Favorite GMing style


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style? Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die? GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast? GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story? GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?

As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?

Not asking for the ideal GM- I'm asking for your opinions.


1) serious death threats.. I'd rather make a new character, including detailed backstory and campaign connections, than have one spoiled by coddling..
2) depends on the quality of the rule interpreting or improv/houserule skills, and how forwarned I am if it's extreme in either direction..
3) both, immersion is best, but comedy is necessary for that too..
4) disrespected GM is bad for any game, hurts his motivation and everybody's immersion/interest.. So, fear is better than that.. Better than both by far is being trusted and respected..


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is the choice between feared and disrespected? This implies that if you aren't feared, you aren't respected.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that you intentionally go for the second worst option, in an attempt to avoid the worst option. Thereby giving up the chance to go for the dozens of options that are better.


Irontruth wrote:

Why is the choice between feared and disrespected? This implies that if you aren't feared, you aren't respected.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that you intentionally go for the second worst option, in an attempt to avoid the worst option. Thereby giving up the chance to go for the dozens of options that are better.

I'm not saying that you can't have respect without fear. Having only disrespect or only fear for the GM would be a pretty terrible way to play. I'm just asking which one you value more, given a binary choice.


Option 3, don't buy in to silly binary dilemmas.


My Self wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Why is the choice between feared and disrespected? This implies that if you aren't feared, you aren't respected.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that you intentionally go for the second worst option, in an attempt to avoid the worst option. Thereby giving up the chance to go for the dozens of options that are better.

I'm not saying that you can't have respect without fear. Having only disrespect or only fear for the GM would be a pretty terrible way to play. I'm just asking which one you value more, given a binary choice.

You titled the thread "favorite GMing style".

Neither of those is my "favorite GMing style".


Irontruth wrote:
My Self wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Why is the choice between feared and disrespected? This implies that if you aren't feared, you aren't respected.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that you intentionally go for the second worst option, in an attempt to avoid the worst option. Thereby giving up the chance to go for the dozens of options that are better.

I'm not saying that you can't have respect without fear. Having only disrespect or only fear for the GM would be a pretty terrible way to play. I'm just asking which one you value more, given a binary choice.

You titled the thread "favorite GMing style".

Neither of those is my "favorite GMing style".

Fair enough. I was treating these as several separate questions under a related umbrella of "your favorite GMing style".

Still, waiting to hear your thoughts.


My Self wrote:

Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style? Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die? GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast? GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story? GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?

As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?

Not asking for the ideal GM- I'm asking for your opinions.

Definitely prefer a real threat of danger, but I also don't appreciate GMs that go out of their way to make things ridiculously dangerous (i.e. Taking on a pack of dire wolves at first level, resulting in a TPK). I like games that get progressively more challenging.

By the book.

Extensively prepared with the ability to think on his feet.

Immersive.

Neither. GM should tell the story and make the game enjoyable for his players.


I do like high-danger and high stakes in a game, but too much can seriously dissuade me from returning to a session. Suddenly I recall encountering a Wight at level 1...

Sovereign Court

Death should be possible, and no punches pulled (exceptions for newbie players who are still learning the ropes) - but there shouldn't be GM vs Players or monsters going out of their way to coup de grace when the rest of the party is still up etc.

By the book - just vetoing certain combinations. (everyone knows that there are many broken combos - and a few straight up broken options)

Mostly prepared. I've found that while many GMs claim to be able to GM entirely on the fly - few actually can do it well.

GMs shouldn't go out of their way for the laughs - the best humor comes about naturally anyway. Attempting it just leads to being annoying.

Just plain respected works. Fear is for GM vs Player GMs - which is lame. Disrespected GM likely doesn't know the rules. Neither will have a table I'll play at for long.


My Self wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
My Self wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Why is the choice between feared and disrespected? This implies that if you aren't feared, you aren't respected.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that you intentionally go for the second worst option, in an attempt to avoid the worst option. Thereby giving up the chance to go for the dozens of options that are better.

I'm not saying that you can't have respect without fear. Having only disrespect or only fear for the GM would be a pretty terrible way to play. I'm just asking which one you value more, given a binary choice.

You titled the thread "favorite GMing style".

Neither of those is my "favorite GMing style".

Fair enough. I was treating these as several separate questions under a related umbrella of "your favorite GMing style".

Still, waiting to hear your thoughts.

You're probably going to wait a long time for that particular answer.


My Self wrote:

Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style? Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die? GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast? GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story? GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?

As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?

Not asking for the ideal GM- I'm asking for your opinions.

As a player I prefer to have death a very real possibility. I also prefer playing in low-powered, grittier campaigns (so I'm fine with death being final, also). I don't want a DM to fudge any rolls, even if they've accidentally overpowered an encounter.

I don't see any value in trying to 'play by the book' - given the inherent contradiction and room for interpretation in everyday language (I don't think RAW is as well defined as people generally claim it is) I think it's a fool's errand anyhow. Playing the way the designer intended is also an alien motivation to me.

I'd much rather play in a game guided by 'when in doubt, roll and shout' than one with clearly codified rules (whether they be houserules or otherwise). I value speed of resolution way, way more than resolving an in-game event the way it's "supposed" to be resolved.

I don't have a strong preference on prepped vs improvised - I think you can do either well or badly and I think the quality matters much more than the choice made in that respect.

I think I prefer lighthearted over inspiring immersion, but that's probably because we're not terribly good roleplayers so I don't think I've ever actually been "immersed".

The last question doesn't really gel with my approach. Neither would be my (probably unhelpful!) answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
My Self wrote:
conversation stuff
You're probably going to wait a long time for that particular answer.

I'm waiting to hear any of your thoughts on any of the questions. Not just the last one.


I prefer an improvised story. Detailed plans can be cool, but improvisation leaves more room for unexpected things to happen during the session. As a player, I feel like my decisions matter more. As a GM, it lessens the amount of prep work I have to do, and I'm less invested in said prep.

I like death to be possible, but somewhat avoided. When players get unlucky, I give them easier ways to come back from the dead, or even avoid it altogether. When a player makes the choices that result in their death, I'm less forgiving. My scythe wielding villain crits you to death on round 1? A friendly priest can be found nearby to raise you. You jump off a 200ft cliff into an army of venomous orcs alone and without feather fall? You're on your own.

I see myself as a fan of the PCs. That doesn't mean I take it easy on them. It's my job to put obstacles in their way. When they succeed, I celebrate with them. When they fail, I join them in their disappointment. When a PC dies, I'm sad. That doesn't mean I avoid it.

I recently ran a game at a long-con. You schedule 4 sessions with the same players and play one game the whole convention. Other than a 3-line blurb about vague conspiracies, the only prep I did was collecting about 50 maps. I put a seed in a scene, observed how the players reacted to it, then used that reaction to develop what would happen next. Rinse. Repeat. It was great fun and ended up eerily similar to Ghost in the Shell (SAC season 1).


1./ As a player I like The satisfaction of fighting off a serious death threat, but not unrelenting every encounter. I like a range of fights rather than feeling like you have to expend every resource you have in an encounter. I also like encounters where failing doesn't always result in death maybe you are captured or miss out on treasure or some benefit.

2./ House ruling is by far the best if the GM knows their stuff. I don't mind having restrictions when there is a reason for that in the campaign. E.g in carrion crown we weren't allowed clerics, oracles or Paladins - it was very at atmospheric and tense almost as if the gods had forsaken the land. On the flip side we were allowed other benefits to compensate.

3./ prepared GM every time. If the GM is making it up as you go along how is success actually measured? Stories need to make sense and exploration is a really important part of our sessions - unless that is detailed and realistic the rules of logic are harder to apply which reduces the problem solving part of the game. When you have played for a while you can tell instantly when someone is winging it. Some improvisation is always required but I like this to be hung on a concrete framework.

4./ The game should be fun. Laughing and immersion are not mutually exclusive unless you are playing a survivalist horror game - though Sean of the Dead would beg to differ. WFRP's Enemy Within was one of the most detailed and immersive stories I ever played but was full of in-jokes and comedy. A good DM knows when to break the tension.

I'm lucky enough to get to alternate DM responsibility with a DM who does all four of these very well and have learnt a lot from him over the years.


Irontruth wrote:
I see myself as a fan of the PCs. That doesn't mean I take it easy on them. It's my job to put obstacles in their way. When they succeed, I celebrate with them. When they fail, I join them in their disappointment. When a PC dies, I'm sad. That doesn't mean I avoid it.

A 5-player party typically consists of 6 members: A melee warrior type, a skirmisher, a divine caster, an arcane caster, a jack of all trades social character, and the GM, although not all parties are have these exact roles. One member ultimately determines whether the party dies or goes on to defeat overwhelming odds and succeeds at their heroism or villainy, and it's not the arcane caster.

Irontruth wrote:
I recently ran a game at a long-con. You schedule 4 sessions with the same players and play one game the whole convention. Other than a 3-line blurb about vague conspiracies, the only prep I did was collecting about 50 maps. I put a seed in a scene, observed how the players reacted to it, then used that reaction to develop what would happen next. Rinse. Repeat. It was great fun and ended up eerily similar to Ghost in the Shell (SAC season 1).

Huh, that sounds pretty interesting. I'll need to steal that sometime.


"Hit me, hit me harder! More pain!" is how I like it as a player (trial by fire)
and
"Yeah sure you can somersault, shoot your pistol through his eye killing him instantly (empowerment and open choices)...but it was pretty stupid, you land, slip on the wet rock and plunge 600 feet down, what do you do?" as a GM (consequences).


I like a GM that can improvise, is consistent with rules, keeps things balanced in a party and keeps the game on-track (not allowing any one player to de-rail stuff with rules arguments etc).


Speaking purely from a player perspective:

(1) I don't want GMs to softball it all the time, but I don't want to be just barely scraping by each battle by the skin of our teeth, either. Also, I do admit that I don't mind character deaths so much if it's an epic sort of death to save the rest of the party or anything that actually adds to the story in some way, like giving the remaining PCs that much more incentive to carry on and win the day.

(2) I don't really have a big preference on by-the-book vs. fast and loose since each GM can do either to varying degrees. Maybe a mix where things are generally by the book, but the GM also doesn't mind (and is able to) improvise when the PCs inevitably go off the rails somehow.

(3) Preparation hands-down. Someone else said that very few GMs are good at being able to improvise whole campaigns on the go and based on personal experience, I'd have to agree. Besides, some of my more memorable and on-going games here on the forums are APs that have had some major changes added to them, all with a ton of background prep involved.

(4) Both, although it can certainly lean one way or another depending on the sort of campaign a GM wants to run (goblin shenanigans vs. Wrath of the Righteous for example). But as a player, I definitely prefer both. Moments of darkness make the moments of light that much more precious and meaningful from a character standpoint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer a threat of death to be real, but I think it should be consequential too. As a GM, I would probably cheat to not have critical arrow kill off a first level character, and I wouldn't be upset if I found a GM did that to my character. Getting killed in a good fight, especially if it is a fight that matters is great, being killed just by random chance on a very swingy roll is less fun.

Generally speaking I want to know what to expect. I'm not opposed to house rules, especially ones to add flavor to a customized setting, but I often find someone who has a ton of house rules might be a bit overly compulsive and that can lead to other problems.

Preparation as far as being ready to run things without having to take a lot of time to look things up and/or figure out what should happen next is obviously desirable. Preparation when it means you will follow this very clever railroad I have laid out, and no deviation from the plan will be allowed is usually pretty bad.

If I had to choose between immersion and laughter, I'd probably take laughter. When it comes down to it, the best memories I have from games are usually wacky, crazy funny things (typically not planned by anyone to be) rather than any gritty hard bitten realism.

Fear. Fear will keep the players in line. Fear of this falling rock.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the main reasons I play RPGs at all is so that I can have a narrative experience where I have more agency than I have at the movies (I don't have to yell at the screen "Why don't you just do X?!" because I can instead just say "I do X") but less agency than I would as an author (I don't have total control over how things pan out; there's some element of the character/environment interaction that I'm not in control of).

This is true regardless of whether I'm a player or the GM, but in the context of this thread's question, I prefer to play under GMs who will support what I described above.


1) Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style?

Mine. :)

2) Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die?

Somewhere in between. I hate GMs that go out of their way to try to kill PCs. You want your GM to be fair.

3) GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast?

By the book. If houserules are known ahead of time and documented, that's OK too.

4) GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story?

Prepare. Even when you prepare, you need to improvise anyway.

5) GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?

Both?

6) As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?

Neither? It's just a game, and the game isn't about who is in power or control. At least not for me.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1. Death should be final, unless the players can provide the cure. But PC death should not be the goal of the DM. The DM's primary goal should be fun for all the players (including the DM, of course!).

2. GMs that play by the rules with minimum houserules.

3. I like prepared GMs (so I know they're taking it seriously) that can improvise (so we don't get railroaded or be flexible).

4. I like immersive role play. The humor will mostly be done OOC anyways, in my experience.

5. Neither. I'm playing for fun. If I'm afraid the DM is going to go fiat crazy or TPKs all the time, then I'm not having any fun. Also, if the GM is a pushover or lazy or even not that bright, I'm not going to respect him (unfortunately, I've never had a female GM!), and that can lead to a poor play experience. The GM doesn't have to have all the rules memorized, but he should be confident enough to run the game, listen to suggestions on rulings he lacks the knowledge to make, and quick & firm enough to make a ruling so we're not just reading rules. That's what after the game is for. Follow-up.


1) I like death to be rare. At least permanent death. I'd rather not notice a GM fudging to keep it that way. For me, ideally that means a less challenging game, rather than a hard challenge with a safety net.

2) Not hugely important to me: To much of a rules stickler can be as a much a problem as anything. House rules are fine, as long as I agree with them:)
I'm also fond of more rules-light games where impromptu rulings are built in to the game.

3) Preparation is key. With proper preparation you know what's going to happen when the PCs do something unexpected. Which they will. Mostly in terms of having the big picture of what all the various NPCs are up to and how they'll likely react to the wrenchs the PCs are throwing into their (and your) plans.
Edit: Of course, if a GM can fake being prepared, I don't care. If he's making it all up on the spot and it comes off as solid, that's great.

4) Immersion is what I'm playing for, though it's still rare. The humor will come regardless, but I don't think I've ever played with a GM who could run a "funny game" without it seeming forced.

5) No.


Balance is best over all else. If a DM doesn't have that balance, at the very least I like seeing the work put into one side to help me stay engaged. If not, then I usually find the games to be out of my interest, and generally I do not enjoy them.

Sczarni

I personally cannot digest "grim & gritty" or "death should be real threat" attitude. I used to be one of those GMs when I started GMing, but not anymore. Such GMing style fosters negativity in form of paranoia, fear of character death, loss of immersion into the story and character itself. Please note that I have killed enough characters thus far from my GMing chair, but it was always in fair and rare circumstances. Character's death should be rare, otherwise, why are we even playing Pathfinder system? There is a lot of deadlier systems out there if you want realism. I certainly don't.

A best GM would be able to walk at the golden middle. Neither feared, nor dominant. Fair but compassionate. Rules lawyer but able use common use when to disregard them. Storyteller and joker. That's best golden GM for me.

Adam

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

My Self wrote:
Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style?

The kind that enables the specific type of narrative experience I described in my earlier post.

Quote:
Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die?

In accordance with the above, my main preference on this point is that there's a world that I can genuinely interact with, and that preference carries a couple of risks in relation to character death:

On the one hand, if every obstacle is MORTAL DANGER, it's going to start getting real hard to justify an in-universe decision for the PC to keep getting involved. On the other hand, too many "convenient" circumstances to prevent a death will also wreck the narrative.

If a death happens, I need it to feel like the honest result of our interactions with the world. If death needs to be avoided (such as if the GM mistakenly thought his encounter would be easier than it was, or if an adjudication error was made, etc), I would much prefer an out-of-character "Sorry, I goofed, that wasn't supposed to be lethal; let's ret-con it" rather than trying to patch it within the narrative. A forced narrative is, to me, worse than a blip of OOC ret-conning.

Quote:
GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast?

In accordance with the above, it depends on what you mean by "the book". If you mean "official, published rules", I couldn't care less. Houserule all you want, as long as the product is fun. However, if "the book" means whatever information I had access to when making decisions about my character (whether in building or in gameplay), then I absolutely need my GM to be "by the book" as much as is feasible.

Now, don't misunderstand me: sometimes corner cases come up and it's not worth the time to look it up, or a mistake gets made, or whatever. That's all fine.

The issue comes when (for example) I want to play a hyper-prepared utility-belt type of character, and the rules tell me that the best way to be prepared for situation X is to have item Y, and my character would know that, but then when I encounter situation X suddenly item Y is useless and what I really needed was item Z, then the narrative has just been damaged. In-universe, the guy who's "prepared for anything" is inexplicably carrying a useless item and is totally unprepared for a situation that he totally saw coming.

That's a real immersion-shatterer for me.

Quote:
GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story?

Can't a GM do both? Prepare the setting enough to make interaction possible, then see what happens when the PCs get involved?

Quote:
GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?

The hell? How are these opposites?

Quote:
As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?

I'm going to take a wild guess that the "dis" was a typo and you meant "feared or respected".

I've never feared a GM. Why would anyone ever fear the GM? What does that even mean?

As for respecting the GM, it's hard to game with anyone I don't have at least a basic level of respect for. What's different about the GM?


1) I prefer DMs that leave the option of death there , but only happens if the player clearly messed up or are trully unlucky , even then i probably would rather find a way to ress my PC than make a new one.

2) By the book is easier since the rules are mostly know , but i dont mind any and all house rules , while some may be annoying.

3) Both are important , a DM should have a story ready , but how the players act upon it changes everything , this is one of the reasons a table top will always be superior to a video game.

An example is this adventure , where the DM had made 2 entrances to the orc region , but one player decided he didnt want to enter using them and kept asking questions until he decided with the party to go by the sea then cast fly to reach safe ground. This changed the adventure order , yet it was possible because the DM could adapt.

4) Both have their place during the game.

5) Fearing a DM is silly , if he wanted to kill the PCs , he would , that simple.

Everyone should just respect the DM and their fellow players , even if in charater they discuss and so on , that is only fun while it is done without offending someone for real.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1. As both a player and a GM, I prefer having the threat of death there, but either for pretty epic reasons (final boss fight, etc.) or with some sort of "out" (res, either by party, a friendly person they've interacted with....or someone unfriendly, even, who has ulterior motives). I'd much prefer a death to serve a purpose rather than be the result of a lucky roll by a mite at level 1. I'm a very plot and character-focused player and GM, so a poorly-timed death usually diminishes the party's enjoyment a bit unless there's the possibility of getting that person back.

2. Mostly by the book, but house rules are fine as long as everyone understands them beforehand. (Depending on the house rule. I've heard of some....er, interesting ones.)

3. Both are important. Being prepared definitely helps, both from a plot standpoint and so you don't have to look up rules all the time, but it's also important to let your players have the chance to actually influence things, even if they don't go in a direction you expect.

4. Well, both. They aren't mutually exclusive to me.

5. I don't think the PCs should have to fear the GM. It's not really a players vs. GM game, after all. My goal as a GM is to give the PCs challenging encounters so that they feel like they're accomplishing things, without making them feel like they're running a gauntlet of impossible encounters. As far as respect goes, everyone in the game should respect everyone else. I wouldn't play with someone I didn't respect.


One that doesn't mind it or manipulate the game further when Players invariably cause/let the campaign run off course. Sometimes we fail, honestly, and sometime we just do not want to choose the intended path to follow. Sorry for the preparation lost, but that may be a path my Character would not travel.

I've gotten along with most, and it usually reflects to me wondering what I fall short on as a DM and my bad habits to be forgiving of another's faults/differences in style. I understand House Rules, especially those based on simplifying the game (let's be honest, Crafting can really bog down a game when the rest of my party just wants to hack and slash); the only ones that irk me are restrictions on playstyles.

I would honestly be intimidated by a purist DM that was 100% Current Errata accurate on all rulings. At that point, I'd just DL the MMORPG that suits my current taste best and run with that.

I never want to be feared, and I enjoy lightheartedness at the table even if it can spoil what is supposed to be a somber/serious point in the campaign; what I require is when I deal with younger personalities especially the patience to pay attention to the board ^_^ even when its not their turn so they aren't lost or we aren't waiting on them for too long for them to choose a course of action. There are times when I deliberately take their side-chatter and incorporate directly into the campaign. Fun times.


1. Death is ok. I can live with it.

2. By the bookm but willing to play fast and loose when the book doesn't say.

3. Improvise, because we never stay on the story long enough.

4. Laughing all the way. We are trying to have fun.

5. Feared. It inspires respect.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Goddity wrote:
5. Feared. It inspires respect.

I've got bad news for you.


Jiggy wrote:
Goddity wrote:
5. Feared. It inspires respect.
I've got bad news for you.
Tony Stark, Iron Man wrote:
"Is it better to be feared or respected?" I say, is it too much to ask for both?"


Jiggy wrote:
Goddity wrote:
5. Feared. It inspires respect.
I've got bad news for you.

I enjoy rogue likes, and have yet to find a GM who inspires that same fun fear that death is right around the corner. And "Death is ok. I can live with it." should've made it clear that I was mostly joking. It's better than disrespect, anyway.


Goddity wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Goddity wrote:
5. Feared. It inspires respect.
I've got bad news for you.
I enjoy rogue likes, and have yet to find a GM who inspires that same fun fear that death is right around the corner. And "Death is ok. I can live with it." should've made it clear that I was mostly joking. It's better than disrespect, anyway.

I'd rather have a GM who gets the job done, even if it requires drastic measures, than one who is all buddy-buddy but is not a respectable GM. The GM sets the tone of the game, and if you don't respect the GM, I find it unlikely that you'll respect the game. If you fear the GM, you might fear the game, but certain types of games are meant to be feared (Call of Cthulhu, Tomb of Horrors, Carrion Crown, etc.) Of course, as everyone else has so nicely pointed out, it would be best to respect and not fear the GM. But fear is better than disrespect.

finally weighs in with own opinion, yay


My Self wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Goddity wrote:
5. Feared. It inspires respect.
I've got bad news for you.
I enjoy rogue likes, and have yet to find a GM who inspires that same fun fear that death is right around the corner. And "Death is ok. I can live with it." should've made it clear that I was mostly joking. It's better than disrespect, anyway.

I'd rather have a GM who gets the job done, even if it requires drastic measures, than one who is all buddy-buddy but is not a respectable GM. The GM sets the tone of the game, and if you don't respect the GM, I find it unlikely that you'll respect the game. If you fear the GM, you might fear the game, but certain types of games are meant to be feared (Call of Cthulhu, Tomb of Horrors, Carrion Crown, etc.) Of course, as everyone else has so nicely pointed out, it would be best to respect and not fear the GM. But fear is better than disrespect.

finally weighs in with own opinion, yay

You said it better than I could've.


A GM should neither be against you nor with you.

You shouldn't be jumping off cliffs with reckless abandon because you know the GM will always have the the bottom of the cliff be a mattress dump (memory foam, of course), but you also shouldn't fear wanting to step up to a cliff to get a better look of the area only to have to roll Acrobatics checks every other round to make sure you don't fall down to your death on a nat 1.

I much prefer sticking to the rules, but, working on a massive amount of homerules myself, I greatly appreciate having any homebrew written out and presented at the start of the campaign, rather than being insta-killed mid-campaign because mook #42 rolled 3 nat 20s.

I would definitely hope the GM could make me both laugh and remain interested in the story.

Last one is an unnecessary dichotomy, but to answer in kind, I would rather be respected than loved if forced to make a choice.


Question: what's your favorite GMing style?
Answer: Immersive heroic style for Pathfinder. Historic, realistic for GURPS. Gritty and dark for Cyberpunk and Shadowrun.

Question: Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die?
Answer: I like for there to be consequences for actions and character death should sometimes be the outcome of poor decisions. I am fine with the GM altering the die rolls to protect players who made good decisions and role played well but were unlucky provided it is used sparingly.

Question: GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast?
Answer: by the book for the most part with the GM reserving the right to make decisions that conflict with the rules where they deem appropriate. I don't think a set of rules can protect you from a jerk GM, the best approach is to put the authority and responsibility for the game being fun on the GM and walk out if the GM can't deliver.

Question: GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story?
Answer: I prefer for GMs to be well prepared. Sometimes you have to improvise and it helps if you are well prepared.

Question: GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?
Answer: I prefer immersion, which can result in a few laughs sometimes.

Question: As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?
Answer: two awful choices there, can't decide.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Favorite GMing style All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.