Worlds of Design: WANTED - More Game Masters

How much do you GM, as opposed to act as a player, in RPGs?


There never seems to be enough game masters to go around, a problem that’s been around for as long as the hobby has existed. So what do we do about it?

wantedposter.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Game Mastering is Work​

There’s a long-term trend to reduce the burdens of game mastering so that there are more GMs to play tabletop role-playing games, specifically Dungeons & Dragons and its descendants. There never seems to be enough, and it’s been a problem for the 45+ years that I, and some of you, have been playing RPGs.

I wouldn’t call GMing hard work, but it is definitely work. People don’t generally like to work in their entertainment. Most GMs undertake the work in order to allow their friends to be entertained. We could say that it’s a necessary evil. I always try to persuade most or all of the players in my group to also GM so that no one has to do the work all the time, but my impression is it’s more common for one GM to run a game for many sessions. At college game clubs, there are always enough players when someone offers to GM. Players who can’t find a GM are much more common.

GMing isn’t work for everyone, of course. Some may conceive the GM as a storyteller, and they want to tell (their) stories. I have a friend who is a software engineer and gamer, but also writes haiku every day and novels once a year (in National Novel Writing Month). He says he GMs with just a small amount of notes and makes the rest up as he goes along. So for him GMing may be another creative outlet, no more work than writing his daily haiku.

After having been player far more than GM for many years, my brother ran a campaign as sole GM, because he didn’t allow players to read the rules beyond the D&D Player’s Handbook! I can think of other reasons, but what’s important is that not many people prefer GMing to playing.

Why This is a Problem​

In video RPGs computer programming is as close as we get to a GM, so there’s no problem of lack of GM’s limiting the number of video games that are played. As you know, vastly more people play video RPGs than tabletop RPGs.

This is a problem for publishers. The GM in D&D-style games can be potentially in conflict with players, which is not an attractive role for many people. If a game doesn’t have enough GMs, the number of games played is limited by that insufficiency. And if the number of games played is limited, then there will be fewer people playing the game, which is likely to translate to fewer sales both of player and GM products.

The publishers of D&D undoubtedly saw that the appeal of the game was being limited by insufficient availability of GMs. What could they do to reduce the load on the GM?

How to Fix It​

One way to change the role of GMs so that it’s less likely to conflict with players is to make the rules absolutes rather than guidelines, and make the GM merely the arbiter (interpreter and enforcer) of rules rather than the creative “god” of the campaign.

When rules are very clear, the GM doesn’t have to make a lot of judgment calls, and it reduces negotiation (even though, in essence, RPGs are structured negotiations between players and GM). If you’re a team sports fan you know that fans particularly complain about referee judgment calls. It’s hard to make rules absolutely clear (see my previous Worlds of Design article, “Precision”) but the effort has been made. I’m particularly impressed with the systematic Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons rules.

Further, those GMs who need encouragement can use commercially available modules/adventures, which do even more to take the burden off the GM. How many GMs still make up their own adventures? I don't know, but evidently a small minority.

The Downside of Making it Easier​

I think of RPGs as games, not storytelling. When everyone plays the same adventure, it creates the risk of the same experience. I like the idea of fun from emergent play, where anything can happen and players stray outside the boxed text.

The x-factor that differentiates each game is the players and GM together. New GMs may stick closely to the text while experienced GMs stray from it, and really experienced GMs just make it up without too much prep time.

I think a good GM using the more flexible methods will create a more interesting game than one using the follow-the-rules-to-the-letter method. In my opinion, role-playing a situation is more interesting than rolling dice to resolve it, both as participant and as observer. Readership of this column surely has a different opinion, hence our poll.

Your Turn: How much do you GM, as opposed to act as a player, in RPGs?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

Biggest problem I see to the lack of GMs is also the same thing that has helped drive the popularity of D&D, Pathfinder, and several other games: streaming games. They're great on one hand, throwing open the doors of entry to the games. On the other, they put an added level of expectation and demand on new GMs.

GMing is an art, an art that takes time to become proficient and even longer to master.
 


Biggest problem I see to the lack of GMs is also the same thing that has helped drive the popularity of D&D, Pathfinder, and several other games: streaming games. They're great on one hand, throwing open the doors of entry to the games. On the other, they put an added level of expectation and demand on new GMs.

GMing is an art, an art that takes time to become proficient and even longer to master.
I see it as both a blessing and a curse. The streaming shows illustrate how the game should flow (in the best cases) and what the give and take between the players and the GM should look like. But you're right that, if your players have been exposed to the better shows, their expectations could be way out of line with what's achievable at your own table. It's also interesting that just a handful of shows have the magic that makes the thing greater than the some of its parts. A good many of these streams are quite pedestrian and a bit painful to watch.

Though, for me, I've still been wanting more from my players so I'm not feeling threatened yet... :)
 

Same here, I have tried to run published adventures a couple of times. Every time it has probably taken as much work to run as devise my own adventures. Actually in my group, I don't think any of the GMs ever run published adventures.
This has been a painful lesson that I eventually learned and now feel quite liberated. Published adventures, IMHO, should be stripped for parts but never actually run. And, sadly, there's little to learn about adventure design from them either.
 

While D&D may skew towards having too few GMs vs. players, for smaller games my experience suggests the opposite problem (I'm always seeing GMs saying they can't get players to try such and such a game).
So maybe part of the solution is to find ways to get more players to try non-D&D games.
 

The most obvious solution is pay GM's. Pandemic lockdowns forced people to play online, and isolated them from their regular groups. Paid GM's stepped in to take up the slack, and it's never been easier to find a game if you're willing to pay to play.

From my limited experience these games fall into three categories.
1) Pile them high and give the players what they want. I've only come across this a couple of times and it isn't for me, but there are at least two big collectives of GM's offering low priced game, level up every session, and fast run throughs. The campaign I played a session of was on about its fifth GM, but it doesn't matter because you're rattling through stuff so fast that backstory and what happened earlier the campaign doesn't matter - everything is monster of the week.

2) Minimum wage-ish GM's. These are doing sessions for $15 per player, and running multiple groups, often through the same commercial scenario because they get very familiar with it. That means they can run each session with minimal prep time, which is good because to make enough to live on you need to run at least one game a day, possibly two at weekends. This model seem popular though not least because players can see the value in paying the same as a movie for a 4 hour D&D game.

3) Higher-end GM's. Sessions are $40 per session and up - up to and including many thousands of dollars for D&D in a castle or cruise ships to play Deadlands. Obviously appeals to a wealthier crowd, but in my experience these players are also the most involved and the most dedicated.

Interestingly, I've had a few of the $15-a-session campaigns fade out halfway when players move on for real-life reasons and the GM can't find replacements willing to step in that far through the story. That's never happened in the higher-end sessions. Obviously those GMs are spending time on marketing etc. but also their games are massively oversubscribed because they are good at it.

When I first started running and playing games online I thought this would be a fad and would fade when the pandemic receded. It still might - I'm certainly going to go back to face-to-face sessions with my best friends as soon as I can. But I'm DEFINITELY going to keep running and playing online too. It's so convenient when you live in a small town and you don't have to try to juggle people's physical commitments or drive to the city to a gaming club. Just go upstairs, start up Discord, and play.
 

This has been a painful lesson that I eventually learned and now feel quite liberated. Published adventures, IMHO, should be stripped for parts but never actually run. And, sadly, there's little to learn about adventure design from them either.
I never used to run published adventures (over the course of 30 years of GMing) but I found that I had trouble running my inherent improv style over a VTT. So when using Fantasy grounds, I tend to use published modules for 5E. I still change a lot of stuff on the fly (so much so that my players often ask "what was supposed to happen in the adventure") but I have the structure, pre-coded encounters, tokens and maps etc on hand. At a real life table (SOON!) I just use Tac-Tiles and dice/coins/whatever and feel much more free.
 

It's also interesting that just a handful of shows have the magic that makes the thing greater than the some of its parts. A good many of these streams are quite pedestrian and a bit painful to watch.

Yep. It's interesting, because it's similar to when people criticize (for example) play-by-play announcers, or anything else that seems easy.

Try doing it yourself. Broadcasting a game for three hours isn't easy. Running a game in a way that is appealing for people to watch isn't easy.

It's the "duck theory" of life. The most impressive and difficult things are the things that look easy and hide the work. All the viewer sees is a duck, floating serenely on the surface, unaware of the legs furiously moving underneath.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top