What kind of DM are you/prefer to play under

[Trileobe]

Me and 2 of my other DM buddies Vary greatly on how we play god to our little adventurers. I'll start off with (we'll call him Vaet)
(Disclaimer:I've talked to the other 2 dm's prior to typing this and we all agree on what we do right and what we do terrible)

Vaet:
He is a over prepared rule god. He knows every rule ever written and won't think twice about stopping you in your tracks if you action is not acceptable. He spends days preparing for his sessions and let me tell you they are wonderful to play. He basically knows what you are going to do before you even attempt to try it. but he can't improvise he spends so much time looking at the rules and who can do what he forgets pc's have a mind of there own and they are going to try there best to screw up your plans without you ever knowing it.

Tresi:
This guy makes a truly beautiful world to play in. So much rp in his campaigns that you'd swear a dwarf was sitting next to you that you knew for the past 20 years and he was tellign you about his wife back at home. Tresi has every detail of every place memorized. he can even tell you goblin number 2's left eye is slightly bigger than his right. but by the 3 hour mark you don't care about your dwarven buddies wife or why goblin number 2's slightly bigger left eye has any significance on how you plan on chopping his head off. Tresi problem is how much time he will wast with pointless stuff that the player can't tell the difference between a crazy evil book that will give your warlock god like spells and a book of sexy poems (it think all my players would pick up the sexy poem book just so i'd have to read it to them)

Trileobe:
And then there is me, I have nothing in common with these other 2. The most i prepare is making a few maps. My encounters aren't made until bout 15minutes before a session starts and half the time i'll be finishing adding encounters while the session is going. But my greatest strength is improvising i don't care what my players do as long as it seems somewhat likely and fun i'll usually allow it no problem. just today my thursday ngiht group decided that they would defeat my zombie ogres and 2 giant poisonous snakes with ease. (Really they were having 0 problems killing the zombie ogre) so with a little bit of on my toes thinking i brought my snake back into the game by killing him off with the ogre and using it as a weapon (It's now a op slithering longsword that does a little extra +2 poison dmg) of course i allowed my fighter to have it. So my problem is although my players could wander endlessly around the wilderness for days and I'd always have something for them to do I have no idea what a room looks like because i'm far too lazy to spend an extra few hours making descriptions for things (or to read any kind of pre-made adventure. we tried that once with me as a dm was a horrible fail i couldn't stay on script and had no idea about the fight mechanics)

Between us 3 none of us like how the others DM we've tried and we get into fights (I really don't need to know that in front of me apporximately 4' 3" in front of me there is a wine stain on the floor that has been there for 10 years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

So that got me to wondering what kind of DM is everyone else around these parts, and what kind of Dm to you prefer to play under.

[Zacchaeus]

I certainly like to be prepared, I'm not brilliant at the improvisation thing but I don't know every rule and I don't need to describe everything to the nth degree so I'm somewhere in between the three possibilities. My players know that if I describe something in such detail it is important. I'm least like you; I couldn't DM a game without having all of the maps sorted, encounters prepared and on the map. I hate random stuff, so I roll all the potential random encounters before hand and have them all ready. I also have things like treasure all sorted out before we start. I've certainly read the material and know exactly what the PC's are likely to come up against. I'm not a rules lawyer and will certainly make instant decisions on what is allowable and what is not. Players inevitably want to stretch the rules and I'm not adverse to slapping them down if it is too crazy but if they come up with something that has logic in it I'll allow it.

I've rarely played as a player but I would expect the DM to be prepared and know the material. I wouldn't expect to sit for 20 minutes whilst the DM rolls up a random encounter or treasure, or read through passages of text to find out what is supposed to be going on; or indeed spend a lot of time looking up the book to determine the finer points of a rule.

[Niles]

The name of the game should be "fun". No one likes endless debates about rules. I look at the sessions like a movie playing out. You want it to flow and not have too much dead air if the DM is unprepared. How enjoyable would watching a movie like "Lord of the Rings" be if right in the middle of a fight between Aragorn and half a dozen orcs, you heard Peter Jackson yell "Cut!" and he steps in the scene and tell Viggo Mortenson, "You can't do that move, it's just not allowed. Since you shifted five feet this way, that orc should have an attack of opportunity on you." So I play loose by the rules (meaning the foundation of the game is in place and yes, there are rules to abide by) but not so strict that the games need to halt and the most minute moves analyzed. Details are great, but too many can slow down the game too. Storyline and roleplay is what it's all about for me. Keeping my players entertained while keeping the game flowing. That makes for a fun session.

[MihaelZ64]

Honestly...I like a DM that will put game play mechanics above story...it's a game, no roleplay bs should trump gameplay mechanics...I have had dms cheat the numbers simply because they couldn't have that boss or that npc get killed off for their dumb move when I force their hand. I study game design, I know how to break a game, ticking me off usually means I will try to break the sequence and get the party much needed exp usually in the bloody and direct method. Even had a dm get crabby with me because I played smart but because his story didn't allow for it I had to submit or quit. They have told me to be dm before-actually did and got half the players killed, we ruled it as a dream so they could continue no exp yada yada yada- but apparently I am too rough on simple players.

Could also be I like memorizing rules and learning ways to break them-like making a walking cannon in 3.5 that just needs to stay about 100 feet from the combat zone and will kill most everything in it with two turns, but that was me being sneaky smart with a job class, and I enjoy doing such things. It may be called min/maxing by haters who have no imagination, but honestly, if you are gonna have a character that has a weakness, make sure people have to die to get to it or you are just a noob asking for your death...just my two cents on this.

[Full Bleed]

Every GM style has its strengths and weaknesses... as does every player style.

I find that games are more fun to run when I've done more homework/prep. Since most games have inevitable deviations from the best laid plans it's less stressful when you have solid material to back-stop any improvisation. Problem for me is that I usually spend time prepping for 2-3 sessions which, inevitably, end up spreading across twice as many. So by the time we get to some of the later material it's not as fresh in my mind as I'd originally intended.

I also work hard to make sure that players don't feel like they are on rails. I know where all the dots are... But I like the players to feel that there are alternative ways to connect them. The downside to this is that they can sometimes feel a bit lost if they've missed something or aren't making the right connections.

As for RP, I think it's important to paint a picture. And the details of these pictures are fairly proportional to the amount of alcohol I've had up to that point. I'm probably best at the 2-3 beer mark. After that our action-flick has probably taken a right turn into full on drama. As I espouse a roller-coaster style game where pacing, rping, and combat stay uneven this isn't always a bad thing... but some player's attention spans are much harder to keep when they aren't routinely touching dice.


In the end, while I have a particular style of GMing, I think the players are probably the most important part of the equation. They outnumber the GM and can quickly disrupt and derail a game if they so choose (at the expense of all of the other players). Given the amount of stuff that a GM has to do to run a game (and the time/energy they put into it), I find that the real onus should be on the players to choose to grease the gears or throw sand into them. It's their game, too, and no amount of faulting the GM is likely to make it a better one. GM's are what they are... so it would behoove the players to look in the mirror and ask how they can make a game better... how *their* strengths and weaknesses can make a more positive contribution to the "imperfect" game they are engaged in. The fact that the OP's premise is about how 3 GM's don't like how each runs a game really doesn't stand out to me as a problem with 3 flawed GM's... it seems more like a problem with 3 flawed players. ;)

[JohnD]

This is a semi-interesting topic. I'm not sure why I'm detecting hostility in here, perhaps its just a difference in communication style.

My personal thought has always been that there's a bit of an unwritten rule/fiat between a DM and the players. The DM provides the story/setting and the players move through it. Flying by the seat of your pants as a DM is a lot easier in face-to-face than in a VTT environment from the perspective of having content "ready" in your mind vs "ready" in the form of a digital map, NPCs entered, encounters created, etc....

As always, if someone doesn't like the game the DM has taken his own space time and effort to pull together, they should go and sacrifice their own time and effort and be a DM and run the kind of game they themselves would want to play.

[Baron28]

My DM style is that of prepared material with a touch of randomness (rolling on treasure tables, other creatures from nearby rooms hear fighting going on and join the battle, intelligent creatures retreating from battle to get help). I will adjust encounters based on the strength of the party and how challenged they are. I run my creatures at times with a bit more intelligence than their ability score, but hey a DM has to have fun too. I attempt to balance player passive perception with having them rolling a perception check. It depends on what they are attempting to perceive. I also try to help my players by reminding them of chances to take AOO or use a feat which in turn fosters game play with honor because there are times when the players remind me about such things. I am open to hearing opinion regarding a ruling, but reserve the right to make the final ruling. Also, I give my players a lot of latitude if they come up with a creative solution to a problem or puzzle at times awarding inspiration for this. One thing I know I could do a better job on is reading through encounters a bit more thoroughly to understand it in greater detail. My one unwritten rule in game is that a wandering monster party should never get a tpk.

[Moepsii]

I love to plan out the world my players are in and add alot of tables and maps and different ways to solve the story (basicly creating a whole world at once which can take alot of time). Then i just throw the people into it and let them try to do whatever they want. I usally have a basic storyline written but its mostly just the overlal background and i give them some kind of idea what they can do. After that its up to them what they want to do. I make stuff up on the fly and improvise but later i add these discoveries ingame to the actual world they are in and make them a part of it. Since the players "created" the NPC they can remember and relate to it much easier then if the DM wrote it and implented it and forced the people to do something with him. Honestly thou its a bad habit if players just wants to be taken on a leash and get guided through the whole adventeure, I cant really work with that and actually dislike that style. But since iam relatively new to DMing and playing iam just DMin how i would enjoy a session and how I imagine an RPG to evolve.

Rulewise i like to improvise abit if I dont know the rules and give players or NPC/Encounters an advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation.

[bestellen]

Balanced around a few players he's known for years. Everyone else is barely surviving our encounters.