What Makes a Great DM?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

If the DM has mountain dew it shall be a good night indeed


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheMonocleRogue wrote:

Three things: adaptability, knowledge of the core rules, and learning to disregard the core rules in favor of fun.

And Mountain Dew. Lots and lots of Mountain Dew.

Throwback Mountain Dew, with real sugar. *drools*.

And cheesy poofs. With extra orange powder. So your character sheet gets the stains that makes it a real character sheet.


Skeld wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
a)Prewritten adventures are a crutch for experienced groups, I literally never use them.

I'm an experienced GM (a very experienced GM) and I disagree with this one. Homebrewing can be great when you have the time to dedicate to it. Prewritten adventures are very useful because much of the up-front work is already done and it allows me to take that time and focus on other stuff. It's especially true here, where the prewritten adventures Paizo publishes have so much additional material available that other GMs have posted.

-Skeld

I have had bad experiences with people running prewritten stuff, as it often resulted in severe railroading. I may have spoken hastily however, as I'm sure a good GM could make them enjoyable.

I retract my statement, as you raise a very valid point here, especially about the addition material (I like discovering a nifty new feat or trait every once in a while!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
I have had bad experiences with people running prewritten stuff, as it often resulted in severe railroading. I may have spoken hastily however, as I'm sure a good GM could make them enjoyable.

And a truly good GM can direct you along the path without you ever realizing he's doing it. :)

Silver Crusade Contributor

I don't know how much I can add here. I'm usually DMing, and I'd feel a little silly going on about how awesome I am. Plus, my phone needs to charge...

Let me get my thoughts in order. :)


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
And a truly good GM can direct you along the path without you ever realizing he's doing it. :)

This is a simple trick that's not always easy to implement, but I've gotten quite good at it over the years. If the players take option Q from the list of Options A,B, or C, let them think you planned it all along.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

a willingness to kill a PC.

i dont mean that as a tongue in cheek comment, but as a serious one.

If you have a DM that is willing to fudge rolls, to tweak rules, and modify encounters simply because players get struck with bad luck, then that is a DM, IMO, that doesnt value the life and hard work that a player puts into his/her character.

By telling the players straight out "i will kill you. I do not hide my rolls, i do not fudge encounters, if the goblin crit kills you, then you will die and may need to roll up a new pc." i have had pcs laugh at this until they did die, and then they get all pissy because i didnt save their pc. i just look at them and say "what did i tell you at the start?"

Now, is this way meant for everyone? no. you have to have the willingness as a DM to make the world that much more real. Flesh out your NPCs, give life to the local hamlet. Have the PCs get involved in a "hatfield/mccoy" situation even if it doesnt deal with the major plot. By threatening the PC lives, you have to make them want to live in your world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RIZZENMAGNUS wrote:

a willingness to kill a PC.

i dont mean that as a tongue in cheek comment, but as a serious one.

If you have a DM that is willing to fudge rolls, to tweak rules, and modify encounters simply because players get struck with bad luck, then that is a DM, IMO, that doesnt value the life and hard work that a player puts into his/her character.

By telling the players straight out "i will kill you. I do not hide my rolls, i do not fudge encounters, if the goblin crit kills you, then you will die and may need to roll up a new pc." i have had pcs laugh at this until they did die, and then they get all pissy because i didnt save their pc. i just look at them and say "what did i tell you at the start?"

Now, is this way meant for everyone? no. you have to have the willingness as a DM to make the world that much more real. Flesh out your NPCs, give life to the local hamlet. Have the PCs get involved in a "hatfield/mccoy" situation even if it doesnt deal with the major plot. By threatening the PC lives, you have to make them want to live in your world.

I have to pretty much completely disagree. Not necessarily about fudging, but I like a pretty low lethality game. If that involves a little bit of fudging when the dice go bad or the GM misjudges an encounter, that's fine by me. If it just involves generally easier fights, that's fine too.

Maybe that "doesnt value the life and hard work that a player puts into his/her character", but less so in my opinion than too frequent deaths or pushing the players into paranoid mode to stay alive.

Honestly, you say right there that your players get pissy with you when you do it. Do you think that means they're having a great time and will praise you as a great GM?

Don't get me wrong, some players do love that style of play. More power to them and to you. It's not for everyone and it's certainly not required to be a great GM or to not value the player's work.

Your last bit about making your world more real and fleshing out NPCs is almost always a good idea, but it's good no matter how much you threaten the PC's lives.


RIZZENMAGNUS wrote:

a willingness to kill a PC.

i dont mean that as a tongue in cheek comment, but as a serious one.

If you have a DM that is willing to fudge rolls, to tweak rules, and modify encounters simply because players get struck with bad luck, then that is a DM, IMO, that doesnt value the life and hard work that a player puts into his/her character.

By telling the players straight out "i will kill you. I do not hide my rolls, i do not fudge encounters, if the goblin crit kills you, then you will die and may need to roll up a new pc." i have had pcs laugh at this until they did die, and then they get all pissy because i didnt save their pc. i just look at them and say "what did i tell you at the start?"

Now, is this way meant for everyone? no. you have to have the willingness as a DM to make the world that much more real. Flesh out your NPCs, give life to the local hamlet. Have the PCs get involved in a "hatfield/mccoy" situation even if it doesnt deal with the major plot. By threatening the PC lives, you have to make them want to live in your world.

I have to pretty much completely agree.

But we've already had this argument on many other threads. It's very interesting, but not worth the derail here.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I don't know how much I can add here. I'm usually DMing, and I'd feel a little silly going on about how awesome I am. Plus, my phone needs to charge...

Let me get my thoughts in order. :)

Alright, here we go. My epic treatise on GMing, my way. (I won't go full Tyrant Princess for this one. She's for bad GM threads.)

casts Power Word tl;dr

A good GM works with players to realize their concept. I have a very broad knowledge of both Golarion and the various character options, so when a player says "I want to play a former ditch-digger who fights with a shovel" or "I want to play an Ulfen spear-and-shield master" or "I want to play a half-orc Shelynite battledancer" (hi, Mikaze!), I can help them find all the right pieces to help their character's build match their vision (Rough and Ready, Shield-Trained, and Spear Dancer, respectively).

If a player wants to play something that isn't necessarily in your standard setting, try to find a way to introduce it. (Yes, I know all the "no elves in my setting" stories.) I've had a player play a (neutral) cleric of Urgathoa in my Carrion Crown campaign, and found it very rewarding. Another player wanted to be a staff magus with a scythe. It didn't seem any better than a scimitar or w/e so I allowed it. My favorite examples for this, though, are from my Wrath of the Righteous campaign.

A player had a character he'd been wanting to play for a while - a half-elf half-duergar (impossible in Golarion) with a deep backstory that involved an elvish love interest of wavering loyalty (and that didn't tie that well into Golarion's geography). He woke up with amnesia about two weeks before campaign start - in fact, in-character, he didn't even know he wasn't a funny-eared dwarf until a cleric of Torag attempted to beat some sense into him. (He is a destined-bloodline bloodrager who refuses to wear armor, and has the Trickster mythic path.) My solution:

Such spoiler. Much Righteous. Wow.:
He's a creation of Desna. I decided that the elvish priestess in Arueshalae's backstory was a reincarnated duergar, and that his backstory, up to falling in love with a raven-haired elfmaid who betrayed him and then had a change of heart, was the dream that Arueshalae entered, and that caused Desna to notice her. Desna then incarnated him, albeit in the Worldwound, and all he knows is that this woman led him to safety before fleeing. He's been using modify memory to learn more about his past, and has been having dreams of his elfmaid love being menaced by an ugly hag...

In addition, I put a green-haired half-glabrezu Kellid rage prophet/ex-Desnan in (result of a failed Azverindus Rite; see next story). They've been listening to her insane ramblings (they imprisoned her to try to help her recover). She's told them that "the spiders with too many thoughts" want him because "he's full of stardust and dreaming". More of her later.

Another player in WotR had a slightly more mundane idea. He took the Stolen Fury trait, which has a demonic ritual in the character's backstory. The ritual in the trait fails completely (other than setting up Mythic). His thought, however, was having it transform Xemna (the character) into a invidiak-style tiefling, having her tragically cast out from a formerly loving family in Taldor. I loved it. (He also wanted one of the tiefling d% abilities, specifically rage, with some tweaks - self-only, free action activation, aesthetic flourishes - which I allowed.)

More Wrath of the Righteous spoilers:
I described the demonic rite as being led by an "emerald-haired elvish woman" - the same one who later was involved with the rage prophet from above. I knew shadow demons played a big part in WotR, and every time she fought one, it's been absorbed into her, fuelling her rise to divinity. Eustoyriax was obviously a key player in that.

She's also been redeeming people like mad, including an ex-paladin of Erastil that had been possessed (and who the half-duergar from above - accidentally and unknowingly - did a Bad Thing to). Her obvious invidiak appearance also made things awkward with Aron Kir.

The rage prophet had some ramblings for her too, telling her that "the man with the Black Voice" wanted to capture her, because she knew "the Secret". She is the only character with Divine Source in the party...

Since Xemna was from a southern Taldan family, and was kind of racist against Keleshites (for intentional irony), I also add Taldan and/or Keleshite elements where I can. She fell hard for the succubus duelist's deception, simply because Kiranda played up the Taldan swagger. She later went out of her way to resurrect the original Maranse.

She's also married to a tiefling rogue, Helkrix, who originally appeared as part of a random encounter. This, and some of the stuff behind that spoiler, lead to my next point.

If the players find someone interesting, roll with it, and don't deny the opportunity for redemption as a knee-jerk reaction. (It's OK to draw the line at times, though.) My Reign of Winter GM (player of Xemna) knew I would love Greta, and went with it when the time came. The same thing happened with Sasha in my Serpent's Skull campaign. In Wrath of the Righteous, it's actually gotten to the point of too many NPCs at times, especially since the redemption-focused party haven't left too many behind. (The other cohort in WotR is a redeemed cleric of Baphomet, now of Desna, who fell for one of the trickster's bluffs.) I don't expect them to redeem too many more in Book 4 and on, though...

Some of the points about Xemna also apply here - if a PC is structured around certain themes, try to play into that where you can. You don't have to sacrifice realism for it, but if you know you have a redemption-loving PC, try to adjust certain foes to allow that opportunity. In Xemna's case, I would add certain touches, such as Maranse Delaskru as a swaggering Taldan swashbuckler, or the way Nurah played her violin (a former interest of Xemna's, before the tiefling transformation sapped her intelligence), or the way certain crusaders and demons interacted with her. In my Serpent's Skull campaign, a player's conniving adopted sister appeared as the Aspis Consortium's faction leader. In Council of Thieves, one player went all-in on the Child of Infamy trait, so I added other performances to build the character's career.

I second what someone earlier said about voices. I do my best. :) I did get kind of a Thurston Howell III (or, if you prefer, Cave Guy) thing for the villain of Carrion Crown. I was very fond of it. I go rough and raspy for certain foes, such as SV from Wrath. And I have a nasty slurpy sort of voice for whenever the ulat-kini show up.

There are subtler variants, too. For example, Jask Derindi (of Serpent's Skull) is getting along in age and has been on the run, so I added a bit of weariness. A bit of coy aloofness is great for a certain redhead from Council of Thieves, while her brother demands something a little more... imperious. As for the Path's most infamous ex-Pathfinder, I gave him an almost-comic foppishness. Who's going to tell him he's wrong, after all? And I'm really looking forward to playing the Queen of Korvosa. >:)

Body language can be good too, as long as you have the right balance of subtlety and energy. Stand tall and broaden your shoulders for a menacing Hellknight, hunch a little for a conniving advisor, bounce a little for your favorite manic ex-Mantis. For a particularly dramatic individual, big, sweeping gestures are good, while a Red Mantis strike leader might limit herself to small, economical gestures even in casual conversation.

Wake of the Watcher; TW: body horror, tentacles:
Playing up the twitching, jerky walk of the spawning canker, describing/imitating its cries as identical to a human infant, and describing the way it forced its tendrils down the magus's throat really sold the horror. Know your group, though.

On that note, really good descriptions, either off-the-cuff or prewritten, are great. It's a talent I highly recommend developing. This can even extend to body language, if you're playing over Skype. It can add a lot of flavor to a campaign or adventure.

The guy who plays the half-duergar in WotR is pretty good at voices too, if a bit stereotypical (he plays a lot of dwarves). Side story: we actually got him into D&D with dwarves, as he's a blacksmith IRL (from a fundamentalist Christian family). So we were all like "Hammers and drinking and stuff" and he was in. He also has kind of a Russian thing going for his Jadwiga musket master in Reign of Winter...

Reign of Winter:
Also, per my point about tying PCs in, Nazhena is his character's ex-girlfriend. It got real awkward for his character.

He's a great GM, when he can find the time, and has the combination of talent to come up with really great and involved stories, while at the same time giving PCs a lot of agency.

On the topic of fudging: I have no moral opposition to it or w/e. I've had a GM who leaned on it a bit too much, though. Monsters wouldn't die until he felt like it, enemies who always hit, save-or-die spells never work, etc. GM Tyrant horror story. So when GMing, I lean a bit in the other direction, usually bending a lot of my effort during prep to create the requisite challenge through system mastery, rather than that sort of thing.

In Carrion Crown, I added hp on-the-spot to two encounters: the Aberrant Promethean and the Devil in Gray. Both times, the PCs said afterward that those were some of their most exciting fights.

I've also taken to rolling save-or-die effects in plain view (with a little fanfare). It's added a lot of excitement for the players. And if a proud erinyes warrior ends up as someone's pet kitten, well, it happens. So I highly recommend at least giving this method a try. If you feel a little uncomfortable, try to find other protections for certain villains - rerolls, immunities, that sort of thing.

(That erinyes-kitten was super-adorable. I want one.)

I allow pretty much all Paizo material, and am generally open-minded about third-party or 3.5. Hasn't been a problem yet. Still, I understand if others are a bit leery. Not everyone has my kind of time. :)

I think that's enough for now. Is anyone still reading? Anyway, thank you for doing so, and feel free to ask questions or add comments. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The most encompassing idea that I know for how to be a great dm...

When the player has an idea...

IT IS A GREAT IDEA!... every single time.

Your job is then to figure out for yourself how to make it a great idea.

Sometimes the most important first step is teaching yourself not to think of other peoples ideas as bad.


Kalindlara wrote:
That erinyes-kitten was super-adorable. I want one.

I am reminded of a certain ancient red dragon in an old AD&D campaign that was polymorphed into a puppy. It retained its intelligence and its ability to speak. Listening to a puppy roar "I am Krishnaragh the Red and you will all pay with your lives!" at the top of its squeaky puppy lungs was a hoot. And, of course, our druid wouldn't let us kill it. She wanted to raise it as a pet, and teach it the error of its ways.

So inevitably, our ranger woke up to find the puppy trying to chew up his boots of the winterlands. (Krishnaragh had the mistaken belief that consuming magic items would fuel his dragon nature and break the polymorph.)

That was the same campaign wherein a succubus, unable to enter our Daern's instant Fortress, placed a symbol of death right outside the door so that when we emerged the next morning everybody passed over it safely (too many HP) while the lowly 2nd edition bard dropped dead on the spot.

He died a lot in that campaign. :)

The point of this is that I support the occasional PC death, but I don't care much for the old "save or die" stuff. Fudging a bit is not going to destroy the game, if a PC's death would result in the player being out of the game for most of the session.

(And a fudged roll would have let the %@*#ing dragon have a low enough intelligence that it would eventually lose itself to full-on puppytude.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Know your strong points and use them effectively.

Our GM's other hobby is as a puppeteer. He has a bunch of them. He has used one as a halfling thief in one encounter and two others as ghosts for our Oracle for one of her curses.

It has brought some laughs to the game table.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

The most encompassing idea that I know for how to be a great dm...

When the player has an idea...

IT IS A GREAT IDEA!... every single time.

Your job is then to figure out for yourself how to make it a great idea.

Sometimes the most important first step is teaching yourself not to think of other peoples ideas as bad.

Sometimes they are bad ideas. Sometimes they are the type of bad that will get themselves or the party killed. Sometimes they are just bad for the specific campaign for whatever reason.

I am more of a middle-ground person and I might say what about ____, and try to compromise.

In that way I am not letting the player set themselves up for failure, or putting myself in a situation where I have to rewrite an entire campaign or worry about inter-party conflict later on.

Example: A player wanted to worship a certain deity. Due to the current campaign and information they had not come across yet there was no way for the player to be a part of the party, and fight against this deity.

No, he had no intention of realizing the error of his ways in character, and not he did not want the party kill him, or have to leave the party. Just to be clear he was not wanting to play someone who only partially agreed with this deity. He wanted to be a full on worshipper.

I highly suggested he choose another deity, even if it was a similar one. Now, I was not going to force him to not choose this deity, but it would not have ended well. The other players(not PC's) did not know about this, and had they known they would not have said "this is a bad idea" as nicely as I did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course there will always be exceptions...

I just dont think focusing on them accomplishes much.

I'd posit that most of the time the best thing about the game is the freedom to have bad ideas.

I mean at the end of the day a guys deciding him and his three buddies (or three strangers he met at a bar) are gonna go get rich by hunting a hundred foot fire breathing lizard by themselves constitutes a bad idea...

Walking into a the cave of a lich thats hundreds of years old is a bad idea...

When I think of the word 'adventurer' the last two words I think of are 'safe and prudent'

The game kinda runs on bad ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What makes a great DM varies with each player's definition of "great."

I've read, in this thread alone, posts that nearly made my blood boil they were so wrong—to me. Obviously for that person, though, it defines greatness.

A great DM immerses you in their reality, without destroying your creativity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Come to think of it...

Most of harrison ford's characters and half the cast of goonies and I think galaxy quest are the three movies I can come up with off the top of my head where the characters themselves stated outright 'this is a bad idea' before immediately doing it. I love those movies.

I actually went back through the thread looking for things I disagree with and I gotta say the only one's I'm not really on board with are the drinking ones...

I find a table with a lot of alchohol in them isnt really focused... A gm full of mountain dew also kinda isnt really focused, heheheheh.... and I have no idea what the whole 'drink your milk' thing is about... But other than that I think great ideas all around.

Perhaps if someone came up with the perfect blend of wine, milk, and mountain dew I could be swayed... But that drink sounds horrible.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Come to think of it...

Most of harrison ford's characters and half the cast of goonies and I think galaxy quest are the three movies I can come up with off the top of my head where the characters themselves stated outright 'this is a bad idea' before immediately doing it. I love those movies.

I actually went back through the thread looking for things I disagree with and I gotta say the only one's I'm not really on board with are the drinking ones...

I find a table with a lot of alchohol in them isnt really focused... A gm full of mountain dew also kinda isnt really focused, heheheheh.... and I have no idea what the whole 'drink your milk' thing is about... But other than that I think great ideas all around.

Perhaps if someone came up with the perfect blend of wine, milk, and mountain dew I could be swayed... But that drink sounds horrible.

Yeah I agree. I also doubt the sanity of most adventurers.

"The dragon/lich/cabal of vampires/etc is bothering people. Let's go teach it a lesson." <----This is really not a good idea to most sane people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

Come to think of it...

Most of harrison ford's characters and half the cast of goonies and I think galaxy quest are the three movies I can come up with off the top of my head where the characters themselves stated outright 'this is a bad idea' before immediately doing it. I love those movies.

Kickass. Good movie and he has a serious PTS breakdown after his first fight (the brawl at Rasul's).

Vincent Takeda wrote:

...stuff about drinking and gaming...

Perhaps if someone came up with the perfect blend of wine, milk, and mountain dew I could be swayed... But that drink sounds horrible.

Don't sip it like a martini! Drink it with two-fisted pints and, when the second round arrives, you'll be IC LARPing the skirmish and lov'n it.

:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RIZZENMAGNUS wrote:

a willingness to kill a PC.

i dont mean that as a tongue in cheek comment, but as a serious one.

If you have a DM that is willing to fudge rolls, to tweak rules, and modify encounters simply because players get struck with bad luck, then that is a DM, IMO, that doesnt value the life and hard work that a player puts into his/her character.

By telling the players straight out "i will kill you. I do not hide my rolls, i do not fudge encounters, if the goblin crit kills you, then you will die and may need to roll up a new pc." i have had pcs laugh at this until they did die, and then they get all pissy because i didnt save their pc. i just look at them and say "what did i tell you at the start?"

I'm going to have to completely disagree with you entirely on this point.

As a GM, I'll let PCs die due to stupid tactics, obviously bad decisions, heroic action to save others, or in the final battle with the BBEG of the campaign. I'm not going to kill a PC due to Thug #3 getting lucky and scoring two critical hits. This is why I roll ALL my dice BEHIND the screen: I'm not going to derail the story just because of a few particularly unlucky dice rolls. (Complicate the story? Sure. Derail it? no.)

This is for the very reason you cite: I value the work players have done to craft a character that fits my campaign, carefully nurtured over several weeks/months/years, and that I've incorporated into the storyline of my game.

Getting killed isn't fun. The PCs are supposed to be the heroes of the story. While it can be dramatically appropriate (and a fitting end) for a PC to die in the right circumstances-- especially if the player chooses to sacrifice the character for the greater good (of the story). But it's just not fun to get killed in a meaningless random wilderness encounter.

Of course... I don't actually TELL my players this...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A suitably glorious viking helmet.

A wall of fear and ignorance.

A fully charged electric cattle prod.

A sense of humor.


I mostly GM now bit some of the things that I would do are as follows.

1) Have the PC's write up detailed backgrounds, I would help those who had troubles doing this without telling them what to write so their background was truley theirs. I would use those backgrounds and bring some in to play. For instance, they run in to a childhood crush and would have to rp through it, or other non threat scenarios though they come in to play as well.

2) At the end of the session I ask players what elements of the story they liked, disliked, what they might like to see in the future or not see. I take their suggestions in to account and modify where I can. My players know I can take criticism without taking revenge and if it's feesable to incorperate their ideas I will. Some might take longer than others.

3) food, food, and more food. I occasionaly order delivery and it arrives much to the players delight. During breaks we will order food as well and they are good at chipping in from time to time.

4) Research, research, and more research. Learning to add flavor text when appropriate or to leave it out for added suspence. Your players will know when you're only half arsed prepared, gming can be difficult but when your players are happy and talk about "remember when?" Or "That time we did this and almost died, it was epic." Is it's own reward


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Able to describe and deeply convey the socio-political strain felt by the people of a region through the mere look on a crestfallen commoners face, after a player rolled a natural 20 on a sense motive.

"I get all that from just looking at him?"

"Hey you rolled a natural 20, so I provide."

That is a fond memory, but a great dm draws players in with wonderful games, gives them some of what they are looking for, but takes them into a game so entertaining and perhaps unusual (or challenging) that it wasn't exactly what they were asking for, but it was what they needed. A Great Dm is an entertainer that gives you what you didn't even know you wanted. Like a dm pal of mine that created a wonderful cast of varied npcs to help in the exiting adventure. To shape it but give my ninja what felt like real people to work with as I went through kingmaker. A world in the palm of their hand, seemingly effortlessly.

Secondly, another type of great dm is so vivid in their description that you leave this world and are entranced in the deep worlds of their making. Voices have been mentioned, but description and awakening all senses of a player is also crucial. How do the jungles smell? In what ways are areas explained to the player to take them there and feel as if they are experiencing it through their character's senses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great thread. I've experienced so much warm fuzziness reading through this one, but also a great sense of how much diversity there is in what people like about this hobby... obsession... what have you.

I love it when a GM works with me, as well as (in a sense) against me. That is to say, lets me create and grow the character I want to play, but then challenges me with the world that s/he has laid out to be the place wherein all my and my fellow player's PCs act out all our crazy schemes. Nothing must go as planned, for either the GM or the players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So many good points made in this thread.

I am prep-crazy, I've made so many more maps then they will ever visit. I keep excel sheets of NPC activities on any given day. I read as many companions as I can get hold of. I make custom tokens for almost every boss.

And all of that is pretty much for my own enjoyment because my players simply don't care.

Running this campaign I thought I had to be as correct and precise as possible but the group aren't interested. They get excited by the fluff they add to their RP and combat actions. They are happy to be railroaded to the next big events. They love it when an NPC speaks in a crazy accent or the mayor lisps while trying to be arrogant. And they love smashing the bad guys to pieces as if they were cheese.

What I have slowly learned is what THIS group wants, which is different to what other groups have wanted. And within the group, what the individual players want. And so I've learned to tailor the style to them as individuals. So I will be strict with the rules as to what the NPCs can do in combat but for the players...meh..if they're struggling then maybe an imaginative/unfeasible tactic is just as good, and the look of triumph on their faces is worth more than all the preparation and rule-learning put together.

It's been a slow learning process for me, but I think I'm getting there.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Player that don't frequent message boards, so they don't learn that the proper response to absolutely anything a GM could possibly do is to rage-quit and vow never to play with that GM again.


Interesting question. I'm inclined to say that the answer is subjective based upon what players are looking for in a game (of course, my own subjective perspective). I have found GMs each have there own style of running a game. I've gamed with GMs that were rules sticklers, others that were rules are guidelines to be ignored when and if necessary to further the story, and others that fall in between.

For me, I've found that the qualities I look for in a GM are:

Story not detail. Essentially, the rules are secondary to the story, whether social interaction or combats.

Battles run theater-of-the-mind, fast-loose, battles, rather than mini's-grid/tactically intensive.

All players are engaged.

This last one is personal pet-peeve, one that I recognize that is a minority view....ABSOLUTELY NO WIDGETS AT THE TABLE. By widgets I mean - tablets, laptops, smartphones, notes, or any electric gadget. CD player for music is acceptable, barely. I won't play with GMs that allow'em and I do not allow my players to have them at tables I run.


I do my best to be as prepared as possible for each session. My current tabletop campaign is one that I have built over the course of several months using Paizo modules as the backbone of the story. I've cross-referenced the modules to give the characters NPC mentors to interact with and have an emotional attachment to. I do whatever I can to make the world of Golarion seem like a real living world.

If they are starting a new adventure, we will usually play through the journey as they leave their home in Kassen and travel up river or through the woods. I let them feel the journey and experience the sights and sounds of that particular environment. Most recently, my players traveled to Kaer Maga which involved a boat trip, then jaunt by caravan, barge trip and a guided journey up the Halflight Path with the Duskwardens. I could have just as easily had them step foot right into Kaer Maga without mentioning any of that - but making them take the trip gives a sense of geography to their Golarion.

I have started adding little treats like item cards, face cards and even the chase deck. I put them all into use each session. Item cards are used for treasure drops. The PC's enjoy discovering hidden treasures because I throw the cards on the table facedown and they have those few moments of waiting with baited breath as they reach across the table to turn the cards over. They enjoy holding the cards in their hands and discussing what they have found. The chase cards make for another exciting in-game element that makes the events feel more cinematic.

Beyond that, I just try to remain open to anything the PCs suggest. I enjoy watching them come up with creative approaches to the adventure or to their character in general. I do my best to meet them halfway. Even though I have plotted their adventure through a series of modules, their Golarion is adaptable enough that they can sandbox to any section of it if need be.

I don't know if this makes for great DM'ing, but it makes for fun gaming and that's what it's all about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Having players who are willing to try to roll with the concept of a campaign instead of bucking it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Player that don't frequent message boards, so they don't learn that the proper response to absolutely anything a GM could possibly do is to rage-quit and vow never to play with that GM again.

*Gasp*

You mean to say that a game that is great to play with friends is ruined by forums and their toxic essence, filled as it is with diatribes of people complaining, criticising and looking for every loophole and overpowered option to cram into all future games?

To the pre-internet age! Let us sail the ship Nostalgia home to simpler times.


If we could only be so lucky.


Well, you know, THAC0 is always going to be there, lur... Waiting for you with open arms... It will also helpfully wake up its pal mutilclassing/dualclassing to cheer as you disembark...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In something resembling an order of importance (most important first).

* The ability to convey relevant and necessary information clearly and interestingly, both in game info and rules/game expectation info. Players experience and interact with the game world through you and it's up to you to make sure they get the same idea you have in your head. It's up to you to make NPCs seem like real people, to make locations seem like real places, to make plots and events they can get involved with, to determine the outcomes of actions. Be engaging and vivid.

* the ability to make challenging encounters and situations, even s+&@ty unfair horrible ones, seem fun and reasonable rather than being purely adversarial and mean spirited (granted, the type of game and expectations has some role here)

* the ability to say No. Some players, through ignorance or entitlement, want to do things that don't fit with the setting or game. A GM has to know when to say no to keep the

* the ability to say Yes. Sometimes players throw a spanner in the works. Sometimes they want stuff that isn't exactly what you had in mind. Be lenient and accepting in stuff that truly isn't a big deal, let them mess up your carefully laid plans and ruin the entire campaign because they did something clever/stupid but appropriate for the game/setting.

* know the rules. You don't have know them in and out but you shouldn't have to ask how to determine success or failure of basic actions.
even if everybody is new to the system, make some effort to understand how it works before you jump into it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My better GM's were good people. You don't have to be great at GM'ing to provide a good time, but it helps. However you will get better at that, but players won't enjoy your games as much if the GM is a jerk.


I find adaptability, preparation and willingness to shape the story after the sometimes spontaneous ideas of a player is, at the very least, what I will strive for once my Mastery begins.

As a side note I love the idea of granting players homemade quirks and boons based on emotions and personal quests. In our RotR campaign our sorcerer tragically died and rather gruesomely I might add which visibly scarred my character who would consider the sorcerer a friend. Our DM took in turn to grant me a drawback and a trait that acknowledges the event which is a small but super fun way to shape your character and for the DM to interact and change the characters together with the players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ruthlessness. Integrity. Consistency. Imagination. Descriptive.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
To the pre-internet age! Let us sail the ship Nostalgia home to simpler times.

Well, I did just open an interest check in the Online Campaigns Recruitment forum for people who want to play the AD&D (1e) classic I6: Ravenloft...


thejeff wrote:
I have to pretty much completely disagree. Not necessarily about fudging, but I like a pretty low lethality game.

I agree here, though maybe not for the same reasons. I'm very much in favor of "roleplaying to tell a story". That task becomes harder when the PC is dead. Unless that also helps tell the story - i.e. its a precursor to infiltrating an undead place, etc..

After all, that's what hero points are for. Especially at low levels. At high levels, its harder to kill PCs and resurrection is affordable, so you can have the occasional PC shuffle off his/her mortal coil without any great distress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:
Skeld wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
a)Prewritten adventures are a crutch for experienced groups, I literally never use them.

I'm an experienced GM (a very experienced GM) and I disagree with this one. Homebrewing can be great when you have the time to dedicate to it. Prewritten adventures are very useful because much of the up-front work is already done and it allows me to take that time and focus on other stuff. It's especially true here, where the prewritten adventures Paizo publishes have so much additional material available that other GMs have posted.

-Skeld

I used to feel the way Alex did, but then I bought Iron Gods and realized why these people are able to make a career out of writing campaigns and modules:

They are much, much better at it than myself or anyone I played with. I'm probably going to stick with Paizo's stuff when I'm running PF from now on and save my creative juices for systems that can more easily make use of it, like World of Darkness.

Totally agree here - Paizo does a wonderful job at setting the mood, providing a rich backstory and room for improvisation while still moving the story along. That is key for my gamemastering - ability to shift gears midstream and adapt - keeping the game intestesting with new challenges and side quests. My group is (finally) on book 6 of Shattered Star and the Isle of Xin is torturing my group... they've had to fall back several times and each time the re-equip phase is time for me to re-introduce a minor villian or confidant from the past to help or hinder. They love and hate this. :-)


Haladir wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
To the pre-internet age! Let us sail the ship Nostalgia home to simpler times.
Well, I did just open an interest check in the Online Campaigns Recruitment forum for people who want to play the AD&D (1e) classic I6: Ravenloft...

Urgh, this perfectly accords with my interests. Hate you!


Haladir wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
To the pre-internet age! Let us sail the ship Nostalgia home to simpler times.
Well, I did just open an interest check in the Online Campaigns Recruitment forum for people who want to play the AD&D (1e) classic I6: Ravenloft...

oh God, not again...


I do understand the mentality of players and DMs who don't want to run/play an Adventure Path, though: On some level, your adventure is "canned." You're going where everyone has gone before. It's "boring."

While I'd certainly not disdain APs for those who enjoy them—they can indeed be compelling and wonderfully written, as well as a communal experience with those you've never met—they're not for everyone. In my decades of doing this, I've never run a module/AP. Just doesn't appeal to me.

To me, part of being a truly great DM is creating your own great world. (And that's not to imply that I've declared myself a great DM.)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of pre-written vs homebrew:

I actually am fond of splitting the difference. I like having the overall structure and plot of an AP/module/scenario there for me, and a lot of the tedious groundwork done, but that's not to say I won't really elaborate and add stuff to scratch the creativity urge.

An example would be a PBP I'm running of Entombed with the Pharaohs. It's got a neat set-up for a really epic-feeling dungeon crawl-- the tomb of four legendary pharaohs-- with a nasty curse that can make the PCs lives more complicated.

However, the tomb itself only has... about 5 fights, give or take-- and very little in the way of any more social RP or discovery to do now that they were at the tomb.

That seemed like a shame to me. My players had come all this way across the desert and had had enormous lead-up, and they were going to methodically tick off the four-point-five combat encounters and be done with it?

Nay, said I. I took things hinted at and talked about in the scenario like the fact that the pharaohs have a connection to Aucturn, Paizo's 'Lovecraft' world, and I built on that. I stuck in an aberration haunting the halls who could animate the skeletal honor guard, to play with their preconceptions about running into the undead. I included a bored neutral prankster that could be talked to and befriended-- or fought. I added more traps. I threw in more story, more hook, more rooms, more treasure, and an encounter with a weak manifestation of Nyarlothotep himself.

It's not that the module as written was bad, but using it as a base felt like the best compromise: the pre-written material could serve as a skeleton, on which I could add more meat and more, well, fun.

***

As far as concrete things GMs can do to be better: take the throwaway stuff from your character's backgrounds and play with it. I'll give an example from a 2nd ed game I was playing a while ago:

Since it was my first time trying the older system, I told the GM I'd just play a straight-up fighter, nothing fancy, and he agreed he'd pre-gen a basic bruiser for me. Good physical stats, crummy mental stats, just your basic sword-and-boarder.

For my backstory, I decided that my guy was a failed paladin. His heart was in the right place-- he really wanted to serve his god-- but he just didn't have that divine insight and sense needed to be a paladin. He'd flunked out of paladin school, was how I put it-- but he was still trying to be LG, and do the right thing.

For me, this was just a bit of flavor to lend a personality to my guy.

The GM decided to build on this. We were in a pyramid where my character noticed a secret door. I stepped through... and was transported to an audience with the gods. They asked if I still really, really wanted to serve Tyr-- I said yes (thinking to myself I was going to be a hilariously bad paladin with my nine CHA)-- and the GM handed me my new character sheet.

My stats had shot up to hit the minimums needed to be a paladin in that edition. I wound up having AMAZING stats all around... but that's not what I enjoyed about that. It was that the GM took my idle bit of backstory goofiness, and built an in-story plot around it (the rest of the game revolved around my character's quest for his holy weapon) to facilitate my story.


Jaelithe wrote:
To me, part of being a truly great DM is creating your own great world.

I have to disagree with this. There are tons of really cool settings and great pre-written adventures, and saying that people who enjoy them, run them and do amazing jobs in them aren't great GMs is not only wrong but rather mean-spirited.

I can understand people who have no need for stuff others have written. That's fine and their choice but I've never understood this idea that it is somehow better to do everything on your own rather than use stuff others have written. That's kind of like saying that great singers should only sing stuff they've written themselves.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
To me, part of being a truly great DM is creating your own great world.
I have to disagree with this. There are tons of really cool settings and great pre-written adventures, and saying that people who enjoy them, run them and do amazing jobs in them aren't great GMs is not only wrong but rather mean-spirited.

I would have to agree, though as a whole I do not use premade adventures myself (personal choice on my part) I do see the value of them. There used to be second ed box sets that had adventure cards on them. They ranged from easy, to very difficult and I found those to be helpful when adding to a game session. Sometimes I would use them if I wasn't finished writing the main story.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've taken to running the APs, but heavily customizing the contents to the PCs or to a particular story I'd like to tell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dien wrote:

On the topic of pre-written vs homebrew:

I actually am fond of splitting the difference. I like having the overall structure and plot of an AP/module/scenario there for me, and a lot of the tedious groundwork done, but that's not to say I won't really elaborate and add stuff to scratch the creativity urge.

An example would be a PBP I'm running of Entombed with the Pharaohs. It's got a neat set-up for a really epic-feeling dungeon crawl-- the tomb of four legendary pharaohs-- with a nasty curse that can make the PCs lives more complicated.

However, the tomb itself only has... about 5 fights, give or take-- and very little in the way of any more social RP or discovery to do now that they were at the tomb.

That seemed like a shame to me. My players had come all this way across the desert and had had enormous lead-up, and they were going to methodically tick off the four-point-five combat encounters and be done with it?

Nay, said I. I took things hinted at and talked about in the scenario like the fact that the pharaohs have a connection to Aucturn, Paizo's 'Lovecraft' world, and I built on that. I stuck in an aberration haunting the halls who could animate the skeletal honor guard, to play with their preconceptions about running into the undead. I included a bored neutral prankster that could be talked to and befriended-- or fought. I added more traps. I threw in more story, more hook, more rooms, more treasure, and an encounter with a weak manifestation of Nyarlothotep himself.

It's not that the module as written was bad, but using it as a base felt like the best compromise: the pre-written material could serve as a skeleton, on which I could add more meat and more, well, fun.

***

As far as concrete things GMs can do to be better: take the throwaway stuff from your character's backgrounds and play with it. I'll give an example from a 2nd ed game I was playing a while ago:

Since it was my first time trying the older system, I told the GM I'd just play a straight-up fighter,...

Yeah, hear hear. One of the best dms I know takes APs, and then heavily modifies them. If something is crappy or dull, jettisoned. If an ap starts weak but get spicy, spice will be added earlier.


Thorazeen wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
To me, part of being a truly great DM is creating your own great world.
I have to disagree with this. There are tons of really cool settings and great pre-written adventures, and saying that people who enjoy them, run them and do amazing jobs in them aren't great GMs is not only wrong but rather mean-spirited.
I would have to agree, though as a whole I do not use premade adventures myself (personal choice on my part) I do see the value of them. There used to be second ed box sets that had adventure cards on them. They ranged from easy, to very difficult and I found those to be helpful when adding to a game session. Sometimes I would use them if I wasn't finished writing the main story.

Which means, I think, that you created your own game world and drew upon APs and modules as a resource. I have no issues with that, nor did I disparage those who employ those settings. In addition, I said, "to me," which changes the entire meaning of my statement.

We're not disagreeing, here. I certainly acknowledge that for others trying to be a great DM might not require creating your own cosmos ... but I do think it expands your creative horizons in a way employing APs and modules cannot, because the buck stops with you in a fashion it doesn't when relying on a foundation created by another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

Which means, I think, that you created your own game world and drew upon APs and modules as a resource. I have no issues with that, nor did I disparage those who employ those settings. In addition, I said, "to me," which changes the entire meaning of my statement.

We're not disagreeing, here. I certainly acknowledge that for others trying to be a great DM might not require creating your own cosmos ... but I do think it expands your creative horizons in a way employing APs and modules cannot, because the buck stops with you in a fashion it doesn't when relying on a foundation created by another.

And I've had the opposite experience, once, as a player. DM's world was a canned setting that had so many modifications to it that it was a decided handicap for players to know anything about the published setting. Everything you knew was wrong, though oddly no names had been changed. Worse, players for that campaign were encouraged to read official source material to improve their playing.

I think what this thread has shown is that what makes a great DM is:

Working with and for the players towards the goal of Fun Time.

Not ignoring taking the steps of, formally or informally, using something like the Same Page Tool to ensure everyone is aiming at the same Fun Time target (and maybe there are other less general lessons someone could helpfully summarize*).

*EDIT: Up-thread Bjørn Røyrvik, on Tue, Mar 24, 2015, 11:24 AM gave us a good start.


One trait that comes to mind on what makes a great dm, is a dm that is capable of running things quickly. I've known rules lawyers but who insisted on checking everything, slowing the game down and being indecisive when the rules were not there to hold them in their arms. Great dms can be fast, they also make demands on players that are slow to pick up the pace for all involved. Maybe they are crass "don't fu** around what do you do?" or maybe they are simple insistent or commanding, but either way they push the game onwards towards excitement and don't allow it to be dull, slow and confusing. They can get through the rounds of combat quickly and have purpose and demonstrate real initiative (of at least a +5). They also clearly care about the game and are spending the energy to run a fast moving ship. I like that trait but I don't always see it.

Why do I raise this as a trait of a great dm? Because every single poor dm I've known has had problems here. Being slow to get through combat and rp, barely able to move the story forward, unable to push others to hurry, slow to communicate, liable to leave scenes unfinished before it comes to the players' choice with everyone waiting for the dm to catch up.

Great dms don't stuff about, they are leading the game and quickly moving through what they have to do so that the players have their time to shine. In that sense great dms are also not self indulgent, the game and the players is more important than wasting time or stuffing about.

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What Makes a Great DM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.