GM Commandments

When I'm the GM, that means I hold both the power and responsibility for the game. I can tell any story I think of and invite the players on any adventure I want, but it is my responsibility to follow through and execute on that story or adventure. Other players can pitch in, but ultimately, I am responsible for the RPs that I run, and when something breaks, it's up to me to fix it. The rules are simply the tools I use to accomplish this duty, and while they come in many forms, including many particular rules that apply only to specific RPs, these rules about GMing are generic and help set expectations, so that players joining my RPs will know what they're signing up for.

This rule is worded like many software licenses - 'by proceeding you declare that you have read and accepted these rules'. This is intentional, and honestly, this rule is as basic as rules get. I cannot GM properly if people will defy my rules and challenge my authority to run the game. If someone truly thinks they can GM better than I do, then they are welcome to prove it when it's their turn to GM an RP, maybe even show me how they deal with defiant players in their games. Even that doesn't give them a right to ruin an RP I'm GMing, merely to prove a point they want to make. If they want to stay, they must obey the rules, otherwise I cannot run the game. In particular, when one player ignoring the rules is causing trouble for other players, I will strongly consider kicking that player - for the sake of others who were enjoying the RP within the rules, and to salvage and finish the game as much as possible... and if there's only one other player, like a solo adventure, or a duel, then either one of us can simply stop posting when it reaches that point.

Another rule that should be obvious, but I want to spell it out. I you want to be a jerk, then don't come to my RPs. Even when the characters show their attitude, that's not a reason to follow their example, we can stay civil and respect each other, so that people can feel safe during RPs. As for what counts as being/acting like a jerk... upsetting, abusing, harassing or exploiting other players all count, but this list is hardly exhaustive, though it shouldn't be too hard to guess. Alternatively, you can think of this rule as 'play nice please'. That's also subjective, but at least it offers people a starting point.

This rule and the one above are siblings. Sometimes, behaviour that doesn't quite make you a jerk still isn't right, and this would be the main reason why. Different players find different things fun, and that's okay, but it's not okay if they try to have fun at somebody else's expense. Like playing a character who pulls pranks on people or says very inappropriate jokes, if another player takes offense at those. Or playing a character who gets a kick out of bullying others' characters, if a player complains about the abuse. This rule is more subjective, because and even those behaviours can be appropriate, so long as the players discuss it and agree in advance. What isn't okay is when someone puts their own fun above all others', ultimately ruining the game for everyone.

Even though some players get very attached to their characters, this rule exists to remind everyone that players aren't their characters (nor is the GM controlling the enemies the evil mastermind, either). What happens to them, even when it's painful, isn't the same as that thing happening to the players directly. This holds true for murder and torture, but also mind control, slavery, or other unpleasant (or even pleasant) things. Understanding that your character isn't actually you, and that other players' characters aren't those players, either, helps everyone keep some distance from the events of the game, stay calm and shrug off the taunts and mud that might come flying. Most importantly, it lets players honestly say they don't like somebody's character without claiming they don't like a player at the same time (and in case you don't like either, you can spell it out clearly, too).

When GMing an RP, I don't take sides or play favourites, I will play fair and follow the rules of the game, construct fair challenges (fights, puzzles, etc.) so the players have both a chance to win and a chance to lose. I will also be consistent about the rules of the game, the world and the story, with all of its characters. If something works a certain way, then the players can be certain that it will keep working that way, or that there is a reason why things are working differently - an actual, logical reason, and not merely my convenience. The rules of cause and effect will apply to the world, and even for fantastic elements, like magic, when the rules that apply to those are introduced/discovered, those elements will obey those rules consistently.

I will provide all players with opportunities during the game, either at the same time or letting them take turns under the spotlight. However, how the players use these opportunities will determine the results they achieve. Whether it's every fighter in a battle getting their turn to attack, every investigator having free access to the murder scene and the freedom to search it for clues, or every member of a diplomatic party getting their turn to speak with the king, I will do my part to provide the players with those opportunities, and for those who couldn't take part with the others, offer them a chance to catch up. To have a real chance to win, the players must also have a chance to fail, or else they didn't have a true opportunity, they were handed an easy win, which effectively means I robbed them of the opportunity to prove they can win fair and square.

There are certain topics, themes, or things that can ruin a player's enjoyment of the game, break suspension of disbelief, or otherwise disrupt the RP. Whenever this turns up, I will be vocal about it and encourage players to do the same. I shall aim to mitigate these topics, themes and things, for the sake of players' enjoyment and fun, or when I cannot do so, explain why. Importantly, this rule isn't a black and white filter, but a barometer - like when a player is generally okay with swear words, but there is a particular word they can't stand, and asks for that word to be substituted with another one. Similarly, a player may be uncomfortable with torture but tolerate straightforward killing, for the role it plays in the story - or perhaps ask that the villains' crimes not be shown on-screen and to simply focus on defeating them, that's also a solution I'd agree to use.

To GM in a certain world, I need to understand and control that world, just like a player controls their character(s). I will sometimes invite player input and/or leave them the freedom to decide certain aspects of the world, but ultimately, to tell a story I must be in charge. Note that this varies in scope, as the Earth in our average EAverse RP is a shared world that we created together, or simply borrowed from everyone's expectations, but in that case, this rule still applies in a narrower scope: maybe the adventure takes the characters to other worlds, or maybe I control a remote corner of a big world. Either way, any part of the world that a player wants to add needs my approval - but the players can assume I grant that approval, as long as I don't voice an objection, so that gameplay proceeds smoothly; and sometimes, I will echo what other players wrote, usually paraphrased, to confirm that did, in fact, happen.

If RPing is like collaborative storytelling, then the players' characters are the protagonists of that story. Even when they are humans with no special powers, they aren't ordinary people, and they won't be standing by and watching the action from the sidelines while somebody else steals the show - if that were the case, that somebody else should be the player character. Such is the nature of the game that whenever trouble arises and someone needs to be the hero, that will be the invitation for the protagonists to act and save the day. However, even minor troubles will let them prove themselves, whether that's obstacles to the characters achieving their goals, or personal matters they must resolve in their minds and hearts. This rule exists primarily to remind me that GMs shouldn't introduce powerful NPCs that will steal the heroes' spotlight, ensuring the focus stays on them, but it has other uses, too, by mixing with other rules.

Just like people are different, protagonists are naturally different. Even if their appearances and powers are similar, they will have something unique about them, whether it's their personality, experiences, or their relationships to other people. However, no matter who they are, all protagonists are awesome in one way or another. Understanding what makes them awesome is an important stepping stone to understanding the players' characters and then crafting the right stories for them, stories in which their awesome sides can shine. Even if I, personally, have different tastes and views on what's awesome, I will acknowledge the players' ideas and wishes to make their characters awesome and work to realize their vision, rather than my own. This is a process that will take some time, and it requires trust and good communication, but it also makes stories infinitely more interesting.

One aspect of my duty as the GM is providing the protagonists with the opposition they will face during the game, whether that opposition is enemies trying to kill them, obstacles blocking their path, mysteries they must solve, or anything else in my GM toolkit. Whatever form it takes, there has to be some opposition, otherwise the protagonists will just continue living normally, which on its own cannot support a story. Still, just because there will always be some opposition doesn't necessarily mean that the world will come under attack one day after it's been saved. This usually invites a change in tone, like, for example... after a fight to the death, the character returns home and finds a note on their calendar, reminding them that their sweetheart's birthday is tomorrow, but they totally forgot and don't have a present. This introduces a new problem, and resolving it can be its own mini adventure, but it'll be different from the last scenario, avoiding the dreaded endless string of random encounters.

This rule is straightforward, with the keyword being 'accidentally'. Death is a part of the world, but character death always disrupts the flow of the story, and accidental character death forfeits whatever benefits it could offer. Both in and out of battle, I will employ other solutions, the characters might end up captured, put to sleep, outmaneuvered and forced to surrender - but stay alive, allowing them a chance to make a comeback later. However, trying to abuse this rule by RPing a character who deliberately takes risks, laughs in the face of danger, or actually attempts suicide, then the threat of death is no longer 'accidental'. On a similar note, during larger battles, the enemies may target fallen characters, but rather than aiming to kill when they can't defend themselves, those attacks are supposed to give their allies an opportunity to react and save their lives.

Building open-ended areas that can be approached from multiple directions and explored in any order creates more interesting gameplay than narrow corridors and railroad tracks that only have one obvious direction. This applies to more than just areas, however - it can mean an NPC with their own dreams and goals that can be exploited to get his information, or battles with enemies that have hidden weaknesses to discover, instead of a mountain of HP to blow through. When looking back on my past RPs, many of them suffered for this reason, so I made this a rule to remind myself to keep working on it, and so players can hold me up to this standard. Plus, everybody likes theme parks, right?

Rules exist for a reason, and the reason for most rules is that they help me GM the game, by setting standards, limits, and expectations for how the RP will work. Ultimately, the rules are just tools, and when a tool is not serving its intended purpose, it should be put away, either fixed or replaced entirely. This rule reminds me that, while the rules streamline the process, when I'm GMing I still have to consider every case individually and take responsibility for every ruling I make. Was that counter-attack truly effective? Was that speech convincing enough? Does the human body actually BEND that way? Beyond just saying 'yes' or 'no' in particular cases, I need to understand how everyone's powers and abilities work, on the mechanical level, and how they can potentially interact, to settle cases when those powers do interact. The players might not know that much about each others' characters, but I have to, because that's my duty. Again, that's a job for the rules.

Or in other words, this assumes that players and characters aren't stupid and will use their knowledge, powers, and resources effectively and efficiently. When fighting, they're not going to stare at the enemy they cut with their sword and shield arms lowered, admiring the blood splatter before eating a counter-attack. When hiding, they're not going to loudly ask 'Are those the goons we're looking for?' instead of whispering to their allies. When moving on thin ice, they're not going to step on obviously cracked spots and promptly fall into the freezing water. For all these actions and more, a player can spell out that this happens, but otherwise I will assume that the characters are playing to win.

This rule covers a variety of actions that all carry serious risk, heavy penalties for failure, are (nearly) impossible to do, or all of the above. Note that the keyword here is 'ignorantly', meaning players can spell out that their characters do it if that's what they want, but if they don't, I will usually provide a hint or even a clear warning that they're about to Attempt Dragon Taming, so that they have a chance to back out and try something else entirely. This is a sibling rule with the previous one, allowing players to use their posts efficiently and avoid costly mistakes, or knowingly gamble everything in hopes of winning it all. Either way, I will not jump at the chance to exploit the players' mistakes if they were done unintentionally, if there is something they didn't know then that usually means that I as the GM failed to communicate it (unless they ignored an obvious warning, but that's their choice).

This rule applies more to detailed systems like D&D, which have rules for counting exact distances, remaining ammo, your current and max HP, and so on. Because the rules are my responsibility, I will not require from players to understand and use all the rules for the sake of maximizing their efficiency (especially for the sake of combat). Instead, when a player states their intent and method, then I will respect both and assume they carry out their plan just as intended, as far as possible. And if the player decides their character will attempt something impossible, the previous rule applies instead (so that, if an RP actually counts HP, then attempting to stay conscious once at 0 HP will be actually impossible, inviting healing instead).

This rule evolved from 'not making puzzles with only one answer', becoming a lot more open-ended. Indeed, embracing the countless ways in which the players can surprise me is one of the only attitudes that let me enjoy my GMing duties (as opposed to growing frustrated and eventually going insane). No matter my imagination, I can never predict all the possible ways in which players might respond to the story, therefore I mustn't underestimate their ingenuity and always be ready to be surprised. Ever since I adopted this attitude, RPs have certainly become more interesting, whether I'm GMing or not.

Sometimes, a challenge can be made trivial thanks to something the players have, but the characters wouldn't have (usually, this is information). If the characters need something specific to succeed, then I will provide that IC, whether it's a chance to investigate the crime scene, blueprints of the villain's doomsday weapon, an opportunity to learn an enemy's weakness, etc. On the flip side, if access to that thing allows the challenge to be instantly solved, like learning the identity of the murderer, I will do my best to keep the players in the dark, just like their characters - either concealing that information, or, failing that, obscuring it with other hints and one or more alternative possibilities. This rule matters more in certain genres than others - like mystery games and detective stories - but it can apply in a lot of different ways, so it earns a place on the list.

Although running the game is my responsibility as the GM, the players aren't just a passive audience I take for a ride. It's our story, and they can influence it through their characters, while I take care of the plot, the world and the entire supporting cast. Their characters can explore it and interact with it however they wish, plus the players themselves can simply tell me what they like, want, and expect from the RP. I'm not a genie for making wishes come true, but that information lets me plan ahead and include the things the players wished for, one way or another, while fitting them into the world and the plot of the story.

This rule reminds me to look for opportunities to make the players' actions have consequences down the line, whether they are good or bad. Sparing someone's life may let that character return later, seeking revenge or having a change of heart and helping the protagonists in their time of need. But killing someone might invite vengeance, from a relative or from that character's 'business partners'. The possibilities are endless, and just like in life, it's impossible to predict the consequences of every action, yet the protagonists must make a choice eventually. Embracing this idea and connecting cause and effect makes the world that much more realistic, and encourages players to make their characters a bit more responsible.

If there is a problem to be solved, then waiting around and simply observing will only make it worse. If there is a fire burning, it will keep spreading, if there is a plague in the city, more people will get sick and die, if there is an army sieging a castle, they will eventually break through. By making inaction the path to defeat, the protagonists are encouraged to act, even if they don't feel ready - because this approach creates better stories than 'oh I just hid and waited till somebody else saved the day'.

This rule evolved from 'never allow the hijacking of the story', which ran into the issue of 'when does a detour transform into hijacking?', and no, keep that airplane joke unsaid. The freedom to explore the world and take the story anywhere they want can tempt the players into growing their suggestions so much that they pretty much start telling their own story, usually about how awesome their character is. And while that can be great fun in its own right, it's better saved for another RP, when they can execute on that idea properly. Again, a good barometer for this is when one character stands in the spotlight so much no light shines on the others - everybody should take a turn and contribute, or at least have the opportunity to do so, offering as much or as little as they want. Fortunately, this rule usually has a simple solution in that bringing the story to the players solves the problem (with the added benefit that they have to deal with the consequences of forgetting about their initial objective).

A rule encouraging humility, though it cuts both ways. The strongest villain I throw at the players will eventually meet their match, but no matter how strong the protagonists become, there is always someone stronger out there, looking for a worthy rival. Nobody is truly invincible, so the characters always have a chance to win, and a chance to lose, though what it takes to win can sometimes require an RP (or for campaign villains, a whole campaign) to achieve.

A rule that exists mostly for convenience, reminding the players that, while their characters fully believe that the world they live in is real, and that is how they experience it, to the players it remains a fictional world. This allows for tricks like timeskipping travel, summarizing boring parts, or even using narration to write commentary. As long as it doesn't break suspension of disbelief and it provides net fun, I welcome such additions.

If the RP is moving forward quickly but one or more members haven't posted for some time, I will eventually stop replying and give them a chance to catch up. I tend to wait at important points, like leaving/arriving at a particular area, a new NPC or enemy appearing, a longer task (like searching a room for clues) finishing, etc. I might send them a reminder, write a short summary for them, wait a day or more. For players that know they'll be gone for a while, simply telling me in advance so I can accomodate for them should usually suffice. I can also narrate events as if the absent player's character was tagging along, while keeping them 'invisible' to interaction, and let them respond to everything once they return. However, I won't keep a player that wants to leave against their will, and will even help smooth out their exit, whether that means making up a reason why their character has to leave, splitting up the party suddenly so their character can reunite with the group at some future point in time, or perhaps continuing as if the character was never there in the first place, weakening the consistency of the story but allowing the RP to continue with the least disruption.

When one or more characters are targeted in the RP, particularly during combat, I will always leave an opportunity for the characters to react. Whether it means defending from an attack, finding a hiding place when the patrol approaches, or simply voicing their surprise when the evil mastermind explains his dastardly plan, I will leave that freedom for the player to react however they wish. Also, if the player hasn't posted for some time, I will wait for their reaction... for a few days, unless the RP must keep going. Also, sometimes automatic hits make sense, like when a target really can't move away from an attack, but then they will get a chance to react after the hit, like crying out in pain, or perhaps laughing, after feeling how much damage the attack inflicted on them.

This is related to the above rule, and it covers both effects like mind control, knock down or stunning, as well as the tendency to narrate the actions of characters other than those of the current player, effectively choosing their actions for them. Most people know that to write that everyone 'cowered in fear' would be against the rules, but might not realize that writing 'everyone was impressed' or even 'instantly smitten' with one's character is just as bad. Of course, if the players discuss it in advance and agree to it, then it's fine, and can even strengthen the story under the right circumstances.

This rule references games like poker, when the gamblers must first bet something to join the game, knowing that any money they bet can be lost. It's a similar case with RPs, when a character brings out something to use in the RP, it provides a benefit for solving a challenge, but it also becomes a stake in the larger conflict. If the character uses items, they can be destroyed, or stolen, if they have allies, they can get hurt, if they are famous or influential, then their actions will reflect on their reputation, as well. On the other hand, what the player didn't bring into the RP shall be safe, because I'm not the kind of GM who has villains run background checks on characters and target their families to strike an indirect blow against them. Still, the player can willingly bet whatever they want, by discussing it in advance, like arranging for the kidnapping of a family member - but unless that player gives permission for the death of the hostage, they will absolutely remain alive, waiting to be saved, unless something brutal like a total party wipe happens.

This means that gathering information is a perfectly valid tactic, that scanning and observing enemies, items, places and events shall reward the character(s) with information and hints, though the quality and quantity of those hints isn't guaranteed. Still, it will never be 0, each attempt will offer something new, and if I forget to give the scan results, just remind me and I'll catch up. Mysterious, unreadable characters aren't cool, they're just troublesome and discourage the habit of gathering information, which can be useful in all kinds of situations.

This is a simple rule for a simple issue. I like when setup moves are pulled off successfully, or when a larger strategy or battle plan works out, so I will reward players who make that effort accordingly, both in or out of combat. On the flip side, I strongly dislike moves pulled out of nowhere, with no explanation and no justification, other than the obvious convenience. And I promise all my players, that whenever these two clash, the asspull move is certain to lose, no matter the power difference between characters - which sometimes means that the stronger fighter basically 'hurts himself in confusion' by attempting and failing to perform their asspull move. While this rule can be pretty harsh, it frees up players to not worry about surprise asspull moves ruining their carefully planned strategy, which should bring more net fun overall.