In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Doug McCrae]

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

A particularly distinctive feature of roleplaying, something I've only grasped since I started discussing it online, is how diverse expectations are, how wide the range is of what is considered 'good GMing' or even 'good play'. For example some regard good play to be that which succeeds at the challenges presented - going up levels; acquiring magic items; in short, winning the game - whereas others think good play is acting in character and entertaining the other participants.

Because of this, a GM could well have ten years experience, and even be a very good GM for a particular group of players, and yet crash and burn when faced with a different group.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>


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.



I wonder how true this is.

Actually, I've found player revolts can be a sign that the GM and the players have a communication disconnect.

If the players think they're playing game A (defined by genre, power expectations, and basic play expecations among other things), but the GM believes he is running game B then a player revolt is likely to brew regardless how good the GM is at running game B.

 

[Hussar]

Doug- I totally agree.

However, I would rather this didn't become about finger pointing or pickiing apart anecdotes to find the "truth". If someone claims that their DM's were good, then they were good. If someone claims that they were bad, then they were bad.

I really hope to avoid a thread that turns all pedantic on "what is good" or "well, it's all subjective". The GM was good or bad, because the poster said so should be more than good enough for this thread..

 

[S'mon]

I think your experience is atypical, Hussar - and explains a lot about some of the views you put forth on this forum.

I voted "Less than Half", but it depends how fussy you are. Good GMs still have bad days, or choose the wrong adventure. I've maybe had 2 I'd say were bad, out of maybe a dozen or so, and one of those, Andy, I still know and he seems to have little trouble attracting players, so maybe I just have different tastes. Also I'd say I was quite fussy, I mostly GM and I like my own GMing, so I tend to think I'm better than most GMs.

 

[S'mon]

A particularly distinctive feature of roleplaying, something I've only grasped since I started discussing it online, is how diverse expectations are, how wide the range is of what is considered 'good GMing' or even 'good play'. For example some regard good play to be that which succeeds at the challenges presented - going up levels; acquiring magic items; in short, winning the game - whereas others think good play is acting in character and entertaining the other participants.

Because of this, a GM could well have ten years experience, and even be a very good GM for a particular group of players, and yet crash and burn when faced with a different group.

"Must spread some XP around"

Yup, this is exactly right.

Re player revolts - what is a player revolt? When players drop a game they don't enjoy? I've left a game where the GM was objectively highly competent, because of interpersonal issues.

I once ran what I still feel was my best D&D session ever - The Wicked Ruins of Cursed Castle Kaladrac. 3/4 players loved it and were eager for more. One player hated it and didn't come back.

 

[Piratecat]

Re player revolts - what is a player revolt?

My players revolted once and (justly) stomped out of a dungeon with 2 rooms left, because I'd railroaded them into this Dungeon Magazine adventure instead of my own ongoing plot that they wanted to follow. It was a good wakeup call for me to actually listen to my players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Sir, the players are revolting!"

"You said it. They stink on ice."

 

[Mallus]

Because of this, a GM could well have ten years experience, and even be a very good GM for a particular group of players, and yet crash and burn when faced with a different group.

Yeah... I've been running D&D --or some facsimile of it-- for 20 years now. I've had a great time doing it. At a Labor Day barbecue this weekend, some old friends I'd lost touch with asked me about picking up a 2e campaign we haven't played in over a decade. To the small, self-selecting groups of friends I've gamed with, I've been a good, if not great, DM.

I have no idea if that makes me a good DM. I'm convinced quite a few gamers wouldn't consider my campaigns D&D, regardless of what edition I'm supposedly running (for the record, I've run AD&D-4e, with the most time spent on 2e and 3e).

Which is why I like to think of running RPG's in terms of relationships, rather than considering DM/GM'ing as a kind of objective skill. Which isn't to say there aren't objective techniques or technical skills which can help a good DM. They just don't add up to being a good DM. A good DM is being in a good relationship with their group.

Why does it sound like I'm describing nerd polyamory? (polyhedronamory?)

 

[S'mon]

My players revolted once and (justly) stomped out of a dungeon with 2 rooms left, because I'd railroaded them into this Dungeon Magazine adventure instead of my own ongoing plot that they wanted to follow. It was a good wakeup call for me to actually listen to my players.

Oh, right - I think Hussar means something more serious than that! I've certainly refused to have my PC do something stupid the GM expected, like attack the Ogre Fort at 1st level, and I welcome my players doing the same, eg with one group we all agreed to quit Necropolis, because it sucked. These days I try to always have several different things the PCs could be doing so they can change direction at any time without leaving me stumped.

 

[Barastrondo]

A particularly distinctive feature of roleplaying, something I've only grasped since I started discussing it online, is how diverse expectations are, how wide the range is of what is considered 'good GMing' or even 'good play'. For example some regard good play to be that which succeeds at the challenges presented - going up levels; acquiring magic items; in short, winning the game - whereas others think good play is acting in character and entertaining the other participants.

Yes, exactly so. Just consider what ramifications can come out from the simple difference between "I think bold play is interesting and should be rewarded" and "I think cautious play is interesting and should be rewarded." The differences in how gaming groups can operate when a GM is attempting to train them to be bold and adventurous or to be cautious and analytical can be monumental.