| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeating the following for visibility as it ended up being the last post of the previous page.
Thank you everyone for sharing stories of your own experiences. It's done a lot to rekindle my spirit this morning. I apologize for being so surely on the matter. I just have a lot riding on this and many of the reactions I was getting (many of which were far more hostile than simply saying "no") were starting to get to me.
The here on Paizo linked to the Campaign where it was $15 per session...RD what's your time zone and standard rate? Maybe those of us who support the idea can give you a head start, let you record the games as well for advertising/secondary revenue creation.
I mean I've not actually gotten to be a player for PF2 yet...
Ah missed that! That seems a reasonable price, would come out slightly higher than my own pay for a four person group.
Somehow missed that it was pbp. Do you have any interest running VTT games RD?
My game will NOT be in PbP format, but a live VTT game run on Roll20 and Discord (voice only). My listing has other details of what you can expect, including time zone and pay rate (EST, $15 per session).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You dont actually know that all of these people have that stance though. For example I'm not interested in paid GMs because I think its against the soul of the artform and collaborative effort of cooperative storytelling. I also have a heavy disdain for people like critical role because they've sold out on their platform and in many ways misrepresent the hobby to thousands of potential players.If you're making money off of something you WILL approach it differently than if you do it solely for the love of the craft.
I have to challenge this one a bit.
Shakespeare, Mozart, Michelangelo, Dickens were all very much in it for the money - their art was their profession. Pretty sure that whatever the art-form there are examples of true greats who got paid.
Legions of actors, musicians, authors,scriptwriters, painters, sculptors, dancers, storytellers, poets etc etc are superb at their craft and use it to make a living.
Every artistic field has enthusiastic people doing it as a hobby whose fondest dream is to ditch the day job and become a professional practitioner of the craft they love.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you get paid, you have customers. And the customer is king. Unless you have some kind of monopoly.
It is very different from doing it for friends and even more than doing it for yourself.
I am pretty sure the great artists mentioned above likely created pieces they were not so proud of but they needed the money.
And a burnt-out artist is very much not a pretty sight.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My game will NOT be in PbP format/b], but a live VTT game run on Roll20 and Discord (voice only). [B]My listing has other details of what you can expect, including time zone and pay rate (EST, $15 per session).
I hope paid GMing works out for you. Good luck!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5 Points for the Good Marketing by the way, it was a clever tact to come at it from this direction.Repeating the following for visibility as it ended up being the last post of the previous page.
Thank you everyone for sharing stories of your own experiences. It's done a lot to rekindle my spirit this morning. I apologize for being so surely on the matter. I just have a lot riding on this and many of the reactions I was getting (many of which were far more hostile than simply saying "no") were starting to get to me.
My game will NOT be in PbP format, but a live VTT game run on Roll20 an Discord (voice only). My listing has other details of what you can expect, including time zone and pay rate (EST, $15 per session).The here on Paizo linked to the Campaign where it was $15 per session...RD what's your time zone and standard rate? Maybe those of us who support the idea can give you a head start, let you record the games as well for advertising/secondary revenue creation.
I mean I've not actually gotten to be a player for PF2 yet...
Ah missed that! That seems a reasonable price, would come out slightly higher than my own pay for a four person group.
Somehow missed that it was pbp. Do you have any interest running VTT games RD?
Yeah, I'll second that. Also, your roll20 post there has several indicators of inclusiveness which is a big plus.
RD, how do you feel about players who have played the campaign already? Who will try to avoid using meta knowledge, obviously, and who will play non-casters. (Spell selection being one of the bigger things meta knowledge affects.)
Despite my alias here, typically speaking no cash trades hands when I GM.
Grateful venues or organizations may provide some consideration or compensation for my time, even if it technically isn't 'getting paid'.
Had a GM back in the day whose rule was if you wanted to bring in something new or different, you had to buy them a copy of the rules for that thing and give them a month to review it.
What Reddit and other venues may be running into is a legal obligation to recover taxes from paid services, which is actually a thing that some government bodies are working hard to enforce in this pandemic time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it is because the idea of paying for such a service is foreign to most people.But why is that? Referees and other arbiters are paid in sports and other games the world over.
...turning a game into a job seems so antithetical to what I think a GM should be doing.I can understand it not "feeling" right as a job, but isn't that kind of setting up a double standard? As I said above, refs at football games and other sporting events (and non-sporting events) are often paid for their work*. What sets GMs apart that they should be stigmatized?
I'm never one to stop anyone from their "hustle."In what way, shape, or form is it "a hustle?" One party offers a service. Another party willingly pays for said service. Provided all parties meet their obligations, what business is it of anyone else?
...but I think paying the bills is a really awful/woefully capitalistic one.What's bad about capitalism, or paying one's bills? That's how the world works! That's how responsible people take care of their families.
The GM-player dynamics certainly change when there's money involved, and there's definitely room for abuse. From that angle, I can understand why a forum would be wary of allowing it. Beyond any perceived "sanctity" of the hobby, there's probably potential for liability should something go south, and I would not want to take that risk were I running such a website.I can certainly understand that at least.
** spoiler omitted **
Referees are more of an arbitrary third party paid to ensure that all players are playing the game fairly, and more often than not, the pay is more for how dangerous the job can be, both on the field (how badly would you crap your pants if some 250 pound 6'4" guy wearing pads and built of pure muscle and speed is about to run you down for being in the way?), and off the field (the amount of vitriol and grievance they suffer from perspective fans would make most people not want to deal with it to begin with, hence the pay incentive).
By comparison, the GM has a much more encompassing (and friendly) role than this, since they aren't just responsible for fair gameplay, but also the group's entertainment, and in most groups, the GM is viewed as an equal participant to the fun, not exclusively an arbitrator of the fun. On top of that, these GMs aren't in the same position as referees, where they are constantly badmouthed to and are at regular risk of bodily harm, especially since they are two completely different environments.
I won't say that people can't do this kind of thing. But I can understand why people wouldn't want to do this, and I, in fact, feel the same way about it. I don't want to exchange money with people I game with simply because it becomes less of a fun time had with friends and more of a business exchange with an apparent acquaintance to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do. It's a completely different mood setting in comparison.
paid'.
Had a GM back in the day whose rule was if you wanted to bring in something new or different, you had to buy them a copy of the rules for that thing and give them a month to review it.
How did that work out? Definitely some pros and cons there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RD, how do you feel about players who have played the campaign already? Who will try to avoid using meta knowledge, obviously, and who will play non-casters. (Spell selection being one of the bigger things meta knowledge affects.)
Such players are welcome to submit applications. My initial inclination is to prefer people who have not played before, as I think it can create a more genuine feeling experience for everyone, but I can also see how having an "insider" to subtlety direct the party in the right direction could be a potential advantage (and also a potential pitfall).
In any case, I don't see the point in denying such applicants as there isn't any practical way for me to enforce such a restriction. If I said "no applicants who are familiar with the adventure" not only would that shrink the application pool, such an applicant would only need to omit any such detail when applying.
As with any of my players I do ask for honest, open communication, as that will better allow me to run the best game I can for all participants.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to exchange money with people I game with simply because it becomes less of a fun time had with friends and more of a business exchange with an apparent acquaintance to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do.
GMs are not players. They are entertainers. While players play to live great adventures and see their character progress, the GM is working for the fun of everyone.
For example, in PFS campaign documents there's this sentence: "GMs are empowered to make descriptive adjustments to avoid topics or situations that would cause discomfort for one or more players at the table, such as phobias or other triggering material. For example, a GM could describe a group of spiders as a group of web-shooting lizards or beetles for the comfort of a player with arachnophobia."
But is there a sentence to tell players that their GM may have arachnophobia and as such their spider familiar may be best described as a beetle? I let you guess.
GMs are not considered the way players are. I don't think I've ever seen a player wondering what would please his GM in game, what his GM is loving. The players are playing the game the same way spectators assist to a gig or a theater play: They are not thinking much about the pleasure of the entertainer.
So, when you say that you won't pay someone "to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do", it gives me goosebumps. Who's these others that can (and should be able to) entertain you for free?
Overall, I understand that the professionalization of a hobby generates anger. But let's be honest, the GM does all the preparatory work, buy most of the content, in general makes the organization work of gathering 6 people in his living room and handles the session. And from my experience GMs are in general a subgroup of the whole gaming group so we can't say that people are taking turn. I think if our hobby ever becomes mainstream its professionalization will happen in the blink of an eye.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issues for me with pay-to-GM are
a) What's the appropriate standard of the GM?
If your players are expecting a Mercer/LaVallee level experience if they pay, can you provide that? Even if you personally can, can the other players at the table hold up their end of the social contract for that type of table to work?
I've played in a number of "reward" games from various patreons/kickstarters. None were close to the level of GMing you see/hear on a podcast/blog/etc. All were fun and probably in the top quartile of PFS games with strangers. While the celebrity GMs are good, its their group of players, and the time people (players and GMs) put in outside the campaign that make them special. If players are showing up, expecting the GM to make it super entertaining, just because they paid for it, it will fall flat. Pacing is almost universally different in the top-tier celebrity GMs, with most things taking 2-3x longer in their format to account for the extra story-telling and roleplay. (This is probably another reason why reward one-shots fall a bit flat compared to their normal standard, they have to fit everything into a shorter timeslot than they'd like).
b) Can you actually charge what's needed to make it work as a job?
Let's say most sessions are 4 hours. I can prep a normal PFS scenario in about 3 hours -- 2 hours reading, making GM aids/flowcharts, etc, 1 hour setting up my VTT. If I were going for a premium experience there's another 1-2 hours I would do. So lets say 8 hours per session including GM prep time. If I'm prepping a full AP/chapter of an AP, there's more upfront planning, but maybe some of the later sessions need less -- amortized 8 hours per session probably still works. And I know from talking with other GMs that I'm very efficient at my prep, many report double the time needed for the same level of preparation.
So assuming federal minimum wage, that asking for ~$15/session/player. Which matches RD's price point.
Assuming a wage equivalent to the _median_ salary in my area, would need to raise that to $75/player per session.
You can probably find players willing to pay the $15/session, but would probably struggle to find ones willing to pay $75/session. After the thrill of 'I'm getting paid to GM' wears off, will you resent that your time is valued at minimum wage levels? Will you treat it like a job, or just as a filler to be replaced when a better paying job comes along.
Putting the two aspects together complicates things further -- if you have the awesome players required to make it work, are all of them willing to pay a higher price point to make it worth your while, while they are providing so much of the content/energy/enhancements themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to exchange money with people I game with simply because it becomes less of a fun time had with friends and more of a business exchange with an apparent acquaintance to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do.GMs are not players. They are entertainers. While players play to live great adventures and see their character progress, the GM is working for the fun of everyone.
For example, in PFS campaign documents there's this sentence: "GMs are empowered to make descriptive adjustments to avoid topics or situations that would cause discomfort for one or more players at the table, such as phobias or other triggering material. For example, a GM could describe a group of spiders as a group of web-shooting lizards or beetles for the comfort of a player with arachnophobia."
But is there a sentence to tell players that their GM may have arachnophobia and as such their spider familiar may be best described as a beetle? I let you guess.GMs are not considered the way players are. I don't think I've ever seen a player wondering what would please his GM in game, what his GM is loving. The players are playing the game the same way spectators assist to a gig or a theater play: They are not thinking much about the pleasure of the entertainer.
So, when you say that you won't pay someone "to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do", it gives me goosebumps. Who's these others that can (and should be able to) entertain you for free?
Overall, I understand that the professionalization of a hobby generates anger. But let's be honest, the GM does all the preparatory work, buy most of the content, in general makes the organization work of gathering 6 people in his living room and handles the session. And from my experience GMs are in general a subgroup of the whole gaming group so we can't say that people are taking turn. I think if our hobby ever becomes mainstream its professionalization will happen in the blink of an eye.
Take about about 20% off there SuperBidi. While I'm for getting paid to do what you live in a society that requires being paid to survive, saying that GMs are not players or doing it for their own enjoyment is absurd when the vast majority of GMs aren't compensated for it. And the whole thing that sets RPGs apart from theater is that the GM doesn't know exactly what will happen. The story is made collaboratively by everyone at the table and the dice.
The GM shoulders more burden, sure. But players who don't think about making sure the game is fun for the GM are ones who don't get to playing when the GM stops.
Monetization shifts this dynamic a bit as the GM has more reason to value his players' enjoyment over his own. But it isn't like table top RPGs are an incredibly lucrative industry. And the sort of people skills a good GM needs are extremely marketable in other fields. Someone only chooses to GM for money because they love the game and want to spend more time playing it than other jobs allow for.
All that being said, I think you and agree on your actual point which is that GMing takes effort and people can ask for money for their effort. It is just that calling isn't a player doesn't track. It is still a game being played for fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to exchange money with people I game with simply because it becomes less of a fun time had with friends and more of a business exchange with an apparent acquaintance to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do.GMs are not players. They are entertainers. While players play to live great adventures and see their character progress, the GM is working for the fun of everyone.
For example, in PFS campaign documents there's this sentence: "GMs are empowered to make descriptive adjustments to avoid topics or situations that would cause discomfort for one or more players at the table, such as phobias or other triggering material. For example, a GM could describe a group of spiders as a group of web-shooting lizards or beetles for the comfort of a player with arachnophobia."
But is there a sentence to tell players that their GM may have arachnophobia and as such their spider familiar may be best described as a beetle? I let you guess.GMs are not considered the way players are. I don't think I've ever seen a player wondering what would please his GM in game, what his GM is loving. The players are playing the game the same way spectators assist to a gig or a theater play: They are not thinking much about the pleasure of the entertainer.
So, when you say that you won't pay someone "to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do", it gives me goosebumps. Who's these others that can (and should be able to) entertain you for free?
Overall, I understand that the professionalization of a hobby generates anger. But let's be honest, the GM does all the preparatory work, buy most of the content, in general makes the organization work of gathering 6 people in his living room and handles the session. And from my experience GMs are in general a subgroup of the whole gaming group so we can't say that people are taking turn. I think if our hobby ever becomes mainstream its professionalization will happen in the blink of an eye.
AFAIK, no one is threatening the GM to play their role. Which is I believe the role they chose of their own free will. So it must bring rewards of its own, right ?
And I know players who invest a lot of time and money in this hobby. And GMs who do not.
Not to mention, that almost all players I know are sometimes GMs, so trying to oppose the two categories seems strange to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... The GM without a doubt puts in hours of their own time (and probably money as many groups also see things like adventure content as the pure purview of the GM to acquire) out of game for the benefit of the group. There is a lot of talk about unpaid emotional labour in the world where one party takes more from the other, but this isnt recognized in the player GM relationship.
Back in the day we would try to offload those burden. The GM would always get a free meal out of it or the like. Now we are fully digital it's all the same or more work (there is a lot you can do with VTTs to make the experience better) and player obligation is lower (they don't even have to put on pants.)
I feel like as more people want to play, but the work required on one person to provide the game still exists, the rise of pay to play sessions is going to be an inevitability and anyone who wants to try should be able to. Just like with all other endeavors.
This is pretty much what I think about the matter. I can easily see a viable paid GM position.
The fact of the matter is a GM will put in a huge amount of time, and funds to facilitate an experience for a group of players. There is not even a close comparison to a player's efforts. Between both time and funds, there is plenty of "space" for a paid situation.
On the player side, I can see it being a valuable option. If a player cannot find a consistent group, and/or just want a consistent quality experience for your gaming time.
As I think about it, there is probably some room for a paid player situation.
Ultimately, as I imagine it is for most of use, we'd prefer a consistent group that are all good friends, and all have the same gaming goal in mind. But often that is just not possible, therefore an alternative option (s) makes total sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to exchange money with people I game with simply because it becomes less of a fun time had with friends and more of a business exchange with an apparent acquaintance to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do.GMs are not players. They are entertainers. While players play to live great adventures and see their character progress, the GM is working for the fun of everyone.
For example, in PFS campaign documents there's this sentence: "GMs are empowered to make descriptive adjustments to avoid topics or situations that would cause discomfort for one or more players at the table, such as phobias or other triggering material. For example, a GM could describe a group of spiders as a group of web-shooting lizards or beetles for the comfort of a player with arachnophobia."
But is there a sentence to tell players that their GM may have arachnophobia and as such their spider familiar may be best described as a beetle? I let you guess.GMs are not considered the way players are. I don't think I've ever seen a player wondering what would please his GM in game, what his GM is loving. The players are playing the game the same way spectators assist to a gig or a theater play: They are not thinking much about the pleasure of the entertainer.
So, when you say that you won't pay someone "to fulfill something that others can (and should be able to) do", it gives me goosebumps. Who's these others that can (and should be able to) entertain you for free?
Overall, I understand that the professionalization of a hobby generates anger. But let's be honest, the GM does all the preparatory work, buy most of the content, in general makes the organization work of gathering 6 people in his living room and handles the session. And from my experience GMs are in general a subgroup of the whole gaming group so we can't say that people are taking turn. I think if our hobby ever becomes mainstream its professionalization will happen in the blink of an eye.
I agree and disagree at the same time.
I agree that they aren't players in the sense that they aren't limited to a single character, and they design and build and bring worlds/universes to life for other players to interact with and participate in. These are things that players can't do outside of their own character and whatever influences they can create with said character.
I disagree that they aren't players in the sense that they are an equal at the table the same as any other player is an equal to another player at said table. The fact that they are given all this extra "power" and "responsibility" is both a group decision and a personal choice. A group might decide that they want so-and-so to be GM, but it's their personal choice to accept that nomination, and vice-versa.
Just because the book gives one example doesn't mean we can just ignore the inverse of that example, as the GM's value to the table should be just as much as any other player there, and the book expresses as such multiple times in its entries.
**EDIT**
Well, I technically count, since I find GMing a fun thing to do. So would both of my brothers. I know a few other friends who can and have GM'd before to great effect, and I've had first hand experience with their performances. A couple things I wish they can do better, but I'm not dissatisfied with how they operate. These are both GMs and Players, taking turns. It doesn't take too much effort to be a GM in PF2, especially if you are already familiar with the system and your players as a whole. A professional will have this as an added gate for newcomers, and while a skilled GM will overcome this without issue, some things just can't be overcome, and when you put your wellbeing on the line, it can have negative consequences to your income.
You misunderstand the intent behind my statement. I'm not angry that someone is trying to make money being a GM. I understand that people have to pay bills and make a living one way or another. In the same vein that I'm not angry somebody is doing adult services, for example. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, especially if that's what it takes to make a living, and I disagree with it on a fundamental level. My disagreement shouldn't be taken as discouragement, but rather as a word of caution and awareness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also since when has enjoying something ever meant you shouldn't be paid for it? I enjoy the heck out of my work, childcare, but I still expect the measly pay I get for it. And its work that many people can do and do for free (although I daresay as a professional I provide a better standard than your average well meaning grandparent.) I was told throughout my life to try and find something you love and get paid to do it. GMing is no different. The only reason to be against it is, if the <1/5 of the people in the hobby actually realize they are providing more than they are taking free games might suddenly dry up.
To me, the enjoyment I get from the hobby is the payment. For others, I can understand why that isn't acceptable, because bills gotsta get paid. But I'm not one who feels the need to charge somebody for a good time.
You have to remember that while there is an initial time/effort investment for 1 group to go through a specific piece of content, the additional time to run any future groups through that content is less considerable. I don't know about r20, but for Foundry I can just make a copy of the adventure file once I've processed it for play and bam I have a clean slate of that adventure ready to take another group through. I'm sure if someone was serious about it they'd try to have daily sessions for several groups, trying to roughly keep the pace the same between them, thereby reducing the out of game time to a minimum.
Yes, it is faster to re-run previously run content, at least when its one-offs. My second table of a PFS scenario on FGC or Roll20, is only 5-10 minutes of VTT prep. and usually only 30 minutes of re-review of the content, for a PFS scenario, if its only been a couple of weeks between running -- there's always places you learn how to run better each time you run it.
However between re-running a module or an AP, there is significantly less re-prep savings -- groups move at different paces, group in a pay-to-play environment expect side stories that weave their characters back stories into the campaign. I don't think you can expect to be able to save on preparation as you get past the first 2-4 sessions of a long campaign, they will diverge. And if you don't let it diverge, I would feel you're not holding up your end of the premium GM experience.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are not considered the way players are. I don't think I've ever seen a player wondering what would please his GM in game, what his GM is loving. The players are playing the game the same way spectators assist to a gig or a theater play: They are not thinking much about the pleasure of the entertainer.
Bizarre take that makes me concerned for your gaming group honestly. Just last week my PF1 gm mentioned that "playing Pathfinder is the least interesting part of playing Pathfinder to me" (a reference to the mechanics in combat) and we initiated a discussion on moving to a different system that he'd feel more engaged in in the future.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also since when has enjoying something ever meant you shouldn't be paid for it? I enjoy the heck out of my work, childcare, but I still expect the measly pay I get for it. And its work that many people can do and do for free (although I daresay as a professional I provide a better standard than your average well meaning grandparent.) I was told throughout my life to try and find something you love and get paid to do it. GMing is no different. The only reason to be against it is, if the <1/5 of the people in the hobby actually realize they are providing more than they are taking free games might suddenly dry up.
I enjoy being a player. No reason I should not get paid for it, right?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also since when has enjoying something ever meant you shouldn't be paid for it? I enjoy the heck out of my work, childcare, but I still expect the measly pay I get for it. And its work that many people can do and do for free (although I daresay as a professional I provide a better standard than your average well meaning grandparent.) I was told throughout my life to try and find something you love and get paid to do it. GMing is no different. The only reason to be against it is, if the <1/5 of the people in the hobby actually realize they are providing more than they are taking free games might suddenly dry up.I enjoy being a player. No reason I should not get paid for it, right?
If you can find someone willing to do so, knock yourself out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also since when has enjoying something ever meant you shouldn't be paid for it? I enjoy the heck out of my work, childcare, but I still expect the measly pay I get for it. And its work that many people can do and do for free (although I daresay as a professional I provide a better standard than your average well meaning grandparent.) I was told throughout my life to try and find something you love and get paid to do it. GMing is no different. The only reason to be against it is, if the <1/5 of the people in the hobby actually realize they are providing more than they are taking free games might suddenly dry up.
Another reason is motivation. I just know I'm going to explain this poorly, but sometimes providing alternative incentives undermines motivation to do something, like when people get annoyed that someone told them to do something they were about to do anyway. "Do what you love" is decent general advice, but it can result in the reason for loving it in the first place being compromised. It's something to keep in mind, though I don't see much harm if all parties are cool with a monetary arrangement and it doesn't affect the enjoyment thereof.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can find someone willing to do so, knock yourself out.Also since when has enjoying something ever meant you shouldn't be paid for it? I enjoy the heck out of my work, childcare, but I still expect the measly pay I get for it. And its work that many people can do and do for free (although I daresay as a professional I provide a better standard than your average well meaning grandparent.) I was told throughout my life to try and find something you love and get paid to do it. GMing is no different. The only reason to be against it is, if the <1/5 of the people in the hobby actually realize they are providing more than they are taking free games might suddenly dry up.I enjoy being a player. No reason I should not get paid for it, right?
Quite right. And same for GMing.
I wonder how the people playing on cam for the social networks share the money. Does anyone get a bigger share?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
players are a near infinite resource by comparison
GMs are too if you are willing to use all the tools available to find them. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands or online message boards, chat rooms, organized play events, etc. where players and GMs exist. Finding a player or GM is only limited by the restrictions you place on them.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen my friends in other areas (such as art and music) be really upset and downhearted by the prevailing attitude of "you should just do it because you love it" instead of their talents and time being valued by others. GMing is no different in that regard to me, so I cannot stand for people to make those same arguments where it is involved.
So much this.
As an artist, if someone tells me that they won't pay me because they don't want to violate my artistic integrity, it makes me actively violent. I am perfectly capable of handling my own integrity, thanks. And your "respect" for it doesn't do jack-all for my ability to pay rent or put food on my table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know almost exactly how you feel (my lady is a professional artist). I think that most players are so used to playing for free between friends, often with switching GMs, at least in my experience, that the idea of paying for it is very foreign and goes somewhat against their experience of a good time freely shared by everyone.
Not to mention that the GM often being also the host means that some players have not insignificant travel expenses (and travel time) just to come and play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think paying a GM is a perfectly reasonable thing that a group of players might do.
Though I feel like it's generally going to be a group reaching out for a GM who will prepare a game based on the players desired playstyle.
GMing is a lot of work, and truly good GMs are rare.
I haven't GM'd in a long time because the amount of work to run a game can be 10 hours of preparation followed by 6-8 hours of gaming on the game day. I simply don't have that kind of commitment available to me. Thankfully, I have friends who still enjoy GMing, and they run games using pre-written APs which probably require just an hour or 2 or reading the material before running the game. But it's still a level of commitment that not everyone can handle.
That said, I'm okay with a website saying you can't advertise your paid GMing services on their site, which I think is what prompted this thread in the first place.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking on this further, and riffing from RD’s somewhat hilarious “what’s wrong with capitalism” quote, what if we were, hypothetically, to see a huge rise in pay-to-play, where the entire echelon of disproportionately under-applauded and under-appreciated slave-GMs rose up and discovered their net worth.
Would folks be happy if they couldn’t find a free game easily?
Would there be a need for a Union or Association to set fees based on...what? Quantitative experience hours? Qualitative roleplay evaluation? Funny Voice Quotient?
Would GM’s who offer free games be:
a) in trouble with the GMUnion for undercutting the system?
b) undermining any kind of Association rules and regulations, standards etc?
c) understandably upset that they aren’t getting paid or that mercantile GMs created an unsafe world in which creativity was further commodified?
And finally, in a world of vast inequality, how does pay-to-play interact with distinct, real, tacit socio-economic inequalities? Do we need, as a hobby with roots as they are, need more barriers for gamers to hurdle...or less? Because that is what’s wrong with capitalism. It lets the market decide, and the market is completely, utterly benignly Neutral (Evil). It cares for nothing except its own continuation at the peril of all else.
I guess, money changes everything. If you don’t agree you are mistaken. The only thing that matters is how you view the change, and how much you are willing to accept.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s a mixed bag and money can make people do and expect certain things. If you do charge there needs to be clear expectations on both sides. What am I paying for, what am I expecting out of this, what is the money paying for.
GMing takes a lot of time and considerable resources. With the pandemic and going to a VTT there are additional expenses. R20 you have to buy the books all over in some cases because to do everything by hand, is a nightmare. The other virtual tables come withstand cost also.
The prep work and cost for a regular live paper and pencil game is less For PCs, a VTT game takes only a little more effort. For a GM it’s been a steep learning curve for me with the real life things that we each have to manage. .
I’m biting the bullet to keep the Community alive in my area but It gets frustrating when nobody else wants to step up and help out.