The Essence of "Good" GMing

[Easy e]

So, the Forum seems to have some pretty concrete ideas of what is or is not "good" GMing.

Let's just list it out and discuss it openly. I will start with a few ideas and see where it goes.

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

After that, there is some general guidelines such as:
1. Don't ask for a roll if a failed roll does not matter
2. Control the pace and flow of the game
3. Describe with all your senses
4. The Players are the stars
5. Help move the spotlight around to different players
6. Ask "What would make this more interesting"?
7. Get the players to narrate more than the GM
8. No plan survives contact with Players, be ready to flow like water
9. Character death should never be an accident
10. Rules are for players, and not GMs

Of course, those are glib, short hand, guidelines to help me out. Each could be a blog post or chapter of a book on their own. To me, those are basic guidelines that can lead to good GMing. This is to get the conversation started, and I am sure people will have very different views than I do.

I am excited to learn more about what leads to "good" Gamemastering. I expect to get a lot of great new perspectives on the topic.

[Batcathat]

Never be afraid of saying either "yes" or "no" to a player, depending on what's best for the situation. Obviously saying "no" too much is very likely to quickly lead to an unpleasant experience but I believe saying "yes" too much is almost as bad. A good GM should be like a good boss - knowing when to listen to those around them but not being afraid to make an unpopular decision when necessary for the greater good.

(Obviously, what's best for the situation, the greater good, etc. is all very subjective, so I'm not sure how helpful this is. :smalltongue:)

[JNAProductions]

So, the Forum seems to have some pretty concrete ideas of what is or is not "good" GMing.

Let's just list it out and discuss it openly. I will start with a few ideas and see where it goes.

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

After that, there is some general guidelines such as:
1. Don't ask for a roll if a failed roll does not matter
2. Control the pace and flow of the game
3. Describe with all your senses
4. The Players are the stars
5. Help move the spotlight around to different players
6. Ask "What would make this more interesting"?
7. Get the players to narrate more than the GM
8. No plan survives contact with Players, be ready to flow like water
9. Character death should never be an accident
10. Rules are for players, and not GMs

Of course, those are glib, short hand, guidelines to help me out. Each could be a blog post or chapter of a book on their own. To me, those are basic guidelines that can lead to good GMing. This is to get the conversation started, and I am sure people will have very different views than I do.

I am excited to learn more about what leads to "good" Gamemastering. I expect to get a lot of great new perspectives on the topic.

The bolded bit is the only rule I would consider 100% universal. That matters, no matter who you are at the table, no matter what you're doing or what system you're running, or anything like that.

For the rest...

1) I wouldn't agree with this 100%. I'd amend it to "Don't roll if the roll doesn't matter." It's possible to have a no-fail roll. Say, a party is climbing a small cliffside. They're not in any rush, they have competent climbers in them, and the challenge is minimal-to-none. I might still call for a roll (a single one) just to determine how well and easily they surmount this. If they roll a nat 1, they experience more difficulty than they expect, and take longer than what it seemed it would. If they get a nat 20, they climb it like a champ and have no troubles.

There's no failure state there, just different narrations of overcoming the obstacle.

2) I wouldn't use "control". Mediate, maybe? The GM should keep the game moving, but it's not their game, it's everyone's.

3) Good suggestion.

4) Generally yes. Certainly how I run my games-though there's something to be said for a one-off where you play as the sidekicks or something. :P

5) I don't think you need to actively focus the spotlight on players. If they work well together, they should all be participating in most scenes. If a player has been left behind, then make sure they can get included, but ideally, this advice shouldn't be needed.

6) Sounds good.

7) Maybe. Depends on the system and the tone and a lot of other factors.

8) Good advice.

9) Depends. You should try to avoid situations where PCs might die due to a fluke of the dice, but you should not (without player consent) fudge to keep them alive if the enemy gets 4 crits in a row. I had something like that happen in a game I ran-1st level, enemy crit and would've one-shot a PC. I asked the players, OOC, how we wanted to handle this. I did NOT simply say the crit didn't happen.

Also, some systems (like OD&D and AD&D, from what I know) are meat-grinders. You're supposed to throw your corpse at the problem. Most systems I play aren't like that, but this is most definitely NOT universally applicable advice.

10) Nope. A thousand times nope. The GM has more authority than players do, but they are bound by the rules just as much as players are. I'm free in my games to make custom monsters, but I'm not going to just ignore the HP of a pre-made monster (whether by me or the game devs or another person) and just declare it dead when I feel like it.

[Batcathat]

Oh, I thought of another one. Make sure rulings are consistent. House rules are fine, improvising a solution for an unexpected situation is fine, but if a rule or a situation is interpreted one way in session four, it better be interpreted the same way in session fourteen.

[dafrca]

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

Including the GM. If the GM feels like the weekly game is just work for them, the game will devolve and turn into a mess as the GM gets burned out or loses interest. Yes the players need to have fun but the GM does as well. This includes sometimes the players stepping up and helping where they can or not just sitting back like baby birds expecting to be spoon fed. :smallsmile:

I would also say under this rule 1 would fall: a GM should be willing to adjust the game style at times to cover the different interests of the various players. By this I mean some moments of heavy combat, some mystery, some RP heavy, etc. Overall the whole group can have their favorites to talk about and enjoy. Maybe not all on the same session of course, but over sessions. :smallsmile:

[Zhorn]

10. Rules are for players, and not GMs10) Nope. A thousand times nope. The GM has more authority than players do, but they are bound by the rules just as much as players are. I'm free in my games to make custom monsters, but I'm not going to just ignore the HP of a pre-made monster (whether by me or the game devs or another person) and just declare it dead when I feel like it.

Oh, I thought of another one. Make sure rulings are consistent. House rules are fine, improvising a solution for an unexpected situation is fine, but if a rule or a situation is interpreted one way in session four, it better be interpreted the same way in session fourteen.
These statements are the type that need to be emphasised over and over.
Sure a good GM might be able to run loose and wild with rule structures and still deliver a good game, but that does not in any way mean that it was good because they were unbound by rules.
Pretty much every terrible game I've come across has been the result of the GM thinking they are unbound by rules and running everything on their whims and fancy, rendering any actions the players have pursued within the confines of the rules meaningless.

[dafrca]

Oh, I thought of another one. Make sure rulings are consistent. House rules are fine, improvising a solution for an unexpected situation is fine, but if a rule or a situation is interpreted one way in session four, it better be interpreted the same way in session fourteen.

^^ This for sure. ^^

I have seen where a GM flip flops and it hurts. Neither path was "right or wrong" but the inconsistency created a level of conflict unnecessary between players and GM. :smallsmile:

[NichG]

Basically the only universals in my eyes are:

- Prioritize the enjoyment of the people at the table

- Constantly improve your understanding of the art, your players, etc. Become able to choose the details of your GMing in a purposeful way.

[HidesHisEyes]

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.


I disagree already XD

I think “making sure everyone has fun” is everyone’s job and no one’s.

As for your other rules, I agree with some and disagree with others. I will elaborate more later though.

[Anonymouswizard]

Pretty much every terrible game I've come across has been the result of the GM thinking they are unbound by rules and running everything on their whims and fancy, rendering any actions the players have pursued within the confines of the rules meaningless.

To be fair, the worst game I was ever in was due to two reasons:
1) The GM didn't currently sell the game, and so got a bunch of crazy but very effective survivalists in their combat marathon. The fact that my character was forced to start with cash instead of the scientific equipment I wanted (in a zombie apocalypse) should have been a clue.
2) The GM didn't read the rules, which lead to nobody getting XP for half the campaign, and all difficulties being two higher than they should have been.

Although I do agree on the sentiment. I used to use a GM screen with 'the DM is god' on the front, because of course the players need to be put on their place. Now I don't even use a screen and roll openly, because who cares if they can tell that the boss has none dice in melee combat, their characters would be able to make the same rough estimate of their skills.

Going to agree on rule one being 'the GM's goal is to make the game fun for all'. But I want to discuss point out that the players' first responsibility is to not make the game unfun for anybody. Anything further will depend on the group, I personally disagree with accidental PC death being inherently bad, as long as it's fair (by which I mean: the player knows there's the risk and all dice are rolled openly).

[MoiMagnus]

10. Rules are for players, and not GMs


I don't think I agree, unless you mean "rules are fundamentally player-centered, they exist both to restrict and empower the players, not to give the GM mini-games/puzzles to play with" (contrary to 1 vs many boardgames).

GMs are bound by rules (including houserules) if and when the players are using those rules to build up expectations of how the game and the universe works.

[Mastikator]

I'll echo the Rule 1 critique that it's everyone's job to make sure everyone else has fun, it's not a unique role for the GM to provide fun. The GM's role is to provide the game.

For the guidelines I'll say this.


You may care about levels of success or failure. So rolls may serve a purpose even if success or failure is guaranteed.
Yep
Absolutely, this one is super important and often missed. In fact I find that often if the DM doesn't know what a scene smells like then they're not immersed either.
Players are the stars, PCs are only the stars if the genre says so.
This one I consider to be another one of those "it's everyone's job" type of thing. But as GM you have more power in this regard and should be ready to redirect it when needed
kinda vague
This one I'll add that you shouldn't immediately contradict the player's narration if you asked for it. Overriding someone's narration immediately is an amazing way to destroy someone's morale.
Yep
Disagree. Death happens sometimes by accident, but it shouldn't be too often. Once per campaign is bordering on "too often" IMO. Additionally if someone dies because they did something extraordinarily stupid it's most likely because they had a very different idea of what was going on.
If a player says they want to do something that should be obviously suicidal, ask them if they realize it's obviously suicidal.
Disagree with this one big time. A game that does not feel like it's governed by rules is a game that is very difficult to care about. The GM should be an impartial referee, they resolve conflicts. A campaign designer should be on the player's side and is the creator of the world and sometimes the rules, rules should exist for a reason. Only when that reason is understood should they be open to change.


I'll add some that I consider important,
When planning a session

Don’t hinge your adventure on the players figuring out a specific clue. Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean that it will seem obvious to your players. Have multiple clues, and/or multiple entries.
Know what you will do if they never figure out the clue.
If you aren’t willing for the players to have it, don’t put it in the game.
In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

And while GMing

Reward good tactics, consistent characterization, and brilliant ideas more than lucky die rolls.
Consistency regarding rules and rulings is vital, if the players feel like they are being disadvantaged they may take it personally, you may be unknowigly playing favorites.
The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.
The DM does not have the right to screw up the PC's story. He does have the right to screw up the PCs' plans. Don’t confuse the two.
A backstory is like a sword. Some characters are incomplete without one, and others wouldn't know how to use one even if they had it.
As far as possible, interact with the characters, not the players.
The player identifies with the PC, and will take what happens to the PC personally. If the PC wants to defeat the pirate, then the player wants to defeat the pirates. The GM does not have that luxury. The pirates want to kill the PCs, but the GM should not.
Remind them of things that their characters would not have forgotten, but not things that characters will forget.
If you can handle feedback, ask for it. But also take it with a grain of salt, you should fix mistakes, but not every unpopular choice is a mistake!
Be generous with RP exp/inspiration/whatever if you reward roleplay, do it in the moment. If you claim to reward roleplay but never hand out reward it says something to the player

[KorvinStarmast]

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun. You can't make other people have fun. You can only try to enable it. Don't set yourself a task that is unachievable.
Fun Is Where You Find It!

1. Don't ask for a roll if a failed roll does not matter
2. Control the pace and flow of the game
3. Describe with all your senses
4. The Players are the stars
5. Help move the spotlight around to different players
6. Ask "What would make this more interesting"?
7. Get the players to narrate more than the GM
8. No plan survives contact with Players, be ready to flow like water
9. Character death should never be an accident
10. Rules are for players, and not GMs
1. Yeah.

2. The term "control" is a bit too strong. Adjust is what I try to do. Combat needs to be fast paced, a feeling of urgency in it. This isn't a chess game. Social encounters need to proceed at a pace organic to the encounter. Traps and exploration encounters need to have a pace that fits the situation: is the building collapsing? Is the water rising? Are they late for a very important date?

3. That sentence is incoherent. What do you mean by that?

4. They are the protagonists in the stories that arise from play.

5. Sort of. Some people do not enjoy the spot light. Do not force it upon them.

6. No idea what you mean by that. (I needed ten things, and so I rammed that into number six is what I get from that bullet point).

7. Yes. "Explain to me your intent and your approach" goes a long way to improving that.

8. What plan are you referring to? If you have a plan as a GM you are already, IMO, doing it wrongly. Set up situations and choicse. Let the characters be the ones who come up with plans on how to deal with them.

9. Never is a really bad word to use there.

10. What system are you referring to, or, is that a deliberate troll? :smallconfused: Making that kind of brash, overbroad statement looks like an attempt to start a controversy, not have a conversation. Not Well Done. :smallfrown:
Pro Tip: click-bait as a writing style is bad form. :smalltongue:

Oh, I thought of another one. Make sure rulings are consistent. House rules are fine, improvising a solution for an unexpected situation is fine, but if a rule or a situation is interpreted one way in session four, it better be interpreted the same way in session fourteen. No, that's not quite right.
If between session 4 and 14 it becomes clear that the one during 4 wasn't a good one, make sure to address that with the players and "this is how it will work going forward" is clear to them if it is reasonable to expect that the issue will arise again.

[Glorthindel]

9. Character death should never be an accident

Absolutely not. This is a preference. You would be right for some games, but you are completely, utterly wrong if you think this should be true for all games. I would straight walk from a game as a player that operated under these rules, and i wouldn't be alone.

[Jakinbandw]

Oh, I thought of another one. Make sure rulings are consistent. House rules are fine, improvising a solution for an unexpected situation is fine, but if a rule or a situation is interpreted one way in session four, it better be interpreted the same way in session fourteen.

I agree with the sentiment, but I personally have a sub rule of 'if it is something that will break the game, it works once, then never again.' If a player finds an exploit for infinite damage, they can use it once, then they need to respect because that specific exploit will be fixed.

It makes it so that the players can make plans baised around raw, but I can fix them if they cause game breaking issues. Everyone wins.

[Batcathat]

I agree with the sentiment, but I personally have a sub rule of 'if it is something that will break the game, it works once, then never again.' If a player finds an exploit for infinite damage, they can use it once, then they need to respect because that specific exploit will be fixed.

It makes it so that the players can make plans baised around raw, but I can fix them if they cause game breaking issues. Everyone wins.

I can see where you're coming from, but I feel like that would be bad for the suspension of disbelief (unless, of course, there's some in-universe explanation for it working only once) and could create a weird culture of trying to find the next exploit.

[kyoryu]

I don't think there are any universal rules. Roleplaying is too broad of a hobby, with too many variations, for that.

I'll propose some meta-rules.

1. Understand the specific type of game and experience you are delivering.
2. Communicate that clearly. Be honest.
3. Choose techniques and tools that will help you deliver that experience.
4. Look at techniques and tools from other styles of games, but do so with a critical eye
5. Constantly evaluate yourself. Look at went went well, and what didn't. Solicit feedback, but also pay attention to body language, etc.

(And, yes, of course players have a part in all of this too, they're not passive. But this is advice for GMs)

[HidesHisEyes]

So, the Forum seems to have some pretty concrete ideas of what is or is not "good" GMing.

Let's just list it out and discuss it openly. I will start with a few ideas and see where it goes.

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

After that, there is some general guidelines such as:
1. Don't ask for a roll if a failed roll does not matter
2. Control the pace and flow of the game
3. Describe with all your senses
4. The Players are the stars
5. Help move the spotlight around to different players
6. Ask "What would make this more interesting"?
7. Get the players to narrate more than the GM
8. No plan survives contact with Players, be ready to flow like water
9. Character death should never be an accident
10. Rules are for players, and not GMs

Of course, those are glib, short hand, guidelines to help me out. Each could be a blog post or chapter of a book on their own. To me, those are basic guidelines that can lead to good GMing. This is to get the conversation started, and I am sure people will have very different views than I do.

I am excited to learn more about what leads to "good" Gamemastering. I expect to get a lot of great new perspectives on the topic.

Ok, I’m gonna go into a bit more detail this time.

Your first rule: as I said, I think it’s everyone and no one’s job to make sure everyone is having fun. Everyone’s because fun is the ultimate goal of the exercise and we certainly don’t want people preventing it. No one’s because RPGs give each player, including the GM, a role to play, and your only responsibility is to fulfill that role. The fun is supposed to emerge from everyone doing that, without anyone having to consciously think about it. If it’s anyone’s responsibility to ensure that happens, it’s the game designer’s. (And even then their responsibility is limited since they can’t possibly design a game so good it could overcome every possible problem at the table, like interpersonal problems, or players being tired, ill or high on weed (although in the last case they may have fun for reasons the game designer can’t take credit for)).

Your guidelines:

1. I fully agree. I’ve seen others in the thread point out that you might have degrees of success, but imo that’s a bit semantic. If a player makes a roll where the worst possible result means “you succeed but not especially well” I think it’s reasonable to call that a failure *in that context*. It might be a sign of bad GMing if you’re making tons of rolls like this - it might mean your stakes are generally a bit too low - but that’s a separate issue.

2. Tricky one. I broadly agree, but I don’t think this is solely the GM’s job. It’s a large part of what they do, but if the players really have agency in a scenario then sometimes they will be the ones setting the pace, and a good game system imo will sometimes take it out of everyone’s hands, at least briefly.

3. Good one. All senses all the time is probably a bit much, but I’ve heard many people advise aiming for two or three senses in each scene or location, and I think that is solid advice.

4. I agree, although I’m sure we could argue til the cows come home about exactly what it means and what the implications are. I think the best concrete piece of advice around this is “avoid tag-along NPCs who drive the narrative”.

5. Agree, especially since you phrased it with the word “help”. This is definitely a big part of the GM’s job, but players shouldn’t feel like they’re waiting for the GM’s permission to act. It should be like a social contract where everyone knows they can grab the spotlight whenever they like, but no one abuses that power, and the GM just gently enforces the contract.

6. Definitely good advice for prep. At the table I reckon it’s still good advice, just be a little careful when asking it about players’ contributions. Our idea of more interesting might accidentally slide into the player’s idea of having their contribution shut down or warped beyond recognition. I guess I’d suggest a corollary to this one: first ask “is this interesting enough as it is?”

7. I think this is a good one to aim for, but most of the time actually achieving it probably isn’t feasible, or even necessarily desirable.

8. Absolutely. In fact I’d go even further and say don’t make plans at all. See the Alexandrian article “Prep Scenarios, Not Plots”.

9. Really not sure about this one. I’m wondering what you mean by accident. If you mean diegetically the player character died without meaning to then of course I disagree. If you mean someone at the table has to intend for the character to die then it makes a huge difference whether that person is the player or the GM, and it also depends massively on the style of game you’re playing. If you’re after a gritty, old-school dungeon crawl feel then it’s essential that the players know their characters will die if they mess up or even just have a run of bad luck. In a narrative-focused dramatic sprawling epic sort of game, it might make sense to have a house rule that player characters don’t die without their players’ consent - or even play a game that simply doesn’t have death mechanics.

10. Disagree. GMs interact differently with the rules but they’re still bound by them. Not much nuance here, I’m afraid, I’m just strongly against the whole “GM is god” idea.

That’s my thoughts!

One caveat is that all of these do also depend on the game being played. It’s most obvious with the one about character death but it really applies to all of them. My first and most important rule might be “read the book”, because some games will tell you specifically how to approach these topics when playing that game. Apocalypse World contains the phrase: “There are a million ways to run an RPG. This game calls for one in particular.” Most games aren’t as explicit as this, but if you read them carefully and play them a few times you can usually tell how the game wants to be played, and we should respect that imo.

[dafrca]

Oh, I thought of another one. Make sure rulings are consistent.
No, that's not quite right.
If between session 4 and 14 it becomes clear that the one during 4 wasn't a good one, make sure to address that with the players and "this is how it will work going forward" is clear to them if it is reasonable to expect that the issue will arise again.
Consistent does not mean unchangeable. Even in your saying "asking for consistency" is wrong you used "this is how it will work going forward", an agreement for consistent interpretation going forward. If the agreed upon ruling is X, then until that is discussed and changed, I expect X will be as agreed. They key to the request for consistency is that the GM not be wishy washy and change the rules to suit their needs moment by moment. :smallsmile:

[MoiMagnus]

I can see where you're coming from, but I feel like that would be bad for the suspension of disbelief (unless, of course, there's some in-universe explanation for it working only once)

I would say it highly depends on peoples, and usually not that big of a problem (though it might be "yet another point of discontentment" in a long list, for campaigns that goes badly). The corresponding pattern in movies would be "In a film, the heroes has an exceptional idea that allows him to beat the bad guy easily. In the following film, this super technique is forgotten and never talked about again, or 'nerfed' to be significantly weaker."

Some peoples would have their immersion broken by it. More peoples would nitpick about it but not really care. And assuming the film is good enough, most peoples would suspend their disbelief enough to ignore it completely.

As if you really want in-universe consistency, you can quite easily retcon in with something along the line of "the character was absurdly lucky during this fight and made critical hit with max damage each and every strike and the enemy failing all of its attacks and saving throw", which leads to the same end result: this was an exceptional act from the character that allowed for an easy victory, but cannot be reproduced at will.

[Batcathat]

I would say it highly depends on peoples, and usually not that big of a problem (though it might be "yet another point of discontentment" in a long list, for campaigns that goes badly). The corresponding pattern in movies would be "In a film, the heroes has an exceptional idea that allows him to beat the bad guy easily. In the following film, this super technique is forgotten and never talked about again, or 'nerfed' to be significantly weaker."

Some peoples would have their immersion broken by it. More peoples would nitpick about it but not really care. And assuming the film is good enough, most peoples would suspend their disbelief enough to ignore it completely.

As if you really want in-universe consistency, you can quite easily retcon in with something along the line of "the character was absurdly lucky during this fight and made critical hit with max damage each and every strike and the enemy failing all of its attacks and saving throw", which leads to the same end result: this was an exceptional act from the character that allowed for an easy victory, but cannot be reproduced at will.

Sure, that's all true (though I do kind of hate it in movies too). I doubt most people I play with would be that likely to be bothered by it or try to exploit it. But if the best case scenario is "hopefully no one is bothered by it or exploits it" I don't really see any reason to take the chance.

[KorvinStarmast]

Consistent does not mean unchangeable. {snip} They key to the request for consistency is that the GM not be wishy washy and change the rules to suit their needs moment by moment. :smallsmile: Your words, not his, and please do not mischaracterize what I wrote there. (What you put in quotes is not a correct quote of what I wrote.)
I did not say what you claim I said. :smallmad:

The reason I responded as I did was that the way it was phrased left out quite a bit. Which informs the words that I actually used: Not Quite Right. :smallwink: (You could say that I was pointing out an error of omission).

[Easy e]

Great discussion so far.

I expected no one would agree with my guidelines, but it did give us a good place to start. As I said, each of the guidelines could use a full chapter or blog post to flesh out further.

People seem more "viscerally" against the idea that rules are for Players, and not GMs. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is:

The rules of the game are not fair because the world is not fair, but the GM IS fair.

However, I fully acknowledge that I have a blind spot around GM Fiat, and prefer it to other systems.

[KorvinStarmast]

The rules of the game are not fair because the world is not fair, but the GM IS fair. The GM is human. Your capitalization is bizarre, at best.

FWIW: in RPGs, the role of DM/GM evolved from the role of referee in table top games. The term also used a lot was judge.

The judge should be fair, and the referee should be fair, and most are. Some, however, if we bother to watch professional sports, are not. (I won't comment on judges given how fast that could derail into forbidden topics for GiTP).

To sum up: Your assertion is unsupportable, and naive. It is, at best, aspirational.

[Easy e]

T

To sum up: Your assertion is unsupportable, and naive. It is, at best, aspirational.

Isn't that what GMing and RPG is? Aspirational?

Getting into the advise of doing said things, that is the very height of aspirational.

[KorvinStarmast]

Isn't that what GMing and RPG is? Aspirational?

Getting into the advise of doing said things, that is the very height of aspirational. There was a bit more to my post than the word aspirational. Are you going to play the cherry picking game, or are you trying to have a conversation?

[Easy e]

There was a bit more to my post than the word aspirational. Are you going to play the cherry picking game, or are you trying to have a conversation?

Relax, we are all friends here. This is not an opposed roll situation. :)

Indeed, I recall many of my early TSR RPG games called the GM the Judge, as you say. Perhaps it was the Marvel Superheroes game? However, the role of fairness in the Role-playing game is to ensure that the RAW (Rules as Written) of the game, does not disrupt the RAI (Rules as Intended) for the players/GM of the game. Therefore, they have to make a judgement call on what the Rules mean and how to apply them.

Players have rules to limit their actions and force meaningful choice. GMs have guidelines to help them "Judge" in a way that aligns with Rule #1. All Players should be (participating)* in having fun.


*= try to modify to reflect some of the great ideas and thoughts of the thread, in a clumsy way.

[HidesHisEyes]

Well that escalated quickly.

[dafrca]

Relax, we are all friends here. This is not an opposed roll situation. :)

Indeed, I recall many of my early TSR RPG games called the GM the Judge, as you say. Perhaps it was the Marvel Superheroes game?
I loved that the original Traveller back in the 70's called them "the referee". :smallsmile:

[Vahnavoi]

So, the Forum seems to have some pretty concrete ideas of what is or is not "good" GMing.

Let's just list it out and discuss it openly. I will start with a few ideas and see where it goes.

For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.



The bolded bit is the only rule I would consider 100% universal. That matters, no matter who you are at the table, no matter what you're doing or what system you're running, or anything like that.

Having "fun" is one motive, out of many, to hold or play a game. There's a host of other goods which can occupy a higher place in a hierarchy of goods than "fun". Indeed, one of the basic jobs of a game master, in absence of a separate moderator, is to prevent anyone's "fun" from harming those more important goods, such as physical and mental health.

The closest you get to a general definition of a "good game master" is "a game master who knows what their goal for their game is and can take necessary steps to achieve it". A "good game master" for a given player, then, is a game master who has congruent goals with that player. This is the closest you get without positing some objective universal good.

Most of the first post, and most of this thread, is filled with two-penny advice for steps to achieve goals that haven't been well-defined. Even if you're only concerned with "fun", much of the advice doesn't generalize well. For the most obvious example, advice dealing with how to use dice aren't particularly useful to game masters of diceless games.

[JNAProductions]

Having "fun" is one motive, out of many, to hold or play a game. There's a host of other goods which can occupy a higher place in a hierarchy of goods than "fun". Indeed, one of the basic jobs of a game master, in absence of a separate moderator, is to prevent anyone's "fun" from harming those more important goods, such as physical and mental health.

The closest you get to a general definition of a "good game master" is "a game master who knows what their goal for their game is and can take necessary steps to achieve it". A "good game master" for a given player, then, is a game master who has congruent goals with that player. This is the closest you get without positing some objective universal good.

Most of the first post, and most of this thread, is filled with two-penny advice for steps to achieve goals that haven't been well-defined. Even if you're only concerned with "fun", much of the advice doesn't generalize well. For the most obvious example, advice dealing with how to use dice aren't particularly useful to game masters of diceless games.

You are not the players’ therapist.

While, yes, health comes before fun, if you are not healthy enough to play D&D or some other TTRPG, then you should be addressing that before you sit at the table. Your table mates are (hopefully) your friends, and so should be helping you, at least.

[Vahnavoi]

You are not the players’ therapist.

You say, with no knowledge of what I do for work.

Consider: tabletop roleplaying games can and have been used for therapy. That's not specifically what I was talking about in my post, but it's provably a thing. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/ntxcounseling.com/2021/01/11/therapeutic-benefits-of-role-playing-games/amp/)


While, yes, health comes before fun, if you are not healthy enough to play D&D or some other TTRPG, then you should be addressing that before you sit at the table.

Apparently you can't imagine anything unexpected happening at a table.

Consider: If you argument was simply that tabletop games are typically safe enough to pose negligible risk to their players, there'd be no disagreement. But the same is true of semi-contact sports, like combat with soft weapons, or various forms of tag (the children's game). Would you be this confused over the point, if we were talking about hitting each other with padded sticks or running around outside?

EDIT: as far as the mental side goes, players bullying other players, having "fun" at their expense, is about as likely in tabletop roleplaying games as it is in any other game. Would you be this confused over the point, if we were talking about dodgeball?


Your table mates are (hopefully) your friends, and so should be helping you, at least.

There is no requirement for players to be a game master's friends.

[KorvinStarmast]

Relax, we are all friends here. This is not an opposed roll situation. :) I find the approach abrasive, starting with the OP. Might not be intended, but the prose style, the click bait style, leaves that stain on it. Me getting abrasive back, while repaying in the coin offered, hardly helps so I'll try to keep that out of my responses.

Indeed, I recall many of my early TSR RPG games called the GM the Judge, as you say. If you look at the Strategic Review, advice for judges/advice for better judging, were articles in some issues that were meant to help people with what we now call DMing/GMing. There were also a few articles of that title in the first few Dragonmagazine issues. (FWIW, I currently find Robin Laws' work on GMing, and the blog posts by The Alexandrian and Angry GM to be decent GM/DM help sources).

However, the role of fairness in the Role-playing game is to ensure that the RAW (Rules as Written) of the game, does not disrupt the RAI (Rules as Intended) for the players/GM of the game. Therefore, they have to make a judgement call on what the Rules mean and how to apply them. I disagree with how you framed that. It is my position that dragging in the RAW/RAI poison makes the conversation worse, not better. (Also, "the role of fairness" is a confusing phrase, such that I think you got the cart before the horse there. Fairness is both a desirable feature of any game and an expectation that requires {X Something} to be achieved. That may be where your thoughts were, but it was presented in a confusing fashion).

In an RPG, the rules are tools that we use to play a game of make believe. Microscope offers different tools than Great Ork Gods which has different tools than Dungeon World (which is from a tool concept that covers many games) which is different from a D&D game which offers different tools from Golden Sky Stories. One of the things that referees, judges, DMs and GMs all do is provide a bit of connective tissue for the gaming experience where the rules leave some gray areas or are silent. (I think it might be best to not digress into GM-less games given the title of the OP).

I loved that the original Traveller back in the 70's called them "the referee". :smallsmile: So too did Men and Magic, the first book of D&D, as well as Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, the third book (and one that was very much referee/DM/GM facing).

The closest you get to a general definition of a "good game master" is "a game master who knows what their goal for their game is and can take necessary steps to achieve it". A "good game master" for a given player, then, is a game master who has congruent goals with that player. This is the closest you get without positing some objective universal good.
{snip} advice dealing with how to use dice aren't particularly useful to game masters of diceless games. Both are good points.

Consider: tabletop roleplaying games can and have been used for therapy. That's not specifically what I was talking about in my post, but it's provably a thing. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/ntxcounseling.com/2021/01/11/therapeutic-benefits-of-role-playing-games/amp/) My experience with the value of role-playing during an anger management course was, to be charitable, underwhelming.

There is no requirement for players to be a game master's friends. While that's true, it sure helps.

[JNAProductions]

You say, with no knowledge of what I do for work.

Consider: tabletop roleplaying games can and have been used for therapy. That's not specifically what I was talking about in my post, but it's provably a thing. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/ntxcounseling.com/2021/01/11/therapeutic-benefits-of-role-playing-games/amp/)



Apparently you can't imagine anything unexpected happening at a table.

Consider: If you argument was simply that tabletop games are typically safe enough to pose negligible risk to their players, there'd be no disagreement. But the same is true of semi-contact sports, like combat with soft weapons, or various forms of tag (the children's game). Would you be this confused over the point, if we were talking about hitting each other with padded sticks or running around outside?

EDIT: as far as the mental side goes, players bullying other players, having "fun" at their expense, is about as likely in tabletop roleplaying games as it is in any other game. Would you be this confused over the point, if we were talking about dodgeball?



There is no requirement for players to be a game master's friends.

I’m working under the assumption this is advice for a healthy table. One where people are, if not friends, at least friendly. And not bullies or criminals.

If the table is such that it negatively impacts your health, mental or physical, LEAVE THE TABLE. No gaming is better than bad gaming-and bad gaming generally refers to “I’m not having fun” and not “I fear for my life.”

[Easy e]

The closest you get to a general definition of a "good game master" is "a game master who knows what their goal for their game is and can take necessary steps to achieve it". A "good game master" for a given player, then, is a game master who has congruent goals with that player. This is the closest you get without positing some objective universal good.

So, applying the Platinum Rule to game mastering. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Good insight.

[kyoryu]

The closest you get to a general definition of a "good game master" is "a game master who knows what their goal for their game is and can take necessary steps to achieve it". A "good game master" for a given player, then, is a game master who has congruent goals with that player. This is the closest you get without positing some objective universal good.

Pretty much word-for-word what I said.



While, yes, health comes before fun, if you are not healthy enough to play D&D or some other TTRPG, then you should be addressing that before you sit at the table.

Depends on the table and the game. Some games tread in darker waters, and may hit issues. If you're playing with people you know, that's less likely. IOW, you need different structures for playing a reasonably light-hearted game with people you know well and have reasonably understood boundaries of what gaming is, than one that gets into heavier material with strangers with less clear understood boundaries.


I’m working under the assumption this is advice for a healthy table. One where people are, if not friends, at least friendly.

100%.

Which is why it makes sense to be aware, especially if dealing with game subjects that can touch upon real-life trauma, that people may have specific issues regarding them. That doesn't mean "not healthy enough to game", but it does mean that people may have specific sensitive spots.


If the table is such that it negatively impacts your health, mental or physical, LEAVE THE TABLE. No gaming is better than bad gaming-and bad gaming generally refers to “I’m not having fun” and not “I fear for my life.”

Well for sure. But there's usually a step before that, which is "hey, this doesn't work for me, can we adjust appropriately?"

Like, if I had a friend that had an issue with Froozleboppers in real life, and I was unaware of that, and introduced Froozleboppers in my game (and especially if they weren't an inherent part of the game pitch), then if they asked why wouldn't I just kind of silently delete them? They'd probably be okay with Fizzlewuggers and Mimblemappers and everything else.

Like, more concretely, if somebody introduced a scenario involving a dying dog right after I put my dog down, I wouldn't deal with that well, even though I'd deal with everything else just fine. I think it would be the kind and reasonable thing to modify or change that scenario at that point, rather than forcing me to either deal with it or leave. I mean, if I signed up for "Dying Dogs: the RPG", then it's on me, but apart from that...

[Vahnavoi]

So, applying the Platinum Rule to game mastering. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Good insight.

I hate the "Platinum rule" with a passion and was thinking of something completely different when Iw wrote that definition, but I admit the similarity. :smalltongue:

---


I’m working under the assumption this is advice for a healthy table. One where people are, if not friends, at least friendly. And not bullies or criminals.

Completely healthy and normal kids get into accidents and both intentionally and unintentionally bully each other. Adults in their "free time" mode aren't appreciably better. A "healthy table" is one with means to deal with that, not simply one where none of that happens. It's a false paradigm that you adress what could go wrong before a game starts and that somehow means nothing goes wrong. The real paradigm is adressing what could go wrong so you know how to act if something goes wrong.


If the table is such that it negatively impacts your health, mental or physical, LEAVE THE TABLE. No gaming is better than bad gaming-and bad gaming generally refers to “I’m not having fun” and not “I fear for my life.”

I was talking about hierarchy of goods. The point of such a hierarchy is that a game master will act to prevent anyone from having "fun" in a way that'd negatively impact someone's health - in other words, a game master will prevent a situation from escalating to the point where people need to leave the table or remove the offending player so that the other player can continue, no matter how "unfun" such a decision might be to one or all parties.

The same logic applies if it's something else occupying a higher place in the hierarchy than "fun". Is the purpose of the game to teach a skill? Then it doesn't matter if it would be more "fun" to bypass whatever problem requires that skill. The game master will prevent such solutions or remove players who repeatedly refuse to engage with the core activity of learning that skill. Note that this does not mean the game will be absolutely "unfun", it just means that when "fun" is in conflict in a higher good, "fun" is what gets compromised.

[KorvinStarmast]

I hate the "Platinum rule" with a passion and was thinking of something completely different when I wrote that definition, but I admit the similarity. :smalltongue: All that the platinum rule requires is the ability to read minds ... :smallbiggrin: ... not to mention that some people don't know what they want (https://youtu.be/mu_pNeqAQ-U).

The real paradigm is addressing what could go wrong so you know how to act if something goes wrong.


The same logic applies if it's something else occupying a higher place in the hierarchy than "fun". At what cost "fun" becomes a question in such cases.

[HidesHisEyes]

I sort of took the OP’s special fun rule as being a colloquial, imprecise way of saying “make sure everyone is having a good time”, which would encompass fun, physiological comfort and safety, and all sorts of other goods. Sort of “you’re responsible for the general success of the game”. I disagreed for other reasons.

[Vahnavoi]

At what cost "fun" becomes a question in such cases.

Are you asking a question? It depends on what goods you're pursuing. If you're teaching a skill, the cost of "fun" may be delaying or detracting from training the right thing.

---


I sort of took the OP’s special fun rule as being a colloquial, imprecise way of saying “make sure everyone is having a good time”, which would encompass fun, physiological comfort and safety, and all sorts of other goods. Sort of “you’re responsible for the general success of the game”. I disagreed for other reasons.

The imprecision is why I keep putting "fun" in quotation marks. If it's not a discrete thing - if it could stand for basically any collection of goods - then you can't use that maxim to tell what would even count as success. It's a call to erase "fun" and replace it with a more specific terminology.

[HidesHisEyes]

The imprecision is why I keep putting "fun" in quotation marks. If it's not a discrete thing - if it could stand for basically any collection of goods - then you can't use that maxim to tell what would even count as success. It's a call to erase "fun" and replace it with a more specific terminology.

Sure. I felt like we managed to have a pretty decent discussion despite the imprecision though.

[OldTrees1]

The same logic applies if it's something else occupying a higher place in the hierarchy than "fun". Is the purpose of the game to teach a skill? Then it doesn't matter if it would be more "fun" to bypass whatever problem requires that skill. The game master will prevent such solutions or remove players who repeatedly refuse to engage with the core activity of learning that skill. Note that this does not mean the game will be absolutely "unfun", it just means that when "fun" is in conflict in a higher good, "fun" is what gets compromised.

Yes. This is a good point that people can play the game for multiple, different, and differently prioritized / ranked goals / metrics.

Someone's personally values/goals hierarchy does not need to be full of strictly dominating goals. Some goals with have several thresholds that decrease the priority of further fulfillment of that goal.

[HidesHisEyes]

Yes. This is a good point that people can play the game for multiple, different, and differently prioritized / ranked goals / metrics.

Someone's personally values/goals hierarchy does not need to be full of strictly dominating goals. Some goals with have several thresholds that decrease the priority of further fulfillment of that goal.

Yeah this is definitely true. I think we can use “fun” as a shorthand for “a successful game” and that’s fine, but it can certainly muddy the waters at times too. WebDM had a good episode where they pointed out a tendency in modern D&D to do away with things like tracking encumbrance, rations and random encounters, on the grounds of those things not being fun. Of course the reason people do those things isn’t because they’re fun in the way shooting demons in Doom is fun, but because they add a certain type of depth and can result in a more satisfying experience - for some people - over the long run.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are you asking a question? It depends on what goods you're pursuing. I am playing a game as a leisure activity. Fun is where you find it.

If you're teaching a skill, the cost of "fun" may be delaying or detracting from training the right thing. That's, IMO, off topic for a discussion centered on role playing games. RPGs.
The sliver of folk who use role playing games for something else, while a number greater than zero, isn't of sufficient weight for me to consider worth discussing under the baseline offered in the OP. GM means Game Master, not social worker nor counselor. That you are able to use role playing in your vocation is great, though.

---

The imprecision is why I keep putting "fun" in quotation marks. Fun doesn't need scare quotes if what we are discussing is a game, but a previous post's redefinition of "a successful game" I can modify to "a successful game session" if you'd rather. It works well enough if you find the term fun too vague for your liking. Splitting hairs over word definitions and semantics is a nice, red warning flag to fun being departed from, in my experience. It's also a nice illustration of why pedantry has, in discussions on RPGs, a generally negative connotation.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah this is definitely true. I think we can use “fun” as a shorthand for “a successful game” and that’s fine, but it can certainly muddy the waters at times too. WebDM had a good episode where they pointed out a tendency in modern D&D to do away with things like tracking encumbrance, rations and random encounters, on the grounds of those things not being fun. Of course the reason people do those things isn’t because they’re fun in the way shooting demons in Doom is fun, but because they add a certain type of depth and can result in a more satisfying experience - for some people - over the long run.

That is like using "pasta" as shorthand for "a good dinner". You would be fighting against the colloquial definition of "fun" or covering up the goals beyond "enjoyment". The point isn't "there are different types of fun" (albeit true), the point is "fun" is not the only reason / goal.

I think it is imprecise, and worse inaccurate, to use "fun" as a shorthand for "a successful game". However it might be fine as long as everyone involved knows "fun" is being used as a misnomer shorthand to cover things beyond "fun" without having to list the longer "satisfies everyone's preferences, values, and goals with respect to the activity".

For example, if the players prefer having Agency in addition to having fun, then an Illusionism game could let the players have "fun" while intentionally sabotaging their goal to have agency.

Or another example, if a parent prefers their kids have fun playing the game over their own personal enjoyment.

As long as we don't only mean "fun", then it might be fine to use "fun" as a 3 letter shorthand.


The essence of a "Good" player at an RPG (the GM is also a player) is (in no particular order):

1) Knowing your preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game
2) Understanding the preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game of the other players
(this might take communication)
3) Creating a game that satisfies the preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game for all players
(this might take compromise and an understanding of cause & effect).

[kyoryu]

That is like using "pasta" as shorthand for "a good dinner". You would be fighting against the colloquial definition of "fun" or covering up the goals beyond "enjoyment". The point isn't "there are different types of fun" (albeit true), the point is "fun" is not the only reason / goal.

I think the issue is that people are using "fun" in different ways - either a narrow way (whee, this is fun!) or in a more broad way (that was an enjoyable session). Few people find losing "fun" in the first sense, others very well might argue that losing is necessary for "fun" in the greater sense.

IOW, you're not wrong necessarily, but some people don't see that as a valid analogy because they're scoping the word differently.



The essence of a "Good" player at an RPG (the GM is also a player) is (in no particular order):

1) Knowing your preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game
2) Understanding the preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game of the other players
(this might take communication)
3) Creating a game that satisfies the preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game for all players
(this might take compromise and an understanding of cause & effect).


I'm glad a good number of people are using more or less this idea.

[OldTrees1]

I think the issue is that people are using "fun" in different ways - either a narrow way (whee, this is fun!) or in a more broad way (that was an enjoyable session). Few people find losing "fun" in the first sense, others very well might argue that losing is necessary for "fun" in the greater sense.

IOW, you're not wrong necessarily, but some people don't see that as a valid analogy because they're scoping the word differently.

That is not the issue. I am using "fun" in the broadest way and I still see relevant preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game outside of that broadest meaning of "fun". Enjoyment, is not the only thing that can matter. Sometimes "that was a valuable session despite not being very enjoyable" is better than "that was a worthless session despite being enjoyable". Value/worth trumps the specific (very broad and generally dominating) subcategory called "enjoyment".

Edit:
However, while there are preferences/reasons/goals outside of the broadest definition of "enjoyment" or "fun", I think creating a linguistic misnomer shorthand is fine, as long as we understand that it is a linguistic shorthand for all preferences/reasons/goals rather than the subcategory the word actually describes under its broadest definition.

What I don't want is the implication that any of these other preferences/reasons/goals should be ignored/discarded/betrayed by the "ideal GM" even in cases when those other preferences/reasons/goals are valued more by the player than the marginal gain in enjoyment.

[KorvinStarmast]

What I don't want is the implication that any of these other preferences/reasons/goals should be ignored/discarded/betrayed by the "ideal GM" even in cases when those other preferences/reasons/goals are valued more by the player than the marginal gain in enjoyment. The ideal GM doesn't exist. :smallwink: It's an abstraction.

[OldTrees1]

The ideal GM doesn't exist. :smallwink: It's an abstraction.

:smallwink:

Like many ideals, the ideal GM only exists as a concept that can be strived for rather than as a concrete entity outside the practitioner. As players, including GMs, we can strive for the ideal. Sometimes threads are made discussing the abstract ideal.

To me, that includes not only recognizing the other players have preferences/reasons/goals, but that all of us players, including the GM, in the group can have preferences/reasons/goals beyond the broadest definition of enjoyment.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The essence(s) of good GMing is presenting conflicts and problems without a predetermined solution in mind, and being prepared to adjudicate (act as judge/referee) the players responses according to a consistent set of expectations.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Essence of "Good" GMing For the OP, why is "Good" in scare quotes? :smallconfused:

[HidesHisEyes]

That is like using "pasta" as shorthand for "a good dinner". You would be fighting against the colloquial definition of "fun" or covering up the goals beyond "enjoyment". The point isn't "there are different types of fun" (albeit true), the point is "fun" is not the only reason / goal.

I think it is imprecise, and worse inaccurate, to use "fun" as a shorthand for "a successful game". However it might be fine as long as everyone involved knows "fun" is being used as a misnomer shorthand to cover things beyond "fun" without having to list the longer "satisfies everyone's preferences, values, and goals with respect to the activity".


I’d say it’s more like using “a tasty dinner” as shorthand for “a good dinner”. Still doesn’t account for nutritional value, ease of preparation, ambience, etc.

Again, nothing wrong with digging down and being clear on what we mean but I have to push back against this idea - because I encounter it very often in online discussions - that it’s impossible to have any kind of discussion without total agreement on a scientific level of precision in defining terms. We were having a perfectly fine discussion even before we started arguing about the word fun.

You said it’s fine to use shorthand as long as everyone understands it’s shorthand. I think we did.

[Man_Over_Game]

For the OP, why is "Good" in scare quotes? :smallconfused:

I believe they're referring to the fact that it's all relative. It's silly to say how one person's fun or experiences invalidates another, so it's hard to think objectively about something that's positive for everyone. There's no "right" way.

[Jay R]

Not all GMs have the same skills, experience, temperament, mental abilities, or role-playing goals.
Not all players have the same skills, interests, experience, or desires.
Not all parties work together the same way.
Not all game locations have the same advantages and disadvantages.

It therefore follows that there cannot be agreement on 'The Essence of "Good" GMing'.

These rules include some good ideas, and probably work for you. I published my Rules for DMs (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?592257-Rules-for-DMs) awhile ago. They work for me. Other people have found disagreements in them, but also, my rules have been improved by other peoples' critiques.

We are not going to find the one true set of good rule for DMing -- because my approach doesn't necessarily work for you -- and that's fine.

Have good games, running them according to your principles for DMing, and I will do the same.

The internet doesn't judge your DMing; your players do.

[EggKookoo]

10. Rules are for players, and not GMs

Regarding this, what I do think is that the GM is more free to modify rules and tailor systems to suit a particular kind of encounter or event than the players are. In general, players follow rules, and the GM can create rules. The only real limit to what the GM can do with the rules is...


For me, Rule 1 is the GM is there to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

It therefore follows that there cannot be agreement on 'The Essence of "Good" GMing'. From that it follows that the thread is of no value, as the OP is based on a false premise.

I published my Rules for DMs (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?592257-Rules-for-DMs) awhile ago. They work for me. Other people have found disagreements in them, but also, my rules have been improved by other peoples' critiques. There's some good meat on that bone.

Have good games, running them according to your principles for DMing, and I will do the same. Good advice. No scare quotes needed. :smallwink:

[Quertus]

The list of "10+1" ideas about "good" does more than fall flat, IMO.

At the risk of Over+ complicating things, my own personal list of "(roughly) Universal Truths about Good (GMing)" might look like this:

1) To be good, first, you must not be bad.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

The experience isn't just a binary fun Y/n (or "fun" Y/n), it's a whole slew of "feels", that run whole spectra.

First and foremost, IMO, to be good, you must not be bad.

This means, not chasing fun, but removing and having procedures for remedying unfun anti-fun. Which should not be mistaken for just "things that aren't fun" or "things you don't like".

[In an RPG setting, this could include things like "fade to black" procedure, being aware if you suddenly notice Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, knowing how to effectively communicate when someone's behavior is harmful to others (ie, they play a Kender), etc] [In context of a forum, this would be moderators, reporting systems, banning]

Or, if you prefer someone else's words:

first responsibility is to not make the game unfun for anybody.
Completely healthy and normal kids get into accidents and both intentionally and unintentionally bully each other. Adults in their "free time" mode aren't appreciably better. A "healthy table" is one with means to deal with that, not simply one where none of that happens.

2) Be a disciple of kaizen.

"You'll always be the god of mischief. You could have been so much more."

Grow. Learn. Improve. Say, "That was the me of yesterday. This is the me of today."

This shouldn't be mistaken for "change". This is not change for change's sake, this is actual intelligent, purposeful growth.

[In an RPG, this could include… almost anything, really. Growing your skills, changing your style for the betterment of the game, learning about the Rule of Three / not to make fragile games, or so much more] [in context of a forum, this would be (code) updates]

Or, if you prefer someone else's words:

- Constantly improve your understanding of the art, your players, etc. Become able to choose the details of your GMing in a purposeful way.
I4. Look at techniques and tools from other styles of games, but do so with a critical eye
5. Constantly evaluate yourself. Look at went went well, and what didn't. Solicit feedback

3) the only role exclusive to the GM is being the eyes and ears of the PCs.

"It is plain that they are not soldiers by their haphazard way of walking, neither tarrying nor running. They do not seem to be joking loudly or singing as they advance. Each carries some sort of weapon."

4) the only role exclusive to the players is running their respective PCs.

(Insert rhyme about "GM is everything else, players run the PCs")

5) know yourself, your players. Communicate effectively.

Or, if you prefer someone else's words:

- Constantly improve your understanding of the art, your players, etc. Become able to choose the details of your GMing in a purposeful way.
2. Communicate that clearly. Be honest.
5. Constantly evaluate yourself. Look at went went well, and what didn't. Solicit feedback, but also pay attention to body language, etc.

6) the rules are a part of communication.

7) Understand how consistency works. Use it.

Or, if you prefer someone else's words:

Consistency regarding rules and rulings is vital, if the players feel like they are being disadvantaged they may take it personally, you may be unknowigly playing favorites.

8) Understand how thinking works. Let and enable your players to think.

Or, if you prefer someone else's words:

Don’t hinge your adventure on the players figuring out a specific clue. Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean that it will seem obvious to your players. Have multiple clues, and/or multiple entries.
Know what you will do if they never figure out the clue.
Remind them of things that their characters would not have forgotten, but not things that characters will forget.

(OK, not all those quotes fit exactly what I was saying. I just tried to include some of the comments I agreed with as best I could. Hopefully nobody will get offended at my silly way of saying "+1 this of good ideas" to some of the ideas I liked. But if you really think it doesn't fit at all / that I misunderstood what you were saying (or had a cut and paste error), let me know!)

-----

A lot of everything else - and how I often use the phrase - is context dependent.

For example, suppose one player initiates PvP (by, for example, bringing a Kender).

The players knew they were signing up for "no PvP"? A good GM stops that.

The players knew they were signing up for PvP? A good GM allows that (I guess).

The players didn't know what they were signing up for? A good GM fixes that… and fixes themselves, so that they don't make that mistake again.

[Easy e]

For the OP, why is "Good" in scare quotes? :smallconfused:

Because "Good" is subjective.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because "Good" is subjective. That's a lousy excuse to offer.
Are we, with this precedent, to put scare quotes around every word that is subjective in nature?
No, we are not.
The word good has a meaning; its inherent subjectivity is a part of its meaning.
It needs no window dressing nor abuse by the application of scare quotes.

@Quertus: this was in interesting meditation (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25235914&postcount=57) on RPG and the general topic that Easy e offered up, thanks for taking the time to put that together.

[Easy e]

Great, feel free to create your own threads for discussion whenever you wish.

:)

Thanks Quertus. I also appreciated that post.

[Melayl]

I've found that Rick with the Find the Path podcast (www.find-path.com) is my definition of the essence of "good GMing".

[DigoDragon]

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Haha, my local group uses this phrase a lot.


I have often been told I am a very good GM by my players. Assuming that's true (cause my players are silly people, but I'd never trade them for anything) I would attribute my success to having good communication with every one of them.

I am proactive communicating with my players. They know they can come to me if they have concerns, but I will reach out to them (often in private) just to ask how they feel about the campaign's direction, if there are issues that they have but maybe didn't feel up to asking about, etc.

And I agree that consistency is important. If I have to make a ruling on something, I take notes on it so that I remember it for next time that issue comes up.

[Tvtyrant]

There are no universal rules to DMing, it is both culturally and individually defined. Each group is different, groups in different cultures are going to be different, the opinions you get on what rules are good in a forum where it is common to debate rules is not going to represent a general audience much less your own specific group.

The closest thing I would say to a general rule is make sure your group doesn't bully or traumatize individuals in it.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are no universal rules to DMing, it is both culturally and individually defined. Each group is different, groups in different cultures are going to be different, the opinions you get on what rules are good in a forum where it is common to debate rules is not going to represent a general audience much less your own specific group.

The closest thing I would say to a general rule is make sure your group doesn't bully or traumatize individuals in it. Small group dynamics and the old "forming, storming, norming and performing" as a process applies to most TTRPG groups that I have been in.