Bad DMs/GMs

[Janx]

The second was in a college gaming club. Unfortunately, there was some unwritten rule where you had to warn players their characters at risk. Ignoring the fact that I consider that the default assumption of most games except Toon, there was also the problem with a change in the meaning of terms between editions.

Anyway, I forget the name of the PS adventure trilogy I was running, but at the end of the 2nd module, the Gate Town of Ribcage is prepared for ascension. In Planescape, this means the Gate Town is going to become part of the plane it connects to. Apparently, in older editions, this meant that your characters are going to become gods and be removed from play.

I had no reason to know this, having come to D&D in AD&D2e, though I did have a chance to buy the Rules Cyclopedia really early in my interest in gaming. Anyway, I found out after trying to set up the third part of the adventure that I had lost my group because of their perception of the term. No amount of saying "it doesn't mean that anymore" convinced them to come back.

this sounds non-sensical. Planescape was a later 2E product. There was no prior art, so the concept of Gate Town and ascending in terms of Planescape was unique unto itself.

AD&D 1e or 2e had no "ascension" concept in the rules. D&D (as maintained by Rules Cyclopedia) had a concept the PC became a god at level 36. But that's a seperate game that a minority were still playing.

Walking out on a campaign with PCs that would "ascend" and end the game, still ends those PCs as the # of GMs willing to take on "external" PCs in the post 1E era of casual gaming was small. Basically, those PCs had more chance of game play WITH you, than walking out.

as such, there may have been another undisclosed reason.

 

[Zhaleskra]

this sounds non-sensical. Planescape was a later 2E product. There was no prior art, so the concept of Gate Town and ascending in terms of Planescape was unique unto itself.

True, once again supporting my idea that D&D may not be the best engine for Planescape. I seem to remember the exact term being "Glorious Ascension".

AD&D 1e or 2e had no "ascension" concept in the rules. D&D (as maintained by Rules Cyclopedia) had a concept the PC became a god at level 36. But that's a seperate game that a minority were still playing.

No particular edition was specified, and as I recall the PCs were in single digit levels.

as such, there may have been another undisclosed reason.

Perhaps for some people, but one of the GMs I played under told me afterward that what I previously stated was the exact reason.

 

[Janx]

Perhaps for some people, but one of the GMs I played under told me afterward that what I previously stated was the exact reason.

taken at face value, players who will crater their own campaign based on their own misunderstanding and refuse to communicate, take in new information, or give you some credit aren't worth keeping.

it sounds like somebody read an online spoiler that says "at the end of the adventure, the Mimir bends you all over and takes you to brown town. The End."

And then they assumed such ridiculousness was gospel.

 

[Zhaleskra]

taken at face value, players who will crater their own campaign based on their own misunderstanding and refuse to communicate, take in new information, or give you some credit aren't worth keeping.

I quite agree, with the most common scene that comes up as intolerable being "taken prisoner". At the same time, it reveals the value of saying "same characters next session".

Perhaps what we need as a no-nonsense comment on adventuring: "Adventuring is an inherently dangerous activity, most adventurers die. In most civilized areas, it's considered an extremely bizarre way of committing suicide. Your average commoner would tell you, 'if you're going to kill yourself, just use a rope, it's a lot faster and people will know where your body is.'"

 

[ValhallaGH]

The idea that the DM is always right also kind of bugs me. It goes hand in hand with the player is always wrong.

No it doesn't. It goes hand in hand with "The DM is always right at the table. Get through the session and then settle the matter like adults."

The players are not "always wrong" (and I've never heard anyone except the most socially horrific people claim otherwise; so, not a common attitude in my experience). When the game is in play and players are arguing with the table-ruling, the players are in the wrong. The GM is always right the same way the referee or umpire of a sporting event is always right - he might have made a bad call, but once it is over it is over and everyone has to deal with it. (Hopefully the GM is corrected after the fact and learns from his mistake, but that's not always the case. Hence, this thread.)

DMs are not gods they are human and make mistakes also even the best DMs are not perfect and there is always room for improvement.

Absolutely true. But the middle of the freaking session is not the time for criticism, no matter how much a player may want to give it. I've lost count of the number of times a player has tried to correct me about some rule, and been flat wrong because things were not what the player thought they were. Conversely, I've lost count of the number of mistakes I've made, though I can count the ones I've repeated (currently 31 - mostly minor rules flubs; not bad for 8 years of GMing).

 

[Hussar]

No it doesn't. It goes hand in hand with "The DM is always right at the table. Get through the session and then settle the matter like adults."

The players are not "always wrong" (and I've never heard anyone except the most socially horrific people claim otherwise; so, not a common attitude in my experience). When the game is in play and players are arguing with the table-ruling, the players are in the wrong. The GM is always right the same way the referee or umpire of a sporting event is always right - he might have made a bad call, but once it is over it is over and everyone has to deal with it. (Hopefully the GM is corrected after the fact and learns from his mistake, but that's not always the case. Hence, this thread.)/snip

You don't watch a lot of sports do you? The idea that you don't argue with the referee during the game is pretty far from what actually happens. People argue with the referee all the time. Heck, NFL builds challenges right into the rules specifically because of this.

And, sometimes letting it go means that events occur that can't really be taken back. If the DM's ruling results in a PC death, for example, letting it slide to the end of the session means that the character is still dead. If the DM's ruling was mistaken, then what do you do? Shrug and keep on going, despite the fact that you just flushed six months of play down the toilet because you weren't willing to look up a rule?

I'm wrong about the rules all the time. I know that I am. I have rules gurus at the table specifically because I know they know the rules better than I do. Fantastic. I have no problems being wrong.

The problem comes when people start letting their ego's get in the way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The gm can be wrong but i think things go smootger if he still has final say. If people challenge a call it should be heard but some of us do want things to keep moving. As a player i get annoyed when a player has to fight every call or keeps arguing when things just need to go forward.

 

[DnD_Dad]

I really get peeved about DMs that read verbatim out of adventures, don't play any part of traveling(just say something like, "it took a week to travel through the thunder peaks to Suzail...", and do no more preparation towards game day, even pre-read the adventure that they are running.
It takes a lot of off time to make a successful game day; being prepared is the most important thing of being a good DM. You better make your players feel like it is a living world they are playing in and that is is full of characters both great and small.
Write some random encounters, make some NPCs, draw up a dungeon or 3 on some grid paper, make notes all over everything, at least know your player's character names!!!

 

[Hussar]

The gm can be wrong but i think things go smootger if he still has final say. If people challenge a call it should be heard but some of us do want things to keep moving. As a player i get annoyed when a player has to fight every call or keeps arguing when things just need to go forward.

Like all things, there's a happy medium here. A player who challenges every single ruling the DM makes is every bit as much of a problem as a DM who gets hacked off every time he's challenged on a ruling.

So long as everyone is reasonable, everyone stays pretty happy. Only challenge when it matters and don't get too fussed when the player challenges something that matters to them.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I believe we all were bad DM's at one point. It's what you do after that which matters to me.



So to pass on, and no longer be an apprentice, answer me this question: What is the sound of one hand DM'ing?