What makes a Good DM?

[ShadowImmor]

As a fairly long time RPer, and someone who always want's to improve, I thought this would be an interesting question, however it may require clarification.

When I say a Good DM, I mean if you were a player for any system, what would you want in a DM? Is it someone who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules? Is it someone who plans out every encounter down to the last possible option? Is it someone who can improvise? Is it as simple as just doing voices?

Don't get bogged down in Preparedness vs On The Fly DMing as both can work very well (and in fact I've found both are needed)

Please give reasons for your answers, so if it's the Encyclopaedic Knowledge is what makes a good DM, give a reason why, i.e. "You can always get an answer to any question grounded in the rules and system, no time looking anything up."

Thanks!

[hymer]

Consistency in rulings is high on my list. Having excellent system knowledge obviously helps with that, but it also comes down to the non-rules rulings that need to be made. Consistency is desirable as an end in itself, but it also helps with suspension of disbelief, with making informed choices (both in character creation/building and in-game choces), and helps keep everyone on the same page.

[KRSW]

I would say being a good DM means making fair rulings and being able to explain why you ruled that way. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to explain why right then but if a player has a problem with it, be able to justify why with something other than "I am the DM."

Fair rulings to me are rulings that favor neither the player characters nor any NPCs the DM is controlling. To me, an example of an unfair ruling is when a PC walks up to an NPC noble and says "Give me all of your money." Then, they roll intimidation or whatever and roll a nat 20 and then it just happens and that's it. That ruling favors the PCs over the NPCs and there is pretty much no reason that a Noble will just hand over all of their money to some random person because they told him so, charmed or otherwise.

An example of an unfair ruling favoring the NPCs would be when a wizard is using their Unseen Servant to open things that may or may not be trapped, making the trap only affect the Unseen Servant and just saying "Your Unseen Servant will no longer be able to open chests or doors or whatever." That ruling doesn't really favor the NPCs specifically, but it favors the DMs world and his creations while being pretty unfair to the Wizard. Sure, the Unseen Servant is weak but if that was the reason then that situation should have never happened anyway because the Unseen Servant should never have been able to do any of it in the first place.

In short, being a DM and having "I am the DM" be your go to reasoning is silly, don't do that and you are fine. Don't flip flop your rulings either. If you say something happens a certain way then stick with it, or if you are unsure at the moment you should say that you will do it this way this time, and after the game you can sit down and figure out how it should be consistently in your game world.

In 5e atleast, there are alot of things that are just up to how the DM rules it. Recognizing what parts of the game have weak or little to no rules for them and how you would consistently rule them when they came up are all good topics for a session 0 or even before session 0 if you want to send out a short word document or something like that.

[Darkstar952]

There a few things that I think make a good DM, the first is the ability to communicate clearly in their descriptions, without this games often seem to turn into 20 questions as the players have to quiz the DM every time they get somewhere new.

The ability to read the mood of the table and adapt as needed, so if players are getting bored with current quest or situation then either expediting it or changing it up on the fly to get the players interested again. This is especially true if they introduce any risky topics, noticing that a topic is making a player uncomfortable and either dialing it down or aborting the topic altogether.

[Peelee]

Infinite patience.:smalltongue:

[Laserlight]

1. Reliability. If you want to kill enthusiasm, schedule and cancel three sessions in a row. Bonus points if your excuse is vague or non existent.
2. Neutrality. You are not playing against the PCs, you are merely playing the environment. If you say "I really wanted to kill X's character"--which I've heard a DM say--then hand in your DM screen.
3. Understanding what makes a good encounter. If you think a simple fight to the death against one type of monster, with no special abilities, on a flat open plain with no terrain, makes an acceptable encounter, well....
4. Consistency or retconning. If you change your mind on how a character function works and nerf it, you are obligated to give the player a chance to revise the character.
5. Generosity. Don't be Monty Haul but also don't be stingy with the stuff a character needs. If the wizard never finds spell scrolls he can copy, the L8 fighter still doesn't have plate, and the thief can't quietly pocket a hammer in a hardware store because eagle eyed guards are, er, guarding it, then you're doing it wrong.

[BillyBobShorton]

Rules are important, story is important, acting, improv, etc. But really, the only thing that truly matters is if the players have fun. It's that simple.

[Requilac]

I would say the thing that makes a good DM is the same thing that makes a good player, except that the bar of expectations for a DM is a little higher.

I personally find that the best DMs though are the ones who can recognize that the players should have power to. You should all be a group of people working to tell a story, not a queen/king and their subjects. The story is collaborative so the players should be able to change the story if they want to. They shouldn't be forced to roleplay things out the way you expect them to. I am a DM so of course I understand how hard it is to improvise and form encounters if things don't go according to plan, but making that way the only way is just not fun for the players.

This extends beyond narrative power too; the players should have a degree of control over the games rulings and mecahnics too. If a player challenges your ruling in a respectful way, then a good DM should at least acknowledge them. It is okay if said DM denies the player or tells them to hold it off until after the session, but they shouldn't just shut them up for arbitrary reasons. I find that players are for more satisfied if they find you are listening to them on mechanical matters and it rarely disrupts the game too much.

That's my 2CP at the very least, which I say as both a DM and a player.

[Nifft]

To make a good DM, what you do is you take a thoughtful player and make that player suffer under a bad DM until the thoughtful player decides she can do it better herself.

That's one way to make a good DM.

[napoleon_in_rag]

My guide to DMing

1) Make it fun
2) Be fair
3) Be prepared
4) When in doubt, improvise
5) Write your house rules down
6) Don't be afraid to interpret RAW as you see fit
7) Too much railroading is bad
8) Too much of a sandbox is bad
9) See rule #1
10) See rule #2

[Maelynn]

- be fair in your rulings. There's room for leniency, of course, but it should be situational and context dependent. Don't let your NPCs do stuff that you disallow your players. Stuff like that.

- be enough of a storyteller to describe the setting and the events with some colour. Players have and use their own imagination, but that can be dampened when the DM tells the stories as bland as a rice waffle.

- be able to improvise if necessary. Either have backups prepared, or practice winging it. Nothing screams railroading like the players making an unforeseen choice that brings the session skidding to a halt, simply because the DM doesn't know what to do with this sudden course change.

I could name a few other things, but they're not solely for DMs but for players as well. Think of being respectful to other players, paying attention to the game, not bailing on the party at the last minute because you haven't prepped or you had something else come up.

[Pex]

Listen to your players when they're having a problem with the game. You do not have to accept all their requests, but do not dismiss their opinions. Of course there exist players who are actually whining, but do not assume such by default. Sometimes do accede to player requests. Fair judgment is necessary.

Play with your players, not against them. The bad guys are trying to kill the PCs. You as DM should not be. Never measure your competence as a DM by function of how many PCs you kill or drop to unconsciousness.

Never solve a problem that is outside the game inside the game. Talk to your players to fix the issue.

It is prudent a PC should not be so powerful it monopolizes the game or "wins D&D", but accept that it's ok a PC can be powerful. What is powerful is subjective. Players are stomping over the bad guys making combat too easy. That's a legitimate concern to learn to make a more challenging encounter or perhaps you allowed the PCs to become more powerful than they should be for their level and need to remedy it outside the game talking to your players and admitting your mistakes. The players defeat your BBEG and you are angry about it. Get over it. That's supposed to happen. If they outsmart you, get over it. That's supposed to happen. Clever play is to be rewarded, not result in taking their toys away.

Do not enable jerk behavior from players. Never accept "I'm just roleplaying" or similar as an excuse. It's an outside of game problem that needs fixing.

Players and their PCs are allowed to know things. They are not to be ignorant imbeciles on everything. Characters can know things the players don't or not have a clue they should be knowing something. Depending on the thing tell the players the information their characters would know or let them roll a check of reasonable DC based on the situation to see if their character knows the information or remember it at that particular moment.

[Tanarii]

Understanding rules adjudication. Communicating it clearly, especially if they're not going to use the default for the system.

In D&D 5e, the 'default' is player declares intent, DM determines resolution method, DM determines & describes outcomes and consequences.

For games other than D&D, understanding that rules adjudication isn't always intended to work the same way it does in D&D in every other system. For example, it's philosophically different in AW.

[SiCK_Boy]

I'm fine with all that has been mentioned previously, but one aspect of DMing I think is really important (and which was sadly lacking with the last DM I played with) is sound understanding of the strategic options available to the participants in a given encounter.

It means not rolling randomly to determine who the monsters attack; the monsters should have some way to analyze threat and make a determination. It means having monsters who have "logical" (from their perspective) ways to approach a fight, including making suboptimal decisions when the creature is of animal intelligence (especially in regards to positioning and maximizing possible attacks of opportunity).

It means having some objectives for the creatures encountered, and having them act in order to succeed at those objectives.

In a larger sense, it also means being aware of the environment where you put your players (we almost had a crisis when our wizard started asking questions about building height - he was assessing if he could use Expeditious Retreat to move to a building roof - when we were considering a fight with bandits in a dark alleyway. Especially when using premade modules with 2d maps, you still need to think about the third environment: what happens if the players want to climb, what height are windows at, how high is the ceiling, etc.

A lot of this boils down to preparation - it is during your preparation that you normally have time to think about these various options; some people may be able to have inspiration when improvising, but chances are much higher than an improvised encounter will involve a large flat area of land and a single-minded opponent ready to fight to the death; those can be fun, but variety is nice as well.

[Darth Ultron]

A good DM is creative, organized, plans well, and can effectively lead their players down an entertaining and epic path. A good DM runs a game that is fun, with an interesting storyline for all the players. A good DM akes time to prepare & support his game, it is a huge time investment. A good DM has a lot of Imagination. This is probably the most important trait of all.

Also, above and beyond the game the DM needs to be a ‘host.’ A good DM is really a good host: they do whatever prep ahead of time to make the event run smoothly and then manage the event. The big bit here is dealing with things like late players, no call-no show players or cell phone using players.

And finally:

Cool dice. You are the DM. You should have the coolest dice money can buy.

[2D8HP]

Short answer: A good DM asks "What do you do?", and then says "roll dice", and DOESN'T ASSIGN HOMEWORK!!!

Longer answer:

This question reminded me of something:

While I seldom linger long at the "D&D 3e/3.5e/d20" sub Forum, I saw a cry for help at the Do players EVER read the stuff you prepare for them? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?505853-Do-players-EVER-read-the-stuff-you-prepare-for-them) thread and I posted some advice;


OK.... Since my advice is so evidently useful it would be a shame to hide it merely amongst 3.x players, so I'm posting here, but prepare yourselves, perhaps I did not give enough advice, or I may even be partially wrong, and DM's need advice supplemental, or maybe contrary advice (I know that the thought is shocking, but let's keep an open mind).


So, I am having trouble with my players. All new to 3.5, all fairly inexperienced with 5e and D&D in general, they nevertheless signed up to join my campaign. I sent them everything they neededOK sounds like a good start.

Am I unique now in thinking it a good idea to actually start a game knowing a little about the world as though I grew up there? Unusual? Unfortunately not.

They dont read anything, they make no attemptYour surprised?
wrote a fairly compact players guide to my world, including character creation and world background, house rules, geography and, most importantly for tonights rant, the pantheon of both the country they are playing in (a custom pantheon), and the rest of the world (listed where to find information on the gods).Geography and Pantheon? That hardly sounds compact, and actually sounds detrimental to the experience.

My main issue is the lack of understanding of game rules.Yeah that can be problematic, they're so many of them and......
Oh!
You mean the players??!!
When I started playing DnD the players weren't supposed to know all the rules:You are a DM aren't you? Because
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.

OK, I think I perceive the problem. The "players" want to have fun exploring during play the fantastic world you created, whilst you want them to play act inhabitants from the start.
Just stop that. It is contrary to how the most gloriously fun game ever created was originally played.
But by Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, we can fix it!


The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg
While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386
The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!
I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.
Frankly while role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, WisconsinWhile I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label no good has come from!

“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).
While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:
http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I'm glad that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.
Please?

Start with some basics, explain verbally that Dungeons & Dragons is a table-top adventure game in which you control the action attempts of adventurers exploring a fantastic world.

Tell them the DM describes a scene.

Players say what actions their PC attempts.

DM makes up a percentage chance of success.

Player rolls dice.

Then the DM narrates the results.

That's the game.

You will be the eyes and ears of the PC's.
Tell the players what their PC's perceive including what the PC's think the odds are. Ask them what the actions of the PC'S are like this:
"Fafhrd (use the PC's name, not the players name, this is to help immersion) you see the Witch King approach what do you do?".

Further explain that the PC's whose action attempts the players control have hit points, and when the PC's suffer damage, the PC's lose hit points. When the PC's have no hit points left, their PC's die. Stress this.
Then explain ability scores.
Start with Strength. Explain that most people have average Strength of 10, and that one in a thousand are so strong that they have a Strength of 18, and that one in a thousand are so weak that they have a Strength of 3.
Explain the other "abilities" likewise.

Next the PC's backgrounds.
Somehow (Worldbuild a reason by Crom!) the PC's speak the language of the region the adventure starts in, but they come from somewhere else, "a small village", "the forest", :the Hall of the Mountain King", together you can add details later.

What gods do the PC's worship?
None.
They worship a goddess who goes by many names:
Tyche, Fortuna, Dame Fortune, The "Lady" (luck). Her holy symbol is dice used as a necklace, and her worshippers hymn is "please, oh please, oh please! ".

Introduce the rest of the Pantheon in play, through what the PC's see and hear. Likewise the Geography.

What brings them to the adventure site?

Treasure!

I'd have to say that I would like to start the campaign In medias res, by the DM telling us something like:
“In the Year of the Behemoth, the Month of the Hedgehog, The Day of the Toad."

"Satisfied that they your near the goal of your quest, you think of how you had slit the interesting-looking vellum page from the ancient book on architecture that reposed in the library of the rapacious and overbearing Lord Rannarsh."

“It was a page of thick vellum, ancient and curiously greenish. Three edges were frayed and worn; the fourth showed a clean and recent cut. It was inscribed with the intricate hieroglyphs of Lankhmarian writing, done in the black ink of the squid. Reading":
"Let kings stack their treasure houses ceiling-high, and merchants burst their vaults with hoarded coin, and fools envy them. I have a treasure that outvalues theirs. A diamond as big as a man's skull. Twelve rubies each as big as the skull of a cat. Seventeen emeralds each as big as the skull of a mole. And certain rods of crystal and bars of orichalcum. Let Overlords swagger jewel-bedecked and queens load themselves with gems, and fools adore them. I have a treasure that will outlast theirs. A treasure house have I builded for it in the far southern forest, where the two hills hump double, like sleeping camels, a day's ride beyond the village of Soreev.

"A great treasure house with a high tower, fit for a king's dwelling—yet no king may dwell there. Immediately below the keystone of the chief dome my treasure lies hid, eternal as the glittering stars. It will outlast me and my name,"

100 years ago the sorcerer Zenopus built a tower on the low hills overlooking Portown. The tower was close to the sea cliffs west of the town and, appropriately, next door to the graveyard.
Rumor has it that the magician made extensive cellars and tunnels underneath the tower. The town is located on the ruins of a much older city of doubtful history and Zenopus was said to excavate in his cellars in search of ancient treasures.

Fifty years ago, on a cold wintry night, the wizard's tower was suddenly engulfed in green flame. Several of his human servants escaped the holocaust, saying their rnaster had been destroyed by some powerful force he had unleashed in the depths of the tower.
Needless to say the tower stood vacant fora while afterthis, but then the neighbors and the night watchmen comploined that ghostly blue lights appeared in the windows at night, that ghastly screams could be heard emanating from the tower ot all hours, and goblin figures could be seen dancina on the tower roof in the moonlight. Finally the authorities had a catapult rolled through the streets of the town and the tower was battered to rubble. This stopped the hauntings but the townsfolk continue to shun the ruins. The entrance to the old dungeons can be easily located as a flight of broad stone steps leading down into darkness, but the few adventurous souls who hove descended into crypts below the ruin have either reported only empty stone corridors or have failed to return at all.
Other magic-users have moved into the town but the site of the old tower remains abandoned.
Whispered tales are told of fabulous treasure and unspeakable monsters in the underground passages below the hilltop, and the story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of the older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.
Portown is a small but busy city 'linking the caravan routes from the south to the merchant ships that dare the pirate-infested waters of the Northern Sea. Humans and non-humans from all over the globe meet here.
At he Green Dragon Inn, the players of the game gather their characters for an assault on the fabulous passages beneath the ruined Wizard's tower.

:smile:


To avoid "railroading" don't drop the PC's into a situation that is lame with their having no choice in the matter
Instead, as in treasure seeking examples, the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is AWESOME! so of course the players would choose it.

Don't forget to have someone say:

"When do we get there?"
"Real soon!"

"Demon Dogs!"

"What is best in life?

"This goes to eleven".

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"

"A shrubbery!"

:wink:

Your welcome.

[Pex]

Don't forget to have someone say:

"When do we get there?"
"Real soon!"

"Demon Dogs!"

"What is best in life?

"This goes to eleven".

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"

"A shrubbery!"

:wink:

Your welcome.

In addition:

"I attack the Darkness."

"Where's the Mountain Dew?"

[Sigreid]

To me a good dm tries to be fair in his rulings and isn't so set on "his" story that he refuses to let characters take the story the direction the players want. I like to play the game with friends, not follow a director's script.

[2D6GREATAXE]

* Patients
* Good communication skills
* Improvisation
* Rule knowledge
* Passion

[Knaight]

I'd identify a bit of a different set of traits than the ones this thread has been hovering around - which isn't to say that those are bad, but rather that a lot of them are comparatively minor and that you can have all of them and still be a pretty terrible GM. Instead:

1) Have a command of pacing. This is particularly critical in the context of descriptive flow, where knowing when to describe with a sentence and when to describe with a paragraph; being able to maintain description without too many breaks for thought, restarted statements, or breaks of the "um", "uh", or similar variety; and perhaps most critically at all knowing how to balance GM description with player options and smoothly signal the transition between those states. The GM who reads bad boxed text in a monotone is likely going to be boring, regardless of how good they are at the rest of the game.

2) Be creative. A core part of the role of the GM is as a creator, from overall settings to framing individual scenes, and even in a module there's necessary creativity in terms of how you implement module content. You want a varied, vibrant game, and that tends to happen much more readily when you can make something unique and memorable.

3) Have social skills. As has been pointed out repeatedly, D&D is a very social game. This makes a lot of softer social skills important to everyone, but often particularly important to the DM. It's very much a subset, and one that often doesn't include the ones nerds are stereotypically bad at (e.g. initiating conversations with strangers), but being able to gauge the interest people are having in a conversation and being lively and engaging are both important. One of the hats worn by the DM is that of the entertainer, so entertain.

A lot of the rest can be worked around. A lack of rules knowledge is generally self correcting if people are at least trying to learn it, and I'll happily push through that with a GM if the three things I listed are there.

[KorvinStarmast]

* Patients
* Good communication skills
* Improvisation
* Rule knowledge
* Passion

Sense of humor; without that, fun suffers. (good list, by the way)

Lastly: an understanding of the "three clue rule" and other ways to provide players with information so that players make decisions that matter in the game world.

[Theodoxus]

I can tell you what I see in other DMs that I try not to emulate - these will mostly be a theme based on other's responses above...

Speaking distinctly. I have a DM who is a incredible mumble mouth. Sad thing is, he's a teacher... but he slurs his words and I have to concentrate on his mouth to make out what he's trying to say - or ask to repeat... outside of that, he's amazing.

Knowing the rules. I have another DM who's only been running games since March. She's only been playing RPGs since December. She's fun and very enthusiastic, but kinda takes a rule concept and runs with it, because it's something that doesn't come up often. For instance, using cover. For the longest time, she simply granted cover disadvantage to being hit. Didn't matter if it was quarter or half - both got disad. I finally let her know the actual rules (bonus to AC). But she really likes ad/disad, and rules things to grant one or the other. It's consistent, so there's that... but this is AL, and shouldn't really be done.
She also really likes roleplaying (which is awesome) but lets Persuasion checks effectively become Dominate Monster. I've run Lost Mines twice with her, and both times, other players have Persuaded the starting goblins to assist us, even going so far as to attack their brethren guards... I roll with it, because some fights aren't worth fighting... but she really would be a much better DM if she knew the rules.

Preparation. A third DM is completely unprepared. Reads the module like a script, is constantly going back and retconning the action as he reads the last part of the room description, and generally doesn't like improving at all. The odd thing is, he brings a playmap and tons of mini's, so he has all the fiddly bits down... if he would just take an hour out of any day of the week and read the module...

Funny voices. This last one isn't really bad, or even annoying - but it was mentioned above, so I figured I'd address it. I have a DM who always uses the exact same voice for every NPC he RPs. Male, female, big, small... same voice. A bit of a kermit-y voice, kinda like Glen from Superstore... I mean, he tries, at least, right? So we know when he drops from narrative to exposition, but having two NPCs hold a conversation is a bit like listening to Kermit talk to his younger self...

So, I've learned, as a DM, to enunciate, know the rules (not hard, I'm a bit of an old-school rules lawyer), read the module beforehand and know the tricky spots before the players encounter them. (I don't have mini's or a map, so things tend to be more TotM with dice for minis for more complex encounters - an area I'm working on). I love doing voices. My females' need work, but I've got a ton of accents and can usually remember a specific accent for a specific NPC... though I've wandered off on a few, much to the merriment of my players... but hey, a laugh is a laugh, even at my expense...

[Knaight]

Going to voices specifically - while I do use them some, I've found that you get a lot more mileage out of changing other aspects of speech. Different characters will vary in verbosity, they'll differ in word choice, they'll vary in cadence, and they might well have a particular phrase they use often. The last is often worth exaggerating a bit for NPCs, but it very much exists for real people. For instance, I have a coworker who uses "Honestly" and "To be honest" as prefaces for their statements incredibly often, to the point that it's annoying - and I suspect that mentioning that little story just brought up equivalent memories in most everyone reading this.

It's a simple trick, but it works. A stock ship janitor isn't a memorable character. The ship janitor who speaks in a very deliberate formal register that drops into slang when under stress and is prone to dropping the term "I don't do that sort of stuff anymore" when the PCs try to bring them in on sketchy violence can be a fun supporting NPC that players actually care about.

[Theodoxus]

That a really good note, Knaight.

I've been bugged by "Honestly" for a couple years now. There's a commercial that has a guy use "Honestly" in the middle of his explanation on suffering with PTSD. And it got me thinking. "So, what, everything else you said wasn't honest?" Like, literally, that's the only take-away I can have with it - outside of it being a verbal tick, which I know it is...

[GlenSmash!]

Listen to your players when they're having a problem with the game. You do not have to accept all their requests, but do not dismiss their opinions. Of course there exist players who are actually whining, but do not assume such by default. Sometimes do accede to player requests. Fair judgment is necessary.

Play with your players, not against them. The bad guys are trying to kill the PCs. You as DM should not be. Never measure your competence as a DM by function of how many PCs you kill or drop to unconsciousness.

Never solve a problem that is outside the game inside the game. Talk to your players to fix the issue.

It is prudent a PC should not be so powerful it monopolizes the game or "wins D&D", but accept that it's ok a PC can be powerful. What is powerful is subjective. Players are stomping over the bad guys making combat too easy. That's a legitimate concern to learn to make a more challenging encounter or perhaps you allowed the PCs to become more powerful than they should be for their level and need to remedy it outside the game talking to your players and admitting your mistakes. The players defeat your BBEG and you are angry about it. Get over it. That's supposed to happen. If they outsmart you, get over it. That's supposed to happen. Clever play is to be rewarded, not result in taking their toys away.

Do not enable jerk behavior from players. Never accept "I'm just roleplaying" or similar as an excuse. It's an outside of game problem that needs fixing.

Players and their PCs are allowed to know things. They are not to be ignorant imbeciles on everything. Characters can know things the players don't or not have a clue they should be knowing something. Depending on the thing tell the players the information their characters would know or let them roll a check of reasonable DC based on the situation to see if their character knows the information or remember it at that particular moment.

Really good stuff here, Pex.

I'll add my opinion to this.

[Demonslayer666]

As a fairly long time RPer, and someone who always want's to improve, I thought this would be an interesting question, however it may require clarification.

When I say a Good DM, I mean if you were a player for any system, what would you want in a DM? Is it someone who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules? Is it someone who plans out every encounter down to the last possible option? Is it someone who can improvise? Is it as simple as just doing voices?

Don't get bogged down in Preparedness vs On The Fly DMing as both can work very well (and in fact I've found both are needed)

Please give reasons for your answers, so if it's the Encyclopaedic Knowledge is what makes a good DM, give a reason why, i.e. "You can always get an answer to any question grounded in the rules and system, no time looking anything up."

Thanks!

Fair, honest, fun-loving, does not have the DM vs. player mentality.

1). First and foremost, the DM has to have a good grasp on the rules, and those rules stay consistent. Session 0. No nerfing stuff mid game, or granting extra abilities during combat. Houserules and homebrew are fine. Consistency is vital to avoid DM vs. Player and allow character advancement.
2). Good communication, approachable outside of game, remembers what was said. Reason: to be able to discuss the game.
3). Prepared enough to not always wing it. Always winging it makes for a boring game with no clear path and end point.
4). Appropriately challenges the party. Reward without any risk is not much of a reward.
5). Maintains control of the game: Fast arbitration, keep players involved, reason: keeps the game flowing and fun.
6). Rewards innovation and roleplaying.
7). Imaginative and tactical to make interactions and combat interesting.

[CharacterIV]

I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of sentiments expressed here; knowledge, fairness, patience, adaptability, all of these are hallmarks of the good DM, there's one specific skill or mindset that I think really shows a DM's chops:

You have to find a way to lose in the most dramatic manner possible.

Personally, I think the best, most memorable encounters/adventures are the ones where the PCs are a minute away from death, but then they triumph. That's heroism stuff. That's the stuff the players will be joking about months later, "remember that time..."

A good DM finds that way to tax the PCs to the very breaking point, but then, in a way that doesn't require outside assistance or obviously pulled punches, grants them the window to victory. The PCs flop out of the dragon's lair half-charred, panting from exhaustion, but grinning ear-to-ear.

[Requilac]

I’m actually terrible at voice acting, so I rely a lot on sentence structure, word choice and adjectives to get that message across. If I try to mimic someone else’s voice it will just sound like I am suffocating, so I prefer to just word it differently. Describing what the NPC is doing with appropriate adjectives and carefully choosing words for their speech can work out. Slang, length of sentences and the people they mention and how are also important. It typically gets the message across well enough, especially for someone whose base voice is a deadpan monotone.

[Lord Bushbaby]

What makes me a good Dm-oman? If I wasn't, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to ye, Now would I?

[MintyNinja]

Of all the GM's that I've had, the one that really stands out as being the best doesn't even play D&D. We have a homebrew system for our story-heavy games, and so it's pretty rules-light. He excels because he's great at plotting a story out in front of his players that reacts to, entices, and relies upon our characters. He offers deep, meaningful choices that we make through our actions and builds enough of a setting for us to interact with each other at that same level of immersion.

An example: In a Prohibition Era Chicago Game, my needs-to-be-in-control bank robber had gotten caught up with two other characters' mob family and so I was forced to bring them on a multi-bank stick-up run. I recruited a fourth man from a different part of town and I thought things were going great. Everything was going according to plan, and when it didn't it went according to contingency plans. That was until the other players decided to take out my fourth man, as he was from a rival organization. So my character had his world of control sort of ripped out from under his feet by the actions of another character, who was entirely in character, and while it was semi-devastating to him, it made for a great story.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The three most important qualities a DM can have, in my view, are expectation management, ego management and adaptability. Most gaming horror stories touch on one, two or all of those qualities.