Annoying GM?

[sHaka]

Railroad for me.

Played a D&D game where a chasm stood in the way of our most direct route to our goal, whilst the other path led through a known domain of some uber lich lord dude before rejoining the road. Strangely, the GM explained how the chasm was just wide enough to make our ropes useless and deep enough to prevent climbing - I seem to remember some kind of raging river at the bottom too.

The GM became rather perturbed when I spent a good 20 mins RL time trying to encourage the rest of the group to figure out a way over the chasm and safe passage. Every possible solution was thwarted by lame yet rigid rails the GM had laid to take us down the path to the undead realm of doom.... and I was made to feel like a trouble maker for wanting to try a possible, less skeleton-ridden route...

[Dolcet]

Railroad for me but all are bad. one of my best freinds is such a bad railroader that even his own mother (he is 30 something & she is in her 50's) won't play with him as GM.

One example is we were playing an After the Bomb Campaign & i had mid 20's crushing PS. & a small steam powered ship had a boiler about to explode so i wanted to push it out from the dock to the middle of the lake, He said i wasnt strong enough , when i disputed this he said there wasn't time but there was time for me to run down to the boiler room & rip the boiler free (& get burned in the process) & throm it over board.

[Nomadic]

yes, and do you remeber any of the other heroes in that story? were their any others? Or was that a story about Persues alone.

Very well, did Achilles, Patroclus, or Hector have the same gear?

Achilles used nomral run of the mill armor. Achilles believed in his "natural" skill over that of the weapon or the armor.
Patroclus did use Achilles's armor, but little good it did him.
As well as I doubt Hector's armor was much differernt from that of Achilles or the regular troops.

A better example would be the last samurii

Players want the guns, and expect the NPC's to have swords.

[Misfit KotLD]

yes, and do you remeber any of the other heroes in that story? were their any others? Or was that a story about Persues alone.

Very well, did Achilles, Patroclus, or Hector have the same gear?

Achilles used nomral run of the mill armor. Achilles believed in his "natural" skill over that of the weapon or the armor.
Patroclus did use Achilles's armor, but little good it did him.
As well as I doubt Hector's armor was much differernt from that of Achilles or the regular troops.

A better example would be the last samurii

Players want the guns, and expect the NPC's to have swords.

Bwuh? Achilles did not use armor forged by Hephaestus? You must have a different version of the Iliad than I have.

[Vrykolas2k]

I doubt a majority, just like a majority of people aren't 2nd or more generations soldiers
and Perseus, in Palladium would be an Immortal

I have found, however, that a good majority of people in the military are 2nd+ generation military.
Myself, for instance.

[Misfit KotLD]

I doubt a majority, just like a majority of people aren't 2nd or more generations soldiers
and Perseus, in Palladium would be an Immortal

I have found, however, that a good majority of people in the military are 2nd+ generation military.
Myself, for instance.

I skipped a generation. Both grandfathers were, but my dad wasn't (not for a lack of trying).

[Nomadic]

yes, and do you remeber any of the other heroes in that story? were their any others? Or was that a story about Persues alone.

Very well, did Achilles, Patroclus, or Hector have the same gear?

Achilles used nomral run of the mill armor. Achilles believed in his "natural" skill over that of the weapon or the armor.
Patroclus did use Achilles's armor, but little good it did him.
As well as I doubt Hector's armor was much differernt from that of Achilles or the regular troops.

A better example would be the last samurii

Players want the guns, and expect the NPC's to have swords.

Bwuh? Achilles did not use armor forged by Hephaestus? You must have a different version of the Iliad than I have.

Maybe I will admit that I haven't read it since Highschool. That being said, still Achilles Power did not come from his Armor.

[Nomadic]

My Over All Point being is that Weapon of Choice is far too open.

I have found that in the begaining any new player in my game has issues with the starting gear, but after a month of playing everything they are using they've earned and are very proud of it.

IMHO allowing players to pick gear at choice is like allowing a mage to pick any spell for his starting spells.

[Damian Magecraft]

My Over All Point being is that Weapon of Choice is far too open.

I have found that in the begaining any new player in my game has issues with the starting gear, but after a month of playing everything they are using they've earned and are very proud of it.

IMHO allowing players to pick gear at choice is like allowing a mage to pick any spell for his starting spells.

Poor choice for an analogy there...
If the mage wants to pick nothing but level 15 and legends spells let him does not do him any good if he lacks the PPE to cast them.
Come to think of it...
That is also an easy way to limit weapon of choice cant use it if he lacks the ammo, or e-clips.

[Misfit KotLD]

Maybe I will admit that I haven't read it since Highschool. That being said, still Achilles Power did not come from his Armor.

Not entirely, no. He had lots of nifty tricks due to his divine heritage.

[Kalidor]

I never played with a Cryptic but I can imagine how frustrating it might be.

Oh it might be. It will be interesting to see if you can figure out why.

[Nomadic]

My Over All Point being is that Weapon of Choice is far too open.

I have found that in the begaining any new player in my game has issues with the starting gear, but after a month of playing everything they are using they've earned and are very proud of it.

IMHO allowing players to pick gear at choice is like allowing a mage to pick any spell for his starting spells.

Poor choice for an analogy there...
If the mage wants to pick nothing but level 15 and legends spells let him does not do him any good if he lacks the PPE to cast them.
Come to think of it...
That is also an easy way to limit weapon of choice cant use it if he lacks the ammo, or e-clips.

A character wouln't pick a wepon they didn't have the WP for. Like a mage picking a level 15 spell.

I guess the point flew right over your head.

oh and most OCC's say they start with 2,3 eclips FOR weapon of choice.

[Kalidor]

Sometimes I'm a bastard GM but no on purpose. I just have a bad habit of capturing the party and making them fight their way out using whatever they pick up along the way.

But it's hardly my fault when my NPC uses Bull Rush (3.5) to knock a fully plated Priest off the deck of a board during a storm and into the ocean, which causes him to have to drop his mace and cut his +3 plate off to avoid drowning.

Or that the same priest who later crafted his own very nice magic mace got it dissolved by a black pudding because he didn't know it would do that.

You'd think after 5 years I'd have heard then end of it by now.

[Damian Magecraft]

My Over All Point being is that Weapon of Choice is far too open.

I have found that in the begaining any new player in my game has issues with the starting gear, but after a month of playing everything they are using they've earned and are very proud of it.

IMHO allowing players to pick gear at choice is like allowing a mage to pick any spell for his starting spells.

Poor choice for an analogy there...
If the mage wants to pick nothing but level 15 and legends spells let him does not do him any good if he lacks the PPE to cast them.
Come to think of it...
That is also an easy way to limit weapon of choice cant use it if he lacks the ammo, or e-clips.

A character wouln't pick a wepon they didn't have the WP for. Like a mage picking a level 15 spell.

I guess the point flew right over your head.

oh and most OCC's say they start with 2,3 eclips FOR weapon of choice.

Sorry were you trying to be Facetious? One cannot divine tone from the written word.
so they start with 2 or 3 e-clips... do you hand out e-clips like candy? allow them to recharge with out penalty? as I said still seems a valid way to limit DPS greed to me.

[Anthar]

There is another type of annoying GM. They concentrate on one of the players, gender doesn't matter, and make the gaming session a huge ego stroking session. So bad as they might as well be stroking somthing else.

Yeah I have seen that too...though it does happen just because people with in gaming groups are older friends. It happens.

But when this gets real bad....it is one of the worst situration ever....though I haven't come up for name for it like the Railroader, etc.

Hey how about the Game Masterbater.

[Nomadic]

My Over All Point being is that Weapon of Choice is far too open.

I have found that in the begaining any new player in my game has issues with the starting gear, but after a month of playing everything they are using they've earned and are very proud of it.

IMHO allowing players to pick gear at choice is like allowing a mage to pick any spell for his starting spells.

Poor choice for an analogy there...
If the mage wants to pick nothing but level 15 and legends spells let him does not do him any good if he lacks the PPE to cast them.
Come to think of it...
That is also an easy way to limit weapon of choice cant use it if he lacks the ammo, or e-clips.

A character wouln't pick a wepon they didn't have the WP for. Like a mage picking a level 15 spell.

I guess the point flew right over your head.

oh and most OCC's say they start with 2,3 eclips FOR weapon of choice.

Sorry were you trying to be Facetious? One cannot divine tone from the written word.
so they start with 2 or 3 e-clips... do you hand out e-clips like candy? allow them to recharge with out penalty? as I said still seems a valid way to limit DPS greed to me.

Nope, but most of the time there is an operator, or a borg and they can recharge Eclips freely.

The point behind all of this is that you have to limit what your players will get starting off otherwise they go for the biggest and baddest around. But once you have that epic weapon of choice there is nothing bigger to go to.

[Kalidor]

Anybody shooting at you is going to have a couple eclips. So yeah, delicious candy.

[KillWatch]

or they may be on their last few shots

[Nomadic]

or they may be on their last few shots

Which then is plugged into a charger and Tada!

My Groups make more money off Clips then pretty Much anything else.

[KillWatch]

1) how long does it take to charge
2) in the middle of combat?

[Kalidor]

Not as long as it takes to put one of your dead opponents e-clips in your gun to reload. Really, out of all the guys you fight do you really think they only carry enough ammo to fight the party?

[Vrykolas2k]

Not as long as it takes to put one of your dead opponents e-clips in your gun to reload. Really, out of all the guys you fight do you really think they only carry enough ammo to fight the party?

I've seen GMs do that...
Part of the Bastard sub-group.

[KillWatch]

well let's turn that around, why do the PCs need more clips? Why are they only carrying enough for this fight? Unless the NPCs are in a safe zone, just finished re-gearing or some other happenstance, it is probably a safe bet that they, themselves, have encountered stuff and have needed to use their weapons

[Kalidor]

They aren't just carrying enough for one fight, because they've been fighting all day and all week.

Which is why they need to replenish their supplies so they always have a few extra.

If they only have enough for one fight its because their GM doesn't give them enough loot.

Look, I'm all for moneysinks as much as the next guy -- but there's better things to do it with than the day to day upkeep of ammo, food and toilet paper. Rifts has enough number crunching in it as is.

Obviously, there WILL be times when they need to conserve -- that's not the point. But to assume that no one who uses energy weapons on them will have an extra clip or two in their pack is silly.

[KillWatch]

guess it depends on just how gritty you want to go
For my games, what is, is. If you are low an ammo and haven't thought to buy any or decided to **** off the only ammo dump within range then it's on you, and you better come up with other ideas on how to survive. Buy trade or perform services for the stuff they need

The enemy might be AS out of ammo as the PCs
and even if they well geared, then the players SHOULD be very conscious of where they are shooting their foes, as to not damage the ammo/clips/gear

[random_username]

Tends to be about the folks you game with. If they're good folks any such problems will likely be extremely rare. However some folks are just not suited to being GMs which only tends to be verified once they have attempted GMing with a system that they are comfortable with (or enthusiastic about). Guest GMs can also be a radical unknown until tried.

The Railroader (wants you to be like characters in a story which he runs, with little say of your own).

Rarely happens in any situation other than when breaking in a brand new or novice GM. The campaign is not usually designed to last for more than a few sessions anyway. Its similar to dealing with the 'beta' version of a video game. If still that way for a second campaign, game ends quickly and GM invited to never GM again.

The Weirdo (your character gets raped, humiliated, murdered, and so do their families).

This psychotic style almost never, ever happens. Should this style occur that individual will probably never play in another campaign again let alone GM.

The God (it works this way because I say it does, THIS time... consistency, what's that?).

This style unfortunately occasionally occurs as a reactionary adaptation when the players have become border-line rules-lawyers. When it reaches this point the campaign will probably be over soon as both the GM and the players are annoying the heck out of each other. This is usually the result of the players believing they know the system details better than the GM which may or may not be true.

The GMPC (I'm king of the world!! You all get to deal with my narcisistic masturbation.).

GMPC = NPC party member run by the GM...

... but treated as more of a narcissistic self indulgent PC (essentially as listed in the quote).
= Fundamentally never a good thing.

... vs an appropriate party NPC ... which is used sparingly and typically for smaller groups of players (2-3 players; most appropriate if all are also novice players). Ideally a combination of mainly absent utility abilities (healing, repairs, drive group vehicle, etc), moderate offensive combat abilities, may have high defensive combat abilities (MDC, stealth, saving throws, etc), should not be able to do ANY of the speaking or planning for the group, ultimately functioning as more of a plucky sidekick filling a minor but essential role without detracting from the player's adventures.

"I'm king of the world" General attitude of the GM = Oddly there can be both good versions and bad versions of this type.

Bad versions:
- Basically a rule-lawyer player turned GM looking to have an edge over other rules-lawyer players but ultimately just makes it worse.

Good versions:
- Literally designing your own world from scratch, potentially containing any or all content of the core gaming system but arranged in your own way. Unique kingdoms, countries, cities, NPCs, factions, etc.
- Essentially a counter to rules-lawyer players who have access to more information than the GM regarding the standard world and constantly insist upon pointing out blatant discrepancies.
- Simplified: players can still potentially play any race or class and obtain gear but rules-lawyers cannot rule-lawyer it effectively. This usually eliminates about 70 to 80% of the rules-lawyers outbursts.

The Cryptic (you don't know what's going on from what he says until it springs at you; he may be a short fat bald guy with long hair and funny clothes).

All else fails just kill everything, you'll hit the right target eventually.

The Bastard (never lets your characters start out with decent things, if you acquire decent things later he takes them away).

Regardless of GM style any gear-reliant character can face these issues. This tends to be especially true in the Rifts setting. The first battle may not trash your power armor/robot vehicle/vehicle but if you cannot quickly make it back to a town for repairs then the second or third combat may easily drop it below the 15% cannot repair-it-anymore status (original SB1). Even with repairs the costs can exceed the 'earned credits' of the players. As such it can easily become a more Grand-Theft-Auto themed approach to tech where you fight until its trashed then have to grab the nearest least damaged bot/vehicle and pilot it. Repeating as needed.

Any of this style can often be overcome by simply making characters that are not gear-dependent if at all possible.

[KillWatch]

In defense of the Weirdo:
I think those things are perfectly good aspects of a dark setting. If you **** off the mob, for example,, they will probably go after you, if they can't get at you, they will go after your family. And if you get locked up and you have really screwed them over they may pay for someone to give you some butt lovin. And humiliation?that's any enemy NPC. If they get the better of you, there you go. What about bruce willis in DH2 where he is naked holding that sign?. I think if you are getting rape every game, or everyone seems to know where your family lives despite your best efforts, etc then it's a bit much. But I expect these things to be POSSIBLE in any game setting

[random_username]

Always found that explicit diabolically evil acts by PCs or NPCs really has no place in RPGs. Doesn't enhance the gaming experience, doesn't 'put the players in their place', or add appropriate dark/disturbed setting. Its unfortunate anyone has the need to take 'evil' of PCs or NPCs that far regardless of motivation.

The closest a RPG may need to be to such evil concepts would likely be something along the lines of a minor vague narrative:
- "The group stumbles into a building, blood is smeared across every surface, remnants of fresh, unidentifiable body parts are everywhere. Whatever died here was probably humanoid and was literally torn to pieces." Even that may be a bit over done depending upon the campaign.

Best-case scenario seems like a need to out evil the evil-ish concepts already in the game in order to make them nastier:
- Lethal violence is already the fundamental core of RPG/video game combat.
- Adventurer/Mercenary play-style PCs are typical for most gear dependent PCs.

Quasi-horror concepts may even be used to bring the 'fear-factor' to the campaign:
- truly harsh campaign setting base such as most folks are turned into flesh-eating zombies and many remaining NPC 'normal' folks in hiding are starving so they become cannibals, etc.

Trying to outdo these could lead to truly disturbed concepts. Though it is also likely a frustrated novice GM trying to 'scare' the players or make the monsters seem definitively more evil than the players.

RPGs in general have spent decades striving to overcome some of the moral outcries from society that belive they encourage sadistic concepts, etc. The 'weirdo' play style basically supports those objections. Similar objections have lead to the various Disclaimers at the beginning of many RPG books. So those concepts have not 'gone away' and could always come back to thrash the RPG industry. Though admittedly with RPGs such as D&D being produced by a mainstream toy company (Hasbro/WoTC) that is less likely than it was in past decades.

[KillWatch]

- "The group stumbles into a building, blood is smeared across every surface, remnants of fresh, unidentifiable body parts are everywhere. Whatever died here was probably humanoid and was literally torn to pieces." Even that may be a bit over done depending upon the campaign.
--Not necessarily evil. I've had fights where the good aligned PCs did so much damage that anyone coming in afterwards would certainly describe the scene like that

1) I don't allow evil in my campaigns. I might run an evil campaign at some point just to get the characters to make me some villains for future games. But I think there is enough evil in the world without bringing it to my table. Yes it is a group effort, but I don't want it at the table.

2) Few people really play evil any way. They mostly play Selfish-Penniiss. More like anarchist, doing whatever they really want. Evil is controlled. It has analyzed self and liked what it saw. it enjoys making others hurt, cry, feel desperation fear loathing hoplessness and pain

[Blindscout]

The only one I've had experience with is the Cryptic and rather than the short bald guy, it was a tall, attractive, female GM. The game was a complete head-trip the whole way through, but it did end up making sense in the end. If any GM I have mentions the word amnesia in a campaign description again, I'm out. I like to know who my character is !

[BillionSix]

Here's one: The Polarity Responder.

A Polarity Responder is a person who has a naturally analytical and critical turn of mind. When you say something, he immediately analyzes what you said to figure out why what you said is wrong. In extreme cases, you can't have a normal conversation with him in the room because he automatically gainsay whatever is said.
Now, these people can be useful. If you are running a business, you want a polarity responder somewhere in there to find the flaws in your product before they can cause problems. But in a creative hobby like ours, they can seriously kill the energy.

So when a Polarity Responder GMs a game, the game quickly gets really boring. Anything other than a standard combat or a standard skill roll will fail, because if you come up with something clever or creative, the Polarity Responder can instantly give three reasons why it won't work. The players quickly learn not to bother being creative, because anything clever will fail. The Polarity Responder will then complain later that his players never try anything unexpected and his game is boring.
Of course, if you tell him why this is happening, he will tell you why you are wrong.

[Severus Snape]

Gotta throw my 2 cents in on this topic. First I'll describe what each of these choices means to me, and then I'll tell you which one I voted for.

The Railroader: A GM who, no matter what actions the PCs take, forces the players into certain situations or makes the PCs do certain things. Now, there are times when this is actually necessary in order to keep the story moving forward. But when it becomes more about the GM saying "Well, you have to go here because I said so" then it becomes railroading.

The Weirdo: A GM who weaves a story so sick and twisted that the first reaction from most players is one of disgust or anger. There's nothing wrong with telling a twisted story, so long as the players know beforehand that the GM is a sick puppy.

The God: A GM who's word is law. Period. No arguing. Even if the rule he makes up on the spot contradicts everything in print for the current game, his word is law.

The GMPC: An NPC that is run by the GM who actually becomes the central and focal point of the story. And no matter what the PCs do or say, the GMPC still becomes the coolest thing next to sliced bread because it makes the GM happy to "win" with this character.

The Cryptic: A GM who cannot tell a story without hiding essential details in a string of mumbo-jumbo so thick that even the mundane details get lost. Usually, the GM will spend about 4 hours telling you the details of the room you are in even though the room has nothing in it, there's only 1 way out, and you don't even know how you got there to begin with.

The Bastard: A GM who giveth and then taketh away. Simple: "Here, have this 20,000 GP gem. Oh, wait, it's the key to get home, so you can't have it anymore".

Now, every GM has, at some point or another, been or done one of the above. We've all done it. I've railroaded players to get them to a certain point. I've been the weirdo, coming up with sick stories. I've been cryptic. I've been the god of the universe and said "I'm the GM, so that's the way it is". I can honestly stand up and admit that there have been times where I haven't been the greatest GM. It's part of gaming, and it's part of earning your wings to be a GM.

With that said, the most annoying one, in my opinion, is The Cryptic. I hate playing a game where I don't know what the frack is going on. I hate it when the mundane gets lost in a sea of details. I hate it when the GM gives us a puzzle to solve but doesn't give any clues on how to solve it. I don't like it when I have to repeatedly ask "What are my options here?" when the GM says "What are you doing now?". I have been involved in games where I literally didn't even know my character had died until I attempted to do something and the GM told me that I died about 3 hours ago, and why wasn't I creating a new character. Irritating.

The one I find second-most annoying is the GMPC. I'll actually leave games in the middle of the game if I think that the GM is showing a little too much favoritism to his character. Sure, we all love our characters. And we all want them to succeed. But when the GMPC becomes the central point of the story, and the GM starts to act like it doesn't matter if anybody else is playing because oh my god his character just got the coolest new spell or toy.....Ick. Makes me want to barf. Why play in this game?

[dragonfett]

I say the God GM is the worst for one pure and simple opinion. I need consistency with how the rules are implemented, everything else are just details. If the GM can't implement the rules the same way every time (especially if they invoke the "Because I say so." clause), then I as a player will have absolutely no clue as to what my character really can or cannot do in a game.

[Vrykolas2k]

Here's one: The Polarity Responder.

A Polarity Responder is a person who has a naturally analytical and critical turn of mind. When you say something, he immediately analyzes what you said to figure out why what you said is wrong. In extreme cases, you can't have a normal conversation with him in the room because he automatically gainsay whatever is said.
Now, these people can be useful. If you are running a business, you want a polarity responder somewhere in there to find the flaws in your product before they can cause problems. But in a creative hobby like ours, they can seriously kill the energy.

So when a Polarity Responder GMs a game, the game quickly gets really boring. Anything other than a standard combat or a standard skill roll will fail, because if you come up with something clever or creative, the Polarity Responder can instantly give three reasons why it won't work. The players quickly learn not to bother being creative, because anything clever will fail. The Polarity Responder will then complain later that his players never try anything unexpected and his game is boring.
Of course, if you tell him why this is happening, he will tell you why you are wrong.

There are a lot of these on the boards...

[Damian Magecraft]

Here's one: The Polarity Responder.

A Polarity Responder is a person who has a naturally analytical and critical turn of mind. When you say something, he immediately analyzes what you said to figure out why what you said is wrong. In extreme cases, you can't have a normal conversation with him in the room because he automatically gainsay whatever is said.
Now, these people can be useful. If you are running a business, you want a polarity responder somewhere in there to find the flaws in your product before they can cause problems. But in a creative hobby like ours, they can seriously kill the energy.

So when a Polarity Responder GMs a game, the game quickly gets really boring. Anything other than a standard combat or a standard skill roll will fail, because if you come up with something clever or creative, the Polarity Responder can instantly give three reasons why it won't work. The players quickly learn not to bother being creative, because anything clever will fail. The Polarity Responder will then complain later that his players never try anything unexpected and his game is boring.
Of course, if you tell him why this is happening, he will tell you why you are wrong.

There are a lot of these on the boards...

Oh no there are not

[Cinos]

Railroader by far. Not just that it's annoying, it's just bad GMing to me, GM's should have a story for the game, but not at the expense of player choice and tangible player interaction. Cryptomancer is close, it's like railroading, but he expects you to guess which way it'll go (Though when I first started making better stories, that was my biggest hill to climb, finding a good medium between a challenging puzzle / mystery and a frustration. I still think a mystery / suspense game is the hardest style to run well).

A Bastard GM is fine AS long as they've got a reason or is jumping on a player mistake (letting your guard down) as a reason to take toys away, when I play, I find those GM's are among the most fun to run with, really lets you value your accomplishments. Weirdo is only fine if the group is aware of it before hand. The God label is fine, it's annoying to deal with if they at least can't stay consistent, but cope-able. I was unclear as to GMPC, I'm was assuming when the GM includes a PC that is also them and is awesome in every way, which again is something I can deal with as a player, generally I only see them as plot devices, and most of them are more annoying to the party than anything.

[Kovoston]

More tough questions from my wife...
I picked The God.
The egomaniacs bug me.
When the GM introduces his/her "PC", I just kill it. So the GMPC has never been a problem to me.
The Weirdo is also hard to deal with, but like you said, most of these people can be weeded out in the first session, and we usually end up with more gamers afterwards...
Love the use of the term "narcissistic masturbation"; excellent description for those people, as well as Railroaders.

Agreed!

[Kovoston]

I picked The God, because that kind has an easier time hiding their repugnant nature until you're far enough into the game that you like your character and have to debate leaving.

Two more?

The Monty Hall - Allows player characters to gain incredible things then ends the game.
The Old Boys Club - A G.M. that has a "Special click of players", and helps them favorably.

[The Dark Elf]

The God - no contest.

[Damian Magecraft]

The problem is that every one of the Types of "annoying" GM that have been mentioned are facets of a Great GM; you have to be able to tap into each one of those aspects at some point in the games you run.

[Cinos]

The problem is that every one of the Types of "annoying" GM that have been mentioned are facets of a Great GM; you have to be able to tap into each one of those aspects at some point in the games you run.

True, but too far and you go from great to awful pretty quick. Hence why all of the descriptions are at the extremes of the trait, the point they become bad.

[St. Evil]

The sad part is I am a gm w/ a pc in the group, he plays a back seat much like a supporting actor though. The group consists of 3 players and me, and when I started as a diabolist he can defend himself and give clarity to clues, if the players did not understand, but it is not all about him.
My motivation of playing him this way is because of another GMPC who had his own agenda. A wizard whose grand father was a high level mindmage who put his life essence into a crystal skull. The Grandfather just happened to be hanging from the belt of the GMPC and constantly made decisions for the group. On one occasion we were dividing up treasure, the rule was each player got a pick until all shares were gone, the order of the pick was determined by the group we would argue and present our case and the consensus best player for this adventure would get first pick and so on. Well my Longbow man ended up w/ first pick, and chose an item the GM's character wanted (placed specifically in the adventure for the GM to give his PC). Well the GM's Character and Grand father both threatened me for using my first pick on the most expensive share. It did not take long for me to not help the wizard, and he and his grand father was not around much longer. The GM upset that I allowed his characters to die asked how I could justify it, and I said,"After the Book of Serpent, I acted like an Elf & waited patiently, then wanted to see if the book could save your life, and it didn't." Oh revenge was sweet. After that we started another game w/ a player now GM and vice-versa.

[Vrykolas2k]

The problem is that every one of the Types of "annoying" GM that have been mentioned are facets of a Great GM; you have to be able to tap into each one of those aspects at some point in the games you run.

That's ok until you're known as "the guy who does 'x' all the time".

[Vrykolas2k]

A lot of these GMs alos have the whole me vs. the players mentality.

[Illendaver]

I ran into a guy who had the worst qualities of Railroader,The God, and GMPC. Caused absolute hatred within 15 min of us actually playing. I quit the system for a full year and a half because of him.

[Vrykolas2k]

I ran into a guy who had the worst qualities of Railroader,The God, and GMPC. Caused absolute hatred within 15 min of us actually playing. I quit the system for a full year and a half because of him.

Been there.
Don't suppose the GM's initials were B.M.?

[Illendaver]

I ran into a guy who had the worst qualities of Railroader,The God, and GMPC. Caused absolute hatred within 15 min of us actually playing. I quit the system for a full year and a half because of him.

Been there.
Don't suppose the GM's initials were B.M.?

Nope, V.N. Don't tell me there is more than one jerk ruining RPGs for everybody within earshot...

[Severus Snape]

I ran into a guy who had the worst qualities of Railroader,The God, and GMPC. Caused absolute hatred within 15 min of us actually playing. I quit the system for a full year and a half because of him.

Been there.
Don't suppose the GM's initials were B.M.?

Nope, V.N. Don't tell me there is more than one jerk ruining RPGs for everybody within earshot...

Oh, there most certainly is. The one I had the misfortune of gaming with had the initials of D.C. Ran us through an adventure in 2nd edition AD&D once where I was playing a thief. I earned enough experience points to get to 2nd level, at which point he stated "We are using the training rules, so you'll have to pay to go up a level". His game, so I thought that wasn't too bad. Until he stated that it cost 1,000 gold pieces for training. Per character. Per level. Right...a prospective 2nd level thief just has that kind of cash lying around...

[Damian Magecraft]

I ran into a guy who had the worst qualities of Railroader,The God, and GMPC. Caused absolute hatred within 15 min of us actually playing. I quit the system for a full year and a half because of him.

Been there.
Don't suppose the GM's initials were B.M.?

Nope, V.N. Don't tell me there is more than one jerk ruining RPGs for everybody within earshot...

Oh, there most certainly is. The one I had the misfortune of gaming with had the initials of D.C. Ran us through an adventure in 2nd edition AD&D once where I was playing a thief. I earned enough experience points to get to 2nd level, at which point he stated "We are using the training rules, so you'll have to pay to go up a level". His game, so I thought that wasn't too bad. Until he stated that it cost 1,000 gold pieces for training. Per character. Per level. Right...a prospective 2nd level thief just has that kind of cash lying around...

ummm if IIRC those were the actual costs for training as per the optional rules... (one reason a lot of us grognards chucked them right where they belonged... file 13).

[Severus Snape]

The costs, per the optional training rules, is 100 gold pieces per character per level. Not 1,000. Which means he was just jerking us off and didn't really want us to advance at all. I don't mind the training rules, but we definitely filed them in the trash as low-level characters have no money, while higher-level characters have a seemingly endless supply of gold that they can get their hands on. The rules aren't balanced, and I won't use rules that aren't balanced.