And congrats right back at you, Elburbo!

@Nephlm – All points well taken. I have very little experience with story games; most of my indie RPG experience is with the more traditional end, like Burning Wheel.

That said, I’m familiar with the basics of some of the games you mentioned (I’ve read PtA, read about InSpectres; plus others, like Universalis), and I agree that some of these truths hold pretty well in those cases, too. But beyond that, I’d be arguing hypotheticals against your actual experience, which is never a good idea.

@havoclad – Amen. I wish I’d heard this advice 20 years ago — it would have saved me a lot of heartache!

@Balam Shimoda – With regard to 4e and complexity on the player side of the screen, I haven’t run 4e yet but having played it I see what you mean.

I heard something else about 4e that rings true not to long ago: In previous editions, the casters were the most complex, detailed classes, and fighters were the simplest option for a new player. In 4e, that’s completely reversed — “Don’t give the new guy the fighter” is pretty good advice.

My “GMing Truth” is that GMing makes you a better people-person. A good GM need to be sensitive enough to see what’s going on, bold enough to say what needs to be said, and diplomatic enough to say it without offending anyone.

I specifically wasn’t venturing into GMless or multi-GM games. There is a spectrum between traditional games and story games and few games are all the way on one side or the other.

Enjoy.

Now there is one role-playing situation where rule #1 doesn’t fit. I find it’s actually a lot harder to play D&D4e than it is to run it. Players have way more options to keep track of than the DM does nowadays. It certainly holds true in every other game I’ve played and run, though.

I think that all prospective GM’s should be aware that a lot, if not most of their campaigns will die a quick death.

The campaigns that last will be the ones people remember and talk about years, or decades later. The many abortive attempts that failed right out of the gate will be all but forgotten.

–Pat

Practice does help. Like Greywulf’s example, there are some people who last tried GMing long ago. If you didn’t try it much, please try again. You might find another side of gaming to love. A run club might be a great way to get lots of people enjoying the other side of the screen.

Um… no real comment on the topic, unfortunately. I agree with what Martin said. Yeah.

One big GM’ing truth (for me) is: Don’t Provide the Solution (or even sometimes the result). Provide the problem, and don’t plan for what happens. Let what happens happen and run with it. The players will feel as though they’re having an impact and 3-6 players’ imaginations will trump your one imagination.

Something else that I think is really important is to get everyone in on the premise of the game. I’m talking more than buy-in. Last night was my first time playing Burning Wheel (though I’ve been “tracking it” for quite a few weeks). We did world burning and character burning (creation). It was awesome. We just dumped out ideas, added new ideas, conflicts and twists and built up our entire campaign foundation as a group. We’d all be in detox or 6 feet under had we made a drinking game out of whenever “Oh, and what about…!” was heard. We were all involved and we all have a stake in it. Based on that, we created characters as a group that would fit well or centrally within it. Four hours of fun and we didn’t roll a single die or even really play. We had the world, the idea, the struggle and conflict (tonnes of conflict) and rough character concepts/roles.

So the truth there is: Get the Players Involved In Everything to Do with the Game. (Well, obviously not secret antagonists and such GM’y stuff, though even that is often fine.)

I think it is important for a GM to have an open door policy between sessions. Constructive feedback is critical to learning what worked, what didn’t, and what can be improved. I’ve met a lot of GMs who weren’t open to this type of feedback or they ignored the feedback when it was given. Some even take it personal, no matter how delicate the feedback.

As a GM, I am my own worst critic. I can take any constructive criticism in the spirit for which it is intended. That is another point. I think all good GMs realize that they make mistakes in their rules adjudication or their adventure design. The good GMs realize that the GM art is a constant learning process, which is accompanied by a whole lot of fun. I’ll second Martin’s suggestion that people who don’t have fun GMing just shouldn’t do it. But the craft is something that can be improved upon and developed over time with experience. Constructive feedback is essential to that learning process. Be open to it…

Then hem and haw about your premise.

There is a certain model of game where this is 100% true but there are a number of games where it doesn’t apply and prep is actually impossible because the players have a lot of narrative authority.

I just got back from Dreamation 2009 and played InSpectres, Misspent Youth, Coming of Age and Shock. I also run Primetime Adventures at home. In all of these games narration rights are at stake and in some of them the first stage of play is world creation so there is no prepping.

The GM is expected to participate in every conflict so that’s more work but not an order of magnitude more. I think it’s at least as true that playing a game where narration is at stake will make you a better GM.

So if we look at these less traditional games, the truths are a lot less universal

* GMing isn’t an order of magnitude more work in many of these less traditional games.

* People will feel more comfortable as GM or player but in some games the division doesn’t exist or is less clear cut.

* Playing all parts of the game make you a better player at any one of them, but again the division is less clear cut.

* Every person at the table should approach the table with the goal of making sure everyone else at the table has fun. That perspective isn’t limited to the GM.

* I agree that the GM is also a player.

* Being a player at the table should require you to be proactive, our idea that it doesn’t comes from prep heavy games where players can’t really step outside of the prepped material. A skilled GM can make a player not notice that they are so constrained but the constraint is there.

* Everyone at the table will make mistakes. That’s okay. For that matter it is often entertaining.

* Since every player should be trying to create fun for the other players, every player should be trying to read the table.

I don’t expect most people will agree with that perspective but I thought I’d inject a different approach on the subject.

Then 4th edition came out and I nominated myself as the guinea pig GM.
Things I learned
A. Players can be really whiny. At least they sound that way when you’re on the other side of the screen.
B. I’m not the target demographic for 4th edition.

So now I’m all ready to get back in the saddle on a more full time basis, if only I can convince the group to play castles and crusades.