I think "boiling it down" is reductive (ha) and not especially useful. People do specific things that make them unpleasant to have around in the specific context of playing and RPG.
What makes a "bad GM" or a "bad player"?
The hard part in coming up with lists like this is that any idea someone puts forth has only a percentage of the tables out there for whom it is considered "bad". There will always be a few tables for whom the social contract of that table allows for that thing and doesn't think of it as "bad" on its face. Now more often than not, most tables would say "X makes for a bad DM" or "Y makes for a bad player"... but none of us have any real idea just how many exceptions exist out there that prove the rule.
So a lot of these suggestions are good baseline rules for a large swathe of the playerbase... but none of us should take them 100% to heart and believe there's Only One Way on this. There will always be times when an exception can be found and it's good to remind ourselves of that from time to time. If for no other reason than to maintain a sense of cordiality when we run into that table and can politely agree to disagree with them and then walk away. We may think the way their table runs is complete and utter bullcrap, but that's no reason to be a dick about it.
So a lot of these suggestions are good baseline rules for a large swathe of the playerbase... but none of us should take them 100% to heart and believe there's Only One Way on this. There will always be times when an exception can be found and it's good to remind ourselves of that from time to time. If for no other reason than to maintain a sense of cordiality when we run into that table and can politely agree to disagree with them and then walk away. We may think the way their table runs is complete and utter bullcrap, but that's no reason to be a dick about it.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
This is true. While I would generally hold that a strongly railroading DM is a bad DM, that doesn't mean there aren't groups with a railroading DM and players who prefer to get railroaded (only in the Eric's grandma approved way, of course.)
Thomas Shey
Legend
The hard part in coming up with lists like this is that any idea someone puts forth has only a percentage of the tables out there for whom it is considered "bad". There will always be a few tables for whom the social contract of that table allows for that thing and doesn't think of it as "bad" on its face. Now more often than not, most tables would say "X makes for a bad DM" or "Y makes for a bad player"... but none of us have any real idea just how many exceptions exist out there that prove the rule.
So a lot of these suggestions are good baseline rules for a large swathe of the playerbase... but none of us should take them 100% to heart and believe there's Only One Way on this. There will always be times when an exception can be found and it's good to remind ourselves of that from time to time. If for no other reason than to maintain a sense of cordiality when we run into that table and can politely agree to disagree with them and then walk away. We may think the way the way their table runs is complete and utter bullcrap, but that's no reason to be a dick about it.
While I don't disagree with your point, I don't think its hard to come up with suggestions that are disruptive and negative to the majority of groups. That's useful even when its not universal.
Thomas Shey
Legend
It can even apply in selective cases with a group that doesn't normally lean into that. I've mentioned that the Scion 1e campaign I ran was pretty railroady, because the amount of prep and the degree of matching of character to challenge is so high in that game its almost impossible to run it otherwise. But I made it pretty clear up-front that was how I was going to have to do it, and at the end of the game when I acknowledged how much a railroad it was, the late Steve Perrin said "That's okay. We enjoyed the trip."
Absolutely. Having a default majority for a list can find itself beneficial more often than not. But too often I get the impression that some people aren't willing to see the nuance when it could be applicable. And that's when they might find themselves up against it when they put forth a potentially-unintended hardline stance.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Nuance is really hard to effectively convey online for whatever reason. As I've noted, I've made posts that I very carefully put a qualification in, only to have people respond like that qualification wasn't there. And that's a simple case compared to some.
Xenolith234
Explorer
A bad player is one that uses your game sessions as therapy for themselves and their significant other, and as ways to discuss difficult topics they don't want to bring up with each other, or to get other people to weigh in on those topics and take sides.
CellarHeroes
Explorer
Xenolith234
Explorer
No, no, not at all.......Is there something you'd like to get off your chest?
Similar Threads
