Sunday, 17 October 2004

Quality of DMs

I was talking with Martin earlier, who was busy recounting some more of his horror stories from games across the Atlantic. Needless to say, this got me to thinking about the quality of DMs generally, and the qualities that make for a good DM. I'm going to suggest three.

It should be noted that being prepared is not an inherent quality in a good DM. Some DMs work best with full notes, some with minimal preparation. It all depends on the DM*.

I think the three qualities of a good DM are: rules mastery, story mastery, and table mastery.

Rules mastery is pretty obvious. A bad DM will have a hazy knowledge of the rules, or worse will apply the rules in an unbalanced manner (balance between players, of course; there's little harm in changing the PC/monster balance, as long as you know what you're doing). A good DM will know the rules well, and be able to find anything he doesn't know quickly. A great DM will know both the rules, and also when not to apply the rules, which is a key, and much overlooked, skill. The best DMs will make it all look seamless, of course.

Story mastery is the knowledge of mood, theme, plotting, structure, and also the needs for things to seem realistic (they don't need to actually be realistic - but the world needs to make as much sense as the players expect). A bad DM will structure his campaign as a never-ending series of combats (yes, I've done that), or make rulings that make no sense for the story (rules that one group of PCs desecrate the bodies of their foes while another is discussing a truce with the survivors of that group - when the players state "we'll make sure they're dead", rather than specifying how they do this.) A good DM will include opportunities for role-playing and character development, provide some sort of impetus for PC actions, and ensure that things keep running. A great DM will have a plot structure mapped out, but will be ready to take the game in an entirely different direction if and when the PCs do something unexpected. The best DMs will be ready to put away the dice to just let the story flow when needed.

Table mastery is to do with the control of everything outside the game. This includes making sure players know when and if he's going to miss a game, make sure that group actually gels (and we don't have a player so disruptive that others are walking away from the game), and sets the policy for what happens when a player can't make it. This is a delicate process - the DM must ensure that he's working with the players to keep things flowing, and he must always make sure he's on the same wavelength as the host of the game as far as such things are concerned (after all, the host can always trump the DM on the issue of who is and is not invited to the game).

A bad DM will be oblivious to problems at the table, refuse to take action if a player is out of action, or be overly quick to action where there actually is not a problem. A good DM will make sure everyone knows what's happening, and will pro-actively deal with problems (and yes, I know "pro-active" is now a dirty word. It's also the right word for this situation. Sorry). A great DM just won't have these sorts of problems - he's so on top of matters that any problem will be flagged up long before it becomes an issue, and dealt with. (Of course, that could also be the result of having a great group of players. The difference will be obvious in the rest of the game.)

Sadly, I think the standard of DMing is probably very low in general. I base this on the fact that most people in the world are fairly incompetent. Sad, but true, and not limited to gaming.

Right, now tell me which areas of DM skill I've forgotten, tell me I'm an arse, or something. I'm getting lonely here :-)

* There's a caveat to that. Some systems, notably rules-heavy systems that really reward preparation. d20 simply requires more preparation that Storyteller, for instance. (That said, if using pregenerated adventures, even that rule is flexible - but extensive use of pre-gens is only an option for D&D and a very few other games.)

1 comment:

  1. One of the reasons I refuse to run anything d20-related is due to the amount of rules involved. I was okay with Star Wars (WEG) since it was so easy to run and the same with Cyberpunk 2020. I was okay at getting the ideas for campaigns, organising the required material for play but most of it ended up in the bin as I'm not the greatest of DM's (in fact I reckon I suck) so that's why I never volunteer to run anything.

    ReplyDelete