Let's hear the tell-tale signs and the horror stories of bad GMs we have seen through out the years and what are the lessons we have learned by this examples of what not to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All GMs are pure goodness, I am certain you simply don't understand when he is doing something horrible to your character it IS in your best interests.
;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't there several "bad GM" threads from the past month or so? Or at least one big one?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many separate threads will it take to allow people to finally vent their spleens suitably about their personal pet peeves of the game? Weren't the other half-dozen threads giving enough opportunity to bag on GMs?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Define what a bad GM is? Is it someone who doesn't let you do what you want, or is it someone actively malicious or is it just someone you don't agree with?
Define what a bad GM is?
You can start there if you wish.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This one time, my GM pretended he was ordering a pizza, but when it came, he reached into the box and pulled out a shotgun. I barely ducked the shot and it tore a hole in the backrest of the chair I had been sitting in.
For the next ten hours he held the whole playing group hostage, demanding the SWAT negotiator provide him with a Diet Coke, a serenade from Michael Bolton, and a tuna fish sandwich.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This one time, my GM pretended he was ordering a pizza, but when it came, he reached into the box and pulled out a shotgun. I barely ducked the shot and it tore a hole in the backrest of the chair I had been sitting in.
For the next ten hours he held the whole playing group hostage, demanding the SWAT negotiator provide him with a Diet Coke, a serenade from Michael Bolton, and a tuna fish sandwich.
Obviously fake. It would have been believable if you had used Mountain Dew instead. ;D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad is subjective, but I usually think about turning tail when I hear certain things.
"We enforce alignment" or "You can't do that because your x alignment" Are also good times to consider how long I should stick. Getting told I can't do something is rough, being told I had somehow picked my characters choices for his entire life from day 1 and that I wasn't allowed to be a character with lots of different values is less than fun. I've met a few who have radically different ideas on morality than me, which hasn't done any help to me not liking alignment.
Another one is one that loves save or dies/suck or mind control and rolls from behind the screen. Ouch. Also when its done behind the screen when your doing it. Game changing moment and I can't actually see if its honest? I mean, I get I should have some trust but... there are a number of times I've found out my GM has changed the results even if it was my last ditch effort or if was a life changing experience. Feels like I got cheated and/or railroaded.
Having your class features changed is definitely a moment to consider what your dealing with. You came to play that character, but when its changed you don't know what else you can trust sometimes. Worse if they don't let you change character after.
Respect for your character! Can't tell you how many GMs I've met that have absolutely no respect for your character. Dies when your gone(sick one day and you lose you need to reroll), changes your backstory(Wait, I don't have an orc grandpa!), or they don't remember anything about you(What's your name?). Can't tell you the number of times I've had a GM forget my character's name/backstory/Reason for being in the plot and considered me entirely expendable and gave me no reason to invest myself in the game.
Not letting you reroll is another one. Especially if the expectations for the game change or they change your class features/character. Its like trying to force you to play, which isn't really something they can do. I've had a guy do that once, mentioned him in the worst thing your GM has done thread. Threw away friendship over it.
GM's girlfriend. I'm always wary about playing with a spouse or lover of some sort. Not one time that hasn't gone horribly wrong for me. Can't help but be paranoid anymore. I've had to deal with Mary Sue's and people who if I even question I'm always wrong. Just can't win sometimes.
Obviously fake. It would have been believable if you had used Mountain Dew instead. ;D
To be fair, the man was obviously crazy.(I'd have wanted Dr. Pepper myself)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would normally agree with Adamantine Dragon, but...darnit, these threads are just too entertaining! Heck, I don't care if they get the exact same posts over and over again, I'd probably still read every single one.
I may have a problem.
GM doesn't allow alcohol and gets mad when you drink their milk.
One of my old Gaming groups met in a Pub! Good times!
GM's girlfriend. I'm always wary about playing with a spouse or lover of some sort. Not one time that hasn't gone horribly wrong for me. Can't help but be paranoid anymore. I've had to deal with Mary Sue's and people who if I even question I'm always wrong. Just can't win sometimes.
I know what you mean, it can be rough. Don't give up hope though. I think GMing for my girlfriend-then-wife, made me a better GM. But you really have to understand the relationship between the people. If the significant other is going to carry a grudge, you have to know that the GM is going to do whatever it takes not to upset them. If they are more like my wife, and I know she might get frustrated, but at the end of the day she knows I am not picking on her, then you can have more trust in the GM's approach.
One really obvious example of how she made me better, was how I did multiple attacks when there are multiple possible targets.
There was a hydra that charged the party right after they entered the room with the pool of water it was hiding in. It had seven heads, so I started with the first character and rolled a d8 to see how many heads it used to attack the character. ...Seven... The first character was my wife's. Her character died before she even got a turn. Pretty damn lame. I felt horribly. Not just because it was my wife, but that made it more obvious to me.
From then on, I assign a number to each target in reach and then roll for each attack individual to see who it attacks. Statistically, this a better way to approach it anyway. We made some jokes afterwards. "If all the heads attacked the same person at the same time, would they all rush in and *BANG!* knock themselves silly."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am just going to have to conclude that I am much too easy-going and forgiving in my game play. I really just don't have any frame of reference to compare to these other stories I hear. From my perspective I have always had solid, reasonable, hard-working GMs, and the players I play with have been mature, reasonable, appreciative and thoughtful players.
I would have to look hard to find things to get upset....
Wait... maybe that's what my problem is. I don't look hard enough for things to get upset about.
Ah, heck, I think I'll just stay that way.
You know you're a bad GM when...
...You ragequit a game you're running because in a game you're playing under one of your players he didn't let you do something blatantly against the rules.
...You think Paladins using Stealth or laying traps/ambushes is an extension of the Code against lying, and causes an automatic fall.
...You let Diplomacy work on other players.
I know what you mean, it can be rough. Don't give up hope though. I think GMing for my girlfriend-then-wife, made me a better GM. But you really have to understand the relationship between the people.
Oh I understand how someone wants to impress and definitely not hurt a relationship, but as a guy on the receiving end I can't help but be a little paranoid after seeing it work against me so often. I'm sure as I get old it'll get better and I'm sure its not everyone, just something I've had gone south a bit too often.
Also, Hydra's tend to do that to parties. Its why they were a choice pick for polymorph in 3.5. Happens to everyone I think. I actually have a story about one time I used a hydra against a town the GM just randomly decided would all attack us. That's another story itself.
GM: We are using critical failures. If you roll a one, I'll decide what the most interesting result will be.
... a few critical failures later...
My Girlfriend: Another 1! I always roll these.
GM: Your character accidentally swings and ...
Me: Let me guess. Hits my character, just exactly like the other 10 times. So exciting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Signs you are a bad GM: Your players stop showing up.
GM doesn't allow alcohol and gets mad when you drink their milk.
was their last name McPoyle?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM has his party NPC that is 7 levels higher than anyone else and always has all of the right abilities to overcome every challenge. The PCs are just there to oh and ah about how awesome the character is. Of course some additional lines besides, "This foe is beyond any of you", would be nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an issue with the thread title. The GM isn't God. That isn't powerful enough.
The GM CONTROLS the Gods.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am your Gaming Operations Director.
Had a gm running us through his custom AvP. We were first level. First encounter we met the queen and nothing hurt her. We died in like 3 rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Died? Should have been cocooned, you would have made wonderful incubators. :D
I think it is a good idea for GMs to make it clear if they are going to be following a balanced encounter game design method or not. In a balanced encounter, a group should expect to overcome the challenge with reasonably good (not perfect) tactics and ability (not necessarily optimized). If there are going to be encounters that the characters have absolutely no chance against and the group is expected to flee in those cases, it should be told to them ahead of time that is a possibility.
|
And you let the person be in charge because...Red flag: GM thinks of his position as "in charge".
The GM is in charge. They are the ones who decide what you are going to be challenged by, where it will happen, etc...
To say otherwise is just silly.
So again, back to my question, I'm not letting a stranger be in charge of 4 plus hours of my time in any context without a ton of references or personal experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is in charge. They are the ones who decide what you are going to be challenged by, where it will happen, etc...
To say otherwise is just silly.
Well really, when your with a group of friends everyone is in charge. Its not your in charge, nor I'm in charge, its "We are in charge". A GM who thinks he's actually in charge can easily be a red flag. Expect table variance mind you.
Some people do play with new people, not my gig, but that's usually how I met my most horrible DMs. Some of them had people who thought they were great, but opinions vary. I tend to try and stick with just playing with close friends though, unless I'm interested in getting to know and meet other individuals. That's a time when all these red flags for gaming come up, and sometimes people are great people for one game but not so great to be around for others.
Ciretose, it should be clear by now that there is virtually nothing that you or I can say that those who perceive themselves to be on the "other side" can not and will not challenge, just for the sake, literally, of argument.
Go ahead and try to explain your statement if you like, but unless you can outlast and outtype them, you're just wasting your time.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@AD - I find that the more the other side talks, the better my position looks in the long run. Many more people come around than leave, in my experience. I don't seek to convert the preacher, but when things go unchallenged they can be mistaken for wisdom.
So win/win for me.
@Mr. Sin - When I watch a sporting event, the referee is in charge of making decisions about the rules. Beyond that, the commissioner is in charge of deciding what the rules are. These are people selected by all parties to be in charge.
Why?
Because someone needs to be in charge in such situation to make things go smoothly.
If you put someone in charge of a game as the GM, not only are they doing adjudication of the rules, but they are literally deciding what is going to happen on a given evening.
They are in charge.
If someone thinks it is a red flag to admit that the GM is in charge, that person would "red flag" to me as someone who likely has control issues.
Because if you can't admit the person who is writing the quest is in charge...
So again I ask, why would you put someone in charge who would act in a way you find so abusive and abhorrent?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, well, you've got more stamina than me. Up until recently I actively enjoyed these rhetorical battles, but for whatever reason in the last few months I've just gotten sick of people who argue just for the sake of arguing and attempt to nitpick and haggle every possible angle instead of debating the actual points. As I pointed out in one of the other threads on this subject, it's clear to me that once some of these people get engaged, the only thing that matters to them is scoring rhetorical points, even if that actually has no relevance to the actual debate.
Yeah, you're right that they may well sway lurkers in the other direction just by their ceaseless lawyering and disingenuousness. That was always my reason for engaging with them in the past.
But at least at this point in my life, I'm just fed up with the game. It's no longer entertaining to me, it just irritates me to see the tactics employed.
But if you can hang in there, more power to you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sign of a good GM:
A player offers to run a game, the GM says, "Sounds great!" the rest of the group groans a little.
Sign of a bad GM:
A player offers to run a game, the rest of the group says, "Sounds great!", the GM groans a lot.
I have played at Con's with complete strangers running the game. Some experiences have been great. Some have been humorously bad. Others have been horrendous, to the point you want to ram your head into the wall. I mean, I get why someone who has never played 3.x might be confused with something like, "The save DC is Charisma-based." But if you are running the game, you should know that you don't tell people to use the Cha instead of Con for the Fort save roll.
Still that is not going to stop me from playing at Cons, I just have a better idea of which people to avoid at the local one.
Because someone needs to be in charge in such situation to make things go smoothly.
Not the time to argue whether Hobbs Was Right, that's philosophy and bound to be argumentative.
So again I ask, why would you put someone in charge who would act in a way you find so abusive and abhorrent?
Because I'm not psychic and can't foresee the future? And if they are abusive or abhorrent I leave them? Most of my gaming horror stories do end with me leaving the group. I think your running on the assumption people don't leave groups they disagree with. There are also plenty of times a guy screws up just once, but is still your friend and you talk it out. Myriad of reasons, but likely not best to discuss.
Sign of a good GM:
A player offers to run a game, the GM says, "Sounds great!" the rest of the group groans a little.
I had a horror story about that once actually... In a nutshell; letting a random player with no common sense, phallic humor, and sociopathic tendencies run your game because "I don't know" is a terrible idea and bound to split your group.(at least in the case your last GM wasn't similar)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's hear the tell-tale signs and the horror stories of bad GMs we have seen through out the years and what are the lessons we have learned by this examples of what not to do.
*GM reads out aloud* "In the chest you find three magic items of your choice." *looks to the players* "So... what will it be?"
Player: "Uhm, I'm pretty sure the scenario is suggesting that the GM should decide..."
GM: "That's not what is says here, so what magic items do you guys want?"
Player: "...fine, I'll take a ring of three wishes."
That was a level 3 scenario that never quite recovered. :p
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played with exactly one bad GM ever.
What made him bad? Well he was using the game to sexually exploit a player.
That is the kind of GM behavior I would list as 'Bad'.
Now I have played in games, with GMs, who's style I did not not enjoy, but other people there did. My dislike of their style doesn't make them bad, it just means I didn't like playing with them.
I really wish we, as a community, could stop slagging off DMs/GMs/Keeper/Storytellers just because they have a style of running the game, we individually do not like. I understand the need to vent, but come on, this is getting silly now.
I wish even more that groups of you who think say that, GMs who stand up to your non-nonsensically over optimized fun-vampire characters that ignore any remote sense of setting or game appropriateness, are bad. Harping on about how awful they are, and patting each other on the back, saying there there, you arn't the one who tried to do something out side the spirit of the game some one crafted for you, they totally should have let your dragon riding super soldier into their street level thieves guild game.
That goes equally for people at the other end of the spectrum, if a GM is playing to the hilt, trying to kill of the party within the frame work of the rules, that doesn't make him a bad GM, it just means you don't like his style.
*Grumble, grumble, grumble.*
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sign of a HORRIBLE GM? The GM plays favorites. And I am not just talking about the GMs girlfriend here, the GMs best friend is usually an even worse basket of issues. Trust me I was once the GMs girlfriend and yes it even made me feel awkward when I got special treatment. But I also tried to play in a game where a GMs best buddy was his primary player. Talk about hot and heavy bromance! ANYTHING the player wanted he had served to him on a silver platter. When I called him out on this special treatment the GM said straight up that he doesn't care at all about any of the other players he recruited, his only job was to make sure his best friend was having a good time. We were only there as support nothing else.
|
Sign of a bad GM:
A player offers to run a game, the rest of the group says, "Sounds great!", the GM groans a lot.
Problem with that stance, is that there are people, who like me, actually prefer to GM and have spent the majority of their gaming "careers" in the GM's seat because they do not really enjoy gaming in the player's seat.
So, "groaning a lot" is not the sign of a bad GM, unless that GM was somehow able to take the GM's seat hostage and refuse to give it up...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Happiness is mandatory. The computer is my friend. I always trust friend Computer...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM doesn't allow alcohol and gets mad when you drink their milk.
Then i am a horrible GM. I don't allow alcohol at all, and if you so much as open my fridge without permission, you're out.
I also ban smoking inside of my place.
As for playing favorites with SOs. I don't see why people do it. Also, if my girlfriend is irrational enough to bear a grudge because her character suffered in a game of pretend where dice determine outcomes, i would honestly start wondering what am i doing with such a person.
|
|
Sign of a good GM:
A player offers to run a game, the GM says, "Sounds great!" the rest of the group groans a little.Sign of a bad GM:
A player offers to run a game, the rest of the group says, "Sounds great!", the GM groans a lot.
I agree with this totally.
The person running the game should be the person the group thinks will run the best game.
If that isn't what is happening, the only reasons I can think of that makes sense is that you are trying to train a back-up GM, or show someone it isn't as easy as it looks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may well be missing some great experiences. Sure, I've had some atrocious games by playing with strangers in charge, but I've also played with some great DMs and met good friends this way.
So again, back to my question, I'm not letting a stranger be in charge of 4 plus hours of my time in any context without a ton of references or personal experience.
And I'm certainly missing out on some bad ones.
4 hours of my life can be invested in many things that will bring me great amounts of happiness.
Gaming is only one of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The person running the game should be the person the group thinks will run the best game.
If that isn't what is happening, the only reasons I can think of that makes sense is that you are trying to train a back-up GM, or show someone it isn't as easy as it looks.
As usual, I have to disagree from experience. I was a player in the game houstonderek started -- it was awesome, as I expected -- and he'd let people "guest DM" some weeks to catch a break. Silverhair was one guest DM, and we had an awful lot of fun in his "Last Baron" games. Derek then came over to my game (happy to let me prep and host for a while, I think!), and Silverhair started his own game but would come to mine as well. Psychicmachinery was a player in my game before starting his own (he wanted to run straight Pathfinder), and Jess Door had her own game but was also playing in mine for a while. Mundane was a player in my game, then reciprocated by inviting me to her awesome "underwater all-stars" campaign. TOZ had his own game, but would drive like 2 hours to be in mine sometimes as well.
All of us ran good games, with overlapping groups. There's not always "one person the group thinks will run the best game." Sometimes it's "the one person who's running something that particular player really wants to play in," and most of the choices are good.
|
|
If your GM doesn't want to run, you are selecting the best option available since they aren't available.
Catch a break kind of falls under both the "train a back-up".
We've got a 4 GM rotation that tends not to rotate. I'm either then 2nd or 3rd best GM in the group depending on taste, and we all agree who is the best GM. But he gets burned out and wants to play sometimes.
We also have a few people who are great players but we learned were awful GM's during test drives. And some people who don't want to GM, so they don't run.
None of this addresses the question of why are you putting a bad GM in charge.