What does being a DM mean to you?

[cmastah]

Here's the thing:

From what I've seen of my previous two DM's:

My first was a story teller and avoided saying no to our requests, he actually used to humor the outlandish ideas which is where I got my own inspiration to do the same. He did of course have many problems, for instance having us be observers to his story telling, knowing all the while that without DM magic we'd never have half the magic powerful NPCs did (I'm talking homebrewed magic here). Essentially we were sitting with a friend and listening to the stuff he had rattling around in his head, but not really having any power of our own.

My second DM is a coach, no two ways about it. He literally takes the role of a lord and won't hear a word against it. It really feels like there's a wall between us and the DM, and it doesn't help that he railroads and freely nerfs and removes spells at will. He's too worried about things getting out of hand if he allows his players free reign so essentially all NPCs start out suspicious and all disguise checks will be sussed out. He really takes an authoritarian perspective on his role when he DMs. Once he comes up with a story, neither heaven nor hell can change the path of the PCs.

Personally I'm hoping to treat being a DM as from a position of a friend trying to cooperatively tell a story with his other friends, ready to be surprised by whatever they come up with. I don't like saying no and do everything I can to avoid it, I also don't like putting up a wall between myself and the players, I essentially look at it as sitting with a couple of friends to have fun. I don't believe in the whole 'I'm the DM and you have to do what I say' outlook and it's where I'm currently at odds with my current DM. I try to instead think of making an interesting world with exciting events I'd like to DM and put in plot hooks everywhere for wherever the PCs choose to intervene.

[Tirq]

The DM is as much of a player as me. I am as much of a player as the party.

[sigilwraith]

As DM, if there is a puzzle for the players to solve or some certain sorta way they need to do certain things in order to achieve a result, if they come up with a plausible method for achieving said result...even if I set it up to where there was only ONE way a puzzle could be solved and they tackle it in another way entirely... I try to act pleasantly surprised and respond with "yes, that's exactly it! You hear the clinking and churning of gears as the massive stone doors slowly slide open...."

Think of it as though Indiana Jones had come up with another way of locating the Well of Souls other than using the headpiece of the Staff of Ra in the map room. If that were one of my players, and their method was innovative, inventive and entertaining enough, not only would I have granted success, but led them to believe that that was the proper course for the task all along. This is also true of interactions with NPCs and the like, as well as the players' long-term and short-term plan-making abilities. Bend to their will and ideas if they're clever...give a little, but make it look like they've cleverly guessed your intended solutions.

I throw a lot of Alundra/Zelda-type puzzles at my players. If they acquire powerful magics or artifacts in the course of the campaign, so be it...have fun with that, guys (sincerely)... but don't think you can get away with ALWAYS relying on your shiny new toys to traverse the traps and puzzles or influence the proper NPCs to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

But in the end it's absolutely a cooperative thing going on. To me, it HAS to be. If they're not having fun, why are they going to show back up? If I'm not having fun, why even bother at all?

[TOZ]

The DM is the first player.

[Vicon]

Sigilwraith is right on the ball here. As a GM, I am ALL about yielding to and rewarding novel, innovative or arguably brilliant (Especially unexpected) solutions to problems. Matter of fact, it's one of the most rewarding aspects of the game... you try to anticipate all the players resources and abilities in order to make it as challenging as possible, but never ever impossible and never harder than it needs to be. If I am doing my job perfectly, the party will win when they expect to win, pull through in the clutch when they really try or work hard (and/or work together) -- and in finales or points of importance, I try to make sure that if they win -- they do so with the a worthy amount of drama and by the narrowest margin so that tension and perception of the accomplishment is most memorable and rewarding.

On the other hand, GMs must always be on guard of players basically becoming able to cake-walk everything by virtue of what is on their character sheet rather than how they role-play or improvise in a situation. Google the term "power-creep" and try to analogize the concept to pathfinder or any other roleplaying game. As characters level they retain their old powers and gain increasingly more powerful ones. These abilities are hugely important and greatly anticipated by the player -- often players have waited WEEKS or MONTHS even YEARS to fully realize their builds... but how these powers are interpreted (if they are in fact subject to interpretation) or the synergy of certain aspects of classes/races/whatever is constantly a threat to making a GM's job difficult or even nearly impossible. Since this point alone isn't the whole crux of your question I won't fully elaborate, but you get the point -- A GM is expected to know and adjudicate all rules even when the consequences of such rulings (or failing to account for such consequences) may not be felt for several levels from the time of a ruling... and a million other complexities.

I'm also, whether a player or a GM -- very much of a mind that if a GM is worth playing with, their word is final and their heightened responsibilities accord them a higher degree of deference and respect. The rules have pretty well established (as has custom) that the buck stops with the GM, and chiseling, whining, or bogging down a game with lawyering is bad form by the players. Tyrant GMs should be stripped of their office. A good GM should be accorded respect and deference even when players may not agree -- because no player can (nor should) be aware of all the subtleties and intricacies that go along with what they want. Sometimes a transitory concern or single bell or whistle on a player's character can make a GM's entire job vastly more difficult into perpetuity... if allowed, this will cause the GM to have less fun as time goes on, which will translate into less fun for the players. You need only look up the threads on "Pun Pun" to see what kind of stuff DMs face, indeed what they must constantly be vigilant for -- if they don't, campaigns can be sentences to rapid or worse slow, annoying death for all involved. Just too much of an imbalance in power between party members can strain the system creating situations where to harm the strongest player at all the GM must risk killing the entire rest of the party that is not so strong -- or the alternative is to throw out a challenge suitable to the normal characters to which the strongest player cannot fail. What this means to me? GMing well is hard. You shouldn't give your GM bullcrap if you can manage not to.

I'd say what a DM means to me isn't much different than most people. We want a GM to plan ahead to the extent that is necessary, make sure everyone has a good time and feels challenged as well as adequately rewarded... to tailor adventures to give often wildly different characters and play styles chances to shine, and do a balancing act with all of their own mechanics as well as judging everyone else's -- even when certain players might not be anywhere near as thoughtful about their team-mates as they should.

So in one paragraph: GMs are supposed to present as well as anticipate everything, remember everything the players have been presented with and keep details and patterns in mind so as to realize opportunities to improve/advance the plot, seek enjoyment in an often thankless task of trying to entertain everybody, and when we do our jobs well we always lose by the smallest margin, and when we do our jobs poorly we always and quickly win. A good campaign depends on every player at the table, but none are as accountable or responsible for it going right than the GM... and they often do not have the devoted co-operation of their players to do this.

More than anything I want players to not just have fun, but to feel like their choices (not just when leveling up mind you) mattered, and that the stories are worth remembering. I am never happier than when I come up with something completely original, the party comes up with a completely original solution, and everybody has a sense of accomplishment.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Dms need to learn to accept what they cannot control, adapt quickly, have fun and not be so authoritarian.

It is about running good games and giving them a challenge.

[cmastah]

I'm glad to be reading people's views on DMing, especially those of the mindset that they're players as well. I'm having a hard time bearing the method of my current DM (who essentially deifies any NPC who's there to give us a quest so that we can't technically say no, or who also railroads to the point that our actions are meaningless), a guy can be trying to reason with him (outside of sessions, not in-game) and there'd be no point because if he fears the players are getting powerful, not only does he refuse, but he's nerfed spells and abilities because he wants to tell a story and effectively we're just there to watch.

Vicon wrote:

I'm also, whether a player or a GM -- very much of a mind that if a GM is worth playing with, their word is final and their heightened responsibilities accord them a higher degree of deference and respect. The rules have pretty well established (as has custom) that the buck stops with the GM, and chiseling, whining, or bogging down a game with lawyering is bad form by the players. Tyrant GMs should be stripped of their office. A good GM should be accorded respect and deference even when players may not agree -- because no player can (nor should) be aware of all the subtleties and intricacies that go along with what they want. Sometimes a transitory concern or single bell or whistle on a player's character can make a GM's entire job vastly more difficult into perpetuity... if allowed, this will cause the GM to have less fun as time goes on, which will translate into less fun for the players. You need only look up the threads on "Pun Pun" to see what kind of stuff DMs face, indeed what they must constantly be vigilant for -- if they don't, campaigns can be sentences to rapid or worse slow, annoying death for all involved. Just too much of an imbalance in power between party members can strain the system creating situations where to harm the strongest player at all the GM must risk killing the entire rest of the party that is not so strong -- or the alternative is to throw out a challenge suitable to the normal characters to which the strongest player cannot fail. What this means to me? GMing well is hard. You shouldn't give your GM bullcrap if you can manage not to.

I'd say what a DM means to me isn't much different than most people. We want a GM to plan ahead to the extent that is necessary, make sure everyone has a good time and feels challenged as well as adequately rewarded... to tailor adventures to give often wildly different characters and play styles chances to shine, and do a balancing act with all of their own mechanics as well as judging everyone else's -- even when certain players might not be anywhere near as thoughtful about their team-mates as they should.

So in one paragraph: GMs are supposed to present as well as anticipate everything, remember everything the players have been presented with and keep details and patterns in mind so as to realize opportunities to improve/advance the plot, seek enjoyment in an often thankless task of trying to entertain everybody, and when we do our jobs well we always lose by the smallest margin, and when we do our jobs poorly we always and quickly win. A good campaign depends on every player at the table, but none are as accountable or responsible for it going right than the GM... and they often do not have the devoted co-operation of their players to do this.

More than anything I want players to not just have fun, but to feel like their choices (not just when leveling up mind you) mattered, and that the stories are worth remembering. I am never happier than when I come up with something completely original, the party comes up with a completely original solution, and everybody has a sense of accomplishment.

You've just described why I refuse to run a 4e campaign. My current DM fudges die rolls like mad, why? To build tension and make combat feel difficult, essentially it doesn't matter one inch what our characters are built like, he has the final word on whether or not the blow hits, raising and lowering AC and saves as would be exciting (per his estimation). When he was a player in 4e, he also intentionally built characters that were broken (he built a character who could one-shot tiamat). His previous DM built challenges to counter his characters and consequently the other characters (who were not optimized) had to pay for it. When he wants the story to go a certain way, even if the PCs could move mountains and shake planets, they were effectively as tough as babies when he makes his mind up.

He's also apparently read one too many 'the DM is god' memes, he doesn't accept that characters perhaps aren't interested in getting involved with what's currently happening and sometimes railroads in obscene manners to make sure it stays that way. I don't bother saying anything because the other players seem to be okay with this form of DMing and as it is, he couldn't care less what I think (although he still wants me to stay, the group needs a healer -.-'). The fact that he distances himself from his players means there's no reasoning with him, not even out of the game.

I'm asking this because I was desperately hoping that it isn't wrong to treat the players as normal friends rather than distance myself as a coach to them. I want to give my players the ability to discuss and reason with me rather than think any opinion they have is meaningless.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Throw your character sheet at him.

Also I am disgusted by his cheese and power gaming.

Be a good guy dm, and you'll be fine. Occasionally make a hard game so they don't get too entitled.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Sigilwraith pretty much wrote everything I would have, leaving out only a couple of things. I will bend, break, even ignore a rule if it will make a scene more exciting for the players. As an example, we recently ran a game where two players were chasing the bad guy up a flight of stairs as he tried to escape with the macguffin. One of the players is a telepath psion, so he uses mind thrust on him and completely disables the guy. When he falls he reveals another bad guy who wanted the goodie and was waiting for him with a loaded crossbow. So one of the players, a bard, dives forward to grab the item while casting sleep on the crossbowman at the same time just as he pulls the trigger. The bolt ricochets off the wall inches from his head, but he grabs the item and returns it to its rightful owner.

I know fully well that without a concentration check and blah blah blah this shouldn't have happened. But slowing everything down to make a bunch of rolls would've killed the tension and action that had built up in that scene. The players were aware of it and even said, "Weren't we supposed to ....." and I said yes, but wasn't this more fun? And these 25+ year veterans all shouted "Huzzah" and guzzled more Mt. Dew as they moved on to the next part of the game.

[FireberdGNOME]

A good GM is...

1) Referee
2) Director
3) All of the 'bit parts'
4) Final Arbitrating Voice

As a referee a GM has to have a good (not perfect) grasp of the rules, and has to be flexible enough to say YES and NO as befits the game. "Can I play a Huge Monstrous Sea Lion in the Skulll & Shackles you are gunna run?" No! "Can my pirate sweep from the rigging into the evil ship captain and bull rush him over board?" Yes!

As a Director the GM is responsible for setting and pacing of the story. He is not a script writer, though he is the dialogue coach for #3 above. The GM should not say, "Your character wouldn't do that" but he should say, "After you shove the bartender to the floor you see his three sons stand up and pull cudgels from their belts..."

As "All of the bit parts" the GM has a lot on his/her plate! NPC interaction and dialogue; enemy stats and combat actions. For this work the GM needs some patience granted by the players: it can be a lot to track.

The Final Arbitrating Voice *does* mean the GM's rulings are final. This is where the Players have to understand it is not "GM Fiat" in it's evil, ugly, bullying context. It *does* mean players have to be willing to abide decisions, especially with on the fly decisions! Or, players and GMs can just sit and argue rather than game... :/ The flip side is that the GM has to be fair minded about the game. The GM cannot 'oh, yeah, it doesn't work that way' fiat stuff just because his bad guys are dying in droves. The GM is the Referee and thus is obligated to remain distant enough to not allow his/her feelings affect the game (except to encourage the players and participate in the fun!)

Most importantly, GMs are entitled to enjoy running the game. Players are not allowed to hold them hostage to the rules. If a player is so set on "The Rules Say This" then you may need to swap seats and run the game yourself.

(I do believe in Player Entitlement: All Players (GMs are palyers, too) are entitled to have fun!)

GNOME

[Vicon]

I say gamesetmatch: Advantage FireberdGNOME.

That is IT. If I could burn half a feat and take "Succinct" -- when I tried to post I would look less like a wall of text and more like your post.

Therin lies the rub. I'm trying to get my players off the rigging and into the captain's face as rapidly as possible. I'll hear technical concerns or bear correction as readily as the next guy -- but I won't argue and after a certain point it's for after the game. And if a player is making a habit of grabbing the steering wheel they're gonna get invited to run their own game.

The entire reason for anyone having a final say is that the elephant in the room has always been the system is really really complicated. Sometimes situations could go either way, are totally ambiguous, or even the problem is the system's fault (ie, Pun-Pun.)

And when that happens Daddy has to make a ruling, and if we're not all best friends then sometimes son gets testy.

But you definitely said it best. No "Hostage to the rules" and certainly not "Hostage to the players perception of the rules"

[Irontruth]

My job as the GM is to encourage interesting things to happen.

I'm the PC's number one fan. That means I want to watch them face difficult challenges... and succeed... most of the time.

Neither success, nor failure, should be boring. If it is boring, it doesn't require dice. We figure out what should happen and move on.

It's my job to push the players towards tough choices, whether that's tactical, emotional, strategic or dramatic.

Right now I'm running a shadowrun game. We play every other week from 6-9pm. With only 3 hours, I don't have time for in depth accounting and bookkeeping. I don't have time to waste while players flounder for clues or valuable information. When things get boring, someone gets shot. Then things aren't so boring.

Last week, things got boring, so there was a car bomb. I have no clue who put it there, but I do know that it went off. The chaos that happened after that was a lot of fun for everyone, players and me.

I solicit player input a lot too. That way I find out what it is they think will be interesting.

[cmastah]

@Vicon
@FireberdGNOME

I agree, I've recently been DMing some PF and forgot some rules (mainly the invisibility rules) so I simply applied what I remembered so we could get on with the game.

My main problem with my current DM getting free with the rules is when he intentionally nerfs classes and races because they have abilities that are....not damage oriented. Take detect evil, it's been removed entirely from the game, diplomacy has become an opposed check against sense motive because flat DCs are hard to alter and dark vision has been nerfed because it doesn't let him build 'scary' moments. The events in the story feel more like a script, telling us which location to head to next and what to do exactly. As for his bad guys dying in droves, the one time he did drop bad guys on us, he didn't even let us finish it, merely some powerful creatures come by and we have to make a run for it (actually, again, scripted NPC comes by and yells something to the effect of 'run into my protective circle'). The few times we DO have to fight to the end, it's a boss fight and it lasts until we're on our last legs, not because it has a lot of HP, but because he can't be bothered to track it and makes the fight hard by dragging it out until our characters can barely walk. Oh no wait, even then it doesn't die, another NPC comes in and saves the day.....I've tried leaving the session, but he rages a bit and since he's a friend I don't really want to offend him, but this is getting out of hand.

I'd hate to see what he'd nerf if I took an inquisitor.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Darkvision can allow the most scary moments. Seeing true horror as opposed to not being able to see it, and that it is coming this way.

[3.5 Loyalist]

cmastah wrote:

@Vicon

@FireberdGNOME

I agree, I've recently been DMing some PF and forgot some rules (mainly the invisibility rules) so I simply applied what I remembered so we could get on with the game.

My main problem with my current DM getting free with the rules is when he intentionally nerfs classes and races because they have abilities that are....not damage oriented. Take detect evil, it's been removed entirely from the game, diplomacy has become an opposed check against sense motive because flat DCs are hard to alter and dark vision has been nerfed because it doesn't let him build 'scary' moments. The events in the story feel more like a script, telling us which location to head to next and what to do exactly. As for his bad guys dying in droves, the one time he did drop bad guys on us, he didn't even let us finish it, merely some powerful creatures come by and we have to make a run for it (actually, again, scripted NPC comes by and yells something to the effect of 'run into my protective circle'). The few times we DO have to fight to the end, it's a boss fight and it lasts until we're on our last legs, not because it has a lot of HP, but because he can't be bothered to track it and makes the fight hard by dragging it out until our characters can barely walk. Oh no wait, even then it doesn't die, another NPC comes in and saves the day.....I've tried leaving the session, but he rages a bit and since he's a friend I don't really want to offend him, but this is getting out of hand.

I'd hate to see what he'd nerf if I took an inquisitor.

To leave, use withdraw, followed by a few full moves until out of sight.

[FireberdGNOME]

... "scripted NPC...". "NPC saves the day..."

Say no more. Your DM wants to be a hero, not a referee. This doesn't work because it turns the PCs into spectators. I would be hard pressed to explain how that is better than watching bad tv...

GNOME

[3.5 Loyalist]

Yep, not an objective fellow, clearly.

[Kthulhu]

Being a GM means that no matter what you do, someone is going to b$@## about it on Paizo, and at least 2/3 of the responses will say "Fire your GM."

[3.5 Loyalist]

I've been a bad dm, I live with my dishonour and shameful displays, but try not to be terrible in the present and future.

[cmastah]

The truth is that since the other players are fine with his DMing style then I don't really want to rock the boat, I'm just not really interested in continuing in his campaign (hopefully I can leave peacefully without offending a good friend of many years by too much, because he's hooked on this idea that the party needs a healer, he doesn't want to lose the cleric).