The Backseat GM

[Oversquid]

I've looked all over the internet for information on what I've observed, but since I saw nothing, I'm going to go ahead and talk about it.

So I've been doing research on That Guy (You know, That Guy who sucks the fun out of games), and the common archetypes that go with it, such as the Rules Lawyer (That Guy who argues with the GM about their rulings by pointing to information in Official Rulebooks consistently), or perhaps simply the Jerk (No need to explain this one).

The reason I'm posting here is to discuss another possible That Guy archetype. The hope in discussing it is to, of course, refine it, but also perhaps to promote some awareness of a way in which one sucks the fun out of a game without them realizing it. Without further ado, I'll begin describing the Backseat GM.

The Backseat GM

You might be asking, "What in the Nine Hells is a Backseat GM?" To which I'll respond, "In short, the Backseat GM is a Player who attempts to assert some level of control over how the GM should run their game." But if I were asked to elaborate and provide a longer explanation, I would say, "Have you ever driven a car, and the person in the passenger seat starts saying stuff like, 'Go left here!' Or 'Don't press the brake petal so hard!' Or 'Its a green light, go go go!'? We call that person a Backseat Driver, because they're trying to employ the responsibilities of driving when they're not driving. Is the Backseat Driver being helpful to the driver? Usually not. Usually, the driver either ignores them, or gets really fed up with the Backseat Driver. Even if the Backseat Driver were giving the best driving advice in the world, but the Driver doesn't want to hear it, then the Backseat Driver is either a nuisance, or downright irritating. What typically irritates the driver when the Backseat Driver is present, is that often times, the driver is getting the impression that the Backseat Driver doesn't trust the driver with the responsibilities of driving."

Then I would pause the explanation, take a deep breath or two, and then continue, "Now take the driver, and the Backseat Driver, but replace the driver with the GM, and the Backseat Driver with the Backseat GM. To the GM, its like the Backseat GM doesn't trust the GM with running the game, despite the Backseat GM not actually running the game hes playing a character in."

Now, theres nothing wrong with a Player giving the GM advice, but when the GM doesn't ask for advice, then the Player starts being that irritating Backseat GM to the GM.

Of course, there are times when an extra set of eyes, and standing up to say something is good in both the Backseat Driver, and the Backseat GM's cases. For instance, if the driver is driving along, and a pedestrian starts walking across the street, and the driver doesn't notice, then I think its good for the passenger to say something to the driver about that. Likewise, if the GM is playing out something that none of the other players enjoy, then the players ought to tell the GM to cut it out.

But when you try and tell the GM how to GM, or the driver how to drive when they don't ask for your input, then you're walking into Backseat GM/Driver territory.

Instead of telling the GM how to GM, let the GM make a ruling you wouldn't do in the GM's seat, let the GM make mistakes, and then most importantly, give the GM room for them to learn from their mistakes. Who knows, the might have learned something from that mistake that you didn't see before, and then the GM might have made that mistake fun when you couldn't find anything fun in it. The best way for a GM to get better is to sit back and give them plenty of space to GM while you be the best player you can by taking whatever the GM throws at you and making something of it, but of course, if the GM asks for advice, then give however much advice the GM is willing to hear. Remember, they're the GM, and they're in charge, not you.

Also, the real danger of the Backseat GM is that the Backseat GM appears helpful, and often times, the Backseat GM thinks they're being helpful, but often times, the only thing the GM is hearing from the Backseat GM is that the GM is terrible, even if thats the last thing the Backseat GM wants to say. A Backseat GM is often as helpful as any other Backseat Driver you might encounter in a car (not helpful, and often quite the opposite).

---

With that said, I want to say that the reason I bring up the Backseat GM archetype for discussion is because for the longest time, and still quite likely, is that I too am a Backseat GM. I try to help newer GMs, but I've found myself pissing off a lot of newer GMs by giving them advice when they didn't ask for it. Of course, I didn't mean to anger them, but looking back, my behavior made them less wanting to GM games because they didn't believe they were ever good enough.

So, do any of you have experiences with the Backseat GM? Do any of you think my observations need to be refined a little more? Do you think this topic is stupid?

Whatever it is, I'll hear what you have to say.

​

 

[alms66]

If you have a problem with your GM in any way - take notes. Bring it up after the session is over, otherwise you're disrupting the flow of the game (an exception could be made here for something terribly egregious like a GM just flat out dictating your character's actions for no apparent reason, with no explanation). That's especially true for players that are experienced GM's themselves and goes a further 'doubly so' when their GM in that instance is not experienced. Disruption pisses off, not just the GM, but the other players as well, so make sure it's really damned important before you bring it up in game (as in, if not rectified right now, you're prepared to walk away from the table and never come back - or close to it), if not, it can wait until later and patches can be made by the GM to fix any mistakes, or the GM can modify his behavior in future sessions.

With that said, some GM's just never learn and need a Backseat GM at their table just to make the game playable - witnessed such a GM recently myself, unfortunately there was no Backseat GM...

 

[Oversquid]

If you have a problem with your GM in any way - take notes. Bring it up after the session is over, otherwise you're disrupting the flow of the game (an exception could be made here for something terribly egregious like a GM just flat out dictating your character's actions for no apparent reason, with no explanation). That's especially true for players that are experienced GM's themselves and goes a further 'doubly so' when their GM in that instance is not experienced. Disruption pisses off, not just the GM, but the other players as well, so make sure it's really damned important before you bring it up in game (as in, if not rectified right now, you're prepared to walk away from the table and never come back - or close to it), if not, it can wait until later and patches can be made by the GM to fix any mistakes, or the GM can modify his behavior in future sessions.

With that said, some GM's just never learn and need a Backseat GM at their table just to make the game playable - witnessed such a GM recently myself, unfortunately there was no Backseat GM...

You bring up a good situation that I want to expand upon.

The Backseat GM is also something like this:

Imagine you're sitting around a table with a bunch of other people to play an RPG. You are a player, as are most of the other people at the table. One of those guys is the GM.

So you do the usual things. You make a character, the other players around you make characters, and then once done, the game begins.

So you're in fantasy land, doing whatever your players do, when suddenly, the GM looks at you and says, "No, your character wouldn't do that, he would do it like this." Or perhaps, "Your character wouldn't do that" or even the dreaded, "Your character actually does this, because you don't know how to play it".

In the above situation, the GM is butting in and telling the player how they should play their characters, which is something well out of GM territory.

Now lets reverse the roles, and rather than the GM telling the players how they should play, we get the Players telling the GM how the GM should run the game. What you get are a bunch of Backseat GMs.

But like what alms66 was saying about how some GMs don't learn and continue making a game that is no fun for anyone, then yes, that is a good reason for players to butt in and tell the GM whats wrong.

But if the game is just happening in a style and way that is different than normal, but is still fun in the long run, then the players are just being Backseat GMs and aren't helping the game run along. In fact, they may very well be hurting it in the long run.

 

[Luce]

Sometimes it is instinctual reaction. While riding shotgun with another person, especially if you are usually are the one who drives, it is uncommon to feel that the car is out of control. Say you are approaching a stop sign. In your mind you think "Ok, should be applying the breaks Now...??? Not stopping!! We gonna crash!" So yeah, when another is in charge and making decisions that you did not expect one may instinctively try to re-establish control. That is just as a backseat driver is trying to make you drive the way he does - a backseat GM is trying to indoctrinate you in his style. May be even not realizing how pushy and unfair to the other people around the table (including the current GM) that behavior is potentially.

Another tangle is that sometimes that behavior is not malign, just the person engaged in it is not good at expressing his/her intentions. This can be because the reasons are internalized , cannot be expressed in timely manner or without breaking immersion.
BsD:"Take this exit!... Why did not you?"
Driver: "Why should have I?"
BsD:"Even though the travel distance would have been greater, the root you are taking get congested after 4:30PM. By taking the back roads we would have been faster."

Gaming examples would be:
"Player X is a bit of a White Knight, so having villains (disguised as) children would upset him."
"That guy just broke with his girlfriend. While your set up for a moral dilemma (choosing the lesser evil) as the opportunity to ally ourselves with the drow against the ghouls' kingdom would in other time likely resulted in great RP and memorial session right now is not a good idea to deal with a matriarchy."

 

[cimbrog]

I freely admit to doing this sometimes. I really try not to, though! For twenty some years I was almost always the GM. It's in my blood. I'm gaming again but for various reasons I'm not running the games... and it's hard. I really want to. I have my own ideas on what would be cool. "No no no!", I think to myself, "just don't have the NPC shrug and ignore the player like that!" I try to encourage differences through play instead of direct advice but sometimes I'll just have something like, "Is this a 'we determine what caused this situation' in medias res scene or do you have something in mind?" fall out of my mouth and the GM will give me an annoyed look.

So, yeah, I'm That Guy. I try not to be and keep my mouth shut. But I really want to run the game and I can't. Sorry.

 

[Oryan77]

Would you classify a player as a Backseat DM if he doesn't tell you what to do necessarily, but he questions your every move? Even if it is simply questioning what or why your NPCs did what they did in a metagaming sense?

I'm kind of dealing with that right now with a player new to D&D. I know he doesn't mean anything by it, but it's still hard not to get frustrated or even discouraged over it because it comes off as if he's making sure I'm not doing anything wrong or trying to screw them over for my own enjoyment.

I'm not sure how to deal with it without coming off as being a drama queen. My group is mostly casual players and the last time I tried to clear up some confusion a player had over a DM ruling, the other players reacted like I was making a big deal out of it and someone said, "Ok, enough of the drama." I wasn't making a big deal out of it. I just knew the player had an issue and was keeping it to himself. I also knew what kind of person he was, and if I didn't reassure him that I wasn't trying to screw anyone over, he'd keep enough of these issues to himself until he got fed up and quit. And well, he just quit last week, so I was right.

 

[Oversquid]

Would you classify a player as a Backseat DM if he doesn't tell you what to do necessarily, but he questions your every move? Even if it is simply questioning what or why your NPCs did what they did in a metagaming sense?

I'm kind of dealing with that right now with a player new to D&D. I know he doesn't mean anything by it, but it's still hard not to get frustrated or even discouraged over it because it comes off as if he's making sure I'm not doing anything wrong or trying to screw them over for my own enjoyment.

I'm not sure how to deal with it without coming off as being a drama queen. My group is mostly casual players and the last time I tried to clear up some confusion a player had over a DM ruling, the other players reacted like I was making a big deal out of it and someone said, "Ok, enough of the drama." I wasn't making a big deal out of it. I just knew the player had an issue and was keeping it to himself. I also knew what kind of person he was, and if I didn't reassure him that I wasn't trying to screw anyone over, he'd keep enough of these issues to himself until he got fed up and quit. And well, he just quit last week, so I was right.

I would personally classify questioning the GM's every move all the time as a form of the Backseat GM. There is nothing wrong with asking a few questions or needing clarification on a point or two, but when the questions turn into questions that pertain to things that go into GM territory, such as why the Bugbears ran off from the battle (rather than duke it out with the players), or why the slavers care so much about catching just a few goblin children (when there are obviously far more goblin children elsewhere they can catch). You know, the kinds of questions that are best answered in a few ways, such as, "Those are strange, aren't they?" And then just leave it at that.

The thing about asking lots of questions about the campaign can give off the impression to the GM that the players don't trust the GM, but I think you know that already.

I would help you with the "not coming off as a drama queen" issue, but its different for each group, and giving a general answer for it is something you've heard lots of times already.

I hope that answers some questions. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. You won't be Backseat GMing me

 

[Oversquid]

I freely admit to doing this sometimes. I really try not to, though! For twenty some years I was almost always the GM. It's in my blood. I'm gaming again but for various reasons I'm not running the games... and it's hard. I really want to. I have my own ideas on what would be cool. "No no no!", I think to myself, "just don't have the NPC shrug and ignore the player like that!" I try to encourage differences through play instead of direct advice but sometimes I'll just have something like, "Is this a 'we determine what caused this situation' in medias res scene or do you have something in mind?" fall out of my mouth and the GM will give me an annoyed look.

So, yeah, I'm That Guy. I try not to be and keep my mouth shut. But I really want to run the game and I can't. Sorry.

You and me both.

 

[Vyrolakos]

As a DM, I have a pretty easy going attitude to 'back seat DM's' ... as long as they are only helping with game mechanics.

I would never claim to be an encyclopaedic knowledge of every rule for every game I've ever run, so it can be useful when someone helps the flow of the game by removing the need to stop play and look up a rule. However, a player telling you that you are playing an NPC or encounter 'wrong' or telling you that it doesn't work that way in 'their' version of the world, that's just a step too far.