DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears

[prosfilaes]

Quite a lot, if it seemed some PC's were taking more risks and-or getting more done than others yet everyone got the same ExP award all the time. Far too easy to get into a mentality of letting other peoples' characters stick their necks out...

That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks. Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks. One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.

 

[Lanefan]

That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks.

That's you. And me. But there's those...and I've gamed with 'em...who don't mind in the least if other peoples' PC's do all the dirty work, and it drives me up the wall.

Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, not always absolutely effective...

One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.

In my experience, this usually comes down to how much time the DM has to run sessions each week. If the DM only has time for one session a week, then the party pretty much has to (mostly) stay together. If, however, the DM has time to run several parties concurrently, then splitting the party up as the characters logically would makes perfect sense.

Lanefan

 

[Montague68]

That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks. Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks. One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.

And just what is the DM supposed to do, run two different games for the fractured group?

Edit - Lanefan beat me to it. When I run it's one game a week, so the characters must work together or else. To me part of the DM job description is ensuring fun for the group as a whole. If one player is playing a character that I think might be disruptive to the group I ask him to reconsider. If he refuses he can still play the character but I don't tolerate any messing with the group dynamic. That doesn't mean there isn't room for conflict and everyone has to be best buds, but that this is a group game and the player and character needs to play well with others. His rights as a "roleplayer" end where everyone else's right to an enjoyable game begin. Players who like to backstab party members (literally) might cry foul over that, but my game, my rules. I've insta-gibbed more than one character over it and would do it again in a heartbeat.

 

[The Shaman]

I believe you are reading more into this than perhaps you should. "All those bad GM's" actually aren't that many. Two, perhaps three. However, ONE is more than enough really.

Really? That's a quite a bit different from...

Sorry, played WAY too many games with power tripping DM's to ever fall for that line again.

So two, perhaps three, or even one, is "WAY too many?"

I guess I am reading too much into it.

I think your expectations may be unreasonably high, Hussar.

Over the years I've only played with two really bad game masters - in both cases I excused myself from the game. The experiences didn't predispose me to distrust game masters generally.

Yes, there are good DM's out there. I hope to be one someday. I know that I've played with a few. But, that doesn't mean that as soon as you take up the DMing reins that you are somehow touched by the Spirit of Gaming and can do no wrong.

No one said that a game master always makes the best choices (with "best" in this context being extremely context-specific), only that the game master gets to make that choice, right or wrong. It sounds like you assume that a game master is more likely to make bad choices (based on your personal referent) than good ones - I presume the opposite until demonstrated otherwise.

A game master who makes consistently poor choices will be the one who can't find players after awhile - it's the 'invisible hand' of gaming at work.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Quite a lot, if it seemed some PC's were taking more risks and-or getting more done than others yet everyone got the same ExP award all the time. Far too easy to get into a mentality of letting other peoples' characters stick their necks out...

That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks. Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks. One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.

You say metagaming, the rogue says "I'd love to help the paladin out in fighting the undead horde, but, you know, I have this hangnail..."

This is actualy a valid tactic in one MMORPG that I'm having difficulty recalling... (googling, googling) ahHA! Planetside!

Basicly, the way it worked was, you got a tank, you joined a team, then you drove them to the enemy base and... you sat, passvely outside. about 300 ft. from the base. Preferably, you turned your turret over to one side and waited, like an unmanned tank.

Your allies would run arround inside their base, killin' their doodz (tm) and you would sit, and mooch EXP from being part of the team, without being in any more danger than any unmanned vehicle.

Of course, i never played planetside, i just heard about it from a friend who did. but If anyone here ever played it and can confirm / deny my story, please do so.

 

[prosfilaes]

And just what is the DM supposed to do, run two different games for the fractured group?

Most likely replace the leaving characters. Or work to make a more coherant party to start with. But I'm just tired of playing in games that have a bunch of characters that have no reason to travel together, but have some magical gimmick that force them to. Whenever a new character comes in, he's teleported in with this gimmick and any option of discussion whether or not the current characters would permit his character to travel with them is short circuitted.

 

[Lanefan]

And just what is the DM supposed to do, run two different games for the fractured group?

Edit - Lanefan beat me to it. When I run it's one game a week, so the characters must work together or else. To me part of the DM job description is ensuring fun for the group as a whole. If one player is playing a character that I think might be disruptive to the group I ask him to reconsider. If he refuses he can still play the character but I don't tolerate any messing with the group dynamic. That doesn't mean there isn't room for conflict and everyone has to be best buds, but that this is a group game and the player and character needs to play well with others. His rights as a "roleplayer" end where everyone else's right to an enjoyable game begin. Players who like to backstab party members (literally) might cry foul over that, but my game, my rules. I've insta-gibbed more than one character over it and would do it again in a heartbeat.

Well, as I sometimes find the in-party bickering and firefights to be some of the best entertainment the game can give, I'd probably not last long in your game. That said, I've found campaigns that only run one party once per week to be much different in tone than campaigns that have more than one party (say, 2 sessions a week with different players, in the same setting and time), as if there's an argument in one party some players/characters might just shift over to the other; thus people tend to play the bad sides of their characters along with the good. One-party campaigns become much more goal-oriented (in my experience the PC's tend much more toward the Lawful side also) which, while fine, I find not to be as much fun in the long run.

The problems arise if-when people forget what's in character and what isn't. So, player peeve: players who cannot or will not disassociate their own emotions from those of their PC(s).

Lanefan

 

[Montague68]

Most likely replace the leaving characters. Or work to make a more coherant party to start with. But I'm just tired of playing in games that have a bunch of characters that have no reason to travel together, but have some magical gimmick that force them to. Whenever a new character comes in, he's teleported in with this gimmick and any option of discussion whether or not the current characters would permit his character to travel with them is short circuitted.

Hmmm ok I misunderstood.

Yeah, I've seen this too and it can get a bit tiresome. All it takes is a bit of effort on both the DM and the players on formulating a coherent background. But if the DM is lazy and either doesn't give the players enough to work with or just handwaves it away it can grate.

 

[Montague68]

Well, as I sometimes find the in-party bickering and firefights to be some of the best entertainment the game can give, I'd probably not last long in your game. That said, I've found campaigns that only run one party once per week to be much different in tone than campaigns that have more than one party (say, 2 sessions a week with different players, in the same setting and time), as if there's an argument in one party some players/characters might just shift over to the other; thus people tend to play the bad sides of their characters along with the good. One-party campaigns become much more goal-oriented (in my experience the PC's tend much more toward the Lawful side also) which, while fine, I find not to be as much fun in the long run.

The problems arise if-when people forget what's in character and what isn't. So, player peeve: players who cannot or will not disassociate their own emotions from those of their PC(s).

Lanefan

Like I said there's room for conflict and bickering. Fistfights are ok. Rivalries and heck even an occasional honorable duel is fine. "When I take my watch I go over to the sleeping paladin and slit his throat" is not.

The times I've had to deal with this sort of crap is with a few people who claim to be roleplaying when in fact they are merely griefers looking for jollies.

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
Here's another one:

His name? Uhm... Bob: The DM never comes up with names for anyone. Random NPCs is one thing, but when the PCs interact with major NPCs they find that they never have names. The town mayor, the wizard who hires them, the boy they're sent looking for, etc. None of them ever have a name! Towns can fall into this category as well.

Ugghhh - or the corolary - you come up with them, get the characters into them, go somewhere else, come back and you CAN'T FIND YOUR NOTES!!!!...
There is nothing as embarrassing as having the players better informed about your world than you are. (Yep, guilty as charged on this one.)