Following some recent discussion, I'm curious about GMing trends.  A couple people at Story Games attributed their preference for GMless games to the problem that they were the only ones in their group who would GM.  So I'm curious how that compares over here.  Specifically, does only one person GM for your gaming group?  

Topics for commentary:  If you've been in both multiple-GM groups and single-GM groups, are there big differences that you've noticed?  I've pretty much only had multiple GM groups, at least for any significant campaigns, so I don't have any direct observations.

I GM in one game and play in another.  But two different groups.  Both are homebrew systems.

All the players in my group have GM'ed at some time, currently we have time for just one game.  So I guess I don't know what the one GM dynamic is like.   I do know the every person GMs and plays dynamic, that was high school when we had a lots of time.

Quote from: XantherI GM in one game and play in another.  But two different groups.  Both are homebrew systems.

So assuming that only you GM in one group and only one person GMs in the other, that would be the first answer -- "Only one person GMs in my group(s)".

I chose the "GMing is split among more than one person in my group(s)" option. Our group is currently composed of three persons (including me), and all of us GM. When one of us ends an adventure, the next one takes the scepter. We call it "the wheel".

I chose the first option since I almost always GM, but... the group itself changes. So from the point of view of members of my group, the GM changes every few months.

Most game groups I know of, the group is 3-6 people, of whom 2-3 are "core members", there over many years, while the other 1-4 are people who drift in and out; Anna, Bob, Charlie, Dave and Erika may have become Anna, Bob, Fred and Georgina a year from now. Usually those core members are also GMs, those who drift in don't GM; those who drift almost never GM in any group, and are commonly without any group at all for months or years on end.

My own group's a bit different. I almost always GM, but I GM closed-ended campaigns of 6-12 sessions each, and of the 3-4 players I have, I try to keep only 1 from the previous group. The other 2-3 go on to have a break from gaming, to join some other group for a while, or to found their own group as GMs, it's about equal proportions of each.

There's also some overlap between groups. So for example I GM Matt each Wednesday, but he GMs me every second Tuesday in another group; Emil plays in my group each week, but previously GMed me one-on-one every second Thursday, and played in Wilfrid's group every other Thursday.

So for us, our game groups are a bit like cogs interlocking,


these turn around and around through a campaign, then some of the pegs on each cog swap around and join another cog. And perhaps a cog or two don't have direct contact, like the top two, but they have indirect contact through others.

I GM about 80%+ of the time. It's typical, all well.

Of the six people I'm regularly gaming with, 4 counting myself are likely to GM. It just depends who's got a campaign seed in mind.

I GM about 75%-80% of the time for our groups.

I GM as much as possible. Currently I'm playing, though (working too much to get the game going).

That will change soon :-D

Optimally, I have 2 games going at once -- one I GM and one I play in (playing twice a week).

Cheers,
-E.

I've GMed far more than played, in fact for many years I was the sole GM for my group. I left my group back in Perth, though, so I've done much less GMing in the last few years.

I've only played Shab-al-Hiri Roach and 1001 Nights in the GMless category, but I think they're a lot of fun--Nights more than the Roach. I also played En Garde decades ago, but the implementation wasn't as good in my opinion.

What's good about those games? Certainly there is a dimension of not being held responsible for everybody's fun (and in the old days I had a very supportive crew who didn't ever give me shit deliberately). On the other hand, I don't necessarily have a preference for those games because they're GMless. I do think they show that the GM is simply another tool in the toolbox.

I'm in one group that plays in alternating campaigns every other week.  Matt  GM's an Iron Heroes game and Wendy, his wife, GM's a D&D3.5 game.

Once in a while we'll do a one-shot of something -- that was when I GM'ed Castles & Crusades.  Wendy will take the Summer off from GM'ing because the kids are out of school so another player stepped in and ran a planar 3.5 campaign for a couple of months.

It's a fine group, but just a bit too D&D-centric.  I think that's going to change once the current campaigns are finished.

I gm for one group exclusively.  But I play in another group exclusively.  These two only share about one or two folks.

I'm in two groups that could be said to intermingle. In the first, I tend to play more, but will also run from time to time. In the second, I tend to play a lot more, but will be running in the future.

It used to be different, though. It's just a slow period in my Dming; I used to run a lot more then I play in the first group. Mostly D&D, but also some Mage: Ascension.

Me.  

Always.

:mad:

Me. For the past 14 years or so.