Do you GM for yourself or others?

[Keeper of Secrets]

I'd like to think I am some kind of altruistic guy who wants nothing more than to generate some story that will entertain and delight my friends once a week. But, as was pointed out in the initial post, its probably a mix of things.

On one hand, there are very few games that I would not run for my friends if they asked me. I am sure I have at least a few stories in me for just about anything. But long term . . .? I would have to stick with what I like and what I am good with - supers, horror, fantasy, intrigue, conspiracies, etc.

I don't want to run a game where I dread game night. That is not going to be fun for me. I want something where I can't wait to play and am willing to move things around, not schedule conflicting things, etc., just to make sure we play.

A good sign is whether or not at the end of the session some of the players tell you how much fun they had and if it gives you some sense of satisfaction and happiness, or whether when you get constructive criticism if you can handle it as opposed to saying, 'my way or the highway.'

 

[scourger]

This is a good topic and gave me pause for consideration. I have pondered this many times and we've discussed GMing vs. playing in our group. It's a mix for me as well, but I'm basically in it for myself. Much of my enjoyment comes from dreaming & planning a game, especially using the rules to bring in setting elements and help tell the story. There are many games that I have plotted that never have been played (and likely never will be played). I used to love painting miniatures for the foes, but now I prefer to use what I have or find a pre-painted mini. For my next game in a couple of weeks, I have ordered minis for the PCs to use. I would love it if my players would bring their own minis, but I know that chances are slim for that.

I do try to gauge my players' interest for a given game or set of games before bringing one to the table, but we all recognize that GMing is hard work and are ready to play just about anything that one of us is excited enough about to run. It is a balance, though, because the DM can't just make the players play or enjoy the game by fiat. And if the players aren't having fun, it is over quickly in our group.

Luckily, there is no shortage of games I would love to run. I've got at least a dozen in mind right now. Occasionally writing them down helps me focus on what I want to do most in the time given. I know that I will never get to them all. And, new ones come along as old ones drift away.

 

[Umbran]

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'm largely service oriented.

However, my taste in games is quite broad - I can find fun in running most systems I've come across. And I don't really have a single favorite game, much as I don't have a single favorite genre of fiction for reading. There are few games I outright cannot stand, and nobody's ever asked me to run such.

Honestly, my group is similar - for them the system is far less important than the people playing, and they've never had a problem with playing what I suggest to run.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

I've found that GM'ing with my current group is really the only way that I can enjoy the game. Perhaps it is the level of control, or the amount of involvement inherently necessary in being the GM, but playing to me is so simple and boring in comparison.

Many of my friends have tried to GM over the years, and after a fairly short-lived, uninspired campaign, the entire group generally agrees to move on to *my* next game, which of course, I had been secretly planning all along.

Now, that being said, I have gotten GM burnout recently, and due to working on OMEN so fervently, I'm happily enjoying a game that one of my newer players put together. Yes, it's still a little boring, but it is more of a beer and pretzels game, which is fine by me in my current state.

So, to directly answer your question, I GM for myself because I understand the group enjoys my games more than others. If I had a plethora of other players, I might be more willing to play than eager to GM.

But if my party isn't enjoying themselves, I mean really really loving it, I either try to change the game to their tastes while still remaining in the context of the campaign I've set up, or can the game altogether and start with something fresh.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd like to say I'm in it for myself, but with the effort I've put into involving all the PCs in the plot, writing special rules for them and giving them crazy treasure, and soliciting and implementing feedback from the players, it's hard to make that case.

 

[Kzach]

One of my biggest frustrations as a DM is that I tend to DM for everyone else, and not myself.

By that I mean that I usually end up putting a huge amount of effort into running games. Everything I do as a DM is in an attempt to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. I try so hard, in fact, that the effort usually ends up biting me in the arse.

I find players (and when I say players I mean random people you hardly know rather than good friends you've known for years) are extremely critical and vocal at the table. I think it's a nerd thing to be a complete ass without expecting any repercussions for it.

Instead of making an effort to work WITH the DM or the group to make a game work, I find that most players do the exact opposite and criticise and bitch and moan over every little tiny detail that they're not happy with so that I come away from games feeling belittled and worthless.

In other words, all that effort goes to waste on unappreciative players who make no effort themselves to be creative or co-operative.

 

[the Jester]

It's a mix of both, leaning strongly towards "serving my own pleasure."

It's not worth running a game I don't enjoy, nor is it worth running a group I don't enjoy.

 

[Umbran]

By that I mean that I usually end up putting a huge amount of effort into running games. Everything I do as a DM is in an attempt to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. I try so hard, in fact, that the effort usually ends up biting me in the arse.

I find that one of the keys to service-oriented gaming is doing the prep that you actually need to do to make things more fun for the players, and not other stuff. And to do that, you need to know what your players actually want.

I find players (and when I say players I mean random people you hardly know rather than good friends you've known for years) are extremely critical and vocal at the table. I think it's a nerd thing to be a complete ass without expecting any repercussions for it.

I'm dreadfully sorry that's been your experience. I don't think it is a geek/nerd thing, it's bigger than that. These days, it seems like many folks think it is cool to be jaded, dissatisfied, and unenthusiastic, and that the best way to build yourself up is to take potshots at everything else.

 

[Agamon]

When picking/setting up a system or setting for the game, it's almost always what I'm excited about. Then I elevator pitch it to some players, which works more often than not.

Once the game is in full swing, then it's all about the players. I don't try to drive the game one way or another because of what I think would be cool, it's all up to them how they want to explore and interact with the setting.

To sum up, I engineer and build the vehicle I want, the players drive it how and where they want.

 

[Starfox]

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

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?

I primarily game for my own enjoyment. Naturally, I choose to use those sides of my interest that others can engage in, but it is rare that I run a game primarily for the player's enjoyment.

That said, I ran a 4E campaign for about 18 months despite losing interest myself after about 6 months. So I suppose I do make exceptions.