So I have a question for you GM types. How do you play? Are you fair, tough or flexible. What's your strengths and what are your weaknesses . What do you like to see in players and what don't you like. I'll go first eh?

I'm pretty flexible with both rules and story and will let my players do most things that make sense. My strengths are creating interesting NPC's that are either well liked or absolutely loathed that would either have the PC's cheering for their success or shaking with rage upon sighting them. I especially enjoy creating loathsome NPC's in positions of power or authority over one or all PC's then treating said PC/pc's like dirt.

I believe that important NPC's need to be obvious shades of good and bad to raise them above the average quest filer, so much so that bad characters are usually heavily bigotted, cruel, sadistic while good characters are often Paragons of their code or will openly fight against the moral and unjust regime of the Warhammer world.

What I'm bad at is missing plot hooks and setting up descriptive settings. I also need to work on more general atmosphere in non critical scenes.

In regards to players I like to see players motivated in their character. I like it when they come to me with ideas for stories to work into the campaign and when they are creative in roleplaying. Someone who takes interest in their character shows to me that they really want to be there, that the player feels invested in the campaign enough to help shape it, to make it ours instead of mine. To quote Edward Elric (my favourite pint sized philosopher) "In order to achieve something, you must first give up something of equal value. That is the law of equivalent exchange". So which means I, the GM, give you the entire world and in turn you the players give me the characters that breath into it the gift of life. I give up my time to create and you give up your time to exist. Equivalent exchange. That is how RPG's are played. If one side gives less than it is fun for less, if one side gives all and the other gives none it's fun for none.

What I don't like is people not paying attention and generally taking me for granted that I'll do this no matter what just for them. A player who is not on the ball starts to infect others (not so much on an online, but in a face to face environment) in their disinterest, a disinterested character ceases to exist in the world the GM creates and when players cease to exist the world grows stagnant and dies.

So that's me, what about you?

am gernerall pretty open minded and always try new approaches to GMing. my last campaign was a selfwritten, very well thought out campaign with lots of choices and intresting NPC to come across in your travels - and that was the problem. my group always seems to find that one plothole and then, most times by accident, start digging into it. they think its a story hook and i will be left in the dust.

so the style for my new campaign is cliffnotes. just overall notes on how the main story turns out and the rest will be done on the fly. and so far, this worked REALLY well. my players like this style alot because that makes every decision they make legitimate, but not always a good one! they can decide to chase the chaos warrior they saw disappear in the shades, becuase they want to, but they might run into an ambush, always hoping their next decision will not lead them into death...but they always have to possibility to turn their fate around with sharp intellect and sometimes a little luck.

as for the rules, i'm also not that strict on them, when a player comes up to me with a new approach to an action card (mostly my dwarf slayer with the double strike) i let them try it and then we determine together if it will work out. my players do understand that it is also no fun for their GM if they slay every monster i give them in one hit, so we always have interesting encounters that way.

i also encourage my players to use the "perform a stunt" action alot, because that makes the little something extra for them and me!

for the players, you are absolutely right about that. i have 2 players in my group who start playing tictactoe in the middle of an encounter because its not their turn, that drives me crazy. because, as you said, this makes all other players either angry or they also start drifting away from the game...

i have actually never played online like this, but i'd be curious about that too, i've watched some sessions lately and it seemed to be fun aswell.

GM style eh? I think that would be described as fast, loose, rules-light, and sadistic (with a hint of lime..in the eye).

I make my players keep a back-up character and laugh with sick-glee when they go insane, dead, mutated, or just plain missing in action..all in good fun of course..and in less than the time it takes to play a game at a convention.

I've always used a lot of canon in my games, somehow thinking that magically my players knew WTF I was ever talking about, but since have realized that they wouldn't typically care about the small details (are there Vampire Teddy Bears in Kislev? I think I read that in a reference once.)

I have started and ended a lot of groups in 30+ years of gaming and don't have time for pissant, whingy players. They bring fun and enthusiasm to the game or I replace them.

Narcissistic and prima-donna is the best way I can describe my GMing style. I get a great deal of joy when it all works out and can become downright depressed when I'm in GM burnout mode. Here's me though at the end of the night:

jh

Emirikol said:

Rules -lite approach. Moves game along at a brisk pace. If play gets bogged down, advances the scene. Heavy emphasis on roleplay for himself and the players--He likes to ham it up, which is great. Combats don't take all night but are very dangerous. Revels in player insanity, maiming, mutations, deaths, etc. Is very judicious with play, meaning he lets the players sink their own ship. Simply put, fair, fast, and fun!