blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
It sounds like such a naughty word.Henry said:
The Greatest DM in the World
- Thread starter Simplicity
- Start date
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
I've played with something like 300-400 DMs over the years, and I'd put Chris Perkins in the top 10 of them. He's really good in a whole lot of areas. Based on the single setting of his I sat in on (thanks, Jeff Quick!), the only thing I'd have dinged him on was pacing. The man has my respect.
(Another interesting side point: thinking about it, I'd put our own Barsoomcore in that top ten as well. Yowza!)
(Another interesting side point: thinking about it, I'd put our own Barsoomcore in that top ten as well. Yowza!)
I think Chris is both right and wrong, situation depending.
Where Chris is right:
Improvisation is key to being a good DM. The first casualty of any war (or adventure) is the plan. I have never run an adventure in 30 years of gaming where the players did exactly what I suspected that they would do for an entire gaming session. It never turns out exactly how I expect, although it can head in the general direction that I expect and specific planned encounters can and do occur.
It is critical that a DM improvise and it is totally reasonable for him to try to improvise the group back in the story / adventure direction that the DM planned.
And as a general rule, players should work with the DM to craft a good story.
However:
Example where he is wrong:
The PCs enter a dungeon. It closes on them so that they are trapped. They spend the next 4 gaming sessions trying to get out of the dungeon whilst the DM is trying to keep them in. He did, after all, work hard and long on his mega-dungeon.
But, the DM in his railroading attempts here is not considering the motivations of the PCs. The PCs are motivated to not be trapped. The players are roleplaying their PCs correctly in trying to escape. Once they do escape and have an escape route, they then can decide whether to re-enter the dungeon or not. However, the DM should not be overtly or subtlely attempting to get them "back on track" in this case.
Note: This situation does not need to be a dungeon. It can be any situation where the players feel strongly that their PCs should not be going down the path the DM laid down, be it an adventure, a social situation, or whatever.
The current storyline or adventure should never take precedence over the motivations of the PCs.
Story is important. No doubt about it. But, the DM's story is only one component in the entire mix. There are many players at the table, each with his or her own storyline to contribute and they have the right to express it (and influence the other players in a direction of their choice) as much or more than the DM. Typically, this does not happen to the point that it overrides the DM's current story or adventure. The DM's story tends to come out regardless. But, a good DM has to be aware of when for PC motivations of their own, the players decide to scrap the current story and go their own way, and the DM has to improvise a new story.
The social contract works both ways. IMO.
Where Chris is right:
Improvisation is key to being a good DM. The first casualty of any war (or adventure) is the plan. I have never run an adventure in 30 years of gaming where the players did exactly what I suspected that they would do for an entire gaming session. It never turns out exactly how I expect, although it can head in the general direction that I expect and specific planned encounters can and do occur.
It is critical that a DM improvise and it is totally reasonable for him to try to improvise the group back in the story / adventure direction that the DM planned.
And as a general rule, players should work with the DM to craft a good story.
However:
Example where he is wrong:
The PCs enter a dungeon. It closes on them so that they are trapped. They spend the next 4 gaming sessions trying to get out of the dungeon whilst the DM is trying to keep them in. He did, after all, work hard and long on his mega-dungeon.
But, the DM in his railroading attempts here is not considering the motivations of the PCs. The PCs are motivated to not be trapped. The players are roleplaying their PCs correctly in trying to escape. Once they do escape and have an escape route, they then can decide whether to re-enter the dungeon or not. However, the DM should not be overtly or subtlely attempting to get them "back on track" in this case.
Note: This situation does not need to be a dungeon. It can be any situation where the players feel strongly that their PCs should not be going down the path the DM laid down, be it an adventure, a social situation, or whatever.
The current storyline or adventure should never take precedence over the motivations of the PCs.
Story is important. No doubt about it. But, the DM's story is only one component in the entire mix. There are many players at the table, each with his or her own storyline to contribute and they have the right to express it (and influence the other players in a direction of their choice) as much or more than the DM. Typically, this does not happen to the point that it overrides the DM's current story or adventure. The DM's story tends to come out regardless. But, a good DM has to be aware of when for PC motivations of their own, the players decide to scrap the current story and go their own way, and the DM has to improvise a new story.
The social contract works both ways. IMO.
Simplicity
Explorer
Piratecat said:
I'm not saying he's not a great DM. I'm positive he is.
But as Henry said, a better DM tends to have a number of situations at hand just in case. Most player sidetracks can lead right into those plotlets. Not a problem. I'm sure Chris Perkins would consider this "getting the players back on the rail."
But I think that's not really the way to think of it. You don't want a rail. You want a rail system. A framework upon which the players can operate and make choices. Sure, many of the paths take them to well-travelled stations. For a good DM, this makes it seem to the players like EVERYTHING was planned in advance. Fine. Accepted. But your players (especially good players) will choose to take a taxi. Let them explore it, and see where it goes.
Sometimes the DM brings out the Banewarrens, and the players just say: "SCREW THIS. That place is scary. I'm not going back there." Okay, the DM has obligations to listen to his players some.
Last edited:
Asmor
First Post
A great DM should rule with an iron fist. It is your duty to teach the players that you are their god. Not just their characters' god, the players' god. From the moment the sniveling little maggots hand you their character sheets for inspection to the moment you impartially announce that they've sprung the poison gas trap (and no, they don't get a save!) you need to make sure they lavish you with the respect you deserve. They're lucky to be playing with you, and when their character dies to suit your whimsy, their only response should be, "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
That is the essence of the world's greatest DM.
That is the essence of the world's greatest DM.
Simplicity
Explorer
Asmor said:
Well, it's hard to DM with an iron fist when the pay is so good. You don't want to anger your clients...
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
It's hard to DM with an iron fist because it's hard to roll the dice!Simplicity said:Well, it's hard to DM with an iron fist when the pay is so good. You don't want to anger your clients...
I thought all DMs got paid these days.
Moon-Lancer
First Post
IanB said:I prefer a bit of a railroad, frankly. I've had too many games where we sit around for 3 hours arguing about what to do.
hehe i know what you mean. 15 min in a tend to say say *psst* "bla bla bla" to my players.
