To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For my part, I expect very few things from a GM, and these are things I expected from myself when I ran games:

1. Know the system at least passably well.

2. Don't show favoritism towards certain players.

3. Be respectful.

4. Show up prepared to run a game.

That's it for me, I believe that's all anyone can reasonably expect from a GM. They're not professionals and are not being paid to run games, they have their own lives and other priorities, and they don't exist to cater to the whims of every player in the group.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


I wish my experiences with GMs chafing against being corrected were mostly due to being in the middle of a game and wanting to keep things moving. :/
How often do rules disagreements get settled with anything short of an FAQ on the matter? (even thats optimistic sometimes)

What's that got to do with my post?


MeanMutton wrote:


Well, they've certainly educated me and improved my understanding of a matter even if they don't resolve it for the forum.

Oh, don't get me wrong. They can be very useful. They can correct errors, engaging in the debate forces you to look up cite and thinking about other rules, and lead to official rules clarifications. I'd rather be aware of an issue and get into a contentious debate 10 times over with someone online that i PROBABLY won't wind up playing with* than once at a table with someone i'm definitely playing with.

But they're far from definitive. No amount of citation, debate, or reasoning can settle every issue for any two people disagreeing, much less (like pfs) with hundreds of people disagreeing on thousands of potential issues. The rules just aren't that clear. People are vastly more likely to walk out of a disagreement with the same position that they walked into it with than to change their minds. Expecting people to change their minds without an absolute slam dunk argument is unrealistic, and people are unrealistically optimistic about when they have a slam dunk argument.

With that in mind, I expect the DM to have a ruling based SOMEWHAT in the rules. There's a spectrum with The interpretation. An interpretation, an interpretation you could see if you were drunker, making stuff up, and crazy train. I expect the dm to wind up somewhere in the first two or supply alchohol for the third.

In all cases I expect the DM to make allowances for "how do the laws of physics work today". If I'm dming for someone that thinks you can bird on the window charm person off of an emergency force shield I have to realize that while I disagree with their position it isn't unfounded, rewind time a little, and let their character act based on how we have always been at war with east asia the laws of physics have always worked their entire life.

*though this has happened.


Harleequin wrote:
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs

You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.


Jiggy wrote:


What's that got to do with my post?

You seem to expect the DM to get the right answer. I'm trying to point out that the ability of rational argument to get someone there seems rather limited.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs
You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.

Just because its for fun doesn't mean its not a lot of work.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs
You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.

Oh, you know, to honor regular old human decency when someone puts in extra effort for the enjoyment of all...

Fortunately, my players are pretty good about it. They're all long-term players and/or GMs and know and honor the work that goes into the process.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs
You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.

I disagree somewhat. GMing does involve a good deal of work, done largely for the enjoyment of others. It's worthy of gratitude, just like a good performance from an actor or singer deserves applause despite the performer (presumably) loving what they do for its own sake.

That said, I haven't seen this trend of ingratitude that Harleequin references. On the other hand, I'm not Harleequin, and could be misunderstanding what they mean by "ingratitude". Most of the times I've seen the term used on the forums it's been referring to when a player questions a GM's ruling or some such, but hopefully that's not what Harleequin means.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm incredible ungrateful to my GMs, I drink their milk and everything.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


What's that got to do with my post?
You seem to expect the DM to get the right answer. I'm trying to point out that the ability of rational argument to get someone there seems rather limited.

Then you misunderstand what I was saying.

I was talking about when the GM doesn't even try to HAVE a rational argument (or even a polite dialogue) when questioned/corrected on a rule. The person I was replying to had noted that the middle of the game session isn't always the time to have such a discussion, and I was mentioning that, sadly, my experience of GMs not being willing to have a discussion has too often NOT been because we're in the middle of a game and not keeping things moving.

I said nothing of whether or not they arrive at the correct answer; in fact, in this whole thread, have I suggested such a thing even once? I haven't gone back and checked, but I don't think I have. Which would mean you're bringing that in on your own and ascribing it to me. Which would be pretty uncool. EDIT: Went back and checked all my posts. Never said a word even implying an expectation that GMs keep getting the right answers, and have made multiple statements in the opposite direction. So do you want to have a dialogue with ME, or am I a stand-in for some hypothetical set of beliefs you've got a beef with?

No, I was referring to things like the time I contradicted a 5-star VO in a rules thread and then received a multi-paragraph email cussing me out. Or the time I asserted that someone in the PFS GM forum got something wrong, and a different multi-star GM jumped in to tell me (and I wish this was hyperbole, but it's not) that I have no right to ever tell a GM that they're wrong. Or when a debate was already ongoing and another 5-star VO found the thread and popped in for no other reason than to name-call everyone who held a certain view (he didn't even address the topic or say why that view was wrong; he just called people names and that was the entirety of his post).

I'm not talking about needing GMs to arrive at the right answer. I'm talking about expecting GMs to at least acknowledge they might not already know all the right answers, and treat the dissenters as human beings.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:


You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.

2 reasons:

a) Because invariably the GM has shelled out a load of money on the AP stuff plus all the usual GM kit AND puts a load of time in to running a campaign, keeping track of everything, making things fun and putting up with all the nonsense

b) There is no b) because a) is so mind blowingly obvious!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.

Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
I'm incredible ungrateful to my GMs, I drink their milk and everything.

For all those that are new here or don't othwise get this reference, you missed out on a truly epic thread.

You should stop what you're doing and go find it. You can thank me later.

-Skeld


2 people marked this as a favorite.

no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful
no you should be grateful
no YOU should be grateful


TriOmegaZero wrote:

No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.

Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.

You make it sound like players are dragged kicking and screaming!

It is mine and just about everyone else who ever I've RPG'd with experience that there is ALWAYS a long line of people wanting to game and a much shorter line of those willing to GM

Im going to write the word ALWAYS again just to make double-sure my point is emphasised !! ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.

Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.

You use a very very narrow definition of gratitude. If a GM asked you to play, and you were all for it yet you acted like you were doing them a favor the whole time... everyone would think you're an a+&&%%*.

Lets try a different word, see if it gets us anywhere. Appreciative maybe?


If you play public or pickup games you're going to have different experience than family or friends games, and even in those various settings each player (and player type) will have differences in expectations and system mastery.

I've GM'd almost exclusively, and never in a public or game-shop setting. The most important thing for me is having fun with the group I'm playing with (has always been friends and family).

If I was playing in or GMing in public, I think the number one thing for everyone to keep in mind is that its still a hobby and a game. You should expect to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. But, unless you're actually paying your GM, no one really has a right to expect anything beyond "average competence", because you're taking time away from other things when you volunteer to GM. If a player thinks they can do a better job, they should certainly volunteer to run a few sessions and improve the group's enjoyment.

In my experience, even good improv GMing requires about 30-45min of prep for every hour at the table. Players may spend time outside of the game because they want to...but a GM -has to-. Even though you're volunteering, there is a level of expectation that you come prepared (even if its just average). If a player wants to leave their sheet in the car until the next session and unplug they can. A GM can never do that. Because of that extra work a GM has to put in a dose of empathy should always come before being too critical on them (and the "bad ones" might put even more time in because they may want to have everything stat'd out and written down....which is what makes them upset when the players one-shot or go off on a tangent.)

Unfortunately, it seems that on the forums the extremely bad GM's do the kind of things that prompt players to post "My GM is xxxx - What should I do?" so it often seems (based on the forums) that many of us are dealing the GM's Gone Wild.

Liberty's Edge

Harleequin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.

Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.

You make it sound like players are dragged kicking and screaming!

It is mine and just about everyone else who ever I've RPG'd with experience that there is [ALWAYS] a long line of people wanting to game and a [much] shorter line of those willing to GM

Im going to write the word [ALWAYS] again just to make double-sure my point is emphasised !! ;)

Yeah I'm generally of that mindset. The vast majority of gaming groups (even PFS) have a notable shortage of GMs (let alone GMs that make the game fun). Additionally, you'd never even get to play if you didn't have someone to GM it (which was my problem, which is why I started GMing). So I feel both as a player and as a GM, you should always be grateful for or at least appreciative of the effort that a GM puts into making the game fun, and should give them the benefit of the doubt on their mistakes especially when they are open to feedback and willing to correct themselves after.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Harleequin wrote:
You make it sound like players are dragged kicking and screaming!

No, I don't. Any more than you make it sound like they begged and pleaded for their benevolent GM to grace them with a game.

Shadow Lodge

hasteroth wrote:
You use a very very narrow definition of gratitude.

I wasn't the one to define it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
In my experience, even good improv GMing requires about 30-45min of prep for every hour at the table. Players may spend time outside of the game because they want to...but a GM -has to-. Even though you're volunteering, there is a level of expectation that you come prepared (even if its just average). If a player wants to leave their sheet in the car until the next session and unplug they can. A GM can never do that. Because of that extra work a GM has to put in a dose of empathy should always come before being too critical on them (and the "bad ones" might put even more time in because they may want to have everything stat'd out and written down....which is what makes them upset when the players one-shot or go off on a tangent.)

I can tell you from experience, and my old home group can confirm... Every time I ran a session on the fly it was awful. Like it was still fun and everyone enjoyed it, but it was a lot slower and a lot less coherent. Usually this would happen some of the time where last second 2 or more players couldn't make it to play, especially if one had a social role or the next section of the adventure was very important, so I'd pull a one-off session out of my ass and we'd play with pre-gens (or side characters some players had prepared). A couple of times it was our main adventure I was unprepared for, but the players were warned days in advance that I wasn't going to have time to prepare... and every time they said they were cool with it.

Heck I've even seen players get angry with GMs in PFS who stepped up at the last moment (since no GM signed up) to run a session, these GMs had no opportunity to prepare and in some cases were first time GMs... but the players set unreasonably high expectations for what is obviously going to be a less than perfectly run session. And the session definitely wouldn't have happened if nobody stepped up. I never had this happen with my home group, as they were all understanding of how things go in this situation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think of like someone saying "Hey, want to get dinner. My treat." And then saying "I don't need to be grateful. I didn't ask you to."

Now, if they're actually trying to use that to get something out of you, the gratitude goes away quickly, but just not asking doesn't change the situation that much.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

All I ask is:
1)Story is good.
2) Rulings make sense.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
You make it sound like players are dragged kicking and screaming!
No, I don't. Any more than you make it sound like they begged and pleaded for their benevolent GM to grace them with a game.

Irrelevant.

Who puts more time into a gaming session, an individual player or the GM?

Who has put out more money for the game, the GM or each individual player?

Which is easier to find, a GM or a player?

I've been playing RPGs since 1978, and during that entire time, there have always been far more people interested in playing than people interested in running a game.

In my experience, if a GM is even halfway decent, there are always more people asking to play with that GM than the table has slots. My current group meets at a gaming store since it's a central location and they serve deli sandwiches. Almost every week a complete stranger will come up to our table and ask if there are spaces for another player. Nobody has ever, in five years playing at this location, come up and offered to be a GM for our group.

In fact, over the last five years, I have stated repeatedly that I would love to have a chance to play myself, yet not one single person in the group (that has consisted of about a dozen people over that time) has ever stepped up to do it. Now, I don't blame them; if they wouldn't have any fun doing it, then they shouldn't.

Luckily, the lack of other people being willing to GM is my only complaint with them. I find it very gratifying that at the end of each session, they all say, "Thanks for running this week." Just that little bit of appreciation helps make the hours of work (and hundreds of dollars I've spent on books and such) worth it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Saldiven wrote:
Irrelevant.

As is yours.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Irrelevant.
As is yours.

I am slain by your incredible wit and astounding verbal gymnastics. I don't understand how anyone can withstand the strength of your debate skills. [/sarcasm]

I'm still waiting for a single legitimate reason why players shouldn't show a very basic amount of courtesy towards their GM by acknowledging the amount of time and effort the GM puts into running a campaign.

{Am beginning to suspect I'm feeding a troll.}

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no need or interest in convincing you of anything. No one has suggested players shouldn't show gratitude, so I don't know why you would expect that reasoning.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
hasteroth wrote:
Heck I've even seen players get angry with GMs in PFS who stepped up at the last moment (since no GM signed up) to run a session, these GMs had no opportunity to prepare and in some cases were first time GMs... but the players set unreasonably high expectations for what is obviously going to be a less than perfectly run session.

I once sat down to a PFS table, and the GM announced that he has just started playing PFS very recently, and today was his very first time GMing, so he requested patience. We'll call him Gary the GM.

One of the other players is someone we'll call Paul the Player.

In one of the early encounters of the scenario, Gary accidentally skip's Paul's first turn in initiative—an error even the most experienced GMs still make from time to time, as there's a lot to keep track of. Immediately, Paul is on his feet, waving his arms in the air, rolling his eyes, audibly sighing, and reaching over and handling the GM's combat pad while explaining Gary's error.

Later in the same session, Gary is drawing out the map for another encounter, and suddenly Paul announces that—having run this scenario himself in the past—the door is actually one square over from where it was drawn. Again with the standing and eye-rolling and overreacting from Paul.

Sad part is, Paul is himself a veteran GM (across multiple editions, if I'm not mistaken) and even helped coordinate PFS game days at one of the local venues. A pillar of the local PFS community, as it were.

I wish I'd stood up to him and said something, but his belligerence was somewhat intimidating. I feel really bad for the GM. (I also feel really bad for Paul's teenage daughter, who was also at the table, and behaving much more maturely).

Anyway, the point is: Yes, give some slack to newbies and last-minutes (and really, to everybody). Don't be like "Paul".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Saldiven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
You make it sound like players are dragged kicking and screaming!
No, I don't. Any more than you make it sound like they begged and pleaded for their benevolent GM to grace them with a game.
Irrelevant.

Huh? Irrelevant to what?

Someone said "You make it sound like X", he said "No I don't".

What exactly do you think you just saw in that dialogue, anyway?


TOZ wrote:
I have no need or interest in convincing you of anything. No one has suggested players shouldn't show gratitude, so I don't know why you would expect that reasoning.

I think you logged in under the wrong username ;))

TOZ = TriOmegaZero

Hmmmmm.....

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:
I think you logged in under the wrong username ;))

I have to post under this alias just enough to keep it at a certain percentage of my posts. This is in order to keep the hovertext that pops up over the username as 'TriOmegaZero aka TOZ'. It can be confusing for new users around here, I know. You'll notice that main user names are blue and aliases are maroon.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I have no need or interest in convincing you of anything. No one has suggested players shouldn't show gratitude, so I don't know why you would expect that reasoning.

I think you logged in under the wrong username ;))

TOZ = TriOmegaZero

Hmmmmm.....

That's his alias for when he's speaking with a certain tone. You get used to it after a while.

Back on topic(ish), Harleequin, what specifically do you mean by "ingratitude" in the context of your earlier statement that you see a lot of ingratitude from players toward GMs? What specific behaviors do you believe should be there that aren't (or shouldn't be there but are)? I want to clarify because I've seen people discuss the topic of "gratitude" toward GMs with meanings ranging from saying "thanks" after a session to questioning one of the GM's decisions. Don't want to assume what you mean. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
That's his alias for when he's speaking with a certain tone.

I think I've kind of gotten my tone muddled. I've been trying to move toward more neutral language in my posts, but habits don't change overnight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.

Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.

You make it sound like players are dragged kicking and screaming!

It is mine and just about everyone else who ever I've RPG'd with experience that there is ALWAYS a long line of people wanting to game and a much shorter line of those willing to GM

Im going to write the word ALWAYS again just to make double-sure my point is emphasised !! ;)

Statistics being what they are I'm sure someone will dispute your "always"....

However, I agree with you. Between the forums and "Mail-bag" on several pod-casts I listen to I have heard -0- people ask "I'm a GM in X, I've been trying to get a game started for weeks/months but I just can't find anyone to play with."

On the contrary - lots of players lamenting - "Our GM moved...or I moved to a new town and I can't find a group to game with...any recommendations??"

It would seem then that the norm for anyone willing to GM is they will quickly have more people asking to play than they can handle. That was my experience GMing in college as well. Once word spread we had a game in our dorm, lots of folks I didn't know swung by asking if there was "room for just 1 more PC..please???"

I personally think a lot more people are capable of GMing, its just taking that plunge to run your first session and getting the bug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
Heck I've even seen players get angry with GMs in PFS who stepped up at the last moment (since no GM signed up) to run a session, these GMs had no opportunity to prepare and in some cases were first time GMs... but the players set unreasonably high expectations for what is obviously going to be a less than perfectly run session.

I once sat down to a PFS table, and the GM announced that he has just started playing PFS very recently, and today was his very first time GMing, so he requested patience. We'll call him Gary the GM.

One of the other players is someone we'll call Paul the Player.

In one of the early encounters of the scenario, Gary accidentally skip's Paul's first turn in initiative—an error even the most experienced GMs still make from time to time, as there's a lot to keep track of. Immediately, Paul is on his feet, waving his arms in the air, rolling his eyes, audibly sighing, and reaching over and handling the GM's combat pad while explaining Gary's error.

Later in the same session, Gary is drawing out the map for another encounter, and suddenly Paul announces that—having run this scenario himself in the past—the door is actually one square over from where it was drawn. Again with the standing and eye-rolling and overreacting from Paul.

Sad part is, Paul is himself a veteran GM (across multiple editions, if I'm not mistaken) and even helped coordinate PFS game days at one of the local venues. A pillar of the local PFS community, as it were.

I wish I'd stood up to him and said something, but his belligerence was somewhat intimidating. I feel really bad for the GM. (I also feel really bad for Paul's teenage daughter, who was also at the table, and behaving much more maturely).

Anyway, the point is: Yes, give some slack to newbies and last-minutes (and really, to everybody). Don't be like "Paul".

This stinks, and it doesn't take much of this kind of behavior to not only ensure Gary never GM's again....but also that every other player at the table goes home that night thinking - "wow...that's why I will never GM. who needs that abuse?"

Hopefully "Paul" was just having a bad day and let it slip out there.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
Hopefully "Paul" was just having a bad day and let it slip out there.

The next time I shared a table with "Paul", he was GMing. He was visibly irritated that my 4th (5th?) level bard was succeeding on Diplomacy checks with DCs in the neighborhood of 12-14. When Paul the GM announced that the party was now opening such-and-such a door, a player said he wanted to be standing a certain place before we opened it, and Paul interjected with "There's a time to optimize, and there's a time to play the game" (he didn't let the player stand there). When a PC was going to reach the BBEG sooner than anticipated, what had previously been stairs suddenly became very steep stairs. When that didn't reduce the PC's movement enough to keep them from getting to the BBEG that turn, the freshly-steepened stairs morphed into a ladder (quartering the PC's speed, per the Climb rules).

Things like that permeated the entire session. Even my wife (who didn't really get the rules and was therefore playing a character I built for her) could tell he was twisting things and generally trying to screw the PCs at every opportunity. At the end of the session, she immediately got up and made a bee-line to the other end of the store. Once I'd packed up our stuff and caught up with her, she explained that she just desperately needed to get out of his presence because he was so palpably nasty. We then spent the next hour playing a random demo game off the store's shelf just so she could go on with her day. :/


GM 1990 wrote:
It would seem then that the norm for anyone willing to GM is they will quickly have more people asking to play than they can handle.

Definitely true, especially online. I posted a game with 6 slots for players and received over 80 applications.

GM 1990 wrote:
I personally think a lot more people are capable of GMing, its just taking that plunge to run your first session and getting the bug.

Agreed. Successful campaigns are built on graveyards of unsuccessful campaigns.

As far as the whole gratitude angle, when I am lucky enough to be a player I always try to say thanks to the GM at the end of each session. I know how much work is involved in GMing, and I like to show my appreciation for the GM spending the time to do so.

I think this goes beyond gaming though, as it seems a lot of younger people find saying "thank you" to somehow place themselves in an indebted position or something.

I base this around the fact that whenever someone suggests to them that they should say thank you, they have an attitude of "If the person didn't want to do the thing, then they shouldn't have done it."

Completely missing the point that saying thank you is simply a common courtesy, not something that makes a person submissive or weaker or whatever the concern is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

A horrible experience...

:/

...yuck....stuff like that makes you wonder why the DMG didn't also include a section on GM types, to go with the section on player types (even if it was a little satirical). GM Winner; Monty-haul; Rule's Nazi; Shambling Mound; Sick Call.

In PFS do you just fall in on an open chair or do you typically game with the same table?

The fact that someone like that would continue to run games, seems to reinforce that there are lines of players looking for a GM and as long as you're setting up a screen (no matter how bad you are), you can get some walk-on's that'll play, even if only for 1 session.

Hopefully the Pauls are at an extreme end of the bell-curve, even if they get more press than the good GMs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damn Jiggy, I don't normally recommend rolled up newspapers for the Players but...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
In PFS do you just fall in on an open chair or do you typically game with the same table?

Since there are rules about minimum/maximum table size, PC levels for a given adventure, and so forth; there's generally some amount of scheduling/mustering that happens. For example, my area uses MeetUp.com to schedule events, announce tables, and get RSVPs. Then the coordinators of a given event put people at appropriate tables as best they can. My understanding is that this is fairly typical.

With a medium-sized local PFS scene, this means that there will be "regulars" whom you'll game with repeatedly (though not necessarily consecutively) mixed with newbies and once-in-a-whiles.

Quote:
The fact that someone like that would continue to run games, seems to reinforce that there are lines of players looking for a GM and as long as you're setting up a screen (no matter how bad you are), you can get some walk-on's that'll play, even if only for 1 session.

Yep. That's why I was saying upthread that "vote with your feet" is BS.

Quote:
Hopefully the Pauls are at an extreme end of the bell-curve, even if they get more press than the good GMs.

He's definitely one of my most extreme examples, but on the other hand, I didn't quit PFS over one person.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
In one of the early encounters of the scenario, Gary accidentally skip's Paul's first turn in initiative—an error even the most experienced GMs still make from time to time, as there's a lot to keep track of. Immediately, Paul is on his feet, waving his arms in the air, rolling his eyes, audibly sighing, and reaching over and handling the GM's combat pad while explaining Gary's error.

I've lost track of the number of times I've seen players' turns accidentally skipped (or been skipped, or done it myself as GM). Its such a common (and easy to make) error that I don't get why anyone really gets angry about it, in most cases where multiple players went before a player realized they were skipped I've even seen the GM let the player retroactively take their turn (and if something gets killed by that (before counting damage dealt by other players after), anything they did after that point is undone).

Seriously Paul is a dick, I'm also reminded of one PFS session I played where the GM was GMing for the first time and had no time to prepare (last second step-up)... yet this one player was constantly trying to corner the GM with things that'd force him to improvise (and not just dialogue, I mean improvise half the bloody scenario). I tried to explain to the player that PFS is sometimes railroady, and that he should just roll with it as the GM doesn't have the freedom to go off the rails in a lot of situations. He even tried to do a couple things that are generally not allowed thematically like casting Zone of Truth in a court room, the GM wasn't sure what to do and I had to step in to explain that the peasants and nobles don't know what kind of magic that is and for all they know you're charming the suspect and forcing him to say what you want. It's not a church inquisition, its a village court full of superstitious people. This player became visibly angry at this. The worst part? He's been playing PFS for years and is well aware of how railroady it can be, so the only conclusion I could draw was that he was being belligerent on purpose.


Jiggy wrote:

The fact that someone like that would continue to run games, seems to reinforce that there are lines of players looking for a GM and as long as you're setting up a screen (no matter how bad you are), you can get some walk-on's that'll play, even if only for 1 session.

Yep. That's why I was saying upthread that "vote with your feet" is BS.

Its not bs. Compare your most inveterate rules lawyer DM to the most inveterate rules lawyer player. If the DM was trying to pull HALF of what the worst player was without any sort of check and balance the entire party would be dead.

I'm not saying that there's no terrible DMs, I'm saying that the bar is usually a little higher. Not as high as we'd like sometimes but you take what you can get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.

Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.

Except it requires ZERO effort to play and alot of effort to run a campaign. Let's look at this another way: let's say you and your friends always wanted to go to Vegas, and one of your friends takes it upon himself to arrange a trip. He books all the flights, books the hotel rooms, buys tickets to a show you all wanted to see, etc. Sure, he had a good time and you guys paid him back for flight, hotel and all that, and sure, nobody ASKED him to do that, but would you really not say thank you to the guy??

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Except it requires ZERO effort to play

My time investment is not zero effort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Except it requires ZERO effort to play
My time investment is not zero effort.

Ok you do have a point there, but a time investment is not the same as a work investment.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Except it requires ZERO effort to play
My time investment is not zero effort.

In most cases, you deciding not to play doesn't mean the end of the game, especially in PFS where most of the time players are a dime a dozen. Whereas if your GM bails, the session nine times out of ten doesn't happen.

You don't have to play, nobody is forcing you to. You can bail and everyone else can still play. A player only has to play insofar as it enables themself to have fun. Whereas the GM not running the session means none of the players get to have fun playing, someone has to GM. GMing requires considerably more time, effort, and commitment than being a player does. The GM is the one who makes it happen, whether you asked or not he doesn't have to run the game, but if he doesn't run it you don't get to play.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
In most cases, you deciding not to play doesn't mean the end of the game

But my deciding TO play is an opportunity cost on MY part.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A GM puts work into GMing, or the results are generally poor. A player only puts in time into the campaign outside the sessions if he or she wants to. If the player doesn't, nothing bad happens. In at least some cases, a player who puts in a lot of time between sessions then uses the newfound rules loopholes to disrupt the campaign.

Don't try to frame it as the players doing the GM a favour. You know, if you have GMed, how much work it is. Sure, it is done because the GM wants to do it... but the GM also assumed the responsibility for doing that work over a long time specifically to entertain the players. It IS a commitment worthy of respect. Whether you see that or not speaks mostly of you. Calling it an opportunity cost would likely mean I would prefer to see you do something else as well, if it was my campaign.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Don't try to frame it as the players doing the GM a favour.

Don't worry. I'm not.

Sissyl wrote:
It IS a commitment worthy of respect.

Who here has said otherwise? Respect is not a zero-sum game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always tell my players thank you at the end of a game. :-)

51 to 100 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.