What are the most annoying GM habits?

[Adventus]

I know this gm who has been running a d&d campaign for 20 years. The highest level character is 8th. This character has been in the campaign since the beginning. He has killed dragons, fought Gods, and most of the powerful monsters in Ad&D. He also liked to have as many players as possible. I am not talking 8-10 players, but more like 16. H e also liked to have powerful NPCs save the party. The weird thing is that with a small group he is a phenomonal GM.

[Supreme Serpent]

I swear to all that is holy that this is true.

 

Had a GM (briefly) that his villains were always pasting us, never missed. After a couple of sessions, we found out that all of the to-hit rolls he was making...

 

...were on 2D6, not 3.

 

We justified not defenestrating him on the grounds that it is often difficult to break a Squad Leader player of long-standing habits.

[Koshka]

The Tangent That Will Not Die!!!

 

I'm in a 3.5 game (I know, I know ... ) where the GM comes up with very interesting scenarios -- when he gets around to actually starting the action.

 

Two weeks ago, the party arrived in a town. He had the murder mystery all set up and ready to run for us. (We asked.) He then wasted over half an hour gaming out one character buying a dress so she could eat in the dining room of the fancy inn we were staying at.

 

1) The GM learned everything he knows about medieval clothing looking at people at the local renfaire, so his descriptions of what the dress shop had in stock made no sense.

 

2) The dress shop and its staff had no connection at all to the murder mystery. It wasn't the locale, they weren't victims, they weren't grieving survivors, they weren't suspects, they weren't even part of the town militia that's helping us with the search.

 

3) Several players, including the one whose character wanted to buy the dress, asked him to just fast-forward to "I pay for the dress and take it back to the inn" and he ignored them.

[nexus]

The Super NPC.

 

He's stronger than you, faster than you and smarter than you. "You" being any of the PCs. He knows the solution to the scenario already. You are clearly just in the way. You are there to be an audience and sometimes, a cheerleader. He is typically one of the GM's old PCs or a blatant avatar of the GM.

 

The GM that assumes your character is an idiot. Despite whatever experience or background the character might have, regardless of their skills. The GM offers no hints or insights into the situation. If you don't say it, you don't do it. Despite the fact your character has been a detective for 10 years, he apparently knows nothing about basic assumed investigative procedures if the player doesn't or just slips up on a minor detail, for example. So the only character you can safely play is one just like yourself.

[SomeAsianKid]

GM's who give the party totally uber items/powers/wealth....and then complain that the party is too powerful. (Really, one Dragonstar campaign, the party had MILLIONS in cash).

 

GM's that kill your character, only to have him be reborn as more powerful. I mean, that's nice and all that I'm a half dragon now, but really...

 

And the thing that really, really gets me is: the gods sitting down and chatting with the characters. The gods must be really bored to just sit down and mettle with the every day lives of people.

[lemming]

Originally posted by SomeAsianKid

And the thing that really, really gets me is: the gods sitting down and chatting with the characters. The gods must be really bored to just sit down and mettle with the every day lives of people.

Depends on the mythology. Sometimes they did with certain people. Obviously, YMMV.

[Peregrine]

A GM who thinks that, in order to keep the game from getting 'out of control', the PCs should always be low-powered compared to the setting, nothing they do should ever change anything in the setting, and they should always be scraping for the bare necessities of life, never getting past "Where's the next meal/load of fuel/maintenance/starship payment coming from?"

[Hermit]

Originally posted by lemming

Depends on the mythology. Sometimes they did with certain people. Obviously, YMMV.

 

Guilty of letting the gods chat occaisionally with the PCs here.. in select campaigns if it fits the setting. *Admits* They seem to enjoy it actually

[nexus]

Originally posted by Peregrine

A GM who thinks that, in order to keep the game from getting 'out of control', the PCs should always be low-powered compared to the setting, nothing they do should ever change anything in the setting, and they should always be scraping for the bare necessities of life, never getting past "Where's the next meal/load of fuel/maintenance/starship payment coming from?"

 

I was following a thread on Rpg.net about that sort of game. You'd be surprised how many really like, or even prefer that style of play. I was fascinated.

[tkdguy]

How about the revenge scenario? There is a story (I wasn't there, but people I know were) where a character found himself paralyzed and was subsequently gang-banged by a famous group of mutant superheroes in the Marvel Universe.

[nexus]

Originally posted by tkdguy

How about the revenge scenario? There is a story (I wasn't there, but people I know were) where a character found himself paralyzed and was subsequently gang-banged by a famous group of mutant superheroes in the Marvel Universe.

 

Say what!?

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by nexus

Say what!?

 

Unfortunately, this is a true story. I heard a lady who can control the weather say, "Leave him alone! I'll show you how it's done." But I'm not naming any names.

 

Just so some people won't kick my ass if they read this thread, I'll tell you how I lost credibility as a GM. I ran a MERP game with several twisted elements. It was meant as a gag, but my players didn't see the humor in it.

 

What actually was written in the adventure by Iron Crown Quarterly:

1. Vampire rabbits

2. Carnivorous flying squirrels

3. Treasure that included a signed autograph of Wesley Crusher, an arrow that turned into an "attack turkey" when fired, and a statue that cried out "Danger, danger, Will Robinson!"

 

My additions:

1. The inn the players were in was called The Bleeding Orifice (a gag a DM from my AD&D group started).

2. A mule-faced serving wench having sex with her transvestite brother.

 

Can't you see I went overboard with this one? But live and learn.

[tkdguy]

God, I sure hope I haven't killed this thread! Or put myself on anyone's ignore list!

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Peregrine

A GM who thinks that, in order to keep the game from getting 'out of control', the PCs should always be low-powered compared to the setting, nothing they do should ever change anything in the setting, and they should always be scraping for the bare necessities of life, never getting past "Where's the next meal/load of fuel/maintenance/starship payment coming from?"

 

There's nothing wrong with that, providing that the players know what they are in for when they sign up for the game. Not every game has to be about the movers and shakers of the game universe. For every success story, there are hundreds of folks just getting by; why shouldn't we have a game about them from time to time?

[Peregrine]

Originally posted by nexus

I was following a thread on Rpg.net about that sort of game. You'd be surprised how many really like, or even prefer that style of play. I was fascinated.

Originally posted by Zed-F

There's nothing wrong with that, providing that the players know what they are in for when they sign up for the game. Not every game has to be about the movers and shakers of the game universe. For every success story, there are hundreds of folks just getting by; why shouldn't we have a game about them from time to time?

 

Well, I can't argue with these points; after all, Traveller is a damned popular game. But the insistence that the only correct way to play is "down'n'out" is particularly noisome to me, and when I've enountered the philosophy, there was always a strong current of 'control the players/PCs' as well.

[nexus]

Originally posted by Peregrine

Well, I can't argue with these points; after all, Traveller is a damned popular game. But the insistence that the only correct way to play is "down'n'out" is particularly noisome to me, and when I've enountered the philosophy, there was always a strong current of 'control the players/PCs' as well.

 

Yeah, "One True Way-ism" kinda sucks.

[lemming]

Originally posted by tkdguy

God, I sure hope I haven't killed this thread! Or put myself on anyone's ignore list!

Are you kiddin' me! I don't want you able to sneak up me.

[AtomicGladiator]

Originally posted by Zed-F

There's nothing wrong with that, providing that the players know what they are in for when they sign up for the game. Not every game has to be about the movers and shakers of the game universe. For every success story, there are hundreds of folks just getting by; why shouldn't we have a game about them from time to time?

 

You're welcome to it. I just hope no GM of mine decides to take this route.

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by lemming

Are you kiddin' me! I don't want you able to sneak up me.

 

I think "sneaking" on these boards means going on invisble mode (or stealth mode, I forget what it's called).

[Enforcer84]

One of the things that bothered me in a recent D&D game I played was that the GM wanted to use his "Home Brewed" world.

It turned out to be an existing campaign world with three additional cities. Then....

For the first time I played a Cleric rather than a fighter (sort of) but I was told that he was using his own Pantheon for the game. Not a problem except by the time we stopped playing he had introduced the "standard" pantheon anyway...it was kind of messy.

[freakboy6117]

tkd i was sure you where refering to The Authority story where Apollo was raped by warped wildstorm version of the Avengers

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Peregrine

Well, I can't argue with these points; after all, Traveller is a damned popular game. But the insistence that the only correct way to play is "down'n'out" is particularly noisome to me, and when I've enountered the philosophy, there was always a strong current of 'control the players/PCs' as well.

 

Sure, there's room for campaigns featuring world-class heroes, campaigns featuring people that are important locally but not so much in the big picture, and campaigns featuring people who are just struggling to survive. The latter works well when the PCs are constantly on the move; then there is room for successes that they can feel good about, but can't necessarily take with them when they ultimately have to move on. I'd think it would be important to let the PCs feel that they are accomplishing *something* worthwhile, even if their own lot doesn't improve much. I'd also think that a GM in this sort of game would want to carefully regulate how many goodies he gives away, not give the PCs a bunch of stuff with one hand and then take it away with the other.

 

Originally posted by AtomicGladiator

You're welcome to it. I just hope no GM of mine decides to take this route.[/b]

 

You wouldn't play in a game where the PCs are not important figures in the setting? Why not? Any setting can be good if you have good people running and playing in it.

[AtomicGladiator]

Originally posted by Zed-F

 

You wouldn't play in a game where the PCs are not important figures in the setting? Why not? Any setting can be good if you have good people running and playing in it.

 

 

Well, that's not exactly what I'm saying. My post was responding to this earlier description:

 

"A GM who thinks that, in order to keep the game from getting 'out of control', the PCs should always be low-powered compared to the setting, nothing they do should ever change anything in the setting, and they should always be scraping for the bare necessities of life, never getting past "Where's the next meal/load of uel/maintenance/starship payment coming from?"

 

This sounds frustrating and abusive. I like to have some sense of success in a campaign as a player. Even if my character might not be "important" in a way that affects the entire campaign world, I like to feel that he has made an "important" contribution at least on some smaller level. I like to achieve goals that go beyond paying the bills each month.

 

The above description strikes me as a campaign where the PC's are kept as supporting characters, never allowed to accomplish anything significant. They never get to be the ones to throw the One Ring into the Cracks of Doom, they only get to be lowly bit-players, watching on the sidelines. At least that's the way I understand what the above post is talking about. I've heard about this kind of GM who really doesn't want the PC's to progress past a low-level character, and kills them off if they start getting too much experience.

 

The characters don't have to be rich, honored or especially powerful for me to enjoy playing them. But they have to be *important* in the sense that the main characters of a novel are important, whatever the setting. If the main characters in a novel are not important to the story, it's going to be a dull book. Likewise if the PC's are not the main focus of the campaign it's likely to be dull.

 

Even so, I prefer to be an important character in the setting. Maybe that's why I enjoy the Champions genre, because as a super-hero you are automatically important in the scheme of things. And I like a sense that my character has accomplished something worthwhile and important. Maybe I'm a "Builder" type described in 4th Ed. Champions.

[nexus]

Giving out or allowing something then resenting the player when he actually tries to use it.

 

Forcing his own morality or hang ups on the players characters.

 

Constantly making the PCs the butt of "jokes" that ususally revolve around humiliating them (In genres other than comedy games).

 

When the PCs fail it is always in the most spectacular and embarrasing fashion you can imagine.

 

Relying on rules rather than common sense. Usually part of the problem in one of the above.

[Karma]

Players buy all their stuff at the beginning of the campaign and pack it into their van for easy transport, because this GM is known for his 'road trip' campaigns (allows him to show off his knowledge of geography).

How do the Bag Guys decide to 'get our attention'?

That's correct "Blow up the Van".

 

Oh yes and the aformentioned Deus ex Machina NPC (which usually happen to be his characters in another game and which he insists on having all the 'cool stuff' and 'XP' that he gave it in this game when it goes back to the other)

In fact he did this so often we named the character type after him.

Hello Cambell if your reading this.

 

You create a character whose core ability (that you've spent a great deal of XP on) is haggling and bartering so that she doesn't have to spend her hard earned money and the GM says after a few sessions "O.k. your all now so rich that money is no longer a concern"

Really he's great GM, but I wish he'd warn us that this was going to be the case so I wouldn't have wasted time, XP and money (since it was before we 'got rich' in a system where you have to pay money for training) on what is now a useless skill.

 

Gms who get stroppy and sulk when the PCs act totally logically, in character and in genre and it ruins his carefully prepared scenereo.

Case in point (A Cyberpunk game):

NPC: I need you to kill this person for me. I'll give you 10,000 credits to do so.

PC: We'll need the money up front. Expenses and such, you know how it is.

NPC: Sure... here you go.

PC: Thanks (pulls out gun and shoots NPC)

GM: Wha? Why did you shoot him.

Player: We had his money and he didn't seem like a repeat customer.

GM: But you'll build a rep for killing your employers.

Player: I'd prefer to see it as killing the stupid. I mean paying people whose 'credentials' are "having no moral fibre" BEFORE they complete the mission? How did this guy survive this long in this society?

GM: B-but. You did that on purpose... (goes on to sulk about us picking on him by ruining his adventure or worse creates a killer GM adventure to 'get back at us')