What makes a good GM?

[Goddess FallenAngel]

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?

Yup... perhaps I should have made the original post a bit clearer.

 

[Catavarie]

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.

I still dont' get why some GMs think they need to rewrite all the rules to the game. if you don't like the rules find a different game. Or if you must change them, use minimal changes...afterall I don't go into a D&D game to learn a whole new rule set.

 

[Umbran]

Is that your contention?

I'm asking it as a question, to Whizbang and the other collected folks. If we agree upon that, the discussion clarifies somewhat. If we don't agree on that, we'll probably end up quibbling over the point. So, I put it up for discussion first - is there such a thing as an objectively "Good DM"?

I expect that we don't have a single, objective list of things that really makes a good GM. We may have a whole mess of stuff that we collectively agree tend to be hallmarks of folks who will please many groups, but we can also think of exceptions where those same traits fail with a particular group.

GMing (and playing, actually) is like being an author. There are some authors that are best-sellers, but there are still a sizable bunch of folks who don't like a given best-selling author's work.

Or, as is said in the nursery rhyme: "Diff'rent people have diff'rent 'pinions. Some like apples, some like onions."

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

I just realized I didn't make my last post at all clear...

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?

Yup... perhaps I should have made the original post a bit clearer.

More or less the last one... my question has become refined due to discussion.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

<3 Thankee!

I used to think that in order to be a "good and knowledgeable" GM I had to make tons and tons of modifications and changes in order to make the system my system. Then I kind of realized that in order to be fair to my players (i.e., let them know what kind of mess I'd mired them in), I'd have to write up some kind of house rule reference guide. Which would probably be long, dry, and boring.

And if I didn't want to write it, who would want to read it? Now, the only way I change a rule is if I can make it 100% simpler for my players. 3.5 and its various offshoots are complex enough and it doesn't need to be clogged up by my amature design skills.

 

[Mark CMG]

Thanks for clarifying, Goddess FallenAngel.

I'm asking it as a question, to Whizbang and the other collected folks. If we agree upon that, the discussion clarifies somewhat. If we don't agree on that, we'll probably end up quibbling over the point. So, I put it up for discussion first - is there such a thing as an objectively "Good DM"?

Might need a new thread unless you want this one to devolve from Goddess FallenAngel's actual question.

 

[Umbran]

Might need a new thread unless you want this one to devolve from Goddess FallenAngel's actual question.

Nah. Goddess FallenAngel has clarified, making my question moot in this context.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I still dont' get why some GMs think they need to rewrite all the rules to the game. if you don't like the rules find a different game. Or if you must change them, use minimal changes...afterall I don't go into a D&D game to learn a whole new rule set.

That's cool, you don't get it (and not just you, of course.) But there *is* a thing there to "get".

Yes, this is partly to do with personal experiences - I run *heavily* house-ruled stuff, sometimes.

My response to the (fairly widespread) opinion you have espoused would be something along the lines of: "If you don't like my rules, find a different game. [. . .] After all, I didn't go to all the trouble I did with setting, system and prep just so some random player can ignore whole swathes of carefully tailored and balanced game mechanics due to uninformed bias."

But I would probably be nicer about it than that.

 

[Seonaid]

This has been said before, but the one thing that I require in a "good" GM is the ability to lie without me knowing it. Generally that's covered under "thinking on one's feet" or something similar. If you can't lie to me and make me believe you, then you aren't going to have a game that I enjoy.

There's a lot of other things I could mention (like knowing the rules, knowing when to break the rules, and other things people have said or not said), but the only constant is the ability to lie convincingly. The others can be there or not, depending on the game and the people.

 

[Stalker0]

"The ability to make every player at the table at some point in the game feel cool and special."

If you do that, the rest will tend to itself.