Hello everyone, I am a new member here at theRPGsite. I thought that this seemed like a community that could help me out with a project I am working on for a local business that involves GMing. If you have the time, I would be extremely grateful for your response to the following query:

Think back to the best GM you ever had in any tabletop RPG gaming experience. What do you think made them such a great GM? Give a specific example of something they did, and explain why you think that makes them great.

The great GMs out there are the ones that can run sandbox games with pretty much no prep. And can envoke players to role-play.

Welcome Solanima!

Please tell us more about the "local business that involves GMing" as that sounds interesting.

I've been VERY fortunate to have played with a many Great GMs through the California conventions over the past 4 decades. Here's my spitball list of off the cuff thoughts on all those dice tossing bastiches who I've emulated over the years.

1) They were all different, unique and personal in their approaches and styles. However, if there was a common trait, it was their commitment to immersion.

2) Most of them played lots of games. Not just RPGs, but we'd often play non-RPGs together. They understood how RPGs were different from other games, because they were immersed in other game-entertainments.

3) Most of them were voracious readers. Some only read crap. Others were history buffs. Others were military buffs. All the ones I knew well read lots, but there were a few GMs I only knew through the con games and can't speak for their reading habits.  

4) Some used props. Others didn't. Some used accents, gestures, costumes. Others didn't. But the ones who did use "immersion devices" went balls out.

5) The "Great GM"'s session was only as good as the players. Even a "Great GM" can't do much with a table of passive morons, phone monkeys and contrary asshats. But usually, the GM's reputation kept those clowns off the player list, but at cons, stuff can get random and you could wind up with a shitty table of shit or a bunch of awesome and fun strangers.

I think the most important part of being a great GM is the ability to establish rapport. Most GMs do well enough without it because they mostly play with people they've known for years. But even then, you're going to have fewer arguments if you can manage it. It's hard to point to a specific example of it in reference to your question, because it's experienced as a general feel of ease and comfort at the table. Two GMs could make the exact same call. And it would seem reasonable under a GM who has rapport with the players, unreasonable coming from one who doesn't.

There are a lot of differing opinions on how to establish rapport. Tone of voice is a huge help in this. But I think it really comes down to listening skills. When the other ways work, I think it's because they instill at least the perception that the GM is listening with interest. There are some specific techniques I think the GM can employ. These techniques won't necessarily magically make the GM a good listener. And if the GM is a good listener, this sort of thing will seem natural and maybe even naturally emerge.

So here's an example. A long, long time ago, someone was griping on a forum, I think it was TBP, about getting screwed over by a GM. They were walking down a tunnel cautiously, all of a sudden a monster quickly came out from a side passage, a couple of dice rolls later, lucky ones perhaps, the PC was dead without ever getting a chance to react or do anything. The player was peeved because apparently he felt specifying "cautiously" should have saved him.

The problem as I see it is, when you come to that side-passage, what exactly does "cautiously" mean? You can be cautious, as in trying to look before you go anywhere. And you can be cautious as in trying to keep all your vital organs closely guarded. Peering your head around the corner can give you the benefit of seeing the monster coming. But it can also expose you to a head shot.

Part of listening skills is asking clarifying questions. When the "cautious" PC came upon the intersection, the GM should have asked for clarification on cautious. "So you're poking your head out around the corner so you can look down the side passage before you walk past it?" The player may answer yes. The player may answer no. But if they answer yes and get their head taken off, there's more of a perception that that was on the player, not the GM. And the player has more of a feeling that he actually got to do something. Unfortunately it was the doing something that got him killed. And if the player answers no, I'm not going to expose myself like that, I'm going to keep my shield up and try to walk past it quickly, well, then again, when the monster wins a surprise round, that goes over a lot better. Because it appears as though the player accepted that risk by focusing on protection rather than looking.

The idea is, GMs can't be out to play "gotcha" and if players feel like they haven't really been heard, they're likely to end up feeling like they're getting screwed when bad stuff happens that don't match their expectations.

Great GMing is specific to the taste of a given audience.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1091269Please tell us more about the "local business that involves GMing" as that sounds interesting.

The local business is a Board Game Pub, where you can order food and "borrow" from their massive library of board games to enjoy while you eat/drink. They host weekly RPG gaming nights and are very accommodating for any GM who wants to run their games there. I am doing a practicum project for them (sort of like a halfway point between a college class and an internship), which is what brought me here.