NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9710739" data-attributes="member: 6790260">None of my players are interested in running games--at all. In fact, I'm supremely confident that all of them have some degree of negative interest in running any game, ever.The one, and only, player who did decide to run games, runs games of a style I have negative interest in playing. (Gritty, high-lethality, morally-ambiguous, low-level survival.) He has given me very kind compliments about my GMing style and how it helped him learn how he prefers to GM, and I have appreciated those comments. He is by far the only one.Er...no? Not even slightly? That's like saying if I'm hoping to find someone who makes houses like I like them made, it should be easy to sell houses I have built to people interested in making houses. The two interests are fundamentally distinct.I have not "grown tired of GMing" myself. I'm simply noting that being a GM does absolutely, positively nothing to fulfill my desire to play, and thus telling me "if you want a game like X, just run a game like X!"This is a new variation on that argument, but it's not ultimately any different in practice. I cannot "make" new GMs. (Which is to say nothing of my moral objections to the very concept!) Running a game does not create new GMs. Presuming that every player is truly a budding GM just waiting for the right mentor to shape them into precisely the kind of GM I want to see is silly at the very best. At worst, it has some very morally-questionable implications.</blockquote>

Verification