I wonder about that since I am usually the one GMing.
Even in groups in which we agreed that me and another player will take our turns I ended up doing it most of the time.
And the worst thing is that I cannot blame anyone but myself.
It usually begins with
Phase A: Cool! I am playing a PC. Finally!
Phase B: Oh man, I would have handled that differently.
Phase C: That sucked! The adventure was not what I was hoping for.
Phase D: "Hey everyone! Do you mind if I give it a try? I have an idea."
I really wonder how I can stop doing that.
I run games because I like to GM better than playing as a PC.
That said, most people won't ever GM because they think it will ruin their fun playing. It's the idea that you don't want to see how the sausage is made.
Some are just lazy. Why would they do anything extra when they can just show up game night and have fun?
Some people are intimidated by the idea of being a GM. In their mind, being a GM is taking on the full responsibility of the game and it's a huge undertaking. Often it happens when the player rereads the core book from the stand point of running and realizes just how far behind the power curve he is. (a lot of books are poorly written and the publishers should be ashamed)
Part of this problem is current GMs bitching about being GMs. From a player's perspective, hear a GM complain is the same as them saying that they aren't having fun.
Everything BadApple said, from a different angle:
- A few people are better at being a GM than they are playing. It's better for all involved if they GM as much as possible.
- A few people suck at being a GM, always will, and should never do it any longer than it takes to establish that fact.
- Of the rest, there has to be a convergence of interest, time, subject matter, and confidence for it to work. Given enough of those factors, they'll make it work eventually. You have to give them said air to breathe, though.
My wife will run a game when it is different genre than the what I run (improves confidence and interest) and when she has time (which right now, she doesn't). She'll do it for a much smaller subset of players than I will (both numbers and particular people). Practically speaking, that means no games from her in the last few years. Given the priorities she places on other hobbies, she might never run again. That's OK, if that's the way she wants to do it.
Even for experienced GM's, there's nothing worse than running a game you don't want to run. An experienced GM can see that and fix it one way or the other.
Agreeing with BadApple and Steven, some people are just better suited to GM. It's a different skill set that perma-players don't have or don't enjoy exercising, or perhaps they just haven't tried yet. There's nothing wrong with that.
Thinking "I can do it better" is also a motivator for me as a GM. People are naturally competitive. I notice this a lot when I'm a player, not that I'm better. Rather it's easier to notice flaws from the outside. I deal with that by intentionally altering my understanding of the game, so that I can enjoy being a player more. I basically try to buy into the game more as it is currently being run. I calm my inner GM and realize that players in my games may think the same thing about my games from time to time. It took me a while to realize that accepting the game as it is with enthusiasm is part of the skill set of being a good player.
The rewarding aspects of running an rpg and playing in it are very different. I had a player who loved having his character grow and develop both in a mechanical sense and as a "person." He asked why I would be willing to dm every week when I couldn't get that out of the game. I told him that the world grew and developed a bit every time I wrote something for it or we played in it. And that DMing is performance art, and seeing your friends enjoy the material I wrote and ran is very satisfying all by itself. I'll also echo the comments above that skill and confidence running a game come with experience, so once someone has that experience, it makes sense for him to keep the DM seat.
Quote from: Coffeecup on January 19, 2024, 02:11:02 AM
Phase B: Oh man, I would have handled that differently.
I think I found your problem.
Everyone would have handled "that" differently. Maybe try to look at it like, "This is how X did it, how am I going to play "this" now?"
I do a lot of GMing because I have the same mindset. When I play, I have to try and put that minset aside and just let the GM do their own thing.
I have mostly GMed because I enjoy RPGs, and most players are lazy, so it's GM or watch the group fall apart.
I was once in a 3 person rpg group where the idea was alternating GM's, and while two of us took our fair share, the third member was always dodging, to the point where we had to stop even counting his IOUs. He'd rather destroy the group than take his turn, and I assure you it was laziness not fear or uncertainty. It was no great loss though, as even when he did GM he put zero effort in, whereas my other co-GM always put the time in.
Most players want to just clock out of work and roll some dice, which is understandable. Unfortunately, for there to be a game to roll dice in, some poor schmuck needs to put in the extra effort to create adventures.
Pretty much echoing what others have said.
Even on minimum prep or games where everyone chips in to affect the story and the narrative, the GM still has to run the game and adjudicate any rulings and have NPCs that act in accordance to the fiction.
So, its always going to be a bigger lift to be the GM at the table than to be a Player.
For this reason, people will sometimes never want to be the GM and will rather be a Player. A Player can be very involved in the narrative, the rules of the game, the setting and even the dice rolling. Or, they can just be as little involved as possible and just along for the ride.
A GM has to be involved or else the game falls apart.
I've been a forever GM for so long that I understand what you mean by the "I would have handled that better". But, if you really want to be a Player you have to cut everyone else some slack. GMin involves a set of skills. Like any skill, there is some innate talent but proficiency can be developed. So, do not judge other GMs so harshly unless they have the same amount of experience GMing that game as you do.
Comparison is the thief of joy and in this case, it is also its murderer. If you really want to be a Player then reign in your judgement and just make an effort to enjoy the ride.
Or else, the perfectionist in you will make it so you will always be the forever GM.
Quote from: Coffeecup on January 19, 2024, 02:11:02 AM
I wonder about that since I am usually the one GMing.
Even in groups in which we agreed that me and another player will take our turns I ended up doing it most of the time.
And the worst thing is that I cannot blame anyone but myself.
It usually begins with
Phase A: Cool! I am playing a PC. Finally!
Phase B: Oh man, I would have handled that differently.
Phase C: That sucked! The adventure was not what I was hoping for.
Phase D: "Hey everyone! Do you mind if I give it a try? I have an idea."
I really wonder how I can stop doing that.
Don't leave Phase A!
Quote from: Aglondir on January 19, 2024, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: Coffeecup on January 19, 2024, 02:11:02 AM
I wonder about that since I am usually the one GMing.
Even in groups in which we agreed that me and another player will take our turns I ended up doing it most of the time.
And the worst thing is that I cannot blame anyone but myself.
It usually begins with
Phase A: Cool! I am playing a PC. Finally!
Phase B: Oh man, I would have handled that differently.
Phase C: That sucked! The adventure was not what I was hoping for.
Phase D: "Hey everyone! Do you mind if I give it a try? I have an idea."
I really wonder how I can stop doing that.
Don't leave Phase A!
Or, if like me, you find that you can't entirely achieve that, then do the next best thing, which is rigorously keep it to yourself. I mean, the thoughts spend through your head, because you are in always a GM mode, but they don't make it into anything you say or do in the game, or anything you talk about it afterwards, etc. If that makes you a little more quiet and inactive as a player than you'd like to be, them's the breaks.
For me, for most of the time either I am running the game or I am not gaming.
I want to game so I just go ahead and run. Sometimes I get to play. but most if the time I run.
I'm a mostly GM, but I do find I learn a lot from being a player. I definitely recommend treating it as a learning experience. I've definitely learned things from the way other GMs handle things differently.
If I don't run the game, there won't be a game.
I've been lucky over the years. I have had some good GMs run games for me and some really good players as well.
There's been more than once where I've been in groups where there's more than one GM. Some GMs make the best players. It's also cool to play one game in the week as a player and another day of the week as the GM. It's been really amazing to have a guy that is both a GM and a games developer that he looks forward to the sessions you run. What's really cool is when a GM sees something you do as a house rule and uses it at their own table.
I have had the pleasure of helping a couple of players shift to behind the screen. Some of those early sessions were terrible but at the same time awesome. I always say thank you to a GM that runs for me but I'm particularly mindful of newer guys. The hardest part is holding back advice and critiques. You really need to wait until they want it or all you do is deflate them. (I didn't do it but another player at a session I was in did. It was heartbreaking watching the guy just give up.) I have a couple of books I give new guys that do ask though and it always seems to work out.
I have had times where I have run games and there was a GM that would get critical of my style. (I'm not saying I'm the best GM but I've had a lot more happy players than unhappy ones.) There are some techniques and scenarios I don't do well with so I avoid them. It sucks when I have a guy see that and try to push the game into those directions.
Yep some GMs make the best players. They know what it's like. They approach the game with enthusiasm and suppress their personal criticism unless asked. They have the rule book ready to help you look something up if needed but they don't rules lawyer you. I've gamed with some of these guys and it's a dream.
I am fairly fortunate. Our group rotates GMing so I get chances to run and play. My only gripe is that I don't often get to be able to play games I really want to as a player. I would love to play in an AD&D or B/X campaign but have resigned myself to having to run them if I want to play at all.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 19, 2024, 06:23:19 PMIf I don't run the game, there won't be a game.
Hell, half the time (or so it seems), there isn't a group if the forever-DM doesn't DM, much less a game.
I like DMing and my friends usually don't, so I always end up doing it. There was about a 2 year period where I only DMed until a buddy of mine in college introduced us to Cyberpunk 2020 and I was able to play.
I can't complain, because I honestly enjoy DMing, but I do like getting to play too. It's like a prearranged marriage of convenience: I've learned to love what I've been put with.
Two Reasons:
1) I know that the games I like to play will most likely not be run by anybody else. d6 WEG Star Wars, Traveller, Mekton, Cepheus Engine, or Cyberpunk are games I'd love to play, but instead I have to run them if I want to scratch that itch. I like OSR games, but so many people are tired of fighting the D&D and Pathfinder Organized Play wonks locally that nobody wants to run them - except me.
2)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuQQcYRB6Zha-cJwWnVYrQDWX5ImvdWf5NhZy39owtrXY-Od9m)
I DM alot because I like it.
I know a few DMs who just do not like being players even.
Other folk who knows. Sometimes its just because no one else wants to.
Back when we were teenagers and my group of friends was 16-18 we would rotate GM duties, but over time after a few years had passed, more and more my friends wanted me to be the one to keep running Games. I also found I enjoyed it more and felt like I put more effort into being a GM.
I found out I enjoyed it, and now have reached a point where I rarely want to play. It's far more fun for me to build a setting and then watch how PC's engage with it. How they change it, or literally burn it to the ground.
I think those of us who are Forever GMs took on the role when we were younger, because nobody else wanted to do it... and or when others did it, they often seemed... Less, I don't want to say less capable...but they just don't think in the same way those of us who have a knack for it do. Thinking of how an Adventure should have multiple ways to solve it, knowing you have to give good precise descriptions for players to make judgments on, and getting that immense sense of satisfaction when players say they can't wait for the next game.
By contrast, I understand I'm a terrible player. a Nightmare of one really... One of the rare chances I got to play recently, I ended up making an Aarakocra Wizard based off Daffy Duck. He ended up fireballing an entire town and killing most of it's citizens for insulting him. The other players were absolutely horrified, and yes, my Alignment was even Chaotic Neutral. But I literally made the horrible "Well, it's what my character would do."
I bowed out of the game after that, but the majority of players involved were playing in a game of my own at the time. They didn't stop playing in my game afterwards despite that.
Most first time GM's are uncomfortable with GMing because of their lack of experience and don't really know what to do. There are a bazillion opinions on what GMing is or requires, but very few sources of "this is how you start." Justin Alexanders book, I hear, is very good at this.
While many of us that are veteran GM's might sneer at live-plays online, for newb GM's I think the Mercer Effect is real.
The people that GM repeatedly have effectively unlocked something perma-players don't really understand. There is a joy to GMing in creating something cool and memorable with your players that you learn to derive great satisfaction from. It's not as simple as calling oneself the GM and running a game that is pass/fail. There's definitely levels to it, and principles to adhere to that can be stressed in different measure depending on the type of game one runs.
Running one-shots, or tournament play for Conventions is *vastly* different than running a sandbox campaign. Although until one does those things repeatedly, it's hard to know where the traps are in conducting the game. Genre matters, system matters, improv skills matter, prep matters, reading your players matters. Attitude matters. And all of these things vary by the individual in their own personal inclinations and views.
Of course getting to the point where *any* of those things matters assumes you've really committed yourself to learning to GM. It's an art and a skillset and most people simply don't want to commit the time and energy to learn. It's that simple.
As an aside - I do think learning to GM is a developmental process that can be outlined and codified to teach people how to do it and step up their game (so to speak) and find the niche they want to rest in as a GM. I do think the skills of learning to be a GM are nested and it demands techniques to be learned in order to progress beyond running one-shots. Again, this is a time investment.
On the plus side being a GM means that you're rarely without a game. Finding players is easy (note: I didn't say GOOD players) finding GM's is a lot harder.
I literally have the problem of being the perma-GM because my players that say they want to GM are far more interested in playing my games than running their own and trying to do emulate my perceived sprawling games and over-reaching their own skillset, rather than learning those basics and going through that process of learning.
Healthy groups should have multiple GM's that *really* want to do the job. Because those GM's will feed off one another to do better. Like anything else worthwhile, GMing (and being good at it) requires more commitment than being a player. And it's often thankless, until it isn't. But the gulf between those positions can be fairly wide.
I will rarely worry about whether I would do something better or different when I am playing vs. GMing. I enjoy playing greatly when I do get the chance. But out of my gaming group and friends, I am almost always the one who gets called on to GM. It gets old often, especially when my friends started wanting to focus on 5E so much to the exclusion of any other game. They wouldn't GM other games they have, and when the big to play something hit them soon after they started GMing 5E, they would always quit their game and ask me to run something.
Whether that means they think I am a better GM than they are or they just want to play and don't want to GM, I don't know. I just slide into the chair and take over when they quit, and always have. I try to compliment all of them on their style when they GM and tell them how much I am digging their game but it rarely makes them stick to the screen.
I guess most of my group are just players, and I am just the GM and that's how they see it working...
some people are leaders and some are followers. It applies with RPGs.
I GM because I like having the big picture. I don't mind playing, but a lot of players won't put in the work to GM.
The challenge as always is players who get bent out of shape when you play the rest of the world as non-static rational entities. How dare you not let them walk all over the NPCs. How dare you make the lowly hobgoblin a strong warrior race with sound military tactics. How dare you have the BBEG shoot the PCs in the head the first chance he gets instead of revealing his entire plan to them before putting them in an escapable death trap.
Luckily my groups have had at least one other who is willing to GM.
In my current group, I run about half the games, my buddy does the other half. Typically we trade off whenever one of us is either uninspired, bored, a campaign ends, someone is too busy, whatever. Any sort of experimental stuff I'll do almost every time, he sticks with D&D-type games almost exclusively.
I asked one of my other buddies if he wanted to run the next game and he said something to the effect that he didn't know how and wouldn't have any idea where to begin. This is a guy I've been playing with for twenty years, and he has played complicated wargames and boardgames since high school, so it's certainly not the rules that are a barrier. Seems like he just thinks running a game requires some sort of magical ability to do well, and he doesn't want to take the chance and fuck it up. Also if it was up to him to organize and coordinate everything, the game would never happen. His own lack of self-organization could be a contributing factor to that.
So, I guess to answer the original question, if I didn't do it, the game wouldn't happen.
Some people seem to think that running a game requires having some special, magical gift or talent to do. As someone who has been running games for decades, I can assure that this is not the case. Any bozo can muddle through. I know because I have been that bozo muddling through for decades.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 21, 2024, 07:30:42 AM
Some people seem to think that running a game requires having some special, magical gift or talent to do. As someone who has been running games for decades, I can assure that this is not the case. Any bozo can muddle through. I know because I have been that bozo muddling through for decades.
How do you succeed? Get experience. How do you get experience? Try and fail.
It's amazing how many people know that in their own area of expertise, but can't seem to apply it to things like learning to run a game.
Generally, if I'm not running the game then I won't be able to play the kinds of games I want to play. That's the curse of being a GM for me. I'd love to be a player and just enjoy a game but I always end up not completely satisfied unless I'm running the game myself. I realise this is a problem of me being too picky and narrowminded. But I simply can't force myself to enjoy something I'm not enjoying. And would rather not drag down a game with my lack of enjoyment. So I always end up as the GM. People seem satisfied with the kinds of games I run or I wouldn't be able to GM and thus wouldn't be able to play.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 21, 2024, 07:30:42 AM
Some people seem to think that running a game requires having some special, magical gift or talent to do. As someone who has been running games for decades, I can assure that this is not the case. Any bozo can muddle through. I know because I have been that bozo muddling through for decades.
Actually you do need a certain something and you have it. I have seen DMs who completely lacked it and one or two who should have never been allowed near an RPG.
Some people just lack that spark to DM and some even struggle to be a player.
Others lack the flexibility needed to DM or play.