How To GM: How I Come Up With Villains

Last week I wrote about antagonists, and how I make them. I defined antagonists as those who oppose the players, that did not mean that antagonists were in some cosmic war between good and evil with the players. In fact I think the opposite should be true; antagonists proper need to be morally grey, or at least sympathetic and vulnerable, in the player's eyes. There should be questions, on some level, about the justness of the player's goals when they meet an antagonist.

None of that should apply to villains.

Villains are a type of antagonist. So all the thoughts I have on villains start with my antagonist article, so go read that again. Make an antagonist using those guidelines in your head, and come back here.

You're back? Cool.

You've made a character who has was hurt by a part of the setting that your players don't like, has a primal need that is sympathetic, and who cannot be ignored by the players cause he keeps getting in their faces? Got him in your head? Good. Here's the next step.

You're going to make the dude weaponize his pain.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

So in the previous article I talked about that little twinge of sympathy, of pain, that I think someone should feel for an antagonist. The dude is hurt and is trying to solve the pain he is in. He is trying to rise above it, to do something positive, with his pain, even if his methods are messed up in the players' eyes. The fact that he happens to be opposed to the players is tragic and a sign of the breakdown of the setting and the people within it, as opposed to a problem with the antagonist himself. The person may not be on your side in whatever conflict you're in, but they are clearly trying to rise above something. They are using their pain as a tool to better themselves and the world they are in. They just so happen to have a methodology or ideology that your players can't allow. Villains take that center spot of pain, that little twinge that you feel when you think about where they came from, sharpen it, and use it to hurt others. They have given up on being better than their past and do not think the world can be made better. Or if they do think the world can made better it's so inimical to what's actually good that no one in the story can allow him to go on as he is doing. You could almost certainly convince an antagonist, given enough time, of the rightness of your path. It may not be likely, but it is possible. Villains have made a choice that cuts them out of society fundamentally. You can't "convince" them. Convert back to the common way of doing things? Maybe. Possibly. But they are lacking something that is so fundamental that you cannot just hope to reason with them. Nor should you.

All of this is to say that you oppose an antagonist's views and mission; the opposition is not necessarily personal, although even if it is it probably has more to do with petty reasons on the parts of the players than anything genuinely wrong with the antagonist. You are opposing the villain for being him. You might be able to respect an antagonist for having the guts to stand up for what he believes in, and even if you don't that may on the player, but a villain properly speaking doesn't believe in anything. He's in the  black pit of his own mind, rejoicing in a pain that no one in their right mind should. And if he cannot be turned, he must be destroyed.

Villains are so much more personal. They get under your skin and make you like hating them. That's because villains have taken their life experiences and made them into a weapon that they can use against others. You can't reason with them, you can't commiserate and even really sympathize. They must either return to being like the rest of us or be destroyed, lest we be destroyed first. And yeah, there's a tragedy in that, but most people aren't going to mourn what they're killing as they're doing it. And kill them we must.

How to GM: How I Come Up With Antagonists

Antagonists are not easy to come up with. Notice I didn't say villains. Villains are evil for evil's sake and all that, complete with a mustache twirl or two. Villains are a subset of antagonist, at least in my mind. So if you're going to do a villain you should be able to create antagonists; I'll be writing on how to make villains next week, which use a similar process to when I make antagonists, but there are a few notable tweaks that we'll cover in that article. Antagonists are simply characters that are opposed to the players and their goals. They do not have to be "evil", nor should they be unless necessary. They might do things that are evil, but ultimately antagonists need only be opposition. If anything, I find that compelling antagonists live in a fleshed out setting, have a simple and sympathetic need which impacts the players, evidence of the problem not having a ready solution, and then ensuring the antagonist's plans affect your player characters in ways that they cannot ignore.

 So the first question that I think needs to be answered is why have more antagonists than just outright villains? This is something I've been thinking about lately, a lot. Antagonists can be more varied, for the simple reason that they are only opposed to the players. You can (and should) have morally good antagonists, with honor and strong internal compasses, who oppose the players, because of their own internal goodness. You should have antagonists of every moral persuasion anyway, but throwing genuinely good people that the players like at them leads to incredibly good drama. And then at that point an actual villain becomes that much more unique and special, because creatures that actively glorify in evil are extremely rare, and need to be used sparingly.

The other reason why I try to prefer antagonists in my games is because the answers become much more difficult to navigate. If someone has a legitimate beef with the system that you live in, a system that creates order and stability, is it really right to destroy the system for their sake? Do you really have what it takes to weather the storms of social change, should it come to that? The players may find themselves hating the fact that they are opposing a particular group, and that's really not a bad thing, particularly in DnD, where murderhobos are the norm.  So I usually prefer antagonists because of the questions that they raise. So, for instance, don't have the goblins go after a town because they're evil, have the goblins go after the town because they're starving to death and the humans won't give them food. Can you convince the goblins to back off long enough to get food for them? They're not hungry, they're starving. They may not be that noble, or even rational (hunger has a way of doing that). Can you convince the townsfolk to give the food necessary to get these goblins to survive (don't forget that the townsfolk may have legitimate concerns about the goblins).

If any of that actually interests you, read on!

Setting is the first key to a good antagonist. We'll have to do that in a different post, but you need to make sure that your setting is something that generates a response from the players. The setting needs to have hooks built into that get a reaction from the players, both good and bad. Obviously, make sure that no lines for the players are crossed, but there needs to be something in the setting that upsets the players, no matter how minor it may be.

Got something?

Good.

Take that thing that upsets the players and have it be key into making the antagonist what he is.

If slavery is something in your world and your players have an especial problem with it, make damn well sure the antagonist was an especially cruelly mistreated slave.  Feel that twinge? That's good. That's a sign that you sympathize with the dude. And you should. You're playing him. He's one of your characters. Take that twinge, and stoke it. Whatever it takes to make that twinge into heartbreak, do it. If the antagonist comes from a place of pain there is a greater chance of him lasting longer, mostly because you'll be trying very deliberately to keep him alive.

Do. Not. Be. Stupid. About the above paragraph. Everybody has limits. Respect yours. If you accidentally push yourself too far (and that is easy to do) walk it back. Find something that is a little less painful, or at lot. I can't tell you what those limits are, but if you don't know what they are tread lightly, at least at first. You're here to play a part, not to put yourself in a mental ward. I've been there and contrary to popular belief the cookies were not worth it.

Now that the antagonist has a righteous issue with the setting, you need to have that issue generate a need. This should not be a complex need, and it should probably be more than a little emotional. This doesn't mean the antagonist should be emotional, just that what he wants needs to be grounded in something basic, primal, human. Weave this need into everything the character does. And then work out the practical stuff that the antagonist needs in order to realize his goal. So, to continue with the slavery thing, that person wants to free his parents. Oh, but wait! His parents are slaves to the king. Who just happens to be a jerk. So in order to free his parents the antagonist has to overthrow the government. That means he needs a revolution. That means riots, propaganda wars, and destabilizing whole regions and trying to make the king look bad in the process. Or maybe he's just out for assassinating the king, could be he has a successor in mind. 

Of course the next thing is to make sure that all this affects the players' characters. When in doubt as to how to do this make it personal: kidnap or injure loved ones, burn homes to the ground, corrupt allies, whatever it takes to make this guy be hated by the players. Make sure not to antagonize your players, but you had better antagonize their characters. Whatever it takes, do it. It doesn't even have to be something the antagonist does directly, but it could be something indirectly linked to him. While it's bad that the antagonist hurts someone the PCs love, isn't it just a tad bit more tragic to have that person be injured as side result? Sometimes the most heartbreaking things are when it's really nobody's fault, even if the player characters are not so understanding.

Antagonists are some of the most fun a GM can have. You can make problems that the players need to take a moment to stop and think about, which can be a lot of fun. So make sure to key the antagonists into the setting in a way that the players don't like, make sure his needs are simple and primal and sympathetic, while still opposed to the players, and then make sure the players can't avoid this guy. Make sure to respect all the boundaries involved (yours included) and you should get pretty far with what I've outlined.

How to GM: Safety and Difficult Content

Safety is a bit of buzzword in the RPG world at the moment. Lots and lots of games being released these days have at least one discussion on safety and everyone being welcome and all that. Bleak Spirit, one of my favorite games, has a seemingly constant barrage of "Make sure everyone is welcome and feeling safe!", and Pathfinder 2e has a pretty constant stream of it as well, at least in comparison to what's in been past RPG products. I'm sure there's more, but I'm not buying a constant stream of RPGs, so I will not pretend to an encyclopedic knowledge of the current industry.

I'm not entirely sympathetic to the barrage that I'm perceiving.

Notice that I didn't say that making sure that people feel safe in your games is bad. I just get a little tired of reading a constant "Are you guys treating each other well??" That's not the job of a book. Or the writer of the game. Or really anyone not you. That's your job. You should be treating each other well, whether you're playing a game or walking or eating or whatever. That's not a game discussion, that's an ethics discussion. You should have a moral core, regardless of what you're doing. Games are not an excuse to be a dick. Having an escape with your friends is not an excuse to mistreat them.

Has it sunk in yet?

Good!

We're done here.

Oh.

Right.

The tag on this blog post reads advice. My bad.

I'm going to have to do a session zero post someday. I keep talking about it, but I'm lazy. The point is that you should do a session zero with your players and hash everything out, by and large. Everyone should have already told you what they were interested in playing, even if it meant just them saying they wanted to play a paladin and they don't want to come up with a backstory, so the character has amnesia.

Now, most of the time people are going to come up with rather innocuous ideas of what they want to do narratively, to the point to where I don't think the discussion on safety even needs to come up. If you're playing in a group of friends this should not need to be discussed.

Oh, how I wish I could leave it at that.

We all have one of those folks: y'know, the one who's a bit of jerk and we really don't like them but for some odd reason you keep them around. I do not recommend playing with those people, flat. Not only that, but I recommend you tell them that, to their face. Politely. But do tell them. "I don't want to play with you. You make me uncomfortable". Or some variation thereof. Don't be a jerk. Don't call them a jerk. But it is important that sorta thing get hashed out. RPGs are a form of entertainment. They are not supposed to be a minefield. And if they make you uncomfortable it's not on you to ignore that. If someone is showing narcissistic tendencies or is an alcoholic (functioning or not!) or the like you are not obligated to play with them.

And there's those players. They're interested in exploring kinda weird stuff, and their tastes are darker than the average players'. The good variety of these folks are perfectly fine. They've got more than a few dark impulses, but they're generally respectful enough. And sometimes they'll want to explore darker stuff. So long as they're upfront about it and everyone is in on it there is absolutely no issue with it. For those players I highly recommend the veils and lines ideas that the safety folks have come up with. Veils are events that everyone says "Yup, that happened, let's not speak more about it!" and then fade to black. Lines are things that you just do not let happen in the game, ever. It does not matter where people think the narrative should go, a line is a bloody friggin' line. Make sure that everyone knows what needs to fade to black and what will not be discussed, ever, ever. As in, have everyone verbally acknowledge it at the table, with everyone else present. If you want to make a list do so, but most of the time people don't seem to need the reminder if someone says "No killing puppies please". Take the time to establish this stuff. If it's the right kind of player you will get no arguments from them. In fact they're generally quite happy to do so!

But then there's the bad variety of those players. They're not interested in having fun, even if it means darker themes and materials. They want an excuse to hurt and torture. They derive pleasure from hurting people in the game and/or at the table. Those players do exist.  I've met them. They made my skin crawl. And I never played with them again. At the time I was just starting to play, and had anxieties about not meeting another group of people. I'm so glad I did not let that stop me. If you're in that position, do not let it stop you. It's far better to not be playing and to be safe than having a game where you genuinely wonder for your sanity. And, if you misjudged and someone like that winds up in your game, kick them out immediately. Don't just pull the trigger on a whim, but if someone is out to do harm you owe it  to yourself and your players to get rid of the troublemaker.

Now, how do you actually approach content that's been flagged as problematic with your group? Because sometimes the narrative does indeed go that way. Not too long ago Mikansia, Lena's character, was raped. Lena and I had talked about exploring darker themes before, so this didn't just come out of the blue. The session was not intended to go that way, but it did. We established that the rape happened, got the relevant details from that encounter out of the way as quickly as possible, and then we checked in on each other. Questions like "Are you OK? That was a lot" were thrown around. And we were honest about whether or not we really were OK! That's important. And we got a really incredible moment that proceeded from it, with Akseli and Mikansia forging a father-daughter bond. So check in with your players, and let them check in on you! You're a player, just like them, and you should not be toughing out this sorta thing alone. You are not alone.

One last thing. Safety doesn't necessarily mean just the stuff that y'all have in your heads or on paper or whatever. Sometimes stuff just happens at the table. Session Eighteen of The Giggling Dark, where a young child was twisted and corrupted into a revenant, was originally going to end quite differently. The revenant was going to win, Sir Xellous' wife was going to die, and Sir Xellous was going to be left for dead. Ryan did not like this, not one bit. He told me I was being bloodthirsty, that my twists were just too punishing, and that I was constantly invalidating his choices. I hadn't realized I was doing that. I apologized, explained (but did not excuse) myself, and then we went back and redid one of the key rolls, which Ryan had failed. I had forgotten about an advantage he should have gotten. So we redid the roll, with the advantage in there. Ryan made the roll, and everything changed after that point. These interpersonal mistakes are going to happen. When they do, it's your job to acknowledge that you hurt your friend (regardless of whether you know them well or not) and to act with that in mind. Ryan didn't mind the dark ending. He minded that I had taken his agency in the game away, however unintentionally. I hadn't intended that. So we made sure he got it.

 Safety is something that I really wish that I didn't have to talk about. It really should be a no-brainer. But role-playing games are interpersonal, and people suck at this sort of stuff, even when they mean well! So make sure that everyone is on the right page, that you don't let (or keep) bad apples in your game, make sure that troubling in-game incidents are handled with care, and make sure that all of your players are treated as the best of friends. There's a lot more on this can be said, but I think this is a pretty good introduction to the topic. Be patient with yourself, especially with stuff like this.

EDIT: So, aslum on Reddit had kindly informed me about the Veils and Lines doc, which was something I was unaware of. This isn't the original doc, but it's still pretty awesome. Thanks for the correction!

How to GM: Pacing

One of the hardest parts of running a game is trying to make sure the story is paced correctly. Unlike a novel, board games, or video games, TTRPGs can be incredibly collaborative, and are thus harder to pace. This is because of the number one problem (and advantage) in most RPGs: the GM.  RPGs are entirely relational constructs, which means that everyone at the table has to be in sync and capable of bending to each other. The GM, being (usually) the designated director of the narrative, has the unenviable position of making sure that everyone acts in concert, all the time. Fortunately there's a few good ways to make sure this happens: stick to your themes and genre, know what the players expect, respond but don't react, and feed as much as you can back into the mechanics of your game. All of my advice comes from the assumption that you are trying to do a collaborative narrative.

The first point is vital: stick to your thematic and genre guns.  Role-playing games are an interpersonal exercise and you, as the GM, are the designated point of unity for your group. It is for their own good that you stick to what you set up for yourself. It is the player's duty to bend, but not break, in the direction of your themes and the genre. And it is very important that they only bend. The GM is not there to take away choices; a GM'd game is meant to have him be the lightning ground of the group. But the GM needs to incorporate player input. He cannot run the players over. Take what the players do and weave it back in. Draw straight with what you think are crooked lines, but do not erase them.

Player expectation is only second to sticking to your guns because the GM has to know what he wants before he's able to communicate it. But, once the GM knows what he wants, he has to communicate it.  You cannot run a narrative game without player feedback and communication.

No, I'm not going to bend on that.

Interpersonal rules of communication and trust will always be hard and fast rules, in any game, and if you're blindsiding players (as opposed to surprising, which in this case means playing inside the bounds you and the players set up) you have made a critical error, one of which I heartily recommend stopping the session to talk about. And yes, if you blindside your players, you should be fully prepared to change what you did. It's not fair to them to go outside what they agreed to, not without warning.

With those two guidelines (stick to your guns and know what the players expect) we come to the third point: feed it all back into the mechanics of your game. Mechanics are the medium through which all decisions go. Even denying "but this doesn't need mechanics" means that you've made a mechanical choice, in the form of denying existing mechanics. Now, that's not necessarily a bad decision, to jettison the pre-established mechanics of the game. Sometimes things happen and you find yourself in a weird spot where your game just cannot cover what you want need it to. Mechanics are tools, not straight jackets, after all. But if you find yourself constantly making new tools to add to the box then why not just play a different game? If you're constantly getting into world-ending arguments, where people want to be able to nail the nitty-gritty of negotiations into something mechanical , then why are you playing a game that doesn't have that in the toolbox? Anyway, whatever thing does wind up happening, plug it back into the mechanics of your game as fast as possible, where the players can address it on even ground. Always try to tie your plans into the mechanically rich and enticing bits for your players. Let those mechanical interactions guide your plot, that's what they're there for. Think of the mechanics kind of like a calculator: you plug your equation in, but you can't expect the calculator to do the work of figuring out the equation in the first place. You don't bring half an equation to a calculator, but once you plug that sucker in sit back and accept the results.

All of this requires being able to think on your feet, to respond instead of react to the players. Part of responding to players means to not let emotions get in the way. This is because players can really surprise you. If you need to take a second to say "Holy crap, I did NOT expect that" then do it! It's fine! You get to sit back and laugh in disbelief! Hell, congratulate the person who threw you for a loop. Whatever not-toxic thing that lets you get the reaction out of the way so that way you can respond is what should be done. A GM usually has his hands into so many pieces of the game that a flippant response is almost always a bad move, as he sits at the center of the narrative. You get to have that moment to go "Wow, I have no idea what the hell to do". The additional vulnerability also gives you more leeway for when you do make a mistake, because you have communicated to the players that you are not above them. Granted, you've got a few more responsibilities, but you are not God. That means that, whenever you do respond, they will get to see someone doing the same thing as them: a dude playing a game and having a blast.

It sounds a bit abstract, but if there's anything I would tell a new GM about pacing it would be to stick to their core themes and genre, corralling the other players into the fold as best you can (and should), stay within player expectations (don't kill puppies in a silly game about pound puppies), respond but don't react, and always put things back into the mechanics, so that way players can interact with it and thus morph that situation into something new. If you keep these principles in mind your ability to keep the game moving at a good clip, not too fast but not too slow, will improve pretty significantly.

How to GM: How I Come Up With Campaign Ideas

I have been told that I come up with very intense campaigns. It's usually meant as a compliment, which I'm happy to accept, as well as a criticism, which I'm just as happy to listen to. Some people have asked how GMs come up with their concepts. I've always struggled to come up with an answer to this, mostly because to me it's a very intuitive, very personal, sometimes horrific picture. I assume that people do not want to use the method that I keep stumbling across, no matter how hard I try to run from it, but sometimes people get desperate. They want an idea to grab the group they GM for, they want something more than what they've been doing. And what I do definitely produces that. It produces a lot of other things as well and is definitely not perfect, but what works is better than what is just in your head, gathering dust. The process is as follows: I found out what my favorite stories are and why, what those stories made me feel, and then the thoughts behind those feelings. Taking those concepts, which are at the core of who I am as a person, I then use these concepts as themes in all my games.

Um, yeah. That probably sounds weird, if not convoluted. Let me explain.


I have always gravitated towards stories where victory comes at a price. If my protagonists do not walk out looking or feeling like poor Mal over on the right, I'm generally not very satisfied with said story. If Frodo didn't go West I would not have liked it as much as I do. Severian wipes out almost all life in order to save his planet. Cost cost cost! The Reavers almost killing the Serenity crew was one of my favorite scenes from that whole series! Just the sheer intensity of these types of stories is an amazing experience.

Oh, for the record, these are some of my favorite movies, in no particular order:

- Serenity
- Ostrov
- Schindler's List
- The Big Short
- The Last Jedi
- Brick
- Pacific Rim
- The Amazing Spider-Man 2
- Chronicle

Eh, why not put some books too?

- Ocean at the End of the Lane
- Stardust
- The Graveyard Book
- Lord of the Rings
- Children of Hurin
- The Book of the New Sun/ Urth of the New Sun
- The Farthest Shore
- The Tombs of Atuan
- The Last Battle
- The Great Divorce

So, after that, I ask how those stories make me feel? Well, the common thread that I keep running into is exertion. These stories are intense. They deal with intense problems, require solutions that may or may not kill the person who's attempting to fix them, and rarely come out clean. Morality is grey; there are no good people, no bad people, just people trying to make the best decisions they can. Even if there is a transcendence in these stories it's harder to find, often requiring the characters to make decisions without the benefit of an intact inner compass. They do what they can, and pray it works. It often doesn't. But on the other hand there's a beauty that goes through these stories of pain, supporting and holding these characters through their trials. This interaction of pain and divinity creates moments of pathos and beauty.

All feelings have thoughts behind them. So these feelings of pain and divinity have some basic idea behind them, that holds them up and allows them to continue. So, after thinking about those for a while, I came to the conclusion that the two thoughts running through these stories is "This world is doomed. There is no saving it." and "This world was never the point. Let go of it." I find that, no matter where I turn, these are the two thoughts that drive who I am, as a person, and that they always have been. And so therefore these are the things that I explore in all my campaigns: the inevitability of one's world (interior and exterior) collapsing, and how there is so much more than what we thought we had.

I then take every single plot or concern of my players and wrap that thought in, somehow. This usually means that players will come to me with a pitch  these days. I'll ask them what they want, I'll give some feedback, and then I'll take over from there. I take their ideas, and run them through the above process, until I get something that I would like to run. I then ask them about it, and we then discuss what we want the campaign to be about. And then we just keep playing it out. There's not much of a plan beyond the guiding principles of contrasting misery and divinity. Sometimes I have some overarching ideas about how to implement that, but so long as I keep my themes in mind I can address pretty much anything on the fly.

There are notable exceptions to this, of course. The Giggling Dark was an idea that I had, that I couldn't not run, and so I took it to Ryan, cause I figured he would want to play it. He did, and his feedback turned the campaign into something far greater than I ever could have imagined alone. But exceptions prove rules and all that.

So, by way of example, when Bryna and I decided to do a Burning Wheel game, I had a few ideas for what I wanted to do, but I only gave broad setting strokes. Bryna responded back with the specific stuff she wanted to investigate within that framework, which was being the daughter of a rape victim. Given my history with the subject I had some questions, and together we hammered out exactly what that would look like. There was a lot of back and forth at this stage, as we decided on ground rules for what is an admittedly pitch-black concept.

So, what I do is figure out what the core of my interests are, theme-wise, I then get some basic ideas (either from myself or others) of a campaign, run them through those themes, and then begin to collaborate like crazy with the player(s), sketching out what they want to get out of the campaign. And, of course, we then decide upon how long the bloody thing is going to run for. All of this is something that takes place pretty naturally. Now, obviously not everyone does anything even close to this. But it is what works for me. And it may work for you, dear reader.

How to GM: How to Pick a Game

So I was on the phone with my littlest sister the other day. We've always wanted to game together, but due to a series of unfortunate circumstances we've never been able to realize our dream. But things are about to open up in both our schedules and you may be seeing play reports up on here, God willing! I asked her what she wanted to play... and she told me she wanted something funny.

Any of you who have been reading this blog and my play reports know that I do not do funny. Not willingly.

It's not that I don't have a sense of humor. It's just that my tastes in stories are incredibly serious and dark. My sister and I have had pretty rough lives, with our own histories of mental illness and whatnot. But whereas I face it head-on, in the dark, grimly, my sister faces it with a witty quip and a wry smile. She's awesome. It's easy to strap on a grim and serious face when looking at your issues, but to look at it and laugh? Gosh, I admire that.

But a comedic RPG?

But, what the hell, it's my baby sister! And besides, stretching is almost always a good idea. Fortunately I had an idea for what games I wanted to try with her and I think we came to an agreement for when the time comes! Here are the steps I took: I considered our tastes and capabilities, thought about the games that I owned that might fit, considered their mechanical possibilities, pitched what I loved about the game, and took in feedback. I didn't have to repeat the whole process, but if you have to, do so.

So, the first thing I did was that I took my own tastes into account. Like I said, I don't do funny terribly often, but I needed to consider that here. So I wondered if it was a place that I wanted to go in the first place. But, y'know, stretching your repertoire is a good idea, so why not give a shot? I know that I'm going to have a rough time doing it, so my expectations are set accordingly. My baby sister wanted something funny. Fortunately she has a really dark sense of humor, probably blacker than mine, so I know I can throw in a pretty dark setting that'll give me the kicks that I need, but still be funny enough... well... let's be honest... that'll probably be funnier to her.

Mutant Crawl Classics dropped into my head. I pitched it. I talked to her about the character funnel and its gruesomely hilarious potential, about the fact that most of the game's mechanics were about silly spells from AIs and trying not to be vaporized by the tech you were trying to work. She laughed uproariously, and said "Let's do it!" I also floated Honey Quest, but she really liked the post-apoc ridiculousness of MCC enough to where we called it a day. We were really happy about it. We'll see what happens.

But what if you can't think of a game? Don't despair! There are definitely games out there for pretty much every taste (F.A.T.A.L. DOES NOT COUNT AS TASTE BUT IT DOES EXIST OH GOD WHY). That usually means some level of research. The simple answer, of course, is to just go to DnD or Pathfinder. I cannot caution against this enough. It's not that those are bad games (OK, I think DnD 5e isn't very good, but whatever), but that those games are actually for very specific experiences. You are always free to ask on this particular blog or the Facebook group or wherever for recommendations, but don't settle for something that doesn't fit what you'd like. 

Picking a game does not have to be a terribly complicated thing. You don't have to settle for a game that is "good enough" or "popular" or whatever else means you're settling for less than what you want. Consider what types of things you and your friends like in stories and in general, come up with an agreement, do some research, and ask around. Your game will be so much better for going for a good fit, as opposed to a square peg in a round hole.

The RPG Subreddit is filled with a lot of good people.

I've never had a problem with RPG.net

Conversely, if you don't want to ask around, go to RPG Geek. I just found this place. It's awesome.

How to GM: Up to Snuff

So you've decided you want to GM. CONGRATS TO A LIFE OF OBSESSION AND HORROR!... I mean... You're going to have a great time! A wonderful time! Yay!

Dr. Cox memes are the standard around here. Deal with it.

Yeah, puppy dogs and rainbows.

Uh huh.

No, seriously, GMing can be a pretty hard thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, it's worth it! But it's hard. And your job can be made much harder by refusing to develop soft skills (aka "People skills"). If you don't know how to "share" "your" game with "your" players, take criticism with a level head, and make the story about the PCs and the setting, then I don't think you'll get terribly far. I mean, you might go on and on as a GM, but that doesn't mean you're a very good one.

Alright, let's kick this off. Repeat after me:

IT'S NOT YOUR GAME.

Confused? OK, let's try it again. Maybe you'll get it this time:

IT'S NOT YOUR GAME.

The campaign is not your baby, it is everyone's. Everyone cares about it. If they didn't they wouldn't be playing! So get that out of your head, now. This is everyone's game. Make sure your players know it, particularly those who come from a background where the GM was made the sole curator of the campaign. Ask for input, frequently, ask for people to apply their ideas to the setting, to the themes, to the mechanics, everything. Yes, the GM gets final say in the game, as he should, just remember that the players have the final stay on whether or not they stay in the game! Listened to players are happy players.

And that ties into taking criticism well. Let's get this out of the way: YOU'RE GOING TO MESS UP. The more you do it the less mistakes you'll make, but that does not make you infallible. A few weeks ago one of my players, Ryan, told me that I had run his character over, making for a horrible time. He only told me because we were friends and he wanted to make sure that I knew he would go with it.

I was appalled.

I demanded to know what the exact problem was. We sat down, worked it out, and eventually we came to a good compromise. I wasn't a pushover, but at no point in time did I tell Kurlak that he was wrong for feeling what he felt. I told him what I was willing to compromise on, the hills that I would die on, regardless of his feelings about it, and we negotiated. And he was happy with it! I felt bad that he had to do it at all, but my ability to listen and respond allowed for the game to be better, because both of us were in on it. I didn't get my slaughter and dark ending, but who cares? A solution we come up with together is far better than anything I can come up with on my own. That's why I'm bloody playing a group game.

There are two trains of thought about designing campaigns: the wrong way (design stuff and players have to bend to it) and the wrong way (cater to the players in everything!!!). The truth is dead in the middle. The GM is a player, he gets to have his ideas in the game and he gets the satisfaction of playing these ideas out. And he should get to do so! And players should feel like they are the center of their own story. They went to the trouble of filling out those stupid sheets, so yeah, the game needs to be about them. But not at the cost of destroying GM investment. You are not a slave. Nor are you a god. You are a player, Mr. GM. So bring your ideas for the setting and story to the table, and adapt them to the player's choices! Don't be afraid to ask a player "I really don't want to kill undead, can we stick with dragon stuff instead?", but be ready to incorporate their stuff in return "OK, looks like we're doing a lot of dracoliches and all the dragons have an undead fetish". And guess what? Incorporating their stuff will make your story that much better! Why do dragons love to use undead as minions? What happened? And that answer is going to be interesting.

I personally think most of GMing can be summed up by the line "Don't be a dick". And I usually think that works out. But it doesn't hurt to elucidate a bit, from time to time. Rules mastery is nice, but any game can be learned if you pound your head against the book long enough, as I've pointed out repeatedly about Burning Wheel. What makes you a good GM is not your rules mastery, but your humility, ability to listen, and willingness to incorporate your player's ideas into the game. Yes, the buck stops with you. But that doesn't mean you can't ask for help in lifting that stupid ten point deer.