What makes a good GM?

[Lanefan]

So... what makes a good GM/DM great?
Engaging storylines?

Yes.

Letting the PCs have the spotlight?

Sometimes; this depends on the specific group.

Creating the stories around the PCs histories?

Again depends on the specific group; it becomes very easy to center the story around one particular PC's history, bad because it isn't as much fun for all the others. The more important skill is to weave what the PC's have done in-game into future stories.

Ability to run 'off-the-cuff' when the PCs go in an unexpected direction?

Yes, very much so, and to be able to do so without the players realizing it.

Lanefan

 

[Mark CMG]

What makes a good GM?

A wide breadth of knowledge, good improvization skills, and an open mind.

 

[Psion]

Qualities of a good dm

• Makes interesting stories, but is flexible to actions of the PCs and foibles of the dice
• Makes NPCs to interact with.
• Makes interesting and varied challenges for the players.
• Gives all players a chance to participates.
• Adjudicates quickly and fairly.
• Uses the rules where they are sufficient but not afraid to go beyond them. Is still consistent.

 

[Nadaka]

I good GM is capable of runing a game that not only he, but all his players enjoy. The specific details are largely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if it is diceless in depth roleplay or a brutal hack-fest or somewhere in between. As long as everyone at the table is enjoying it, you are doing a good job.

 

[Umbran]

No, he's a bad fit. "Bad DM" suggests something very different, such as if he were a "Good DM," he would knuckle under and let the play the game the players want to play.

Well, would it be reasonable to say that for DMing, "good" and "bad" are relative concepts - between the DM and the particular group? If we recognize that we have no absolute measure of DM quality and Crothian is pretty much spot on.

Because, really, I don't think there's much difference between "a DM that runs a game the players like" and "a DM that runs the game the players want to play". The basic difference is in whether the players know they want to play before they start playing - and that Crothian also already covered

So, Goddess FallenAngel, are you looking for what we think imakes a DM objectively good, what we think tends to give more players a good experience, or simply what we ourselves like in our own DMs?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, would it be reasonable to say that for DMing, "good" and "bad" are relative concepts - between the DM and the particular group? If we recognize that we have no absolute measure of DM quality and Crothian is pretty much spot on.

Yeah, but if we do a search for all the ENWorld threads ever about "Bad DMs," the term sure isn't used in a relative fashion most of the time.

 

[Mark CMG]

If we recognize that we have no absolute measure of DM quality (. . .)

Is that your contention?

 

[Teflon Billy]

Speaking only for myself...

• Great familiarity with the setting, allowing the DM to improvise
  
  
• A willingness to improvise...your plot is not carved in stone.
  
  
• Minimal nonsense. I like my comedy to be OOC
  
  
• Ability to portray setting-believable NPCS
  
  
• Willingness to not play DM PC's (drives me crazy)...I get so tired of a constant chorus of "Wait! I think I know what to do..." from the goddam NPC in the group no one asked to come along.

That would all do me fine.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Just some random traits in no particular order:

1) Good (not necessarily perfect) knowledge of the rules
2) The ability to tweak those rules to suit the game's needs
3) Knowing when not to tweak the rules
4) Running a game that suits everyone's needs and enjoyment
5) Improvisational skills
6) The ability to very subtlely railroad.
7) A bit of dramatic flare.
8) A plentiful and varied stock of fine beers.
9) Cake?

 

[Psion]

3) Knowing when not to tweak the rules

I award thee an "astute point" point.

I've seen some GMs who have really cool sounding campaigns whose house rules are just a bit too much.