Do you know you're a bad GM?

[The Little Raven]

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

Yes. I'm really bad about finishing what I start. I tend to formulate tons of ideas all the time, and sometimes new ideas distract me from the ones I'm currently running, so I get a bit impatient about bringing in my new ideas.

I'm also lazy as hell when it comes to prep. I like coming up with stories and plots, but I hate doing the legwork to get ready for the game, which is why I often just run games with zero planning.

Do you recognize what it is you do well?

I tend to make NPCs that my players relate to, often tugging at their heartstrings in order to provoke a heroic reaction (I'm a sucker for heroism, so most of my campaigns are heroic). My plots tend to be elaborate, which sometimes makes my players run off after red herrings.

My best quality as a DM: I constantly ask for feedback. To me, game design/balance and DMing is a journey, not a destination. The day I stop learning how to improve my game is the day I hang up my hat and stop running games.

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

I try to keep them relatively close to eachother by taking in feedback and incorporating it as soon as is feasible. I make sure my players understand my expectations for a campaign, and they make sure I understand which expectations they will meet and which they don't like. It's a constant give and take, but my players seem more and more satisfied with each game as we go on.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

A bad GM lets the characters do what they want.

Ever.

At all.

In any way.

Sarcasm's is getting awfully thick mate

On topic,
As as my aptitudes as a GM, I sure as heck ain't perfect. I've had my good sessions, I've had my bad sessions. I've run some awesome campaigns, and I've run some campaigns that make me cringe in revulsion of how awful they were.

These days, I have a very simple measuring stick for how I did on that particular session/adventure.

Did the players have fun?

If the answer is yes, then as a GM I did good enough. If I come across someone that played in a game I ran and several months after the fact they're still excited about it, then I guess I did really good.

I'm getting too old to obsess over trying to be a "perfect GM." Because if there are guys that have been doing this almost as long as I've been alive and still can't get the "perfect" part down, that snowball has better odds than I do

 

[Psion]

As a DM I believe I run more successful "convention style" games than I do the long, in-depth in-character games;

Conversely, the long campaign is the style I've become accustomed to over the years, but running more convention/gameday games over that last few years has been a learning experience for me. I almost always overplan for convention games. I started putting in "throw away" encounters to adjust for time... that almost always thrown away.

Sometimes I bank a bit too heavily on the rules, and ask for dice rolls too much (the take 10 and take 20 rules were a godsend for me). Sometimes in the heat of the moment I do miss opportunities to get more players involved in the action.

Looking back at my more popular convention games, I'm pretty good at putting in surprise elements that players seem to find engaging. And I find producing a "red herring" layer to a mystery adventure almost trivial.

 

[HelloChristian]

Great question, OP.

Yes, I am aware of my own shortcoming. I worry that I do not provide the PCs with enough likable NPCs to care about. I think that's really important, to have NPCs the PCs befriend, marry, take care of, sponsor, etc.