Ways GMs can annoy their players


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Damian Magecraft wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

you do know there is a good chance they might know what works better? Being a professional does not automatically confer perfection.

That dev may be a recent grad with no design experience vs the amateur designer with 40 years practical experience tinkering with rule systems.

Rules tinkering hunh?

An RPG is not a formula, it's a piece of art. It's a piece art that has seen decades worth of crafting and re-crafting and more crafting after that, and they still can't get the surface to be smooth and splinter-free, why? Because they really aren't trying to make a smooth surface, they are trying to make a work of art.

Let's look at the staff of people who contributed to Ultimate Equipment

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Lead Designer: Jason Bulmahn

Designers: Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Sean K Reynolds
Authors: Dennis Baker, Jesse Benner, Benjamin Bruck, Ross Byers, Brian J. Cortijo, Ryan Costello, Mike Ferguson, Matt Goetz, Jim Groves, Tracy Hurley, Matt James, Jonathan H. Keith, Michael Kenway, Hal MacLean, Jason Nelson, Tork Shaw, Owen KC Stephens, Russ Taylor, and numerous RPG Superstar contributors (see page 387)
So while I am sure that many rules are written by an individual, they probably have at least one set of objective eyeballs reviewing them. And while I completely agree with you that anyone can have insight and vision, in practice, they don't. More to the point I read the rules forums and see people's rational for changing x, y, and, z, and in nearly every case it is to solve some local problem. What I don't see is house rule discussions that considers the rule changes in totality i.e. what am I screwing up by doing this? Who/what classes am I screwing over by making this changes? So while in theory, some non-professional could make a change for the better, in practice I've yet to see it. What I do see is is someone wanting to address the things that bug them and then ignore the
...

Having a successful business within a field you've previously practiced at, and now sell very successfully is pretty much the certification of an expert. It shows that they know how to make digestable, generally fair rules sets that facilitate enjoyment. Claiming they are anything other than experts is just incorrect. Can they be wrong occasionally, certainly, and feedback is good for them just like any other human. But that doesn't stop them from being proficient experts of their craft.


Gm asks who goes ahead and in what order, and you know someone is going to walk into a trap. You walk behind the guy in front, and end up falling into a pit/trap.

"How come I also fell in, they're ahead of me?"
"They hit the trap, then it clicked, and you continued forward, then you were both within the traps space."
"Shouldn't I have gotten a perception check to hear the click you're mentioning?"
"You didn't ask for one"
"..."

Now when I play, you all can walk ahead by yourself. You open a door, I'll be down the hallway, and the same goes for a chest or whatever.


Rapanuii wrote:

Gm asks who goes ahead and in what order, and you know someone is going to walk into a trap. You walk behind the guy in front, and end up falling into a pit/trap.

"How come I also fell in, they're ahead of me?"
"They hit the trap, then it clicked, and you continued forward, then you were both within the traps space."
"Shouldn't I have gotten a perception check to hear the click you're mentioning?"
"You didn't ask for one"
"..."

that's actually how traps work. You have to announce that you're looking for them and spend a move action unless you have the trapspotter talent.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.

What you call "less trusting and more confrontational", I call "how normal, intelligent people approach playing games with other human beings"—namely that everyone reads/learns the same set of rules, and trusts everyone at the table to play by those rules, because that's how playing games with people normally works (even cooperative ones where you don't have to worry about competitive fairness).

It takes a special kind of person to look at a group of people all mutually assuming that everyone at the table is on the same page so they can all have a smooth and fun afternoon together, and call it "less trusting and more confrontational".

Interesting.

There is only a little problem: in PFS people play with different rules depending on the books they own?

And I find that trying to cram your (not Jiggy, the "generic" you) interpretation of the rules down the GM throat because you are always right is the direct by-product of this attitude. Seeing how often we (again, generic, but include me) have a different opinion on the RAW work, the idea that "everyone reads/learns the same set of rules" is a myth. we have a shared set of rules that is reasonably consistent, but with a body of rules as wast as that of Pathfinder that is the most that we can get.

Jiggy wrote:


What I was challenging was your implication that if a player assumes that everyone at the table is playing by the printed rules then they're being confrontational and untrusting.

It don't sound that way Jiggy, it sound "The rules as written are a hard contract, the player should enforce total respect to them." with the corollary that in any game strict RAW is the key to fun.

Seeing the debates in those forum, RAW need moderation.

Going outside PFS, dYou really would want to play in a world where the first player that successfully cast simulacrum from a scroll has access to 3 wish/day for free forever (and more of them using some of the wishes to get more simulacrums)?

And where, if you are playing in a world where that is possible, no one has done that before the player character and the world canon in no way take that in consideration?

Grand Lodge

Chris Mortika wrote:

kinevon,

In general, I support your position regarding how hard-core to make a scenario, but in this instance I'm half-way between your position and finlanderboy's. Please take the following notes in the spirit of inquiry rather than accusation.

1) Finlanderboy is right, when he says that a character playing above his tier needs to be ready for whatevern the scenario throws at him. That's exactly the situation where I don't choose to softball encounters. (Probably because I have too much experience with players always wanting to play up out of greed, expecting that I wouldn't want to "wreck the session" by dropping their PCs.)

1a) Did the party discuss letting that player run a pre-gen, maybe Valeros, and apply the credit to the 2nd-level PC when he reached 4th level?

2) Were other characters helping to take blows from the monster? Were casters summoning in meat shields for him?

In any case, the character was in a tight position, and a critical blow would have cost him his life. Were the other players likely to pay for that character's raise dead? If so, it might have been a great PFS experience for the new guy, to realize that, in terrible circumstances, the party would have his back and make sure he'd be ready to advanture another day.

But, in the end, you know what? I wasn't there. I wasn't reading the players' attitudes. You were, you made a call, and I'm not going to try to second guess you.

Actually, Chris, none of the rest of them could take the damage. They were all squishies. Sorcerer, Wizard, etc.

None of them had either the hit points nor the AC of the 2nd level Fighter. And they all were casters, so having them where they could cast "safely" was the right decision for the party.

A few points that seem to have been overlooked:
The fudge was specific to the player's situation.
The player was at her 4th PFS game session, and this was the first time she was able to play her own PC, she had been playing pregens at the previous three sessions.
So, I treated her as new to PFS, with not wanting to discourage her from coming back.

For regular players, especially ones with multiple PCs, I don't fudge. I pout, sometimes, when my dice suffer an epic fail; and I found that I dislike how one of the rules for Witches is written, as it makes succeeding at a saving throw irrelevant.

Cackle:
Extend the duration of a set of Witch hexes by one round. At least one of those hexes is written so that it affects the target, even if it saves. Being able to cackle and extend the duration of a hex that was saved against by one round is a bit... bad, if not into broken.

Makes a trip-lock look good, from what I have seen.

Cackle also doesn't make it clear if a single cackle extends all applicable hexes, or if each hex on each target needs its own Cackle...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:

Gm asks who goes ahead and in what order, and you know someone is going to walk into a trap. You walk behind the guy in front, and end up falling into a pit/trap.

"How come I also fell in, they're ahead of me?"
"They hit the trap, then it clicked, and you continued forward, then you were both within the traps space."
"Shouldn't I have gotten a perception check to hear the click you're mentioning?"
"You didn't ask for one"
"..."

that's actually how traps work. You have to announce that you're looking for them and spend a move action unless you have the trapspotter talent.

traps work with a clicking noise happening that never gets mentioned, and I need to somehow know to ask if I hear an unusual clicking sound or suffer the consequences?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Re: kinevon's spoiler:
The save absolutely has an effect. If the creature saves, then the witch has to cackle every round or the effect goes away. If the creature fails its save, then the witch might not need to cackle and becomes more mobile. One thing I've learned from playing a witch for 10 levels is that the lack of mobility while using a cackle lock is the hardest part.

Grand Lodge

James McTeague wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Doesn't seem that bad, unless there is a range limitation on either Cackle or the hexes themselves?

Hex, Cackle doesn't seem like a bad thing, really, from a Witch perspective.

And, from a GM perspective, extending an effect that was saved against seems like a bad thing. Just wait for the screams form the PCs when they run into a team of BBEGs with a couple of Witches doing this, along with a Barbarian or Magus to play whack-a-mole on the party.


kinevon wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Already happened to a couple of parties in my area (non-PFS mind you)... The cries of Killer GMs and Unfairness (never mind that the villains used the same tactics as the party) were quite loud and repetitive.

It has since been house ruled that it does not affect saved effects.


Rapanuii wrote:
and I need to somehow know to ask if I hear an unusual clicking sound or suffer the consequences?

That sounds familiar. I think the trap is written that way.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kinevon wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Cackle has a range of 30ft. Assuming a move speed of 30ft, all the monster has to do is spend a move action moving away from the witch, and now you are either stuck cackling and moving, or you have to give up that evil eye effect. Obviously not every monster has a ranged ability, but for those that do it's a good way of really hurting the witch's effectiveness.
Liberty's Edge

James McTeague wrote:
kinevon wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
If the enemy is an intelligent creature,

then
If the enemy has enough spellcraft (or it is Knowledge arcana?) to know that the witch cackle has a range limitation and that the witch is the origin of his problems,
then
If the enemy is something that can move away and still do something;
then
If the enemy can move away without generating so many AoO that he will be dead before taking his 3rd step.

Avoiding a witch cackle by moving away isn't at all a granted thing.
Often it will be questionable on the GM part to assume that the NPC know how the cackle work. A reasonable reaction for a NPC that has realized that the witch is the source of his woes but without the knowledge of how cackle work would be to try to slay the witch or to run away to find a remove curse. Not to step out of range and wait.
At least I see it that way.


Jiggy wrote:

So we have one person saying they've had fun when the GM did X, and therefore that's what GMs should do because no one has fun in any other circumstance. Then we have another person saying they've had fun when the GM did Y, and therefore that's what GMs should do because no one has fun in any other circumstance. And neither person can tell that this is the conversation that's happening.

Yeah, this will end well.

Let's just hope that the Venn diagram of GM playstyles ends up with an common subset somewhere!


Lormyr wrote:
Dazylar wrote:
They tend to do the calculations via mental arithmetic, so you wouldn't notice normally. Consequently, that's what stops them understanding what is going on - too busy keeping numbers in their heads.
What I meant was if/when some players do that, I have not noticed it change what IC decisions they make or suddenly change tactics. It's not hard to put together that a roll of 12 that equals 29 means +17.

I didn't say that it would necessarily change their actions, just distract them from the game. And it's entirely possible you have players who don't do that; I'm just letting you know that they do exist.

And, fwiw, the calculations can become a lot more complex than a simple addition or subtraction! :-)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
and I need to somehow know to ask if I hear an unusual clicking sound or suffer the consequences?
That sounds familiar. I think the trap is written that way.

a trap says to tell of a delayed sound a charger heard before, by telling them after, unless they asked to attempt to hear the sound they weren't expecting before?

Scarab Sages

kinevon wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Just play the Reign of Winter adventure path - you'll get to see a lot of what happens when the NPCs have this in their kit bags.

And most hexes have a 30 foot range limitation - which generally means the witch is always in reach of those that make their saving throw.

Scarab Sages

Dazylar wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

So we have one person saying they've had fun when the GM did X, and therefore that's what GMs should do because no one has fun in any other circumstance. Then we have another person saying they've had fun when the GM did Y, and therefore that's what GMs should do because no one has fun in any other circumstance. And neither person can tell that this is the conversation that's happening.

Yeah, this will end well.

Let's just hope that the Venn diagram of GM playstyles ends up with an common subset somewhere!

The key is silence - if one is able to fudge the rolls and the players do not know it - then there is less issue.

It is when the GM tells what he/she did, that some players feel like they wasted their time and others are thankful, but less proud of their accomplishment. And the fudge can be in other than roles but in tactics or even to who NPCs decide to attack.

I for one, do not consider being called a softball GM derogatory (it is a compliment) - for most people they want at least the illusion that things almost went to heck in a hand-basket - they are happier being left with 2 CON and 5 hit points than needing a ressurection spell.

If all the GM is supposed to do is roll dice and follow the numbers, then why have a GM at all. Why not have a self adventure where you flip cards and have encounters and let the rules tell you what happens.

Lantern Lodge

Dazylar wrote:

I didn't say that it would necessarily change their actions, just distract them from the game. And it's entirely possible you have players who don't do that; I'm just letting you know that they do exist.

And, fwiw, the calculations can become a lot more complex than a simple addition or subtraction! :-)

No doubt. And it is entirely possible that I do have some players who do the math off the die rolls they see me make. For my players at least, it just doesn't change what they intended to do. Then again, my players are also skilled optimizers.

Liberty's Edge

First of all, I tend to give GM's the benefit of the doubt since they have (usually) taken the time to read and prep the adventure or have agreed to 'run cold' so that a table can happen. This generally means that they have some investment in other people having fun, too. I want to reward those that have those motivations and corresponding behavior as much as possible, especially since it *seems* that the particular society I live in (*coughUSAcough*) increasingly seems to reward greedy and selfish behavior.

That said, here is my list of peeves:

1.) POOR or NO PREP: a GM has agreed to run the adventure and has had access to it well in advance but has made a half-hearted (or less) attempt at prepping. By agreeing to GM (more than a day in advance of) a slot/table, a person has an obligation to the other players to prep the adventure. That's my opinion on it, anyway.

2.) EGOISM: GM's that seem to have a prime motivation of something other than to provide a fun experience for the players. Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of the types of 'me' behavior I've seen from DM's/GM's:

a.) Mentioning more than once what his or her character did when he played it. (Protip -- unless the story is very funny, most of us would rather you wait to tell us until after the slot is over).
b.) Mentioning more than once their history or anticipation of increasing their character kill count. This one doesnt bother me as much as talking about their own character, except in the cases where you have seen this same person try and use obscene rules contortions and other shenanigans to prevent their own characters from ever suffering death. These folks seem to be motivated by what I call, 'Trying to win D&D'.

3.) IMPATIENCE: Generally I see this from GM's that either just aren't good with people or are overly tired and/or burned out - mostly the latter. The behavior may exhibit itself in being impatient with new players. It might show up in impatience with roleplay at the table (they want to brush past it so that they can 'get this over with'). I don't have a problem with GM's pushing things along so that we can finish on time-ish. But when they are nipping RP in the bud and/or skipping encounters and we finish the slot in three hours? Yeah, I feel like I've been gyped.

Anyway, those are the major ones that get my goat.


These things make me avoid GM’s at all costs:

1. Making major changes to the story line in a PFS sanctioned scenario. ( I have one chance to play each one so please run as written).

2. Running cold when they had time to prep. Running cold no matter how good someone thinks they are at this always sucks.

3. GM taking part in many and/or long side conversations with non-players. Please stop wasting everyone’s time with your side conversations. It’s you job to keep the pacing of the adventure at a pace everyone enjoys.

4. GM’s cheating either my changing die roll results or in one case a GM intentionally bumped up the tier without the player’s knowledge resulting in 3 character deaths.

Thankfully after playing 200+ PFS times there are only about 5 GM’s that fall into one of these categories. GM’s will sometimes do it and sometimes not, but after a 2nd time of one of these I normally work on avoiding at all costs.

Lantern Lodge

roysier wrote:

These things make me avoid GM’s at all costs:

1. Making major changes to the story line in a PFS sanctioned scenario. ( [b]I have one chance to play each one so please run as written[b]).

2. Running cold when they had time to prep. Running cold no matter how good someone thinks they are at this always sucks.

3. GM taking part in many and/or long side conversations with non-players. Please stop wasting everyone’s time with your side conversations. It’s you job to keep the pacing of the adventure at a pace everyone enjoys.

4. GM’s cheating either my changing die roll results or in one case a GM intentionally bumped up the tier without the player’s knowledge resulting in 3 character deaths.

Thankfully after playing 200+ PFS times there are only about 5 GM’s that fall into one of these categories. GM’s will sometimes do it and sometimes not, but after a 2nd time of one of these I normally work on avoiding at all costs.

Emphasis added

And 5. GM's becoming hostile with anyone who either makes a poor tactical decision or questioning the GM in any fashion (including things as simple as 'how many minutes passed since the last encounter?'

One of these guys caused me to literally throw away my first PFS character. He was only level 3, but that last scenario (Midnight Mauler) gave me such a bad taste I couldn't ever play him again.

Can we choose not to accept a chronicle sheet after a game? Obviously it wouldn't be a kosher way to avoid death or missed rewards, but it would be nice to have a chronicle sheet on a character after running it the right way.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to say that this thread brings me down a bit.

Obviously not all table experiences are amazing, but I don't see what's gained by having several pages focused on the bad ones. Game-to-game variation exists for good reason. It allows us to identify, measure, and improve how we approach this game. If you never get out of your comfort zone your style will stagnate, and you'll never experience all that PFS has to offer. You won't know what works best if you don't try new things.

I think that there's a better way to convey our opinions about GM styles that don't mesh well with society play. I think that a thread that devoted it's content to ways a GM improves their table, rather than one that points out the ways they fail, would serve the growth of our community to a much greater extent.

Lastly, I see so many posts that express a lack of appreciation for the person that has the hardest job at the table. This is always strange to me because at a fundamental level, I've never seen the role of GM as something static. It's really just that, a role, a mask any given person can put on. To read some of these harsher posts, it makes me think that some of us forget this every now and then. GMs and players are the same people at the end of the session, they just sit on opposite sides of the screen from time to time.

I don't know what all I hope to accomplish with this post, I just know I'd regret not saying anything in the future if I didn't now.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Genuine wrote:
Can we choose not to accept a chronicle sheet after a game? Obviously it wouldn't be a kosher way to avoid death or missed rewards, but it would be nice to have a chronicle sheet on a character after running it the right way.

No - once you've started the scenario (usually considered to be when the mission briefing begins) you're going to get a chronicle; you don't get to replay the scenario at will until you get a result you're happy with.

If you feel you have valid grounds for complaint about how the GM ran the scenario, bring it to the attention of your local venture officers. It is possible (although, fortunately, extremely rare) for a table to be nullified, whereupon you will be able to run the scenario again.


Walter Sheppard wrote:

I just wanted to say that this thread brings me down a bit.

Obviously not all table experiences are amazing, but I don't see what's gained by having several pages focused on the bad ones. Game-to-game variation exists for good reason. It allows us to identify, measure, and improve how we approach this game. If you never get out of your comfort zone your style will stagnate, and you'll never experience all that PFS has to offer. You won't know what works best if you don't try new things.

I think that there's a better way to convey our opinions about GM styles that don't mesh well with society play. I think that a thread that devoted it's content to ways a GM improves their table, rather than one that points out the ways they fail, would serve the growth of our community to a much greater extent.

Lastly, I see so many posts that express a lack of appreciation for the person that has the hardest job at the table. This is always strange to me because at a fundamental level, I've never seen the role of GM as something static. It's really just that, a role, a mask any given person can put on. To read some of these harsher posts, it makes me think that some of us forget this every now and then. GMs and players are the same people at the end of the session, they just sit on opposite sides of the screen from time to time.

I don't know what all I hope to accomplish with this post, I just know I'd regret not saying anything in the future if I didn't now.

ehh i tried to read it as things I may do that bother players. I am always willing to take any critism. I want to be a better dm and understanding what peopel do not like more can help me with this.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spineless DMs.

When there is a problem player, I expect the DM to address it.

Also, declaring the weapon/attack/tactic a PC is using, without letting the PC choose, then using contrived reasons as to why all else will fail, if the player insists otherwise.

It is my PC, not your NPC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well Gentleman, this has spiraled into a great debate. All of you have made some very valid points. I think I'd like to make one of my own. As the wonderful hobby of ours has grown and changed over the years, we have watched what began as a loophole-ridden, clunky rules system with hundreds, nay thousands of potential arguments waiting to happen transform slowly over the decades into the (in my humble opinion) beautiful game system it has become. As to the subject of rule tinkering, I'd love to share a not so short personal story. My gaming group and I (I'm the primary GM but others run a campaign every once in a while, too rarely for my taste but I smile when they defensively claim that none does it better than I when I ask for them to GM) is an extended family to me. I run two to three groups at a time. The one I'm referring to is my primary group that game on Sundays. My longest running, most experienced group of gamers who rarely ever miss a session. We have argued over the past 2 decades over every rule that there is. And I don't say that lightly. Every rule. I thank my players constantly for keeping me abreast of the constantly changing rules. They are really a great help in that endeavor. Occasionally we have or have had house rules to deal with weird rulings or the lack thereof. However, these are well thought out and agreed upon by everyone since if it is agreed in my sessions then when others GM, it goes in theirs also. I was so surprised constantly by just how many tinkered-with house rules we had in 3rd and 3.5 that became written rules in Pathfinder. We laughed continuously about the Pathfinder design team having surveillance bugs placed in my game room at my house. I greatly enjoy Pathfinder. It greatly facilitates a good time at the gaming table. In my opinion, it does this better than any previous editions. However, my gaming groups have all had their troubles. Especially my primary one. It's had the longest time to have problems. However, we unanimously have arrived at one conclusion: the rules exist to handle nearly every conceivable thing that occurs in the Pathfinder game however everyone's enjoyment comes first. that's the key. Fun. Not rules lawyering, not story trumping rules, not egos overriding logic, not one person's interpretation of the rules, but fun. As a GM, I rarely find the need to trump written rules anymore in comparison to how often that occurred in, say, 2nd edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Wow, that brings back some bizarre memories. I'd have to say that the few times I have found it necessary is when we start dealing with things that haven't been covered yet in Pathfinder (Like the super-technology in Numeria, speaking of which my gaming group is salivating at the release of Iron Gods in August). However, my more advanced understanding of the rules now as well as how bad they were gives me the wisdom and knowledge to "tinker" at times without screwing the game up with overpowering and underpowering. And, since I'm human and therefore fallible (just ask my wife, she'll happily agree with that last statement), if I "tinker" and screw up, I've found the best thing to do is sit everyone down, admit I screwed up, and move forward. When a GM approaches his group humbly, I've found it rare that they want to hold it against him. In addition, I believe that a GM's job is to challenge his players, create a rich, immersive world to role-play in, and give them the tools where eventually they are role-playing proactively so much that they can accidentally forget I'm there. To facilitate this, I fudge the dice sometimes. After 21 years, no one has ever caught on. They love their sessions. I change adventures constantly to better fit their characters. They never know, but they suspect. They love our sessions all the more for the changes. I facilitate fun for them. I make it better. I take all that hard work that the Pathfinder design teams do and personalize it for my players and their individual characters. I NEVER change anything until I have read everything first. Nothing worse than having the campaign path's
arch-villain get whacked in the first scene. GMing is an art form. It takes knowing the rules and your players to get it right. That takes time and love for the game. And I love this game.


Walter Sheppard wrote:

I just wanted to say that this thread brings me down a bit.

Obviously not all table experiences are amazing, but I don't see what's gained by having several pages focused on the bad ones. Game-to-game variation exists for good reason. It allows us to identify, measure, and improve how we approach this game. If you never get out of your comfort zone your style will stagnate, and you'll never experience all that PFS has to offer. You won't know what works best if you don't try new things.

I think that there's a better way to convey our opinions about GM styles that don't mesh well with society play. I think that a thread that devoted it's content to ways a GM improves their table, rather than one that points out the ways they fail, would serve the growth of our community to a much greater extent.

Lastly, I see so many posts that express a lack of appreciation for the person that has the hardest job at the table. This is always strange to me because at a fundamental level, I've never seen the role of GM as something static. It's really just that, a role, a mask any given person can put on. To read some of these harsher posts, it makes me think that some of us forget this every now and then. GMs and players are the same people at the end of the session, they just sit on opposite sides of the screen from time to time.

I don't know what all I hope to accomplish with this post, I just know I'd regret not saying anything in the future if I didn't now.

AMEN BROTHER, VERY WELL SAID


Dhjika wrote:

The key is silence - if one is able to fudge the rolls and the players do not know it - then there is less issue.

It is when the GM tells what he/she did, that some players feel like they wasted their time and others are thankful, but less proud of their accomplishment. And the fudge can be in other than roles but in tactics or even to who NPCs decide to attack.

I for one, do not consider being called a softball GM derogatory (it is a compliment) - for most people they want at least the illusion that things almost went to heck in a hand-basket - they are happier being left with 2 CON and 5 hit points than needing a ressurection spell.

If all the GM is supposed to do is roll dice and follow the numbers, then why have a GM at all. Why not have a self adventure where you flip cards and have encounters and let the rules tell you what happens.

Thank you Dhjika, nail on the head there bud


And for the record, character death is still quite common in my group, TPK's not so much

Grand Lodge

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I just wanted to say that this thread brings me down a bit.

Obviously not all table experiences are amazing, but I don't see what's gained by having several pages focused on the bad ones. Game-to-game variation exists for good reason. It allows us to identify, measure, and improve how we approach this game. If you never get out of your comfort zone your style will stagnate, and you'll never experience all that PFS has to offer. You won't know what works best if you don't try new things.

I think that there's a better way to convey our opinions about GM styles that don't mesh well with society play. I think that a thread that devoted it's content to ways a GM improves their table, rather than one that points out the ways they fail, would serve the growth of our community to a much greater extent.

Lastly, I see so many posts that express a lack of appreciation for the person that has the hardest job at the table. This is always strange to me because at a fundamental level, I've never seen the role of GM as something static. It's really just that, a role, a mask any given person can put on. To read some of these harsher posts, it makes me think that some of us forget this every now and then. GMs and players are the same people at the end of the session, they just sit on opposite sides of the screen from time to time.

I don't know what all I hope to accomplish with this post, I just know I'd regret not saying anything in the future if I didn't now.

Walter,

I understand you sentiments but disagree with your reasoning. This thread was started in all fairness, literally. Since there was a popular thread talking about how players could annoy GMs, Jiggy felt it only fair to start one from the other perspective and I have to agree. If we say it is okay to criticize the players but not the GMs then we are creating an elitist rift that I do not think is conducive to the game. My GM to Play ration is about 50% so I like to see things from both sides of the GM screen as I feel it improves me both as a player and a GM. So I appreciate this thread both as an opportunity to point out GM flaws that GMs may wish to avoid, and to see things that I may wish to avoid as a GM.

As a note, there are indeed two additional companion threads, one that promotes things players can do to impress GMs & another for ways GMs can impress their players.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Trollbill, the thread about what players do that annoys GMs is equally off-putting to me. I could have posted on that thread instead, but this one was on the front page at the time.

I do like reading the two threads that talk about ways to impress GMs and players, I just don't see the benefit of this thread and the other, aside from a place to vent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.


trollbill wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

I just wanted to say that this thread brings me down a bit.

Obviously not all table experiences are amazing, but I don't see what's gained by having several pages focused on the bad ones. Game-to-game variation exists for good reason. It allows us to identify, measure, and improve how we approach this game. If you never get out of your comfort zone your style will stagnate, and you'll never experience all that PFS has to offer. You won't know what works best if you don't try new things.

I think that there's a better way to convey our opinions about GM styles that don't mesh well with society play. I think that a thread that devoted it's content to ways a GM improves their table, rather than one that points out the ways they fail, would serve the growth of our community to a much greater extent.

Lastly, I see so many posts that express a lack of appreciation for the person that has the hardest job at the table. This is always strange to me because at a fundamental level, I've never seen the role of GM as something static. It's really just that, a role, a mask any given person can put on. To read some of these harsher posts, it makes me think that some of us forget this every now and then. GMs and players are the same people at the end of the session, they just sit on opposite sides of the screen from time to time.

I don't know what all I hope to accomplish with this post, I just know I'd regret not saying anything in the future if I didn't now.

Walter,

I understand you sentiments but disagree with your reasoning. This thread was started in all fairness, literally. Since there was a popular thread talking about how players could annoy GMs, Jiggy felt it only fair to start one from the other perspective and I have to agree. If we say it is okay to criticize the players but not the GMs then we are creating an elitist rift that I do not think is conducive to the game. My GM to Play ration is about 50% so I like to see things from both sides...

AMEN TROLLBILL ALSO VERY WELL SAID


WalterGM wrote:

Trollbill, the thread about what players do that annoys GMs is equally off-putting to me. I could have posted on that thread instead, but this one was on the front page at the time.

I do like reading the two threads that talk about ways to impress GMs and players, I just don't see the benefit of this thread and the other, aside from a place to vent.

And of course that's what this is. A place to vent. I mean seriously, I can't count the amount of times I became literally "the enemy" in the eyes of my friends because they so wanted to kill the villains I was roleplaying or because I was arguing the opposite of them on a ruling. Unfortunately, in the case of rules, there is rarely a "jury". Only, the judge/defendant and the plaintiff. As a player, that scenario is extremely annoying because, ultimately, the GM's final word is the final word. Whether they like it or not. Also, the scenario itself goes against our American idea of legal fair play. Keep in mind, these situations that are severe fun-killers and best avoided. However, every long-time player has arrived at point where they were angry at the GM for something. Can they tell the GM that? Maybe. Maybe not. For the nots, they can gripe and complain here.


What makes me sad is when Players throw the biggest fit over the smallest things that don't go their way. To me this is entitlement to the max.

Thus, what ultimately annoys me about a DM generally isn't a specific A or B, but it's a number of various things that add up until the game just isn't enjoyable.

There's a good deal I can ignore when the game overall is a good experience. A bit of heavy handed DMing and railroading? I can ignore it when the story is good and the DM is a great orator. Having heavily restrictive creation rules? I can ignore it if I know this DM is a great story teller and the pace he sets of the game is good and exciting.

"It's a game, so its not like real life and I should enjoy it" is not a valid argument to throw the baby out with the bathwater and tantrum or quit when the game isn't exactly how you want it.

I know this thread was what annoys you and not what makes you quit, but they're kind of tied in when people get annoyed with something and quit.


Well said Matt, the answer there is fun, or better yet the lack thereof which typically is the culmination of many factors, which makes or breaks the opinion of a group about their GM, in my opinion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

one good way would be to say that pockets do not exist


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm always annoyed by GMs who blame their own mistakes on the players. I've seen a few GMs let players roll up characters with some method that gives extremely high ability scores and then complain when the players kill their monsters too quickly. I also see some who will make a single monster or BBEG with no minions the final boss and then complain that it was anti-climactic when the PCs kill them in a few rounds. It's their lack of understanding about the game system that's causing the problems, but they want to put the blame on the PCs.

Liberty's Edge

I'm sad to see this was moved out of the PFS section. I'm not nearly as interested in what everyone elses' home game GM experience has been.

Also, while I know this subject has been discussed before, and IIRC, led to some angry words and hard feelings, I do tend to give more creedence to posters on this type of thread that have at least one GM star next to their name. The reason is that it provides some evidence that the poster has some experience on both sides of the GM screen. This isn't to say that it's impossible for all GM-starless posters to relate to the GM's role in PFS. However, I do get the impression that there's a small minority of players who actually CANNOT relate to the GM's role and are, frankly, whiny, entitled, selfish takers.


Interestingly enough, I think more of what I see players do in the game when GMing then what I see GMs do when playing, when posting this these threads. That happen to anyone else?


Muad'Dib wrote:
You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.

Oh, man. You actually got me to laugh out loud, dude.

Thanks for that.


I didn't see this was originally in PFS. It would explain a lot from when I was skimming the posts.


MattR1986 wrote:
I didn't see this was originally in PFS. It would explain a lot from when I was skimming the posts.

Yeah, my bad too Talbanus. I didn't catch that in the original post. I guess Matt and I should go crawl in a hole. My bad expressing the 1st Amendment. Where do I get one those cool stars? Does that make me cool enough to have a valid opinion? :-)


Jiggy wrote:

To complete the quadrilateral symmetry, what are some things that annoy you as a player (or players you've had) that the GM does?

• Wonky idea of how illusions work; I've encountered both "As soon as they see it, that's 'interacting', so they get a save" and a GM waiting for me to announce "I disbelieve" as a character action. Huh?

• The running of the scenario is clearly their first time reading it (unless weird circumstances apply; life happens).

• The GM is pretty sure that their off-the-cuff interpretation of a class ability (or whatever) that they just saw for the first time right now, is more likely to be right than the conclusion the player came to after spending time away from the table studying relevant rules and FAQs. It's different if you're aware of a rule that the player missed, but I'm talking about when the best you've got is "that seems off" or whatever, and you decide to go with your first hunch instead of the fruits of the player's study/research. Trust goes both ways, folks. This goes double for any GM who's ever said "Players need to know how their PCs work, because I can't be expected to know everything!"

Was I supposed to read it here in Jiggy's original post? Or did I mistakenly get involved in a great idea that was about PFS only? If so. honestly my bad. Maybe if I had a star I'd know better. JK (I actually know that to be the truth)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:


3. GM taking part in many and/or long side conversations with non-players. Please stop wasting everyone’s time with your side conversations. It’s you job to keep the pacing of the adventure at a pace everyone enjoys.

the moment I get paid to DM for selfentitled brats, you can make that comment. Untill then, it's not my JOB. It's a hobby, and I as DM have just as much right to fun as you do. When players are constantly going ooc, I stop listening.

sry 'bout picking out your comment, you're not the only one claiming it's a DM's job to abase himself for his players, who ofc are deities that should be served at their every whim.

it's the DM's job to take care of annoying players? really? how about the other players? a DM has enough on his plate.

(this partialy to prove I wasn't just refering to you.)

For me, there's only one thing that annoys me in a GM, and that's when he forgets that he's there for the same reason as the players, to improve eachother's chances at passing a fun and agreable evening.


Pretty sure he meant job as in its part of the dm's role. I would agree that a dm who can never keep focus or a pace is a problem.


it's part of every person at the table's role. not just the DM. Same with a lot of things people seem to push into the DM's (huge) bundle of responsabilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It really irks me when a DM can't gauge player resources, or actual difficulty of a given CR. Any time the players win a tough "boss battle" without ending in a TPK, or us running for our lives, the DM thinks they failed.

Example: The battle is over; our wizard has spent every high-to-middle level spell he has, used several scrolls, even had to melee something at some point. The Cleric is out of healing surges, and blowing through what few spells he has left to keep the Barbarian from dying next round due to Rage ending, and the resulting CON loss. Rogue is dead. Bard is bleeding out...

DM: Man, you guys steamroll everything I throw at you. I don't know how to challenge you guys anymore. I give up.

Players: "****!!!!!"

...And then we get hit with battles 5+ CR's higher than our APL. /tableflip


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple things that particularly irk me about GMs...

1) Roll fudging. I know this has been brought up on several occasions, and I have in the past encountered "lucky" dm's who have effectively gone very close to TPK after rolling way too high way too often. One of my GMs consistently fails to roll anything below a 16, and the players by and large have called him on it. This is especially true when it's some part of the story that he especially wants to happen, like a particular BBEG that is suddenly capable of making EVERY SINGLE SAVE that's thrown at him over the course of several rounds. It irks me and has made several players in my groups want to opt away from anything casty because they know the enemies will ALWAYS make the save.

2) PC-Targeting. This one comes up because if one player does something that irks a GM, either by circumventing something the GM thought was clever or by using a character the GM doesn't like. The GM then proceeds to single out that player, throwing things at the party and the player that specifically weaken their character or are designed to make their character ineffective. This often falls back on the first one as well. Ugh.

3) Overcompensation. GMs who take things too personally. If the group steamrolls an encounter one session, the next session the difficulty is so far ramped up that they barely survive a TPK.

4) This one isn't necessarily the same, and I suppose some groups might enjoy it, but I hate it... GM's who invalidate character death. This happens by handing the group a free resurrection every time someone dies. I cannot tell you how much this bothers me. It's one thing if the GM threw some kind of shenanigans at you (example: assassins just suddenly materialize while you're standing around, coup de grace you even though you aren't helpless, and then equally suddenly vanish without anyone getting a chance to react, yes this happened in a game) and so you get a free boost back to life. It's another when your party literally suffers no ill effects through dying. Not only does this remove some of the fun by making everything risk-free, but it makes character sacrifice worthless. There's no such thing as going down in a blaze of glory if come a few hours later you'll be alive again.

5) Following a little bit off 4, GMs who invalidate player choice. If someone's character dies and they want to make a new character, but their old character is forcibly ressurected and they're told they have to keep playing that one... it gets annoying. This follows through with saying "no you wouldn't do x" or "no you can't do y" simply because the GM thinks you shouldn't.

6) The biggest one, and I have the same issue with players. GMs who view the game as them vs. the players. The game is about the experience, it's not about seeing who "wins". This one is pretty much what usually leads to lots of the other issues that I have and others have, and it's when GM forgets the fundamental rule that they're there WITH the players, not AGAINST them.

6a) This is a bit of an addition in reference to Snorri's statement. I'm of the personal opinion that if anyone made a time commitment to come down, sit at the table and play together, then they should refrain from extraneous side-conversations. This applies to GMs and players alike. When I'm a player, I don't like other players or the GM doing it, and will get bored and stop paying attention. As a GM, if the players frequently ignore when I try to get the game going to stop and hold irrelevant side conversations, then I'll simply sit and wait for them to finish.


A problem I have as a GM is somehow when I'm the GM my rolls are the ones I wish I could get as a Player. Like just high rolls that are statistically unlikely. I was using the WotC dice roller thing online because I use a laptop and I just had to stop because the vast majority of the rolls were like 14+. At one point I'm like, "ok, where are my dice? This thing has to be broken or something"

Even when I started rolling in front of players I don't know how many times I've had a potential critical. One guy got lucky that the crit damage was a 1. It's fun to challenge players and make them sweat, but not to have ridiculous luck that's just trying to get you a TPK.

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Ways GMs can annoy their players All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.