What makes a "bad GM" or a "bad player"?

[Theory of Games]

This one's easy.

The bad GM railroads (meaning they're forcing the players to play their stupid story instead of allowing the players to RP their characters). Bad GMs also always ask "What does your character feel about that?" then the GM does whatever they want as if they didn't ask the question. Oooo and bad GMs are Lorehounds. They run on and on and on about the lore of their setting because they believe (foolishly so) that the players give a naughty word about the setting.

Look bad GMs all players care about is their characters. "Period-T".

Bad GMs suck at combat. They can't keep the initiative order and their tactics suck so combat is never fun. Their NPCs suck because they don't have names or the names are stupid like "Bob" or something that they think is funny but isn't. Oh yeah and bad GMs think they're movie directors (this will NEVER happen) who say "the camera shifts to you what do you do?"

Bad GMs also have a gagillion house-rules because they can't make their own RPG so they just fk up the ones they play the most. And if bad GMs DO make an RPG it's trash. The most broken and ridiculous trash ever created and forced on humankind.

Bad players. The Edgelord who tortures everyone at the table with their naughty word RP. For them everything is so gd dramatic and darkly emotional. And the body-snatcher who always tries to RP your character for you. Because they know best. I'll throw in dice cheaters because whoever cheats at games should be publicly ridiculed publicly tortured and publicly executed for the enjoyment of the masses.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

Bad hygiene

Look, I get it; we all have off days. However, generally speaking, the hobby involves being in close proximity to a group of your friends. The courtesy of an occasional shower or stick of deodorant is appreciated.

Contrariwise, if you're playing online no one cares what you smell like. I don't even care if you're wearing pants as long as your genitalia aren't in the camera's field of view, but I'd really rather you didn't tell the group about it. The ribald speculation about what you're doing any time both your hands aren't in plain sight distracts from the game.

 

[aramis erak]

This came up in another thread and I thought it was worth discussing in its own thread.

What do you consider to be a "bad GM"?

Bad GM: one who does any of the following as a regular part of play:

• dictates what PCs of players present attempt
• refuses to consider player input
• refuses to answer questions that the answers to which would be obvious to the character
• has a refusal to acknowledge that their rules approach is not of need that of their players.
• uses a rules approach antithetical to their players.
• can't or won't learn the core of the rules.
• won't look things up.

What do you consider to be a "bad player"?

• consistently rude
• tunes out most of the time
• Refuses to use or whines about the rules the GM and group have agreed upon. (This can be in either direction - the group agreed to some house rule and they refuse to abide it, or the group has agreed to only core but the player insists on being allowed to use a supplement)
• is there to inflict emotional distress upon others. (have had it happen.)
• lies about dice rolls and/or character stats (Oh, have hand it happen way too much.)
• Takes bad things happening to their character as a personal affront. (have had it happen.)
• Psychopathologies that result in too many triggers to be able to play effectively. (Only had it happen once.)
• Unwilling to bathe.
• Unwilling to pick characters that can work in the party.

A third category aren't bad players, per se, but are unwelcome at my table none the less...

• there for the fact it's a social activity, not for the game
• Decides to use the group as a forum for their identity politics.
  • this includes gender identity, religious identity, ethnic identity, class identity, membership identity.
  • This includes expressed hate based upon same.
  • This is not the same as exploring their own romantic/gender identity in play. Have had two do so. Not a problem.
• Decides to blame identity based discrimination for natural consequences of stupidity on the player's part.
• Has an issue with other players at the table - be it personal history, identity, or physical conformity. (Yeah, i have had a would be player who didn't want to play with a blind player at the table. Was at a store demo. My answer was "Play the game, not the players." - they left. Blind player was a hoot.)
• Has an issue with other players playing non-humans.
• Insists upon non-fade-to-black romance.
• Preachy Gygaxians. Oh, wait, that falls under identity, too.

 

[bloodtide]

A great topic!

Bad DM:
*Does not know or understand the game rules, yet insist that they Must be DM
*Does not show any interest or initiative to learn the game rules
*The DM does not care about the game. The DM is a Casual DM, just there to relax, hang out and waste time
*The DM is forgetful, has a bad memory and takes no notes: While some people can remember game details forever, a lot of people don't have this ability. And if a DM does not have the ability, they should keep notes. The DM is the foundation of the fiction and they must know all the game details.
*The DM is easily distracted and allows anything to take them away from the game on a whim: It's bad enough if the DM is on their phone, watching TV or such during the game and not paying attention. It's 100 times worse when they leave the game to do something for minutes or hours at a time...several times per game session.
*The DM makes all sorts of rule changes and houserules that change the game. And then once they play that game they find it full of problems, not working and no fun. And they ask for help to "fix" their game. BUT, if it is even mentioned that the reason the game has issues is all the changes and house rules....they flat out even refuses to consider it.
*The DM lacks any Social Authority. Players are free to do whatever they want at will and on a whim and the DM just says "ok".
*The DM is Best Buddies with one or more players so in both real life and in the game play both lets the players do whatever they want, but also gives them anything they want....just like a "Best Bud" would.

Bad Players:
*Does not know the game rules...but still is obsessed with "playing" the game
*Has no interest in ever learning the game rules...just wants to (not) "play"
*The player does not care about the game. They are the Casual Player, just there to relax, hang out and waste time
*The player does not even bother to try to bring their dice, rule books or even character to the game sesion
*The Player is forgetful, has a bad memory and takes no notes: They expect the DM to keep track of anything needed and think it's fine to say "whatever we go to that place with that guy and get that thing whatever".
*Unless they are actively doing something in character they get distracted, get on their phone and even leave the room.
*The player outright lies about wanting to be in a game. This type of player suddenly will appear during a game set up. And they will be obsessed with joining the game. But when the first game session comes along....they never show up and just Ghost the game.
*The player outright lies about wanting to join a stable game that meets on a set plan for hours at a time. The player will nearly always have "things come up", nearly every game that they "have to do". And it's rare for them to even play a full game session as they will have to "run somewhere".
*The player is a Lone Wolf and refuses to play with the rest of the group in any meaningful way

whew...

 

[aco175]

There are no bad DMs or players, only another group looking for someone in disguise.

I would think the main point of being a bad whatever is not understanding that the game if there for everyone to have fun.

 

[John Dallman]

*The DM is forgetful, has a bad memory and takes no notes: While some people can remember game details forever, a lot of people don't have this ability. And if a DM does not have the ability, they should keep notes. The DM is the foundation of the fiction and they must know all the game details.

The worst GM I've played with (once) was forgetful, arbitrary and vindictive. I played the session because it was classic Paranoia, where those qualities don't do nearly as much harm to the game atmosphere.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, there's two big groups, right?

The first group is the people who are actively bad people, they just happen to be roleplaying. But they would poison pretty much any group activity they're part of. Bad hygiene, bad manners, entitlement issues, apathy or condescension or just out-and-out misanthropy. You don't just not want them in your adventuring party, you don't invite them to ANY parties if you can help it.

The other, more interesting, group is the one of decent-to-nice people who just happen to be bad at facilitating a roleplaying game.

 

[prabe]

I mean, there's two big groups, right?

The first group is the people who are actively bad people, they just happen to be roleplaying. But they would poison pretty much any group activity they're part of. Bad hygiene, bad manners, entitlement issues, apathy or condescension or just out-and-out misanthropy. You don't just not want them in your adventuring party, you don't invite them to ANY parties if you can help it.

The other, more interesting, group is the one of decent-to-nice people who just happen to be bad at facilitating a roleplaying game.

Yeah. I think the question as asked doesn't seem to be about what makes bad people bad, and a lot of the more specific points that have come up have been about sort of general competence, or about persistent failure at meeting expectations. I agree the more interesting question is what makes an otherwise decent person unpleasant to share a TRPGing table with? I'll stick with inability/unwillingness to either adjust to the other people at the table or leave--though this plausibly manifests in different ways.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean, there's two big groups, right?

The first group is the people who are actively bad people, they just happen to be roleplaying. But they would poison pretty much any group activity they're part of. Bad hygiene, bad manners, entitlement issues, apathy or condescension or just out-and-out misanthropy. You don't just not want them in your adventuring party, you don't invite them to ANY parties if you can help it.

The other, more interesting, group is the one of decent-to-nice people who just happen to be bad at facilitating a roleplaying game.

I would also say that sometimes there are good GMs but who are nevertheless doing things that their players don't like: e.g., fudging. Similarly, I sometimes find that "bad GM" is used in a very "no true Scotsman" manner to dismiss a lot of criticisms about a game by laying the blame onto a scapegoat: i.e., "the bad GM."

But one reason why I'm not a fan of the "bad GM" language is that I do think that it can discourage people from wanting to run games as a GM because they don't want to be labeled as a "bad GM" even if they would be good GMs albeit ones with different game and playstyle preferences from those at the table.

 

[Scott Christian]

I would like to add to this conversation by stating "bad" might be table chemistry too. I think we are all experienced enough to have seen a player who is terrible at one table become a good player at a different table.

But if I had to state a trait that makes players or DMs bad, the discussion has to revolve around commitment. Commitment to your character, your world, and your table. If the commitment is not there, then that player/DM might be a problem.