What is your GM Style?

...

I'm a lot more hands-off GM. I build the world, arbiter, make up encounters and NPCs for the players but i let the players drive the story i give them the wheel let them spin it and i go along.

If a player is having a problem or i have a problem player i'll talk to them and reason with them or boot them if necessary, but i usually just let the players handle it either in-game or out of game. I'll only step in if the argument is heating up, escalating or things are taking too long.

>What is your GM Style?

Fast an'loose, narratively oriented. I want my players to have awesome characters and tell awesome stories.

I imagine a rough outline of my campaign - I always split it into three arcs, that directly lead into each other, but also each have a satisfying ending for the arc's specific plot.
I then create the villains for each arc. Whatever the goals of the heroes are, the villain's goal is always directly incompatible - or the other way around - which creates conflict. Conflict drives the plot. I create more than one villain for each arc. Each has memorable henchmen. Pretty much none of them will be important or survive for more than one session, but the players will enjoy beating the shit out of Gruka the Bard, the amazing singing orc, more than a generic orc berserker.

I then create dungeons, about seven for each arc. They are not very long and can be beaten in one-two sessions each. I despise megadungeons that can last months, my current DM makes them all the time.
Dungeons are directly tied with the villains or at least the plot. There is no "orc cavern number 32", each dungeon serves multiple purposes, and has more than one motivation for the players to enter it - so no matter in which order the players do them, they will always advance in the plot at least in some way.

Nothing is set in stone. Just yesterday I realized that one of my villains would be much cooler, if he actually had another, secret motivation, and if there was a much more interesting expanation for why he's such an asshole.

I always use vague prophecies that can mean more than one thing, because it makes the players speculate (and give me ideas) and take additional interest in the plot. They're told that they should beware of the Black Wolf - is that one of their allies, who has a wolf on his sigil? Is he a traitor? Is that Wulfgar, a man with the black hair? The werwolf they've been hearing about? Somebody else entirely?

I also give the PCs waifus, because it ties them to the setting. You care about saving your hometown way more, if a witch you've been banging lives there.

Pretty much this but I pit players aganst each other for the added conflict. Im also know as a hard dm and have no problem offing players.

High speed low drag fast and loose.

My players don't know the difference and make no attempt to do learn so hopefully they're always convinced I'm using the rules.

Basically this. Just do whatever is cool, make it a challenge but the good guys always win so make sure it's fun for all.

>I pit players aganst each other for the added conflict. Im also know as a hard dm
Should be known as a shit dm though

I do autistic world building and no note writing. I don't pretend/expect my players to read more than the page I give them of background info. After that I figure out what they want to play, like intrigue, raiding, civ building, trading, adventure/epics, and we go from there. My world building acts as a general outline for adventures and leaves me free to change my plans on a whim during session because chances are I have something for them to do, and if not, I do now and so does the world.

On a personal note, I enjoy heavy RP and grit combat where death is a possibility. I haven't shied away from no RP and dungeon simulator though. Gotta start somewhere.

I would much prefer an active DM that pits players against each other than a lazy daisy DM. Would moderation be key? Sure, but going one or the other doesn't make someone a shit DM for style. I like coconut ice cream, doesn't mean its shit if you don't like it.

I run true open world sandbox games, usually hexcrawls set in wilderness environments but with plenty of traditional dungeon crawling as well.

I create matrix style webs of quests that the players can tag into that all interweave with one another at various points.

Likewise they can ignore all of that and go their own way to do whatever they want whether it's personal or group goals if they want but the world will still carry on regardless and the choices they make will have ripples of consequences.

I don't fudge dice, I don't use quantum ogres, I don't create 'plots' or stories but rather let the players create their own emergent narrative out of gameplay. I believe rules are really important as they create a consistent basis for the players actions to be meaningful however I am flexible with them when required within the context of what's happening and what has been established. I am also as clear as possible about information in game so that the players can make informed decisions. If someone is lying I'll tell them, if someone is being true to their word I'll tell them. If I say there's magical swords in a place there's magical swords in that place. If a monsters weak to fire then they'll be told that if they enquire about it. etc , etc. I don't buy into 'gotcha' moments as they're almost always cheap.

It's the type of game I love to play in myself but very few GM's run unfortunately.

I don't say "hey kill that guy over there" but add dissagrements and conflict. It's autsitc to the a group of 4+ randos would go on a leathal adventure will holding hands and sing show tunes. If pvp is justified and rare it should be allowed.

If youre playing D&D which I assume you are the game isn't designed for PVP what so ever though so it's almost impossible to resolve a PVP conflict in a fair manner and everyone just ends up with a bad taste in their mouth as a result

Depends on the setting.

Well more the system and rules.

If the rules are designed to facilitate party conflict , like in burning wheel, it works, but if they're not it just doesn't work unless you drastically house rule it to.

This is my GM style

Bad

Exploration focus with an enfasis in problem solving.

I run off of "rule of interesting" which is significantly different from "rule of cool".

Narrative focus over rules system, using D&D 5e right now (2e prior to that). I have no problem with making mass changes and see the rules as a guide, not set in stone. My focus is the players having fun.

Typical sessions are around 2-3 hours because of the limitations of some of my players. Typical format of investigate/develop/RP in the beginning with larger boss battle at end of session. I rarely use printed adventures as they come, although on occasion I will use them as a source material. But most stuff is purely original.

Typical sessions are mostly theater of the mind, but the ending 'boss' battle is usually a high miniature affair with a sketched out battle field. This is mostly because I have a stupid amount of painted plastic miniatures and I'd like to get some use out of them - I don't consider it a requirement though by any means and only bring them out for the 'big' fight. I have never used miniatures before so this is a first for me, I am pleasantly surprised by how well it is working.

I try to shoot for a semi-sandbox campaign. Multiple possible adventures are presented based on multiple plots. The players choose to do as they wish, with the plots they do not address advancing. They can do whatever they want of course, I just enforce consequences.

I'm gonna samefag for a second to try and get people to look at this thing. I didn't make it, so I'm not shilling myself.

The thing is practically impossible to understand taking it at face value. You have to interpret its intent at every step of the way, which is, imo, how all campaign notes should be and something I seek to emulate in my prep. Trying to read this PDF and figure out what it's saying is basically GM training.

looking at it now.

So it is some sort of GM notes? Not bad I guess.

Some of the things it has closely mirror some of the stuff I have made when I have done my own DM screens. I could see re-working it some for that purpose.

For general 'training' I'm not so sure. Note format that requires interpretation isn't really a very good way to train someone. But I could see it as a review prior to a game or prior to developing a scenario.

I think, as I said above, it would work better as a GM screen with some re-working. Assuming you wanted to focus more on 'reminders on running impromptu adventures' than 'system mechanics' if you see what I mean. Which assumes you have the mechanics down pretty good.

...

Hard and fast. They do stuff, they do stuff. If a player's missing, we go on, no worries. Make the challenges a little on the easy side, because it sucks to lose, and hard stuff drags on.

This guy gets it. Waifus are something that keeps players going.

I wear khakis and button down shirts, an I’m bald. I have no idea what kinda style everyone else is talkin...

I mostly run combat slogs because it's mostly what my party is into. Light investigation to find where the next combat is. Basically I half ass it.

I like your style and I am saving this for later reference.

I start by making a rough theme or stereotype, it could be "Western Gold Rush" but with Space Pirates

Then I create a small number of antagonists who have an aim and a motivation (Note: never put these in harms way unless you don;t mind them dying)

Then I make functional "jobs", because these games work off of objectives. This bit I'll specify, make maps for etc

The rest of it I wing and make up on the fly

I typically don't have a defined mega-plot other than a rough theme, but instead try to pick up on what the players bite at. I'd like to pretend this is me being stylish, but its simple selfishness. There is no point writing up a mega-plot if the PC's hate your NPC's, the mission, their boss, you're just wasting time

I accept that RPG's are not art, the players are aching for screen time too much. The best you can do is try to throw some no win scenarios at them and make them pause for thought. Things like NPC's who want to escape a slaver, but want somewhere safe to go first

I don't see what's hard to get in this, but then again I've been a GM for too long.

This, I've become detached from their paperthin PC's and shitty humor so I don't even bother with making a setting, I just become the world and let them get lost within. Semi-sandbox with a loose story happening that they can jump in if they want to, or become pirates fuck if I care.

Fuck players.

Similar style here, and I hate other GM's games. Freedom's great if you have motivated players.

This is very close to how I run, with a few key phrases changed.

>If someone is lying I'll tell them
Isn't that a bit too much?

I do entirely too much world-building beforehand, but I present to the players only the barest framework of a plot and let them fill it in as we go, improvising anything that isn't major plot points. Fortunately, I've got a good group who are willing to follow the trail of breadcrumbs I leave out.

I've never encountered the That Guys who take a grumpy dumpy all over my game and fuck off to run a store or gang or whatever when presented with a world-ending threat, and I consider myself lucky I've never encountered them.

I hate coconut ice-cream
[spoiler/] And I'm a shit DM

Transparent. I'm of the mindset of not pretending that the purpose of an RPG is to give an outlet for would-be actors or to be taken as serious academic thought experiments like "what if medieval Europe, but dragons?"

Have you ever played a video game with a setting, story, or cast of characters you truly enjoyed? Is your enjoyment of those characters at all tarnished by any gamist thoughts you had while playing the game, or whether you had to attempt to perform character acting into microphone? Trying to tiptoe around the fact that we are playing a board game doesn't enhance the story, it distracts from it. Putting "roleplaying" on a pedestal as a sacred art is completely unnecessary.

This mindset can feel liberating. I can just tell my players a monster has 7 hitpoints left. Go ahead and talk about what level your character is. You're not going to run into that monster at your current level. The boss monster has a +2 item.

The beauty of this method is that is uses human psychology to make gamist elements as forgettable as possible. If you want your players to not think about elephants, the worst thing you can say is "don't think about elephants." By indulging in the medium, these elements are automatically forgotten and it hasn't hurt the story one bit. It has actually encouraged the players to have some agency in how they explore the world and take part in the story. It's super easy to telegraph to the players which characters/objects have something for them to interact with and which of them are "press A for flavor text."

World-ending threats are trite and overdone, I don't get how anyone can get excited about them in 2017 AD.

People treating the game as though it is a game does seem to be a dirty concept but I wholeheartedly agree that it's ironically the best way to become immersed in it and actually roleplay - make decisions for your character as though you were your character. It's literally impossible to do this if you don't have a mechanical basis for your actions in respects to some clear cause and effect which a rules system provides.

Everytime I hear a group gloat that they did an entire session without rolling a dice as this was a hallmark of their superior roleplay ability I cringe inside as they've totally missed the point.

The trick is to build up to them instead of presenting them right away. You don't start the game at level Fuck by saying "The Dragonlord wants to learn the lyrics of the Song That Ends The Earth, there are eight and they're scattered all over the world, go find them before he does."

No, don't fucking do that. There should be build-up, escalation, increasing threats from whatever entity wants to eat the world or whatever. The players might not even discover the true threat until halfway through, or even near the very end of the game. Before the reveal, the players should just be dealing with the results of the villain's machinations, rather than the machinations themselves.

>Oh no, the restless dead are rising from their graves to feast on the living
>Turns out the dead are restless because the Spirit Road, the bridge between this world and the next, has been corrupted by dark and foul magics
>The Spirit Road was corrupted by some kind of cult that worships an evil entity that wants to devour all souls everywhere
>O shit this entity really can devour all souls everywhere, but we're strong enough by now that we can stop it

It depends on the game.

These days, I run oneshots on off weeks. My style for that is a mostly linear adventure with room for player choice that can alter details and even the final results.

Okay that's a bit better, but the final reveal that it was a world ending threat after all still feels stale. Why can't we have nice things instead, like a civil war or something? You can have high stakes without everyone everywhere dying.

> You don't start the game at level Fuck by saying "The Dragonlord wants to learn the lyrics of the Song That Ends The Earth, there are eight and they're scattered all over the world, go find them before he does."

For more fun let the players find a line or two and make them POWERFUL. Suspiciously powerful. And when the players start using them too much and the wrong people see or realize that it is that's then the true final boss starts getting involved in the plot even if they don't realize it.
So while at first they would just have motley crew of bandits harassing when they travel but after they famously save a town with a song suddenly these well armed and organized guys come up to them and demand they hand the line over. Now their contacts are refusing to do business with them and are avoiding telling the party why, they find their food poisoned or the inn catches fire while they are sleeping. This is also when NPCs the players care about start getting kidnapped.

Also foreshadow with a similar situation with a different hero that was a bit before the parties time meeting a similar situation: suddenly they got a ton of power then suddenly her luck took a turn for the worse until she mysteriously loss her power after finding her missing family. Maybe even let the party find that hero and talk to her about it.

Initial prompt to get them in one group. "So, who are you, why are you adventuring and why did you agree to take the contract?"
Things exist in the game world. They won't become weaker or stronger when players approach them.

Because I'm allowed to like things you don't like.

Hip hop.

wtf

Was the player triggered by the game not being skyrim and adjusting to them or something?

Very helpful thank you ill be using it in my next campaign

Now that's just ridiculous.

pic unrelated, I'm not present there, triggering of my players didn't happen (not yet, at least)
I kinda try to hint around, "And what do I do with you when you walk into the main base of the tribe when 4 goblins and a rope left you half-dead?"

More of a referee than a storyteller. Don't get me wrong, I set up plenty of storylines, but I only write down the starting point and let the game dictate how the players complete it. I never write down "This is how the players have to deal with this situation." I just let them have at it and react appropriately. Horde of looters are approaching a town? Do they attempt to negotiate? Do they strike first? Are they going to exploit the town for whatever it can offer to provide protection? Do they decide to join in looting the town because they're a bunch of scoundrels? I don't know and that's what makes it fun for me.

I create an entire world filled with a bunch of locations, points of interest, and "mover" NPCs, creatures or people who have goals and move towards those goals as time goes on. Some are more grand scale while others are more small scale. Behind the scenes, usually in between sessions, I make the appropriate rolls to see if they've made progress. Player intervention changes the course of whatever is happening appropriately, but nothing is bound to happen. I get a few rolls, I determine how whatever I just rolled came to pass, then I reflect that change in my world. I keep track of a calendar with plenty of notes on it so I know what's going on as the PCs are on their merry way. "X is going to visit Y", "Z is beginning their ritual", "W starts plotting revenge against PC #1", ect.

In the pre-game I use a few random background generators as well as the player's own feedback to tie their character to the world. What starts as "I want a guy who is a mercenary" turns into a pretty detailed, layered character by the end of it. Some end up with rather grim pasts, others pretty bright ones. The only thing I usually forgo doing is using a PC's family or friends for cheap drama. Unless there's a situation where someone targeting them makes sense, I avoid it.

tl;dr: I randomly generate a lot, make sense of it, then let the world develop naturally.

Yes, exactly like this. I might even use this plot for a future game.

What types of players and characters do you enjoy DM'ing for?

Mostly hands off but will throw in one "fuck you" moment about once every 5 sessions

Make shit up as I go along and pretend that was my plan from the beginning.

I learned long ago that my players will ruin any actual plans I put in place so I gave up on trying to plan things out, instead I have a general idea of where I want to end up and wing it to find the path there.

I make up a setting and do stuff roughly, no specific NPCs aside of the ones made before a session or to work in the story. I then think of a starting point and a bunch of points it could end and let the players do the middle. I do this within the span of a session, and within the span of a whole story arc, and then within the span of the whole story. If they derail it towards a place completely out of my expectations anywhere, I get happy.

Sometimes I have an idea I am excited about and draw a map for it or something, and then I railroad the players so that I can use it.

Recently we have been playtesting my homebrew thing, and I am for once extremely open with my players, rolling everything openly so that the map works, and letting them see behind the curtain a lot more than I'd be comfortable with before, especially storywise. It's been interesting, we already had players convincing one of them to not do thing because it would make for a shitty climax to the session, and instead do the obvious cool thing. The original intent was making sure the math being tied to story stuff works without gm fiat, but I think I could get used to this.

roll in open
most combat is hard or deadly
players are rewarded more for coming up with unusual solutions than they would be if a straightforward approach is tried
rules lawyering when it comes up is open to limited discussion prior to any adjudication
metagame is not discouraged at all
I find my players are not huge into the RP, and build their characters based on the cool shit they want to do when the time comes. similarly, they are pretty indecisive as far ad the narrative goes, so I will railroad them as needed
I stick to the rules as much as possible, I give them a tough time, so when the moment comes I hope they feel like they earned it

I write a basic outline of several plots I can think of, have notes for various NPCs the players may want to interact with. I'm very improvise heavy but usually start my PCs in combat or some other dangerous situation to lend some narrative momentum.
My first time DMing we had a player in our group who just wanted to derail shit but he'd do it while remaining in character. Im glad I got to play with him because he kept me on my toes and I got a lot better at making things up as I went along.

First I give the players a pretty vague small world which I can morph to suit my and the group's needs and give the players a clear and not terribly risky path to follow if they want while trying to drop in leads to other things which are more likely to get them killed and crippled, but have far greater rewards.

I write a rough outline of the session right before, improvise the rest and try to have fun.
My group usually relies on me making rules clarifications so I can get away with pretty much anything when I want to spice things up. Also I like to use things not written down anywhere to catch the players off-guard rather than stick to some boring and predictable templates.

This is basically the exact opposite of the DMs I've played under in the past, whose style just seems far too rigid to have fun with while on the managing end.

Those two cultist ducks are right!

I always DM for the same set of people (my attempts to bring new blood in were largely unsuccesful), so I don't really know any better, but I enjoy playing with them.
They consist of three fairly people, who are okay roleplayers, but rarely ever take initiative or come up with plans. The other two are the opposite - they are the ones who come up with every plan, they are usually the ones making decisions and they are not afraid of moving against the rails I've set.

And I'm glad there are just two of them - they are very larger-than-life, and often... Disagree, which can lead to them butting heads for a long, long time. Having one or two of those types is great, because they make all the fun for me - but an entire party of those guys would be a nightmare.
It would look something like this.

I'm a fairly new DM. I use published material and make (minor) adjustments, sometimes beforehand, sometimes on the fly. I focus on the story and want the players to move the plot forward. I'm actually a player in a sandbox game right now, and to be honest I think I'd prefer playing something like the published adventures with a clear story, setting and goal. Maybe that's just because I'm still new. I'd fucking love to play Tomb of Annihilation. I feel like sandbox will take ages to get interesting, especially since I'm playing with randos online. We're 4 sessions in.

I think I'm too nice a DM still, and try too hard to make my players have fun. I've been inspired by the whole don't-say-no thing. "Yes, and...", "No, but..." etc.

Doing voiced NPCs is difficult for me because it makes me feel awkward, but I'm trying. I'm still figuring out how I am comfortable handling NPCs.

You and me are the same. i had two wikis at one point, one for a VtM campaign and the other for DND Worldbuilding.

Nobody ever read a word.

open table, books in a pile in the middle, lots of beer and caffeine, open die rolls only

That's a good way to go, trust me i learned that the hard way.

A bad one

I usually do accents instead of voices. I think both playstyles have their merit, but I also prefer to be part, as a player, of a story driven campaing. I guess the real struggle here is to have the story be able to accomodate downtime that allows to explore the sandbox or, better yet, have the story take the player around the sandbox, still allowing time to explore.

It's a delicate balance, but also an effort from part of the gm AND the players.

Make shit up and wing it the entire time.

"So, show of hands, who here actually read the rulebook in the last week?

Okay, great, let's just get on with things, then."

Somebody turn this into a Veeky Forums banner

>enfasis

hand over your GM books and walk away in shame

I try to:
>Maximize preparation
>Minimize railroading
>Provide every character with meaningful connections to the game, while maintaining "realistic" reactions from the world towards them. Essentially avoid having reality focus on the players, while avoiding the opposite extreme of having them be video game protagonists who feel artificial and detached from the world around them.
My GM style is essentially a constant strive towards these three objectives.

>don't aim to kill your players, but do not save them
>give them people, not scripts
>you're always going to be nervous but it's not going to stop you
>it doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be consistent
>the world is always moving

I don't know.

The only other GMs I've seen are either so new that they don't have a defined style I can compare myself to, or are acting in order to make the game more interesting for viewers. I don't consider myself very good but I've never met anyone I could actually sit down and have a discussion about playstyle with.

I'm at my best where players are a band of terrible people, usually of a criminal element, who due to compounding terrible decisions things keep going more and more sideways until the climax of the campaign where the house of cards collapses. I ended up finding I liked this style with Shadowrun, and while the system is way too much of a hassle for me to ever run again, it did help me find the sort of GMing I like. I think my favorite part of it is that once the ball gets rolling I barely have to do much prep work since the story sort of writes itself, and the players like it since they get a lot of freedom and agency to really let loose.

Sure toward the end things get tragic like the party troll's family getting killed because the party got sloppy or in my Blades in the Dark game the Hound having changeling play the dead Spider's daughter that he was too slow on the draw to save, but I have fun.

I set up a starting point, then write down seven or eight possible plot hooks and see where i can go from there as the game progressed

If my players knew how little the shit I have on the other side of the board matters they would probably be mad

Fast and loose and not very well

I'm a PF/5e GM who:
>Spends lots of time worldbuilding
>Uses very few maps, but make them good when I bother to make them
>Devise half of the plot on the run
>Encounters are either piss easy or deadly; improvised half of the time
>Likes Sandbox style games, though has players that have literally told me to railroad more
>Throw optimized Tier 4-5 enemies at the party
>Rule favorably for players, but disallow 3pp unless I trust the player and the 3pp is reasonable
>Run high level content
>Make sure the players like the content I put out

My convoluted plots often include:
>Mashing two or more stereotypes together to make a stranger plot
>Plot twists and red herrings
>Bittersweet elements
>Anime/JRPG influence
>The option to join any side, even the villain's side
>Enemies that run away

My players eat it up. My experienced characters say I'm one of the better GMs they've had.

I don't have a shtoyle!

fucken saved

Honestly, I give them a big objective to work toward (Return this artifact to it's temple, fight this dragon) and then plan week to week what they do based on what the party is doing.

I've been trying to add a little more lethality to the game, but the objective is to facilitate storytelling, not murder them.

Alternatively, I run a lot of one-shots

All the content I prepare is in the form of world building, dungeons, lore, main NPCs ( and NPC intrigue ) and puzzles. How the adventure goes is completely up to the players, I just create the world and let them loose in it. When they eventually explore something that I haven't created, I flesh it out on the fly using some randomizing tools.
The players usually like it and they would never tell that I was sandboxing everything if I didn't tell them myself afterwards.

I make player choice matter, kill people and some law enforcement will eventually get to you and things will get messy. Randumb actions, murderhoboing or injecting your fetish will get the entire party punished.
I try to make combat dangerous but I avoid letting PCs die, If a PC dies I will usually have them come back one way or another.
I also like adding roguelike mechanics to my games, like curses/cursed items, random items/monsters, etc.

I run horror games.

I give my players the benefit of the doubt as long as they're making an attempt to be smart.

I ask them "Are you sure?" before they do anything retarded.

If they say yes, I let the dice fall where they may and accept no amount of whinging or protestation.