Cripes, I haven't even listened to the ep yet, but this makes 2 eps in a row where I don't get to defend myself!

On teaching new players:
Make them do the work. Sit there, guide them through it, explain why, but make them do it. I can think of a few people whose initial D&D experiences were so defined by their teacher doing the work for them that they cannot tabletop without someone taking that role.

On preventing noob mistakes:
I don't have a problem telling someone that their concept just won't work or is too complicated for a new player, but I will explain why. If they feel like they're up to it, I'll help them do it and make it as newb friendly as possible.

On what the GM can do:
As far as NPCs bashing skulls in, I don't treat new players any differently. If you get dropped, you get dropped. What I will do is explain possible ramifications to players before they act. I will flat out state "If you go there, those 3 orcs are going to charge you" or "If you insult the klingon, he's going to try to kill you; are you sure you want to do this?", that kind of thing. I don't protect them from consequences, but I make sure they know what they're getting themselves into.

Last thing: GMs shouldn't bust out monsters with immunities to the new player's abilities until they've gotten some experience under their belt. When they do come out, you must explain/why how those immunities work. I know of a few players who refuse to play 3.5 because their initial GM did this, and they were left wondering why their spells were literally worthless.

I never have my wife level herself unless I can watch.
But as often as I can I'll level her myself. I level her sometimes just for the fun of it, even when she hasn't earned it.

Defend yourself? We didn't say anything bad about you this episode. Sure, we named a bowel disease after you, but that's no different than Burrill B. Crohn.

Such distinguished company

Technically you kinda poisoned Dan, so I think he got the raw end of that deal.

This was a pretty good episode. The lamenting over Beth made it seem way more dramatic then it actually was. Overall I agree with Pat. Unless you're running a high level game where the lethality can be high, I think it's okay to just proceed normally. The veteran players can provide guidance, but not so much as to be intrusive.

I totally let newbies rewrite characters that aren't working. I'd also happily let someone play an existing henchman or NPC, so that if they got beaten up or biffed, it wouldn't be a big deal. As for character creation.. that's where splat books and D&D 3.x+ just really went wrong for me. Basic 2e had far less options, especially for non-spellcasters, and that made creation much quicker.

If anything, I probably helped him out. I told him to look at this as his body's way of saying 'Thank You' as those toxins exited his body (albeit a bit violently)

I don't think it removed any new toxins so much as sped up the exit of ones already removed.

What are these 'toxins' exactly? Scientifically speaking.

Teaching players is something that comes up in every session that I run. Experimenting is a core part of the games I run and every game has either new mechanics or a completely new system to try out. Part of that is being able to structure the learning curve so that players can pick up and master mechanics in the shortest time possible. I've never had the luxury of sitting down with a group and having all of them be as familiar with the rules as D&D 3.5.

My biggest mistake had to be my mouse guard game at FTC 3. I performed a half hour info dump at the beginning of the game which has become the standard of what never to do again. Since then staging out the rules in modules and releasing them over time has been my go to method for opening up a system of game mechanics. It puts the players right in the action and gets them hooked into the story. Rules can crunch can come later.