Bad DMs/GMs

[ExploderWizard]

*Jeez, in hindsight the '90s really sucked for RPGs!!!

Hey!! We had some of our best GURPS campaigns ever in the 90's.

 

[Fox Lee]

Have you seen a bad GM become a good GM in response to criticism? Because frankly I have not.

Most assuredly, I have not. The truly bad GM I have dealt with didn't think she had a problem, even after each game eventually ended in three-to-four-hour discussion of why things weren't working out (I understand she is now running with a smaller group including her husband, which is probably a good idea).

BUT, it's nice that it has worked for other people Probably it's just that other GMs I've met who had some problems have gotten better, thus not qualifying for the "bad" label.

 

[Hussar]

Most assuredly, I have not. The truly bad GM I have dealt with didn't think she had a problem, even after each game eventually ended in three-to-four-hour discussion of why things weren't working out (I understand she is now running with a smaller group including her husband, which is probably a good idea).

BUT, it's nice that it has worked for other people Probably it's just that other GMs I've met who had some problems have gotten better, thus not qualifying for the "bad" label.

Yeah, I think that's hitting the nail squarely on the head. The truly bad DM's I've had have all been convinced that they were "doing it right" and everyone else "just doesn't get it".

The DM's who are bad, for whatever reason, inexperience, learning bad habits from another bad DM, whatever, but are willing to learn by and large, IMO, make great DM's eventually.

I guess that's why, whenever I see posters talking about how "the DM is always right" and "If you disagree with the DM, there's the door" I generally react so negatively. These are precisely the attitudes I saw from the worst DM's. The best DM's (again, this is only my opinion) are the ones who are willing to compromise and work with the group to make sure everyone is as happy as they can be.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, I think that's hitting the nail squarely on the head. The truly bad DM's I've had have all been convinced that they were "doing it right" and everyone else "just doesn't get it".

The DM's who are bad, for whatever reason, inexperience, learning bad habits from another bad DM, whatever, but are willing to learn by and large, IMO, make great DM's eventually.

I guess that's why, whenever I see posters talking about how "the DM is always right" and "If you disagree with the DM, there's the door" I generally react so negatively. These are precisely the attitudes I saw from the worst DM's. The best DM's (again, this is only my opinion) are the ones who are willing to compromise and work with the group to make sure everyone is as happy as they can be.

The idea that the DM is always right also kind of bugs me. It goes hand in hand with the player is always wrong.

DMs are not gods they are human and make mistakes also even the best DMs are not perfect and there is always room for improvement.

Sometimes it is not a matter of a bad DM or a bad player but conflicting game styles sometimes that can be fixed by talking about it sometimes it can't and it is better for everyone to part ways as far as the game is concerned.

But there are bad DMs who either don't think they are and get pissy when confronted about it, or who afre bad because they don't realize it. If no one says anything how are they supposed to know they are not being the best DM they can be.

 

[S'mon]

I guess that's why, whenever I see posters talking about how "the DM is always right" and "If you disagree with the DM, there's the door" I generally react so negatively. These are precisely the attitudes I saw from the worst DM's.

"I just want my players to be happy!" DMs can be just as bad though - relentless fudging and illusionism to keep PCs alive, on-track and successful. Nothing is at stake in their games, failure is not an option, and IME the more they try to please players the more boring and lacklustre their games become. And if you tell them you want more challenge they'll nod and agree - then go on exactly as before.

 

[S'mon]

Sometimes it is not a matter of a bad DM or a bad player but conflicting game styles sometimes that can be fixed by talking about it sometimes it can't and it is better for everyone to part ways as far as the game is concerned.

Completely agree.

 

[Hussar]

"I just want my players to be happy!" DMs can be just as bad though - relentless fudging and illusionism to keep PCs alive, on-track and successful. Nothing is at stake in their games, failure is not an option, and IME the more they try to please players the more boring and lacklustre their games become. And if you tell them you want more challenge they'll nod and agree - then go on exactly as before.

But, is that actually keeping the players happy though? It's keeping the DM happy because it keeps his story and plot alive and he doesn't have to deal with any sort of surprises. Fudging and illusionism is far more about the DM than the players.

Most players are perfectly fine with failing and even having their character die on occasion. It's all part of playing the game. The DM might be justifying his actions based on what he perceives as what the players want, but, I imagine if you actually polled the players and got their honest responses, you'd find that he's not actually making his players happy.

Note, I didn't actually say, "I want my players to be happy". I was very careful in my language there. My exact words were, "make sure everyone is as happy as they can be" which isn't the same thing at all. Everyone, for one thing, includes the DM. And, "as can be" presumes that not everyone is going to get everything they want 100% of the time. There have to be compromises on both sides of the screen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, is that actually keeping the players happy though? It's keeping the DM happy because it keeps his story and plot alive and he doesn't have to deal with any sort of surprises. Fudging and illusionism is far more about the DM than the players.

Most players are perfectly fine with failing and even having their character die on occasion. It's all part of playing the game. The DM might be justifying his actions based on what he perceives as what the players want, but, I imagine if you actually polled the players and got their honest responses, you'd find that he's not actually making his players happy.

Note, I didn't actually say, "I want my players to be happy". I was very careful in my language there. My exact words were, "make sure everyone is as happy as they can be" which isn't the same thing at all. Everyone, for one thing, includes the DM. And, "as can be" presumes that not everyone is going to get everything they want 100% of the time. There have to be compromises on both sides of the screen.

I think you are right. I think most players want the stakes to matter. If the GM fudges rolls all the time to protect PCs, it really eats into player enjoyment of the game. I mean RPGs are inspired by movies and books, but they aren't movies or books. They are games and part of the fun of a game is not knowing what will happen (whereas with most books, if you are on page 150 of 375, there is a good chance the protagonist won't die in the next ten pages)---the outcomes of games are not certain or pre-ordained. When a GM fudges it makes it less exciting for me.

However I do think many GMs fail to realize this because the players most likely to complain are the ones who have just been killed. You can have 8 players and if two take character death hard, it is easy for the GM to assume they reflect the mood of the room. Also, some people do overeact when their character dies, and I can see how some GMs just don't want to deal with the fallout.

But you hit it on the head in your last paragraph, it isn't about making everyone happy all the time. There has to be some dissapointment in the game for it to be fun. Otherwise it is like playing a videogame with the cheats on.

 

[Hussar]

I haven't really fudged anything in years. I play online, so 100% of my die rolls are in the open. About the only thing I might fudge is I might make some tactical blunders on the part of the baddies and put them in bad positions to soften the encounter a bit.

Not sure if that even counts as fudging really. I've seen lots of players with the tactical sense of a concussed badger on a three day bender, so, it's not beyond the realm of believablility that the ogre just happens to move here instead of there.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I've actually had at least two whole group walk outs. One was in high school, where I wrongly tried to keep things going after I no longer had a plot. At least my friends told me as they left.

The second was in a college gaming club. Unfortunately, there was some unwritten rule where you had to warn players their characters at risk. Ignoring the fact that I consider that the default assumption of most games except Toon, there was also the problem with a change in the meaning of terms between editions.

Anyway, I forget the name of the PS adventure trilogy I was running, but at the end of the 2nd module, the Gate Town of Ribcage is prepared for ascension. In Planescape, this means the Gate Town is going to become part of the plane it connects to. Apparently, in older editions, this meant that your characters are going to become gods and be removed from play.

I had no reason to know this, having come to D&D in AD&D2e, though I did have a chance to buy the Rules Cyclopedia really early in my interest in gaming. Anyway, I found out after trying to set up the third part of the adventure that I had lost my group because of their perception of the term. No amount of saying "it doesn't mean that anymore" convinced them to come back.