What is the GM's Most Important Job?

[Snarf Zagyg]

What about games with bards?

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I agree with the second part more than the first. I don't need to "follow them like my favorite TV show." in fact, i kind of think that attitude might undermine the "let the dice fall where they may" ethos I think is super important. But I do think that giving them time to shine in the face of challenges is super important.

Well the first part and second are together - I am a fan of Game of Thrones' characters (except that last season) even when the dice fall and they die. But yeah most PbtA games also have an Agenda of Make the World Seem Real and a rule of Say What the Rules Demand. So you shouldn't hold back on what are real and expected consequences.

 

[Reynard]

Well the first part and second are together - I am a fan of Game of Thrones' characters (except that last season) even when the dice fall and they die. But yeah most PbtA games also have an Agenda of Make the World Seem Real and a rule of Say What the Rules Demand. So you shouldn't hold back on what are real and expected consequences.

While I am not necessarily saying you are doing this, a lot of people who are fans of PbtA games seem to think the way you run those games is the way you should run ALL games (and will argue the point endlessly). I like PbtA okay, and FitD more, but I wouldn't run a traditional RPG the way i would run either of those.

That is one of the reasons I chose "pacing" as important, though: I think that is broadly applicable, across different styles of RPGs.

 

[MNblockhead]

First, none of it. I'm not getting paid for it and if it starts to feel like a job, I'll stop doing it. That's why, after my first campaign, I shelved my homebrew world. As much as I enjoy world building, the time I was spending on it was getting in the way of important responsibilities and other things I wanted to spend time on. It was also causing stress to keep ahead of the game.

So the most important "job" of the DM is to not treat it like a "job." Avoiding burnout is important, otherwise you'll hit that point where you won't want to DM anymore. Also, as @Aldarc pointed out, don't let the game negatively impact your real-world responsibilities. Focus first on family and work. It will be hard to be a good DM if your life starts falling apart around you.

Most other points that I might bring up have been already touched upon in other posts, but I'll note that many suggestions given seem highly situational. For example:

Pacing. I find this one hard to parse. I agree with it for the most part. But I think it is an absolutely okay approach to let the players control the pacing. For example, if you and your players prefer a strongly sandbox-style campaign, the DM should feel compelled to "create some action." If you have a rich world with lots of hooks, the players can easily find action when they want it. This is why many (most?) players don't like more pure sandbox campaigns, but for those who do like this style, I think it works best when the DM doesn't force things to move along.

Antagonism. Again, I agree with this, but... My last campaign was one that a ran in a manner that was antagonistic and would likely have put off many players. I was running a deadly megadungeon. I would show glee when players went down and disappointment when my big bads went down or whiffed a to-hit roll. My Discord and Foundry handle was "Hand of Orcus." An obituary list hung on the wall behind my DM chair (when I was running game in person). I think antagonistic DMing styles can be fun if the players buy into it. Obviously, you want everyone to have fun at the table. But DM versus the players style can be fun for some groups. I find that with this style of DMing fairness and hewing to the rules as written becomes more important. This leads to more rules lawyering than other styles of play, but despite the more commonly expressed feelings I read on the topic, I think rules lawyering can be fun.

Adaptability. I certainly think this is important. Then again this is something I feel I'm good at, so I'm sure that influences how important I feel this trait is. On the other hand, some DMs only want to run a specific system and only like to run a certain style of campaign. They may feel that they DM best when staying within their comfort zone, or they just found their game bliss and see no point in spending their free time running games that are less fun for them to run. Nothing wrong with this.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

and other games where that would be anathema.

but I wouldn't run a traditional RPG the way i would run either of those

I am interested in specific, non-outlier games where my advice without being misinterpreted to mean coddling PCs is not applicable.

Much of the point of the advice is that the GM shouldn't actually be adversarial. If the GM is putting on a show of being the adversary, that is entirely different than the desire to screw over the PCs, make them lose, so the GM "wins."

You build mutual trust and respect. The classic adage is that PCs are orphans because including family means the GM will just weaponize them in ways players don't find fun.

And the game should be focused on the PCs - not about your setting or NPCs. This is the classic (less creepy) half of all rpg horror stories.

 

[Reynard]

And the game should be focused on the PCs

I agree. The adventure or campaign is about the PCs. they are the protagonists. I would say, though, that doesn't mean that the world revolves around them -- and actually shouldn't, IMO, in most games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am interested in specific, non-outlier games where my advice without being misinterpreted to mean coddling PCs is not applicable.

The idea that GMs should not be fans of the players, but should be neutral and impartial, is a feature, not a bug, of numerous different games.

That you are not familiar with them is ... well, I mean, it's not exactly an unknown playing style.

And the game should be focused on the PCs - not about your setting or NPCs. This is the classic (less creepy) half of all rpg horror stories.

Again, some games are very much about the PCs. Other games prefer to situate the PCs as merely another part of the world.

These are issues of gaming preferences, not markers of absolute commands in "What makes for a good game."

 

[TwoSix]

To crush your PCs, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their players.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To crush your PCs, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their players.

I, too, enjoy Paranoia!

 

[Breaking Star Games]

should be neutral and impartial

I feel like I already responded to this. If ASOIAF was a game run by a GM, was the GM not a fan of the characters who died? IMO, no. Nothing about being a fan means you no longer can run the world real and consistent. In fact, if they were mutually exclusive, then it'd be just impossible to run many games that have both as GM guidance.

prefer to situate the PCs as merely another part of the world.

Are we literally stating the PCs are not on the screen except as part of the game. Is the GM meant to be just playing out scenes without them in it or am I not typing it out clearly enough.

Because I specifically said the game is focused on PCs. Reynard brings up a good point to distinguish what I said - I didn't say the world revolves around them.

I feel like talking specific system would help - not just say a whole bunch of them.