D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Hussar]

"Bad DM's are not bad because they are bad at the game."

Case in point.

How can something be "not bad" when they are literally bad at something?

 

[Hussar]

Most DMs are average. Which should be expected, there's going to be a bell curve of DM aptitude, that doesn't mean everyone on the downslope side of the bell curve is a bad DM in my opinion. There is no objective measurement of good and bad here. The closest that we can get is a DM that is abusive, ignores their players, doesn't care at all whether or not people are enjoying their game? That DM is bad by most measurements, but those DMs are a tiny minority and most do not continue to DM.

DMs that are average or even a ways down on the scale? I don't consider them bad so we will never agree on your subjective judgements.

ROTFLMAO.

ANyone on the "downward slope" of the bell curve (at least the side that is literally not as good as average) is somehow not "bad"? I really don't think you understand what a bell curve is.

But, yeah, this is pretty par for the course. Simply redefining commonly understood, plain English in order to fit biases. Bad is somehow "not bad". Something that is lower than average ability is somehow "not bad". Bad is apparently only someone who is deliberately malicious at the table. Well, I suppose if you redefine bad to only be that, then, sure, the number would be really low. Most people aren't jerks. I'd agree with that.

Winning arguments sure is easy when we justt redefine the definitions of words.

 

[Faolyn]

If it was as high as some people claim (20-25%) then on average every table should have one of those people. I find that hard to believe. One in a hundred, perhaps a bit higher that are high enough on the narcissist scale that it harms the enjoyment of the other people at the table? Maybe. I don't think those people will DM or be welcome at a table for very long and they'll find something else to do.

I'm pretty sure that every table has had at least one of those people. But the thing is, you (generic you) may not recognize that behavior as not OK, or may have said "relax, it's just a game." Or you may have just learned to live with it ("missing stairs") because that's easier and less uncomfortable than kicking someone out of the group.

Like, a while ago, I had a fairly disruptive player. I asked him if he wanted to play in the game; he said yes. At the end of many sessions, I would ask for suggestions and if anyone had any criticisms. I worked to give his character things to do based on his background and stated character goals. Believe me, I tried. Dude just liked to be lolrandom in ways that were actively disruptive and even dangerous to the party (in the sense of knowingly and deliberately baiting the BBEG), and all in ways that should have been OOC with his character's established personality, background, and alignment; and he would often vocally refuse to engage with the story (I mentioned him before as the guy who said "wave goodbye to the nice little plot hook"). It was making the game seriously unfun for me, and made me feel like a bad GM because I felt that he must be acting this way because I wasn't good enough to hold his attention.

He was out-of-game friends (or at least close acquaintances) with other members of the group, so what would happen if I told him to stop? Would the other players side with me or get upset if I asked him to stop or leave? Were they bothered by his antics? If I told him to stop, would he do so or just get angry? Was I simply overreacting? (This was ages ago so I honestly can't remember if any of them said anything to me about it.) So... I put up with it. What else could I do? And I breathed a heavy sigh of relief when he decided to go play in a completely different game far, far away. I like to think that nowadays I'd be able to tell him to stop, but I wouldn't be able to them.

So think about that. This sort of thing--obnoxious player vs. fearful player--is not unique to my group. Almost certainly this happens all the time. Bad players and GMs don't have to be "high on the narcissist scale." They just have to be kinda jerks, and there are a lot of jerks out there.

 

[Hussar]

A ranking of DMs as bad or good simply lacks all of these. We are not judging the creative works they offered. We are not judging performance based upon objective statistics. No, we are categorizing them based solely on subjective opinions. Opinions that we know are meaningless.

And, so, we're back to blaming players. A player cannot possibly know if a DM is good or bad. Any player who voices such an opinion can be discounted because their opinion is meaningless?

Guess what? We judge performances based on subjective opinions ALL THE TIME. Ever read a restaurant review? Judged a movie? Judged a theater production? Hell, I judge speech contests every year at my university. Of course it's subjective. Virtually all such things are. But, since I've taught speech writing and presentation for well over a decade, I'm pretty qualified to judge the presentations my students make.

The notion that just because judgement is subjective, it's meaningless, ignores the HUGE body of critical work that exists in virtually every endeavor.

 

[Hussar]

So think about that. This sort of thing--obnoxious player vs. fearful player--is not unique to my group. Almost certainly this happens all the time. Bad players and GMs don't have to be "high on the narcissist scale." They just have to be kinda jerks, and there are a lot of jerks out there.

And, I would take this a step further. The number of obnoxious vs fearful DM's is exactly the same. Just that lots of us don't run into them regularly because we rarely get to play. Well, that, and we've now apparently redefined bad to only mean malicious and not inept or inexperienced.

Of course, when you include inept or inexperienced in the list, suddenly that 20-25% number seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

And, so, we're back to blaming players. A player cannot possibly know if a DM is good or bad. Any player who voices such an opinion can be discounted because their opinion is meaningless?

Guess what? We judge performances based on subjective opinions ALL THE TIME. Ever read a restaurant review? Judged a movie? Judged a theater production? Hell, I judge speech contests every year at my university. Of course it's subjective. Virtually all such things are. But, since I've taught speech writing and presentation for well over a decade, I'm pretty qualified to judge the presentations my students make.

The notion that just because judgement is subjective, it's meaningless, ignores the HUGE body of critical work that exists in virtually every endeavor.

Twisting my words and ignoring large swaths of what I said is not a great way to engage in a debate. I thought I addressed what my argument was, in both of my posts, clearly with sentences like the following;

An individual can judge a DM to be "bad" after playing with them.

My objection is to communal ratings based on subjective and nebulous criteria.

And I'd like to not be dragged into arguments I wasn't making. Which you very clearly do here;

And, so, we're back to blaming players.

A player cannot possibly know if a DM is good or bad.

Any player who voices such an opinion can be discounted because their opinion is meaningless?

If you want to defend the idea that strangers should apply broad, communal labels to other human beings based on subjective criteria, then make that case directly.

Otherwise, my point stands.

 

[Deset Gled]

Being slightly below average? That doesn't make them bad.

That is literally the definition of bad.

That kind of hyperbole makes for a good George Carlin stand up bit, but doesn't make much sense in a statistical reality.

 

[Hussar]

That kind of hyperbole makes for a good George Carlin stand up bit, but doesn't make much sense in a statistical reality.

How do you define "bad" then? I define bad as "below average". If you're on the left side of the bell curve, that means you need to improve to be "average". Thus, at this moment, you are bad at whatever that bell curve is measuring.

 

[Hussar]

If you want to defend the idea that strangers should apply broad, communal labels to other human beings based on subjective criteria, then make that case directly.

Otherwise, my point stands.

Wow. Really? Saying that a DM is bad based on subjective criteria is equivalent to racism? Seriously?

And, what strangers? The people judging the DM's performance are that DM's players. Where does the notion of judging strangers come into the equation?

Or did I completely misunderstand your point which is apparently complete strangers who have never played with a DM judging that DM's performance? Who suggested that? At what point in this conversation was that even hinted at? If that's your issue - then, sure, I totally agree. Total strangers should not judge a DM's performance. That's so obvious that I didn't know that it needed clearly stating.

OTOH, players of that DM absolutely SHOULD be able to judge that DM's performance and that judgement should not be brushed off simply because they are players. Which is a pretty common theme in this thread.

 

[AlViking]

That is literally the definition of bad.

Below average is 49% of all DMs. You have a very different definition of bad than I do.