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

[Reynard]

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.

I addressed this in the OP.

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.

I think the only one of those that matters, IMO, is commitment to the table, that is the game happening right now. Where it is an on-going campaign or a convention one shot.

 

[Scott Christian]

I addressed this in the OP.

I know. I was reiterating it because I thought it was an important caveat for my actual answer.

I think the only one of those that matters, IMO, is commitment to the table, that is the game happening right now. Where it is an on-going campaign or a convention one shot.

Yeah, maybe I subdivided when I didn't need to. If there is commitment to the table, it probably implies their character and world.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

I want to avoid focusing too much on the "just not a good fit" GMs and players. That happens a lot, even if those GMs and players are "good." For the purposes of this discussion I am more interested in what sorts of traits make someone actually bad at GMing or playing.

My personal view is that the only way this can be answered generically is in regard to people who disregard the things that will negatively impact other people at the table for to pursue their own interests. I consider this to usually (note the qualification) be more severe with GMs simply because in most environments they have more power, but its by no means limited to them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I definitely think that for GMs especially, but to some degree for players, the inability to "read the table" is a sign of being "bad."

I think that is correctable, though. You can learn to put your story aside and pay attention to what is happening around you. You can learn to acknowledge the ensemble nature of the form. You can be taught to actively understand "spotlight time" and it's distribution.

There are usually two problems that can make this hard to correct, one at the GM's end, one at a player's:

1. GMs who have a particularly rigid view of the games they're running, and either think that adjusting it in certain directions even if that's what the players indicate they want will damage it beyond management, or simply are uninterested in going in those directions. (To be fair, some forever-players really do have some problems with understanding the ongoing implications of what they're asking, but sometimes it simply translates into "I don't wanna" on the part of the GM. While no one should be forced to GM if they don't want to, the more rigid that gets the more question you should ask if you're doing anything but using your player group as a method getting to run whatever game you're doing, rather than doing a group activity).

2. Players who think its entirely the GM's job to make sure everyone has a good time and they owe no responsibility to anyone but themselves. In some cases you'll get people who don't even accept a GM's ability to rein them in to keep a game on-track, and think once the game starts they have a right to do as they please within the limits of in-game setting responses.

Either of these sets of views can make the whole thing awfully intractable.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

There are probably pages and pages of people talking about horrible or bad GMs. But not NEARLY enough talking about bad players so that' 's where my focus is going to be.

Not going to discuss the obvious things like bad hygiene, or lack of respect for other people's time. Those are attributes that make them questionable people and have not a lot to do with actual play.

Crappy players? Spotlight hogs. Rules Lawyers who cite rules for their benefit and their benefit ONLY. Lore obsessives (one of the reasons I stopped running FR campaigns almost 30 years ago). The FR novel that you read has NO IMPACT on the game we're playing right now. Please stop trying to tell me that "so and so NPC wouldn't be here at this point" because of something that happened in a book you read. GTFOH with that. If you're doing it to be helpful (and I can tell the difference) I have a lot more patience for it. But if you're doing it to show off your vast lore knowledge and kill any forward momentum of the game we're trying to play? Nah. BYE.

Players who are more concerned with breaking the game than playing the game. I get that it's a style of play. Just keep that style of play FAR TF away from me.

Players who ignore the fact that games like D&D and Pathfinder are TEAM games. They're not gracious with their fellow players, including the GM, and only care about their own enjoyment. GARBAGE Players are often GARBAGE People. The best games I've run and played in have been with people who interact, encourage, and make space for other people at the table to shine. Rules Lawyers who know the game well and correct and inform the rules for EVERYONE at the table even when it doesn't benefit them ARE AWESOME.

Cheaters are pretty much an instant eject from my table. I don't care about the why. I CAN'T TRUST YOU. If you cheat over something that small I don't know what else you'll be dishonest about and I won't have that around me. I'd rather have a bunch of newbies who are decent people than sit at a table with an experienced yet amoral player. I can teach the newbies the game. I can't teach someone morality and why they should play fair and not cheat.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rules Lawyers who cite rules for their benefit and their benefit ONLY.

How do you class people who are very rules-focused, but are as likely to point out/insist on them if doing so works against their own interests?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

How do you class people who are very rules-focused, but are as likely to point out/insist on them if doing so works against their own interests?

Oh, I still call them Rules Lawyers but the GOOD kind. LOL.

In all seriousness, I WELCOME Rules Lawyers at my table as long as they're not selfish about their knowledge. And you can usually tell who's who within the first few sessions of the game.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Good players:

• Work with the theme of the game. If the referee's influences are Heinlein and Niven, don't try to play One Piece.
• Color within the lines. If the game has FTL, do not use your personal knowledge of physics to bootstrap it into time travel.
• Suspend disbelief as needed. Do not try to theorycraft reasons why 3D space can be represented by a 2D map; the out-of-game reason is "3D mapping is difficult and adds no fun" and the in-game reason is "shut up".

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, maybe I subdivided when I didn't need to. If there is commitment to the table, it probably implies their character and world.

Not necessarily. Someone can be highly committed to the table - as manifested by showing up on time every week, never missing a session, and so forth - and still not be committed to their character(s), the setting, or the game itself.

In other words, this is the player for whom the game is merely a background excuse for socializing.

 

[Reynard]

Not necessarily. Someone can be highly committed to the table - as manifested by showing up on time every week, never missing a session, and so forth - and still not be committed to their character(s), the setting, or the game itself.

In other words, this is the player for whom the game is merely a background excuse for socializing.

I don't agree that makes a "bad player."