Over in the "conflict is my character", Levi asked a question that he phrased in an unbelievably theory-swinish way, laden with forced premises and one that answering would require accepting all kinds of theory-borne ideas that just aren't true (namely, that the GM isn't meant to be the guy in control of everything other than the players, which he is).

But stripping it of that premise, you are left with a slightly different, but intriguing question:

What part of the DM task do you feel you do best?
And what part do you feel you do worst?

For me: best is almost certainly my NPCs.  I've been told that by too many players to believe that it could be anything else.

As for worst, that one would probably be that I tend to be very sloppy in overlooking technical details in the system. Often that means I present opponents which don't end up being a challenge to the PCs because I don't remember that player x has power y that lets him do effect z which beats my opponent in one round.

I tend to suck at that. But half the times that happens I manage to think on my feet and add in a new twist to the situation, so I'm getting better at not letting that ruin the game.

RPGPundit

Thinking on my feet. I'm really good at that.

-clash

I used to suck at thinking on my feet and running by the seat of my pants but my first 3.5 campaign cured me of that when the party went so far off the beaten path it was like there wasn't a path at all. Now I think that's one of my strongest suits, although I still try to have as much prepared as possible.

My worst thing is describing combat. I start to but we rapidly digress to "I hit for X damage." One of the reasons I like the "more realistic" games with crit charts is because it eases some of my burden in that area.

Quote from: flyingmiceThinking on my feet. I'm really good at that.

-clash

Ah, no fair. You have to say what you're bad at too.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayMy worst thing is describing combat. I start to but we rapidly digress to "I hit for X damage." One of the reasons I like the "more realistic" games with crit charts is because it eases some of my burden in that area.

Yes! Crit Charts!

Contrary to what some people might believe of me, I really don't value combat very much in my games.  Its not what most interests me of most rpgs I play.  So I do think that at times my combats can become very mechanical if I'm not careful to avoid that happening.  Usually it depends a lot, too, on the enthusiasm of my players.

But playing Warhammer, with its beautiful beautiful crit charts, makes every combat in that system fabulously fun.  That's one aspect of mechanics where WFRP beats out D20.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAh, no fair. You have to say what you're bad at too.

RPGPundit

Ah! Right! Planning. I'm so bad at that I don't actually do it any more.

-clash

I'm best at winging it and worst at details (similar to Pundit, the challenges tend to lack when I let said details slip)...oh, and consistancy isn't my best trait, either.

I am damn good at winging it, really damn good. So damn good in fact that my problem isn't that challenges lack or any such thing at all...

No, I, the Insane Pika of DOOM!!!, tend to overwhelm the players with survival challenges, details. Like the characters that traveled 1500 miles north in just two days... in January.  Most adventurers would never be bothered by trivial things like ordinary cold and snow, my players almost died half a dozen times before they even found an enemy to fight!!!


Players HATE that. Yet, time and again I get caught up in Travelogue style adventures whenever the players decide to go somewhere 'far away'...

I thought there were five exclaimation points, not 3.... :O



-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat part of the DM task do you feel you do best?
And what part do you feel you do worst?

I'd like to think that it's the pacing that I'm best at.  It's certainly what I focus on.  That and description, but the two of them really go hand in hand.  By using the flavor text the GM can build suspense, excitement, dread, or whatever the story demands.  I'd say I'm worst at gritty, survival type games given that they always fizzle.

Best -
Keeping everybody involved.  And stupid, funny voices.

Worst -
Complexifying and then Trying to Tie It All Together At the End.  And stupid, funny voices.

The Good - I'm great at establishing atmosphere. This includes npcs, scene descriptions etc. A lot of my movie/book/television influences have gone down pretty well in the games I run.

The Bad - Rules. Never really cared much for them. Don't have much depth of knowledge when it comes to any kind of systems. 80% of the time, the group is having to much fun to notice any rules glitches. When they do, they remind me after or during the game, which ever time does not break the flow of the game.

The Ugly - I lose the plot. Seriously, sometimes the campaigns' plot gets so labryrinthine that we're all sitting around going what the fuck is going on? I mean, I just kind of let it run away from me

                      - And sometimes, the movie homages - esp with Coen Brothers work - gets a little to cheesy. After watching The Big Lewbowski, I named a couple of German freelance anarchist in my Feng Shui campaign Mr. Schanden and Mr. Freude - hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time

Regards,
David R

Good #1 - Progressing the storyline on the fly. I am not too good at coming up with a premise if I don't arrive at the table with one. But as long as I have the basics laid out, I can pretty much take the players wherever the events of the story lead them, come up with interesting and logical twists and developments on the fly, etc.

Good #2 - Pushing characters to the edge. I have a pretty decent talent for gauging how much the PCs can take and make conflicts pretty thrilling.

Bad - NPC characterization. I don't make distinctive enough NPCs for my satisfaction.

PLUS
thinking quick on my feet, keeping brief notes, maintaining consistency (even when ad-libbing), games which have much bigger pictures than just the heroes

MINUS
sessions dont run for long (2.5 hours maximum), overplotting, giving too many motives to NPCs, trying to be too clever

Id also like to add I run games based on reading perhaps 10% of the book, and knowing very little of the rules, and rely on honest players.

PLUS: playing NPCs, setting conflicts, vivid descriptions, constant action / conflict.

MINUS: I stink at bookkeeping and making reliable notes.