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

[kermit4karate]

It depends on how you look at it.

In my experience problem players and problem DMs occur in about the same frequency percentage wise. So if 1% of people who play D&D are problems, for every 100 DMs one will be bad, and for every 100 players 1 will be bad. However, since players outnumber DMs like 5 to 1 or something we will encounter 5 bad players for every bad DM. If we raise it to 20% are problems, that hold true for players as well, which means there will be a crap ton of bad players in games. I mean, since players are 5x more common, 100% of people would experience bad players.

That said, players can do less damage to a game than DMs can. They just don't have the power to affect as much in the fiction as DMs can. Most of the damage bad players cause will be outside of the fiction. So there are more bad players encountered, but they do less damage.

So which is worse? Heck if I know. I don't see any way to really weigh more frequency against greater ability to damage the games.

Well, I said what I meant and meant what I said (yaaaargh, he said in his best Popeye voice).

Bad players are worse because circumstance never forces them to change. An acquaintance of mine of 30+ years has always been a horrible person, predator, someone I'd never trust. Years ago he played in one of my campaigns. He was a toxic disruptor then, and I'm told he still is just as bad now all these years later.

Most bad DMs burn all their bridges right away, rarely ever running a good game. Eventually there's no one left who'll play with them, while a truly bad player can continue spreadingg their toxicity from table to table for decades.

Just my opinion, but yeah, I think bad players are generally worse because of longevity in the game.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
Interestingly, the word "racism" does not appear.

If you are going to make public accusations like that, and the evidence is not present, then YOU are the problem here.

Stop being the problem. Now, please.

 

[Hussar]

Poor. Not bad. They are poor at the game, not a bad person. Bad DMs are jerks who abuse their authority. Short of that, you aren't a bad DM. You're a poor DM who will improve. Or maybe you were decent to good right out of the gate.

Being a bad DM =/= being a bad person. You have somehow added this idea that being a bad DM somehow only applies to people who are bad people.

Yeah, the level of semantic gymnastics going on here is absolutely astonishing. But again, given this thread, I suppose I should not be surprised. I just have to wonder just how self-serving these definitional gymnastics are. See, I have zero problem saying I was a bad DM. I was. I look back at the games I ran in high school and university and I can see just how bad I was. I am not ashamed of that.

I then took the time to read things like Dragon, and En World, and managed to have the very good luck to play under some really great DM's and learned a bunch. Heck, I learned a TON from the bad ones too - what not to do, usually. I can honestly say that I am a better DM now than I was twenty years ago. Twenty, thirty years ago, I was a terrible DM. That doesn't bother me. I was a terrible DM because I didn't know any better.

Why is being a bad DM a mark of shame? I will bet dollars to donuts that every single DM who is reading this was a terrible DM at some time in the past. It's no different than I used to be a terrible pool player. Or a terrible golfer. ((Ok, I'm STILL a terrible golfer)) Or any other hobby. Why is it somehow a bad thing to say that DM's are bad?

 

[Umbran]

Again, that's not how bell curves work.

But, yes, below average is bad by definition.

No. Below average is below average. It is a statement about statistics, regarding some defined metric.

"Good" and "bad" are subjective human assessments, and don't generally directly relate to statistics.

 

[Hussar]

No, not back to blaming players. I never stopped blaming them. At least as often as DMs. Why would bad players get a pass?

Look, you can't have it both ways. If DMs can be bad, and you appear to think they are often, then so can players. I think bad players are a bigger problem, but I'm sure you disagree. Or, correct me if I'm wrong there. Do you think bad players are a bigger problem than bad DMs are like I do?

Why would I disagree with any of that? Are bad players a bigger problem? I honestly have no idea. Probably, just simply because of math. If the percentages of "bad" ((Note, are we talking about bad players, or malicious players as the definition of "bad" seems to be rather floating)) players and DM's is fairly equal (which I believe it is) then, of course you're going to encounter more bad players than DM's. That's just simple math.

I wasn't really ever talking about players. Wasn't really part of the issue AFAIK. It was the complete refusal to even consider the notion that there might be bad DM's out there in any significant numbers. I mean, you peg it at 2.5%, I think it was. One in 20? So, is that the same ratio for players?

But, again, the numbers are going to vary so much because of the mental gymnastics people are engaged in over the use of the word "bad". To me, bad just means not good. It's not malicious at all. DM's can be bad for a thousand different reasons. I was a bad DM. Would you consider yourself to ever have been a bad DM? Heck, let's open that question to the floor;

Everyone reading this. Have you ever considered yourself to be a bad DM at any point in your DMing career?

 

[Cadence]

No. Below average is below average. It is a statement about statistics, regarding some defined metric.

"Good" and "bad" are subjective human assessments, and don't generally directly relate to statistics.

As a follow-up for those who are interested, one common way of linking the subjective level to the statistics is described at:

What is a Standard Setting Study?

Do you need to conduct a standard setting study to determine a cutscore for your high-stakes exam? ASC experts are here to help!

assess.com

 

[Hussar]

Oh, I'm sorry for not using academically accurate language. Good grief.

Look, if you are below average ability in something, you are ... not good... oh, yes, bad at something. You might not be very bad. You might only be a bit bad. You might be terrible. But, at some point, yes, if you score below the average on the ability to do something, it is hardly inaccurate to say you are bad at it.

It's not like an En World poll is even remotely a standard setting study.

Again, the level of mental gymnastics and nit picking here is mind blowing. I KNOW that this isn't science. I am perfectly aware of that. I started out this whole sidebar by saying that it's not rare to find bad DM's out in the wild. I made the apparently blinding mistake of mentioning a poll I conducted years ago and that has somehow become the focus of discussion.

So, again, I will ask everyone reading this: Have you ever considered yourself a bad DM at any point in your career as a DM?

 

[kermit4karate]

Why would I disagree with any of that? Are bad players a bigger problem? I honestly have no idea. Probably, just simply because of math. If the percentages of "bad" ((Note, are we talking about bad players, or malicious players as the definition of "bad" seems to be rather floating)) players and DM's is fairly equal (which I believe it is) then, of course you're going to encounter more bad players than DM's. That's just simple math.

I wasn't really ever talking about players. Wasn't really part of the issue AFAIK. It was the complete refusal to even consider the notion that there might be bad DM's out there in any significant numbers. I mean, you peg it at 2.5%, I think it was. One in 20? So, is that the same ratio for players?

But, again, the numbers are going to vary so much because of the mental gymnastics people are engaged in over the use of the word "bad". To me, bad just means not good. It's not malicious at all. DM's can be bad for a thousand different reasons. I was a bad DM. Would you consider yourself to ever have been a bad DM? Heck, let's open that question to the floor;

Everyone reading this. Have you ever considered yourself to be a bad DM at any point in your DMing career?

Fair enough about players. That's true. This thread was DM focussed from the start so understood.

I've never considered myself to be a bad DM. (Sorry, I know how that sounds.) Not as I was young and learning, and not as a vet. I think I always brought the right attitude to it and was blessed to learn the ropes while DMing for friends who were also new to RPGs. The patience and understanding was there, and that really helps. Also, simply been lucky to usually connect with compatible people.

Regardingy my 2.5% guesstimate on the percentage of "bad" DMs, no, I don't think it's the same rate for players. I'd guess the rate of "bads" among players is about 2-3 times higher. Say 5-7% of players are what I'd characterize as "bad," or more accurately as "being a negative influence on games in which they play."

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I would posit that perpetuating or encouraging the idea that there is some construct "intelligence" that meaningfully encompasses lots of things - and that different humanish looking things have different typical values of it is not great. Even if they have decided that some of the formerly humanoid things aren't anymore.

This is a dense sentence, let's see if I parsed it right. I think this abstraction is fine because it's applied to a fictional construct. You have a great deal more leeway when it comes to fictional constructs versus real people. Moral and social consequences don't exist, in my opinion, for fictional constructs. At least not to nearly the same extent.

Like with restaurants (or chefs)?

Um not really. One is a human, one isn't.

On the chef aspect, if you were to eat there first and then give a rating, that is one thing. But if you were to just give the rating without first eating the food, that'd be absurd. As I said in my post, rating a DM you've played with is fine, rating them as a community when you haven't, gets weird fast.

I don't think I had gotten as far as imagining it being actually applied - perhaps as a scale in an old dragon magazine or just a debate about what would go into it.

I will also note that merely classifying as bad vs. good is also a rating/ranking system. Just not a very fine grained one and so has similar difficulties. (And I am certainly fine with ditching the good/bad classifying upstream).

I think one of the purposes of hypotheticals is to explore the ugly sides of the hypothetical. I think the label is all that matters, I don't think the scale you use to reach that label is super relevant. As long as the label is negative, you end up in a weird place. Its especially weird because this hobby is so fundamentally social and abstract, that labels are all we have. It's not like a DM has any recourse if the community labeled them as "bad." There is no other metric to point to.

am now wondering how many threads on here would either be banished or would become more pleasant of this thoughtfulness were applied in general.

I think the number is much higher than I'd like. Not due to malice or anything, but because I think people around here are passionate about a hobby they love. Unfortunately, I have very likely crossed that line before in some of my rhetoric.

 

[Cadence]

Oh, I'm sorry for not using academically accurate language. Good grief.

Look, if you are below average ability in something, you are ... not good... oh, yes, bad at something. You might not be very bad. You might only be a bit bad. You might be terrible. But, at some point, yes, if you score below the average on the ability to do something, it is hardly inaccurate to say you are bad at it.

It's not like an En World poll is even remotely a standard setting study.

Again, the level of mental gymnastics and nit picking here is mind blowing.

As you say, this is not an academic setting. But over half way through my third decade as a psychometrician and statistician it's a pet peeve I failed my save on letting pass. The wide spread mistaken belief that things should follow a normal curve or that certain cut percents are magical lead to lots of bad things in the real world when applied by folks from educators to legislators. I should probably vent my spleen more against the authors of many intro statistics text books (and what they choose to emphasize) instead of my fellow ENWorld denizens.

So, again, I will ask everyone reading this: Have you ever considered yourself a bad DM at any point in your career as a DM?

I have certainly had a few bad sessions over the years - but the only one that really jumps out is when I certainly misjudged how some of the players would react to the end of a campaign chapter back in the 2e days. Even when we collectively misread the way saves worked (iirc) in one of the first few games in '81, we all had fun. I think in general it is more the struggle to not wallow in being acceptably mediocre for too long.

I think a big thing I've managed to improve is to not have the characters be overshadowed by NPCs after the first several levels. I need to be better about setting aside prep time in advance to cut back the ad-hoc stuff at the table a bit more.