I'm reading this whole thread from a DM's perspective, although I also play when I can get the chance.
A little background:
I've run games for about 15 years, in a variety of systems. I've gotten better over the years, and I've always been a good gamemaster, and I've improved over the years. (Not trying to be boastful, just accurate.) But I also have run many games that have just completely sucked, I've run campaigns that have died, I've had players pissed off and quit, I've been a difficult and annoying jerk, and I've been (and sometimes still am) a bad gamemaster. (Again, I'm not dumping on myself or effacing false modesty. I'm just trying to accurately reflect on my strengths and weaknesses.)
So I am always trying to seek improvement. I look for feedback from my players, and try to understand what they are looking for in the game so I can provide that. Sometimes, though, I have found that some players are more trouble than they are worth. Usually I just stop trying to accomodate their incessant demands, and natural attrition takes its course. Sometimes I kick them out of the group.
Lately I am concerned about some of my "problem areas" as a DM. These have been expressed overtly or covertly by some of my players, and I am looking for ways that I can fix them.
Consistency. Some of my players seem to feel that I am not consistent with my rulings or rules interpretations. This is a big issue in my mind, b/c I think that consistency is very important to creating a viable game. I think my problem is that I sometimes forget what I have ruled in the past, and when a similar situation comes up, I make a judgement call that doesn't jive with previous judgement calls. Maybe better organization would help?
Balance. Some players definitely do not like my sense of balance. Of course, some players don't like to roll dice for their stats, b/c they don't like the idea that they might have more or fewer "points" than another player. My sense of balance says that every player should be able to participate and have fun. If that can be accomplished with 1st and 10th level chars in the party, then great! (In D&D, that's usually hard to achieve, so I prefer to keep everyone close in power level.) So for me, balance is about making sure each player feels invested in, and able to contribute to, the game. That can be challenging when one player's sense of balance directly contradicts another player's sense of balance. (i.e., one likes a point-buy, and another likes to roll their stats.) I am not sure if I will ever be able to perfect this, but I am still trying.
Control. I am sure some players think I am too controlling in some aspects of the game (or am too controlling in the wrong areas) because I get push back on some of my judgement calls. Its odd, b/c my perspective as a player clearly isn't shared by all gamers. When I am a player, I'll raise an objection once to a GM's judgement call, and then accept it and keep playing, and try to find ways to adapt. Some of my players, though, seem to think that they need to keep pressing the issue, sometimes to the detrminent of the game. Some players seem unwilling to accept that the GMs job is to interpret the rules, keep the game running smoothly, and to be the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the game rules. Now, I can understand being frustrated if the GM's rules don't make sense to you, or (worse) are inconsistent or arbitrary, but I don't understand being obstinate in the face of a GM ruling.
[Example: I was playing a barbarian in a game and fighting against a difficult "boss". We were one-on-one, and it was coming down to the wire. He was mounted and dealing vicious damage to me, so I tried to sunder his lance. The DM ruled that the lance had some rediculous number of hit points (like 60) based on the illustration of a lance in the PHB. That made it essentially impossible for me to succeed, so I pointed out that there were rules for weapon hardness and hit points in the combat chapter, but he didn't change his mind. So after making that one objection, I let it go, and asked if I could change my action (since my character ought to know that sundering lances was an impossibility in that world), and he said I could. I was fine with that outcome, and used different tactics to run away from my foe. We later talked outside the game about it, which is appropriate, but my point is that you don't keep arguing with the GM during the game. It slows things down and ruins the fun for everyone.]
To bring this around to the topic: I would deal with a difficult DM in the following ways. I have done all of these at various times as a player. I usually proceed in the order listed.
1. Talk in game. Raise an objection in the game. This is particularly applicable when a rules interpretation is off, or when a railroading DM is giving you a lame plot. Keep it short and to the point. Something like "actually, it says here that fireball deals 1d6 damage per caster level, not 1d4", or "you know, my paladin really wouldn't agree to assassinate the king and kidnap his daughter", is perfectly fine. But if the DM is not willing to reconsider, don't argue about it in the game. Move on to number 2.
2. Accept the DM's authority. Try to find a way to reconcile the situation amicably for all concerned and move on with the game. You might say "ok, in your game, fireballs deal less damage than normal. I'll write that down as a house rule so I know next time. This time I'll use lightning bolt instead. Does that still use d6s?", or you might say "I understand this is the adventure you prepared. Can we say that my paladin received a directive from his god stating that the king is evil, his guards are corrupt, and this is the only way to lift the family curse?" If not, you might have to accept a stinky situation (temporarily) for the sake of that evening's game. But definitely don't let it drop. Move on to number 3.
3. Talk outside the game. Take your DM aside and explain the nature of your concern. Don't be confrontational, but do be firm about your expectations and goals for the game. Try to offer solutions that involve compromise, since it is never entirely one person's issue. That leads you to number 4.
4. Look for ways you are contributing to the problem. No one is perfect. Even if you are perfect, you're the one who is picky enough to complain, so you have some room to offer solutions, even if it is just lowering your standards. While you need to be mature enough to recognize that everyone can improve (both as player and DM), you also need to ensure that you don't compromise to the point where you are not having fun. If the GM is unwilling or unable to work with you to resolve the situation in such a way that everyone is able to enjoy the game, then there are just two things left to do.
5. Fire the DM. Offer to run a game in order to give the DM a break. Or just ask others if they want to meet at another time to try something new. If your game runs well, after a couple weeks you can say you're too busy and have to bow out of your DM's game. If you don't mind him as a player, you can invite him to join yours. Or if your collective group is large, you can run separate games and get together to compare DM notes and talk about players behing their backs.
6. Leave the group. Ultimately, if you are unable to resolve the problem and are unwilling or unable to run a game, then you'll have to drop out. Try to do it with no hard feelings and remember that sometimes good people just have different styles or personality and can't game together. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, and you'll be happier in the long run to handle the situation maturely and avoid any undue stress.
Ozmar the Experienced (but still learning) GM
