The Monetization of D&D Play

[ssvegeta555]

I see a DM just like any other player at the table. It's more work, sure, but we're all here to contribute to a great gaming night. We're all here for the same enterainment.

But I can see some DMs pay for excellent players. I can imagine a world where an excellent DM pays $10 for each of his or her 4 excellent players and those excellent players pay the DM $10 each.

 

[DRF]

The problem is, if you're running AL in stores, you shouldn't be charging people. That's against AL's policy and I'm not sure the legality of profiting off of any printed material owned by WotC. If you're running your own campaign at your house, well you can do what you want. It might be better if you wrote your own campaign and submitted it to WotC for publishing.

Why are people constantly referring back to AL? Who cares about AL. This is a general discussion about paid DM'ing.

 

[jasper]

The problem is, if you're running AL in stores, you shouldn't be charging people. That's against AL's policy and I'm not sure the legality of profiting off of any printed material owned by WotC. If you're running your own campaign at your house, well you can do what you want. It might be better if you wrote your own campaign and submitted it to WotC for publishing.

Please show where in the adventure league documentation this is against policy. I have copies, but I am know to miss things as I am read paragraphs. (pair e graphs is hards).

 

[jasper]

Why are people constantly referring back to AL? Who cares about AL. This is a general discussion about paid DM'ing.

Could be just could be a few , a bit, some, a lot of the friend local game stores host Adventure League tables. And the OP ...attended an Adventurer’s League day at a local game store in a neighboring town. The store charged $2.50/player/game. The money went to the DM in the form of store credit....."
Just kind of mention it in the post it was an Adventure league table. And the Dm got store credit. But have thread DRIFTED by some about DMs getting paid.

 

[ART!]

It is the nature of...I don't know - capitalism? modern capitalism? - to constantly figure out ways to get people to pay for things that used to be free. Like bottled water.

I explained to my 13 year-old daughter recently that to watch tv all you used to have to do was own a tv and maybe an antennae, and that was it. No one paid for the programming or cable access or streaming services. She was gobsmacked.

 

[houser2112]

I explained to my 13 year-old daughter recently that to watch tv all you used to have to do was own a tv and maybe an antennae, and that was it. No one paid for the programming or cable access or streaming services. She was gobsmacked.

You still can watch TV with nothing more than the TV itself (You might actually need an external antenna, though. I'm not sure modern TVs come with the ability to extract signals from the air anymore). Cable has been a thing at least as long as I've been alive (mid 1970s). Streaming services, obviously far less time.

 

[ART!]

You still can watch TV with nothing more than the TV itself (You might actually need an external antenna, though. I'm not sure modern TVs come with the ability to extract signals from the air anymore). Cable has been a thing at least as long as I've been alive (mid 1970s). Streaming services, obviously far less time.

We have an HD antenna and can get exactly one channel that way, even though we live only an hour drive from a major market. I didn't know anyone who had cable until high school (early '80s).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It is the nature of...I don't know - capitalism? modern capitalism? - to constantly figure out ways to get people to pay for things that used to be free. Like bottled water.

I explained to my 13 year-old daughter recently that to watch tv all you used to have to do was own a tv and maybe an antennae, and that was it. No one paid for the programming or cable access or streaming services. She was gobsmacked.

On the other hand, TV programming back then was almost unimaginably bad compared to what's available now. The few good shows were swimming in a sea of absolute drek. It used to be that people were looking forward to that one good program for the whole week, now there are so many good shows that few people have time to watch everything they like, but instead have to pick the best among the good.
You get what you pay for.

 

[Dire Bare]

There are a few folks who actually manage to successfully be "professional" gamemasters and charge for their services. Not a lot, but a few who have found a niche to fill. Doesn't affect the hobby negatively at all, or somehow make "normal" games GM'd at no cost more difficult to find. Most GM's don't charge, in fact, couldn't get away with it, but the few who do don't demean or damage the hobby. Under the right circumstances, charging for your GM services isn't morally bankrupt or anything.

If my pal who DM's our weekly D&D game session (we're all friends) decided to start charging . . . I'd tell him to get stuffed. If I didn't have a group of friends to play with, had the disposable income, and found a "pro" GM willing to add me as a client . . . I might do that.

Most FLGS don't charge for playspace, but increasingly more are . . . because real estate is expensive. I appreciate my FLGS for providing a large, well-aired, clean playspace at no charge . . . but if they decided they had to start charging I would totally understand. I wouldn't be comfortable paying to play in a specific game, but I wouldn't mind a "cover charge" for using the playspace in general. Especially if that cover charge came with a equal value coupon towards merchandise purchased that same day! What my FLGS would do with that money doesn't concern me . . . pay the mortgage, pay GMs or referee's, etc. As long as I felt the value was there versus the cost, I'd be okay.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What if there's not enough player slots in free games for everyone? Is no game better then paying for a game?