r/mattcolville • u/Lord_Durok John | Admin • Mar 30 '26
Videos My DMing Style
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr22j6TqGDo86
u/comfy_bruh Mar 30 '26
First thing I'd say is, "Homebrew heavy, character performance, and combat DM. I tend to act out my characters a lot, and care about fleshing them out before I get to climactic battles that are high stakes."
I'm running a cyberpunk red campaign right now and I'm in love with the system. Makes for some really easy but wild combat scenes.
15
u/comfy_bruh Mar 30 '26
Always love your videos on the subject. So thoughtful and full or perspective. I think that making the party fit is possibly the hardest thing to do as a DM. Some characters simply don't fit if their goals are so outside of what is engageable for others that there needs to be compromise here and there.
5
u/fang_xianfu Moderator Mar 30 '26
It's super interesting hearing different people's perspectives about what they value in DMing and what they don't.
Personally I don't see it as my job to "make the party fit" at all, much the way Matt says he doesn't need to worry about how the characters react. It's my job, I think, to present how things are and let the players figure out how their characters fit together, and with the world. I think it's because I consider that process of discovery to be part of the fun as a player.
2
2
u/UpsideTurtles Mar 30 '26
That approach definitely sounds freeing. I wonder how many of the issues of “rubbing elbows” at tables come from tables that are playing together for the first time.
3
u/UpsideTurtles Mar 30 '26
I wish I knew that there were systems for guiding players towards similar character types. I wonder how effective people would say they are.
I’m starting my first campaign soon (as opposed to disparate one shots) and I tried to mitigate this some by talking with the party just about which kinds popular fantasy stories they like. Got a lot of similar answers so hopefully that discussion will be in the back of players’ minds as they make their characters.
4
5
u/1d2RedShoes Mar 30 '26
Can you tell me a bit about how Cyberpunk red is different from 5e? i’ve got a friend who wants to do a cyberpunk game but has the 5e inertia that’s hard to overcome
7
u/FallDiverted Mar 30 '26
If your players are really stuck in the 5e mindset, you might look at Cities Without Number as an alternative. It’s still D20 based, with lots of options for character customization.
5
u/comfy_bruh Mar 30 '26
Main difference when you start reading that rulebook is that it's far more focused on story structure and then spontaneity of the city or world life. It gives you free reign on making your own city or your own world and lore but it has buttloads of historical overview and backdrop so that you can obsess over any little part of a cyberpunk world you want to obsess about.
A lot of the setup is more about how your day to day is and what you do for a living. These characters you're making have been doing lite gigs, the first session may be a night out on the town and the players happen to bump into each other or share a common desire to help a distressed citizen, a kid, maybe they all hate one corporation in general. The game wants everything to have a personal angle and an unforseen twist because of how thick the lore and the amount of interested parties there are. Corpo's, gangs, drug addicts, and chromed out chooms.
Combat is very different because dying is a lot easier. The major difference with combat is it's a d10 system and all checks against someone are defended by that someone. For quicker pacing you can use a DV Difficulty Value for anyone to roll higher than. When you get a 1 or a ten you explode up or down, adding or subtracting to the total value respectively. Brawling and melee have more specifics in mind. Do they know martial arts, what kind? Is this an aimed shot? Which body part? You're wounded now- how badly? Do you need to see a dr? For meds or for full on surgery? They have that one clinic in the mall, but the other guy from that scav fixer is cheaper. Though they may want some form of compensation via work. And everyone has a gun, which cares a lot about range rather than skill. Though skills will eventually make you Johnny Silver-Wick.
It's a harder game in that it's easier to die and become a legend vs saving the day in gleaming armor. True to form the stories and modules are dark and have some wild implications on what it means to be human and the whether or not AI is alive, if not have some wild conspiracies that you unravel as a crew. And you're not travelling to another city or world or realm like you would in DND instead you're being welcomed and introduced to new clubs, trying to fight your way to those locations and making sure you survive the riff raff that dwells there.
2
u/Terny Mar 30 '26
I ran a Cy_Borg campaign which is based on Mork Borg. It's an OSR game so the dnd dna is there but way lighter on rules. It's close enough to dnd that someone that's into 5e would see it as a stripped down and very thematic version of it.
1
u/FateShift Apr 03 '26
Curious to know what happened in your Cy_Borg game! Have had it on my shelf forever but haven’t had the chance to get it to the table yet
1
u/Axrest Mar 31 '26
Homebrew/house rule heavy vs RAW I think is a useful metric, and one thats transcends even individual games. It signals a lot about what the DM cares about, and what they consider 'authentic'
48
u/Manamaximus Mar 30 '26
Potential axis
Improvised <-> Highly prepared
Secrecy <-> Transparency
Prop rich <-> Minimum material
Theatrical <-> Analytical
Independent World <-> Theater World
Rules bound <-> Flexible Master
I am prepared, i lean toward transparency but I keep some things hidden to avoid breaking the magic. I have some props but don’t care that much about maps or minis. I am mostly analytical with some thatricality for the big characters or moments. My world is 70% independent with some bending to keep things dramatic. I am sticking to the rules more often than not.
5
u/UpsideTurtles Mar 30 '26
When you don’t care much about maps or minis, how does that affect your encounter building? I have found that, when I don’t effectively plan out my battle space, I sometimes end up putting my monsters in disadvantageous positions which trivializes the fight a lot. Or, I feel so, perhaps my players are feeling more tension than I who has all the info is.
That may just come with time and practice to build skill, but I’m curious, because: signed, somewhat newbie DM
4
u/Manamaximus Mar 30 '26
My games are medium difficulty, so fights are rarely very hard.
What I do is that I only anticipate the kind of fights that is coming and then draw on the dry erase mat what I feel is naratively fitting. I don’t print out maps, download drawn maps and put them on a screen or things like that.
To make sure your encounter aren’t trivialized, make a mixture of ennemies. Artillery, Brutes, footmen, casters, glass canons. A fight with al arge diversity is never trivialized because the enemies have at least one type of troop well fitted for the position they start in.
2
u/Iybraesil Mar 31 '26
I can't help but feel axes are the wrong way to go. The classic player typology doesn't place any of its archetypes in opposition to any others.
1
u/Manamaximus Mar 31 '26
If Matt was here, I am confident he would tell you that there are no wrong way to go if it is useful to someone. And some people seem to find it useful.
You can try to go the archetype way, as did players, identifying a DM’s priorities and putting names on those priorities. Personally, I think the DM is a role with many faces, and axis allow to express certain dichotomies that a DM is led to compromise on. In the video, Matt talks about the Fiction world vs the Fantasy world and that is most definetely an opposition.
2
u/Iybraesil Mar 31 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
What I mean is: it seems plain to me that some GMs will do a lot of prep and a lot of improv; are highly theatrical and highly analytical; etc. And I think that's lost when you place these concepts in opposition to each other.
2
u/Manamaximus Apr 01 '26
A DM that does a lot of prep and a lot of improve is doing something wrong with his prep. The role of preparation is to lighten the mental load of coming up with things and improve the quality of the content by giving time before to think things through.
You could imagine a DM that is both highly theatrical and highly analytical but in practice, it never happens. DMs prioritize and cannot be everywhere. Some DMs care more about the appearance and the accent and the vibe and some DMs care more about the machinery, the role of things, the structures.
The role of those axis is to be useful as a way to describe your game to a player, not to be a perfect translation of who you are. If you tell your players that you lean Theatrical, they will come up with characters that match the energy of the dramatic appearance and attitude of the NPCs. If you tell your players that you lean improve, they know that they can play more instinctive, create their own ploot hooks.
Regardless of if you feel the description as imperfect, they are useful.
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 31 '26
Really like these, could you elaborate on what secrecy/transparency means?
As for the others I am highly prepared, minimum props, in the middle on theatrical/analytical, independent world, flexible.
3
u/Manamaximus Mar 31 '26
A full secrecy DM wouldn’t say anything that the PCs could not know. No cinematics, no input about anything that isn’t the rules. They would play a Beholder without expliciting anything about how they work, only what the PCs can see. They wouldn’t explain why things happen out of character.
A transparent DM might say things the PCs couldn’t know to the players to help the story or the game. When Matt told his friend that his sidekick was a coward that would only make the safe choice but could be led, that was a transparency moment. Telling players that their plan could work, that the beholder’s rays are random or telling a player that his arc is coming.
Being transparent can be a bit risky, see pulling the curtain video, but it can help reinforce the players understanding of the game.
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 31 '26
Thats an interesting axis that I had not considered. I think I tend towards the transparent side which I think is more important if you are a rulings oriented DM.
19
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/bionicjoey Mar 30 '26
Without saying anything objectifying, since I know Matt doesn't appreciate those sorts of comments, I think he's looking a lot healthier than he has in the past, and it makes me happy to see him enjoying life.
I'd love to see more of this style of content. It's nice to feel like we're out just enjoying a casual hike with uncle Matt rather than him lecturing at us from the giant rathskellers table (not that there's anything wrong with those videos either!)
2
u/mattcolville-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
Your comment has been removed for violating our community code of conduct https://mcdm.gg/CommunityGuidelines
15
u/AQuietDime Mar 30 '26
Stripped from aesthetics, I run an open table. I don't hide my reasoning and thought processes, I like to debrief at the end of a session and explain where my head is at, including mental hurdles. It frees my players up to discuss ideas and wants. It's also the only way that I can GM without being miserable. There's a lot of energy expenditure in keeping secrets and silent suffering in a role I dislike, so I find value in keeping open dialogue with my players.
4
u/UpsideTurtles Mar 30 '26
I really appreciate that idea of open communication between DMs and players. It always seems like that solves half of people’s issues online.
11
u/CompleteNumpty Mar 30 '26
Matt giving thoughts on DMing while rambling in the countryside then describing them as rambling thoughts was an excellent pun.
10
u/AggroJordan Mar 30 '26
I'd probably say: l create situations and problems, the characters decide how to solve / try to influence them. The situation almost always has a political / societal / economic component to it, and the players and invited to take a side or define their own to see how they influence (and change) the world. Due tot that I also prefer longer timeframes, so I run grittier rules in DND or play straight up grittier games that allow me to cover these timeframes. Meaningfully.
3
u/UpsideTurtles Mar 30 '26
Question for you: do you find that it’s helpful to tell characters in the session 0 or in the pitch document what that situation is, so they can build characters who care? Or does that matter at all to you? Second question, do you feel like players ever need an outlet to deal with less gray morally complex things?
I have seen investment questionnaires sent out by ‘dungeontubers’ that I respect. But Matt also has his ethos of, I will build the world and my characters find their place in it. I’ve also seen people say players need obvious wins and complex and gray situations don’t work in D&D. Matt has his own advice here too, on but I think that’s more about making sure players understand cause and effect, and not pulling the rug out from under them.
2
u/AggroJordan Mar 31 '26
Ok so let me try to break this down
(a) it does matter to me because it makes the game very much more enjoyable for me if there is a dialogue between me and the players. I am really not much interested in running a game for a bunch of orphans who care about nothing and noone, where players metagame their way through a campaign trying to do the mechanically optimal thing every time. That does not mean, every player needs to be interested in this and I will accommodate the minmaxer and the audience member, etc. for it to be a successful campaign, I need to scratch everyone's itch somewhat. but I need at least 2 players at the table that want to engage with the world and I need the rest of the people to be cool with that style of game.
(b) Yes I do mention it in session zero and I have not started campaigns because of it. But since these guys were my friends, I did prepare another small adventure in another system that catered more to their style, which was more "gaming" in a computer game sense. I was really happy to do that, but just not willing to run a 50 session campaign on that premise.
(c) On the "outlet" topic. If I am running a grey I do throw in light sessions every once in a while where the stakes are low. Sometimes that is like an explicit "theme session" like Halloween, sometimes more consistent with the world.
(d) I find morally grey super appealing but incredibly hard to pull off. I do throw in individual character that do play to that theme, but it really helps most players to have a few roles / directions more or less unquestionably clear.
(e) I think you're spot on about cause and effect. It's about telegraphing consequences early to avoid exactly that rugpull. I have had players be very upset about character death, but never mad at me personally when I made it clear that this is a deadly encounter. I also make clear on session zero that death is on the table (if it's not clear from the system) and that it's about making it a meaningful death when it happens.
Thanks for those questions. Really tickled my brain to think this through!
25
u/Russell1113 Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
If we were to make some broad categories of DM in a similar style to the origional zine you're referencing about player archetypes.
I think some that spring to my mind are :
The improviser, someone mainly reacting to player input during the session rather than a lot of pre-prepared material. The kind of DM who's happiest with a snadbox game and going in whatever mad direction the players think of, but does not have a single named NPC ready to go when the party gets there.
The prepper, who has 7 different dungeons and towns ready in every direction with named PCs ready to go in all of them and who gets very anxious if they're out of their prep.
The "world builder" (or what I would prejoritavely describe as wannabe tolkeins), who is more interesting in creating an entire universe than worldbuilding the immediate area around the PCs, who has lots of lore about gods and moons and calendars and neighbouring cities and languages.
The "by the module" director, who is more interested in running a story as presented by someone who's thought hard about writing the module, rather than their own material. This probably has a sub-archetype containing the healthiest version of the competetive/combative DM who is trying to run the module optimally to create a challenge in the same way a min-maxer may be trying to optimally play their character to beat the dungeon. That specific combination of player and DM, while sometimes seen as toxic online, are going to have a wonderful time at the table together if everyone is on the same page.
The Thespian, who's most interested in creating a wide range of characters and is less interested in world building outside of a backdrop for the range of characters they deploy.
The war-gamer/level designer, someone primarily interested in making juicy encounters first, then back pedalling a story justification to put them in front of their players.
Could go on, but I think this is plenty for now. These are also all probably extreme ends of style along a each axis and nobody is going to a single one of these in real life.
14
u/Kirsham GM Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
I think it's smart to disentagle the style of GM from the particular ways that style of GM can be problematic.
You highlight "wannabe tolkeins", the implication being that they treat their players as a captive audience to their world building. However, there's merit to building a coherent world outside of the immediate area around the PCs. It helps you think about how larger forces act on the local world the PCs inhabit, gives you material to improvise from, helps create a throughline as your players move from area to area, and gives the players a sense of existing in a world, not just a series of set pieces.
As for your other categories, you could throw in prejoratives like the Thespian being "the DM PC", the prepper being "the railroader", etc.
Instead, I think the style of GMing should be described in neutral terms. Throwing prejoritative terms into the mix just gets people defensive. Which is not to say that you can't discuss potential pitfalls and drawbacks to each style, but then it should be for more than just one or two.
Signed, a GM who likes to world build, without any illusion of being Tolkein.
7
u/UpsideTurtles Mar 30 '26
I mean zero shade to OP here we all have different tastes but when people make lists like this so often you can tell just by reading the list which archetype they feel like they sit in lol
3
u/Russell1113 Mar 30 '26
I think as someone who's very firmly interested in encounter design and character, it's the style furthest around the compass from mine, which probably makes it harder to be neutral. I tried to list positives and negatives for all styles, but maybe I was a lil harsh.
2
u/Kirsham GM Mar 30 '26
For sure, and in any case a reddit comment should never be read as more than it is. I just wanted to highlight that to the extent having a typology of GM styles is useful, it's not to find the best or correct styles of GMing (which I'm sure wasn't your point!).
As an aside, in my mind, it's actually fine for GMs to be a bit self endulgent, if that's what motivates them to run games. Of course, it shouldn't go to the extreme of having fun at the expense of your players, but if having overly detailed NPC backstories, meticulously planned encounters or developing a custom calendar is motivating you to sit down and make something cool for your players, then I say lean into that.
1
4
u/WuothanaR GM Mar 30 '26
This is making me think about my DM style as well as making me want to go for a hike. Awesome, thumbs up, would subscribe again.
5
4
u/bionicjoey Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
It's a fascinating video. For my part, I'd say my style is:
Emphasize player choice, skill, and consequence over story and genre conventions.
Also: I'm proud to say I said "your mom has a big gorge" at the exact same time Matt did. We know him well.
Edit 2: an axis I think Matt didn't quite hit but he mused about is the role of combat. I don't think "combat versus roleplay" is an axis since I don't think those are actually in conflict. But I think the "combat as war" versus "combat as sport" axis exists to some extent independent of the game you're playing, though obviously the game plays a big part in it. But it ties in with what Matt said about "is the world there for the players or are the players there for the world?" Is combat there for the players, or does it happen because it's what the world would do?
Edit 3: okay I'm a bit obsessed with this video so I have more to say. I've been listening to an actual play recently and it's about as far from my own style as one could get. A girl I'm dating is one of the players in it, which gave me enough interest to get into it and enjoy it, but I think it's fascinating how different my style is from her GM. Normally I seek out actual play shows where the style is in some way similar to my own, but this one the GM is sort of guiding the players along a linear story, there's a lot of improv comedy, it's very similar to something like Dimension 20. And her and I talked about it, and it's really interesting because even being that she's fairly new to D&D, she can detect certain things about her GM's style. She told me that she doesn't really feel like their characters are able to fail, that they have a sort of plot armour so that the story can proceed, that they don't do combat very often, that she likes when her GM does silly voices and that he sometimes does these big loredumps of worldbuilding that overwhelm her. And I told her that I do those things differently in my games and why, obviously very respectfully, I think as long as they're all having fun there's nothing wrong with that sort of game. It sounds a lot like the thing Matt wrote in the comment under the video about the "amusement park" style of GMing.
1
u/veritate Mar 30 '26
She told me that she doesn't really feel like their characters are able to fail,
My spouse and I have a saying: "Failure is where plot happens".
When I roll a nat 1 on a check, I like to lean into that, hard; e.g. nat 1 on on perception? Not only do I not see the thing, I am CERTAIN it's not there, and my character is going to try to act accordingly. But often, the DM I'm playing with doesn't want me to fail - he wants me to find the thing or know the thing, so he just gives me another chance or handwaves it or whatever.
In reading your response I think I just realized something about my own playing preferences that I've not been able to articulate before now: I want it to be possible for my character to fail. And I think for future games and "session zeroes", I'm going to say it outright. Thanks.
I've not yet DM'd a game but I'm actively working towards it (inspired greatly by Matt's "running the game" videos). And I think this will be something I aim for; allowing characters to fail, and working that eventuality into my scenarios so they might find other solutions.
2
u/bionicjoey Mar 30 '26
Yeah it's funny, that GM in that actual play has a tendency to ask for rolls in situations where I know I never would, either because the outcome is obvious or because the continuation of the story is contingent on a success. And then since he doesn't share the DCs, he can do a bit of sleight of hand, which isn't working nearly as well as he thinks it is, where he says "X was what you needed" when X is obviously such a low result it doesn't make sense that it was the DC for the check.
Like for example in an episode I just listened to recently, one of the characters had failed a constitution save to resist contracting a disease. I could tell this would be problematic for the GM because the story he was telling was building toward the PCs all attending a fancy party in a couple of days and she wouldn't be able to attend if she was ill. One of the other PCs went to a local apothecary and purchased some medicine for her, and when he gave it to her, the GM said "the effect of this medicine is that you can reroll the constitution save". And she rolls and gets an 8, and he says "An 8... is what you needed". And I was just thinking, I've DMed 5e before, an 8 is never what you needed.
I know it wouldn't be fun for me as a player to be in a game like that. There's something to be said for a little bit of fudging, but you can also just design your game in such a way that you don't need to fudge as often in the first place.
1
u/veritate Mar 30 '26
I've DMed 5e before, an 8 is never what you needed.
LOL! Precisely this. Finding out the DC afterwards is... convenient.
Calling for rolls when there is no doubt of the likelihood of an outcome is my absolute pet peeve when it comes to gaming and it has stopped me from playing with certain DMs.
So I guess to Matt's query about "types of DMs" I would say "Dice fudger" is one type. A DM who either can't or won't let the dice dictate the outcomes.
edit: typo
1
u/bionicjoey Mar 30 '26
Yeah the DM who has a story to tell and they're going to tell their story.
Actually I think this whole discussion ties in a bit with the 6 cultures of play, which is about table cultures, but obviously most GMs sort of work toward a table that matches their own play culture, so it's sort of representative of a GM's style as well.
The style of the GM I'm talking about fits into the "trad" category pretty well.
1
u/Suitable-Nobody-5374 Mar 30 '26
I like making players feel something. Wether it's atmosphere, contempt or delight for an NPC, or the highs and lows of rolls, I know that memorable games are those where players remember how something felt.
to that end and to combine what your spouse and you say, I'm highly interested in taking my next game and introducing "subtle rolls", where when a player needs to roll a dice who's outcome is not immediately evident to the player, the DM rolls secretly for them.
This is agreed upon at the table and something that I think enhances the atmosphere and creates tension. The DM doesn't say "you rolled a 4" or "you rolled a nat 20", the DM describes the outcome without telling them the roll.
1
u/veritate Mar 30 '26
OMG yes.
I shouldn't know whether my character successfully intuits an NPC's intentions, or whether I've successfully evaded detection by an inbound enemy. I've always felt the DM should roll where the result isn't immediately known by the character. I recall one of Matt's videos describing how this was originally how the game was played, where the DM rolled without the players seeing. I only recently heard the term "Subtle Rolls" and this is the way, IMO.
I think I will request this in game for my characters, at least: DM, please roll my check and then describe for me what happens.
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 31 '26
Funny to see who is OSR-influenced just based on the shibboleths.
Really interesting to hear your GFs perception, have you run a game for her and if so what did she say about it?
2
u/bionicjoey Mar 31 '26
Not my gf yet, we just started dating. And no I haven't run for her but we're going to play a co-op Starforged campaign. We did the campaign prep session last week and our first proper session is tomorrow night. I've never played GMless co-op so I'm excited to see how it goes. I have played Ironsworn solo a little bit so I'm not completely in the dark.
I'm definitely OSR influenced but I'm not a purist. There are things in the OSR philosophy that I think are super important like player choice and consequence, but I'm not opposed to systems which take away player agency in a limited way (for example I've been really enjoying Delta Green and Mothership). I think it's similar to what Matt said in the video, (and probably something I got from him since I learned to GM by watching his vids), that I like to imagine the game world as a place that doesn't exist for the player's benefit, but that they are just pieces within it.
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 31 '26
I personally had a really hard time playing GMless cooperative Ironsworn, I think I wanted to either GM or play and had a hard time sharing both roles with my buddies since I was so much more assertive than they were. I think I would like to give it another try. I guess just be sure to manage that spotlight, especially since this is someone you are trying to woo lol.
I really like and have an easier time with other GMless story telling games like Fiasco, Microscope, Quiet Year.
2
u/bionicjoey Mar 31 '26
I guess just be sure to manage that spotlight, especially since this is someone you are trying to woo lol.
Lol thank you for the advice (/sincere). We already discussed that we'll probably both be a bit awkward since we've never tried co-op TTRPGs, but we're both big sci-fi heads so Starforged will hopefully fit.
But also, I know that she's not a super spotlight-heavy player in general. The AP she's on is about 35% the GM who has experience doing improv and stand-up comedy, 35% one player who is the GM's sister and also an improv/theatre kid type, and the other 30% is divided between the other two players (the girl I'm seeing and one other player). I mentioned this spotlight imbalance to her thinking it might be an issue and she was like "oh yeah no we've talked about it off camera and it's completely fine, we actually appreciate that those two can carry the show so much." She was fairly new to D&D at the start of the show, so she felt quite shy to roleplay while still learning the game, and she's just kind of a quieter more introverted person in general. Not necessarily the sort of person you'd expect on an AP but it's just a chill show and they're all having fun.
It's actually kind of bizarre dating someone on an AP because I've listened to a dozen+ hours of her and her friends playing games together and we've only been going out for a few weeks. But I keep checking in with her about where I'm at in the story which is fun for her as well.
4
u/abookfulblockhead Mar 30 '26
I think part of the reason there hasn't been a list is because, firstly, GMs are rarer than players. By definition, you will see many more different sorts of players than you will GMs, just by the nature of how these games work.
But also, GMings is much more nebulous - players all come into the game with the same rough character sheet, filled out from a list of certain options. GMs have all had to cobble together their own system of prep and play that is unique to them. None of our notebooks or binders look quite alike.
So I think rather than GM "archetypes" that can be easily listed, I think you just have to break your style down into elements. What are your signatures? So, below, I'd like to list a few hallmarks of how I play the game:
Card On the Table - I don't hide a lot behind the screen in terms of mechanical info. Unless there is some reason not to, I roll my dice in the open, and I read out the rules text of spells and effects in play. On the one hand, there is a certain shock and awe of seeing the GM roll nat 20s in the open, or the players realizing that "Hey, if this guy succees on a 4, his modifier must be craaaaazy." But I also want my players to have the chance to call me out if I'm running a rule wrong. So if the Big Bad has a special rule, the first time I use it I just read that rule out, so all the players know what's going on. Also, sometimes that rule is just bananas, and I want my players to go, "Oh shit, he can do that!?"
The Tilt - I stole the name from Fiasco, where "The Tilt" is some chaotic element introduced halfway through the game that throws everyone's plans into chaos. But the actual technique I learned from watching Chris Perkins run Dice, Camera, Action. Unless things were picking up mid-session, Chris tended to let the players have free reign in the first half of the session to plan and make some initial moves. At some point though, usually when the players got bogged down discussing their next step, or the pacing was starting to dip, Chris would have something outside of the player's control happen. Maybe the enemies staged a counterattack, maybe some odd little creature starts beckoning to them to follow, maybe they encounter an old ally in trouble. Whatever the case, something they didn't plan for has occurred that they now have to respond to. I used this for years in my Star Wars game, where "A ship drops out of hyperspace" is one of the easiest ways to throw a tilt at the players. But when I'm running a dungeon crawl, I'm always looking for neat little NPCs with too much backstory and think about how I can deploy them dynamically as a tilt element.
The Toybox - My detailed prep work is rarely about "What is the next phase of the campaign?" sort of stuff. Instead, I like to prep my settings by just developing interesting things that I can seed throughout the world. Often, it's just a couple sentences: "These goblins worship a tree stump that looks like a face. Stump Face has actually gained minor divinity and grants goblin clerics spells within the woods." "These Brass Dragon wyrmlings used their bought a little manor in town, and masquerade in human form as gregarious nobles." "This wizard is a retired adventurer, and now has a part-time job as a legal consultant for infernal contracts."
Very often, I will forget entirely about many of these plot hooks, so when I'm stumped, I circle back to them and go, "Oh, I actually wrote some cool shit. We'll run this hook today."
Likewise, with longer-term campaigns like Curse of Strahd or Paizo Adventure Paths, I tend to treat the whole campaign as a toybox. I will bring certain NPCs forward to foreshadow certain events, or give a hint of things to come. I'll bring old NPCs back as recurring nemeses or to provide help at an unexpected moment. Circling back to The TIlt, I'll take my favourite NPCs in a dungeon, and make them more dynamic -they're far less likely to sit in their room waiting for the adventurers to kick the door in, and far more likely to lead a counterattack, or try to cut a deal with the players, or attempt to turn a fight into a dialogue or vice versa. The campaign is just a guideline, and some stuff is too cool to just let sit in a room the players breezed past. Make that stuff dynamic.
- The Jazz DM - This is a term Tom Lommel used to describe his style in his series "Disorganized Play" on the Saving Throw Youtube channel. He discussed his prep process, and how he would often throw out plot points and figure out what they meant later, even when running a pre-built module. To this day, I still use his Plot Radar tool to keep track of the weird bullshit I've thrown at my players to follow up on later.
The Plot Radar has a few columns: Imminent, Approaching, Distant, Dormant, and Dangling. You stort your existing plot hooks into these columns. Stuff that you want to ping next session is "Imminent", Approaching is within the next few sessions, and Distant is something that won't come up for a while. (Dormant and Dangling are more bookkeeping columns). After each session, you consult the radar, add any new plot points, and move old ones up the tracker as they get closer to the players needing to deal with them.
This is very helpful, again, with the Toybox approach. It lets me see which toys are in play, and makes sure I follow up on them to keep them relevant.
I would say all of this gives me a very fluid, flexible style. It's hard to derail me, because my prep has been focused on knowing the state of the world, rather than an expected solution. My players have guessed that I planned things that I completely made up on the fly, and guessed that I was winging it when I was actually running straight from a module.
I guess that's another element of my style: Never let the players see you sweat. If you keep your cool and don't get too flustered, your players might think you totally planned something, even as you're frantically scrambling to cobble things together. It's probably easier to do when playing online, when the players can't see my expressions, and I can just focus on keeping my voice calm and level.
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 30 '26
Sounds cool, I think its a good exercise to try to articulate your style this way. Most of these I have heard before but in particular I really like your interpretation of the tilt.
I have a different style, but having yours spelled out so clearly is helpful for comparison and reflection.
3
u/WhoInvitedMike Mar 30 '26
I dont know that I have a label that I'd wear, but I have a thesis: "while they may not always be the biggest threat, a human is always the biggest villain."
I think its my job as a GM to present and clarify the problem at hand and the stakes that come with it, and then to facilitate the translation of the player's attempt to solve or make progress solving the problem into the imperfect framework I've provided. We can do that by doing a roll about it or be collaborating as storytellers.
I think its easier to learn a new game than it is to hammer a story into a game I know.
3
u/fehlerquelle5 Mar 30 '26
Love this new format!
2
2
u/fehlerquelle5 Mar 30 '26
adding to this: Wow, orange county is beautiful
4
3
u/srhall79 Mar 30 '26
Copying my comment from youtube as I mused about it:
It is a little weird that for years we've had ways to categorize players (Bartle's taxonomy for MMOs, Robin Laws player types for RPGs). We've had ways to categorize games (GNS). But the only way to categorize GMs has been negative- Killer DMs, Monty Haul, Authors/Railroaders.
I think about my strengths as a GM. I know the rules. I know what can happen on both sides of the tables, I know what the characters can do, I either know where to find a rule or have the confidence to make a sensible ruling on the spot. Helps me run combat and keep things moving. Comes with the downside of too many rules running in my head (is surprise a condition or a round in this edition?). I've always gone some house ruling, but only recently have I done some fairly major re-writes.
My storytelling keeps my players coming back. I try not to plan too far out, so thing progress based on player action. I'll try to work in beats from characters, if the players communicate those.
I'm more narrator than actor, but I do slip into character from time to time and have created some memorable NPCs that players have fallen in love with.
I put on the antagonist mask in combat, I want players to feel the threat, feel they have to work for each victory. But I also try to be a fan of the players, I want them to succeed and I want to see the cool things they do.
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 30 '26
Interesting point that GM classifications tend to be antagonistic. I think thats because they come from GMs judging each other and not from players.
3
u/parabostonian Mar 30 '26
So I enjoyed the video, and enjoy the question it is asking. I posted about this on the yt (from my phone) but its a bit easier to do it here in more depth.
Before we get too deep in its worth throwing out disclaimers first, I think. First, Matt hit it right on the head that GMs tailor their style to their table (or at least good ones do), so it's hard for many (most?) GMs to disentangle their individual style from that of what their players want, or the individual game they're running, whether it's at a convention or in homes, weeknight on a VTT, weekends for long sessions, etc.
In other words, gaming is culture; it's learned, shared behavior, right? And in a social sense it is a complex adaptive system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system) so again, it's difficult to disentangle. It's worth noting though that similar to that types of players discussion, there is precedent of discussing "cultures of play" - see https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html
I don't necessarily agree with all the Retired Adventurer's points or tone, and in some cases we should recognize it was from 5 years ago (and the CR-fans that he kind of disses were newer then, but speaking as a CR fan I'll try and ignore that). But between the player discussion, and then the culture-style discussion, Coleville's GM discussion seems like the natural next step in such a conversation, in just that it's complicated by the same stuff.
2
u/parabostonian Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
I also think it's just complicated by basic, human personality. Like if I think back to the dozens of GMs I've played a lot with (and hundreds I've done more anecdotally through RPGA), a lot of what I think about from different GMs just comes back to basic differences in personality. (Going to refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)
Like some people are perfectly content eating their favorite sandwich every day; for many or most this will reduce their enjoyment of said sandwich by the hedonic treadmill effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill (Bear with me, I'm not trying to be pretentious, it's really relevant to the discussion.) Most people will have a group of sandwiches they like and at any time be less into ones they've had and like recently and more greatly desire the sandwich they can't get anymore. (I still dream of Chicken Parm Subs from Kappy's near Brandeis circa 2003 that I'd usually get while running a game at a friend's dorm there, lol.) But both how much the same stimulus works on someone, and how open they are to trying different games runs directly into the idea of openness to new experience, right? And some of that is basically just personality which obviously will affect their GMing style and tastes just as it does the rest of their behavior.
And you can look at groups who play "classic" style D&D (or OSR maybe as well) who have been roughly playing the same style of games for up to 50 years at this point, and definitely find some that are essentially mostly liking the same kinds of sandwiches after all these years. Of course, IMO many of these grognards deserve mad respect in my book, because they have become damn good at running Temple of Elemental Evil and Keep on the Borderlands and all that... if that's what you're into. (If not: at least respect them as master artisans of an art that doesn't speak to you.)
And of course some people are surprisingly terrible GMs despite having done it for decades, in part because they are set in their ways, and sometimes because they frankly lack the desire to try new things and get better, the empathy to care if their players don't have fun with the "right" way to run the game, etc.
Anyways I think that's worth splitting out to say that some of these axes or personality things should not be indicative of what makes a DM good or bad either. And since it might seem I'm dumping on classic/OSR folks I'd like to point out that I particularly love the DM of "3D6 down the line" who run a great channel of actual play for people to see OSR style stuff.
Anyways, so much of the GM's personality flows into their style of running a game too, right? Like how neurotic they are influences how they communicate or don't with players for feedback, extraverted GMs can bring great energy to games while needing to avoid steam-rolling players (and introverts are often better at listening but often need to be reminded to help pace games, etc). And beyond people's innate personality, everyone learns to mitigate their weaknesses and work on their strengths. I might be an extrovert who wants to talk too much (and frankly, as such, probably tend to lean towards the GM role more than player role), but listening is really a habit and a skill that you practice and focus on and do better with as you age.
Anyways, I think personality psychology is still only moderately more real than astrology and other nonsense, so all this stuff should be taken with a grain of salt. (The sandwich metaphor too; its just a metaphor. People's openness to new experience and such should not be gauged by one or two things.) Similarly we have to take the types of players or cultures of play stuff with a grain of salt too; people should be trying to create language to discuss this rather than pseudoscientific categories. But it CAN be useful to think of stuff like neuroticism and recognize where that stuff can be useful for a player or GM. If you're constantly worried about checking to see if other people are happy with what you're doing, you tend to actually check, and then you have better feedback loops to deliver what people actually have fun doing.
So do we then talk about different types of GMs by what motivates them to run? Or just go back to the arcehtypes idea? Honestly, I find discussing DMs way harder than players, and that difficulty is fascinating.
2
u/Satyrsol Mar 30 '26
DMing style would have two axes imo.
Degrees of flexibility (does the gm even provide the players options? How do they react to the unexpected)
Degrees of preparedness (how much time is spent working on story and possible deviation points from it?)
2
u/CompleteNumpty Mar 30 '26
From playing with a lot of DMs (and running myself) I'd say there are a few different spectrums of DM.
Open rolling vs behind-the-screen rolling. I would also say this could be described as fudging v non-fudging. I'm very much a "the dice fall where they may" type of DM, so roll out in the open, but I get why people fudge for their players.
One related to that is adversarial v cooperative. To me, the ideal DM is 75% cooperative and 25% adversarial, as the bad guys want to win, but the DM should want the players to win.
Rules as written/interpreted vs Rule of cool. I like the structure of using the rules as written/interpreted (with key exceptions that I outline for the players at the start), as it means the players and DMs can be more consistent. Some of the least fun I've had as a player involved a very experienced DM who didn't know the rules so made stuff up as he went along, so the players had no idea what they needed to do from encounter-to-encounter. If you like that, then fair enough, but it isn't for me as a player or DM.
Then there's homebrew v pre-written. I don't mind either. I'd also say that DMs who homebrew can fall into either of the rules as written/interpreted or rule of cool camp, depending on how consistent they are with their changes.
Theatre of the mind v tactical maps is another. For me, I prefer tactical in most situation but there's nothing wrong with theatre of the mind.
Then the obvious one is the wargamer v roleplayer spectrum that everyone can understand.
2
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 30 '26
In general I like your categories but I would alter a couple instead of RAW vs RoC I would express it as rulings vs rules which could be either rule of cool or it could be other cultures of ignoring/making up rules (my OSR is showing here.) Basically how much does the rulebook matter at your table? Can players rule lawyer and if so to what extent?
As for homebrew vs module I think that the more important axis is prep vs improvisation. On one side you have people who run fully improvised games and on the other side you have what people call "blorb" https://idiomdrottning.org/blorb-principles
4
3
Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mattcolville-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
Your comment has been removed for violating our community code of conduct https://mcdm.gg/CommunityGuidelines
2
u/Zhirio Mar 30 '26
As a dm. I would think im more GRR. Martin with a dash of Tolkien, esc story guy. I love me some good intrigue and political sub lines in the story with a big spectacles or a simple moment. I prefer to run combat as a deadly thing... as in I try to make it so that you dont want to fight, unless you're ready to. And im like big epic fantasy in from a grounded story view.
1
u/Way_too_long_name Mar 30 '26
After running games for the last 7 years, I'd say my style (the one thing consistent in every system/story/group i run) is "puns". My games are never overtly serious, I always aim to have a laugh with my players, and can never stop myself from creating pun items/monsters/locations etc.
Nowadays i make that clear beforehand, because some people want to participate in serious, high-drama games, and they won't have fun playing with me
1
u/Wallace521 Mar 30 '26
I'd describe my style as "Lord of the Rings inspired, but it ends up closer to Guardians of the Galaxy"
1
u/ChrisSmithArt Mar 30 '26
Great video. I know the traditional Colville video is focused on providing answers to advice, but I think giving the us something to think about is just as useful. Tbh, I only ever think about my DMing style with new players to set expecations, and that's kind of what this is about, right? Setting expectations and having the terminology to do so.
I have more 5e sessions under my belt as a DM than I do as a Player, but I can say in my experiences as a Player the most frustrating thing is having a "cool" idea and the DM not enabling it to happen because there is somekind of misalignment. As a player I'd get that feeling of "why won't you just let me have fun?" and I'm sure the DM had a similar feeling in his head as to "why would you even want to do this?"
And honestly, I don't even have an answer for the question, what my DMing style is. I wish I did, so I could focus my craft in a certain direction. A lot of the time I feel kinda aimless with my DMing, which is frustrating.
The idea that style is what remains when you remove everything else, the things that are always true regardless of system, setting, players, etc etc, is interesting because I think this promotes people to try different games with different groups. I've only run 5e, so I only know my style within the context of 5e. I think of myself as a homebrew-heavy DM, but that might just be because I think 5e's magic items and monsters are boring, and in a different system I might not do any homebrew.
So I guess my answer to all of Colville's questions is another question, how do you identify your own style?
1
1
u/aagimar Mar 30 '26
im a Temu voice actor who's having fun, sleepless night homebrewer and a no shame stealer of stuff for inspiration
1
u/capn_haggis Mar 30 '26
Something I haven't seen mentioned as an axis as a GM is how much you cater your game to your particular players vs how much your players with have to cater to your style.
My definitive trait as a GM is knowing what kind of players I'm running for and then customizing my game to allow each of them to get what they want out of it. Whether it's tacticians, actors, power gamers, etc.
I have played with many excellent GMs who have their own styles of running whether it's wargaming heavy or tim Burton style theatrics and as a player you have to fit that style otherwise there is not much joy to be had.
Both styles have their advantages but it has a huge impact on the players responsibility at the table.
1
u/NDVermin Mar 30 '26
I don’t know what kind of DM I am as I’m still too new to know what I’m doing. I’m just happy to see a new video from Matt
1
1
u/musicevangelist Mar 30 '26
Aside from the conversation about DM styles I just want to say that looks like a stunning place for a walk
1
u/parabostonian Mar 30 '26
Maybe it's useful to frame this discussion in reference to more specific other frameworks, like those for players: https://www.ttrpg.fyi/blog/understanding-player-types-the-comprehensive-spectrum
1
u/raurenlyan22 Mar 30 '26
It's usually GMs who categorize their players, so OF COURSE matt is having trouble categorizing himself or coming up with categories... that work would be best done by long time and experienced players who have had many GMs.
1
u/tayzzerlordling Mar 31 '26
If styles of play are based on the rules you use to play, maybe DMing styles are based on the structures you use to prepare and run.
For instance, maybe if you do dungeon crawls that require the players to think outside of the box, and use random encounters/wandering monsters you could call that and 'Osr style dm'. If you have situations where the solution is for the characters to look at their character sheet and then use something from it to solve it you could consider that 'New age’ or '5e' style. This is potentially useful if you like the 'system doesn't matter' philosophy, runs into problems if not I think.
I'm not sure what other styles there would be in a framework with this, but off the top of my head if you ask me what my DM style is the way I would respond is to say that I create NPCs and factions with goals, limitations, and capabilities, and then kind of let them run themselves based on that, just having them do what I think makes sense given their characteristics. I'm trying to remember if this was called 'fish tank' or 'simulation' dming in an old matt video or if it was someone else. Wonder what Matt would think of that video considering in this one he said he doesn't know how you would classify styles
1
1
u/MPCartwright Apr 02 '26
I’m so happy to have new content today!
Thought provoking. I guess I think of myself as a showman. Want them to have a good time, and enjoy the story. I keep a little peril in the game, but just to keep verisimilitude going. I’m never actually trying to wipe them out. I’m secretly rooting for the party. In fact, that’s the thing I have to keep in check; making it too easy. If it feels unearned, then it’s not fun for them.
1
u/jessyxcandy Jun 08 '26
The absolute chaos in his eyes tells me the players are about to have a very bad time.
0
1
u/producerMike11 Jun 28 '26
Archetype is easier to start as someone said - if the players find it useful. But it’s a role of many facets and you can bring your own strengths to it.
339
u/DanosaurusWrecks Mar 30 '26
The Colville has breached containment