I tried to be a more permissive GM and so far this has vastly improved my gaming experience
I tried to be a more permissive GM and so far this has vastly improved my gaming experience
I tried to be a more permissive GM and so far this has vastly improved my gaming experience
That's because you're a bottom. You need to railroad the frick out of your players
>page 7
anon you didn't make your thread inflammatory enough. you could have at least said DM instead so that people would cry about d&d in the thread
The person who lives rent free in your head would have said HYTNPD&D anyway, regardless of whether DM or GM was stated.
tl;dr cry harder homosexual
/tg/'s perception of how games go have been warped by fake greentext, meme threads and scraping the bottom of the barrel to find players off and online. For every "epic" "real" story you read here about how a GM did something or a player derailed a campaign there's ten silent, smooth campaigns where everyone settles issues and lets the game flow smoothly.
>First time player rolls to intimidate Jelly
>Vet player tells him it can't see, hear, or understand them
>He rolls a 24 overall
>I let him scare the Gelatinous cube away because frick it why not
>New guys face lights up with a smile
You get more memorable moments with a "yes" than a "no". Most of the worst moments were more the dice' doing.
>You get more memorable moments with a "yes" than a "no". Most of the worst moments were more the dice' doing.
Pretty much yeah, if nothing else going "You can try" and seeing what they end up doing/their plan can be a good springboard for things
Ironically your issue might've been asking for it just after the game, due to the way the human mind is wired bad things tend to stick out more clearly than good things (focusing on the good aspects is actually a habit you have to develop... which explains a lot about /tg/). Try asking them something more specific like if there's anything their characters would like to do or goals they have that haven't come up in game or their favorite NPC.
I came to the same conclusion as well, but the last two sessions I asked for feedback I explicitly only asked for it 3 days after the game. They still had issues articulating positive things. I think it might be that they are just bad at expressing their positive feelings, because that was some months ago and ever since I stopped asking for feedback the games run smoother and everyone seems to be in a better mood.
Ultimately they're happy with the game, so I'm happy. I think asking them to reflect just opens them up to negative thoughts.
NTAYRT but out of curiosity how likely would you say your players are on the spectrum? As someone that's ran for actually medically recognized autists and burgers they tend to have a hard time expressing positivity on the spot.
I honestly think all but one are. Two definitely are, one of which could probably summon the papers to prove it. Another I suspect heavily. I have definitely accommodated behaviours under the assumption that it relates to a function of autism, but I don't really pry in that regard. In the end I try to be accommodating no matter the reason, and I'll leave it to them to advocate for themselves if they find it necessary.
It would certainly explain a lot, I figured that's just who they are; raised on the irony and cynicism wave of the internet. It's certainly a preferable way to think of the situation.
Moments like this, I hit the player with an "explain how." Frick what the rules say: the set-up of the situation is that you are confronted by a blob. If you can show how you might deter the blob with intimidation, I don't have any reason to frick with them. If they say any variation of "I don't know" or "I have a high number on my sheet" then I ask them to think of something else.
>Moments like this, I hit the player with an "explain how." Frick what the rules say: the set-up of the situation is that you are confronted by a blob. If you can show how you might deter the blob with intimidation, I don't have any reason to frick with them. If they say any variation of "I don't know" or "I have a high number on my sheet" then I ask them to think of something else.
This is solid GMing. I do this all the time. I will also go so far as to help players formulate a plan if they have something to work with. My goal, and often it works out, is to get all the players to work together to come up with a method of resolution to a problem they are presented with. I will give feedback like "that would have a low chance of success" if they are looking to try something that isn't likely to succeed.
I also retool the game I'm running to be player facing (players roll all the dice) so I don't even roll against them. In this way, they see they put their plan into action and took fate in their own hands. This way, I can honestly root for my players to succeed.
my0w0p
I am a fan of this approach as well. Everyone got to remember that they're there not just to entertain themselves, but entertain each other. Come up with a plausible reason for why something would work and I'll allow it as a GM. Regardless I'll enjoy hearing your chain of thought.
>Moments like this, I hit the player with an "explain how."
good thread, good advice. I have a player who is very focused on rules and mechanics and that often helps him think inside the game and not just see it as a set of rules.
This is horrible GMing. The rules say I can do it, my sheet says I can do it, therefore I can do it. I shouldn't have to explain why. homosexual
Make a roll with disadvantage.
I hope you have a nice day OSRgay
Anti-roleplayers typed these posts.
>Ignore verisimilitude. We're not playing a role playing game in a consistent setting, we're playing gibberish-go-pop, the whimsical nonsense boardgame!
So then your fire magic can't start fires unless the spell describes it in detail and your bladed weapons can't saw through ropes unless there's a game mechanic that says you can?
Gotta say; I've encountered some nonsense games in the past, and didn't enjoy it. Doesn't sound very fun to me.
>The rules say I can
I'm pretty sure the intimidate rules mention they don't work on mindless foes.
>A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm
So, uh. Wrong on both fronts.
If 5e really makes no exception preventing you from intimidating mindless foes, thats yet another reason I'm not running that awful game.
>The rules say I can do this, so I should be able to do it.
You:
>>Uhhh. Duh rules don't say you CAN do this other thing, so now you CANT do it!!!!!!!!!!
>This other thing.
>Trying to intimidate a gelatinous cube is an "other thing" from trying to intimidate a gelatinous cube.
You're gonna have to walk me through your thought process on this one.
>Uh, the rules say you can intimidate things?
>well they DONT say your fire spells actually cause fire, checkmate gaytheist!
How embarrassing.
The rules specifically say you can't intimidate mindless creatures. I quoted them.
But if they didn't - yeah: if you force the GM into "Apply the mechanics as boardgame style legalese gibberish without any common sense or verisimilitude" - they won't only do it when you want them to.
>Gaytheist
I was more thinking suspension-of-disbelief-destroying campaign ruining killjoy, actually.
I'd refuse to give out verisimilitude ruining nonsense rulings as GM, and I would tell the GM to refuse your nonsense as a player.
>D-duh rules say
No they don't lmao. You quoted a game nobody plays.
>If you want your character to do things the rules say he can, then he can't do ANYTHING THEY DON'T SAY HE CAN!!!
This is moronic and something that a nogames would say. Actual GMs just let people do things that make sense and sometimes even go against the rules because it's cool.
Ignore the nogames troll anon
>A game nobody plays.
3.5 general is healthy enough. PF1 has basically the same mechanics, and I know lots of people playing PF1. Just, y'know. Mostly people over 30.
>GMs let people do things that make sense.
Intimidating an unintelligent floating patch of mold that mindlessly eats things does not make sense. Maybe it runs away in response to being seriously wounded (if its even capable of that), but it's dumb as an ant, so it's getting run as dumb as an ant.
>Go against the rules because it's cool.
When it makes sense, and only slightly atrains credulity perhaps. When it's moronic nonsense, well, moronic nonsense isn't cool, it's moronic.
>Muh muh muh 5e.
Hard no. You could not pay me to run that garbage fire of a game again.
>Nogames
Been gaming with the same 6 guys since '08 or '09. We started with PF1 playtest and NWoD Changeling. Though these days its online through discord because we're not all in the same city anymore.
>Something a nogames would say.
Something a DM that treats it like a boardgame and uses the rules in ways that make no sense would say. I've had GMs like that.
I wouldn't do that, I would just say "its a gelatinous cube. It's mindless, you fail to intimidate it with threats and namecalling" and move on to the next player, and if you threw a tantrum, we would have a big boy talk about if you would like to leave. And if you tried to claim "but it says I can intimidate anything including mindless things and inanimate objects" without throwing a tantrum, I would tell you A: thats moronic, and B: thats also not what the book says because I'm not running "critical role zoomer handwaive and ignore all the (poorly written) rules theatre edition", I'm running a game that's still actually a game (in which you can win and lose based on if you have good plans and luck).
I'm all for being permissive when the players come up with a creative plan that makes some sense and could maybe succeed, if it's cool. Intimidating mindless creatures that can't understand you isn't cool, doesn't make sense, and could not plausibly succeed.
"I scream at the potato until it runs away!"
Bravo. So clever. Have another tidepod.
>I would just say
Actually - that's what I would say to someone I expected knew it was mindless that was jut being moronic to be "ironic"™.
If the person was new, I would ask them for a knowledge roll, and on a success I would tell them "you remember oozes are mindless and realize that wouldnt work" and let you decide to do something else. If they flub the knowledge roll, they'll learn you can't intimidate a brainless crawling fungus the slow way.
Post character sheet
Autistic hands typed this post.
Autistic hands also made these posts (I would know, theyre mine).
and
Whatever the frick is going on with
- I'm not taking collective autist responsibility for that one.
Knowing that slimes sense through tremors and flee from overly large predators, you run to a statue in the room and shake it hoping the weight is enough. Give me a strength check to intimidate
Wow, ruin the rules and make up fricking stories! What a fun "game" you "play" there!
Fricking improv homosexuals trying to get people into the degenerate lifestyle. OSR pure rules only.
Of the two groups and three DMs I have, one DM only runs OSR cause of how “easy it is to improv and kludge into other settings”
literally read the first chapter of the dm guide
>memorable moments
Perfect for greentexts to share on reddit!
Guys guys one time I almost got a NATTY TWENTY (24 with bonuses!) and the DM let me scare a slime even though it's blind and deaf! xD
>made his player happy
How fricking dare you!
>Anons finally take the sandbox pill
feels good, doesn't it?
There's a happy medium between disposable non-characters at level 1 and "Hey DM, before the first session be sure to read my 20-page word document of edgy backstory for this guy who can swing a sword good."
A player should have at least a little investment in their guy going in.
This reminds me of that D&D 4e example of play where some guy's toddler just decided he dodged an arrow trap and found a treasure.
I removed other people from the equation entirely, and this has vastly improved my gaming experience.
I developed a habit of asking for feedback from players and adjusting the game and the rules based on things they liked and disliked so that we all have more fun.
I started my latest campaign with the goal of asking for feedback both immediately after a session and also later in a group chat. To get the immediate visceral reaction, and then the more reflected retrospective. As it turns out all my players had tons of complaints and no praise, even when asked specifically what they liked they came up blank. I figured I must have completely fricked it since last time and that I somehow developed a blindspot for all my bad decisions.
After 30 hours of game I threw in the towel and apologised to them for having lost my mojo, after all if you ask someone straight up if they're having fun and they can't answer "yes" then you fricked it, right? At this point they reveal they are having tons of fun and enjoying it a lot, and don't want me to stop GMing.
I still run the game. I stopped asking for feedback.
I like to improvise and being more permissive with player freedom makes that easier. Plus freedom of choice isn’t freedom from consequences.
From years of experience I know I can give my players as much rope as they want and trust that they’ll still hang them selves with it.
... ok?
I honestly don't know what were you expecting, either by doing so or by making this thread.
Based. Im doing a curse of strahd campaign and we got railroaded into the most obvious trap, the murder house, and ive never been more disinterested. The dm is also a huge pussy who allows rolling dice outside the program we are using online and just allows unpromtpted and out of character team killing so yeah
congrats anon, I hope you have a great day.
I tightened down even harder and my players squeal and beg for more.
I'm really glad I have such a good DM.
He's flexible about how we approach problems, but still keeps things grounded.
I would get up to all sorts of munchkin bullshit if he didn't keep me in line.
The "rules" he seems to operate on are:
>spells are always RAW or very close, magic is inherently rigid
>metagaming is verboten
>basic Newtonian physics in effect at all times
>you can always roll a skill check to TRY doing something (even if it's impossible)
>arguments/explanations for why something would work accepted, but veto-able
Solid guy.
If I'm not 90% sure of something I rule in the players favor just to keep things going. If its something that affects the game long-term I will look things up and figure things out before the next session.