Rant: Players who don't DM

[Silver Moon]

I'm the group's primary DM, having run a little over half of the 900+ games in our 22 year history. I enjoy it and they enjoy my DMing. But when I do need a break I know I can count on either CelticWolf or Kriskrafts to jump in and run something. They both have very unique DMing styles which makes for a good change of pace. CelticWolf's usually run 6-8 games whereas Kriskrafts will vary from single-night one-shots to a 15-month long 52-game epic that she once ran.

And Enchantr is currently running a module in our Western campaign that has thus far been very different from my three prior modules in that campaign. Biz1489 hasn't DMed since our 20-year Anniversary game, run as a round-robin with each player taking a night.

And we have one final player, my kid brother (no ENWorld screen name as he isn't online) who has no desire to DM and probably never will. And that's okay with me and the rest of the group. If people aren't comfortable behind the screen then don't make them! This is a volunteer hobby done for fun! Make people happy.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

We've got six people in our group. One prefers to GM and is good at it (and in fact is kind of a problem player). One likes GMing about as well as playing, but isn't very practiced at running a game and has a work schedule that makes it hard for him to have time to do it. Two prefer playing, but are competent GMs if they have to do it, like when the first two don't want to run something. Two have never GMed: one of them is new to gaming in general and doesn't seem interested, the other is firmly set against GMing anything, ever.

And y'know, as much as I can empathize with JesterPoet's desire to play in a game with the other regular GM, I just can't believe that he'd be so upset because the players in his game don't want to be GMs. Especially since he's so bitterly venomous about it ("freeloaders"?). Nobody HAS to run a game, that's why the person who steps up and says "Hey, I'll GM" gets the praise and the gratitude of the rest of the group, right?

I suspect that if he manages to browbeat one of them into taking the reins for a little while, it will be a total disaster: while it's true that not everyone who enjoys running a game is actually able to run a good game, it seems to be unavoidable that someone who doesn't enjoy running the game will run a lousy game.

--
so, uh, good luck with bullying someone into running a lousy game, i guess

ryan

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

Counter-Rant: Inept players who WANT to DM...

While it can be frustrating for a DM who just wants to be involved in the game when he rarely if ever gets the opportunity to just sit back and play, I find it equally- if not quite a bit more- frustrating that players who are still developing a rudimentary grasp of the rules arbitrarily determine themselves ready to "graduate". I find it hard to explain to players that they are simply not ready to run a fun and interesting campaign, or to opt not to play in said campaign when everyone else I know accepts the invitation.

I've even had a newer player suggest that a group establish revolving control of a given campaign, whereby one week a person would be playing a character as a PC, and the next running that same character as an NPC, while completely taking control of the scope and direction of a campaign. I am simply not interested in being involved in such a campaign, as the concept itself seems rather counterintuitive to me. I tried to politely state my objections, which were summarily disregarded as unreasonable by said player.

I find that some people are simply more adept at DMing than others, as being a truly excellent DM requires a special talent or "spark" in addition to the prerequisite rules knowledge. While I myself am certainly not among the best DMs across whom I've come, I do possess the necessary skill to run a cohesive and enjoyable campaign, and am perfectly willing to do so. I just don't seem to have that special "flare" I've witnessed in others, so I and others in my playgroup will often opt to play under a DM who does, of whom I currently know two, amazingly enough, although they each run games in separate circles. If you've been fortunate enough to encounter such a person, you'll know what I mean. If you can get such a person to recognize, cultivate, and value this talent, you'll often find that this person won't mind running the game more often than not, but it's still a nice gesture to offer to take the reins once in a while and offer this person a chance to relax.

 

[DragonLancer]

I find it often detrimental if everyone in the group runs a game (especially if its the same game, D&D for instance) because whether they are good at running the game or not, they have had to look through books that previously where off limits and now they have too much knowledge. Knowledge of MI's and monsters mainly. Once you know how everything works its not the same again.
Sometimes it is better if players remain players.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

I find it often detrimental if everyone in the group runs a game (especially if its the same game, D&D for instance) because whether they are good at running the game or not, they have had to look through books that previously where off limits and now they have too much knowledge. Knowledge of MI's and monsters mainly. Once you know how everything works its not the same again.
Sometimes it is better if players remain players.

While this is certainly a valid initial strategy, I find it somewhat unreasonable over the span of several years. The main drawback to perpetually maintaining such a policy, in my opinion, is that one may be unintentionally depriving himself and others of the opportunity to find a DM with a special talent, which is a rare and beautiful thing indeed. As good as you may think you are, one of your players may very well have the potential to be be better than you can even imagine.

The main negative change I would project between ignorance and enlightenment for players would be that the original DM might become less comfortable with improvisation, as doing so too liberally might provoke criticism from the players for "cheating". As a steadfast advocate of improvisation, I would definitely see this as a problem. Another negative aspect is that, if players know what everything does, it begins to seem less fresh and thereby less exciting, which can cause roleplay to suffer. If players are good at roleplay, however, they should be pretty adept at differentiating between personal knowledge and character knowledge, although an occasional lapse is inevitable. Additionally, a good DM will be able to easily overcome this obstacle by applying a little bit of creativity and originality.

Conversely, however, as a player I like to know where I stand with regard to the rules, as not to stand for overly flagrant abuses of the "DM=God" rule. While in some respects this rule is beneficial to the game, I find much more enjoyment in games where the DM is a little more flexible and willing to compromise.

Just my 2 bucks (inflation )...

 

[HellHound]

Hmph.

I'd get upset if someone in my group asked to DM on our regular game days.

*I* am the DM, darnit!



(Not entirely true, actually, I like playing too, and miss my only Player Character in the past 15 years...)

 

[monkeygrrl]

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... though you have not really explained to them how rude and annoying it is to you, their lack of an explanation is rude and annoying?

I suspect maybe your perspective isn't as clear to these players as you think it is, it seems like the overtures you've made seem a little vague and hinty to me. Since you already know what you mean, it's perfectly obvious to you, but sometimes you have to explain things to other people like they're retarded to get your point across.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Well...maybe the other "chicks" are waiting to buy tight black outfits so they can snarl "Elfstar's DEAD!"

I've found in my experience that, sometimes, it's better that some people never, ever DM/GM/Storytell...ever.

 

[Trainz]

Well...maybe the other "chicks" are waiting to buy tight black outfits so they can snarl "Elfstar's DEAD!"

I thought it was Blackleaf, unless I'm confusing your reference...

And BTW, Jack Chick obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. In most games, Blackleaf would have been risen from the dead.

Noob.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I thought it was Blackleaf, unless I'm confusing your reference...

And BTW, Jack Chick obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. In most games, Blackleaf would have been risen from the dead.

Noob.

Crap, you're right, it is Blackleaf the thief. And even if Blackleaf couldn't be brought back...there are things called blank character sheets.