JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Am I at the prime of my game mastering abilities? No.
Am I still a good GM? Yup.
Am I still a good GM? Yup.
Are you a good Dungeon Master?
- Thread starter Ashrem Bayle
- Start date
Flyspeck23
First Post
Nobody will ever be as good a GM as he or she could be. But that shouldn't stop anybody from trying.
If the players enjoyed your game, that's as good as it gets. But you could still improve the next time around.
Nevertheless, you shouldn't prepare more than you're willing to. Doing that, and you're definetly being "too hard on yourself".
If the players enjoyed your game, that's as good as it gets. But you could still improve the next time around.
Nevertheless, you shouldn't prepare more than you're willing to. Doing that, and you're definetly being "too hard on yourself".
Aidan mac Culloch
First Post
Having good and interesting ideas are not a problem with me. I am also a (self-proclaimed) first-rate planner and organizer. It is the execution that often escapes me...stuttering through dialouge, minor rail-roading of PCs, lack of flexibility. These are the things that need work if I am to be considered a good DM.
BlueBlackRed
Explorer
Part of good DM'ing having the right players to match your style of DM'ing. It helps create a positive environment and keeps the game going in the direction you want it go in.
That being said, I am certainly not the best DM, and never will be.
But having played for 20 years, I know I've improved with every campaign I've ran or been run through.
I always seen new things I want to add.
Right now my players really like the way I DM.
I keep it fair and consistant.
I make it challenging but not overbearing.
I don't railroad them, but still guide them in the direction that preferred.
And most of all, I know when to say "Yes" and "No".
That being said, I am certainly not the best DM, and never will be.
But having played for 20 years, I know I've improved with every campaign I've ran or been run through.
I always seen new things I want to add.
Right now my players really like the way I DM.
I keep it fair and consistant.
I make it challenging but not overbearing.
I don't railroad them, but still guide them in the direction that preferred.
And most of all, I know when to say "Yes" and "No".
Three_Haligonians
First Post
I read the Original Post and the first thing I thought was:
"I don't remember writing this....or creating a new login name called Ashrem Bayle either..."
Needless to say, I am totally in the same boat you are...my players praise me and even rave about me to their other friends (who in turn ask me to lead them), and yet I'm always going over what happened in game and how I could have done it better.
Go Figure
J from Three Haligonians
"I don't remember writing this....or creating a new login name called Ashrem Bayle either..."
Needless to say, I am totally in the same boat you are...my players praise me and even rave about me to their other friends (who in turn ask me to lead them), and yet I'm always going over what happened in game and how I could have done it better.
Go Figure
J from Three Haligonians
Nathal
Explorer
Flyspeck23 said:
Besides the basics (being fair, consistent, with a bit of panache), lots of factors affect the outcome of a game. Whether the GM is perceived as good or bad depends a good deal on the expectations of the players, which is influenced by their preferred playing styles (as per Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering).
[note: I'm looking at this site as I write this: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html]
I've run games for many, many different sets of people but my greatest successes were with groups who preferred a Strategic/Story focused game, with a deemphasis on tactical elements of play. When I ran into groups who obsessively focused on Strategic/Combat (Thinkers), Tactical/Combat (Power Gamers), or Tactical/Story elements (Character Actors), I was again uncomfortable. The game system used influences play as well, some being more appropriate to certain styles. I rarely have a problem with those who fall into that 12% group, the "centrist" players of RPGs. Those guys are easy to please if you throw a little bit of everything in there.
Greatwyrm
Been here a while...
Ashrem Bayle said:
I usually feel that way, too. There have been plenty of times I've closed up shop after a game thinking a dozen things never went right, only to have the players tell me they can't wait for the next game. That kind of analysis and desire to improve is what makes people good at whatever their good at and if the players are happy, you're doing it right.
The Shaman
First Post
On my best days I'm below average. And my best days are few and far between.
The_Gneech
Explorer
Well ... I'm pretty decent. 
Always looking to improve, tho.
-TG
Always looking to improve, tho.-TG
painandgreed
First Post
I'm ok as a hack and slash DM but for serious campaigns I have a certain play style that some people really enjoy and others don't. As a DM, I tend to concentrate on creating a sandbox for the players to play in. I figure out what is going on in the world and what the NPCs are doing and will do without interference by the players. I present the players with what they know about the world as well as a few plot hooks that tehir characters would have picked up on. I then let the players run wild and see where it takes us working on where they want to go and what they want to do. There is a good deal of dialogue and if one character is away from the party having a conversation with an NPC, I'll take him outside the room and have the conversation and then he must relate what was said to the rest of the party once back with them and they must rely on him for that information (right or wrong because when he says wrong things, I never really know if he's feeding the party what he wants them to know, or if he is remembering it wrong). For self motivated players who know where they want to go or just enjoy lots of role play, it works. For others, it doesn't.
