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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I'm not a published module GM, but if I were I'd be supremely pissed at WotC's weirdly slow publishing pace,
Nobody's restricted to only using WotC modules, though. There's lots of third-party stuff out there for 5e and truckloads of modules for older editions that just need a bit of conversion in order to work with any other edition.
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.
Here I agree. Give me a standalone any time.

That said, their Princes of the Apocalyspe - if approached from a modular frame of mind - can easily be taken as 15 or so separate standalone modules for a range of different character levels, all in one book. Just strip out the bits that tie them together, both literally (the connecting passages) and figuratively (the backstory).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
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.
I made it clear why. The refutation that success is linked to quality. You can see the examples in every thread discussing a new campaign book launch.

What makes it doubly astounding is that it’s amateurs that make these attempts to denigrate the published campaigns. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
 


TheSword

Legend
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?
🤷🏻‍♂️ I definitely like a themed campaign to capture the imagination.

With a typical campaign lasting us about 18 months, one every 6 months gives us plenty to choose from.
 

🤷🏻‍♂️ I definitely like a themed campaign to capture the imagination.

With a typical campaign lasting us about 18 months, one every 6 months gives us plenty to choose from.

I may disagree about the list of great campaigns you cited earlier (Curse of Strahd, etc.), but based on this it sounds like you're the exact target audience, and like they're serving you well.

I say that without snark, seriously.
 

What makes it doubly astounding is that it’s amateurs that make these attempts to denigrate the published campaigns. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

First of all... amateurs? How well do you know the users on this forum? Several have published roleplaying material themselves. So... speaking of denigration...

To me, it sounds like you simply dislike criticism of published work. If that be the case, then why are you on a discussion forum?
 

TheSword

Legend
First of all... amateurs? How well do you know the users on this forum? Several have published roleplaying material themselves. So... speaking of denigration...

To me, it sounds like you simply dislike criticism of published work. If that be the case, then why are you on a discussion forum?
I don’t see the professionals (and yes there are plenty of them) writing off other professionally produced works. They appreciate how much effort goes into it and are a lot more respectful. Yes I do believe it’s the armchair amateurs that are the most vociferous.

There is a difference between criticizing (throwing mud at something you don’t have a taste for) and criticism (looking at the pros and cons of something in a considered light). I’m all for the latter.

For instance, there were plenty of things that could be improved in Rime of the Frostmaiden. Discussing what they are and why is interesting. Less interesting is hearing people go onto that thread just to trash talk WOC and urinate on the parade. The people who claim despite popular acclaim, great blog reviews, great Amazon reviews, great production values, great sales, experienced writers, original IP, well drawn maps and balanced rules... it is really just a pile of shite and not a quality product at all. As I said, it’s bewildering.
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don’t see the professionals (and yes there are plenty of them) writing off other professionally produced works. They appreciate how much effort goes into it and are a lot more respectful. Yes I do believe it’s the armchair amateurs that are the most vociferous.

There is a difference between criticizing (throwing mud at something you don’t have a taste for) and criticism (looking at the pros and cons of something in a considered light). I’m all for the latter.
Very unlike some other trades, I tend to think that the only real differences between professional and amateur module writers are that the professionals a) get paid to do it, b) sometimes have more support behind them in terms of editors, distributors, etc., and c) are likely a bit more dedicated to it than are the amateurs.

Some of the best modules I've ever seen and-or run were written by amateurs. Some of the worst were written by professionals.

Obviously, the reverse is also true: I've seen and run (and written myself!) some really terrible amateur stuff, and seen and run some excellent professional material.

But if I evened out the production values, formatted them all the same, etc., I could put ten modules in front of you - a mix of amateur and professional - and on reading them through you might have a very hard time telling which was which.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.
They are not meant to be read but not used at the table. That’s a misrepresentation. Rather, they’ve said the people who like to read them but don’t expect to play them are also part of the market, as much as the gamers who will run them.
 

I don’t see the professionals (and yes there are plenty of them) writing off other professionally produced works.

Why not? If anything, a professional will have a stronger opinion on matters of their own field. Case in point, I am a level designer, and I criticise the level design in games all the time. I hold very strong opinions about it, because it is a subject I am very passionate about.


They appreciate how much effort goes into it and are a lot more respectful. Yes I do believe it’s the armchair amateurs that are the most vociferous.

Based on what though? And why are you so dismissive of our forum members, by calling them armchair critics?
There is a difference between criticizing (throwing mud at something you don’t have a taste for) and criticism (looking at the pros and cons of something in a considered light). I’m all for the latter.

Whether the criticism being thrown at a product is fair or unfair, is simply a matter of opinion. What you call mud slinging, we may consider good points.
For instance, there were plenty of things that could be improved in Rime of the Frostmaiden. Discussing what they are and why is interesting. Less interesting is hearing people go onto that thread just to trash talk WOC and urinate on the parade.
The vast mayority of people on this forum seem to fall into the former category though.

The people who claim despite popular acclaim, great blog reviews, great Amazon reviews, great production values, great sales,

Irrelevant. Argumentum ad populum.

experienced writers, original IP, well drawn maps and balanced rules... it is really just a pile of shite and not a quality product at all. As I said, it’s bewildering.

Even experienced writers write poor modules. And not every original IP is a guarantee for quality. If anything, the product of an experienced writer should be helt to a higher standard, and deserves close scrutiny and criticism.

Bare in mind that they want us to pay for the product. So it is perfectly fair to closely analyze and critique it.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top