I have been a bad GM in the past.
I used to get swayed by the way players did things rather than what they did, basically the more personable players got more leeway.
I have railroaded.
I have been guilty of illusionism, without really knowing what it was.
I have been guilty of using favoured GM NPCs.

I think if you have been GMing for any degree of time especially if you started when you were a kid and were self taught, you are bound to have been through these phases, in fact I might go as far to say if you can't recognise yourself as every been guilty of these things you need to step back and take a longer look.

I've played with bad GMs. Never more than once. Better no gaming than bad gaming. As for whether Im a bad GM; well my players don't seem to think so. That's all that matters to me.

I should actually answer the thread question.

I am the best GM in my circles. This is actually a curse, as I would like to play once in a while, but others rarely offer to run a game because they'd rather play in mine. I've tried to train successors, but they wriggle away when the critical opportunity comes.

The quality of my GMing improved immensely when I started to read old school theory, but I mostly run modern (90s and after) games.

I am almost always the GM.  And I know I'm not perfect, and I've played with GMs who are better.  But I think I do pretty well.  I'm pretty big on keeping each player involved, handouts and visual aids, making a big meal, and I have the philosophy that no reasonable request should be unreasonably denied.  I like to work in the PCs backstory as much as possible, and I'm a big advocate of "play the character you want, and don't worry about party need.*"



*with the caveat that the player must fit the gameworld, of course.  So no kender, Irda, dragonborn, tieflings, or warforged, unless there is a very good reason to do so.


That all being said, sometimes I wish I wasn't the default GM, and wish that some of my players were better at it, because I like to play.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708093Well I believe you have answered yes to the first question. I have another question.

WHY?

Why would I be in such a game? Good question.  I'm hoping that between now and then, he'll realize it won't be fun for players, and the game won't happen, or the other players don't show up.  I can be the GM for whoever else showed up to the game and do a sandbox session for the player characters real quick.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;708262Why would I be in such a game? Good question.  I'm hoping that between now and then, he'll realize it won't be fun for players, and the game won't happen, or the other players don't show up.  I can be the GM for whoever else showed up to the game and do a sandbox session for the player characters real quick.

Have you ever thought of, you know, talking to him?  Or the other players?

I am extremely fussy about who I play with, so no.  Occasional bad sessions, yes.  But I'm also in a group where anybody can say "No, thank you" and nothing bad happens.

Quote from: Old Geezer;708287Have you ever thought of, you know, talking to him?  Or the other players?

I've talked to him about it.  He asks me how I GM.  I tell him.  And then he says he wants to GM a simulated world, where players are doing what they would be doing if it was real life.  He asks me how I do encounters.  I tell him.  And then he says he has to use complicated encounter charts and tables for every possible situation that a character would be in.  I mention that I don't care for crunch at all in my games.  And then he says how we are all going to be counting out bullets, and keeping track of how many bullets we've fired for each turn.  And then I mention that I don't care at all for turns.  Save that stuff for video game simulators.

So he knows how I GM and the kind of role-playing I prefer.  But his mind is gungho on running a highly simulated world where we have sweat glands.  His notes might collapse under their own weight before there ever is a game.

Quote from: Benoist;707922As for the amount of people who'd qualify as bad GMs in my book: I don't think there are that many out there. The ones I have actually played with, I could count on the fingers of one single hand, probably. I think most GMs are decent, make occasional mistakes, and are perfectly able to learn from them. The truly terrible GMs who wreck any game table they touch by their mere presence behind the screen are a rarity, IME.

Yeah, I agree. I don't get to play very much, but when I do I really don't find TERRIBAD GMs. Most people are middlin', and if the group is cool, I'm OK

Quote from: Bill;707892Just curious how common it is to play with a bad gm, presumably because they are your friend, or no one else is available.

Also, is anyone a bad gm themselves?

Jibba gave a great answer:

Quote from: jibbajibba;708189I have been a bad GM in the past.
I used to get swayed by the way players did things rather than what they did, basically the more personable players got more leeway.
I have railroaded.
I have been guilty of illusionism, without really knowing what it was.
I have been guilty of using favoured GM NPCs.

I think if you have been GMing for any degree of time especially if you started when you were a kid and were self taught, you are bound to have been through these phases, in fact I might go as far to say if you can't recognise yourself as every been guilty of these things you need to step back and take a longer look.

I have done all of these mistakes and then some more. Fortunately, GMing is a passion for me and I am always in the lookout for ways and techniques that can improve my game. So after 28 years, I think I am very good. I am in high demand at many cons (before I had a baby and cons were over... for now), and usually has 3 players for each position in my games. So, there.

Bad Gm is relative to group expectations.

No, I haven't played with any truly "bad" GMs. But I have played with plenty that have made "mistakes" or whose style of referring has grated with me. Those that have fudged die rolls, blatantly used illusionism, story-railroaded, had unkillable GMPCs, retconned encounters if they've led to PC death.

And I've been guilty doing some of these things, myself. Live and learn. Try not to repeat mistakes. Game on.

Quote from: K Peterson;708339And I've been guilty doing some of these things, myself. Live and learn. Try not to repeat mistakes. Game on.

Pretty much, if you've never run a bad game you are either a lucky genius or just haven't run that many games.

Quote from: therealjcm;708396Pretty much, if you've never run a bad game you are either a lucky genius or just haven't run that many games.

more likely just deluding yourself.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;708189I have been a bad GM in the past.
I used to get swayed by the way players did things rather than what they did, basically the more personable players got more leeway.
I have railroaded.
I have been guilty of illusionism, without really knowing what it was.
I have been guilty of using favoured GM NPCs.

I think if you have been GMing for any degree of time especially if you started when you were a kid and were self taught, you are bound to have been through these phases, in fact I might go as far to say if you can't recognise yourself as every been guilty of these things you need to step back and take a longer look.

I went through this as well. At one point, i would say I was a horrible Gm. I feel like i have grown a lot though over the years. Now i am much better at understanding my players' expectations and i avoid railroads, illusionism, GMnpc, etc. Still i don't know that i how i would rate myself. My GM style seems go work for my players, and I think sessions that don't work out well are more a matter of me not being on the ball that day for whatever reason. Most sessions seem go pretty good. So right now i am pretty comfortable with my GMing, though it does depend on the type of game i am trying to run (i do better with certain styles over others). But i think a GM can always slip (if you start to think you need less prep than you really do for example, or if you fall into overly predictable habits). So I do try re-evaluate how i do things from time to time.

One thing that helps me a lot is being in groups where GMs rotate a bit. So i might run a campaign, then someone else might run something else for a while. Or we might have two ongoing groups each with a different GM. Anytime i see someone else GM, it gives me fresh perspective. And it is useful seeing things from both sides of the screen.

Quote from: Sommerjon;708400more likely just deluding yourself.  

Or just trying to appear better than you really are, sure. I think one of the critical things that need to happen for a GM to improve is self-awareness, a willingness to acknowledge and identify mistakes in order to not reproduce them in the future. Without that, you can't learn.

Some games I ran failed, and it's not impossible for a game I would run now to fail miserably either. I remember games that flopped for whatever reason, were just not fun, or that bombed due to a critical mistake of mine. It's happened, of course.