Doc_Souark
Explorer
You invoked BUGABOO'S ! Ban him Ban him now before he does anything worst !!Gog said:
Last edited:
Suggestions for finding a GM to hire?
- Thread starter malichai
- Start date
Ycore Rixle
First Post
Gog said:
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Doc_Souark said:
Aw, it wasn't that bad. Every now and then I miss the old "am I wrong for refusing to game with a pregnant GM?" type of thread.
Thanks for the responses.
Here's a link to the thread in Gamers Seeking Gamers and it has more details on the job: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1295619 . If interested, please e-mail me at rian@easyfafsa.com and tell me more about yourself.
Our company has no other openings at this time, though we are a good company to work for, even if I do say so myself.
I assuming the question was facetious, but no, we aren't offering any moving allowance to get people to come here for this job. But, health benefits aren't out of the question in the future.
Please refer to the other thread for more information.
Here's a link to the thread in Gamers Seeking Gamers and it has more details on the job: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1295619 . If interested, please e-mail me at rian@easyfafsa.com and tell me more about yourself.
Our company has no other openings at this time, though we are a good company to work for, even if I do say so myself.
I assuming the question was facetious, but no, we aren't offering any moving allowance to get people to come here for this job. But, health benefits aren't out of the question in the future.
Please refer to the other thread for more information.
The Goblin King
First Post
<ponders> Perhaps I have made the wrong career choice. Maby I should start pimping myself out as a mercenary DM? Too bad I don't live anywhere near Kansas. Is a TPK grounds for termination of employment?
Elder James
First Post
As interesting as it sounds to be paid to run a game for some folks, I find myself wondering about the nature of such a game.
To quote a couple of things from the main 'classified advertisement'
which can be viewed here.
Fair enough. After all, the GM is getting paid so he/she should be expected to make more than a decent effort. But then things start to waver a little...
Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It would depend on what those house rules were. Any GM running a game needs to be able to veto any House Rule, or make up any House Rule on the spur of the moment in order to be able to keep his or her game running smoothly. But that last quote continues thusly:
Ah. So if you are paying me to run your game then my decision as a GM is not final, but rather the decision on the rules rests in the hands of the players? Who is actually running these games?
So basically you want to control the game, but not actually run anything yourself? To have the power of the GM but not actually be the GM.
At first I was intrigued by the possibility of being paid to run a game for a group, but now I find myself put off by this idea. I'm of the school of GM thought that thinks along these lines:
There are but three rules in my game. The first rule is, the GM's word is final. The second rule is, the GM is always right, even when he is wrong. The third and final rule is, the GM may change his mind on any ruling he has made previously whenever he sees fit.
A controlling and possibly overbearing way for a GM to be you might think. But the reason I follow this school of thought is because to me, being a GM is not about looking up every single rule in a rulebook and making sure all the saves and attack bonuses for NPC #126 are all in order, but rather it is about telling a story in which the PC's are the heroes (or anti-heroes if the PC's prefer).
This sometimes requires ignoring rules of any kind, even House Rules. And in order for any GM to really be able to shine and provide his players with an outstanding session, he needs to feel secure in his judgement calls. He shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the players are going to re-interpret some rules, and he shouldn't have to change any judgement call he makes simply because the players are paying him to run things the way they want it.
However, that said, I'm sure you'll find a GM somewhere who is willing to run things your way. In the meantime, you should try running a session or two yourself. Who knows, you may even find that you prefer being on the GM side of the screen.
To quote a couple of things from the main 'classified advertisement'
which can be viewed here.malichai said:
Fair enough. After all, the GM is getting paid so he/she should be expected to make more than a decent effort. But then things start to waver a little...
malichai said:
Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It would depend on what those house rules were. Any GM running a game needs to be able to veto any House Rule, or make up any House Rule on the spur of the moment in order to be able to keep his or her game running smoothly. But that last quote continues thusly:
malichai said:
Ah. So if you are paying me to run your game then my decision as a GM is not final, but rather the decision on the rules rests in the hands of the players? Who is actually running these games?
malichai said:
So basically you want to control the game, but not actually run anything yourself? To have the power of the GM but not actually be the GM.
At first I was intrigued by the possibility of being paid to run a game for a group, but now I find myself put off by this idea. I'm of the school of GM thought that thinks along these lines:
There are but three rules in my game. The first rule is, the GM's word is final. The second rule is, the GM is always right, even when he is wrong. The third and final rule is, the GM may change his mind on any ruling he has made previously whenever he sees fit.
A controlling and possibly overbearing way for a GM to be you might think. But the reason I follow this school of thought is because to me, being a GM is not about looking up every single rule in a rulebook and making sure all the saves and attack bonuses for NPC #126 are all in order, but rather it is about telling a story in which the PC's are the heroes (or anti-heroes if the PC's prefer).
This sometimes requires ignoring rules of any kind, even House Rules. And in order for any GM to really be able to shine and provide his players with an outstanding session, he needs to feel secure in his judgement calls. He shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the players are going to re-interpret some rules, and he shouldn't have to change any judgement call he makes simply because the players are paying him to run things the way they want it.
However, that said, I'm sure you'll find a GM somewhere who is willing to run things your way. In the meantime, you should try running a session or two yourself. Who knows, you may even find that you prefer being on the GM side of the screen.
Tom Cashel
First Post
Elder James, you speak wisely and said everything I was thinking about that classified ad. Thanks.
Elder-
I'm not going to discuss this point by point, but just try and address this broadly. Thanks for pointing out that final quote where I came off sounding like I was going to attempt to make all of the rules decisions myself. That isn't what I meant, and I'm going to edit the post. That sentence was aimed at my business partner, actually. Not that I'm back peddling, if I was actually looking for what you think I'm looking for, I'd be advertising it more clearly. IE, you believing that what I want is someone to run a game, with me really pulling all the strings and making the real decisions about things. Which isn't the case.
For the most part, all of the house rules and rules interpretations are hammered out already anyway within the group, no matter who's running a game, whether they're getting paid or not, they'd be expected to go with the group consensus. We've been gaming together for 10 years, and we're a responsible group. This is how as a group we like to play. Blatant rules changing in the middle of a game just isn't done in our games. For us, we feel it breaks the feel of a game, as opposed to "promoting a good story." If there aren't rules, then we might as well just sit around and have story time. Our rule is, if the GM is going to cheat, don't let the players know they're cheating.
And... another rule we have is... the GM is always right. That won't change whether they're paid or not. But, when it comes to rules, house rules, and rules interpretations, these things are hammered out as a group before and after games, and not decided by GM fiat. That's how WE do things. You obviously choose a more dictatorial approach. That just doesn't work as well with the kind of people we are.
I have GM'd before. I've been gaming off and on for 15 years. I don't enjoy it much really...
I'm not looking for a GM to create a story where we're heroes or anti-heroes. I want a GM to create a world where we can choose to be what we wish to be, and do what we wish to do. Flexibility is more important than an awesome story. Perhaps that's why we enjoy Shadowrun so much, simply because it's episodic. Anyways, enough rambling from me.
Thanks for your input, Elder James.
I'm not going to discuss this point by point, but just try and address this broadly. Thanks for pointing out that final quote where I came off sounding like I was going to attempt to make all of the rules decisions myself. That isn't what I meant, and I'm going to edit the post. That sentence was aimed at my business partner, actually. Not that I'm back peddling, if I was actually looking for what you think I'm looking for, I'd be advertising it more clearly. IE, you believing that what I want is someone to run a game, with me really pulling all the strings and making the real decisions about things. Which isn't the case.
For the most part, all of the house rules and rules interpretations are hammered out already anyway within the group, no matter who's running a game, whether they're getting paid or not, they'd be expected to go with the group consensus. We've been gaming together for 10 years, and we're a responsible group. This is how as a group we like to play. Blatant rules changing in the middle of a game just isn't done in our games. For us, we feel it breaks the feel of a game, as opposed to "promoting a good story." If there aren't rules, then we might as well just sit around and have story time. Our rule is, if the GM is going to cheat, don't let the players know they're cheating.
And... another rule we have is... the GM is always right. That won't change whether they're paid or not. But, when it comes to rules, house rules, and rules interpretations, these things are hammered out as a group before and after games, and not decided by GM fiat. That's how WE do things. You obviously choose a more dictatorial approach. That just doesn't work as well with the kind of people we are.
I have GM'd before. I've been gaming off and on for 15 years. I don't enjoy it much really...
I'm not looking for a GM to create a story where we're heroes or anti-heroes. I want a GM to create a world where we can choose to be what we wish to be, and do what we wish to do. Flexibility is more important than an awesome story. Perhaps that's why we enjoy Shadowrun so much, simply because it's episodic. Anyways, enough rambling from me.
Thanks for your input, Elder James.
