Let's boil down some stats on GMing and their definitions and have a *fun* discussion. Yes, if people have other ideas to fit in this framework, feel free to toss it out there. The idea is to synthesize down a framework that people can look at and see areas that they might want to work on. Especially for new GM's, that get "do's and don'ts" from YouTube without any context. This is a way to 'gamify' the act of GMing. This also means that some ratings can absolutely fluctuate based on your circumstances.

The stats are: Facility, Improvisation, Adjudication, Enthusiasm. There *are* other elements to GMing that fall between these tentpoles, or are emergent. (feel free to offer others but we'll try to fit them in as few as possible so they might get folded into these with an addendum).

Facility - Your ability to use the rules in question to run the setting and game. It also partially represents the work you put into the setting and game.

1 - Total Noob: You haven't even read the rules entirely, or at best you've done a single pass. Maybe you've played, but never GMed using them.
2 - Proficient: You've read the rules (maybe more than once), played them as a player, you keep the books handy and make references to them a lot in play.
3 - Journeyman: You understand the system enough to know where/when to make tweaks for your personal tastes (they don't always work). You reference the material as needed, but you understand the material well enough get the PC's over the session's finish line, even if the ride might get bumpy. You do *some* designwork to fill holes missing by the system.
4 - Experienced: You're fluent with the system. You know enough to bend the rules to represent your setting as you like it. You know how to make rules on the fly without your players missing a beat. You do a lot of designwork to flesh out aspects of the game that the system may not cover, or you expand rules that exist to do much more.
5 - Gamemaster: There is nothing in the system you don't understand. You could design for the company mechanically. You understand the underlying mechanics and why they exist so that any rules changes you make are seamless to the players.

Improvisation - Your ability to think of things on the fly. This includes your ability to roleplay dynamically and your ability to use rules and setting material in novel ways.

1 - Total Noob: You read the flavor-text the module tells you to read to your players right on queue. You can even do it without too many uhh's or umm's. Going off-road from the script or module gives you anxiety.
2 - Proficientt: You might read the flavor-text, but if you do, you'll embellish it to fit your needs. You'll use lots of random tables obviously, you'll stray from the adventure path, but while it's exciting, you'll get anxious trying to get the PC's back on track. You might use some funny voices to make NPC's distinct, or describe obvious mannerisms on occasion. You'd do it more, but there's a lot going on and it's something you're either not comfortable with or you're still learning to add to your repertoire.
3 - Journeyman: Flavor-text? You don't need no flavor-text (unless you're feeling lazy, and even then, you'll fully work it in your way. You might use voices for specific NPC's, have mood music, "get into" roleplaying a little more than your players with consistency. You use random tables liberally, but you have your go-to-Table's already queued up, and you know precisely where to look for ones that you don't. Consistency in your improvisation becomes noticeable by your players *not* while you're playing, but after your sessions because they don't realize it until later.
4 - Experienced: Flavor-text is useless. You rarely need random tables unless you're just feeling lazy to riff. You consistently portray your NPC's (important and unimportant) with idiosyncrasies to the effect your players can't tell the difference, which forces more immersion (including PC's that metagame making horribly bad assumptions). You portray your world and setting with nimbleness so that wherever the PC's go, you usually can describe in detail enough things of potential interest to make even jaded players engage. Most pre-packaged adventures at this point are improvised on with such precision they practically are not even required. Your prep-work is much more streamlined due to your recognized ability to improvise fluidly.
5 - Gamemaster:  The world is in motion, and you know every current and path it might take without any written word. Every NPC is someone that can potentially matter. They all have personalities that are distinct culturally if not individually. Random tables are customized for specific reasons ahead of time. You can riff with such skill that you can pull off most sessions with little prep. Your improvisational skills can make tatters of most published adventures, and modify them for your own needs with zero effort. Or they can elevate them far beyond the bounds of their original intent and make them unrecognizable.

Adjudication - Your ability to utilize both setting conceits, rules and system mechanics to deliver content consistently and fairly. Knowing the rules (Facility) is different from using them in a consistent and thoughtful manner.

1 - Total Noob: You suffer from all the mistakes - Monty Haul, favoritism, Adversarial GM-Modes, Storytime Jackoff Hour - because this is really about your fictional work or worse, your idea of some other fictional setting that you wish to force the players through your narrative rather than letting the players actually play. Player trust is minimal unless they're too ignorant to know better. You cite Rule Zero like a fucking Tyrant for your worst ideas you're too ignorant to realize the actual purpose of Rule Zero.
2 - Proficient: You've made enough mistakes that you now try to cleave close to RAW as possible. You still might make some of the classic blunders (Monty Haul, Storytime Jackoff-Hour, Adversarial GM Mode) but you've learned through those mistakes and lost players, that the rules might actually help ameliorate your Noob blunders and give you better results. At some point in this tier, you're beginning to question what precisely IS a good way to express the game you want vs. the game you're currently running and realize a lot of the problem is *you*. You'll figure it out if you keep going... otherwise it starts eroding your Enthusiasm rating. Rule Zero is invoked less, but with slightly more precision. Player trust is middling *at best*.
3 - Journeyman : So you figured out most of the classic pathologies of adjudication at your table. Now you start thinking about how to express your setting to your players and make good strides in consistent application of your rulings. You start to feel less chained to RAW (though you cling to it tightly), you've begun to feel more confident
about your use of Rule Zero, because you've begun to understand your own particular tastes in expressing the setting to your players via those rules. Your players may balk, but this is where you're gaining confidence in standing firm. You also have eaten enough crow from your players to modulate your own excesses. Player trust is now fairly high - assuming that there no other GMs in the group. If there are, you're trusted enough to run a fairly tight game. You might even be considering Sandboxing or be dabbling in it already if your other GM Stats are up to the task. You start to question the concept of "system balance" because you start to realize your own GM agency.
4 - Experienced : You're long past most of the pathological Noob GM issues. If your Facility score is high-enough, you already know how you want the world presented via mechanics. You already know that consistency is the key to earning trust. You listen to your players, and know when/where to make adjustments. You have no problem saying "no" but you're always open to saying "yes". You take input from your players into consideration without problem, even though you may not use it. Your players trust your instincts even when your riffing (and they know it), when they don't know you're riffing - you're understanding how powerful the gaming experience can be and it becomes The Ring you chase in every game. RAW ceases to be the Law. Rule Zero sufficiently fills any gap fluidly and generally with accepted with little issue. "System Balance" is a phrase for people that are players that have not GMed and put the time in to understand. OR they have never played with a GM of your caliber. Player trust is very high.
5 - Gamemaster : You know the rules and what they represent in your setting. Very few player actions are beyond the scope of your ruling, and very few incidences are beyond the scope of your ability to fairly represent the game, either mechanically or narratively. Rule Zero is a surgical vorpal sword, RAW is a shield. You wield both with precision and have earned absolute trust from your players. The ideas of the "system balance" are joke to your players, ironically opening them up to any and all other systems and settings as a possibly option under your tenure as GM.

Enthusiasm - Real simple, its your propensity and desire to GM.

1 - Total Noob : You only GM because your players force your to, or no one else will do it. You don't really like GMing, you'd rather be playing than GMing, or doing something else.
2 - Proficient : You GM reluctantly. It takes too much work. You love the hobby, but you're ambivalent at best when it comes to GMing, and you still would rather play. You're fine running one-shots, or short campaigns, but you're *always* ready to hand it off to someone else at the quickest opportunity.
3 - Journeyman: You don't mind GMing. You might even look forward to it. You've gotten to the point where you realize that GM'ng fundamentally requires a different set of goals than being player, but sometimes you're not up for the energy requirements. This depends greatly on your other GMing Stats - Enthusiasm can be capped by deficiencies in other areas, likewise Enthusiasm can be raised by higher stats and other competencies. You still like the idea of playing more than GMing, but you'll do it now partially because you've acquired a taste for it. You look for inspiration from the usual sources - but you're starting to realize that you can find elements of GMing-mana elsewhere.
4 - Experienced : You GM because you like it. You've discovered how to really enjoy GMing even if you still like to play, GMing has become its own hobby. You're never going to say no, if there are no other GM's because you genuinely like doing it. Just the same, you also like encouraging others to GM and *help* them learn better techniques because you remember what it was like to be them. You gain inspiration from sources outside of the hobby, in fact, you actively pursue such inspiration for use IN the hobby.
5 - Gamemaster : You *want* to GM. It's not that you don't want to play, but GMing is its own reward to you. You've learned to derive a pleasure from GMing that most players will never understand, and other GM's might derive some inspiration to achieve in their own right. Everything is potential inspiration for your GMing needs, and you will cultivate the desire to GM regardless of whether you're actively playing or not. You will work on campaigns even when not gaming, for future use (right?) and when it comes time for you to present options to your players, you'll always have multiple solid campaign ideas ready to go. Because you're always ready to go.

So add up your numbers and what's your score? Understand circumstances can change these values - who the fuck wants to GM while in the middle of a divorce (there are some GM's that can do that)... or maybe you're into a new system so your Facility score might not be pegged out with your regular go-to system.

Thoughts? Elaborations? Lets the games begin!

Edit: by these criteria I'm sitting around 16-17 depending on the current games I'm running (SWADE and MSH respectively)

I'd say I'm a 14.  Of course this is strongly based on me running the system I choose and in my setting.

My weakest area is probably improvisational skills.  When it comes to coming up with an NPC on the fly, I just can't.  That said, I have a index card box full of NPCs ready to go so I can pull one that looks right, read my notes, and I'm off to the races.  I also do a lot of mapping and "geographical" note taking before I even start a campaign.  I have a good idea of the sandbox the players are in before they roll dice for the first time.  I know who all the key players are, where they are, what they are up to, motivations, etc.  I also know where all the cool toys are, how to access them, and all the important bits and secrets about them.  Once I've prepped a campaign, I'm good to go and generally can roll with the punches.

On your list, my desire to be a GM is my strongest point.  I prefer to GM over play.  (I still love to play.)  I love running an adventure and seeing how players deal with the challenges. 

This is a bit like a job interview. 

The hardest one to answer is the improvisation category. though there is some similar issues with enthusiasm.  For me currently, I'm sitting somewhere around 13-15, though part of that is there is only so high one can go in the first 3 categories when all your play is play testing a game as it is written.    My facility and adjudication are gradually going up as I settle on the rules.

When I was rolling hot and heavy with D&D 5E, I was sitting at around 16 easy.  However, as my Facility went up, my Enthusiasm went down.  I still wanted to GM--just not that game.  When I ran Hero, I might have hit 18 briefly, given that I could improvise 99%+ book correct creatures on the fly.  

My main issue with Improvisation is that tangling up Immersion with it is a bridge too far.  Or maybe it's the mix of setting/system that causes the disconnect.  Or both.  As you've written it, there's only so high I'm going to go, because I don't value some of the things in the list, at least not enough to chase them.  OTOH, whether I hit closer to 4 or 2 is going to depend a lot on how invested I am in the settings as expressed by the system. 

My very first game running D&D B/X might not have been good enough to count as a 4.  And all 5 players wanted to play again immediately.

Yeah there's no "right" or "wrong" answer. Like all things it's how much you wanna dive into it.

I'm certainly not a 5 in everything, though I do GM at a pretty high level, but when I switch to new systems, I'm never going to be a 5 in Facility... hell I know a metric shit-ton about SWADE and I feel confident I can stand-and-bang with anyone on the rules, and I use a lot of the sub-systems across multiple genres... but I don't think I'm a 5 by a stretch.

And Enthusiasm might shift for a lot of people. And Improvisation is always an "issue" - I find that one doesn't need to chase immersion, it's an emergent quality. Do you think otherwise?

Quote from: BadApple on September 11, 2023, 05:24:49 PM
I'd say I'm a 14.  Of course this is strongly based on me running the system I choose and in my setting.

My weakest area is probably improvisational skills.  When it comes to coming up with an NPC on the fly, I just can't.  That said, I have a index card box full of NPCs ready to go so I can pull one that looks right, read my notes, and I'm off to the races.  I also do a lot of mapping and "geographical" note taking before I even start a campaign.  I have a good idea of the sandbox the players are in before they roll dice for the first time.  I know who all the key players are, where they are, what they are up to, motivations, etc.  I also know where all the cool toys are, how to access them, and all the important bits and secrets about them.  Once I've prepped a campaign, I'm good to go and generally can roll with the punches.

On your list, my desire to be a GM is my strongest point.  I prefer to GM over play.  (I still love to play.)  I love running an adventure and seeing how players deal with the challenges.

My weakest stat is ironically, Facility, only because I'm in this phase where I'm doing a *lot* of system re-design with SWADE for some future purposes that I'm unsure of, but I'm planning on running it soon with my group of lab-ra... err players. I have strong Improvisational skills, but I've backed off a little as I'm in this phase of trying out new things, and pushing myself out of my comfort-zone... and the Improv takes a backseat to more Facilitation and cultivating my Enthusiasm (I'm juggling a lot of plates right now).

One of the greatest GM's I've ever had to pleasure of playing with was Skip Williams. Yeah - the fucking Sage himself.

I thought I was a great GM at the time (I think today I was decent/good)... then I played with him (he introduced me to Spelljammer)... I remember being stunned and how good he was. This motherfucker rolled in a felt bag full of rubber insects, plastic monsters, and dice. Ran his entire tournament without a single book, a single note, not a reference to be made, zero random tables, complete undivided attention and with utter discipline, perfect flow... meanwhile... I was having the time of my life (someone took a picture of it and put it up on Polyhedron) and saw what a *real GM* was, and he made it look effortless. He gave me something to aspire to as a GM. Never forgot it. I still chase that feeling to this day.

Edit: LOL of course someone put this on the internet... ahh the days of hair.

Facility - I'm somewhere between Proficient (2) and Experienced (4).  I'm Proficient in dozens of systems, probably Journeyman in a handful and Experienced in a couple. I refuse to run something I've only just skimmed and I'm never going to master a system because my brain just can't hang onto that much info on any one thing. The few I've tried to commit to, I found myself losing interest before I ever got close to that point.

Improvisation - To toot my own horn here for a minute - I am an improv god. Maybe that's a bit too much, but I'm going Gamemaster (5) here. Prep for me is maybe a couple notes about things that happened previously and a few more on ideas that I may have had over the downtime.  I very rarely bother working stuff out ahead of time and am comfortable just running shit on the fly and riffing off the player's actions. My players trust me to keep things straight and for it all to make sense eventually. For NPCs I've got funny voices, mannerisms and quirks down pat.

Adjudication - Journeyman (3) bordering on Experienced (4).  I have a hard time saying "no" to my players and then regretting it later.  I'm getting better at it, but they know I struggle on rules vs rule of cool and sometimes try to take advantage of it.  This sometimes leads to some inconsistent rulings from time to time - "why didn't we have to roll for X last time but we do now" sorts of things. However, they are well aware that I'm never out to fuck them over with my rulings, even if they disagree with them.

Enthusiasm - Experienced (4) because I genuinely do enjoy GMing. While some of the next level up applies, I'm not quite there. I rarely prep campaigns for future use, but I do keep notes on inspiration whenever it hits, for both when I play and when I GM.  I may not have solid campaign ideas ready to go at a moment's notice, but I can be up to speed and ready pretty darn quick.

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2023, 05:54:44 PMI find that one doesn't need to chase immersion, it's an emergent quality. Do you think otherwise?

I think there are two different kinds of immersion, shallow and deep. 

Shallow is emergent.  It's players getting into the game, GM rolling smoothly with the conceits of the setting, everything "clicks".  Mechanics "fade into the background" as much as possible given the system, maybe more for the participants than an outside observer.  The rolls still happen, people still talk mechanics, but everyone is visualizing the outcomes, not really thinking directly about the mechanics themselves.  Ideally, the mechanics are like breathing, but you get a great deal of the positive effect somewhat short of that ideal--like everyone has been driving for years, and you don't completely turn off your brain given that driving can be dangerous, yet flipping the turn signal is automatic.

Deep immersion is either not emergent or only emergent at the expense of other desirable qualities.  I'm not sure which. It's related to "being the character", not just thinking as a portrayal but emotions, empathy, philosophy, etc.  It can still happen without sacrificing those other desirable qualities up to a point, but only by explicitly working at it.  It's technique and a trained attitude.

I would say a big marker for the difference is how OOC chatter affects the play.  At times, OOC chatter is a valued part of shallow immersion.  It's the setting coming to life despite the 4th wall being rubble, or even sometimes because the 4th wall is down.  Whereas with deep immersion, every interruption is anathema. 

That's very insightful and rings very true to me.

What you would call "Deep Immersion" is something that is pretty rarified. I've hit that spot a few times - I've had players crying both over joy and sadness, even players telling me they've had nightmares over stuff that happened in the game that they reflected on for years.

I'm not sure games *should* go that deep, at least attempting to do it intentionally (which while some aspects of genre play can be/is manipulative) it depends on the game. OOC chatter is an absolute immersion killer - it's one of the reasons I don't like most online live-plays.

My horror/grimdark games are the ones where I really try to put the clamp down on OOC nonsense, when we're doing swashbuckling adventuring stuff (which is a LOT of the time) I let it ride... to a point. But you're certainly right that it will limit the deeper aspects of immersion in most genres of traditional play.

Seeing as how I only run systems I've built myself I score perfect marks on facility and adjudication (no one knows the nuts, bolts, hows and whys of my systems more).

My improvisation and therefore enthusiasm though are slightly hampered by only presently being able to run via VTT and can't digitally create maps on the fly with anywhere near the speed I can in a face-to-face game with my custom gridded map boards and dry erase markers (also, just the need to use maps at all because one of the players suffersfrom Aphantasia (inability to visualize things) and needs at least a basic map (or pictures of a space) to functionally play).

Because I am far more limited in my ability to improvise (one of my favorite parts of GMing is to make things up on the fly) that also dings my enthusiasm to run; not by much; but still enough that I can say I have perfect marks.

I would say Facility is very system dependent. The others are more universal and can apply to multiple systems.

It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? 

I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? 

... Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality

Apparently, you didn't read the scale very carefully.  A 12 is Journeyman across the board.  A modest score for someone with decades under their belt.  It's not on a bell curve, because of the numbers.  And the population here is not representative of a typical sample, either in interest or in experience.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? 

I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.

I have watched a few episodes and Mercer is an entertaining DM. I have noticed though, that very little gets accomplished in each session as he and the players will spend gobs of game time having breakfast, or shopping for mundane shit. If this RP was connected to and advancing what they were trying to accomplish then fine. Most of it is just wasted game time on shit that would bore the hell out of most players. One can only put up with funny shopkeeper voices for so long before wanting to get to the damn adventure. All of this theater also leaves several players just sitting there twiddling their thumbs for twenty minutes or more, on camera, while he does his shopkeeper performance for one or two players. He may have the skill set to be a great DM, but aside from the theatrical part of it, does not display it on what I have seen of Critical Role.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? 

I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.

I've been GMing weekly since 1978. I've run hundreds of convention games. I've run, jesus... a *LOT* of different systems. I'm published, done design-work for WotC, Paizo, Goodman Games, and a few other companies. I'm not saying this to tout myself... rather...

I know for a *fact* many people on this very forum are *more* experienced than me, and have done a lot more in the industry. I think you might be underestimating a lot of the GMing knowledge on this forum which in my estimation is probably one of the highest concentrations of GMing ability and knowledge on *any* forum.

As far as Critical Roll is concerned - I think Mercer is skilled in many areas, but I'm not particularly impressed with his game as a show as I am with others who have shown me on this very forum their own knowledge and ideas. Mercer's Improvisation is a solid 5. Facility 4 with 5e? Adjudication solid 4. Enthusiasm 4 maybe 5? Remember he's paid very well to do this. I'm not in his mind, but it's clear he does enjoy it, and he *should* enjoy it, given his success.

But also keep in mind, he runs a very different kind of game than 99% of all the other forms of TTRPG's - he's running a performative gameshow and his other skills funnel directly into that. And he's *very* good at it. His players are professional actors, they show up to play/perform, on time, they know how to *perform* as players for obvious reasons. They certainly aren't bringing their baggage that other players have to the camera for your consumption. They don't have "bad days" or "bad sessions" - by design.

But that kind of game is... well... not particularly complex to me. It might be to *you* but you probably, admittedly by your own estimation of yourself and the high-place you put Mercer (and I'm not saying he's not skilled - clearly he is - my outside assessment shows that) but you're also showing that 1) you've never played in a game like Mercer's with a GM like Mercer, which should be no surprise since that's not a typical kind of D&D game. 2) for GM's that do run their private games with that level of skill - their games are likely radically more in-depth and complex than Mercers. Mine definitely are.

As for "most GM's" ... 7-9 is literally average. So yeah? Given the average GM hasn't put a lot of time into the craft of GMing. But there is a purpose to me putting this out there (which is for discussion here) and it has nothing to do with litigating who is bullshitting who. But! I'm totally open to discussing, personally, why I think my scores are what I think they are, and yes they fluctuate. Others can engage on their own assessments too. Calling uniform bullshit on anyone that is a 12+ on this forum seems... hyperbolic, and I'm not even *trying*, because I'm willing to bet there's at least a dozen GM's on this forum that would pull a 12+ here.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 12, 2023, 07:01:05 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? 

... Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality

Apparently, you didn't read the scale very carefully.  A 12 is Journeyman across the board.  A modest score for someone with decades under their belt.  It's not on a bell curve, because of the numbers.  And the population here is not representative of a typical sample, either in interest or in experience.

Bingo...