Hi all,
What are the making of a great Game Master? When you think back on the GMs that you thought were really great, what qualities do they have in common? What sets a great GM apart from an average GM?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1- Confident fair and consistent with the rules and rulings.
2- Paid attention to the story each player wanted to tell and wove it into the game.
3- Was perfectly familiar with the adventure so much so that he could receive any curve ball the group tossed him and run with it without losing any of the actual module.
4- Presented the world in a engaging and believable fashion that drew players in and made them part of the world.
5- Kept the pace going.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only great GM I ever played with was able to make up dialogues so interesting that I actually enjoyed listening to him and another player interacting.
Of course, this is just a random example. There are many ways to excel as a GM, (s)he could be good at:
* world design
* story design
* encounter (social / battle) design
* NPC design
* rules knowledge
* technical preparation
* plausible roleplay
* creative roleplay
* improvising
* communication with players
* understanding players
* fairness
* etc. etc.
Now that's probably an intimidating list for new and upcoming GMs. I think many people can make it to a great GM, as long as they are openminded and care about both campaign and players. Game Mastery Guide is an excellent starting point for knowledge and attitude.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of it is going to be personal taste. Even things that might seem universal at first (like, say, preparedness) could become inconsequential among a group that loves improvising or making things up as they go along. I could talk about what makes ME really like a GM, but does that really matter?
The only thing I can think of that could be considered universal is communication skills. After all, no matter what kind of GM you are, there's a group out there somewhere for whom your style is perfect; but if you can't get on the same page with your players and figure out whether this is the match you're looking for, you're gonna run into trouble.
EDIT: Okay thought of one other thing, but it might seem a little vague at first. Whatever it is you do as a GM, take the time to become skilled at it. For example, do you want things to conform to the rules? Then invest the time to actually learn the rules, put your ego aside when challenged, and make use of whomever at the table might know the rules better than you. Conversely, do you prefer to rely on circumstantial rulings on a case-by-case basis, rules be damned? Take the time to learn what's fun for your players, learn the ins and outs of the contexts in which your rulings need to work, and work on developing the skill of making rulings that improve the game for more than just yourself. Whatever your style (with regard to rules or anything else), make sure you put in the work to get good at it.
My favorite DM--aside from being great on the fly and having run the DMPC better than anyone I've ever seen--always made it about the players even while he was building a story. His big moments ultimately turned out to be ours.
What Aranna said and SheepishEidolon said. Also, time and energy for preparation are important, since that will be a lot of your GM'ing duty. There are weeks where I only spend 15 minutes on preparation for the weekly session, but that is because I am investing two or more hours in other weeks. And since I GM two groups, that is two times of that preparation.
And I am using adventure paths. If you are doing a homebrewn campaign, expect your workload to at least triple.
1- Confident fair and consistent with the rules and rulings.
2- Paid attention to the story each player wanted to tell and wove it into the game.
3- Was perfectly familiar with the adventure so much so that he could receive any curve ball the group tossed him and run with it without losing any of the actual module.
4- Presented the world in a engaging and believable fashion that drew players in and made them part of the world.
5- Kept the pace going.
This. All of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.) good communication skills.
2.) quick witted.
3.) builds trust easily with players.
4.) entertaining or creative or both.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One key thing I notice a lack of:
- Is willing to allow players to try crazy things, or even to derail the entire campaign, if it makes for a better story and the rest of the group is okay with it. But also knows when to reign it in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best GM I have played with luckily still GMs for our group. His latest campaign reminds me why.
1. He has a strong vision for the game world, locations, NPCs, Organisations - and is able to communicate that in glorious technicolor 3D.
2. He is confident to say no, but prefers finding ways to say yes.
3. He adapts the story to our PCs and makes them the centre of attention.
4. He fits the rules to the players/NPCs intentions, rather than fitting the intentions around the rules.
5. He varies the pacing within sessions so they become neither too combat heavy or dominated by roleplay.
6. He makes the game challenging but not painfully so, where death is a real possibility but never inevitable.
So many good ideas and suggestions in this thread.
All I'm missing is the cattle prod.
From a game which has my favorite GM advice section (and probably stolen from somewhere else):
•Make the world fantastic
•Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
•Play to find out what happens
I heard the line
"Good DMs create worlds not stories."
I grew up on a farm. I've used them. I know how effective they can be...lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried offering my players carrots, but they went for the dorritos instead.
I've always found saying "No" to be one of the most important skills that a GM needs. More recent GM advice seems to suggest the "Yes, and" method, which casts "No" as something to be avoided.
IME, more campaigns have fallen apart due to a GM's inability to say "No" than to a GM actually saying "No."
I don't think you understand the purpose or usage of the "Yes and..." technique. It's not a blanket statement for all things at the table. It's an improv technique (it's a common warm-up technique or practicing tool for improv actors).
Instead of deciding things ahead of time, when a player asks a question about the story or game-world, you say "Yes, and...."
It's not a technique for talking about rules, table behavior or similar things.
I suppose we could also complain about how bad screwdrivers are for cutting lumber to appropriate lengths.
It took years to develop the ability to tell players no.
Now I am very good at it.
Yeah, in my experience it has led to much better games. Players have a natural tendency to push against boundaries. When the boundaries are not upheld, a little wiggle room often becomes a lot of wiggle room which becomes a campaign that falls apart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Setting boundaries and expectations is important. Having them well established reduces the number of times you have to say "No", plus when you do say it, you aren't just being arbitrary, mean GM, you're just enforcing the already established elements.
I also make a point to give my players as much outlet for their creativity and boundary pushing as I can. Often, I give room for this beyond just their own character as well. It has the nice side effect of reducing the creative energy I need to use for the game, letting me focus on being creative on the stuff that might surprise them.
A great GM is running the game because they want to.
I have played a shared campaign (not Pathfinder) where there were always a few people who only ran games to get XP/play credit to apply to their own characters, and it was painful - if the ref is just going through the motions it kills the atmosphere.
By contrast a ref who wants the party to enjoy themselves can be underprepared, disorganised and not clear on the rules, but still run something that the players love.
The problem was that I made a bad call.
I've seen this same thing with new GMs. A player asks for some kind of exception to the rules, might be a banned race or class, might be to start play with a certain magic item or odd animal companion, etc.
The new GM wants to keep his players involved in the game, and so says yes to the exception. Then things start to snowball out of control as other players question or demand exceptions for their characters.
This is where saying "no" is appropriate and will lead to a better game.
Over the past 4 years, I've ran games at conventions for about 40-50 people. I don't get to pick the people who sign up for my games, I sit at my table and players pick my game. I've had two mildly disruptive players, but neither was so bad that I couldn't steer the game back on course NOR did I have to kick them out. The games were still a ton of fun for me.
Based on that sample size, it's roughly 4-5% of random strangers are disruptive to my games (but they don't ruin my sessions).
BTW, I'll be GMing at GenCon at the Games on Demand room this year. I run a game about thieves and another one about murdering gods. Possibly a third, but only if the author asks me to.