In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Hussar]

I'm always very interested in the different experiences that gamers have. I find it very eye opening that we all have such very varied experiences and I think it shines light on why people hold the opinions that they do. I honestly think that a lot of the points of view that people hold have much more to do with how they've interacted with a given game (the people they've played with, age, etc.) than with the game itself.

So, with that in mind, what has been your experience with GM's? Mine has been, up until very lately, almost always bad. Thinking back over the past fifteen years or so, I've had 11 different GM's covering a number of different systems. Recently, I've had the great fortune of playing with three fantastic GM's who've really run great games.

That being said, of the remaining 8, one was good, four suffered complete player revolts, and the other three were barely competent. Yes, that's harsh, but, FOUR player revolts?!?!

Depending on how you count, I've had either about 60% or 90% very bad DM's. To be perfectly honest, one of my main reasons for starting to GM was because I was just so sick of crap games.

So, how about you? Is my experience completely atypical? Have I just had a run of very bad luck? Or, are GM's subject to Sturgeon's Law?

 

[Joshua Randall]

RPGA games tend to run about 50/50 in terms of bad/good DMs.

People's personal campaigns -- I only choose to play in the ones with good DMs. (Unless I don't realize the DM is bad until later, at which point I drop out.) So this pushes things up to "less than half" of my DMs have been bad.

But yeah. Sturgeon's Law applies, perhaps in a milder form (99% of everything is mediocre).

 

[Rel]

I'm not sure exactly how I should answer this. Are there bad GMs out there? Absolutely. I've played with a few.

But the large majority of my GMs have been very good. I'm exposed to a great many of them thanks to the (fairly large) local NC Game Days that I organize, as well as going to GenCon. But I think this group is self-selecting good GMs in a lot of ways that skews the results.

First of all, these are all people who are confident enough to put their games "out there" for public consumption. They are running one-shot scenarios, many of which they have run one or more times previously. And they are running them for a group of people who are, on average, tremendously fun players. That's a lot going for them and I think it gives a GM a high chance for an extremely fun game. I know that I've had a pretty easy time putting my best foot forward in these circumstances.

But the other great thing about that environment is that we're all becoming better GMs by virtue of our exposure to each others games. I've stolen dozens of awesome GM techniques and stylistic refinements from these GMs and that in turn has made me a MUCH better GM than I was before I started attending such events.

So I'd say that my experience is that most GMs I've gamed with are pretty darned good. But I'm gaming in an environment where it is rather difficult to find a bad GM. And I'm doing it on purpose.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think most of my GMs have been good, with several greats. Most respondents to the poll will, I think, have similar views because people tend to only game with those they consider to be good, and to leave games where the other participants are perceived to be bad.

That raises another question - how high are one's standards? One man's good might be another man's mediocre. One could argue that, by definition, I should regard roughly 50% of the GMs I've had as bad, and 50% good, that's what good and bad mean!

Over the last 15 years I've had quite a few GMs, if you count conventions and other oneoffs. It would only be about ten if you don't. The convention GMs tended to be worse than my regulars, that could well be due to different tastes. I've probably ended up, unconsciously, doing my regular gaming with those who have similar styles and tastes to my own.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I voted, "Less than half, my GM's have mostly been good", but will note that most bad GMs don't last all that long in the roll. So, most experienced GMs are at least adequate, and some are much, much better. IME. YMMV.




RC

 

[IronWolf]

I have very few that I would describe as bad. Are some better than others? Yes. But bad? Even figuring in convention play I haven't had many GMs I would consider bad. I am sure they are out there judging from some of the stories I see on these boards, but either my standards are way different than other people or I have been lucky.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Define bad.

I have not played with many GMs I would define as bad, but I have played with many I classify as inexperienced - myself among them.

I used to be horrible at creating a memorable scene or NPCs. I would want the party to succeed, but also wanted to make challenging combats that usually turned out to be lethal without DM intervention. Basically all I knew was how to run a nasty grind.

I think I've improved over the years, but I never could have done so if everyone had decided that I was a bad DM and quit my game.

 

[DragonLancer]

Of all the GM's I've had (I'm mainly a GM myself) I'd say it's about 50/50. I've had some great GM's but then there are those who refuse to see the rules except as set in stone or can't come up with something on the fly. The worst games are from those who can't be bothered to put the effort in.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

That raises another question - how high are one's standards? One man's good might be another man's mediocre. One could argue that, by definition, I should regard roughly 50% of the GMs I've had as bad, and 50% good, that's what good and bad mean!

/snip

Oh, of course. It's all going to be relative. Although, I would say that player revolts are certainly a sign of a bad GM.

OTOH, I don't buy that it's a 50/50 split because that's what good and bad mean. I've certainly had less than that to be honest. If you've had 10 great GM's, then fantastic. If you're like me and have had bad GM after bad GM, it's not so great.

I voted, "Less than half, my GM's have mostly been good", but will note that most bad GMs don't last all that long in the roll. So, most experienced GMs are at least adequate, and some are much, much better. IME. YMMV.




RC

Mine certainly did. All four of the GM's who suffered player revolts had at least a decade of gaming under their belts. Mind blowing.

A related point from a completely unrelated thread kinda rang bells in my head.

And often DMs don't know whether their players agree or disagree since most D&D tables have created a social contract where if you disagree with the DM, you aren't allowed to say anything.

I wonder how true this is.

 

[Piratecat]

My standards are extremely high, and I've had very few bad GMs. That's because I'm careful to only play longterm with people whose gaming style I really enjoy, and because we all work to improve one another's games and DMing. For instance every time Sagiro raises the bar, I have to try and figure out how to meet it; every time Pseudonym or Storminator do something awesome in our MnM game, I tuck it into my own bag of tricks. I suspect they're doing the same as well.

The other thing we do is regularly solicit both formal and informal player feedback and adjust our DMing accordingly. It's easy to consider a DM good when they ask you what you want out of a game, and then tailor the game to give it to you.