Why does the stigma of the "jerk GM" still persist in our hobby?

[Morrus]

Why does the stigma of the "jerk GM" still persist in our hobby?

Y
You're moving the goalposts. That's just bad faith. Especially for a discussion that from the outset is primarily anecdotal (as most like these are). In fact, inquiring into hard numbers requires providing your own set first for others to dispute, if that's how you're going to play it.

Not at all. There aren’t any goalposts to move; it’s a question of clarification. The OP claimed there were more jerks in our hobby than others. I asked “Are there?”

I don’t know if there are or aren’t. But I’d be interested in hearing what leads people to believe there are, which is the precursor to the question “why is that so?”

 

[Doug McCrae]

I’d be interested in hearing what leads people to believe there are

I think the "I was just roleplaying my character" defence for antisocial behaviour, which works for both players and GMs - players can hide behind their characters, GMs can hide behind the whole world - gives license to jerks, and it isn't present in most other hobbies.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[innerdude]

I didn't claim that there were more jerks in our hobby than others. I claimed that there is long-standing, continuous narrative in our hobby of "jerk GMs" causing problems within the social fabric of our shared culture.

And I wanted to better understand why.

Because it's clear that over time, the makers of games within our hobby have responded to our shared cultural fabric in unique ways.

 

[Hussar]

I think the "I was just roleplaying my character" defence for antisocial behaviour, which works for both players and GMs - players can hide behind their characters, GMs can hide behind the whole world - gives license to jerks, and it isn't present in most other hobbies.

I think this is a really key point. It's not that the hobby attracts more jerks, it's that the nature of the hobby makes jerky behavior a bit harder to pin down. Is the DM a jerk or is he playing that character really well? Is the DM abusing his authority or is he legitimately running the game. The line can be pretty hazy sometimes.

I didn't claim that there were more jerks in our hobby than others. I claimed that there is long-standing, continuous narrative in our hobby of "jerk GMs" causing problems within the social fabric of our shared culture.

And I wanted to better understand why.

Because it's clear that over time, the makers of games within our hobby have responded to our shared cultural fabric in unique ways.

I get what you're saying here. And, really, it's a combination of several factors. For one, the shared nature of the game makes the DM/GM so central to the experience at the table. If the left guard on your basketball team is a bit of a douche, well, in play it probably doesn't matter that much - how often do you have to have three or four hour conversations with your left guard?

But, if your DM is a douche, then you are stuck, having a face to face conversation, week after week, for tens, if not hundreds of hours with this person until such time as you break and walk away from the table. Maybe you're staying because you like the other players, and the DM is just good enough to make the time tolerable. Maybe the DM is a friend and it's really, really hard to tell a friend, "Hey, I like you, you're my friend, but, behind the DM's screen, you're a total douchebag and I'm walking."

Really, IMO, it's the face to face time that makes the narrative so much more prevalent than in other hobbies. Very few hobbies expect the players to all talk to one player for several hours at a time. I mean, look at this really old thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ublic-Play-Am-I-just-an-impatient-jerk-(LONG) - There are multiple examples of terrible behavior at a public table.

And even if it's, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says, only 3% of DM's (which, honestly, I think it's far, far higher, but maybe I'm just cynical), it's not that hard to run into a bad DM if you're playing public games. I remember polling on En World years ago about the number of people who had run into bad DM's and about 1/3 of respondents had had at least one bad DM over the years. I really don't think it's all that rare.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think this is a really key point. It's not that the hobby attracts more jerks, it's that the nature of the hobby makes jerky behavior a bit harder to pin down. Is the DM a jerk or is he playing that character really well? Is the DM abusing his authority or is he legitimately running the game. The line can be pretty hazy sometimes.

People behave differently when they're wearing (physical) masks, or so I'm told. They're less inhibited. We see something similar with online anonymity. I don't think being able to hide behind a mask is always a good thing.

 

[Maxperson]

And even if it's, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says, only 3% of DM's (which, honestly, I think it's far, far higher, but maybe I'm just cynical), it's not that hard to run into a bad DM if you're playing public games. I remember polling on En World years ago about the number of people who had run into bad DM's and about 1/3 of respondents had had at least one bad DM over the years. I really don't think it's all that rare.

That fits right into the numbers I was imagining. Between friends, new friends, game shops, game conventions, and more, it's pretty common to encounter several DMs over the years. If these bad DMs were 10%, I think more than 1/3 would have encountered one.

 

[Doug McCrae]

To the extent that there is more anti-social behavior (and I am not saying that there is), I might say that traditionally, D&D tended to attract more people that were not part of traditional social groups, were more marginalized, and were often lacking in traditional social skills.

I don't know if that is true now, and I don't know if that is always true, but that is more likely to be the case than the two theories I've heard so far, which appear to be:

1. Poor people suck; and
2. Roleplaying and world-building makes people jerky, or at least lets jerk-dom flower.

Another is that power corrupts. The huge power difference between players and GM is another unusual feature of roleplaying.

This is also the major theme of the work of fiction that has been most influential on D&D - The Lord of the Rings - but I suspect that's merely a coincidence.

 

[Immortal Sun]

There's a 'dark side' to Empowerment, sure.

Er....I feel like this is alluding to something I wasn't saying. Considering how little of my post you queted in your response and the capitalization of the world empowerment, I feel like there's something you're saying but aren't actually saying it.

If this is some game commentary on the DM empowerment of 5E that's a load of hogwash. Stories of jerk DMs are not new and 5E certainly is. So, in the words of a computer: DOES NOT COMPUTE.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay. That's a good point that your response to the "jerk GM" may differ based on your sense of their experience. But let's bring this back to my earlier point about whether "leaving the table" constitutes an actual check on GM privileges. You have left the table. What has actually changed at the table? How exactly has the GM been "checked" by this act? How has the GM's authority actually been censured or rebuked? If the other players remain and your spot is later filled, then what did your "check" accomplish? How was that a "check" at all?

Normally when we think of a 'check' in a system of "checks and balances," as per its most common parlance, we are talking about an option within a system of rules with a division of power that authorizes one party to nullify or limit the power of another party, generally within certain areas. Walking away from the table, IMHO, is essentially an "extra-table" act where you reject the 'government' or 'table' entirely and immigrate. I don't think that a US civics class would necessarily list "revolt" or "Screw you guys; I'm going home," for example, as part of the outlined checks that Congress can exercise on executive authority. It's about like calling rats leaving a sinking ship a "floatation device."

Emigrate. I know, pedantic, but it's fairly interesting (to me) that there are different words for coming (immigrate) and going (emigrate) and that most of us in the Western world don't pay much attention to that (not saying you don't, just, you know, generally) because we really mostly only ever talk about immigrants. The USA has even adopted "ex-pat" as a sub-in for emigrant.

And now back to the thread.