Do you know you're a bad GM?

[Ambrus]

Earlier I was responding to a player's email question about whether I'd prefer that he or I speak to a prospective player who we've been considering as a candidate to join my 3.5 Planescape campaign. I explained my preference that he, as a player, pitch the campaign to this new guy.

My reasoning was that most bad DMs probably don't know that they're bad and that their games suck. In my experience, most DMs are able to make their game sound fun and their play-style well though out. But when it comes to actually playing it's often the case that the game is an entirely different experience than how the DM described it during his/her pitch. I suspect that a game's players are more likely to be able to accurately describe a campaign and the DM's personal style than the DM himself; including the DM's strong and weak points.

I'm lucky to have some players who seem to genuinely enjoy my campaigns, but I've also had more players quit my games over the years than I'd care to admit. The latest such departure is the reason that my group is currently looking to recruit. I try my best to offer up a great gaming experience, but evidently what I think makes a great campaign doesn't always match up with everyone else's expectations or desires. Sure the players I have say that they love my game, but I always wonder how they might describe my campaign or my DMing style to others when I'm not within earshot.

It then occurred to me that this might make an interesting topic for discussion. So, do you recognize your own shortcomings as a DM? Do you recognize what it is you do well? Do you think your opinion of the campaign matches up with that of your players?

 

[Arnwyn]

It then occurred to me that this might make an interesting topic for discussion. So, do you recognize your own shortcomings as a DM? Do you recognize what it is you do well?

I think I recognize some things, but certainly not even close to all. I try to get input for areas of improvement, and what they like. I make clear to them on a regular basis that I'm no mind-reader... pretty much saying just that.

Do you think your opinion of the campaign matches up with that of your players?

Of this, there is no doubt. Same players, 16 years, and they still want to play more often and longer than we do. Others want to join (but there's no room). Yeah, I'm doing things right.

Whatever shortcomings I have aren't (significant? notable?) shortcomings for my particular group.

 

[mhensley]

yes i do and i hate me for it

 

[Calico_Jack73]

That is a tough question... I've had players tell me that I am too controlling but others that tell me that they had an absolute blast at my games. I think a GM can be "Bad" to one player and "Good" to another. Obviously the type of game is a factor... does the player want a sandbox game or do they want to be lead through a more linear adventure? The personality of the player and the GM is also a factor. Do they mesh? Everyone is an individual and not everyone meshes with everyone else. If the player and GM have personalities that don't mesh then no matter how "good" the mechanics, story, and planning of an adventure is the DM will most likely be deemed "Bad" by the player with the personality conflict.

I don't think a blanket "Good" or "Bad" label can be applied to a GM or Player. It can only be applied for the current playing environment.

Gee... that sounded good and political.

 

[Henry]

It's a good question; recognizing your own strengths and weaknesses can be difficult; I know I don't always succeed at doing that very thing, and acting on it.

As a DM I believe I run more successful "convention style" games than I do the long, in-depth in-character games; I'm not a good voice mimic, I have to work to build really Byzantine plots, and I immerse myself in my campaign world somewhat, but not to the extent that some other DM's I've seen can do it.

On the other hand, I've seen some DMs who would probably run really good multi-hour home games, but aren't as good running convention style games. Some might try character generation at the table, meaning two hours of game time of a four-hour session is spent learning character gen instead of game play. Some might come up with really in-depth plots that would be appreciated in a home game, but but not so much at a convention table where you only have a few hours to get into a game.

Regardless of play style, I've seen some GMs that want to run their type of game only, Hell or high water, regardless of what kind of "fix" each player came to the table for in the first place. Learning what your player enjoys out of a session, and finding how to provide (at the least) a little bit of it during the session, is the hallmark of being a good GM. I've rarely seen a butt-kicker say a session was bad that had one good fight in it; I've rarely seen a power-acquiring type of player who got some kind of money or prestige for his PC during play to call it a bad day; and I've rarely seen a heavy roleplay type gamer to get to charm his way or interact significantly with a major NPC and call it a waste of time. Not to say it can't happen; but the DM who can read his players and figure out what they came to the table for is the one everyone keeps calling "a good GM."

If I can't learn something from one of my GMs, even if it's a negative lesson, then I'm doing it wrong.

 

[Rel]

My chief problem is that I'm awesome and I know it.



P.S. I will render an objective opinon that Henry is a wicked good GM, especially for a system you've never played before. He has a real talent for showcasing a system and showing you the cool parts rather than just telling you that they are there.

 

[Henry]

My chief problem is that I'm awesome and I know it.

For this very reason, I measure a GM's skill and sheer awesomeness in "Rels". Piratecat is at least 3.5 Rels or so; Though I've only played one session with him, Gary Gygax I figure to be around 9 Rels.

 

[Rel]

Though I've only played one session with him, Gary Gygax I figure to be around 9 Rels.

That's just mean! I wouldn't put Gary above 6.5 Rels.

 

[Ambrus]

I don't think a blanket "Good" or "Bad" label can be applied to a GM or Player. It can only be applied for the current playing environment.

Oh I agree. But it's easier, more provacative and just plain fun to label every GM as "BAD".

For this very reason, I measure a GM's skill and sheer awesomeness in "Rels". Piratecat is at least 3.5 Rels or so; Though I've only played one session with him, Gary Gygax I figure to be around 9 Rels.

Wow. I wish I were a unit of measure... I wonder how I'd rank on the Rel scale.

 

[Engilbrand]

I have 2 solid players and am looking for more. I had more, but they were friends who had just popped in to play a bit and that was about it. Stupid real-life stuff.
I know that my players are having fun, though. How do I know? Smiles. There's a lot of laughter and joy. Then again, I'm neigh unto a god compared to the game we came from.
Our previous DM didn't realize that he was crappy. He never looked for smiles. He didn't care when we constantly expressed frustration. The game and plot? Well, we refer to him as the Conductor. Apparently, he once ran a game with a large gaming group that annoyed the players so much, they told him they were done and started making up characters for a different game. He kept asking them what their characters were doing.
For me, my flaw is that I don't really prepare. Anything. I have a lot of ideas and directions, and I make that stuff up as I go along. It's obvious, and I've told the players that I do it, but our plot is still advancing.
Why don't I plan? Well, I never know what they're going to do. I've never been a planned. I'm a teacher, and I teach spontaneously, rather than really planning what I'm going to do. That can occasionally be flaw as a teacher and DM.