Usually i do it, but when I'm too busy, my best friend steps up and takes over.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Me.  

Always.

:mad:

I take it you don't like always GMing, then?

I quite enjoy it, actually.  However, I also like to play.  That happens with increasing rarity.

I haven't had a stable longterm group in ages, but my current setup...going on four sessions now...is rotating GMs. We're on GM #2 out of 4 at the moment.

The majority of people in my group have GMed.  We tend to never run two games back-to-back with the same GM so that different people get to play and GM.  I've played far more than I've GMed, but I recently ran a fairly long D&D 3.5 campaign.  When I GM, I prefer to co-GM and I've done that several times, too.  My earliest role-playing games were GMless (because nobody wanted to GM) and see enough benefit in a GM providing a "big picture" to the game that I'm not in a big rush to go back to that.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I quite enjoy it, actually.  However, I also like to play.  That happens with increasing rarity.

Yep.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I quite enjoy it, actually.  However, I also like to play.  That happens with increasing rarity.

Don't worry Dr. R. by 2010 I'm told everyone will be GM's you'll be that rare quantity -someone who wants to play.  You can probably charge GMs for the honor of having you at their table.

I've mostly played but the reason is the games I want to run, nobody wants to play.  I will be GMing for a Star Wars Saga campaign I'm starting up this weekend with a new group.

I have been the main GM for a long time.

I finally got into a new group willing to play the non-D&D games that I like AND D&D, which is cool. The problem is that I like running D&D too, but I really don't have enough time on the docket to run both D&D and my other games, too. So I have to choose. And since of the other GMs main games, D&D is the only one I like, I let him run that, leaving me little room to run my own D&D game.

So there is a downside to having a group with shared GMing duties.

I GM for more than one group. I never play.

I guess a general question for those who elaborate by post is what they think about the state of things.  i.e. Is it the way you want things?  If not, then what would you prefer and what are your problems with how things are?

I am in 2 groups, and I'm the GM in both of them. I like to GM. Though sometimes I like to play, I'm good with the situation as it is.

Well, in my ideal world, aside from there being peace, justice, and universal freedom from want, I'd have a group of players who'd happily follow me as I flitted through several game systems and campaign worlds, willingly soaking up the complications of disparate mechanics, obediently accepting my rulings, tolerating my goofs and occasionally hokey plots, and proactively telegraphing exactly what their characters would do next session so I could be perfectly prepared.

In real world terms I guess that means I'd like to GM more and I'd like it if people had more time to learn and fiddle with systems. But--with good reason--I think that complex, unfamiliar systems are a hard sell, particularly if you don't have a regular group.

5 gamers in our group at the moment, 4 GMs. 2 are experienced, 1 is good, the 4th is okay, but we make the best of even a bad game.

Ever since i got published, seems like the job is mainly mine. It's not so bad though, as i get to playtest stuff with players i'm familiar with before submitting the work to publishers. I get to play every now and then though, so i'm ok with it.