What kind of DMs/GMs are there?

[Potato_Priest]

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

There's more than one kind of these, though.

There's the permissive DM, who'll be happy to see players try whatever.

There's the generally reasonable DM.

There's the DM who improvises really funny stuff on the spot.

There's the DM who is a great storyteller.

[Thaneus]

What type of DM?
Only 3:
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

[Thrudd]

What type of DM?
Only 3:
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend - those who GM and those who play.

[Thaneus]

There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend - those who GM and those who play.

I propose that there a people which can neither, so your argument is invalid.

[Thrudd]

I propose that there a people which can neither, so your argument is invalid.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who get classic movie references, and those who do not.

[Togo]

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who get classic movie references, and those who do not.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those that don't.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

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

Related to the compulsive skill checker. I open the door. *roll* You can't get it open.

Generally loves fumble rules, and if a natural 1 is a fumble, that must mean a natural 2 or 3 should already be a normal failure. After all, it would be grossly inconsistent if you had a chance to dislocate your arm trying to open a door but no chance of just failing to do it.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those that don't.

You forgot those who mistake it for ternary.

[FreddyNoNose]

As opposed to a GM that never challenges the players?

There too many players that like that.

Monty Haul DM.

[ross]

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

Well, that certainly is a lot of proper nouns, but that doesn't really explain what "west coast style" is.

[Bahamut7]

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

This hit it right on the mark. Classifying players is always easy because they are merely reacting to the game that DM provides. DM archetypes on the other hand have so many factors that you could classify any DM under multiple archetypes. SKtarq posts better reflects how you can classify your DM for that game as best as you can.

I for one, can be classified as a Simulationist who enjoys world building. I also come off as a reactionary DM as opposed to a Proactive DM (typically where a railroader style is seen). Meaning I build the world and offer the players hooks for adventure, but the world, the BBEG, NPCs, etc. still move forward. My players can alter or affect the world and its people, but it is up to them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, that certainly is a lot of proper nouns, but that doesn't really explain what "west coast style" is.

Let me try.

So, I'm not at all convinced there really was such an animal as "California gaming," as I once was taught.

If it existed, it was mostly in perception. Back in the 70's there was a whole line of rhetoric about the West Coast having some special kind of cachet, or style, or philosophy. (I did find some differences between the East Coast Navy and West Coast Navy in the 80's, but that's beside the point).
Given that people were still dropping acid in the early to mid 70's, in Ca, I won't agree with that assessment as something measurable, but as a matter of perception and possibly style. From the blog spot: (
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/...gamin.html?m=1)

On the other hand, I do find it really intriguing that California was a hotbed for D&D variants in the '70s in the way that the East Coast didn't seem to be (though someone who knows better can correct me if I'm mistaken in this). Was this just a function of its large population? Its extensive university system (Warlock was created at CalTech)? Something else? I'm not sure there is a single, definitive answer to this question, but it's a question worth asking nonetheless.

Cal Tech, being a hot bed of nerds and geniuses in the 70s, and being somewhat famous for having that "out there" approach to a lot of things, seems an extreme case of anything, be it a gaming style or something else. (They sent me some recruiting literature when I was in high school, but my dad wasn't going to pay out of state tuition to California ... no way, no how). For the Cal Tech crew to take D&D, a nerd's delight, to a logical or illogical extreme makes to me perfect sense from the cultural perspective.

So maybe it wasn't so much the acid as there being a "wide open game" in the first place and the Cal Tech faction taking it in the direction that amused their sensibilities most.

From the same blog spot, a letter from Gygax to Alarums and Excursions, #2 ...

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. {I see this as a lovely shot across the bow to all rules lawyers and RAW fanatics in the community ...}
Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another.
DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are.
If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone.
Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.

A few years later, AD&D came out, somewhat in contradiction to the professed sentiments of its designer. (I am going off topic and the Schick years can be discussed elsewhere) but I think it fair to say that the "California Style" is as much a description of perception as it is of any reality. ross, to put this another way, it's a matter of contrast to how the game was initially played(and how it morphed) in the Midwest among gamers where it was born.

[ross]

Let me try.
If it existed, it was mostly in perception. Back in the 70's there was a whole line of rhetoric about the West Coast having some special kind of cachet, or style, or philosophy. (I did find some differences between the East Coast Navy and West Coast Navy in the 80's, but that's beside the point).
Given that people were still dropping acid in the early to mid 70's, in Ca, I won't agree with that assessment as something measurable, but as a matter of perception and possibly style. From the blog spot: (
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/...gamin.html?m=1)
Cal Tech, being a hot bed of nerds and geniuses in the 70s, and being somewhat famous for having that "out there" approach to a lot of things, seems an extreme case of anything, be it a gaming style or something else. (They sent me some recruiting literature when I was in high school, but my dad wasn't going to pay out of state tuition to California ... no way, no how). For the Cal Tech crew to take D&D, a nerd's delight, to a logical or illogical extreme makes to me perfect sense from the cultural perspective.

So maybe it wasn't so much the acid as there being a "wide open game" in the first place and the Cal Tech faction taking it in the direction that amused their sensibilities most.

From the same blog spot, a letter from Gygax to Alarums and Excursions, #2 ...


A few years later, AD&D came out, somewhat in contradiction to the professed sentiments of its designer. (I am going off topic and the Schick years can be discussed elsewhere) but I think it fair to say that the "California Style" is as much a description of perception as it is of any reality. ross, to put this another way, it's a matter of contrast to how the game was initially played(and how it morphed) in the Midwest among gamers where it was born.

Ok. Maybe I'm phrasing the question poorly. What predictions does the term "west coast style" make? That is to say, if I were to join a game being run in that style, what should I expect to be different, compared to a game not run in that style?

[Thrudd]

Ok. Maybe I'm phrasing the question poorly. What predictions does the term "west coast style" make? That is to say, if I were to join a game being run in that style, what should I expect to be different, compared to a game not run in that style?

I think that would be a game where people apply the rules very liberally or with extreme modifications, tend to be Monty Haul-ish with XP and levels flowing like water, and generally do wacky stuff that G Gygax didn't agree with.

[The Fury]

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")

I have no idea why this cracks me up as much as it does. Maybe because using your DM's names makes your stereotypical fantasy prophecy nonsense so much funnier.

"So I went to the oracle to learn my destiny and she said I was no ordinary zero. She told me that I was destined to do battle with the dark clods and one day ascend to clodhood myself. So it happens that I am not just a legendary zero, but a clodling!"

[Shoreward]

The short answer is: “There are as as many GM types as there are GMs.” This is true of similar “player type” lists, too. Three people who fall into the same archetype could be completely different in both reasons and required techniques for handling.

People rarely fit snugly into boxes. It's like when you leave the names off horoscopes and they all sound like they half apply and half don't. That isn't indulgent or satisfying enough of an answer for me, though, so I'll move on to the long version. You can think of it as the Shoreward GM Classification System.

I'd propose that there are two general “axes” of GM type. One is similar to writers of fiction – Loose vs. Rigid – while the other is something I call Challenger vs. Showrunner.

The reason I say it's two axes is because it's rare that anyone is all the way to one side. Some people even slide along the axes depending on what they're running. I have a feeling I'm going to have to explain myself here.

STRUCTURE

Structure is about how the GM runs their game, as opposed to why.

Along the “structure” axis, a loose GM is the sort who takes the Powered by the Apocalypse approach. These guys don't have anything solid before the players give them a ball to run to the end goal with, and constantly adjust the rules of the world and the game as they go. They fudge dice whenever they can't avoid rolling in the first place.

The counterpoint, the rigid GM, is the one who creates a world bound by rules and rigorously plans things out, ensuring first the consistency of all that which the players experience. This is their world, and you are the players in it. A purely rigid GM hates the entire idea of fudging dice from the outset, or at least sees it as an undesirable failure on their part.

Most people fall somewhere between.

PURPOSE

The “purpose” axis defines what the GM considers to be, broadly speaking, the “point” of their game.

A Challenger GM believes that the target of the game is to test the players themselves. They revel in cleverness or system mastery on the part of their players. Every game is an arena of the mind, a vessel through which they can heap obstacles in front of their players, leaving it up to them succeed or fail on their own merits.

A Showrunner cares more about the characters than the players, using the game as a chance at crafting a shared narrative. They like it when character traits and flaws influence the flow of a game for better or for worse. Any roadblocks they throw in are to challenge the characters within that fiction. Killing all the characters with a storm of harsh badness ends the story.

Most people, like in our last examples, aren't entirely one or the other. If I had to name it, the middle road here is probably something like a Reality TV Host, only with an emphasis on crafting a narrative to contextualise challenges and a de-emphasis on editing people's dialogue into Frankenbites.

Any position on either axis can be good or bad to play under, but some people don't like certain styles. I've made it all up as I went along, though, so take my mad ramblings with a pound of salt.

[RazorChain]

Shoreward...I think you are wrong. There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't!

[Shoreward]

Shoreward...I think you are wrong. There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't!

Well, dang. I can't argue with the facts.

[Quertus]

the Shoreward GM Classification System.

I'd propose that there are two general “axes” of GM type. One is similar to writers of fiction – Loose vs. Rigid – while the other is something I call Challenger vs. Showrunner.

The reason I say it's two axes is because it's rare that anyone is all the way to one side. Some people even slide along the axes depending on what they're running. I have a feeling I'm going to have to explain myself here.

STRUCTURE

Structure is about how the GM runs their game, as opposed to why.

Along the “structure” axis, a loose GM is the sort who takes the Powered by the Apocalypse approach. These guys don't have anything solid before the players give them a ball to run to the end goal with, and constantly adjust the rules of the world and the game as they go. They fudge dice whenever they can't avoid rolling in the first place.

The counterpoint, the rigid GM, is the one who creates a world bound by rules and rigorously plans things out, ensuring first the consistency of all that which the players experience. This is their world, and you are the players in it. A purely rigid GM hates the entire idea of fudging dice from the outset, or at least sees it as an undesirable failure on their part.

Most people fall somewhere between.

PURPOSE

The “purpose” axis defines what the GM considers to be, broadly speaking, the “point” of their game.

A Challenger GM believes that the target of the game is to test the players themselves. They revel in cleverness or system mastery on the part of their players. Every game is an arena of the mind, a vessel through which they can heap obstacles in front of their players, leaving it up to them succeed or fail on their own merits.

A Showrunner cares more about the characters than the players, using the game as a chance at crafting a shared narrative. They like it when character traits and flaws influence the flow of a game for better or for worse. Any roadblocks they throw in are to challenge the characters within that fiction. Killing all the characters with a storm of harsh badness ends the story.

Most people, like in our last examples, aren't entirely one or the other. If I had to name it, the middle road here is probably something like a Reality TV Host, only with an emphasis on crafting a narrative to contextualise challenges and a de-emphasis on editing people's dialogue into Frankenbites.

Any position on either axis can be good or bad to play under, but some people don't like certain styles. I've made it all up as I went along, though, so take my mad ramblings with a pound of salt.

So, I'm not sure, but I think I'm a strong challenger, minus caring about system mastery in the game. I love for my players to think. But your other axis has me confused.

Where do you place someone who carefully crafts and follows the rules of their sandbox, lets the players run with it where they will, and considers fudging dice a cardinal sin? This all seems very consistently "player-driven simulation" to me, but very firmly on both sides of your "structure" axis.

/salt(lb)

[Shoreward]

Yeah, it's not a perfect system. Like I said at the start, anything that attempts to put people neatly into boxes is going to run into problems. The system-preserving answer would be to place you closer to the middle of the axis but leaning towards rigid, with your willingness to let players run the in-game action as the reason you aren't deeper on that side.

The honest answer would be to say it's not 100% accurate to everyone and is more of a way to gauge approximate style than anything.

[Nupo]

I'd propose that there are two general “axes” of GM type. One is similar to writers of fiction – Loose vs. Rigid – while the other is something I call Challenger vs. Showrunner.

Interesting. Here is where I see myself. I wonder where my players would place me.

........................Challenger
..............................l
..............................l....me
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
loose–––––––––––––––––––––––––––rigid
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
..............................l
........................Showrunner

[Cluedrew]

This hit it right on the mark. Classifying players is always easy because they are merely reacting to the game that DM provides. DM archetypes on the other hand have so many factors that you could classify any DM under multiple archetypes.

"Merely reacting" is boring to me, everyone should get a change to drive things forward. I say this because I've found it to work. The best campaigns I've been in have had more GM reactions than player reactions, the party (or a particular character) would do something to advance their agenda (everyone had one, otherwise why would they be out adventuring) and the GM would have the world's reaction to that.

Of course allowing this would be a GM style in its own right, and playing a proactive character might be a player style as well. Both are probably actually groups of styles.

[Lysiander]

Interesting question. I'll stick to the ones that I feel haven't been mentioned yet and ignore the typical ones. (Worldbuilder, Killer, etc.)

The Writer
Ran into this type a few times. Basically the story is written in stone and the players are only along for the ride. Their actions are of little consequence and they rarely ever influence anything important. Often comes in tandem with GMPCs who are the real protagonists of the story. More than one intended to ultimately "write down" the story to turn it into a novel.

The Wanna-be Player
This GM doesn't really want to GM. He'd rather be a player but he either can't find a game as a player or doesn't actually trust other GMs to "get it right". So he "plays" through a number of NPCs, often high powered, influential and cliche (the invincible sword princess, Gandalfian Mentor, super ninja/spy etc.). These are not GMPCs and rarely actually travel with the party, but show up everywhere like bad pennies to deliver crucial information and/or rope the players into new subplots. Every few sessions one or more of them shows up and the session will be dominated by social interaction with them. They rarely, if ever participate in combat but are obviously superior to everyone and everything with the exception of the other NPCs and a few BBEGs. He gets upset when the players dislike or avoid the NPCs or do not acknowledge their awesomeness.

My cool is better than your cool
This GM has a concept, a plan and a goal for each player character and it's more important than what the player wants. He will actively deny things that help the player's character concept and place what helps his in abundance. If you like hammers but this GM thinks swords are cooler, your will find nothing but magic swords in every dungeon and store. If he decided that your Paladin will fall and go the Arthas route and he will plot and scheme until it happens. Player input only matters if it is aligned with his concept. If the player's concept of cool matches the GM's this is a great game to play in, often with fun plots and meaningful character development. If your concept of cool deviates however, expect no mercy, recognition or fun.

There are more but its late and I'm tired. Might come back for more.