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

[Aldarc]

I guess for most DMs, I assume, this would not sit well and perhaps for jerk DM's (who presumably don't give a damn) this won't be enough to shake them. All of this is speculation ofcourse.

I'll just leave this here.

If you give that jerk any other system, he's still going to be a jerk. The problem is the person, not the system. For the vast majority of DMs, with great power comes great responsibility and they act like it.

That's most definitely not always true, IME, and that brings us to my next point.

I think it is perfectly valid for games to have mechanics that give players more control. That is a preference issue. I am a little wary of the idea that such mechanics can or should be present to alter peoples' behavior (in terms of being a good person at the table). I don't think we need to treat a table of five people like a republic made up of millions. Five people should be able to figure this stuff out without requiring some kind of system to check one another's behavior.

I know that I had replied to your point earlier. I wanted an intial post that stressed the point that I was making prior. Here, however, I would like to reply a bit to what you are saying. Again, this may be another post akin to a "system matters." And just like in another thread, I would point to board and card games.

There are games that consistently bring out people's darker sides. These games in question will naturally vary from person to person. But you eventually learn that you should never play Pictionary with Uncle Roger, you shouldn't play Monopoly with your best friend Justin, and you shouldn't play Settlers of Catan with your husband Hyung-Seok. And you could play Settlers of Catan with Justin or Monopoly with Hyung-Seok just fine. Reverse it? Nope. Don't. But both are good and nice people you like outside of the game. (And Uncle Roger? He is a perpetual jerk no matter what you play.) But there are also games that you may have experienced where the jerk tendencies come out more frequently across a greater breadth of peope you know.

My anecdotal evidence is ancedotal and correlation is not causation, but I have experienced people who are "jerk GMs" in one system who become far less "jerks" when GMing other systems. And I have experienced some systems run by "jerk GMs" with greater frequency than other systems. So despite my earlier disclaimers, when I experience these things I (as I assume others would too) look for contributing factors that may be in play. And I can't discount the possibility that the system (or its surrounding culture) can contribute to these behaviors.

 

[innerdude]

I suspect that, to a large extent, the "Jerk DM" is figmentary, or perhaps a caricature.

He or she represents a distillation of all of the worst characteristics experienced or exhibited by our pathological teen selves: controlling, playing favorites, inconsistent and arbitrary; DMs covetous of certain NPCs and "Killer DMs" also fit the role.

"Jerk DM" remains a useful archetype to bear in mind when considering how not to behave, but I'm not sure it's anything more than that.

See, there's part of me that wishes this to be true, that the vast majority of the "jerk GM" stories out there are just hearsay and rumor, with just the tiniest bit of "true anecdotes" thrown in.

But the trope/stereotype/cliche is just too ingrained into the collective culture of our hobby for that to be (fully) true. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and the trope is just too widespread to be nothing more than myth and rumor.

What's disappointing about this reality is that I feel like we have to put a giant, red neon sign over the top of our "cultural space" when we introduce new players to it.

"WARNING: IN THE COURSE OF PLAY of tabletop RPGs, you are virtually guaranteed to meet and interact with various JERKS, EGOISTS, and MISANTHROPES lacking in basic social skills and maturity levels. If you can find it in your heart to be generous, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THIS FACT AGAINST THE REST OF US MORE PLEASANT FOLK OR AGAINST THE HOBBY GENERALLY."

I knew at least 2 or 3 people back in college who attempted to "get into" the RPG scene, but were horrifically turned off by the people they encountered during their initial foray. Now granted, in at least one of these cases the individual wasn't likely to really "grok" what was happening anyway, so it probably wouldn't have mattered, but in two other cases it seriously damaged their opinion of the hobby.

But ... so, D&D is a social activity. Think of it in terms of any other social activity. A pickup game of basketball. Playing a card game. Whatever.

Because no D&D is better than bad D&D, and you can always find a new game.

Just like any other social activity- why spend time with someone you don't like?

And here's the real rub --- I agree, no roleplaying is better than bad roleplaying. Absolutely.

But good roleplaying is a million times better than no roleplaying. And this is where it gets tricky.

Despite the growth of the hobby over the last 5 years, there's still not an infinite number of chances to participate in TRPGs. Nor do we as a "cultural collective" generally have infinite chances to make a good impression on new/neophyte participants.

Our hobby is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on having a quality social engagement between participants to have a quality play experience. The two are inseparably connected. This is definitively not the case for fishing. Or woodworking. Or painting. Or photography. Or playing Minecraft or Skyrim. Or a million other leisure activities.

My point is, for new players, it'd be nice to downsize the giant, red neon sign hanging directly over the front entrance into a small chalkboard hanging meekly off to the side next to a window.

 

[CydKnight]

This stigma does not exist for me personally though I can understand how it may for some depending on their own personal experiences with GMs. Don't get me wrong. I am positive "jerk GMs" exist though I have never experienced one personally. It's just that I can't help wondering how such GMs would continue to find games to run long-term or even short-term in extreme cases?

 

[Umbran]

It's just that I can't help wondering how such GMs would continue to find games to run long-term or even short-term in extreme cases?

Consider the number of other abusive relationships humans are empirically known to keep themselves in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why is it that this particular hobby is so prone to producing narratives that involve having to put up with / get away from dysfunctional, misanthropic GMs? Why does this remain such a broadly-familiar trope in our hobby?

Well, to start with, it's not just the GMs. Players aren't all sweetness & lite, either.

But, mostly, it's that the big fish, the 500lb gorilla, the founding elder, the nucleus, the foundation, the axis mundi of the hobby - D&D - totally attracts, nurtures, and empowers jerks.

3.x was more of an incubator for jerk players, while AD&D & 5e breed more jerk DMs. But the unwritten rule of "don't be a jerk" exists because so many gamers break it.

Mearls even recently shared that 5e had embraced the phenomenon. OK, he spun it very nicely: that WotC was done 'distrusting' it's player base. That is, he was done trying to produce a game that would in any way discourage, guard against or expose such behavior (ie, trying to design in anything resembling robust game balance or even basic functionality, in favor of letting the DM take up the slack).

And, to be fair, it works great when you have a great DM.
But great DMing takes great skill, and/or a lot of experience - or some pretty incredible talent - and DMing, even if you're great, isn't always the most enjoyable way to spend a session, playing has an appeal, even to the best DMs, and even the best DMs (especially the best DMs, because there's so much demand for them to run yet another game) will burn out. So, you have a gaming 'market' that favors DMs - which means players put up with jerks who are willing to DM, however bad they may be, because the alternative is not gaming at all.

Ironically, this has only added to 5e's appeal: since the jerks are plentifully supplied with victims, they aren't feeling bitter or betrayed or let-down - at least, not enough to prosecute an edition war with extreme prejudice.

The problem becomes that when given power, most people kinda suck at using it properly.

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

I am not arguing (here at least) whether or not these mechanics should be present as behavior modifiers. What I question is the argument put forth that "walking away from the table" constitutes a check to GM authority and privilege.

The check on DM privilege is DMing. Walking away from the table an starting your own table, that sucks less. The easier D&D is to DM, the more of an option that becomes. DM Empowerment is awesome, but it doesn't make the game easier for a player to segue into DMing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Leatherhead]

Here is an idea:
There aren't more Jerk GMs than normal Jerks (Just work in Customer Service sometime, you will find out the absurd number of jerks running about )
Our hobby just has better storytellers than the general populace, and they can make the jerkish behavior examples stick in your mind when they report it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Unfortunately all too true.

I think the current explosion of the hobby and lowering of the barriers to DMing can only be a good thing. Back in the day, gaming groups often existed in isolation. A bad DM might be all you had. But now, there are more opportunities to game and to communicate with other gamers. Heck, with so many ways to play online, it’s easier than ever to walk away from a gaming table.

And though I’m primarily a DM, I think that’s a good thing. DMs need to be always questing for and questioning what they can do to be better.

Consider the number of other abusive relationships humans are empirically known to keep themselves in.

 

[PrometheanVigil]

What you're talking about is a barrier to entry. I mean, I'd start by saying that of you enumerated examples, some (such as computer or console games) do not have a very high barrier to entry; I would actually say, based on the fact that I need to mute chat on any on-line game I play, that the barrier to entry for computer and console games isn't very high.

You can mute someone in computer games quite easily. You can blacklist them, too. There's no real cost to the mutee/banee... until you try to get involved in higher-level, proper team play or even when you've just got a few cold kills under your belt. Then effort must be put in and real skill gained. And then most of those trolls and hackers stop playing because its no fun playing against their own. They just slapped down $60 for that only to stop playing a few weeks later because they've been effectively ostracized because people really tryin' to 'git gud out here and aren't going to suffer foolishness.

(I'm being generous saying they paid for the game, by the way. A lot of em' just pirate because they haven't got money in the first place or aren't interested in the buy-in via real skill instead. Cost is too high man, they're not gonna bother).

But the bigger problem is you seem to be saying that the barrier to entry of "cost" is what keeps "jerky people" out of certain activities.

*I hope that's not what you're saying. That's why I bolded the parts of your comment that I was responding to.

Individual financial wealth IME is strongly correlated with effort, risk and mindset. That's why I use it as a filter in the face of imperfect data. People don't like it but its effective. People who are doing stuff not only have this as a higher stat but are also likely to have workable social ability as a minimum. That "don't ask, don't get" type life ain't for me, personally.

People who play RPGs I've found tend to not be about making their real-life actually better. Every group I've hosted quickly self-selects, however. That's why I end up with awesome players who make GM'ing worthwhile -- they're ultimately the ones who ostracize those not trying to level-up in real-life because it comes out one way or another.

Are you saying poor people make bad GMs? I've met just as many, if not more, socially awkward jerks in the suburbs as I have in poor areas. In fact having lived in both types of places , I'd say it is easier to get by being socially awkward in fancier neighborhoods than poorer ones. One thing that kind of bothers me about a lot of gaming forum discussions is there seems to be a somewhat elitist attitude toward being educated, skilled and successful. Those things are great but they are not what make you a good and worthy human being.

I've had more than a few players who were doing shift work. And each one that became even a semi-regular in my games were actively trying to get themselves out of that. Without getting too specific, one guy back in the day who was born lower-class (like myself) was taking programming classes while doing a food industry job -- in the last sessions of mine he was in, he let me know privately he'd bagged a junior salaried web dev job which paid him much better and gave him that crucial leg up he needed. He was modest about it but I was genuinely happy for him.

(I know how that life is, it's a soul-killer and I was ruthlessabout getting out of it -- that's why I hold people to a high standard on this)

I don't care if you know you know your salad fork from your dinner fork. I'm likely to stab 'ya with both if you make a hussy-fit about the proper use of them. The thing is, I'm a bit of a stony fleshcave so being elitist without personally earning that right at your level AND on petty excrement is going to rub me the wrong way.

That's not what I asked; you're begging the question.

You've explained why you think there are more jerks in our hobby than others. My question was: are there more jerks in our hobby than others? I'm not sold on the premise that there are. Without establishing that the premise is true, explanations for the premise are rather pointless.

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.

And, in terms of how human perceptions and memory works, negative experiences tend to leave an outsized impression. One bad GM is only counterbalanced by a stack of good GMs.

I'd say it's the other way 'round. In my experience, it takes one great GM to undo several bad GMs. It takes a truly awful GM for there to be an equalizing effect, however. But we're severely lacking in the great GM department across the board.

Can't say it's a problem in my case *wink*

(I need to stop -- hahahahah)

I'll just leave this here.

[pic]

I gotta say, it really is true in my case. Backed up by a dozen after-game discussion over the years of players confiding to me that others were being anthropomorphic gluteus maximuses. Never had a complaint from a player that wasn't immediately shut down (nicely or otherwise) by other players because they were full of excrement.

There are games that consistently bring out people's darker sides.

I had a player once who chopped a guard's head off who was about to raise the alarm when she bungled a stealth roll. Totally callous and ruthless -- I told her she had to make a Humanity roll for it (surprisingly, she succeeded). She was like "yep, totally makes sense". People can be dark as anything but I've found that has nothing to do with their jerkiness.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*