I’ve most often seen GMing described as an art or a craft (and I tend to use craft myself). Arguably, it could also be described as a science.
This might sound like navel-gazing for the semantics-minded, but I see value in understanding what each term means when applied to GMing. And really, GMing is all three of these things.
Dictionary.com defines these three terms as follows:
Art: “Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation” and “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.”
Craft: “Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts” and “An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or skilled artistry.”
Science: “ Methodological activity, discipline, or study.”
(There are, of course, many other definitions of all three terms. I’ve picked the ones that I think apply best to GMing.)
I would argue that GMing is all three — art, science and craft — with the exact percentage of each coming down to a combination of your personal GMing style, the RPGs you play and the preferences of your group.
GMs tend to learn by observation as well as practice (art), and certain aspects of GMing — like game prep — can be very methodological (science). Done well, the outcome can be beautfiul (art again), and GMing is, in a roundabout way, an occupation that requires a varied and specific skillset (craft).
What do you think?
Thats a diffucult one. Just to throw some numbers out (its easier if your a non native english speaker):
Art: 20
Craft: 60
Science: 10
Natural Talent: 10
I see it mostly as a craft. In a craft artistry and science (as advanced training) also play a part to move to a new level of craft, but its mostly craft and the experience in the craft.
Admiting my bias as a social scientist I think that the science aspect is more important than many realize. Truly understanding the rules set is very scientific (and studies hav shown that increased science and math grades are one of the many benefits of playing RPGs), and I feel that there is a strong social science component for GMing.
In order to be a truly great GM one must be able to make adventures, characters and other thematic elements that engage one’s gaming group. While all writers want a broad audience they also accept that some people will not like thier style. GMs have less of this luxury. They need to be able to read and understand thier players preferences and needs in order to craft stories that will engage them. Moreover they need to be able to blend the various needs so _all_ players feel engaged. So from this model I see a GM as a sociological craftsman if you will, in some ways similar to a performance artist, using thier craft to express a message to a small group in a way that they will understand and appreciate.
I hadn’t considered either social science or natural talent, and I agree that both of them play a role. Great points!
I think GMing is 100% craft. But then, I think all art that is worth a flip is simply a craft done so well that it takes on an aesthetic component. (I’m aware that many people disagree with that definition.) 😀
A background in some aesthetic disciplines may help the craft. A background in logic, psychology, etc. may help in certain areas. Natural talent will help. But it’s possible to neglect any of those and still have a good game. (Maybe not one that will appeal to certain people, but certainly one that will appeal to some people.) If you got no craft, you got no game worth playing. 😀
I’ve always considered it an art. Not because anyone else here is wrong mind you but because I’m anal retentive and crafts produce physical results, which DMing doesn’t and sciences are mathmatical, absolute and repeatable, which DMing isn’t.
I like the numbering ilawn came up with, and the additions to the cateogries.
In this case I’m going to go with situation specific as my answer. This all depends on the GM. I’ve seen very heavy rules GMs who make it science. I’ve seen artistic GMs (I’d put myself about 30 percent in this category) who just sit down and improv a whole session and do it well, that’s definately art. I’ve also seen people who mix the two, drawing full inspiration but using the rules. I consider this the craft of it.