THE ART OF GAME MASTERING

One of the most difficult, though natural undertakings of the roleplaying gamer is to become a GM (Game Master). It is the Game Master's privilege to control the majority of the aspects found within a game, but the privilege isn't awarded free of charge. It must be paid for, and the coin will be considerable amounts of time and effort put into this brave undertaking. Even then the GM may only hope beyond hope that their efforts are appreciated, let alone acknowledged. Yet, despite these shortcomings, there is nothing quite like holding the strings of your own game, and truly, in my opinion, if you never even try to do this, thinking yourself perfectly comfortable on the player's side of the GM Screen only, you will never fully appreciate the game; not really. You see, it is at least by the attempt at being the game master that you will understand its difficulties and finally become a better player, just as it is by playing many character types or classes that you will adequately be able to run a game for other players who wish to play those character types. Only by being on both sides of the screen will this appreciation develop, so if you haven't yet, someday you should try your hand at running a full blown campaign to enrich all of your future roleplaying experiences.

Before I proceed, I'd like to clarify the above paragraph using a few examples. First off, it is always tempting for a player to criticize a game master's work or campaign, especially if they've never run a campaign themselves. They may not realize how difficult it is to organize a game, line up its players, keep track of information both in the real world and the fantasy world, referee combat, adjudicate rules and make rulings, consider the aspects of game balance, prepare a weekly (or whatever) scenario and several alternatives that are both fun and interesting, host the game by finding a decent place in which to play it, and a slew of other jobs all performed by the game master behind the scenes. Without seeing it first hand, it may look as if it's a walk in the park. If you ever try running your own game, you will probably find otherwise, and when you do, probably be less apt to criticize any GM for any little short comings you may find. Remember that the GM is trying to have fun too, and if you criticize them without knowing what you are talking about, this can hardly be described as fun for them. Furthermore, by running your own game at least once, you will understand better what it is the GM is trying to accomplish after you've been there yourself, and you may even lend a helping hand since there are some duties that need not consume the GM's time if a trusted and respected player can pick up some of the slack. This will never happen if you really don't know how to do it, but can easily be an option once you've tested the waters of the master. All of this, naturally, would make a better game for all involved.

Secondly, as a player, you can maneuver your character in such a way as to remain within character while you help the game rather than harm it. Take the mini adventure, for example. The mini adventure, as I call it, is when one player (or a few players) split off from the main group and leave them sitting there while they go off to do something by themselves (the mini adventure). A thief going to explore by himself or herself while the others rest and pray is a good example. But the GM may easily be tied up for tens of minutes, half an hour, or even more if your character runs into the interesting items or unexpected problems, and it may not be so easy to lay down. That is, the GM may have difficulty stopping you in your tracks, as it were, and returning to the rest of the group. What your character may be doing might take less game world time, and you may think since the party was resting for X hours, you'd have plenty of time. But the party resting (in an uneventful way) may take only a minute of real world time as the GM rolls his dice and then announces nothing bad happens to them in those few hours, yet your thief could burn off a boat load of real world time during his mini adventure (much more than a minute), thus forcing the other players to sit and wait for you and your character. As a GM, you are trying desperately to put on a good show, hold a great session (or however you may describe it) and the GM knows full well that most players do not have fun while waiting to be included. Naturally, a certain amount of give and take is expected, but the mini adventure all too frequently abuses this process of give and take (greatly coming down on the take side). And here's the point: If you've been the GM where a player has done this and perhaps soured your game because of it, as a player, you may finally understand why it's not a good method of play and have your character not go off on the mini adventures as much (unless absolutely necessary). There are plenty of good reasons to stick with the group, so find a reason or two and stick with them. That's what you'd want your players to do in your game, and in kind, you should extend this courtesy to your game master.

This general principle is true for a variety of other things. If you've ever had an argumentative player crap on your game, you will be reluctant to argue yourself with the GM in his game since you now know exactly what it feels like. So, every little thing you decide you wish your players wouldn't do in your game has a natural way of becoming part of you, giving you a greater appreciation for why they are wrong, and thus encouraging you to avoid that sort of behavior yourself while in another GM's game. Thus, the experience of GMing may help you become a better player.

Thirdly, if you've never played a particular character type, you may not appreciate what a player is trying to do when they play such a character type. For example, if you've never really been big on playing Mages, your world will probably be less than friendly to mages, and you will have developed less background information for your players who wish to play mages. This is the reverse of the other two points, this time making you a better GM by being a diverse player rather than a better player by being a GM, but both are important. If you've played a mage, you may know what to expect, what to include, and how to entice a player (while you are GMing) when that player plays a mage. If you do not have this experience, your world will be less than it could be as far as mages are concerned, or as far as any other class or character type you, yourself, have never aspired to play.

As being on both sides of the GM screen is important, I mention this here, but when the question of what does it take to be a good GM arises, the answer almost invariably involves being a good, as well as, diverse player. Yet to be a good player almost demands GM experience. This isn't so much a catch 22 situation than it is a learning process, and hopefully you will find yourself on both sides of the GM screen enough so your gaming skills (GMing skills and player skills) both develop.

Showmanship: This is one of the most important aspects of GMing. You are there to provide a framework for the player's characters and to make it possible for them to develop in an interesting manner, doing interesting things, all while facing some interesting conflicts or challenges. These challenges need not only be simple combat as that can get rather tiring if all your game consists of is fighting. No indeed, these challenges may be the characters vs. NPCs, vs. PCs, vs. monsters, vs. time, vs. Mother Nature, or even vs. themselves. You may build up scenario challenges about emotions (feelings), muscle (fighting), intellect (problems and puzzles), wisdom (common sense and interactions with others), skills (will they recall they have the right skill for the right job?), etc. Whatever little problem you place in the path of these characters, it must be worthy of them. Too easy, the challenges become boring since there is no real test. Too hard, they become frustrating as the challenges never seem solvable and the players never seem to be able to achieve their goals. What does this have to do with showmanship? Well, the GM would be foolish if they set their world up in a static fashion. That is, if they decide, for example, there is a dragon in this cave at this location long before anyone thinks of going there. Then, if by happenstance, the party decided to go there, the GM refuses to alter their world (it is fixed and static), and that's just too bad for the adventurers if they go to that cave before they are ready to take on a dragon; tough luck, as it were. Similarly, if the cave contained a few kobolds and a high level party went there, it would also prove to be too easy and thus boring. Static worlds, you see, are too rigid in that the GM may feel compelled to stick with what they had decided before they knew what the party would consist of at the time this group of adventurers actually went there. The real world is sort of like that, so in the name of realism, why not go that way and let come what may? The answer: this isn't the real world, it is a game, and games should be interesting and fun and well balanced.

"Static" does not mean, however, that monsters cannot have well known stomping grounds. Therefore, if well established, say, a black dragon is known to inhabit a particular swamp for example, then its reputation should probably proceed it. At least the 'locals' should know about it, and they can tell the PCs before they blindly charge into the swamp without clue one as to what might be in there.

The PC party is thus given a chance to navigate around the world without blundering about blindly. They can make wise decision (or foolish ones) as to where to go or what to avoid (for now) based on such rumors. Once a monster is truly static, however, there is little GM discretion left. It sits there, not really living, but in stasis, until the PCs happen upon it. That's unrealistic. GM discretion is too important to surrender like that. The dragon may be out hunting when the PCs arrive, for example, if the GM deems this important. This may give unprepared PCs a second chance to think better of what they are about to do when it becomes apparent what they're up against. If not ready, running away is certainly still an option. If the dragon were a static monster, however, there it is, there it waits, and what it will do when the PCs open the door was determined long ago. Avoid truly static monsters.

Avoiding the static world, then, makes it possible for the GM to alter game world reality and place an appropriate challenge in the path of the party. But what kind of challenge, how powerful should it be, and how will the GM decide these things? More on that later, but for now as we discuss showmanship, we concentrate on altering the challenge in such a way as to provide maximum excitement for the players. Taking them to the brink of death, for example, is rather fun, memorable, and worthy of epic stories, but if they were never in any real danger, so what?

Killer vs. Monty: On opposite ends of the roleplaying spectrum for difficulty, we have the Monty Haul Campaigns and the Killer GM campaigns. Briefly, GMs giving out great reward for little effort, thus belittling actual character achievement typifies the Monty Haul campaign. The Killer GM, on the other hand, throws whatever it takes at the players and their characters and takes delight in the lethal consequences, perhaps deriving their greatest satisfaction from killing PCs. Obviously, a middle ground is called for.

To that end, the challenge should be something the players and their characters can accomplish, given the information and resources at their disposal, yet it should also be no walk in the park. A well-balanced encounter will prove interesting and exciting for the players. If the GM makes the encounter a little too weak, he can alter it on the fly, making it slightly more difficult. Also, if he initially made it too hard, he can tone it down making it possible for the party to live and escape certain doom. Yet, if the GM is known to be doing this, the players may become complacent, thinking they really don't need to work all that hard since the GM will adjust things anyway, so why bother? This is why, though a good GM should be ready and willing to alter world reality for the sake of showmanship, he shouldn't be willing to alter it too much. Providing a well-balanced scenario from session to session is the GM's job, and the less he has to alter it after the fact, the better he does his job. Minor adjustments to increase drama notwithstanding, he shouldn't alter the world just because he failed at balancing the scenario's challenge to the character's capabilities. If he does, then he should at least make compensation.

Example 1.) He places 2 carrion crawlers in their path with X amount of treasure. To his surprise, they slice up the crawlers in record time and emerge practically unscathed. This wasn't very interesting or fun (and since it wasn't a random encounter but actually what the GM considered the scenario's "main event," he feels he must do more). Thus, he places two more crawlers right around the bend and attacks with those before the party can recover. Now, as the GM failed in seeing he would need 4 crawlers in the first place to effectively challenge this party, he should double the normal treasure to compensate for his mistake. Similarly, if two crawlers prove to be too much and the party was in dire trouble, he could lessen the crawler's hit points and have them die quicker. And though he may lessen the treasure as well, he probably shouldn't as it was, again, his mistake, and the encounter did prove to be interesting (perhaps even nearly lethal). In this example, the GM compensates for his errors but pays the price (alters the treasure or reward with extra cash, magic, information, or whatever the characters truly seek).

Example 2.) If the encounter was well-balanced and it was a close call, even after the crawler should have died, the GM may keep it up just for a bit longer, thus increasing the excitement of the players as they are also on the brink of death. The longer he can keep them there, within reason, the more they will remember this battle and the more they will enjoy it. Be careful, though, not to let the crawler live too long (especially since your players may be keeping track of the damage inflicted upon it, and if it lives well beyond its time without some realistic reason, it looks bad). Naturally, the creature may kill the PCs before this happens, but while living on borrowed hit points, as it were, the GM is practicing a quality of showmanship and he should never actually kill a PC while doing this (though inflicting greater damage is ok during this time). To kill at this time and in that manner would be unfair, so the GM may pull these punches without adding or subtracting treasure as this alteration is all done in the name of showmanship. To effectively do this, however, the GM must have a good idea of the PC's current status (how much health or how many hit points are remaining) to make certain they do not cross the line in the name of showmanship. But, as I write this example, the reader (perhaps a player of yours or mine) may think their PC can get away with a lot more now that he knows what the GM is doing. Think again.

The Threat of Death: Despite the fact GMs might adjust their scenarios to be less lethal at times for greater effects in showmanship, it must still be possible for characters to die. If it weren't, there is no actual achievement as this only comes with actual risk, and if these characters do not risk death itself, it cheapens their accomplishments. Personally, I dislike seeing PCs die, and I'd much rather they didn't. To that end, I try to generate encounters that can kill, yet when the characters work together (rather than bicker and argue and pull in different directions), when they follow up on clues (rather than stupidly ignoring the world around them), and when they never lose sight of common sense (as sometimes happens), they should live and profit from the experience. Fail on any of these three points, and one or more characters may die. Effectively, then, I think of this as the characters killing themselves rather than the GM killing them.

And, of course, there is the nature of the random beast we call dice. They can kill you too, especially when the players would rather they see a lot of the GM's rolls up front (rather than behind the screen as it may be suggested certain rolls are not really hidden in the name of "hidden information"). If the game does this, the GM has less opportunity to pull his punches. Thus, the dice can kill. If they fall badly for your character (well below statistical norms) they may die due to a string of bad luck as surely and they can achieve great things with a string of good luck and good rolls. Sometimes the GM even lays it on the line for your players to see, actually telling them up front, roll this high or higher, or your character dies. That's quite an exciting moment for anyone, and if it doesn't happen too often and they have a reasonable chance of success, it adds a lot to the game, not only for the player who may be about to die, but for all the others as the threat of death is rather stimulating since it could happen to them as well. Just the simple knowledge the GM can and will occasionally kill your character adds spice to the game and merit to your character's achievements. Without this, your character's accomplishments are nothing special as anyone can achieve anything when they cannot die. Big deal. Yet if they risk death, then that's a memory worthy of them and worthy of being shared.

Aside from these situations where the GM actually place the characters in harm's way, the PCs may sometimes put themselves in harm's way. For example, they may attempt a spell (teleport comes to mind) that has certain death clearly spelled out for them when the player rolls badly. The GM may caution this player about these risks, perhaps even try to dissuade them from foolishly risking their lives (especially for frivolous reasons), but if the character insists, the GM should in no way alter these rolls. Make them roll in front of everybody; tell all who witness what results will mean certain death BEFORE the roll. Making a big deal out it as this adds a touch of the threat of death for all the PCs, and this heightens the awareness of the possibility of death for their own characters (even if they can't cast such a spell themselves). Also, system shock, resurrection survival rolls, or other rolls made to determine life or death should be made openly, and the GM should play this aspect up for showmanship and to remind the others of their own mortality. This is a good thing and should always be done in the few instances when a character may die despite everything. This really only becomes nasty or hated if the GM is a killer GM, placing the player's characters into these lethal situations themselves more than the players put themselves there. I mean, it's one thing if your character dies due to stupidity (of the group, the individual character, or bad luck), but it's another thing if they die when the GM throws more at them than they can realistically be expected to handle.

Game Balance: So much has been said and done in the name of game balance that one must sometimes wonder what this game balance stuff is all about. Put simply, it's the attempt to provide a level or even playing field for all players (or all characters, PCs and NPCs alike). Without it, one player's character can so far out shine the others that they may easily get the feeling they are superior to their fellow players (and this is wrong), or another player may feel they are worthless in comparison to the star player (and this is equally wrong). Unless you are so firkin' good you wish to play with a serious handicap, most people require a fair shake and even handed starting conditions for their games. If a game isn't fair, why even play? But how do you compare apples and oranges, mages or warriors, priests or rogues, this skill or that skill, that race or another race, this or that, etc. or etc.? This is a hard thing to do, to be sure, and it takes practice. As a player within a particular game system, the GM has learned from experience how, for example, a mage compares to other classes, or how the tracking skill compares to the navigation skill, or even how a high pain threshold compares to empathy or a crossbow compares to a hand-phaser. The book - and the game system it describes - helps since it ostensibly has a great deal of play testing under its belt. Books, unfortunately, do not cover every situation, and this is where the GM comes in. He must decide what is FAIR (the heart and soul of game balance).

When the GM alters the game rules, he runs the risk of running afoul of game balance considerations, perhaps not taking into account something the authors had seen and didn't like while they were play testing (hence the rule). But, with experience and practice, he may come to understand why these rules are included and know whether or not game balance is in jeopardy for his particular world. If not, he may change the rules without too much risk, and he may very well do just that. And when players strive to accomplish new things, it is game balance the GM must consider. Will this new ability or power make this character much more powerful than his companions? If so, the ability may have to be toned down or denied. If it lies within the current power structure - that is, if it isn't too far off base and is comparable to what the character may already be doing - then there will not be a problem. If it is too weak, it may just be a waste of the character's time, but the GM may let them do this anyway since it is their time to waste. The watchword here, naturally enough, is reasonable, and if it's reasonable, you may adopt the new rule, but if it isn't, it probably won't and shouldn't be adopted. As always, these things must be compared to what has gone before, what the books say now, and how the GM runs their world.

There is little else I can say about game balance since this is too game specific and takes a great deal of practice (as a player in that game system) to be able to accurately gauge it as the GM. This does not mean, however, that a player may not be the GM if they do not have a great deal of experience at the game (sometimes you have no choice and may be the only one willing or able to GM for your group), but it only means they will not be as good at it as an experienced GM, though they will always be learning as they go. So if the players are willing to accept the GM's lack of experience and cut him all the necessary slack, things should be fine.

Cheating: One may think it is the GM's responsibility to police their players and prevent them from cheating. To be sure, this is partially true, but it really shouldn't be. If you are a player who fudges his dice rolls, adds extra cash or equipment you haven't earned or had the forethought to bring along, alters their character sheet on the sly, or just keeps rotten records, then you are not a nice person and you are a bad gamer as well. Unfortunately, the GM all too often has better things to do than police your character, and he must rely on the honor system more often than not. There is another way to do it, but I think this detracts a bit from the enjoyment of the game, though I will describe it to you if you wish to try it.

The No Honor System: Do not let your players keep their own character sheets or perhaps roll their own dice for the really big or important rolls (hit dice, saving throws in life or death situations, etc.). As GM, you will not have time to do it for them, but as each player is not keeping their own sheet, they may have time to keep another player's sheet. So, if player A wishes to spend some money, player B (the holder of A's sheet) is the one who must be informed and subtract that cash. A good record keeping player may take up the slack and oversee several character sheets (but not their own). Perhaps, as a sort of records GM, one character can do this, though the GM must keep track of that player's own sheet. Anyway, you get the idea, yet I do NOT recommend this as sometimes half the fun is playing (honestly) with your own character sheet and having a hands on feel for your intangible character. This may sometimes be the only thing that makes it real for you.

The Honor System: It is far better each player know and understand the importance of fair play. If the GM discusses the policy on cheating, this should be enough. Tell your players you will be checking, at random, certain aspects on their sheets (this should prompt them to play fair). Make it clear you have their original records (stats, etc.) and can always compare them later. Encourage, where appropriate, the players to police themselves and each other. They needn't look over each other's character sheets (as this information may be quite sensitive and private), but they can watch each other's rolls closely, even if the GM across the table may not be able to see the dice (especially those rotten "ice" dice). Also, for the major points that concern you (whatever those are), tell your players you will also keep a record of that even though the other 9/10ths of their information will not be so closely monitored. Finally, lay down the law by telling them what you will do to them (their character) if they are caught cheating. Perhaps immediate expulsion from the game, or maybe everybody gets one warning, a second infraction kicks them out.

The Perfect System: Ideally, since this may not be too far off in the future, there may be some electronic GM aid to help keep track of many of the numbers. All players will have some hand held or lap top port to tie into the system, and many gains and expenditures and records will become more automatic. If only the GM has the proper codes, this should make it good enough to prevent cheating, but it will still never replace the honor system, even if it lightens everyone's record keeping load.

Record Keeping: Aside from deliberately cheating, there is the accidental cheating that occurs due to poor record keeping. Forgetting to subtract this cash or that item after you've used it or traded it sometimes happens. A slip of the records may not include the latest damage, and your character is stronger than they should be right now. However it happens, if you keep poor records, the game suffers. It is the duty of every player to keep records as well as they are able. The GM, however, may help in any way they can. Perhaps having back up records, good notes about the last few sessions handy, and a world database may help. The players should keep track of NPC names, places, dates, etc., but the GM must do this as well. If the players do it for themselves, their characters should be able to use that information whenever and however they are able, but if they don't, the GM should not feel obliged to refresh their memory (unless it's about something the character can actively see or determine). For example, you need not explain to them the significance of the coat of arms upon that banner again, but you should describe the actual banner that is right in front of their character. Also, you need not tell them again what form a reward may have taken after they, say, converted it to cash and split it up, but you should tell them how much gold they have in "that" bag where they put their share (should the player have forgotten). Even if they can't remember they sold the jade statue and the ivory scroll tube for 200 GP, they can still count this 200 GP in their purse. Of course, I'm not suggesting you be a hard ass about helping your players - just that they should take a little responsibility, too, and occasionally denying them information they should know by now is a good way to get this point across. Otherwise, it will become your job to remind them about what happened, to whom it happened, when and where it happened, why it happened, what it meant and why it's important each and every time they stop the game and ask. You have better things to do, so encourage them to keep their own notes, and if they still refuse, make them hire an NPC chronicler to follow them around and take notes for them. It should at least cost their characters something.

World Development: As GM, it is you duty to try to develop your world, at least partially before the game begins, and all the while you are running it. You can pattern your world after some fiction you admire, base it on some prefabricated game supplement, or create your own world from your collective experiences. Make a map (at least of the immediate local area where you intend to start this group out), place a scale of distances on it (something so it would take awhile to travel from here to there but not months and months either), figure out who and where major population centers are, decide upon some of the major NPCs who may be involved in your PC's lives at first, and create a few initial scenarios on this map. After you do this, get started. Do NOT wait until your world is complete and fleshed out with so much detail it rivals real world accuracy; that will take too long and have the unfortunate static quality to it anyway. No, you must start and let your world develop naturally, let the players help mold your world (through their PC's actions or as suggestions from the players themselves), and get into it. As they say, "Just Do It."

Scenario Development: There are many ways to approach this, from doing it completely on the fly with no particular preparation (winging it can be fun, but I think it is harder and leads to less intricate scenarios), to having each scenario well prepared and thought out. Personally, I find the following approach to work well. As GM, prepare several scenarios based upon the party's current power level and their current desires and goals. Custom fit one scenario to revolve around a particular PC for each PC in the group. Have your world developed well enough so you can "wing it" when necessary, and then let your players go. Through their natural exploration, they will find the clues necessary that will lead them to one if not several of these options. Do NOT force them to play the one scenario you have ready as this can give them the feeling they are being forced to follow your whims. This is why having several scenarios ready will give them options, making them feel like they are in greater control, and with the actual option to wing it available, they are to the degree they need to feel they have autonomy and freedom. This is important. The good thing about this system is that the unused scenarios are not wasted but can be used next time (perhaps with only minor revisions), and effectively the GM need only come up with one new idea a week (or however often you play your game) after they initially get a few scenarios ahead of the game.

Each scenario should have at least one clear goal. Rescue the princess, defeat the troll, obtain the horses, find Fineus, collect a roc's feather, find out why no word has come from castle Anthrax, discover what happened to the H.M.S. Bounty, etc., etc. Each scenario should have at least one clear solution (though others are possible, and clever players may always surprise you or think of things that you neglected to take into account). Of course, sometimes the clear solution is to "run away," recognizing the wisdom of doing this when they are outmatched. Also, and I like this, one method (one solution) to the problem will frequently be brute force and fighting. I have this as an option and may even expect it more often than not, but if the players are smart, they should also be able to find a way to accomplish their goals without a fight, perhaps bypassing them, yet while still obtaining the reward. Thus, I typically have two clear solutions in mind (one of brute force and one that is cleverer). Hopefully, they will be clever (this often earns more experience than even fighting), but this doesn't always happen, and naturally they may discover alternative ways to solve the problems you didn't imagine when you wrote the scenario (and that's worth even more experience). Also, the brute force method tends to cost them more in resources - like used up healing potions, scrolls, magic item charges, or money to hire extra mercenaries for a larger assault. Clever is usually much better, and it's always a delight when they find alternate solutions even you, the GM, hadn't thought of before, so that's usually worth some extra experience, too.

Example: Most recently, a party I was running a game for happened upon some ruins on an island (which they came too since their ship was badly in need of repair from the last adventure). They rescued a local (an intelligent ape like child, a Dakon), and were befriended by his village. There, they learned a few things about the ruins, part of the history, and heard (almost in passing) about how that tower was constructed two centuries ago. They (the village elders) recalled it was at about the time of the "desecration." What desecration you say? Good question if they ask, but it isn't the GM's job to make them pay attention or think to ask. It is only their job to provide the clues. So, the desecration turned out to be grave robbers, somebody stealing corpses for who knows what? They continue, and enter a castle like murder hole arrangement, long abandoned and thickly overgrown, it looked harmless enough as clearly no living thing had used the area for decades. Then they were trapped between a falling portcullis and the tower gate, with a rain of arrows shooting in for narrow arrow loops. Escape was nearly impossible (or so it was meant to be), and they would die unless action was taken. It was my intent (as GM) that one of two party clerics might realize since no living things had apparently been here (and graves were robbed, so perhaps undead were about), that even though THEY couldn't see the archers, they might realize they were undead skeletons and TURN them. This was the correct solution I had planned for. Naturally, other solutions were possible for this encounter if the players could think of them. If I had forgotten, for example, the mage had a knock scroll, if the others shielded him with their bodies and he read it, that would work. My point is the PCs may come up with their own solutions. And, as is typical, brute force can work as well. Even with a negative modifier vs. a locked gate, the warrior, in this case, rushed forward and threw himself against the ancient timbers of the gate. It shouldn't have worked, but he rolled so low (and you want low in this instance to overcome a locked door), that it worked. They escaped, though they still had to fight the skeletons later, but that's neither here nor there. So, as GM and teller of stories, I decide the REASON this attempt worked was because the gate had weathered so badly it easily broke (and not because some player rolled a one).

Remember that things happen to the player's characters because of the way the players rolled the dice, but the GM should describe why it happened to the characters in game world terms. If a warrior rolled a 1 and fumbled during combat, why did it happen? Is the floor wet with blood, moss, run off water from the walls, or did he trip over a stick or his own feet? Why did the gate break so easily? Weathering, huh? If the thief rolled well and easily opened a lock, perhaps the lock is low quality, but if he barely made his roll, maybe the lock is a high quality lock. Sure, he made his intelligence roll and knew, therefore, who had been emperor 50 years ago, but it was because his grandfather used to talk to him about that time when he was a child. Of course, when you make up a reason, this sometimes leads to natural conclusions, so go with those as this adds to the game. Wet with run off water you say? So, maybe we CAN get a drink here after all. See how it's done? And it is this kind of interactive detail that adds so much to your game, so try to develop this skill all you can. When thinking of reasons, make them fit into your scene and never simply suggest the fighter tripped because he rolled poorly.

Maps: Maps are very important in many kinds of games (though not all). Whether it is a map of the world (solar system, galaxy, whatever, depending), or a local map (this continent, this country, this county, this village and its surrounding area, or even if it is just specialized (this dungeon, these caves, this mountain, this building, etc.), a map will help the GM visualize what is happening and where and help them convey this information to their players. The better the map, the better the information. The PCs may acquire maps of their own. The GM may just let them use the GM's map, but it might be better to let them have their own copy so they may write on it or whatever they wish to do with it. Exploring and mapping can be great fun - sometimes that alone is sufficient reason for them to go over the next hill and see what's there. So, it is my recommendation each GM well prepare their maps as I find them to be too important to let go. You will have these maps (even years later), so the effort is frequently well worth it.

Consistency: Not everything in the book need be taken as gospel. The GM should feel free to alter the rules wherever he or she sees fit, but this should NEVER be done on a whim. If it is, the rule today may be different from the rule yesterday, and that might even bear no resemblance to the rule tomorrow. The players will demand a certain level of consistency from their GM, and the GM should do their utmost to provide it. If they do not, it will almost certainly reflect poorly on them and their creation, make the players uncertain of where they stand, and perhaps even make them less willing to participate. It may even sometimes give the players the impression the GM is cheating (not that a GM can technically cheat, but you get the idea). With consistency comes in-world reality, and within this reality, players may explore the world, themselves, their fellow PCs, and their options. Without it, what's the point?

Note To Players: Each GM should strive for consistency, and this is an important aspect of the game. But this is consistency within his own world and not necessarily consistency between his world, the game system, and the worlds you have played in before. A GOOD player wishes to know the rules - where possible - and they WILL simply accept the GM's differences from what they may be used to as long as the GM demonstrates self-consistency. If you, instead, argue or complain simply because a rule here is different from what you've played before, you are not in the spirit of the game and it may be said you are demonstrating one quality often associated with poorer players (though I hesitate to say this one act makes you a bad player, it isn't exactly a good quality in a player either).

Fairness: To be fair is to be unbiased and show no favoritism to any one player, any one class, or any one skill or race. It is hard sometimes not to give additional consideration to those players who are either playing a character class you prefer or who is obviously, to your mind, the better players. It's just unfortunate this can make the other players like your game less and less if it continues to happen, and this will erode your game away to the point where it may collapse. To prevent this and do right by the players you like, you must also do right by the players who are not so good at times. Just by treating them equally and fairly, they will actually aspire to be included more, to get into the game more, and this will make them better players. To exclude them will go in the wrong direction, so try to be careful. Otherwise, the rest is common sense about being fair in a game.

Game Flow and Continuity: It is sometimes helpful to recap the last session, telling all briefly where they are, what they are trying to do, and why or how they got there. This should only take a few minutes before each session begins, and it will probably save more time than it takes by avoiding confusion. Also, it helps clear up little misunderstandings (sometimes on the GM's part), so that's helpful. Each session should flow smoothly from one into the other, either picking up where you left off while in the field or in town, or picking up after the agreed upon period of "down time" has elapsed, as when the party splits up for X weeks to do various things and plans to next meet after this time has passed.

Originality: This is an important quality of the GM, but it can hardly be taught. I can only tell you your players will appreciate original stories more than things they've seen before, and I can only suggest you can find many ideas in fiction (books, television, etc.), and even nature documentaries on PBS or TLC or the Discovery channel, sometimes learning an interesting thing or two about nature, then exaggerating it for you campaign. You may be surprised, for example, how watching a special on "spiders" may inspire you to create an original type of spider monster for your game. So always be on the look out for ideas, and don't be afraid to share ideas with other GMs. If you both had one great idea, you can share, and now you have two great ideas each (and this is perfectly fine as you each probably have different players).

Player Aid: Never assume you, as GM, must do everything yourself for your game. Let your players help and let them contribute. Listen to their ideas, what their character's goals may be, and try to help them realize these goals - just don't make it easy for them since it should be a challenge; just make it worthy of them). Also, have the players help you run the more complicated parts of the game. They could, for example, keep track of how much damage their character did to a creature during a battle. You know about how many hit points it had (you may even assume around average and avoid having to roll up 9/10ths of those sorts of things). Then, each time the PC connects, they can tell you how much it has taken so far. One player may also be better at the rules than you are. Use this to your advantage. There is nothing wrong in admitting you don't have the books memorized, but there is something wrong with pretending you do when you don't. If you are not sure, let them tell you or have them look it up while you do other things.

The better players, in my opinion, can also make maps (their house, their temple, their guild, their castle or keep, their tower, or whatever, and then you can include them in your game (within reason). Many players will have various skills you do not posses, and you'd be foolish not to try to use these strengths in your game just because you don't posses these skills yourself. So, if they are excellent mapmakers, architects, economists, seamstresses or tailors, or what have you, and they are willing to do something for inclusion in your game, let them; even encourage them to contribute. It's their game too, you know, even if you are the GM and it is your world.

What Thanks?: Finally, players, being what they are, will frequently never properly thank you for your efforts (go figure), yet they will show up session after session for more of the same, and this, in and of itself, speaks volumes about how well they like your game. It may be thanks enough, and I hope you take it that way. If you are a player, however, and you do enjoy the game, maybe you should think about thanking your GM every now and then. The lethal qualities of such an act have been greatly exaggerated, or simply put, it wouldn't kill you to say thanks.