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

[Bedrockgames]

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.

There is more to this equation than just bad GMs. Being on both sides of the screen what I have observed is, yes bad GMs do exist. They are not nearly as common as people seem to suggest on some forums, but they certainly exist (though again, in my experience you tend to bump into them more at public venues rather than private tables). But bad players are also a thing. And one type of bad player is someone who wrecks the fun for everyone at the table because they walk around with an overly perfect image in their head of the 'ideal campaign', the 'ideal GM' or 'ideal group'. Obviously there are critiques from the player side that are well founded. But most game groups are made up of 5-6 people at least, and only one of them is the GM. The GM has certain powers in terms of mechanics, but that doesn't give the GM complete control over peoples thoughts or behavior. And I think just as often, a bad game can be pinned on the player side as the GM side.

All that said, the number of bad players and GMs, or the amount of bad table behavior, I have seen in real life (at least post-Highschool) is very low.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The number of people playing and DMing has expanded quite a bit since it came out. I suppose a few very, very rural areas with no cities withing an hour drive might be in this situation. The number of bad DMs, though, is still a very small minority of DMs, so there is no tendency for DMs to just lose it and go power mad.

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.

Reality does not bear out that theory. Even back in the '80's when I was playing 1e, the edition that gave the DMs the most power, while having the fewest DMs out there, and the smallest number of alternatives, I only encountered power mad DM. During 2e I encountered a couple more at conventions and walked away from those games. Didn't hit any of them during 3e at all. If your theory was correct, virtually every DM that I encountered would have be a rabid, power mad DM.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I suspect that, to a large extent, the "Jerk DM" is figmentary, or perhaps a caricature.

He or she represents a distillation of all of the worst characteristics experienced or exhibited by our pathological teen selves: controlling, playing favorites, inconsistent and arbitrary; DMs covetous of certain NPCs and "Killer DMs" also fit the role.

"Jerk DM" remains a useful archetype to bear in mind when considering how not to behave, but I'm not sure it's anything more than that.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Losing players is hardly a check on GM privilege; it's just the last and final resort of the desperate because no actual checks on GM privilege exist or all other methods have been exhausted.

 

[jasper]

1 jerk gm = 3 jerk players.
Response will be:
Jasper just wants to play his pc his way.
Jasper is my best friend you got to love him.
ETC.
Or we don't notice (or discount) the jerks beside us but we do notice the jerk in charge.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think that adversarial relationship is a big part of it – it’s too easy to default to all the challenge, all the time. And it especially becomes a problem when a GM equates the success of the monsters/opponents with their own success and fun at the table.

As to why this keeps coming up, I’d point to two historical antecedents:

1 – Back in the day, you might only know a handful of GMs. You might put up with a suboptimal GM because there was no one else to run the game. It was either that or not game (or, you know, actually run a game yourself – but if the jerk GM was a friend, there would be drama inherent with doing that, too). Much of this falls back on the Geek Social Fallacy stuff, too.

2 – If you look at the 1e books, and the DMing advice (what little there is), that’s often the behavior that’s modeled. There are numerous “gotcha” cursed magic items, myriad ways to die (sometimes without even a saving throw), stories of Gary Gygax having to put a powerful PC in their place, and the occasional, “hey, here’s a random encounter with a Beholder, good luck with that!” It would be easy to think that that’s how the game was supposed to be run.

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.

 

[PrometheanVigil]

I think I'd have to be convinced of the premise before trying to figure out the reasons for it. What makes you believe there are more jerks in our hobby than elsewhere?

Buy-in level.
...

You literally need just a pen and paper to get started in this hobby. You don't even need to buy a gamebook -- you can borrow a friend's or even spontaneously come up with a primitive form of RPG yourself. You don't even need to GM.

Even computer games require you have a PC, a games console or a handheld device AND THEN have a copy of the game itself to play. It is very unlikely -- outside of your teenage/undergrad years -- you will know someone you can just borrow expensive kit like that. You cannot spontaneously come up with your own computer game -- that requires a talent called "programming" and that's just cut off 70% of humanity already from the jump.

Archery: you need to pay to be a member of an archery association, plus regular dues to a club you've joined so you can shoot at their range and use their equipment (+ your own personal gear expenses)

Sailing: you need to at least pay a time-share on a vessel, you need to have training and a license to sail, you need to have a full day free to really get anything out of it

Foodie: you need to have the disposable income to afford to eat-out regularly (w/ everything that includes) at nice places and to be able to take the all-too common financial risk that a restaurant or hole-in-the-wall might suck.

And on and on and on.
...

The vast majority of hobbies require decent disposable income and/or some level of skill to do them at a level where you're getting anything out of them.

This means we've already filtered for a certain caliber of people. If you have even half-decent disposable income AND you're paying rent and bills, you're probably going to be at least semi-competent socially. And if you're a snooker cue, it's likely going to be in an endearing or charming way.

In my experience, in the many online and offline games I've run, at least half the table is filled with people who are shift workers, on contract or are students. The other half is usually like myself (NB: I'm in my twenties): white-collared, salaried young professionals or those who run their own companies (either straight successful or getting there).

When the former group come to play, a lot of them are there for power fantasies and vicarious gaming. If they're players, they come to get themselves validated; GMs, they're there to get control over something in their lives. The latter group -- we don't need that because we're already leveling up in real-life. And that's a 100% real.

So that's where, most of the time, you get jerk RPGers in general, not just GMs (because in my experience, players are usually the problem, not GMs).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[S'mon]

(I actually think the greater barriers to entry in TTRPGs are literacy, numeracy, and time constraints. And I think that the people that play TTRPGs are, in my experience, much less jerky than the overall population.)

Yeah, I think Promethean has it pretty much exactly wrong. Roleplayers are not typically the dregs of society (students! shift workers! the horror!) he paints.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Buy-in level.
...

You literally need just a pen and paper to get started in this hobby. You don't even need to buy a gamebook -- you can borrow a friend's or even spontaneously come up with a primitive form of RPG yourself. You don't even need to GM.

Even computer games require you have a PC, a games console or a handheld device AND THEN have a copy of the game itself to play. It is very unlikely -- outside of your teenage/undergrad years -- you will know someone you can just borrow expensive kit like that. You cannot spontaneously come up with your own computer game -- that requires a talent called "programming" and that's just cut off 70% of humanity already from the jump.

Archery: you need to pay to be a member of an archery association, plus regular dues to a club you've joined so you can shoot at their range and use their equipment (+ your own personal gear expenses)

Sailing: you need to at least pay a time-share on a vessel, you need to have training and a license to sail, you need to have a full day free to really get anything out of it

Foodie: you need to have the disposable income to afford to eat-out regularly (w/ everything that includes) at nice places and to be able to take the all-too common financial risk that a restaurant or hole-in-the-wall might suck.

And on and on and on.
...

The vast majority of hobbies require decent disposable income and/or some level of skill to do them at a level where you're getting anything out of them.

This means we've already filtered for a certain caliber of people. If you have even half-decent disposable income AND you're paying rent and bills, you're probably going to be at least semi-competent socially. And if you're a snooker cue, it's likely going to be in an endearing or charming way.

In my experience, in the many online and offline games I've run, at least half the table is filled with people who are shift workers, on contract or are students. The other half is usually like myself (NB: I'm in my twenties): white-collared, salaried young professionals or those who run their own companies (either straight successful or getting there).

When the former group come to play, a lot of them are there for power fantasies and vicarious gaming. If they're players, they come to get themselves validated; GMs, they're there to get control over something in their lives. The latter group -- we don't need that because we're already leveling up in real-life. And that's a 100% real.

So that's where, most of the time, you get jerk RPGers in general, not just GMs (because in my experience, players are usually the problem, not GMs).

Are you saying poor people make bad GMs? I've met just as many, if not more, socially awkward jerks in the suburbs as I have in poor areas. In fact having lived in both types of places , I'd say it is easier to get by being socially awkward in fancier neighborhoods than poorer ones. One thing that kind of bothers me about a lot of gaming forum discussions is there seems to be a somewhat elitist attitude toward being educated, skilled and successful. Those things are great but they are not what make you a good and worthy human being.