Bad DMs/GMs

[Psimancer]

Ego GM/DMs: Those who, when they are genuinely outsmarted by their players, perceive it as a personal affront to their intelligence and take petty revenge on the characters; cursing, maiming, killing, etc - Been there, done that, no thanks...

 

[The Monster]

Most all GMs have some bad moments, or even bad habits. I certainly do!

Stuff I've run into as really bad GMing; fortunately, my home group has very little of this kind of nonsense...
--GMs who don't know the rules - or, at a convention, run the event using a different set of rules than was announced in the schedule (not because the schedule was wrong; they changed their mind a couple days befoer the con!).
--GMs who, when running a game based on published canon (e.g., Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, etc.), but have very flawed knowledge of the material - and then take offense when these major errors are pointed out (especially when the whole adventure hinges on the erroneous info).
--Close cousin to those are the GMs who create adventures where knowledge of some minute detail of the canon is necessary to succeed, and provide no in-game way to obtain that factoid.
--GMs who don't even let you try things that they don't like, regardless of whether it makes sense, or you're willing to deal with a high chance of failure, or it would fit the setting and character. I've seen GMs who wouldn't even allow an action to be described differently even when no effect on game mechanics was intended or desired.
--GMs who are willing to allow the players to waste an entire game session (at a convention!) stymied because they can't find the exact way the GM wants them to solve the introductory problem (which was a social situation!).

 

[S'mon]

There is the other side of this though too. I've seen many times, on these boards, where any and all criticisms of DM's are summarily dismissed because the DM is always right. Heck, I've had people directly accuse me of being the problem and not the DM, despite any example I've given.

Sometimes the DM is the problem. Other times it's Kzach... I mean Hussar.

Seriously, we can only go by what you tell us. If we get a "This DM is clearly a dick" story, we'll nod and sympathise. But sometimes the poster comes across as more sinner than sinned against, even in their own story. Maybe we can be over-critical, too ready to look for flaws in the poster's story. But this isn't one of those mother & baby "Positive Comments Only, Please!" boards my wife used to read; and criticism can be constructive - if not for the poster, at least for other people reading the thread.

 

[S'mon]

3 Asking for back stories and never using anything from it.

I worry about this as DM - I typically ask for PC backgrounds as an aid to my visualising the character and to help the player give personality to their PC. Sometimes there is inspirational stuff in a PC background that I can use in game, but often the background story is interesting but doesn't get used at-table. Players may resent that. The opposite problem is that whenever I prep a whole bunch of stuff off 1 PC's backstory, inevitably the player doesn't show up - in fact they typically drop the campaign! - and the work is wasted.

 

[S'mon]

My friend wanted to know; what about when only 1 player stops showing up, but it has happened with multiple players at different times?

I should state...I mean, my friend stated that it was always the newest player to the group. Never an existing player that had previously seen a player leave.

But still, does that make me, I mean him, a bad DM?

No, that happens to everyone if you get a lot of new players. Not all GM styles suit all players, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the GM.

One time I ran what I thought was pretty well my Best Session Ever, a 1st level 3e adventure I wrote myself called The Wicked Ruins of Cursed Castle Kaladrac. After a final desperate battle, the PCs triumphed, defeated the barbaric Trosk and the acolytes of Bafomet, saved the shepherd boy Gen from being sacrificed in the Necromantic ritual to reanimate the sorceror-king Kaladrac as a Death Knight, and captured Maeve the evil Witch Queen, Kaladrac's daughter.

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.

 

[S'mon]

--GMs who, when running a game based on published canon (e.g., Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, etc.), but have very flawed knowledge of the material - and then take offense when these major errors are pointed out (especially when the whole adventure hinges on the erroneous info).
--Close cousin to those are the GMs who create adventures where knowledge of some minute detail of the canon is necessary to succeed, and provide no in-game way to obtain that factoid.

Again, I hate canon-monkey players, who expect the DM to stick to the (probably inconsistent) canon of some fictional universe. I'll say "This is a non canon game", but really I shouldn't have to. It becomes a non-canon universe simply by the fact of the PCs' existence in it.

Your second complaint is an example of pixel-bitching, and I agree that that is bad DMing, yes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There is the other side of this though too. I've seen many times, on these boards, where any and all criticisms of DM's are summarily dismissed because the DM is always right. Heck, I've had people directly accuse me of being the problem and not the DM, despite any example I've given.

Yes, there is a fair bit of truth to what you're saying. Problems with playstyle are not a good/bad DM thing. That's totally fair. But, there is also a very strong tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to DM's rather than accept that people are capable of recognizing a bad DM when they've played with one.

I believe there are GMs like the kind you describe out there. But I think the reason why these claims are treated with skepticism isn't a "GM is always right mentality" but just from peoples' own experience. I have to admit in my own gaming when I've run into players who complain about the worst GM ever, it usually becomes clear that the problem wasn't the GM but the player (and most commonly it is just a case of being a poor loser). This is just my own experience mind you, but it has been pretty consistent with some minor variations. So when I hear someone make a case for the worst GM in the world, my first mental image is of a whiny player who can't handle the occassional questionable call (sort of like the sports fan who complains about the ref).

That said in my own groups the few bad GMs we've had don't usually last that long as GMs because it is clear to everyone (including them) that people aren't enjoying themselves. So I haven't had to suffer say an entire campaign under someone with quesitonable GMing skills.

The three worst DM's I've played with all had player revolts. One I led, and two I didn't. That's about the biggest signal you can give a DM when the entire table stands up and walks out.

Can I ask what these GMs did, and how they responded when people first voiced their criticisms?

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem here is where do you put the reference to the monster. If you put it first or in the middle of the description, the players ignore the rest of the description. Seems to me that putting the monster reveal last makes more sense.

You mention the most obvious things first. If there is an obvious monster in the room then deal with that situation first. Once the ZOMG MONSTER!! portion of the area is dealt with then you can describe finer details.

I see little use in describing a paragraph of detail and ending it announcing the presence of a monster that will likely cause the players to forget all about the details and then you have to repeat them. I'd rather do a basic desciption once rather than twice.

 

[Gronin]

I have to say I think the bad GM thing is way over-blown, and it is usually more of a style clash than anything when someone says they had a bad GM. However there are some things I think make for poor GMing:

1) Not understanding the rules system: I don't expect GMs to be masters of the system in use, but I do expect them to understand the core system enough to run it (obviously if it is the first run of a new game, there is a learning curve).

2) Being unfair: No GM is perfect, no one can be 100% objective on every single rules call, but the GM should at least try to be a balanced judge of the game. Things like singling a player out for bad treatment, favoring characters because they are the focus of the adventure...these can disturb my enjoyment of the game.

3) The DMNPC: I love good solid NPCs. But I don't care for the DMNPC. Especially when it is a fellow who is maxed out, get's special treatment, and is virtually unkillable.

I completely agree with the fact that it is often a clash of styles. In fact very often if you have played in one group for a long time and switch to another it takes some time to get used to the way things are done in the new group.

I would also agree that the DMNPC can be a issue, but to me it is just part of a bigger issue. Sometimes the party completely screws up your plans (not necessarily a bad thing) and the hardest thing for a DM to (at least for me) is take a deep breath and take it on the chin and then find a way to roll wth it. Sometime this requires you to tell the group you need half an hour to rework some stuff --- sometimes it means it becomes a board game night.

 

[Nagol]

Again, I hate canon-monkey players, who expect the DM to stick to the (probably inconsistent) canon of some fictional universe. I'll say "This is a non canon game", but really I shouldn't have to. It becomes a non-canon universe simply by the fact of the PCs' existence in it.

Your second complaint is an example of pixel-bitching, and I agree that that is bad DMing, yes.

Heh. The worst case of this occurs when the DM has a sketchy understanding of how the universe works and makes a ruling that fundamentally contradicts our understanding of the universe when that change is unexpected by the players.

I remember one case in Traveler where the GM honestly didn't believe radio transmitted at light speed...