How do YOU decide what to run?

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
Huh. I have never encountered that. I would love to play more than I do, but I'm the person willing to GM, so GM I do.
One of my 5e campaigns GMs is like that. He took over after we finished Keep on the Shadowfell (sometime in 2009 probably), and has never given up the reins. He just said "I like to be in charge"; and the rest of us were like "ok"

I'm in other games with rotating GMs, and that's fine too - always nice to sit on both sides of the screen (usually metaphorical) with the same people

log in or register to remove this ad

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
You need to get a better list!
Here's what that line item looks like, as well as the formula I used. I noticed I had listed Torchbearer as being in digital form only, but I have it in print now. Updating that moved it up to 80th on the list.

The key multiplier is always how "stoked to run" I am for a game. Torchbearer I am only so-so excited to run


Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
This is my metric also.
Yes, makes sense.

I have 17 games that are High Stokedness to run... Going through this exercise with the spreadsheet allowed me to look at everything I owned and really see how I'm feeling about the games - right now

At some point in the future I'll go through an exercise where i look at all the "not very stoked" to run games, and if I have in print, maybe it's time to clear some shelf space?

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
Here's my list of games/adventures I'm very excited to run, in alphabetical order

Arden Vul
Deep Carbon Observatory
Expedition to Barrier Peaks
Legacy Life Among the Ruins
Level Up A5E
Memories of Holdenshire
Over the Edge 3e
Scales of War
Sword the Crown Unspeakable Power Beta
Traveller many adventures
Traveller World
Troika 2e
Urban Shadows 2e
War for the Crown

To start with, it's got to be a game I am excited to run.

From there, it's got to have buy-in from the players. Though, frequently I find that I get the response "we'll play whatever you want to run." While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I'd like to get more decisive input.


Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I guess I didnt think it was common since so many folks claim to be forever GMs. I know a number of folks personally, that do not like playing but only GMing. So, yeah I was generalizing. Just assumed it was common enough.
That's interesting, and I mean that sincerely not as a blow off. So often when I see someone describe themselves as a "forever DM", it's usually them bemoaning that they never get to play. So I take that particular phrase to mean "I want to play but I'm the only DM around so I don't get the chance".

But, as you bring it up, it's the people complaining who I've seen - if you aren't complaining, there's usually not a post. So that can be a bias caused by those who post, not by general usage of the phrase.

So I've got to reassess if I've been making an unwarranted assumption. Hmm, maybe I'll create a poll. In any case, it's making me think.


- The system has to be interesting enough mechanically that I, as GM, will want to commit to its resolution mechanics for many months.

- The system ideally must openly declare the intent of play and then deliver on its intent. This determination would generally be based on reviews and reports from actual play. I.e., if the general premise is "moody, psychological introspection about the nature of humanity," the end result can't be "undead vampire superheroes".

- The system hast to support my basic premise --- thematically, geographically, historically.

- The premise has to have space for interesting interpersonal / inter-party dynamics and character depth.

- The system + premise have to have certain "je ne sais quoi" creative space that makes me want to delve deeper into it.


Upcoming Releases