We know player types - are there GM types?

[hymer]

Plenty of systems have been made to categorize players and help GMs and other players deal with them based on those categories. But what about GMs? Don't they have categories? Haven't someone thought of this already? And maybe thought out some advice on how to play with them?

[Dr.Epic]

Do these count? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YrUwDE0HG0):smallconfused:

[Knaight]

There very much are GM types, and there are even terms that see heavy use, though they mostly tend to isolate the undesirable ones: Killer GM, Railroad GM, etc. Beyond that though, there are still types, largely in what campaigns tend to be about and what strategies tend to work. I'm very much a GM that emphasizes intrigue, and who tends to have campaigns that feature complex systems of relationships and webs of lies. By contrast, the GM I'm currently playing under favors straightforward adventure.

[Pex]

Killer DMs - Giving the Jerk Player the Chair
Dictator DMs - Giving the Rules Lawyer the Chair
Monty Haul DMs - Giving the Munchkin the Chair
Railroad DMs - Giving the Roleplayer the Chair
Pathetic DMs - Giving the Loony the Chair
Society DMs (RPGA, Pathfinder, etc.) - Giving the Real Man the Chair
Perfect DM - Giving you the Chair

[Red Bear]

Not sure if it counts, but I've played with a "only volunteer nurses are good" type of DM

[Raine_Sage]

Hm, well I've had the "Always murderhobo" GM where apparently every time the players kill a sapient creature counts as "Murder hoboing" regardless of mitigating factors like:

- The creatures attacking us first.
- Trying to reason with the creatures and failing.
- Trying to reason with the creatures and having the GM say "It just won't work."
- Being tricked into combat by someone else and then denied the option to disengage when the deception is discovered.

[jaydubs]

World Builders - Focused on fleshing out an entire setting, and allowing PCs to explore and interact with said setting. Can present very interesting and unique settings, but may be resistant to players changing the status quo of those settings.
Story Tellers - Focused on plots, things going on in the background, clues, foreshadowing, with lots of hidden meanings. Can run extremely engrossing campaigns, but may be prone to railroading.
NPC focused - Loves creating and acting out the part of NPCs. The best ones will add to immersion with voices, accents, etc. The worst will be too focused around their own characters, creating Mary Sues and turning the PCs into supporting actors.
Sandbox - Open world, focused on reacting to whatever the PCs can dream up. Great at improvising and reacting to active players, but campaigns will meander and become stale if the players themselves lack the ability to create a plot.

[veti]

A few types I've encountered, named after roles in my field of business. None of these types is inherently "superior" to others - I believe it's possible to be either a good or bad DM by following any of these styles:

The Programmer: puts a lot of planning into plot, but tends to take "the world" for granted. Uncomfortable with players going "off-script", will usually try to herd them back in the direction of the plot. Most comfortable using a pregenerated setting, as that provides the backup they feel they need for when players go off the rails (which is probably most of the time, in practice). Considers the campaign "over" once the plot is complete.

The Developer: has a broad-strokes "plot outline", but only plans details for one or two sessions ahead. Will change the world "as necessary" to get players back on the rails, at intervals the DM deems reasonable. Considers the campaign "over" once the plot is complete.

The Project Manager: puts planning and contingency planning into everything. The whole plot is mapped out in advance, but the DM is perfectly comfortable with cutting chunks out or adding them in at zero notice. Biggest weakness is a tendency to get huffy when the players bypass, or just nuke, some beautifully detailed setting that the DM has spent days working out. Considers the campaign "over" once the plot is complete.

The Tester: puts a lot of planning into both the plot and the world, but won't hestitate to change either one as the campaign unfolds. Plots will carry on regardless of whether the players take part or not. The campaign is over when the DM gets bored, regardless of whether the plot is completed or not.

The Manager: pretends to have no "plot", but a sandbox world; however, it quickly becomes apparent that they do have one, they just won't tell you what it is. They will let you do "whatever you want", provided it's what they planned for you to do; characters who follow the plot will be rewarded. The plot itself will never end.

The Documenter: runs a sandbox-like world with multiple "plot threads" for the players to pick up, but doesn't actually work out what the plots are until the players do pick one up. To a large extent, the world is made up (and recorded) as they go. The campaign will end only when everyone gets too bored to carry on.

The Hacker: more interested in rules than in the world or the plot. May have only a nominal plot, but will begin every session with a brief rundown of what rules have changed since last time. The campaign will end only when everyone gets too bored to carry on.

[DigoDragon]

One of my friends is very uncreative with NPCs whenever he is the GM. He just steals stuff from anime and from *my* campaigns. The latter ended up backfiring so horrendously the last time he tried it when the players (who are all veterans under my DMing) assumed that the stolen character ideas were the same NPCs of my campaign. The party murdered them all, derailing the plot completely. :smalltongue:

Not sure what GM type it is, but it's a thing. The kind that just steals/borrows ideas from everyone else.

[nedz]

One of my friends is very uncreative with NPCs whenever he is the GM. He just steals stuff from anime and from *my* campaigns. The latter ended up backfiring so horrendously the last time he tried it when the players (who are all veterans under my DMing) assumed that the stolen character ideas were the same NPCs of my campaign. The party murdered them all, derailing the plot completely. :smalltongue:

Not sure what GM type it is, but it's a thing. The kind that just steals/borrows ideas from everyone else.

That would be almost every DM ever then, it's just that some are more obvious about it than others.

[Socksy]

That would be almost every DM ever then, it's just that some are more obvious about it than others.

/glances at your signature
/glances at my signature

Some people did consider pi = 4 to be true in the olden days. And a lot of buildings collapsed because of it.
Although it seems like a character with K.(Architecture and Engineering) could abuse that fact... 0u0

On the subject of DMs, I think there are three slidey scales forming a little cube!
x: Amount of love and character-building for the NPCs ("Her name is Ophelia and she works as a nurse and she tells you about her family life when you ask, it's true she's related to character X but only distantly, they adventured together in the past, blah blah blah blah backstory blah entire fleshed-out character" with flaws, strengths, and probably at least a rough idea of her stats, HP, feats etc on a character sheet. VS "Uhh... she... she's maybe a second-level rogue and, umm... She goes away. Quickly."
y: Amount of love and geography and maps etc. put into the layout ("Oh, you don't have Legend Lore? Well, the spirits granting you your Oracle powers give it to you, ask about ANYTHING." VS "****, uhh... Are you sure you want to go to the capital? Don't you wanna wait until next session?")
z: Amount of undisguised railroading

[DigoDragon]

That would be almost every DM ever then, it's just that some are more obvious about it than others.

Eh, I suppose you're right. Just seems this particular one was so obvious that we could see neon lights in his notebook. :smallbiggrin:
"His GM screen had ground effects!"