Community

ACTOR: A Dungeon Master must embody a variety of different characters from regal monarchs to leprous beggars.  The extent to which a DM can "sell" these characters as believable, the more immersive the roleplaying experience is for the players.  How much acting skill should a DM possess?

I chose competent and my requirement because without believable NPCs, the game becomes very bland.  It becomes:

I go to John the gemshop merchant to sell my gems and then go to John the horse merchant to buy a horse, then I proceed to see John the cleric at the temple for infomation on saving Lord John's daughter John from John the dragon.

If the DM isn't at least competent at acting, I can't play in the game.   

DEMIURGE: A campaign world is crafted.  Even when a DM runs published adventures, he must weave them into a coherent world.  The more plausible this world, the more the players can anticipate events and participate in the world's activities as full partners

I picked competent at this one, because if the world isn't plausible, it's just not an enjoyable world to play in.  The DM doesn't have to be a maestro at weaving the world, but he has to be at least competent.

FIELD MARSHAL: D&D can be seen as a series of encounters.  A DM must often run a whole cadre of opponents who must act to counter a strategically advanced party. In this milieu, it is one DM against four or more players.  How much skill does a DM need to design and implement a challenging encounter against a team of adventurers.

The DM needs to be at least competent at this or else encounters become too easy, and therefore very boring.  If the DM can't challenge the players, then the quality of the game is hurt.    

GAME DESIGNER: Sometimes a DM needs to make up a rule on the spot.  To do so, they might consider all the traditional hallmarks of game design: elegance, simplicity, balance, and flavor.  Some go outside the box and create their own monsters and NPCs.  Some DMs go further and design their own spells, skills, and classes for their players to use.  Whether you are making an ad hoc ruling, creating house rules, or designing an entire subsystem, the DM is taking on the role of a game designer.  but how good a game designer must he be?

I picked competent at this as well (go figure, I expect DMs to be competent )  If the DM is not at least competent at improv and making up rules on the spot, then the players will either run all over him, or become frustrated when they come across situations that the rules don't cover or don't cover clearly.  
      

JUDGE: Rules disputes happen.  It's a fact of life.  The DM isn't an advocate for the NPCs -- he is the referee.  Sometimes players will have rules disputes amongst themselves, and sometimes a player will interpret on if its powers differently than the DM.  Should rules mastery be required of DMs?  How about rules lawyering?  Should the DM be encouraged to exploit loopholes in the rules in the course of encounters even as players try to exploit such loopholes for their own characters?

This one I said that the DM actually needs to be good, not just competent.  A DM needs to have mastery over the rules and know them well.
 

PUZZLE MASTER: DMs present challenges.  Sometimes they take the form of combat and sometimes they take the form of ethical decisions.  Sometimes, they take the form of puzzles.  A puzzle need not be as obvious as sphinx' riddle.  It may be more of a logic puzzle, where the players are presented with a variety of competing interests and they must determine who is right and who is wrong.  Murder mysteries, political thrillers, social cat-and-mouse, are all types of puzzles that have found a place in D&D at one time or another.  How adept must a DM be at crafting intricate plotlines to challenge the players?

This is less important to me, so I picked basic ability.  While I thoroughly enjoy puzzles, they don't need to be present or complex in order for me to enjoy the game.  There are many other aspects that if done correctly, leave the game enjoyable.  

WRITER: Adventuring is all about the story.  Whether you run a sandbox campaign or a railroad campaign or something in between, you are still primarily responsible for crafting an engaging story.  Whether it's devising interesting NPCs, or fascinating locations, or adventure hooks, a DM writes the material to entertain the players.  Must a DM be Shakespeare?  J. K. Rowling?  A dime-store novel hack?

The DM doesn't need to be an author, but if the story isn't written to at least a competent level, then the game is disjointed and unfun.  The adventures need to be able to grab you, and anything less than competent doesn't do that.  
   
 

     
     

May 16, 2012 -- 10:02AM, Electricbee wrote:

I think another axis that needs to be explored is an I-we-they spectrum.

Some DMs present build and present their world.  Their NPCs have set agendas and personalities.  Their encounters are generaly predefined and premapped, either by location or through a series of events.  They make judgements and houserule to support their vision of a vibrant engaging fantas world.  Their puzzles have specific solutions. Their worlds have races and classes and politics and nations and so on. Their stories are driven by the world they have envisioned

It is not a hard and fast dichotomy, but at the other end of a spectrum, there is a player focus.


These DMs build their world around their players.  Their NPCs are created with a focus on engaging existing player hooks and building new ones.  Encounters are designed with the players capabilities, limitations and stories in mind.  Houserules and judgments focus on inclusion of player wants.  Puzzles might offer an open ended problem with no predetermined solution.  The races, classes, politics and nations of their worlds are driven by their players choices.  Their stories seek to weave the threads supplied by their players into a meaningful story.

I don't think there is a right or wrong here, but i think some groups are a better fit for one end of the spectrum or the other.

May 16, 2012 -- 11:12AM, wrecan wrote:

The point of this poll is not to gauge different DM styles.  The goal is to assess if someone who has never DM'ed -- and thus does not know what his style will be -- has the skills needed to be a good DM.  If you don't think any of these skills are universally needed, though any DM should have competency in two or three, then just answer Not Necessary for every topic.

As for the topic, I clarified the question.  I'm looking for baseline skills for good DMs.  The only actual requirement for being a DM is a desire to sit down and run a campaign.  An awful DM is still a DM.  I want to know what's the minimum you need to be considered "good".

Thanks for helping me regain focus . . . I think the I-we-they spectrum underlies 2 skillsets not listed but integral to good DMing.  Flexibitly (the ability to adapt to the needs of the group the story the world etc.) and Perception(the ability to discern the impact of the choices and the success or failure of the results of making those choices as a DM).  I see these traits being somewhat more abstract, but bigger drivers of DM success.