• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Worlds of Design: WANTED - More Game Masters

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?

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

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I would counter that video games have trended toward more human interaction, not less. That is why things like Xbox Live and Playstation Network thrive. Likewise, the Nintendo Switch is becoming increasingly popular.

What is this based upon?

I do not believe this requires the rules to be "absolute." It simply requires keeping GM-knowledge separated from NPC-knowledge. The GM knowing a piece of information doesn't mean that the BBEG knows something; the role of rules arbiter and the role of world builder are related but not equivalent. Houserules can and do exist. As long as they are communicated to the players, the game works fine. Additionally, having some flexibility as a GM allows for a tabletop game to handle things which programming tends to handle poorly: an example would be that there are some games in which jumping even small objects are not possible. Similarly, there is a reason why a courtroom involves a judge instead of a computer program which simply scans legal code.

What stops someone from buying modules now? I'm not seeing how that is some sort of change. Further, I'm not seeing how buying modules means someone does not create their own adventures. Anecdotally, I know far more people who play rpgs at home or at a friend's home than people who play Adventurer League (or some thing similar). Many of those people create their own adventures but still purchase modules. Most often (again, anecdotally,) what I see is that people want some sort of "starter" module or series of beginner adventures to get a campaign moving but then take things in their own direction. I also know plenty of people who buy modules and mine them for ideas. Personally, I don't particularly like the Strahd campaign, but there are a lot of bits and pieces of it (like the elevator trap) which I thought were cool.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How is emergent play at odds with telling a story? As a story would change according to a player's actions, I believe that a storytelling game allows for emergent play. I am not sure that I understand what you are saying with your statement or why/how you draw the line between rpgs being (for you) a game instead of a story. How would you categorize something like a choose-your-own-adventure book? For me, tabletop rpgs are sorta like an in-person MMO version of a choose-your-own-adventure book. I am interested in hearing the position you've taken elaborated upon because (as I read it) it seems very alien to my way of thinking.


I answered the poll, but I am overall confused by what your article is saying. I feel as though there are two conflicting messages being presented.

I play and GM roughly equally. Currently, I am a player in two different groups (one playing D&D and one playing a different system). I am also currently prepping to run a new campaign for a group.
We can't read that with all the different font colours. Try removing the fonts and colours from your text.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Argyle King

Legend
We can't read that with all the different font colours. Try removing the fonts and colours from your text.
I'll go back and edit it. I was trying to code my responses to the section(s) they were responding to.

Edit to my previous comment completed
 
Last edited:

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
Ha, I should have said I learned what not to do. For example: don't have a major NPC whose motivation is poor or entirely absent. Too many WotC adventures have two-dimensional baddies that DMs then have to motivate without really grokking what makes them tick. And I'm tired of navigating badly designed lairs/encounters. So yeah, I stand corrected, it taught me a lot by going to the school of hard knocks! :p
A bad module wasn't a good example? Shocker.

It's kind of hard to tell because I have been doing it "my way" for so long and I have my preferences, but I feel like the WotC modules are more good than bad from an instructional standpoint. For those most part if a new DM ran a successful campaign using one of them, I feel like they would have a better than average shot at devising one of their own. (Except for Dragon Heist. Ugh.)

What i don't think WotC is "teaching" new GMs is how to run a campaign that is open and emergent and not just a big long story. For that they would need individual modules (no, not collections) and a book focused on world building and sandbox gaming.
 


pming

Legend
Hiya!

TL;DR = WotC needs to put out some books specifically for DM's and NOT Players.

Hmmm... maybe put out more GM specific/Only books dealing specifically with "DM'ing Stuff and Running a Campaign"? Give me a 5e version of Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, Manual of the Planes (all from 1e), or Lord Flataroy's Guide to Fortification (Hackmaster), or the 'dominion and war machine' rules from BECMI's Companion and Master's Box Sets.

But a book that has about 20 to 30 percent of info for the GM, but the rest for Players...and all that GM stuff is right there for all the Players to read/absorb? Does one thing: tells everyone that GM'ing "isn't that important...he's like the designated driver; nice to have, but you can always just take a cab/walk". ;) In 'gamer terms'... "What? Nobody wants to DM? Ok, how about we all log onto WoW and do a dungeon or something?"

So, in a nutshell...to "fix the problem: WotC needs to stop focusing on primarily "Players and the General Game", and show some serious love for "DM Specific Stuff". But I highly doubt that their bean counters will let them get away with that. Which basically means... expect to have a constant level of 'newb' 5e DM's or outright lack thereof. And all the "good" (re: experienced) 5e DM's are most likely Old Skool Style DM's...and their play style tends to rub up uncomfortably with 'new' Players who expect to "be heroes and beat the bad guys" (YMMV...but this has been my experience with 'newer' Players...basically, if they learned RPG's at 3e or later).

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
I was trying to code my responses to the section(s) they were responding to.
This is the best way to do that.
Edit to my previous comment completed
By splitting up the initial comment into separate sections one can give separate replies to each section.

You can press the Return key within a quoted comment to split it up or you can use the, more complicated, BB code option.

Return key option:
04.png


Toggle BB code option:
01.png

03.png
 
Last edited:

tommybahama

Adventurer
So, in a nutshell...to "fix the problem: WotC needs to stop focusing on primarily "Players and the General Game", and show some serious love for "DM Specific Stuff".

I don't think you can teach those skills in a book and I doubt WotC would know how or else their campaigns wouldn't need so much work. But YouTube has tons of material for DMs that does exactly what you suggest.

You can also find quite a few very good DMs online if you're willing to pay. Throwing money at the problem is one way to fix it.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
There are only two things necessary to become a good DM.

Firstly, you need to become a DM. Secondly, you have to mess up a bunch of times till you get things right, but not mess up so badly that you want to quit being a DM entirely.

That second part is where I see the snags happen. I'm of the opinion that the campaign books require way more effort than they should to get into a good play state, especially if both the players and the DM are new. Perhaps the most infamous example of this is Decent into Avernus. Where among other problems, there is a mage who can cast Fireball in the first dungeon. Given that Fireball does an average of 28 damage, and a level 1 fighter would be extremely lucky if they had 14 hp, you can see the issue here. But a new DM might not be able to tell there is a problem without having the game blow up in their face. And that is aside from the problems that are in the core books, like CR being more of an art than a science, which can be a stumbling block for anyone wanting to make their own campaign up.

It's not about having absolute rules, so much as it is about having solid and functional rules that can be built upon. These books "should just work" (to ape an old slogan) right out of the box, and currently they don't.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
There are only two things necessary to become a good DM.

Firstly, you need to become a DM. Secondly, you have to mess up a bunch of times till you get things right, but not mess up so badly that you want to quit being a DM entirely.

That second part is where I see the snags happen. I'm of the opinion that the campaign books require way more effort than they should to get into a good play state, especially if both the players and the DM are new. Perhaps the most infamous example of this is Decent into Avernus. Where among other problems, there is a mage who can cast Fireball in the first dungeon. Given that Fireball does an average of 28 damage, and a level 1 fighter would be extremely lucky if they had 14 hp, you can see the issue here. But a new DM might not be able to tell there is a problem without having the game blow up in their face. And that is aside from the problems that are in the core books, like CR being more of an art than a science, which can be a stumbling block for anyone wanting to make their own campaign up.

It's not about having absolute rules, so much as it is about having solid and functional rules that can be built upon. These books "should just work" (to ape an old slogan) right out of the box, and currently they don't.
I don't think every adventure should cater to new GMs/Players. That's what the 2 starter sets are for.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top