Bad DMs/GMs

[Summer-Knight925]

y'all miss one.
1.The DM who house rules outweight all the source books. And quote,"I know more about gaming that Gynax!". I lasted maybe 3 hours with that one.
2. Flavor of the month club. NPC game stype changes with each new Dragon mag or new spalt book.

What if it is a group that meets monthly to play and each session is based on that month?

September= 9/11 remembrance (usually the PCs are fighting some terrorist cult bent on destruction)
October= Horror oriented adventure
November=heavy roleplay and exploration session (Pilgrims anyone?)
December=winter wonderland and lots of cool treasures
January= new characters (thus a 1st level)
February = somehow related to Valentines
March= March madness (endless hordes? sweeeeet)
April=April fools (comic adventure for 'teh lulz')
May=Mother's day special (fighting against some 'motherly' monster [hags usually, very fairytale-esc])
June=Epics (not epic level characters, but epic adventures)


teh club meets once a month and is school based, so all pre-january sessions are played with one group of characters but they tend to be either pre-gens or previous characters...the idea is to get new players started and use to the rules before january so they understand enough to make good characters

 

[The Monster]

A couple more gripes...
--GMs who interrupt their own game to tell 'totally awesome' stories of their own characters - or even their other campaigns - completely breaking any immersion or continuity of thought. I admit to doing this occasionally to some extent (and probably most of us do), but there are those folks who don't know how to rein themselves in, even when they're GMing.
--GMs who impose strict railroading in-game and out-of-game. I recall one instance where the GM had our PCs kidnapped, strapped into stations on the bridge, and bombs rigged to go off if we interfered with the bad guys' plan. He was appalled when every one of us stated that our charactaers would rather blow up the ship with them on it than allow the bad guys to work their plot (trigger a galactic war). Perhaps the only full-fledged player revolt I've ever been in on (either side).
--GMs whose *first* resort in any discussion is the 'GM is always right,' who cannot see any question or objection as anything but a personal affront and threat to their authority.
--GMs (or anyone at the table) who won't shut up about how much they dislike the rules system being played. While I sometimes have similar thoughts when I'm playing, I keep them to myself at least while playing the game at hand (and usually don't even bring it up to the group in general).
--GMs who get pissed off when the players can't figure out their clues. Never mind that puzzles and riddles are always "bleedin' obvious" when you already know the answer, or that it's late on a Friday night and even basic math can be challenging. (Personally, I really dislike 'puzzle' adventures for this and other reasons but that's another tangent.)

 

[innerdude]

Most bad GMs (and bad players for that matter) typically happen for one primary reason: they put their needs above the needs of the group.

Whether it's a GM's need to feel important, or "be in control of the story," or exercise their power non-judiciously, ultimately it's all about them.

The biggest turning point for me as a GM was realizing that "what I wanted out of the campaign" was way less important than helping the players get what they wanted out of the campaign.

Does this mean I totally hand over the story, and let players run roughshod? Not at all, it just means that a spirit of open collaboration should prevail.

And if the GM (or players) aren't about that, then inevitably problems are going to arise.

 

[Hussar]

I am not doubting your experience, but just from my own the reason why I conclude "poor losers" is because that is what I've seen. When I have seen someone complain about GMs in real life (especially when they've had multiple bad GMs) they usually turn out to be one of a few types: someone who can't take losing, someone who is just too picky about GMs or someone who takes the game way too seriously. Most of my gaming friends are pretty laid back. I haven't really had any problems with other GMs or players. There are some GMs I prefer over others, but it isn't the end of the world for me if the GM is less than stellar (as I said usually guys who are truly terrible only end up GMing one or two sessions).

Whereas I'm far, far more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt. When someone, particularly someone who has some experience gaming, says that X DM is a bad DM, and backs it up with a couple of examples, that's pretty much good enough for me.

Like I said, I've seen WAY too many bad DM's and suffered through far too many crappy games to automatically presume that the issue is the player. It might very well be, but, that's never going to be my default position.

 

[Kerranin]

Three of the players were wildly enthusiastic and desperate for more. The fourth told me by email he'd hated it and wasn't coming back.

Wise man say: "You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but never all of the people all of the time."

 

[Kerranin]

Most bad GMs (and bad players for that matter) typically happen for one primary reason: they put their needs above the needs of the group.

Whether it's a GM's need to feel important, or "be in control of the story," or exercise their power non-judiciously, ultimately it's all about them.

The biggest turning point for me as a GM was realizing that "what I wanted out of the campaign" was way less important than helping the players get what they wanted out of the campaign.

Does this mean I totally hand over the story, and let players run roughshod? Not at all, it just means that a spirit of open collaboration should prevail.

And if the GM (or players) aren't about that, then inevitably problems are going to arise.

Have to agree, best games are ones where the GM and players cooperate in moving the game/story forward.

Shouldn't be about 'I' but about 'we'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Whereas I'm far, far more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt. When someone, particularly someone who has some experience gaming, says that X DM is a bad DM, and backs it up with a couple of examples, that's pretty much good enough for me.

I just tend to be skeptical on this because it is a song I've heard so many times, and almost invariably the person complaining is the real source of the problem. Keep in mind this swings both ways, if I hear a GM complaining about a player I am equally skeptical because it is a song I've heard over and over as well. For example when a GM complains about players not getting it, or too many players trying to power game, I assume the real issue is stylistic and that maybe the GM is a bit too rigid in that respect. Part of it too is, I just don't care much for complaining.

Like I said, I've seen WAY too many bad DM's and suffered through far too many crappy games to automatically presume that the issue is the player. It might very well be, but, that's never going to be my default position.

Like I said my experience has been very different. I've certainly encountered bad GMs (and like I said they rarely last more than 1-2 sessions). But been gaming since 1986 or so and I've just not really run into the kinds of situations people complain about. I've had GMs whose styles are different than mine, who have shortcomings, but I don't expect perfection from the GM, and a lot of times it feels like these complaints stem from expectations that are too high and too much investment in the game. For example, I don't let a questionable rules call ruin my night or lead to an hour long argument. And just in my own experience the kind of people I meet who have the bucket of bad GM stories are also the ones who slow down the game and whine over rules calls all the time.

 

[Kerranin]

Lets just all agree that there are bad DMs and bad players, and lets hope they find each other.

 

[jasper]

What if it is a group that meets monthly to play and each session is based on that month?

September= 9/11 remembrance (usually the PCs are fighting some terrorist cult bent on destruction)
October= Horror oriented adventure
...
teh club meets once a month and is school based, so all pre-january sessions are played with one group of characters but they tend to be either pre-gens or previous characters...the idea is to get new players started and use to the rules before january so they understand enough to make good characters

That is not flavor of month. That is MONTHLY THEME. in big letters and deep movie voice.
No flavor of the month is.
Cool! Dragon did a write up on Drizzit and Ecology of the Drow. Suddenly good drow are helping old widows across every street. And beating you up for not helping.
.
Splat book Characters from Planet X dropped on the first. Summer Knight do you want to play Duck Rogers in 23rd and half century transport back in time to Greyhawk. Or have DMPC appear as Duck Rogers.
.
Hey Avatar was blockbuster. DM inserts halfbake version of the monsters, and game session kind of follows the movie plot.

 

[howandwhy99]

Good GMs are all alike; every bad GM is bad in his or her own way.