-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Do You Consider Yourself A Good DM -- If Yes, Why?
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
Neo
Explorer
Do I consider myself a good GM....
Yeesh how about something easy like "What is the meaning of life" (42 you shout
)
I think primarily this question is aimed at the wrong people, afterall what GM would want to admit he may not be cutting the mustard.
I think the only people who can really say one way or the other if a particular GM is worth his wieght in gold or not are the players in his group, the very people who suffer and prosper under the GM in questions tender mercies and inspired imagination.
For my own part I have GM'ed for a very very long time... fortunately I have also played for as long a time also so I tend to view things from both perspectives, which I feel keeps me in good stead when providing an experience for my players.
I like to make the story about them the players relevant to their characters in the ways that matter as opposed to just being something they stumble onto and do, because thats what adventurers do, type thing.
I also ask for feedback, whcih I think anyone in a creative role SHOULD be required to do, and more importantly I act upon it, if the point being mde is valid.
Another thing I think a good GM should do, Is admit when they are wrong, like any referee in a sporting event not every call is a good call, but once made it stands, however where RPG'ing is concerned if a call is bad, providing it is caught early enough it can be a good thing to make amends then and there, and doing so rarely spoils the flow of a game, and ensures the prevention of bad will for the rest of a session. This is of course only pertinent where there really is a bad call made, as many players would have us believe anything which is not in their favour is a bad call <g>
I think the greatest rewards any GM can ask for are the things which make the taks worth doing, such as hearing your players discussing thier favourite moments, or most liked NPC, Recieving messages from your players to say how much they enjoyed the last session, or even simple things like people wanting to play turning up often and making the effort.. all these things and a million more are all compliments verbal or no verbal that make GM'ing one of the richest professions in the world.
So in short...... am I a good GM? well like I said ask my players..
Why? because they are the only ones who can honestly say.
Yeesh how about something easy like "What is the meaning of life" (42 you shout
)I think primarily this question is aimed at the wrong people, afterall what GM would want to admit he may not be cutting the mustard.
I think the only people who can really say one way or the other if a particular GM is worth his wieght in gold or not are the players in his group, the very people who suffer and prosper under the GM in questions tender mercies and inspired imagination.
For my own part I have GM'ed for a very very long time... fortunately I have also played for as long a time also so I tend to view things from both perspectives, which I feel keeps me in good stead when providing an experience for my players.
I like to make the story about them the players relevant to their characters in the ways that matter as opposed to just being something they stumble onto and do, because thats what adventurers do, type thing.
I also ask for feedback, whcih I think anyone in a creative role SHOULD be required to do, and more importantly I act upon it, if the point being mde is valid.
Another thing I think a good GM should do, Is admit when they are wrong, like any referee in a sporting event not every call is a good call, but once made it stands, however where RPG'ing is concerned if a call is bad, providing it is caught early enough it can be a good thing to make amends then and there, and doing so rarely spoils the flow of a game, and ensures the prevention of bad will for the rest of a session. This is of course only pertinent where there really is a bad call made, as many players would have us believe anything which is not in their favour is a bad call <g>
I think the greatest rewards any GM can ask for are the things which make the taks worth doing, such as hearing your players discussing thier favourite moments, or most liked NPC, Recieving messages from your players to say how much they enjoyed the last session, or even simple things like people wanting to play turning up often and making the effort.. all these things and a million more are all compliments verbal or no verbal that make GM'ing one of the richest professions in the world.
So in short...... am I a good GM? well like I said ask my players..
Why? because they are the only ones who can honestly say.
Desdichado
Hero
Fractal vs. bitmap games -- I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I disagree that a game system is inherently one or the other (as opposed to any given game.) The way you describe fractal games is the way I play d20 (or any other game) and I don't see how the distinction is meaningful unless you mean from the point of view of how any one GM prepares a game. There's no reason at all the D&D or d20 need be prepared in a bitmap fashion. It's not hard to improvise and ad-lib in d20 -- in fact, I find it easier than many other systems since the rules are predictable and similar across just about any situation you can imagine.
Alcamtar
Explorer
I must be doing something right. Players keep showing up each week and having fun.
Seriously, I'm good at some things (the things I enjoy) and can manage the rest without wrecking the game. It ain't art, but then the audience isn't exactly the most discriminating.
Some things I suck at:
-- acting, especially doing NPC voices
-- witty dialogue, "flavor text", or clever ad-libbed lines
-- remembering the rules, catching players cheating
-- thinking quickly and staying cool when players surprise me
or utterly destroy my carefully designed plot
-- looking anything up in a rulebook or in my notes
-- knowing when to skip over boring scenes like walking down
a city street or sitting around the campfire staring at
one another
Some things I'm good at:
-- winging it, making stuff up as I go along
-- knowing my setting (or faking it convincingly)
-- knowing archetypes, conventions, and how to use them
-- playing NPCs and monsters "in character" and
not using OOC knowledge against the players
-- always letting players decide, never forcing or vetoing
-- adding just enough detail/complication to
get the most mileage out of a scene/fight
-- planning ahead by setting up mysteries, maguffins,
and similar plot hooks
-- adding gratuitous violence to a nonviolent plot without
it seeming out of place
-- throwing in puns and NPC ringers to entertain the guys.
I guess most of my success can be boiled down to two things. First, having a thoroughly understood and memorized toolkit of ideas and cliches to draw upon. And second, having the skill of nudging the game along along by sprinkling in carrots, hints, and complications, rather than railroading it along a predestined course.
Seriously, I'm good at some things (the things I enjoy) and can manage the rest without wrecking the game. It ain't art, but then the audience isn't exactly the most discriminating.
Some things I suck at:
-- acting, especially doing NPC voices
-- witty dialogue, "flavor text", or clever ad-libbed lines
-- remembering the rules, catching players cheating
-- thinking quickly and staying cool when players surprise me
or utterly destroy my carefully designed plot
-- looking anything up in a rulebook or in my notes
-- knowing when to skip over boring scenes like walking down
a city street or sitting around the campfire staring at
one another
Some things I'm good at:
-- winging it, making stuff up as I go along
-- knowing my setting (or faking it convincingly)
-- knowing archetypes, conventions, and how to use them
-- playing NPCs and monsters "in character" and
not using OOC knowledge against the players
-- always letting players decide, never forcing or vetoing
-- adding just enough detail/complication to
get the most mileage out of a scene/fight
-- planning ahead by setting up mysteries, maguffins,
and similar plot hooks
-- adding gratuitous violence to a nonviolent plot without
it seeming out of place
-- throwing in puns and NPC ringers to entertain the guys.
I guess most of my success can be boiled down to two things. First, having a thoroughly understood and memorized toolkit of ideas and cliches to draw upon. And second, having the skill of nudging the game along along by sprinkling in carrots, hints, and complications, rather than railroading it along a predestined course.
Torx
First Post
I don't admit to being a great DM, but I tend to be a bit too modest at times I've DMed for about six years solid (with intermittant DMing for about six years before that). Improvement is the name of the game, as it only happens with time. Here are a few pointers about my game:
1. I know my game world inside and out. Whether it be my homebrew, Planescape, or whatever - I know everything about it. It makes such a huge difference when the the mountain the PC's see in the distance has a name to it. Even if they don't ask, and it doesn't come up. If it does happen to come up, the name's there, it's ready. The history behind it is there. The various races, cultures, and subcultures in it are there. That way, if some PC says they "want to go scale the mountain!" it's ready and waiting. (Don't act like this has never happened to you.)
2. I know my plot. Whether I'm running an epic or a module, knowing the storyline is key. But let me clarify: I don't plot out every encounter, every NPC, every conversation. Instead, I know the beginning, I know the end, I know the villains, I know thier plans, I know my major NPCs. But most importantly, I plan events that further the plot which I interspace throughout the campaign. Simple plot example: PC's out to save the princess. I don't allow them to just rush to the evil wizard's tower and confront him in glorious combat - that would be too easy. First they don't know where the evil wizard's tower is. Before that, they don't even know who the evil wizard is. Once they find out, how to they get past his magical defenses? All of these factors allow for dozens of game sessions finally leading up to glorious final combat.
3. I don't railroad. Yes, I do have preplanned events, what fun would that be for myself or my players if I didn't. But the game has to progress naturally - with the players choosing their path, not me. Granted, I occasionally poke and prod them in the right direction, especially if they're stuck (it happens), but I try to cover all my bases and allow them as much latitude as possible.
4. That said, I improvise. A lot. Largely, this is because of lack of time, also because of laziness - but the biggest reasons are necessity and because I can. Due to my abhorence for railroading, I find that the characters bring me to places I would have never considered before. This is also a good reason to have the world/module fleshed out as much as possible. Who knew the barbarian would get insulted by the king's projected superiority and slay him on the spot? Improvisational techniques are invaluble. I can also do a lot of different accents and traits (albeit, not many well), which helps quite a bit.
5. I try to incorporate the characters' backgrounds and histories into the plot. Is it important that the elf is really a runaway prince, or the halfling a runaway slave, or the half-elf's true love was slain accidentally by his own hand? You bet it is!! I use these things to further my plot, and to get the player's more involved into the game.
6. I try to cater to my game-table habits in game. I tend to get rather silly at the game table, and it gets rather infectious at times. I find it completely hypocritical then to have my campaign be 100% serious. I like to have a lot of ingame humor (case in point: I currently have a someone playing a kender sorcerer). Playing "jokes" on the characters, and likewise having them being played on my NPC's adds a lot more enjoyment, and justifies my out-of-game silliness
All of that being stated, I still have plenty of weaknesses. I still don't have a super-solid foundation in the rules, my descriptions are oftentimes lacking, and my aforementioned silliness can get out of hand at times. But, with all the groups I've played with, I've always been asked to DM the most, and we still tell stories about the amazing games we've shared together - so I suppose I've been doing alright.
To answer a few of Privateer's questions (I can pick and choose if I want to )
Playing good female NPC's is tricky (unless you happen to be female, then it may come naturally). First of all, remind yourself of fundamental differences with females v. males. (avoid inserting flames here, disagreements welcome) Women use more emotion than men in coming to decisions - I feel this should be reflected in game as well as it is in life. Voices are tricky, if you're like me, you like to have every major NPC having a different voice, but my falsetto just sounds too high and goofy to be taken seriously. I tend to just speak a little more softly in my normal voice when portraying females (unless she's yelling at someone or in battle). Also, don't assume that all women should be the archetypes of fantasy women that plague the genre. I like to use women in different roles than what is considered standard. Why does a queen have to be middle-aged and monotone? Why can't she be 95? Or 13? Why do adventuring women all have to have Barbie® dimensions? Why not have a 200lb cleric of the god of feasts? Why not have elf maiden unfortunately sized like a half-orc maiden? These small differences can make your females much more realistic, lively, and memorable.
My accumlated DM wisdom? Ask yourself and your players if general fun is being had, and what can be done to improve it. Do that, and all shall be well.
I've DMed for about six years solid (with intermittant DMing for about six years before that). Improvement is the name of the game, as it only happens with time. Here are a few pointers about my game:1. I know my game world inside and out. Whether it be my homebrew, Planescape, or whatever - I know everything about it. It makes such a huge difference when the the mountain the PC's see in the distance has a name to it. Even if they don't ask, and it doesn't come up. If it does happen to come up, the name's there, it's ready. The history behind it is there. The various races, cultures, and subcultures in it are there. That way, if some PC says they "want to go scale the mountain!" it's ready and waiting. (Don't act like this has never happened to you.)
2. I know my plot. Whether I'm running an epic or a module, knowing the storyline is key. But let me clarify: I don't plot out every encounter, every NPC, every conversation. Instead, I know the beginning, I know the end, I know the villains, I know thier plans, I know my major NPCs. But most importantly, I plan events that further the plot which I interspace throughout the campaign. Simple plot example: PC's out to save the princess. I don't allow them to just rush to the evil wizard's tower and confront him in glorious combat - that would be too easy. First they don't know where the evil wizard's tower is. Before that, they don't even know who the evil wizard is. Once they find out, how to they get past his magical defenses? All of these factors allow for dozens of game sessions finally leading up to glorious final combat.
3. I don't railroad. Yes, I do have preplanned events, what fun would that be for myself or my players if I didn't. But the game has to progress naturally - with the players choosing their path, not me. Granted, I occasionally poke and prod them in the right direction, especially if they're stuck (it happens), but I try to cover all my bases and allow them as much latitude as possible.
4. That said, I improvise. A lot. Largely, this is because of lack of time, also because of laziness - but the biggest reasons are necessity and because I can. Due to my abhorence for railroading, I find that the characters bring me to places I would have never considered before. This is also a good reason to have the world/module fleshed out as much as possible. Who knew the barbarian would get insulted by the king's projected superiority and slay him on the spot? Improvisational techniques are invaluble. I can also do a lot of different accents and traits (albeit, not many well), which helps quite a bit.
5. I try to incorporate the characters' backgrounds and histories into the plot. Is it important that the elf is really a runaway prince, or the halfling a runaway slave, or the half-elf's true love was slain accidentally by his own hand? You bet it is!! I use these things to further my plot, and to get the player's more involved into the game.
6. I try to cater to my game-table habits in game. I tend to get rather silly at the game table, and it gets rather infectious at times. I find it completely hypocritical then to have my campaign be 100% serious. I like to have a lot of ingame humor (case in point: I currently have a someone playing a kender sorcerer). Playing "jokes" on the characters, and likewise having them being played on my NPC's adds a lot more enjoyment, and justifies my out-of-game silliness
All of that being stated, I still have plenty of weaknesses. I still don't have a super-solid foundation in the rules, my descriptions are oftentimes lacking, and my aforementioned silliness can get out of hand at times. But, with all the groups I've played with, I've always been asked to DM the most, and we still tell stories about the amazing games we've shared together - so I suppose I've been doing alright.
To answer a few of Privateer's questions (I can pick and choose if I want to
)Playing good female NPC's is tricky (unless you happen to be female, then it may come naturally). First of all, remind yourself of fundamental differences with females v. males. (avoid inserting flames here, disagreements welcome) Women use more emotion than men in coming to decisions - I feel this should be reflected in game as well as it is in life. Voices are tricky, if you're like me, you like to have every major NPC having a different voice, but my falsetto just sounds too high and goofy to be taken seriously. I tend to just speak a little more softly in my normal voice when portraying females (unless she's yelling at someone or in battle). Also, don't assume that all women should be the archetypes of fantasy women that plague the genre. I like to use women in different roles than what is considered standard. Why does a queen have to be middle-aged and monotone? Why can't she be 95? Or 13? Why do adventuring women all have to have Barbie® dimensions? Why not have a 200lb cleric of the god of feasts? Why not have elf maiden unfortunately sized like a half-orc maiden? These small differences can make your females much more realistic, lively, and memorable.
My accumlated DM wisdom? Ask yourself and your players if general fun is being had, and what can be done to improve it. Do that, and all shall be well.
Last edited:
I think I'm a good DM - not exceptional, but solid.
However, there's one thing that suggests to me that I'm good: many of my players have since taken up DMing themselves, inspired by my example. (I'm sure many of them are better than me as well!)
That means a lot to me.
Cheers!
However, there's one thing that suggests to me that I'm good: many of my players have since taken up DMing themselves, inspired by my example. (I'm sure many of them are better than me as well!)
That means a lot to me.
Cheers!
Do I think I'm a good GM?
I'm good at originating plots, winging the plot when the characters do something unexpected, creating a dramatic mood, handling characterizations and abstracts, and portraying the various NPCs along the way. I allow characters time to role-play and focus on providing them with plotlines that encourage the player to think about the character's reactions to ongoing events.
I very rarely plan strategically sound combats unless I'm sure that the NPC(s) responsible for them are actually capable of coming up with those ideas, given their background and surroundings.
Rules lawyers can't stand me, because I usually don't have the mastery of the game system necessary to openly "marvel" at their clever use of the rules to save the party, though I do acknowledge their superior experience.
I try to give everyone equal time, especially in the spolight.
I don't think I'm a great GM, but for the right group, I'm pretty decent.
I'm good at originating plots, winging the plot when the characters do something unexpected, creating a dramatic mood, handling characterizations and abstracts, and portraying the various NPCs along the way. I allow characters time to role-play and focus on providing them with plotlines that encourage the player to think about the character's reactions to ongoing events.
I very rarely plan strategically sound combats unless I'm sure that the NPC(s) responsible for them are actually capable of coming up with those ideas, given their background and surroundings.
Rules lawyers can't stand me, because I usually don't have the mastery of the game system necessary to openly "marvel" at their clever use of the rules to save the party, though I do acknowledge their superior experience.
I try to give everyone equal time, especially in the spolight.
I don't think I'm a great GM, but for the right group, I'm pretty decent.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
