if it ever became the norm I'd definitely be against it. However being in an area where things are very spread out, I can understand why some people might pay a DM to run games. though I can't imagine a huge number of people paying 25 bucks per person. But if it becomes the norm it will be determined by supply and demand. And if it gets too expensive it will drive more people back to running thier own games. So I think it will have a minimal impact overall.
D&D 5E How many players would use a service like this
$25 is lunch once a week. It's not onerous for most people.
beancounter
(I/Me/Mine)
Yep, and in my personal experience, neither do the players,...but it fills a niche.
OT - IMO, AL does more to hurt D&D than help it.
I never said it was onerous. I said I don't think that price will be accepted. 25 dollars a game means 4 games is more than my gigabit internet per month. Affordable definitely but in a world where everyone wants 15 dollars a month for anything fun I don't think that price point is acceptable for 80 percent or so of the population. Just my opinion though. We'll have to watch it play out to see.
Anecdotally, that's exactly what I charge per player for a 4-hour online session. It's played out pretty well for two and a half years now, at least for me. And since that seems to be more or less the industry standard right now, I would say that rate works pretty well for pro DMs.
I was just responding to the idea that not a lot of people would pay it. I think they would. But, the expectations change so much once it becames transactional that I don't know how much fun it would be -- especially a the GM. I have done it just enough times to know it is not for me. I much prefer running games at cons, where it is still more "service oriented" than your home games, but less so than a Pro GM gig.
That said, i still think the industry -- especially conventions -- undervalues GMs in general. Cons make the vast majority of their income off volunteer GMs, and few do more than comp a ticket. D&D itself is hugely dependent upon people willing and able to GM "for free" and while I don't expect WotC to pay people to GM D&D, it would be nice if they supported GMs more.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
WotC could (and should!) do more to support GMs, sure; but WotC doesn't run conventions - it's the convention organizers who maybe need to pony up a bit here, as they are the ones gaining the most (monetary) benefit from the work of those GMs.
Audiomancer
Adventurer
$25 is comparable to what I typically pay for a movie, popcorn, and soda. So I could probably justify paying it if I thought the DM ran sessions well and I was enjoying the campaign.
But I wouldn’t want to have to round up 3-4 friends and convince them to pony up, as well. At that point, I’d just offer to run the game myself and warn everybody in advance to expect some mediocre DM-img.
Hussar
Legend
In this time of E-sports, competitive card TCG gaming and various other commodification of geek pastimes, why would running a game be any different?
It's not like this is new. Paid DMing has been around for quite a few years, even if it hasn't been all that popular. Granted, I've never done it but, I can certainly see why people would. Imagine if you're in a pay group. That means that players actually show up on time, because, well, they're paying for it. It also means that people are a lot more literally invested in the game than someone who just comes for free. I can totally see how a pay group would be a pretty good experience. Plus, with a pay group, because the DM isn't your friend, but, is there to provide a service, if Dave over there is a stinky gamer, or is disruptive, or a jerk, boot. Gone. When it's a pay service, you have a lot more power over the table and a vested interest in making sure that the table is happy.
How is being a paid DM any different than any other hobby where someone makes it a business? We don't have a problem with someone writing a module and selling it. So, why is selling my time a problem? It's my time to sell and someone else's to buy. If you don't like it, there's absolutely no reason for it to even appear on your radar.
I mean, good grief, what's the difference between a paid DM and someone who makes streaming live play videos and tries to monetize their game that way? I really don't understand anyone having an objection to this.
It's not like this is new. Paid DMing has been around for quite a few years, even if it hasn't been all that popular. Granted, I've never done it but, I can certainly see why people would. Imagine if you're in a pay group. That means that players actually show up on time, because, well, they're paying for it. It also means that people are a lot more literally invested in the game than someone who just comes for free. I can totally see how a pay group would be a pretty good experience. Plus, with a pay group, because the DM isn't your friend, but, is there to provide a service, if Dave over there is a stinky gamer, or is disruptive, or a jerk, boot. Gone. When it's a pay service, you have a lot more power over the table and a vested interest in making sure that the table is happy.
How is being a paid DM any different than any other hobby where someone makes it a business? We don't have a problem with someone writing a module and selling it. So, why is selling my time a problem? It's my time to sell and someone else's to buy. If you don't like it, there's absolutely no reason for it to even appear on your radar.
I mean, good grief, what's the difference between a paid DM and someone who makes streaming live play videos and tries to monetize their game that way? I really don't understand anyone having an objection to this.
Similar Threads
