Your GM Style & Why it Matters | The 5 Common GM Styles

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.

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.

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

These are some of the best, most thoughtful role-playing videos on YouTube. I'd like to see more on running less combat focused games.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

Appreciate the way you keep focused on how WE can improve by knowing our initial styles

Seems each video in this series is even more brilliant than the last, which was also brilliant! Cheers!

Missed your vids, glad you're back. I always learn something to make me a better GM watching your content!

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.

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'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.

Thank you Guy! Love your content, very insightful as always