Which kind of DM do you like more? Difficult? Forgiving? Etc?

[Angry Bob]

Edit: What traits do you find best in a DM?

What type of DM have you had the best gaming experiences with, and why? Not trying to invite an argument over DM styles here, just asking which you prefer.

I've had both kinds, and I preferred the really difficult one, even despite some of his questionable houserules and rulings. When we win, it feels like we actually won a victory, rather than merely advancing the plot at no threat to our characters' livelihood. The other DM was a phenomenal storyteller with a well thought-out setting, but only ever killed one of the characters outside the first session. And this was over the course of a school year, with games once a week.

My preference for a difficult campaign probably stems from my 'character ADD'.

Edit: Um. Feel free to treat my terms as oversimplifications of complicated concepts.

[dsmiles]

I prefer both. Or one DM who can do both, to be more specific. I love epic, sweeping story arcs, but if a character dies after their plot armor wears off, crap happens.

[arguskos]

I like me some tough DMs, as long as I know about everything up front before the game begins and nothing gets sprung on me. I don't like surprises in the ruleset, but I do like games where I've got to know my mechanics to endure. That's fun for me. *shrug*

[Oracle_Hunter]

A Forgiving DM that appears to be Brutal.

A true Brute is out to kill the PCs because he enjoys it. This suggests an unfortunate power dynamic which - unless the DM is scrupiously fair and limited in his use of fiat - is going to antagonize the Players.

A Forgiving DM is not going to be out to get the PCs, but if he is too obviously forgiving then the Players lose their sense of risk.

[bloodtide]

As a DM, I'm always Brutal.

It's simple, after even a Brutal game where the character's not only loose, but even die. The players will be happy, content, and thank me for a great game.

In a Forgiving game, where I hit the reset button and everything works out good for the characters. The players will just be like...eh.

[Kaww]

As a DM I try to be both. As a player I like/look for DMs that can be both...

[calar]

I lean more towards forgiving, though that's not to say the DM shouldn't make it challenging for the players. It also depends vastly on the group of players in the campaign. If you are with a bunch of seasoned vets, a tough, even brutal DM is great since the players can handle the challenge while still advancing an epic story. For a new group however, Id rather them get their feet wet, and learn how to deal with consequences slowly as they go, while keeping the story in tact.

[subject42]

I'll go for brutal every time.

That may be because I like making characters as much as I like actually playing.

[Godskook]

Personally, I think your scale is fairly poor using only a binary variable and 1 dimension of comparison.

Of the DMs I've actually fought encounters from, 1 sent us up against a TPK-machine as the first encounter and that was a "warm-up" fight on our "side-quest" while we waited for the other groups to "catch-up". Things got worse from there. *MUCH* worse. I quit that game due to a sheer lack of fun.

Another of my DMs, Milksidath(SP?), was good. He accidently over-CR'ed the first encounter, and, combined with a player quitting mid-combat for RL issues, nearly had a TPK. However, we survived, barely, and were able to recover. Our second encounter was more reasonable, and he allowed us to turn a planned combat into a purely roleplay event. Generally kinda cool.

Another, Firebeard, was probably the most awesome, but that's probably in part cause the game lasted the longest. Encounters ranged from semi-easy resource-drains to rough, but the worst encounter was ours, as the players, fault, for not killing someone when we had the chance. Nobody died, and I'm pretty sure no-one even hit the negatives, but it wasn't for a lack of CR or "kiddie gloves" on the DM's part. We were just fairly organized, moderately optimized, lucky enough on certain dice rolls, and willing to be tactical in our choices.

In short, a DM isn't there to kill the PCs. He's there to provide near-death challenges. If that kills a PC, that sucks, and if it doesn't, YAY!

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I suppose that I technically qualify as both. But see, I'm only brutal because I want to add complications to the story. In any game I GM, I don't treat failure as final. I think that failure simply makes things more...interesting.

The zealot slayer starts taking out "heretical" monks? Well, quite common-sensically, he'll get outnumbered, especially since I'd already decided they were running an intelligence network, and therefore trained rogues. This leads to his capture, and his stumbling upon a plot deeper within the monastery to summon an Elder Evil.

That sort of stuff. If you fail, you will for sure make the plot more complicated and problematic, but ultimately rewarding.

[Tengu_temp]

I like a DM who makes sure that the combat is challenging, but refrains from killing PCs - at worst he knocks them out in combat, and makes sure that if someone dies, the death is suitably awesome and epic.

From the two extremes the OP gave us, though? Forgiving all the way. From my experience those DMs focus more on creating an interesting story and character interaction. It's hard to get attached to your character when you can lose it permanently at any moment.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I would not call myself Brutal or Forgiving; rather, I am a Simulationist. What this means is that I try to resolve things as best I can within the rules, and within a certain amount of realism within the game world itself.

This has a tendency to put me more on the brutal side of things. If a player dies due to poor dice rolls, bad luck, poor planning, or lucky/smart enemies, well, that's just the way the cards played out. That said, I am forgiving in that I try to help my players understand their options, and help them utilize the rules and resources available to them to help them succeed. I'd like my players to be victorious in their endeavors, but I won't flinch from the dangers and risks of combat, or being an adventurer in general.

[Curmudgeon]

I prefer brutal. I'd like the DM to roll the dice out where everyone can see them, and live with the consequences. I want an incentive as a player to stay alert and keep alternate strategems and tactics in mind, rather than rely on the DM to soften the blows.

[Mikka]

A Forgiving DM that appears to be Brutal.

This is what you want.

[fil kearney]

I prefer brutal. I'd like the DM to roll the dice out where everyone can see them, and live with the consequences. I want an incentive as a player to stay alert and keep alternate strategems and tactics in mind, rather than rely on the DM to soften the blows.

This is me. I prefer this style as a DM
I take a lot more time than most before game making sure I understand what the characters can and can't handle statistically... as long as I stay within a set variance-to-tolerance team ratio; I know only bad dice or tactics are going to ice a character.
even then, I allow rezzing or occasionally just playing as a ghost, so death is more a major pain in the butt than a game-ender unless the player WANTS a new character. :)

As a Player, I always feel cheated when I find out the DM softened the blow.
We played Gamma World 4e last week, and the DM said to our tank, "man, I had to fudge the dice SO bad that fight..."I was disappointed. The characters in that game are MEANT to be thrown away. char gen takes like 5 minits tops. Some players WANT their characters to die, or see how far they can push them until they do. :D

[Sipex]

I'm forgiving but I try to be brutal enough to keep the challenge present. In all I'd like to have a brutal DM once just to see how it went.

[Yora]

I need the forgiving type. Story comes first, so having PCs die all the time only slows the plot down.

[kyoryu]

Brutal, with caveats.

I want a DM that is willing to kill characters, but is not actively out to kill characters. Random monter chart says "Tarrasque?" Okay, fine, you see the Tarrasque in the distance, time to run. You insist on attacking it? Roll up a new character.

I don't find this separated from the concept of a good story, either. Not everybody survives until the final act. A really good player recognizes this, and is okay with it - the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die doesn't reflect poorly on their actors.

It is, of course, a spectrum, but the danger of the Forgiving side is that it can easily go to the point of shielding players from the consequences of their decisions. And if you're shielded from your decisions, what's the point of even playing with rules? If you're guaranteed to defeat every enemy, why even bother with combat? Just go freeform roleplay, or improvisational theater or something.

[valadil]

Neither.

I want a GM who works with the players to tell a story. A forgiving GM doesn't let the players do the work. He tells the story and saves the players from danger so they can carry on with the story. A brutal GM runs the risk of becoming antagonistic, and no longer works with the players at all. I have no interest in playing in a game with a GM versus players attitude.

[Angry Bob]

To refine the two extremes I presented, I guess I'd have to refine my preference as well. I'd most appreciate a DM that lets the dice fall and isn't afraid to send out encounters that will kill the PCs unless they run. A DM that wants to see the characters fail, as is a DM that insists on twisting the narrative or fudging the rolls so the characters survive. Also, they should always leave an out. No sudden death from nowhere encounters or save-or-dies with no warning other than "make a save".

[nedz]

As a DM I try for variety. Some encounters will be soft and easy, others are things you should already have run away from. I tend to be slightly more forgiving at low level, but once your characters are vaguely competant and the party is functioning as a team: on your head be it.

[kyoryu]

Also, they should always leave an out. No sudden death from nowhere encounters or save-or-dies with no warning other than "make a save".

Agreed on this entirely. Complete random deaths are dumb.

OTOH, if you've decided to sneak into the lair of the Sorceror King, and he hits you with a SoD from hiding... well, you made the decision to go there, didn't you?

[Aotrs Commander]

A Forgiving DM that appears to be Brutal.

I concur. In fact, that is exactly what I aim for myself as DM.

[AslanCross]

I prefer a moderate one who doesn't pull punches unless absolutely necessary.

[Tvtyrant]

I prefer simulation to anything else; if the group just fought an apex predator (T-rex) there shouldn't be another one near by that day. The next day there should be up to half a dozen fighting each other over the new territory though.

Same thing with combat; I want a DM that keeps battle realistic; if we all die fine, but its incredibly unlikely that a medium level party is going to run into lots of high level enemies or magical beasts. A lone dire tiger is fine, but a group is silly since they are solitary.

[Saph]

Brutal. When I'm playing, I want my decisions to matter, and I want my character to succeed or fail based on the choices I make.

For me, the whole point of playing an RPG rather than reading a book is because I get to affect the outcome. If I know that the outcome is going to be the same no matter how well or badly we do, I have trouble getting interested.

[AslanCross]

I prefer simulation to anything else; if the group just fought an apex predator (T-rex) there shouldn't be another one near by that day. The next day there should be up to half a dozen fighting each other over the new territory though.

Same thing with combat; I want a DM that keeps battle realistic; if we all die fine, but its incredibly unlikely that a medium level party is going to run into lots of high level enemies or magical beasts. A lone dire tiger is fine, but a group is silly since they are solitary.

I think you're looking for causality and verisimilitude, not realism. If you were looking for realism, you wouldn't be playing D&D. ("T-rexes cannot possibly exist alongside mammalian predators! Megafauna like dinosaurs and dire animals do not fit this region's geographic profile!")

It can also be argued that everything in the rules is a suggestion; a DM is always within rights to say that "In this particular region, dire tigers come in pairs."

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

I tend to be more of a forgiving DM, but I strive to be more brutal than I am.

[Synapse]

I'm inclined to the brutality.
Like... It's good to know most of our problems are a consequence of how we dealt with our previous stuff... but if the world never imposes itself on you, it doesn't feel real either. Sometimes you really are the level 2 commoner on the wrong end of a chainsaw and a rabid owlbear, and your choice is about how to deal with it.

Even a "senseless" defeat/death stops being "senseless" if it is coherent to how that universe works and our characters acted.

[Raum]

Which type have you had the best gaming experiences with, and why?

The ones who a) give characters meaningful (not illusionary) choices and b) don't leave you questioning whether or not your decision mattered. Since 'meaningful choice' requires consequences (good or ill) and 'knowing your decision matters' also requires consequences, I suspect I'm closer to the 'brutal' side of your spectrum.

However, as kyoryu and others mentioned, I'm not interested in GMs who are out to kill, or otherwise beat down, the characters. That's boring or frustrating as a player, depending on how invested you are in the game. As a GM, it's like playing tic-tac-toe against yourself...you can do what you want so you'll 'win' when you want. That's just as boring IMO. As either player or GM, I want the occasional surprise...especially as GM!