How to deal with GM-players?

[ChefKyle]

I'm sure plenty of you have experienced this: the guy who's usually the GM, says, "sure, have a go at a one-off, I'll enjoy playing for a while." Then he sits there as a player, pushes aside every plot hook, and does his best to try to force the game and setting to become his game, his setting - in other words, his dream is to be a player in his own game. And when he's not spoken to directly, or is busy disrupting the game, he's reading his (non-game) book.

I don't mind if people don't want to play in a game I run. But I feel that a person ought to play, or GM; but not say they'll play, and then do their level best to screw up your game.

To a degree, it's not malicious. It's simply that when you're used to doing one thing (GMing) all the time, you don't really quickly step out of that mindset. You still want to control everything; not because you're an evil controlling bastard, but simply because it's what you always do.

How do you deal with the GM turned player, who screws up your game like this?

I'm aware of the solutions of "kick him out," and "punch him in the nose." Both of those I seriously considered, believe me. I prefer to work with a person where possible, though. So, suggestions along those lines would be appropriate.

[Bob McNamee]

I'm not exactly sure what you can do with someone like that. Except for talking the behaviours over with them, and/or deciding not to play with them.

Talking these things over wasn't what we did back in the misfits high school days.

For myself, as a longtime GM.
I'm attracted to games that offer the Player certain amounts of narration and/or directors stance abilities...similar to the power I'm used to when GMing.

The Pool, Inspectres, Donjon, Trollbabe, Universalis...there's more that are slipping my mind but they all offer at least a little more input into the game/setting/situation than traditional games like AD&D, and Champions...my old GM-ing games.

But I'm also attracted to other games without narration stuff, but with strong input into what the game will be about, such as The Riddle of Steel, and My Life with Master.

Not sure this is helpful, but its a bit of a look at one GMs mindset and likes :)

[sirogit]

I would really like some description on what is it he does in tangible terms.

* Pushes aside every plot hook?  - Personally, I don't see this as abusive behavior per se, myself being somewhat opposed to the concept of plot hooks, espicially this expectation that they HAVE to follow plot hooks or their character will do nothing and the story will be boring, as it's indicative that there isn't a strong story to begin with.

Furthermore, picking up a GM's plot hook is neither protagonizing nor a statement about the character, so I don't see much worth in doing it besides getting the characters moving.

* Forces the game to become his game - Uhhh, how is that possible exactly? I guess I can imagine him wanting it to be "Plot-hook free" like his game so he instigates it by ignoring your plot hook. But how does he change the setting into his game?

I think you should really, really ask him:

"Are you trying to change the setting into your game?" Because if you're both trying to embark on a joint creative endeavor, and he's "screwing it up", then it sounds like you don't like his creative input. If you get the idea that his agenda really is to make this creative endeavor like the ones that he GMs, try to make sure of that, they may just be coincidentially similar as they're what he likes.

Try telling him that his ideas he adds to this game are too much like the other ideas he had in his other games, which were great, but you'd like him to engage you with something that is wholly new.

*How is he screwing up the game or disrupting it?

*What input is a player allowed to have in your game?

[jdagna]

A lot of GMs become GMs in the first place to satisfy some need to be in charge.  If that's the case, they're going to display this as a player as well.  They're not really different from players who need to control things (except that such players generally quit playing or become GMs, so they're not entirely common).  The thing is that GMs are supposed to be in charge, so you might not realize this need exists until they become players.

My main advice is to take a two-fold approach: confront him about his behavior, and offer beneficial outlets for it.

When you confront him, try to make it as friendly as possible, and do it at the time there's a problem.  For example, when he rejects a plot hook say "That's kind of what I was building the adventure around.  Why didn't you take it?  What would you prefer?"  He may or may not give you a useful answer, but it will often make him start thinking about what he's doing and why.  Likewise, when he tries to make the game his own, just say "I know you're used to your style of gaming, but I'm going to do things differently when I'm the GM."  Keep in mind that many GMs are also getting defensive (thinking that maybe you want to GM because you secretly don't like them or their style) and thus may perceive differences in style as some slight.  

If your own ego can stand it, maybe you can phrase the request as "I'm still learning what to do, so if you could just go along with this plot hook, it would really help" or even "Well, I planned a goblin-hunting adventure.  If you don't want that, perhaps you could suggest one?"  However, this strategy might backfire by feeding into his need for control instead of giving him a way to cooperate.  (Though, frankly, I think both requests are signs of a mature GM when working with any player group).

Now, offering some beneficial outlets may help.  For example, let him play an NPC now and then to help out.  Let him keep track of the party's money, record an adventure log or create a map for the group's campground/house/starship.  GMs often thrive on staying busy both in and out of game sessions - after all, the GM is always in the spotlight during a game session and generally spends a few hours each week prepping material.

However, don't make any special dispensations for the guy.  Disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior no matter who it comes from.  If he's determined to disrupt the game, you might need to practice your GMing in a different group.  I, for one, won't play with a GM who can't act appropriately as a player, and I consciously work VERY hard to avoid letting my knowledge/expectations/habits influence my behavior as a player (when that rare opportunity comes up).


Sirogit, I think by "making the game into his game" it's not so much about changing settings, but about arguing points.  For example, let's say the group meeds the one good-aligned red dragon in the universe.  This GM might jump up and say "You can't do that - they're evil!  I would never break the rules like that" even though he probably does things like that on a regular basis.  Or perhaps a group of NPCs make a decision and he says "That makes no sense.  These guys want x, y and z, so they clearly wouldn't be doing that."

[Doyce]

"Hello, my name is Doyce Testerman, and I'm a good GM who's a Bad Player."

Yah... ouch.  That's me.

Not to say that I'm Kyle's GM... I'm several wrong hemisphere's for that... but I do some of this.  I'm still trying to figure out why, because it makes me very unhappy with myself.

Pushes aside every plot hook

Luckily, I think I'm okay about this, but one of the things I do find myself doing is 'reading' the GM in a very out-of-game way and, from that, discounting certain player plans and avenues of exploration because the GM's body language tells me that that's something they're not behind -- I never say what my reasons are out loud, however, which leaves players wondering why I'm suddenly down on an idea or plan.

Does his best to try to force the game and setting to become his game, his setting.

I don't think I try to change the game around as far as setting goes, but I'm awfully pushy on rules interpretations.

I've realized that what I really don't want to do any more of is be a player in games that use specific systems.  D20 is one.  In the case of d20, there are two problems, both stemming from the simple fact that I know the rules system better than the players and GM:

1. Being the 'answer guy' is irritating.
2. Being subjected to a ruling that I absolutely know is wrong... well, my OCD is too strong for this, and I end up correcting the GM.  This gets particularly bad in combat scenes.

The worst situation for me right now is the game my wife is running.  She's a really fun GM and should be having a good time.  She wanted to run a game 'for me', but pressure from the other players in the group led her away from my stated preference of "low-level, standard tropes, traditional game" to "high-level, weird, non-standard characters".

It's her first campaign-length... anything, with weird, high-level d20 stuff -- she's miserable and trying to do her best "for me" (when, Ironically, I didn't want this kind of game to begin with), and I can't seem to shut up when I think she's getting a rule wrong.

Usually this means that we end the session with her feeling like a failure and me hating myself -- with some good reason, actually.

With the other d20 game I play in we started at low-level, so the learning-GM can learn, like the players, a little bit at a time... also, it's not in a genre I've been GMing weekly for 3 years, which means I'm less all-knowing.

The worst thing I do in that game is try to inject some stronger narrative control into the game, which is not what the scenarios or the GM is set up to deal with.  It's a spy-sim, and if I could get into that a little more instead of trying to lay out scenes and camera angles like I'm playing Wushu, I'd be better off.

And when he's not spoken to directly he's reading his (non-game) book.

Now, I might be able to offer some insight there -- I frequently do try to 'turn away' from scenes I'm not directly in, because my gut instinct is to interject, and I'm trying desperately to do less of the things I'm ashamed of doing -- cutting myself off cold-turkey seems the best thing -- that may be what you're guy's doing, but it also might be passive-aggressive disapproval, so I can't say for sure.

Talk to him.  In my case, I flat out told one of the GM's that that's what I was going to do to try to curb my bad habits.

It's simply that when you're used to doing one thing (GMing) all the time, you don't really quickly step out of that mindset. You still want to control everything; not because you're an evil controlling bastard, but simply because it's what you always do.

Yeah.  I really feel like Bob's on the money, at least as far as I'm concerned... I would be a better player in a narrative-empowered game like... well, many things that have come out of the Forge spring to mind -- really anything where I'm allowed to contribute more than a portrayal of one character.

One character is... well, doesn't matter how much I love the guy, one guy is going to get stale for the guy who usually plays "everyone else", and handles machinations, and the scenery.  They say that most directors make lousy actors.

How do you deal with the GM turned player, who screws up your game like this?

Talk to him.  Let him know that you need some help or some pointers.  Ask him if a different game (if you're interested in GMing that) would be more up his alley.

But most of all talk -- see if the experienced GM can help deal with the problem player when the player is himself.

I know I'm doing my damndest.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I used to be this guy, back in the 1980s. I shudder to remember some of the bad stuff I did, not so much to the folks who were just the same (in other words, whichever of two of us wasn't GMing did the same thing), but to the awesome players who really could have done some fantastic stuff if I hadn't derailed it.

It took a lonnnnng time to unlearn the behavior. If you are this person, then get going on it, with serious self-reflection at every step. If you have such a person in your group, I strongly suggest choosing between a long haul to dubious success (Bob's support group, c'mon Bob, admit you have a problem) and a short haul to much happier play (bye Bob).

Best,
Ron

[Doyce]

My take on Ron's reply:

I flat out told one group that I didn't think I should play anymore.  I thought it would be much more fun for them if I didn't.  (The only problem to this solution was the the game was supposed to be a 'gift' to me to let me 'just play'.)

The other group... well, I'm working on that support group approach.

Very interested in hearing what comes out of this for the original poster.

[ChefKyle]

Hiya all,

On consideration, I've spotted other sources of difficulty as well. The difficulty was that these guys are all in a group together that meets regularly to play a rules-heavy, background-light game (Hackmaster). My preference is for rules-light, background-heavy games (something like Talislanta with Fudge, perhaps?). Because this was a one-off game at a club, there wasn't time for the heavy background.

So they got rules-light, and background-light. This meant they had little frame of reference, and so just put their own preconceived notions into it. Naturally, the guy who GMs most of the time is going to have more preconceived notions than others.

As we went into the game, I felt for the mood of the group, and tried to give them what they wanted. The difficulty was that the former GM wanted something different to everybody else, and was very vocal in expressing that. By the way, I count reading your book when you're not directly involved, "vocal." He and one other player also engaged in the Passive Protest by not listening as I explained the rules. Since the rules were only Risus, it's not like there was a lot to listen to.

So, on the one hand we had players who are used to Hack, with zero rules interpretative freedom, and close on zero control of the story (wherever you go, you must Hack!) who were suddenly given this freedom. So, chaos erupted.

There was also the factor of a changed group dynamic. Here's this regularly-meeting group with this fellow in charge, he's always the GM, and then they come to the club and I GM them for a one-off. It set them off-balance.

I also discovered that that very morning the second player who was disruptive (to a degree - more distraction than disruption, doing stupid things that neither advanced nor hindered the story) had been on the phone to the former GM that morning, saying, "oh, we should Hack at the club today." While he was saying, "well, no, Kyle is expecting to GM, plus I'm hoping to entice more members to the club with a variety of games."

Were I to GM them again, I would give a greater game structure. Either greater background, or greater rules. I would, for this particular group, give them less control of the direction of the story. They're simply not used to it. If I had them for a regular game it'd be a different matter; but when I only have them for one-offs... I have to work in the style they're used to. Either that, or not GM them at all, of course.

Some people will look down on them for their Hacking. Don't. They're a very intelligent group of guys. But they're just used to playing that way.

[S'mon]

As a longtime GM I have this problem when I play - as a player I've been rightly scolded for saying 'in my game', or trying to explain rules to the (perfectly competent) GM, or just generally being too pushy.  I try not to be too bad and make up for it by providing the GM with minis for encounters, fetching her tea, that kind of thing.  :)

OTOH I wouldn't dream of _reading a book_ at the game table - that's horrible rudeness, as GM I wouldn't stand for it from anyone.

So:

1.  In relation to player-thinking-as-GM, offering unwanted advice & such, you need to slap him down politely but firmly.  Make him see he wouldn't like such behaviour from a player at _his_ table.  If he wants to feel more involved he can help you by taking on minor chores like getting the tea/coffee, setting up minis if you use them, keeping track of Initiative if you use it, whatever the mundane & tiring elements are of the system you use.  

2.  In relation to inattention, deliberately screwing around with your game, reading-at-the-table; this needs to be clearly stated to be completely unacceptable by any player IMO.  If it persisted, I would regard it as grounds for booting a player.

[S'mon]

Were I to GM them again, I would give a greater game structure. Either greater background, or greater rules. I would, for this particular group, give them less control of the direction of the story. They're simply not used to it. If I had them for a regular game it'd be a different matter; but when I only have them for one-offs... I have to work in the style they're used to. Either that, or not GM them at all, of course.

From what you say, it does sound like they need a much more rigid structure; maybe with the regular-GM as party leader/caller.  OTOH he may not actually enjoy playing a game GM'd by you so this may not come up again.  I think if I were to GM this group I'd run a non-Hackmaster game in which the PCs all had closely defined roles in a rigid setting - a 1st level 3e D&D dungeon-crawl would probably be perfect.  :)
Either that or something like Cyberpunk 2020 but with a dungeon-crawl like adventure - with choices (not a linear caravan-guard type scenario), but those choices must be clearly defined since this group probably doesn't know what to do with freedom.  
I guess though a 'Magnificent 7' type scenario might work - eg the Bad Guys are going to attack the Village in 1 hour (game time) whatever they do, the PCs have to ready to defend it, or try to flee, or negotiate, etc.

[Lisa Padol]

About the book thing -- I remember this used to bug me. Then I figured out that it wasn't actually a personal statement of boredom or anything. It's a way to keep from being fidgety when it's been Two Whole Minutes since your PC's been onscreen, a way to keep awake, a good book, whatever -- I've done reading and writing as a player, and as long as it doesn't get in the way of gaming, no problem.

I tend to do less or none of it at a convention run.

Avram often sketches. Beth likes fidget toys. Josh will pull out a lap top or his sidekick or any of a number of fidget toys. This can become a problem if we think we'll trip over wires or if you get a feedback loop -- eg, the player does something until it's his turn, so the gm thinks the player's not interested, and sticks to other players.

Note that the above also can happen if two players role play with each other while waiting for the gm's attention.

So, about reading -- it depends. It's not always a rude thing. YMMV.

-Lisa

[S'mon]

Avram often sketches. Beth likes fidget toys. Josh will pull out a lap top or his sidekick or any of a number of fidget toys...

So, about reading -- it depends. It's not always a rude thing. YMMV.

Yeah, MMDV.  I wouldn't allow any of that at my table.  I'd probably just say "Stop That", and if the player persisted I'd get angrier until they stopped or I booted them.  Can't really imagine it happening with my current group though, they're much too intimidated.  >:)
If I'm GMing something that some players don't need to hear, I'll go into the next room with the involved player(s).  In general I expect all players to pay attention, all the time.  I know the other GM in our group feels similarly.

[clehrich]

Admittedly, the reading thing can go the other way around, and it's not clear to me what's at stake in Kyle's game.

Consider:
Reading as a way of not fidgeting while it's somebody else's turn.

Why is it somebody else's turn, absolutely?  Do you really have no input here?  Does it really not matter at all whether you pay attention or not?

If it's really true that for this moment, you're not in the game, you have every right to do something else, and reading the game rules seems like a plausbile way to do it.  This is why I don't like the sort of game where when it's Steve's "turn" whatever happens has nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on when it's my "turn."

If, on the other hand, you're not in the game at the moment because your character doesn't have the spotlight, and you don't feel like making the effort to help out -- now or later -- with that guy's story-thread, then you're being really selfish by ensuring that you can't help because you're not paying any attention.

One way this happens is to stick to the old "my guy wouldn't know that" perspective.  What's happening to Steve's character right now isn't something my guy would know, so I'm going to tune out and not pay attention.  But suppose I do pay attention, and then when I'm back on stage I allude, indirectly and thematically, to what happened with Steve?  Isn't that going to help bind things together and build a better story?  But I can't do that if I'm not paying attention.

In my experience, when players are reading a book or watching TV, one of three things is happening (or more):
1. The player is selfish and destructive
2. The game is unreasonably limited in play-opportunities
3. The player simply doesn't care about the game

Sounds like, in Kyle's case, these guys fit 1 and 3, and were used to their game being 2 so they treated it that way.

[mstrand]

I suppose this is a good of thread as any to for my first post. (I've been lurking for awhile.)

I was very recently accused of the GM who's not so good when he becomes a player.  

I was DMing a DnD game for some friends who really don't want to play anything else, and we were running on a bi-weekly schedule.  My wife is pregnant, and both she and our son were sick, so I had to cancel one of the sessions.  The other guy in the group asked if he could run something in the meantime, and I didn't have a problem with it, because the rest of the group could still meet.  So he takes the reins and starts his own campaign, officially ending mine by running his with one or two of the players very frequently, leaving everyone else out.

I didn't have a problem with this.  I wanted to play since it had been awhile since I had.  So he fills me in on what's going on, and I make a character. While making this character, I envisioned personality, history, and whatever else makes a character, and translated it as well as I could into the rules system. I was extremely happy with the character, both mechanically and thematically.

Then the guy, who is self admittedly very inept at the mechanics of d20, makes a few spot rulings that completely impacts everything I had worked on. Now I'm pretty good with the rules and pride myself on that. I try to explain to him one, why the changes were bad, and two, how the changes impacted all the hardwork I had done. I was pretty uh,...emotional. ;)

This is when I was told never to question a rules decision and just go with it, and that I should try to stop controlling things when I'm not the DM.

I don't think I was in the wrong, except for maybe being a little,...overzealous,...that my first serious character in a few years was being mechanically, and later thematically gimped, but hey, I guess you should never question the DM.

[Jasper]

mstrand,

It doesn't sound like you were trying to be controlling over the game at all, except over your own conception of the character. You explained yourself and your thoughts to this guy and he got defensive.  Seems to me that he's just insecure about his own DMing skills or something.  What oyu did is what a lot of players -- who never DM -- would do, so I think applying the moniker "GM as bad player" to you was probably foolishly.