Who is the BEST DM? A very hot topic, I have heard Mat Colville, Mat Mercer, Chris Perkins, Gary Gygax, Adam Koebal, Steven Lumpkin, Griffin McElroy, etc. Who are the best? I believe they should by judged by

Emmersiveness

Descriptions

Rules

IMO, there is only one metric by which any DM can be judged: Are their players having fun?

Everything else is entirely subjective. Some tables don’t give a hoot about rules accuracy, nor highly descriptive language, nor verisimilitude (how immersive their world is). Some folks just want to throw dice so they can kill bad guys, take their stuff, and use it to kill more bad guys. Some folks want an opportunity to act entirely in character and pursue the interactions between those characters. Some folks just want a fun activity to do with their friends. There are many reasons that people play D&D, and if the style of game the DM runs doesn’t fit those players, it isn’t good D&D for anyone. Since there can be no one right type of DM to fit all players at all tables, none of that can be used as an objective metric by which to assess “quality” as you seem to be attempting.

Add to that the fact that, since I have never been a player at a table with any of the DMs you listed, I am in no way qualified to judge them whatsoever. IMO, the only people who have any right to give comment or pass judgement on any DM are the people for whom that DM has run games.

All I can do is comment from an outsider’s perspective based on the only thing that really matters, that being:

As long as everyone at the table is having fun, the DM did it right.

Me?

But seriously, I agree with Sposta. As long as everyone is having fun, the DM is doing a good job. 

It's me. I'm the best DM. I am also the standard by which all others are to be judged. So speaketh the God-Emperor DM.

I will admit that I tend to recommend Matt Colville’s Running the Game series to everyone. I cannot say he’s “the best DM,” but I believe he can teach us how to be.

There is no "Best DM." 

There could be a "Best DM for this table," but that's it. Some of the things me and my players like, you and your players would hate. Some things the Matts do (both Colville and Mercer) I would love, other things I would hate.

The best DM we had in D&D was a craptastic GM in Champions. And the best Champions GM was only so-so in D&D. There are too many variables. There is no "best."

However, if you were to ask me, in whose games would you most like to play, based on what you have seen? For me it would be Colville... and failing him, Jim Murphy. I put Colville ahead because I have seen him run a game, and only seen an interview and a couple of short clips with Murphy. It sounds to me like Murphy's game would be a blast (and deadly, and I'd be making up more than one character to replace the dead ones), but I haven't actually seen him run.

With Colville, I like the way he runs, but I also love the world he made up. I think it is interesting and feels very realistic and I want to know more about it, which is why I would want to play in a game run by him.

Mercer -- I would probably find individual sessions by him fun because he is good at running combat and crafting a narrative and great at RPing NPCs. I find his world, however, flavorless and boring to the point of being soporific, and I would not want to play a whole campaign in it.

Deborah Ann Woll is an awesome GM.

I don't think there is a "best". I could say which of the people I played with was the best. However, without actually playing in a game with these people, I couldn't say.

Overall, as long as the party is engaged and having a good time, it's a win.

Quote from IamSposta >>

IMO, there is only one metric by which any DM can be judged: Are their players having fun?

Everything else is entirely subjective. Some tables don’t give a hoot about rules accuracy, nor highly descriptive language, nor verisimilitude (how immersive their world is). Some folks just want to throw dice so they can kill bad guys, take their stuff, and use it to kill more bad guys. Some folks want an opportunity to act entirely in character and pursue the interactions between those characters. Some folks just want a fun activity to do with their friends. There are many reasons that people play D&D, and if the style of game the DM runs doesn’t fit those players, it isn’t good D&D for anyone. Since there can be no one right type of DM to fit all players at all tables, none of that can be used as an objective metric by which to assess “quality” as you seem to be attempting.

Add to that the fact that, since I have never been a player at a table with any of the DMs you listed, I am in no way qualified to judge them whatsoever. IMO, the only people who have any right to give comment or pass judgement on any DM are the people for whom that DM has run games.

All I can do is comment from an outsider’s perspective based on the only thing that really matters, that being:

As long as everyone at the table is having fun, the DM did it right.

 Very much so agreed.

Quote from BioWizard >>

There is no "Best DM." 

There could be a "Best DM for this table," but that's it. Some of the things me and my players like, you and your players would hate. Some things the Matts do (both Colville and Mercer) I would love, other things I would hate.

The best DM we had in D&D was a craptastic GM in Champions. And the best Champions GM was only so-so in D&D. There are too many variables. There is no "best."

However, if you were to ask me, in whose games would you most like to play, based on what you have seen? For me it would be Colville... and failing him, Jim Murphy. I put Colville ahead because I have seen him run a game, and only seen an interview and a couple of short clips with Murphy. It sounds to me like Murphy's game would be a blast (and deadly, and I'd be making up more than one character to replace the dead ones), but I haven't actually seen him run.

With Colville, I like the way he runs, but I also love the world he made up. I think it is interesting and feels very realistic and I want to know more about it, which is why I would want to play in a game run by him.

Mercer -- I would probably find individual sessions by him fun because he is good at running combat and crafting a narrative and great at RPing NPCs. I find his world, however, flavorless and boring to the point of being soporific, and I would not want to play a whole campaign in it.

 What is the name of Mat Colville's podcasts. I would love to listen to him.

Quote from Cindrellic >>

Quote from BioWizard >>

There is no "Best DM." 

There could be a "Best DM for this table," but that's it. Some of the things me and my players like, you and your players would hate. Some things the Matts do (both Colville and Mercer) I would love, other things I would hate.

The best DM we had in D&D was a craptastic GM in Champions. And the best Champions GM was only so-so in D&D. There are too many variables. There is no "best."

However, if you were to ask me, in whose games would you most like to play, based on what you have seen? For me it would be Colville... and failing him, Jim Murphy. I put Colville ahead because I have seen him run a game, and only seen an interview and a couple of short clips with Murphy. It sounds to me like Murphy's game would be a blast (and deadly, and I'd be making up more than one character to replace the dead ones), but I haven't actually seen him run.

With Colville, I like the way he runs, but I also love the world he made up. I think it is interesting and feels very realistic and I want to know more about it, which is why I would want to play in a game run by him.

Mercer -- I would probably find individual sessions by him fun because he is good at running combat and crafting a narrative and great at RPing NPCs. I find his world, however, flavorless and boring to the point of being soporific, and I would not want to play a whole campaign in it.

 What is the name of Mat Colville's podcasts. I would love to listen to him.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Deborah Ann Woll is an awesome GM.

I don't think there is a "best". I could say which of the people I played with was the best. However, without actually playing in a game with these people, I couldn't say.

Overall, as long as the party is engaged and having a good time, it's a win.

 

 
Deborah is indeed amazing. 

However, there is no "best DM" and there never will be.

I've talked to players who actually played with Gygax and they describe him as "abrasive" and "monty haul" at best. 

For every 10 people you talk to who say "Bob is the best DM ever" there will be 100 people who loathe Bob and think his game is obnoxious.

As much as I love Deborah's dming, or Matt Mercer's there's been some moments I have totally disagreed with them and their rulings as a player and as a DM myself. Same with Coville. For me, he's mediocre as a DM at best. Not saying that to dismiss other players who love him, but I've never found his style intriguing or fun.

Frank from Heroes and Halfwits has some great stylistic choices but his rulings are meh for me as well. 

Kate Welch writes some amazing stuff, and I love running the modules she's written, but she's still not my favorite DM.

Jasmine Bhullar is an outstanding DM and player. I would love to play in one of her games or have her play in one of mine, but there's still some choices she makes I wouldn't.

As far as running a game and letting the players do whatever and adjusting smoothly, I'd put Jason Carl, Story Teller of LA By Night above any of the ones we've listed. 

So, the best DM is one that you like and have fun playing their games. 

What is the name of Mat Colville's podcasts. I would love to listen to him.

The "Running the Game" series linked above is his DMing-how-to video series. But if you want to watch his campaign, it's called the Chain of Acheron.

Players having fun as Sposta stated.

I watch groups that fall somewhere along the spectrums of RaW, RaF, and RaI with varying levels of almost total roleplay through strictly diceplay.

The one common factor: The players are having fun. Compare Johnny Chiodini to Robert Hartley - extremely different styles (practically 180 on the spectrum), but their groups of players are having fun.

With all due respect - which is a lot! - to Gary Gygax, he's 1) dead (not something to hold against him of course, but not being able to DM on account of being dead is a negative) and 2) from everything I heard and read he was very old-school and traditional as a DM. That second bit is to be expected from one of the creators of the game but that's not the kind of game most groups enjoy nowadays, in my experience. In other words, context matters. A lot. It's the same with writers or athletes. Some of the most famous writers from history would have a very hard time even getting considered for publication today, and quite a few Hall of Famers in any sport might find todays tactics and styles passed them by. Hard to tell whether they would have done as well in modern times.

That said, I do like Chris Perkins a lot as DM. Very knowledgeable on the rules and seems to find a great balance between being strict or loose depending on the group and on what circumstances call for.

With all due respect - which is a lot! - to Gary Gygax... (SNIP) from everything I heard and read he was very old-school and traditional as a DM. That second bit is to be expected from one of the creators of the game but that's not the kind of game most groups enjoy nowadays, in my experience.

This entirely depends on the person. YOU probably wouldn't enjoy a Gygax-run game. I might not either. Doesn't really mean he was a bad, or good, DM. You also can't fault him for not running a 1e game in the 5e style, as 5e did not exist at the time.

Quite a few Hall of Famers in any sport might find todays tactics and styles passed them by. Hard to tell whether they would have done as well in modern times.

You can flip it on its head though. Using tennis as an example, no, Bjorn Borg with his wooden racket on grass would not be able to compete with Roger Federer today with the composite racket on the faster surfaces. But if you teleported Federer back in time to 1980 Wimbledon and handed him a wooden racket, I guarantee you Borg would have owned Federer's "modern times" butt. EASILY. Because Federer's play style is no more possible using a woody on grass, than Borg's is using graphite on modern fast hard-courts.

Also, it's hard to make the argument, in any sort of a fair way, that the people who today benefit from the experiences of those past stars, are somehow "better" when they wouldn't even exist today without their predecessors. Mercer wouldn't exist as a DM today, nor Perkins, nor Colville, if Gygax and Arneson hadn't done it first.

Quote from BioWizard >>

With all due respect - which is a lot! - to Gary Gygax... (SNIP) from everything I heard and read he was very old-school and traditional as a DM. That second bit is to be expected from one of the creators of the game but that's not the kind of game most groups enjoy nowadays, in my experience.

This entirely depends on the person. YOU probably wouldn't enjoy a Gygax-run game. I might not either. Doesn't really mean he was a bad, or good, DM. You also can't fault him for not running a 1e game in the 5e style, as 5e did not exist at the time.

Quite a few Hall of Famers in any sport might find todays tactics and styles passed them by. Hard to tell whether they would have done as well in modern times.

You can flip it on its head though. Using tennis as an example, no, Bjorn Borg with his wooden racket on grass would not be able to compete with Roger Federer today with the composite racket on the faster surfaces. But if you teleported Federer back in time to 1980 Wimbledon and handed him a wooden racket, I guarantee you Borg would have owned Federer's "modern times" butt. EASILY. Because Federer's play style is no more possible using a woody on grass, than Borg's is using graphite on modern fast hard-courts.

Also, it's hard to make the argument, in any sort of a fair way, that the people who today benefit from the experiences of those past stars, are somehow "better" when they wouldn't even exist today without their predecessors. Mercer wouldn't exist as a DM today, nor Perkins, nor Colville, if Gygax and Arneson hadn't done it first.

The thing is, Gygax ran games well into 3rd edition. From what I heard he didn't really adapt much, if anything, to his style. I can't say anything as to why not, but to me not being flexible as a DM is not a good quality.

As for the second point, standing on the shoulders of giants does make us better. That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge those giants' achievements or that we benefit from what they gave us (again, context), but the fact is they lift us up. Is it unfair to say that a car built this decade is a (much, much, MUCH) better one than a Ford T? Not to me it isn't. That doesn't mean I ignore the decades of development, research and engineering that made today's technology impossible, it's just that objectively they got us this far - and this far is a lot further than it used to be.

Technology makes a ton of difference in a lot of sports, but the biggest differentiator over time has been professionalism. I think a Federer would do a lot better than you imagine given time to adjust to old times wooden rackets (as would Borg if he could practice with today's materials) but it's hard to account for the level of medical and nutritional care, technological advancements that assist in training and coaching and general entourage modern players have over those one or two generations ago. American football hasn't undergone as much technological change (on the field, that is, not talking about everything surrounding it), but just looking at the overall athletic ability, size and speed of players today vs 50 years ago I don't see an all-star team from back then have much of a chance against a modern one, regardless of equipment. 

Writers today are also judged by standards that are informed by literary history. Readers might find their style old-fashioned, or the pace to be off, or any of a dozen of things that may have changed over the years. Is it any less fair to judge the classic greats based on what appeals today, if we hold those advancements against modern writers?

The thing is, Gygax ran games well into 3rd edition. From what I heard he didn't really adapt much, if anything, to his style. I can't say anything as to why not, but to me not being flexible as a DM is not a good quality.

Why should he change his style? It worked for him.

One of the most damaging things you can do to someone is force them to run a game in a style that is not up their alley. 

They try to do this with teachers all the time... "teach to what the students like." If it's not your strength, you don't end up with a better course - you end up with a worse one. The same is true of DMing, I am comfortable with some things and not others. Gygax probably was as well. As a DM, he should play to his strengths and run a game that he is good at running, not play to the way other people DM.

If his players don't like his style, they don't have to play in his game.

I am NOT saying you shouldn't try to please your players. But a DM has to play to his strengths or you will not have a good campaign.

None of the DMs listed can be fairly called objectively good or bad. It's all down to whether people at the table are having fun. If people at Gygax's table had fun, that's all that mattered.

Quote from BioWizard >>

The thing is, Gygax ran games well into 3rd edition. From what I heard he didn't really adapt much, if anything, to his style. I can't say anything as to why not, but to me not being flexible as a DM is not a good quality.

Why should he change his style? It worked for him.

[snipped]

If people at Gygax's table had fun, that's all that mattered.

 Well, there you have it, no? For some groups his style might not have been fun. Or at least not as much fun. That's the reason I value flexibility in a DM. A DM shouldn't change his style entirely, that isn't going to work, but making some adjustments to suit the table in front of you better can make the whole experience more fun for everyone involved.

I see where you're goin' but it's like asking, "who's the best artist?"

I'll plug myself. I've been a DM (D&D) and GM (other rpgs) for the better part of 35ish years. I'm a designer/artist professionally so when I go all-in, production wise, I'm quite proud of what I can create. I have the experience to go with the flow, adapt, change, and be spontaneous. I also have the luxury of working for myself so I can spend upwards of 30+ hours per week in planning and prep.

All that being said, I'm the best for my table. I've always said, if you took Mercer and put him at my table for 3 months, I'd still be the better DM. I know my players better than he ever will (it's my wife, son, and six friends that I've known for 25 years). In knowing them, I know how to tug on their heartstrings. I know what makes their hair raise. I know how to scare them and how to wrangle them in quickly when they get sideways.

All that being said, I'll vote for Mercer and Chris Perkins. The former for NPC design/creation and how he runs them. The latter for how clear and concise he is with gameplay and moving things forward.

I'll also plug one more. Jeff Cannata of Dungeon Run. One of the best DMs I have ever seen. If you haven't watched this, do so. It at least holds ground with, and at times, surpasses Critical Role in many aspects. 

I'd never vote myself for best DM.

I might be in the running for best Champions GM. I am an awesome Champions villain designer, and really good at making tactically interesting Champions battles. And I am pretty good at Silver Age style villain speeches, which players tend to like (or at least they did, back when I played). And I can pretty much run an entire game of either 2e or 4e Champions without needing to even look at the rule book while I play. Just about anything a player can think of doing I can effortlessly adjudicate and tell them exactly what to roll, and what the chances are (X or less on 3D6, etc) ... again, nearly always without needing to look at the books. 25 years since playing it, I can still do that. (Or I'm sure I could, if I ever had occasion to.)

I never, ever had that kind of innate mastery of D&D.... not in Basic/Expert, not in 1e, not in 3e, and definitely not in 5e. In fact, I feel like I have the least innate mastery of 5e.