In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Wednesday Boy]

Now, go and get your glasses!

Yes sir! Master Chief, Sir!

Unfortunately, no.

That's an interesting point.

I ask because I've recently been itching to run a game so I can try to "lead by example" on elements that I think would make for a better game, rather than critiquing our GMs. I wonder how well that works.

 

[Hussar]

Yes sir! Master Chief, Sir!

I ask because I've recently been itching to run a game so I can try to "lead by example" on elements that I think would make for a better game, rather than critiquing our GMs. I wonder how well that works.

Speaking purely for myself, I would say that I have learned buckets full of stuff about being a DM by playing. Both stuff I want to do and stuff I don't. Heck, even playing with the bad GM's has made me a better one, I think. I know, for example, that my NPC's are NEVER more important to the game than the PC's because watching the DM write amateur fanfic about his favourite DMPC is not fun. Ever.

((And, yup, I've made that mistake in the past. It wasn't until I was a player and someone did it to me, that I realized just how bad a mistake it was.))

So, certainly, I think that leading by example helps. How receptive a prospective DM is to being led is a mark of a good or bad GM IMO.

 

[TarionzCousin]

GM's are okay.

DM's are better.

 

[pemerton]

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

Very true. I've learned a lot about GMing by doing it, and also by reading about others' experiences (Dragon Magazine back in the day, the internet these days).

A player revolt is when the entire group, en masse, turns to the DM and refuses to play with him or her again. Essentially, they fire the DM.

THAT'S how bad the DM's I played with were. FOUR TIMES. Entire groups walking out on a DM.

I've never suffered one of these. I did instigate one, a little over 20 years ago, which more-or-less created my current group (which is really a series of overlapping groups of 15 or so players over the years).

I think most of my GMs have been good, with several greats. Most respondents to the poll will, I think, have similar views because people tend to only game with those they consider to be good, and to leave games where the other participants are perceived to be bad.

<snip>

Over the last 15 years I've had quite a few GMs, if you count conventions and other oneoffs. It would only be about ten if you don't. The convention GMs tended to be worse than my regulars, that could well be due to different tastes.

I ticked the "more-than-half bad" box.

Of convention GMs, I've had good ones GMing systems like Stormbringer, Runequest and Cthulhu but a lot of bad ones GMing 2nd ed AD&D. On balance, I'd say more good than bad GMs.

Of non-convention GMs, I've had more bad than good - but have tended not to play for very long with the bad ones (and as I said above, instigated a revolt against one of them in order to create my current group).

I think that there are affinities not only between different players, but between GMing styles, play preferences and systems. It's not clear which way the causal direction flows, but I've almost never had a bad experience with Chaosium or Rolemaster GMs, whereas I've very rarely had a good experience with 2nd ed AD&D GMing. Now some of that simply reflects my own preferences, but I don't think that all of it does. Something about some systems just seems to bring out a GM's inner tendencies towards railroading and fanfic authoring.

 

[The Shaman]

GM's are okay.

DM's are better.

And referees are best.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have had many bad DM's, but they haven't been my DM's for long. Most of my game time has been spent with the good DM's even if there are less of them than the bad DM's.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I've had a lot of bad DMs. It's possible my standards are higher than most. But having been a Triad member for Living Greyhawk and Admin for Living Forgotten Realms, I've traveled to a lot of conventions and played under a LOT of DMs. Unfortunately, in these situations con organizers are often desperate for DMs to run games for all the players who signed up.

Plus, a lot of DMs think they are better than they actually are.

Then again, I think some DMs who might be put in the "good" category by others are actually bad. I don't like when DMs fudge the rules a whole bunch or make things up on the fly in an obvious way. Especially when it contradicts the rules. ESPECIALLY if you can tell the DM is making stuff up on the fly because he has no idea what the rules actually are and is trying to cover up his lack of knowledge. I'll cut a DM a little slack if he asks the table "How does that rule work again?" Even though, I prefer DMs who don't HAVE to ask. But if it's obvious that a DM doesn't know the rules, doesn't care what they are and is making things up and then pretending those ARE the real rules...yeah, I get a little annoyed.

Especially if they get mad at me for pointing it out. Since these are the DMs that normally do.

 

[Aegeri]

I've had one DM, who introduced me to the wonderful thing that is DnD. Now after 14 years of playing DnD I have spent early 13 of that as a DM. I've not played a single game of DnD since I took over DMing duties for the group and now I run 3 games of 4E. Mostly I just don't have the availability to play in someone elses game - but because I can dictate the time the game starts when I DM it ironically makes DMing easier than playing.

Fancy that :/

 

[S'mon]

Then again, I think some DMs who might be put in the "good" category by others are actually bad.

Or "some DMs I would put in the "bad" category are actually good, since most others like their DMing".

How else can we reasonably judge good/bad GMing other than by majority opinion?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Or "some DMs I would put in the "bad" category are actually good, since most others like their DMing".

How else can we reasonably judge good/bad GMing other than by majority opinion?

Oh, I agree. I was just saying I have a tendency to be kind of pessimistic when it comes to DMs. I find most other people are more tolerant of DMs than I am.

More than once I've been a bit baffled when after a con game someone will come up to me and say "That was great! I'm glad we had such a good DM!" and I'll say to them "What? He didn't know the rules for grappling or damage reduction. Because of those two things, he managed to turn what would have been an easy fight into an extremely hard one and we all nearly died. It's only because we worked together and used every power we had that we didn't." and they'd reply with "What? I didn't notice he made any mistakes. It was just a fun battle."