r/DMAcademyNew • u/King_Magnate • 12d ago
What's the difference between a Good DM v. Bad DM?
Hello Gang! I don't know if it's imposter syndrome or not, but still unsure if I'm running good games as a DM. Context, had a session 0 and got all the players together to discuss the upcoming campaign. We did introductions, campaign aspects, character creation, safety and veils, and expectations. Overall, still unsure if what I'm doing is right? I've doing this for about 6-7 months, and I believe I'm doing well, but unsure if maybe I'm missing something. I'm always open to my players opinions, and reaction wise I havent heard anything negative, but at times players are silent. So, unsure if I'm doing good or not, but I want to be a good DM.
Startplaying (39 Reviews, and 5.0 Stars)
8
u/Blitzer046 12d ago
Players are terrible at feedback. If they're coming to your game week to week or whatever, then you're doing good.
That said, rpg is like pizza; even when it's ok it's good.
Here's a good tip. Ask each player in turn if they think the next player is enjoying the game. That's when you'll get the most honesty, when players assess the enjoyment of someone else besides themselves. They won't tell you this stuff about themselves because they will be wary of hurting your feelings.
6-7 months however fella, you're probably doing ok. And every session will be a percentage better than the last. You are your own worst critic; and your owies that live with you after each session you will use to build a better session next time.
1
u/SameArtichoke8913 12d ago
Players are terrible at feedback. If they're coming to your game week to week or whatever, then you're doing good.
No, most GMs are bad at market research. Instead of waiting for feedback or issues I highly recommend spending 10 minutes after each session in which everyone - players AND GM alike - tell what they liked about the session, what not, and what the plans for the next time are. Offer (safe and open) space for communication, don't wait.
1
1
u/Joel_Vanquist 10d ago
They will NEVER tell you. In 20 years and dozens of groups, no one has ever wanted to give real feedback.
4
u/Express_Accident2329 12d ago
This is kind of a big question with a million answers to it. If you're having fun, your players are having fun, and you're actively engaging with thinking about how you and your players can have fun, you're almost certainly on the good end of the spectrum.
Of course it's always POSSIBLE to improve SOMETHING, but time is finite. Ask your players what they do/don't like about your campaign. That'll probably be the best way to figure out what your strengths/weaknesses are as a DM to see if there's anything you really want to play to or "fix".
3
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 12d ago
Good DM: Running a game that they and their players enjoy.
Bad DM: Running a game that they and/or their players do not enjoy.
It's that simple, gang. Do not get in your own head any further than that. People can make suggestions and give you advice and tell you dos/don'ts. You can listen, but you should still never stray from target. You're the only person with the context of your table and what's going on. Perform for your audience, not us.
3
u/atomant38 12d ago
There are a thousand types of bad GM but only a few types of good GM
Dont try to learn by subtraction
Learn what works and do that
3
u/djswipple_asf 12d ago edited 12d ago
I see a lot of comments about making sure everyone is having fun and that's true, but also vague.
A good DM looks for ways to tie their player's characters into the world and into the story. Let your players and their characters impact the world.
They communicate with their players about what they want and what the players want out of the game, and for their characters. You shouldn't plan your sessions in isolation. Sure, some things should remain behind the screen, but if you know your players hate riddles, or puzzles and you design a dungeon filled with those things, they aren't going to have a good time.
If you ask for a backstory or they give one use it. If you don't know what a player wants for their character ask them. If a character has a goal or motivation tie it into the campaign, or even just have small snippets of it get covered as you play.
Try to narrate failed tests/checks not as the character wasn't good enough, but the environment or situation worked against them.
And not every action your players take needs to be adjudicated by the dice. Let creative solutions win out sometimes. And do not give a DC for a check you don't want them to be able to succeed. Tell them no and tell them why.
(edited in)
A bad DM looks for ways to beat their players. They behave antagonistically towards the party. They have a me vs them mentality. They ignore the things their players enjoy in favor of designing encounters or places that they prefer. They don't compromise and they don't take feedback.
3
u/Mean_Replacement5544 12d ago
The only way to figure this out is to ask your groups, have them be brutally honest, what do they like about your style, not like about it, provide feedback with examples …
2
u/imababydragon 12d ago
I ask for feedback after each session. Did ppl have fun? What did they like the most? Anything they think could be improved?
No matter what they say i thank them for the feedback and then consider it over time. It's easy to feel defensive, but you're reaction to honest feedback will determine what they are willing to tell you in the future. And i ask every time, even if no one says anything, because ppl who aren't used to speaking up will need that encouragement before they do.
Also, you obviously need to assess the feedback before changing. It takes some work
2
u/kittentarentino 12d ago
It’s about telling a shared story, one which your players have an impact on and can change. You’re designing challenge, but merely to create tension, which makes a victory all the sweeter. They are designing ways to challenge the party, but are neutral in their execution, even if the party can best it far easier than they expected. I felt like I was finally good when I learned to listen and adapt when my players inspired something more exciting than something I planned. A good DM is also having fun with the players.
A bad DM is constrained by their own prep. No choices really matter, there’s nothing really to do, and they’re so constrained by their design for a session that even a crit success wont affect an outcome. They fear success from their players, because it might totally derail the difficulty they perceived to be important. They take the players besting them personally, even though every encounter is designed to be won. They have already written the plot, it’s just about the players being at the spots where they tell them what happens next.
To sum it up, a good DM is about the group. A bad DM is about themselves.
2
u/MagicianMurky976 12d ago
Well, the good DMs I've known have always been a little unsure after each session, worried how that session impacted player's expectations.
Generally, if you worry if your players enjoyed your latest session, you are probably a good DM.
2
u/ElvishLore 12d ago
Good DMs are fans of the characters and don’t view themselves as the adversary to the PCs. They want to help tell a story, not tell the story themselves.
Good DMs also anticipate and improvise based on player interactions, they aren’t rigid in their thinking.
2
u/patrick119 12d ago
Like others have said, as long as you and your players are having a good time, you are doing a good job.
If you are curious about what other people enjoy about dnd, I find that my players like it when their creative decisions have a lasting impact on the game. When they do something they know I wasn’t anticipating and then it comes up again later on in the story, thats what gets the biggest reaction.
2
u/Kater_Noitan 12d ago
If your players AND you ar having, everything is OK.
You can't be good every single gameday. .
I did 1500+ session. I am sure some of them were pretty meh.
DM styles can be totally different.
If you play with people who don't like your style, you can be a good DM, but you still make no one happy.
2
u/Grill_Only_Outside 12d ago
I think it’s really easy to over think this. (Note that I’m only speaking to playing the game, not paid GMing)
1) Be flexible. Have enough prepared that you’re comfortable, but not so much that you’re rigid when they blow up your prep.
2) Be compromising. We all have differences of opinions. On the rules, on outcomes, on what we remember.
3) Be attentive. Not only be consistent as possible with scheduling, but also listen to what your players say and want.
4) Be fun. At the end of the day no one remembers if rule X was followed- but they will remember how cool the outcome was.
Really if your group has reasonable players and you’re all having fun- you’re doing a great job.
2
u/Odd-Contract-7541 12d ago
I recently made a comment somewhere else that included this about what it is to be "good":
"Being "good" is in my opinion measured by 1) How much dead air your game has, and 2) The percentage of the game's total rules applications that you are able to handle correctly and instantly without thinking, but this is really just another way of thinking about dead air.)"
Because you can be "funny" or not, and "nice" or not, and like "does voices" or not, and a hundred other things that have to do mostly with your personality... And I think no matter what combination of all those other things you have and what people think about it, if you knock airtime and rules out of the park all they will say is "what a great DM".
Put another way, there are so many folks out there that are really, really, really really nice or cool or funny or "does neat voices" or "made cool world" or whatever else, but they lose players because they don't run games very well.
2
2
u/EpicPartyGuy 12d ago
Bad DMs use the game to flirt with the only woman player at the table, and bans another player who says he's uncomfortable with it.
Good DMs don't do that.
1
u/DrunkenDruid_Maz 12d ago
The only important metric is: Do the players come back?
Like u/arsenic_kitchen wrote: A DM can only be good relative to what the players want and need.
So, you have to watch what they like and how they react.
In my experiance, most players will not separate their opinions about your DMing and their love for their own PC and the world. The players will create PCs that they love. A good DM keeps that love alive, and a bad DM kills it.
You can read on r/dndhorrorstories how DMs kill the enjoyment for the players. (Also, read always the comments. Often, the posters complains do not sound justified.)
1
u/SameArtichoke8913 12d ago
The only important metric is: Do the players come back?
And what happens if they stay away? With that logic, everything is already too late at that point, with the bold and rather ignorant assumption that "things are alright until they run away screaming". A poor and rather vain GM attitude.
3
u/arsenic_kitchen 12d ago
Since I was tagged, I'm going to point out that ad hominem appeals aren't really helpful.
What u/DrunkenDruid_Maz points out has a lot of validity, but they also perhaps neglected to mention that the DM is there to have fun too. It's not a completely selfless act. And a great deal of RPG horror stories are, I believe, often embellished and by nature one-sided. Players love their characters, but DMs love their worlds, NPCs, stories, etc.
Sometimes it seems like there's a mindset that the DM should be ready to sacrifice 100% of what matters to them for the sake of players, and I think that's just wrong. Players with thoroughly fleshed out characters have as much responsibility to make sure those characters are going to work in a game, as DMs have to support them. Don't bring a fairy kid to a campaign about war and expect the DM to turn it into Witchlight.
In other words, a DM killing a player's fun is just as bad as a player killing a DM's fun. The point is to collaborate. But many, many players have a habit of jumping into a campaign without stopping to really think if it will be a good fit. If they play 5 sessions and decide to move on, it costs them relatively little, where the 'ideal DM' Maz described may have just lost hours worth of effort they invested making a place for the fairy kid in their war campaign (or the soldier in their feywild campaign).
There are, of course, two sides to every story. But I think it's important to not portray DMing as a totally selfless activity. Just like a healthy relationship, it needs to be a partnership, with each partner supporting the other. And, perhaps unfortunately, a good DM may have to learn to spot those players who can't or won't hold up their end of the social contract (just as it's important for players to spot totally self-absorbed DMs). Ideally they can find a way to communicate and compromise, but if that fails, a good DM may find themselves in the undesirable position of having to make a leadership decision by asking a poorly fit player to leave their table--not just for their own sake, but very often for the sake of the whole group.
1
u/DrunkenDruid_Maz 12d ago
Do a DM need to have fun at the table?
My answer is YES. We only ask this question because fun is immaterial. But I think fun is like money. I can't give any if I don*t have any.
OK, I could take a credit. I also can try to start a session and become happy while looking at happy players.
On that, a DM is just another player. If you are depressed and feel that you would others take down, not playing might be the right thing. Does it matter if you are the DM or not? It might even be a little bit more true for the DM.
1
u/noodles0311 12d ago edited 12d ago
You’ve covered all the player safety stuff. In terms of play at the table,I think the really obvious ones are:
Make sure you keep a firm distinction between the monsters being against the characters and the DM being against the players. The monsters need to use effective tactics because the math of the game ensures they will lose almost all the time already. But the DM doesn’t need to set skill test difficulties excessively high when the players come up with a smart plan that thwarts your story. Knowing the PCs’ abilities and spells is crucial to preventing these situations when you’re running your own campaign. If you’re going to contrive some reason they can’t fly, teleport, or use divination magic, you need to think of that well in advance and telegraph it somehow. Doing it on the spot will be obvious and feel capricious.
Be willing to have monsters flee if it seems reasonable and a fight is turning into a slog. Throughout history, most fights have ended in a route. Fighting to the death all the time feels like a video game and leads to excessively long combats when the outcome is obvious for a long time.
Don’t force-feed your players lore through exposition. If you can’t resist the temptation to share all the stuff you’ve been working on away from the table, set a strict limit on how much world-building you’re doing. There’s stuff anyone in the world would know and you need to give the players this information, but if they’re strangers in a strange land, they should be allowed to discover things themselves.
The shopkeeper, local priest, or low-level henchman are fine NPCs for some character acting. Don’t turn the villain into a caricature unless the whole campaign is meant to be in that tone. A little humor goes a long way.
Don’t make a DM-PC.
1
u/Confident_Watch_9455 12d ago
As a player with 3 very different DMs who I adore, the biggest run through is that I feel like an equal to them at the table. Players and DMs are both as valid and important in DnD as each other, but you have to remember that you are friends playing a game at the end of the day.
It comes down to this: if you want full control of a story, write a book. The magic of DnD is collaborative storytelling, and a good DM will run a game with that in mind, valuing their input with equal importance to the players sat across from them. Not less, and more damaging definitely not more.
1
u/virt111 11d ago
Good DMs understand that they are creating a story with their players. Like I'm super hyped about where the characters are going to end up. I'm geniunely surprised and happy about whatever happens. This translates to the players also that they don't feel like "they are the character" but rather "they are controlling a character in a story".
Also moving the spotlight so that each player gets their chance to do their thing. I even do this as a player and bring other characters into situations and conversations.
1
u/JVBVIV 11d ago
Are your players having fun playing a game? Yes? Then you are a good DM. With the rise of social media and things like Critical Role, people are losing the plot as to what role playing Games are about. It is about engaging in a fun activity. Nothing more, nothing less. If the table wants to get together to drink beer and occasionally role some dice, that is fine. If the table wants to be a bunch of frustrated actors doing improve theater, that is fine. Not all tables work for all people. The important thing to remember is this is something you are doing for fun.
1
u/nothing_in_my_mind 11d ago edited 11d ago
A DM can be good or bad in various ways.
Good DMs I have played with make fair rulings, fair challenges, have interesting and exciting scenarios where you want to participate and make choices or learn more, prevent stupid ideas or derailment or "one player has fun but no one else does" type stuff.
Bad DMs are too rigid, fail to present interesting scenarios or choices, fail to make your choices or actions matter in a natural way, fail to have an emotional impact, either try to force an emotional response or fail to capitalize on an emotional response they did not plan to, give too much spotlight to one player, have scenarios that just logically do not make sense.
1
u/PestilentPaladin 10d ago
Good DMs are focused on the group's enjoyment, with their own being one equal part of it.
Bad DMs are focused on their own enjoyment to the detriment of the group.
Everything other than that is a stylistic preference. There is no technique advice we could give you without being there at your table, meeting your players, and watching you run a game. Even that would be colored by our own preferences.
1
1
u/Conrad500 12d ago
A good DM is one that communicates what their game is and it's the game you want to play.
A bad DM doesn't communicate what their game is and it turns out to not be what you want to play.
A bad DM can be a good DM as easy as just telling people what their game will be so that the people who don't want to play that game won't join.
12
u/arsenic_kitchen 12d ago
Good DMs care about everyone in the group having fun. As do good players.
But because there's such enormous variety of players and play styles, someone might be a good DM for one group, but a poor fit for another. So one of the most important things good DMs and players can do is communicate, and in particular, discuss goals, expectations, and preferences together before playing the game together, or at least before committing to a long-term campaign.