There is some really good GM advice in the recent thread, "What is the competence level of the average GM?"

Still, it got me thinking that I've been in a number of sessions that were great fun even though the GM wasn't skillful. Heck, as a kid, I grew up loving RPGs, and I had a lot of fun, but I don't think that my friends or I were objectively skilled. The main thing there was that the GM needed to not to railroad or stomp on the players' toes.

Naturally, with an unskilled GM, a lot more depends on who the players are.

I think particularly of two D&D5E games with the same GM at a local convention. In the first game, he had only an open-ended idea - the heist of a magical train. As players, we stepped up and used powers to cause a huge amount of chaos, fun, and hilarity. My son and I both used alter self to appear as part of our opponents.

In the second game a year later, the same GM prepped more and had a far more detailed but linear scenario, and it cut off everyone's creativity.

Similarly, I've had great fun with a GM who is just walking us through a published module exactly as written, but as long as there is some space for the PCs to interact and act out, I've sometimes had a ton of fun with it.

For others - have you had fun sessions with an unskilled GM? What made it fun?

Some friends and I briefly enjoyed a WoD LARP in the late 90s that had some terrible jackholes running it. Of course, that was largely because the players (us and others) drove the game and practically ignored the storytellers plot points. After a few months though, we all decided it was too much like going to work rather than having fun, so we all left it behind and went back to tabletop gaming (starting with a WtA game).

During the first era of V:tM we all took turns running the game and one of the most psychotic people I have every met (and I have met a lot of people on this blue marble) was a superb player and a terrible, what is that, storyteller? I forget. He just wasn't quick on his feet in addition to his general mania (he thought he could cut people's electricity through mIRC, among other insanities, he had zero hacking skills, yet a lot of ambition to be a hacker, he just thought it was magic he was utilizing) and we took such advantage of the rules, the setting and the guy running the game, it was great fun, even if I do feel a bit guilty looking back on it.

My group has had fun sessions with an unskilled GM, and that unskilled GM was me. I think there is a certain amount of beneficial beginner's mind to GMing - like you said it's more about what not to do. If you have no ideas, and no plans, and no desire to be a 'good storyteller', you're gonna be much more responsive to the players, cause at that point they're all that you have to work with.

Years ago I was at a convention and playing in a Call of Cthulhu game with my buddy. Aside from us, there were a couple girls in the game. The GM was a woman who was unsure of the rules and had never run a game of CoC before.

And that was fine, because the players all resolved to create a wild and fun narrative, and some of the rules were thrown out the window. The GM just went with it. Much fun was had

And like the OP says, when I was a teenager, we really didn't care that much about strict adherence to the rules. I had an older buddy who was pretty savvy with he game mechanics, but he didn't stick to them. In some ways, he taught me how to be a good DM, because unless it was fun and exciting, there was no point in playing. It wasn't some math exercise.

Many would argue that if you're having fun, the GM is doing their job. I wouldn't necessarily say it's that simple, but I also wouldn't say that playing fast-and-loose with the rules or running an unprepared, improvised game is necessarily a lack of competence. That's honestly how I DM-d for many years, and with a lot of success. I do more prep now, but I still play fast and loose with the rules. If you can pull it off, it's just another style of playing.

When I think of "fun with an incompetent GM", my mind goes to two examples from my teenage years:

In one, a friend of mine decided to make his first attempt at DM-ing while also imbibing a significant quantity of alcohol. The session quickly went off the rails and we still troll him about a few things that happened in it to this day. It was fun in a "watching a car wreck in slow motion" kind of way. The same friend has tried his hand at DM-ing several times over the years, and every one of the games has been bad, but in an offensive way where nobody is really upset about it.

The other case I can think of was a neighborhood kid who no one really liked, but who found his way into the group anyway. He was legitimately a terrible DM: very prone to railroading and desperate to make sure his favorite NPCs looked cooler than anyone else. His games were a miserable experiences, so at a certain point we just started fucking with him. I forget all the ways now, but a mainstay was taking advantage of his ignorance of the rules to make utterly broken characters (and this was 3.5, so an overpowered character was really overpowered). Not good game sessions at all, but there was a malicious kind of fun there. Again, we still have a laugh about it from time to time.

I don't pursue accidental fun in the course of a long stretch of time that is wasted.

I have many many many other things I could be doing.

Quote from: tenbones on January 06, 2025, 12:32:24 PMI don't pursue accidental fun in the course of a long stretch of time that is wasted.

I have many many many other things I could be doing.

^^This^^

And I'd get bored and want to help the GM get better, which could be interpreted as offensive. I enjoy trying to make myself a better GM, but that's me. If another person isn't ready for helpful advice on being a GM, then it would be polite to just STFU - when they want your help, they will ask.

An unskilled GM at his home game is one thing. He can probably fake it until he makes it, or the group will call him out.

Now, if it's an unskilled GM at a con...holy shit. I've seen my fair share of those.

Some of them are literally thrust into the situation because...well...the GM didn't show and flaked out, and somebody had to fill in. That's not his fault. I've seen that a time or two. Usually if the GM is up front about it in that regard, I can be understanding. You make the best of a situation.

This is different that an ill-prepared GM. The first instance is a victim of circumstance. An Ill-prepared one is a guy who shows up and is just not ready. He fucks it up. Fumble his way through...and you can tell. It's sad, pathetic, and tells me he doesn't care. If you don't care, neither do I. I'll walk the first chance I get.

I've also seen it at a con where the GM was a player for some time and decided to GM their FIRST TIME at a con. It will either blow up in your face or....it could be rather pleasant. There's no telling how it turns out.

The worst kind of GM is the one who sucks and doesn't know it. These are the ones who generally will take no feedback, and have an unrealistically arrogant view of themselves. Luckily these guys are rare, but do pop up from time to time. They generally have a group of hangers on who are yes men. For several years there was a group with this one guy who'd show up at Origins who fit this description.

One year he did us wrong in a Hackmaster 4e tournament. My entire home group got booted because of a really unfair rule he made for the tournament: at the very beginning of the adventure, our group is standing at the doors of a dwarven stronghold in the mountains. if you said anything about the "nice pair of knockers" in any way that can be considered a joke or funny to the dwarves, YOU WILL NOT BE LET IN. PERIOD. YOU DON'T ADVANCE.

The tournament ended for you. I'm not kidding.

His home group, of course advanced in the tournament.

We were beyond angry. we logged a formal complaint to KenzerCo who sponsored the tournament. Nothing came of it.

After that, we didn't participate in those tournaments. Didn't matter. They changed the HM 4e rules to their own lame ass version and we dropped them not long afterwards.

I have a standing rule at my table - anyone that wants to GM gets the chair. I offer my full services to help them learn how to run simple adventures (NO SANDBOX) and scenarios, how to prep, do session-0, the whole kit-and-caboodle.

The ones that have tried this have such ego issues that no "campaign" of theirs has lasted more than three sessions.

NONE of them have enlisted my help in trying to teach them (I'm only going on year 47 of doing this GMing thing), and every single one of them has gone *straight* to trying to run a sandbox because they think because they played in one, they can just run one.

The last three attempts at this within the last year, blew up on the launchpad. Never got through a single session without the GM folding.

Caveat: I have very experienced players to very inexperienced players, of different ages ranging from 30-59, males and females. So these aren't kids.

I'm all for helping people learn - but my first rule is: You gotta want to GM, you can't just dabble in it. If you're just "testing the waters" I'll sit out.

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2025, 12:46:55 AMFor others - have you had fun sessions with an unskilled GM? What made it fun?

You know, reading the previous thread to get caught up, I'm reminded of the last time I had a less than stellar DM, and spend the night exasperated. I never thought to actually participate with an aim to help improve his DMing. I don't know where I'd start. I suppose it depends on what specifically I think are them DM's weaknesses.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 06, 2025, 08:22:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2025, 12:46:55 AMFor others - have you had fun sessions with an unskilled GM? What made it fun?

You know, reading the previous thread to get caught up, I'm reminded of the last time I had a less than stellar DM, and spend the night exasperated. I never thought to actually participate with an aim to help improve his DMing. I don't know where I'd start. I suppose it depends on what specifically I think are them DM's weaknesses.

It also becomes a question of whether the fun gained exceeds the effort you would have to put in. Lots of things can modify that, such as the people involved, but ultimately the game is sunk if participation starts to feel like punching a clock for no pay.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 06, 2025, 10:33:33 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 06, 2025, 08:22:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2025, 12:46:55 AMFor others - have you had fun sessions with an unskilled GM? What made it fun?

You know, reading the previous thread to get caught up, I'm reminded of the last time I had a less than stellar DM, and spend the night exasperated. I never thought to actually participate with an aim to help improve his DMing. I don't know where I'd start. I suppose it depends on what specifically I think are them DM's weaknesses.

It also becomes a question of whether the fun gained exceeds the effort you would have to put in. Lots of things can modify that, such as the people involved, but ultimately the game is sunk if participation starts to feel like punching a clock for no pay.

Sure. The question is what contributes to the fun.

For example, the one time I played 4E D&D was when I was at a family gathering and my nephew wanted to try DMing it. I didn't particularly like the system, but I had a good time hanging out with all the niblings even if his DMing wasn't stellar and I didn't much care for the system. I can't even remember what the scenario was, just that we spent a while on combat, but I remember still having a good time.

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 06, 2025, 02:19:18 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 06, 2025, 12:32:24 PMI don't pursue accidental fun in the course of a long stretch of time that is wasted.

I have many many many other things I could be doing.

^^This^^

And I'd get bored and want to help the GM get better, which could be interpreted as offensive. I enjoy trying to make myself a better GM, but that's me. If another person isn't ready for helpful advice on being a GM, then it would be polite to just STFU - when they want your help, they will ask.

I think what makes someone get better as a GM has a lot to do with experience. To my nephew I gave a few pointers on mechanics and procedure - like how to write out the initiative order. But I wasn't going to do more than that while playing. I felt the best way is to give an authentic DMing experience - i.e. play like a good player really would, and try to have fun for myself and my fellow players.

This is similar to sports or board games. Telling someone else the right move each time isn't necessarily the best way for them to learn.

Some people had examples where it sounded like the people they were playing with were behaving like assholes - or at least came across that way. That doesn't have to do with skill - it's more general social dynamics.

Absolutely! Experience is *the only* path towards proficiency and "mastery".

The nuance I'm adding to this thread is that it's entirely different to have someone that wants to GM in order to learn how to GM vs. someone that is GMing for ulterior reasons.

And I've run into, sadly, more of the latter than the former.

Anyone that is a veteran GM already knows that if you have a new GM they're going to make mistakes. Lots of them. They're going to fail. And the second lesson, ideally, they need to learn is "That's okay. Now get up and do it again." If they want to really be a competent GM and go the distance they have to come into this cleanly and with as little pretense as possible, ideally.

The First Lesson they have to have in their utility belt is "I want to GM because I want to learn how to be good at it." No other reason. It can't be "Because no one else will do it." Or "I secretly want to bang one of my players." or "I'm going to be the coolest person in my group because I have 'power'." or (the worst) "I have this novel I want to write, and my players are going to play the characters! Then I'm going to write it!" (/wretch).

GMing is largely thankless. Yes, you may be the Skip Williams of your era - trust me, your players will talk shit, and criticize you to your face despite running the smoothest games they'll never get to play with anyone else. It takes effort to run a GOOD game, it takes WORK to run a GREAT campaign. And much like the people that insist RPG's are like stories (and they're WRONG) - the glory of a good campaign *ONLY* comes after it's been completed and your players re-tell one another "Remember when X happened?!?! It was so friggin awesome..." - they'll never know how permutations of choices it took for you calculate organically such a scenario was possible. They'll never know how much time and energy you spent to create rules systems that didn't exist, that you had to predict *might* happen given current trajectories of player choices. My campaign archives are ***filled***  with sub-systems I cranked out before my weekly sessions that *never* saw the light of day, because the player's PC didn't go through with some plan they justifiably mused about. And as a GM, I never said a peep about it. It's something I tuck away for potential use (Warhammer Warp Magic for Savage Forgotten Realms!) among many other things.

Getting to "Good" is hard thankless work. Too many immature people do it because of ego-reasons, and I'm not even saying that's not insurmountable, but it's definitely a penalty to overcome. But if someone comes to the table as a noob and *wants* to learn? I'm 100% there for it.

What I don't want is someone that is a dabbler with zero real intention on sticking it out. Not that *I* don't care about someone "just wanting to try." but I respect the time of my group (and myself) too much. There are exceptions to this. But they're pretty slim ones (Like my nephew is down for the weekend, and wants to try to run a one-shot). I would rather run a good game where I know everyone is going to have fun. Or do one of the thousands of other things on my plate.

What an example of a title shaping expectations from the implied ask of the original author's intent!

Reading your GM comparisons, jhkim, I feel the real question (which should be the real topic title) is: What Freeform Fun Is Lost as We Gain GM Efficiency from GM Proficiency? It's a question of innocence v experience; do we lose something in the transition? Do we lose joie de vivre, or ad-hoc solutions over rules memorization, or freeform experimentation over structured adventure pathing (or theatrical timing)?

Which is a more approachable question because I could say we've all seen a bit of our own tightening down as GMs as we grew more experienced. The story of the master wishing they could return to that glorious state of play before they "knew the approved rules" is as ubiquitous and oft told as art movements. The topic seems to me one more about, "What is lost in the transition?", than about, "Isn't fumbling around cute?"