Rant: Players who don't DM

[Thanee]

Outside of saying to the group, "Dude 1 and I don't feel like running the next game. Who is going to run next" and ending up with nothing but silence, no.

Well, some people will never answer to such a question.

Ask them directly, if they would like to try to DM once, maybe even mention again, that you would like to play in the same game with your friend once.

Just ask them, if they would be up to this, or if not, why they don't. With the inevitable answer, that they don't think they can be a good DM, it's your job to encourage them.

Hey, maybe they totally like it, you never know!

Just be sure to have them decide and if they don't want to try, accept it!

Bye
Thanee

 

[drakhe]

Do you ask people who don't cook to stop eating?

Personaly, I think it's rather the other way arround: A DM that never plays may be a bigger problem, if he demands a performance beyond what a player is about.

It takes effort to DM (prepping, understanding the rules so you can arbitrate, understand your monsters so you can effectivly play them, understand your game world so you can represent to satisfaction, understand your players so you grasp what they are trying to achieve, ....) but in a sense its also easier: you hold all the clues, you play from behind your screen, are free to fudge and nudge if you're so inclined, you know the story, the land, the opposition (Come on, you know exactly what your players can do, have and how they use stuff, they are fighting a new opponent every time!)
I've played in a group once, where the DM didn't give XP because "everyone played exceptionaly well, but you didn't do what I had on my paper..."
If only he'd spend more time as a player and understand the players point of view...

 

[JesterPoet]

Do you ask people who don't cook to stop eating?

Nope. But (as the cook in our household) if my wife never bothered to cook a meal, ever, she would certainly find me rebelling, and would be finding food on the table with far less frequency.

 

[Henry]

First of all, calling it "freeloading" is harsh, IMO. Everyone has the right and the expectation to NOT be forced to do something.

Second, while I am a PRIME advocate for encouraging more players to GM, I also respect someone's right not to want to do it. I think GM'ing makes for well-rounded players, and Playing makes for more well-rounded DM's. But it's THEIR choice to GM or not, and it's YOUR choice to not play if burnout gets to you. However, encourage it, and tell them if ever anyone in the group wants to give GM'ing a try, you and the other GM will poivide all the help you can. But it's not "freeloading" if you have NO interest in it. It IS freeloading to mooch off someone else for rides, snacks, pencils, dice, character sheets, etc. all the time, but not wanting to take the GM reins is a bit different.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

I completely sympathise with the original poster.

I like to GM. I always have lots of ideas for games that I want to run. But I hardly ever have the stamina for a long-running campaign (10 sessions seems to be my average).

I also like to play. Being able to see my character grow gives me just about equal satisfaction as GMing.

In two of the games that I am in we have come to a satisfactory resolution. In both groups we have about half the players who want to GM, but since we all like continuity and long-running campaigns, we take turns GMing in the same game-world with the same characters. We use a wiki to organize campaing info, and each GM tries to build on what has gone before.

So far, it seems to be working just fine. No one feels over burdened, and everyone gets a chance to play.

 

[JesterPoet]

First of all, calling it "freeloading" is harsh, IMO. Everyone has the right and the expectation to NOT be forced to do something.

Second, while I am a PRIME advocate for encouraging more players to GM, I also respect someone's right not to want to do it. I think GM'ing makes for well-rounded players, and Playing makes for more well-rounded DM's. But it's THEIR choice to GM or not, and it's YOUR choice to not play if burnout gets to you. However, encourage it, and tell them if ever anyone in the group wants to give GM'ing a try, you and the other GM will poivide all the help you can. But it's not "freeloading" if you have NO interest in it. It IS freeloading to mooch off someone else for rides, snacks, pencils, dice, character sheets, etc. all the time, but not wanting to take the GM reins is a bit different.

I have to disagree with you on a certain level. While I can understand not wanting to GM, not offering to GM in a group where taking turns is the standard and not offering an explanation, in my opinion, is freeloading (though not tremendously so). Perhaps, though, now that I think it out, more than freeloading, I feel that it is simply rude.

But I hesitate to say any of this, as it has slowly become clear to me that I appear (in this thread) to care about this significantly more than I really do. It's really not a huge deal, and not something that I would ever allow to cause discord in our gaming group. It's simply something that bothers me.

Hell, if they even bought a player's guide for one of the games we play and brought it to the table I'd be a happy camper I guess. But don't get me wrong... good group, good people. I just wish I could mix and match good and bad qualities between groups. It'd sure be nice to have the non DMing players in a group where 1 dm runs a lengthy campaign.

 

[sjmiller]

I run a campaign where there are 9, count them 9, players and myself. Of those 9 players, one used to DM the group and they asked me (roommate to 2 players but outsider to their group) to run a campaign. Several of the players stated that they would not continue if "Old DM Guy" continued to run things. Of the rest, I would say 3 could DM things, 2 should not ever be allowed to (would piss off too many people), and the others probably do not want to. Of the 3 who could, I would say 1 would be really good.

There are players that, frankly, would make extremely poor DMs. There are players who just do not want to lead a game. There's a lot of work involved, and they game to get away from lots of work. If people do not want to DM that's fine with me. I do not hold it against them.

 

[Emiricol]

In my campaign, which has been going on for a year now (and since the month the PHB 3E came out, in the campaign before that), I always DMd. Right up until I got hit by a car a couple weeks ago and someone *had* to take over for a while.

I've discovered I was very burned out, and enjoying having someone else DM for a while (though I haven't been playing either. Hit by a car, remember). While I'd continue to DM, I really hope other players continue to step in and DM at least regularly, if not frequently.

 

[Umbran]

I think that was a bit more melodrama than I was prepared for with this issue.

Well, you were the one who said:
- "I'm fed up"
- "To me, this is simple mooching, and it shows me how little they appreicate what myself and Dude 1 do for them."
- "I have to say that I have significantly more respect for gamers who are willing to wear the GM hat at least once."

Sounds like there's already plenty of melodrama there. Getting annoyed and passing judgements on them for failing to do something you've only mildly suggested they do isn't melodramatic?

Have you ever heard the term "passive-aggressive"? It seems to apply a bit here.

Really, my point was that it takes guts to try. Especially to try something you're not 100% comfortable with. I respect that courage a lot.

Ah, but you see, it takes more than just guts. It takes guts and desire, in some form. If they simply have no interest, you cannot jump to the conclusion that they lack courage or commitment to the group.

 

[JesterPoet]

Getting annoyed and passing judgements on them for failing to do something you've only mildly suggested they do isn't melodramatic?...Have you ever heard the term "passive-aggressive"? It seems to apply a bit here.

See, but that isn't the case. As I said, we've specifically sat the group of us (minus dude 2) down and said, "Dude 1 and I would certainly like it if someone else would run." and waited for a response. When no response came, that was as good as, "I do not want to run" from C1, C2 & C3. C1 had run before, so she needed no excuse as to why she didn't want to run. C2 & C3 had not. I should not have to follow that up by saying, "C2, would you like to run, perhaps?" I'm positive that was understood from the question. It wasn't like we never said anything and just waited for them to volunteer.

Ah, but you see, it takes more than just guts. It takes guts and desire, in some form. If they simply have no interest, you cannot jump to the conclusion that they lack courage or commitment to the group.

This I cannot argue. But I can jump to the conclusion that they do not contribute as much to the group.


EDIT:
I can't type worth crap today.