What kind of DMs/GMs are there?

[Drakeburn]

When you think about it, you hear a lot about different kinds of players (like Power Gamers, Roleplayers, and Rule Lawyers), but don't hear about the different types of Dungeon Masters / Game Masters.

From the bits and pieces I've picked up, I realized that I'm an "obstructing Game Master," meaning that my style involves throwing challenges at the players.

So, what kinds of GM/DMs are there, and in what style do you run games?

[souridealist]

The only term I ever really hear is killer GM, funnily enough. Maybe railroader. Neither of which is particularly flattering!

I'm trying to think of other archetypes and it's actually really hard. I've seen some intense worldbuilders and people who have a lot of plots bouncing around in the air, and people who really like hanging their plots on a particular obscure / homebrewed / cribbed-from-another-setting creature or mechanic, but I can't think of good names for any of them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One I've seen is the gotcha DM. Any clever plan (or even ones that the DM didn't expect) is met with nitpicking of the "you didn't say you put on your pants, so you get arrested for indecent exposure" variety. These DMs assume that player characters are marionettes that only act when explicitly indicated (and/or are incompetent morons unless the player explicitly says the magic words to complete the action)

[ross]

From the bits and pieces I've picked up, I realized that I'm an "obstructing Game Master," meaning that my style involves throwing challenges at the players.

As opposed to a GM that never challenges the players?

[Jay R]

I'm not sure that we can start cataloging until we determine what aspects matter most. Since the DM's primary job is decision-making, I would categorize on how decisions are made.

Some DMs make their decision based on what will give the players a cool way to help things. These are the ones who never want to say "No".

Some make their decision to match the plot the way they think it should be.

I'm a simulator. I'm trying to create a self-consistent world, and will make the decision based on what fits that world, whether it helps the PCs or not.

[noob]

I am an annoying gm and I annoy players with horrible scenario and bad universe and terrible discussions with npcs.
Also I prepare nothing in advance and then I am bad at improvising and anyway the players stopped playing two weeks before I started the adventure.

[Genth]

If one were to hypothesise a set of ideal types, perhaps:

'Narrativist' - the main focus is the plot, and things happen as 'narrative logic' say they ought. This, like all of them, can be done well or done poorly. Done well, there's a recognition that the PCs (not the DM's fave NPC) are the protagonists and so it is their actions which drive the plot.

'Simulationist' - the world is how it is, and reacts to the players in a logical fashion. 'Everyone in the party dying because of a snake bite' is a (hopefully rare, and unintended) potential consequence in such a style.

'Challenger' - The DM creates a series of problems to which the Players must find solutions. Done well, this comes across as a much more interactive and nuanced version of Bioware RPGs, requiring a good thought process. Done badly, it requires the players to go on a fishing trip with every NPC to ask 'the right question'. (I may or may not have a pretty awful habit of miming a fishing rod when this happens in real life games)

There are variations on all of these, such as the 'worldbuilding display' GM, which is probably under a stretched version of the 'narrativist' ideal type. But if you were to condense down, I find those three types workable

[noob]

If you need more categories to classify folktales(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne%...cation_systems)
Then it is likely you will need more to classify gms(which are humans and not just a tale)

[Pex]

The Tyrant DM who denies players everything and anything.

The Killer DM who wants to kill off PCs and boasts about it.

The Flaky DM who starts a really cool game but then stops running it within 6 months.

The Realistic DM who demands everything make sense as if it happened in the real world.

The Experimental DM who constantly changes house rules if he bothers to use rules at all.

The Fun DM, the one you crave and cherish and enjoy years of exciting gaming.

[mikeejimbo]

Similarly to players, GMs can be Narrativist or Simulationist. It would be odd (though not necessarily uncommon) to have a Power Gamer GM, but it doesn't have to be 'unfair' depending. A Simulationist 'Power Gamer' could be 'fair' in that the challenges presented are realistic for the scenario, as long as everyone is on board from the beginning.

One of the problems trying to classify them is that many of these descriptions aren't mutually exclusive, I guess because they're not necessarily measuring the same thing. A Killer GM could be a Narrativist or Simulationist. A GM who loves world-building could be either as well - either telling stories within the world or simulating the world.

I am either a far too lenient GM or a "why the hell not?" GM. I might let my players' wacky plans work out a little too often, though I tend to run a light and humorous world where that kinda fits in anyway. I try to challenge my players but...it's kinda hard when some players don't want to be challenged and some love really tough ones, especially in the same game.

[Anxe]

I grew up reading Shonen anime where the hero or the hero's team often fight only one opponent at a time. I design most of my challenges around the same concept. One foe who vastly outclasses each PC individually and can only be barely overcome through teamwork. I rarely use any sort of supporting force for the final encounter.

[Lo'Tek]

The Planner has a map for the region, two dungeons, eight encounters, four factions and the next six sessions all planned out.

The Improviser has no idea where the characters will end up at the end of this session, but whenever they do something, an idea comes along. Best case: it all makes perfect sense in hindsight.

The Villain activly plays against the players. Related to the Killer but less deadly and more devious. Loves traitor hirelings and systems with strong surveilance tech/magic to explain "eavesdropping" on players planning. Amused by players planning at the table, instead of realizing the plan they made in advance. After all why should only the DM prepare for a game?

The Story Teller likes to talk about background. Alot. If left unchecked spends hours to describe in detail the magnificence of dwarven architecture and how it changed over the last five centuries.

The Deathtrap Engineer has a world filled with almost unbeatable challenges. Complains that players didn't identify the obvious death trap. Pretends to be the World Builder or the Simulationist. Which is not wrong per se.

The Carebear wants the characters to be sucessfull and happy heroes. Tends to not give hard challenges, hates to kill characters and might even cheat on behalf of the players to avoid it.

The PC Game Designer starts the group in a tutorial area, sends them on a quest into the wilderness where they find the dungeon with the boss monster at the end. Beating it opens the fast travel path to the mid level area. Says its open world and not scaling because the players could have walked to mid level and get themselves killed there in session one.

The RNG prefers to roll for everything on a table. I open the door. *roll* You see a beholder *roll* it looks at you.

[Earthwalker]

Don't the other GMs out there change style depending on group / game system ?

I know I do.

I always have somethings that are unique to how I play but the way I run my Fate group is different to how I run my DnD group which in turn is different to how I run my Runequest group.

Mainly my main focus is on making sure the players have fun. With whatever passes for "fun" for the group in question.

[Jay R]

People's opinions of themselves are suspect, due to the Dunning Krueger effect. It might be better to describe our DMs.

Todd was an excellent simulating DM. His world vision was complete and consistent. He answered every question quickly, and made it fit in with the world.

Richard was a rules manager. Every rule worked exactly as described in the manual, though he was able to adjudicate logical real-world suggestions.

David was a modern scientist. You could do anything if you justified it with modern physics or chemistry. He could also apply magical laws competently, and my thief would occasionally apply the Laws of Similarity and Contagion, and perform magic according to the Harold Shea books.

Gordon could have been a competent DM, but he was hampered by paranoid players, and he let them get away with too much. Once they opened the door, saw a dragon, and spent ten minutes arguing over whether to attack or shut the door and flee. [I kept expecting the DM to have the dragon attack. I finally got bored with the group, and just attacked the dragon, forcing the decision.]

Nolen was far too generous to the players, whenever it would help his DMPC. All wishes worked perfectly. [At one point, I actively tried to see how far it would go, and wished for a benefit for "every PC and his followers". Since the DMPC had a follower, this worked, and basically gave us 12 wishes for one. I consistently tried to make anything I wanted for my PC helpful for his DMPC too.

Rob ran Champions, and was a comic book geek. He was a genre-consistent GM.

Dirk was a trained military mind (Naval Academy graduate). Good tactics and heroic charges would always impress him.

Mike is a 2e-experienced DM running a 3e game, and doesn't know the rules well enough. But he has a great world and a compelling storyline. Doing something purely for reasons of backstory and character always impresses him. He will make decisions to avoid unnecessary PC death. (If a PC is near death, he will come up with a more-or-less reasonable reason that the bad guys target somebody else.)

Brian's new, and I don't have a good read on him. He knows the rules well, and has a good story. So far, I have him pegged as the average competent DM, and haven't found any idiosyncrasies to exploit.

[Piedmon_Sama]

There's 1) Me, 2) Everybody Else

[Thrudd]

It's hard to establish a universal list of GM types, or at least to apply those types to any one person, because there are so many different sorts of games which lend themselves to different styles. Some GM's may prefer or insist on running one particular game which may give them a definite "type", but many others have run all sorts of games and adopt a different style depending on the game.

A good GM understands the intent of the game system they are using and applies it appropriately in order to create an engaging experience for the players.

A poor GM ignores or misuses/misunderstands the intent of the game system, resulting in bored or frustrated players.

The same person could be a good GM for one game and a poor GM for another game, if they try to apply their style from one system to another that does not share the same assumptions and intentions.

[Quertus]

I'm probably going to miss the forest for the trees here, so let me start with a high-level question: what should an answer to this question look like?

Is this supposed to be the "GM" counterpart to the types of players thread? Where were looking for a mix of real and humorous answers, like the Railroader, the All Systems Play the Same, the Riddler, the Rules Engine, the Action Hero Creator, the Monotone Reader?

Are we looking to improve our ability to evaluate and discuss GMs, by developing a list of important GM characteristics, like rules knowledge, improv skill, view of the role of the GM, underlying philosophy, sadism, difficulty level, etc?

Or have I completely missed the mark, and the goal is something else entirely?

Describing myself... it's odd. My players seem to love complementing me on my improv skills, but I hate having to improv. I prefer to play an open world, but... I prefer for the players to lay down tracks. I love closing a session with, "so, what are we doing next time?", so that I can prep appropriate material. As a GM, I am a glorified Rules Engine, who couldn't care less about any particular story - much like when I'm a player. The story is how these particular characters respond to these particular events, nothing more.

I'd start describing other GMs, but, since I'm not sure that is actually the point of the thread, I'll wait for clarification.

[Anonymouswizard]

The kinds of GMs I've identified, not that these aren't mutually exclusive (the best GM I've ever had was simulationist focused on a single plot thread):

The Meat Grinder GM: the game is meant to simulate an endless stream of combats, and everything else is window dressing to get to the next combat. Fine if they admit that's the kind of game they want to run or you like that game, problematic if they';re not and the party prepares as if it was the game style they were sold.

The Plot thread GM: the campaign has a single plot thread. Is an awesome GM when the plot is interesting and the hooks are just obscured enough to make hunting for them is fun, but can very easy become a railroader or stonewall the players until they take the 'correct' action.

The Simulationist GM: the game world should function close to reality, and the rules should reflect the world over the story. Whether this makes a good GM depends on if you like the rules to model the world, the story, or be optimised for gameplay.

The Genre GM: the game should work as it is in the genre, and should not be subject to more than light or good hearted parody or satire.

The Old School GM: the game is a series of challenges for the PLAYERS, not the CHARACTERS.

The Quirk GM: no matter the game, their stories feature one obvious recurring feature (the important characters being royalty, authority figures being corrupt, scientists being the source of all awesome,...).

The Improviser GM: possibly comes to the game with nothing more than the rules, their dice, and a sheet of NPCs, the majority of the session is reacting to whatever the PCs are doing.

[2D8HP]

The "classic" DM's were "Killer", and "Monty Hall (Haul)", the second of which were the ones Gygax chastised in the pages of The Dragon (alongside his diatripes against "west coast style play", by which I assume he meant us).

...The Carebear...

All of the descriptors are good, but I just love the phrase "The Carebear'.



Remember "Sharing is caring", so spread it wide!

[NichG]

I tend to run games with heavy emphasis on uncovering information during play, and on making active discovery and correct interpretation of that information critical to characters' ability to be successful at controlling the overall arc of the game. This could be 'there will be a point where you get to make a single choice that has a huge effect, where the options aren't given to you; the more you learn, the more options you'll be able to come up with'. Or it could be that there's a hidden mechanical subsystem that can be discovered and explored to gain additional in-character abilities above and beyond what the base rules provide. Or there are various secrets scattered around that act as currency that let you negotiate and manipulate cosmic entities way above your weight class - finding out where the runaway kid of a deity is currently hiding lets you distract said deity or bargain with them or whatnot.

I tend to lean more towards improvisation and sandboxy situations than prepared and structured adventures. On the broader scale, I think of campaigns as asking the players to resolve some overarching philosophical or practical conundrum. I try to make sure that said question naturally follows from the rules as well as being part of the setting, so that the players can evaluate their own ideas and solutions to it. That is to say, I shouldn't ever have to ask the question, but the way that the game feels should make the players ask themselves the question. So most of my campaigns involve a system created from scratch for the particular theme or type of play that that campaign is intended to explore. Even once the campaign is underway, I tend to spend most of my preparation time designing systems rather than designing situations or world-building details.

I don't tend to be picky about rules details - encounters are eyeballed and handwaved to keep game flowing and to create as diverse a set of problem-solving situations as I can manage, or to showcase certain mechanics to get players to pay more attention to otherwise ignored options, or things like that. I basically never explicitly stat anything up ahead of time, and I generally try to keep encounter design times down to 5 minutes or so during game.

My sessions most recently tend to consist of maybe 20% downtimes, 80% group play, but I've had campaigns with as high as 80% downtimes and 20% play - that 80% often being over Skype or email during the week between sessions. Downtimes can often be more influential on the plot as a whole than the group play segments in my campaigns, as a corollary of the focus on power-from-knowledge and the tendency for individual play to be more exploratory or experimental - one player will discover a big red button and push it; 5 players will discover a big red button and spend an hour discussing whether to push it, then will go off and do something else. Group play then has a (somewhat unfortunate) tendency to become about cleaning up the mess from someone's downtime actions.

My campaigns tend towards very high-end on the power scale, both in specific ability possessed by characters and in terms of the implications of character actions. I tend to be pretty bad at running things that remain focused on a more personal level of relevancy without escalating - I've struggled to run a campaign about e.g. magical highschool hijinks without it becoming about overthrowing the guild system, technologicizing the world, and flying it around the universe as a spaceship. I don't really know how to effectively run games where the entire campaign might be just about some prince gaining the throne or someone getting revenge on the person who killed their family.

[Pex]

The "classic" DM's were "Killer", and "Monty Hall (Haul)", the second of which were the ones Gygax chastised in the pages of The Dragon (alongside his diatripes against "west coast style play", by which I assume he meant us).

(Hangs head in shame for forgetting about the Monty Haul)

[Cluedrew]

I wonder if less terms for GMs exist because you only have to understand the one (or two sometimes). On the other hand you will have 3-4 players you have to get a grip on when you join the game (+1 if you are the GM yourself).

As for the types themselves, I think you can translate most player archetype into GM archetypes. For the player who likes exploring settings, there are GMs who like making settings to be explored. For the player who enjoys nothing but combat there is a GM who runs nothing but combat. For the player who challenges every GM call, there is the GM who gets defensive about every possible challenge. Actually, don't put those last two together.

[RazorChain]

The "classic" DM's were "Killer", and "Monty Hall (Haul)", the second of which were the ones Gygax chastised in the pages of The Dragon (alongside his diatripes against "west coast style play", by which I assume he meant us).

Which is a bit funny because I played a lot of Dungeon Magazine adventures and oh boy those where a textbook example of Monty Haulism. Each adventure tried to outdo each other in loot and we are talking about TSR not Wotc

[sktarq]

Well there are two main ways to classify DM's I think.

How they approach the game (how we get "Simulationist", "Improviser", etc)
And they notable peaks or flaws (Killer, Bore, Monty Haul)

I know for the later I have more of a basic checklist of traits the more they pass the better DM

Prepped? Are they mentally preppared to handle the game. Do they have an idea of a lot or how to handle sandbox etc. Different playstyles need different amount of prep and the question is have they done enough for their own playstyle.

Knowledgeable: Do they know the rules/system well enough to keep the game running mostly smoothly and manage disputes etc. Bonus points for knowing when and how to invoke rule zero.

Are the player there to deal with a DM's issue. If the GM needs adoration, control, to tell their own story, an audience, venting of anger, or whatever and is using their position in the game to deal with it. I try to avoid these ones.

Table Control. GM's need to at least a degree lead the game. If the players are getting abusive it is generally up to the host or the GM to fix things. It is also up to them to keep the game flowing. It is a social function and ability more than a technical one.

Descriptive. Can they effectively communicate? The game world really exists in their head more than anywhere else and they need to be able to translate that for the players. The more mood and feels it comes with the better for me because I will get bored with "the orc is ten yard due north of you".

Fairness. In terms of challenges, how rule disputes are run, etc.

That's all I have time for now

[ross]

So what is "west coast style"? There are a lot of articles that reference it, but none I could find actually set out what it means for a game to played in this style.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Ah yes, also known as Air Raid DMing hurnk hurnk hurnk (it is a football joke)

[FabulousFizban]

only 2: the ones that make the game fun, & the ones that make the game tedious.

[2D8HP]

So what is "west coast style"? There are a lot of articles that reference it, but none I could find actually set out what it means for a game to played in this style.

My best guess is from Gygax's The Strategic Review #7 April '76 article "D&D is Only as Good as the DM" (which I first read in "The Best of the Dragon" in 1980):

"....There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40gp level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D&D...."

So play like something out of the later WotC 3e "Epic Level Handbook" is my guess of what Gygax meant..

In my own actual experience playing what we called D&D on the west coast (Berkeley, California) in the very late 1970's and very early 80's, my DM used the oD&D "LBB's", TSR's Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldrich Wizardry, and God, Demi-Gods and Heroes (which he called "clods, demi-clods, and zeroes") supplements, plus the AD&D Monster Manual, but not the PHB or the DMG. He also made free use of third party books such as Dave Hargrave's

Arduin Grimoires,

and the

"Perrin Conventions", which my DM had in his copy of "All the World's Monster's" (sadly I never got a copy). For some of the history of the "Conventions" click here.


The "Conventions" led to the Runequest which my second DM (the younger brother of my first DM) used in the '80's as a more "realistic" Swords and Sorcery RPG.

But before that (about '79 or '80) the older teenagers who taught me RPG's had moved from our version of D&D and tried the very detailed, and "true to the middle ages" Chivalry & Sorcery RPG, because it was more "realistic". But before I got to actually play C&S "the gang" decided it was just too difficult, and they then moved to the Stormbringer! RPG. IIRC correctly I was the one who urged that we just go back to playing "regular ol' D&D", but I was out voted by the older more experienced (by just a couple of years, but that's a long time to teenagers) guys in the "gang".

The first non "Swords & Sorcery" RPG that I remember us playing was Villains and Vigilantes which had the nod to "realism" of your Superheroes "secret-identity" being yourself!
I really don't remember what I thought at the time but that concept seems lame to me now.

While my fellow gamers (that I knew then) either wanted to explore non-D&D RPG's (leading me to buy Traveller, Top Secret, Champions, and Call of Cthullu) or had the post '70's version of "Basic" D&D (which I never bought), I bought what AD&D I could afford (The Dragon Magazine etc.)
This stopped in '85 with "Unearthed Arcana", which repelled me, though I still tried to get what earlier D&D materials I still could (Chainmail, Empire of the Petal Throne, Swords & Spells etc.).

Another take on "west coast style play" is:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/...gamin.html?m=1

[BarbieTheRPG]

only 2: the ones that make the game fun, & the ones that make the game tedious.

Yep. I was looking for this response along the thread. Hits the nail perfect. I thought "Great", "Okay" and "Bad" dependent on player opinion but what some players call a "Bad GM" others might call "Great". It's all perception or expectation.

[Quertus]

Yep. I was looking for this response along the thread. Hits the nail perfect. I thought "Great", "Okay" and "Bad" dependent on player opinion but what some players call a "Bad GM" others might call "Great". It's all perception or expectation.

Because after a long day of being awesome, some of us like to sit back and relax to a little tedium.