So far I have been doing a lot of posts about DMing tropes, but what about tropes on DMing?
(This post is very satirical. If anyone is offended by this… well let’s just say I’d rather not play in your game…)
When you ask RPG-savvy people to describe a cliché (or a trope) about DMs, I would be willing to bet that the top two would be the Bad DM and the Killer DM.
I’ll add a third one, less known but well represented in RPG lore: the Evil DM.
The Bad DM:
Archetype: Immortalized in this story.
The bad DM cares about his NPC, his world and his plot-lines more than about his players.
Some think they can wing it and fail to prepare anything significant for a session. They spend a lot of time in-game looking for critters to throw at players and often completely misjudge the party’s abilities, sending monsters that are far too powerful. But never fear, his army of Marty Stus and Mary Sues are here to save the day!
Others write such rigid plot lines that even the most Lawful Introvert player will do anything to blow the rail to pieces and go explore the DM’s white spots on his maps.
The Killer DM:
Archetype: A DM who still think AD&D’s Tomb of Horrors (original version) rocks as an adventure.
Not necessarily a bad DM (although the combination exists and is particularly toxic), the Killer DM plays the game as is, with the brilliance of a battle-proven Colonel and the compassion of a High Inquisitor.
The Killer DM is a heartless TPKing machine that infuses even the dumbess of orcs with the tactical cunning of Veteran elite Special Ops troops.
He never cuts the players any slack. You want to spot the Killer Vampire Bats hiding on the Ceiling ready to surprise you? Did you say you were looking at the ceiling? No? No Spot checks… (True story).
Only if threatened to lose his game will a Killer DM grudgingly make things a bit more possible for players… but at the cost ff him bitching about ‘not being able to play the game to its full potential’.
Surprisingly, some types of players respect and even enjoy a Killer DM’s game. Probably because when success is achieved, no matter how rarely, the satisfaction of having played one-up on the DM is very very strong.
The DM will then most likely complain that ‘That was not good game because players had it too easy’ (True Story once again)
Aside: On the off chance that the DM I’m referring to ever reads this blog (which I doubt) let me say just this: Man, your game SUCKED!
The Evil DM:
Archetype: Anyone who DM’s the Banewarrens or enjoyed GMing Paranoia.
The Evil DM focuses his energies to make players feel the game with the widest possible range of emotions. He’ll ask for player backgrounds complete with extended family. He’ll then mercilessly invade home countries, kidnap family members and exploit every disadvantage, quirk or other weakness the characters have. All to make a player’s pulse spike.
A bane to Min-maxers, an Evil DM will feature obstacles needing a wide range of skills and ingenuity to resolve. If you have a dump stat, be certain that the Evil DM will make you pay for your choice at least once in the campaign.
An Evil DM will gleefully inflict life-or-death choices to characters that would make King Salomon cry for mercy. He’ll reward the choice with the allegiance of those who befitted from your decision, but you’ll have made mortal enemies of those left out.
Given the choice, I’d much rather play with an Evil DM… for as short a period of time as possible… 🙂
I read the link to the bad DM story… My god!
Asking your player to roll for their character wang or breast’s size has got to be the stupidest things I’ve ever read a DM doing.
What a complete loser. I would take a killer or evil DM over that any day…
Welcome… to FATAL!
(Not completely work safe. Some language, and includes one link that I fully recommend NEVER visiting, but hilarious if you enjoy bad game reviews.)
(Almost as funny, but much more disturbing, is the author’s “rebuttal” to that review.)
I abandoned the review after the 1st third… I got the point all right…
I am so glad someone finally divvied up DMs like the player types we’ve all seen. All of these sound familiar.
The first two bug the hell out of me. As a DM, my opinion is that I’m playing WITH the players, not against them (either to prove I can kill them or to prove that my story is awesome.)
However… I’ve certainly been accused of some variant of the third one. A friend of mine in college, who was also a DM, once said to me: “I kill characters. You destroy their souls.”
His new campaign wiki has a list of all the groups he’s killed, along with justifications why they died. I’ll take soul-killing any day 🙂
The evil one is something that is manageable in small dose. But the thing is that player will be thwart at every turn feeding a feeling of frustration.
Like anything in life a balance as to be maintained between giving the player whatever they want and denying them everything. Obviously that is the hard part and why so many person suck as a DM.
As a DM you should not bring your ego or competitiveness to the table.
I really didn’t want to make a serious post on all types of DM because a) I do not know them having played very little and B) it would have invariably brought a G/N/S discussion, which I’d rather avoid. (If you don’t know what G/N/S is, go visit The Forge, I went and came back happy to be more of a RPG Craft than theory guy)
Those 3 archetypes are the ones I believe are the best known in RPG literature and Geekspace.
Like Dave and Yan say, a small dose of Evil DMness is good because the DM will play on player emotions. But I agree that too much leads to frustration.
Jeff Rients said “Give them the Sun, but have them fight for the moon” …. I’m all for that!
Frustration is the enemy of every game, no matter the source (DM, other player, rules, or otherwise.)
Actually I disagree Dave. Low-level, controlled frustration is an integral part of D&D (and probably RPGs in general).
Channeling that frustration and transforming it into perfectly timed satisfaction is what separates a good DM from a great one.
The best D&D games I’ve played were the one where players went from ‘on noes, were so screwed! I hate this game to ‘we’ve actually won this? Hell yeah, best game Evar Phil!’
Humm… It all depends on how you define frustration… The game you refer too in my opinion had a lot of tension/stress but it did not had the time to transform itself into frustration. Frustration usually builds over time. If you fail something your disappointed if you fail everything you get frustrated.
Given that perception I agree with Dave that any frustration is bad and everything should be done to avoid it.
The art his in managing the disappointment of your player, a.k.a. challenge, and make sure that it does not reach the frustration level.
My 2 cents
If we define frustration, disappointment and tension/stress as different concepts, then I agree with you all.
Good points!
Yep, definitions and all that. I tend to separate frustration (something to be avoided that goes along with feelings of helplessness) and the experience you describe. I try to make games that have hard choices, which some could describe as frustration, but I put in a different category.
I think that the Evil DM is a very good DM to have. In fact, just last night, I was shown that players do really enjoy the Evil DM over the long run.
See, I’m a borderline Evil DM. There is no question about that.
Last night I went out for a friend’s birthday. This friend and I used to game together. In fact, he was part of my first gaming group, and he was even DM for a while back when I was still learning the game.
He was there when I started DMing. He was also there when I unleashed the Wight Dragon on them (one of the most perfect exmples of Evil DMing I can think of).
But we haven’t gamed together in a while. And last night he tells me that he misses gaming with us, and misses my DMing.
And I laugh, because I know what kind of stuff I pulled on the players sometimes.
But he insists. He says that he loved the different stuff. The stuff that made the players think, and use skills that they didn’t normally use. He tells me that the Wight Dragon, at the time, had made him so very pissed off, but had been one of the best, most memorable games he has ever played.
See, a good Evil DM generally won’t leave you feeling frustrated, though they will have you going “What the Hell?” for a while. And an Evil DM doesn’t punish characters, deny them things, or try to make the characters fail. (Those are the mark of the BAd DM, not the Evil one.)
An evil DM will merely present the characters with tough situations and choices. Every one of those situations will be able to be overcome by the characters, though it might require clever thinking on the player’s part to get out with little difficulty. Sometimes “overcoming” will mean retreating, sometimes it will mean needing to make a morally questionable choice, and tensions may rise.
But frustration? With a good Evil DM (even a pure Evil DM), it should never happen.
I think when we say the evil DM we mean the one that take a special pleasure in torturing their player by constantly making them feel miserable. They don’t kill the player, they don’t go on about themselves those are the killer and the bad but they just deny their player any significant success. Making them struggle to have something to pay for their meal at the tavern.
What you describe Ve4 is more of a challenging DM… You love bringing some tough challenge that at first glance may seems over the top…
It’s a fine line to walk but the constant and merciless struggle is a big part in the Evil DM description he just does not cut you any slack.
He’ll give you a setting where everyone you meet could be a traitor and you know they’re out there to get you… Now that is fine for a one shot session but in the evil DM case it’ll be the theme of his campaign and each and single time the player let their guard down on anything they’ll get it. (Inspired by a real experience)
I can assure you that the novelty of the situation quickly transform itself from interesting to nightmarish.
To me, Yan, what you describe is, indeed, Evil DMing. Somewhat.
Evil DMing, when taken to the extremes you describe, becomes Bad DMing. As does any other sort of DMing, however.
This is why I specified that a good Evil DM is a great DM. A bad Evil DM does what you say.
I think, if this ever gets redone, or done more completely, “Bad DM” needs to be rewritten as a modifier, rather than a class of its own. As soon as the players stop having fun, the DM moves into “Bad DM” territory. As written, it is “Bad Storyteller DM”.
“Bad Killer DM” was already touched on in the Killer definition above. (Good Killer DM is merely the one who lets all dice roll in front of the players, plays enemies more tactically than they probably should be, and doesn’t protect them from their stupidities. He may enjoy it when the players allow him to kill them, but he won’t force the situation on them.)
“Bad Evil DM” is what you describe.
There is only so much I could cram in 500 or so words on this subject. I might touch on this more later.
My internal perception of the Evil DM matches Ve4’s pretty much. I believe that a great DM needs to be Evil (in controlled doses) and allow players to be Superstar badasses at the same time .
You can mess with the player’s reference points, just not all of them. Like our discussions on the Can of Evil.
When a character says ‘I’m getting too old for that Crap’ while the player is at the edge of his seat, a crazy gleam in his eye… That is the work of an Evil/Awesome DM combo.
Heh.
Evil DM: “I’m getting too old for this crap.”
Killer DM: “Only had one day left ’til retirement…”