All the talk of being a career DM found over on this thread got me to thinking about what qualities “good” DM’s have that make them “good”. For me, a “good” DM is/has:
1) A real sense of fairness to the spirit of the rules when they are less than clear and doesn’t get caught up in the technicalities of the language or missing information.
2) A storyteller who brings the NPCs alive, paints the landscapes and locations in your mind, and “plays the world” with you.
3) Doesn’t railroad the PCs through his story, but instead lets the players create their own story through the world he/she brings to life.
What are some qualities that you think make a DM “good”?
Have a story to tell, but be willing to let the players tell it, and if they change the direction or how you want they want it told, be ready to go with it. Best description of a really really good game session is that its like a Jazz band with a conductor, sure the DM controls a lot, but each players puts in the sound.
The worst GMs IMO are the ones who think they are the star. Slightly differnt topic but I had this GM, call him James, who simply stoped showing up, for game after game at our FLGS, until someone sadly me which ended my time within his group, decided we wanted to play something instead of wasting gas and bus fair, so I started a Rifts game. The next time I started Robotech. The third time I did a Choas Earth game (yeah I'm more confortable DM Pladium back then) and everytime he showed up as soon as we were getting into another game and DM. He just wanted to have us beg for him, and give him all prasie.
Well it got down to a fight, he won because a lot of players were friends with him rather then me. I finished the story line he was running, and left the group. Soon as I was gone he pulled the same thing. The group largely fell apart after that.
Moral of this tale, your the boss, not the star.
TTFN Dre
I think hanging around here sharing and asking for advice is a big step in the right direction. Of course, some people think that if I make a comment about what good DMs do and don't do that I've somehow judged and patronized them.
There's some touchy people on these boards.
1) Being female, good-looking, and willing to roleplay the Nymph Encounter (double bonus for the Succubus Encounter)
I'd say it always depends on the players. Some players want something in a DM others would leave the group over.
Personally, the things I think make a great GM are:
There's some touchy people on these boards.
That was directed at me, wasn't it? What's your problem? I never did anything to you and you attack me in this fashion, all out of the blue. You're poisoning these boards. Because of you, no one will come here anymore, and in two weeks, Paizo will have to file for bankruptcy. Are you happy now, you hateful cathead?
At least tell me where my medicine is. I'm sure you stole it!
;-)
A good DM can give the players and him- or herself a great and fun evening of gaming. If the players are enthusiastic and keep coming back, you are a good DM.
A good DM can give the players and him- or herself a great and fun evening of gaming. If the players are enthusiastic and keep coming back, you are a good DM.
That hits the nail on the head. We all know what we do and don't like, and while there are some general qualities good DMs share, it's as much a matter of preference as any other part of the game.
For me, some of my favorite DMs have been improv comedians. There are several reasons for this:
1) They can create fun and memorable characters rather quickly. This makes conversations with minor NPCs more fun.
2) They build a scene quickly and well. It's definitely a personal like, but I love flavor text and atmosphere for the various locales our party visits.
3) They know the "Yes, and ..." rule of improv. This, as discussed above, means that when an idea is given to them their first instinct is to take the idea and run with it. While parties definitely wander off course from time to time, a good DM will recongize that letting the party drive the action is just as important as the old man in the inn dispensing adventure hooks.
One that doesn't TPK when the gnome sorcerer Shadow Walks the party into the heart of the enemy stronghold without advance warning for spell buffs to be put in place.
OK, have fun watching us scramble like roaches when someone turns on the lights but roll with the surprise just as much as the rest of us have to do.
One that doesn't TPK when the gnome sorcerer Shadow Walks the party into the heart of the enemy stronghold without advance warning for spell buffs to be put in place.
OK, have fun watching us scramble like roaches when someone turns on the lights but roll with the surprise just as much as the rest of us have to do.
One that does TPK when the gnome sorcerer drags his unprepared party into the heart of the enemy base. Stupidity should be painful and mistakes should be costly. Otherwise it doesn't matter what you do, you will always win. No, don't bother debating this. I'm answering the topic question.
One that does TPK when the gnome sorcerer drags his unprepared party into the heart of the enemy base. Stupidity should be painful and mistakes should be costly. Otherwise it doesn't matter what you do, you will always win. No, don't bother debating this. I'm answering the topic question.One that doesn't TPK when the gnome sorcerer Shadow Walks the party into the heart of the enemy stronghold without advance warning for spell buffs to be put in place.
OK, have fun watching us scramble like roaches when someone turns on the lights but roll with the surprise just as much as the rest of us have to do.
lol. Actually that might be the humane thing to do. The campaign's dying a slow death.
The good DM is ready for anything.
I like the OP's list. Short, to the point, and dead on. :)
A lot of duplication, but still worth the view.
I'd say it always depends on the players. Some players want something in a DM others would leave the group over.
Personally, the things I think make a great GM are:
Stern but fair. Not necessarily too stern, mind you, but he shouldn't let the players walk all over him.
Great storyteller and able to roll with the blows. Players are devious bastards, whether they want to or not, and sooner or later they will mess up the GM's plans. It's always great if the GM isn't knocked on the floor because of that.
Challenge the players, but don't torture them. If everything goes the players' way (every fight a cakewalk, every NPC deferring to their whims etc..) people get bored. If they're one lucky damage roll away from death at all times (except for when they've been killed. Again), they get frustrated. Same if they can't seem to get a success even if they do everyting right.
Don't overdo things like giving players big rewards and then taking it away in the next session. A lot of players got fed up with that back in the days when drow equipment turned to dust in sunlight.
Don't play favourites.
Don't make the players sidekicks to your own star GMNPC who is like Chuck Norris and McGyver rolled into one, with some Gandalf and Drizzt and Elminster thrown in for good measure.
There's some touchy people on these boards.That was directed at me, wasn't it? What's your problem? I never did anything to you and you attack me in this fashion, all out of the blue. You're poisoning these boards. Because of you, no one will come here anymore, and in two weeks, Paizo will have to file for bankruptcy. Are you happy now, you hateful cathead?
At least tell me where my medicine is. I'm sure you stole it!
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, after that succubus comment I was getting ready to ask to join your group. ;p
|
I agree with a lot of the above attributes for a good GM, but one skill I didn't see listed that any good gm needs is basic math skills. I've been stuck in games where I saw the gm counting on his fingers, and let's just say it makes for really long games. Failing the ability to basic math quickly in your head, use a calculator!
|
|
3 Doesn’t railroad the PCs through his story, but instead lets the players create their own story through the world he/she brings to life.
Disagree. A DM with no control over the PCs results in pointless ADVENTURING with little to no story or objective. There's no "campaign" or story to be told here. These DMs are the power gaming munchkin's wet dream.
It's the DM's job to get them back on track while creating the illusion they're not being railroaded.
1) Being female, good-looking, and willing to roleplay the Nymph Encounter (double bonus for the Succubus Encounter)I'll play in that game!
So will I. ;)
There's a space between no control and total control. A pretty big space in fact. If they ask around for the happenings, learn of some bandits and several other things and choose to go after the bandits on their own there's no reason why they cannot get the same quality of story as if you forced them to go after the bandits. And if they instead decide to follow another lead, there is again no reason why story quality would suffer. Good DMs do not need to railroad. The PCs are motivated to write their stories on their own.
|
|
If they ask around for the happenings, learn of some bandits and several other things and choose to go after the bandits on their own there's no reason why they cannot get the same quality of story as if you forced them to go after the bandits. And if they instead decide to follow another lead, there is again no reason why story quality would suffer.
Sure there is, the difference is the DM spending a couple hours during the week preparing for the PCs going to Goldshire Mines and the DM having to come up with a group of bandits on the fly, having no materials prepared for the bandits and so forth. It's the difference between a quality planned encounter and a disorganized thrown out there encounter.
My solution, the PCs find the bandits dead already with signs left behind, perhaps a broken spear that suggests the hobgoblins from the mine killed the bandits. The PCs have been rail roaded and they don't even know it. :)
It's the difference between a quality planned encounter and a disorganized thrown out there encounter.
I disagree. Some of the best sessions come from improvisation. Players are going to do the one thing you never planned for. Even if you spent weeks preparing an encounter, they will do the one thing that completely circumvents the entire scene.
If you can not improvise, it will show and the game will suffer for it.
|
|
It's the difference between a quality planned encounter and a disorganized thrown out there encounter.I disagree. Some of the best sessions come from improvisation. Players are going to do the one thing you never planned for. Even if you spent weeks preparing an encounter, they will do the one thing that completely circumvents the entire scene.
If you can not improvise, it will show and the game will suffer for it.
i have to agree with the poodle here. from my experience, players have a nasty tendency to obliterate hours of planning by being obstinate goofballs who refuse to stay on the tracks. that leaves me two choices: beat them with sticks until they comply, or roll with it.
I agree more with SirUrza. As DM you have to know your strengths and weaknesses. I know I could not run a whole 7 hour session just by winging it. I can however come up with NPC personalities on the fly. With my hetic job schedule I have to have events planned well out for the party so I mainly use published material like Dungeon and string several adventures together adding tie in's to each one. There are ways to maintain a medium of control over the party, like my current group works for a guild. This allows me to keep them for the most part on track with the story and prepared material. I have played with a DM in the past who never used any published stuff and just winged each session as it happened. He was good at it and we had fun. I try to keep my sessions fun (and fair) as well and so far the players have been around for a couple of years now so I must be doing alright. Each DM has there own style and players normally go from group to group until they find a DM they like. What makes a good DM is not weather he allows the players to run free or uses DM control to guide them. What makes him good is that his group has fun and keeps coming back for more.
|
|
I agree more with SirUrza. As DM you have to know your strengths and weaknesses. I know I could not run a whole 7 hour session just by winging it. I can however come up with NPC personalities on the fly. With my hetic job schedule I have to have events planned well out for the party so I mainly use published material like Dungeon and string several adventures together adding tie in's to each one. There are ways to maintain a medium of control over the party, like my current group works for a guild. This allows me to keep them for the most part on track with the story and prepared material. I have played with a DM in the past who never used any published stuff and just winged each session as it happened. He was good at it and we had fun. I try to keep my sessions fun (and fair) as well and so far the players have been around for a couple of years now so I must be doing alright. Each DM has there own style and players normally go from group to group until they find a DM they like. What makes a good DM is not weather he allows the players to run free or uses DM control to guide them. What makes him good is that his group has fun and keeps coming back for more.
i think it comes down to the players. if you have players that can stay on point, it does make it easier to write material and use published stuff. if you've been cursed, like me, with brilliant but ADD addled goofballs who are constantly distracted by shiny objects, well, let's just say i'm glad i have experience with improvisational theater and run a rules as guidelines type game...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'll keep it short: adaptability. You have to adapt what you're good at to what your players enjoy. You might not be the type who can spin a whole adventure out of your head, but if you can make your skills work for your group - even when your group changes or does the unexpected - you'll come out fine in the end.
I don't mind improvising...as long as I have some statblocks lying around handy. Because of houserules I use (feat/level ala BoXM) I have to do a little work even with "improvised" encounters.
If they ask around for the happenings, learn of some bandits and several other things and choose to go after the bandits on their own there's no reason why they cannot get the same quality of story as if you forced them to go after the bandits. And if they instead decide to follow another lead, there is again no reason why story quality would suffer.Sure there is, the difference is the DM spending a couple hours during the week preparing for the PCs going to Goldshire Mines and the DM having to come up with a group of bandits on the fly, having no materials prepared for the bandits and so forth. It's the difference between a quality planned encounter and a disorganized thrown out there encounter.
My solution, the PCs find the bandits dead already with signs left behind, perhaps a broken spear that suggests the hobgoblins from the mine killed the bandits. The PCs have been rail roaded and they don't even know it. :)
Top down approach makes prep a lot easier. I never write more then the most basic of details about something until I am completely certain they'll encounter it. They never notice the difference. Being disorganized when you improvise is the fault of the DM for lacking that talent, not an inherent part of writing everything in advance.
All the players I know would see right through that in an instant, and once that bad DM alarm is tripped they'll watch you like a hawk.
Add to my list adaptive DMs that can deal with such plot twists.
If they ask around for the happenings, learn of some bandits and several other things and choose to go after the bandits on their own there's no reason why they cannot get the same quality of story as if you forced them to go after the bandits. And if they instead decide to follow another lead, there is again no reason why story quality would suffer.Sure there is, the difference is the DM spending a couple hours during the week preparing for the PCs going to Goldshire Mines and the DM having to come up with a group of bandits on the fly, having no materials prepared for the bandits and so forth. It's the difference between a quality planned encounter and a disorganized thrown out there encounter.
My solution, the PCs find the bandits dead already with signs left behind, perhaps a broken spear that suggests the hobgoblins from the mine killed the bandits. The PCs have been rail roaded and they don't even know it. :)
This brings up another quality of a "good" DM for me: they have a good ability to improvise the story. I remember when I was young we would go outside with our star wars action figures and have a blast making up the story as we went. That kind of "free-flow" story telling is like gold in a D&D game (or should I say Pathfinder game) for both the DM and Players.
This is the real strength of table top RPGs over computer RPGs. Computer RPGs are the ultimate in "no improv" DMing. They have to be "rail roaded" to a great degree by design. The greatest strength of table top RPGs is exactly that ability for the game to improvise.
Top down approach makes prep a lot easier. I never write more then the most basic of details about something until I am completely certain they'll encounter it. They never notice the difference. Being disorganized when you improvise is the fault of the DM for lacking that talent, not an inherent part of writing everything in advance.
Translation: I improvise everything, so my players never notice the difference in quality between improvised and non-improvised material.
(I'm kidding, I'm kidding...)
1) Being female, good-looking, and willing to roleplay the Nymph Encounter (double bonus for the Succubus Encounter)I'll play in that game!
We have to promise each other that if we find that game, we'll tell each other.
Hey, after that succubus comment I was getting ready to ask to join your group. ;p
Disclaimer: I'm not said good DM Randal was talking about, nor have I ever encountered her. But we might find her by locating the queue of geeks waiting to play there - I hear that queue is visible from outer space.
Top down approach makes prep a lot easier. I never write more then the most basic of details about something until I am completely certain they'll encounter it. They never notice the difference. Being disorganized when you improvise is the fault of the DM for lacking that talent, not an inherent part of writing everything in advance.Translation: I improvise everything, so my players never notice the difference in quality between improvised and non-improvised material.
(I'm kidding, I'm kidding...)
Actually, they notice when I prepared something. They find the rails pretty fast. In my defense, I wasn't trying to do this. I was just running Age of Worms.
|
I rarely improvise well under pressure, and I loathe just flipping open a monster book and saying, 'Uh, you fight this' since nobody needs a DM to do that in the first place.
So I prefer to have several set encounters ready, depending on which path the party takes, and one of the encounters might end up showing up regardless of what path they take (cultists or fiends sent to plague them, mercenary bounty-hunters sent to teach them a lesson, etc. assuming that they've antagonized the bad-guys at some point), while the others are player choice-dependent (technically the encounters that seek them out are also player choice-dependent, but are just dependent on choices they made in previous sesssions!).
Set encounters, in my case, tend to be different in some way than just standard book encounters. The terrain might be unusual (and lend itself to special manuevers) or the antagonists might use material from non-core sources (Urban Ranger instead of Fighter) or core material in unusual ways (Acolytes flanked by Skeletons who use Aid Other to improve their AC). I'm not a fan of encounters straight out of the Monster Manual, because it feels like a waste of my time and my players time if I don't make for an interesting and memorable encounter of some sort.
I don't bother to come up with detail of places they don't seem to be going, and if the players want to hare off in some area that I've not fleshed out, I can simply say, 'Okay, let's play Warhammer Quest for the rest of the night, I've got nothing ready for this area.' and then spend the rest of the week working up some ideas for that area (in some cases just filing serial numbers off of previously established encounters for other areas and turning the 'gnolls' into 'lizard men' and the 'dire hyenas' into 'giant crocodiles').
So I 'improvise,' but only by juggling pre-created encounters and slotting them in or tweaking them to suit the flavor or theme of the current campaign or setting. The days when we'd flip to a random page in the Monster Manual and fight whatever was on that page are long past.
|
A willingness to allow more than one solution to problems. A slightly different party composition, the wrong domain or wizard opposition school, and your elaborate puzzle-room is impossible to solve.
Don't get huffy when you start to describe the complex surroundings, and the players say "I disintegrate the wall".
Another thing that can help a lot is if you can glance at a monster and within 60 seconds completely change around skills and feats and such to get an individual using only your mind, no writing.
I can easily improvise NPC's and attack plans, but not usually whole encounters, but I have found a solution for this: I have introduced a small PC forum where PC's can discuss ideas for the next session. This is enormously valuable for me, because I can plan ahead for the next session when they have a plan to do something I have not prepared for.
As a result my players never know whether something is part of the adventure or my own addition. They do not see the difference.
|
|
i have to agree with the poodle here. from my experience, players have a nasty tendency to obliterate hours of planning by being obstinate goofballs who refuse to stay on the tracks. that leaves me two choices: beat them with sticks until they comply, or roll with it.
The trick is, learning how to get them to jump on the rails, while thinking it's their idea. And then have them actually apologise for straying off the plot, while you try to keep a straight face.
i think it comes down to the players.
Agreed -- for example, if one of them plays a dwarf cleric, you've got to be sure to beat up on him mercilessly ;) (Either that, or houserule that the pet lizard must make all ability score rolls for the hapless player...)
A definition that no one has proposed so far:
What makes a good DM?
One who brings beer.
|
|
i think it comes down to the players.Agreed -- for example, if one of them plays a dwarf cleric, you've got to be sure to beat up on him mercilessly ;) (Either that, or houserule that the pet lizard must make all ability score rolls for the hapless player...)
A definition that no one has proposed so far:
What makes a good DM?
One who brings beer.
Nono...see, that's what makes a good player, and why said player should randomly find mythical weapons and breath fire at things.
What makes a good DM?
One who brings beer.
What? Beer, along with any snacks, are part of the tribute players are supposed to pay to the DM, and of course to the host. If the DM and the Host are the same person.... well, better bring along a virgin or two. (I hope my players are taking notes ;-))
The trick is, learning how to get them to jump on the rails, while thinking it's their idea. And then have them actually apologise for straying off the plot, while you try to keep a straight face.
Hmm... that's not always true. Sometimes, you get absolutely fine players going off on a weird tangent just because the DM kept humouring them. Sometimes (when searching for instance) the player is just begging the DM to say "look, it's cleared out, go somewhere else", but the DM is being true to the reality of the game and rolling in secret and almost leading the player on. In the same vein, the player doesn't want to just give up in case there is some really well-guarded and secretive room/box that will be there for the persistent to find.
Same with character interaction. Some players (rightfully) feel that it's a cop-out to just say "I ask the girl where her dad is", and expect the DM to cough up. The alternative is more time-consuming, and sometimes by just a slip of the tongue or strangely worded response, the DM can lead the player to think there's more to a random NPC than is really there. So the questions keep coming, and the DM doesn't want to drop the SOD so the answers keep coming. It can turn into a long game when that happens.
As far as puppet-mastering with invisible strings goes, who hasn't used that to some degree? It's almost required.
The trick is, learning how to get them to jump on the rails, while thinking it's their idea. And then have them actually apologise for straying off the plot, while you try to keep a straight face.
Yes, those are the best moments. And them getting worried giving you extra work.
Same with character interaction. Some players (rightfully) feel that it's a cop-out to just say "I ask the girl where her dad is", and expect the DM to cough up. The alternative is more time-consuming, and sometimes by just a slip of the tongue or strangely worded response, the DM can lead the player to think there's more to a random NPC than is really there. So the questions keep coming, and the DM doesn't want to drop the SOD so the answers keep coming. It can turn into a long game when that happens.
So true. But it is also the DM's duty to keep up the pace. In case of such long delays it is time to start hinting that they have to roll sense motive checks. And if that does not work, intelligence checks. And if that does not work, just guarantee there is really nothing wrong with the NPC. Or introduce another plot hook at that very moment. Or use any other tool the DM has to keep up the pace.
If the DM and the Host are the same person.... well, better bring along a virgin or two.
Two male virgins? Naah, not experienced enough! ;-)
I'd prefer the beer, especially when it is Belgian.
lol. Actually that might be the humane thing to do. The campaign's dying a slow death.One that does TPK when the gnome sorcerer drags his unprepared party into the heart of the enemy base. Stupidity should be painful and mistakes should be costly. Otherwise it doesn't matter what you do, you will always win. No, don't bother debating this. I'm answering the topic question.One that doesn't TPK when the gnome sorcerer Shadow Walks the party into the heart of the enemy stronghold without advance warning for spell buffs to be put in place.
OK, have fun watching us scramble like roaches when someone turns on the lights but roll with the surprise just as much as the rest of us have to do.
Well, no TPK for us. With some clever maneuvering we were able to avoid it. But, the slow death continues...
A good DM doesn't spend the evening surfing the net and IM'ng his girlfriend. I had to leave the table before I popped.
So true. But it is also the DM's duty to keep up the pace. In case of such long delays it is time to start hinting that they have to roll sense motive checks. And if that does not work, intelligence checks. And if that does not work, just guarantee there is really nothing wrong with the NPC. Or introduce another plot hook at that very moment. Or use any other tool the DM has to keep up the pace.
How true. Especially if the players 'fail to find the exact solution' to the situation. Else the players have to result to metagaming, or give up entirely.
Two male virgins? Naah, not experienced enough! ;-)
I'd prefer the beer, especially when it is Belgian.
Chicks, of course. Your average D&D group has enough male virgins
I don't bother to come up with detail of places they don't seem to be going, and if the players want to hare off in some area that I've not fleshed out, I can simply say, 'Okay, let's play Warhammer Quest for the rest of the night, I've got nothing ready for this area.'
Nothing against you, Set, but this kind of experience would ruin my sense of immersion. The world ceases to be a living thing which exists outside of my character’s perception and becomes a box.
Like Fatman Feedbag, I play table top games because a GM can improvise.