Hi all,
So I have noticed recently that there seems to be a real shortage of the number of people that are willing to GM. Looking at sites like Roll20, there seems to be somewhere between 5-10 times the number of people applying for the number of slots available.
Is this a new trend, or has it always been this way? Why aren't more people willing to give GMing a chance?
I'm curious to hear your opinions.
Thanks.
In my experience, it has always been this way. As for the reason people would rather play than DM? It could be a number of things. They are too lazy, their attention spans are so short that they barely have the span for being a player who feels like he only has to worry about his turn, they lack the confidence, social anxiety, feel their time is more valuable spent on something else than doing any sort of prep work, don't feel like it, don't want to be that much of a "leader", etc.
Many people would rather go for the easy choice with as little responsibility as possible (or perceived responsibility). As a player of MMORPGs, this is prevalent in the number of people who would rather play DPS (lowest (perceived) responsibility) over playing a tank or healer (higher (perceived) responsibility).
As for me: When it comes for random people (like roll20's LFG, Paizo's pbp recruitment, etc), I refuse to go for a role with more (perceived) responsibility. Same goes for an MMORPG, I won't tank for random people. If it is a group of people I already know and am comfortable with (guild, gaming group), then I will have no problem going for the more responsible role (tank, healer, DM). I'll be awkward at first, as I usually am when it comes to shouldering responsibility, but I know I won't be ridiculed or raged at like when it comes to random people.
That's just my experience, and my own personal reasoning.
Confidence and social anxiety on my part. Not to mention I'm currently playing in a lot of games (primarily PbP but also a few F2F) and feel I would need to cut down on those in order to give attempting to run a game the attention it needs.
And to be honest, when/if I decide to run a game I'll do it for friends first rather than strangers for the same reasons that Adjule mentioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped GMing on Roll 20 because players had a very different style in the way they played and treated the game then I did. The didn't want to abide by the type of game world or campaign the GM was providing. It felt like they wanted to change things and do it their way even though they came to my table to play a game I was offering. Also attendance was a major issue. Or maybe I was the problem because I wasn't open to other ideas and wanted my game world/campaign a certain way. As a result I shut down my games and quit Roll20.
I went back to my one person group playing face to face in the same room.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GMing. But having said that, as GM:
1) You often need to invest money into flip mats, minis, books, or scenarios/APs/modules.
2) If you're going to prepare properly, you need to invest a lot of time, time you could spend elsewhere.
3) It's often a thankless position. Even after an awesome game, how many players tell you "Hey man, thanks for the awesome game.". How many players at your home game buy you pizza or help pay for stuff? Sometimes, but not often enough.
4) And you're often blamed when something goes wrong or there is a grievance.
5) People often don't want to (or are unable) to share the GMing duties.
6) For me personally it's physically and emotionally exhausting. I can play slots a day as a player, no problem, but I am pretty dead after 2 slots as a GM. It's just easier being a player, it's like being on vacation.
So yeah, GMing is fun but it is time consuming. And when there is negativity around it or no appreciation, people would just rather do other things with their time.
|
As others have said, there have always been more GMs then players.
A couple of years ago, I was playing lots of pathfinder. I was playing lots of PFS.
Here in the triangle area ( Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) of North Carolina. there was lots of PFS games. I believe you could play a PFS game almost every day of the week. Between a home game, and PFS games I was playing an GMimg 5 evenings a week. I was probably GMing PFS 3 nights a week.
At that time, Pathfinder was my only social outlet. I am on oxygen all the time which limits what I can do, and I could go to a pathfinder game with my oxygen tanks or machine and have a nice evening with my friends.
But life moves on. I am getting married moving in with my fiancé with her son. A year ago at my fiancé's urging I adopted a beagle from a shelter. So there is more going on in my life, and at the moment, I'm just involved in a pathfinder home game that meets every other week and one that meets once a month.
When things quiet down a bit ( I suspect they wont) I'll start playing and GMing some PFS again.
In a different campaign, I used to judge 3-4 slots at a smaller 'local' convention or 4-8 at GenCon/Origins, depending on the needs of the campaign.
Not only was it a thankless job, but about every fifth game or so, there'd be a player who didn't like the fact that there were consequences for the actions they undertook in a game they'd played, and they'd complain to campaign leadership that I was being 'too harsh' OR 'too light on the lash', as it were.
Said campaign did not have the same safeguards and methods employed by say, PFS.
More often than not, the question would go before campaign leadership, and be dismissed.
However, the one that burnt me out and shook my confidence was the situation where a character was warned (with witnesses) three specific times that the action they were taking *would* retire/kill their character, no saving throw.
A month after a major convention, when I was busy *at work* (and campaign leadership KNEW this) the player brought their petition to the campaign leadership in person at a leadership meeting, and campaign leadership cited 'poor table discipline', 'poor people skills', and 'inability to communicate effectively with players' as reasons they were overturning the decision I'd made at the table.
They did not consult with any of the witnesses nor any of the other judges that were present when the ruling was made.
After that, my judging for that campaign pretty much done. It also left a rather ashen taste in the mouth for trying to GM again.
I'm slowly trying to take it up for PFS, but two of the last three slots I've volunteered to judge or stand-by for did not 'go off', and as far as VTT, I'm hoping to break into it with a group of friends first before trying the public waters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will always be a shortage of GM's compared to players. RPG's focus on crafting a memorable PC experience, not a memorable DM experience. DM memories are made, for sure, but the anecdotes usually start, "I had this player who..." while player anecdotes start, "Do you remember when we...".
RPG's are stories with adventures for PC players, put on by a host, the DM.
DM's have vastly more responsibility at the table for the world, it's contents and characters and the player's experience.
DM's have to be both the best NPC friend and worst NPC enemy of the players. It can generate hard feelings between the two groups, even when the DM isn't trying to be gygaxian.
Players often assume the DM as leader is responsible for hosting, feeding, entertaining and counseling the players.
DM'ing is a energy loss activity wherein you give of yourself to others.
These things aren't bad. It's what I love about DM'ing. However, you can play an RPG with much much less effort. Thus, less people DM.
As for Roll20 and conventions, I have DM'ed for many years, but will not likely ever do either, outside of intro adventures. My rule for RPG's is that I only play and especially only DM for people I'm irl friends with. This keeps me a lot emotionally healthier.
I suspect other DM's feel like I do, which further decreases the available DM's for public resources.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone surprised there is a dearth of dungeon masters when you look at how complex pathfinder and its rule set has now become? Or when you see threads with the title "I want to make my DM cry." And that's playing with friends! One poster actually said "If GMs can't handle the pathfinder system they should quit." Note this wasnt in relation to a PFS session, it was about a new DM struggling in a home game.
I'm nearing the end of DMing book two of Shattered Star for a brand new group. After the initial challenge of trying to engage them with the thousands of choices they built their PCs and it is so much easier to DM with characters that are playing the game at face value rather than trying to beat the system. A lot of fun.
In a market with high demand and low supply - players that want good DMs should consider making the proposition more attractive. That's starts with seeing the DMs enjoyment as being just as important as the players.
In my experience it isn't that people aren't willing to give DMing a go, it's that they come up against players that make the experience difficult. Some DMs will push through that and find the work arounds needed to make things work. Most will quickly duck behind the parapet and go back to being a player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, it has always been this way. As for the reason people would rather play than DM? It could be a number of things. ... feel their time is more valuable spent on something else than doing any sort of prep work...
.
When I was a student I roleplayed a couple of nights a week and all day Sunday. Now I have a 40-odd hour a week job I ref one week night and play every third weekend or thereabouts (if lucky). I imagine for peope with kids trying to get that much free time is even harder.
I think every gamer I know is in the same boat. Would love to game, and ref more, but Real Life takes up so much time!
Here in Houston we have the opposite issue -- DMs are a dime a dozen, but finding good players is very hard. Until 2012 or so, I DMed a game for other DMs who just wanted to play a bit in between running their own games, or who temporarily ran into a shortage of players. Currently, me and another DM have an agreement to share our small pool of players between my Skull & Shackles campaign and his Ravenloft one.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or when you see threads with the title "I want to make my DM cry."
Although I agree that this isn't good, can we really say it's having a material impact on the GM population? I mean, I see even more threads with titles like "How can I punish my player(s) for X?" and it doesn't seem to be slowing down the player population any.
Or maybe both are having an impact? I guess it's hard to really know. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe both are having an impact? I guess it's hard to really know. :/
When one population (GM) is far smaller than another population (Player), any sort of negative approach, even if it is viewed as 'tongue-in-cheek' or 'fun' by one party or the other is bound to be taken out of context.
If both populations lose ten percent of their numbers...
Example:
10 GMs
100 players
Losing 1/10 of a GM pool is painful.
Losing 1/10 of a player pool isn't quite as painful, as the demand was overreaching the supply.
9 GMs
90 players
Now two of the GMs have RL medical emergencies so you're down to 70 percent of what you've started with.
Being generous and figuring on some cancellations or the like you can knock out another 10 players.
7 GMs
80 players
You lose three GMs to 'burn out'.
You don't lose players to 'burn out'.
4 GMs
80 players
And it just keeps going...
|
|
I know that in my area GMs that are reliable get asked to GM over and over again.
I go out of my way to recruit new GMs, and I've had quite a bit of success recruiting in small venues. I can get my regulars to step up and take turns. In larger venues it's harder to get people to volunteer.
I think the only thing to do is to keep asking. Eventually, they say, "Yes!"
Hmm
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple math:
*100% of GMs want to play or be a player
*Only a small fraction of players, want to GM
This is why there are more players than GMs
Simple logic:
*The responsibilities for being a GM far outweigh the reward
*The skill set required to become a GM is incredibly high
*Gratification comes easier with being a player
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to everyone for their input. My hypothesis regarding the lower number of GMs was related to the changing role of the GM over the years.
In early editions of D&D, there was a pretty profound GM = the boss, don't question him or her, his or her decision trumps all written rules mentality.
While there was a lot of push back over that mentality due to some bad experiences, I was wondering if perhaps the pendulum has swung too far.
In the few games I have been able to get into as a player, the GMs have come across as people-pleasers. Anytime a judgment is made, they seek validation from the players regarding their decision.
They seem very focused on the players liking them rather than liking their game.
It's interesting to see other viewpoints and how there may be other factors in play that aren't so obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run games at conventions. In every long term group I play in the majority of group members GMs something eventually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the early days of D&D players respected the DMs far more than they do now. I feel like when I've played with strangers they have an entitlement they expect. That's why I don't DM for them anymore. I absolutely love the job though.
Simple math:
*100% of GMs want to play or be a player
*Only a small fraction of players, want to GM
I don't agree with your premises, as direct experience has taught me they're not always true.
Some (bad) DMs don't want to play, they only want to DM.Most players I meet usually end up trying their hand at DMing -- like I said, EVERY player in my last long-term group, save one, was a DM for other games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the few games I have been able to get into as a player, the GMs have come across as people-pleasers. Anytime a judgment is made, they seek validation from the players regarding their decision.
More so -- when I propose a house rule, it's subject to a table vote, and I abstain except in the case of a tie. I was an old-skool DM back in the early 80s. I like to think I've learned from my experience.
They seem very focused on the players liking them rather than liking their game.
The players already like me; I don't invite people unless I get along with them. So it's all about getting them to like the game. And most of my players are capable of DMing, and are relatively intelligent adults, and don't need me putting on airs or pretending I'm doing something they can't. That kind of crap can get in the way of their enjoyment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of it has to do with GMing being a skill set. Some skills as a player translate over, but it doesn't cover all the bases. Different game systems require different skill sets from the GM as well. Some require you to prep, some require you NOT to prep (it's a harder thing than it sounds if you're used to prepping things for games).
Never Unprepared: The Complete Game Master's Guide to Session Prep
This is a pretty good book. It's good for new GMs as it lays out a lot of the things you'll need to do to prepare for a game session. It's great for experienced GMs who've found their life has changed now that they have careers/kids and don't have the time they used to to devote to prepping game sessions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the greatest joys in first becoming a GM is finally being able to run the game the way YOU want to run it. To many players these days are entitlement players always thankless and demanding the GM cater the game to please their own enjoyment never mind the GMs own fun. If you kill off one of the GMs sources of fun you will get less and less GMs. It is why I stopped running online games. I was just tired of that "you only exist to please me" mentality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few reasons, some specific to online stuff like roll20 some not.
1) GMing takes far more time, you have to prep and plan things outside of the session, players just need to turn up, so if you don't have that much free time being a player is a much more appealing option.
2) Most games are all about the players, with the GM mostly just running things. So being a player is often more fun, not to mention players get to build characters with interesting backstories and carefully made builds, whereas GMs usually use monsters to do the fighting. Not to mention players are meant to win, it's meant to be a challenge sure, but players are expected to win the fights. Its rare a GM's character sees more than a single combat before dieing.
3) This one is especially true online, but applies somewhat all the time, I can play an online game as a player without spending a single penny, almost anything I need to make my character is online and I don't need tokens, battle mats or dice. GMs usually have to buy APs, if it's in person the GM is probably buying all the monster minis and battle mats too, even on roll20 there are paid features that are mostly just for GMs.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I stopped running for strangers is that I got tired of players arguing with me. I'd have tables where every ruling I made was questioned, sometimes politely, sometimes not. I don't need to be the boss of everyone, but the constant whining was exhausting. So now I pick who I run for, and GMing is fun again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience there are several reasons, I'll list them in no particular order
- Ability. It generally takes a lot more experience to GM than the average player has. Even though it is possible to GM without experience so long as players are willing to be patient, many still see the role as too much to handle. This is especially daunting in PFS, where players (especially veterans) sometimes set a high standard of competency for GMs. If you've played PFS and seen plenty of arguments over rules, you'll expect yourself to have an exceptional level of skill before considering GMing.
- Time. There tends to be a lot of preparation and work involved in GMing and of the people able to make the time commitment to involve themselves in the game, even fewer are able to put in the extra work to GM. Bit less of a factor with the limited prep required to run PFS.
- Money. If you're going the standard way with physical books and playmats it can be quite expensive to GM. This isn't much of a factor if you're relying on PFSRD and Roll20 or something like that.
- Playing vs Running. The standard "But I want to play the game." Most people view GMing as less fun and more work, even if they've never done it before. And every GM likes to play, not every player likes to GM.
- Negativity. Some have had bad experiences GMing, and that can push them away from it just as a bad player experience for a new player can push them away from the game entirely. Adding to this is the possibility that the would-be-GM has developed a perception that most players aren't very nice to their GM (in every way that could possibly be interpreted). This could be from a poor gaming scene, or a handful of specific experiences. These experiences might be the would-be-GM's fault or other people's fault, but regardless of that and regardless of the validity they still affect their willingness to GM.
- Anxiety. Getting up in front of a group of people and trying to give them a fun game can be scary, especially with strangers. I know the concept terrified me before I gritted my teeth and did it, and as much joy as I had for overcoming my fear, not everyone is capable of the same. This can easily be compounded by a lack of experience as a player. This tends to be a HUGE factor with PFS, since strangers.
- Simple Math. The vast majority of GMs start as players, so there is generally a smaller pool of people that can generate GMs than there are people who could become players. Especially since Paizo wants more players because it means more sales, so they market a lot of stuff to encourage new players to buy the materials. Not that they don't market to GMs as well, but it seems to have been less effective at creating new GMs than players. This is a pretty big factor with PFS, since its generally fairly easy (in most mid-size cities) to find a PFS table to drop-in on as a new player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here it's a player shortage. I'm open to running more often, but can only just find players enough for one game.
I don't do online gaming though, so can't say for any of that.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't GM as much in person because players are ungrateful.
I spend the entire week crafting the next adventure and you can't even take an hour in the 150 or so between sessions to level your character up? Now I need to wait an hour of the five we have planned together for one of the only things you have to do alone?
You're going to fight me on my banned alignment of CE, really? You can't pick any of the other eight alignments? Oh, you have to be a drow antipaladin, do you? Your entire imagination is absolutely unable to come up with any of about 50 other classes or races?
Oh, I'm sorry, is my interactive story designed entirely to make you the star around the pittance of a story you gave me for your character not as interesting as some random meme or a Facebook post or a text message? I didn't mean to let my labor of love distract you from your minimal attention for the seven minutes or so it's not your turn.
Thank god my new players aren't like that, but 4/5 of the groups I've GMd for...
That was my reason for a long time, at least, that I wouldn't GM: Ungrateful players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't GM as much in person because players are ungrateful.
I spend the entire week crafting the next adventure and you can't even take an hour in the 150 or so between sessions to level your character up? Now I need to wait an hour of the five we have planned together for one of the only things you have to do alone?
You're going to fight me on my banned alignment of CE, really? You can't pick any of the other eight alignments? Oh, you have to be a drow antipaladin, do you? Your entire imagination is absolutely unable to come up with any of about 50 other classes or races?
Oh, I'm sorry, is my interactive story designed entirely to make you the star around the pittance of a story you gave me for your character not as interesting as some random meme or a Facebook post or a text message? I didn't mean to let my labor of love distract you from your minimal attention for the seven minutes or so it's not your turn.
Thank god my new players aren't like that, but 4/5 of the groups I've GMd for...
That was my reason for a long time, at least, that I wouldn't GM: Ungrateful players.
I have indeed met many players who feel like they are entitled to have the game be the way the want it to be, regardless of what the GM and other players want. And frankly if a player is so disengaged or lazy that they are unwilling to contribute in what little way they need to (it's different if they are unable, exceptional circumstances happen)... they shouldn't be playing at all.
The thing about tabletop RPGs like Pathfinder is that there are so many different ways to approach the game as GM and as player. You're perfectly allowed to approach the game differently from others, you can dislike certain play styles. It becomes a problem however when as a player, you feel so entitled that you fight against anything that prevents you from doing things exactly the way you want to. Some GMs have this problem too, where if the game doesn't go exactly as they want, they become angry with the players and/or try to force it a certain way.
The best players are open to anything the GM wants to allow, disallow, or add. And the best GMs are fair and reasonable with the their choices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing tabletop RPGs for over 35 years, and I can assure you that there has pretty much always been a shortage of GMs, for the same reasons as today...
GMing is a much larger investment.
1) More time is required. GMs need to spend a lot of out-of-game time prepping/writing an adventure, drawing maps, bookkeeping, scheduling, etc.
2) More money is required. GMs need to buy the player and the GM resources. GM resources tend to be thicker, and therefore more expensive. Plus the maps, minis/pawns, combat tracker, dice tower, etc.
3) More maturity is required. A good GM needsto be able to control the group insofar as to mediate disputes, massage players' egos, bring side-chats in line, and be empathetic to players' needs.
When I GM, I probably spend two hours out-of-game prepping for every hour of play. My players don't see this at all.
GMing is a big commitment. I can't run more than two or three ongoing games at a time, and that includes PbP.
There are ways to reduce your prep time and make it more efficient.
For some games, I've reduced my prep time to less time than I play. This includes for my long and complicated campaign that I co-DM. I do most of the prep work, type it and send it to him. Probably about 2 hours worth of work for a 6 hour session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most people who have never been DM/GM think it is way harder than it is. Between that and some really terrible players that cause all sorts of problems, lots of people's first venture into DMing isn't pleasant so they don't go back.
I got into it because it was either I GMed or I didn't game. Now 7 years later I can GM a pathfinder session with about 10 minutes of prep, I can GM some other systems with no prep.
I end up GMing most of the time because in my groups I am usually the only one willing to GM.
So many games I've never really been able to play that I really really want to.