I was reading on another message boards about "The Signs of a Good DM" and was surprised to read this post:

Quote from: UmbranThe people at the table have a good time.  Is there any other measure, really?

Then everyone started co-opting the idea. :hmm:

I really think that's a cute piece of political correctness, but it doesn't show much of an insight in terms of DMing skills. What if you happen to have a player who is a consumate whiner, unhappy with anything, bitching about everything? If this guy doesn't have fun, somehow that's the DM's fault, and he's bad for it?

I agree with the sentiment that the point is for everyone to have fun, but just because someone doesn't have fun doesn't necessarily mean that the DM is doing something wrong.

What do you think?

Quote from: Benoist;383306I was reading on another message boards about "The Signs of a Good DM" and was surprised to read this post:


Then everyone started co-opting the idea. :hmm:

I really think that's a cute piece of political correctness, but it doesn't show much of an insight in terms of DMing skills. What if you happen to have a player who is a consumate whiner, unhappy with anything, bitching about everything? If this guy doesn't have fun, somehow that's the DM's fault, and he's bad for it?

I agree with the sentiment that the point is for everyone to have fun, but just because someone doesn't have fun doesn't necessarily mean that the DM is doing something wrong.

What do you think?

The only good DM is a dead DM...

-clash

The OP in that thread gave me shivers!

Showers regularly is now the sign of a GOOD DM??!?!?!

Quote from: Settembrini;383313Showers regularly is now the sign of a GOOD DM??!?!?!

Yeah, that made me stop in my tracks and wonder what the thread was really about myself. Isn't having good hygiene a sign of self-respect as a human being, first? What the hell does it have to do with being a good DM in the first place? That's completely besides the point.

But you know what? It's symptomatic of the whole turn the thread took, and that includes that strange post about "if everyone is having a good time, then you're a good DM" thing. The understanding of a DM's role as an entertainer first and, overwhelmingly, foremost. That's really what it comes down to, or so it seems.

Quoting OP for reference to the "shower" mention:

Quote from: TarionzCousinWhat are the signs of a Good DM?

I'll start:

1. Good hygiene. Showered, no bad breath, clean clothes;
2. Prepared for the game (yes, this doesn't always happen): including being on time, knowing the adventure, having encounters ready;
3. Ability to improvise: make it appear (almost) seamless with prepared stuff, not naming every new NPC "Bob," being comfortable with "winging it";
4. An expectation that everyone is going to have fun and a plan to make that happen.

I'm sure there are many more. What else?

Fascinating stuff.

I wouldn't conflate "sign" and "definition." The word "sign" in this sense would seem to mean "indication of a strong probability that X." Likewise, a five-star user rating on Amazon.com is an indication that a book is good, but a good book isn't defined as being one that receives a five-star user rating on Amazon.com

If you were to say "a good DM is one whose players have a good time", then I would disagree for the reasons you state.

EDIT: In regards to showering, it's not that hygiene itself makes a "good GM," but the lack of hygiene indicates a strong probability that the GM in question is a subhuman neckbeard who lacks the basic social skills necessary to manage a game based on interaction with human beings.

To me, the primary marker of a good GM is that they respect the player's time.

When I show up to the game table, I don't expect a lot. I don't need fancy maps, amazing props, or labyrinthine scenarios. It doesn't have to be seamless, or even look seamless. I don't need to be coddled.

Ultimately, I don't care if the GM did eight hours of prep work or eight minutes, so long as he's invested in helping make the game fun for the players*.

What I do expect is something more than "well, I didn't bother to prep anything, so your PCs are going to spend the next four hours farting around the tavern talking about the fun stuff we'll potentially do next game." Granted, the players can wrestle this into a fun evening's play if they work at it, but they shouldn't have to.

Respect your player's time, especially if they're like a lot of gamers I know, with kids and jobs and busy lives, and have to go to no small amount of effort to show up for an evening's play.

And yeah, I feel for people who've had such poor fortune that they have to mention basic hygiene as a qualifier.

* Operative word being helping. It's the player's job to be equally invested. The GM is not an automated  fun machine. Like any social activity, it's give and take.

Quote from: Benoist;383306What if you happen to have a player who is a consumate whiner, unhappy with anything, bitching about everything?

It is a sign of a good DM to promptly kick that asshat out of the group and thus instantly increase everyone else's fun.

As a convention GM, I highly support the "takes a shower" option for GMs and players and everyone else.

Although to be fair, I have smelled far, far fewer stinkies at cons over the years.  I want to say the smelly fuckers have learned to bathe, but I suspect they just stay home and play WoW...while naked, marinating in their nerd juices.

Quote from: Spinachcat;383402I want to say the smelly fuckers have learned to bathe, but I suspect they just stay home and play WoW...while naked, marinating in their nerd juices.

Thanks, I just puked a little in my mouth at the mental image... and smell.

IMO, the most important aspect of a GM is the ability to be a solid social linchpin.  

Different GM's vary in how they handle their game, and there are groups with different expectations from a GM, but if the GM can't act as a sort of "manager" and keep the group working together both in the game and as a social unit, then things can fall apart pretty easily.

Someone always has to take initiative to start a game -- even in more group-oriented RPGs, someone needs to decide that the social function is going to happen -- who's going to be involved, where it's going to happen, what exactly is expected, etc..  If a person doesn't have that drive, then they're not going to make it as a GM.

In a perfect world, social activities would just happen based on consensus and mutual interest.  Unfortunately, there always needs to be at least a couple of people at the forefront, making sure things move along.  Tribal nature is hard to fight in social creatures, and some people are more apt to lead than others.

Alexander Macris has a good essay about this at the Escapist:

QuoteIt's Not Your Job to Make Sure People Have Fun
When I listed the four functions of the GM in my last article, two out of the first six responses said that "the real job of the GM is to make sure people have fun." Others have said this to me in conversation. Well, I disagree!

If you're the GM, it's not your job to make sure people have fun. The belief that when a player doesn't have fun it's the GM's fault has caused more GMs more grief and heartburn than any other myth in gaming. You can be an amazing GM, yet a player might not have fun. Because whether or not people have fun is going to depend on factors that are outside your control: How did their wife treat them on their way over? How was their day at work? How well do they roll the dice? Do they play the game as well as the other players? You can't control these things, and therefore you shouldn't feel responsible for them.

What you should feel responsible for doing is creating an environment in which everyone could have fun. Imagine that you are hosting a party: Your job is to provide the right mix of appetizers, drinks, ambience, and crowd so that people can have fun. It's not to act like a clown because Rob had a bad day at work. This is a subtle point, but if you keep it in mind, you'll avoid a lot of self-inflicted doubt and stress about your role.

Excellent point.

Quote from: Benoist;383306I was reading on another message board about "The Sign of a Good DM"

What do you think?

Quote from: Benoist;383306What if you happen to have a player who is a consumate whiner, unhappy with anything, bitching about everything? If this guy doesn't have fun, somehow that's the DM's fault, and he's bad for it?

Well, we could say,

"If everyone had fun, it's a good GM; if people didn't have fun, it may or may not be a bad GM."

That is, if you have the annoying gamer there and people still have fun, the GMing must be pretty good. But as you say, if they didn't have fun that's not the GM's fault.

The thing for me is that the statement is too vague. We could spend 3hr30' of the 4hr session telling stories of our past and drinking beer, and we'd have fun - but surely a good GM keeps people focused on the game itself?

Quote from: BenoistThe understanding of a DM's role as an entertainer first and, overwhelmingly, foremost. That's really what it comes down to, or so it seems.

Whatever the guys in that thread say, a GM need not be an entertainer for the session to be fun. It can be fun because all the players contribute something, and that something - whether it works or doesn't - influences the course of the action in the game. So there the GM isn't entertaining, but is ensuring the players are able to entertain themselves.

For example, I once had a player who was pretty quiet by nature. The other players were loud, so even if he'd wanted to talk they'd talk over him. I wondered if he'd like to contribute a bit more. During one session I looked around the game table, and I noticed that the most active players sat opposite me, and the quieter ones right next to me. Now, when you're talking to a group, if anyone speaks up and responds it's most likely to be whoever you meet eyes with. And you're more likely to meet eyes with someone opposite you than someone right to your side.

So I asked if he'd like to move seats, and explained why. He moved, sat opposite me, the loudest one right next to me - and the quieter guy spoke up more. And everyone had more fun, because everyone was contributing.

I was a good GM there not because I was entertaining anyone, but because I made it easier for them to entertain themselves. Which Peregrin expressed as,

Quote from: Peregrinthe most important aspect of a GM is the ability to be a solid social linchpin.

Or as Tavis quoted Alexander Marcus,

"What you should feel responsible for doing is creating an environment in which everyone could have fun."

The players have to step up and contribute. The GM and rules system are there to make it easier for them to contribute.

I prefer to think of the GM as a sleazy chat show host like Jerry Springer. His job is to throw in a few provocative questions and then pass the microphone between his guests allowing them to carry the show, only stepping in if the conversations gets dull or the ratings start to fall.

The chat show host introduces topics he thinks will interest and inspire his guests and audience, be it genetically modified foods or the love life of Tom Cruise. However the chat show host, at least the really sleazy ones, have no personal interest is these topics per se, they only care that the conversation remains lively and entertaining.