The 4 Worst GM Styles & How To Avoid Them 

*Thanks for watching!* Let us know in the comments below your thoughts on these GM styles. Are you one of them and what changes can you make? Make sure to check out World Anvils latest feature - auto-linker! A feature that allows you to link thousand of different articles with just the click of a button! Take a look here: worldanvil.pxf.io/rPqPv Find each chapter of the video easily by clicking on the timestamp in the description.

Excellent video. One "silver lining" of the actor DM - if you have a group of players heavy on the tactical or problem-solving side but doesn't role-play much, it can get them out of their shell and into character. Sometimes they just need that little bit of help from the GM to get started.

I think another major GM style pitfall is "The Author". It's one I've both seen and fall into myself more often than I care to admit. It's where the GM has already plotted out how an adventure will play, and expects the players to naturally fall into that. This sort of mentality is where I feel the textbook definition of "railroading" comes in, because the GM has already decided how the story will play out, and the players can only abide by that series of events or else be told how any deviation won't work. It will inevitably reach a point where the GM is just an orator in which it doesn't matter who your characters are or what they're doing, the "grand story" will play out how the GM has already decided it will, even if a PC dies and gets replaced things will progress all the same. Such a GM will likely believe they're telling a riveting tale that the players are enjoying, without realizing that the players aren't there to hear a story, they're there to PLAY OUT a story. If the campaign is going to play out the same way regardless of player deaths or actions (and I'm talking even minor details, not just big picture elements), why should the players be invested? At that point you may as well start a book club instead of a TTRPG game. I actually had a GM who was as much this as The Winner, which became more infuriating when he would get angry when the party used some tactic against the monsters but was outwardly gleeful when he pulled the same trick on us (and then would be confused why we would stop using tactics he was constantly hard countering). We were but visitors to his world, and story, and would accept nothing but the story playing out exactly how he wanted it to (even going so far as ending a session early and rebooting an encounter when he realized his original monsters combat tactics were ineffective against a particular party member).

If you're a winner DM/GM, just go get Descent and play that game. At least everyone knows in that game, the DM/GM is deliberately antagonistic.

I use GMPCs for different reasons: To fuel social play. My GMPCs tend to ask "Hey, what do we do now?" to spark conversation or point things out in conversation that the characters know but the players forgot or to simply be part of the story that the players can experience. In combat they make extensive use of the help action to enable the player characters to do awesome stuff! They use their actions to enable the PCs. Could I use NPC Stats for them? Yes. But I ran into a problem. Many of my players asked me "Why would it make sense to have a character with us that is weak and as such we have to protect him? This becomes an escort mission and that's not fun." So I use player character stats but intentionally choose to not play the most effective builds or classes and have them about one level behind the PCs and use the help action more and have them nearly as capable as the PCs.

One of my friends ended up being a winner GM because we killed an enemy that he intended us to run from. He sent a CR26 vs us level 17s. We killed that CR26 on a technicality, and he just had Vecna come kill us all.

THERE we go. I was wondering why none of the previous styles fit me, and it's because I'm Not-a-GM. I DO try to show the rest of the group a good time, and plan things out to a small degree, and I do try to keep track of what's happened and have a vague overall plot for people to head towards, because I know that's fun for players - I give the crowd what they want, so my players do seem to enjoy themselves. But ultimately, no. I personally don't have any fun with doing this stuff, I'm just doing it because nobody else will, so I just don't care about this world I've "created". If the PCs get bored with the town they're in and go elsewhere, OK, whatever. Off they go, I guess.

I''ve fallen into a few of these. 100% been the actor a few times. I had this session I thought was going to be amazing, the players had been inviting various npcs to a war council to fight an evil big bad. So, I figured them all at the table whilst the players can watch the fruits of their labour from afar would be awesome. It was not. I quickly noticed they were all losing interest, so I spun in an after party and let them join in the politics and the session went 10 times more fun.

My personal dm style is to make the nemesis a sorta gmpc. What I mean is after the session I do a quick game by myself as the dm and nemesis and just basically roll a few times to see if the nemesis has done a few things "off screen." Such as hiring a new mini boss or getting a piece of the item they are searching for in a place the PCs wouldn't be.

GMPCs are definitely something I struggled with in the past. Until my mid-20s, I had almost exclusively not-great GMs, and most of them fell into the Winner or Player styles (or both). It took a close friend gently taking me aside after a session I ran and telling me that the point of the story should be for the PCs to shine, not the NPCs, for me to realize what I was doing wrong and to try to change things going forward. I'm so grateful to him for doing that. He was the only one who ever took the time to explain how I was misunderstanding rules or mechanics, or how something I did was problematic, and he did so in a calm and friendly manner as opposed to my past GMs and groups who chose to punish me without explaining why. I learned about a whole new side of D&D (and RPing in general) thanks to that man.

The unprepared GM! Not knowing all the rules and making them up on the fly, having no NPCs prepped, nor maps, nor immediate goals, just an overarching grand theme. Great and interesting overall idea but each session filled with ah's and um's, shuffling papers, not knowing what the PC's abilities and spells do, rolling on random generators, then looking up monster stats, delay, delay, delay.

I have definitely been guilty of being "Not A GM" -- I only run games for our group when the regular DM needs a break between campaigns. But it kind of works out...the players know and accept that things are gonna get kind of silly and loosey-goosey for a while, and it can actually be a fun change of pace before we go back to the "real", "serious" style of game.

Guy, I am still what I would consider new to DnD (a little under a year playing). I just started developing my own Homebrew campaign, and you have been so incredibly helpful! Love your videos, love your insight!

I really enjoyed when the players surprised me. I sometimes would tell them not to tell me not to tell me what their end goal is , just go step by step. That way I didn't fall into the meta gaming trap. And my players actively avoided meta gaming themselves. It was a great group.

What I think this video does best is show us how different positive aspects of GMing can become a problem when the GM loses sight of the entire purpose behind RPGS: sitting around with your friends to have some fun. The very good desire to challenge your players can become the Winner when it loses sight of the players. The desire to play a game with your friends becomes the Player when it loses sight of the what the GM is meant to do for the players. The willingness to take on a role so everyone can enjoy a game becomes the Not A GM when the GM forgets the entire reason they decided to be the GM in the first place, so their friends could have some fun. And, of course, the GM who wants to put on a good show for their friends can become the Actor when they lose sight of the fact that the entire stage is meant to be set so their friends can shine. All of these are positive traits so long as the GM never loses sight of their players, the fun of the group, and the reason we all love playing these games.

I'm currently playing with the worst GM style out of sheer necessity: THE FLEXER. This particular GM has all the bad habits of the winner, the player, the "not a GM," and only acts when it's an NPC that he created. All NPCs that the PCs interact with are GOD level, the PCs are scattered doing random things at all times, roleplaying in a "roleplaying game" is not rewarded because the only experience given out is through combat, all combats are at ungodly difficult level (because "apparently" they have to be), and the party has been saddled with a "god dragon" of the GM's own design that was forced upon the group for no reason causing many hours of work and design on the group's collective efforts...wasted. If we had another choice, we would jump at the chance. Normally I'm the DM, but since I'm writing a campaign, it's easier for me to be a player instead, but this...this, is intolerable. Advice?

This was unsatisfying to me. I came here looking to find useful advice for myself, but I was presented with 4 archetypes that not only definitely do not fit my style, but I honestly actually find incomprehensible. I hope there's going to be a part 2 of this. I want to find my GM flaws! :D

My players have often made plans outside of the table during breaks. I even encourage them to do so actively. We played that game for three years straight nearly 30 hours a week. It was wonderful for me and for them. I think planning outside the table can be a good sign too. However, I totally get your reference to meta gaming as a GM. If a character couldn’t know something, act accordingly for sure. Its just so nice for the players to have a plan they keep secret from me and then that interaction seems even more organic. Down with meta gaming up with clever interaction.

Thanks as always :) Your videos are always informative and loaded with excellent advice! Keeps me coming back over and over to learn and grow as a dm.

I've been the winner and actor types for sure. I've gotten some lulz from the group at my attempts to kill them or switch things up, but I realize it can be a frustrating experience as a player. Sometimes I do these things for my own amusement, as my group is super reluctant for anyone else to be gm...(can we get a video on encouraging others to jump in the gm seat? 🙏🏽) The current campaign I'm doing has been going on for over 10 sessions and interest is still there, so I must be doing something right! Having the descriptions of these pitfalls out like this will hopefully help me help the pcs to continue to have a good time ^^ THANKS AS ALWAYS! 😊

Amazing tips as usual, i recognize a few of these styles. The first few sessions that i DMed, i was the winner and the player DM, but later sessions i learned to set the party in the headlight. Now i do sometimes slip into the actor DM, but not too much. On the other hand, a friend of mine who DMs a campaign im in, i would say is a mix of all these types except the Actor Dm, i have even tried to give him tips, but he is a bit stubborn, i think and just interupts and says he knows what he is doing. It is getting dull i can see. He wont probably watch too many tips-videos, even the ones i send him. At this point ive just given up on giving him advice as a 3,5 year experienced Dm.

It's sometimes great to watch videos like this and get yourself a heads up. I have always been very self conscious and after a session think of myself as a bad DM. But a video like this one can show me that I'm not bad, just inexperienced. Thanks for that!

It's interesting to see the archetypes that I fit into (and fight against!). Thanks for the full picture you're trying to give. Having the good and the bad to compare against is the most helpful, I think.

Guilty as charged! Thankfully I have been fortunate to have been through this and my friends as players have been my friends and are forgiving. Those days are behind me. Open to the advice provided here and from others of your peers Guy, I have seen my game improve and evolve following over a decade not being in the GM’s seat. Thankfully I have players donning the GM mantle so I may, from time to time, be a PC in their games. It helps my empathy for both roles and in my style in both as well. Continue what you do. I look forward to grab your next book (s) to make golden my library.

In my defense. Paywacket, the Wizard Cat who is with the party, is mainly a party mascot that sleeps for most of the day but is helpful with explaining some minor lore and sometimes I use him in combat to help the players out in a new system. He does have a backstory because I like writing backstories and I want to turn him into a quest objective one day. But so far he's mainly there to look cute in a wizard outfit and cast grease in places where party tells him to cast it

I'm loving this new series! Can't wait to be able to buy the book! ❤️

I am manifesting the symptoms of the "Not a GM" GM in my Curse of Strahd game...I just don't care about the campaign anymore and i am cutting a lot of stuff so that i can rush to the ending. My main problem Is that i didn't set the right expectarions about the tone and themes of the campaign: i wanted to play a gothic horror adventure with a lot of drama and tension, only to see every session derail in jokes and other stupid stuff. Plus, i don't care about the PCs because they feel very inappropriate for the setting. I blame myself for everything 😅 I'd love to hear from you how to reach an agreement with players so that they can play what they want, but in a setting in wich thay can fit in and the GM will enjoy running.

I keep worrying that I'm slipping into the first one lately. I've recently thrown some iconic boss monsters against my players, and they wiped the floor with them. I want my players to win, but I want it to be a challenge. I want them to feel that we (myself included) earned that hard fought victory. In between gaming sessions I think I have to up my game to make sure the combats are more fun. Then the next game I almost have a tpk with a random encounter I set up. We play online so I create multiple random encounter maps and enemies in advance. I keep thinking after those random encounters that I'm over compensating and slipping into a me vs them mindset. Ah the wonderful spiral of anxiety and self doubt. Thanks for the video, always appreciate the advice you give.

Probably close to an actor GM myself… I’m so opposed to most of these styles though, (not that they don’t exist, but that I strive to be other than these kinds of GMs) but I was so against DMPCs I accidentally nerfed a fight, thinking only the PCs would engage in combat with a Gelatinous Cube, I left 3 capable Centaur NPCs on the field, not planing to attack with them, but the players asked what are they doing?… and They totally would attack… because we were playing on Roll20, where everyone could see their good rolls, so I couldn’t say they missed- didn’t have the confidence to, at least- Centaurs ended up doing most of the damage and leaving very little for the PCs to clean up. I felt like I was playing with myself.

I started as not a GM lite, but I grew to love GMing. I've slipped into winner a couple times when experimenting with difficulty, but broke out when my mentality stopped being "make the game hard" and shufted to "make the bad guy's struggle for victory believable"

Pretty much the pitfall for all of these is selfishness; what a great life lesson as well! I don't think I have struggled with the problems of these styles though I look forward to running it by my players. I think my main pitfall is in The Author style which just ends up being selfishness too. I want MY story, MY plan - even if it's not a conscious desire and it makes me struggle with adaptation and ad libbing. -Dan

I'm glad that you hedged the winner GM a little bit by emphasizing that the NPCs want to win. I absolutely agree that you shouldn't metagame (unless, of course...the NPCs would have a spy in the midst, or are constantly scrying on the party, assuming you've adequately informed of that possibility) and that you shouldn't create unambiguously unwinnable fights. But I do think that you, as the DM, should try your DAMNEST to kill your party. The reason is that monsters, if not played to their fullest extent, will get steamrolled by a party of appropriate level. My party often finds that boring. Their best moments are when they just get out by the skin of their teeth and were forced to make some tough decisions in combat. I have personally experienced the joy on my players' faces when they see me roll a nat 1, or when they see me get bummed as one of my threatening monsters gets shut down due to their actions. And that's due, in part, to the fact that I play up that I'm trying to win. It makes them feel like their decisions and actions matter, and that they're actually winning. I'm not handing them a victory-they're grabbing it themselves. I actually think that as a DM it's a good practice to kind of amp up a little bit of the DM vs. Player theme, because it emphasizes that the bad guys are trying to win. And you, as the DM, are the villain. Be villainous. Cackle when you roll a nat 20 on them and grumble when you roll a nat 1 on them. That makes it so much more satisfying for your players to defeat your big bads and your minions. Just keep in mind that for all of your show, you're still secretly on their side. Everything in moderation.

I have a touch of Actor GM in me, but I am also a bit too much of a Improve DM to fully fall into that trap. I find myself slipping into npcs quite often, helps my players get more invested I feel. I also do have a self insert NPC, but I try to keep him out of the way as a reoccurring merchant character. But in one campaign I feel like I kinda leaned to far in the opposite direction to avoid having GMPCs. The party had a couple consistent NPCs in their group through the whole campaign which I did little to develop, rather trying to keep them in the background until they were needed. In the end they did have some good character archs that I think complimented the party, but I did very little to keep the relevant stats wise so they weren't much help in the last few encounters.

and you slam Critical Role -- in the last 5 min .. LOVE it thanks -- from a 53yr (39yr DM) - I agree with 90% of your take -- save for one of the first comments regarding the players stepping outside the room to confer outside the DM hearing -- it can (if not all the time) add dramatic tension for DM as well as the group comes up with a plan without "tipping" their hand .. so not always negative -- and very dynamic and some great moments can be added to the memory banks for the recollection get together decades later.

Thought I was going to be at least one of these, surprised that I'm not that bad. The Winner: Ah yes, just by the name I can already guess what this GM's hang up is. About three-fourths of my problem gamers were "Winners" that were either rules lawyers or simulationists. In my experience I've found this to be a "gamer" attitude, not a "player" or a "GM" attitude. Regardless of which side of the screen they are on, they hold a fundamental belief that there is supposed to be an antagonistic relationship between the GM and the players and that one side is supposed to "win." And in my experience, I've found that if you think that way you end up with a game where no one really wins. Speaking as a video game player that branched out into the tabletop space in the early 2000's when CRPGs had hit a lull, I've found that campaigns designed by "Winner" GMs are akin to third-tier hack and slash action RPGs. Everything can be solved by combat and the campaign is just a progressively harder series of battles that are ultimately unsatisfying. The Player: I actually have seen and even run a successful...ish GMPC (although that campaign fizzled anyway because one of the players was a Winner personality,) the trick I've found is that you give your character a set role in the group, you stick to that role like glue, and keep your character firmly in the background behind the actual players. You also need to be much more of a hardass with yourself regarding the rules but it can be done, especially if you're playing with a less then ideal numbers of players (although there are better ways for working around that.) That being said, it is still a stupid amount of extra work and should not be done. The Not-A-GM: Legit thought this was going to be me as I'm the GM mostly because no one else really wants to but... well I at least TRY to put in some effort into my worlds and campaigns by providing SOME kind of narrative or setting. How well I manage is debatable but... eh at least I try. The Actor: I legit do not have the theater chops to be an Actor GM so... yeah.

I’d bet the “Not a GM” is a circumstance more often than a style. Plenty of playgroups where everyone’s got jobs & kids & other obligations; nobody really has the time & energy to spend 10 hours prepping on top of the actual game session, but someone takes one for the team and does the best they can with what spare time & energy they can muster. If you’ve got a group where everyone’s genuinely excited to play, I think it’s pretty rare that none of them *wants* to be the GM, and a lot more common that nobody has the luxury of investing the time & effort that might be ideal.

Hi Guy, I haven't watched any of your newer videos for a while (No particular reason, really). But I just wanted to say, I love your new beard style. Also, nice video. :)

I usually run an NPC party member that is kinda Bioware style so the party has a primary one that fills a gap in the three player party and then a bunch of other ones they can get to know and swap in and out or deploy on objectives to support to main thrust of the story: what the players are doing. There's often side stories to each of them that the party can interact with as well, with the "main" gap filling one usually having more to do with the main plot since he's going to be the one they use most. However, he's normally not any more linked than the players. Recently though sheer happenstance kinda made my should have been just a little more involved than normal NPC ally into more of the spotlight than I meant to. As he was connected by bloodline to the last batch of heroes that drove off the great evil that is now returning and the players need to stop. But all the players have connections to it so it's fine. He's just connected too. Problem is... the party triggered quests I had planned out a little out of order, and as a result they find out he's linked first, then find out they are linked through a location that they were supposed to go to later AFTER finding their link that reveals his link. And because his side story is a facet of the main plot (a big deal but not even a 5th of the main plot) and the order things happened the natural flow of the story is thrown to where his side plot thing is happening back to back rather than spaced out. So I accidentally blundered into a DMPC mistake that only became an issue because I made the mistake of not making his side plot more flexible. :(

I have a group of players who sometimes do their plotting with me out of the room just so they can surprise me with a perfect plan to derail the scenario while getting maximum laughs. It's pretty funny and I do love it

I really don't see myself in any of those ^^ doesn't mean that I don't do stupid stuff that I can improve on, I just think I was very aware of those "mistakes" right from the beginning of my DM career, if you wanna call it that. Maybe it's because I played with a DM that was kind of a mixture of the first 2 types, that prepared me for that haha Really cool video though guy, I love to watch your content!

In our group we do make rotation GM in a single campaign. Their character usually sit out the adventure or they becomes the questgiver. We have no main GM and we do create small story arc. Sometimes in single part but often in 3 or 4 part. Whatever a GM create (village, toen, NPC, etc) is then added to the setting permanently. Any GM can use them as they wish. As GM we always have to adapt and its really fun. For beginers they can make simple dungeon crawling if they wish and as everyone develops themselves and become more confortable usually stories are then created. We even had a dungeon become an hideout for the player later on.

Thanks a LOT for this video. Stepping into the DM's role for the 1st time, you're giving me some amazing advice to help prevent a new monster developing. LOL And what to do when it inevitably happens.

I almost always use GMPCs as members of the party, but they're almost always there to be combatants in a group of mostly social characters or as well-traveled individuals that can explain things to them in-game. As long as your GMPC isn't the "main character" of the party, I think they're fine to use.

I feel like a gmpc could be done to good effect in some situations. My situation currently is going to be a table with me and 2 players so extra party members sometimes could be beneficial. Now I don't want some invincible hero with meta knowledge so I'm thinking about how to make various characters to take on mentor or guide roles that can tag along fir a bit and also help teach the players things about the world they inhabit. This is especially important for me because one of my players has never role-playing before and the other is not very knowledgeable about many fantasy races and medieval ways of life. Not to mention I've created my own unique planet essentially smashing the elemental planes back with the material plane (forgotten realms as a baseline) so my planet has unique shape, physics, and other things including even the magic that is used in various places to deal with these other unique factors.

I'm thankful for the Sidekick rules in 5e. I mostly use them to make better mounts for the party that can actually survive combat as the players level up, and give mounted character some extra options, but this also allows me to throw a healer or something if we're short players, without overshadowing the PCs themselves.

I've noticed a GM I played with recently fell into the "not-a-GM" category when running a module: he had little care for the world and had no idea what the motivation of anyone was when a little text blurb describing it wasn't on the page in front of him. None of the players' characters' personalities or backstories were of remote importance. The only thing keeping the game going was the incredibly vague quest to "find something in the jungle" The module was Tomb of Annihilation, and it turns out he was just running the game to "remain familiar with 5th edition" while developing his own system that was based on it. We were basically just guinea pigs

So, I have this weird thing with making GMPCs, right? I don't use them to be a player... I use them as a 'break glass in case of emergency' type of thing. They're around in case the party ever gets into a situation that I don't know how to get them out of, or as an excuse to have stronger enemies. If I have a stronger PC with the party, stronger enemies become 'safer' to throw at them, because the stronger PC can probably do something to make sure they survive. I don't know if this is babying the players, but damn if I just... want to see them succeed in the coolest way possible, y'know? It's hard to tell the difference between "hogging the spotlight" and "preventing a TPK" from the other side of the folder, though.

Thank you for all your videos. I learn so much through years. I must admit that I am The Author/The Simulationist. The Author because I really love worldbuilding and I know that most of world PC will not discover but nevermind I love do it for my fun. When creating adventure I take into consideration PC backgrounds. I am against railroading but also don’t like sand box because I am not secure in my improvisation. I have more theme park approach. Trying asking myself “what if?” and no matter PC will surprised me anyway. But I feel safer with preparation. Also I like to start conflict and then adjust outcome depending on PC choices. Example: “Barbarians want attack village. PC can: a) defend village b) help barbarians c) wait and after fight then defeat remaining forces or d) maybe just leave village and go to another city. Its fine but there choices need to have consequences. Like, then barbarians will conquer village and blood of innocents are on their hands. When I creating encounter I take into consideration how much HP they have, there AC, number of spell slots etc… because I don’t what to just TPK them and also don’t want to encounter be too easy. Also if they are for example level 3, I don’t create like multi-layer dungeon with many rooms because they will take full rest after every 2 rooms. It’s taking too long and it’s not fun. The Simulationist part of me is for example: If they come to hag layer and try to kill her, I will make her decently hard but she will try to TPK them. It’s her layer and she is fighting for her life. So if that’s mean TPK its TPK. I love more milestone and encounters scale up with PC levels. So they will not come across ancient dragon on level 4 for example.

My players party has several companion NPCs. They sometimes accompany the party (particularly when I need to pad the party or plug some ability hole) and so these are my GM PCs. I make certain they don't take the lead and hand walk players or outshine them in combat or social interactions. In fact I rather hate dialoging with myself so the two most frequent companions are a tortle Battlemaster of few words and an arcane cleric that doesn't particularly like anyone but he has a job to do. This way both stay out of pretty much any roleplay segments. In combat it is fun to control a member of the PC party and battle against the minions and monsters I have planned for them. Its my guilty pleasure.

I disagree that a GMPC is always about being a player and not a DM, and I disagree that they're always bad. You've described how GMPCs can be used badly, but overall GMPCs aren't inherently bad or damaging to a campaign any more than any tool in a GM's tool box is. All of the tools at our disposal as GMs can be used to cause harm to the fun at the table or our players when used badly or if there's a mismatch of styles at the table.

I have a GM who I would describe as a "Children's storyteller". He tends to relay information to us in a simplistic manner with juvenile dialogue for the NPCs, police's our behavior anytime we get even a little morally ambiguous to keep things "PG", railroads, preaches to the choir about identity politics in game, and just generally doesn't approach storytelling with nuance and maturity. It's really boring trying to be a rogue who is only allowed to steal under very specific circumstances (i.e. when he allows it) if it wasn't the only time I could see my friends I would have moved on to a different group.

On the GmPC problem, all characters the Gm portrays should be NPC's. The GmPC is when that's not the case. The abbreviation is literally, Game Master Player Character. It only refers to that singular "npc" the gm runs that is so important to the story, who needs to be at the centre of everything, who comes along with the group on adventure and always has the right skills, or perhaps not one skill out of a thousand just to show. "Look, he doesn't have the rope-use skill, he's not best at everything!" And then he's literally best at EVERYTHING else. A character only turns into a GmPC when it begins to outshine the players. If it's a powerful character the group meets from time to time and he's helping, no probs. Can even tag along in a dungeon, as long as the PC's are the focus and the Npc is there as support (and usually don't know the solution to the problems ahead) it's fine.

Your British accent is perfect! Couldn't even tell you were putting it on! Great! /S

So... as a "DMPC" kind of DM... I play them quite opposite of the tropes you mentioned here. my DMPC's function as the "side-kick" rather than the other way around. they usually have unique or "weird" builds, and to have more "RP time" with the PC's. There was a time back when i started I did the bad things with this... but learned from that quickly. Now i focus on avoiding those pitfalls. My dmpc's tend to not know shit about the world or the "story", and tend to get killed off before the PC's do. (partly due to wanting to change the npc for narrative reasons or not enjoying them, but also because i refuse to pull my punches when attacking my dmpc)

I've never understood the "Winner" mentality. The purely adversarial approach makes for utterly shite stories, and I really can't stomach that attitude in a game. Which made it all the sadder when, running the game a week ago, one of the players, after being allowed to retroactively use an Inspiration on a botched death save for advantage, and I asked exasperatedly if "someone could please land a blow, the giant has like three hit points left?" (after three rounds of no-one hitting *anything*), uttered a puzzled "It's like the DM is rooting for us? What?" At that moment, I had the mental image of that player (we don't use cams) as a cute kitten rescued from a bad previous owner... I... may have a small touch of the Actor, though. Well, I do the voices, and try to consistently give the NPCs personality when the PCs interact with them, without overshadowing the party. Then again, there were the incidents with the warlock's erinyes wife (marriage arranged by the goodly and unwitting monk), or the awakened bobcat (pet of the same unwitting monk, incidentally) who became mayor of their little town, or currently the scamp of a white drake who's the ranger's bonded pet (the ranger's player has full control in combat, mind)... I might want to hold my ear a little when the more charming NPCs get busy.

I'll admit I've had a few moments as a Winner type of GM, mostly by punishing players for straying off my intended path for the story (which is a horrible, horrible thing to do as the GM). In fact, I'd add The Writer as the 5th type of awful GM, i.e. the GM who already has the whole story planned out in his head, and he won't stand for anything else happening at his table.

I would probably also add a «Use Tables Dm» which is a Dm who rolls a dice to see what monsters we will fight insteas of actually preparing the monster. One example is the last session i played in a friends campaign, we went out to find a monster and murder it. He found a random table with ABSOLTUELY no balanced monsters, rolled to see what we would get, mind we are level 4 at this point. He sent a CR 24 Gnoll on us and it started getting more and more dull and boring. I tried to explain that he shouldnt have used tables in that way and rather use monsters that are «balanced» to the party, but being the stubborn Dm he was he interupted and ignored before i could talk about it. BTW we did defeat the monster, but mostly using som NPCs he handed out to us to help with the fight. We all went unconscious a few times before defeating him.

i always tell my players when i have some cool scene setup, "hey guys if you can entertain me for two minutes, and then I'll toss it back to you guys!" for the rare but cool dramatic cut scene or long descriptive scene or something where it is just me talking. as long as it's not a common thing and you give your players some headsup, it is actually a fun thing to add to the game if you have the acting skills to pull it off

A good way I found to halp the Party out when they need additional power in Battle without falling into the DMPC trap is to make my "DMPC" an animal companion. Basically I create a Barbarian or a Rogue and make them a Bear of Wolf, that can transform into a smaller animal when out of combat but is otherwise just an animal.

A red flag is when your NPCs spend a lot of time talking to each other rather than the PCs

I used to attend several events where more parties played different games at several tables next to each other. I had the opportunity to experience the "Actor" type GM, and at several consecutive events I managed to get a table near the game of this guy who always had an NPC screaming with a Slavic accent and hitting the table with a stick. He loved playing this NPC so much that somehow his players met this figure every five minutes in his every game. In addition to the fact that it was extremely annoying to focus on our own game during the noise he made, I found it ridiculous that the same NPC, regardless of system, always appeared in his games, whether he played a D&D, Star Wars, or World of Darkness or any other story.

One thing I never actually saw anyone do (but my group did) is having the rôle of GM switch. We all took turn in being GM, each adding a small part to the story, each chapter being an unknown from the previous ones. Each GM had a character, which usualy got a bit in the shadows during when his player was GM at the same time. If the GM does not actually want to be GM all the time, then why not take turns? ^^

The biggest problem I keep running into is GMs who over plan and over think their games. Like the dudes who will try to show off to players how clever they believe themselves to be by creating puzzles that require extremely specific approaches to resolve, often brutally punishing the players any time they think outside the box. Had one instakill my character because he didn't touch the magical rune stone while speaking an obscure passphrase that we had absolutely no way to find out before that time

Have been looking forward to seeing this follow up

Great stuff! Hehe, shooting a dragon or a starship. Pure gold.

The one caviat in the player is the level of trust a group has. In my main groups which are the same rotating 5 players GM games we run GMPCs with the express and candid understanding that they not Metagame or outshine the PC's. (Unless they are clearly and obviously and we've never run into an obstacle over 7 years of games. But this is reliant on an openness at the table and a level of trust that seems unique to our table.

Thank you, Guy! I am a MAJOR Not-a-GM. This was eye-opening for me, and hopefully, will benefit my future players.

Great video Guy!

i just recently tried having a NPC follower, i gues syou can call it a GMPC. but they were more of just a follower, and had some stuff that were tied to sideplots but the table said it actually helped immersion having people in the world be able to follow around and not everyone just giving them quests. I find it was good to have a follower who is able to help prod the players for RP moments, or maybe remind them of a hint, so it helps the in game believability rather than me trying to be a Player in my own game its also good if you have a small group, someone DOESNT want to heal, or doesnt want to tank, then you can have a follower who can do something in a pinch to help out without them being a star or a hero or a vital member

I have run a couple campaigns with a DMPC. I usually play it as the character is basically just there to help keep the party from dying in combat (usually with my 2 kiddos) and they don't do any social interactions, no decisions, and only the occasional giver of guidance/person who can give advice.

I have once or twice used overhearing the players plotting 'against them'. It is always a, "Duh...I am just a dude who lives a pretty comfortable life and has never had to go through anything even resembling a life or death scenario, there is NO way hardened soldiers or the like would have overlooked something so stupidly obvious". And in both cases it was a direct 'paper' to their 'rock' but more of a "of course there would be some kind of warning system" type things.

Super helpful video!

14:50 Ah-ha!, throwing down the magic words! It sounds like we've got some fellow peeps from 'the forge' amongst us. ;>

Our group creates gmpcs as we don’t have enough people a majority of the time but those of us who are consistenty here want to play and not have weaker party members. The gms in our group we have are careful to create more supportive roles and let the PCs determine how the story goes and the gmpcs’ roles in the story. Though the players want the gmpcs to at least feel part of the world too so, they do get their own opinions, which, they don’t automatically know things or solve everything. 🤔 they can occasionally end up in the spotlight, but rarely and almost always because of the dice.

I propose that "the Actor" be expanded to encompass anything one might be tempted to make the RPG a vehicle for. "The Grandstander"? I wouldn't take over the game to act roles, ever, but show off my worldbuilding? Oh, yes. I'm definitely in danger of doing that.

I have been wanting to experiment with using a system like "Mythic GM Emulator" for running games where no one is in the mood to GM (in order to avoid the Not-a-GM scenario. I've used this while playing solo and I love the way it works. The problem is... my groups always have someone willing to GM 😅, so I've yet to arrive at a situation where the experiment would be necessary.

I think a GMPC is only a right option when there rotating GMs in a Group. For example in a more free Style Group. Because its only a GMPC during there GM Time and normal PC when other Act as GM. It can work but it also can go wrong. It never went wrong for us but like desribed in the Video in heard stories where it went wrong. I myself often let my PC Character do background Work for the Group in that Situation. Craft Magical Items, get a hold of some item the Group wanted, gathered some information about something for the Group (in cooperation with a other Player if its something they created as GM) things like that.

4:23 If your players don't trust you, it doesn't neccesarily have to be your fault. Some players bring this expectation to the table, be it due to bad experience with a winner type GM or just because that's what they expect to be a GM's role. So, the solution ist not to stop meta-gaming (if you aren't you can't stop, right), the solution is to talk to your players and tell them to stop distrusting you. If you are the winner type GM that won't help of course, but by addressing the problem you will find out where their lack of trust is coming from.

Idk if it makes it better but when I have a dmpc, I usually make them mute, and shy. If I need some direction for the pcs and don't have a npc handy I can always use them. I do that very sparingly tho

I may be biased, but I think DMPCs can be fun if handled the right way. of course it's no fun if you put them at the center of everything, give them OOC knowledge, and make them the main character, but if you leave them in the background and just sort of use them to prod the players with things they might not have thought of before in a way that makes the game more fun for EVERYONE, I don't see why not to use them. it's a delicate balancing act, but it's not impossible. my current players have a lot of fun with my DMPC, because I don't try and make them the hero of the story. it can be hard to do, but if you're an experienced roleplayer, you can absolutely DM and play in the game at the same time.

DMPCs are veeeery attractive for characters too, since it opens the door to always picking the "right" choice. I accidentally made one by dropping a very young shape-changer disguised as a kitten in the middle of their very first dungeon. My original goal was to have the kitten hang around with them for protection, occasionally helping out on the sly. Eventually it would realize it needed to get on with its own plot, reveal itself and peace out. The players got attached, and independently decided to follow the kitten's plot when they found out the truth, effectively ruining my initial plan to get the kitten out of the party. Every time I've gotten it away from them, they've dropped everything to find it. After a while they decided that the kitten is The Smart One and kept trying to unload choices onto it. "Should we trust this person? Should we take Quest A or Quest B? Should we just jump down this miles deep hole without a single party member who has Featherfall?" The hilarity of a group of grown adults consulting a literally six-month-old being was memorable, but definitely an eye-opener about how players might latch onto perceived game guides. I ended up having to put my foot down and straight up rule that the kitten does not get to decide major decisions for the group.

I had (as player) very good sessions with GMPCs in the party. Of course, not every character Class is suited for that - but a dumb muscle type just for heavy hitting, a archly character who can never taken seriously - that works for me. Also it is perfect if the group rotates the role of the GM - so every PC is within the party, even if the player is the DM. Of course, the GM has to differentiate between player / GM knowledge and character knowledge - but that is something, every other player have to do, too.

For GMPCs I’m planning on using a character as their quest giver. She stays at her brothel (the velvet fang) and collects information for them but doesn’t go on quests of fight for/with them. She’s just a neutral party for paid lodging, paid information gathering and ration gathering. Would that be ok? I have 0 interest in being a player but I feel that it would be easier for me to have a main conduit aside from other NPCs

I hate when the PCs add a NPC to the group I have to keep up with. Its like being forced to play a character and a huge strain on my mind while trying to run the whole world.

My heart leapt into my throat and every iota of insecurity leered forwards, rubbing it's hands together in anticipatory glee when you said, "The one that thinks they're a good GM..." Thankfully, I did not qualify

There's another type of crap GM style which is a subset of the Winner: the killer GM. This GM just wants all the PCs to die. I have personally experienced this as a player and myself and the other players jumped from that game. Different from the Winner in that the intent is to wipe out the PCs in a spectacular fashion to demonstrate some 'amazing' aspect of the plot/setting/cleverness. Ughhh.

ALL very good points. Very well said.

Huh, interesting. I was very surprised to find the player gm on this list. I have played rpgs for a couple of years with five different gms. All of them had gmpcs and no one batted an eye at it. I kind of assumed that's just how it's done. It also never was an issue. The gms were always consious of what their character actually knew or not and they never tried to take center stage. Their pcs were really just pcs. It was actually rather nice having the gm be part of the team.

I use a free app called Obsidian. It creates a database of notepad files and links them together, and creates a map showing the nodes that show each notepad file and their links to each other.

Thoughtful breakdown of these troublesome archetypical approaches to GMing. I would say you missed one, though -- the Author -- who is trying to keep his story on track, damn the players and their motivations. And I've been guilty of this one for sure.

There's also "The Story Teller." Which is similar to "The Actor" but the whole world is what they are interested in. I once played in a game where the GM was literally a novelist. In his world, he would tell a complex story and the PCs had little or no effect on what happened. He would narrate what your PC was doing without really asking you. When I realized this, I spent a year trying for my PC to die. It was impossible to die because that wasn't the story he was telling! (It also was impossible to stay alive if your PCs death was what was needed.) He really was a very good story teller though, so I enjoyed just sitting back and listening to him.

I'm a firm believer that GM vs Players is not an inherently bad mindset, as long as you as a GM have a sense of fairness and commit to giving them a challenge that they can defeat- if they can hack it, and you're not gonna make it easy for them. This is more appropriate for a beer and pretzels type game, especially a dungeon crawler, since if you have the mechanical and tactical knowledge to pull it off you can make absolutely riveting encounters with it

I have a GMPC accompanying the party, as he's the guy paying them to escort him and help with his research. But most the time my players and even myself forget he's there (he's even been noticably absent in a couple of major fights) and he usually only appears when one of us remembers about him and asks "what's ___ doing?" So hopefully I'm not playing him in the bad way. He's just a macguffin to get the party to the next major story point.

16:16 As someone from a film and TV background, that has totally been me a few times and I am sorry

I sadly only have myself and 2 others in my friends group i trust to play with, and as such our dm always has a dmpc so combats and stakes can be more exciting, as just with 2 players things are really hard to deal with especially at the higher challenge ratings.. I wish we had more people for our table, but other friends we have who are interested in dnd can only ply once every 4 months or so, and if they can play more often they treat it as more of a side thing compared to hanging out with us and just talking.

Hey Guy, my players gave me some constructive criticism and told me that the objective of each session isn't clear enough. My issue is that I get interrupted mid-speech too often that I cannot properly exposit lore, descriptions of their surroundings, even some of the larger/smaller details that could be important. What should I do? We are all friends at the table and their some of my closest friends.

I often wind up playing with only two other people, so I usually wind up running a GMNPC or two to help flesh out a party to have four or five characters. I've never found it difficult to have my GMNPC's be wrong, fail at stuff and do stupid things. Sometimes, I've sacrificed a GMNPC to a horrible death in some way that was pointless or turned out to be for ridiculous and stupid reasons later on. All in all, I treat my GMNPC's like they're just persistent NPC's that don't know a damn thing that their experiences, knowledge skills and abilities don't reflect. I find them deeply entertaining most of the time because they're sometimes very amusing idiots, but they're usually idiots and the actual PC's usually have to direct them, contain them or otherwise manage them to some degree or another. I sometimes switch them out as well. Not too long ago in the campaign I' mcurrently running, the GMNPC I was wound up retiring from adventuring and committed himself to an asylum because he's become terrified of dying again after having died once by getitng his ass absolutely wrecked by an enemy wizard. So he's retired and won't be willingly going back to adventuring any time soon, and now the actual players have to figure out what to do about having lost the party fighter that they both made a big habit out of hiding behind in fights for the past eleven levels of play. It remains to be seen how they'll solve that problem. And as a DM, I feel that I do just fine with running GMNPC's in ways that are really just...persisten NPCs that play a full-bodied role in the party, though they're not typically the locus of the story or the frequent source of input, ideas or direction that's necessarily useful. I prefer thinking of them as persistent NPC's anyway, because that's what I think of them as. They're mostly there to fill in a gap that my two regular players aren't capable of managing with whatever characters they're playing this time around. Seems to work out for us at least, and I don't often have other people playing, so I don't tend to get any negative feedback on how it goes. My two regulars love that I keep them entertained with GMNPC's that don't always know things and are run just like they're real people in the game world that don't get any special favors just because I'm running them. I run everything else too. They're all just NPC's. Just because I keep a detailed character sheet of the persistent NPC that's a party member doesn't make him or her any more special than the King off in the castle or the evil lizardman necromancer lurking in the sewers, 'ey?

I feel like an important note on the gmnpc one is that (in so far as I have tested), it is fine to have an npc overshadow the players IF they are an antagonistic force within the party. I've had a lvl 10 npc with my party of lvl 3 characters for a few weeks now and while they hate the npc (by my design), the conflict they bring to the table is actually enjoyable. Importantly, this high level feller isn't the hero. He's quite the dick. And I never fudge rolls with him or focus on his actions/ combat turns more than players when it comes to descriptions so it hasn't become a story centred around him.

I had a GM who wanted the world to be completely random. Seriously. He had no plan and we just rolled dice and wandered around aimlessly for a few sessions before people stopped showing up.

Regarding the Winner GM, how can a GM play an intelligent villain without it seeming meta against the players? Also, what if the players call on and succeed with Insight or Perception, or what have you, to ween knowledge of the villain's plans in advance?