D&D General DM with too High Expectations - Advice?

[Thomas Shey]

No, neither would I, which is why I think 12 pages of background material is probably too much. The DMG recommends two pages as a reasonable maximum, an that feels about right to me, depending on the formatting of the pages.

Even the last D&D game I ran (back in the 3e era) had a heck of a lot more than that, just so the nationalities and religions were clear. It probably makes a difference whether you're running in an original setting or not.

 

[prabe]

I know this thread is in the D&D forum, but a lot, probably the majority of games I run are not class-and-level systems, so its not as easy to separate out what parts of houserules are going to apply to your character and not. Honestly, by the time you can tell in a lot of cases, you've probably already read it.

Yes. In a lot of games, the lines aren't quite so clear. I was just clarifying/exemplifying the sorts of houserules I wouldn't expect someone to read. We are, I think, very much on the same page.

 

[ART!]

Are movie stars or their agents/film studios/etc paid by the late night shows to come and be a guest or do they do that to advertise their upcoming film? Ie, for the exposure?

Guests on talk shows are paid for appearing.

 

[iserith]

As for this discussion of player compensation, zero divided by the number of players in the group is still zero. Which is the likeliest outcome.

 

[MarkB]

bad analogies are bad

If you want people paid for their labor then why are you against the idea of a dm being paid for his?

if he decides it’s a better model to get paid via outside revenue than his players directly paying him then that sounds like a win-win situation.

the only bad part of this is that his players aren’t okay with being filmed or doing extra homework and that’s perfectly okay.

A situation in which people are paying for a service is fundamentally different than one where a group of friends are playing a game together. The issue isn't whether one is better than the other, it's that this person is trying to unilaterally transition from one to the other.

solution then is to:
1. Charge the players to dm for them. Probably won’t work even if attempted

2. Find a new group of players that are okay having a free dm in exchange for their use in his brand building and monetization.

3. Forget monetizing himself and keep this is a hobby.

4. Do what most start-ups do and invest some initial capital in establishing and growing the business, in anticipation of making it back once he's in a position to start charging for his services.

And here’s the thing that seems missed, if he’s ever successful and his monetization pays off then that’s when the players are going to step up and say, I’ve been a big part of this. Give me my fair cut or I’m walking away which will damage your brand.

He's specifically growing his brand in order to sell his services as a DM. The more likely outcome would seem to be that he ditches them in favour of paying clients.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think what people are objecting to is the DM in question trying to make money from his game while not mentioning any possibility of sharing that income around the table. I don't think there's any philosophical objection to making money at D&D, either through streaming or paid-DMing; I think there's a belief that A) if a table is going to be streamed, it should be the table's decision--not just the DM's; and B) if there's going to be income from the table being streamed, it should be shared around the table.

A) no issues. That’s what I’m arguing for.

B) this is the part that doesn’t make sense. Sorry but if you are making 10 dollars a month from “monetizing” your game by streaming it then it’s absurd to share that. And let’s be realistic, the guy is goina be lucky to make 10 dollars a month from this. Maybe years after he’s put tons of blood sweat and tears into it he might get beyond the 100 dollar mark a month.

which goes right back to my point about paying the dm. If we are talking 10 or 20 dollars a month in profit, that is essentially being paid to dm in such a way that the players don’t have to. There’s no sharing that should be taking place in that arrangement for those kinds of amounts.

 

[FrogReaver]

A situation in which people are paying for a service is fundamentally different than one where a group of friends are playing a game together. The issue isn't whether one is better than the other, it's that this person is trying to unilaterally transition from one to the other.

4. Do what most start-ups do and invest some initial capital in establishing and growing the business, in anticipation of making it back once he's in a position to start charging for his services.

He's specifically growing his brand in order to sell his services as a DM. The more likely outcome would seem to be that he ditches them in favour of paying clients.

Unlikely to find enough groups willing to pay you enough to make dming for them worth it.

that’s why streaming is the way such things are typically monetized. Thousands of viewers tends to scale much better

 

[prabe]

A) no issues. That’s what I’m arguing for.

B) this is the part that doesn’t make sense. Sorry but if you are making 10 dollars a month from “monetizing” your game by streaming it then it’s absurd to share that. And let’s be realistic, the guy is goina be lucky to make 10 dollars a month from this. Maybe years after he’s put tons of blood sweat and tears into it he might get beyond the 100 dollar mark a month.

which goes right back to my point about paying the dm. If we are talking 10 or 20 dollars a month in profit, that is essentially being paid to dm in such a way that the players don’t have to. There’s no sharing that should be taking place in that arrangement for those kinds of amounts.

If you're going to try to monetize your game/s by streaming, your players should have the same opportunity. Heck, if y'all work together y'all might be able to make more money--but that really requires everyone to buy into the streaming thing.

 

[Laurefindel]

Are movie stars or their agents/film studios/etc paid by the late night shows to come and be a guest or do they do that to advertise their upcoming film? Ie, for the exposure?

"Exposure-as-salary" is, more often than not, a cheap way to exploit someone's talent. Maybe things are different here, but celebrities and their agents are paid when they get on late night shows. The more popular the show, the more they get paid. Even if they get their own stuff promoted. Given different years, some actors make more money getting invited to shows/conventions/lectures than their acting royalties. In effect, they are merchandising themselves.

If what the DM wants is to create a brand, then they need to pay their players (and other technicians/agents/accountants) that will allow them to achieve that goal. If the players and the DM all have that same goal as a group, then that's different (but should still pay their techs/agents/accountants). The Beatles didn't pay each other to release an album, but they did pay their recording studios and the orchestral musicians.

Now exposure can be a form of salary, provided that the person is 1) seeking exposure and 2) the promoter can guaranty that exposure. It seems that in this case, the players aren't seeking exposure and the DM isn't really able to provide much either.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you're going to try to monetize your game/s by streaming, your players should have the same opportunity. Heck, if y'all work together y'all might be able to make more money--but that really requires everyone to buy into the streaming thing.

1. Why?
2. The problem was he assumed everyone would want to work together for that. They didn’t.