Do you GM for yourself or others?

[Ravilah]

To the game masters out there: Who, in your mind, is the primary beneficiary of your gaming?

What I mean is, do you think of GMing (the planning, writing, developing, session running, etc) as something you primarily do for your own enjoyment and that hopefully others will enjoy too (but if not, oh well, they can go find someone else)? Or do you think of being a GM as something of a service, where you fashion things mostly to the tastes and desires of the players as best as possible, even if this means running games that are not your favorite?

I realize that most GMs are a mix of both (and optimally, both player and planner have a great time). But when it comes time to choose a system, design a homebrew, set limitations, allow splat books, or make any of a thousand other GM decisions, is your first thought, "This is what I will enjoy running?" or "This is what the others will enjoy playing"?

By extension, I also ask if any of you have run games or systems you've disliked, for the benefit of a group of players?

 

[AeroDm]

I realize that most GMs are a mix of both (and optimally, both player and planner have a great time). But when it comes time to choose a system, design a homebrew, set limitations, allow splat books, or make any of a thousand other GM decisions, is your first thought, "This is what I will enjoy running?" or "This is what the others will enjoy playing"?

Still a mix of both. Ultimately if I'm not happy and excited about it no one will have a great time because my heart won't be in it. But I also take into consideration the desires of players because their excitement creates a feedback loop. If my dream setting is their nightmare, it still won't be a fun game. In that sense, I guess my fun is the ultimate decision maker, but since my fun builds on theirs I'd say it's a mix.

 

[Vegepygmy]

What I mean is, do you think of GMing (the planning, writing, developing, session running, etc) as something you primarily do for your own enjoyment and that hopefully others will enjoy too (but if not, oh well, they can go find someone else)? Or do you think of being a GM as something of a service, where you fashion things mostly to the tastes and desires of the players as best as possible, even if this means running games that are not your favorite?

I have no interest at all in running a game that isn't the one I would really rather be running, or fashioning things to the tastes and desires of my players. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had any trouble attracting players to the games I do run, but I don't, so I do as I like and if a player doesn't care for it, he's free to leave.

That said, I still feel like it is a service to the players, in some sense. Much like when I join a group as a player, I make a commitment to the group that I will play even when I don't particularly feel like it, or would rather be doing something else. It's a group game, and you owe something to the group when you choose to join. The same is true for me as a DM. There are a lot of Saturday nights I don't particularly feel like doing the "work" of DMing, but I know my players have been looking forward to the game all week, and have set aside the time to play, and so I run the game anyway.

But that's not what you're asking about, if I understand you. My answer to your question is "almost entirely for myself."

EDIT: Just to clarify, when I DM, I do ask myself: "What would I like if I were playing this instead of DMing it?" But that's the extent of my concern. If my players don't like what I would, tough luck.

 

[Liquidsabre]

A lot of my enjoyment as GM comes from role playing the setting environment, creatures, and NPCs while producing an entertaining and enjoyable story-game experience.

So GMing is definitely something I do for my players first, and my enjoyment is a happy byproduct of that. I admit that I see my players enjoyment as my primary goal and my own enjoyment stems from watching my players have a good time while sharing the story events that occur in the game together. If my players aren't having any fun my interest in the game will suffer as a result.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm more of a service guy. When, after a year+ of running a campaign, I realized I'd made a profound mistake in the home-brewed villains that kind of made the campaign's resolution a bit anti-climactic, I actually apologized to my group.

That said, I've never run any game I thought my group would like that I wouldn't. And I've definitely shelved campaigns I've worked long and hard on because I didn't think the players in my group would like it.

 

[Gilladian]

After years of experimentation, I have decided that I will only run my preferred game system, within my homebrew setting. Long-term, nothing else makes me happy. And that's what I'm gaming for.

However, within that framework, the game is for the players. I provide intrigue and occasional wackiness for the guy who likes that, I give chances to rescue innocents and establish a good home base for the player who loves to do that, and for the others I try to provide good knock-down fights.

And I'm always trying to improve my DM skills to give a better performance. So I guess I'm mixed, but the base is all for me.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My first thought is for myself, because I'm a selfish bastard.

 

[S'mon]

I GM or play for my own enjoyment, but a lot of my enjoyment comes from the enjoyment of others. When I see players (or occasionally GMs) who don't seem to enjoy the enjoyment of others, but only their own enjoyment, then my own enjoyment is lessened.

A good example is players who never describe what is happening in-world when they take actions (so other players & the GM can enjoy experiencing it), but only announce die roll results and effects - so only they know what is actually happening. Another example is GMs who create 'uber' GMPCs from which they clearly derive enjoyment, uncaring that the actual players don't enjoy being upstaged in their own game.

Re:

do you think of GMing (the planning, writing, developing, session running, etc) as something you primarily do for your own enjoyment and that hopefully others will enjoy too (but if not, oh well, they can go find someone else)? Or do you think of being a GM as something of a service, where you fashion things mostly to the tastes and desires of the players as best as possible, even if this means running games that are not your favorite?

On this, definitely the former. I'll create & run stuff I want to create and run, and seek players who will enjoy those things. I'll take player input - which can add to my own enjoyment - but I'm certainly not GMing as a service to others. I'll only run a game I'm enthusiastic about. But I'll only play a game I'm enthusiastic about, too!

 

[Croesus]

...but a lot of my enjoyment comes from the enjoyment of others.

When I first started GM'ing, I mainly focused on world building. That was the main pull for me. After a while, however, I realized that building a world was no fun if no one else was playing in it.

Now, post-3E, I'm almost completely on the side of doing it for the players - world building is a (sometimes) necessary evil, but not the main focus of my efforts. Far more important is making sure everyone wants to play, which means everyone gets a voice in what we do - the system, the campaign, the tone, everything.

How much enjoyment I get from GM'ing or playing comes down to how much effort the others put in. No matter what system, no matter how cool the idea, no matter how much effort I put in, if the others are just going through the motions, the RPG won't be fun and I'd be better off playing something else.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I tried GMing for myself a couple times but it never worked out. The adventures held no suprises because I had already prepped or read them and then there was the endless rules lawyering with myself. I finally gave up and started running games for other players.