TheRPGSite

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.

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.

(http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/idioms/idioms/images/in_the_same_boat.jpg)

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.

I'm good with GMing all the time. On the rare occasions I play--I guess I don't never play--it's to help someone try out a new game or playtest somethng. That's enough for me. The GMing's what I really enjoy.

Quote from: jhkimI 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 wish some of the players would step up and run a game. One tried, and bombed really badly and ever since then despite my encouragement for anyone to do the same no one has expressed the slightest interest in running a game.

One night per week I run D&D. Thats Mentzer/RC edition, modified unintentionally by years of play (the way D&D gets).

Another night we play another game, mostly the same group, with someone else GMing. Thats usually a short campaign (one to four months or so). Gives us a chance to experiment. I've run the occasional one off in the other session, but to be honest running one campaign at a time is enough for me.

Quote from: jhkimI 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'm happy with the way things are in my group and can't really think of a better way to do things.

I'd like to game more regularly, first off, and do so alternating between GMing and playing.

The fact that I don't game regularly is rather annoying.

My regular group has a weekly game, and we rotate GMs between me and one other guy, mostly, but on a long-term basis.  He runs a long-term campaign, then I run a long-term campaign, then him, lather, rinse, repeat.

I love the mix of wide/narrow focus it provides for both of us. ;)

We also occasionally do a hard-core, three or four-day gaming weekend with a bunch of players (like, 9 or 10 - yikes). The next one we'll be running will probably be a combo with me and Chris alternating the primary GM role, with the other person playing complex NPCs, crunching combat, and the like.  :cool:

Quote from: ReimdallWe also occasionally do a hard-core, three or four-day gaming weekend with a bunch of players (like, 9 or 10 - yikes).

A few years ago, for a few years in a row (when I had more vacation time to burn), several friends and I would take 4 Fridays off in a row during the summer to play a 4 all-day session mini-campaign (in part, so a friend who couldn't play on the weekends could play with us).  We did a fantasy game, a Western, and a space game.  All went really well.  I can't really do multiple days in a row anymore, though.

Quote from: ReimdallWe also occasionally do a hard-core, three or four-day gaming weekend with a bunch of players (like, 9 or 10 - yikes). The next one we'll be running will probably be a combo with me and Chris alternating the primary GM role, with the other person playing complex NPCs, crunching combat, and the like.  :cool:

I need to weasel an invite for your next big Epic meetup. :D

Quote from: Serious PaulI wish some of the players would step up and run a game. One tried, and bombed really badly and ever since then despite my encouragement for anyone to do the same no one has expressed the slightest interest in running a game.

I think fear of failure holds back a lot of potentially excellent GMs.  A lot of players don't understand that most seasoned GMs (in my experience) have a long string of average to poor games punctuated by a few excellent ones.  The veterans in the field are just the folks who stuck it out despite falling flat on their face.

Currently I am in two groups.  There is some intermingling between them.  Our usual GM is running one game, a different person the other.  While I am usually a player, I have also GMed our group from time to time. So I picked option #2.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI need to weasel an invite for your next big Epic meetup. :D

Oh, indeed! :cool:

Quote from: jrientsI think fear of failure holds back a lot of potentially excellent GMs.  A lot of players don't understand that most seasoned GMs (in my experience) have a long string of average to poor games punctuated by a few excellent ones.  The veterans in the field are just the folks who stuck it out despite falling flat on their face.

This is true. It reminds me of what a writer was saying about people's ability at things. Basically, there's "I suck", "I do alright", and "I rock!" Almost no-one rocks in the beginning, lots of people do alright and so don't bother trying to do better, alright's enough, and then there are a heap of people who try something, suck at it, and give up because they suck - so they never get better. But most of the people who do alright, and all of the people who rock, they once sucked, too.

In GMing, as in any other skill, you've just got to push through that time where you say, "wow, I suck at this", and eventually get better. Like any other skill, you have to be trying to improve - some people suck forever because they won't take feedback. They go all Rain Man: "I'm an excellent GM, definitely an excellent GM."

ME , the GM the majority of the time.

 There was one time I let(encouraged?) one of the players GM two sessions of the campaign, same ongoing story, same set of characters.

BIG MIstake - but not because of him. We had a rather new player who has his balls tieed up into who is "in Charge" of the group. Him seeing me NOT as the GM  or authority figure ...he started to act stupid..therecwere problems...when I took back over as GM , things went better.

 Didn't help that I was playing one of the recurring FEMALE NPCs as my character during those two sessions. That visiting player has chauvinist or maybe even misogyny issues that he tries to hide. (I rolled at random ahead of time whichj of the 4 or 5 recurring NPCs that we had that I would play as my character when I wasn't the GM)

 That one guy is no longer a player with the group. The player who was guest GM for 2 sessiuons is still part of the group - he plays the engineer character of the Maggie Thatcher.

- Ed C.