, don't forget about your players either (again, everyone should be enjoying the game), but don't ever forget about yourself. You are a player too, in many ways, you just happen to be playing more characters than everyone else.

@ Greentongue: Word??





I can't entirely agree with either of you there. I think Tyr Hawk has it right. A game that is left entirely to the whims of the players has an even bigger death knell attached to it.

In my experience, a number of players (and a few GMs) simply can't follow a plot. Left to their own devices, one of them will write that it's cold, three posts later another will write that its sunny, five posts after that someone will complain about the rain, because half of them don't read one another's posts - particularly if those posts take place in another location - even if it's only the next room...

Part of the GM's job in leading the roleplay is to ensure consistency of the story. That doesn't mean writing the entirety of the plot and railroading the players along it, but it does mean ensuring that all the players stay on the same page and share the same reality.

The GM is the director, it can't be any other way - the alternative is anarchy.

In reply to badpenny (msg # 5):



I'd like to disagree there. the GM's job isn't to make the players look like they've just come out of a Michael bay movie, it's to narrate and draw the path the players walk. Sure, that can be perceived as railroading, but here's the catch;

You CAN'T know where the path leads. The players plot the course and destination, you just draw the scenery and act out the occurrences. The GM IS the world, it's NPCs, everything. It's like the players are all walking around in your head; exploring the depths of your imagination as you visualize everything around them.

This doesn't necessarily make the players look awesome. They could do something and completely flop; or they could do the opposite. A GM who exists solely to cater to every Hollywood fantasy of nailing the big-bad with an undoubted beat down and walking back to town showered in roses is a GM which i, personally, would get bored of VERY fast.

I should clarify where i'm inexperienced. I can't do anything to manage the mechanics and stuff for the systems, because i don't know any too well. However, when it comes to roleplay and the lore, i think i've got that nailed.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:17, Sun 14 Aug 2016.

What I and Merevel said aren't the same.  The improvisation I'm referring to is in the back and forth between GM and player.  Not just among the players.  It is the GM's job to set the stage and remind the players what the weather is.

What I'm talking about is not railroading, but guiding with a light touch.

re: Awesome.  It seems that there's some push back to this word.  Fair enough.  But remember, the PCs are the star of the show.

This does not mean they never fail.  They do keep getting back on their horse, though.  That's what makes them awesome!

And let's talk about genre.  I think we can all agree that in the end the players will triumph.  Some how.  They might have to pay a steep price, mind you.  Or maybe it's not gritty and they stand before the crowd showered in gold-pressed latinum.  Or there's a trade-off: stop the evil plot, but the bad guy gets away (to come back for moar!).

I just hate railroading players. If they insist on going somewhere else, and you do not have a good reason to say no, work around it. Hence the players are the directors lol.

I hate the term "railroading."  It's too loaded.

There has to be some direction.  You can't let the players do whatever.  You can't.

I do not like deterministic GMs.  That means a GM who just lets the dice fall where they may.  Oh, you failed your detective check to find the clue.  Oh well.  You failed your climbing check?  You fall and take X damage.  You're crippled and it'll take six weeks to recover and meanwhile the bad guys do all the things and you're drummed out of the service and your show is cancelled!  (Or they bring in the monkey sidekick, either of which is equally bad.)

Railroading would mean they can't actually wander off the path.  That's what I encouraged in my OP.  I can't imagine anyone would enjoy being "railroaded" but let's face facts: if you're the detective and you're trying to solve the mystery, you have to solve the mystery.  Some how.  Which means that failure is just another opportunity for roleplaying.

That doesn't make you a bad GM, it just means you have to choose your games carefully until you have time to read up on the rules. Freeform games and simple rule sets would probably be the way to go.

In reply to badpenny (msg # 11):

Unless the bad guy is one of those guys who pulls off a Xanatos Gambit. That's what we call "Story arch to the next campaign"!

(A Xanatos gambit is pretty much were a villain or someone takes every factor of how a situation can turn out, and plan so that no matter what happens, he wins. The Lich King's plan on WoW during his last raid is an example of this. It usually takes a miracle or a factor nobody could of planned on to defeat a Xanatos gambit)

As to system, if you haven't picked one yet, I'd start with something that was free and small in footprint (less rules) and make adjustments from there.

The Microlite community starts with the d20 basics and makes for a nice, tidy package.  Where No Man Has Gone Before is aimed at the Star Trek universe, but could be easily adapted to a more hard sci-fi viewpoint.

http://microlite20.org/forum/i...ads;sa=view;down=121

Not all fiction can be adapted to an RPG.  You have to understand the distinction between the two worlds.

Your players are going to mutiny if you take away their agency.  IOW, if there's no way for them to succeed--even at a cost--there's no point in playing (in a conventional genre tale--other kinds of storytelling are another matter).

Eh... I let the dice fall where they may.  I also tend to gravitate toward systems and stories where one bad die roll isn't going to hose you.

The dice should only be rolled when failure is interesting.  If you have the PCs roll for every step they take while walking down the street, they're eventually going to fall over.  That's not interesting.  Also, clues should at least follow the Three Clue Rule.

Similarly, I feel that the role of the GM is to provide the PCs with problems.  The PCs are the ones that provide the solutions.  Snatching that away from them because it's your precious plot is just asinine.

Now, as a GM, I find the best way to be is to be there constantly, telling the PCs what their actions are causing and clearly spelling out "I'm not moving anything forward until XYZ, but I'll still answer questions".  And then, if PCs aren't acting, poking them along to give you a plan.