Critiquing GM style / skills


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Would you, as a GM, allow an unbiased, fair and experienced fellow GM to sit in and critique your game? Do you ever wish there was a third party that would validate things you are doing right and point out areas that need improvement and maybe give advice on how to do so? Granted every GM has their own style and quirks--but is it possible, using outside observers, to iron out some of those wrinkles in your style? Would you listen or be dismissive? Would it even be worth getting such a critique?


Probably very much worthwhile... but oh so painful.


I am uncertain. Usually, a "fair and unbiased" critique of me always ends with "and that's why, for the good of humanity, you must die."

However, I would be willing to give a listen. I might learn something.


It would have to be someone I trust. I'm starting my first campaign, and I KNOW I'm going to make mistakes. I will be asking the players for their opinions (two of them have GM-ed before) so as to refine things. But just to have somebody watching and JUDGING... would take a fair amount of trust.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be curious about what they had to say, but I'm not sure it would affect my way of doing things. My style as a GM has evolved over many years to suit the playstyle of my players. Any "advice" given by an outside party would have to be taken with a grain of salt because they don't know my players, our world, or what keeps our game working after so many years.


I can see why people would be hesitant to do this. And yes, you can simply ask your players; but I believe that the GM and players are too close to have a subjective view. On one hand you may be your own worst critic, on the other maybe not seeing an obvious problem that with some guidance could be corrected. Sure you may be having a great time, but does that mean the game is run or played well? And yes, one could say as long as everyone is having a good time then it is. But is that settling? Could the game be brought to a mind blowing level, beyond just the casual level that many games are? How serious are people when it comes to honing the craft of game mastery? That last question isn't to suggest that a panel of reviewers is the only way, but it does suggest a willingness to put aside ego and truly learn. Btw, "ego" in my experience has been one of the great downfalls of any game--either from the GM or the players.

Grand Lodge

The problem is that what might make one game mind blowing and fantastic for one group of players is going to break immersion for another, or simply turn them off from the story.

I don't mean to say that GMs should ever stop trying to up their game, and playing with other GMs is the best way to do that. Seeing how others present things, adjudicate the rules, and react to inspiration from their players can open the eyes of even the most experienced GM. That said, one GM might think that something that works for his/her players should be universal, and try to promote that, not knowing that for another group of players it isn't going to go over well.

I think that observation of other playgroups (especially playing alongside other people with a different GM than you are used to) is more beneficial than having someone come in, observe and then tell you what they think you should change. You should be trying to play with other groups, seeing how they do things differently and then trying to incorperate what you like into your game if you want to improve.

Sort of the same idea, I guess really, just reversed.


dwayne germaine wrote:

The problem is that what might make one game mind blowing and fantastic for one group of players is going to break immersion for another, or simply turn them off from the story.

I don't mean to say that GMs should ever stop trying to up their game, and playing with other GMs is the best way to do that. Seeing how others present things, adjudicate the rules, and react to inspiration from their players can open the eyes of even the most experienced GM. That said, one GM might think that something that works for his/her players should be universal, and try to promote that, not knowing that for another group of players it isn't going to go over well.

I think that observation of other playgroups (especially playing alongside other people with a different GM than you are used to) is more beneficial than having someone come in, observe and then tell you what they think you should change. You should be trying to play with other groups, seeing how they do things differently and then trying to incorperate what you like into your game if you want to improve.

Sort of the same idea, I guess really, just reversed.

You're right of course. But sometimes an outside perspective really helps. I also believe certain skills (in both players and GMs) need to be universal and reenforced. And as much as this topic is directed at the art of game mastery, there needs to be play mastery as well. Sometimes it takes a stranger to point out the obvious.


I'm very lucky in this regard as there is another GM that I alternate GMing with who provides an excellent sounding board and constructive criticism for my campaigns (since he plays in them) and vice versa. I also use short questionnaires to solicit player feedback, since in my mind GMing is an art that can always be improved. I'm not certain a critique from a complete outsider would be beneficial, but getting an outside perspective certainly couldn't hurt.

Shadow Lodge

100% yes.

It's just advice, not gospel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started playing in the best GMed game I've ever played in, so when I started, I caught a face full of corrective advice, most of which I had coming. I must admit it took years for me to really develop my own style, but input from other GMs and players are still welcomed. Unfortunately, some think that I MUST follow their advice or I'm dissing them.

I have run a Champions game as the under-GM and a round robin Traveller campaign, plus a few more atrocities over the decades, but still run my own 'D&D' game my way. That said, I am often carried along by players and their wild schemes. I insist on their letting me in on their plans, so I can keep them grounded in how the world works.

EG: Orcs in my game are effectively evil outsiders of a sort. They can't be 'redeemed' ever. I had a Pally decide she was going to save their souls and she didn't let me in on it, or anyone else. She was treating this as a delusion on her character's part (RP) and refused to admit defeat. This caused a great deal of trouble at the table before it all came out. Once the plotline was laid out, all the angst among the players vanished and several tweeks to her storyline were added to sharpen the poignancy of her quest. Her betrayal by the Evil Orc Shaman BBEG was just awesome! That group still talk about her character's tragic death a quarter century later, as Shakespeare wrote in H5 'with embellishments'. And to think it was getting tangled up because she wanted to keep it secret.

I should mention that several of groups have actually taken to running encounters when I have been sick, distracted or discombobulated. What i get annoyed most by is their being right about better tactics, etc in an encounter...but I make a point of 'letting them be right', just to humor them. I shamelessly steal plot hooks, ideas and anything else they come up with that is better than I coughed up at 3am the night before. Hey, when the best you can do is a wyvern swooping down to buzz the party and they prep for the rest of the brood, 'cuz ya know they run in packs!', you go with it. And always admit you stole the idea from them. They won't believe you, preferring to be thankful they anticipated the trap successfully.

Sweetness! I absolutely love good players!

Sovereign Court

My home game and PFS rotate GMs so I kind of already do.


Don't you get that from other players who have read the books? Or have been GM in the past?


I would really enjoy having a critique of my style. I think it'd take more than one session, but the advice would be worth it I feel. The only couple of stipulations would be that I'd want to know the proven track record of my advisor and that perhaps there be visual record of my sessions so that I can see and hear what the advisor is talking about.

The reality is this kind of feedback is how I learn. I have requested this many times from my players but they just give me a deer-in-the-headlights look and say "umm... you're fine." Frankly I could probably use a tune up now and then.

I've read a lot of GM advice columns and blogs and such. They give handy tips here and there like how to take notes, ad lib and speed up combat. However when I try to implement these it never seems to work. I suppose it would be nice to have a proven advisor on hand to show me HOW to use those tricks so they don't disrupt the session.


Mark Hoover wrote:

I would really enjoy having a critique of my style. I think it'd take more than one session, but the advice would be worth it I feel. The only couple of stipulations would be that I'd want to know the proven track record of my advisor and that perhaps there be visual record of my sessions so that I can see and hear what the advisor is talking about.

The reality is this kind of feedback is how I learn. I have requested this many times from my players but they just give me a deer-in-the-headlights look and say "umm... you're fine." Frankly I could probably use a tune up now and then.

I've read a lot of GM advice columns and blogs and such. They give handy tips here and there like how to take notes, ad lib and speed up combat. However when I try to implement these it never seems to work. I suppose it would be nice to have a proven advisor on hand to show me HOW to use those tricks so they don't disrupt the session.

Your "deer-dear-in-the-headlights" comment is a good example of what I'm talking about. People say "just ask the players" and I have many times and they give me the same look. I can only assume they're having a decent time because so far there hasn't been a mass exodus. But I have also had players, that no matter what I do, are just being problems, so I can't trust their commentary at all. This is why the idea of someone (or even a panel of people) who has no connection to me or the game, observing and giving me constructive criticism would be welcome.


Players sometimes don't like to critique for a number of reasons, be that that they're novices, or somehow see it as an abuse of hospitality. I'm fortunate that all but one discuss it with me, and the one that chunters any dissatisfaction behind my back feeds back to me.

I'm of two minds. I don't GM in a standard way, and many rules get fudged or disregarded. We invite people to game at our house for free, often at great expense to ourselves, and we play the game we want to play. A streamliner and a time management coach very welcome, rules lawyers not so much.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Backfromthedeadguy wrote:
Would you, as a GM, allow an unbiased, fair and experienced fellow GM to sit in and critique your game? Do you ever wish there was a third party that would validate things you are doing right and point out areas that need improvement and maybe give advice on how to do so? Granted every GM has their own style and quirks--but is it possible, using outside observers, to iron out some of those wrinkles in your style?

Heh, welcome to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. :) In any larger-than-a-table-or-two PFS community, people tend to switch back and forth between playing and GMing. Most of the GMs I've played under, I've also GM'd for. That's probably around a dozen GMs who have played at my table at least once at various times.

Quote:
Would you listen or be dismissive? Would it even be worth getting such a critique?

I make it a policy to investigate anything I do that gets questioned at the table. That includes everything from looking up the Concentration rules and verifying that yes, the caster does have to make a check if hit with an AoO provoked by casting; to asking James Jacobs how a certain curse works and then retroactively overturning three PC deaths.

EDIT: As an additional note, feedback shouldn't have to come from fellow GMs; the players' feeling are just as valid. Yes, a player who doesn't know what it's like behind the screen might have unrealistic expectations, but I think the opposite happens more often than folks admit as well: people who mostly GM forget what it's like to not be in charge and have something to lose, especially for multiple sessions in a row. Therefore, feedback from players is a requirement if you want to be even remotely competent as a GM.

Silver Crusade

Mark, I need at least two more sessions with you before I can give you valid feedback.. but you will get it. lol. ive only had the two cuz I had to bail on the last sesson due to illness. Just wanted to jump in and say that.

Ive got a crazy advantage at my brother table.. weve merged three together over the years.. if all show up 13/14 players are DM's. So its either everything is smooth or one big cluster of every player trying to DM from the players seat. :D There is always feedback after every few games.

But "Umm.. your fine." IS true. I would not come back to your table if you were not fine and I didnt enjoy your style the first, let alone second time. :D


K-tel records; no worries man. You're new to me, I'm new to you so we're on the same page. I was more thinking of 2 other gamers at the table who I've gamed with for like 6 years now off and on. I ask for specific feedback and they just shrug. I suspect that if they DID have an issue w/my GMing they'd let me know. I also suspect that neither of them care at all about the plot of the game. Like, at all.

Seriously - I've played Descent with these 2 guys. They roll their eyes and make fun of the 1 paragraph of boxed text at the start of a Descent scenario which essentially amounts to "this is happening, here's your objective..." I don't think these particular gamers much care who is in danger, what that danger is, and what expectations have been levvied on the PCs because of it.

Klokkenspiel, my hope is that you and the other new guy at the table enjoy the game. I hope you're able to stick with it despite long pauses between sessions and that the action and plot is interesting enough to make you want to keep going. I also hope that you don't find me overbearing, railroady or obtuse as a GM. Time will tell I know, but you should know that's what I'm shooting for.

Feedback is always appreciated, even when that feedback is "I don't know you and your game well enough to judge yet, but soon enough."

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Critiquing GM style / skills All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion