The axises of GMing?

[SangoProduction]

I've identified at least 3 axises of GMing styles (why it's not axies, who knows, Engrish is weird).

The Comedy/Gloom axis
The Rails/Open-World axis
And Improv/Prep axis.


After plotting myself on these axises on the campaigns I run, I found that I have been more reliably attracting like-minded players who know what they are getting in to when signing up. All with very few words to explain it all.

So, I want to refine this method further. Can anyone else define more axises that explain the tone and style of game you would GM with? Preferably, it's an actual axis, rather than a switch.

I think Lethality is one I should add. My lethality rating is stupid low. Probably aided by the fact that you 'drop' and don't 'die', unless it's an encounter that actually wants you dead. Or to eat you. Be careful around hungry squirrels.

...Rules / Interpretation might also be another one, though it could probably use a better name to more concisely imply what is meant.

[Malimar]

The plural of "axis" is "axes", but that's unnecessarily confusing with the plural of "axe" in a D&D context, so I forgive you. Clarity of communication is the point of language, and when the rules of the language get in the way of clarity, bend the rules.

Your last sentence is accurate that there's definitely a rules-following axis. I might say By-the-Book / Freeform. Some DMs have a reputation for following the rules to the letter, others have a reputation for not giving a heck about the rules, and somewhere in the middle are DMs who, like, fudge rolls but only secretly.

I once played with a high lethality DM who justified it as being high by-the-book, so I think some of the axes aren't quite entirely decoupled from one another.

[SangoProduction]

The plural of "axis" is "axes", but that's unnecessarily confusing with the plural of "axe" in a D&D context, so I forgive you. Clarity of communication is the point of language, and when the rules of the language get in the way of clarity, bend the rules.

Your last sentence is accurate that there's definitely a rules-following axis. I might say By-the-Book / Freeform. Some DMs have a reputation for following the rules to the letter, others have a reputation for not giving a heck about the rules, and somewhere in the middle are DMs who, like, fudge rolls but only secretly.

I once played with a high lethality DM who justified it as being high by-the-book, so I think some of the axes aren't quite entirely decoupled from one another.

Nothing's ever completely decoupled from anything. Not even the dinosaurs and humans.

But, I never intended to imply that they were. Simply that they were self-measures, if loose, to help define the game to potential applicants.

I actually quite like the name suggestion. Much appreciated.

[Elricaltovilla]

Let's see...

I prefer freeform and improvisation over heavily structured narratives, but I am a story teller at heart so I always have a "plot" in mind. I like having a ruleset and try to stick with it, but my favorite rule is still Rule 0 and I'm not afraid to use it to enhance the game. As far as story tone... I'm highly variable, but I prefer stories with actual heroes actually overcoming obstacles, so I guess I prefer more positive stories.

Overall, I'd say I sit in the middle of every axis. What does that make me?

[Silva Stormrage]

Lethality and how strictly RAW are good options that throw me for a loop sometimes when checking out new DM's. Lethality might be described as PC Death as Dramatically Appropriate/PC Death as the dice fall. Shortened to be more concise but that was never my strong point.

Other possible options include an optimization axis but I am not sure that can really be defined well.

[SangoProduction]

Let's see...

I prefer freeform and improvisation over heavily structured narratives, but I am a story teller at heart so I always have a "plot" in mind. I like having a ruleset and try to stick with it, but my favorite rule is still Rule 0 and I'm not afraid to use it to enhance the game. As far as story tone... I'm highly variable, but I prefer stories with actual heroes actually overcoming obstacles, so I guess I prefer more positive stories.

Overall, I'd say I sit in the middle of every axis. What does that make me?

A centrist. Or, in politics, "The hard right!"


Lethality and how strictly RAW are good options that throw me for a loop sometimes when checking out new DM's. Lethality might be described as PC Death as Dramatically Appropriate/PC Death as the dice fall. Shortened to be more concise but that was never my strong point.

Other possible options include an optimization axis but I am not sure that can really be defined well.

Yeah. I don't think optimization is really a scale. Especially since an unoptimized X is not the same as an unoptimized Y.

[Elricaltovilla]

A centrist. Or, in politics, "The hard right!"


Not where I live. Also, we should refrain from any such discussion.

One other possible axis would be combat vs. non-combat. I very much favor D&D for its tactical combat rules, but a lot of people enjoy political intrigue plots or downtime/kingdom management.

But me, I want that good old fashioned dungeon crawl. That's probably why I switched to mostly playing wargames.

[SangoProduction]

Not where I live. Also, we should refrain from any such discussion.

One other possible axis would be combat vs. non-combat. I very much favor D&D for its tactical combat rules, but a lot of people enjoy political intrigue plots or downtime/kingdom management.

But me, I want that good old fashioned dungeon crawl. That's probably why I switched to mostly playing wargames.

Yeah. That's a good one.
Though I kind of prefer a percentage-style of expressing intended time allotment for activity types. (aka. 50% combat/40% RP/8% puzzles/2% other).

[BowStreetRunner]

I've always let players know up front where my style fell in the following axes:

Realistic versus Artificial: On the one hand, when you battle those goblins in the first room, someone down the hall hears and sounds the alarm, bringing hordes of goblins from all over. On the other hand, you fight the goblins, camp overnight in that room, and the next morning you enter the next room where you encounter a hobgoblin shaman and his guards all seemingly oblivious to what happened next door last night. Note that this axis also ties a bit into the rules - the first DM would try to make the rules conform to their reality, whereas the second DM would settle for the game mechanics are just game mechanics, try not to think about them too hard or you might get a headache. Note that Realism here doesn't pertain to the level of fantasy elements. This also fits in with your rules axis, as Realistic is going for more RAI and Artificial more RAW.

Linear versus Sandbox: This pretty much corresponds with your Rails/Open-World paradigm. But it also feeds into Improve vs Prep. A true Sandbox style campaign presents the players with situations, not plots, so has to be flexible to see where they go with it.

I also discuss another concept related to Optimization. I generally want my players to know that I tend to throw a wide range of diverse challenges at them, so many optimization schemes are going to run into trouble because they may not be prepared for the breadth of the types of challenges they will be facing. I've seem more than my share of OP fighters balk at taking on even a moderately challenging opponent when the battle is on an icy slope above a deep crevasse. And it's not just that I create situations where they will need to overcome every kind of skill check in the game, but also different types of defenses (from damage reduction, to incorporeal opponents, to stealthy ones, to hordes of little guys, to that one big brute, to spell resistance, to energy resistance, etc., etc...), attacks, and a mix of encounter types (combat, social, puzzle, etc.). I'm not sure how to describe this axis, but I've played with DMs where there was little variety in their encounters.

Although I've never discussed the comedy/gloom idea up front per se, I did run a game in Cyberpunk where I let them know up front it was going to be brutal and there was going to be grounds for a lot of paranoia throughout. Normally however, I think I just assume the mood will be somewhat dictated by how well the party is doing.

Lethality is definitely worth bringing up in advance. Of course, it needs to fit within the fantasy version where it's not how often PC death is likely to occur, but how often it is likely to be permanent.

[Saintheart]

This may be just a function of one of the other axes (maybe it should be called Axii ... wait ...), but how about:

Magic-Mart/Magic Rarity

A GM ultimately has control of how available magic items are in the setting, even if he can't heavily control spellcaster characters as such. I can't remember there being a RAW rule that says X settlement must have Y magic item shops with Z number of +1, +2 weapons and what have you, and a GM can certainly fill up his monsters with a lot of vendor trash or restrict how many magic items might be available. The GP limits in settlements particularly don't make a lot of sense even in published modules (Red Hand of Doom, I'm looking at you with your villages of 800 gp limits and +1 magic weapons for sale all over the place) and it seems to me that even within those limits a GM can certainly say one item is available or another isn't, Just Because.

Some GMs prefer a world which is more like The Long Dark in terms of available magic items for sale, which has its charms too ... although once again, it seems that if there isn't a magic-mart around, it by default makes the spellcasters more powerful, since non-castery types often need magic items to do stuff outside attack rolls and skill rolls.

[tiercel]

Tricky given the number of connected factors, but trying to condense/summarize:

Tone
(a) Light vs Dark
(b) Combat vs Intrigue

Rules
(a) Literal vs Freeform
(b) Optimization level

Determinism
(a) Linear vs Sandbox
(b) Prep vs Improv

Tone (a) relates to Comedy vs Gritty, but tends to be pretty closely tied to Lethality (Dramatically Appropriate Only vs Anyone Can Die). This can include “realism” (e.g. Bond villain vs savvy/ruthless, dynamism of the world’s response, how much attempted physics or economics there is, etc.)

Tone (b) has to take into account that D&D by default is fairly combat-rules heavy, but can range from full-fledged dungeon crawl to a campaign which has much more intrigue/stealth/skill use/utility use of magic, only occasionally punctuated by combat.

Rules (a) could vary from Tippyverse at one end to the primacy of Rule of Cool at the other, but could also reflect the use and number of houserules (as well as number of allowed sources of rules and variants).

Rules (b) is tricky to quantify, but probably varies from prefab modules and bog-standard MMI ogres, on one end, and redesigned monsters, optimized environments, and a deliberately wide variety of challenges on the other.

Determinism (a) relates to presentation to the players, and so encompasses On Rails vs Sandbox, but also includes the level of choice and agency available (e.g. magic item availability, general availability and RP components to PrCs).

Determinism (b) is more about DM playstyle (and at minimum, the amount time/energy the DM needs between the sessions, though this is potentially a function of how many sources and how much prefab material the DM uses), and may relate to Rules (a), but not necessarily — a DM could stick to the rules but prefer RP and tactical flexibility within them.

[SangoProduction]

A lot of good responses while I was sleeping. Thanks so much you guys.

[Fizban]

I don't really like rules/interpretation/freeform, since rules/anything is highly dependent on the "rules" of the game- plenty of games have short rules that aren't even meant to be adhered to closely, while even 3.5 dnd makes no secret of the fact that the DM will need to make rulings. Interpretation isn't opposed to rules at all, it's normally baked in, while the word freeform generally means actually having no rules (to my understanding) so it's not a spectrum, just an absolute.

You can have rules/narrative though, running from play the dice exactly how they fall with dry rulings to fudging or outright cutting out the dice and making rules changes on the fly whenever they conflict with the narrative. At least when the rules of the game aren't already based on narrative conceit.

[unseenmage]

Simulationist vs gamist is another dichotomy I've seen much discussion over.

[Crake]

This may be just a function of one of the other axes (maybe it should be called Axii ... wait ...), but how about:

Magic-Mart/Magic Rarity

A GM ultimately has control of how available magic items are in the setting, even if he can't heavily control spellcaster characters as such. I can't remember there being a RAW rule that says X settlement must have Y magic item shops with Z number of +1, +2 weapons and what have you, and a GM can certainly fill up his monsters with a lot of vendor trash or restrict how many magic items might be available. The GP limits in settlements particularly don't make a lot of sense even in published modules (Red Hand of Doom, I'm looking at you with your villages of 800 gp limits and +1 magic weapons for sale all over the place) and it seems to me that even within those limits a GM can certainly say one item is available or another isn't, Just Because.

Some GMs prefer a world which is more like The Long Dark in terms of available magic items for sale, which has its charms too ... although once again, it seems that if there isn't a magic-mart around, it by default makes the spellcasters more powerful, since non-castery types often need magic items to do stuff outside attack rolls and skill rolls.

Magic rarity is more of a setting axis, rather than a GMing axis.

[Dimers]

An axis that gets a lot of discussion in the 5e subforum is Combat As War versus Combat As Sport, and it's especially good for the players to be compatible with the DM (and each other) in that measure.

I can't define it well, except to say that 4e expects a Combat As Sport attitude. There aren't rules to describe engagements beyond the squad level ... you get certain abilities back with a "short rest" of five minutes, and others with a "long rest" of eight hours, and changing that would be going completely off-the-rails ... maneuvers are varied and interesting but tightly defined with little encouragement to consider variations or alternate uses ... Basically 4e expects the players to be aware it's a game. It's not opposed to people having a different mindset, it just doesn't have support for anything else.

[Telonius]

Moderately "Comedy." Goofing around is fun and expected, but it shouldn't take over the session.
Moderately "Rails." There is definitely a plot arc, with set events that will happen and a generally suggested way of going about dealing with them. What the team does about with those leads is up to them; whether and how they succeed will have an impact on what happens afterwards but doesn't change the overall plot.
Right in the middle between Prep and Improv. Encounters and enemies are plotted out beforehand. Important NPCs have full builds, backstories, and general ideas about how to play them. But what exactly they say (with a few crucial "plot cutscenes" aside) I ad-lib on the spot.

[BowStreetRunner]

An axis that gets a lot of discussion in the 5e subforum is Combat As War versus Combat As Sport, and it's especially good for the players to be compatible with the DM (and each other) in that measure.

I can't define it well, except to say that 4e expects a Combat As Sport attitude. There aren't rules to describe engagements beyond the squad level ... you get certain abilities back with a "short rest" of five minutes, and others with a "long rest" of eight hours, and changing that would be going completely off-the-rails ... maneuvers are varied and interesting but tightly defined with little encouragement to consider variations or alternate uses ... Basically 4e expects the players to be aware it's a game. It's not opposed to people having a different mindset, it just doesn't have support for anything else.The actual mechanics for a recharge between encounters is going to be determined more by the system than the GM. I suppose how often the opportunity for a recharge exists between encounters would certainly be a function of the DM or possibly a pre-written module. Call it "Fast paced vs Slow paced" maybe?

The Combat as Sport reference actually made me initially think of something more in the Player axis - with nice guy at one end and Murder Hobo on the other extreme end. :elan:.............:nale:

[ArgentumRegio]

The plural of "axis" is "axes", but that's unnecessarily confusing with the plural of "axe" in a D&D context, so I forgive you. Clarity of communication is the point of language, and when the rules of the language get in the way of clarity, bend the rules.

... just to be punny :smallcool: Who axed you?


Your last sentence is accurate that there's definitely a rules-following axis. I might say By-the-Book / Freeform. Some DMs have a reputation for following the rules to the letter, others have a reputation for not giving a heck about the rules, and somewhere in the middle are DMs who, like, fudge rolls but only secretly.

I agree that the distinction is better termed something like rules : strict / freeform... BUT I don't think I would glom onto that the notion of fudging dice rolls. Many games actually have rules about a DM fudging a roll or three (most especially D&D).



I once played with a high lethality DM who justified it as being high by-the-book, so I think some of the axes aren't quite entirely decoupled from one another.

I'm uncertain if this is a DM metric here, in 3e/3.5e (I may be misrecollecting, but) isn't it standard that a PC would "go to zero HP by direct damage and then bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round until -10 at which point the PC is dead"? To some extent any encounter that does not end in a TPK would mean a bit of healing skill/magic would save the party making death sort of rare-seeming. I think maybe a DM who tends to use higher CR encounters might seem more deadly so maybe the metric is encounter strength? Still, I wonder if this is more rules than DM style?

[Malimar]

I'm uncertain if this is a DM metric here, in 3e/3.5e (I may be misrecollecting, but) isn't it standard that a PC would "go to zero HP by direct damage and then bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round until -10 at which point the PC is dead"? To some extent any encounter that does not end in a TPK would mean a bit of healing skill/magic would save the party making death sort of rare-seeming. I think maybe a DM who tends to use higher CR encounters might seem more deadly so maybe the metric is encounter strength? Still, I wonder if this is more rules than DM style?
Well, the DM in question ran like three or four Paizo adventure paths, and we TPKed 1d6 sessions in to each one. So it wasn't about using higher CR opponents than called for, though it may have been partially playing the monsters tactically smarter than their Intelligence scores called for. Also, he wasn't actually very clear on what the rules permit players to know, so we walked into some situations that were bad ideas to walk into without knowing they were bad ideas when we should have been informed that they were bad ideas when we rolled Knowledge about them.

[BowStreetRunner]

I'm uncertain if this is a DM metric here, in 3e/3.5e (I may be misrecollecting, but) isn't it standard that a PC would "go to zero HP by direct damage and then bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round until -10 at which point the PC is dead"? To some extent any encounter that does not end in a TPK would mean a bit of healing skill/magic would save the party making death sort of rare-seeming. I think maybe a DM who tends to use higher CR encounters might seem more deadly so maybe the metric is encounter strength? Still, I wonder if this is more rules than DM style?There is a measure of DM competency balanced by DM intent here. A DM who is good with tactics and is trying to kill the PCs is going to be able to make lower CR encounters more lethal than the high CR encounters of a DM who is bad with tactics and isn't trying to kill the PCs.

I think it's probably worth letting the Players know up front if the DM intends to make any special effort to ensure the PCs all die.

[SangoProduction]

I think it's probably worth letting the Players know up front if the DM intends to make any special effort to ensure the PCs all die.

https://i.imgur.com/Avuekpk.jpg

[Quertus]

There's so many! Let's start with...

RAW / Rule of Cool.

Exacting ("you didn't specify where you wore your pants") / chill.

Adversarial / advocate.

Encourages / discourages player world building.

Open / my way or the highway

[Coventry]

I do not have good terminology for the scale for this axis: Prudishness.

David Eddings mentioned that "Papa Tolkien" never described a female character from "the neck down". The range of "Tolkien / R.E. Howard" seems to fit, but those two authors would be opposite ends of several other axes, as well.


The axis for GM willingness to roll back time and redo some things is a little easier to describe:

Revisionist / Set in Stone.


In the games I run, I lean heavily towards Tolkien while being open to revisions when the changes make for a better story. I try to be chill, in an Open World environment. I would love to claim that I Prep, but it always collapses to Improv ... nearly always my own fault. I spend more time on Comedy, but I do dabble in Gloom.