Quote from: Zalman;1031719I avoided running dungeons with any "bas-relief" features for years ...

I should have.  But I got away with that one, because my players at the time didn't know how to pronounce it either.

I agree with the things Tenbones wrote, too.

What I meant was about other things that are more subjective, which I suppose we could agree are more about preferences that objective good or bad, though it seems most players are quick to treat them as good or bad when they hit their acute preferences or dislikes.

e.g.

humor - the GM's sense of humor will be there in a world/characters/situations he makes and runs. Whether it's funny or welcome permeating a game world is subjective.

stunts - some players want to be allowed to say their PCs do wild things, be allowed and get bonuses for them. Others want to play within consistently defined limits. It's subjective but opposite tastes tend to look at the other extreme as bad.
 
continuity - some GMs do their best to have their worlds/sessions/characters be consistent. Others think it's more important to do what seems fun/cool to their players in the moment even if it breaks continuity - again, it's subjective what we prefer, and gets called bad/good at either end.

realism - some players & GMs value things seeming realistic to them. Others are hostile even to the use of those words. Both sides may argue it's not subjective, etc.

Similarly with logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts, etc.

Yes, the things you named are relatively quite subjective. But there's other things that are much more objective.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032372Yes, the things you named are relatively quite subjective. But there's other things that are much more objective.

Like what?

As I said earlier, this is a rewarding line of inquiry for me.

Quote from: Skarg;1032021I agree with the things Tenbones wrote, too.

What I meant was about other things that are more subjective, which I suppose we could agree are more about preferences that objective good or bad, though it seems most players are quick to treat them as good or bad when they hit their acute preferences or dislikes.

e.g.

humor - the GM's sense of humor will be there in a world/characters/situations he makes and runs. Whether it's funny or welcome permeating a game world is subjective.

stunts - some players want to be allowed to say their PCs do wild things, be allowed and get bonuses for them. Others want to play within consistently defined limits. It's subjective but opposite tastes tend to look at the other extreme as bad.
 
continuity - some GMs do their best to have their worlds/sessions/characters be consistent. Others think it's more important to do what seems fun/cool to their players in the moment even if it breaks continuity - again, it's subjective what we prefer, and gets called bad/good at either end.

realism - some players & GMs value things seeming realistic to them. Others are hostile even to the use of those words. Both sides may argue it's not subjective, etc.

Similarly with logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts, etc.

These things are subjective to the player - but even these are things that a GM can address with basic protocols that the GM adheres to in order reinforce the order/disorder of the world the PC's are in. Sure no everything is humorous to the same person, the issue is moot because if the GM really understands their world and its conceits, *that* is what the players have to deal with within the context of their PC's place in it.

Humor - Unless you overtly are telling your PC's "this is a humorous game", I'm not sure what the point of this is? A Great GM is self-aware enough to know that the level of humor in their game is easily manifested in the interactions the PC's have with the NPC's. Humor is an ingredient, not the point of a campaign unless you're running some TOON rpg or something. You show your PC's. You don't tell. To the degree that your players appreciate your sense of humor is your issue, not theirs. *You* as the GM shouldn't be inserting your "humor"  into the game out of context with the campaign writ-large. At best you keep it isolated to your NPC's and let the PC's play ball where it lands (or flops, which oddly can make an NPC very interesting in its own right. Who doesn't like an oddball NPC with a fucked up sense of humor that doesn't work?)

Realism, Stunts - You set this up with the players before you even pick up a die. When I run a swashbuckling adventure game, I don't run it like a grimdark ultra-realistic mercenary campaign. PC's aren't worrying about scurvy due to vitamin C deficiency because they didn't expressly buy citrus fruit as part of their rations. You TELL your players ahead of time the tone of the game in these terms. My swashbuckling games conversely are all about doing over-the-top stuff. If they forget these things, have your NPC's do them in-game. Set expectations - Gronan's Rule.

Continuity - This isn't subjective at all. This is very much the province of the GM enforcing the style of campaign they're running - especially if you're doing a sandbox. What is subjective is whether or not players "like" continuity - which is an odd thing for me to consider. Unless you're doing one-shot games, I'm almost of the opinion that those players should be doing boardgames. Why *wouldn't* you want some continuity? This is where being a Good/Great GM comes in - you can get your players interested in perpetuating that continuity of their characters and therefore the campaign.

All the rest (logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts) - These are all basic tools of GMing. Learning to manage these qualities in your game are what make you go from being a neophyte GM that might be learning how to manage one or two of these tools, to being a good GM that can really handle most of these things with basic proficiency and be good at one or more of them to the satisfaction of their players, to being a great GM that can dial all these qualities in to whatever level required to fit the needs of the players and the game.

It really is just basic protocols

1) Set expectations. Get feedback. Re-establish those expectations.
2) Stick to the conceits of your campaign. But be flexible to a point.
3) Be the world your PC's are galavanting around in. The World if the GM's character. Get your players to enjoy interacting with your character. Keep them mystified, keep them in wonder, keep them wanting more. All those other "subjective issues" are things to be consumed by the world you present. Your world is not to be ruled by them, it should transcend and include them.

Quote from: jeff37923;1032397Like what?

As I said earlier, this is a rewarding line of inquiry for me.

I haven't thought much about it, but I'd say along those lines a good memory is objectively a qualification.  That is, it's a little like height and agility for playing basketball.  Short people play basketball.  Clumsy people play.  Heck, wheelchair basketball is a thing some people do really well.  Yet there is a limit on what can get done, and it's tied to those objective qualities.  

A good GM can have gaps in memory.  They can have problem with certain types of memory.  They can use various techniques to compensate and/or enhance what they do have.  However, past a certain point, the GM has to have a wide variety of things available, ready to pull from their head with no hesitation.  You can look up a few things, but not everything.  Some kind of decent memory for a good chunk of that stuff is more important than memory for any one thing.

Quote from: tenbones;1032435... It really is just basic protocols

1) Set expectations. Get feedback. Re-establish those expectations.
2) Stick to the conceits of your campaign. But be flexible to a point.
3) Be the world your PC's are galavanting around in. The World if the GM's character. Get your players to enjoy interacting with your character. Keep them mystified, keep them in wonder, keep them wanting more. All those other "subjective issues" are things to be consumed by the world you present. Your world is not to be ruled by them, it should transcend and include them.

I think you're giving useful advice and guidelines for how GMs can try to mitigate issues with these things and find positive ways to relate to them.

However I still think there are several style attributes a GM may have that can be and are often enjoyed and considered great GMing by many players and yet the same style can be hated and considered awful by other players.

I suppose one could fairly say that a "good" GM should communicate clearly with players to let them know what styles they run and detect conflicts to warn off incompatible players, but it seems almost outside the scope of how great his games are for people who do like his style (though of course it is relevant when/if it leads to incompatible/problem players getting into the game)... which brings me back to wanting to say instead that different GMs will be good for different players depending on how compatible their tastes are.

That is, what the GM I'll most enjoy playing with will be one who is awesome at GMing a style that I enjoy, and the GM's ability to run styles I don't like is irrelevant to that (or even becomes negative if he switches outside of styles I like).

Well no one is going to like everyone all the time. But I would say this is a personal issue, less than a GMing issue. This is the only subjective thing that can't be objectively dealt with. A great GM is flexible (within reason) with his players. The idea is that you're creating a game *with* your players, and that requires building trust, and proving every game session that trust is both earned and returned - players have a responsibility too in that relationship.

Anyone that is proficient in these basic items will, by default, probably be a "good GM". Let's not confuse objectivity of action with subjectivity of thought. The problem might be that the player in question's lack of discernment. There are people that subjectively like a lot of *bad* things without any real objectively critical reason. You, as a GM or as a person in general, can't help that.

Those are the players you jettison.

GM's that are "great" are adaptive in style and ideally have a wider range. But again - you can't please everyone all the time. There are reasons for this that go beyond just gaming.

Quote from: tenbones;1032857... GM's that are "great" are adaptive in style and ideally have a wider range. But again - you can't please everyone all the time. There are reasons for this that go beyond just gaming.

You can define it that way if it makes sense to you, but in thinking of GM's I've played with and whom I consider both "great", for example (names changed):

Sue has many clearly great & entertaining GM skills but occasionally does some things I don't like so much (e.g. heavy riffing on other fiction, fairy tales, jokes, pop culture references) and varies in style and will adapt and indulge some player styles, which is an ability and entertains those players, but sometimes when I'm in a game and that happens, it's off-putting or annoying. There are several types of examples where adapting a varied style to cater to someone is from my point of view dragging at least that part of the game to places below what I would even want to play. (e.g. Usually we do tactical combat but sometimes someone thinks it's cool to attempt a stunt that breaks the rules in various ways, and she'll just let/make it work in ways that make it easier, less dangerous and more powerful than it should be (from my consistency-oriented perspective), undermining/removing the otherwise-rational tactical game which is one of the things I show up for.)

Dave has a mostly rather different style which is creative in unique ways that I really like even if it's a bit different from my own preferred style. Dave has run a variety of campaigns and some have varied widely in style in some ways but not in others. He runs a game the way he's going to run it. He is strong in letting and encouraging players to do interesting, creative and unexpected things, but only as their character and within the limits of the character, the world, the situation and the rules. He'll let you try (and may even encourage) a crazy cinematic stunt, but he'll assign a realistic chance of it working or failing horribly. He runs the game the way he runs it and I don't think he's very adaptable at all to people wanting the game to work differently than the way he runs it unless he agrees they have a cool idea that makes sense.

I don't think I'd call Dave "adaptive in style" but I'd call both of them "great" in different ways, and if I had to choose, I'd much much rather be GM'd by Dave, and would hate it if he adapted his style to styles I don't like as much as the one Dave runs.

Quote from: jeff37923;1023019Had a conversation a short while ago about people being Gamemasters. The guy I was talking to declared that not just anyone can be a GM. That it takes a special mix of intelligence, imagination, and organizational skills to even begin to learn the art of GMing.

My own thoughts are that his opinion is self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Anyone can be a GM, anyone can learn how if they apply themselves. In the beginning, you will suck at it - just like all of us did at the start. Given time and effort, anybody can become a good GM.

What are your thoughts? Am I wrong?

You are right, Jeff. There is a certain level of competence you must acquire, which comes through prep, practice and effort. After that, it's just a question of matching your style to the players (or finding players [and a system] that match your style). Some folks like to make things hard. I think of this bullshit pretentiousness about craft, and I am reminded of David Mamet's books on writing and, especially, acting -- "Show up on time. Say your lines. Go home." There's not much more to it than that.

Quote from: tenbones;1032857The idea is that you're creating a game *with* your players, and that requires building trust, and proving every game session that trust is both earned and returned - players have a responsibility too in that relationship.

This, without a doubt.

Quote from: tenbones;10314231) A GM that is inconsistent in the application of their ruleset might still provide an enjoyable experience, but invariably will run into issues down the road with the ability to being fairly arbitrary or even non-judicious in their application of those rules. They might be called a "good GM". A better GM can adhere to the rules, and be flexible with the group if something happens according to the rules that "doesn't jive" and make calls with the group and not let it detract from the experience. OR they can make a hard call that adheres to the rules and still make their players feel that it was a good call even at their expense.

2) A Good GM can run a module. A Great GM can run a sandbox campaign that has the module in it, re-worked for the purposes of their campaign within an entire world, seamlessly allowing options both good and bad to present themselves, and allow the actions of the PC's to naturally create content and further options (some might close/open based on those choices) and present an experience of far greater personalized nature that transcends what the Railroad GM might have envisioned. To do the latter takes much more skill, and more work.

There's two good examples. I can provide more.

Quote from: tenbones;1031476Obviously these are generalities and can be expanded upon.


A Good GM can be prepared to execute a set series of encounters as a Game Session. A Great GM can let encounters be totally emergent or random and tie it in organically to the larger world.

A Good GM can let you make PC's of any kind of background and make you happy. A Great GM can work with you to create a PC in context with the campaign that makes you excited to play something other than your surface assumptions that have nothing to do with your unicorn freakshow. Including allowing you to play a unicorn freakshow but put into context of the campaign with special considerations and expectations that matter.

A Good GM can hand-wave details in doing mundane things in order to keep the adventure flowing. A Great GM can make literally anything important or potentially important.

A Good GM can allude to a larger setting without really engaging in the world and still have a good game. A Great GM can make your players *want* to go explore beyond the boundaries of their assumed adventurespace.

A Good GM can run a genre or system with good proficiency. A Great GM can run anything and make it at bare minimum, "good".

A Good GM can incorporate new material into a game well. A Great GM can create new material of their own devising and make it seamless to the sandbox at large.

A Good GM can pull off an good session of moderate complexity with little prep. A Great GM can pull off a good session of moderate complexity with relative ease and little to no prep. They can pull off the occasional great session with good complexity out of their ass with little prep.

A Good GM will create consistent fun in their games. A Great GM will create moments that those players will talk about for decades.

Thank you, man:)! That's a good list, and gives me ideas what I have to work on.

Quote from: Skarg;1032021I agree with the things Tenbones wrote, too.

What I meant was about other things that are more subjective, which I suppose we could agree are more about preferences that objective good or bad, though it seems most players are quick to treat them as good or bad when they hit their acute preferences or dislikes.

e.g.

humor - the GM's sense of humor will be there in a world/characters/situations he makes and runs. Whether it's funny or welcome permeating a game world is subjective.

stunts - some players want to be allowed to say their PCs do wild things, be allowed and get bonuses for them. Others want to play within consistently defined limits. It's subjective but opposite tastes tend to look at the other extreme as bad.
 
continuity - some GMs do their best to have their worlds/sessions/characters be consistent. Others think it's more important to do what seems fun/cool to their players in the moment even if it breaks continuity - again, it's subjective what we prefer, and gets called bad/good at either end.

realism - some players & GMs value things seeming realistic to them. Others are hostile even to the use of those words. Both sides may argue it's not subjective, etc.

Similarly with logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts, etc.

Well, that's why not even the best GM can please everyone equally. Hence the rule "run the game you'd want to play, you can never please everyone"!

Quote from: jeff37923;1032397Like what?

As I said earlier, this is a rewarding line of inquiry for me.

I already said that Tenbones named most of them.

A GM has to be able to have a sufficient basic grasp of the rules. He needs to be able to organize the adventure, and the setting. he needs to be able to coherently explain things to the players. he has to be sufficiently organized to make the sessions happen and continue to happen on a regular basis (in the case of a campaign). He needs to be able to clearly portray NPCs in a way that will not cause confusion at the very least, and I would suggest that would be contributing to rather than harming immersion as well. He needs to be able to manage players.

Quote from: Skarg;1033023I don't think I'd call Dave "adaptive in style" but I'd call both of them "great" in different ways, and if I had to choose, I'd much much rather be GM'd by Dave, and would hate it if he adapted his style to styles I don't like as much as the one Dave runs.

But you'll note - you didn't say what made Sue "great" as a GM. In the case of what we're talking about - the difference between a "Good GM" and a "Great GM", it's a quality about hitting high-points consistently. Sue very well might be entertaining, even entertaining consistently. But if Sue were "Great" then you'd probably be talking about what makes Sue so damn Great because she's consistently created a breadth of experiences for you that you've not found elsewhere.

One of the big tell-tale signs about Less-than-Great GM's (not necessarily bad ones) is when people pin a specific set of proclivities on the GM that they insert into their game as a norm, in this case (e.g. heavy riffing on other fiction, fairy tales, jokes, pop culture references). It's not to say you can't have these things in your game, but when they become hallmark signatures, what does it immediately tell you? It says "This GM runs this kinda game regularly".

It's an immediate quality that narrows the spectrum of possibilities that, to me, limits the scope of possibilities. This is not to say that Sue couldn't go outside of that box, it's the fact that alongside the other issues you throw into the mix, that Sue strikes me as not being "Great" your only experience is playing in that kind of fare (which in your case clearly not the issue). Dave sounds *much* better in terms of being flexible with the content but consistent in the application of the rules.

Adapting your style to a genre doesn't mean you have to cater to the whims of each player. It means being able to cater to the conceits of your game across genres with fidelity that allows players to experience that via their characters to the fullest of your abilities as a GM. That means you do take your players into account, but your responsibilities as a GM end where the player's responsibilities to actually play begin.

You could very well have players that simply "don't get" what you're trying to do, and still play in good faith. As a GM your goal is to "win them over" through the events and NPC's in the game. To engage them at that level they're capable and willing to engage at. And that's where the rubber hits the road. That's where the tension hits, that assuming they're willing to meet you half-way where you as a GM can make "the magic" happen. But it takes a certain kind of GM to understand that. It takes a little nuance and flexibility.

I've had players that are extremely passive, but like fiddling around with being social type characters rather than murderous combat-monkeys. So I indulge them. I put them in situations where their desires to do heavy roleplay are met and it allows me to create scores of opportunities that would simply not exist among the combat-monkeys of the group. I'll create possibilities for intrigue where before it might have been nothing more than a business transaction of "I'm hiring you monkeys to go kill X." But conversely the combat-monkeys have to learn to appreciate the social aspects of the game - maybe they're tagging along as bodyguards? Then I'll have my NPC's have their combat-monkey NPC bodyguards interact with them.

Engagement. The mere whiff of prodding the interests of the players is often all it takes. But you have to find that sweet spot of what motivates the player to play. There *usually* is something that each players is interested in that you can engage their character about. The key is doing so consistently at a high level of engagement without sacrificing the conceits of your game. That is the difference between being Good and Great.

(I wrote a reply that got devoured by "web browser forgets what you wrote" syndrome - sigh.)

Great point(er)s about all that, which I don't disagree with!

... except instead of saying "That is the difference between being Good and Great." I would say that can make the difference for some players between a great experience with a GM, and a not-great (even bad) experience. (But often that's not even an issue, because the GM's style fits the players.)

I just think we are talking about different frameworks for thinking about what a "great" GM is.

To me, I don't think there is an accurate way to say a GM is "great" in general, but instead I'd say that GMs can be great at playing certain ranges of styles, and I'd call the criteria you mentioned at the end something like "great at connecting with players and catering to (or selecting a style compatible with) them". How good a GM's game can be will depend on how good they are at running the style of game they actually run, which is a separate thing.

If a GM's style is compatible with the players, it doesn't matter much how flexible the GM can be in changing styles. I think almost everyone agrees Sue is a great GM and may be more flexible and appealing to more people than Dave, but Dave's style is something I really particularly like, so I tend to more reliably and excitedly enjoy playing in Dave's games, and I like that if a player asks Dave to cater to some other style, that Dave isn't going to change his style outside what we like to play, or try to cater to something that's just incompatible.