| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For every few games you're participating in (three to four say), host one. This will help to alleviate the player-to-gm disparity issue that is often talked about. If they're pay-to-play games, you can even use the money from the one you host to fund the others you play in. Tons of premium roleplay for little to no personal cost!
If everyone* did this I'm betting the problem of player/GM disparity would be much diminished, and possibly disappear entirely.
Small Scale Example: Take a five person group. Everyone's a GM and everyone is a player. Everyone gets to participate in four campaigns and is expected to host one. Tons of roleplay for everyone and no shortage of GMs. Now simply apply that to a larger scale, and watch as the hobby grows and everyone who wants it gets more play time and GMs become easier to find.
What do you think? Pros? Cons? Crazy pipedream?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as giving people inspiration to become a GM and helping people become better GMs it's hard to beat Matthew Colville's Running the Game
Running the Game.
I wonder how Matt Mercer's first game as GM went...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wife and I alternate GMing. At various points in our playing other players from the group have joined in the rotation. Unfortunately a lot of the time this really doesn't work out well for a variety of reasons.
We've got one player who likes to GM, but is extremely heavy handed on the railroading. Each session he will tell you what you are doing whether it makes sense for your characters or not. Problems have one and only one solution no matter how reasonable other ideas might be. These days he mostly runs megadungeons which are a lot better suited to his style.
Other players really don't want to put in the work. They'll cancel sessions because they didn't have enough time to prep, they'll spend half the session looking up how spells work or other stuff for encounters they prepped, etc.
And then there are situations like https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u6dd?Got-TPKd-Now-what#1
If someone doesn't have the desire to GM, they either won't or the job will be worse than having no GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One idea I had where everyone took turns at being the GM was to have each player GM one location in the setting like one kingdom each, as the adventures moved from kingdom to kingdom, the GM would switch to who had created that kingdom for the setting. Each kingdom this way would likely not only have a different feel due to its contents, but all so the play style of the GM of each kingdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One idea I had where everyone took turns at being the GM was to have each player GM one location in the setting like one kingdom each, as the adventures moved from kingdom to kingdom, the GM would switch to who had created that kingdom for the setting. Each kingdom this way would likely not only have a different feel due to its contents, but all so the play style of the GM of each kingdom.
Expanding on that. Another campaign theme that shares the burden of GM is an adventuring guild. All of the players have one (or sometimes more) PCs in the guild. The jobs that they take become episodic and GM'ed by one of the players. The non-GM players then take their character (or pick one of them) to go on this particular adventure.
The problem with that is leveling up the characters uniformly. PF2 does not deal well with characters of noticeably different level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not many people like DMing, especially an entire campaign. They find it hard to run games and don't like dealing different player personalities and abilities that cause friction. They also have trouble learning the rules for all classes and possible options.
DMing is a different mindset than playing. You have to make sure you start with a group that will let a DM learn and develop their style and enjoy their style to be sure they don't ruin their early DM experience and scare them off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good players don't nessisarily make good GM's and vice versa. I have had many people I like playing with but hate it when they try and GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I'm with a group of players for an extended time, I'm always trying to cultivate GMing skills/interest in the other players. I feel like given a sufficiently supportive environment, I can encourage people to "just give it a try" (it doesn't need to be something as mechanically complex as Pathfinder, since that's extra daunting; "Roll for Shoes" is fine.) It doesn't need to be 1/nth of the total GMing burden, it can just be a one shot, but I think encouraging people to think about what is involved in running the game, building the story, etc. helps make them better players and some of them might decide they like it or at least occasionally have an idea bouncing around that they'd like to run. If nothing else, an in-depth understanding of "how much work being the GM can be" creates more conscientious players who are more fun to have at your table when you're GMing.
Evangelizing "try being the GM" is sort of important for keeping the hobby healthy, but it shouldn't be a quid pro quo or an expectation or a requirement or anything. If you force someone to do something, odds are they're going to resent it.
A lot of the core GMing skills like active listening, improvisational flexibility, sharing the spotlight, etc. are just as useful when you're playing, after all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree never good to force someone to GM
But if you got a group that wants to try everyone getting GM how about starting really small like every on brings a Bounty to the game. using really short adventures like Bounty you might even get to have 2 or 3 people GM in one night, which would take off the pressure for new GMs from having run longer games, and if someone is struggling at GM it wont ruin the whole session, while giving then a chance to try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another campaign theme that shares the burden of GM is an adventuring guild.
And yes, I am aware that this is basically the premise of Pathfinder Society. It is painfully obvious an interesting coincidence that the same design constraints lead to the same or similar design.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I never said to force anybody into anything.
We rotate GMing. The GM also gets to choose the game system and the virtual platform.
But some of our players just do not have the time or energy to GM, so we respect that. It works well enough anyway.
There are two other GM's at my main table and somehow I still end up as the main GM. And I don't even think I am the best GM other than always having something to run even if it is mostly improv.
There are so many factors in being able to have a functioning table that I think this only works for people who only tabletop game as a hobby.
The other GM's at my table one lives 2 hours away and the other has 3 kids, so it just doesn't work for them most of the time. The one with three kids is one of the best GM's I have ever played under that consistently had fun with 3 of the players who often but heads so don't play at the same table anymore.
So would I like to be able to rotate and play more? Yes. Will it happen no. Do I think this would help the hobby as a whole. Not really I have met several amazing players but know for a fact that they couldn't run a table to save their life.
|
|
It's certainly a good way to spread the load, many GMs don't do it because they love GMing more than playing, they do it because they love roleplaying with their friends more than not doing so.
It doesn't even have to be a campaign, start with something short if you're not sure you'll be good/like GMing (Society Bounties or Scenarios are perfect for this), then try a Module if that goes well, if you enjoy it maybe do an AP some time, if not but it's still something you don't hate... offer to run shorter stuff now and then so your forever GM gets to play. Long enough of always having to GM can result in burnout for even the most tolerant GMs, and then no-one has a game.
Long story short, even if you think you may not enjoy it or bad at it, give it a try, your forever GM will appreciate you doing so and you might just find it's fun!
You have to make sure you start with a group that will let a DM learn and develop their style and enjoy their style to be sure they don't ruin their early DM experience and scare them off.
This, some of the worst GMing horror stories I have heard/seen are to do with GMs who have stopped because if other GMs in the group being dicks and or thinking trial by fire is a valid approach and not just ego stroking bullshit.
It seemed to be the biggest issue with GMs I know who subscribed to "3.5 is fine baalance wise. Because anything unbalanced the players make can be used against them or countnered" line of thought. Anagonistic adversarial mindset and missing the point as a GM and as a player.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think a lot more people should give it a few tries. It's fine to try it a few times and discover it's not really your thing. But I also see a lot of people who think the bar is set super high and you have to be a grand wizard of rules and stage effects to be able to run an enjoyable afternoon game.
I mean, I got started when I was 12 and it never really occurred to me that there might be expectations like that. Do you think I did it perfectly from the start? Of course not. So what.
When I was 12, I had a much lower bar for how I'd spend my leisure time. Now I can think of a dozen things I'd rather do than play in a campaign run by a GM who doesn't really know what they're doing.
The idea isn't new. I've heard of a foreverGM discord server where each player starts with about 5 points. Every time you're the player in a session, you pay one point to the GM. If you're out, you need to GM a session yourself to refill your points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was 12, I had a much lower bar for how I'd spend my leisure time. Now I can think of a dozen things I'd rather do than play in a campaign run by a GM who doesn't really know what they're doing.
Yeah, adults have an uncanny ability to make everything suck.
The idea isn't new. I've heard of a foreverGM discord server where each player starts with about 5 points. Every time you're the player in a session, you pay one point to the GM. If you're out, you need to GM a session yourself to refill your points.
Cool!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea isn't new. I've heard of a foreverGM discord server where each player starts with about 5 points. Every time you're the player in a session, you pay one point to the GM. If you're out, you need to GM a session yourself to refill your points.
Isn't that forcing people to GM ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea isn't new. I've heard of a foreverGM discord server where each player starts with about 5 points. Every time you're the player in a session, you pay one point to the GM. If you're out, you need to GM a session yourself to refill your points.Isn't that forcing people to GM ?
It's an opt-in experience - that's the whole point of the server. Still a little wacky and I think you'd be hard pressed to get anything but 5e out of it but.