*Thanks for watching!* Let us know in the comments below what your GM style is and your thoughts on the different styles. If you are keen to join in on a game run by myself at the D&D in a Castle event in March this year - check out the details here: dndinacastle.com/ If you are enjoying the current video series then you will love our new book - The Practical Guide to Becoming a Great GM. Head over to the pre-order store to place your order now: bit.ly/3EDNbmK Find each chapter of the video easily by clicking on the timestamps in the description.
It is hard for me to point out my GM style. maybe I am wrong but I'm a mix of RAW and simulationist on the basis that as an intermediate GM, I like to see how many rooms and monsters in a room there are in a dungeon so as to balance them out, but I'm also one that will allow physical injuries in combat. If a character specifically says they are aiming for the eye and place a good hit, then the creature should suffer accordingly as that's what would realistically happen. Not too many players do state how and where they are hitting though, which tend to make combats like a video game boss where stats dictate everything.
I appear to be none of these. Narrator was probably closest, but with a different approach to the “rule of cool”. I don’t bend rules unless the players try something awesome and it is technically possible. Also I haven’t planned the story very tightly. I have three parties crashing through the same campaign and they are not similar other than the locations and world building. Edit: I use all the homebrew. And flavor is always free. Is that a style?
Might I also add the ‘sandbox style’ GM; a pre planned simulation with a scattering of plot seeds and hooks… as the players attach themselves to these hooks, this is how the story progresses, the GM then interprets these new situations and looks for complications and drama to challenge based upon the player action; essentially making it up as we go. A collaborative storytelling process not unlike a writers room for a TV series. Players being on board with this style is also essential! Backed the booked on KS. Looking forward to getting my copy.
Yes, I also thought this was missing. Going all the way this takes you to GM-less games where everybody has both a PC and narrative control, but even if you don't go that far you get the reactive, interpretative style many modern narrative game systems promote. I think this is something Guy might not have much experience with, and if so I think it's a major blind spot.
Sir, what you meant is "The Asspull GM". Im running a pirate story with my friends right now and while i do have a bigger picture in mind, mostly we just follow their shenanigans as i make up a world around them on the fly, going from little things like inventing an easy trap after one of my players casted detect traps or making a sidequest for them after they try to find out why that one old guy is so obsessed with hating rats, or them rolling low on a check to get through a tavern without disturbing anybody in the first session, knocking over some crybaby orcs beer, allmost starting a gang fight in the process, to now having pepe the orc and his captain as their npc crew mates, because they thought he was cute and the captain hot, so they most defenetly need to be permanent parts of the campaign. For the last few sessions they have been doing detective work in a big city to find an incubus that has invaded the clerics mind, disguised as a sailor on sea in need, not for any plot reasons (eventhough i made him connected to that plot) but because of deus vult and are having a blast, with the incubus also being invented just a few hours for the session, because only half the party could play and i needed a "filler" session, which now has become the plot by accidents. There are many moments like this in every session, sometimes with my players calling me out about things being "totally planned, obviously", but they are all having a blast and in the end, thats what counts
I'm Similar. Start with basic information for a location or quest and flesh it out as the party approach or interact with it. Use PC backstories to help build the word. I literally add towns to the map as the party travels.
I'm a "world-building" GM (though usually not a WHOLE world, I would hate to paint it), and it's a blend of Narrative GM, Simulationist GM, Author GM, and Improv GM (I know, not an option). I generally start out with an idea of what events I'd like to see happen in the scenario, I put the setting, NPC's, events, and machinations in place, dump the players into it, and then let them decide (with some nudging) what to do about it. So far I've done three entire campaigns this way, and only one of those came close to going how I thought it would; the others, the players took it in all new directions based on the whims and desires of their characters, and I just went with it. Entire subplots and locations fell by the wayside, but only I noticed. The tl;dr version I guess would be "You're on a railroad, but you have the tools and means to derail this train at any moment and/or switch tracks." I think the important thing is that the players know this is how it is going in.
Simple. Play on forums, messengers or written discord campaigns. Writing things down and taking time to think things through makes it a place for better role playing. In the same time, fightings rules aren't working well cause it takes too much times to launch individually dices. If players post every 2-3 days, you can't wait for every of them to end their turn or the fight might go for months (usually they aren't, cause most GM adapts rules for the story to be less combat oriented).
@Coldest of nights 56 Ehh, in a game where there's a lot of *narriative rules* a simulationist is the one who sticks to those rules closely (even if it offers a great deal of freedom) while the ROC is trying to chuck in D&D-isms because they think +1 swords are cool. In other words, my greater beef with this video is that GM "style" is entirely relative to the narriative contract your game is giving you.
I'm pleased to see my own style showing up. I love being a simulationist. It's more like living in interesting times. Not just being cold. We are approaching this with emergent storytelling in mind with maximal player agency.
I agree that it's somewhere between areas going from dming just one shots to a full campaign I've noticed that I build ideas to the world throw story beats into that world and have them tie with players hardest bit ATM is linking it all
*MY CURRENT DM DEVELOPMENTS :D* *What I'm struggling with:* 1 - I sometimes become impatient when my players are discussing plans and tactics; even when they don't take an unreasonable long time, I seem to feel like I have to keep the game going at a rapid pace ALL THE TIME, sometime to the annoyance of my players. Luckily they guide me when that happens :) 2 - I find it hard to differentiate between when my players say something out of character vs in character. We haven't figured out a way yet how to clearly define this. *What I have recently learned:* Leaving an adventure too open does not work for my party; they become lost and disoriënted with the sheer amount of options and lack of direction, and the game grinds to a halt. I have learned to give players a detailed description of their mission/the area they are exploring, and in addition I point out 3 or 4 points of interest they notice based on their passive scores. This way they have some guidelines as to what to expect, but otherwise they are entirely free to explore the area as they see fit. This has worked out extremely well so far! It creates a sense of "guided freedom" where they're free to act on their own while not being completely lost but not getting railroaded either.
I love your idea of pointing out a few things players notice based on their passive perception! Going to save that idea for when it’s my turn to DM. For your struggle #2, it is super helpful if players use a character voice that is different from their own (which is what my family tends to do). However, I recognize that not all people are comfortable doing that, in which case I’d say there’s nothing wrong with just asking your players if they meant that in or out of character.
@@theladyamalthea thank you for your input Sara, most of my players (and me) have an artictic background, so I'm sure I can provoke them into doing character voices! Especially since I lead by that example as a DM :) I'm excited about you wanting to DM sometime, it's honestly an awesome experience that will yield you a very broad understanding of the game.
Might be interesting to untangle the difference between DMing style (ie how the game is run) vs. worldbuilding style. Your RAW example is a game-running style, but the Simulationist description seems more a worldbuilding approach.
This is absolutely true, I've been DMing professionally for three years and running free games for thirty years before that. And one of the biggest mistakes I made when going Pro was changing my game for my customers. I eventually figured out that going back to my normal style improved the quality of my games back to what they should be. I did lose players when I did this, but the players I kept were super fans and super loyal to me because I was offering a style that most other DMs were not offering. It was not for everyone, but those who loved it, loved it (some of them even joining multiple of my games just to get more D&D time).
This was so well said. The best parts were "the DM style and the player style must meet in the middle" and with an author DM, the players are tourists. Man that's like the best line I've heard in a while, I gotta put it as my signature somewhere (yeah I'm in one game with an author DM with all the problems that brings)
I mean, Im closest to the author dm style until he said that the players are tourist and go down the one path I created. Thats not true. I build up a big cohesive campaign and world. Then I put the players in. And if they miss stuff, I can adjust. Not so that the same outcome is happening, but more so that I can write new outcomes based off on player interaction. So, the part about players being tourists is completely dm dependend.
Different systems are built to support the different GMing styles. As you develop your style be on the lookout for systems with elements that support you. As you get better at your own style you’ll find it easier and easier to recognise the things that the systems do to help you.
Definitely a Simulationist myself, and I've grown into a bit of Narrative too because my group tends to sometimes enjoy it more with a little structure and a few nudges to give them direction. Boiled down to a short concept, I plan my games/adventures by deciding the parameters and players, and working out in each case "what happens if the PCs do nothing?". And then, of course, react accordingly to what they do in the moment.
There's systems that perfectly support the ROC-GM. FATE for example allows for a ROC-GM to be a RAW-GM at the same time, while also handing some of the power to the players in way that's fair to all players. (Rules only cover basic player-GM-game interactions, without giving real meaning to what any given number means.) So I think it's not only GM and player that have to align. But the system they use should align as well. Nothing's wrong with using D&D or Pathfinder, but I think many people are crippling themselves by playing such a system when they aren't into rules and statistics.
Well said. If you're a narrative GM or player, you might want to try something else. Trying as many things you can actually makes you better in all kind of ways. If you don't like it, you can stop it, but at least you know you don't like it and why you don't like it.
I like how your videos are (from what I've seen) impartial and you do a great job to explain the differences between things without saying one is better/worse, that the different ways just are different.
Anesthetic differences should be covered too. Players that want to play sparkle dog anthromorphs in what the gm likes, a gritty realistic dark age Europe won't be happy. A Tolkien lover party and a sci-psi-loving gm who hates elves and Hobbits but loves robots and bugmen would similarly not have much fun. A GM has to be a fan of the characters and often this makes it hard when the players want a story you just aren't into. Narrator + Modular + simulation Prefer light systems
I love the way each one is discussed, but in every category, I'm thinking 'nope, don't do all that'. So watching this makes me wonder how my 'style' would be classified, as it fits into none of these by any large amount. Still good to have something to make comparisons to, and it's going to help plenty of new GMs.
11:15 This is the reason I’m quite the fan of how old school games did modules, they were loosely defined locations and scenarios, and they actively encouraged you to add to the module. Modern modules tend to very much imply to the reader by their plot map style that all these things must happen to get to the next point. And never outright say to new GMs that “hey, you can and should deviate from what we’ve written!” I don’t often do modules, I find much more enjoyment in making my own material, but when I do I find much more enjoyment in the early modules than the modern textbooks of modules. Not that they’re bad mind you just… harder to adapt, which is something I’ve said I enjoy doing.
I had a DM in 2020 who would say "No, you can't go to the volcano until you are at least level 12. And the ghost town? You have to be at least 8th or 9th". So the characters just wandered the plains fighting random encounters for a year of game time. We tried the ghost town early and found out he wasn't kidding. SMH
I'm inclined towards the author-type: but everything I try to accomplish with this is to enhance the roleplaying experience. Yes, stuff happens around the players, even without the players - that's necessary to ensure player choices are impactful and allow them a large degree of freedom in a dynamic world. Say I for instance have an idea of: X will happen. From the players perspective the adventure begins with leads related to X, but also rumors and other stuff going on in the campaign seemingly unrelated to X... players are free to create their own agenda and decide what to do next - from my perspective I presented them with a trilemma where either one of the following outcomes is always going to be true: A - players go to where X will happen -> X happens with the players present B - players do "something" that prevents X from happening -> X doesn't happen C -players do "something else" -> players have their side-adventure; while X happens. The trilemma doesn't limit players choices but possible outcomes of those choices, since it's logically impossible that neither A, B or C will happen, I know where to cover my bases: all I need to do is make sure I all those outcomes work as a story and there's plenty of stuff to do in between.
I am definitely an author GM by nature and have thankfully been blessed with some good friends as players who have helped me continually work toward a more balanced approach without losing my specific style! Really looking forward to learning how to more purposefully grow through this series! -Dan
Ran a couple Modular GM sessions with my family and they didn’t have fun. They’re definitely more Narrators. It was a lack of confidence on my part as I had never GM’d before. Learning a lot from these videos!
I do have a bit of each, but more a Rule of Cool style, my self. I find that I like it when the players go off my script, as much as I do when they take it hook line and sinker.
I see myself as a mix of a simulationist and an author, sometimes using modules and sometimes not - but with an important addition: I never have THE end of the story pre-planned. Players never behave as you expect. It is always at least 2 maybe 3 or even more endings which could come to pass depending on the actions of the PCs. And if my players have a specific outcome they want to achieve, they will get hints how to get there. If they are just playing their characters and want to see what happens - well, then its all about actions and consequences in a more sandbox-y style of play.
My style as GM: The Rules Interpreter: "Hmmm. There is no rule for that. I must write it." (example: chart of places to wake up after thirsty night) The Simulationist: "The world exist and things happens. The players can take part of it or avoid/miss them." (I roll random encounters before play on calendar/map and how they affect each other) The Modular GM: "I will change that a bit." (Adds more stuff) The Narrator: "How do you like to do that?" (Then have a short Matthew Mercer moment) The Author: "That is as far than leash goes." (But it is quite long leash.)
I'd probably call myself a collaborationist world builder. My approach is to have a big idea for the campaign but i don't have much beyond that planned up front. I might have 1-2 sessions planned and a rough idea of factions etc. For the first 60% of the campaign its very high improv reacting to player decisions, but once ideas are in place they are canon. The first 60% expands this way intersecting and developing the big idea. The last 40% of the campaign is then drawing those threads together to the finale. I've tried a lot but just cannot get any interest in planning a full campaign out in advance.
This is kind of my approach as well. I use modules and pre-generated settings, plan a general arc and see what the players do with it. I also incorporate PC backstories into what I offer. I think my players are in for the ride and have no complaints and good engagement, but I don’t exactly know where exactly the ride will end, which may indeed be something that comes up in next week’s video! ;)
My style (so far) = spiral mix GM: " make a fun, fast game for players" ... Author ---> Rules -- > Simulate ---> Modularize ( branches off decision points) ---> Narrative Evolution ---> next cycle, use NPCs to follow branch for the story tracks; every decision point includes at least one branch for the unexpected direction "OK, Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore ... meet NPC: Jester, don't expect many rules; no, no that's gravity, a rule ...you may need to kiss kiss it goodbye for while; PCs must improvise, adapt, overcome" ... PCs get roadsigns and warnings ... and yes some story arcs take the well-worn heroes back to the beginning. PCs can interact using role-play logic to shape rules, tracks, and outcomes. RPG-as-a-party ...
I think my journey has been moving in the opposite direction of being a much more simulationist DM and learning the vale of storytelling. When I started following your earlier videos about using a narrative structure and story telling tools it vastly improved my games in being more immersive for my players. I've been a bit nervous about seeing the move away from that, but am hopeful in learning and improving how to synthesize openess and structure together in a better way.
There is absolutely no reason why more crunch would interfere with storytelling. Some of my favorite systems include 'HERO System', 'RuneQuest Glorantha', 'Battlelords of the 23rd Century', 'GURPS' and Ars Magica' (for its magic). Many of those seem quite crunchy, although rules mechanics like the ones found in 'HERO System' really aren't; once you know the building blocks, everything else starts to make a lot of sense realy fast and there's almost no learning curve left. Having simulationist rules and ACTING (I am, amongst other things, an acting coach) don't really have a lot to do with each other. Immersion, playing in character, acting the part, etc. all have to do with how the GM and the players play, not with which rules system you're using. Narrativist systems also tend to create more confusion and arguments at the player table AND often force players and GMs to link their acting to some kind of rules mechanic, which, in my experience, often hinderd ROLE playing instead of contributing to it. I'm currently writing for (and handling PR) on a game called 'Blood and Doom' by @dicetalegames that's going to be Kickstarted this year and I feel that game hits the sweet spot between both styles of play, so maybe you'd want to check out the social media on that!
I definitely think there should be a "Sandbox GM" style and agree with most of the other comments in that vein. Someone who provides players with a scattering of threads and concepts and adapts the story in response to the players actions and interests. Pros: Responsive to players Creative and unique Flexible Cons: Stories can get lost Easy to lose focus Can lack pull of larger storytelling
One more that I think would round out the non-RAW group is a Collaborative or Improvisational GM. When you involve your players in world building, when you plan right but they go left you just wing it, or when you ask players to describe what's in a town or what their spell effect looks like, this emulates the style of GM who is adaptable and good at riffing off of other people's ideas. It's an essential part of how I run my games and I feel like none of the styles you mentioned really allow for that. The Narrator probably comes the closest but even then seemed to rely too heavily on what the GM expects to happen.
I think I'm primarily an Author/Modular mix. Write my own adventure paths and sessions in advance, write in the player characters once I know them, and run it like a pre-written module.
I am definitely the "Author Type" in first place. I have a very big Story for my players in mind. I love being creative and giving my players an unique world to have fun in. I will have to adjust to my players decision to get them to the point where I would like them to go next to. Good thing that my world is basicly a big seafaring campaign they have to explore so I can always chose where they land next without them feeling too much railroaded. Also there is a big Part of "way of cool" where I give my players an unique item stored with 3 slots of upgradeable themes to costumize their characters to how they want to play them.
My style as a GM tends to be a little more narrative driven but with the narrative focused on the PC's with the greater story being affected by their actions and choices. I also sparingly use the rule of cool for epic moments.
I definitely had negative experience being the black ship at a table were my more strategic, planning and preparation type of playing style was not welcomed by the DMs that wanted me to go to the left then right then take two steps in northwest direction untul i hit the perfect spot to witness how they're story unravels. So i do agree that finding likemind DM or players plays a huge role in having fun and enjoying the game
I tend to be a narrator though I believe we all tend to mix these styles. I think that a cool moment should almost always overrule the rules if the characters truly create the story. To stop an amazing moment from happening because of a mechanic that we control just seems like a limitation of fun. As long as you treat the plays equally and are consistent. I prefer this method.
I haven't even done a game, and I'm fairly certain I'm a Rules Interpreter: fairly RAW, as I use numerics to comprehend things and like realism (You *have* to eat, and you can get sick, but we don't have to play out every bowel movement), but I do improvise, I simply struggle if I don't have more time to thoughtfully come up with something. I *can* be sporadic with pleasantly witty things, but I do need time for slow roasted meat, even if the rice or other things don't take near so long, and you're hungry bow. It's often how I cook, but I've learned to balance my cooking, too! Make food for now, and gradually develop, then slow cook the main meal; and I *really* appreciate your creativity and feedback for me to roll with, but I get lost in my Brother's immediate and instant formation of tiny ideas that railroad everything, endlessly! My Brother is the Author, ...or else, and there is no play, ...only his way. But as a player, he interrupts almost as soon as I start speaking. We didn't get through the introduction .... ((No amount of improvement will ever satisfy *him*.)) I love my Brother, but anyone else, even a professional company, gets leeway for mistakes, but I do not, ...at all. Rant: It wasn't even supposed to be an RP, but a seeking god-mode dungeon crawler, that he insisted on not being story laden. Then, we start, and from "Your character wakes in a forest by a stone wall near to craven's entrance -" Brother's Beloved Knome, Sir Penny, "I lean against the wall with one hand and piss on it!" ("it" shall come to feel like my whole campaign!) I attempt to ignore this and discuss the equipment and basic rules, then move to simple story reason for dungeon - Bro: "Does it do damage?" Me: ~coin flip to see if anything even happens, at all~ "Yes-" Bro: "How much!?" Me: ~rolls only, [he demanded simple and basic], and predesigned combat system dice~ "The wall gives way, crumbling as you fall through". It continues like this and after a series of unavoidable bad choices and terrible dice rolls (unknowingly jankie dice app -- get physics based "Dice" by 7pixle, it's cheap and full custom, except for dice the creator hasn't designed, such as D21 -1), we laughed a ton as I struggled to keep his "Beloved Sir Penny" alive, and even etched out a romantic, adorable, story adventure park I spent the next 2 weeks planning for as I sought to find what was up with the consistently terrible rolls (To test dice and dice rollers, roll 20 to 100 times, look for consistent patterns, then add up all rolls, and divide by number of rolls to see if your dice are, in some way, Middled -- most are, digitally). Bro decided that it was, despite saying he had fun, laughing, and all the hopeful joy as we both looked forward to session 2, "It was the most humiliating experience!", and he hated everything about it never wanted to play another game of DnD again, especially with me as his merciless GM/DM, who was apparently doing it deliberately to make him suffer. Our first DnD tabletop RP game, and the hate endured for /years/, as I could only ever be an evil sadist that was 100% the only one in the wrong, at all, and "[he] and [his] Beloved Sir Penny the Gnome were helpless victims" to my willful tyranny, and he didn't want his poor, Sir Penny to got through that again so he RP'd him privately into Jarlaxle's forever servant. : Rant
Btw, if you (dear reader) happen to be a Narrator/Author GM with players who are also good at roleplay, consider City of Mist (TTRPG). It's rules lite, super versatile, and MCs (DMs) don't need to roll dice at all. Running CoM in D&D settings is an experience
My GM style is a Free Roam style, I create detailed plane interactions and Monsters that relate to these, then I start players off in a place where Lore based geography or horror causes them to turn to a starting zone. Then I slow down their leveling and craft stories on the fly based on what I know from the external conflict. I only plan about 3-4 maps in a 5 mile radii around the party till they finally due to their inevitable bad choices decide to team up to become civilized. Then I plan 3 quests and If they go back to barbarian tactics I just go back to the starting page while having the consequence of quest failure changes in enviroment.
I allow all input to be determined by dice rolls but like a genie's wish I greatly take advantage of loopholes in their speech until they start to make roleplaying fun for everyone.
I've just started to DM for our group when we are a player short on our regular nights. It's been a lot of fun just getting my feet wet with a beginners campaign. Starting to develop storytelling , becoming more comfortable describing scenarios or rp'ing NPCs. I'd like to get more comfortable to the point where the mechanics are more fluid and the rolling of the dice isn't such a focus and the actions , results are. I appreciate the tools given here to use moving forward. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I totally thought you were headed a different way on Modular GM based on the name, but it makes sense. Originally, I thought you were talking about lego-style modular adventures ("Ohhh I like this and this and this", etc").
I mix the different styles. I try to keep mostly to the correct rules without becomming a rules lawer but I plot my campaign over-arch as an Author, plan them as a Module-Narrator and present them as a Simulationist-Narrator. After determining the identity and goals of the Big Bad and the Bigger Badder, I only plan out one adventure at a time, see how the Players play them, what the results are, what NPC interaction yield what kind of new allies and enemies, etc, and then plan out how the Big bad and Bigger Badder respond to the PLayers messing with their plans as I plot the next adventure of the campaign. The majority of encounters, combat or otherwise, are predetermined for each adventure, so I don't have to slow down the game with rolling on generator tables (I roll the tables before the game starts as part of the preparing) but have tables at the ready for when the players pull something I didn't plan for and I suddenly need an unplanned random encounter (I have learned to always have for each town half a douzen of merchants drawn up along with their shops and homes, as well as a whole D% table of tavern patrons with pocket contents because our Rogue Player will ALWAYS try to make some coin on the sly, but any and all rumours they might overhear in the taverns or on the market will always thread into the current adventure).
I noticed why I was not enjoying my playtime with my original group. The GM was very modular and very inflexible, roleplaying within those confines was hard. I'm now becoming my own GM and I guess I would be more of a narrator, the rules are more guidelines in my opinion.
I'm primarily a rules interpreter, simulationist, and modular GM, in more or less equal amounts. I typically use the rules as written, though I'll throw in an occasional rule of cool moment, usually in the form of "How do you want to do this?" I'm trying to get better about those moments something happens that isn't covered by the module, but it's a struggle. For instance, my party is currently at a previously-defeated dungeon. While they did clear it out, they did not take out the cult controlling it, and so they've moved back in and I'm not sure how to handle the return.
Author, Narrator, and I've acquired some elements of Rules Interpreter as I tried to balance my style. The rules provide a foundation for what can and cannot be done but if the rules produce something that doesn't make sense for the story, the story gets right of way. I've butted heads with both grognard Simulationists who believe that Numbers Are God and That Guy players that just want a personal power fantasy but I've found that the Modular GM has quickly become the bane of my existence. A good Author-style GM does eventually learn to give himself a little wiggle room for player creativity, focusing on designing challenges that can be approached from a number of different ways and letting the players figure it out. A Modular GM lives and dies by the strength of his modules. If the modules are garbage (as has been pretty much every last Starfinder Adventure Path since Dead Suns,) then the Modular GM will be garbage as well unless he learns to improvise... quickly.
I think I'm a bit of simulation and narrator. I make big complicated worlds and throw a large amount of players in at different places depending on the goals they have. I've been doing this ever since I was 9 and it's worked out really well. I avoid stats like the plage lol, I've never used more than a d6 and usely just play rock paper scissors. It's all about creativity!
Looking forward for the next video on Bad GM's I am more like a Module GM and I always try to add a bit of my own to the game. It is railroad at some level but I try to keep my players as much free as possible, and I always keep asking them for feedback.
I feel like I'm a narrator/author/rules interpreter. I have the outline of what I want from the story, which is epic in scale, then I add some of the first few adventures, doing my best to leave them as open ended as possible, and I then use the rules to then tell that story, but I do allow slight bending of the rules, provided it is fair and fun for my fellow players.
I'm thinking I primarily base myself on the rules. I'm not a "letter of the law" person, but I try my best to deliver on the intent. Btw, I'm seriously enjoying the advice here. I'll do my best to improve on my GMing style.
I use the rule of cool when i think it would flavor the story. The players will go for something and i'll suggest something to facilitate it. For example, i had a player want to do a spin to win move with his giant greatsword. I said he could hit two creatures with 1 hit using his two attacks at once. A big risk big reward action where if he misses his hit he misses both of his attacks. Of course my players know that ill go by the rules of combat most of the time, but will flavor combat when i can get a good opporitunity to do so.
Oh man, I'm primary Interpreter with Narrator. I'm actually best as a last minute "DM had something come up, wanna run a one-shot?" but I'm weak at full campaigns. Though I'm pretty good at randomly generating a setting and rolling with it. I actually started a Round-Robin campaign where I set up Town and Vibe, then passed it off to other DMs with other styles. 2nd DM (who is probably a Interpretor/Simulator, she's best at translating narratives into systems) made a cool little dungeon, 3rd DM took like... a throw away line from that dungeon and turned it into an entire adventure path (He is unsurprisingly an Author. Later that f*cker took Avernis and we played in it using his indie system)
I think to put it simply if you are obsessed with rules there are better games to play. I want people at my table to feel like characters in a world not players in a game. Having a strong foundation in rules is important but if something makes sense that it would happen in the world then it should be done. Your characters dont have a magical book that tells them everything they need to know, they are breathing feeling people in a world of mystery and grandeur.
Not sure which video it was, but I love the advice you have and is already making it easier to write a story. I make a goal or puck a creature and it has a goal the rest fall into place. It so much easier then trying to find a way to make then fight something.😁 I don't know if that is explain correctly, it fits in my head though.
D&D... in Castle...!? Congrats. -- Thank you for the advice in this Video; I'm made much more aware of GM Styles, & I will certainly take this advice to heart --
I actually like playing with all different types of GM styles, as long as there is an understanding of what's expected of everyone before beginning to play.
I'm a mix of rules interpreter and narrator as I have a grand story and am all for roleplaying, yet also understand the importance of rules and see those rules as a tool for me and the players to achieve our goals yet I ussually dont allow the rules to take center stage cause I understand them as tools and also as I always like to quote "The code is more guidelines, than actual rules"
I will be looking forward to watching the next video on GM styles. I will be running a game in the near future and I do not wish to make the same grievous mistakes again.
14:00 I would argue this IS necessarily against what RPGs are about, because at that point you aren’t playing a role-playing GAME, you’re just role-playing. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing it’s just an entirely different thing.
I like your description of simulation gm, that’s more or less my style with minor tones of authoring and a moderate amount of interpretation. A few minor rules adjustments usually expansions more than overrides, like more rules for ritual casting and crafting etc
I can't say I've found myself in these categories. I run self-made worlds which have a pre-set hooks and conflicts and I go the sandbox way. I have an "adventurer's guild" in the setting and throw a bunch of different kinds of quests on the players relevant to their level that they can pick from if they want to. And basically let them, to an extent, show me in practice what kind of game they are looking for - something I then build on. I build a story for the world and let them live in it in however they find interesting. I tend to readjust/rewrite the world based on what characters players come up with. I keep to the rules but if players want something to be possible for the cool factor, I will make it a part of the rules from then on. (So the same cool stuff they just did? Well that is how the world works now and other people can do that as well.) So kinda Simulationist but not really. And Kinda Author but not really. And kinda ROC Narrator but not really. I dunno. Narrative Sandbox? Pick your own adventure? Tailor. How about a Tailor. Cause I do a whole lot of Tailoring of the world and events around the player characters and player choices.
I've only recently discovered these videos (as I've only recently started playingnD&D), and they are great! Looks like my work productivity is gonna take a dip😂
I look forward to next weeks video as well to maybe pickup and fix some of my potential bad GM habits. That said I find the Modular GM role to be the single hardest one to apply. That's a lot of knowledge required to impromptu fix or patch the mod your currently running to make sure it doesn't burst at the seams when the party decides shenanigans are necessary. Which of course always happens. Mad respect to those who have that sort of work ethic and dedication.
I'm a cross between Narrator and Simulationist, but with one caveat..... I walk into my sessions with a pre-built environment and some bulletpoints of a session plan yes... but I have literally zero when it comes to non-important NPCs, random NPC names, or any backup plan whatsoever if players refuse to bite the hook. I just improv the whole thing 90% of the time just reusing and reskinning statblocks. If I introduce the players to the seedy, dangerous part of a big city, then one combat encounter later they simply just leave the place and now the planned infodump NPC who was at a tavern in that part of town is left hanging and the PCs didn't get the info they needed, I just formulate another way for them to get the info on the fly. Say they were looking for clues about a serial murderer, and they were to meet a witness who was in hiding, but the PCs simply did not go to meet the witness anymore. Ok. The PCs will witness a murder happening themselves, then a chase begins. Is the one who committed the murder they saw was the same person they were looking for? Hell if I know. Will they even catch the person in the first place? Dunno. I just roll with the punches.
I always thougt I was a rules interpreter because I'm very RAW because I almost never homebrew mechanical stujff like Races, classes and so on but after this video I think I'm actually a Narrator GM first by a pretty big margin
See, I started as a rules interpretor/author combo, but as I went through .y quest to perfect my GM style, I started working in some narrative and simulationist in some flavor Now my approach for rules is what I called RAW+; I try to stay as true to RAW as possible, but I will make minor tweaks as it makes sense, and if the players want to try something that isn't covered by RAW, but isn't forbidden and feels good in the story, I'll make ruling that's informed by similar things in the rules. If the game needs changes to rules or new rules to support the themes of the story my players and I want to tell, I'll draft up a house rule, and my players discuss it, we make revisions if needed, and then vote on it. -as far as story, I've let go on having it go the way I want and making the players follow the points I want them to. Now, I plan what the villains want and what they do and let the players react as they want. After the session is done, I figure out how the villain(s) are impacted, and then march their progress ahead based on it. This is where the simulationist bit I mentioned comes in; the villain has a plan, and they work to achieve it. If they players don't stop them, they will eventually succeed and become a problem for the players, but outside of that, they are free to approach their adventuring however they want. They can also get themselves in over their heads, but I also developed disengagement rules based on the chase rules, allowing them a reasonable chance to flee even much bigger and nastier enemies. -I used to have a story written start to finish and knew basically everything I wanted to happen, but now I focus more on characters; both PCs and villains. The PCs will act as they want, the villains will act as they want, and how they interact changes how the story flows. Usually, I open up deciding together with my players the type of game to play (epic heroic fantasy, gritty sci fi, an idealist tale of normal people making a small scale improvement on society, etc), but I wait until after character creation and a few sessions in before really solidifying any serious, long term villains, so that I can make some that the PCs will actively *want* to thwart. After all, why spend energy trying to force players to attack the bbeg with vague and grand scale conquer/destroy the world when I can just make Grimscythe the rogue gaf by saying the bbeg is responsible for his orphaning by killing his parents for political gain?
I'm a very new GM so I'm very Modular at the moment. Because I'm still learning how to be a GM, straying too far from whats written is a bit scary for me since I don't want to accidentally cause a detrimental ripple effect. But I do have a little wiggle room when it comes to RAW, just because I might not fully remember how something works and I don't want to bog everything down with looking things up all the time so I'll just roll with whatever feels right.
I'm more Simulationist but there is room to embellish. I like games like Fallout 1 where the party can sometimes run into higher level enemies. If they manage to defeat them by tooth and nail, the higher level loot is theirs and feels like a milestone accomplishment. I would make very high level encounters very rare (maybe 5% chance) but not impossible, and one level higher enemies about 30-40% depending on players' skill. I am already working out a random table for each biome to spawn region specific enemies at random levels.
Well, thanks for this. It clears up a lot for me and highlights some errors in my GM style. I guess I'm rather a narrator, maybe a bit of a simulation GM. But the story is what attracts me.
This is a very interesting video. I appreciate the introspection. Look forward to your next video I’m always working towards being better. I’m definitely a healthy mix of several of these at the moment. But if author in terms of world building and having a large campaign, but the way I’d interpret modular for myself is that I take the modules or the stories to tie into the backgrounds of my characters and mold them so I can introduce them as needed. It’s been fun so far. I can feel myself getting better I’ve been DMing for almost a year now and honestly it’s one of my favorite things.
personally, I take a good chunk of the author and narrator, however, I don't base my grand story on preconceived ideas and world, but rather of the direction that my players are taking. I like to call it tracking style GM, where like a missile, you track a target and try to expect where its current direction takes it, changing my grand plan according to that. I also follow rules, but they are generally voluntarily laxx. my players know that they have a range of possibilities depending of the rolls that they get, and this is precisely why I love D100 so much. You can scale just how much your player succeed, and act or embellish accordingly. The advantage is that I have the grand story of an author without railroading my players too much because the outcomes I project are never interpreted as the only possible outcome, only the most probable. If my players befriend the enemies instead of killing them, I'll have likely planned on it and written on how I'm going to handle it. When my players do something really unexpected, I improvise while recording what I'm doing, and the next session, I have built upon what we did, and I'm ready to carry on. The downside is that about 35 to 45% of what I write at most is actually used. But if, like me, you love writing and imagining theses possibilities as much as I do, it really isn't much of a downside. and it also teaches you very early to kill your darlings. If the players didn't go that way, they didn't and that's that. Either I recycle the writing in some way of just dump it completely. and that's fine.
So for myself, I'm something of a simulationist/author for the most part. While I tend to look towards RAW, I allow rule of cool in exceptional circumstances, particularly when they're on track with my written narrative.
Interesting. I am definitely a mix of styles. I am an author-style primarily, but I would never dream of forcing PCs down an avenue. Instead, I learn what the PCs are seeking and place those things at the end of that avenue so that they are motivated to go that way, but never forced. Also, I am somewhat of a RoC narrator, but I would never ignore monster hp so that they only die when it's cool. In that aspect, I am a simulationist. I despise fudging.
The Author - look for 'DM of the Rings' web comic (haven't read, but I know it exists) The Narrator - look for 'Darths and Droids' web comic (PCs constantly go off the rails, GM has to adjust by learning to not plan ahead too hard)
I do some Rules Interpreting - though I never fall back on "Dem's da Rules", I let the old cogs spin *fast* and come up with explanations for why something is as the dice said. "The village doesn't have a blacksmith? It's, hm, because she passed away last week. Her widow's just coming home from the funeral right now." I do a bit of Simulationism - though only partially; while there will be areas that are pre-established as particularly hazardous for one reason or another, those areas will be very clearly flagged as such. "No, people go into Baledragon Valley every now and then. It's just that no-one comes out alive." The players will have to make an effort to get into the high-lethality places like that, but mostly, there's going to be enough *interesting* stuff anywhere else... I'm definitely not a Modular GM, though. Currently running Rime of the Frostmaiden, by request, and it's the first pre-made adventure I've run since... I think I ran a pre-made Call of Cthulhu adventure back in the late nineties? And I'm dropping all sorts of extra stuff into the campaign, too, like NPCs who complain about how they can't perform in battle like they used to in earlier editions (like the Bag'o'Rats fighter, or the greatsword dual-wielder from third edition)... Narration, though? Naaaaah,, I'm willing to allow some wiggle room, and I'll allow some applications of Rule of Cool, but generally there'll be some cost to it, whether that cost is that the player is clearly informed it's a one-off deal because it'll get stale fast, or that there's a mechanical requirement to pulling it off, like hit points, or Inspiration, or a minimum result on the proficiency die if using that variant rule, or yadayadayada. Some things are just too cool to deny *in context*, but won't be viable as a regular thing. Author, now that one is... not quite right, either. I don't necessarily get quite so Grand Plan-railroady... I think you've omitted one aspect I tend to rely on a lot. And it *works*, too. There's a fair bit of all but Modular GMing, with some rough concepts for the world, and a few plot hooks so the party can pick and choose what they want to do... and the world adapts to their actions. The story, to a great extent, writes itself, and although villains may plot and scheme in the background, it's the players' decisions that shape the narrative. One of the characters wants to find a powerful weapon? The party can try researching it, or maybe overhear a tall tale in a tavern, and they've got somewhere to start searching. Might be a red herring, might not; the party could as likely unearth a long-forgotten tomb to find that the weapon they heard tell of was in fact a psion - a "Soulknife". Or it could be a magical sword with an enigmatic engraving on the blade, just beneath the hilt... It's far more reactive, and less random table-reliant than the Rules Interpreter or Simulationist... Or is that one of the GM styles you plan to warn against next week? ;)
I'm trying to be the narrator and I'm trying to (and sometimes failing at being the author). I treat the rules as guide lines most of the time, and I have a dislike for modules because I feel that if you tell a story, it's more honest and true of it's your own. But they is me. 😁
i like the idea of writing a story and create like a map (generally a country or a continent), and the players can wander and do their own quests on this map, so i try to prepare for a bit of everything and if they start to do my central plot i would be very happy, but it's not a thing that they must do. the rules are super bendable too, but all the stats of monsters like enemies and allies are absolute, i love rule of cool but it has to be cool within the pre-made monster stats.
I mostly run VTM. I use preplanned modules as inspiration, but never used them directly. Comparing my style to the ones from this video I am deeply simulationist with the mercy and goal of a narrator and need to keep me in check to not get too author-like. I am preplanning my worlds, the major stakeholders and forces and their motivation. Then the players are tossed into those schemes and can actively participate or shape them. If the players will not take part, the schemes would end in the preplanned results and change the setting for the players accordingly (new rulers, power structures, allies, enemies, etc.) I try to find captivating stories for the heroes regardless. My motivation is to live through my scenarios with the players to see it changed or resolved by us all. The story is the most important goal for me, the simulation is my tool to be prepared and adjust to unforeseen actions. And when are player actions foreseeable :)
I'm the exact same way, just in a dnd setting instead. I've not run many other system preplanned stories, at least not large ones, but I think if you tried to run the majority of dnd 5e modules as written you're gonna be in for a bad time.
Secret dm style. The shonen descriptor. For when your story is bare bones and your grasp of the rules is limited. You can distract your players from your cardboard world by giving them cool or detailed descriptions of how everything they do is efficient or powerful.
I feel like there may be one missing, which I'd call the Sandbox GM. They don't have pre-planned scenarios or a story/plotline structured out or and 'End Game' - they have a world, and the various forces at work in that world, but the players 'create' the story and co-author it based on their various interests, backstories, and contributions. This strays from the 'Narrator' because the players are the heroes of their own stories, but not as the heroes of the world, precisely. They can and should feel free to get caught up in larger forces at work in the world - but their actions have world-altering effects, and the DM adapts to reward and/or punish the characters with the in-world consequences of their actions based on the reason and logic of the world (NOT in pursuit of a main quest line). Armies invading countries, religious conflicts, political jockeying, random NPCs who have bizarre needs or motivations... It's also not 'Simulationism' since the scenarios are, for the most part, fluid and improv'd. As long as the DM knows their world and their lore (borrowed or homebrewed) they can procedurally generate the world out in front of the players consistent with the vibe. The DM can also take into consideration the character levels, current attitude/energy, and the narrative elements to adjust the flow... has there been tons of combat lately and it's all attack roles? Maybe throttle back the tempo and throw in some side-elements that permit some more roleplay and interactions. This is also not RAW because it's the DM selecting what seems appropriate or fun or best of all - meaningful, for a particular encounter or scene. The biggest thing about Sandboxing (to me) is NOT the lack of story (or should I say meaning) - - it's the freedom and ability to find and make your OWN story alongside the other players. It's not ROC (Rule of Cool) so much as Rule of Relevant or Rule of Meaningful... And I as the DM get just as much fun out of seeing what happens and what's around the next corner, and how it will be impactful to the characters - as the players do. ((In my defense, before I'm attacked and belittled by the Keepers of the Internet (or D&D) - I run regular games, I've never really had a player NOT enjoy my sessions, and I've recruited dozens of people to tabletop roleplaying through one-shot experiences and really awesome fun. So I have abundant first-hand experience that ^ this - Sandbox DMing - works very well and everyone at the table has a great time.))
Hey guy! I am absolutely grateful for all the amazing work you've been putting in this channel. Can you please make a video about the best free resources for GMing? I am a GM from Syria (where there are no WotC shops nor bank accounts to buy stuff online)
Me and my husband and 4 other friends are going to be at D&D in a Castle the end of March. Mark Meer is our GM. Are you going to be conducting any of the one-shots?
I'm mostly narrator with a bit of author. I tend to have epic backstories, which will go on whatever the players do, and then I will co-create a story based on player input, which can turn everything upside down. Every style thats in the way of my creativity feels bad. If a player wants to jump on a chandelier and swing across the room I'll do the heck and spoil that with rules discussions.
*Thanks for watching!* Let us know in the comments below what your GM style is and your thoughts on the different styles.
If you are keen to join in on a game run by myself at the D&D in a Castle event in March this year - check out the details here: dndinacastle.com/
If you are enjoying the current video series then you will love our new book - The Practical Guide to Becoming a Great GM. Head over to the pre-order store to place your order now: bit.ly/3EDNbmK
Find each chapter of the video easily by clicking on the timestamps in the description.
It is hard for me to point out my GM style. maybe I am wrong but I'm a mix of RAW and simulationist on the basis that as an intermediate GM, I like to see how many rooms and monsters in a room there are in a dungeon so as to balance them out, but I'm also one that will allow physical injuries in combat. If a character specifically says they are aiming for the eye and place a good hit, then the creature should suffer accordingly as that's what would realistically happen. Not too many players do state how and where they are hitting though, which tend to make combats like a video game boss where stats dictate everything.
I appear to be none of these. Narrator was probably closest, but with a different approach to the “rule of cool”. I don’t bend rules unless the players try something awesome and it is technically possible. Also I haven’t planned the story very tightly. I have three parties crashing through the same campaign and they are not similar other than the locations and world building. Edit: I use all the homebrew. And flavor is always free. Is that a style?
Might I also add the ‘sandbox style’ GM; a pre planned simulation with a scattering of plot seeds and hooks… as the players attach themselves to these hooks, this is how the story progresses, the GM then interprets these new situations and looks for complications and drama to challenge based upon the player action; essentially making it up as we go. A collaborative storytelling process not unlike a writers room for a TV series. Players being on board with this style is also essential!
Backed the booked on KS. Looking forward to getting my copy.
Yes, I also thought this was missing.
Going all the way this takes you to GM-less games where everybody has both a PC and narrative control, but even if you don't go that far you get the reactive, interpretative style many modern narrative game systems promote.
I think this is something Guy might not have much experience with, and if so I think it's a major blind spot.
Sir, what you meant is "The Asspull GM". Im running a pirate story with my friends right now and while i do have a bigger picture in mind, mostly we just follow their shenanigans as i make up a world around them on the fly, going from little things like inventing an easy trap after one of my players casted detect traps or making a sidequest for them after they try to find out why that one old guy is so obsessed with hating rats, or them rolling low on a check to get through a tavern without disturbing anybody in the first session, knocking over some crybaby orcs beer, allmost starting a gang fight in the process, to now having pepe the orc and his captain as their npc crew mates, because they thought he was cute and the captain hot, so they most defenetly need to be permanent parts of the campaign.
For the last few sessions they have been doing detective work in a big city to find an incubus that has invaded the clerics mind, disguised as a sailor on sea in need, not for any plot reasons (eventhough i made him connected to that plot) but because of deus vult and are having a blast, with the incubus also being invented just a few hours for the session, because only half the party could play and i needed a "filler" session, which now has become the plot by accidents.
There are many moments like this in every session, sometimes with my players calling me out about things being "totally planned, obviously", but they are all having a blast and in the end, thats what counts
As a tabletop game designer, this is where some of the best lore comes from.
I'm Similar. Start with basic information for a location or quest and flesh it out as the party approach or interact with it. Use PC backstories to help build the word. I literally add towns to the map as the party travels.
@@julianvell8463 That is exactly what I do as well xD shenanigans power much xD
I'm a "world-building" GM (though usually not a WHOLE world, I would hate to paint it), and it's a blend of Narrative GM, Simulationist GM, Author GM, and Improv GM (I know, not an option). I generally start out with an idea of what events I'd like to see happen in the scenario, I put the setting, NPC's, events, and machinations in place, dump the players into it, and then let them decide (with some nudging) what to do about it. So far I've done three entire campaigns this way, and only one of those came close to going how I thought it would; the others, the players took it in all new directions based on the whims and desires of their characters, and I just went with it. Entire subplots and locations fell by the wayside, but only I noticed. The tl;dr version I guess would be "You're on a railroad, but you have the tools and means to derail this train at any moment and/or switch tracks." I think the important thing is that the players know this is how it is going in.
These are some of the best, most thoughtful role-playing videos on UA-cam.
I'd like to see more on running less combat focused games.
Yes. HTMABGM is my top one of RPG how to channels. 😁
@@MakCurrel Guy is S tier along with Matt Colville and Seth Skorkowski
@@jeffreyadamo those two I don't know. I must investigate.
Simple. Play on forums, messengers or written discord campaigns.
Writing things down and taking time to think things through makes it a place for better role playing.
In the same time, fightings rules aren't working well cause it takes too much times to launch individually
dices. If players post every 2-3 days, you can't wait for every of them to end their turn or the fight might go for months (usually they aren't, cause most GM adapts rules for the story to be less combat oriented).
@Coldest of nights 56 Ehh, in a game where there's a lot of *narriative rules* a simulationist is the one who sticks to those rules closely (even if it offers a great deal of freedom) while the ROC is trying to chuck in D&D-isms because they think +1 swords are cool.
In other words, my greater beef with this video is that GM "style" is entirely relative to the narriative contract your game is giving you.
I'm pleased to see my own style showing up. I love being a simulationist.
It's more like living in interesting times. Not just being cold. We are approaching this with emergent storytelling in mind with maximal player agency.
I agree that it's somewhere between areas going from dming just one shots to a full campaign I've noticed that I build ideas to the world throw story beats into that world and have them tie with players hardest bit ATM is linking it all
It will always be the hardest.
*MY CURRENT DM DEVELOPMENTS :D*
*What I'm struggling with:*
1 - I sometimes become impatient when my players are discussing plans and tactics; even when they don't take an unreasonable long time, I seem to feel like I have to keep the game going at a rapid pace ALL THE TIME, sometime to the annoyance of my players. Luckily they guide me when that happens :)
2 - I find it hard to differentiate between when my players say something out of character vs in character. We haven't figured out a way yet how to clearly define this.
*What I have recently learned:*
Leaving an adventure too open does not work for my party; they become lost and disoriënted with the sheer amount of options and lack of direction, and the game grinds to a halt. I have learned to give players a detailed description of their mission/the area they are exploring, and in addition I point out 3 or 4 points of interest they notice based on their passive scores.
This way they have some guidelines as to what to expect, but otherwise they are entirely free to explore the area as they see fit.
This has worked out extremely well so far! It creates a sense of "guided freedom" where they're free to act on their own while not being completely lost but not getting railroaded either.
I love your idea of pointing out a few things players notice based on their passive perception! Going to save that idea for when it’s my turn to DM. For your struggle #2, it is super helpful if players use a character voice that is different from their own (which is what my family tends to do). However, I recognize that not all people are comfortable doing that, in which case I’d say there’s nothing wrong with just asking your players if they meant that in or out of character.
@@theladyamalthea thank you for your input Sara, most of my players (and me) have an artictic background, so I'm sure I can provoke them into doing character voices! Especially since I lead by that example as a DM :)
I'm excited about you wanting to DM sometime, it's honestly an awesome experience that will yield you a very broad understanding of the game.
Might be interesting to untangle the difference between DMing style (ie how the game is run) vs. worldbuilding style. Your RAW example is a game-running style, but the Simulationist description seems more a worldbuilding approach.
This is absolutely true, I've been DMing professionally for three years and running free games for thirty years before that. And one of the biggest mistakes I made when going Pro was changing my game for my customers. I eventually figured out that going back to my normal style improved the quality of my games back to what they should be. I did lose players when I did this, but the players I kept were super fans and super loyal to me because I was offering a style that most other DMs were not offering. It was not for everyone, but those who loved it, loved it (some of them even joining multiple of my games just to get more D&D time).
This was so well said. The best parts were "the DM style and the player style must meet in the middle" and with an author DM, the players are tourists. Man that's like the best line I've heard in a while, I gotta put it as my signature somewhere (yeah I'm in one game with an author DM with all the problems that brings)
I mean, Im closest to the author dm style until he said that the players are tourist and go down the one path I created. Thats not true. I build up a big cohesive campaign and world. Then I put the players in. And if they miss stuff, I can adjust. Not so that the same outcome is happening, but more so that I can write new outcomes based off on player interaction. So, the part about players being tourists is completely dm dependend.
Different systems are built to support the different GMing styles. As you develop your style be on the lookout for systems with elements that support you. As you get better at your own style you’ll find it easier and easier to recognise the things that the systems do to help you.
I'd love to see someone expand and explore this. Actually showing how different mechanics support different gm styles.
Definitely a Simulationist myself, and I've grown into a bit of Narrative too because my group tends to sometimes enjoy it more with a little structure and a few nudges to give them direction. Boiled down to a short concept, I plan my games/adventures by deciding the parameters and players, and working out in each case "what happens if the PCs do nothing?". And then, of course, react accordingly to what they do in the moment.
There's systems that perfectly support the ROC-GM. FATE for example allows for a ROC-GM to be a RAW-GM at the same time, while also handing some of the power to the players in way that's fair to all players. (Rules only cover basic player-GM-game interactions, without giving real meaning to what any given number means.)
So I think it's not only GM and player that have to align. But the system they use should align as well. Nothing's wrong with using D&D or Pathfinder, but I think many people are crippling themselves by playing such a system when they aren't into rules and statistics.
Well said. If you're a narrative GM or player, you might want to try something else. Trying as many things you can actually makes you better in all kind of ways. If you don't like it, you can stop it, but at least you know you don't like it and why you don't like it.
I like how your videos are (from what I've seen) impartial and you do a great job to explain the differences between things without saying one is better/worse, that the different ways just are different.
Anesthetic differences should be covered too.
Players that want to play sparkle dog anthromorphs in what the gm likes, a gritty realistic dark age Europe won't be happy.
A Tolkien lover party and a sci-psi-loving gm who hates elves and Hobbits but loves robots and bugmen would similarly not have much fun.
A GM has to be a fan of the characters and often this makes it hard when the players want a story you just aren't into.
Narrator + Modular + simulation
Prefer light systems
aesthetic* but yes, agreed.
@@raraysaya lol
Autocorrect
@@raraysaya I mean, if your players aren't interested in the world or the system, they will fall asleep. So technically correct?
I love the way each one is discussed, but in every category, I'm thinking 'nope, don't do all that'. So watching this makes me wonder how my 'style' would be classified, as it fits into none of these by any large amount. Still good to have something to make comparisons to, and it's going to help plenty of new GMs.
11:15
This is the reason I’m quite the fan of how old school games did modules, they were loosely defined locations and scenarios, and they actively encouraged you to add to the module. Modern modules tend to very much imply to the reader by their plot map style that all these things must happen to get to the next point. And never outright say to new GMs that “hey, you can and should deviate from what we’ve written!”
I don’t often do modules, I find much more enjoyment in making my own material, but when I do I find much more enjoyment in the early modules than the modern textbooks of modules. Not that they’re bad mind you just… harder to adapt, which is something I’ve said I enjoy doing.
I had a DM in 2020 who would say "No, you can't go to the volcano until you are at least level 12. And the ghost town? You have to be at least 8th or 9th". So the characters just wandered the plains fighting random encounters for a year of game time. We tried the ghost town early and found out he wasn't kidding. SMH
I'm inclined towards the author-type: but everything I try to accomplish with this is to enhance the roleplaying experience. Yes, stuff happens around the players, even without the players - that's necessary to ensure player choices are impactful and allow them a large degree of freedom in a dynamic world.
Say I for instance have an idea of: X will happen. From the players perspective the adventure begins with leads related to X, but also rumors and other stuff going on in the campaign seemingly unrelated to X... players are free to create their own agenda and decide what to do next - from my perspective I presented them with a trilemma where either one of the following outcomes is always going to be true:
A - players go to where X will happen -> X happens with the players present
B - players do "something" that prevents X from happening -> X doesn't happen
C -players do "something else" -> players have their side-adventure; while X happens.
The trilemma doesn't limit players choices but possible outcomes of those choices, since it's logically impossible that neither A, B or C will happen, I know where to cover my bases: all I need to do is make sure I all those outcomes work as a story and there's plenty of stuff to do in between.
Appreciate the way you keep focused on how WE can improve by knowing our initial styles
I am definitely an author GM by nature and have thankfully been blessed with some good friends as players who have helped me continually work toward a more balanced approach without losing my specific style! Really looking forward to learning how to more purposefully grow through this series!
-Dan
Ran a couple Modular GM sessions with my family and they didn’t have fun. They’re definitely more Narrators. It was a lack of confidence on my part as I had never GM’d before. Learning a lot from these videos!
I do have a bit of each, but more a Rule of Cool style, my self. I find that I like it when the players go off my script, as much as I do when they take it hook line and sinker.
I see myself as a mix of a simulationist and an author, sometimes using modules and sometimes not - but with an important addition: I never have THE end of the story pre-planned. Players never behave as you expect. It is always at least 2 maybe 3 or even more endings which could come to pass depending on the actions of the PCs. And if my players have a specific outcome they want to achieve, they will get hints how to get there. If they are just playing their characters and want to see what happens - well, then its all about actions and consequences in a more sandbox-y style of play.
My style as GM:
The Rules Interpreter: "Hmmm. There is no rule for that. I must write it." (example: chart of places to wake up after thirsty night)
The Simulationist: "The world exist and things happens. The players can take part of it or avoid/miss them." (I roll random encounters before play on calendar/map and how they affect each other)
The Modular GM: "I will change that a bit." (Adds more stuff)
The Narrator: "How do you like to do that?" (Then have a short Matthew Mercer moment)
The Author: "That is as far than leash goes." (But it is quite long leash.)
I'd probably call myself a collaborationist world builder. My approach is to have a big idea for the campaign but i don't have much beyond that planned up front. I might have 1-2 sessions planned and a rough idea of factions etc. For the first 60% of the campaign its very high improv reacting to player decisions, but once ideas are in place they are canon. The first 60% expands this way intersecting and developing the big idea. The last 40% of the campaign is then drawing those threads together to the finale. I've tried a lot but just cannot get any interest in planning a full campaign out in advance.
Yeah, I'm the same way. In my mind there's no point in planning out everything. I think it takes some PC agency away.
This is kind of my approach as well. I use modules and pre-generated settings, plan a general arc and see what the players do with it. I also incorporate PC backstories into what I offer. I think my players are in for the ride and have no complaints and good engagement, but I don’t exactly know where exactly the ride will end, which may indeed be something that comes up in next week’s video! ;)
My style (so far) = spiral mix GM: " make a fun, fast game for players" ... Author ---> Rules -- > Simulate ---> Modularize ( branches off decision points) ---> Narrative Evolution ---> next cycle, use NPCs to follow branch for the story tracks; every decision point includes at least one branch for the unexpected direction "OK, Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore ... meet NPC: Jester, don't expect many rules; no, no that's gravity, a rule ...you may need to kiss kiss it goodbye for while; PCs must improvise, adapt, overcome" ... PCs get roadsigns and warnings ... and yes some story arcs take the well-worn heroes back to the beginning. PCs can interact using role-play logic to shape rules, tracks, and outcomes. RPG-as-a-party ...
I think my journey has been moving in the opposite direction of being a much more simulationist DM and learning the vale of storytelling. When I started following your earlier videos about using a narrative structure and story telling tools it vastly improved my games in being more immersive for my players. I've been a bit nervous about seeing the move away from that, but am hopeful in learning and improving how to synthesize openess and structure together in a better way.
There is absolutely no reason why more crunch would interfere with storytelling. Some of my favorite systems include 'HERO System', 'RuneQuest Glorantha', 'Battlelords of the 23rd Century', 'GURPS' and Ars Magica' (for its magic). Many of those seem quite crunchy, although rules mechanics like the ones found in 'HERO System' really aren't; once you know the building blocks, everything else starts to make a lot of sense realy fast and there's almost no learning curve left.
Having simulationist rules and ACTING (I am, amongst other things, an acting coach) don't really have a lot to do with each other. Immersion, playing in character, acting the part, etc. all have to do with how the GM and the players play, not with which rules system you're using. Narrativist systems also tend to create more confusion and arguments at the player table AND often force players and GMs to link their acting to some kind of rules mechanic, which, in my experience, often hinderd ROLE playing instead of contributing to it.
I'm currently writing for (and handling PR) on a game called 'Blood and Doom' by @dicetalegames that's going to be Kickstarted this year and I feel that game hits the sweet spot between both styles of play, so maybe you'd want to check out the social media on that!
I definitely think there should be a "Sandbox GM" style and agree with most of the other comments in that vein. Someone who provides players with a scattering of threads and concepts and adapts the story in response to the players actions and interests.
Pros:
Responsive to players
Creative and unique
Flexible
Cons:
Stories can get lost
Easy to lose focus
Can lack pull of larger storytelling
One more that I think would round out the non-RAW group is a Collaborative or Improvisational GM. When you involve your players in world building, when you plan right but they go left you just wing it, or when you ask players to describe what's in a town or what their spell effect looks like, this emulates the style of GM who is adaptable and good at riffing off of other people's ideas. It's an essential part of how I run my games and I feel like none of the styles you mentioned really allow for that. The Narrator probably comes the closest but even then seemed to rely too heavily on what the GM expects to happen.
I think I'm primarily an Author/Modular mix. Write my own adventure paths and sessions in advance, write in the player characters once I know them, and run it like a pre-written module.
I am definitely the "Author Type" in first place. I have a very big Story for my players in mind. I love being creative and giving my players an unique world to have fun in. I will have to adjust to my players decision to get them to the point where I would like them to go next to. Good thing that my world is basicly a big seafaring campaign they have to explore so I can always chose where they land next without them feeling too much railroaded.
Also there is a big Part of "way of cool" where I give my players an unique item stored with 3 slots of upgradeable themes to costumize their characters to how they want to play them.
I think I'm the only DM who is consistently running modules. I love it. 75/25 RAW to homebrew.
My style as a GM tends to be a little more narrative driven but with the narrative focused on the PC's with the greater story being affected by their actions and choices. I also sparingly use the rule of cool for epic moments.
I definitely had negative experience being the black ship at a table were my more strategic, planning and preparation type of playing style was not welcomed by the DMs that wanted me to go to the left then right then take two steps in northwest direction untul i hit the perfect spot to witness how they're story unravels. So i do agree that finding likemind DM or players plays a huge role in having fun and enjoying the game
I tend to be a narrator though I believe we all tend to mix these styles. I think that a cool moment should almost always overrule the rules if the characters truly create the story. To stop an amazing moment from happening because of a mechanic that we control just seems like a limitation of fun. As long as you treat the plays equally and are consistent. I prefer this method.
I haven't even done a game, and I'm fairly certain I'm a Rules Interpreter: fairly RAW, as I use numerics to comprehend things and like realism (You *have* to eat, and you can get sick, but we don't have to play out every bowel movement), but I do improvise, I simply struggle if I don't have more time to thoughtfully come up with something. I *can* be sporadic with pleasantly witty things, but I do need time for slow roasted meat, even if the rice or other things don't take near so long, and you're hungry bow. It's often how I cook, but I've learned to balance my cooking, too! Make food for now, and gradually develop, then slow cook the main meal; and I *really* appreciate your creativity and feedback for me to roll with, but I get lost in my Brother's immediate and instant formation of tiny ideas that railroad everything, endlessly!
My Brother is the Author, ...or else, and there is no play, ...only his way. But as a player, he interrupts almost as soon as I start speaking. We didn't get through the introduction .... ((No amount of improvement will ever satisfy *him*.)) I love my Brother, but anyone else, even a professional company, gets leeway for mistakes, but I do not, ...at all.
Rant:
It wasn't even supposed to be an RP, but a seeking god-mode dungeon crawler, that he insisted on not being story laden. Then, we start, and from "Your character wakes in a forest by a stone wall near to craven's entrance -" Brother's Beloved Knome, Sir Penny, "I lean against the wall with one hand and piss on it!" ("it" shall come to feel like my whole campaign!) I attempt to ignore this and discuss the equipment and basic rules, then move to simple story reason for dungeon - Bro: "Does it do damage?" Me: ~coin flip to see if anything even happens, at all~ "Yes-" Bro: "How much!?" Me: ~rolls only, [he demanded simple and basic], and predesigned combat system dice~ "The wall gives way, crumbling as you fall through". It continues like this and after a series of unavoidable bad choices and terrible dice rolls (unknowingly jankie dice app -- get physics based "Dice" by 7pixle, it's cheap and full custom, except for dice the creator hasn't designed, such as D21 -1), we laughed a ton as I struggled to keep his "Beloved Sir Penny" alive, and even etched out a romantic, adorable, story adventure park I spent the next 2 weeks planning for as I sought to find what was up with the consistently terrible rolls (To test dice and dice rollers, roll 20 to 100 times, look for consistent patterns, then add up all rolls, and divide by number of rolls to see if your dice are, in some way, Middled -- most are, digitally).
Bro decided that it was, despite saying he had fun, laughing, and all the hopeful joy as we both looked forward to session 2, "It was the most humiliating experience!", and he hated everything about it never wanted to play another game of DnD again, especially with me as his merciless GM/DM, who was apparently doing it deliberately to make him suffer.
Our first DnD tabletop RP game, and the hate endured for /years/, as I could only ever be an evil sadist that was 100% the only one in the wrong, at all, and "[he] and [his] Beloved Sir Penny the Gnome were helpless victims" to my willful tyranny, and he didn't want his poor, Sir Penny to got through that again so he RP'd him privately into Jarlaxle's forever servant.
: Rant
Btw, if you (dear reader) happen to be a Narrator/Author GM with players who are also good at roleplay, consider City of Mist (TTRPG). It's rules lite, super versatile, and MCs (DMs) don't need to roll dice at all.
Running CoM in D&D settings is an experience
My GM style is a Free Roam style, I create detailed plane interactions and Monsters that relate to these, then I start players off in a place where Lore based geography or horror causes them to turn to a starting zone. Then I slow down their leveling and craft stories on the fly based on what I know from the external conflict.
I only plan about 3-4 maps in a 5 mile radii around the party till they finally due to their inevitable bad choices decide to team up to become civilized. Then I plan 3 quests and If they go back to barbarian tactics I just go back to the starting page while having the consequence of quest failure changes in enviroment.
I allow all input to be determined by dice rolls but like a genie's wish I greatly take advantage of loopholes in their speech until they start to make roleplaying fun for everyone.
I've just started to DM for our group when we are a player short on our regular nights. It's been a lot of fun just getting my feet wet with a beginners campaign. Starting to develop storytelling , becoming more comfortable describing scenarios or rp'ing NPCs. I'd like to get more comfortable to the point where the mechanics are more fluid and the rolling of the dice isn't such a focus and the actions , results are.
I appreciate the tools given here to use moving forward. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I totally thought you were headed a different way on Modular GM based on the name, but it makes sense. Originally, I thought you were talking about lego-style modular adventures ("Ohhh I like this and this and this", etc").
Seems each video in this series is even more brilliant than the last, which was also brilliant!
Cheers!
I mix the different styles. I try to keep mostly to the correct rules without becomming a rules lawer but I plot my campaign over-arch as an Author, plan them as a Module-Narrator and present them as a Simulationist-Narrator. After determining the identity and goals of the Big Bad and the Bigger Badder, I only plan out one adventure at a time, see how the Players play them, what the results are, what NPC interaction yield what kind of new allies and enemies, etc, and then plan out how the Big bad and Bigger Badder respond to the PLayers messing with their plans as I plot the next adventure of the campaign.
The majority of encounters, combat or otherwise, are predetermined for each adventure, so I don't have to slow down the game with rolling on generator tables (I roll the tables before the game starts as part of the preparing) but have tables at the ready for when the players pull something I didn't plan for and I suddenly need an unplanned random encounter (I have learned to always have for each town half a douzen of merchants drawn up along with their shops and homes, as well as a whole D% table of tavern patrons with pocket contents because our Rogue Player will ALWAYS try to make some coin on the sly, but any and all rumours they might overhear in the taverns or on the market will always thread into the current adventure).
I noticed why I was not enjoying my playtime with my original group. The GM was very modular and very inflexible, roleplaying within those confines was hard. I'm now becoming my own GM and I guess I would be more of a narrator, the rules are more guidelines in my opinion.
I'm primarily a rules interpreter, simulationist, and modular GM, in more or less equal amounts. I typically use the rules as written, though I'll throw in an occasional rule of cool moment, usually in the form of "How do you want to do this?" I'm trying to get better about those moments something happens that isn't covered by the module, but it's a struggle. For instance, my party is currently at a previously-defeated dungeon. While they did clear it out, they did not take out the cult controlling it, and so they've moved back in and I'm not sure how to handle the return.
Author, Narrator, and I've acquired some elements of Rules Interpreter as I tried to balance my style. The rules provide a foundation for what can and cannot be done but if the rules produce something that doesn't make sense for the story, the story gets right of way. I've butted heads with both grognard Simulationists who believe that Numbers Are God and That Guy players that just want a personal power fantasy but I've found that the Modular GM has quickly become the bane of my existence. A good Author-style GM does eventually learn to give himself a little wiggle room for player creativity, focusing on designing challenges that can be approached from a number of different ways and letting the players figure it out. A Modular GM lives and dies by the strength of his modules. If the modules are garbage (as has been pretty much every last Starfinder Adventure Path since Dead Suns,) then the Modular GM will be garbage as well unless he learns to improvise... quickly.
I often add to the rules and overall gaming content, so the things that we (me and my group) think are cool can become the rules.
I think I'm a bit of simulation and narrator. I make big complicated worlds and throw a large amount of players in at different places depending on the goals they have. I've been doing this ever since I was 9 and it's worked out really well. I avoid stats like the plage lol, I've never used more than a d6 and usely just play rock paper scissors. It's all about creativity!
Looking forward for the next video on Bad GM's
I am more like a Module GM and I always try to add a bit of my own to the game.
It is railroad at some level but I try to keep my players as much free as possible, and I always keep asking them for feedback.
I feel like I'm a narrator/author/rules interpreter.
I have the outline of what I want from the story, which is epic in scale, then I add some of the first few adventures, doing my best to leave them as open ended as possible, and I then use the rules to then tell that story, but I do allow slight bending of the rules, provided it is fair and fun for my fellow players.
I'm thinking I primarily base myself on the rules. I'm not a "letter of the law" person, but I try my best to deliver on the intent. Btw, I'm seriously enjoying the advice here. I'll do my best to improve on my GMing style.
I use the rule of cool when i think it would flavor the story. The players will go for something and i'll suggest something to facilitate it. For example, i had a player want to do a spin to win move with his giant greatsword. I said he could hit two creatures with 1 hit using his two attacks at once. A big risk big reward action where if he misses his hit he misses both of his attacks. Of course my players know that ill go by the rules of combat most of the time, but will flavor combat when i can get a good opporitunity to do so.
Oh man, I'm primary Interpreter with Narrator. I'm actually best as a last minute "DM had something come up, wanna run a one-shot?" but I'm weak at full campaigns. Though I'm pretty good at randomly generating a setting and rolling with it.
I actually started a Round-Robin campaign where I set up Town and Vibe, then passed it off to other DMs with other styles. 2nd DM (who is probably a Interpretor/Simulator, she's best at translating narratives into systems) made a cool little dungeon, 3rd DM took like... a throw away line from that dungeon and turned it into an entire adventure path (He is unsurprisingly an Author. Later that f*cker took Avernis and we played in it using his indie system)
Thanks for a great video! The difference between the Narrator and the Author still eludes me though.
I think to put it simply if you are obsessed with rules there are better games to play. I want people at my table to feel like characters in a world not players in a game. Having a strong foundation in rules is important but if something makes sense that it would happen in the world then it should be done. Your characters dont have a magical book that tells them everything they need to know, they are breathing feeling people in a world of mystery and grandeur.
Hey Guy, just wishing you well. I know the never ending plauge is tough, so I appreciate you making us content anyway.
Well I just added something to my bucket list. Thanks for that.
Not sure which video it was, but I love the advice you have and is already making it easier to write a story. I make a goal or puck a creature and it has a goal the rest fall into place. It so much easier then trying to find a way to make then fight something.😁 I don't know if that is explain correctly, it fits in my head though.
D&D... in Castle...!?
Congrats.
--
Thank you for the advice in this Video; I'm made much more aware of GM Styles, & I will certainly take this advice to heart
--
I actually like playing with all different types of GM styles, as long as there is an understanding of what's expected of everyone before beginning to play.
important to know our options !
I'm a mix of rules interpreter and narrator as I have a grand story and am all for roleplaying, yet also understand the importance of rules and see those rules as a tool for me and the players to achieve our goals yet I ussually dont allow the rules to take center stage cause I understand them as tools and also as I always like to quote "The code is more guidelines, than actual rules"
Very attractive coiffe this video, looking sharp. Thanks for the awesome advice.
I will be looking forward to watching the next video on GM styles.
I will be running a game in the near future and I do not wish to make the same grievous mistakes again.
14:00 I would argue this IS necessarily against what RPGs are about, because at that point you aren’t playing a role-playing GAME, you’re just role-playing. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing it’s just an entirely different thing.
I like your description of simulation gm, that’s more or less my style with minor tones of authoring and a moderate amount of interpretation. A few minor rules adjustments usually expansions more than overrides, like more rules for ritual casting and crafting etc
I can't say I've found myself in these categories.
I run self-made worlds which have a pre-set hooks and conflicts and I go the sandbox way. I have an "adventurer's guild" in the setting and throw a bunch of different kinds of quests on the players relevant to their level that they can pick from if they want to. And basically let them, to an extent, show me in practice what kind of game they are looking for - something I then build on. I build a story for the world and let them live in it in however they find interesting. I tend to readjust/rewrite the world based on what characters players come up with.
I keep to the rules but if players want something to be possible for the cool factor, I will make it a part of the rules from then on. (So the same cool stuff they just did? Well that is how the world works now and other people can do that as well.)
So kinda Simulationist but not really. And Kinda Author but not really. And kinda ROC Narrator but not really. I dunno. Narrative Sandbox? Pick your own adventure? Tailor. How about a Tailor. Cause I do a whole lot of Tailoring of the world and events around the player characters and player choices.
I've only recently discovered these videos (as I've only recently started playingnD&D), and they are great! Looks like my work productivity is gonna take a dip😂
I look forward to next weeks video as well to maybe pickup and fix some of my potential bad GM habits. That said I find the Modular GM role to be the single hardest one to apply. That's a lot of knowledge required to impromptu fix or patch the mod your currently running to make sure it doesn't burst at the seams when the party decides shenanigans are necessary. Which of course always happens. Mad respect to those who have that sort of work ethic and dedication.
I'm a cross between Narrator and Simulationist, but with one caveat..... I walk into my sessions with a pre-built environment and some bulletpoints of a session plan yes... but I have literally zero when it comes to non-important NPCs, random NPC names, or any backup plan whatsoever if players refuse to bite the hook. I just improv the whole thing 90% of the time just reusing and reskinning statblocks.
If I introduce the players to the seedy, dangerous part of a big city, then one combat encounter later they simply just leave the place and now the planned infodump NPC who was at a tavern in that part of town is left hanging and the PCs didn't get the info they needed, I just formulate another way for them to get the info on the fly.
Say they were looking for clues about a serial murderer, and they were to meet a witness who was in hiding, but the PCs simply did not go to meet the witness anymore. Ok. The PCs will witness a murder happening themselves, then a chase begins. Is the one who committed the murder they saw was the same person they were looking for? Hell if I know. Will they even catch the person in the first place? Dunno. I just roll with the punches.
I always thougt I was a rules interpreter because I'm very RAW because I almost never homebrew mechanical stujff like Races, classes and so on but after this video I think I'm actually a Narrator GM first by a pretty big margin
See, I started as a rules interpretor/author combo, but as I went through .y quest to perfect my GM style, I started working in some narrative and simulationist in some flavor
Now my approach for rules is what I called RAW+; I try to stay as true to RAW as possible, but I will make minor tweaks as it makes sense, and if the players want to try something that isn't covered by RAW, but isn't forbidden and feels good in the story, I'll make ruling that's informed by similar things in the rules. If the game needs changes to rules or new rules to support the themes of the story my players and I want to tell, I'll draft up a house rule, and my players discuss it, we make revisions if needed, and then vote on it.
-as far as story, I've let go on having it go the way I want and making the players follow the points I want them to. Now, I plan what the villains want and what they do and let the players react as they want. After the session is done, I figure out how the villain(s) are impacted, and then march their progress ahead based on it. This is where the simulationist bit I mentioned comes in; the villain has a plan, and they work to achieve it. If they players don't stop them, they will eventually succeed and become a problem for the players, but outside of that, they are free to approach their adventuring however they want. They can also get themselves in over their heads, but I also developed disengagement rules based on the chase rules, allowing them a reasonable chance to flee even much bigger and nastier enemies.
-I used to have a story written start to finish and knew basically everything I wanted to happen, but now I focus more on characters; both PCs and villains. The PCs will act as they want, the villains will act as they want, and how they interact changes how the story flows. Usually, I open up deciding together with my players the type of game to play (epic heroic fantasy, gritty sci fi, an idealist tale of normal people making a small scale improvement on society, etc), but I wait until after character creation and a few sessions in before really solidifying any serious, long term villains, so that I can make some that the PCs will actively *want* to thwart. After all, why spend energy trying to force players to attack the bbeg with vague and grand scale conquer/destroy the world when I can just make Grimscythe the rogue gaf by saying the bbeg is responsible for his orphaning by killing his parents for political gain?
Missed your vids, glad you're back. I always learn something to make me a better GM watching your content!
I'm a very new GM so I'm very Modular at the moment. Because I'm still learning how to be a GM, straying too far from whats written is a bit scary for me since I don't want to accidentally cause a detrimental ripple effect. But I do have a little wiggle room when it comes to RAW, just because I might not fully remember how something works and I don't want to bog everything down with looking things up all the time so I'll just roll with whatever feels right.
I'm more Simulationist but there is room to embellish. I like games like Fallout 1 where the party can sometimes run into higher level enemies. If they manage to defeat them by tooth and nail, the higher level loot is theirs and feels like a milestone accomplishment. I would make very high level encounters very rare (maybe 5% chance) but not impossible, and one level higher enemies about 30-40% depending on players' skill.
I am already working out a random table for each biome to spawn region specific enemies at random levels.
Well, thanks for this. It clears up a lot for me and highlights some errors in my GM style. I guess I'm rather a narrator, maybe a bit of a simulation GM. But the story is what attracts me.
This is a very interesting video. I appreciate the introspection. Look forward to your next video I’m always working towards being better. I’m definitely a healthy mix of several of these at the moment. But if author in terms of world building and having a large campaign, but the way I’d interpret modular for myself is that I take the modules or the stories to tie into the backgrounds of my characters and mold them so I can introduce them as needed. It’s been fun so far. I can feel myself getting better I’ve been DMing for almost a year now and honestly it’s one of my favorite things.
personally, I take a good chunk of the author and narrator, however, I don't base my grand story on preconceived ideas and world, but rather of the direction that my players are taking. I like to call it tracking style GM, where like a missile, you track a target and try to expect where its current direction takes it, changing my grand plan according to that.
I also follow rules, but they are generally voluntarily laxx. my players know that they have a range of possibilities depending of the rolls that they get, and this is precisely why I love D100 so much. You can scale just how much your player succeed, and act or embellish accordingly.
The advantage is that I have the grand story of an author without railroading my players too much because the outcomes I project are never interpreted as the only possible outcome, only the most probable.
If my players befriend the enemies instead of killing them, I'll have likely planned on it and written on how I'm going to handle it. When my players do something really unexpected, I improvise while recording what I'm doing, and the next session, I have built upon what we did, and I'm ready to carry on.
The downside is that about 35 to 45% of what I write at most is actually used. But if, like me, you love writing and imagining theses possibilities as much as I do, it really isn't much of a downside. and it also teaches you very early to kill your darlings. If the players didn't go that way, they didn't and that's that. Either I recycle the writing in some way of just dump it completely. and that's fine.
I would say that Im a mix of RAW and simulationist GM, and as a player I prefer those kinds of characters.
So for myself, I'm something of a simulationist/author for the most part. While I tend to look towards RAW, I allow rule of cool in exceptional circumstances, particularly when they're on track with my written narrative.
Interesting. I am definitely a mix of styles. I am an author-style primarily, but I would never dream of forcing PCs down an avenue. Instead, I learn what the PCs are seeking and place those things at the end of that avenue so that they are motivated to go that way, but never forced.
Also, I am somewhat of a RoC narrator, but I would never ignore monster hp so that they only die when it's cool. In that aspect, I am a simulationist. I despise fudging.
The Author - look for 'DM of the Rings' web comic (haven't read, but I know it exists)
The Narrator - look for 'Darths and Droids' web comic (PCs constantly go off the rails, GM has to adjust by learning to not plan ahead too hard)
DND in a castle.... that sounds so awesome! I really wish I could join you :)
I keep on meaning to tell you: LOVE the portrait of you as Henry VIII! Hilarious and dignified at the same time!
Glad you're back
I am definitely the Simulationist.. TY sur
I do some Rules Interpreting - though I never fall back on "Dem's da Rules", I let the old cogs spin *fast* and come up with explanations for why something is as the dice said. "The village doesn't have a blacksmith? It's, hm, because she passed away last week. Her widow's just coming home from the funeral right now."
I do a bit of Simulationism - though only partially; while there will be areas that are pre-established as particularly hazardous for one reason or another, those areas will be very clearly flagged as such. "No, people go into Baledragon Valley every now and then. It's just that no-one comes out alive." The players will have to make an effort to get into the high-lethality places like that, but mostly, there's going to be enough *interesting* stuff anywhere else...
I'm definitely not a Modular GM, though. Currently running Rime of the Frostmaiden, by request, and it's the first pre-made adventure I've run since... I think I ran a pre-made Call of Cthulhu adventure back in the late nineties? And I'm dropping all sorts of extra stuff into the campaign, too, like NPCs who complain about how they can't perform in battle like they used to in earlier editions (like the Bag'o'Rats fighter, or the greatsword dual-wielder from third edition)...
Narration, though? Naaaaah,, I'm willing to allow some wiggle room, and I'll allow some applications of Rule of Cool, but generally there'll be some cost to it, whether that cost is that the player is clearly informed it's a one-off deal because it'll get stale fast, or that there's a mechanical requirement to pulling it off, like hit points, or Inspiration, or a minimum result on the proficiency die if using that variant rule, or yadayadayada. Some things are just too cool to deny *in context*, but won't be viable as a regular thing.
Author, now that one is... not quite right, either. I don't necessarily get quite so Grand Plan-railroady...
I think you've omitted one aspect I tend to rely on a lot. And it *works*, too.
There's a fair bit of all but Modular GMing, with some rough concepts for the world, and a few plot hooks so the party can pick and choose what they want to do... and the world adapts to their actions. The story, to a great extent, writes itself, and although villains may plot and scheme in the background, it's the players' decisions that shape the narrative. One of the characters wants to find a powerful weapon? The party can try researching it, or maybe overhear a tall tale in a tavern, and they've got somewhere to start searching. Might be a red herring, might not; the party could as likely unearth a long-forgotten tomb to find that the weapon they heard tell of was in fact a psion - a "Soulknife". Or it could be a magical sword with an enigmatic engraving on the blade, just beneath the hilt... It's far more reactive, and less random table-reliant than the Rules Interpreter or Simulationist...
Or is that one of the GM styles you plan to warn against next week? ;)
I'm trying to be the narrator and I'm trying to (and sometimes failing at being the author). I treat the rules as guide lines most of the time, and I have a dislike for modules because I feel that if you tell a story, it's more honest and true of it's your own. But they is me. 😁
i like the idea of writing a story and create like a map (generally a country or a continent), and the players can wander and do their own quests on this map, so i try to prepare for a bit of everything and if they start to do my central plot i would be very happy, but it's not a thing that they must do. the rules are super bendable too, but all the stats of monsters like enemies and allies are absolute, i love rule of cool but it has to be cool within the pre-made monster stats.
Thank you Guy! Love your content, very insightful as always
I mostly run VTM. I use preplanned modules as inspiration, but never used them directly. Comparing my style to the ones from this video I am deeply simulationist with the mercy and goal of a narrator and need to keep me in check to not get too author-like. I am preplanning my worlds, the major stakeholders and forces and their motivation. Then the players are tossed into those schemes and can actively participate or shape them. If the players will not take part, the schemes would end in the preplanned results and change the setting for the players accordingly (new rulers, power structures, allies, enemies, etc.) I try to find captivating stories for the heroes regardless. My motivation is to live through my scenarios with the players to see it changed or resolved by us all. The story is the most important goal for me, the simulation is my tool to be prepared and adjust to unforeseen actions. And when are player actions foreseeable :)
I'm the exact same way, just in a dnd setting instead. I've not run many other system preplanned stories, at least not large ones, but I think if you tried to run the majority of dnd 5e modules as written you're gonna be in for a bad time.
love this serie, I'm waiting for the next video
Secret dm style. The shonen descriptor. For when your story is bare bones and your grasp of the rules is limited. You can distract your players from your cardboard world by giving them cool or detailed descriptions of how everything they do is efficient or powerful.
I feel like there may be one missing, which I'd call the Sandbox GM.
They don't have pre-planned scenarios or a story/plotline structured out or and 'End Game' - they have a world, and the various forces at work in that world, but the players 'create' the story and co-author it based on their various interests, backstories, and contributions. This strays from the 'Narrator' because the players are the heroes of their own stories, but not as the heroes of the world, precisely. They can and should feel free to get caught up in larger forces at work in the world - but their actions have world-altering effects, and the DM adapts to reward and/or punish the characters with the in-world consequences of their actions based on the reason and logic of the world (NOT in pursuit of a main quest line). Armies invading countries, religious conflicts, political jockeying, random NPCs who have bizarre needs or motivations... It's also not 'Simulationism' since the scenarios are, for the most part, fluid and improv'd. As long as the DM knows their world and their lore (borrowed or homebrewed) they can procedurally generate the world out in front of the players consistent with the vibe. The DM can also take into consideration the character levels, current attitude/energy, and the narrative elements to adjust the flow... has there been tons of combat lately and it's all attack roles? Maybe throttle back the tempo and throw in some side-elements that permit some more roleplay and interactions. This is also not RAW because it's the DM selecting what seems appropriate or fun or best of all - meaningful, for a particular encounter or scene.
The biggest thing about Sandboxing (to me) is NOT the lack of story (or should I say meaning) - - it's the freedom and ability to find and make your OWN story alongside the other players. It's not ROC (Rule of Cool) so much as Rule of Relevant or Rule of Meaningful... And I as the DM get just as much fun out of seeing what happens and what's around the next corner, and how it will be impactful to the characters - as the players do.
((In my defense, before I'm attacked and belittled by the Keepers of the Internet (or D&D) - I run regular games, I've never really had a player NOT enjoy my sessions, and I've recruited dozens of people to tabletop roleplaying through one-shot experiences and really awesome fun. So I have abundant first-hand experience that ^ this - Sandbox DMing - works very well and everyone at the table has a great time.))
Hey guy! I am absolutely grateful for all the amazing work you've been putting in this channel. Can you please make a video about the best free resources for GMing? I am a GM from Syria (where there are no WotC shops nor bank accounts to buy stuff online)
Also, great video. And that D&D in a Castle looks so fun! Not this time for me! Another time perhaps!
Guy, you look like you really slimmed down! Good on ya!
I hope you all have a great day!
Me and my husband and 4 other friends are going to be at D&D in a Castle the end of March. Mark Meer is our GM. Are you going to be conducting any of the one-shots?
I'm mostly narrator with a bit of author. I tend to have epic backstories, which will go on whatever the players do, and then I will co-create a story based on player input, which can turn everything upside down. Every style thats in the way of my creativity feels bad. If a player wants to jump on a chandelier and swing across the room I'll do the heck and spoil that with rules discussions.