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?

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


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?

wantedposter.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
I think this is due in large part because they are usually written to be read rather than used at the table. This is the Paizo style. James Jacobs and others have stated numerous times that their target market is people who may never actually use the modules, but enjoy reading them. This means that important playing information is obscured in unnecessary prose, among other things.

Have you got sources for this rather unusual claim? “their target market is people who may never actually use the modules.”?

Do you mean the fact that the magazine format Paizo used for their APs was designed to also have world building and crunch elements to broaden the appeal? That may be the case from a marketing point of view, but let’s be honest people buy the AP books for the AP, not for the feat, magic item or monster you can get on the SRD anyway.
 

nevin

Hero
Okay. So now you are insulting young gamers by calling them jerks, and older gamers by calling them "grandpa gamers." Great!

And all of this in response to a post saying that the most important thing is to be nice and accepting of people starting to GM? Okay!

Finally, I wasn't responding to you. You responded to me with your comment. So "strawman?" Uh huh.

GMing is inherently a social activity- there is already tons of advice, including videos, books, and other resources, explaining "how to do it." People, more than ever, are able to see how other successful GMs ... GM.

That's not the issue. The reason for the imbalance (which has always existed) is twofold:

1. GMing is almost always "less fun" and "more difficult" than playing. There will be fewer people that want to GM, and get enjoyment from GMing. Some games try to resolve this by changing the division of authority, etc., but fundamentally "playing" and "GMing" will be at least slightly different, and "playing" has the root term of ... you know ... PLAY.

2. It is difficult to be good at something at first; it requires multiple reps. It's a learning process. No matter how good the instruction is, it's different when you have to do it. You can have all the tips, all the preparation, but the best thing you can have is a group of excited and forgiving players. Period.

So yeah- if you're a player with a new GM, don't be a jerk. That's the best way to create new GMs that stick with it.
Opinions. Also I didn't call anyone a jerk said other people called them jerks. And I'm a grandpa gamer didn't upset me. But so far you have now twice responded to what you thought I said instead the actual sentences I wrote.
 


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. I can -- and have! -- write a novel if I want to "tell a story." I run games for a different reason entirely.

I don't agree with that at all. I've been running a story heavy campaign for years now, and I don't need to prescribe or proscribe much of anything. It's a sandbox. The players can go where they like, and do as they like. The story is then affected by their choices.
 

Reynard

Legend
I don't agree with that at all. I've been running a story heavy campaign for years now, and I don't need to prescribe or proscribe much of anything. It's a sandbox. The players can go where they like, and do as they like. The story is then affected by their choices.
I think it is a matter of terminology here. To me, what you describe is not "storytelling" as I would understand the term. That's letting story emerge from play.
 

TheSword

Legend
Sales numbers are not an indication of quality. Some of the worst music sells really well.
Not all Ad Populum arguments do, but some can.

When you are producing similar products, for a similar price, to the same competitive market then extreme sustained clear differences in popularity absolutely can indicate quality.

Particularly when backed up by glowing reviews, experienced writers and excellent art.

The continued antipathy on this forum for all things successful is a constant bafflement to me. Using wildly different products like music (a highly subjective thing anyway) to try and disprove the link between commercial success and quality for all products just doesn’t make sense. Maybe people don’t have enough business experience to see that 90% business USP is either quality of product or customer service. I don’t think the customer service is why 5e is smashing the competition with its Campaign Book strategy.

It’s like people are channeling @Aldarc
 

J.M

Explorer
Have you considered that the top two selling RPG products of the last decade, 5e and Pathfinder did so on the back of published adventures...

Paizo became big enough to create a massive spin off because of the popularity of Age of Worms, Shackled City and Savage Tide... plus it’s stewardship of Dungeon Magazine.

WOC has released more campaign books than supplements for 5e, which if you had told me was going to be the case in the 2e or 3e years, I would have laughed you out of the room. We would have said it can’t be done... you can’t make a successful publishing company off adventures. 12 years later look at us.

I don’t believe these companies would have been successful if their main product lines weren’t good.
What this suggests is that, as you point out, they've built successful game lines on the back of published adventures, which I appreciate and applaud. I'd much rather see lots of adventures I can run as is or mine for ideas, rather than the splat-fest we used to have in the 2e/3e days. But as @Reynard pointed out, it does not necessarily suggest that said adventures are optimized for ease of prep or table use.
 

Regnier_LoT

Villager
Although I agree that sales number isn't an indicator of quality, it is an indicator of how easy it will be for somebody to find players/GMs for that particular game. It will be easier for you to find a group for a best-seller game than for a niche game, which I think has a certain effect for new GMs that will try to follow the trend as it is easier that going against it. Also some people might not realise there are other games beyond those that have the greatest sales/playerbase/influencers.

I'm sure someone has had this conversation online (I have):
User 01 - "Looking for people to play (insert description of system)"
User 02 - "Excuse me, which D&D books do you allow to use?"
User 01 - "It isn't D&D"
User 02 - "What? You said it was a TTRPG..."
User 01 - "It is, but it isn't D&D. It is a different TTRPG with a different system"
User 02 - "Oh. I was under the belief that D&D was the only TTRPG..."
 

The continued antipathy on this forum for all things successful is a constant bafflement to me.
Where do you get the impression that people on this forum have antipathy for things that are succesful?

I certainly haven't. I judge products by their quality, not by their popularity.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top