I wish you luck, but you may want to reconsider your business model. Unless you are an absolute rock-star GM, on the level of Jason Bulmahn, Chris Perkins or maybe the Dungeon Bastard, players are not going to be willing to pay anywhere near $60/month for the privilege of playing in your game when they can literally play for free at a thousand other tables. Its not a matter of valuing your time or minimum wage, etc. Its a matter of what players are willing to pay for their hobby. I think most of us would love to be able to earn a living from playing games, but that is largely a luxury reserved for professional athletes and the top-tier creative writing talent. If just anyone could do it, we would.
Except that $10-15 per game does seem to be the standard, and lots of people DO pay it.
I haven't heard of too many PtP GMs earning more than that unless they were hosting for celebrities or were insanely good (or both).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A commercial transaction PtP is a very different thing from a game with friends around a table. (And even games around a table with friends often fall apart before completing an AP).
People are paying you for a service, and when they don't want to, they stop. Maybe there's a weak session or some content they don't like. Maybe somebody else is running a game cheaper, or better. Maybe their own finances are an issue. Maybe their life gets busy. Maybe their family needs them.
But if you stopped going to a bakery you liked, you probably wouldn't lose any sleep over doing so. I doubt you'd go in to explain why. If you stopped watching a TV show because it didn't interest you enough to make the time any more, you wouldn't write to the creators to tell them why. If your hairdresser gave you a cut you didn't like, you might just walk off without telling them, particularly if the relationship is a short one.
If you're operating successfully enough to GET eleven players for multiple sessions, it's unlikely there's something fundamentally wrong with your GMing. More likely people are just walking away from a transactional relationship when they're done with their half of it.
Really, the only fix you've got is to either run shorter adventures if the important part for you is completing them from start to finish, or become such a famous rockstar GM there's hot competition for play spots and nobody wants to drop out.
I wish you luck, but you may want to reconsider your business model. Unless you are an absolute rock-star GM, on the level of Jason Bulmahn, Chris Perkins or maybe the Dungeon Bastard, players are not going to be willing to pay anywhere near $60/month for the privilege of playing in your game when they can literally play for free at a thousand other tables. Its not a matter of valuing your time or minimum wage, etc. Its a matter of what players are willing to pay for their hobby. I think most of us would love to be able to earn a living from playing games, but that is largely a luxury reserved for professional athletes and the top-tier creative writing talent. If just anyone could do it, we would.60 bucks a month per player is a lot. I can see why some of them might not have been able to afford it.Not even minimum wage for the GM when you account for prep time as well as game time, plus expenses.
Your mileage may vary, of course, but my experiences as a player who wanted to get into online TTRPGs are generally pretty horrid. It was with 5e mostly, though, but I doubt it's much different anywhere else.
I've been in a total of two campaigns that lasted more than a couple months. Most (and that's a double digit number) fizzled out after 1-2 games, a month at best. DMs ghosted, DMs resigned, players fought with each other or quit. Chancing upon a good, stable game requires luck. And first you need to actually get into one - public games tend to have at least 5 hopefuls for 1 spot.
Simply put, if you have enough money to spend on your hobby and want a stable game with like-minded players and a DM that won't vanish, you look for a premium game (if that sounds like cheap advertisement, I apologize). My games are in the 12-18$ range. I have almost 30 players at the moment, some playing in more than one campaign. I'm no celebrity, last I checked, and I'm based in Europe, so I'm not even doing the hottest hours of yankee evenings. I've also seen DMs charge 20-25$ and filling their seats. So the market is definitely there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Professional GMing is a job that falls in the "Entertainment" field. You're selling your personal charm and skills to create an envirment that leaves people feeling better. So in some sense, your business is in competition with all the movies, books, TV, sports, and any other 'consumable media' that people turn to when they want to be amused. You're even in competition with 'going out with friends' in terms of how people choose to spend their money and their time.
If you just focus on the target market of "people who want to play D&D type games" (which is still much bigger than "people who want to play Pathfinder" ) you face another kind of competition: the number of GMs who offer their time and services for free. So, even if someone has decided to spend their entertainment 'time budget' on ttRPGs, you'll need to provide an entertaining experience that is so significantly better than what they get for free, that they also decide to spend part of their entertainment 'money budget' on playing with you.
And even if someone decides to hire a storyteller to tell stories with a small group of people, they're going to look for someone they can relate to. "They're just not that in to you" is real, even if you're very talented. Would you hire a folk band if all your friends like rap?
If you want people to pay you, you're going to have to entertain them so well that they want to come back again and again. People want to have fun when they spend time with you. It's more than knowing the rules and showing up on time. It's the energy and atmosphere that you create that makes that time and money expenditure worthwhile.
It's really, really hard to make a living in the entertainment field.
Can you link to a public recruitment post or something that people can critique?Sure.
And here's a critique of that page:
It's full of rules and rules enforcement. How about rewriting it so that it's full of excitement and fun?
There's not much on that page that shouts "More fun than going out with my friends!" "More entertaining than paying for a movie to stream at home!"
In fact, there's not much about fun anywhere on that page.
I'm no celebrity, last I checked, and I'm based in Europe, so I'm not even doing the hottest hours of yankee evenings. I've also seen DMs charge 20-25$ and filling their seats. So the market is definitely there.
When you think about it, it's cheaper than a movie ticket to have fun for twice as long as most most movies' runtimes.
Can you link to a public recruitment post or something that people can critique?Sure.And here's a critique of that page:
It's full of rules and rules enforcement. How about rewriting it so that it's full of excitement and fun?
There's not much on that page that shouts "More fun than going out with my friends!" "More entertaining than paying for a movie to stream at home!"
In fact, there's not much about fun anywhere on that page.
I'll take that under advisement. I primarily cobbled it together based on what other seemingly successful GMs seemed to be saying and on what I thought I could realistically provide to the players.
I wonder if there might be a better market for higher level games. If I'm playing with a group of newbie friends with little system knowledge or investment, starting at level 1 makes a lot of sense. Especially if it is a group I can count on to stay together.
But if someone wants to play Pathfinder specifically enough to pay for it, I bet they know the game and would be eager to try out higher level builds. Which is another mark against starting with APs.
Chancing upon a good, stable game requires luck.
I don't fully agree. I think the old Pasteur quote, "Chance favors the prepared mind," applies here.
Whether an individual, random game in isolation works out is mostly luck. But what happens long-term is not random. Let's say you're the GM when a player flakes. How you respond to that affects all the players remaining. If you're the type to badmouth the player that left, the remaining players will wonder what you're going to say about them when they leave. If you think [too much] about the 19 people who cycled short-term through your campaign and don't think at all about the 1 person who stuck with you the whole way through, you're kind of missing the big picture: that 1 person constitutes 25% of your next long-term game.
It's not just a numbers game, it's also about cultivating relationships with the people that have - for whatever reason - decided to stick with you.
Where'd that come from? I do appreciate much of the advice being given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chancing upon a good, stable game requires luck.I don't fully agree. I think the old Pasteur quote, "Chance favors the prepared mind," applies here.
Whether an individual, random game in isolation works out is mostly luck. But what happens long-term is not random. Let's say you're the GM when a player flakes. How you respond to that affects all the players remaining. If you're the type to badmouth the player that left, the remaining players will wonder what you're going to say about them when they leave. If you think [too much] about the 19 people who cycled short-term through your campaign and don't think at all about the 1 person who stuck with you the whole way through, you're kind of missing the big picture: that 1 person constitutes 25% of your next long-term game.
It's not just a numbers game, it's also about cultivating relationships with the people that have - for whatever reason - decided to stick with you.
You're mixing things up a bit. In the part you quoted I was specifically saying about my experiences as a player in free games. Obviously, as a premium DM the whole thing is completely different. I definitely agree that cultivating relationships with my players is extremely important. That's what I'm striving to do, and possibly one of the reasons that those that stuck with me did so even with all the rotating cast around them.
I wonder if there might be a better market for higher level games. If I'm playing with a group of newbie friends with little system knowledge or investment, starting at level 1 makes a lot of sense. Especially if it is a group I can count on to stay together.
But if someone wants to play Pathfinder specifically enough to pay for it, I bet they know the game and would be eager to try out higher level builds. Which is another mark against starting with APs.
Not necessarily. A solid part of my playerbase (one third, maybe?) actually consists of first-time PF2 players who wanted to try it out.
Of course, there surely are players who'd prefer to start at higher levels. Of course, they can always fill in as replacement players, but that's never as fun as creating a fresh group.
We can rationalize this all we want. You can refute all the feedback you're getting, but here's the thing. YOU came to the message boards to ask why so many of your players leave. We are giving you reasons why we think so. Either you accept it and change your business model, or you ignore it, keep doing what you're doing and probably getting the same results. If you actually want feedback, then take it for what its worth. If you don't then why ask?
We're telling you that the rate is may too high. You say it isn't. Let's assume that is true for a moment. That means there is another reason they are leaving. If the price isn't too high than either you have had a bad string of players (something no one can fix) or you aren't particular enough with your screening process or the game does not provide enough value for the price to keep them around. You cannot run the same quality game that people can get for free at hundreds of other online tables and charge them for it just because you want to earn a living from it. Players don't owe you a living. As mentioned up thread, as a GM you are an entertainer and the vast majority of people in that field are not successful and don't make a living at it.
We all wish you luck, but strongly recommend you change your approach to this endeavor.
I don't want to be anal retentive, but Ravingdork isn't the one that started the thread (neither am I).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well — that you went through eleven people and one player stuck with you despite everything else that happened, I mean, I don't know... I'd be pretty proud, considering. So chin up!
I don't want to approach this from the whole paid gm angle because I feel that this has been done enough already, and probably will be done more. And honestly, I'm not even sure that I can offer any good advice... But I will try, anyways.
Hm... Maybe relating my own experiences might help! I've been playing on VTT for maybe four years now, if not a little more. I started on roll20 and last year migrated to Foundry. On that time, on VTT alone, I've been with two fantastic groups since then, and unfortunately also had my fair share of failed initiatives.
In my first group, we tackled War for the Crown. Ad was posted on a Facebook group, I decided try it so I applied as a player. Got in, and I have to say, we started with a wonderful group of players! Everyone liked Golarion's lore and we all made sure to really connect our characters to the struggle of the taldans of different different levels. By book 2, one of the players that interacted the most dropped out and suddenly I noticed that there were these empty pauses when the GM asked what we'd do. After a few sessions I noticed that the GM grew a little uneasy with that, trying their best to hook us in, and so I decide — as a player — to bring that up before a session. I expressed that I was going to try to be a little more active but that as a player, I tend to sometimes trip myself up on my own lines of thought when I don't stop to think the situation throug. GM got awkward and insisted that they didn't want me to have a bad time or anything :B but then I insisted that I'd rather do it anyways and I just meant to let people know about the triping over myself part in advance. I guess the other players saw what I was trying to do and they said they'd all try to be a more active, and... I dunno, since then it's been great. Finished that campaign, then finished Age of Ashes, and now I am GMing EC to them!
My second group was born out of my wish to try something different. I saw this cool game called City of Mist, bought it, and obviously wanted to run it. Found three players, one of them dropped out after sesh 0, and after our first session I wasn't... Really feeling it? They were supposed to investigate and interview this character that was pretty innocent and one of the players insisted on jumping through the witness's window and just kind of interrogating them very forcefully. They, to be clear, were a vigilante and all. And... Eeeh, I dunno. So jumping on the chance of being non-confrontional, I said that I wasn't sure if I wanted to run a game for only two players and that if in one month I didn't find another person, we wouldn't be continuing the campaign anymore.
I... Wasn't planning on doing that. Searching for another player, that is. Yeah yeah, I know... What I didn't expect was that the same vigilante going super out of their way to find me other two players, both people very "in" the geek culture: A pretty known VA and a relevant national blog writer/owner. By the way, he didn't actually know the second person: They just followed their facebook page and start pestering them about it and they didn't know how to say no lol.
Anyways, I dunno, I felt very validated by them going out of their way to find us players. VA left after a few games but blog owner stuck through, I decided to invite another person and yeah! Fun times. We've been playing for two years and have played since CoM, Masks, Vampire 5th edition, Kult: Divinity Lost, of course PF2E, Savage Worlds, Fate, and we're about to start a Cortex Prime campaign.
So, in retrospect, what do I think that really helps? I guess what jumps out the most for me is that in both cases, -> players <- went out of their way to like, help the GM out somehow. They(or we, in the first group) showed active interest in the dynamics of the group instead of being there only to roll some die, and really, it's... Obviously, it's not something that really is on your hands... But I do feel like you can try to extrapolate a little. "Would that player stick around if we changed game systems"? "Would a player play a system they are not super into if the rest showed interested, at least to try it out?", etc. Intimacy, really, and interest in the group over the game, is key here. Which might be a little difficult because of your reality, but I don't think it's impossible or anything.
Also, people have mentioned it already but I think that shorter campaigns would really help. There's a good amount of dragging on APs, with a lot of sessions where the PCs just stumble around dungeons fighting stuff and avoiding traps and while that's more than fine with a group of friends, I do feel like it's important to keep things lively and running quickly, narration-wise. It allows to introduce little twists every session, which keeps the interest on, without boggling down information too much because the game is going to be over in a few months anyways. If you are worried about the players that are sticking around — because it might not be great for them to have to start a new game often because otherwise the newbies are going to be completely lost — then honestly introducing something like a guild campaign that easily allows players to drop out if they want might work well.
Okay, I know I said I didn't want to approach this from the paid angle but — But but but! You know what I'd super pay for? And it's kind of narcissistic, but I'd be super into paying a whole group for a game where my characters gets to really be the main protagonist. You know, like the warden of Dragon Age, or stuff like that! Just to try it out.
Too bad that I'm not wealthier lmao.
I don't want to be anal retentive, but Ravingdork isn't the one that started the thread (neither am I).
Actually, you need to be just a bit more anal retentive, and figure out what main account used that alias to start the thread. :-)
That's one of Ravingdork's board aliases. And he outs himself in this post.
You can easily tell by the red letters that the name is an alias. And if you hover your cursor over the name, it will display the name of the primary account.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Travelling Sasha.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to be anal retentive, but Ravingdork isn't the one that started the thread (neither am I).Actually, you need to be just a bit more anal retentive, and figure out what main account used that alias to start the thread. :-)
That's one of Ravingdork's board aliases. And he outs himself in this post.
You can easily tell by the red letters that the name is an alias. And if you hover your cursor over the name, it will display the name of the primary account.
Recall knowledge: lore: forum critical failure. Now I have to reread the thread.
Feature indeed.
I just lost my ELEVENTH player for a single campaign. Even had to start the entire campaign over one time because three out of four players left at once and it wasn't fair to the three replacement players to not to start from the beginning.
For those of you who have run successful campaigns in VTTs, what are you doing to keep people interested and onboard to the end? What are your secrets? How on earth have you managed to make it work?
Seems to me that if you're not on the level of Matthew Mercer, Chris Perkins, or Matt Colville, then new players aren't going to take you seriously and you're just wasting everyone's time. It's depressing. It's disheartening!
How do I fix this?
Well, I don't normally DM but I play exclusively online and it's not uncommon to see a of of turn over and attrition. It's kind of the nature of the beast. Life happens and it's pretty easy to put off things that are done strictly for leisure. Someone gets a new job [or they get back to work after pandemic restrictions], has finals come up, gets married, ect. I can see it even more likely to happen when it costs money as there are a LOT of free games out there. Myself, I can't imagine paying for group with famous people in it let alone some Dm I don't know. IMO, you getting people to pay and show up at all is a win in my book. Best bet, IMO, is to keep at it and hope you get some long haulers: once you get a few players that work out, it's easier to move on if you lose some player and they might be interested in other games you run.
AD: I took a look at it and it seems fine to me. If anything I'd like MORE "rules and rules enforcement". I don't need to see "excitement and fun" in the ad as that's something you aren't going to be able to tell until you see the group and DM in action: I've seen 2 pages of excellent background in the ad for a bland game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, where graystone would like to see more about your table rules and enforcement... me seeing the included rules, and what they are, makes me feel like there's an assumption being made that players won't behave properly if not explicitly told to.
I'd be much more likely to answer a game ad that only said what the campaign's themes/mood/story would be like and what the schedule is, with zero mention of things along the lines of 'don't be a jerk, don't be late, and don't spend less money on internet and audio quality than I'd like you to" because what a person feels is worth mentioning puts a particular thought in my head about how much importance they put on things.
I'd rather it be assumed - an unwritten rule, even - that players aren't allowed to be jerks that disrespect everyone else's time or hurt everyone's ears with their tin can mic. And even rule #7 brings this up: mood is contagious, and tossing these rules in the ad is a particular kind of (in my opinion semi-antagonistic) mood.
AH, I see I wasn't very clear in my post: For myself, when I was talking rules mean rules from the game: expected levels, range of races, houserules or optional rules, rulings for ambiguous rules, ect. I can often tell if I'll like the game just by seeing how they adjudicate things. For me, the more I can tell about the game and how it runs from the ad, the better idea I have about my interest.
Things like "don't be a jerk, don't be late", ect I agree there doesn't need to be much written on that ESPECIALLY when cash is exchanged.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things like "don't be a jerk, don't be late", ect I agree there doesn't need to be much written on that ESPECIALLY when cash is exchanged.
While I agree in theory and its certainly unnecessary with people you know, it is amazing how many people either ignore or pay lip-service to what we would think are "common sense" expectations. Every time we don't remind players of the social contract in our one-shot, public games (usually org play) someone invariably does something dumb that makes other people's participation (usually the GM) more difficult. And I have lost count the number of times a person has tried to use "your event description doesn't say that so..." as an excuse for selfish and/or poor behavior. I could imagine that if someone is paying for their game, they might be even more entitled than normal. YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree in theory and its certainly unnecessary with people you know, it is amazing how many people either ignore or pay lip-service to what we would think are "common sense" expectations.
Those are the same people though that would ignore those rules in an ad so I don't find much use in it.
Every time we don't remind players of the social contract in our one-shot, public games (usually org play) someone invariably does something dumb that makes other people's participation (usually the GM) more difficult.
Reminding them does something? In my experience, if someone tends to act dumb the reminder tends go in one ear and out the other.
And I have lost count the number of times a person has tried to use "your event description doesn't say that so..." as an excuse for selfish and/or poor behavior.
If someone needs told not to be selfish and not to act poor, you have the wrong person to play with: the reminder is besides the point.
I could imagine that if someone is paying for their game, they might be even more entitled than normal.
They might, but I'd think they'd be less likely to do something to tank the game.
|
|
It just makes it easier for me to kick them from the event before it even starts. This is important for things like conventions and org play where the player may decide to escalate the issue and if you cannot demonstrate the "high ground" and them choosing not to follow instructions, it can create problems getting the support of the event organizers. I have had an organizer tell me that since I did not specifically say certain things in my event listing that I had to allow the player in my event or they were going to ban me from the event. Of course, with that type of attitude I didn't want to be involved with their event anymore anyway, but it meant that a number of players, who had signed up in good faith, were now left scrambling for replacement events because their GM wasn't being "cooperative" according to the event leadership.
Also, consider that Paizo felt it necessary to define many of these themes in the CRB and the org play rules so our assumptions that people know them and agree to them as a part of the social contract are not necessarily as obvious as we would like to think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just makes it easier for me to kick them from the event before it even starts. This is important for things like conventions and org play where the player may decide to escalate the issue and if you cannot demonstrate the "high ground" and them choosing not to follow instructions, it can create problems getting the support of the event organizers. I have had an organizer tell me that since I did not specifically say certain things in my event listing that I had to allow the player in my event or they were going to ban me from the event. Of course, with that type of attitude I didn't want to be involved with their event anymore anyway, but it meant that a number of players, who had signed up in good faith, were now left scrambling for replacement events because their GM wasn't being "cooperative" according to the event leadership.
Also, consider that Paizo felt it necessary to define many of these themes in the CRB and the org play rules so our assumptions that people know them and agree to them as a part of the social contract are not necessarily as obvious as we would like to think.
I've never seen a DM have the least bit of problem tossing someone that was a problem even though there wasn't a 'don't be a jerk' clause in the game intro.
I have had an organizer tell me that since I did not specifically say certain things in my event listing that I had to allow the player in my event or they were going to ban me from the event. Of course, with that type of attitude I didn't want to be involved with their event anymore
See, I'm with you on this one: You shouldn't need a specific 'don't be disruptive' clause and if that's an issue, it's more with the venue. When you go the the movies, they don't mention, 'hey make sure you don't bring flashlight and shine it in peoples faces in the theatre or we'll toss you out' but I'm sure they would if you do. It's sad enough they feel they have to mention to not talk and get off you darn phone. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
okay, you have me convinced, I will remove all instances of those types of information from my events. We'll see if there are any changes.
With the Gaming is for All [Core Rulebook pg. 8] section , I'd say you where already covered [it's in the rules!]. At most, I'd reference/refer to it. I'll be curious to see if it has any affect.
There's a difference between a PFS/convention ad and the type Ravingdork is putting up - in the latter case, there are multiple steps between the ad and showing up to a game.
In a publicly recruited event, people sign up and go straight to showing up. In Ravingdork's case, he can reiterate or spell out rules after they express interest but before they receive the link.
The ad doesn't need to spell out the rules because it can be done later. Ravingdork may choose to post the rules up front, but he doesn't need to in the way that PFS needs to post all the rules, very explicitly, up front.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a publicly recruited event, people sign up and go straight to showing up. In Ravingdork's case, he can reiterate or spell out rules after they express interest but before they receive the link.
The ad doesn't need to spell out the rules because it can be done later. Ravingdork may choose to post the rules up front, but he doesn't need to in the way that PFS needs to post all the rules, very explicitly, up front.
The issue can be that if you don't spell out your rules, someone like myself might not express interest to get to that second step when there are other ads that do. If I can get a handle on how a game runs, that's a LOT better than having to sit those "multiple steps between the ad and showing up to a game" to figure out if it's right for me. The more vague you are, the more people you're likely to have pass it by and the greater chance you have people jump ship after finding out it's not for them. The better you present your rules, the better it is for everyone IMO. I know I've had my fair share of games I had to hit the ejection seat on because the concept was cool but the play wasn't for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not responding to any one person in relation to the subject matter, but more to the topic of paid GMing in VTTs as a whole -- this is a subject I'm fairly passionate about for reasons I hope would be understandable.
I've been a full-time professional GM for several years now, and a GM of tabletop games in general for over two decades. I know that experience dwarfs some and is dwarfed by others, but I'm neither new to the hobby nor the oldest on the block. I've also been fairly active over that span of time, sometimes playing and running in a combination of ten sessions a week for long spans of time.
To address the matter of player retention first -- I don't think it's a big deal. I know it can be hard when you're earning your living off of it to deal with setbacks and extenuating circumstances with player attendance and departure, but in my experience that is always going to be the norm. I realize my accounts are purely anecdotal, but it doesn't matter whether you're hosting free games, paid games, any kind of games...player turnover is always going to be an issue to some extent or another. I've actually had more issues with players leaving in the private game I run for my personal friends than I have in any game I've run for pay in the past few years.
To the matter of price -- I always try to have a good handle on the market, so I frequently check what other GMs of varying quality and presentation are running for places in their games. From my perspective, your rates seem perfectly reasonable. I charge more, but I also offer what I consider a highly premium service amongst professional GMs, and routinely check on competitors to make sure I'm always offering the best quality available. I certainly don't think the price you're asking for is outrageous if you're providing GMing on par with other professional GMs in that range I've looked into...but I do think that being a professional GM of even middling quality is, as others have said, an immense amount of work. When you're running a game for free, some players might be more discontent than others if you neglect a few of the twenty or so hats a GM is expected to wear, but you either need to be proficient with most if not all of them to get by when you're selling your services, or be so outstanding in a few of them that players are willing to overlook your deficiencies and still pay, ideally marketing yourself with your best foot forward. None of this is a comment on your own skills, RD; I have no idea where you lie on the spectrum, but this is just how I see the environment. People are paying for a service and expect quality -- they want nice maps, music, tokens, acting, voices, pacing, group management, clear rules adjudication, interesting area design, world consistency, world and area lore, and so on (some of these apply more to homebrew than to running modules, but being able to do either is important if you're trying to optimize your client base; flexibility will always net you more). Not everyone wants every thing, but the other thing is that clients don't need to be reasonable in their expectations, either. You can do everything right and still lose someone who thinks they can do better for the price elsewhere even if they're wrong.
All of that said, demand for paid GMs has been absolutely insane the last few years, especially since early last year. As life continues to return to normal I expect part of that spike will decline, but even before disaster struck last year there was still a growing and significant demand for people with the skills. I think the market is still volatile, scary, and unreliable in the best of times, but it's definitely possible to make a living at it if you're willing to put in the legwork. I could certainly make more and work fewer hours at many other jobs, and honestly sometimes GMing can be a waking nightmare...but I also wouldn't have the opportunity to experience days where I can wake up at noon with all of my prep for the evening done with the knowledge that I run games for a living.