Bad DMs/GMs

[Bedrockgames]

I. Don't think s'mon is saying it boils down to natural talent. Or that gms cant learn to be better. Sounds like he is saying a gms performance has peaks and valleys over time, and some even decline. I've found this to be true in my own case. I've had some good streaks and i've had ruts. I think sometimes there is a clear reason, sometimes not. Presently my gming is going well.

 

[Hussar]

I. Don't think s'mon is saying it boils down to natural talent. Or that gms cant learn to be better. Sounds like he is saying a gms performance has peaks and valleys over time, and some even decline. I've found this to be true in my own case. I've had some good streaks and i've had ruts. I think sometimes there is a clear reason, sometimes not. Presently my gming is going well.

Oh sure. That's true. We all have our moments, both good and bad. But, I'd say that overall, anyone who takes the time to honestly learn how to make their game better - reading things like En World or various magazines, learning from other DM's, soliciting and actually listening to criticism of their games - will continuously trend upwards.

I find the worst DM's are the ones who think they actually are great DM's.

 

[S'mon]

Heh.

I think the problem with this idea is that it implies that good DMing isn't a learned skill. That some people just start good and some don't. I disagree. Good DMing is very much a skill, just like anything else.

I think there are good DMing techniques which can be learned (or forgotten), but mostly it's about attitude - in particular whether you are open to the players (good), or if you are a controller (bad).

It's possible that good DMing advice & better published* adventures would have alleviated my 'bad DM' period in the '90s when I saw nothing wrong with linear, railroady adventures and heavy-handed intervention. AIR the bad stuff I ran was as often homebrew as published. Yet in the '80s when I first GM'd I had intuitively run open, player-centric campaigns. I definitely did not 'start bad' IMO.

*It's definitely possible that early influences such as Isle of Dread & Keep on the Borderlands inculcated 'good GMing' while the linear, railroady adventures of ten years later inculcated 'bad GMing'. I don't think my experience was universal, though.

 

[S'mon]

Oh sure. That's true. We all have our moments, both good and bad. But, I'd say that overall, anyone who takes the time to honestly learn how to make their game better - reading things like En World or various magazines, learning from other DM's, soliciting and actually listening to criticism of their games - will continuously trend upwards.

I think if the advice is good, it can contribute to running a good game. If the advice is bad it can contribute to running a bad game. Overall I think you are correct - if you read lots & lots of advice (or adventures) it becomes easier to disttinguish the good from the bad. Likewise if you are GMing a lot you will have more experience with what works - everyone has fun - and what doesn't. Conversely of course a GM can suffer burn out, and may return to GMing much better after a break to refresh/recharge.

 

[S'mon]

Overall I think you are correct - if you read lots & lots of advice (or adventures) it becomes easier to disttinguish the good from the bad.

I think the current situation with vast amounts of GMing advice available on blogs, bulletin boards et al is highly beneficial for the person who wants to be a good GM. It no longer matters much if deleterious fads and fashions sweep the 'industry elite'; a private blog has as big a potential reach as eg Dragon magazine. And I think the Internet has helped improve & diversify published games as well as helping individual GMs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh sure. That's true. We all have our moments, both good and bad. But, I'd say that overall, anyone who takes the time to honestly learn how to make their game better - reading things like En World or various magazines, learning from other DM's, soliciting and actually listening to criticism of their games - will continuously trend upwards.

I find the worst DM's are the ones who think they actually are great DM's.

I agree strongly with the last sentence. But I think that applies to lots of things in life (people who believe they are great often had trouble recognizing their own weaknesses and handling criticism).

And I think the internet is a great source for inspiration and gming techniques. But I've also seen GMs go downhill fast taking too much of what they encounter on the net to heart, and not really understanding it.

So I think the net is a double edged sword. On the one hand you can get great feedback and advice from skilled GMs, on the other you can adopt trendy methods that just don't work with your personal style (or your group's) and produce a trainwreck.

 

[S'mon]

So I think the net is a double edged sword. On the one hand you can get great feedback and advice from skilled GMs, on the other you can adopt trendy methods that just don't work with your personal style (or your group's) and produce a trainwreck.

'GNS' theory certainly helped wreck the group I then had, back in 2004!

 

[Bedrockgames]

'GNS' theory certainly helped wreck the group I then had, back in 2004!

I've definitely seen some trainwrecks stemming from it as well. If someone discovers GNS and it clicks for them or works for their group that is great. Personally it just doesn't click for me and I've seen too many GMs either try to force it on a group or force it on themselves (when it is obvious it isn't clicking for them).

 

[Swedish Chef]

I've definitely seen some trainwrecks stemming from it as well. If someone discovers GNS and it clicks for them or works for their group that is great. Personally it just doesn't click for me and I've seen too many GMs either try to force it on a group or force it on themselves (when it is obvious it isn't clicking for them).

Although this hasn't caused a train wreck with my group, it has been my downfall.

I used to be very free flowing with my games. Give me a module, or a dungeon adventure, or even just a premise, and I could sandbox a game with ease. The group loved it. I was the DM for 10 years. We took a break between 2e and 3e for about 2 years (everyone was tired of trying to schedule time to game).

When we resumed, I started reading my old Dragon magazines for the DM columns. I started reading and posting here. And I loved many of the ideas and suggestions.

Sadly, many don't work with my group. They like some story, but for the most part they just want to roll dice and gain XP and levels. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I tried to change my game and it just didn't work. It has made me a "bad" DM. And that's why I've taken a break and left it to someone else to run the game. And I think we're better for it.

I hope to get my mojo back. Once the current campaign ends, if I go back to DMing, I'm going to make a serious effort to go back to my style of the 90s. I think it would be best for everyone.

 

[KiloGex]

*slowly bangs head on table*

Not sure what prompted this one, but I think it's a little lack of understanding of the full explanation. Yes, the players can do whatever they like and could theoretically "make" a barfight happen; however, it's only the DM who can literally create a fight inside a bar when he wants one to happen.