You might be a bad GM if...


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

mrspaghetti wrote:
I am a little disappointed that there is not universal and unequivocal agreement on point #4

I don’t like #4 because it’s too specific to be generally useful. What about five minutes after start time? What about right at start time? would it be okay to show up 10 minutes after the start time if you weren’t the last one to arrive? Would you consider a GM “late” if they showed up 10 minutes before the game started? Cause I would.

I’m sure that most would agree that consistently showing up 10 minutes late would be bad behavior, but so what? That’s like saying it would be bad to punch a player. Of course it would be bad. We really shouldn’t have to mention it. It’s more productive to avoid overly specific language and be a bit more generally positive. Something like, the sign of a good GM is arriving early enough to the game to be prepared to start on time and allow some time to help players who may need help with their character sheet, game rules, registering as a new player, or just having a few minutes for social pleasantries.”

That eliminates the specific time issue that will be argued to death and provides some guidelines for what a GM should be doing. You get the same result without the possible pushback because you opinion on when a GM would be considered late does not jive with their thoughts of same


TwilightKnight wrote:
I’m sure that most would agree that consistently showing up 10 minutes late would be bad behavior, but so what? That’s like saying it would be bad to punch a player.

Not quite, since I suspect some of us have seen the former, while the latter pretty much doesn't happen ever.

Edit: And it's an example, written with the aim of getting universal agreement that, "yeah, that would be bad". I'm glad you agree on that one.

Grand Lodge

mrspaghetti wrote:
it's an example, written with the aim of getting universal agreement that, "yeah, that would be bad". I'm glad you agree on that one.

But to what end? You could just as easily said an hour late, or 30 minutes, or not show up at all. Hell, in most cases i would consider them late if the GM shows up 10 minutes prior to the start. I just don’t see how pointing out the obvious is helpful to anyone.

My experience tells me it is as likely that a physical fight will break out at a game as having a GM consistently show up 10 minutes or more late to the game. Neither would be tolerated. Unless you are saying a GM is bad if they EVER show up to a game 10 minutes late. That is significantly different and would get much, much less support.

I kinda feel like this thread was meant to be a take on the “Don’t be a Redneck” routine, but no one is getting the joke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:


But to what end? You could just as easily said an hour late, or 30 minutes, or not show up at all. Hell, in most cases i would consider them late if the GM shows up 10 minutes prior to the start. I just don’t see how pointing out the obvious is helpful to anyone.

My experience tells me it is as likely that a physical fight will break out at a game as having a GM consistently show up 10 minutes or more late to the game. Neither would be tolerated. Unless you are saying a GM is bad if they EVER show up to a game 10 minutes late. That is significantly different and would get much, much less support.

I kinda feel like this thread was meant to be a take on the “Don’t be a Redneck” routine, but no one is getting the joke.

I've never seen a physical fight break out at a game, but I've had a GM who was consistently more than 10 minutes late. And I've had a GM who generally needed at least a half an hour past start-time to read the material, download images, etc. I've had a GM who doesn't bother to learn the rules, as they can just look them up during the session.

There are people who simply don't recognize when they are wasting other people's time. Or maybe they simply process ideas about time and social contracts differently than I do.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe we need to get less controversial.

You might be a bad GM IF:

(1) You claim to be rolling your dice behind a screen, but all the players can clearly see you do not have any dice.

(2) Your players have a tendency to quit role-playing games forever after one session.

(3) Having multiple players die per session is normal and expected for you. Sometimes their characters die as well.

(4) You consistently arrive more than four hours late without prior warning.

(5) You never read any of the material you are supposedly running.

(6) Most of your sessions are non-interactive and the players do not get a chance to speak.

(7) You hear a constant wailing and gnashing of teeth from the players as they slowly descend into madness.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Maybe we need to get less controversial.

You might be a bad GM IF:

(1) You claim to be rolling your dice behind a screen, but all the players can clearly see you do not have any dice.

(2) Your players have a tendency to quit role-playing games forever after one session.

(3) Having multiple players die per session is normal and expected for you. Sometimes their characters die as well.

(4) You consistently arrive more than four hours late without prior warning.

(5) You never read any of the material you are supposedly running.

(6) Most of your sessions are non-interactive and the players do not get a chance to speak.

(7) You hear a constant wailing and gnashing of teeth from the players as they slowly descend into madness.

I see nothing wrong here.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Maybe we need to get less controversial.

You might be a bad GM IF:

(1) You claim to be rolling your dice behind a screen, but all the players can clearly see you do not have any dice.

(2) Your players have a tendency to quit role-playing games forever after one session.

(3) Having multiple players die per session is normal and expected for you. Sometimes their characters die as well.

(4) You consistently arrive more than four hours late without prior warning.

(5) You never read any of the material you are supposedly running.

(6) Most of your sessions are non-interactive and the players do not get a chance to speak.

(7) You hear a constant wailing and gnashing of teeth from the players as they slowly descend into madness.

No7 makes an awesome GM for a Cthulu session though... potentially No3 as well, nothing to get some elder blood boiling than a few human sacrifices...

Silver Crusade

mrspaghetti wrote:


For example, I am a little disappointed that there is not universal and unequivocal agreement on point #4.

Its a poor trait but it certainly does not make a bad GM.

Locally (back when games happened in a store) there was one GM who tried hard to make it on time but generally failed (not their fault. They left their job as soon as they could and came to the store as quickly as possible).

Does that make the GM a bad GM? Of course not. All other things being equal I'd have preferred an equally good GM who could always be on time. Things weren't equal and I (and the other players) were quite happy to have him GM even though a little tardy. It (greatly) helped that he was a reasonably quick GM and so the game nearly always FINISHED on time

And that is the problem with lists. There are ALWAYS exceptions, even in the (very few) cases where we mostly agree that something is a poor thing


pauljathome wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not think there is such a thing as a universally objectively bad GM.

I actually think that they do exist (I've run under somebody who I think to be one :-(). But they're SO rare and SO bad that they're very much the exception that proves the rule.

The GM I'm thinking of was on some kind of power trip and actively and maliciously went out of their way to punish characters AND players to show that THEY were in control. Totally ignoring the rules in the process (maliciously changing them during the session).

I feel really sorry for you and the rest of the party.

Silver Crusade

HumbleGamer wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not think there is such a thing as a universally objectively bad GM.

I actually think that they do exist (I've run under somebody who I think to be one :-(). But they're SO rare and SO bad that they're very much the exception that proves the rule.

The GM I'm thinking of was on some kind of power trip and actively and maliciously went out of their way to punish characters AND players to show that THEY were in control. Totally ignoring the rules in the process (maliciously changing them during the session).

I feel really sorry for you and the rest of the party.

We're Canadian and so generally polite :-). As a result, we stood for it longer than we should have. Still less than an entire session, mind :-).

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the opinions on this thread (I'm quite deliberately NOT quoting people) seem to me to come down to

"I the player expect the GM to do more work than the GM is prepared to do, and the GM is being a bad GM for not living up to my expectations"

That is one major reason that this thread is an awful idea. While one possible outcome of this thread may be to convince the GM to do more work, an outcome that seems to me to be at LEAST as likely is that it is going to cause the GM to decide that they're just being underappreciated, that too much is being asked of them, that since they're a bad GM they should just quit and let somebody else GM.

People don't like being criticized, even by strangers. Especially if they feel like they're being criticized for not spending enough time on a hobby.

And flipping it around to positive makes little difference as far as I'm concerned. Telling somebody that they're a bad GM is only slightly worse than telling them that they're not a good GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Why is this thread in a PF2 forum? Nothing discussed here is particular to any single game system.

Flagged to move to a more appropriate forum.


David knott 242 wrote:

Why is this thread in a PF2 forum? Nothing discussed here is particular to any single game system.

Flagged to move to a more appropriate forum.

In the very first post the ts says that it is mostly about his PFS experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Maybe we need to get less controversial.

You might be a bad GM IF:

(1) You claim to be rolling your dice behind a screen, but all the players can clearly see you do not have any dice.

(2) Your players have a tendency to quit role-playing games forever after one session.

(3) Having multiple players die per session is normal and expected for you. Sometimes their characters die as well.

(4) You consistently arrive more than four hours late without prior warning.

(5) You never read any of the material you are supposedly running.

(6) Most of your sessions are non-interactive and the players do not get a chance to speak.

(7) You hear a constant wailing and gnashing of teeth from the players as they slowly descend into madness.

Now THIS is a great list, and more of the Foxworthy style that the OP says they were aiming for.

(8) Instead of dice, you deal from a deck of cards for players to find out if they succeed at a task or not. The cards are blank, except of course for the Jokers.


pauljathome wrote:

Some of the opinions on this thread (I'm quite deliberately NOT quoting people) seem to me to come down to

"I the player expect the GM to do more work than the GM is prepared to do, and the GM is being a bad GM for not living up to my expectations"

That is one major reason that this thread is an awful idea. While one possible outcome of this thread may be to convince the GM to do more work, an outcome that seems to me to be at LEAST as likely is that it is going to cause the GM to decide that they're just being underappreciated, that too much is being asked of them, that since they're a bad GM they should just quit and let somebody else GM.

People don't like being criticized, even by strangers. Especially if they feel like they're being criticized for not spending enough time on a hobby.

And flipping it around to positive makes little difference as far as I'm concerned. Telling somebody that they're a bad GM is only slightly worse than telling them that they're not a good GM.

Seems an odd stance. I thought we are on a forum where people are kinda allowed to speak their opinion?


pauljathome wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:


For example, I am a little disappointed that there is not universal and unequivocal agreement on point #4.
Its a poor trait but it certainly does not make a bad GM.

Sure it does.

pauljathome wrote:


Locally (back when games happened in a store) there was one GM who tried hard to make it on time but generally failed (not their fault. They left their job as soon as they could and came to the store as quickly as possible).

Does that make the GM a bad GM? Of course not. All other things being equal I'd have preferred an equally good GM who could always be on time. Things weren't equal and I (and the other players) were quite happy to have him GM even though a little tardy. It (greatly) helped that he was a reasonably quick GM and so the game nearly always FINISHED on time

Yes, because the starting time is something they are not able to meet. Realizing that is part of being a leader and frankly Gming is a leader type role for the group.

If they start late, but finish on time something was left on the floor.

pauljathome wrote:


And that is the problem with lists. There are ALWAYS exceptions, even in the (very few) cases where we mostly agree that something is a poor thing

Am exception does not invalidate a list of issues.

Sorry, if I eat a cookie 19 times then eat 1 donut. That doesn't invalidate my like of cookies.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Locally (back when games happened in a store) there was one GM who tried hard to make it on time but generally failed (not their fault. They left their job as soon as they could and came to the store as quickly as possible)

I would say that this GM was not late because their arrival time was well-known and accommodated. So it established a new "start time" for the game. If I was to organize an event and stated it started at noon, but one of my regular GMs was not able to arrive at that time and everyone in the community knew the game would actually start at 12:30, then the start time is not noon, its 12:30pm. IMO, being late is when the expectation of everyone involved is one time and the GM (or player) arrives after that time.


TwilightKnight wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Locally (back when games happened in a store) there was one GM who tried hard to make it on time but generally failed (not their fault. They left their job as soon as they could and came to the store as quickly as possible)
I would say that this GM was not late because their arrival time was well-known and accommodated. So it established a new "start time" for the game. If I was to organize an event and stated it started at noon, but one of my regular GMs was not able to arrive at that time and everyone in the community knew the game would actually start at 12:30, then the start time is not noon, its 12:30pm. IMO, being late is when the expectation of everyone involved is one time and the GM (or player) arrives after that time.

Private game, agree. PFS, not so much.

Grand Lodge

Ten10 wrote:
Yes, because the starting time is something they are not able to meet. Realizing that is part of being a leader and frankly Gming is a leader type role for the group.

Okay, you are the event organizer. You know one of your regular GMs cannot arrive at the scheduled start time because of their work schedule. It is not a one-off issue, it will be consistent and ongoing. What do you do?


TwilightKnight wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Yes, because the starting time is something they are not able to meet. Realizing that is part of being a leader and frankly Gming is a leader type role for the group.
Okay, you are the event organizer. You know one of your regular GMs cannot arrive at the scheduled start time because of their work schedule. It is not a one-off issue, it will be consistent and ongoing. What do you do?

Schedule it for when the GM can actually be there, of course. People signing up for PFS cannot be expected to know that noon actually means 12:30.

Grand Lodge

mrspaghetti wrote:
Schedule it for when the GM can actually be there, of course. People signing up for PFS cannot be expected to know that noon actually means 12:30.

Then maybe you missed the part where I specifically said, "their arrival time was well-known and accommodated" and "everyone in the community knew."

If a GM is consistently arriving late and the organizer continues to allow it happen without any followup, some might say that's a "bad" GM. I would say that's a "bad" organizer. These things don't happen in a vacuum.


I have a GM in my gaming group who ticks a few boxes: Often late, often under prepared. We all know about it. We still play with him. He makes up for it in other areas (he GMs a lot, he organizes a lot).

In my opinion, a "good" GM is one who GMs. There are in general way more players than GMs. GMing asks for a lot of work. Actually, even a "bad" GM generally works more to prepare a session than any of his players. I won't say that GMing should get you praised, but I think it's counterproductive to criticize GMs. There are rarely enough of them.

Silver Crusade

TwilightKnight wrote:
some might say that's a "bad" GM. I would say that's a "bad" organizer.

And I'd say its not necessarily either


So since the OP said he based this mostly on his PFS experience, not stating if that was 1st edition experience or 2nd edition, can we get this moved to the Society section as the discussion doesn't seem to pertain to 2nd edition at all?

And since it doesn't pertain to Pathfinder 2nd edition directly, even though it is in the Pathfinder Second Edition Section, can I talk about Chronicles of Darkness and how it completely throws out one of the threads talking points regarding drawing maps ahead of time. No maps means no drawing ahead of time.

Since we aren't talking about Pathfinder 2nd edition directly that's okay right? Sense this seems to be talking about either being a bad GM in the general sense without attributing the talk to a specific system or talking about being a bad GM for PFS without stating which edition or how this thread applies to Pathfinder 2nd edition.

Grand Lodge

Is there an edition-neutral forum? I agree this is more of a general GM evaluation that has no direct connection to an edition of Pathfinder, Starfinder, or any 3PP campaign.


Specific to this edition I'd say continuing to do surprise rounds, and doing opposed roles to have an enemy sneak up on a party (both happened to me during a game at Gencon)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I have a GM in my gaming group who ticks a few boxes: Often late, often under prepared. We all know about it. We still play with him. He makes up for it in other areas (he GMs a lot, he organizes a lot).

In my opinion, a "good" GM is one who GMs. There are in general way more players than GMs. GMing asks for a lot of work. Actually, even a "bad" GM generally works more to prepare a session than any of his players. I won't say that GMing should get you praised, but I think it's counterproductive to criticize GMs. There are rarely enough of them.

I agree with superbidi. GMing should be encouraged. If you wanna help make GMs better I suggest a thread of discussing different strategies for prep/style and player relations. That way you help GMs who are looking to improve and don't dishearten GMs who aren't looking to change (and might very well have players that enjoy their style).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, the only truly bad traits a gm can have are closed mindedness or apathy. Which are also bad traits for pretty much anyone you ever want to do anything socially with.

That being said, if a player EXPECTS a gm to have read the entire adventure, I would argue that the player has such extreme needs and is so deeply invested in the hobby that you would think they found the right GM for them by now.

Or perhaps their listing of things they EXPECT someone else to do with their time has pushed people away and that's why they need the list in the first place.

I realize this comment may come off as inflammatory, but I think it needs to be said. Most people simply dont spend that much time on the hobby and a lot of posts ITT seem disconnected from reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.


Temperans wrote:
Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.

Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ten10 wrote:
Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.

Having read the entire AP before running isn’t required to make those changes though, the same effect can be achieved by working through the sections you are about to run, tailoring to your group as of that point in time and taking notes about the changes you made so that those changes will be reflected moving forward.

If we only ever ran an AP after reading all volumes - then AP’s wouldn’t get run until the end of the Publishing cycle and Paizo should stop breaking them into pieces and release them whole cloth.

This is one of the many reasons a conversation like this about the quality of GM’s is ultimately unproductive, because we all tend to come from the approach that our preferred style is an objectively correct style and we defend choices based on that premise.


It's only bad if one doesn't bother preparing in the least


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also want to point out that as a player you must know every single action you want to perform.

This sounds simple, but for more circumstantial actions like "grab an edge", "shove", etc, there are a lot of times that the player declares the action and expects the GM to know everything by heart.

The gm already has to read/know a lot more than the player, so at the very least, if you want to try something, learn how it works first and dont pile your own responsibilities to the already loaded GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

I also want to point out that as a player you must know every single action you want to perform.

This sounds simple, but for more circumstantial actions like "grab an edge", "shove", etc, there are a lot of times that the player declares the action and expects the GM to know everything by heart.

The gm already has to read/know a lot more than the player, so at the very least, if you want to try something, learn how it works first and dont pile your own responsibilities to the already loaded GM.

I advocate almost the exact opposite.

A good GM will look for ways to make things happen. A lot of newer players know what they want to do, but they don't know how that maps onto the action system.

"Tell me what you want to do, and I'll decide what kind of roll you need to make" is a positive thing, not a negative thing.

"I'm not sure how that rule works. Let's _____, and then do a more exhaustive search after the session" is a positive thing, not a negative thing.

Yes, it puts more burden on a GM. But that can be mitigated - there are GM resources where every possible action is summarized on a page, e.g., this one. I think it's also on the official Paizo GM Screen. It's way easier for a GM to obtain this information than for players to obtain it.

If you really think the players should know, certainly a good GM would show them the GM Screen or a cheat sheet so the players can work off of a mutually agreed resource - as opposed to players declaring they can too use Performance for Grab an Edge because they read it on some random forum somewhere.

A good GM doesn't need to know everything by heart - a good GM knows how to know.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I get this kind of half-nausea feeling when I see claims like "a GM must" or "a player must" - especially when it comes to things like how much or what type of prep work is being done of home work (things someone is being expected to do outside of the designated session time).

That's a large part of why when someone asks me for advice for being a good GM I say "focus on making it fun and not stressing about doing it right or matching the way someone else does it, you'll find your style and make it work for you." and when they ask for what I expect of them as a player I say "show up ready to participate and looking to have fun, we'll figure the rest out along the way."

Yeah, it's not fair of the player to expect that the GM knows every rule that might be relevant. But it is just as not fair to expect that a player has pre-studied the rule book before the session. There's no reason not to just be ready to check the rule book mid-session and both not make a big deal out of the other one not already knowing. It's a big book (or a lot of website to navigate), and it's a game - not a test.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:
shroudb wrote:

I also want to point out that as a player you must know every single action you want to perform.

This sounds simple, but for more circumstantial actions like "grab an edge", "shove", etc, there are a lot of times that the player declares the action and expects the GM to know everything by heart.

The gm already has to read/know a lot more than the player, so at the very least, if you want to try something, learn how it works first and dont pile your own responsibilities to the already loaded GM.

I advocate almost the exact opposite.

A good GM will look for ways to make things happen. A lot of newer players know what they want to do, but they don't know how that maps onto the action system.

"Tell me what you want to do, and I'll decide what kind of roll you need to make" is a positive thing, not a negative thing.

"I'm not sure how that rule works. Let's _____, and then do a more exhaustive search after the session" is a positive thing, not a negative thing.

Yes, it puts more burden on a GM. But that can be mitigated - there are GM resources where every possible action is summarized on a page, e.g., this one. I think it's also on the official Paizo GM Screen. It's way easier for a GM to obtain this information than for players to obtain it.

If you really think the players should know, certainly a good GM would show them the GM Screen or a cheat sheet so the players can work off of a mutually agreed resource - as opposed to players declaring they can too use Performance for Grab an Edge because they read it on some random forum somewhere.

A good GM doesn't need to know everything by heart - a good GM knows how to know.

a gm is not superman.

he already has to keep in mind 10 times more rules about his monsters, his campaign, all of his player class bilities, campaign specific details, keep an eye on every turn what happens and play the minions and bbegs of each fight.

Is it helpful for him to be alknowning and able to offer alternatives? sure

but, if we take a fraction of what people "expect" from a GM according to this thread, then a player who doesnt know every possible player actions by heart is "lazy" and "a bad player"

to put it somewhat differently:
For a lot of things that make (according to some) a "good GM" there is no need for them if he plays with "good Players"

(and that's why i stick to "there's no bad GM, nor bad players, there are only GMs that fit their tables and GMs that don't)

Grand Lodge

shroudb wrote:
there's no bad GM, nor bad players, there are only GMs that fit their tables and GMs that don't

I wouldn’t go that far (I’ve seen my share of really bad players and GMs), but also wouldn’t disagree too strongly. We all go into each game with different expectations.

I don’t expect anything from anyone that I don’t expect from myself, but I have relatively high expectations for myself so my opinions and judgements tend to be a bit harsher than the average person. That being said, the GM/player of interest rarely knows my opinions unless their “failures” are incredibly egregious or they specifically ask me for feedback.

Generally player/GM quality is not a problem for my “home” games, but org play is a different animal entirely. My expectations for other aren’t quite as high, but the frequency of being disappointed is a bit more common.


TwilightKnight wrote:
shroudb wrote:
there's no bad GM, nor bad players, there are only GMs that fit their tables and GMs that don't

I wouldn’t go that far (I’ve seen my share of really bad players and GMs), but also wouldn’t disagree too strongly. We all go into each game with different expectations.

I don’t expect anything from anyone that I don’t expect from myself, but I have relatively high expectations for myself so my opinions and judgements tend to be a bit harsher than the average person. That being said, the GM/player of interest rarely knows my opinions unless their “failures” are incredibly egregious or they specifically ask me for feedback.

Generally player/GM quality is not a problem for my “home” games, but org play is a different animal entirely. My expectations for other aren’t quite as high, but the frequency of being disappointed is a bit more common.

tbf, i dont have experience with organised play.

Most of my games are homegroups, but i also play quite a bit on VTTs where it's more random with who you end up with.

That said, if i dont enjoy playing in a group, i prefer to keep a mentality of "i didn't fit with them" rather than "they were bad", and similarly, when I gm in VTTs, i also don't feel negative about people i can't work with, i politely remove them if they dont mesh well with the group, or endure it if it's just chemistry with me, and carry on.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.
Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.

How am I as the GM going to anticipate what fits my group a year in the future? In my current campaign, I did not anticipate switching from meeting at my dining room table to playing via Roll20 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nor did I anticipate my daughter who lives 3 time zones away joining my campaign once it went remote. In my Jade Regent campaign, I did not anticipate one player quitting because of a newborn son nor three players moving to another state. Fortunately, we recruited two new players. None of these changes were in the modules.

As for the story itself, in my Iron Gods campaign, when the players began the 2nd module, Lords of Rust, I was surprised when they decided to enter the shantytown Scrapwall by pretending to be refugees. They tried to seem humble rather than powerful, which derailed the module's plans that the party would gain allies and enemies due to their power. Fortunately, I invented a beer festival to fill in details of Scrapwall life, and the skald in the party decided to reciprocal by holding a concert. They gained allies by being neighborly.

They pulled the same trick in the 5th module, Palace of Fallen Stars, and entered the city of Starfall without alerting their enemies in the Technic League by returning to their insignificant pre-adventurer identities. But their ultimate trick was in the 6th module, The Divinity Drive. Instead of fighting their way to the evil villain, they got hired by him. By the time they betrayed him, they had converted half his minions to their side.

I read the introduction to each module but don't read the details until later. The details often don't survive contact with the players.


Mathmuse wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.
Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.

How am I as the GM going to anticipate what fits my group a year in the future? In my current campaign, I did not anticipate switching from meeting at my dining room table to playing via Roll20 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nor did I anticipate my daughter who lives 3 time zones away joining my campaign once it went remote. In my Jade Regent campaign, I did not anticipate one player quitting because of a newborn son nor three players moving to another state. Fortunately, we recruited two new players. None of these changes were in the modules.

As for the story itself, in my Iron Gods campaign, when the players began the 2nd module, Lords of Rust, I was surprised when they decided to enter the shantytown Scrapwall by pretending to be refugees. They tried to seem humble rather than powerful, which derailed the module's plans that the party would gain allies and enemies due to their power. Fortunately, I invented a beer festival to fill in details of Scrapwall life, and the skald in the party decided to reciprocal by holding a concert. They gained allies by being neighborly.

They pulled the same trick in the 5th module, Palace of Fallen Stars, and entered the city of Starfall without alerting their enemies in the Technic League by returning to their insignificant pre-adventurer identities. But their ultimate trick was in the 6th module, The Divinity Drive. Instead of fighting their way to the evil villain, they got hired by him. By the time they betrayed him, they had converted half his minions to their side.

I read the introduction to each module but don't read the details...

So much this. In my homebrew I have a general idea of what I want my overarching campaign and separate story arcs to be, but for the session itself I'll often just make a one or two page bulletin cliff notes sheet of general plot points, characters, and encounters. I only construct a general skeleton of what I want and spitball the rest to allow my players to put the meat on the bones. If they deviate too hard I don't have to scrap anything. I just repurpose and reskin everything. The greatest trick I play on my characters is convincing them they changed the destination when all they ever did is change the route


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
if we take a fraction of what people "expect" from a GM according to this thread ...

I think if you took a fraction of the idiocy on the Internet seriously, you'd have a pretty distorted outlook on life.

If players want to have super-unrealistic views of what a GM should do, I'm not really going to argue against it. I'm just going to let them be disappointed and come around to see the light. They don't hurt anyone but themselves.

However, if GMs have super-unrealistic views of what a player should do, I'm much more likely to argue against it. Because not only do they disappoint themselves, but they disappoint all the other players at the table.

I know GMing is a lot of work (just so you know, I'm an active GM for Pathfinder Society). And you're right, that in general, often GMs are overloaded and/or reluctant GMs. Just as a side bit, one of the underappreciated reasons why PFS exists is that GMs get rewards to help balance the effort/reward ratio of GMing vs playing. I've definitely encountered the tyles of people in this thread - the ones who want to kick back and make me as a GM serve them entertainment on a silver platter. They get disappointed, probably criticize me with a profanity-laden rant, and then vow never to play with such a horrible GM again. And I just shrug, because I'm pretty sure they're not going to find anyone who will meet their expectations.

But if I take my stress out on the players, that's six people who have a horrible experience. If I take that extra workload that I don't want to do, and push it onto the newest players, that's ultimately going to be counterproductive because the people hurt the most - the people who don't know what they don't know - are just going to quit. And while that may benefit me in the short term, it hurts everyone in the long term.

Grand Lodge

Depending on how you evaluate expectations, they are not a zero-sum issue. You can be both disappointed in a player/GM, even consider them “bad” and still be willing to play with them. We cannot agree what makes a “bad” GM any more than we can agree what “bad” even means. This entire discussion is largely an exercise in futility and repeatedly talking past each other


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, considering that GMs are much more in demand than players generally, our efforts and attentions are probably better suited to encouraging players to try out GMing without fear of harsh judgement and to helping GMs (from novices to experts) get better at their craft.

Bad GMs do have more of a negative effect on a game than bad players, but the game literally doesn't happen unless someone is willing to GM. So I'll forgive all sorts of stuff in the name of "making mistakes and learning from them is how you get better at anything."


dirtypool wrote:

Having read the entire AP before running isn’t required to make those changes though, the same effect can be achieved by working through the sections you are about to run, tailoring to your group as of that point in time and taking notes about the changes you made so that those changes will be reflected moving forward.

If we only ever ran an AP after reading all volumes - then AP’s wouldn’t get run until the end of the Publishing cycle and Paizo should stop breaking them into pieces and release them whole cloth.

Reading ahead can still help.

A typical issue found in multiple APs is that the final boss villain is barely mentioned until you meet them, meaning that they can feel like just another encounter.

Reading the whole AP allows a GM to make changes to add foreshadowing, to introduce villains in a non-violent context, to establish the stakes of the campaign as a whole, or whatever is needed.

On the other hand, GMs already have a lot of work to do. Reading the forums is often the most efficient way to identify this type of issue and see what others have done to alleviate it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

Reading ahead can still help.

A typical issue found in multiple APs is that the final boss villain is barely mentioned until you meet them, meaning that they can feel like just another encounter.

Reading the whole AP allows a GM to make changes to add foreshadowing, to introduce villains in a non-violent context, to establish the stakes of the campaign as a whole, or whatever is needed.

No one is disputing that reading ahead can be helpful, we're just saying that not having read the entire AP before running it does not make someone a bad GM. Nor, for that matter, does reading all six volumes in an AP before running it make one a good GM.

The default of Paizo's business model is a slightly staggered release, this isn't just a holdover from the magazine days or a bid to save production costs - it is to keep putting new product down the pipeline so that the beast of book adventure players is always well fed. If I wanted to launch my players into Agents of Edgewatch next week - I could because books one and two of the AP are available. If we are all now under some arbitrary expectation to have read the entire AP, I would have to wait until November when the 6th volume comes out.

If we're all waiting to read all 6 volumes before running, then why should Paizo continue going to the expense of printing and shipping 6 individual booklets?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played with a GM in an online organized play game recently who threw a fit at the end of the game and hung up because we killed the final boss of the scenario and he "lost" the game, "only" killing one pc. Luckily it was part of a con, so we were able to get an organizer on to wrap it up and make sure we got credit for the table.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dirtypool wrote:
If we are all now under some arbitrary expectation to have read the entire AP, I would have to wait until November when the 6th volume comes out.

Naw man, you'd have to wait until you had the matching map packs and token sets too. Not only does it support Paizo financially, anyone who hosts a game without willing to invest in the complete set is a horrible GM not willing to give it their all for their players.

They should act each NPC in different voices as well, and buy everyone their own individually tailored pizza pie or sweet treat! If necessary, they should also cook for, and clean up after their players.

Only great GMs are willing to give it their all. Blood, sweat, and tears are a prerequisite for such esteemed glory--and everyone else is just trash.

:P

Silver Crusade

Neni wrote:
I played with a GM in an online organized play game recently who threw a fit at the end of the game and hung up because we killed the final boss of the scenario and he "lost" the game, "only" killing one pc. Luckily it was part of a con, so we were able to get an organizer on to wrap it up and make sure we got credit for the table.

Wow :-(. As I said WAY above, there ARE a few objectively awful GMs. Fortunately, they're INCREDIBLY rare. But I think that matches my "worst GM ever" story :-)

Dark Archive

Seems like a lot of negative focus on 'reading the entire AP' as if that is the only kind of product Paizo or TTRPGs produce in general. The point of the original comment was that the minimal level of effort of preparation is reading the content your going to run once before running it. The main focus of an initial read through is narrative, such that you understand the broad strokes of what is supposed to happen. A lot of GMs can do wonders with that base level of understanding, which is why I said it is the 'minimum' level of prep.

Here is a rule of thumbs for a few different types of content length so we can all stop obsessing on 'read the WHOLE AP' comments that are missing the point.

- If it is a 1 hour quest, read the ~10 pages before you run it.

- If it is a 4 hour PFS scenario, read the ~20 pages before you run it.

- If it is a 36 hour module, read the ~20 pages of Part 1 before you run session 1. You 'should' pencil in some private time to read the other 40 pages ahead of the completion of part 1 to understand narrative continuity. You can ignore the 'minutia' details on your read through (e.g., unique item stats or monster stat blocks).

- If it is an AP, read the 20 pages of Part 1 of Book 1 before you run session 1. You 'should' pencil in some private time to read the other 40 pages of book 1 ahead of the completion of part 1 to understand narrative continuity in the book. You 'should' pencil in some private time to read the other narrative portions of the remaining published books to understand narrative continuity. You can ignore the 'minutia' details on your read through (e.g., unique item stats or monster stat blocks).

An optional way to improve your GMing and if you have the time is to read the specific content a second time just before play-through. On a second read-through you focus on more of the mechanical minutia (monster abilities, interactions between NPCs, weird sub-rule sets, etc.) since you already have the high level summary from the first read through, you just want to get a better handle on how the next 1-8 hours of play will actually progress to avoid 30-60 minute breaks. You especially want to avoid 30-60 minute breaks that are 'the prep' you refused to do before hand, if you had that time available to you, as all you've done is make your players watch you do prep in real time.

There is a lot of 'deflection' going on here accusing people who expect a first read through of expecting more from a GM then they're willing to give. I can confirm I do all the things I suggest for the multiple groups I've GMd. I'd wager that many of the folk posting on the forums are avid community members who do a good mixture of both GMing and playing, so this kind of critique doesn't hold water for me. I would instead theorize that the reason people want GM's to do one read through prior to the session is because lack of GM prep is a significant cause of negative TTRPG experiences. If you hear that and think 'my games are fine even though I don't prep' then I challenge you to try reflecting and reach out to some players to confirm that they feel the same way you do.

Honestly, I feel that it really isn't controversial that the minimum level of prep necessary to run a published adventure is to 'know what happens' in the published adventure.'. If you really take offense to that and want to have an entire open world improv game then you aren't running the published adventure. If it was easy to make 100+ hours of balanced/engaging narrative that maintains a good level of continuity by simply doing improv at the table, then Paizo could save tons of time/money by getting rid of authors and editorial teams.

Scarab Sages

pauljathome wrote:
Neni wrote:
I played with a GM in an online organized play game recently who threw a fit at the end of the game and hung up because we killed the final boss of the scenario and he "lost" the game, "only" killing one pc. Luckily it was part of a con, so we were able to get an organizer on to wrap it up and make sure we got credit for the table.
Wow :-(. As I said WAY above, there ARE a few objectively awful GMs. Fortunately, they're INCREDIBLY rare. But I think that matches my "worst GM ever" story :-)

Yup, thankfully people like that are rare exceptions. I've played with gms that weren't great, but we were still able to have fun playing the game. That guy took the proverbial cake, threw it on the ground, and stomped on it.

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / You might be a bad GM if... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.