The Three GM Types

[bloodtide]

I see three types of GMs:

1.The Master This type of GM is in absolute unilateral control of the game. The players, by virtue of sitting down to play the game, are agreeing to the GM's control of the game. What the GM says is both law and reality of the game. Neither the players views nor the game rules matter, only what the GM says matters. The published game rules here are just a vague guideline to help the GM decide things. This type of game never has any type of 'power' problems. Should something happen, the Gm can simply say 'no' or 'this is what happens'. Should a player attempt to 'break' any rule, the GM can simply say that it does not happen.

2.The Buddy GM This type of GM is just one of the people playing the game. Everyone who sits down to play the game is equal. In this game, a player can pull out a book and say 'page 33 says this' and the GM will simply nod and say: "yup, that is what the page says''. This type of GM follows the rules as if they are required to play the game. Even to the point of typos, mistakes and just plain crazy stuff. In this game, should something happen to disrupt the game, the Gm just sits back and watches.

3.The Ego Fuel GM This type of GM is just there to make the players feel good. Even worse then the Buddy GM, this the Ego Fuel is just there to praise the players. This GM sits back while the players do whatever they want, and then they describe what happens in the game. Then the players just sit happily and let the GM tell them how great and cool their characters are in the game.



I've watched hundreds of games over the years, and GMs fall into these three types. Most GMs, if asked what type they are of the three would say 'none'. But if you watch them in the game, 'none' is type '2'. Type two is by far the most common type. The evidence of this easy to see. A good example is to simply look at any D&D boards. You will see post after post from GM's who have problems with their game, what to know how or why a rule works or post a 'fix' for broken things.

It's most striking to ask any Old School player(who has not been corrupted my modern gamers) about any of the GMs posts. The player will have the simple question: "Why does the GM not just say what is what?'' For example:You can easily find a ''Help My players are abusing Gate to get wishes'' post. The Old School gamer would just say ''that does not work''.


I'm a type 1 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game. It's much more fun to sit down and have a game where the GM is Master. Should a player even attempt to do anything to upset or disrupt the game, the GM can simply say it does not happen.

So for example, if in my game, a player said ''my character casts the spell gate and calls a Epic Elemental''; I simply say ''the gate fails to form'' and we just keep on playing and having fun.


It's important to be clear, the master is not a tyrant. The Master GM is not there to somehow make the players slaves to their wishes and go off on a power trip. It's just about control and fun for everyone.

[Endarire]

I feel like I'm a 1.5. I'll change the rules for the sake of all, but I prefer to codify them first. That way, people can fairly plan around them.

[Frog Dragon]

There seems to be a sample size bias here. Only those with problems with player power and abuses post here about it. No one comes to post "Hey! My players are great and abuse nothing!" I suspect type 2 is much rarer than you say, and most of them have at least traits of the nro 1.

[WarKitty]

Actually, my players generally have to be encouraged to take advantage of the abilities the rules explicitly give them. Because of this, I tend to give them what they ask for most of the time, because there's no real reason to say no even if it's not explicitly RAW or RAI. They need power-ups just to handle standard CR melee monsters.

[valadil]

Contrary to The Ego GM, there's also The Nemesis. He runs games just to beat on players and prove to them what a better D&D player he is.

[bloodtide]

There seems to be a sample size bias here.

Of course. I'm a Type 1, as I said.


I just see game after game, where the GM is a type 2 or 3, and they have endless problems.

The event that inspired this post happened last weekend. I watched a group of gamers playing 3E Oriental Adventures. In the first printing of that book, the ninja-to has a critical threat range of 19-29, an obvious typo. Yet I watched the GM look this up in the book and say 'Ok, then any hit of 19 to 29 is a critical threat for a ninja-to'. As you might have guessed, the players then scrambled to get and use ninja-tos. And this poor Gm just sat there as time after time when a player would roll a 22, 23, or 24 and do crit damage time after time after time. We wondered why he did not simply say 'that does not work, the crit range is 19-20'.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

"Buddy" implies #3. I'd say #2 is more like a "Referee."

I'm a type 1 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game. It's much more fun to sit down and have a game where the GM is Master. Should a player even attempt to do anything to upset or disrupt the game, the GM can simply say it does not happen.

Your type of game might be fun for you, but I doubt I'd have fun in your game. That's not a knock on you; you probably wouldn't have fun in a game I ran, either. It's a matter of taste. Buddies or even Ego Fuelers can run great games.

Edit: Also, a DM who corrects obvious typos is not the same as a DM who says "that simply doesn't work" mid-game.

[Skjaldbakka]

This seems a lot like "you should all run games the way I do, I have noticed these other two styles of DMing, and they are inferior to mine."

We don't need your value judgements or your boxes or your bias. Trying to create categories and fit everyone into one of them is folly.

A spectrum works better, and even then, you'd need several. How literally do you interpret the rules? Do you railroad plots or do you run a sandbox? Do you prefer heroic or villainous PCs and plots? etc, etc, etc.

[Pink]

Of course. I'm a Type 1, as I said.


I just see game after game, where the GM is a type 2 or 3, and they have endless problems.

The event that inspired this post happened last weekend. I watched a group of gamers playing 3E Oriental Adventures. In the first printing of that book, the ninja-to has a critical threat range of 19-29, an obvious typo. Yet I watched the GM look this up in the book and say 'Ok, then any hit of 19 to 29 is a critical threat for a ninja-to'. As you might have guessed, the players then scrambled to get and use ninja-tos. And this poor Gm just sat there as time after time when a player would roll a 22, 23, or 24 and do crit damage time after time after time. We wondered why he did not simply say 'that does not work, the crit range is 19-20'.

How the heck are you rolling 21-29 on a 20 sided die? Typo or not, crit threats result on the natural roll of that number, not after adding bonuses.

Anyway, I...don't like this list. I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong about it, but basing types of DMs by how strictly they follow printed rules, to how much they house rule is far from being a definitive stance. And for that matter, I can see a person switching through both roles during one sitting of DnD.

Players should be able to do quite a bit within the game and have fun doing so. Heroes and such are the movers and shakers of campaign worlds usually.

That being said, when everyone sits down together and decides on a rules system to play with, that rule system should be honoured. Players should expect that a spell or mechanic in the system you've agreed upon will work the same way it has from session to session.

But again, sometimes (heck, this usually happens at least once a night), there can be a rules dispute, and the DM has to be arbiter of the rules, laying the law and such. Sometimes the players will want to do things not specifically in the rules and the DM will have to figure out a way to accomplish it.

This list seems to lack the aspects of the DM concerning world creation, combat vs. roleplaying, opponent vs. member of the group, etc etc, which can make up so many DM threads on these boards.

Edit: On the topic of Good/Bad DMing or doing it right/wrong/better/worse, here's my criteria. Are the players having fun? Are you having fun? Then you're doing fine and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

[_Zoot_]

I would have to say I'm closest to type 1, but that is only because I'm not one to let little things such as 'rules' get in the way of my story.

But while I'm here I really don't like this list, it seems far to narrow, and while I don't doubt that it would be hard to find a bigger list that could include every one, this one doesn't allow for any middle ground at all.

[WarKitty]

What belies this is that most of the power problems I've had have been accidental. It's not fair to the player who spent his time carefully building the size of his fireball for the maximum pyro joy "Sorry, your spell fails" because he's outdoing someone else or killing monsters to fast or whatever. It's not half as hard as most people think to accidentally break the system - I've done it with a controller character. I built a character because the controller archetype appeals to me and I happen to like druid fluff. Not every relatively overpowered character is the result of intentional powergaming.

[bloodtide]

How the heck are you rolling 21-29 on a 20 sided die? Typo or not, crit threats result on the natural roll of that number, not after adding bonuses.

Well, they would roll a 17 on the d20, add 4 from bonuses (Bab,strength, etc.) and get 21. And that would be a crit for them. We did mention that crits don't work that way..but they just said it was a 'special crit' as the book does say crit range of 19-29.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, they would roll a 17 on the d20, add 4 from bonuses (Bab,strength, etc.) and get 21. And that would be a crit for them. We did mention that crits don't work that way..but they just said it was a 'special crit' as the book does say crit range of 19-29.

That is "ego fuel" territory. A strictly type 2 DM would shrug and say "good luck rolling a natural 29 on your 20 sider."

[Tvtyrant]

The language here is completely unequal; your noticing one type of the numerous types of problems that come up on these forums, much less D&D in total. Go through the last three months for threads that say "My GM/DM hates me!" and you will find a slew of type 1 Dungeon Masters who have ruined someone's game. Yes, there are distinctions between rule heavy versus ruling have DMing, but the one is not better then the other. They are simply different, with different abuses and issues.

[Mecharious]

*Rolls a 20*

"What's your total?"
"30"
"Sorry, no crit."

[Sillycomic]

I really don't see any difference between type 2 and type 3. It seems like a GM could easily be both.

Type 2 follows the rules to a fault... even the bad ones. Type 3 makes you feel like your character is a special snowflake. Actually, there's no real indication of whether 3 even follows the rules strictly or not.

Technically type 3 could be the same as type 1 as well. Just instead of saying, "no you can't" to rule abuses, a type 3 will say, "yes you can" to stuff that really isn't even in the rules but seems like an awesome thing to do. It is still the GM putting his own foot down over the rules to describe what does or doesn't happen.

So, unless you redefine type 3 better, I think you only really have 2 types of GM's here.

Plus, none of your types really take into account all the other things that a GM does. These types of GM seem to only apply to "How a GM interprets the rules."

In that camp, I would say you still need to define type 3 better.

How a GM interprets any given rule.

Type 1: If the rule breaks the game, it's not happening.
Type 2: If it says so in a book, it's allowed.
Type 3... (which still could be either 1 or 2) Well, what are you trying to do? Capture a large dragon using a net? Well, there's rules for grappling and CR levels I need to look at... oh screw it. You're awesome, you capture a dragon and now it's your friend. You fly off into the clouds and are showered with lewts and maidens!

[bloodtide]

The language here is completely unequal; your noticing one type of the numerous types of problems that come up on these forums, much less D&D in total. Go through the last three months for threads that say "My GM/DM hates me!" and you will find a slew of type 1 Dungeon Masters who have ruined someone's game. Yes, there are distinctions between rule heavy versus ruling have DMing, but the one is not better then the other. They are simply different, with different abuses and issues.

Of course, any GM can be a tyrant and 'hate' their players.

I'm talking about the Buddy DM, who sees the rules as a law.

The players get gate...summon epic stuff..and the GM sits there as they destroy city after city. After the game he comes over, nearly in tears, talking about the players ruining his game. We would say, 'why not just say the gate did not work'. He'd look shocked and say 'I can't do that..what they did was OK by the rules'.

[Tvtyrant]

Of course, any GM can be a tyrant and 'hate' their players.

I'm talking about the Buddy DM, who sees the rules as a law.

The players get gate...summon epic stuff..and the GM sits there as they destroy city after city. After the game he comes over, nearly in tears, talking about the players ruining his game. We would say, 'why not just say the gate did not work'. He'd look shocked and say 'I can't do that..what they did was OK by the rules'.

Yes, that is an issue. It is also not what you said. You said "I'm a type 1 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game." Which implies with your later comments that the game runs smoothly because your arbitrary with your decisions, which isn't the case. The game runs smoothly because "People agree to have fun together and play the game." If that statement is the reason then what type of GM you are wouldn't matter.

The tyrannical GM is much more likely to be a type 1 then the others, and it is not "more fun" to play with them.

[unimaginable]

I'm all three, but especially 1 and 3. My word is the law, but I use it to make things as awesome as I can and to help each player to feel awesome. I let them come up with what they want to have happen, and then decide how I want that to actually unfold.

[WarKitty]

I really don't see any difference between type 2 and type 3. It seems like a GM could easily be both.

Type 2 follows the rules to a fault... even the bad ones. Type 3 makes you feel like your character is a special snowflake. Actually, there's no real indication of whether 3 even follows the rules strictly or not.

Technically type 3 could be the same as type 1 as well. Just instead of saying, "no you can't" to rule abuses, a type 3 will say, "yes you can" to stuff that really isn't even in the rules but seems like an awesome thing to do. It is still the GM putting his own foot down over the rules to describe what does or doesn't happen.

So, unless you redefine type 3 better, I think you only really have 2 types of GM's here.

Plus, none of your types really take into account all the other things that a GM does. These types of GM seem to only apply to "How a GM interprets the rules."

In that camp, I would say you still need to define type 3 better.

How a GM interprets any given rule.

Type 1: If the rule breaks the game, it's not happening.
Type 2: If it says so in a book, it's allowed.
Type 3... (which still could be either 1 or 2) Well, what are you trying to do? Capture a large dragon using a net? Well, there's rules for grappling and CR levels I need to look at... oh screw it. You're awesome, you capture a dragon and now it's your friend. You fly off into the clouds and are showered with lewts and maidens!

See, a good DM imo would go more like this:

You're trying to capture a large dragon using a net? Well, you'll need a special net for this. You'll need to go talk to the dwarves that live up in Dorfland and try to get them to custom make one for you. They'll probably have some work for you in the meantime. When it's finished, you have to find the dragon, net and somehow subdue it, then convince it to be your friend. But if you can pull that off, congrats you have a dragon!

Note: The process of obtaining the net and finding the dragon will occupy the player until he is of sufficient level to have such a mount.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Of course, any GM can be a tyrant and 'hate' their players.

I'm talking about the Buddy DM, who sees the rules as a law.

The players get gate...summon epic stuff..and the GM sits there as they destroy city after city. After the game he comes over, nearly in tears, talking about the players ruining his game. We would say, 'why not just say the gate did not work'. He'd look shocked and say 'I can't do that..what they did was OK by the rules'.

In what thread is this happening? I can't say I see too many complaints of in-game gate abuse while perusing these forums. I see a few 'certain character is too OP, how should I handle it?' questions, where house-ruling is usually one of the first options considered, and sometimes I see a few 'player is frustrated that I banned [OP thing],' which is generally presented as a Type 1 DM having frictions with a powergamer.

Most often I see "The DM hates me/is out to kill me/bans ToB and Psionics for no reason" posts, so yeah.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Ya, got to say I see some serious bias here towards restrictive DMing.

I'm a type 12 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game. It's much more fun to sit down and have a game where the GM is Master a fellow player in the game. Should a player even attempt to do anything to upset or disrupt the game, the GM can simply say it does not happen, but a good DM can adapt to problems instead of being disproportionately reactionary.

Fixed that for you. Funny how that works eh?

Also, type 3 isn't a type of DM, it's a strawman.

[Sillycomic]

See, a good DM imo would go more like this:

You're trying to capture a large dragon using a net? Well, you'll need a special net for this. You'll need to go talk to the dwarves that live up in Dorfland and try to get them to custom make one for you. They'll probably have some work for you in the meantime. When it's finished, you have to find the dragon, net and somehow subdue it, then convince it to be your friend. But if you can pull that off, congrats you have a dragon!

Note: The process of obtaining the net and finding the dragon will occupy the player until he is of sufficient level to have such a mount.

See, that's exactly my point. This is obviously a type 3 gm... but it could also be either a type 1 or a type 2. Type 1 could create the net and the obstacles that will let the player have this dragon mount if he so wished.

Type 2 could scour over rulebooks to make sure it's ok, and then let you do the same thing.

If anything you need a type 4 that says GM versus player. The players are not special snowflakes and the GM is trying to do everything he can to stomp them down. At least then you have 2 opposites.

Type 1 and type 2 are how to interpret the rules.

Type 1: There are rules, but if they don't make sense or if you abuse anything it's not happening.

Type 2: There are rules. If you can find it in a book, it's allowed.

Type A and B are how your world interacts with the players.

Type A:The world is nice and clean and gives you free puppies

Type B: The world is an intolerable death machine that will grind you down and spit you out.

As a GM, you are one of the first set and one of the second set. A 1, A GM will make up rules on the fly, but will do it mostly cause he wants your character to do cool things.

A type 2, B GM will follow the rules no matter what, but he will use this to the best of his ability to ruin your life. Make sure to write down how many rations you have, how many arrows you used... and always ALWAYS bring 3 extra spell component pouches with you when you play with this GM.

Of course these are the extremes of each side. I would imagine it's more like a sliding scale when it comes to the 4 types. You are more A or B.. or more type 1 than 2.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Ya, got to say I see some serious bias here towards restrictive DMing.



Fixed that for you. Funny how that works eh?

Also, type 3 isn't a type of DM, it's a strawman.

It's a strawman, but it *is* a (rare) type of GM, known previously as a Monty Haul GM.

[Heliomance]

"None" is not number 2. I definitely don't fall perfectly into any of them. In my games, there are rules of the game. We follow the rules. When the rules are obviously wrong (typos) or make the game less fun, an alternative is found, but mostly what the rules say goes. If you want to do something awesome, I'll find a way within the rules for you to do it. If you try to abuse the rules to break the game to the point of unfunness, though, I'm happy to say no.

[Zaydos]

Personally as a DM I've had a few 'power' problems. I've had a player who tried to make power problems, but it was defused by pointing out that the PHB said it didn't work that way. My only actual 'power' problems though didn't come from "OMG I'm summoning CR 35 elementals" it was the much more common problem of "I have 9 players of varying skill levels playing and their characters range from completely incapable for their level to decently well built." I could have ruled 0 it and given the weaker players power boosts, which actually some of the variant rules from UA that were stated to be in use beforehand were given them a power boost, or I could have just looked at their characters and designed adventures where they could function and not cause people's feelings to get hurt with arbitrary rulings. The only one that was a recurring problem was the person trying to build a batman style wizard without Glitterdust, Grease, or Web at fairly low levels (he did describe it as a batman wizard, and perused enough forums to know and inquire about some game breakers; noting they were game breakers first) so I assume he actually knew what he was talking about but... his spell selection was strange at best with nothing from the usual batman wizard guides.

I have never had to house rule something in the middle of a session because it was a game breaker. I've had to house rule things because there weren't rules in place, and I do have a list of house rules, and I ban Polymorph Any Object (and a handful of other spells) because... well mostly it's a whole bunch of rule problems. I also have a pre-standing rule that if you attack a creature within a summoning circle in any way your binding ends immediately and it escapes the circle (since I see that as an abuse of the rules). I have a generally standing rule that if it's not core it's best to ask first, that non-core things from the Completes (excepting Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil) are pretty much allowed, but ask about spells that aren't in the spell compendium and anything not from Core/Completes/Spell Compendium ask about first as my knowledge becomes more and more vague.

So tell me which of your types I'd fit into.

[Sillycomic]

Well, according to my new system you are a mild 1 A type. You like most of the rules but will homebrew anything broken, and you want to make sure all of your players have fun and their characters feel special and useful.

[Darklord Bright]

Where I most disagree with the OP is where it assumes type 2 and 3 are bad, even stating that 3 is "worse" than 2. It also assumes that a "Buddy" DM wouldn't step in to settle a dispute amongst friends to keep drama from escalating. Always. Then goes on to say that if you say you are not any of these types you are type 2, no exceptions.

[Heliomance]

ITT: The OP posits three stereotypical strawman DMing styles, then claims that these apply to all DMs without exception. Further pre-emptively argues that anyone arguing that it doesn't cover all situations automatically falls into one of the three categories.

[Cerlis]

{Scrubbed}