Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kaffis" data-source="post: 5327879" data-attributes="member: 10305">I don't feel equipped to answer the question. I've had a few DM's with whom I have just not clicked at all, and a few of those have seemed to be floundering in the role altogether. I don't have an issue labelling the latter &quot;bad,&quot; but is it fair to call the former &quot;bad&quot; as well?Also, what makes a DM good? One DM, early in my roleplaying career, as it were, I would not hesitate to call fantastic by any measure. He was enthusiastic, engaging, high energy, would find fun, entertaining, and characterful ways to play out NPCs, moved action along at a good pace while mixing in opportunities to roleplay...Most of my other ones are kind of hazy, though. This guy is very good at doing things on the fly, but his campaigns lack structure and tend to fall into completely open-ended, player driven stuff, and God help you if a player (or worse, party) doesn't have an idea of a direction they want to go. Another concocts elaborate missions or quests and schemes and plots all the ways it can go wrong if your party doesn't think of one of 3 solutions that bypass them and allow success, and then sits around and watches as the party spends 3 sessions trying to plan the &quot;right&quot; approach without a lot of help or clues. Yet another had essentially plotted out the entire campaign, with no room for player interest or influence, and so the gaming experience resembled some 2 bit amusment park ride, watching the scenes go by as you roll down your little railway listing to &quot;It's a Small World After All&quot; as the little animatronic guys wave at you.Incidentally, none of those guys had a problem finding and keeping players, generally, but neither did they really satisfy me long-term. Are they bad? My gut reaction is to say, no, they keep other players happy, apparently. Are they good? Not for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kaffis, post: 5327879, member: 10305"] I don't feel equipped to answer the question. I've had a few DM's with whom I have just not clicked at all, and a few of those have seemed to be floundering in the role altogether. I don't have an issue labelling the latter "bad," but is it fair to call the former "bad" as well? Also, what makes a DM good? One DM, early in my roleplaying career, as it were, I would not hesitate to call fantastic by any measure. He was enthusiastic, engaging, high energy, would find fun, entertaining, and characterful ways to play out NPCs, moved action along at a good pace while mixing in opportunities to roleplay... Most of my other ones are kind of hazy, though. This guy is very good at doing things on the fly, but his campaigns lack structure and tend to fall into completely open-ended, player driven stuff, and God help you if a player (or worse, party) doesn't have an idea of a direction they want to go. Another concocts elaborate missions or quests and schemes and plots all the ways it can go wrong if your party doesn't think of one of 3 solutions that bypass them and allow success, and then sits around and watches as the party spends 3 sessions trying to plan the "right" approach without a lot of help or clues. Yet another had essentially plotted out the entire campaign, with no room for player interest or influence, and so the gaming experience resembled some 2 bit amusment park ride, watching the scenes go by as you roll down your little railway listing to "It's a Small World After All" as the little animatronic guys wave at you. Incidentally, none of those guys had a problem finding and keeping players, generally, but neither did they really satisfy me long-term. Are they bad? My gut reaction is to say, no, they keep other players happy, apparently. Are they good? Not for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification