Are you a good Dungeon Master?

[kadath]

I am a bloody horrible DM.

Most of us are, at first. Two questions:
1. Do you enjoy your gaming sessions?
2. What do your players say about your gaming sessions? Do they enjoy them, or do they tell you you're a 'bloody horrible DM'?

 

[drothgery]

I think I'm a pretty decent PBP/PBEM DM (at least, I've run games that have lasted for years, which I'd like to think says something). But I've never taken a hand at running a tabletop game, because I just don't have confidence in my ability to think stuff up on the fly.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I used to DM many years ago and was terrible. I stayed away from it for a long time because of memories of just how bad I was. When my most recent group formed, one of my old friends DMed for a couple of years, but he got to the point where he was really wanting to play. Our group being mostly newbies, I volunteered to give him a break and we began to rotate campaigns. Everyone in my group has had praises for my DMing, and I know I am better than I was so many years ago, but I still feel like I am only an OK DM at best (and often not even that good, but I can hide it well).

I have to admit that I have a lot of people on this site to thank for my continuous improvement as a DM.

 

[Piratecat]

When I was learning to drive, my Dad said "The more different kinds of cars you drive, the better driver you become." As it turns out, that's pretty good advice for DMing as well.

I was a relatively poor DM until I started playing and GMing RPGA games (roughly 300 or so over a decade.) Whenever I was a player and had a new DM, I'd study them for any cool DMing tricks I could steal. . . and when I ran tables of strangers, I got advice on what I could improve. It helped tremendously. Add that to getting to getting ideas from here and getting to play in some superb campaigns (notably Sagiro's), and it's clear that I specialize on yoinking other peoples' good ideas and synthesizing them into my own game.

That's a good thing, though. It's definitely made me a better GM, but I don't ever think I'll be as good as I'd like to be. Eh. I guess I run about one game per two years that I'm really not happy with. I can live with that.

 

[Aaron L]

Most of us are, at first. Two questions:
1. Do you enjoy your gaming sessions?
2. What do your players say about your gaming sessions? Do they enjoy them, or do they tell you you're a 'bloody horrible DM'?

Sometimes I would enjoy it, but usually the dread of it overcame everything else. I love making worlds and background, but actually running games can give me nightmares. The players always said they had fun, but I dunno. So Id go in cycles of wanting to run a game for a while, getting it started, enjoying it for a month, then getting progressively more terrified each session for a few months until I collapsed under the dread of having to come up with some kind of adventure. Its kinda sad.

 

[Morrus]

I occasionally wonder whether I'm any good or not.

My grasp of the rules is weak, I rarely prepare anything, I fudge stuff all the time. I listen to my players talking an adapt accordingly - but then, I see that as a good thing, because my main aim is to make sure everyone has fun. If I think throwing a spanner in the works in the plan that the bad guys would have knowledge of is fun, then I'll do it. My plots and NPCs are blatantly plagiarised. I let my players use any rules or materials they want, and frequently I am completely unfamiliar with the stuff they've chosen.

I'm lucky in that I have a couple of players who really know the rules, and I frequently ask them how things work.

I've been DMing for, what, 20 years now? And people keep coming back. I must be doing something right, but I'm never quite sure what it is. I think it's because my sole goal is to have fun, and ensure everyone else is having fun - because I see no point in being there otherwise. And it doesn't matter what makes it fun. I'll just make it up on the spot, and make it applicable to their current plans, ideas, abilities and weaknesses. Sometimes I'll screw up and change it halfway through. Half the time, there's no plot, but I'll grab things players have said in discussion because it sounds cool.

Dunno. I'm not "technically" a good DM at all. But we have fun!

 

[buzzard]

RamYaz: Then maybe you can answer my question. If being a good DM isn't measured by the pleasure the players have playing the game, then what makes a good DM objectively?

This is a very good question because it comes down to something that peeves me in my local gaming community. We have a few local cons per year, and there is a rating system employed to determine the best judges. I've been known to rate well in this myself, though I honetly don't much care how I place since I spend little enough time in prepping modules (unless of course it happens to be one which I wrote).

However there are people who place among the top who might well classify as a 'good DM', but I certainly don't believe they deserve a top rating.

What I believe separates a good DM from a top DM is how they handle adversity. I don't mean difficult players, I mean the ability to gauge an appropriate challenge and to run a module by the rules in a fair manner. Mind you this is a particular analysis for convention play rather than home play.

But to explain, take a Living Greyhawk module. These are often all over the map in regards to difficulty. Some are meat grinders, some are creampuffs. A good DM will run the module as intended, but follow the rules (ahead of the writer since LG writers often have issues following the rules, <ahem CORES>) and keep in mind what is DM knowlege rather than NPC knowlege.

I've seen some of the top rated judges locally get into a rather serious DM vs. player mentality when running high level tables (at high levels, LG characters are most often very twinked out because the meat grinder modules are otherwise not survivable). The main sin tends to be forgetting what the opposition actually should know. Also the application of innapropriate tactics based on the brains of the opposition is fairly common.

In addition to this mentality, they rarely know the rules well, and thus you end up with rule disputes. While I certainly understand that you can't know all the rules, you generally have to take a position of either trusting the player, or accepting way too many delays (or you might happen to be lucky and have a rules junkie at your table).

Now these top rated judges very often run very entertaining tables. People will often rate people favorably based on that. I've gotten high ratings for preparation before for modules which I've only read once. However I don't believe these ratings are generally well considered.

A top DM should know the rules, know the adventure, know appropriate tactics and know the limitations of the NPCs that he runs. If you have to cheat to present a challenge to your table, you are not a great DM. If you feel that you simply must present that challenge which drives you to cheat, then you have a bad attitude. You may still be a good DM, but not top rate.

buzzard

 

[diaglo]

Now that is a statement that makes me wonder, what could you do better to help GMs out? I know many people, even experienced ones, that find the book useful.

If you don't like it, that's not a problem.

But as the old saying goes, "If you come up with a problem, you better have a solution."

So in that vein, what would you recommend?

i've been actively stating on the TSR boards since april 1997 that they needed to introduce a guide to help referees. just ask (T)Ed Stark about diaglo stalking. and change it somewhat in late 1999 (thanks to Eric Noah's news site about the new edition) to a request for the Complete Idiot's Guide to d02 Roleplaying

i can't write worth a hill of beans. but i do know that robin law's ain't what covers it.

i was hoping the D&D for dummies book would be. but in the end it wasn't either.

the DMG2 does some of what i was hoping. but it is too specific.

maybe the new Dummies guide by Bill and Rich in April 2006 will be what i'm looking for

 

[shilsen]

It's clear that I specialize on yoinking other peoples' good ideas and synthesizing them into my own game.

Sounds like Shakespeare, except I hear he was a killer DM who would TPK any party that wouldn't indulge in cross-dressing.

As for me, I think I'm a good DM. Why? Because I'm adaptive and can respond to the unexpected (mainly by not expecting anything) from players without batting an eyelid, because I give PCs lots of freedom and am as far away from railroading as Iceland, because I know the rules really well but know when to eyeball things, because I'm good at creating situations which challenge PCs (in combat and outside), because I do a fair job at making sure all my players get some of the spotlight, because I can juggle a number of plot threads at the same time, because I am good at empowering players/PCs without running into balance issues, because I ask for feedback regularly and try to incorporate it when useful, etc. Most importantly, I think my players enjoy my game.

And I think I could be a much better DM. Why? I tend to gloss over descriptions and not do as good a job at helping players visualize things as I could, because I usually bring just one or two NPCs to life and most of them aren't as individualized as could be, because I can't do voices well enough to help with the individualizing of NPCs, etc.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm a better player than I am a DM.

I'm a terrible player.