Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 05:06:45 PMMy friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.

Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock.

This dovetails with something I've been thinking about lately.

For most of my gaming career, I've played with people I knew from regular life, friends and acquaintances. A couple of them were bad GMs, but those only GM'd a couple of times, realized they were bad, and stopped. The people who stuck it out in the role were at least decent at it.

Then, a few years ago real life circumstances forced me to move my gaming online, and I started gaming on VTT with strangers. I've been in a couple of great campaigns, and met some great players/GMs. My own games have run smoothly enough, and I get very few complaints. However, a significant majority of other people's games I've joined have had serious chronic problems: internal drama, boring sessions, unprepared or obviously disinterested GMs, irritated players, almost every problem a campaign can be plagued with. What blows my mind is that often these aren't rookie GMs or even casual ones. Some of the people I've played with have been Gm-ing for decades and/or are running games every night of the week.

I've always considered myself a pretty good GM, but by no means an outstanding one. The shit I see on Roll20 makes it seem like I'm in the upper echelon by comparison. So for those of you who have done a lot more playing with strangers than I have, I'm wondering: Is this specifically an online gaming issue, or are most GMs actually terrible at their jobs?

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 23, 2024, 08:58:55 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 05:06:45 PMMy friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.

Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock.

This dovetails with something I've been thinking about lately.

For most of my gaming career, I've played with people I knew from regular life, friends and acquaintances. A couple of them were bad GMs, but those only GM'd a couple of times, realized they were bad, and stopped. The people who stuck it out in the role were at least decent at it.

Then, a few years ago real life circumstances forced me to move my gaming online, and I started gaming on VTT with strangers. I've been in a couple of great campaigns, and met some great players/GMs. My own games have run smoothly enough, and I get very few complaints. However, a significant majority of other people's games I've joined have had serious chronic problems: internal drama, boring sessions, unprepared or obviously disinterested GMs, irritated players, almost every problem a campaign can be plagued with. What blows my mind is that often these aren't rookie GMs or even casual ones. Some of the people I've played with have been Gm-ing for decades and/or are running games every night of the week.

I've always considered myself a pretty good GM, but by no means an outstanding one. The shit I see on Roll20 makes it seem like I'm in the upper echelon by comparison. So for those of you who have done a lot more playing with strangers than I have, I'm wondering: Is this specifically an online gaming issue, or are most GMs actually terrible at their jobs?

To be pithy (yet I also believe there's a nugget of truth, too), there's a reason a lot of folks can't find a live group to run for...

The same law about "90% of X is crap" also applies to GMs in my experience and the Dunning-Kruger Effect is on full display.

Most such crap GMs don't actually realize they're crap GMs and so make no effort to improve. They keep trying again and again to rope people into their campaigns where they keep doing the same crappy things because whatever the crappy thing is is actually the reason they're GMing for in the first place.

For one GM it was entirely about his GMPC being the most awesomest ever. I ran across him years later with a group of obvious newbies and from what I overheard at his table he was STILL using that same damnable GMPC as the focus of that campaign.

Another I'm convinced was trying to use the sessions as therapy to work out his own issues in the same way authors will write to do so... he just wanted a crowd as he did so.

And some are just opportunists. I had one back in college whose day job was selling "enzyme-based supplements." He joined the scifi club I was in and offered to run a Star Wars campaign for us. Only the first thing that actually happened in the session was we were attacked by enzyme draining space creatures and if we didn't take special enzyme supplements we'd suffer penalties to all our actions.

That's right, he literally sold us on playing in a Star Wars game for the purpose of trying to sell us his enzyme supplements.

Related are the power-trippers; the ones who delight in throwing crap at the PCs to undermine them and make sure everything they attempt ends in ruin due to things they couldn't even see coming.

There are others who mean well, but just don't really have the chops for it. I've learned that the main tell for this type of GM is that they have a particular longer module that they mention having run before for other people and want to run it for you too. Its basically their crutch in lieu of deciding things for themselves (ex. I've seen Gygax's Hall of Many Panes or the 5e Infinite Staircase used as popular choices as both have a setup wherein once the PCs are on the ride they can't get off until the megamodule is complete or you just decide to stop showing up).

I've had the joys of playing under multiples of all of the above.

When I'm not drunk and incoherent, I run pretty good games. So I have read. There are people I consider much better than me, but honestly, out of all the games I've ever played, I think 3/4 of the GMs were mediocre or "not good". And that's okay. I am willing to deal with mediocre IF they are actually busting their ass and trying hard to run a good game. Sometimes groups just don't gel, the GM has trouble with how the game is progressing, whatever it happens. Then you have the truly shit GMs who Mary Sue the fuck out of the game with their hyper competent NPC who essentially just takes over the game, or the ones who run modules and don't even bother to read them beforehand. The worst one I think I ever had was a guy who ran Rifts, I played in one session. I made an actual PC, a couple of his friends made prototypical bs munchkin characters, few other newbies had regular PCs. Anyway, we're playing and another newbie did something completely reasonable, GM said no, that doesn't happen, you're "rushing the adventure". Then his buddies PCs did some horseshit that made no sense and got rewarded for it.

Or maybe the guy who killed my PC within the first 5 minutes then got irritated at me that I was going home.

Okay, but the enzyme salesman one actually sounds pretty funny to me since I wasn't there.

I've had one pretty bad experience of the typical railroad online, and several pleasent surprises.

I think since I'm not looking for 5e, most of the serious problems pass me by.
Not that there aren't crappy people elsewhere, it's just that most ctappy GMs seem to go for the popular thing.

I also tend to stick with a good group when I find it, so I'm not constantly joining new games

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2024, 09:52:42 PMAnd some are just opportunists. I had one back in college whose day job was selling "enzyme-based supplements." He joined the scifi club I was in and offered to run a Star Wars campaign for us. Only the first thing that actually happened in the session was we were attacked by enzyme draining space creatures and if we didn't take special enzyme supplements we'd suffer penalties to all our actions.

That's right, he literally sold us on playing in a Star Wars game for the purpose of trying to sell us his enzyme supplements.

That isn't the absolute worst by far but it is very creatively obnoxious. It actually sounds funny if you didn't sit through it.

There are so many minor but reinforcing skills required to be a good GM, that it necessarily takes a lot of practice, which means a lot of failure, before one gets good.  Not every person is cut out to do the kind of critical look at what they are doing, consistently, while also not cutting themselves down so much that they give up.

I haven't seen all that many horrible GMs.  I guess my local samples have been more the other way--people that might have developed into good, or at least decent, GMs, who gave up because of lack of confidence. Or maybe some of them were just people self-aware enough to realize they weren't going to be good for whatever reason, in which case more power to them for stopping.

When the haze of shrooms wears off I work on my every other week game and my players thank me after each session, which is a nice reward (I would take payments in absinthe and cheese, yet they never catch on to that). I have groups that range from college academics to deli/Walmart workers and it is fun to see the slice of life and the different dynamics brought into the game. Being appreciated, I appreciate my players in turn and try to be a fair referee, even if I snatch away the character sheets of the dead with glee.

It's easier to run for friends because they are forgiving (at first, even if they bust your balls), and its easier to run for the same group over time because you get to know what kind of games they want.

In thirty years I've known three GMs who were better than me, and a couple who were as good. And I don't consider myself that great a GM, but I sometimes run good sessions or good adventures.

All were offline, for whatever that's worth.

Online, what I'm encountering is GMs who are often technically better roleplayers than I am in the in-character sense, yet still run worse sessions than I'm capable of. Slow, railroady, only involving one player at a time. Multiple online GMs I've tried could have used a dose of first in, last out when resolving character actions - get an action or even an in-character speech from one player, pause it, and get actions from other players before progressing. I picked that up early from OSR dungeon crawling, but it seems to be a lost art for some modern GMs.

I do think the online element is definitely part of it. It's trickier to read cues, even with a camera. But I'm also blaming new school gaming generally, from 5e organized play adventures to Critical Role. There seems to be an emphasis on finding the right solution for the published or GM's homebrew adventure. And also an emphasis on giving one player at a time the spotlight, instead of involving multiple players in scenes.

Contra wanderer, I don't think 5e is the only problem since I have encountered bad GMing online in Traveller and L5R, and haven't even tried 5e online. Though again I do fault it's influence on players and GMs who started with 5e adventures and don't know any better.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in college sci-fi club that also had multiple campaigns run for each term, I can say spending time around other GM's is a good way to pull people to at least be a GM that runs playable games. People ask others for tips, how to do difficult stuff, get instant feedback etc. That is a huge advantage compared to asking internet randoms. Also weekly workshops that is "how to GM 101" so they start with the knowledge of what not to do. Another advantage of it is that if your game sucks, people will know since they have experienced better games. Depending on how bad the game was, people either improve with other's help or just stop GM'ing. And on the club, bad GMs were prevented to run games to newbies (they could do whatever rpg wankery they want to each other in private)

Online play with strangers is much more prone to bad games because there is no incentive to actually improve people. People can abandon games really easily with no constructive feedback. GM's can ignore criticism because they don't have to deal with those people again. Bad players can move on to the next game to kill with their bad habits. Bad GM's can retry their GMPC autofellatio with the next group of unsuspecting randoms.

I can't tell you how competent most people are at being a GM, only that I am not particularly confident in my own GMing skills, and have repeatedly stated such. The problem is not that I don't study the material or engage in discussions on how to do good GMing, but that I actually don't spend that much time at the GM seat. I spend a lot more time running a player character or as a game designer than actually GMing games, and so I will naturally fall back towards being one of those two positions instead of being a GM.

My experience with other people GMing is that most other people do not find it as awkward as I do, however. I don't think that most GMs I encounter are awesomesauce or anything like that, but most other people I've played with handle the GM seat rather well.

I do think it's a bit of a both that a great deal of DMs are pretty bad and also that a lot of DMs out there that are decent have imposter syndrome and think they are terrible. I also think compounding this a little is that what's a "good" DM is relatively subjective, and a "great" or "perfect" DM for one group might be awful for another.

I will be honest though, I've played with a lot of different DMs over the years, at least 30 that I've played in multiple session games, and perhaps I'm picky but all of them have been either meh or downright bad with exception of my first DM, my friend's dad, but that could also be nostalgia talking.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 23, 2024, 09:32:55 PMTo be pithy (yet I also believe there's a nugget of truth, too), there's a reason a lot of folks can't find a live group to run for...

Roll20 and DnD Beyond and other platforms have been plagued with fake DMs and fake players. People who have no intention of playing and are just luring players in to build hope, and then a session later, if even that, they kick them and put them on ignore.