Douchebag of the Week!

[Kuroimaken]

I might call that the GM who does not understand the "Why."

It certainly has a better ring to it, though I wouldn't ammend things for such a DM.

As of right now, the Flying Nerfbat GM and the GM who doesn't understand "Why" are both GMing a 4th ed game for our party. One's handling fluff, the other's handling rules. So far there hasn't been that many clashes.

[Josh]

I might call that the GM who does not understand the "Why."

It certainly has a better ring to it, though I wouldn't ammend things for such a DM.

As of right now, the Flying Nerfbat GM and the GM who doesn't understand "Why" are both GMing a 4th ed game for our party. One's handling fluff, the other's handling rules. So far there hasn't been that many clashes.

Good luck.  Manage you expectations, the game is what it is. 

For the record: A Game where two GMs are needed is doing something wrong*.  It has to do with information flow to the players.  Only one person can talk at once to the PCs, one person still has to parse the info from the group.  This dual GM thing is usually a sign of excessive unnecessary bookkeeping or overly grandiose ideas.  Or wankery.


*exceptions: GM in training, the good GM cannot always make it, some innovative idea etc. 

[GawainBS]

Is the Accountant-DM already nominated?
A DM who keeps track of every little detail, spins an excessivly detailed, but bland, story with a hundred named NPCs who have no real value, and gets brilliant ideas like replacing crits and natural 1s (always hated the houserule fumble) with rolling on a seperate table to determine effects, or when an attack misses you by the amount that you get AC from armour, that that attack hits your armour instead and damages it? (Que hardness and armour HP). We're in a nine player group at times, so you can imagine that it takes quite a while to handle that.

[Kuroimaken]

Is the Accountant-DM already nominated?
A DM who keeps track of every little detail, spins an excessivly detailed, but bland, story with a hundred named NPCs who have no real value, and gets brilliant ideas like replacing crits and natural 1s (always hated the houserule fumble) with rolling on a seperate table to determine effects, or when an attack misses you by the amount that you get AC from armour, that that attack hits your armour instead and damages it? (Que hardness and armour HP). We're in a nine player group at times, so you can imagine that it takes quite a while to handle that.

I did play with a similar DM once, except his problem was that he didn't allow retroactivity of ANY kind. If you didn't mention you took your armor off before going to sleep, he said you were all cramped and stuff the next morning.

[PhaedrusXY]

Is the Accountant-DM already nominated?
A DM who keeps track of every little detail, spins an excessivly detailed, but bland, story with a hundred named NPCs who have no real value, and gets brilliant ideas like replacing crits and natural 1s (always hated the houserule fumble) with rolling on a seperate table to determine effects, or when an attack misses you by the amount that you get AC from armour, that that attack hits your armour instead and damages it? (Que hardness and armour HP). We're in a nine player group at times, so you can imagine that it takes quite a while to handle that.

I did play with a similar DM once, except his problem was that he didn't allow retroactivity of ANY kind. If you didn't mention you took your armor off before going to sleep, he said you were all cramped and stuff the next morning.

Oh GOD I hate that... Of course, I also hate players who do the same thing:

DM: You're ambushed while sleeping. What's your naked AC?
Player: I never said I was taking my armor off to sleep.

[Squirrelloid]

I might call that the GM who does not understand the "Why."

It certainly has a better ring to it, though I wouldn't ammend things for such a DM.

As of right now, the Flying Nerfbat GM and the GM who doesn't understand "Why" are both GMing a 4th ed game for our party. One's handling fluff, the other's handling rules. So far there hasn't been that many clashes.

Good luck.  Manage you expectations, the game is what it is. 

For the record: A Game where two GMs are needed is doing something wrong*.  It has to do with information flow to the players.  Only one person can talk at once to the PCs, one person still has to parse the info from the group.  This dual GM thing is usually a sign of excessive unnecessary bookkeeping or overly grandiose ideas.  Or wankery.


*exceptions: GM in training, the good GM cannot always make it, some innovative idea etc. 

You're assuming the party is generally together.  I had a quite enjoyable experience in a campaign with 3 DMs and ~10 players where the players were generally all over the place.  Once DM was 'head DM' who occasionally needed to be consulted, but otherwise the DMs could deal with whatever portions of people were together wherever they were.  This worked amazingly well because the head DM seemed to have an abundance of freetime/no life outside campaign (?) and thus was always remarkably well prepared (not to mention that he was quite fine with the other DMs running with things in the world).

The biggest problem was finding days when everyone was available...

So multiple DMs is good - if you expect to effectively have multiple functional parties at one time.

[Josh]

I might call that the GM who does not understand the "Why."

It certainly has a better ring to it, though I wouldn't ammend things for such a DM.

As of right now, the Flying Nerfbat GM and the GM who doesn't understand "Why" are both GMing a 4th ed game for our party. One's handling fluff, the other's handling rules. So far there hasn't been that many clashes.

Good luck.  Manage you expectations, the game is what it is. 

For the record: A Game where two GMs are needed is doing something wrong*.  It has to do with information flow to the players.  Only one person can talk at once to the PCs, one person still has to parse the info from the group.  This dual GM thing is usually a sign of excessive unnecessary bookkeeping or overly grandiose ideas.  Or wankery.


*exceptions: GM in training, the good GM cannot always make it, some innovative idea etc. 

You're assuming the party is generally together.  I had a quite enjoyable experience in a campaign with 3 DMs and ~10 players where the players were generally all over the place.  Once DM was 'head DM' who occasionally needed to be consulted, but otherwise the DMs could deal with whatever portions of people were together wherever they were.  This worked amazingly well because the head DM seemed to have an abundance of freetime/no life outside campaign (?) and thus was always remarkably well prepared (not to mention that he was quite fine with the other DMs running with things in the world).

The biggest problem was finding days when everyone was available...

So multiple DMs is good - if you expect to effectively have multiple functional parties at one time.

There are tons of corner cases that work.  The important thing is this: having multiple GMs can be used well to compress time, it works poorly to cover deficiencies.  Any game run by multiples GMs could be run by one, if people would stand around an do nothing most of the time

[Caelic]

It also sounds like he wasn't taking the limits of the Hat and of Bluff into account.  The Hat is nice, but it provides a +10 to Disguise; it's not infallible, especially if the person using it has no Disguise skill.

Bluff, likewise, isn't mind control.  There are going to be situations where it just plain doesn't work, regardless of modifier, just like any other skill.  Situation is every bit as important as numbers.

[Kuroimaken]

It also sounds like he wasn't taking the limits of the Hat and of Bluff into account.  The Hat is nice, but it provides a +10 to Disguise; it's not infallible, especially if the person using it has no Disguise skill.

Bluff, likewise, isn't mind control.  There are going to be situations where it just plain doesn't work, regardless of modifier, just like any other skill.  Situation is every bit as important as numbers.

We actually discussed the situation at length. The biggest failure of the hat, for me, is that it provided you with an illusion - and thus, if you're touched, your disguise is effectively foiled.

[jcm]

I've got a two-fer

1. Low threshold rage guy: his first step is always to go nuclear. Develop this into gaming by intimidation and uncomfortable silence. Bonus points for hinting at a hidden criminal past or secret military service.

2. Crouching passive-aggressive, hidden issues: sprinkles drama landmines liberally about the gaming table. Get upset randomly about in game events, don't tell anyone at the table though, make sure to break into tears over coffee with another player instead. Recruit knights to defend you against your enemies, turn your friends against each for fun and profit.

[yellerSumner]

The Heterophobe.

This gamer will have other issues, most often ones that involve you playing your character a way he doesn't like.  He'll gravitate towards "effeminate" races such as elves (or half-elves for that dose of persecution) and non-physical classes.  It's possible that you won't even know he's gay until he accuses everyone of hating him for it.

When provoked, he'll accuse other male players of being hyper-masculine homophobes because they're not playing effeminate full-casters.  All problems, in-game and between players, are because he is gay and others are homophobes - the fact that he's a douchebag has absolutely nothing to do with it because douchebaggery is surely a hyper-masculine trait.

When I encountered the heterophobe, he was DMing online.  He had written some crazy LotR/FR crossover background for a pet group of half-elves and would bring down their goddess to stop conflict whenever an evil PC tried to attack them.  When pressed to allow combat, he mentioned house-rules only if someone objected and pointed out the real rule.  When he lost control of the group and was banned from the board, he kept in contact with the guy who had been his co-DM, and accused him of the full hyper-masculine, anti-social, etc., etc.

Heterophobes are not to be confused with gay gamers just as powergamers are not to be confused with min/maxers.


The Heterophobe should probably be paired with the Homophobe to create the non-discriminatory title of DoucheBigot.

The Homophobe thinks "effeminate" races and anyone who plays them is gay.  Playing a female is probably gay as well with the possible exception of raging sluts.

[Kuroimaken]

The Heterophobe.

This gamer will have other issues, most often ones that involve you playing your character a way he doesn't like.  He'll gravitate towards "effeminate" races such as elves (or half-elves for that dose of persecution) and non-physical classes.  It's possible that you won't even know he's gay until he accuses everyone of hating him for it.

When provoked, he'll accuse other male players of being hyper-masculine homophobes because they're not playing effeminate full-casters.  All problems, in-game and between players, are because he is gay and others are homophobes - the fact that he's a douchebag has absolutely nothing to do with it because douchebaggery is surely a hyper-masculine trait.

When I encountered the heterophobe, he was DMing online.  He had written some crazy LotR/FR crossover background for a pet group of half-elves and would bring down their goddess to stop conflict whenever an evil PC tried to attack them.  When pressed to allow combat, he mentioned house-rules only if someone objected and pointed out the real rule.  When he lost control of the group and was banned from the board, he kept in contact with the guy who had been his co-DM, and accused him of the full hyper-masculine, anti-social, etc., etc.

Heterophobes are not to be confused with gay gamers just as powergamers are not to be confused with min/maxers.


The Heterophobe should probably be paired with the Homophobe to create the non-discriminatory title of DoucheBigot.

The Homophobe thinks "effeminate" races and anyone who plays them is gay.  Playing a female is probably gay as well with the possible exception of raging sluts.

I have to say I never DID run into a Heterophobe before, but my group is full of Homophobes (myself included).

I don't really care much if someone wants to play a fruity elf/vampire/whatever. Though it often pisses me if someone accuses my characters of being flaming/fruity (I once had a kitsune character in a homebrew world. Basically, he wanted to become a nine-tails, and to do so, he served Amaterasu. The running gag (which unfortunately the other players won't EVER let me forget) was that he bent over so the Goddess could stick another tail on his ass).

Never-you-mind that the player who came up with said gag is an elf-lover who never had a girlfriend, and that as soon as 4e came out claimed that Elves had suddenly become 'manly' while Eladrin were to be the "the fruity side of elfdom"...

[Kuroimaken]

I have to cast another vote for douchebag of the week: the DM who ran the game this Sunday where I am.

Now, I know I'm not supposed to point specific people, but I don't have a title for this one. So hear me out.

Said DM is overly enamoured with a homebrew setting from another group he plays with. Said setting is "low magic", "more historically accurate" and "gritty". When I said I wanted to play a Drow rogue, he said, "OK, fine, but you might run into some social snags, so make sure you're covered most of the time". I said I was fine with it because my character would probably be hiding from his people anyway.

From MOMENT ONE everyone my character met was outright rude because my character wouldn't show his face. This I was fine with. I asked if it was okay for my character to have a Tarot deck. He said it was okay but that it would be relatively expensive. This I was also fine with.

Now, my own character was somewhat rude and intimidating by nature. I played him that way though I wasn't threatening about it. I had to bribe a local guard so they'd let me disembark with half my weapons (I carried lots of daggers and throwing knives). Then I went to a tavern and tried to get myself a job. This ended with me speaking to the tavern owner and two other PCs at another room in the tavern, in the upper floor. I had been playing with the cards a while, occasionally asking someone to pick a card, among other things, so they assumed I was a mage. When they asked me what I was good at (when I revealed I -wasn't- a mage), I slightly opened my cape and said, "I hunt with thrown weapons".

Immediately, the tavern owner freaked out and called the guards. I tried to Intimidate him into calling them off (rolled a 15, was trained, high Cha, the works) and the DM said it wasn't logical for him to obey me. So I decided to just up and leave (argument from everyone else saying I should just leave while the guards weren't around). So I set foot out of the room and, getting pissed at the situation in general (I was just trying to get a job, for goodness sakes), I decided my character would push the hood off.

The moment my character stepped out of the room, a guard appears at the top of the stairs (I didn't even SEE HIM GOING UP). The guard told me to stay where I was. I knew there was no point in being captured if they couldn't guarantee I wouldn't be executed by virtue of being a drow, so I told him no, and stepped forward. He proceeded to attack me, but I didn't fight back, just tried to dodge. He tripped and attacked me (nevermind that there really isn't a trip maneuver in 4e, much less Improved Trip). He told me, again, to remain where I was. I gave him the same response, used Cloud of Darkness, and then tried to run away. In the meantime, another player (who was playing a half-elf wizard) Magic Missile'd my character's back (did I mention the guys in this setting REALLY hate magic?), and as I ran down, he then Thunderwave'd me into unconsciousness.

The DM didn't even ask him to roll a Bluff check.

Later, the very same player sprang me out of prison (by using his "noble heritage", which was pretty much worth instant obedience from every guard in the town. I would've been executed otherwise), but kept my cards (he argued that they weren't supposed to be used by someone with no magic training - something he couldn't possibly tell, by the way). This ended with my character only wearing his pants, a borrowed cloak, and four daggers lent to him by another player. We ran into DOZENS of goblins on the way. Then we were saved by a Deus Ex Machina wizard type. We ended up going to his shack for shelter, my character was asked to step out of the room, and they burnt my character's cards.

The DM argued that he shouldn't have been allowed the cards in the first place, because "he wasn't sure they belonged in the setting". The end result: my character wound up screwed partially over something that "never existed".

So what kind of title do you give a DM like that?

[jcm]

So what kind of title do you give a DM like that?

Sounds like he's a cross between the cockblocker and the best friend. The cockblocker picks a player and always tells him no, pretty much whatever he does. Anything you like about your character he will take away. The Best Friend picks a player and tells him yes, pretty much whatever he does.

[Josh]

So what kind of title do you give a DM like that?

Sounds like he's a cross between the cockblocker and the best friend. The cockblocker picks a player and always tells him no, pretty much whatever he does. Anything you like about your character he will take away. The Best Friend picks a player and tells him yes, pretty much whatever he does.

He seems more of "all around bad."  He is the above (cockblocker and best friend or BFF) but he also seems to have made a host of other mistakes.  Like allowing a character not right for the world.  And not to mention "low magic."  that's almost code for I'm a bad GM(occasionally it is not).

[jcm]

And not to mention "low magic."  that's almost code for I'm a bad GM(occasionally it is not).

I have a spot in my heart for the low magic folks. Because they want to recreate Newhon or Westros or Cimeria or the world of The Black Company or any of the other low magic fantasy worlds I love to read about. But when talking about D&D the term low magic is code for "I don't want you to do awesome things".

[GawainBS]

Low magic is ok, if the system is designed with it in mind. (First that springs to mind is Warhammer Fantasy.) In D&D, it's mostly a disaster.

[Kuroimaken]

In D&D 4e, then, it's CERTAIN disaster.

[GawainBS]

In D&D 4e, then, it's CERTAIN disaster.

It's 4E, enough said.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Man, that is just sad