Being a good GM, the FAQ

[8headeddragon]

I've always compared the relationship of a DM and the players to that of a restaurant and its patrons. The DM has full control over where you sit, how many freebies you get, and the option of throwing your butt out if you stress him out. But, he has this power because his job is to give you a fun evening of entertainment with consideration to player tastes (while obviously having their own style and flavor established, but consideration to what their customers might like). The patrons that don't like this joint can hit the road, and the joint most likely has a "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANYONE" sign in its own window.

[malak]

Because apparently too many DMs go "Ich Bin Ein Gamemaster!"?

The proper word would be Spielleiter, but in this context, game führer might be more appropriate

Huggable dictator would indeed be a cute way to describe most DMs though.

No.

[Prak]

I think I'm probably more of a huggable ceasar, my self...

[Fuchs]

I think one of the most imporant, if not the most important rule for DMing is:

You need to have fun (too).

No matter what, if you're not having fun DMing you're doing it wrong. It's not your job, you're not getting paid for it, the only reason you're doing it is to have fun.

A DM puts in a lot of work - buying books, preparing adventures, running the game, often hosting the game as well - and if that doesn't end up in him or her having fun, something is wrong.

Players need to understand that. They need to compromise too. As I tell my players: My time is limited, with work and all, so anything that adds to my workload has to add to my fun as well. I'll not sacrifice an hour a week more preparing an adventure or sacrifice a lot of possible plots and adventures just so a player character can use a certain spell.

Ultimately, a game where the DM is not having fun is doomed - or dead on arrival.

[Archmage]

Ultimately, a game where the DM is not having fun is doomed - or dead on arrival.

I agree with this without hesitation, but the fact is that the DM's fun needs to not hinge on his doing things that the players find unfun.

So it goes without saying that if for whatever reason the entire group agrees that they enjoy Gygaxian fuck-you traps/monsters/NPCs/animated dildos, then that's all good if the DM operates in that matter. But my experience is that most players enjoy the game more when nonsensical adversarial play has been removed from the game, especially since every smart player knows that any actual attempt to "beat" the DM is going to result in a loss.

[TheFlatline]

The ability of players to leave is exactly why they are equal in power to the DM. It's far harder for a DM to replace lost players than it is for a player to find a new gaming group, or a gaming group to replace its DM

Then how come I've only played as a PC twice in five years? Nobody wants to DM. It's too much work. It takes a specific mindset to be that detail-oriented, and it takes a specific type of personality to deal with entitled players who can't be bothered to fucking read the rules and have to be spoonfed.

I'll say it. As long as I don't totally dickslap the PCs and railroad them as an epic level douchenozzel, I'm pretty much free to do whatever I like, and I'll still have gamers come back to me to run games for them.

I'm not the type of person to enjoy shafting the players over, but I've done some pretty stupid shit over the years GMing, and I've found that there's actually very little that most gamers won't put up with, simply because nobody wants to do your goddamn job.

Close to half the gamers I've encountered show up to sessions with almost zero knowledge of the system, and expect to have 400 pages of rules explained to them "as we go". Meanwhile I put, on average, 2-3 hours or so of prep time into each session, I have to learn the rules to be the arbitrator, I have to herd kittens and get 4 or 5 or 6 people to agree on a single time and actually try to show up, then during the game I get to try to keep 5 people suffering from chronic short attention spans to focus enough on the game that they don't become bored.

As a player, you show up with dice (optional apparently), a character sheet (optional apparently, the group can wait while you roll up a new one every single session), and a pencil (optional apparently). I won't even say knowledge of the rules is optional, since that's what the GM is obviously for. It's not like he fucking has any obligations to the game to begin with.

And you get going on a player entitlement kick? Fuck you.

[Fuchs]

That's mostly my experience as well, Flatline, in as much as the GM does most of the work, and players mostly dont want to GM.

[Sashi]

I'll say it. As long as I don't totally dickslap the PCs and railroad them as an epic level douchenozzel, I'm pretty much free to do whatever I like, and I'll still have gamers come back to me to run games for them.

Like I said, being a DM is a hard enough job that most players have shockingly low standards for what they're willing to put up with before there's a rebellion or exodus. But this is a thread about how to be a good DM, not how to be a bare-minimum DM.

I'm not saying it's easy to replace a good DM. But the only time you have to replace a good DM is when something bad happens (moving, injury, anti-RPG girlfriend ...)

Whats not hard to replace is a bad DM. If your current DM is abusive and arbitrary, then you really are better off giving him the boot and getting some other player to run endless derivative dungeon crawls. The only question is how bad the DM has to be before a player will be willing to step up.

[Princess]

Like I said, being a DM is a hard enough job that most players

Wait what? It's hobby not a job. It starts to be a job when you have to play games you don't like for money.

[Sashi]

Oh fuck you don't play the semantics game and pretend you're contributing.

[Princess]

I just want to say that in my opinion being GM is more interesting than being player. For example as a gm you don't have your own character (well, considering that you're not one of those GMPC-lovers), which saves you from feeling butthurt because your character died/failed/turned to be looser/etc.

As a DM you fail only if players are unhappy. As a player you have much more opportunities to fail.

Also DM have upper word in such things as starting level/exp, house rules, etc. If you want to test a new build you just throw it on PC - they defeat it and get their fun, you saw build in action and got your fun. And yes, you don't have to "work for exp" (that sense never leaves me when I play smth like Exalted or 7th Sea), you just conjure required power level npc and use it until it dies or cease to be needed.

[Roy]

How not to be a good DM:

The ability of players to leave is exactly why they are equal in power to the DM. It's far harder for a DM to replace lost players than it is for a player to find a new gaming group, or a gaming group to replace its DM

Then how come I've only played as a PC twice in five years? Nobody wants to DM. It's too much work. It takes a specific mindset to be that detail-oriented, and it takes a specific type of personality to deal with entitled players who can't be bothered to fucking read the rules and have to be spoonfed.

I'll say it. As long as I don't totally dickslap the PCs and railroad them as an epic level douchenozzel, I'm pretty much free to do whatever I like, and I'll still have gamers come back to me to run games for them.

I'm not the type of person to enjoy shafting the players over, but I've done some pretty stupid shit over the years GMing, and I've found that there's actually very little that most gamers won't put up with, simply because nobody wants to do your goddamn job.

Close to half the gamers I've encountered show up to sessions with almost zero knowledge of the system, and expect to have 400 pages of rules explained to them "as we go". Meanwhile I put, on average, 2-3 hours or so of prep time into each session, I have to learn the rules to be the arbitrator, I have to herd kittens and get 4 or 5 or 6 people to agree on a single time and actually try to show up, then during the game I get to try to keep 5 people suffering from chronic short attention spans to focus enough on the game that they don't become bored.

As a player, you show up with dice (optional apparently), a character sheet (optional apparently, the group can wait while you roll up a new one every single session), and a pencil (optional apparently). I won't even say knowledge of the rules is optional, since that's what the GM is obviously for. It's not like he fucking has any obligations to the game to begin with.

And you get going on a player entitlement kick? Fuck you.

[TOZ]

Some posters I know at Paizo would blow a gasket at some of the statements here. XD

Count me among the 'GM is no more special than any other player' crowd. I think the best response to 'the GM has more work to do' came from a 'bad DM' thread.

'Dude, no one asked you to do all that.'

Unless the players say 'we want an epic story with crazy things every session' all that work is your own choice. Your players might only want 'The Orc and The Pie' and don't really care that you're trying to write the next Lord of the Rings.

Know your audience and you'll know how much work you really need to do.

[FatR]

That's mostly my experience as well, Flatline, in as much as the GM does most of the work, and players mostly dont want to GM.

Same here. In my experience less than 50% of the players care to, I don't know, read the corebook. Lately I'm using a homebrew setting and have a small document that explains most basic facts about the world and the region they are in, I've also said to every player so far that if they want I can send them more detailed explanations about the things they might be interested in. So far no one bothered to ask about them. And even the most brilliant players I've ever seen, who actually are smarter than me, in my experience really just want to be directed towards the goals they like, rather than actively deciding on the direction of the campaign. Even basing the campaign on the players' backstories/personal agendas generally ends in failure, unless there is one leader, and a bunch of unassertive players, who are willing to play de-facto sidekicks of the leader, in your group.

[Roy]

Some posters I know at Paizo would blow a gasket at some of the statements here. XD

Count me among the 'GM is no more special than any other player' crowd. I think the best response to 'the GM has more work to do' came from a 'bad DM' thread.

'Dude, no one asked you to do all that.'

Unless the players say 'we want an epic story with crazy things every session' all that work is your own choice. Your players might only want 'The Orc and The Pie' and don't really care that you're trying to write the next Lord of the Rings.

Know your audience and you'll know how much work you really need to do.

Some posters at Paizo would have their minds blown over far less.

Yes, DMing is more responsibility than playing. Yes, that still applies even if you aren't doing unnecessary work. No, that doesn't entitle you to be a prick. No one is inexpendable. Cross the line and you will be replaced by someone who won't. Respect your players and you'll have a good time.

Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that’s irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren’t doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it’s no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right.

Likewise, don’t feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter or the rules as written. Feel free to adjust the results or interpret things creatively—especially in cases where you as the GM made a poor assumption to begin with. For example, you might design an encounter against a band of werewolves, only to realize too late that none of the PCs have silver weapons and therefore can’t hurt them. In this case, it’s okay to cheat and say that these werewolves are hurt by normal weapons, or to have the town guard (armed with silver arrows) show up at the last minute to save the PCs. As long as you can keep such developments to a minimum, these on-thespot adjustments can even enhance the game—so the town guard saved the PCs, but now that they have, it can give you leverage over the PCs to send them on their next quest as repayment to the guards!

...

[JigokuBosatsu]

Is that a cat drinking an AMF?

[Juton]

My current GM is hideously unreliable, so I'm contemplating setting up a campaign. Problem is I've never liked DM'ing in the past, it is a fair chunk of work to set things up before hand and keep the players from breaking the campaign by being too dumb. I've only liked it when I shifted things into a Gygaxian paradigm of trying to kill the players, and even then my enjoyment was limited because I was holding back so I wouldn't succeed.

GM'ing like Gygax makes one an asshole though, and I don't want to act that way. Is there anyway I can become a good DM, or at least an acceptable on?

[TheFlatline]

I'll amend myself slightly to my above rant. The players as a whole balance out against the DM. It's roughly as hard for a GM to find 4 or 5 really good players as it is for players to find a good GM.

However, saying that the GM is essentially easily replaceable in any given game with any other player is bullshit, and it sounds like it comes from someone who never runs any games. Have you ever played a long-running game that was run by someone who just never put in any effort? Have you even played in a short run game with a GM like that?

It's boring, frustrating, and often results in really bad GMing. It *can* work for a one-shot, but for something lasting more than say, 2 or 3 sessions, you need prep work. Even if it's half an hour a session of scribbling down notes prior to the game, that's 30 minutes a week more that you put into the game than the players do.

I'm not arguing the GM is god, but it's frankly insulting to discount hard work put into trying to provide a good time. It's like going to a party someone hosts and bitching that the drinks and food aren't to your liking, the decor sucks, and then you piss on the couch because it's not comfortable enough for you.

[TheFlatline]

As a DM you fail only if players are unhappy. As a player you have much more opportunities to fail.

I'll also say you fail if you aren't having fun either. If the players give you a splitting headache but are enjoying themselves, that's just as wrong as a DM doing the Gygax shit where you mercilessly deny even the smallest accomplishments to your gaming party whenever you can. Both scenarios are failboats.

Though I've seen on other gaming boards where people have claimed that in a situation where the GM is not happy but the players seem to be enjoying themselves to STFU and let the players be happy, and intoned it's somehow *obligated* to entertain the players, even at the cost of your own entertainment.

Which is bullshit. Fuchs is right. A game where the GM is miserable is just as doomed to failure as a game where the players are miserable.

[Maj]

I just want to say that in my opinion being GM is more interesting than being player.

Makes me wonder what this thread would look like if it were a how-to for being a good player.

[Roy]

You haven't been paying attention then. If you had you'd know that I'd say the DM already runs everything except the PCs. I usually bring this up in the context of lazy players wanting dumbed down encounters so their gimps don't die.

But that still doesn't mean he gets to play A God Am I. It means he has more responsibility than everyone else.

Any DM who does pull the A God Am I and starts demanding blowjobs will quickly find himself with a boot to the dick, another boot to his ass, and a new person behind the screen. Now you say you aren't saying this but you are.

Forums leave logs.

Then how come I've only played as a PC twice in five years? Nobody wants to DM. It's too much work. It takes a specific mindset to be that detail-oriented, and it takes a specific type of personality to deal with entitled players who can't be bothered to fucking read the rules and have to be spoonfed.

I'll say it. As long as I don't totally dickslap the PCs and railroad them as an epic level douchenozzel, I'm pretty much free to do whatever I like, and I'll still have gamers come back to me to run games for them.

I'm not the type of person to enjoy shafting the players over, but I've done some pretty stupid shit over the years GMing, and I've found that there's actually very little that most gamers won't put up with, simply because nobody wants to do your goddamn job.

Close to half the gamers I've encountered show up to sessions with almost zero knowledge of the system, and expect to have 400 pages of rules explained to them "as we go". Meanwhile I put, on average, 2-3 hours or so of prep time into each session, I have to learn the rules to be the arbitrator, I have to herd kittens and get 4 or 5 or 6 people to agree on a single time and actually try to show up, then during the game I get to try to keep 5 people suffering from chronic short attention spans to focus enough on the game that they don't become bored.

As a player, you show up with dice (optional apparently), a character sheet (optional apparently, the group can wait while you roll up a new one every single session), and a pencil (optional apparently). I won't even say knowledge of the rules is optional, since that's what the GM is obviously for. It's not like he fucking has any obligations to the game to begin with.

And you get going on a player entitlement kick? Fuck you.

[ubernoob]

In my joke campaign over the summer I told the players that I would accept blowjobs as DM bribes. Nobody felt the need to bribe me

[TheFlatline]

You haven't been paying attention then. If you had you'd know that I'd say the DM already runs everything except the PCs. I usually bring this up in the context of lazy players wanting dumbed down encounters so their gimps don't die.

But that still doesn't mean he gets to play A God Am I. It means he has more responsibility than everyone else.

Any DM who does pull the A God Am I and starts demanding blowjobs will quickly find himself with a boot to the dick, another boot to his ass, and a new person behind the screen. Now you say you aren't saying this but you are.

Forums leave logs.

I wasn't saying the DM plays god. I said it myself the DM is more like a ringmaster, setting the stage and getting as much out of the way as possible.

What I took offense to was the idea that a DM's contribution to the game is basically on par with any other individual player. That is demonstratively not the case on many different levels, even with highly motivated roleplayers.

The players as a whole are right about on par with the DM as far as contribution goes generally, and it balances out there.

[TheFlatline]

I just want to say that in my opinion being GM is more interesting than being player.

Makes me wonder what this thread would look like if it were a how-to for being a good player.

In order of importance:

1. Show up reasonably on time
2. Bathe
3. Read the rules beforehand to at least have a general idea how to play
4. Bring your character sheet, or if you are the type to lose it, give it to the GM to save.
5. Bring dice
6. If you're the type that intentionally breaks games and kills off party members to be disruptive, do the GM a favor and just don't play to begin with unless that's specifically the kind of game being run.
7. Understand what kind of game you're joining before making a character. Magic tea party? Hack & Slash? Backstabbing manipulation?
8. Leave your entitlement shit at the door. This is a group activity.

Really, that's about it for what I look for in a player. There's stuff I'd really like, such as strong roleplayers and understanding that the pacing of a game is important (rules lawyers who have to have a 30 minute argument in the middle of the session- I'm looking at you), but really the above 8 points, in that order of importance, is all I look for.

[Princess]

Makes me wonder what this thread would look like if it were a how-to for being a good player.

I think it deserves its own thread.