http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-a-plague-in-mudville/
Its a dense article but it raises a few points I feel are worth examining here.
1.) Bad game sessions are the cost of good game sessions. Meaning, nobody's perfect 100% of the time and getting good means incrementally improving.
2.) Destructive DMs will self Destruct, but our fear or intolerance of Bad DM-ing is probably toxic to our hobby, and definitely a roadblock to new DMs
2a.) Bawylie note: I'm definitely personally too hard on "bad" DMs, and could absolutely refine my response, lean more toward empathy and constructive help and away from criticism.
3.) Good games take work. Work takes time and energy. As players we constantly demand good games from our DMs for free. Nobody's saying we should pay DMs (though you should, absolutely pay me, if you play my games), but we should understand 2 things that complicate this. The first is that if we keep harping on the bad games, we increase the emotional cost of creating games at all, which leads to fewer games. The second is that a bad session isn't much more than 2-4 hrs of a not-outstanding time.
4.) DMs ARE the game, much more so than the rule set.
Anyway, that's what I found important. But you should take a few minutes, give it a read, and share your thoughts.
I agree that no one is perfect. We're all going to get things wrong from time to time.
I have found in my experience that most DMs are adequate. I have found few really "bad DMs".
What I do note, and have noted since the mid 2000s or so, is that the community in general is quick to label someone a bad DM for even the slightest infractions to the person in general.
DM didn't give player his magic sword fast enough? Bad DM. DM roleplayed a little too much? Bad DM. DM liked to run combat encounters a little more than preferable? Bad DM. DM liked to house rule? Bad DM. DM liked to stick to the core rules and never deviate from them? Bad DM. DM doesn't run the game how I would run the game? Bad DM. etc
I find often that DMs that enjoy a conflicting play style to a player will be quickly labeled as a "bad DM".
Especially when it comes to one of the big divides in the community: "player entitlement" vs "DM entitlement" or "system-mastery" style games like 3rd and 4th and PF vs "DM Perrogative" style games like AD&D and 5e. When you get a player that is one style meeting a DM of opposing style I note that the player will often say "bad DM".
Really I think it just boils down to finding a game style that suits you and finding a group that adheres to that. I find a lot of the hyperbole and hysteria surrounding "bad DMs" are simply players that have certain expectations of a desired playstyle and they got invovled in a game with a DM that did not run that playstyle. That doesn't make the DM a bad DM.
Totally agree with Auticus. There's seldom a perfect GM, and most often it's not the GM being bad, it's us perceiving something that we dont like.
My RL-GM is Michael about character death, like as long as you dont actively try to die he will let you survive rather than being instant killed by a great-axe wielding half-fiend ork barbarian that critted my 70 HP fighter to death in his first swing. But then also hes nazi about rule books, sticking to the core books and from the expansions only what he personally likes (and favoring those characters that have builds he finds cool himself) and heavy rail roading. But well, he also writes epic speeches with his important NPCs (one player actually asked for a print-out of the speech of the drow queen he had written cause it was so good), so in the end you have to stick to his plot his way but he also puts lot of effort into developing it and wont let your character and his part in the story just die from some monster/trap. Just like every GM has his style, on some parts one can agree, on some one rumps his nose... But as a player one also has to be able to take down his own expectations and just go on, it's angering about that one not so cool part that gets the worms into the fun.
Trying to be objective on myself i have to say im the opposite: Michael on character building and nazi about encounters. They can optimize their character as good as they are able to do, and Encounters (5E) usually are in between the boundaries for hard and deadly (my perception of a fair fight, easy most often means instantkill of the mobs in the first round) for the group and if they dont manage to win it or get away fast enough after perceiving signs of defeat they just end up dead or plundered of all their gear. So if there was a great story going on with their characters and they suddenly die thats just it, most often it wasnt a encounter that was a must to run into. But i go to lenghts to explain every player in before that the world is lethal and doesn't care about the individual hero, so they know what to expect when delving into dungeons.
Great article. Thanks Brad.
I don't really have an ego when I run games. If I screw up somehow, I'm totally fine with a player talking to me about it. And if I see something another DM has done that I take issue with, I think I approach them with the same kind of respect that I'd want to be talked to as well.
I say that of course, and it sounds like I've never gone off on someone or been a stubborn DM, and that's not the case. It happens. I've made those mistakes just like I've made DMing mistakes. But the ADM is spot-on in that if all someone hears if bitching and complaining, then it's less likely they'll ever improve, or want to improve.
DMs need support and encouragement just like anyone else.
The way some people react on these forums, you'd think that every GM that doesn't strictly abide by RAW, or strictly abide by RAI, or strictly abide by Rule of Cool, or strictly let the table run amok, is the worst power mongering bad GM in existence, and must be erradicated via angry rants and flame wars. OR something like that.
A good adventure can help you have fun, a good DM can help you have fun, but unless they're both catastrophically bad, it doesn't matter the quality either one are, a player can have fun regardless and a good player will help the other players have fun too.
4.) DMs ARE the game, much more so than the rule set.
FFSAA wrote:
Spoilered musing that may not be entirely relevant to the article.
"I don't want to be like my past GMs" has been my driving force the past year. I'll read advice, try out different styles, and communicate with my players. I've had to put my foot down with older folks that yell at or get impatient with newer players, and I've had to take people aside to discuss changes I feel they need to make to keep the peace. I used to screw up all the time, often making everything up as I went while I stumbled through memorizing everything in the first few episodes of Hoard.
However, I consider myself lucky. I've had players run the gamut in terms of experience, age, and expectations, and even if I don't agree or screw up, there's always something to learn from them. Before Season 2 started I took some time to reflect on what my strengths and weaknesses were. I suck at descriptions, often using the same vernacular or repeating the same things to drill it into everyone's head. I need to prepare more. It isn't a surprise when I sit down and forget every NPC's name, race, or personality and just fill it in, or the times where I manipulate the canon/adventure to fill in the blanks I overlooked, didn't see, or weren't there (Lookin' at you, Mirabar Delegation!).
The honesty and encouragement from my players have kept me going, and my current self, while still heavily flawed, is much better than my S1 self. I still suck at prep, still make rookie mistakes, but my group doesn't sweat it. We all roll with the punches and they trust me to take whatever chaos they sew and meld it together into the wonkiest train ride possible.
Something I wanted to add to the conversation, bad DMs create bad players (and future bad DMs)
I'm running a table that I'm pretty sure had a nasty GOTCHA! dungeon master before me. I haven't talked with them about their past experiences, but they were the most paranoid and adversarial group of players I ever met. I was highly tempted to ditch the group. I had been invited to DM for them by a player I met once while running Expeditions. As with AL, I would effectively be DMing for a group of strangers, so it was no big loss for me if I just bailed. I stuck around, and they eventually figured out that the game wasn't Me VS. Them. It's been fun for everyone involved, just had to break them of some habits which, in my game, only served to slow the game to a crawl, but in their past was a necessity to cover their butts from DM whimsy.
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
I think it largely depends on what one means by "bad DM;" that term can cover quite a bit of ground:
- the DM who has only a passing familiarity with the rules or inconsistently applies the rules
- the DM who just isn't prepared to run the published adventure (maybe she didn't read it before hand) or doesn't keep things moving at a decent pace
- the DM who introduces adult content without letting the players know it was that kind of game ahead of time
- and so on.
There are certainly DMs who are bad at the technical aspects of the game, or who are bad at the storytelling aspects of the game, but that really only makes them bad at the job of DM'ing. I think there's no real issue with people who are bad at the job of DM'ing (they will get better with time if they try). I think the issue is one of DMs who use their authority to the detriment of the player-DM relationship.
But what makes a "Bad DM"? Also, what if a bad DM doesn't mean to be a bad DM? What if he was just new to a system? or the hobby itself? Or is just doing something your group isn't down for, but his previous group was?
What the article is saying is that completely writing these DMs off is not the way to go. DMs have to learn, but the trend is that players don't give them the tolerance to do so.
Nor is taking the DM's agency away the way to solve the issue. You don't learn how to play piano by just sticking to simple songs. Sure, you learn to play those songs, but you don't grow.
Auticus wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Noon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noon wrote:
Good DMing and gaming takes time and effort, work. Still, as DM, I don't see a *good* game as just work. For me, a big part of being DM is simply remembering to have fun. That's what really makes a good game I think.
Rules be damned (if necessary), logic too, originality, all that jazz that might be used to say Bad DM 
; just try and have fun. The rest will take care of itself.
Number 1 is a great point and a great way of looking at it. I always get bummed when a session isn’t as good as it looked on paper, but if possible, one should always turn a bad session into a learning experience. What went wrong and how can it be avoided in the future? What did work, and why did it work?
bawylie wrote:
I suspect that many qualities that some insist make a Bad DM, are the very same qualities that others prefer in a DM.
It seems we also have a difference in degrees. Some argue like the OP article that only extreme behaviors make a DM bad, while others pile on and conclude that any behavior that deviates from their preferred ideal is an instant fail.
Though that isn't really anything new here; a lack of tolerance for ideas that are different from ones own.
Wuzzard wrote:
We should rank DMs by tier so we can take it out or the realm of subjectivity and into that of hard science!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The nominations are now closed.
All in favor of wet sponge using sheet protectors and grease pencils?
Hang on, it's running unopposed. Therefore it wins best-DM in its class. Also worst-DM in its class.
I think that's about right based on my extensive gaming experience.
The system was rigged. I have an empty bag of cheetos I wanted to nominate.
Nevvur wrote:
DM's cannot be Cheetos by definition. They can change the rules whenever they like.
The primary thing I got out of this thread was thinking how awesome it would be if you could use Patreon or something similar to sell time as a DM.
Would it be awesome? I'm not so sure.
Ask a person who claims they love their job if they would still do it if they weren't getting paid, and the answer isn't so often yes. If you were able to make a living as a DM, would you still do it for your friends once you got off work?
In any case, making a few bucks on the side through Patreon (or whatever) is a far cry from a full time job, but it's a step in that direction. Slippery slope fallacy? Maybe, but if money can be made on a product or service, then money will be made; it's the American way. I wouldn't trust the corporatization of the DM as a positive change.
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Whatever the intent of your musing, I don't think it is unrealistic, at least not in the long term. If you don't want credit for bringing it up, I'll take it, because I think it's interesting to speculate on!
What if years from now, there's a licensing committee that certifies GMs as professionals? You can grab a DIY manual for plumbing, but most people are going to call a plumber. Same thing for GMs. Certification requires demonstration of proficiency through a combination of college-style courses, standardized tests, apprenticeship, etc. We have professionals for a lot of stuff we used to handle non-professionally, and I don't see why GMing can't become one of them. The more important question is should it be? What is gained and what is lost? My instinct is that standardization / corporatization would have a net negative impact on the role of GM, but it would dramatically alter the discussion on what it means to be a good or bad GM.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Angry DM is addressing the symptom of a problem.
Social skills are morphing.
Selflessness is often appreciated, but it is hard to find.
So long as the GM's basic approach is that "we" have fun, it's a good start. If the players are selfish, each sees their own individual fun as what is at stake, then the tension that AngryDM senses is already created.
We > me. A simple math equation, and a simple truth of RPGs. (And marriage, for that matter).
Long ago a pretty good DM I played with was both good and bad at the same time, the bad being that he took the adversarial/competitive approach to players versus "his" monsters.
Even with that, we had an OK game because we as players, even when we argued with him about the inane stuff that we argue about in D & D games, were all intent on having fun in the first place.
Are the newer gamers and story tellers out there attracted to the idea of getting their friends together to tell their own stories?
Are things like the old RPG network and Adventure League, competitive realms, a boon to a business model but a bane to the RPG at its basic building block?
We participated in our own, one of a kind, adventure epics. Might have been similar to Conan the Barbarian, or Narnia, but it wasn't either of them.
A DM made it all work. We often took turns running our own worlds to give a GM a break. Each world was a bit different, the basic rules the same.
Have the "Canonical" worlds helped or hurt that?
Don't know.
If you are a player, and you haven't run a game yet, they you haven't had the full RPG experience yet. You are only partly an RPG player. You need to see both sides of the court to play tennis, and to fully experience RPGs.
(Protip: it's better, just like when they put secret sauce on that burger at In and Out because you know the "in" words to tell them).