Let's think about bad DMing decisions (while recognising that everybody makes mistakes). Three examples from my own gaming past:
1) I can't remember many of the details about the session, but it was a TSR-published adventure Planescape module and we, the players, had gone through some gate or other into the Grey Waste. The DM described our surroundings as being an endless and featureless plain, but with a couple of demonic winged gargoyle-like beings somewhere in the middle distance. We spent a long time debating what to do. We couldn't return through the gate we'd come to. The plain was featureless. The gargoyle-type beings seemed dangerous. Eventually we decided that since we'd be noticed sooner or later we might as well try to parlay with them. On approaching them, however, they mercilessly attacked us. It then became apparent that they were immune to non-magical weapons - they were abishai of some sort or other. We all died in short order. A bit flabbergasted, one of us asked the DM, "Exactly what were we supposed to do in that situation?" He told us we should have tried to sneak around them. It combined pixel-bitching with rank incoherence - how do you sneak around something in a featureless plain?
2) A d20 Modern game set in a kind of Mad Max world. A firefight broke out with some motorcycle gang in an abandoned town. My character was caught out in the open facing an enemy with a large SMG. It was clear that he was going to die. I was already resigned to the fact and thinking up what my next character would be. The DM rolled 'to hit' behind his screen...and promptly did a very poor impression of disappointment and announced the attacked had fumbled and dropped his weapon. My character had survived. The fudge was childishly obvious. I glanced around the other faces at the table and they glanced at me. None of us mentioned anything, but we all knew: in this campaign, death was going to be impossible.
3) A cyberpunk-type game, which was short-lived and I think run using some form of GURPS. The PCs had gathered together for a mission in some forest somewhere, raiding a secret radar station or somesuch installation for secret information. There was also a GMPC involved. It turned out that the GMPC was really good at breaking and entry and the rest of us were lacking in necessary skills, so it was agreed that the GMPC would go on the raid and the rest of us would wait. Cue half an hour of waiting around while the GM went through the rigmarole of playing out the entire raid, in his own mind, rolling dice behind his screen and apparently going through the entire event as if an actual PC was doing it, before finally announcing, "He comes back with the information". I think we were all fine with the GMPC doing the mission. But why on earth the GM couldn't have decided the outcome in 10 seconds or with one dice roll, I have no idea.
Good games are all alike; every bad game is bad in its own way. What do these three anecdotes have in common? What unifies them? I have a hard time thinking of a common thread. The first is simply bad communication, or maybe just fuzzy thinking: perhaps the guy concerned really thought he had made it clear it would be somehow possible to sneak round the abishai (he did smoke a lot of weed). The second is clearly a surfeit of niceness: the DM is an incredibly good and honourable person who was certainly trying not to hurt my feelings, but ended up, like most people with good intentions, causing a certain degree of harm. The third I think can be attributed to an overzealous concern with realism or system that you might say is common to players of games like GURPS. The GM wanted to be absolutely sure that the "correct" outcome was reached even though it unreasonably slowed everything down.
Good DMing is fairly easy to identify. Good communication with the players, enthusiasm, reasonable levels of prep, non-arbitrary decision-making, reasonableness, willingness to listen, imagination. Except insofar as you can simply provide a list of antonyms of characteristics of good DMing, is there an underlying, root cause of the bad? Is there a single thing that we can point to as the ultimate source of malpractice?
In all three situations player-character choice doesn't matter. That's the theme I see.
ReplyDeleteBingo. We have a winner.
DeleteIn number 3 that wasn't the problem - we definitely chose for the GMPC to do the mission. Somebody on G+ suggested "lack of empathy" on the part of the DM as the unifying theme and I think that's persuasive.
DeleteSorry, but I disagree, at least in part. The choice to send/not send the GMPC apparently acted as an on/off switch that either nullified your ability to interact with the scenario for a half hour of real time.
DeleteThe GM in question could have presented you with interesting choices while the GMPC was "doing his thing" and presented you with other opportunities that arose while waiting and, effectively, "casing the joint". He also could have assigned a flat probability of success, with another die roll to consider what happens in the case of failure. "You wait half an hour, and then Bob returns" or "You wait half an hour before realizing that Bob isn't coming back".
Bob, which is what I am calling the GMPC, is not what is interesting in the game. Bob is, at best, the means to supply the players with context for PC choices, including, possibly, the choice of whether or not to attempt to rescue Bob.
Note, of course, that I am not a fan of "GMPCs", although "NPCs" are great. The difference, as I use the terms, is that in the first case the GM makes the mistake of thinking that the game is in some way about the GMPC (that's why he's a PC!), whereas in the second case the GM knows that the NPC is not playing, and while he plays the NPC as though he were important to the NPC herself, and while the NPC may have an impact upon the campaign world, ultimately the NPC isn't the focus of the game.
(Sorry if I was unclear in Para #1, above. Your choices as a player do not matter if you are no longer presented the opportunity to make choices while the GM literally plays the game with himself.)
DeleteYes, but I don't think we were deprived of choice. Rather, we were deprived of enjoyment.
DeleteWell, you were there, and I wasn't. If you had some choices to make in that half hour, you would know. Care to share what any of them were?
DeleteI think I write about this a lot.
ReplyDeleteBut I think its a topic that needs to be discussed. Life is too short to put up with DMs who make the game not fun for their players.
DeleteThe root problem is probably the DM's ego getting in the way of player choice or trying to adhere strictly to the rules, but that's just how I view things. Others will see things differently.
I've written about it a bit too, but not for a while and, as Stelios points out, I think these things do need to be discussed a bit more. I think ego is definitely part of it and fits into that lack of empathy issue.
DeleteI write about it quite a bit as well. I specifically have a feature on my blog called, "What Other GMs Do Wrong". I try to combine my memories of bad experiences with good advice, and humor.
DeleteSometimes I am even half-way successful.
I agree with Stellios largely, that player choice was removed, or subdued, in each of the above situations. While you may have chosen to let the GM PC do the raid on his own, even the fact that this situation existed seems predetermined in the description of the scenario.
There was a necessary raid to gain necessary info and only this guy was necessary to obtain it. Why would you even make a scenario like that as a GM?
@Barking Alien: "There was a necessary raid to gain necessary info and only this guy was necessary to obtain it. Why would you even make a scenario like that as a GM?"
DeleteInterestingly, this is where I disagree with your comment below. I've grown to loath DMPCs in all their forms. Even the ones that the PCs "need" for some reason (e.g., a cleric in a healerless group), I can do without. Inevitably a situation arises where the DM is rolling dice right hand against left and the players are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Just don't do it.
typo: "loathe"
DeleteI think that's what Barking Alien's saying. The set up there is broken because it relies exclusively on a DMPC. The structure of the approach removes agency from the players and then the extended GM playing with himself is just icing on the cake.
DeleteI get disliking the idea, but I'm a little confused in reference to the comment.
DeleteMeaning, in nearly every game there are NPCs. If there is one NPC who hangs with the party for a while, like a henchmen or a hireling, and he or she develops a personality, and contributes something to the group, is that a problem?
To me, at least as I am seeing it here, that isn't the issue. The issue is that said NPC (we often used the term 'Active NPC' instead of 'GM PC') is the star of the show, not the players.
Even for a single scenario that doesn't make any sense. I am asking (in my post above), why would a GM design a scenario in which said NPC, not the PCs, was the focus of attention.
I certainly wouldn't, and I've followed the practice of having one or more Active NPCs in numerous campaigns over the years (though granted in genres where a large cast of characters is not uncommon).
I hope the way I worded it originally wasn't misrepresenting my opinions on the subject.
I sort of agree with Barking Alien in that I am by no means in favour of GMPCs existing from the outset, but players are usually going to end up with henchman and hireling NPCs who stick around a lot and ultimately end up being quasi-GMPCs. The problem wasn't the GMPC, it was the fact that the GMPC dominated proceedings and the scenario the DM had come up with was not quite a railroad but certainly predetermined to some degree.
DeleteSorry, noisms for the slight thread jack, but I guess GMPCs are a potential "bad DM" maneuver so it is relatively OT.
DeleteBarking: I am in agreement with you and noisms that long-term NPCs can be great. I think where we diverge is that, to me, a GMPC is one that is created to be a party member (in other words, I generally agree with noisms' comments below). This relates to your below comment because I have most frequently seen this occur when a DM perceives a party lacking a certain skill role and creates a NPC to fulfill that role. You gave this as an example of a good NPC. I would view it as an example of a bad one--a DMPC.
It may be that I am overly sensitive about this topic because I played with a DM for a while who persistently indulged in DMPCs. It was annoying.
I'm just going to say that there is no underlying theme. Because bad GMing can stem from a number of issues.
ReplyDeleteThe GM could be selfish, cruel, egotistical, incapable of separating the game from reality, or in some other way an asshole.
The GM could just be inexperienced, and unaware of what the correct action would have been. It's very easy for those of us with 30 years of mistakes under our belt to wag our finger at the guy fudging the roll to avoid character death. But I think we also all made that mistake at least once in our career.
The GM could be a poor communicator. Or a poor storyteller. Or a poor tactician. Or a poor referee. Being a good GM requires blending a LOT of skills together. Most of us get by with being REALLY good at one skill, and not obviously sucking at the others. But every once in a while, we're going to flub horribly, and in a way that kill an encounter, a session, or potentially an entire campaign.
The GM may have picked up some really bad habits by learning from other poor GMs. The vast majority of gamers experience a very tiny slice of the hobby, and spend most of their careers in a tiny microcosm. What we consider terrible play might just be the norm for them. The example with the abishai might be indicative of such a situation. The GM is used to people playing a certain way, so assumes that that is how "gamers" handle situations. He doesn't even consider that he needs to give explicit flags to consider sneaking around, because it's obvious to him.
On a similar note, the GM and the players might just have incompatible styles. I'm pretty sure that C would think I'm a terrible GM, and I would probably not enjoy playing in one of her games. We just have radically different priorities and styles.
Identifying a bad GM is like identifying a bad athlete, a bad musician, a bad artist, or even a bad programmer. There are three kinds of bad. The bad who is ignorant or unskilled. That can be corrected with teaching. The bad who has a poor attitude (laziness, selfishness, aggressiveness, etc.). That can be corrected with leaving. And the bad that you just don't like. Which isn't bad at all, really, but you still can't call it good.
i agree entirely.
Deletein the original post you suggest 5 different kinds of failure, in only 3 examples of play. if we can't even agree what exactly went wrong, how can we identify a common root?
I was kind of alluding to that when I borrowed Tolstoy's line about all good families being alike but all bad families being bad in their own way.
DeleteA GM should be a Benthamite:
ReplyDeleteDistribute Maximum Fun. There was a failure to think about the FunPlications of all the decisions.
Though that, admittedly, is a maxim so wide open to intepretation that it's almost meaningless. So I probably shouldn't even have said it.
Still: GMPC? Not fun.
I do think GMPCs are on a spectrum of acceptability. A hireling who is around for a long time will after a while become something akin to a GMPC just because he or she will develop a personality and whatnot. I think that's inevitable and okay. On the opposite end of the spectrum is a character who the DM creates at the start of the game to accompany the group everywhere and sort things out for them or rescue them from scrapes or whatever.
DeleteGM PC can be super-fun for all involved, though I am beginning to think I mean something different when I say it than other people do.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the type of NPC that goes along with the party, and fulfills a skill role they are lacking in a campaign where it's needed is a good idea.
Having that NPC be the focus of any length of game time that does not involve the PCs is not a good idea. It is a bad idea. Bad-bad.
I don't like the idea of an NPC going along with the party and fulfilling a skill role who is created by the DM as such from the start. I have no problem with the PCs going out and hiring such an NPC and indeed I'd expect them to if they have any sense.
DeleteIf the skill role is essential but not represented the players need to think and invent to get around it. so just giving them the skill seems like taking away fun
DeleteI absolutely agree, but if the players' way of inventing a way around it is "hire someone who can do it" I don't have a problem with that at all if they've got the cash. And presuming there is somebody who can do it.
DeleteI'm always suspicious when I hear players talk about bad DMs; blaming the DM is the first thing a bad player does!
ReplyDeleteFirst, there's no underlying theme. Why would there be an underlying theme?
In the first example, I wouldn't say that was bad DMing necessarily. Maybe a bad module but definitely bad playing on the part of the PCs! Everyone knows gargoyles are immune to non-magical weapons and horribly cruel and evil. I thought that was as well known as "trolls regenerate". Expecting mercy from them was silly. What happened was: the PCs assumed they had no choice but to fight the gargoyles then objected when it went badly. They ASSUMED they were on trails that weren't there, didn't bother steering and drove themselves straight off a cliff!
If I had to pick out a big root threat to good DMing it'd be either: fudging, letting the game drag or fucking with player agency.
I think you're misreading the first scenario, or maybe I didn't explain it accurately: we were described as being on a featureless plain. We were first level characters. We considered it bad form to use "out of game" knowledge about gargoyles and whatnot in the game. (Note also: they were abishai, not gargoyles.) We were aware we were playing a scenario/adventure module and thus to a certain extent on a railroad. We had essentially two options as far as we understood it: either confront the creatures, or somehow go around them. How do you go around something in a featureless plain without being spotted? Since it was inevitable that we would be spotted we considered the only option to be to try to parlay. We were teenagers at the time, and I expect nowadays I might have tried to come up with something else (lie down on the ground and just hope the abishai went away?) but I think attempting to talk our way out of the situation was a reasonable course of action given the circumstances. We certainly didn't "assume we had no choice but to fight" the things.
Delete> How do you go around something in a featureless plain without being spotted? Since it was inevitable that we would be spotted
DeleteI can not fathom how you arrived at that conclusion. From your description you hadn't yet been spotted, the creatures off in middle distance can't see that far. To go around them walk left 1 10, 100 miles, whatever it takes, turn right walk same amount and finally another right turn and another long walk. You've just "sneaked" around them.
I'll give you, the DM could have described things better, given clues as to the deadliness of creatures. But asking questions and getting clarification regarding environment is also a player responsibility.
Other two examples are atrociously bad DMing.
If we could see them, then why on earth wouldn't they eventually have seen us - in the middle of a featureless plain?
DeleteAgain, wasn't there so maybe misunderstanding situation.
DeleteBut, again, I don't understand your conclusions. At all. Sight is not reciprocal, not all creatures have same vision. Eagles can see a mouse which can't see the eagle. Maybe they were blind and only sensed nearby heat/vibration. Even if they could see you maybe they aren't fast enough to catch / catch up, are unwilling to move from their area, are non-hostile or don't care about tiny specs 10miles in the distance.
My point is that given creatures ahead and nothing to right, left, or behind. You had more choices than just "move closer to creatures". You **assumed** (without even attempting or investigating) any other course of action would have creatures attack.
The DM did not limit choice / railroad. You did it to yourselves by over/under thinking.
Hmm. I'm still going to have to call pixel-bitching on this one. Even if your assertion that other options were available, the GM did a piss-poor job of communicating them. A featureless plane with only a single feature noted? That, to me, is a big flag that this is the thing we are supposed to interact with, not the thing we are supposed to avoid. And once the party clearly made a poor choice, the GM should have taken a moment to ask "Are you sure?".
DeleteBest case scenario, this is an example of poor communication and/or mismatched playing styles. But, in the absence of other evidence, I'm still seeing it as pixel-bitching.
Thanks for backing me up on this, Marshall. That's exactly the way we saw it.
DeleteNorman, you seem to be being slightly obtuse here in order to make a point. The creatures clearly weren't 10 miles in the distance; we could see they were gargoyle-type creatures. This means they were a) quite close, and b) winged.