Do you know you're a bad GM?

[Cryptos]

I suppose that one of my bigger weaknesses when I run a game is that I always want in-story logic and consistency. One of my biggest hurdles is "why is this group of characters together?" The thing I would least want to do is run a game where a group of adventurers meet at a tavern, or a group of superheroes randomly passing by a crime scene or event wind up spending the next several years as a closely-knit superteam, or any of the other cliches.

I want to encourage players to create characters they want to play, but at the same time I want them to create characters that make sense together and have a reason for being together. Any time that doesn't happen, I wind up trying to come up with a starting adventure that provides that reason. I don't railroad often, but I will railroad early so that the overall context of the story makes sense to me. I'd more often than not rather get players pidgeonholed into a story or concept where they have a reason for being together, and then let them explore the world and do what they want.

I'll go to great lengths to do this, to the point where I'll make the first part of the campaign about why the characters are together. I've had a concept for a Mage: the Awakening game is that the characters get caught up in some situation and Awaken to magic simultaneously, and that this is an auspicious (or for some, suspicious) event to the mage community. Or one for a Vampire game where the player characters were sired as part of a plot by several elders to overthrow the current power structure, and after executing their sires for the planned insurrection, the Prince lets them live provided they jump through his hoops. Or one where various adventurers become the living repositories of mystical energy that came from an ancient and dangerous artifact, and must quest together to find a way to remove that energy safely before evil cultists can rip the energy from them to reconstruct the evil artifact.

When the players don't decide to come together on their characters on their own, I tend to mash them together with a blunt instrument so that it makes sense in story terms for them to be together. That can create limits on the kinds of stories you can open with in a campaign, and it can result in stepping on a character concept here and there in the beginning to make sure the group works overall.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

This thread reads like a "Who's Who" of ENWorld!

Personally, I think I'm an improving DM - not yet settled into Good but hopefully not a Bad DM.

I realised after the session on Monday that I didn't do a great job of describing the goblins the party faced, nor their actions. I also didn't make best use of their powers. However, this has made me determined to make the next session better!

This does, of course, mean that my players may hate me as they're forced to deal with hit-n-run goblin attacks, reinforcements, and so on. Hah.

I do agree that reading a lot of ENWorld threads (together with a few other website such as Gnome Stew) is really helping me.

 

[Nebulous]

I do agree that reading a lot of ENWorld threads (together with a few other website such as Gnome Stew) is really helping me.

In many ways, poring over these threads and discussing games with others is just as useful (if not more so) than what DDI offers. Give or take. It's free anyway.

 

[wedgeski]

See sig. I consider myself an 'averagely good' DM, based on what I've seen of others, and based on player feedback. Certainly I have a bunch of guys who keep coming back for more. Amd my wife says I rul3, but she doesn't count. Over recent years/months I've actively sought out other groups and DM's to learn from, and it's been an occasionally humbling, occasionally ego-boosting experience.

 

[Aeolius]

Of course I know I'm a bad DM. James Wyatt told me so:
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)

I play D&D wrong.

 

[brunswick]

My players seem to enjoy my games but I know I have my faults - I tend to over-prepare my scenarios, my battle-strategy for monsters is often out-manouevered by the PCs, I have the best of intentions with regards to NPC voices and accents but they often end up sounding like stereotypical clones. On the plus side, my rules knowledge is exemplary, I am good at preparing handouts, scenery etc., I keep copious notes about the campaign and the various towns, npcs, I write good adventures when I get time to do so and I am always enthusiastic when I DM games and I think this can rub off on the players. I have played in other games and sometimes the DM looks as if its a chore for him/her to be the DM. That puts me off as a player straight away. Another thing I cant forgive, as a player, is if the DM hasnt done his/her work with a pre-published advanture. There's nothing worse than when the group, eager and excited, gets to the earth-shattering final encounter, only for the DM say "Just a sec!" as he frantically speed reads the last few pages of the adventure.

 

[S'mon]

...my battle-strategy for monsters is often out-manouevered by the PCs...

I *want* my battle-strategy to be out-manuevered by the PCs! Killing PCs makes baby S'mon cry... Been averaging about 1 dead PC/session in my current campaign over 7 sessions, I'd really prefer more like 1/5 or 1/10 that.

 

[El Mahdi]

Am I a bad DM? Yes, sometimes.
Am I a Good DM? Yes, hopefully more often than sometimes.

One way to definitively know if you are a bad DM, you didn't vote on the "dm's, be honest: how often do you make mistakes?" thread here, because there wasn't a "never" option. If you think that you never make mistakes, and there's no room for improvement in your DMing skills, I'd posit you're probably not a very good DM.

I think I'm pretty good. My players express enjoyment and satisfaction about our games, which I feel is the overall benchmark to shoot for. I do have my shortcoming though. I'd say my problem areas are the same ones that are problem areas in everything I do. But, as with the rest of my life, I do strive to get better every time I play. I think those are the two biggest traits of a good DM: there players enjoy the game, and there never satisfied with their abilities but keep trying to improve.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Depends on the day, and the group of players.

I know that I enjoy DMing, and I have certainly had my share of players who enjoy(ed) my DM. If I wanted to run a game this weekend, I know I could get 10 players without working at it.

But, I have off days like everyone else.


RC

 

[Henry]

I'm also not as organized as I wish I were.

Says the man who was shuffling though pages and pages of notes while his players were wind-walking through the Underdark.

I'll second Rel's words about getting to know more GMs being important to your own growth. Just like someone can't improve as an entertainer without going on-stage in front of a crowd, the more players you know, and the more GMs you know, the more you can see what works and what doesn't for more than just a small group of people.