Corollary question:

Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?

And if so, how'd it work out?

I'm great at selling the idea to people. But the results were shit. Largely because of the issue of the tyranny of proximity. "If I'm GMing Tenbones, he's surely judging me, and if I suck, he'll HATE ME..." (which of course is silly - I just want to play). But without fail, the players that take up GMing (specifically with me as a player) get in way too deep, they start trying to emulate very deep sandbox play without understanding what it takes to run something like that. When I tell them to not overthink it - I find they have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I usually tell them "Just run a module, or adventure path. Don't get crazy." Part of the problem is many of them have it in their head (as some here do) that *I* hate modules and think they're for weak pussies, or something.

I don't. At all. I think they're great for new GM's to cut their teeth on or for GM's that don't have a lot of time, and will take them apart and repurpose them for their own uses within the timeframe of effort they can muster. But in the cases where my players try GMing... they go *waaaaaaay* overboard despite me telling them not to.

This is why I think there needs to be more than just "general advice", I think we should be talking about GMing in a developmental fashion.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:50:24 PM
Actively in the sense that when you game - are you the one GMing? In terms of volume of play, that's definitely a consideration in terms of developmental experience, but for the purposes of the thread, I'm just asking in general.

I wouldn't presume to give you a % but I GM more often than I play as a player.  I love both but there's something special about being the guy that brings in the adventure.

I DM quite a bit at conventions. I have run many games over the years.

But my home group basically has one dude who DMs are pretty much doesn't let anyone else DM (even though I prefer to run games vs. playing in them)

now this guy does a great job, but the problem is this:

EVERY game needs to have elaborate dungeon tiles (custom --not even the stuff you get from DF), electric lights, miniatures, wilderness pieces, etc. He puts in a huge effort on this, and while it is appreciated, it makes everyone else in the group feel like they would have to produce something similar if they were to DM

I don't need the damn tiles or even the minis. I use handouts, a mat, and tokens. Mostly theater-of-the-mind.

I'd really like to get back to the good ole days on that. We didn't have minis when I was a kid--they were expensive, rare, and didn't even look good. And we certainly didn't have the damn dungeon-tiles

I've tried from time to time to encourage others to GM.  I get mild interest, and an occasional attempt.  Part of it is the time pressure.  When our groups get together, we want to get on with it, and that's usually whatever I have lined up next.  Plus, from lack of practice, I suck as a player.  (When I play, I'm actually playing an NPC in the GM's world, trying to quietly help him out.  Which is not always helpful, but I find it almost impossible to turn off this mode.)

I've also run into the problem where the player doesn't feel as if they can live up to the expectations.  A couple of people in the groups have run before they met me.  They know they can do it.  They'd just prefer not to.  The rest do feel that oppressive shadow of trying to emulate what I've spent 42 years practicing--which is crazy when we say it like that, which they acknowledge.  Doesn't change the feeling.  My daughter was one of them, though I think she is coming around.  She finally got to game with some other groups, where she felt like she could manage what they were doing.  And of course, the younger people in my groups don't see all the stupid things I did when I was learning.

One thing I'm trying to do in my own design is to embed the practical advice/procedures for getting started into the rules.  Not how to be a GM.  Not how to role play.  Rather, how to get started as a GM running this particular game in its intended style.  That's a much less ambitious goal.  Early D&D had some good stuff in that respect, even if it did come across as a bit arcane in material we had at the time.

I played when young in the late 1970s and 80s, and never was GM. I played off and on thereafter, and still never was the GM. I first gamemastered when teaching my kids and friends to play, and ran a campaign for them for about a year. Several years later, my high school friends and I started up a game online, and I then became the GM and did so for three years. I have been GM for a local FtF campaign as well.

I was always scared of being a GM for the fears about preparation, and handling surprises. It wasn't until I just jumped into the deep end and did it that I realized how much fun being the GM could be.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
Corollary question:

Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?

And if so, how'd it work out?

I have sold GMing to one or two players over the years. Most recently, a player has taken up Call of Cthulhu GMing, and we're enjoying how he's running things. He has been taking it easy: episodic adventures with recurring characters, no sandbox. It helps that he's actually something of an expert in Lovecraft and English literature, so he has the background research taken care of. I don't know if I sold him on GMing, per se, but I definitely gently nudged him in that direction. He is a natural. It's a little annoying, quite frankly. 

About 12 years ago a player of mine went for GMing, and ran a very long campaign that he considers something of a success. But it was a huge, sprawling campaign with a lot of narrative baked in. No sandbox, and it generated a lot of aggravation, even with players who were mostly on board for that sort of game.

Quote
I'm great at selling the idea to people. But the results were shit. Largely because of the issue of the tyranny of proximity. "If I'm GMing Tenbones, he's surely judging me, and if I suck, he'll HATE ME..." (which of course is silly - I just want to play). But without fail, the players that take up GMing (specifically with me as a player) get in way too deep, they start trying to emulate very deep sandbox play without understanding what it takes to run something like that. When I tell them to not overthink it - I find they have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I usually tell them "Just run a module, or adventure path. Don't get crazy." Part of the problem is many of them have it in their head (as some here do) that *I* hate modules and think they're for weak pussies, or something.

I don't. At all. I think they're great for new GM's to cut their teeth on or for GM's that don't have a lot of time, and will take them apart and repurpose them for their own uses within the timeframe of effort they can muster. But in the cases where my players try GMing... they go *waaaaaaay* overboard despite me telling them not to.

This is why I think there needs to be more than just "general advice", I think we should be talking about GMing in a developmental fashion.

I tend to bounce off of modules because I don't often "get" whatever it is the author is trying to set up. Even something simple like The Palace of the Silver Princess, which I ran a couple of years ago, required no small amount of work to get it to make sense to me. But that's probably just me.

I do think that a pedagogical/developmental approach is important. The GM advice in SWADE at the end is good, but only provides a general overview of themes and topics to cover in greater detail. I like what Kevin Crawford has done in Stars/Worlds/Cities Without Number, because it assumes barely any GMing experience. But there need to be more worked examples, for sure.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
I'm great at selling the idea to people. But the results were shit. Largely because of the issue of the tyranny of proximity. "If I'm GMing Tenbones, he's surely judging me, and if I suck, he'll HATE ME..." (which of course is silly - I just want to play). But without fail, the players that take up GMing (specifically with me as a player) get in way too deep, they start trying to emulate very deep sandbox play without understanding what it takes to run something like that. When I tell them to not overthink it - I find they have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I usually tell them "Just run a module, or adventure path. Don't get crazy." Part of the problem is many of them have it in their head (as some here do) that *I* hate modules and think they're for weak pussies, or something.

I think what you need to convey is that GMing is like driving, you suck when you start.  It's ok to suck.  It's ok to be noob.  Some of my best experiences at the table have been new GMs fucking it up completely.  Be a train wreck and have fun.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:51:34 AM
I'm curious to know how many of you here *actively* GM, or haven't and want to?

My thoughts around many of the arguments/debates that have gone on and on and on over the decades has to do with the lack of recognition in what GM's actually do, and the skillset required to be "good" at it. There are many discussions about the trees of the GMing forest but there is very little discussion, at least to me - honest discussion, about GMing in a holistic manner. There *are* levels to it. There *are* best practices.

GM's are the heart of the hobby. And frankly with the implosion of the D&D brand when they go mostly digital, I predict having GM outreach is a massive opportunity for non-D&D gaming in our hobby. And no, I'm not advocating for "The TTRPG Culture" - I don't believe in that *at all*. But I do believe that we need to be bringing up GM's into the hobby, and creating and refining GM's currently in the hobby. GM's are the center and primary consumers of product. I feel GM's are the invisible demographic that has been sorely ignored and taken for granted. And I see very little modern attempts in the D&D brand to nurture new GM's... which means of course it's on us.

Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?

I've been the forever GM for the over the last decade. The way I see it, unless I want to play D&D, then I have to GM the games that I want to play. I'm going to TravellerCon this October and will be able to play for the first time in (I think) 14 years.

I play some solo, usually as a way to flesh out the sandbox.I do GM more often than not.I keep my eyes open for new tools to  use, but not every tool is worth using either (I test them outfirst in solo play). I would not consume GMing guides from top to bottom - I know my style of GMing and can tell what will fit that style and what won't. I think that the hobby doesn't teach GMing well.

About that last one - over the years I've seen a lot of people get self-important and stand upon a soapbox of the internet proclaiming their wisdom as GM, not understanding that every tool does not work well for every GM or player group. Good examples of this are the various "safety tools" which get espoused by people, which are rendered obsolete by having good communication between consenting adults in session zero yet people still swear by them in GM advice. To be a "Good GM" to me means to play and run games enough to find your own path and to modify that as necessary.

I mostly DM these days, have for years.

Last time I was a player I ragequit because the DM was a shitbag and I got tired of dealing with it. That was last summer, and was probably the last time I'll give being a player with that particular group a shot (and therefore probably the last time I'll be a player for the foreseeable future).

Since I don't mind DMing, it's fine.

  I GM & play. In the recent past more GM than play. Lately not much of either.

I do believe best practices discussions are useful for current & would-be GMs. Also I think every player should be in the GM seat once so they can appreciate the effort involved. It's very much like a child finally seeing what the teacher sees from the front of the class; your classmate secret shenanigans are so very visible, just politely ignored. 

Corollary, yes I do encourage new GMs! And I play on their tables, sometimes giving advice at the moment, like a safety net if they get lost. Other times I just hold my piece until the end and try to celebrate what they've done.

I think of it as a performative art: you gotta practice and make your mistakes to get better. Expecting virtuosity out of the gate is unrealistic -- show me your "ugly" art that you put your heart & soul in it  Like flatulence, you gotta let it out sometime! So I'll be your household critic, not the bright lights, big time stage.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
Corollary question:

Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?

And if so, how'd it work out?

This meme pretty much describes it. My players responded with everything from disgust to disinterest to Lovecraftian horror. Not to mention a "How dare he!" for even asking.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
Corollary question:

Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?

And if so, how'd it work out?

A few weeks back one of our campaigns wrapped up and I suggested to my buddy who I've known for over 20 years and been gaming with almost as long if he'd run a game. His answer was, "No, I don't think I'd be any good at it."  I offered some gentle prodding ("Come on, pussy, you would be fine") but he is firmly in the "I just wanna play" camp. Similarly, I asked my wife years ago if she wanted to try running a game and got the same answer. She has only played a handful of times to humor me, so that could have something to do with it. Another one of my buddies was convinced by me a long time ago to DM and he's been the secondary ever since.

I can remember an incident at some minicon thing we ran at a bar in Austin years ago wherein I was a player and one of the people in the group was a 13 year old kid who had randomly showed up with his dad to play, sans any books or dice. He was actually a really good player (first game no less) so after the game was over I was pretty inebriated and gave him my copy of the rules (Labyrinth Lord I believe) and a nice set of dice and told him to run his own games. He seemed to take me seriously, so I hope he was successful.

I'm 90% the Game Master because I approach the game as a legitimate fine art form and I am always on some specific mission or experience with a particular set of rules, or more likely, a particular genre. What I've taken from this since I got back into gaming in 2012 ( I first played 1980-1990 and played a lot) accumulating real-life experiences makes you able to react in the moment with a much thicker backlog of reactions to actually draw from. When I was a kid I played a kid's game. As an adult I play a much "better" game. Recording as many of my game sessions as I could and listening back to them. Helped me move through "bad" behaviors quicker. Feedback from players is most always general, friendly, and not much thought given. If you want some honest criticism your own reaction to listening to your own play is excellent for those capable of getting over themselves. Complete immersion in the source material. Get your nose out of the rule book and into the paperback books, comic books, films, songs, etc. of the genre you intend to run. Read and watch everything you can on the genre before and during your campaign. This last bit of advice I find gets me accused of gatekeeping. That not everyone has access to books or has the luxury of being able to consume much media. Elitist, classist, that kind of shit. In the end attempting to provide hard worked for experience to others in the craft feels a waste of effort because there is very little positive discourse which follows. You are quickly labeled a gate-keeper.

And do I really care? Since I first heard about ttrpgs in 1977 I have wanted to do it. It has never left my thoughts since my first boxed set as an eleven year old. There are always players to find. Any game or campaign I want is a singular unique experience into the unknown recesses of creativity, imagination. What matters if the hobby dies tomorrow or 100 years from now? This "game" requires other people to be satisfying and my are they unpredictable. If you want to get better at this hobby you need to do it, play, read about it, wade through other people's opinions and in the end make your own decision. Answer your "own" questions.

Sidenote; I never stick with one game. I go from genre to genre. This has had the result of having different groups of players in over 5 or 6 cam[aigns I've run. The thought of playing with the same people over and over again makes me cringe. Increasing the number of different people I've played with has just given that more breadth to my overall experience with the medium.

Been GMing for 40 years.  In the last ten years I have run games 80% of the time and play in them 20%.

Although I mostly play with the same guys, a few times a year I try to run games for other groups and I think this helps me get better - kids, at cons, and such.

For the last 5 years I've actively sought out advice on how to get better, mostly in the form of YouTube, but with a few blogs, and some other media thrown in.

I've encouraged a few people to run and it worked out.  Making them feel like they are not going to be judged is the key, I think.  I also have not offered ANY advice unless they specifically asked.  Also, don't give any negative feedback unless someone asks specifically.
______

The stuff I'm most proud of:  https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/24813/Wicked-Cool-Games

I've wanted to ask this same question before, mostly because of occasional comments I see around here that make me think the commenter has been only GM-ing for a bit too long.

The thing is that while GMs have always driven the hobby, GM-ing is not "the point" of roleplaying. You're always going to get GMs over-represented on forums, because forum-goers are going to be the people most devoted to the hobby, and that tends to be GMs, but I think it would benefit the hobby if more of the serious discussion came from people who spent more time on the other side of the screen.

Personally I'm in the unique (for my life) position of playing more than I GM. Over the last couple of years I've been in an average of 2-4 games at any time, and never GM-ing more than one of them. I like GM-ing, but after 15 years or so of only doing that, it's nice to get to sit on the other side for a while.