The Essence of "Good" GMing

[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.

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".

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.

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.



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.

---

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.

All that the platinum rule requires is the ability to read minds ... ... not to mention that some people don't know what they want.

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. 1) Knowing your preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game
2. 2) Understanding the preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game of the other players
   (this might take communication)
3. 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. 1) Knowing your preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game
2. 2) Understanding the preferences / reasons to play / goals for the game of the other players
   (this might take communication)
3. 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. It's an abstraction.

[OldTrees1]

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

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?

[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?

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 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 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.

[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?

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 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.