Why does the stigma of the "jerk GM" still persist in our hobby?

[S'mon]

IME there are very few* jerk GMs - and I speak as an overly demanding player who tends to quit games that don't meet my excessively high standards. Just because I disagree with a guy's GMing does not make him a jerk. IME a GM typically wants the players to have a good time, and puts in a lot of effort in his/her attempt to do so. Positively saintly, in fact.

*DeathbyDoughnut's supervisor the obvious exception!

 

[Ratskinner]

Facetiously: I would guess two factors:

a) new jerk GMs are constantly being created

b) old jerk GMs never quit

Not so facetiously, a GM being a jerk is something that tends to stick with people. We just don't like letting it go. So, even if a new GM is only a jerk through inexperience, we tend to remember it.

 

[MGibster]

I've run into players in the games of mine that have clearly been burned by GMs in the past. I remember one player who made a point to remind me after each and every combat encounter that he was reloading and/or recovering equipment. I finally assured the player that he never had to tell me such things because his character was competent and I would always assume he reloaded/recovered any equipment on the field unless there were some odd reason why he couldn't have done so.

There's something of an adversarial relationship between players and GM in that the GM is creating challenges for their characters. I think some GMs aren't trying to be jerks they're trying to create a situation that's challenging for the PCs. It's just that the challenges they're creating aren't interesting, and, even worse, frustrating to players.

I'm one of those weird types who believes most people are decent. But I know some people are jerks and there are certainly jerk GMs.

 

[steenan]

It has a lot in common with Stanford Prison Experiment.

Nearly all traditional games game the GM a lot of authority and power, without anything to keep it in check. A GM had nearly total control over in-game events, could change or ignore the rules, could reward and punish players. In such setup, one doesn't have to be a jerk initially to become one in the context of the game. Friendly and well socialized people can become very toxic GMs while still behaving well outside of the context of a game.

While this approach is rarer in modern games - they often clearly define agendas and areas of responsibility - it's still treated as a default by a lot of groups, as can easily be seen on most RPG boards. Until this changes, we'll keep creating jerk GMs.

 

[Zhaleskra]

There are also an amount of players who think any actual danger to their character makes a DM bad, even if it is totally fair by the rules. So some DMs labeled as bad may only be so in certain players’s eyes.

 

[S'mon]

There are also an amount of players who think any actual danger to their character makes a DM bad, even if it is totally fair by the rules. So some DMs labeled as bad may only be so in certain players’s eyes.

I think player experience is definitely subjective. I can have 5 players love my game and 1 hate it.

BTW in the Stanford Prison Experiment the guards were *told* to act like s. I suspect that GMing advice has a major impact. The 1e DMG encouraged an adversarial approach. The 2e DMG encouraged railroading. The 3e DMG encouraged the GM to bend over and... Well maybe not that bad, but in each case I think the tone of the advice did have an effect.

 

[Manbearcat]

Nothing to add but great posts [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] !

 

[Maxperson]

It has a lot in common with Stanford Prison Experiment.

Nearly all traditional games game the GM a lot of authority and power, without anything to keep it in check. A GM had nearly total control over in-game events, could change or ignore the rules, could reward and punish players. In such setup, one doesn't have to be a jerk initially to become one in the context of the game. Friendly and well socialized people can become very toxic GMs while still behaving well outside of the context of a game.

While this approach is rarer in modern games - they often clearly define agendas and areas of responsibility - it's still treated as a default by a lot of groups, as can easily be seen on most RPG boards. Until this changes, we'll keep creating jerk GMs.

The loss of players keeps it in check for most people. It isn't much fun to DM a solo game with no players, so DMs do feel pressure back from the players to not be a jerks about their position.

 

[Hussar]

The loss of players keeps it in check for most people. It isn't much fun to DM a solo game with no players, so DMs do feel pressure back from the players to not be a jerks about their position.

The problem becomes though, if you're not willing to run a game yourself, you wind up playing in garbage games because it's the only game in town. So many terrible DM's keep their players because the players don't want to be the one to rock the boat. It's shocking what people will tolerate.

But, yeah, I'm going to totally agree that it's almost always a DM Ego issue. Give anyone that much authority in a social situation, including (at most tables anyway) the authority to eject any player at any time, combined with the typical age of a gamer, and it's not really a shock that there are toxic DM's out there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I became a subscriber to “Life is too short for bad roleplaying. No gaming is better than bad gaming.” position back in the 1990s. I almost left a group I had just joined because the first GM was so bad. Not a jerk, just bad.

But after his game quickly cratered, someone else stepped up to run a game. And I stayed I that group- going through many campaigns in many systems with many GMs (myself included)- for the next 3-4 years until I moved away from the city.

Still, to this day, I refuse to remain in a bad campaign.