Do you know you're a bad GM?

[Janx]

There's a study out there that says that people who are incompetent don't know it, and often think they are better than people who are competent.

Thus, knowing you're a bad GM may be impossible for some people.

It also turns out, that competent people are more likely to rate themselves lower in skill, compared to others.

This might be seen as modesty, but it's more likely that competent people think they're average, and that most people know what they know. Which, as it turns out, most people are stupid (when you're smarter than average, half the people you meet are dumb).

 

[jensun]

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?

The short answer would be "yes".

The longer answer? I and my group are all 30 something professionals. A number of us have a vareity of qualifications in training and management. We talk about what we want to play beforehand. After each game we have a short feedback session. Three of my players have active blogs where they discuss how the game went.

If any issues do come up then they get identified quickly and dealt with openly and honestly. It helps when you have known each other for a long time, trust each other and are friends beyond the gaming table.

 

[Iron Sky]

I would say I'm a pretty good GM, but then again I've only ever DM'd for my one group of friends, so the context is limited. There have been sessions that were admittedly poorly run, either letting one player monopolize the session, coming to the session uninspired, exhausted, unprepared, and/or burned out, or what have you.

I have had games that certain players were completely uninterested in and didn't come back for a second session, though that may have been more of a setting/game time issue than a GM skill issue.

In the past I also had issues with starting a new campaign every other week when I'd have a short burst of inspiration that wasn't developed enough to carry through more than a few sessions. I've since mostly nipped that in the bud and don't start a game unless I'm in it for the longhaul or if we're expressly playtesting a new RPG or the like.

The one group I play with seems to enjoy my games, so I guess that's what matters, since there's no real concrete way of measuring...

 

[Piratecat]

I appreciate all the kind words, but I'm weak on hard-core combat. I like to handwave too much, and so I tend to avoid giant complex battles. I'm also not as organized as I wish I were.

 

[Rel]

I appreciate all the kind words, but I'm weak on hard-core combat. I like to handwave too much, and so I tend to avoid giant complex battles. I'm also not as organized as I wish I were.

People often ask, "How far can you get just on pure charm?"

Turns out pretty far.

 

[The Green Adam]

I'm the best there is at what I do...

Whatever that is.

I know when I'm not doing my best, I know when I'm having off days and I know when I could be better most of the time. I will even go so far as to say I know why I fail when I fail. That said...

I recently gamed with an unfamiliar group of players in a somewhat unusual environment but I was running a game I knew well. It failed miserably. I thought it was my lack of preperation (though I'd been gearing up for weeks), the fact that I didn't know the players likes and dislikes (though that never stopped me before) and/or the fact that we were playing in a public forum (though this too I've done and well). In the end, I just didn't do a good job because I was holding back. I was nervous. Unsure. I'm not sure why but I was.

A week or two after we unofficially disbanded the group I ran a game system I've never tried with members of my old group and it went over really well. I mentioned my poor performance to them and they looked surprised. One of them reminded me that they (my old group) had assembled from three different states just to game with me. I felt better but couldn't stop periodically analyzing the games that went bad.

In the 30+ years I've been gaming I can remember the 9 sessions that failed. I go over them again and again. I take my fun in general and my GMing specifically very seriously. I'm not that good at that many things. I'm not the guy you want to do your taxes, knit a sweater, fix your car or play shortstop. I'm a good cook, a very good swimmer, I'm great with dogs and I GM really well.

In the immortal words of The Shoveler, "It's who I am. It's what I do."

So to answer the question, I know I am a good GM, maybe even a Great GM. This may come off as egotisical or pompous but anyone who knows me personally knows the truth. I simply love my craft and take great pride in it. I also know that when I stink, I stink royally and I work hard to fix it so I don't stink next time.

AD
"Never Give Up, Never Surrender!"

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the screen

 

[RFisher]

Considering all my weaknesses that I know about, it’s a little scary to think there might be any I don’t know about. They still allow me to take the chair behind the screen for long periods of time, and I’ve been asked to take it a few times. So, I figure I can’t be too bad. I’m going to keep trying to become better, though.

Honestly, just about every campaign I’ve run with this group (since 2000) has been at least part experiment with some style of judging.

I don’t think I’ve ever tried to “sell” a player on one of my campaigns.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

As a DM who is quite obviously full of himself and very proud of his DMing ability, I'm willing to admit that every now and again I make a "Bad call" or sometimes mix up the rules with older editions (sometimes even different games) but in my defence, as much a I hat admiting it, I'm only human (for now) and am subject to the flaws of humanity.

I remedy this myself though. After every single session I run, I have a sit down with my players while we're packing our suplies and ask them what they thought of the session and if they have any suggestions of where I could improve. It's worked pretty good so far for me.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

So, do you recognize your own shortcomings as a DM?

A Dm has no shortcomings, except possibly tactical ones in getting the players to come back. Aside from that they have no obligation except to amuse themselves. At the expense of the players.

Never forget that.

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

Who the hell cares. Losers, that's who. And only losers.