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

[Bedrockgames]

Upset people like to complain. Happy people are usually content to be happy. Don't mistake a lot of complaints about this as indicating that it is anything other than a small minority of people who are bully DMs. Even if it is a bell curve, it's only those on the extreme end that are bad. The middle of the curve isn't the low end of average, and average spans a large part of the bell. I've encountered about as many truly great DMs as I have bad ones. There aren't that many of those, either.

I have to second this sentiment. while I have run into the occasional bad GM. For the most part, when I have encountered players who complain about this, it has been my observation they are often unhappy under just about any GM, and tend to just complain about lots of things in general. Or I see players who are overly rigid about the kind of GM they are happy to play with. Most players I know are pretty flexible and willing to engage a number of GM styles. I do think a lot of this has to do with attitude. If you go into a game looking for things to complain about, you will easily find them. I generally don't complain unless it rises to a certain level.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Sorry, I forget this isn't the 5e forum, sometimes. "DM Empowerment" is a feature of 5e D&D, one that I've talked up, a lot, so I felt obliged to acknowledge that it's not all rainbows & unicorns, all the time.

Like so much of 5e, it's a feature that's been brought back from the classic editions of the game, the TSR era, in particular. (Though it wasn't seen as a feature or given such a trendy name as 'empowerment' back then - DMing was just hard, and the DM held a lot of imaginary 'power' in the play procedures, thus, between the two, a lot of social power in the group dynamic.) Since the D&D of the 80s was so influential in the development, perceptions - and stereotypes - of our hobby, and 5e is again far out in front, today, it seemed relevant.

So....how did we have stories of terrible GMs during 3.5, arguably the largest boom for D&D since the "good old days"? How does Pathfinder have stories og terrible GMs?

Putting this on "DM empowerment" is hooey. DM empowerment was only made a "thing" as a knee-jerk reaction to all the grogs who kvetched about 4E's "player empowerment".

Also, please don't hack up my posts but keep them in a single quote. It's very rude and looks like you're trying to make it seem that I wrote something I didn't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So....how did we have stories of terrible GMs during 3.5, arguably the largest boom for D&D since the "good old days"? How does Pathfinder have stories og terrible GMs?

I remember a lot more stories of terrible players, in the 3.5/PF context. And 5e is clearly the largest boom for D&D since the 80s fad.

Putting this on "DM empowerment" is hooey. DM empowerment was only made a "thing" as a knee-jerk reaction to all the grogs who kvetched about 4E's "player empowerment".

Or Player Entitlement, because it sounded even worse.
That may well have informed the choice of terminology.
But DM Empowerment, however cynical that naming choice may have been, has seen 5e become very successful, too.

Also, please don't hack up my posts but keep them in a single quote. It's very rude and looks like you're trying to make it seem that I wrote something I didn't.

Please don't try to dictate my posting style, it's very rude, and makes it seem like you're approaching the discussion in bad faith or with a chip on your shoulder.

And, it won't work. You can block me if you can't handle someone thinking slightly differently from you.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I remember a lot more stories of terrible players, in the 3.5/PF context. And 5e is clearly the largest boom for D&D since the 80s fad.

But sure, the same abuses of system mastery that let 3.5/PF players be total jerks, also worked for DMs. They were just a step down from the good ol' bad ol' days.


That may well have informed the choice of terminology.
But DM Empowerment, however cynical that naming choice may have been, has seen 5e become very successful, too.

Please don't try to dictate my posting style, it's very rude, and makes it seem like you're approaching the discussion in bad faith or with a chip on your shoulder.

And, it won't work. You can block me if you can't handle someone thinking slightly differently from you.

k, bye

 

[MNblockhead]

Also, please don't hack up my posts but keep them in a single quote. It's very rude and looks like you're trying to make it seem that I wrote something I didn't.

That's a strange ask. Multi-quoting has been a common style in bulletin boards, e-mail, and forums since at least the 80s. I appreciate it when folks take the time to do this as it keeps responses in context. I figured that more people don't do it because it takes a bit more work.

 

[Immortal Sun]

That's a strange ask. Multi-quoting has been a common style in bulletin boards, e-mail, and forums since at least the 80s. I appreciate it when folks take the time to do this as it keeps responses in context. I figured that more people don't do it because it takes a bit more work.

It wasn't multiquoting. He literally edited what I said and cut out words and sentences while keeping it as a single quote block. He even multi-quoted another poster in the same post.

I have no patience for people who attempt to misconstrue what I say.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't think there is a general narrative of jerk GMs. There are a few people online who go on about jerk GMs.

Not just online. Early D&D texts, including the 1e DMG, were very concerned about the Scylla and Charybdis of Monty Hall and Killer DMs. From the foreword of Supplement IV Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes (1976) -

This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the “Monty Hall” DM’s. Perhaps now some of the ‘giveaway’ campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt
to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th-level Lord seriously?

The RPGHorrorStories subreddit, which features both bad GMs and bad players, seems to get about a dozen new posts per day and it surely represents the tip of the iceberg.

It's a flaw of rpgs that running games that don't suck is a skill that has to be learned. That's why I think people like Youtuber Matt Colville are doing an extremely valuable job given the influx of new GMs in the 5e boom.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The RPGHorrorStories subreddit, which features both bad GMs and bad players, seems to get about a dozen new posts per day and it surely represents the tip of the iceberg.

How reliable is a subreddit though as a source of that kind of data? For all we know, people could be reposting multiple times under different names. Also this is a self correcting crowd with incentive to exaggerate, and it may just well be made up of a narrow slice of the hobby who are exceptionally picky (not saying it is, just it is an obvious possibility).

 

[D1Tremere]

The work I do in decision theory leads me to believe that we need to be careful and exacting when we talk about something like "Bad DM/Player" issues. A clear and specific definition of the situation, followed by as non-subjective a justification as possible is required. In short, we have to operationalize the behavior.
That said, the pillars mentioned in the first post set atop fundamental motivators or needs. People are never just jerks by nature (though biology can play a role), and sometimes only jerks by narrow definition.
If you determine that someone is hurting the game with their behavior, it can be helpful to identify what is primarily motivating the behavior. A player may act out in a chaotic manner when board because they feel they are lacking meaningful agency in the game dynamic, and a DM may be overly controlling because they are excited about conveying a certain aspect of the game that they feel is amazing and must be shared. Etc. Likewise, people may put up with negative behavior from a GM/Player because they are afraid of loosing their sense of belonging should they make an issue of it. This is especially common in areas where IRL groups are hard to come by, and may represent a sizable chunk of one's social group. Often this is reinforced by the consequence of ostracism.
Point being, figuring out why people are acting the way that they are can give you more tools to correct the behavior or remove the actor from your life. Sometimes the act of breaking down and analyzing the troubling behavior can, in itself, help people gain perspective that improves the situation.

 

[Umbran]

And, it won't work. You can block me if you can't handle someone thinking slightly differently from you.

Does the word "de-escalation" mean anything to you? You might find it a far more constructive goal.

An, "Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to misrepresent," would have cost you nothing meaningful, and done a lot more to keep minds open than this, which really only ensured further ego-headbutting.