Worlds of Design: WANTED - More Game Masters

​

There never seems to be enough game masters to go around, a problem that’s been around for as long as the hobby has existed. So what do we do about it?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Game Mastering is Work​

There’s a long-term trend to reduce the burdens of game mastering so that there are more GMs to play tabletop role-playing games, specifically Dungeons & Dragons and its descendants. There never seems to be enough, and it’s been a problem for the 45+ years that I, and some of you, have been playing RPGs.

I wouldn’t call GMing hard work, but it is definitely work. People don’t generally like to work in their entertainment. Most GMs undertake the work in order to allow their friends to be entertained. We could say that it’s a necessary evil. I always try to persuade most or all of the players in my group to also GM so that no one has to do the work all the time, but my impression is it’s more common for one GM to run a game for many sessions. At college game clubs, there are always enough players when someone offers to GM. Players who can’t find a GM are much more common.

GMing isn’t work for everyone, of course. Some may conceive the GM as a storyteller, and they want to tell (their) stories. I have a friend who is a software engineer and gamer, but also writes haiku every day and novels once a year (in National Novel Writing Month). He says he GMs with just a small amount of notes and makes the rest up as he goes along. So for him GMing may be another creative outlet, no more work than writing his daily haiku.

After having been player far more than GM for many years, my brother ran a campaign as sole GM, because he didn’t allow players to read the rules beyond the D&D Player’s Handbook! I can think of other reasons, but what’s important is that not many people prefer GMing to playing.

Why This is a Problem​

In video RPGs computer programming is as close as we get to a GM, so there’s no problem of lack of GM’s limiting the number of video games that are played. As you know, vastly more people play video RPGs than tabletop RPGs.

This is a problem for publishers. The GM in D&D-style games can be potentially in conflict with players, which is not an attractive role for many people. If a game doesn’t have enough GMs, the number of games played is limited by that insufficiency. And if the number of games played is limited, then there will be fewer people playing the game, which is likely to translate to fewer sales both of player and GM products.

The publishers of D&D undoubtedly saw that the appeal of the game was being limited by insufficient availability of GMs. What could they do to reduce the load on the GM?

How to Fix It​

One way to change the role of GMs so that it’s less likely to conflict with players is to make the rules absolutes rather than guidelines, and make the GM merely the arbiter (interpreter and enforcer) of rules rather than the creative “god” of the campaign.

When rules are very clear, the GM doesn’t have to make a lot of judgment calls, and it reduces negotiation (even though, in essence, RPGs are structured negotiations between players and GM). If you’re a team sports fan you know that fans particularly complain about referee judgment calls. It’s hard to make rules absolutely clear (see my previous Worlds of Design article, “Precision”) but the effort has been made. I’m particularly impressed with the systematic Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons rules.

Further, those GMs who need encouragement can use commercially available modules/adventures, which do even more to take the burden off the GM. How many GMs still make up their own adventures? I don't know, but evidently a small minority.

The Downside of Making it Easier​

I think of RPGs as games, not storytelling. When everyone plays the same adventure, it creates the risk of the same experience. I like the idea of fun from emergent play, where anything can happen and players stray outside the boxed text.

The x-factor that differentiates each game is the players and GM together. New GMs may stick closely to the text while experienced GMs stray from it, and really experienced GMs just make it up without too much prep time.

I think a good GM using the more flexible methods will create a more interesting game than one using the follow-the-rules-to-the-letter method. In my opinion, role-playing a situation is more interesting than rolling dice to resolve it, both as participant and as observer. Readership of this column surely has a different opinion, hence our poll.

Your Turn: How much do you GM, as opposed to act as a player, in RPGs?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

My opinion is that, unless publishers are able to speed-up the creation of new modules and adventures, at some point in the future a lot of potential GMs will be forced to write their own stuff because they will have trouble finding groups that haven't played already what has been published so far, especially if they don't have a group of friends to play with.

Another way to fix this would be to make more sandbox-oriented modules which actually allows replayability instead of being a railroad experience, so that players can find some value in redoing the module.

I'm not a published module GM, but if I were I'd be supremely pissed at WotC's weirdly slow publishing pace, and current tendency toward big adventure books that take you through an entire campaign in a given and very specific setting, instead of more standalone and general stories. I know, Candlekeep is different, but it's also a pretty rare case (and it's still all about one place). How about just producing more stuff, potentially with lower production values, because it's for DMs not players?

Or is WotC's output not a problem that DMs actually have? Or do people tend to like the campaign-book approach and/or get their fill of published adventures from third-party publishers?

 

[pumasleeve]

Yeah, I've been trying to get a break from DMing for around 4 years. I keep asking. No one else wants to do it.

what im really getting at are players that are really armchair quarterbacks, not actually quarterbacks. Players that dont actually want to run, but think they do. At first these players are just happy to have found a game, then they gradually start complaining about various things (nothing constructive- edition wars, "your game isnt like critical role", etc), progressing into tantrums at the table and then quitting. Maybe ive just had bad luck with problem players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

what im really getting at are players that are really armchair quarterbacks, not actually quarterbacks. Players that dont actually want to run, but think they do. At first these players are just happy to have found a game, then they gradually start complaining about various things (nothing constructive- edition wars, "your game isnt like critical role", etc), progressing into tantrums at the table and then quitting. Maybe ive just had bad luck with problem players.

Non of my players are like that. They make a point of not complaining, even when I'm rubbish, since they are so glad to have someone to do the job.

 

[Garmorn]

While I prefer to DM, I also want to be a play every 2nd or 3rd Campaign. That was fine because up until 2005 I was in a group that ran 3 to 4 campaigns per week and had 3 DM and up to 14 players. I have taken a long break of over 10 years (my to my dismay). I doubt that there will ever be a enough DMs unless group size grows beyond 6 or more players per game. That would require special mix of players and a very good DM.

 

[pumasleeve]

I'm not a published module GM, but if I were I'd be supremely pissed at WotC's weirdly slow publishing pace, and current tendency toward big adventure books that take you through an entire campaign in a given and very specific setting, instead of more standalone and general stories. I know, Candlekeep is different, but it's also a pretty rare case (and it's still all about one place). How about just producing more stuff, potentially with lower production values, because it's for DMs not players?

Or is WotC's output not a problem that DMs actually have? Or do people tend to like the campaign-book approach and/or get their fill of published adventures from third-party publishers?

having switched from 5th ed to OSR, im definitely appreciating working with 25 page booklets that cover 3 or 4 levels of play that can be inserted into any campaign, as opposed to the wotc books that cover 10 to 15 levels of play. I wonder if the format may be part of the reason dms prefer to make their own stuff?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not a published module GM, but if I were I'd be supremely pissed at WotC's weirdly slow publishing pace, and current tendency toward big adventure books that take you through an entire campaign in a given and very specific setting, instead of more standalone and general stories. I know, Candlekeep is different, but it's also a pretty rare case (and it's still all about one place). How about just producing more stuff, potentially with lower production values, because it's for DMs not players?

Or is WotC's output not a problem that DMs actually have? Or do people tend to like the campaign-book approach and/or get their fill of published adventures from third-party publishers?

It's not ideal, but most of us understand the economics of it, from WotC's perspective.

 

[Garmorn]

what im really getting at are players that are really armchair quarterbacks, not actually quarterbacks. Players that dont actually want to run, but think they do. At first these players are just happy to have found a game, then they gradually start complaining about various things (nothing constructive- edition wars, "your game isnt like critical role", etc), progressing into tantrums at the table and then quitting. Maybe ive just had bad luck with problem players.

I have had players who specifically refuse to DM. They don't complain and are just happy to play. Of course there are all types. Since I start running games in 1980 I have seen all types. The best hope is to encourage the ones that what to try it. One way is to set up a one off quest in your current game with them and let them run it. There are lots of other approaches also.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Everyone has their own preferences and reasons for enjoying RPGs, and that's wonderful. But I am generally against the DM "telling stories" at least in long form campaign games because "telling stories" means both prescribing and proscribing things better left to player choice, dice rolls and whim.

It doesn't. But since you aren't that kind of DM, I guess you can be forgiven for not understanding how it works.

Even when you are writing a novel, you do it by creating your characters, then asking yourself "what would X do in this situation?" Storytelling doesn't involve the author telling the characters what to do, it involves the characters telling the author what they do.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn't. But since you aren't that kind of DM, I guess you can be forgiven for not understanding how it works.

Even when you are writing a novel, you do it by creating your characters, then asking yourself "what would X do in this situation?" Storytelling doesn't involve the author telling the characters what to do, it involves the characters telling the author what they do.

We are apparently using such divergent definitions for the same word that there isn't much point in arguing about it, since we aren't talking about the same thing.

 

[loverdrive]

I honestly don't think there's that much disparity in numbers between GMs and players (though there's definitely some).

I think the main reason is that "stage magician" mentality -- the GM should know every nook and cranny of the game world and the players can poke at it with 3m poles! Oh, and also the GM must make that naughty word fun.

Screw that naughty word. It's perfectly okay to not be prepared for anything, it's perfectly okay to redirect questions at players. Being a "stage magician" is the last thing I want.

Other thing I always make clear is that players' fun is their responsibility, not mine. I'm here to entertain myself. I don't know what the players want, I'm not a psychic, and even if I was, I'd use that power to steal people's CVCs anyway.