I agree with some of this, and disagree with other parts. I've been GMming for over 20years so I've seen the sort of behavior by players that undoubtedly triggered this rant.
selderane wrote:A lot of ink gets spilled about bad GMs. Not nearly enough is spend on bad players. Because if you just run the numbers there's bound to be far more bad players then there are bad GMs. There just is. But they're rarely talked about.
True but in fairness, it's worth noting that many official, published game sourcebooks themselves contain chapters on dealing with difficult players. Not so with dealing with difficult GMs.
selderane wrote:
I'm a phenomenal player. I'm not tooting my own horn, or stroking my ego, I'm just stating fact.
Don't take this the wrong way, but every player thinks that. I'm not saying that you aren't. I'm only saying that it's worth bearing in mind that a bad player doesn't generally realize they're bad. Players who argue with the GM honestly believe that they're rendering a service to the other players by keeping the GM "honest" or enforcing the rules. They think that when they're feeling bored or impatient, that the other players are feeling the same way and just not speaking up.
selderane wrote:
And I'll tell you why:
I make it very, very easy for the GM to engage me in the game and I'm perfectly okay not having the spotlight on me.
Most players I've met want the GM to drag them kicking and screaming to the good parts. They want to be stroked, coddled, and fawned over. They want to be convinced that your game is worth their time. They want the GM, in essence, to beg them to play and thank them for being gracious enough for attending when they deign to show.
Indeed that is one kind of bad player. Another kind is the player who sits quietly during the game, contributing nothing yet soaking up XP. They often have no idea how the game works and frequently don't know how to play their character. They have to be reminded, no matter how many sessions they've attended, how basic game mechanics work and frequently don't know what's going on in the story. They don't want to be fawned over, they're just there to hang out with the gang.
selderane wrote:
In their minds the GM serves the players.
The GM does serve the players. The GM is responsible for providing fun, challenge, a good story setting and a rewarding experience. That said, there is also a perfectly reasonable expectation by the GM that the players will make an effort to appreciate the GM's efforts, to not be a pain in the butt, and to contribute positively to the group.
selderane wrote:
Screw that noise. The GM is doing 99% of the lifting the least you, as a player, can do is make the bar they need to reach to give you a good time low. Maybe not ankle low, but knee height. They are Atlas with the world on their shoulders, why do you want to trip them up?
It sounds like you're feeling unappreciated as a GM. I feel for you, brother. I have been there, I'm there now in my Warhammer Fantasy campaign. It sounds like your players have failed to realize how much work and time you spend prepping the game, trying to make things fair, gathering materials, etc. I can't tell you how much time, money and effort I've spent over the years in GMming various games only to be "thanked" with complaints and grumbling by a handful of malcontent players who won't be satisfied unless everything is done 100% their way regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable that may be. The trick is to focus on the players who return the energy you're putting in. The rest can just stew.
selderane wrote:
For me the issue comes down to a single question: If you don't think you're going to have a good time, why are you even sitting here?
Because they think they can push you into doing things the way they want you to. I once had a player who outright called me a bad GM because I wouldn't let him use a monster summoning spell to cause an animal to appear in the air above the head of a guard in order to knock him unconscious. In my view, casting a monster summoning spell causes a nearby monster to rush to you, not magically appear out of nowhere, and ESPECIALLY not at an arbitrary point in 3 dimensional space at the whim of the caster.
Now, a different GM may have allowed the spell to work that way. The trick is to remember that not every player is compatible with every GM. Sometimes play styles are just too different and that's okay. In those cases, it's better for the player and GM to mutually agree that the player should find a different GM, with no hard feelings. It sucks, but RPGs are all about personality and style. How can we expect everybody to fit well with everybody else?
selderane wrote:
It's about trust and too many players, though they'll protest this, don't trust their GM. Their actions lay the truth bare. If you have a stick in your GMs face at the end of every session you don't trust him.
Absolutely true. And that problem could rest in either side, or both. It could be that the player is a control freak who regards the game as a means by which he can run the table and do whatever he wants. It could be that the GM has run things inconsistently and left the player feeling like the GM doesn't know what he's doing. It could be a mixture. The only way to know is to be consistent as a GM (and you may already be. I'm just suggesting this as something worth considering. Introspection is NEVER a bad thing in a GM.
selderane wrote:
Why are you here? No one is forcing you to be at the table. Go play TOR or something else.
What really bothers me the most is that its these same players who insist they're amazing but then complain the loudest should they get their backside reddened a little.
Yep, like I said, every player thinks they're an awesome player.
selderane wrote:
Think about this: What is everyone's favorite movie from the original
Star Wars trilogy? Most people would say
The Empire Strikes Back. And we all know why. The good guys got smacked, and smacked hard.
I have yet to meet the player who would allow their GM to do that to them. I've specifically asked fans of
Empire, and self-professed great players, that if they love that film so much, why wouldn't they want it to happen to them?
"Because it wouldn't be fun," is the usual response. But the real answer should have been, "Because I'm a crappy player."
So that's that. If you're a role-player, and you love
The Empire Strikes Back, but you don't want it to happen to you, you're a crappy player. You do not understand that getting to the core of a character isn't observing their triumphs, but their defeats. And that going through these moments can be a lot of fun...
When looked at from a certain point of view.
There, you are mistaken my friend. I know this is a rant and you just need to get this off your chest, and I rant on here a lot too. I don't mean to throw water on your fire. That said, I would like to offer you a little nugget of wisdom I've cobbled together over the last couple decades that you might find of value.
People like
Empire not because the heroes were defeated. People like
Empire because the heroes only SEEMED defeated. When you were watching that movie for the first time, did you REALLY believe the heroes were not going to come back and win in the end? Did you honestly think Han Solo was going to be in carbonite forever? Heck, the movie itself assured you that all would be well. Luke's missing hand was replaced, the droids were shiny and polished again like always, and Lando was taking Chewie and the
Millenium Falcon to go rescue Han. It didn't end in defeat. It ended in
hope. THAT is why people like
Empire.
Now look at it from the perspective of the adventurers. There's no such assurance. The PCs are possibly experiencing the end of their lives. The players are now looking at the possibility of a character that they've been building up, playing with, awesome-izing being eliminated. People don't play RPGs to get beaten. They play RPGs to be HEROES. They want to be victorious against impossible odds. They want to rescue the princess, storm the castle, save the kingdom, slay the dragon, liberate the town. They don't want to be Han Solo at the end of
Empire. They want to be Luke at the end of
A New Hope. It's easy to like
Empire because those aren't YOUR characters.
The only reason PCs are killable in an RPG is to provide the sense of challenge. The game would be boring if they were truly unkillable. (That said, there are players who get their kicks out of being nigh immortal, but those are, in my opinion, bad players because they're the ones who steal the show from the rest of the party.)
And now consider this: The players may very well be perceiving that your intent is to kill their characters (or at least, bring them to death's door) to prove that they can be killed. I'm not saying that's what you mean to do, but it may very well seem like that from the players' perspective. In that situation, how can they extend the trust you're looking for? If I felt like the GM was out to get me, I wouldn't trust him either. Sure, I've had characters killed as a player, but if a character died because a GM wanted to show off how good his NPCs are or just to make a point, then I'd be pretty annoyed.
Being a GM is very serious, because good players invest a lot of time, creativity and effort into their characters. A good player knows his character can die, and is ready for that, but needs to be assured that if such a thing does happen, that it happened fair and square with a GM that wasn't making any undue effort to overpower the party.
selderane wrote:
I've played like that for as long as I can recall. I relish getting kicked in the teeth by a GM I trust isn't trying to kill me for the lulz. If I suspected the GM were like that I wouldn't be sitting at the table anyway. This is why I've had GMs say to me they've never had a player like me before. Because they don't have to worry about me.
Which is awesome, and kudos to you for that. Just be aware that not every player feels the same way you do about being kicked in the teeth. When I create a Paladin character I want to be a knight in shining armor that is backed by the power of his god. He's strong, brave, devilishly handsome and accepts any challenge. Do you think I WANT to have him beaten to a pulp? If it happens, it happens, and what I'd relish is getting back up and fighting on, beaten but not defeated, and go on to win the day perhaps as an underdog. That would be fun, but getting killed for its own sake? No. Not fun. (Not that I mind an awesome heroic sacrifice. Such is the attitude of a Paladin, IMHO.)
selderane wrote:
Maybe I'm like this because I'm also a storyteller and a GM. I know the kinds of stories I love, and why I love them, and I know the kinds of games I want to run and the ideal players for them. Those players look a lot like me in temperament.
What you gotta realize is that most players aren't that way. If you can find a group of players who get into that then great, but a GM needs to be aware of the kind of game the players like. I'm not saying that your own style and story need to be subordinate to the whim of the players... After all, they don't HAVE to play in your game. What I'm saying is that it isn't about the GM. The players are the ones who tell the story. They're the ones who decide whether the party will assault the dungeon through the main entrance, or try and sneak in through the sewer. They decide whether the king of the land is just and should be obeyed, or whether to join the rebels to depose him. The GM is the one who sets up the setting, the adventure hook and the rewards. It's a cooperative effort. If your players like the kind of story you like, then it will evolve that way naturally. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. Time to ask yourself what it is, as a GM, you want to get out of the experience.
selderane wrote:
Maybe I am tooting my own horn but I would love to be Luke or Han in Empire. And I can't think of a GM who wouldn't love to run that game.
Frankly, I wouldn't. Maybe occasionally a session turns out that way, but if you keep going back to that well over and over it gets old and loses its charm. Sure, I've had players forced to retreat before a foe who turned out to be tougher than they anticipated. (It happened last Friday actually, in the online game I run for the people on this forum.) But you better believe that they'll be back next time for some paybacks. But imagine if we did that every. single. game. It would become a yawnfest, and the players wouldn't feel very heroic.
RPGs are about heroes. Let them be heroes.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
