Neonchameleon
Legend
Bad ones try to make it all about them and their ideas.
I'm not so sure...a lot is very extreme.I still stand by my original point that if you eliminate bad fit, you're literally only left with "unequipped to engage in social activities".
As a Railroad Tycoon Baron myself......I'd still say the Classic Railroad Jerk DM that is the "default" everyone thinks of when they hear "Railroad" is still a Bad DM.This is true. While I would generally hold that a strongly railroading DM is a bad DM, that doesn't mean there aren't groups with a railroading DM and players who prefer to get railroaded (only in the Eric's grandma approved way, of course.)
First, turning up late to things, and being ok with people being late does not remotely meet my criteria for calling someone a horrible person.I'm not so sure...a lot is very extreme.
Take horrible person Johnny. As a Casual Player he does not care about the game at all: he just want to hang out and get away from his wife for a couple hours. He will always be late by two to three hours. He almost never has is character sheet, dice or anything else. And it's rare for him to play the game for too much more then five minutes without making a huge disruption to "take a break".
Take horrible person Bill. As a Casual DM he does not care that Johnny shows up three hours late and just gives him a high five when he comes in the door. As he does not care about the game he just has Johnny's character just "pop" in the game randomly. He is ready to let Johnny use anything he needs. And it's rare for him to play the game for too much more then five minutes without making a huge disruption to "take a break".
Mix in three casual players...and you get a great time for all: they hang out for five hours....and kind of sort of "play" the game for a little less then thirty minutes. But everyone has fun.
For players, this is spot on. If a GM has bought and prepped a adventure or campaign, or they have slaved over writing one for the group, and then players completely ignore it for doing their own thing, then what was the point of them even wanting to play? I get giving players free reign within said adventure or campaign, but the players should be there and willing to play it.For players, it’s one who refuses to go along with the premise of the adventure. If it’s ostensibly about slaying a dragon, they would rather open up their trading outpost in a distant city.
One of my happiest moments in my previous campaign was when I had an NPC begging and grovelling and crying at a PCs feet, desperate for aid, and the player turned her away.For players, this is spot on. If a GM has bought and prepped a adventure or campaign, or they have slaved over writing one for the group, and then players completely ignore it for doing their own thing, then what was the point of them even wanting to play? I get giving players free reign within said adventure or campaign, but the players should be there and willing to play it.
That's not the same thing as a group having agreed to go on an adventure to slay a dragon, then deciding in session 2 to not bother and open shop.One of my happiest moments in my previous campaign was when I had an NPC begging and grovelling and crying at a PCs feet, desperate for aid, and the player turned her away.
It was great to know that I could put absolutely everything into playing that NPC, without fear that the player would feel obliged to take up the adventure hook.
Now, I'm not saying that's appropriate for every game -- not everyone wants to run or participate in a sandbox where you can refuse absolute any plot hook for any reason -- but I am saying that this is another example of bad fit, rather than an objectively bad player.
I agree, it's not exactly the same.That's not the same thing as a group having agreed to go on an adventure to slay a dragon, then deciding in session 2 to not bother and open shop.