What can ruin a Game more; Poor GMing or a Bad Player

[Umbran]

Thing is, I don't know how to measure which is "more" ruinous. Either one can make for a miserable play experience.

On the other hand, you can often work around a bad player. I've had a player I didn't care for in a game I was also playing in in the past - I mostly ignored her, and the game was then usually pretty decent. It is hard to work around a bad GM.

But then, I notice you list "mediocre" specifically for the GM. Mediocre, by definition, is not particularly bad. If I'm comparing a really bad player with a mediocre GM, I'm not sure that's really the same.

So, in the end, I don't think I know how to answer the question.

 

[ArmchairReactionary]

The GM(s) is by far the most important player in any RPG, and the core of its viability. And allowing a player to be a jerk or ignore Landrieu is bad DMing.
I kind of just don't talk to people who I don't appreciate at my games, because I'd rather pay alone or with 1 PC than play a game with someone who doesn't suit my taste. Thankfully most of my friends seem to have quite similar/compatible tastes (probably because I care mostly about philosophical and hobby compatibility more than anything, and ignore everyone else. )

 

[delericho]

What is more likely to ruin a Game for you,

Neither. Either a bad DM or a single bad player can make the game intolerable.

The one bright light in this is that that single bad player is easier to correct - all it requires is for the group to get rid. But if the group or DM won't (because he's the host, the SO, a relative, or a particularly close friend of the group, or whatever), then that one bad player can destroy the game utterly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's a social environment and a social context. Group dynamics (whether in the form of a game or not) are never a binary system.

I would agree with this. Anyone present can bring a game to a halt. A GM who is a sore loser, or a players who is a sore loser, both can put the whole room on edge and deflate the fun of the game, it is probably more obvious when the GM is to blame. People just tend to notice this more. Howver players have a huge impact on the enjoyment of one another as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thing is, I don't know how to measure which is "more" ruinous. Either one can make for a miserable play experience.

On the other hand, you can often work around a bad player. I've had a player I didn't care for in a game I was also playing in in the past - I mostly ignored her, and the game was then usually pretty decent. It is hard to work around a bad GM.

But then, I notice you list "mediocre" specifically for the GM. Mediocre, by definition, is not particularly bad. If I'm comparing a really bad player with a mediocre GM, I'm not sure that's really the same.

So, in the end, I don't think I know how to answer the question.

Bad GM can mean a lot of different things. It could mean a pleasant personality who just isn't good at running adventures, it could mean a vindictive jerk who gets back at players who "win", it could mean a GM who just doesn't suit the playstyle of the group. A bad player could mean someone who doesn't know he rules well (and doesn't bother to learn), a person who shows up inconsistently or doesn't pay attention, or someone who berates other players for their choices and makes them miserable (perhaps even scheming against them). If we take the two worst examples from this mix (and I know it isn't thorough), the vindictive GM who punishes players and the player who berates players and schemes agains them....i think they both potentially have an equally negative effect on the room. The GM have mor authority under most systems, but i find this behavior makes everyone miserable weather it comes from a player or a GM. Both are basially a problem you can't simply ignore until they go away or change their behavior.

 

[steenan]

Actively bad, disruptive GM is worse than a disruptive player, if only because you can't play most games without a GM, but in most cases you can with one less player. So if a honest conversation doesn't help, you may stop inviting them.

But a mediocre player, in my opinion, is worse than a mediocre GM. Most games I play put the GMs job in solid rules, not just nebulous guidelines, so just running them by the book gives a basic level of quality. So a game with a mediocre GM has worse descriptions and less interesting plot twists, but mostly works, just with the players being the proactive and creative side. A mediocre player, on the other hand, either gets ignored and justifiedly feels bad about it, or sucks away the fun when others put effort in interacting with him. Fortunately, while I played with many mediocre players, most of them got better quite fast.

 

[saskganesh]

It's a social environment and a social context. Group dynamics (whether in the form of a game or not) are never a binary system.

Yes, however a game can be run independently from any social baggage players may bring to the table. It's much easier to fix a game than it is to repair a poor relationship.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, however a game can be run independently from any social baggage players may bring to the table.

You can consider the dynamics of a game separately from the social baggage, in the theoretical sense. But, as a practical matter, if folks bring their baggage to the table, and insert it into how they behave in play, you are most clearly *not* independent of their issues.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think a bad DM is definitely worse than a bad player. As has already been mentioned, it's easier to ignore or kick out a bad player - the game is still salvagable. But with a bad DM the game is doomed. A bad DM will typically cause me to leave the group. A bad player, however, is something I consider as an additional challenge. Depending on the particular reason, why the player is 'bad', there are different ways to try to improve the situation. Of course there can be players who you cannot stand to play with eventually, thus ruining the game for you.
But a bad DM who isn't willing to listen to advice (which is a sure sign of a bad DM) is simply ruining the game for everyone - there's no chance to redeem it.

 

[Janx]

You can consider the dynamics of a game separately from the social baggage, in the theoretical sense. But, as a practical matter, if folks bring their baggage to the table, and insert it into how they behave in play, you are most clearly *not* independent of their issues.

Yup.

That's why people with baggage are a problem. They drag it everywhere and it usually spill it all over whatever they are doing.