What is your Dungeon Master's Class?

[Drakeburn]

After watching the Dungeon Dudes' video of the same name as the title of this thread, it got me thinking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPmrCO6fqAM

From what I got from the video, I realize that when it comes to being a Dungeon Master or Game Master, I'm a Barbarian/Paladin/Wizard multiclass. The reason I'm a stickler for RAW, and lean heavily into combat/point-buy systems than roleplaying is because of my high-functioning ASD. Looking back, I can't help but to cringe at how I blew up because the players in one of my past games derailed what could've been an epic boss fight. :smallsigh:

So, what do you think are your DM/GM classes?


Artificer DM: The DM who loves to craft things such as terrain, miniatures with 3D printers, VTTs, etc. They also enjoy using gadgets and gizmos to make the gaming experience more immersive.

Barbarian DM: This is the kind of DM who loves combat and throwing the biggest, baddest monsters at the party.

Bard DM: This is the DM that uses background music, does the voices for the NPCs, and will likely enjoy storytelling. Basically if the theater kid was in the Dungeon Master's seat.

Cleric: The players' host who provides them with refreshments, and wants to make sure that everyone at the table is comfortable. Sort of the "party mom" of the group.

Druid: The result of a worldbuilder becoming a DM.

Fighter: This is the kind of DM who makes tactical combat encounters. The wargamer.

Monk: A type of DM who doesn't use maps or miniatures, and prefers the theater of the mind.

Paladin: This is the DM who sticks by the rules, hates cheating, and who likes to have the players/PCs face moral dilemmas.

Ranger: A DM who loves maps and exploration hexcrawl campaigns. A ranger DM also makes the party forage for food, keep track of inventory, ammunition, and encumbrance. Expect a survival campaign to be run by this kind of DM.

Rogue: Expect this DM to be the type that will fudge rolls behind the DM Screen. Likes secret passageways, locked doors, puzzles, mysteries, and plays mind games with the players.

Sorcerer: The improv DM, who will not have any notes or books on the person will they're running the game.

Warlock: The DM who loves running horror campaigns; describing the monsters in grotesque details, might use mood lighting to set the tone.

Wizard: If you have a DM who comes to a game prepared with a thick binder full of notes and a bunch of books, this is what that DM's class is. Can be caught off-guard if the players do something that the DM didn't plan for.

[Mastikator]

Cleric/paladin multiclass, with a wizard dip.

[Batcathat]

Probably some sort of weird druid/monk/paladin multiclass. Maybe some bard in there, too.

[KorvinStarmast]

Youtube videos that are 25 minutes long are not a good use of one's time. Is there a transcript of this?

[Drakeburn]

Youtube videos that are 25 minutes long are not a good use of one's time. Is there a transcript of this?

True, and that's why I put a list in a spoiler on my post showing the types of DMs that were discussed in the video.

[KorvinStarmast]

True, and that's why I put a list in a spoiler on my post showing the types of DMs that were discussed in the video. Now that I have read the descriptions, none of them is very apt (in my view).
They do a particular disservice to DMing by their "this and this" for certain of the generally poor categorizations. No DM is "just this" or "Just that" so that ends my comments.

Hope others have fun with this.

[Kol Korran]

Wizard/ fighter/ ranger:
I live coming prepared. And I prepare... A LOT. Prep is both fun (I enjoy it) and also needed for me (I don't improvise well without prep. I can improvise well enough if I've prepared enough "groundworks"/ background, and "adjustable elements", but something out of the blue? I am usually a bit stumped).

I love a good tactical confrontation. It can be combat, a social duel, or some other conflicted contest, but I like making it complex, where different approaches have different advantages, risks, and so forth. My battles and conflicts are built to challenge, engage and thrill, and are rarely a simple matter of just using the right power/ ability or hitting strong enough.

Aaannd... I like wilderness adventures, exploration of the wild, mapping, and making survival, travel, and resource management actually matter. Not as a meaningless "tack boxes on the equipment list" feature, but as a challengin, exciting, multi choices that change the adventure ordeal. Come to think about it- a bit like my other conflict design, only this time- against the world features, time, and limited resources.

I don't think the list covers all DMing styles, but it IS nice...

[Easy e]

A sorcerer level 12, with Monk Level 2, and Rogue Level 2.

I still have plenty of room to level up though.

[animorte]

While there are certainly more qualities to speak of, I'm more interested in the chaotic multi-classing this would result in. Fun thought experiment.

I would have most levels in Sorcerer with a dip into Bard for some ambience. Otherwise, I'd like to think I'm spread out fairly well enough that each of the other class' qualities rear their noggins periodically.

[JNAProductions]

Artificer DM: The DM who loves to craft things such as terrain, miniatures with 3D printers, VTTs, etc. They also enjoy using gadgets and gizmos to make the gaming experience more immersive.
Kinda? I generally game online, but I do have minis for in person games.

Barbarian DM: This is the kind of DM who loves combat and throwing the biggest, baddest monsters at the party.
See my 20th level one-off boss fights. :P

Bard DM: This is the DM that uses background music, does the voices for the NPCs, and will likely enjoy storytelling. Basically if the theater kid was in the Dungeon Master's seat.
No music, but otherwise yes.

Cleric: The players' host who provides them with refreshments, and wants to make sure that everyone at the table is comfortable. Sort of the "party mom" of the group.
Again, online gaming, but I do take others' feelings into consideration.

Druid: The result of a worldbuilder becoming a DM.
Eh... I'd like to be more this, but I acknowledge I am not.

Fighter: This is the kind of DM who makes tactical combat encounters. The wargamer.
Somewhat.

Monk: A type of DM who doesn't use maps or miniatures, and prefers the theater of the mind.
Yes. Again, see online gaming.

Paladin: This is the DM who sticks by the rules, hates cheating, and who likes to have the players/PCs face moral dilemmas.
Yes.

Ranger: A DM who loves maps and exploration hexcrawl campaigns. A ranger DM also makes the party forage for food, keep track of inventory, ammunition, and encumbrance. Expect a survival campaign to be run by this kind of DM.
Hell no.

Rogue: Expect this DM to be the type that will fudge rolls behind the DM Screen. Likes secret passageways, locked doors, puzzles, mysteries, and plays mind games with the players.
Nope!

Sorcerer: The improv DM, who will not have any notes or books on the person will they're running the game.
I keep notes of the NPCs and locations already visited, but nothing in advance.

Warlock: The DM who loves running horror campaigns; describing the monsters in grotesque details, might use mood lighting to set the tone.
Descriptions yes.

Wizard: If you have a DM who comes to a game prepared with a thick binder full of notes and a bunch of books, this is what that DM's class is. Can be caught off-guard if the players do something that the DM didn't plan for.
Nope!
Put my inclinations in the spoiler, in bold.

Looking at what I wrote...

Little Artificer.
Much Barbarian.
Much Bard.
Somewhat Cleric.
No Druid.
Somewhat Fighter.
Much Monk.
Much Paladin.
No Ranger.
No Rogue.
Much Sorcerer.
Some Warlock.
No Wizard.
For an overall level of Artificer 3/Barbarian 11/Bard 11/Cleric 5/Fighter 3/Monk 11/Paladin 11/Sorcerer 11/Warlock 3!
For a total level of 69... I swear that was not intentional, but very fitting. :P

[NichG]

I'd say I'm Sorceror/Truenamer, in that I'm primarily improv when it comes to running, but I tend to write a new system or heavy system mod for each campaign.

[Witty Username]

I think rogue is closest fit, I don't like set plans for things or single solution problems but I like planning.

I like putting "treasures" in my plans, things I have no expectation of being found but could hook to something else. The optional second dungeon at the bottom of a pit, or the chance to get a strange clue about a friendly NPC.

My goal is not to pull a party through an adventure, my goal is pose a problem/situation/conflict/curiosity and see what the party finds interesting.

I am also pretty bad at storytelling and character acting, so there is that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've dipped around quite a bit, but I'd say most of my levels are Sorcerer--I make up way, waaaay too much stuff on the fly, and frequently have to refer to my players' notes to remember important details. Probably also got some Barbarian and/or Fighter, and an occasionally dip into Warlock.

And Cleric, of course, but I'd consider that a gestalt class, since I do it regardless of whether or not I'm running the game.


For a total level of 69... I swear that was not intentional, but very fitting. :P
Nice.

[Catullus64]

Based on the descriptions provided here, I would say Fighter, Rogue, and Druid are my leanings. Which is funny to me, because those are the requisites for becoming an AD&D Bard.

[Metastachydium]

Some further types:

Hexblade: The DM is an edgeDM, but bad at it.

Spirit Shaman: A worldbuilder-turned-DM who improvises a lot in a way that sounds cool on paper but doesn't really work.

Ninja: Should sometimes serve as the DM, but never shows on those occasions.

Mountebank: That Chick Tract was RIGHT!

Binder: Style depends on the, khm, influence the DM is under at the time.

[Morgaln]

I'm definitely sorcerer, probably with some paladin and monk in there.

[Quertus]

Now that I have read the descriptions, none of them is very apt (in my view). Hope others have fun with this.

Youtube videos that are 25 minutes long are not a good use of one's time. Is there a transcript of this?

Yeah, I agree with your assessment. It doesn't seem terribly useful, only potentially fun. 25 minutes might have been worth it for "8 kinds of fun" levels of useful, but this was just painful.

Thankfully, @JNAProductions posted a summary (albeit one that misses some of the video's stupidity, like how with Artificer they emphasize creation of the tools rather than their usage) with their reply.



Artificer DM: The DM who loves to craft things such as terrain, miniatures with 3D printers, VTTs, etc. They also enjoy using gadgets and gizmos to make the gaming experience more immersive.
Kinda? I generally game online, but I do have minis for in person games.

Barbarian DM: This is the kind of DM who loves combat and throwing the biggest, baddest monsters at the party.
See my 20th level one-off boss fights. :P

Bard DM: This is the DM that uses background music, does the voices for the NPCs, and will likely enjoy storytelling. Basically if the theater kid was in the Dungeon Master's seat.
No music, but otherwise yes.

Cleric: The players' host who provides them with refreshments, and wants to make sure that everyone at the table is comfortable. Sort of the "party mom" of the group.
Again, online gaming, but I do take others' feelings into consideration.

Druid: The result of a worldbuilder becoming a DM.
Eh... I'd like to be more this, but I acknowledge I am not.

Fighter: This is the kind of DM who makes tactical combat encounters. The wargamer.
Somewhat.

Monk: A type of DM who doesn't use maps or miniatures, and prefers the theater of the mind.
Yes. Again, see online gaming.

Paladin: This is the DM who sticks by the rules, hates cheating, and who likes to have the players/PCs face moral dilemmas.
Yes.

Ranger: A DM who loves maps and exploration hexcrawl campaigns. A ranger DM also makes the party forage for food, keep track of inventory, ammunition, and encumbrance. Expect a survival campaign to be run by this kind of DM.
Hell no.

Rogue: Expect this DM to be the type that will fudge rolls behind the DM Screen. Likes secret passageways, locked doors, puzzles, mysteries, and plays mind games with the players.
Nope!

Sorcerer: The improv DM, who will not have any notes or books on the person will they're running the game.
I keep notes of the NPCs and locations already visited, but nothing in advance.

Warlock: The DM who loves running horror campaigns; describing the monsters in grotesque details, might use mood lighting to set the tone.
Descriptions yes.

Wizard: If you have a DM who comes to a game prepared with a thick binder full of notes and a bunch of books, this is what that DM's class is. Can be caught off-guard if the players do something that the DM didn't plan for.
Nope!

Thanks for making this breakdown so easy! Interesting that "Sensory" is broken up between Artificer and Bard, and close to being along the lines of the part of Sensory that I like vs hate. Pity that Artificer was presented as someone who creates such things - or perhaps that's a good thing, a solid sign that the video is just a stupid bit of fluff for amusement, rather than serious scholarship into something actually useful.

Hmmm... The things that resonate with me as a GM most are "worldbuilding" and "play by the rules", so I guess I'm a Druid//Paladin gestalt, who took a couple levels in Fighter (wargamer), Ranger (maps, supplies), and the Bard sub-class that believes in giving NPCs personalities1. Does that describe me fully? Well... no. Not even remotely. Like, I prefer being a Sandbox, Combat as War GM who loves players who ask questions. Would adding things like "Race" and "Alignment" give a full(er) descriptor of me as a GM? Unknown. But this definitely further cements my opinion that this is fun, not useful.

Looking back at some of my old GMs... most archtypes don't just jump out at me as easy to correlate, but I can spot... a Wizard who acts like a Sorcerer (has lots of notes, but forgets them), a Cleric pretending to be a Fighter pretending to be an Artificer (for the group, creates the best war game by using the best tools?), and enough abusive overlord BBEG Rogue/Sorcerers to overthrow the Forgotten Realms if they all worked together.

1 I'm also the type of GM who would be like, "You made your Diplomacy check. Great. They like you. That's why they're not executing you for not knowing a thing about Imperial etiquette, and trying to speak to the Emperor directly, or setting foot in his palace without having undergone the purification ritual first.


For a total level of 69... I swear that was not intentional, but very fitting. :P

Hahaha. Quite some luck on your part. If I had made it Druid 20 // Paladin 20, and added +1 for each reason I gave for the other classes... nope, I still wouldn't hit 42. Sadness.

[Easy e]

Hahaha. Quite some luck on your part. If I had made it Druid 20 // Paladin 20, and added +1 for each reason I gave for the other classes... nope, I still wouldn't hit 42. Sadness.

Better level-up some of your sub-classes! :smallsmile:

[JNAProductions]

I did not post the summary-that was the OP. I just copied it and added my thoughts.

[Quertus]

I did not post the summary-that was the OP. I just copied it and added my thoughts.

Oh, I missed that. :smallredface: Thanks, OP!

[Reversefigure4]

Seems like Bard is the default class. Are there many GMs out there that don't enjoy storytelling, and don't do NPC voices of any kind?

[Mastikator]

Seems like Bard is the default class. Are there many GMs out there that don't enjoy storytelling, and don't do NPC voices of any kind?

I do NPC voices quite often, but I can easily understand why many doesn't. Many people are not comfortable doing voices, many people more are not comfortable being the only one in the room doing NPC voices.

As for storytelling it can be a bit deceptive with roleplaying games, the DM sets the stage but it's the players who decide where the story goes, and unless they're interested in story telling that effort can easily go into the toilet. A DM can be vulnerable to antagonistic/selfish players, especially if they're friends and the DM doesn't have the spine to decide "when I'm DM I'm not your friend".

[Eldan]

Huh. Druid monk sorcerer wizard?

I don't do voices, or miniatures, or maps. I find them annoying. Background music is the worst. I worldbuild extensively, even if my players don't see most of it. I have giant binders of material, but it's all worldbuilding and background. The actual stories happening at the table mostly consist of a dozen NPCs and factions and some vague notions of a first scene and what happens if the PCs don't act on it.

[Morgaln]

Seems like Bard is the default class. Are there many GMs out there that don't enjoy storytelling, and don't do NPC voices of any kind?

I don't do voices because I have no aptitude for it and feel very awkward even trying.
As for the storytelling, there are GMs who don't care for stories at all and are more interested in the tactical aspects of the game. Tanarii is a prominent proponent of that style on this forum, if I remember correctly.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Seems like Bard is the default class. Are there many GMs out there that don't enjoy storytelling, and don't do NPC voices of any kind?
I got the impression that the main theme of a "Bard GM" is the performance--the voices, the background music, the atmosphere...just generally enjoying the showmanship. I know I don't do that stuff--I don't have time or the spare attention to manage a musical playlist, and my vocal talents don't stretch beyond "growly evil voice." Also, I'm liable to forgot what kind of voice I was using for a given character between sessions.

(And trying to find a class for "storytelling" is probably best avoided, since it's liable to turn into an argument about railroading.)

[HumanFighter]

I identify most with the Monk.

[Eldan]

I got the impression that the main theme of a "Bard GM" is the performance--the voices, the background music, the atmosphere...just generally enjoying the showmanship. I know I don't do that stuff--I don't have time or the spare attention to manage a musical playlist, and my vocal talents don't stretch beyond "growly evil voice." Also, I'm liable to forgot what kind of voice I was using for a given character between sessions.

(And trying to find a class for "storytelling" is probably best avoided, since it's liable to turn into an argument about railroading.)

Yeah, that. I can do "slightly higher pitched voice "(probably child) and "slightly deeper pitched voice" (probably thug or bad guy). I can do a not very good "obnoxious upper class guy". And that's about it. Any attempt at doing an accent would just be incredibly cringey and I refuse to do it.

And I have ADD, so music is extremely distracting. If I get even a little tired or stressed, I have trouble concentrating on what people are saying, even if there's only very quiet background music.

[Reversefigure4]

There's endless ways to "do voices", though. It doesn't have to be professional voice acting. I'd consider any form of accent, cadence, tone, pitch, speaking pattern, choice of words, physical mannerism... Any effort to separate one NPC from another in a way that the table can pick up (which is primarily vocal, given the medium of play).

I haven't seen many games where there are no voices from the GM or the players. It can be done, with "The King tells you the goblins are in Lone Wood, and he'll pay 10gp for every goblin ear you bring him", but I would think that's the minority of games.

[Eldan]

I don't do indirect speech, yeah. That's too impersonal. But I absolutely add who's speaking.
So, with your example:

The King nods and says: "The goblins are in Lone Wood. My royal treasury will pay 10 whole gold pieces for every goblin ear you bring back."

I think it's clear enough without inventing a voice for the king. Especially since, again, I can't really do voices and they'd all sound almost the same.

[stoutstien]

I don't do indirect speech, yeah. That's too impersonal. But I absolutely add who's speaking.
So, with your example:

The King nods and says: "The goblins are in Lone Wood. My royal treasury will pay 10 whole gold pieces for every goblin ear you bring back."

I think it's clear enough without inventing a voice for the king. Especially since, again, I can't really do voices and they'd all sound almost the same.

The best part is you can enhance this with one or two words way more than any funny voice will ever do.

The king nods and continues in a voice will a little less weariness: "the goblins are in Longwood..."

The king nods and in a slightly dismissive tone..

The king nods and eagerly says...

[Pex]

Paladin/Wizard multiclass

[Biggus]

Barbarian/Druid/Wizard myself. I love details, worldbuilding and epic battles.


The reason I'm a stickler for RAW, and lean heavily into combat/point-buy systems than roleplaying is because of my high-functioning ASD.

This made me smile because I'm also high-functioning ASD, but I'm exactly the opposite on the first point: I consider it one of the most important parts of being a DM to know when to adapt or entirely disregard RAW.

Having said that, this is something which has come with long experience, when I was younger I treated the rules as something almost sacred.

I still prefer numbers to roleplaying though :smallsmile:

[AlexanderML]

I'd probably say I have some sort of druid/monk mix.

I do love me some world building, and hate using miniatures unless its an in-person game; which I haven't experienced in years.

[Calen]

Druid/Fighter/Barbarian, a lot of these. Big world full of nasty things that are good at killing :)

Wizard some, I take a lot of notes, but I have learned to leave room for crazy decisions.
Bard also some, I do the voices, they probably sound terrible but only one player has ever begged for mercy :P

Artificer and Rogue a little, I like making maps and puzzles.