Neonchameleon
Legend
Bad ones try to make it all about them and their ideas.
What makes a "bad GM" or a "bad player"?
thefutilist
Explorer
So I have a particular brand of ‘story now’ play that I approach most of my games with. Assuming the person would actually find that style fun, then I tend to have to teach a few things.
What it means to create a story together (in this context)
How to view a character in terms of priorities.
What conflict is and what conflict resolution is.
What escalation is.
What situation sensitive priority change is.
How introducing stuff into the game world, as a player or GM, has a specific kind of impact.
This is either basic stuff that people get fairly quickly, sometimes with a small bit of work or I find it’s nearly impossible.
If they get those 6 points then sometimes they have bad habits, as I do, and if they can be identified there’s probably ways to fix them.
Which finally brings me to answering the question.
Which is they’re just bad at producing characters that don’t seem either weird or 2 dimensional card board cut-outs. I don’t know whether that skill is teachable because it’s so intertwined with personal taste it’s hard to parse the two.
Otherwise people can be generally better or worse and we all have moments we’re really on and a bit off. Or we think we have a great idea that’s terrible in play for whatever reason.
Talking about and thinking about the aesthetics of fiction is probably the only way to improve.
What it means to create a story together (in this context)
How to view a character in terms of priorities.
What conflict is and what conflict resolution is.
What escalation is.
What situation sensitive priority change is.
How introducing stuff into the game world, as a player or GM, has a specific kind of impact.
This is either basic stuff that people get fairly quickly, sometimes with a small bit of work or I find it’s nearly impossible.
If they get those 6 points then sometimes they have bad habits, as I do, and if they can be identified there’s probably ways to fix them.
Which finally brings me to answering the question.
Which is they’re just bad at producing characters that don’t seem either weird or 2 dimensional card board cut-outs. I don’t know whether that skill is teachable because it’s so intertwined with personal taste it’s hard to parse the two.
Otherwise people can be generally better or worse and we all have moments we’re really on and a bit off. Or we think we have a great idea that’s terrible in play for whatever reason.
Talking about and thinking about the aesthetics of fiction is probably the only way to improve.
John Dallman
Hero
A habit of some players that is very annoying: playing a character that specialises in some real-world activity (being a naval officer, or being a leader of troops) while knowing nothing about it and not being willing to learn. I don't expect them to become experts, but learning some of the professional vocabulary would allow dealing with these complex subjects much more easily. The ones that annoy me don't even try to remember things from one session to the next.
Wolfpack48
Adventurer
For players, it’s one who refuses to go along with the premise of the adventure. If it’s ostensibly about slaying a dragon, they would rather open up their trading outpost in a distant city.
Also those who don’t give equal time to other player’s turn in the spotlight or who interrupt other players actions.
Less common but I’ve seen it at cons is the player who undermines an in progress game to get players to do something else (play in their game).
For referees:
One who reads monotone or treats the adventure like a computerized choose your adventure rather than engaging with players at the table.
A directionless adventure can be frustrating for me personally, I like some structure and preparation.
A GM who is out to kill the players as opposed to just making a challenging adventure.
A GM who discourages roleplay and wants the game to be a stats/math fest.
Also those who don’t give equal time to other player’s turn in the spotlight or who interrupt other players actions.
Less common but I’ve seen it at cons is the player who undermines an in progress game to get players to do something else (play in their game).
For referees:
One who reads monotone or treats the adventure like a computerized choose your adventure rather than engaging with players at the table.
A directionless adventure can be frustrating for me personally, I like some structure and preparation.
A GM who is out to kill the players as opposed to just making a challenging adventure.
A GM who discourages roleplay and wants the game to be a stats/math fest.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure...a lot is very extreme.
Take horrible person Johnny. As a Casual Player he does not care about the game at all: he just want to hang out and get away from his wife for a couple hours. He will always be late by two to three hours. He almost never has is character sheet, dice or anything else. And it's rare for him to play the game for too much more then five minutes without making a huge disruption to "take a break".
Take horrible person Bill. As a Casual DM he does not care that Johnny shows up three hours late and just gives him a high five when he comes in the door. As he does not care about the game he just has Johnny's character just "pop" in the game randomly. He is ready to let Johnny use anything he needs. And it's rare for him to play the game for too much more then five minutes without making a huge disruption to "take a break".
Mix in three casual players...and you get a great time for all: they hang out for five hours....and kind of sort of "play" the game for a little less then thirty minutes. But everyone has fun.
But just as this "perfect storm" game can exist, does say that Johnny and Bill are bad players and dms.
As a Railroad Tycoon Baron myself......I'd still say the Classic Railroad Jerk DM that is the "default" everyone thinks of when they hear "Railroad" is still a Bad DM.
SableWyvern
Adventurer
First, turning up late to things, and being ok with people being late does not remotely meet my criteria for calling someone a horrible person.
And I absolutely believe there are groups of casual players who don't really care what time people turn up, and are all just there to chill and roll some dice. It's not a "perfect storm," you're just describing a somewhat extreme form of a casual group.
I note you've also coloured your examples with irrelevant information. "Only there to get away from his wife" certainly helps make it sound like Johnny is a bad husband and all-round-bad-guy, but has no bearing on whether he's a a bad fit at the table, or a bad player.
Anyone making "huge disruption" every five minutes sounds like someone who is unable to socialise. If everyone is ok with it, it's not a disruption in any meaningful sense for the purposes of this discussion, and if people aren't ok with it, it's a social issue.
All that said, I think @Reynard was probably right that if you distill things down to the level I have, that probably leaves less ground to actually have a conversation about. I'm OK with that, but it's probably best I bow out, and let those of you who want to deal in finer nuance do so. I can argue my point all day, but neither of us are likely to learn anything more from the effort.
DragonLancer
Adventurer
For players, this is spot on. If a GM has bought and prepped a adventure or campaign, or they have slaved over writing one for the group, and then players completely ignore it for doing their own thing, then what was the point of them even wanting to play? I get giving players free reign within said adventure or campaign, but the players should be there and willing to play it.
A bad GM is one who, in contrast, won't let players have some level of free will. You can have an adventure or campaign and let the players decide what to do even in a published campaign which are usually more rail-roady, as long as everyone is playing to the story presented. Again, to do otherwise is pointless.
SableWyvern
Adventurer
One of my happiest moments in my previous campaign was when I had an NPC begging and grovelling and crying at a PCs feet, desperate for aid, and the player turned her away.
It was great to know that I could put absolutely everything into playing that NPC, without fear that the player would feel obliged to take up the adventure hook.
Now, I'm not saying that's appropriate for every game -- not everyone wants to run or participate in a sandbox where you can refuse absolute any plot hook for any reason -- but I am saying that this is another example of bad fit, rather than an objectively bad player.
That's not the same thing as a group having agreed to go on an adventure to slay a dragon, then deciding in session 2 to not bother and open shop.
SableWyvern
Adventurer
I agree, it's not exactly the same.
I still know of some dedicated sandbox GMs who would be entirely OK with players who made that decision, even at the last minute. If it is ok, it's the kind of thing I would agree should be clearly established up front. If it comes up due to mismatched expectations, it shouldn't be that hard to clear up.
Similar Threads
