According to some of the posters here... I am the Satan of DMs... :cool:

One of my former group members did not like Modules and believed I was allways running one. So I took to setting one out during a session and then not using it. Just to fuck with him because it was getting annoying and he kept it up even after the other players pointed out I was not running a module.

My last GM while not technically bad. Was close to what we'd call a Killer GM at times. Its not malicious. But it minorly bugged me when its going on and I've been stubbornly not shuffling off the mortal coil. This despite playing a sometimes reckless character.

One of the reasons its not a major irk is the GM was up front about intending to off all the characters at least once each. And just to humour him I played in a session using RoleMasters crit tables once... Didn't die.. Was funny though.

Quote from: Shauncat;707978Maybe I am. But I see it like leadership. If you have a problem, step up to the plate and do it better. If you don't want the responsibility, then go back to being a cog in my broken machine.

I agree with this sentiment. Regardless of the group or chosen style of play, Gming is leadership. Some GMs have well developed leadership qualities, some are just learning, and some have no sense of it.

//Panjumanju

GM leadership:

"Shut your stupid yaps, get on the train, and kiss the ass of my glorious pet npc!!!"

I don't always have enough time to do a proper amount of prep, so I wing it fairly often. Which means when I'm on it's a blast, the players are into the game, I'm into the game, fun is had by all. When I'm off though, boring sessions and disinterested players.

When I do proper prep I am consistent though.

My friends are all pretty good DMs, one of them has a terrible case of new game syndrome though. We have a hard time buying into his new campaigns because he always wants to start something new.

In a month I'll be in a game where I know the GM is terrible.  He's telling us what our characters will be doing in the game.  And it doesn't remotely sound fun or interesting.  We'll be simulating work, with no room to role-play.  And we have to know the protocols for doing everything.  And there's paperwork we have to do.

I noticed (from player reactions/feedback) that I tend to be a better GM when running original, or at least adapted material rather than pre-written modules/settings.  My GMing style becomes mechanical and stilted when I have to reference someone else's work at the table.

And yet, I still seek modules out.  When will I ever learn?!

I haven't played with too many "bad" GM's.  The ones that could be categorized as "bad" tended to put their own needs and desires above and beyond the campaign as a whole.  For example:

- Emphasizing "role-playing" over "roll-playing", and ending up with an (often railroded) snore-fest.

- Using a metric ton of optional rules (ALL of 2e Player's Option), and expecting the players to understand them all without questions.

- Running one system (v3.5) when you really what to run another (AD&D).  You're phoning it in, and it shows.

I was in demand for five groups (three at a time with overlap) over an 18-year period. I was consider to be a good GM, if not a great GM.

Over the past three years, since moving to my current location, I have lived in the land of plentiful GMs and my demand is very low. I have a group going through so flux (moves and such), so am trying to get things going, again. Those who have played in my games out here consider me to be a good GM, but probably not a great GM.

Over the past decade, I have run many one-shots for many people within my "online social circle" at conventions, game-days and gatherings (and for a number of complete strangers). Once again, the consensus is that I am a good GM, but I'm not a great GM.

I have played in the games of:

3 Terrible GMs
5 Bad GMs
9 Average GMs
6 Good GMs
2 Great GMs

The number of games played under a Terrible GM is higher than it should be, but that has a lot to do with it being the first couple years of gaming, the GM being an okay guy and the amount of fun mocking his rulings with the other players outweighing the negative aspects of the game (for a time).

Removing that terrible GM, the other two terrible GMs and five bad GMs adds up to a total of 8 games (I gave one a second chance).

Not a terrible track-record, excluding my first GM.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;708070In a month I'll be in a game where I know the GM is terrible.  He's telling us what our characters will be doing in the game.  And it doesn't remotely sound fun or interesting.  We'll be simulating work, with no room to role-play.  And we have to know the protocols for doing everything.  And there's paperwork we have to do.

Wow.

Maybe its his real life paperwork?

Quote from: Bill;708091Wow.

Maybe its his real life paperwork?

Shhhhhhh!  Don't ruin the guys scam.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;708070In a month I'll be in a game where I know the GM is terrible.  He's telling us what our characters will be doing in the game.  And it doesn't remotely sound fun or interesting.  We'll be simulating work, with no room to role-play.  And we have to know the protocols for doing everything.  And there's paperwork we have to do.

Well I believe you have answered yes to the first question. I have another question.

WHY?

I mostly run games, and I think I am fair-to-middlin' as a GM. Those times I have played under other GMs have mostly been great. A couple of times I ended up on the Union Pacific, which is a horror story for me but not others, so "bad" is a personal value judgement.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;708112I mostly run games, and I think I am fair-to-middlin' as a GM. Those times I have played under other GMs have mostly been great. A couple of times I ended up on the Union Pacific, which is a horror story for me but not others, so "bad" is a personal value judgement.

I feel the classification of GMs into bad and good is often highly overstated. GMs are on several spectrums, and most of them are in the middle.

I play regularly under different GMs, and I know a lot that I would describe as mediocre to middling. Their plots are often linear, but they aren't horrible about forcing everything to stay exactly according to plan. Sometimes they have trouble improvising, or seem inconsistent working from slim notes. As long as the snacks are good and fellow players engaging, this is generally fine.

I've only encountered two GMs who I'd have said *could* be bad. Both were with d20; one was D&D and the other was D&D and Star Wars. The problem was more from power-gaming in both, though the first was just after me to alter my character (a not-so-great experience for me but not really bad as such). The second had a massive tendency to build encounters that were too powerful for the characters, such as a half-demon centaur that breathed acid and, when I saved for damage, still did 50 points when the bard I had borrowed from the woman who'd eventually become my fiancée only HAD 50 HP. He's done it in other games too - he's a "let's see how much we can put the party through before they call bullturd" GM. He can do better if he wants, too.

I've played two sessions with bad GMs - boring, frustrating games. I never play with the same bad GM twice, though! But I'll play with an average GM for several months.

Quote from: jhkim;708137I feel the classification of GMs into bad and good is often highly overstated. GMs are on several spectrums, and most of them are in the middle.

I play regularly under different GMs, and I know a lot that I would describe as mediocre to middling. Their plots are often linear, but they aren't horrible about forcing everything to stay exactly according to plan. Sometimes they have trouble improvising, or seem inconsistent working from slim notes. As long as the snacks are good and fellow players engaging, this is generally fine.

Why I only claimed Fair-to-Middlin'.

I never, ever, railroad, though!

-clash