I'm currently running Icespire Peak to a Discord server, and shortly after my first session, an increase in server tension appeared. I started with running a light-hearted campaign to offset the ongoing Epic-style campaigns of consequences in the server. Soon I had a set party with a few main Dungeon Masters who ran the Epic-campaigns as mentioned earlier. They taught me the ropes of Dungeons and Dragons, but also topics and actions I disliked. My goal was to create a different environment for other ongoing campaigns with a light-hearted journey.
Soon the flaws I've noticed about the DMs were the most noticeable among players when I ran a game. One had begun to throw passive-aggressive comments at players at the table for mistakes, wanting to continually implement his rules at the table that I disagreed with, and interruptions mid-game to talk about their campaign. Another had a habit of looking up stat blocks during combat, guilt-tripping another player's PC to work their way, and dismissing player ideas that aren't their own.
As a new DM, I let them slide because they had the experience that I didn't possess, and looking back, don't want to tolerate it anymore. A recent session had cemented that they wouldn't change after talking to them privately about these problems. They control the server I play on what should I do? Or am I wrong?
I'm currently running Icespire Peak to a Discord server, and shortly after my first session, an increase in server tension appeared. I started with running a light-hearted campaign to offset the ongoing Epic-style campaigns of consequences in the server. Soon I had a set party with a few main Dungeon Masters who ran the Epic-campaigns as mentioned earlier. They taught me the ropes of Dungeons and Dragons, but also topics and actions I disliked. My goal was to create a different environment for other ongoing campaigns with a light-hearted journey.
Soon the flaws I've noticed about the DMs were the most noticeable among players when I ran a game. One had begun to throw passive-aggressive comments at players at the table for mistakes, wanting to continually implement his rules at the table that I disagreed with, and interruptions mid-game to talk about their campaign. Another had a habit of looking up stat blocks during combat, guilt-tripping another player's PC to work their way, and dismissing player ideas that aren't their own.
As a new DM, I let them slide because they had the experience that I didn't possess, and looking back, don't want to tolerate it anymore. A recent session had cemented that they wouldn't change after talking to them privately about these problems. They control the server I play on what should I do? Or am I wrong?
Since you have already talked to the players and they don't want to change their habits I would end the current game and try to enjoy them as DMs.
General advice for players wanting to implement new/different rules or disagreeing with a ruling you made. I have had success with "This is how I am ruling in the moment, after the session we can discuss how situations like this will be ruled going forward" This usually allows the session to move forward and takes any argument out of view from the other players, while also giving you room to change how you rule situations if the player makes a good argument in my experience. Since this is another DM you may or may not have luck asking how they would handle it if you attempted to change the rule set in their game to give them perspective.
If there are people in the game that you want to continue running for it may be worth talking to those players and setting up your own Discord server to run a game for them (I cant comment/help with any social issues this may cause so take it with a grain of salt if you intend to remain a player with anyone that would be offended by this)
Also if you choose to continue DMing going forward(there is always room for more DMs) you at least have learned player habits that wont work in groups for you so you can address issues earlier and hopefully have better success.
As a new DM, I let them slide because they had the experience that I didn't possess, and looking back, don't want to tolerate it anymore. A recent session had cemented that they wouldn't change after talking to them privately about these problems. They control the server I play on what should I do? Or am I wrong?
So, you're a new DM that doesn't want things to continue as they have been. You've already talked to the problem player(s) and they refuse to follow YOUR rules. They control the server? Make a new one. Don't invite the problem player(s), or if you do, you now have the ability to just boot them.
You're not wrong, if a player isn't willing to change their actions when a DM asks them to because they're ruining the game for other player(s)/Yourself? Get rid of them.
When DMs/Players have problems there's 2 options. And ONLY 2 options.
Talk to them. Or leave/kick.
Give them a warning, and since it's via online, send it via PM the first time. But if they don't shape ship. Give them das boot.
I agree. Stop running for these people. Make your own Discord server. Run your own game how you want it. Invite players you enjoy playing with to play in your game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Really awesome that you want to create a more positive playing environment.
Everyone here is right that creating your own server/space to play is the right move at this point.
It's easier to enforce your rules and boundaries in your house than in your buddy's house, as it were.
Invite the like-minded players to come, and find more as needed. More cooperative players will likely be relieved to have a calm space to play. We often focus on players who cause difficulty, but quality players also merit attention.
Seconded - that's great that you want to create a positive and enjoyable environment for everyone. DnD is about everyone having fun - including the DM, and all working collaboratively to make great stories. The beauty of discord is that you can make your own server, which frees you up to create that positive environment and grow your community.
If you're worried that you'll lose players by creating new server, don't be - those who enjoy your style will stick with you, you don't have to bring negativity, and there are always people looking for games to join and good DMs online. If you're worried about backlash from leaving and creating a new server - don't be. People who spread negativity tend to end up stewing in it, and the internet is a big place where you can find people who share your approach.
My advice is back yourself - if you're happy you've given them a chance to address the issue, and they haven't, cut the negativity away and run your game with the kind of players you want to play with. Having good boundaries and enforcing them is really important.
The simple truth is that the only reason there are so many, uh... as BigLizard so eloquently put it “shitty DMs” is because there are so many players, and so few good DMs in the first place. When there are no DMs to be found, it falls on those willing enough to say “I’ll do it.” Most DMs don’t have anyone to show them the ropes. Most DMs just wing it, and just keep on winging it for years. Sure, eventually they meet each other like blind squirrels in Central Park... eventually.
Maybe things are different than they were 20 years ago. I don’t know. But from my experiences, if 2 kids in a school were both willingly to do it, that school has twice as many DMs as many other schools. In high school maybe 3 or 4 those DMs met and shared notes and developed styles together. Then college happens and 1or 2 of them stop. Then adulting happens and another 1 or 2 put it aside. But maybe, just maybe 1 will still keep on goin. And I’m sure for lots of people they had even less influence from others. Then that person becomes “The DM” forever....
Now it’s maybe not so bad because of all of these “fancy thinkin’ boxes” we all got these days. But I doubt that it was much different than my experience even as recently as 10 or 15 years ago. How long have those folks been DMs?
And DMs get set in their ways too. It takes a certain stubborn perseverance to keep doing it. Not necessarily skill or wisdom, just being a willing candidate is enough. A person get set in a way things should be done, and they get used to everyone doing it their way because they’re “The DM” and it can get hard to shake that. And because for every DM there are way too many players out there, they get away with it.
So if you’re willing to do the job and say “I’ll do it” then you will have players. Kind of a “If you build it they will come” situation. But maybe with les corn depending on where you live.
The simple truth is that the only reason there are so many, uh... as BigLizard so eloquently put it “shitty DMs” is because there are so many players, and so few good DMs in the first place.
That may be part of it, but I think not all of it.
After all, back in the day we rotated GMs, and there were good ones and bad ones. It sure wasn't for lack of "having enough" because in our game every player but one was a GM in turn (that one hardly ever came to play sessions so no one would consider making him a GM -- we'd never have played if he had been). Among our group one was awesome - to this day, best GM I have ever had. One was very good, was the first one to be DM with me when we learned D&D. Me, of course - I will not judge myself. And then there was the "bad one" who was just absolutely horrible and did all the things wrong that we talk about in this and other thread. Railroading. Making the PCs an audience for powerful NPCs doing the "real" stuff. Ridiculous overpowered villains that were still built so badly we could take them down easily. (And then he'd get angry that we were not impressed with or frightened by these top-heavy, poorly-built villains.) Making his own PCs into NPCs and having the adventure be all about them. Careless, sloppy map design. Lack of preparation. You name it, he did it.
Nobody tried to stop him GMing. We just endured it. For a long time. For the same reason you put up with having that kind of a player. Because he was a friend outside the game, and a pretty nice guy outside the game. We did other things with him (go to the movies, ride bikes, etc) and he was fine. He just was not cut out to be a GM. But he had no idea this was true -- he thought his adventures were great.
I dunno how long this would have gone on if real life hadn't intervened - he ended up going to a different high school and after a while we kind of lost touch. His house was really far away compared to the rest of ours, so we didn't make it over there that much and bit by bit we stopped doing stuff with him. But if he had gone to our high school, who can say how long he would have kept taking turns as a GM?
Now, why did he GM like this? I think the simple answer is -- he didn't know any better. He thought his ideas and stories were good, and he didn't understand the simple rule of RPGs which is (as harsh as it sounds) no one but you cares about your character. And they certainly don't care about your NPCs. (Even when, or maybe especially when, those NPCs are PCs when you are not GMing.) He made villains he thought were powerful, but had no idea how to build effective characters (in Champions) -- which is why his own PCs were a mess, and cost more points, but were less overall effective both in combat and out, than every other character in the game. So his villains would be able to do all this single-target damage, but not have high to-hit, and then phase after phase whatever PC he tried to attack would just abort his next-phase action and dodge, which in Champions drops the to-hit by -5, meaning you aren't going to hit (or abort and go invisible, abort and go desolid -- he forgot about those kinds of powers too when designing villains). And he'd give the villain all kinds of standard defenses, but forget about "no normal defense" attacks, which ignore those, and the villain would take 20, 25 stun per shot so even the villain's obscene 120 STUN would be down to 0 in a couple of phases. Again... he didn't do any of this deliberately. He just was not an effective character designer.
Thinking about the awesome GM vs the bad one... the good GM was something the bad one absolutely was not - he was detail oriented. He designed super-effective "themed" villains that were just brutal to fight in combat. He designed highly detailed maps for combat that allowed the villains (and us) to use terrain in battle. He demanded backup character sheets of all PCs so that he knew exactly what we could do, so when he designed his mega-villain, O/M/G... that guy would not have been beatable if we had not first stolen the uber-weapon of another villain to use against him in one of the most epic battles we ever had.
Now as a player, I did something I don't think any of the rest of my group did. All of us had our own way of GMing, and our attitude in those days was each GM is "god" of his game and gets to run however he wants, and that is your style. And most people stuck to their style. But for me... I tried to swipe the good stuff from the great GM, and learned not to do what the bad GM did. And I think, if I am a decent GM today, it's for this reason -- I wanted to give my players a good experience, and so I swiped ideas from experiences that I, as a player, thought were good, and made sure to scrupulously avoid those that I hated as a player.
And I think that the real thing that makes a good GM vs a bad one is simply this: Good GMs are always trying to hone their craft. They consciously try to improve what they are doing. They take player feedback. They try to "read the room" and see what people like to do -- what makes them smile, laugh, and high-5. They watch how other GMs do it when they (if they) get to play. These days they watch hours and hours of things like Colville's Running the Game, or they watch Mercer's style on Critical Role. They see that they like this thing here, that thing there. They don't like this so they won't use it. And this seems really complicated for players, so not that either. They keep trying to become better GMs, and although they won't be perfect, they keep getting better at it, and give their players a good time.
Whereas the bad GMs, they don't think they have anything to learn from anyone, they think they are "god" of their world, and their style is their style, and you should like it because they like it. And besides, what are you going to do, because (as you say) there's no one else to DM for you. (And maybe, if they're really terrible, they'll add the MU-hahahahaha at the end of that statement, although honestly, even the bad GM in our group wouldn't have done that.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm currently running Icespire Peak to a Discord server, and shortly after my first session, an increase in server tension appeared. I started with running a light-hearted campaign to offset the ongoing Epic-style campaigns of consequences in the server. Soon I had a set party with a few main Dungeon Masters who ran the Epic-campaigns as mentioned earlier. They taught me the ropes of Dungeons and Dragons, but also topics and actions I disliked. My goal was to create a different environment for other ongoing campaigns with a light-hearted journey.
Soon the flaws I've noticed about the DMs were the most noticeable among players when I ran a game. One had begun to throw passive-aggressive comments at players at the table for mistakes, wanting to continually implement his rules at the table that I disagreed with, and interruptions mid-game to talk about their campaign. Another had a habit of looking up stat blocks during combat, guilt-tripping another player's PC to work their way, and dismissing player ideas that aren't their own.
As a new DM, I let them slide because they had the experience that I didn't possess, and looking back, don't want to tolerate it anymore. A recent session had cemented that they wouldn't change after talking to them privately about these problems. They control the server I play on what should I do? Or am I wrong?
Since you have already talked to the players and they don't want to change their habits I would end the current game and try to enjoy them as DMs.
General advice for players wanting to implement new/different rules or disagreeing with a ruling you made. I have had success with "This is how I am ruling in the moment, after the session we can discuss how situations like this will be ruled going forward" This usually allows the session to move forward and takes any argument out of view from the other players, while also giving you room to change how you rule situations if the player makes a good argument in my experience. Since this is another DM you may or may not have luck asking how they would handle it if you attempted to change the rule set in their game to give them perspective.
If there are people in the game that you want to continue running for it may be worth talking to those players and setting up your own Discord server to run a game for them (I cant comment/help with any social issues this may cause so take it with a grain of salt if you intend to remain a player with anyone that would be offended by this)
Also if you choose to continue DMing going forward(there is always room for more DMs) you at least have learned player habits that wont work in groups for you so you can address issues earlier and hopefully have better success.
So, you're a new DM that doesn't want things to continue as they have been. You've already talked to the problem player(s) and they refuse to follow YOUR rules. They control the server?
Make a new one. Don't invite the problem player(s), or if you do, you now have the ability to just boot them.
You're not wrong, if a player isn't willing to change their actions when a DM asks them to because they're ruining the game for other player(s)/Yourself? Get rid of them.
When DMs/Players have problems there's 2 options. And ONLY 2 options.
Talk to them.
Or leave/kick.
Give them a warning, and since it's via online, send it via PM the first time. But if they don't shape ship. Give them das boot.
I agree. Stop running for these people. Make your own Discord server. Run your own game how you want it. Invite players you enjoy playing with to play in your game.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Really awesome that you want to create a more positive playing environment.
Everyone here is right that creating your own server/space to play is the right move at this point.
It's easier to enforce your rules and boundaries in your house than in your buddy's house, as it were.
Invite the like-minded players to come, and find more as needed. More cooperative players will likely be relieved to have a calm space to play. We often focus on players who cause difficulty, but quality players also merit attention.
Seconded - that's great that you want to create a positive and enjoyable environment for everyone. DnD is about everyone having fun - including the DM, and all working collaboratively to make great stories. The beauty of discord is that you can make your own server, which frees you up to create that positive environment and grow your community.
If you're worried that you'll lose players by creating new server, don't be - those who enjoy your style will stick with you, you don't have to bring negativity, and there are always people looking for games to join and good DMs online. If you're worried about backlash from leaving and creating a new server - don't be. People who spread negativity tend to end up stewing in it, and the internet is a big place where you can find people who share your approach.
My advice is back yourself - if you're happy you've given them a chance to address the issue, and they haven't, cut the negativity away and run your game with the kind of players you want to play with. Having good boundaries and enforcing them is really important.
The simple truth is that the only reason there are so many, uh... as BigLizard so eloquently put it “shitty DMs” is because there are so many players, and so few good DMs in the first place. When there are no DMs to be found, it falls on those willing enough to say “I’ll do it.” Most DMs don’t have anyone to show them the ropes. Most DMs just wing it, and just keep on winging it for years. Sure, eventually they meet each other like blind squirrels in Central Park... eventually.
Maybe things are different than they were 20 years ago. I don’t know. But from my experiences, if 2 kids in a school were both willingly to do it, that school has twice as many DMs as many other schools. In high school maybe 3 or 4 those DMs met and shared notes and developed styles together. Then college happens and 1or 2 of them stop. Then adulting happens and another 1 or 2 put it aside. But maybe, just maybe 1 will still keep on goin. And I’m sure for lots of people they had even less influence from others. Then that person becomes “The DM” forever....
Now it’s maybe not so bad because of all of these “fancy thinkin’ boxes” we all got these days. But I doubt that it was much different than my experience even as recently as 10 or 15 years ago. How long have those folks been DMs?
And DMs get set in their ways too. It takes a certain stubborn perseverance to keep doing it. Not necessarily skill or wisdom, just being a willing candidate is enough. A person get set in a way things should be done, and they get used to everyone doing it their way because they’re “The DM” and it can get hard to shake that. And because for every DM there are way too many players out there, they get away with it.
So if you’re willing to do the job and say “I’ll do it” then you will have players. Kind of a “If you build it they will come” situation. But maybe with les corn depending on where you live.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That may be part of it, but I think not all of it.
After all, back in the day we rotated GMs, and there were good ones and bad ones. It sure wasn't for lack of "having enough" because in our game every player but one was a GM in turn (that one hardly ever came to play sessions so no one would consider making him a GM -- we'd never have played if he had been). Among our group one was awesome - to this day, best GM I have ever had. One was very good, was the first one to be DM with me when we learned D&D. Me, of course - I will not judge myself. And then there was the "bad one" who was just absolutely horrible and did all the things wrong that we talk about in this and other thread. Railroading. Making the PCs an audience for powerful NPCs doing the "real" stuff. Ridiculous overpowered villains that were still built so badly we could take them down easily. (And then he'd get angry that we were not impressed with or frightened by these top-heavy, poorly-built villains.) Making his own PCs into NPCs and having the adventure be all about them. Careless, sloppy map design. Lack of preparation. You name it, he did it.
Nobody tried to stop him GMing. We just endured it. For a long time. For the same reason you put up with having that kind of a player. Because he was a friend outside the game, and a pretty nice guy outside the game. We did other things with him (go to the movies, ride bikes, etc) and he was fine. He just was not cut out to be a GM. But he had no idea this was true -- he thought his adventures were great.
I dunno how long this would have gone on if real life hadn't intervened - he ended up going to a different high school and after a while we kind of lost touch. His house was really far away compared to the rest of ours, so we didn't make it over there that much and bit by bit we stopped doing stuff with him. But if he had gone to our high school, who can say how long he would have kept taking turns as a GM?
Now, why did he GM like this? I think the simple answer is -- he didn't know any better. He thought his ideas and stories were good, and he didn't understand the simple rule of RPGs which is (as harsh as it sounds) no one but you cares about your character. And they certainly don't care about your NPCs. (Even when, or maybe especially when, those NPCs are PCs when you are not GMing.) He made villains he thought were powerful, but had no idea how to build effective characters (in Champions) -- which is why his own PCs were a mess, and cost more points, but were less overall effective both in combat and out, than every other character in the game. So his villains would be able to do all this single-target damage, but not have high to-hit, and then phase after phase whatever PC he tried to attack would just abort his next-phase action and dodge, which in Champions drops the to-hit by -5, meaning you aren't going to hit (or abort and go invisible, abort and go desolid -- he forgot about those kinds of powers too when designing villains). And he'd give the villain all kinds of standard defenses, but forget about "no normal defense" attacks, which ignore those, and the villain would take 20, 25 stun per shot so even the villain's obscene 120 STUN would be down to 0 in a couple of phases. Again... he didn't do any of this deliberately. He just was not an effective character designer.
Thinking about the awesome GM vs the bad one... the good GM was something the bad one absolutely was not - he was detail oriented. He designed super-effective "themed" villains that were just brutal to fight in combat. He designed highly detailed maps for combat that allowed the villains (and us) to use terrain in battle. He demanded backup character sheets of all PCs so that he knew exactly what we could do, so when he designed his mega-villain, O/M/G... that guy would not have been beatable if we had not first stolen the uber-weapon of another villain to use against him in one of the most epic battles we ever had.
Now as a player, I did something I don't think any of the rest of my group did. All of us had our own way of GMing, and our attitude in those days was each GM is "god" of his game and gets to run however he wants, and that is your style. And most people stuck to their style. But for me... I tried to swipe the good stuff from the great GM, and learned not to do what the bad GM did. And I think, if I am a decent GM today, it's for this reason -- I wanted to give my players a good experience, and so I swiped ideas from experiences that I, as a player, thought were good, and made sure to scrupulously avoid those that I hated as a player.
And I think that the real thing that makes a good GM vs a bad one is simply this: Good GMs are always trying to hone their craft. They consciously try to improve what they are doing. They take player feedback. They try to "read the room" and see what people like to do -- what makes them smile, laugh, and high-5. They watch how other GMs do it when they (if they) get to play. These days they watch hours and hours of things like Colville's Running the Game, or they watch Mercer's style on Critical Role. They see that they like this thing here, that thing there. They don't like this so they won't use it. And this seems really complicated for players, so not that either. They keep trying to become better GMs, and although they won't be perfect, they keep getting better at it, and give their players a good time.
Whereas the bad GMs, they don't think they have anything to learn from anyone, they think they are "god" of their world, and their style is their style, and you should like it because they like it. And besides, what are you going to do, because (as you say) there's no one else to DM for you. (And maybe, if they're really terrible, they'll add the MU-hahahahaha at the end of that statement, although honestly, even the bad GM in our group wouldn't have done that.)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.