Why is there so much disdain for pay to play GMs?

[mrspaghetti]

Docflem wrote:

Hmmm, I dont think capitalism and gravity are all that similar, seeing how one is an intrinsic property of the universe and therefore trillions of years old and would exist with or without humans and the other is arguably 600 years old, not even practiced in every country in the world, is created by humans, and practiced differently all over the place.

Just cause something is old(ish) doesn't make it a law of physics and doesn't make it right.

Besides that, GMing is still playing a game and while some people get paid millions to play games, that's entirely based said games ability to be sold as an entertainment product to people not playing. Also, while most of the time people are paid differently based on their roles, I doubt you could get away with making most of the players pay and only one (no matter how hard they work) getting paid.

GMing for pay and critical role are only similar on a surface level, especially since the players arnt paying Matt, they are absolutely friends having a good time together, and the product being sold is being sold to an audience for basically free (supported by ads and donations)

Supply and demand are absolutely operative in every country, and also were operative everywhere before there were countries. It is not created by humans, it is simply a consequence of limited resources. Where there are laws or conventions that attempt to ration scarce resources, if those rules defy a significant supply-demand imbalance then they will be ignored or circumvented.

BTW, if you read Freakonomics you will note that even animals partake in resource rationing, not so unlike humans as you might expect.

This isn't politics, it's economics. I'm not arguing that nothing can be done and nobody should try to influence things, I just think anger at "capitalism" is totally unproductive and misplaced. It's not right or wrong, anymore than gravity is right or wrong. That was my point.

[Docflem]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Docflem wrote:

Hmmm, I dont think capitalism and gravity are all that similar, seeing how one is an intrinsic property of the universe and therefore trillions of years old and would exist with or without humans and the other is arguably 600 years old, not even practiced in every country in the world, is created by humans, and practiced differently all over the place.

Just cause something is old(ish) doesn't make it a law of physics and doesn't make it right.

Besides that, GMing is still playing a game and while some people get paid millions to play games, that's entirely based said games ability to be sold as an entertainment product to people not playing. Also, while most of the time people are paid differently based on their roles, I doubt you could get away with making most of the players pay and only one (no matter how hard they work) getting paid.

GMing for pay and critical role are only similar on a surface level, especially since the players arnt paying Matt, they are absolutely friends having a good time together, and the product being sold is being sold to an audience for basically free (supported by ads and donations)

Supply and demand are absolutely operative in every country, and also were operative everywhere before there were countries. It is not created by humans, it is simply a consequence of limited resources. Where there are laws or conventions that attempt to ration scarce resources, if those rules defy a significant supply-demand imbalance then they will be ignored or circumvented.

BTW, if you read Freakonomics you will note that even animals partake in resource rationing, not so unlike humans as you might expect.

This isn't politics, it's economics. I'm not arguing that nothing can be done and nobody should try to influence things, I just think anger at "capitalism" is totally unproductive and misplaced. It's not right or wrong, anymore than gravity is right or wrong. That was my point.

"Supply and demand" is not a law and depending on who you study, even if you study only capitalism based economics, its not even defined the same way. No one has proven a universal relationship between supply and demand and economics is by far the SOFTEST "science" there is. Capitalism, specifically neoliberal capitalism, is not an intrinsic portion of our world, no matter how much you say it is. The very fact you think it is an immutable part of the world IS political in nature.

Additionally, freaknomics is not a textbook, and while I have read the book, its word is not law and I trust my (two) degrees worth of education in economics, sociology, and political science over a singular pop-economic book.

You know who else was an economist? Argubaly the most famous? Thats right, old Marx himself. Funny that you really never cover his material in undergrad level economics classes, I wonder what perfectly non-political reason thats for?

[mrspaghetti]

Docflem wrote:

stuff

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If people want to read it as hostile or whatever, then so be it.

BTW, I don't personally think that truth can exist only in a textbook, nor do I think that textbooks always contain truth. Good for you with the degrees, lots of us have those. Bad form in my opinion to credential-drop like that though.

[Ruzza]

Your point was "capitalism is inevitable, gee shucks howdy, don't want to be seen as hostile" and then taking pot shots while leaving a thread. Cool, man. You do you. Just seems like

mrspaghetti wrote:

Bad form in my opinion

[Docflem]

It's bad form to point out that freakenomics is a pretty basic pop-level take on economics and that I've spent a good portion of my life studying the subject youre making sweeping generalizations about? It wasn't even an appeal to authority, the points I made stand despite me pointing out that "telling me to read *blank* basic book" is pretty insulting and unnecessary in of itself. I'm not arguing againts capitalism ubiquity because I'm uneducated or a child, in fact, I'm doing so because of the exact opposite and I'm not going to be shamed because I spent real time and effort (and yes money) working towards my expertise.

[Squiggit]

In fairness to mrspaghetti (and at the same time not supporting the overall attitude), waving your credentials around doesn't really do much to further the conversation on its own either, especially in a medium like this where anyone can make an assertion like that.

[Docflem]

Good thing I made points completely separate from my credentials and didn't just tell them to trust me cause I got a degree right?

Like I said, the credentials portion was directly related to them telling me to read a basic book on the subject. If they had said, "I got my information from this source" I would have handled the situation completely differently, but there definitely a differnt context to assuming i havnt done even the most basic reading on the subject just because my opinion differs from the status quo.

[Malk_Content]

Regardless, whether or not supply and demand is an inevitability or not, it doesn't change the facts of the current situation for RD or others who have a legitimate desire to create value from their talents.

Feasibility is debatable, desirability from people who get to have fun gaming sessions at the current socio norm of expense of another (who obviously get some value out of the arrangement even if lopsidedly) is obviously going to be low, but I think the act of charging is eminently justifiable.

All the arguments I've seen against could be levied as reasons to not expect value from any art form, yet I hope everyone here pays for their music, novels etc.

[Samurai]

If you want to do pay-to-play games, I suggest going to a site specifically for it, like link: start plating games

[Temperans]

"Hey look I can make great X, and people are saying they are willing to pay me for it. Hmm maybe I can start a business selling X?"

- Most people doing Patreon, Kickstarter, Random activities, etc.

The idea that you asking for compensation for offering you service is bad is weird, regardless of what type of economy. The whole "capitalisms bad/good" is completely irrelevant to the subject of "why do people dislike pay to play GMs".

Btw I see Pay to Ply GMs as an extension of hiring an entertainer for a party. Regardless of what the entertainer does, he should be fairly compensated for his work. Now if a person wants to GM for free because they like to do that and play with their friends, then good for them. But that is not something that people should be forcing on others.

************************

P.S. Socialism and Communism are not about free work. They are about sharing the rewards. Any success is mostly determined by how a system is run, regardless of the system.

[Docflem]

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there. If you think critical role (as one of the few examples of people getting actually paid a livable wage for playing a ttrpg) could work without the players, you dont understand the appeal of Critical Role. Besides that, critical role is art, because it's acting. The game may be the "medium" but the art comes from the collaborative story telling and the acting. No one here has explained why GMs should be compensated when the players arnt besides the fact that someone somewhere is willing to buy the product. Like, you might have made an argument why they should get paid MORE, but thats not people's problem with the idea.

Its a huge disservice to all the other artists out there to pretend like GMing isn't just one role within the game (or artform if you will)z its like arguing that comic book writers shouldn't get paid because the illustrators work so much harder and longer than they do.

Beaides all that, as others have pointed out, this isn't the time or place to turn your rant post into an unapologetic ad for a service you're selling.

P.S. No one is forcing anyone to play this game, but just cause you put work into something doesn't mean people are going to want to buy it and people expressing disdain for people trying to commodify every aspect of the human experience (down to the games we play) is not the same thing as demanding free work from artists.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Samurai wrote:

If you want to do pay-to-play games, I suggest going to a site specifically for it, like link: start playing games

Yep, RD, that definitely seems to be where you should go for pay-to-play games....

[Ruzza]

I want to note that I stated why I don't like pay-to-play GMs and not that RD shouldn't do it. Do whatever you want with your life. RD was the one who asked what the problem with capitalism was. I also am disappointed by the way that he chose to express himself, claiming to be "cancelled" when he was just asked to not run ads in a community. And for people surprised that anyone wouldn't enjoy this concept, don't forget the charge of "sell-out" applied to every artist out there, legitimate or not (yeah, I've got a bone to pick with Jeff Koons). It's not a foreign concept that people aren't always okay with commodifying certain aspects of their life.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Glad you said Jeff Koons, Ruzza. Pretty much the poster child for my disdain of entrepr....err...arghhhtist....err...shyst....um...really talented....folk.

[Matthew Downie]

Docflem wrote:

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there.

A restaurant doesn't work without customers eating the food, but the chef is the one who gets paid, because more people want to eat than want to cook. If there is a serious shortage of people willing and able to GM, that creates the possibility of people willing to pay for someone else to do it.

Docflem wrote:

No one is forcing anyone to play this game, but just cause you put work into something doesn't mean people are going to want to buy it

The complaint isn't that no-one is willing to pay for a GM. The complaint is that seeking pay is treated as unacceptable.

Docflem wrote:

people expressing disdain for people trying to commodify every aspect of the human experience (down to the games we play) is not the same thing as demanding free work from artists.

It's considered OK to ask for money to cook food, or perform stand-up comedy, or paint pictures, or sing, or write novels, or put on a play.

This is despite a genuine risk of money corrupting these institutions. ("If comedians are allowed to tell jokes for money, soon there could be a comedy union trying to prevent anyone telling jokes for free!")

It's considered bad (by some) to ask for money for GMing, for sex, or for writing mods for games. These are the only three things I can currently think of that people commonly insist should only be for free.

It's a weird dividing line, is what I'm saying. I can't see a consistent rule.

[Docflem]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Docflem wrote:

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there.

A restaurant doesn't work without customers eating the food, but the chef is the one who gets paid, because more people want to eat than want to cook. If there is a serious shortage of people willing and able to GM, that creates the possibility of people willing to pay for someone else to do it.

Docflem wrote:

No one is forcing anyone to play this game, but just cause you put work into something doesn't mean people are going to want to buy it

The complaint isn't that no-one is willing to pay for a GM. The complaint is that seeking pay is treated as unacceptable.

Docflem wrote:

people expressing disdain for people trying to commodify every aspect of the human experience (down to the games we play) is not the same thing as demanding free work from artists.

It's considered OK to ask for money to cook food, or perform stand-up comedy, or paint pictures, or sing, or write novels, or put on a play.

This is despite a genuine risk of money corrupting these institutions. ("If comedians are allowed to tell jokes for money, soon there could be a comedy union trying to prevent anyone telling jokes for free!")

It's considered bad (by some) to ask for money for GMing, for sex, or for writing mods for games. These are the only three things I can currently think of that people commonly insist should only be for free.

It's a weird dividing line, is what I'm saying. I can't see a consistent rule.

Your players are not the customers, they are more accurately analogous to the wait staff and the GM is the cook. Again in all your other examples the customer line is clear, there is no (or very little) labor expected out of the customer, only money. Players are just as responsible for telling the group story as the GM, at certain point arguably more so, so your points don't work.

Again, just to be clear, GMs are PLAYING the game too, they are not refs, they are not the sole artists or creators of the art, they are not chefs feeding wholly uninvolved customers, they are an equal participate in the game, just like the "players."

P.S. I would also be way more supportive if the buisness plan wasn't to use the rules, materials, and stories from other creators to create this "for pay GM" system. In my opinion most of the artistic work was already done by someone else who is getting paid only a tiny chunk of what you seek to reap, seems like pure rent seeking to me.

[SuperBidi]

Docflem wrote:

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there.

Considering that the work as a GM is the same than the "work" as a player is disingenuous. If someone asks me money to play at my games, I'll just laugh. If someone asks me money to GM, I'll understand.

Overall, I have no issue with GMing for free (that's what I do and I'm fine with it) and I'm also fine with people having negative reactions towards pay to play GMs.

What makes me react is when people imply that GM's work is not one worth paying for.

Docflem wrote:

Players are just as responsible for telling the group story as the GM, at certain point arguably more so, so your points don't work.

If a player at my table ask me to thank him because he's the reason I'm having fun he'll be expelled quite quickly. I don't expect praise but at least basic recognition of the work done. At the end of every sessions I play I always thank the GM for the work he's done to make the game happen.

[Docflem]

Who's asking who for thanks? Like, you added that stuff all on your own and is not my point. Honestly, it just sounds like you dont like GMing that much. Besides that point, if everyone is learning the rules, contributing honestly to the story through their character work, everyone's pitching in for books AND your using a pre-written adventure and you think the workload divide is that terrable, then I don't know what to tell ya.

In my group, even though I dont GM regularly I still build all the terrain and props and work as the back up rules "knower," one of our players does all the character/world building illustrations, when we play unique worlds we all contribute by building the culture and environment our characters come from, others buy snacks and organize and manage timing. In the end the GM does more "work" but not by that much and I can tell you, its quite rewarding when it clicks. I mean, I've thanked my players for particularly good acting and roleplaying before.

[SuperBidi]

Docflem wrote:

Besides that point, if everyone is learning the rules, contributing honestly to the story through their character work, everyone's pitching in for books AND your using a pre-written adventure and you think the workload divide is that terrable, then I don't know what to tell ya.

I mostly GM PFS (so, pre-written adventures that I have even played). I spend in general around 4 hours between reading the adventure, preparing the Roll20 table, working on monster tactics and "visualizing" the adventure (I don't know how to describe that better). When the game starts, I'm always a little nervous. During the game, I'm doing my best to handle everyone's expectations, give every characters their moment to shine, follow the 4-5 hours timeline and end the game. After the session, I'm tired (and not just because it's often 1AM).

As a player, I need 20 minutes at most to work on my character and export it to the game. I sit at my laptop and have fun playing, the only stress I can feel is the good one given by the adventure. Sometimes, I can even do a second thing at the same time like listening to music or answering to an email.

I have hard time considering that the workload is divided equally. Actually, I even have hard time considering the workload is divided.
So, it looks like it's different in your group but I think your group is the exception (and you even say the GM is still doing more work than the players).

[Ravingdork]

Docflem wrote:

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there. If you think critical role (as one of the few examples of people getting actually paid a livable wage for playing a ttrpg) could work without the players, you dont understand the appeal of Critical Role. Besides that, critical role is art, because it's acting. The game may be the "medium" but the art comes from the collaborative story telling and the acting. No one here has explained why GMs should be compensated when the players arnt besides the fact that someone somewhere is willing to buy the product. Like, you might have made an argument why they should get paid MORE, but thats not people's problem with the idea.

Its a huge disservice to all the other artists out there to pretend like GMing isn't just one role within the game (or artform if you will)z its like arguing that comic book writers shouldn't get paid because the illustrators work so much harder and longer than they do.

Beaides all that, as others have pointed out, this isn't the time or place to turn your rant post into an unapologetic ad for a service you're selling.

P.S. No one is forcing anyone to play this game, but just cause you put work into something doesn't mean people are going to want to buy it and people expressing disdain for people trying to commodify every aspect of the human experience (down to the games we play) is not the same thing as demanding free work from artists.

My clients are the players themselves. They pay me for the entertainment services I provide to them.

Critical Role's clients aren't the players, but their many viewers, patrons, and advertising partners. They are the ones who pay Critical Role, not the players. And yes, I'm sure the Critical Role players (more actors than players if you ask me) are likely compensated for their bringing entertainment value to their respective clients.

It is clearly a comparison of apples and oranges. We may be dying similar things, but we have different setups, different goals, and different clients.

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Samurai wrote:

If you want to do pay-to-play games, I suggest going to a site specifically for it, like link: start playing games

Yep, RD, that definitely seems to be where you should go for pay-to-play games....

That all sounds very much like "get to the back of the bus, where you belong" to me.

In any case I want to make it very clear that I ONLY advertised in LFG groups where premium games were explicitly allowed at the time of my posting. Up until people started being rude to me, I was very respectful of various communities' rules. But now, after how some have treated me, some of those communities have lost my respect for them.

Watery Soup wrote:

Are you sure that asking people to pay you to GM is a good way for you to make money?

Yes and no. If I can get two small groups going for weekly games, then I can meet my family's most immediate and important needs. That still leaves me without health insurance and a number of other important necessities, however, so this is looking like it will only ever be a side gig.

In general, I've always had more success in games with online acquaintances or with strangers at conventions. When there isn't a long history of friendship, people tend to be more reserved, polite, and respectful. Long time friends and family, on the other hand, often have a better understanding of what they can and cannot get away with, and so are for more likely to push the limits of those boundaries.

[Watery Soup]

Ravingdork wrote:

Up until people started being rude to me, I was very respectful of various communities' rules. But now, after how some have treated me, some of those communities have lost my respect for them.

Real world, meet Ravingdork. Ravingdork, meet the real world.

How you respond to being treated badly is going to determine your market price.

If you're going to flip out every time someone is rude to you, or every time you're wronged, you're not going very far.

What you see from heavily curated programs like GCP is not what happens. And you can bet that Joe and Troy have some pretty epic fights (with each other and with the rest of the cast) that don't make it to air. Their commercial success is underpinned by (a) a willingness to eat a bunch of s@~& to get things done, and (b) a friendship that predates their commercial RPG experience.

If you can't keep your cool when someone tells you you're posting in the wrong forum ... what are your expectations for being able to get through a notoriously deadly AP with all the players feeling like they got their money's worth?

[Ravingdork]

Watery Soup wrote:

If you can't keep your cool when someone tells you you're posting in the wrong forum ... what are your expectations for being able to get through a notoriously deadly AP with all the players feeling like they got their money's worth?

I did not lose my cool when I posted in the wrong forum. I didn't realize that there was a LFG subreddit at the time. Honest mistake. When it was pointed out to me, I simply moved my post to the proper location.

The next day, my post in the LFG subreddit was deleted and the rules changed.

When I asked what prompted that change, I was met with vitriol.

I have not posted in that community since.

I'm sure I could have let it go (by not posting about the experience here), and I'm sure my endeavors would be better for it, but I don't think it is something that should so casually dismissed as "whining" or "losing one's cool." To do so is to demean and/or devalue the plight of all of the other premium GMs who are having to fight similar uphill battles against unwarranted and unproked toxicity.

Even this thread was not about acting out, but about bringing attention to what I perceive to be an ongoing and growing problem, and about getting some understanding about why the problem exists in the first place.

[Krugus]

TBH all good GM's are always paid.... in the form of snacks!

Good Luck to your endeavor's RD!

[mrspaghetti]

Ravingdork wrote:

If I can get two small groups going for weekly games, then I can meet my family's most immediate and important needs.

Regardless of the social acceptability of pay-to-GM, if you're really struggling to meet the basic needs of your family, this is not what I'd suggest as a solution.

[Ravingdork]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

If I can get two small groups going for weekly games, then I can meet my family's most immediate and important needs.

Regardless of the social acceptability of pay-to-GM, if you're really struggling to meet the basic needs of your family, this is not what I'd suggest as a solution.

Not a solution, just a bandaid. A stop-gap measure I hope to keep going as a side gig even after I find work.

Funnily enough, it was several friends who recommended it.

[The Raven Black]

I hope you find a good revenue with this and a more durable one soon too.

And from what I could see from your first post, the way you were treated was appalling. You have my sincere sympathy for this.

We have a saying in France : Money wounds are not lethal. I can attest that it is true, even when things look desperate sometimes. The wheel will keep on rolling and put you back up.

[Reckless]

Yeah, anything that happens on the internet is going to have detractors who feel relatively immune to the need for social nicities and norms of good communication.

The best thing to do is work at cultivating those with a positive attitude towards your endeavors and not waste time and effort in attempts at persuading detractors whom are unlikely to respond with understanding and a willingness to learn.

[Sapient]

Ravingdork wrote:

That all sounds very much like "get to the back of the bus, where you belong" to me.

Let's not compare social media sites regulating advertisements to segregation. Thanks.

[Freehold DM]

Not a fan of pay to play DMs or Critical Role(we're not acting. We don't have a script. We swear.) That said, if you can find a way to make it work, go for it. Money is tight all around. But I could see things going very very wrong very very quickly, despite your computer like knowledge of the rules. This is something that would be very hard to come up with a set rate for, and even harder to come up with ways of dealing with issues for.

[Erpa]

I, for one, am all about paid GMs. I'm mad I didn't try for it first!

While there is PFS, Adventure League, LCS Lfg, roll 20 and fantasy grounds, there will still be other people who will say "I don't want to go that route."

And even with so many resources online to learn a game, that's a big ask to take on that challenge, especially if that person or group learn it's not for them.

I had briefly thought about trying it in this last year.I love the game,I love to DM. My own group is a bunch of guys who are all married with kids, like me, and just couldn't make it work as much. I ultimately cost not to because of losing evening time with my own family.

But if people want to be treated to a fantasy TTG, and really want someone else to do all the heavy lifting of knowing the rules, teaching the game, and make it enjoyable, and will pay, then have at it I say!

[Henro]

If I were to run paid games, any "reasonable" price I were to set would be a rather low rate for my time and effort. And the downsides are unreasonable to me - it would completely shift the dynamic between me and my players and it would add a lot of stress to the hobby for me.

However, I do have my players join in to pay for certain equipment, like any APs we run and certain types of software we can all use (most recently FoundryVTT). I don't think this is necessarily payment for a service, but more so a way to distribute the burden of investment the GM makes into the game.

As for the topic at hand. I hardly think it's unreasonable for communities to not want people to advertise paid games, even in lfg. Some communities may not want the promotion of any paid service/product without approval, and that's their prerogative. Paid games are inherently a different player/GM relationship compared to a non-paid game, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the two to be viewed/treated the same way in every community.

[Rub-Eta]

So, to address the title-question, (I might repeat what has already been said in the thread, because I'm not reading three pages. I saw some mean-spirited takes very early and I want to spare myself but also offer my simple opinion).

I think it's good to see it from other people's perspective and remember that there may be different perspectives in the same camp:

From the sub-reddit moderators' perspective, I don't think it's a hateful reason why they removed your threads and changed the rules. *I think* it's purely that your posts made them realized that they had to take a stance on the matter, of letting people advertise a specific kind of paid services on the sub-reddit or not. And they chose to discourage it. Not to thwart you or any other legitimate DMs. But to completely remove any chance of anyone abusing the sub-reddit as a platform - if it is normalized it is much easier for people to get away with scamming or half-assing it. And I don't think there is a real, feasible way of controlling who is and isn't a legitimate, professional pay-for-play DM.
(Not sure if they allow art-commission advertisement, but in those cases it's very easy to assess the skill and style of an artist ((assuming they provide a portfolio)) which also makes the process more self-moderating, since people won't pay for lousy art or style they don't like).
*I think* the moderators just want to save themselves a ton of problems with having to deal with the aftermath of possible (inevitable) issues.

And I think they should be allowed to make that decision for the sub-reddit they moderate, because they are not being payed to moderate. They shouldn't have to take on more responsibilities, it's up to them.

---

The users on the sub-reddit who spewed vitriol at you (and some of them may also be moderators, I don't know); I think they're just uninformed, narrow-minded (or possibly just unwell) people who can't restrain themselves from typing negative things.
There is, sadly, a very strange mind-set among a lot of people online (well, I guess they have the same mind-set offline as well, but it's shown online more) where they can't distinguish between "making a living" and "greedy scalpers", especially when it comes to people making a living in creative fields (like art, game development and DMing, in this case, etc). The satisfaction of creating should be enough to sustain oneself, apparently. I suppose it comes from them seeing it as a commodity, when it's actually a luxurious service when provided by an experienced professional.

---

From my perspective, I just don't see why I would pay for a DM when I have my playgroup with decent and good DMs.
But that's just my *opinion*. Don't let that stop anyone.