In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Oryan77]

Because of this, a GM could well have ten years experience, and even be a very good GM for a particular group of players, and yet crash and burn when faced with a different group.

I fit this example perfectly. In my case though, it isn't so much that I crash & burn because I suck, it's because I don't put up with BS from problem players. I also don't let players dictate to me how the campaign world works. And if anyone pays attention to how people are on ENworld, then you know that D&D players are very whiny & act like Divas when they don't get what they want. So it's hard for a DM like me to find easy going & laid back players.

However, I would rather this didn't become about finger pointing or pickiing apart anecdotes to find the "truth". If someone claims that their DM's were good, then they were good. If someone claims that they were bad, then they were bad.

Well you won't have a very accurate portrayal of good & bad DMs then if all you want is for people to say yay or nay.

I've played with a couple of dozen players in the 10 years I've been DMing. If every one of them that left on bad terms or were never invited back got to reply to your question, that sure would tip the scale on the "bad DM" side a lot more than you'd get players claiming I was a good DM.

Good players stick around, so you don't cycle through good players as much as you may cycle through bad players. So in my case, I have a lot more players saying I suck than I do saying I'm good.

And if all of my problem players got to vote that I was a bad DM, I'd feel the need to defend myself. I certainly don't think I suck & I'm sure my players would be dumbfounded if they heard someone say that I sucked. I am not perfect, but I have spent 10 years trying to improve and I like to think I do a pretty good job. And I still look for ways to improve every day. That's why I like reading these forums.

 

[diaglo]

i've tried a lot of games with a lot of new people.

i would say 5% have been great, 15% have been excellent, 30% have been avg to good and the last 50% have been gawds awful. of the 50% most of those have been at convention sponsored events or game stores but a few i actually drove to their home.

 

[S'mon]

Well, obviously some players who've quit my games will say I suck, but I hope the majority of them would say I was at least an okay-ish GM.

 

[Lanefan]

We were all bad once, even the best of us.

I've played with some grand DMs, and those tend to be the ones whose campaigns last beyond the first adventure (ignoring, for this purpose, intentional one-offs and convention games). I've also hit some rather grim ones, but they didn't last long anyway.

As a DM, I was awful when I started. Fortunately, my players put up with it and gave me time to learn the ropes; after which things improved a little and - I hope - are even now still improving.

Some years later, however, in the same campaign but by now with mostly-different players I was overthrown by a player revolt. They put in a new DM, and I became a player...which at the time was fine with me...

A few years later, one of the ringleaders of the revolt told me that had they known what was in store in the new game they never would have done any such thing.

= = = = = =

Separate but related issue: unfortunately, Hussar, defining "bad" does have relevance here. There's people on this board, for example, that by their own stated attitudes and preferences would define themselves in my eyes as bad DMs, and in whose games I would not play. (the reverse is also true; I'm sure there's some of you who think I'm a bad DM - fair enough, I won't hold it against you ) But somebody must think these bad-to-me DMs are good at what they do, as their games seem to keep on rolling along...

In other words, you could get several different opinions about the same DM, which would make this poll a bit counter-productive.

Lan-"not perfect, but better than I was"-efan

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I voted more than half, but not much more. I'd say around 55%.

A couple factors influence that stat. One is that my standards are high. Another is that I have played a lot of one-shots and con games over the years, and I included those in my thoughts. Though many of the GMs there have been good, I'd say slightly more have been bad. And though I have played many more home games than con games, I've had many more con GMs than home GMs because at home we tend to stick with friends.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Bad for me is:

Changing your character into something the GM wants it to be.

Impossible scenarios that take a GMs personal pet character to solve and rescue the PCs.

Favoring girlfriend over all other players.

Too many suicide runs that even if successful don't have any real impact on the game world.

Pulling rules changes at the drop of a hat in order to confound the players in order to "foster role playing".

Illusion of player control over their characters.

Being entirely disruptive of a game when s/he's the player and these things are being done to him because s/he can't stand not having control of their own character.

Making everything exceptionally hard. Such as every time one goes to the bank you're always robbed because the GM hates wealthy characters.

Never allowing characters to have any resources and reducing them to being squatters on muddy filthy infested land .

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think mediocre is more common than bad. Bad to me is not about conflicting playstyle but not getting the basics right.
For, intance I remember con games where the DM did not know the scenario and the session had no pace.

I remember a very good game where the DM made quite a few rules mistakes but kept the action flowing and was good in painting the scene and npc characterisation.

 

[Dykstrav]

I believe that most DMs that I've played with are simply mediocre, not necessarily "bad." In some ways, I'm glad for the bad DMs though--they've shown me several pitfalls to avoid and reminded me that the game is supposed to be fun.

To break it down, the DMs that I have played under would fall into the following four categories (with their approximate distributions in my experience):

Good (10-15% or so) The DM understands how narrative structure works, characters and settings are plausible and interesting, the DM understands how the rules work and doesn't modify of fudge rules without thoroughly examining the issue and discussing it with the players. The game is engaging and challenging, and the DM must constantly turn away new players that want to join because the group is getting too big.

Passable (20-30% or so) The DM can run a prepared adventure well and they understand the basics of narrative structure. They take the time to design their own settings, character, and "crunch," but it's hit and miss. Some is good and some isn't. The game goes on, suffers some player turnover, but finding new players usually isn't tough either.

Mediocre (50% or so) The DM struggles to run an adventure, either because they don't have a solid grasp of how the game works or because they don't understand narrative structure or character motivations. Railroading is common. Such DMs probably don't design their own material, or if they do, it's not very good. Such DMs may have been "forced" into the position to keep the game going or because they can't find a game to play in themselves. Turnover can be high until a core nucleus of players commit, it's usually a struggle to find new players that want to join.

As a note, most DMs seem to begin as mediocre DMs. However, those who are willing to pay attention to player desires and pick up tips and tricks from other DMs can quickly become passable or even good DMs.

Bad (20% or so) These DMs either just don't get it, or they have abrasive or confrontational personalities. It's rare that a bad DM doesn't understand the game or elements of storytelling--usually, a bad DM has personality issues or a my-way-or-the-highway attitude towards control. Some bad DMs believe that it's their job to "win" the game, taking pleasure in shooting down player ideas or simply making sure that the characters fail when he wants them to. Player turnover is very high under bad DMs, most players catch wise to a bad DM very quickly and won't tolerate their personal issues. Finding new players is difficult for the group. Many groups under bad DMs fall apart after the players get a chance to see other DMs in action.

We were all bad once, even the best of us.

Words to live by, sir. We all have room for improvement. Fortunately, the things that make a game good are usually easy to improve with practice and honest feedback from your players.

 

[Dedekind]

At GenCon, it was about 50/50. Outside of that, I don't play with bad DMs, so my experiences have been great!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think most people will need quite a bit of practice to be a good DM, and in a typical session only one of several people is getting that practice. Thus, if you trade around within a group, the quality will of game will vary. That said, though I've had mixed experiences, novice DMs are not "bad". I've only had a few experiences that were really negative, and those aren't fixed with practice.