Bad DMs/GMs

[The Shaman]

Yes, the players can do whatever they like and could theoretically "make" a barfight happen . . .

"Theoretically?"

. . . however, it's only the DM who can literally create a fight inside a bar when he wants one to happen.

"I punch the big guy standing at the end of the bar." "And I toss my drink in his bigger friend's face."

Mission accomplished. By player agency.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've played with two people I consider genuinely bad DMs. I don't think either are going to change any time soon. But have absolutely no idea because I'm not playing in their games any more. One I'd go so far as to describe as legendarily bad (one DMPC per PC in the party - and only the DMPCs solved anything, plus re-writing sections of my PCs background in ways that were inconsistent with the PC's character and made for assinine world building as well as arbitrarily making my PC the bad guy - I could go on.)

Criticism wouldn't have helped the first and was ignored by the just bad DM.

 

[billd91]

"Theoretically?"


"I punch the big guy standing at the end of the bar." "And I toss my drink in his bigger friend's face."

Mission accomplished. By player agency.

Considering the PCs have a limited perspective compared to the GM, the theoretically is a realistic caveat. Suppose the PC who threw the punch and tossed the drink picked a couple of guys who won't rise to the bait? Maybe they belong to a sect of pacifists. Maybe they're deliberately keeping a low profile because they can't afford to draw official attention. Mission failed.

Theoretically doesn't deny player agency. It's just a recognition that not everything they try may succeed in the stated goal - in this case of starting a bar fight.

 

[Pilgrim]

• DMs or GMs who have a preconceived story to tell. Railroading.
• Fudging dice rolls to avoid severe damage, negative consequences, or character death. (Usually tied to the preconceived story)
• Asking for predetermined and detailed character backgrounds.
• In D&D, handing out magic items like candy.

 

[Bullgrit]

I have what I think is an interesting anecdote about learning and getting better over time as a DM.

I recently ran a one-shot adventure for my son and his friends.
Boys Delve into the Dungeon Total Bullgrit

In running this session, I cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly. This goes completely against everything I have ever held sacred about running a game of D&D.

Although I rolled a lot of dice for everything, I ignored the results and went with what I thought would be most dramatic and fun for the boys at that moment. Every monster encounter, (wandering or in a room), I placed in the moment. Every treasure, I placed in the moment. I let them find secret doors and treasure if they simply looked.

The only "honest" die rolls were in combat, where everyone rolled on the table out in front of everyone else. But I even adjusted monster hit points for drama and excitement.

Essentially, I broke every rule I have ever played by as a DM. I ran the game, behind the scenes, in a way that I would HATE as a Player.

But the boys, (and dads), being completely ignorant of my tricks, had an absolutely wonderful and fun game session. They all LOVED the game. It was the best gaming experience I have presided over in at least a decade. It was among the best gaming experiences I have probably ever had. No one was unhappy or disappointed at the end or even for a second throughout the session. The excitement in the room was intoxicating.

But as a DM, I felt dirty. I cheated, faked, and was completely dishonest in how I ran the game. Imagine having the best "romantic" performance of your life, but you got there by convincing your partner that you were a wealthy freelance brain surgeon with the CIA.

How can this be explained? I did everything "inappropriately," (according to all my experience), but the result was a fantastic game session. I've had many game sessions where I stuck to my core beliefs of a status quo style -- what I feel as a DM and a Player, through many years of gaming, is the best style -- that just completely bombed. But as soon as I do one game session where I break all my personal style rules, I get a great session.

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

How can this be explained? I did everything "inappropriately," (according to all my experience), but the result was a fantastic game session. I've had many game sessions where I stuck to my core beliefs of a status quo style -- what I feel as a DM and a Player, through many years of gaming, is the best style -- that just completely bombed. But as soon as I do one game session where I break all my personal style rules, I get a great session.

Bullgrit

How can it be explained? You picked the right style of play for the players at the table. And they responded to it.

 

[korjik]

I have what I think is an interesting anecdote about learning and getting better over time as a DM.

I recently ran a one-shot adventure for my son and his friends.
Boys Delve into the Dungeon Total Bullgrit

In running this session, I cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly. This goes completely against everything I have ever held sacred about running a game of D&D.

Although I rolled a lot of dice for everything, I ignored the results and went with what I thought would be most dramatic and fun for the boys at that moment. Every monster encounter, (wandering or in a room), I placed in the moment. Every treasure, I placed in the moment. I let them find secret doors and treasure if they simply looked.

The only "honest" die rolls were in combat, where everyone rolled on the table out in front of everyone else. But I even adjusted monster hit points for drama and excitement.

Essentially, I broke every rule I have ever played by as a DM. I ran the game, behind the scenes, in a way that I would HATE as a Player.

But the boys, (and dads), being completely ignorant of my tricks, had an absolutely wonderful and fun game session. They all LOVED the game. It was the best gaming experience I have presided over in at least a decade. It was among the best gaming experiences I have probably ever had. No one was unhappy or disappointed at the end or even for a second throughout the session. The excitement in the room was intoxicating.

But as a DM, I felt dirty. I cheated, faked, and was completely dishonest in how I ran the game. Imagine having the best "romantic" performance of your life, but you got there by convincing your partner that you were a wealthy freelance brain surgeon with the CIA.

How can this be explained? I did everything "inappropriately," (according to all my experience), but the result was a fantastic game session. I've had many game sessions where I stuck to my core beliefs of a status quo style -- what I feel as a DM and a Player, through many years of gaming, is the best style -- that just completely bombed. But as soon as I do one game session where I break all my personal style rules, I get a great session.

Bullgrit

It can be explained in that your analogy is incorrect. The DM cannot cheat, cannot fake and cannot be dishonest on how they run the game. They can only run a fun game or a not fun game. IF the DM says they find the secret door instead of making a roll, he isnt being dishonest, he is simply running the game. If when the party comes into the room, you think the fun thing is to fight a bunch of goblin mooks and the party enjoys the fight, you DMed well. If when the party comes into the room the book/your notes say that they should fight a bunch of hobgoblins, and the players hate the fight, you DMed poorly.

This goes back to the point of the game is to have fun. If what the DM does causes fun, it is good no matter what the rules say. If what the DM does dosent cause fun, it is wrong, no matter what the rules say.

If the DM changes something before the players see it, or if he just decides an effect, that isnt wrong. Especially when that makes it more fun. It is really only a problem when things get changed after the players see it. Filling a room by picking half a dozen minis out of a pail is no better or worse than carefully planning out an encounter, as long as fun is had by all.

So, congratulations, looks like you have some skill at ad-libbing a game. If you decide to try to make a campaign out of it, keep good notes on what you decide during a game. Otherwise someone will eventually point out something that completely destroys an adventure two minutes into a session. That is really annoying. It is also why most people try to plan out stuff. You are less likely to miss something important.

By the way, the analogy is incorrect in that if the DM says you are a 'wealthy freelance brain surgeon with the CIA' you are a 'wealthy freelance brain surgeon with the CIA' not some sleazy guy. You are also the NPC, not the PC in that case.

 

[Umbran]

In running this session, I cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly. This goes completely against everything I have ever held sacred about running a game of D&D.

Well, there's your problem right there. There is nothing sacred about running a game of D&D.

There's a lot of folks who will spout one dogma or another, about how you absolutely cannot do X, or your players will revile your name, burn you in effigy, strap you into a chair and force you to watch Ishtar, and all that. But dogmas are hogwash, in my humble opinion. There are guidelines, but guidelines not checked against reality are hindrances, rather than aids.

 

[The Shaman]

Suppose the PC who threw the punch and tossed the drink picked a couple of guys who won't rise to the bait? Maybe they belong to a sect of pacifists. Maybe they're deliberately keeping a low profile because they can't afford to draw official attention.

If the adventurers are giving these guys a beating, then a bar fight is underway; the failure to fight back doesn't enter into it.

 

[The Shaman]

How can this be explained?

You were telling a story, not playing a game.

Not really all that complicated.