How many games do you give a new GM before you just write him off as being shit and find a new one?

Just tell the gm you aren't interested in playing anymore, then leave.

If you want to be a shit about it you could make up an life excuse- I wouldn't though.

I'm a lifelong GM, and I'm convinced I will never find anyone who lives up to my standards as a GM. I will instead just bite my lip and bear it. I don't get to play often as I'm always allocated to GM, so I jump at the opportunity every chance I get, despite weather or not the GM is shit.

>pic unrelated

A drywall anchor is always related.

Didn't know what the drywall anchor was, but immediately saw how it was related.

Depends on what type of shit are we talking here.

There have been games where I left immediately after that session. There have been times where it took me like, a month before I finally had enough.

Usually in the latter case, it's a matter of the DM doing a lot of tiny, little things that piss me off or just aren't very conducive to a fun time, like starting meaningless arguments with the players, or caving after said arguments even if the rest of the group doesn't like that, or if the DM does things like setting up encounters in 5' wide tunnels where only one or two people can actually fight/see the monster.

In the prior case, they usually are either boring, or literally don't know how to DM at all.

On the reverse side, as a DM, I've kicked out people as soon as half-way through the session, to as late as a few months down the line, but that's a different story.

I'm really volatile. I DM a lot so whenever I sit as a player I just start thinking of how I would DM the situation instead of actually enjoying it, unless the DM can really make me feel immersed.

But what really makes me mad are DM coming up with bullshit that just breaks any kind of immersion. One time, we had a game through Skype and the DM (actually a good one) had to improvise a bit because two other players weren't there (out of 5). He just started improvising on how the other players found like a magical piece of underwear, that was actually shit-stained and it all veered into LOL SO RANDUM XDDD territory.

I'm fine with humor, and I know improvising is hard but holy fuck at least try to make it coherent with the setting, have us killing giant roaches in the sewers or just chasing some thieves but don't kill the damn narrative like that.

I don't want to play on that game anymore, which is a shame because the DM is actually good when people show up and we follow his leads (he's shit at improvising, as you already saw).

I have learned to hate both these and the plastic "zip-its" from working with them so much. I had a job where after everything was installed, all the wire pulled and terminated, it was pointed out that the guy who pulled it through had used these to secure it, not horizontally, along the wall, but hung them from the ceilings. They're not rated for that.

So I spent about 32 hours doing a rush job to fix it, patching all the holes and restringing all the wire.

Thankfully most of it was still the right length, so I just had to change the fasteners for the most part, sometimes I had to repull a section and anchor it to the wall instead.

If they seem very impressed and self assured with their work and offended at criticism? Immediately.
If they know they have weakness and are looking for help and feedback to refine their skills? As long as it doesn't impede you.
Anywhere inbetween, scale accordingly.

Is it a server for JUST this game or is it a bigger server of several games and a big crowd?

I can tell in one session what kind of GM they will be. If they're new, it might take as long as a year for them to reach their potential (or their lowest point) but the signs are all there from the start. Most people are that way. Any average person, spend half an hour or so talking to them about pretty much anything, and if you actually listen, you can get a pretty good read on them.

Most reasonable response in the thread

>a new GM
>find a new one?

Once again I have to express my befuddlement over people playing RPGs with strangers. The fuck y'alls do that for? RPGs are only between closest friends, like sex.

For us, 3, we're a pretty chuill group so we don't like just kicking DMs. Way we tend to handle it...

>First session we give them the benefit of the doubt. maybe they're new, maybe they haven't found the tone they want for the setting, etc etc.
>Second session if nothing improved, we talk to the DM afterwards about our problems with the game, or him in general if need be.
>Third session, if it still hasn't improved, we let them go and find a new DM.

Good advice, Zenny.

>RPGs are only between closest friends, like sex.

But, like sex, you occasionally want to branch out with some new people.
I prefer to network it, also like sex. Start with some people you know, and get to know new people through them.

is a way to fix that maybe multiple DMs? I am actually trying to figure out how that would work now.

> How many games do you give a new GM before you just write him off as being shit and find a new one?

Not all shit is equal, yet I always revolve around 3. Note, last game I quitted wasn't because of the DM, campaign idea and NPCs portrayed were awesome.

But some players were that much self-imbued and objectively bad, and they were a tight knitted group.

> I prefer to network it, also like sex. Start with some people you know, and get to know new people through them.
Nurgle and Slaneesh would be so proud.

I have the same... behaviors when it comes to TTRPGs, less so with sex.

What do you consider to be a shit GM?

I have a various amount of different ways I like to roleplay, each of them ranging from lighthearted to edgy. For the most part I try to play to a party but I find myself enjoying a serious RP the most. That makes it pretty hard to find a good, simulationist environment for either sci-fi or fantasy, but it's possible.

Three. It's a magic number.

You don't have the right to bitch about shitty GMing if you yourself aren't willing to step up and GM.

How long do you accept pure shit from ms that have been running for years?

Half of our group would eat his shit if asked but his games are fucking awful. I run any chance I get so I do not have to play in his games.

Three episode rule I guess. Or seven if any upcoming session titles include the word "gorilla".

Depends on the GM, I guess, but generally speaking...

If there's an obvious one or more That Guys in a new group and the GM isn't shutting that shit down during the first session, the GM is a write-off.

Otherwise, I give the GM a 12-16 hour grace period to make me invested in the campaign and their ability to GM. If they're using whatever system we've decided to use well, if they've got a good grasp of managing time and session length in advance and have something interesting for me, we're solid.

If we spend the first session spending two hours on chargen, two hours on meme jokes, and an hour traveling to our destination before "reaching a good stopping point", then the next session spending six hours doing an hour or two of gaming and four more hours of bullshit, it's time to bail.

You. I like you. That's what I do when the game is insufferable: I offer to take over. Usually their next one is WAYYY better.

It's not easy to GM, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to have a shitty GM.

> It's not easy to GM, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to have a shitty GM.
Be the change you want to see.

>new GM
>not that great, but nothing really horrible
>after the sessions he asked me for advice and thoughts
>all I could really give was vague 'well I thought this was nice'

I don't mind new GMs that much, but the part I hate is that I never know what to focus on to help them get better.

Tell them to come here and ask for advice and to do the exact opposite and they will be a great GM

The last game I dropped was half-way through the second session. The DM just had too many players (6) and a clear favourite amongst them who got most of the interaction.

I left the first session annoyed after three hours of sitting around waiting for the DM to respond to any of my attempts to introduce my character. Only 2/6 of the PC's had any meaningful interaction with NPC's during that time. By the three hour point I just told him that I didn't expect my character to have time to be introduced this week, and I'd just get something together next week.

The next week was very much the same story, but much slower-paced, because the DM, who repeatedly insisted that he was up to the task of so many players, only acknowledged three of the six players. After a full four hours of asinine discussion about the flow of the local rivers and tributaries between two players and an NPC I just left the session.

Typically I'll give a DM 3 sessions, though.

To clarify, 'half-way' isn't strictly accurate. The session went on for a further 90 minutes after I left, after looking over the chat log, it was much of the same mundane shit between less than half of his players.

That's like saying you can't dislike shit music without being a musician first. Some people don't want to/are shit GMs and therefore they don't try, and I don't think any less of them.

I give GMs 3 sessions to make shit work, 1 if it was a truly shitty experience.

>Tfw had game which fell apart in session 0.

How does that even happen?

me and everyone else at the table are brand new. DM was a veteran
session 1
>shitty pregame start followed by obviously cookie cutter modual that he stuck to. no improve and didn't expect that we wanted to do anything till he told us to.
session 2
>scraped game from session 1 and rebooted it. wet just as badly. he through an obvious trap that even noobs could see and forced us to take the bate. some one bought a "flying stool" and the DM didn't know how to balance it, remove it or negate it.
session 3
>session 3 started when the guys unanimously voted (without any prior communication) to remove the DM.
the next DM was good until he didn't care and we didn't think of rotating DMs. i ran a game towards the end that everyone wanted and everyone just split up after that

i only had that happen when people didnt like the game's base idea and so when the game is announced everyone just says no

Like most people are saying, generally 3-5 if they're even remotely competent. But then I once had a sci-fi game's first real session (session 0 was sort of just an orientation, not much real gameplay) where characters from TF2 showed up because memes, and I knew I was done. The rest of the session was pretty shit also. There was a homebrewed shotgun that had a painfully short range, and the DM kept wanking over his hannibal lecter wannabe evil scientist who was super smart and genetically enhanced and nobody could mess with him hurr fucking durr god why do i still play traditional games outside of my circle of friends

Maybe in the sense of simply boring or mediocre GMing, but outright being a cunt/retard to your players is not okay, even if the game wouldn't exist without you

no game is better than shit game

>no game is better than shit game
I think he agrees with you mate. You don't bitch, you should instead quit the shit game. If you can't find a decent game, run one.

This is why I am GMing four active campaigns, three of them shadowrun, and haven't managed to play a single satisfying shadowrun campaign myself.

Would it be too hard for someone to run a shadowrun game where the players can actually make a plan for their runs?

While being a player, the GMs all provide only one solution and no other idea possible.

When being a GM, the players ask two questions before giving up and waiting for me to hand them a solution.

It's agonising both ways.

So stop just handing players the solution. Even if you have to remind the players "Hey, your characters have skills you don't. If you'd like to roll a Skill Check, maybe your character will notice something."

>Be a bit of a tolkein nut
>Players ask for a LoTR game that's "true to the books
>Work off the CODA system, make a number of tweaks to make it more like the books
>Said tweaks are not liked and get a what the hell DM, followed by the game collapsing.

Magic number: 3

1) Okay, he's still learning. I'll give him some pointers and let's expect better for next week.
2) Hmm, this is too bad even for a newbie. I'll try giving him some critisism, harsh but fair. I hope he gets better.
3) You've got a long road to travel kid and I'm not going to sink with this boat.

>tfw this happens with my group all the time
Please tell me what I'm doing wrong and doing right! I need feedback!

This.

Unless he pulls off a cardinal sin like shameless railroading, GMPCs, etc.

That sort of shit indicates a mentality that simply won't have any synergy with GMing

Not everyone has friends that like to play RPG's user, some people have to play with strangers.

Too many.

Firstly, it depends on all kinds of shit. I'll give a novice or a friend a little leeway. There are types of play I'm not into but if there's any indication that shit'll be varied long term I'll tough out a few hack & slash sessions or whatever.

Secondly, it depends a lot on what's wrong. I might not quit for the occasional peeve but I'm sure there are a few dealbreakers that will lose me in one session.

Finally, barring the really egregious shit, I'll usually talk with the guy and/or the group first. It's usually safe to assume that shit can be remedied easily. Or maybe the group's on board with the shit I don't like and it's better if I bow out.

The first skill you need as GM is the ability to read the room. Players won't directly communicate what they want. On the off chance that they know what they want and aren't just curious to see where shit goes (which really puts the onus on you to pick a direction and stick with it).

>Players won't directly communicate what they want
WHY, JUST WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO ESCAPE THE LAND OF CONFUSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING
YOU THINK SOMETHING - YOU TELL THAT SOMETHING, IT'S THAT FUCKING EASY
SOMETIMES I WISH I GM'D FOR UNCIVILISED ORCS RATHER THAT "polite" HUMANS

/thread

>You think something
Found your problem. People often aren't critically analyzing their every experience from some meta perspective. Especially when it's a social situation and not a piece of media.

Also, you won't get good technique from the shit people notice, necessarily. For example, knowing when and who to ask "what do you do?" or "while Grog is doing that, what are you up to?" is not something your players will be able to help you with. Likewise, knowing when and how to toss the players a decision to argue about while you sit silent for like ten or twenty minutes is not something they'll help you with. Except in the sense that you need pretty good players to trick them into entertaining each other thereby giving you a break.

There are just a lot of weird skills most people won't help you hone unless they've done a bit themselves. Working a room, prepping contingencies, improvising. They can tell you if you're fucking up badly but actionable suggestions to take you from mediocre to stellar are hard to come by.

Cute advice, except when it doesn't hold up to the dunning-krueger bit
>what if the person offering criticism and feedback is in fact the one that doesn't know what a good game is like?
>what happens if this person tries to push his views on the GM?

I think it's better that you simply find a GM more suited to your own tastes and let natural selection of "universally good GM:s" do the rest rather than trying to "train" your GM into being a "good GM", because you have no ability to tell if he's actually a bad GM, or if you're the one being a bad player.

players don't have to communicate shit honestly, just throw hooks out there and see what they pick up.

just don't freak out when you discover their magical realms.

really that's it?

how good they are at listening to you blather about your dm skill?

asshole.

he's describing how responsive they are to criticism, not him talking about his dm skill.
?

52. That gives me enough weekly sessions to learn his style, expectations as a GM, and his weaknesses. If I feel he's got potential, I stick around. Oh, also important: how many of my fetishes I can get him to accommodate. I also keep track of ejaculations per session (online play superior). If I don't hit at least 4 per session from session 30 on, we're probably not that suited for one another.