DM Style: Silk Glove or Iron Fist

[Jason of the Fraternity]

What style do you, as a DM, tend to favor when you are running a game? Do you tend to have a “hands-off” approach (silk glove), and let the players make a lot of their own decisions? Or do you tend to have a set plan for each game and tend to steer them through the various points (iron fist)?

I tend to favor the silk glove style, since it leaves more room for the players to add their own ideas and develop their characters. I try to have certain goals and objectives, but they aren’t strictly enforced if the characters go off in a different direction. While this can be frustrating at times (especially when the players spend a couple hours pursuing some aspect that wasn’t meant to be important), I tend to find that the spontaneity is much more rewarding.

Anybody else?

[Jasper]

Silk glove for me. Ninety percent of the time I have opening/closing sceens jotted down , a few Npcs stated and a main villian planed and thats it. The rest I pull out of thin air.
That way I'm never left without a way out if the Pcs decide to do something off the wall like kill the BBEG within the first ten minuets of the game.

[Tadelin]

I use a blend. Silk glove when there's nothing that I deemed "a cool visual explanation" waiting to happen, and then I steer them along when I need to get them to a point so they can have the cool visual image.

[irve]

My plot is laid out in cool scenes. I think of things I want my players to experience and try to blend the world around them to get them there. Most of the scenes are avoidable, but some are more difficult to evade.

In some ways I build my plots up from the world, in some ways I tend to build them as I look my players' decisions. THey are most inspiring sometimes.

[Dominique]

Silk glove. I had an iron fist DM once, and it was the most frustrating game I ever played. No one could do anything if it deviated from his plans. Even if our die rolls beat his, he would still find some way to tweak the rules or just lie about his results so that we would continue progressing on his little track. I do slap down the iron glove on occasion if necessary--I do think it's the players' responsibility to occasionally make concessions to the DM in order to keep the story going. But in general, silk glove is better.

[Charney]

My style is neither. I get a main campaign goal, often based upon the PC's background and I let them loose.

[Charlatan]

The only time DMed was over a decade ago, and if was a seriously half-assed style. That happens when you don't have the PHB or DMG and have to guesstimate stuff from all your Campaign Settings', Monsterous Compenduims', and adventures' material. Fun if deranged. I once ruled that a player who had tried to cast Summon Insects had failed, through a slip of the tongue had forgotten the 'In' part and actually cast Summon Sex. The orgy proved more effective for distracting the enemy as a bunch of wasps could anyway.

[Maximillian]

I usually use a mix of the two as I see fit. But to be frank, most of the times I prefer to let the players imaginations run loose and improvise. It more rewarding for either side.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I just detail the imjportant sections of my games beforehand, then I let the players work their own way through things, with me piecing extra things together as needed. Is more fun that way and leaves more excitement for everyone since no one really knows what is going to happen next

I enjoyed it when the players decided they would stake out a cemetery at night after a series of graverobbings, whilst they hid in the shadows, a wandering zombie stumbled upon their position and attacked them. The players were so scared they popted to run away. When the graverobber did appear, the zombie was still around, attacked the happless graverobber and killed him, lol.

Here's how it worked out with planned scenes and spur of the moment ideas:

1. Heroes went to cemetery sooner than planned in the adventure.

2. Zombie encounter from later in the adventure moved forward.

3. Heroes were supposed to defeat the zombie, but they ran away (the cowards! definately not planned! ).

4. Graverobber was arriving as the heroes ran off, but somehow failed to hear them (not planned).

5. Graverobber surprised by zombie and killed (not planned).

I did give the graverobber a fighting chance though, I secretly rolled all the combat for the graverobber and the zombie, the poor guy was just unlucky in his rolls.

To keep the adventure going, I had it so that the graverobber was part of a group, so the players had something else to work on, they made all the calls, decisions and so forth, I just made up stuff as we went along and wrote down some quick notes when I had the time or had possible ideas for later.

[tec-goblin]

Well, I run two campaigns. One is a silk glove one which has started to present some problems (many players don't come at the right time, or miss many sessions), so I will move towards some more iron handed tactics.
What does it mean? It means we'll work as in my main campaign. As far as Off Game is concerned things go like this:
1)I create rules
2)I announce them to the players
3)We see how they work
4)Every some months we gather to discuss the rules, change them, create new and release a revised set by voting (I have only one vote but there are some few things I won't discuss - things that are essential for me to enjoy the games)
5)Every new player is informed about the rules
6)All players are judged by a point system about whether they follow the rules (do they come in time? do they stop the session to say somthing irrelevant for the third time in a given session? is their roleplaying awfull? do they cheat with their xp - I am glad I haven't encountered anyone doing the latter).
7) When someone reaches his point limit, we gather to discuss in what terms he/she could stay in the campaign. We have dropped players out of the campaign some times.

As far as in-game is concerned, I consult the players to see what they want and like and I take it into account, but that never overshadows the main theme I have in mind. I try to surprise them. Sometimes they ask for something and I give it to them after a year of roleplaying. As far as the in-game mechanics are concerned, I let them have some freedom and try to avoid deus-ex-machina situations. There are many times where they don't do as I want, but it works in the end and I let them live to tell the tale! What I like is that I don't know what will happen in every session - sometimes they survive when I expected them to die or be captured, sometimes it's quite the opposite.

[Nihilio]

and try to avoid deus-ex-machina situations

This reminds me of our previous session and a certain deus-ex-machina, "solving" a certain problem concerning a dead demi-god.

Apart from accusing my DM (Which I love to) I prefer a mixed style. Sometimes to tell a story there is a need for linearity (which is a matter of manipulation, either subtle or vulgar). Other times all it takes is a setting in which the player characters are free to do as they wish.
But being too lenient leeds to certain troubles. Such as my mage tha ascension session in which two PC tried to solve a problem concerning a spirit of decay being about to set free and the other four LAN-ing on Warcraft III and having sex with prostitudes.

Nihilio

[Guest]

and try to avoid deus-ex-machina situations

This reminds me of our previous session and a certain deus-ex-machina, "solving" a certain problem concerning a dead demi-god.

Apart from accusing my DM (Which I love to)

Nihilio

My lovely player refers to the word "deus" - well, sure Shar didn't quite helped them of course...

[Snake]

I used to plan out everything they did, but it turned out they would do something I didn't plan so I said "forget detailed planning, I'll get down ideas and let the PCs take it." I also don't like the DMing style that focuses on killing the PCs. Sure it may not be as realistic, but from what I've gathered from teh PCs, it is more fun for them if they don't have to worry about dying every session.

[JinnTolser]

I try to mix the two: if I go too "velvet glove," then my players tend to sit around waiting for something to happen. However, my planning usually consists of a couple basic ideas, and I come up with all the specifics on the fly. This leaves a lot of room for flexibility.

[jamesravenwing]

Definitely velvet gloves.

I come up with a detailed world. I come up with a detailed (and i do mean DETAILED) villain. Then I let him react to what the players are doing. I let him react to what is happening in the world. I occasionally come up with a few location non-specific cool scenes and let those flow. I see what happens.

This means I occasionally have to scramble to keep up with some truly innovative or twisted ideas that my players have, but I reckon that the scrambling is what makes up half the fun of DMing. (The other half is scaring the bejeebers out of your players.)