Good DM/Bad DM
- Thread starter haakon1
- Start date
i think, the majority of DMs would be better than average or better.. reason being, if they were terrible (from the players' collective perspective), they wouldn't have a group to DM for very long.
Though, of course, that isn't an absolute since some players might not have a choice of DM (either out of loyalty to a friend, or absence of other alternatives), but I think on a grander scale above average would be the norm.
Though, of course, that isn't an absolute since some players might not have a choice of DM (either out of loyalty to a friend, or absence of other alternatives), but I think on a grander scale above average would be the norm.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Legend
Which one? I'd say my GMs range from "solid" to "fantastic", by and large.
Cerebral Paladin
First Post
In addition to fba827's point about really bad GMs not having many players available and great GMs having as many as they would want, which I agree with, there is also an assortational reason why everyone's GM may be above average: tastes vary, and part of being a good GM is catering well to your players' tastes. People who like to play in a sandbox will tend to find sandbox GMs, and will then view them as better than average because they are sandbox GMs, unlike those lousy adventure path GMs. People who like adventure paths will tend to find adventure path GMs, and will then view their GMs as better than average because they run adventure paths with strong plots and well-balanced encounters, unlike those lousy sandbox GMs. And people who like high politics and intrigue games will tend to find high politics and intrigue GMs.
The sorting effect won't be perfect. And that's not all that goes into whether a GM is good: I've played with GMs who run my preferred style of game badly and viewed them as poor GMs, and I've played with GMs who run styles pretty far from my preferred style really well and enjoyed playing with them and viewed them as great GMs. But it's an effect that is different from general Lake Woebegone effects that contributes to the "average" GM being "above average."
The sorting effect won't be perfect. And that's not all that goes into whether a GM is good: I've played with GMs who run my preferred style of game badly and viewed them as poor GMs, and I've played with GMs who run styles pretty far from my preferred style really well and enjoyed playing with them and viewed them as great GMs. But it's an effect that is different from general Lake Woebegone effects that contributes to the "average" GM being "above average."
weem
First Post
I was about to rate mine (one of the two I am playing for, though we play his most) as "okay", but then I thought... well, he is "okay" for my tastes, and in some ways presents the kind of game I want to play, but the thing is, for some others who are playing it's exactly what they want and he does exactly what they want, perfectly.
In other words, I can't fairly call it.
In other words, I can't fairly call it.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Which one? I have several DMs (some better than others). I also DM myself - I'm currently running two campains and doing outstandingly at one and mediocrely at the other.
