Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As said here, Paizo supports those who GM for a living and in our new forums will have a section for those DMs to advertise sessions. A lot of you had many thoughts on the matter, so please share and discuss here rather than someone's personal ad post!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would I pay for a GM service? No. Do I sometimes wish my players would throw me some money for the extra overhead I incur from having to purchase extra materials? Yes. Does it hurt me to have other people try to make money from it? No.
I have no issues with the linked post or others like it. Just so long as it doesn't overcrowd the non-professional recruitments.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find paid GMs extremely distasteful and against the spirit of playing and running roleplaying games. I would never participate in a paid game, either as a paying player or charging people to play as a GM.
If paid GMs are finding people willing to pay, I suppose there is a market for it, so who am I to judge.
But if giving my opinion, I do not feel like this behavior of monetizing the hobby should be supported.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that there's a market for paid GMs, and I’m not here to knock anyone’s hustle - if people want to pay for games and others want to run them professionally, that’s their call. But I do have some reservations about where this trend could take the hobby in the long run.
What worries me most is the shift in how we think about GMing. When running games becomes a business, it changes the focus - from adventuring together and exploring new worlds, to delivering a product for money. That can really affect the kinds of games we see. GMs might start sticking to safe, popular adventures because they pay better, instead of trying weird, personal, or experimental stuff that might not sell as well but could be way more creative or meaningful.
It risks turning something that’s about passion and imagination into something more commercial and formulaic. And once money gets involved, it can crowd out folks who just want to play for fun, or who can’t afford to pay to sit at a table. Personally, that’s not the direction I want the hobby to go.
I’m also not totally comfortable with Paizo putting its stamp of approval on this shift - if we start building official infrastructure around paid games, it kind of feels like we’re turning what used to be a shared hobby into a service industry.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to run or join paid games. But I think it’s worth taking a step back and asking what we might lose if the whole scene drifts too far in that direction.
|
I GMs might start sticking to safe, popular adventures because they pay better, instead of trying weird, personal, or experimental stuff that might not sell as well but could be way more creative or meaningful.
It is an incredibly small sample set but I'm on a Mutants and Masterminds discord server on which professional GMs advertize from time to time.
They are definitely NOT sticking to safe stuff, they're definitely offering at least some fairly weird stuff
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice initiative Maya, it is good to be welcome to share ideas and opinions.
I’ll just repost what I said in the linked thread:
The commodification of an RPG experience whereby one person is paid for their participation and the rest are not completely changes what was a social contract between a group of people into a commercial contract between an entrepreneur and customers.As a person who has been the forever DM in all the groups I have been in…forever (except PbP) I am entirely cognizant of the “work” that goes into running a game. And sure, if you are supplying VTT externalities etc then you will of course incur overheads. And I understand that there definitely are players that a) want games b) are prepared to pay for them and c) are happy to easily find them.
It still turns a hobby into a commercial exchange with all of the concomitant negative impacts that the exchange of capital entails. It promotes a financial burden that poorer players cannot afford; it changes the social contract of trust into something else entirely; it changes the value-proposition necessarily of those DMs who choose not to engage in Pay-to-Play; and it promotes “hustle culture” whereby society becomes a space for every hobby, every interest and every idea to be a shake down for cash. I find it distasteful, appalling and sad.
Clearly I’m in an extreme minority. I’m sure people play fantastic games with their paid-for GMs. But I can’t just sit here without tilting at the windmills of capitalism.
I guess I would also echo Albion’s comments around the reduction of creativity that often results from commodification - sure, economic stimulus *can* drive innovation, but the lessons from popular culture since radio/TV/the internet do not a tale of passion and creativity always make.
It’s likely a cultural and generational thing - I’m not into social media or intense hyperbole of advertainment so a “best sellers”/“top GMs” leaderboard style product page and attendant streaming/GMfluencers spotlight is definitely something that would tip me over the edge and I would just fade from the forum.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fear that Paizo endorsing paid GMing will result in fewer, let's say "hobby" games because calling them "free" would imply the norm is paid, hobby games being offered and less player bandwidth to fill those hobby seats.
The spotlight will be aimed at the paid games and the player population will follow the light. Hobby GMs will never be endorsed by Paizo. They will become second class GMs, looked down upon by players as the culture is shifted and influenced by money and the attention Paizo pays to those games. The culture will become intolerable of absences, delays, and the interruptions of life that hobbiest deal with when trying to play a rather time consuming game in their free time.
However, this thread clearly isn't a solicitation of thoughts but rather a diversion from the derailment of an advertisement thread. Honestly, the apparent fervor with which Paizo came to the defense of an advertisement post suggests a lot about Paizo's plans for the new forum.
Thinking about it further, proponents of the pay-to-play model might contend that greater safeties might ensue from a contractually obliged agreement bound by financial exchange - that greater quality of service might cascade around us, better safeguards against discrimination and harassment appear - these are all the catchcries of corporations whenever they want to privatise and monopolise.
Where liberals and the Left want the “state to legislate good behaviour”, the corpocracy and the Right want the “market to decide on what is civil” - in truth, both attitudes remove personal responsibility from the equation - forgetting that humans can and do have the capacity to generate their own social contracts free of overarching interference. Politico-philosophical musings aside, there isn’t really anything from stopping “Professional GMs” from still running games, hosted in a “safe, moderated environment” without the need of financial inducement.
And who wants to sign a contract, NDA, release from etc just to play a game of make-believe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One Paizo staff member posts one reply to a recruitment thread to make sure it's not considered spam(which it was apparently flagged for) and then makes a fairly calm seeming and explanatorily reply, and that means Paizo is "Defending paid GMs with fervor."
Which sounds rather harsh, and seems like people don't want to have rational discussions about this topic. Nor does dragging real world politics into this convo.
Which is unfortunate in the extreme. **Years** ago(2014), there was a post here on Paizo from a somebody advertising a paid game. I think it might have been for an in person game, but I honestly don't remember.
I messaged the OP, and it turns out that not only did he live near me, he and brother went to college together, and my bro knew him!
Suffice to say, we had him run a game for us and a friend, and it was one of the better games I've ever played! Not only did we get to be involved in all aspects of the type of game ran(starting level, that it was gestalt, where it tool place and the style of game, etc), but the GM also provided tons of extras like an awesome tower he made, maps he drew, etc.
Sadly, this was shortly I got hurt at work, and I wasn't able to pay for my portion(my bro and friend covered for a bit, and I had lawyers involved to get my workers comp).
*However!* said paid GM continued to grow his brand, running games for kids and adult parties, after school programs, etc. He also attends both Origins and Gen Con every year.
Which, reminds me: Aren't GMs at conventions like the above two paid? Do ya'll hate on them too??
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Monkeygod: I’m not sure what “bringing politics” into a discussion has to do with not wanting to “have rational discussions about this topic”. I’m merely trying to illustrate that whichever side of politics some folk cleave to, there are reasons each side provides for people to abrogate personal responsibility to a higher authority, be that the state (“government”) or the market (“money”). And that neither has ever been necessary for humans to game together.
I have no hatred for paid GMs. Paizo is well within their purview to promote them. I’ve already thanked Maya for creating this thread, and have proposed no malfeasance or subterfuge as the intention. And I’m merely providing a dissenting view.
If only you could have kept playing in what sounds like a great game. But unfortunately, for a quite obvious reason….you couldn’t. And that, quite honestly, sucks.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm old which comes with the benefit of I don't give a hoot what anyone thinks of my opinions. Oh and I like to tell stories...long stories.
But I'll spare people from that (for now) to give my opinion. If people want to pay for GM, let them. I wouldn't pay for one and I'd never accept pay for one. I don't consider it 'pay' if a local group wants me to run an AP and they buy the books.
This is Paizo's site. If they want to create a space for advertising for paid GMs it's their choice. It's my choice to either read those posts or not.
And if anyone wants to consider me a "2nd class GM" that would likely be a promotion since I stink! Just ask grimdog73, kaervek78, and a long line of players who would line up to punch me for being so horrible.
And mean.
8)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only you could have kept playing in what sounds like a great game. But unfortunately, for a quite obvious reason….you couldn’t. And that, quite honestly, sucks.
It did suck, but I've played in many awesome, totally free games, both in persona and online since.
And, Start Playing as been a thing for a few years now, and I don't see them taking away from free games.
Another way to look at paid games: If you're paying real, hard earned(or not, lol) monies chances are you and the others players are gonna do their best to show up. And there's something to be said for more or less 'guaranteed' game sessions.
Also, if I were able to, I would absolutely pay for some of the awesome games I've seen advertised before. As an infamous jokester once said: "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like a lot of others have said, I wouldn't sign up for a paid GM game. But, I don't see any harm in Paizo allowing them to be posted here. IMO, more game accessibility is good. And, if I was running a free game, and someone wanted to pay me, I'd take it. I mean, I'd never expect it, but, in the end, is it really that different from someone making food and bringing it to the game, or buying three or four pizzas and bringing them?
And, Start Playing as been a thing for a few years now, and I don't see them taking away from free games.
Maybe there *are* some GMs that have migrated away from Paizo PbP. Given the parlous state of the Recruitment forum lately, I wouldn’t categorically say it *isn’t* the case.
Which brings up another point:
@Maya - sure this discussion *began* here in the PbP forum, but it would sure get more traffic if it were in Website or General Discussion. There…just aren’t that many people…down here…any more. I’m sure you’d fet a lot more people saying “who am I to judge” etc if you made it more accessible. ;)
Like a lot of others have said, I wouldn't sign up for a paid GM game. But, I don't see any harm in Paizo allowing them to be posted here. IMO, more game accessibility is good. And, if I was running a free game, and someone wanted to pay me, I'd take it. I mean, I'd never expect it, but, in the end, is it really that different from someone making food and bringing it to the game, or buying three or four pizzas and bringing them?
More game accessibility is good sure, but is more pay-locked gaming that creates a state of entrepreneur and customer a good thing for the hobby? Some would say “absolutely” as the overall quality might improve, greater resources might be invented, streamers could spread the hobby, make it go viral, all to create more entrepreneurs to create more customers all so that hosting sites like Paizo and Start Playing can take a percentage of the hosted games, and thus grow to host more entrepreneurs and draw in *even* more customers.
It’s a lot different than having someone bring you pizza or beers. It’s creating a tacit financial state, where what was a social contract between people is turned into a financial contract. And I don’t see that as a good thing.
Monkeygod disagrees - and makes good points regarding player attendance and great games. But again, money doesn’t need to make that happen, or “enforce” it. Sure it helps, but every time we use money to “help” us we just create more problems. Disparity and inequality. Corruption. A drive for profit rather than true connection, a drive for units shifted rather than true passion.
Also, if I were able to, I would absolutely pay for some of the awesome games I've seen advertised before. As an infamous jokester once said: "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
This doesn’t feel like a good argument in favor of pay-to-play. It says to me “I absolutely cannot play some games I would love to be in, because I don’t have the money.”
And as someone who has been a volunteer in many spaces, and some doing what I am good at, I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that you should never do something you are good at for free. It sounds like a recipe for a dank and unconscionable approach to civic life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My cynicism does not negate my ability to have a rationale discussion.
Here are my core beliefs on the subject:
* One has the right to charge money for GMing. The potential customer can always refuse.
(* A situation not raised, so don't get hing up on it, but I even believe one has the right to charge to play, to fill a seat to make a table fire, for example, because the potential customer can decline the offer.)
* One has the right to pay a GM to run a game for them.
* Paizo has the right to promote what they want on their website.
* Paizo has a right to make money through whatever business models they choose. They have a right to stay modern and competitive in a world of changing technology and culture.
* One has a right to feel however they feel about changes Paizo makes to their website or business model (and to express it, especially when asked by Paizo what my feelings are).
Now, that said, I do not feel good to learn about Paizo making changes to promote paid GM services. And I, cynically, do not feel good seeing for my first time Paizo apparently asking for opinions on something they have already decided upon, apparently.
Those who run StartPlaying are free to do what they're doing. However, if Paizo is looking to compete with StartPlaying or even advertise for StartPlaying, it gives me concern for the future state of the PbP (there are pay PbP games, too) population here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to look at the economics of this.
Assumptions (YMMV):
1) A game session takes three hours.
2) Preparation for and details after a game session take one hour.
3) There are four players
4) Average wage is $25/hour
5) Average cost of entertainment (movie, bowling, etc) is $24
6) Costs for preparation materials (maps, minis, etc) is a sunk cost
The GM spends four hours. Their opportunity cost is $100.
The players' opportunity cost for playing rather than other entertainment is $96.
The GM could also spend their time/money on alternative entertainment.
There is a net benefit to interacting with other human beings (at least for now <<grin>>)
There is a higher expectation of the product if the product is paid for. Thus, a paid GM will be expected to be nearly flawless in their conduct and to provide entertainment to the players.
My opinion:
I'm not a particularly good GM, but, I'm running two campaigns and regularly run PFS scenarios. I do it because I enjoy the game and no one else seems to want to step up. I've seen better GMs, and, I could understand why they would want to be paid. But, like any other creative field, as long as some folk can play 'for free', the income from GMing will be low (that's supply and demand for you).
As a player, I can understand that if there is a drought of games available, then paying for a GM can look like a solution.
This is similar to a trend I am seeing in my LFGS (Local Friendly Game Store). Several stores in my area are now charging a per-table fee for RPG gamers. Not all are. As opposed to card-flippers, which tend to bring in lots of income to a store, dice-rollers tend to have their costs outside the store (dice, minis, paid online character systems like Pathbuilder). They don't really make up the lost opportunity cost through selling sodas and candybars. So, it is understandable they want to charge for taking up space in their store. While I personally do not attend at a paid table store, it is understandable and reasonable that such exist. And, this may be the way things will move in the future.
Thanks for the discussion, it's been a good read. I'm in Shadow Dragon's camp, being old and just don't care what anyone thinks of me anymore. I played my first game in 1977. DM'd my first in 1981. Yes, we called it Dungeon Master back then.... I went many years "not playing" because they always wanted me to DM the game. That said I never considered asking for money because it was a fun hobby for me. DM'ing the games was playing! My wife wasn't very happy about the money that I spent on books and such when the household finances were tight. I tried to get her to play but she wasn't really interested. Funny to me since we met at a game!
Anyway, my opinion, after all we all have them! Is that if someone wants to professionally run a game, and people want to pay for it, that's free enterprise. And if unpaid GMs want to enjoy a non-professional game, and people want to play in it, Great! They can. Just don't get in each other's way. Will big business snuff out the free games? Not likely. The Internet is a big place. If they close this site down there are lots of others. I'd hate moving again, but this is my third PBP site.
Has anyone tried the "shareware" model? Back in the day.... software/game developers would create a game. They'd give away the first part of it, and sell the game expansion. There BBS sites where you could download the free part and the game would play to a point where you had to contact the developer and pay for the rest. ?? I thought it was a great model, and did enjoy several games that way. Castle of the Winds anyone? That way if you started but found that you didn't like it you didn't pay for it.
....
However, once I start seeing ads being presented on free games that I'm playing...then I'm gone. But those days don't seem to be on the horizon.
Well they are privately held, so we don't need to worry about them Acting like; EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Take2, Microsoft and a few other game companies at the moment.
Just hope that they don't become Public, or replace their Leadership/management with a Profit Driven Maniac(s).
--
For this discussion, I'm trying to keep my eyes on BOTH sides of the coin, and I can see pros and cons to each.
We also have free will and opinions and varying experiences about this topic, so there is no one clear answer.
But sometimes even a innocent change can bring about a irreversible change, like Pandora's Box.
And even things that do one thing, may paradoxically do the opposite at the same time (i.e Smartphones, Aka the Electronic Drug that simultaneous connects us and distances us from others)
My cynicism does not negate my ability to have a rationale discussion.
Your cynicism isn't the problem, it's that you made the following *ridiculous* statement:
"Honestly, the apparent fervor with which Paizo came to the defense of an advertisement post suggests a lot about Paizo's plans for the new forum."
What 'fervor'? Maya made one post, to clarify somebody's paid thread wasn't spam, and then a follow up general explanation post that seemed(to me at least), to be very calm and ordinary.
Did I miss a series of other posts from other Paizo staff coming to the defense of paid recruitments? Did Maya make a bunch of other posts elsewhere about this topic?
Cuz like, two posts, one of which was to say 'hey, this is okay', is very much not 'fervent defense' of anything, lol
I mean heck, Ocecanshieldwolf has made more posts *opposing* paid recruitment, just in this discussion. I don't believe they 'fervently' dislike paid games(they actually might, but not based solely on the number of their posts about the topic)....
|
|
This is similar to a trend I am seeing in my LFGS (Local Friendly Game Store). Several stores in my area are now charging a per-table fee for RPG gamers. Not all are. As opposed to card-flippers, which tend to bring in lots of income to a store, dice-rollers tend to have their costs outside the store (dice, minis, paid online character systems like Pathbuilder). They don't really make up the lost opportunity cost through selling sodas and candybars. So, it is understandable they want to charge for taking up space in their store. While I personally do not attend at a paid table store, it is understandable and reasonable that such exist. And, this may be the way things will move in the future.
I don't know that I've seen this locally but I haven't been to a FLGS for an in-person game since my first (and, sadly, last) PFS1 convention at a FLGS.
That said I can understand if the store would want to charge for the space since space is a finite commodity and if they think a card game is better for business than a table of PF/SF/etc. they'd want to make up for the 'loss.'
Not making up the cost in snacks? You must have a bunch of skinny gamers; not the case where I am. ;) And I include myself in that group especially if they have the Reese's and water stocked up.
In fact for enough Reese's I could be wait no I'd better not say! 8)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My cynicism does not negate my ability to have a rationale discussion.Your cynicism isn't the problem, it's that you made the following *ridiculous* statement:
"Honestly, the apparent fervor with which Paizo came to the defense of an advertisement post suggests a lot about Paizo's plans for the new forum."
I've got a little time to kill. Sure. We can discuss my prose.
First of all, it is a completely legitimate opinion to hold that my choice of word was ridiculous. You opinion is not up for debate; however, neither is whether or not I am allowed to feel a certain way about something or express those feelings with the words I choose--within acceptable societal constraints--up for debate. I will describe why I chose "fervor," and it will be completely reasonable for anyone to disagree with my rationale. You are essentially already, and I am not trying to change any minds here.
I'm going to spoiler the rest as it is largely a lark to pass the time.
Second, I observe that my application of the word fervor within my own head as I wrote my sentence does not appear to be the same application of the word in your head as you read my sentence. For me, fervor is not only assessed by absolute volume but can also be assessed by relative change. And, again, not everyone or nobody will assess the relative change to coincide with the word "fervor."
I also acknowledge that I have not been on the public Pathfinder forums in years, so the moderator behavior that I'm used to may have changed, thus biasing my assessment.
However, I begin:
Status Quo
A forum post is made. It is flagged as Spam. The moderator determines it is not Spam. They clear the flag and move on to the next task. This was the entirety of the Paizo employee's effort on the matter.
If a post was marked as Offensive, and the moderator determined it was not offensive, never before have I seen the moderator step into a thread and state, "Stop flagging this post. It is not offensive."
Change
A forum post is made. It is flagged as Spam.
The moderator determines it is not Spam. They clear the flag. And then they take the time to write a post about how it is not Spam, step in as a character witness, and inform the original OP (and break the news to the PbP forum) that Paizo will be creating an area to support paid GMing.
None of that is "bad" or "wrong." It is, however, a deviation from the status quo. And as big of a change as I saw that being, fervor did not yet apply in my mind.
Then a user posted an expression of their disappointment to learn that Paizo would be promoting paid GMs. The moderator returned to address Paizo's rationale for the coming change as well as further explaining the rationale for determining the designation of Spam or not.
None of that is "bad" or "wrong." But it's certainly much more defense than I've witnessed any other advertisement post receive from Paizo.
This engages more users to discuss the opinions expressed by the moderator.
The moderator then creates a third post with a link to a fourth post and entire thread to divert discussion into where it won't reflect negatively on the advertising poster and potentially scare away the original OP's potential customers. A thread they encourage people with opinions about Paizo promoting paid GM services to go and discuss even though the company has, apparently, made their decision and does not want feedback.
Cynasism warning
But they do want a potential revenue source in well-reviewed paid GMs staying connected to their site, so they drive away the negative discussion.
End particularly cynical cynasism.
That amount of energy put into convincing users to not flag a post as Spam is, in my experience with these forums, a very notable change in energy expenditure. So, to me, it is relatively fervent. For someone else? Not worthy of note. It is certainly a level of energy on par with writing this post to kill 30 minutes, but I wouldn't call this fervant because I normally post rather lengthy posts. Someone else might read it and say, "Wow. So many words. They must feel passionately." And I would think in response, "No. But I can see why they think that. Those were a lot of words."
Now, have they hired a ton more moderators with spunk and energy to be more visible to create a friendlier face to their consumers, and this is just a reflection of that? That's entirely possible.
Did the moderator feel bad that they started the discussion in the first place and was just trying to make amends to the original OP? Quite possible.
Did that post generate 10,000 Spam flags that each needs to be manually cleared with a 3-click process because the Paizo website is very old, and clearing those flags literally took 8 hours? That too is entirely possible.
Now, if someone wants to debate my explanation for my own word choices and feelings, I probably won't bother writing anything else unless someone points out that I wrote an unintentional faux pas that needs an apology or clarification. Or someone writes something that significantly mischaracterizes me or is particularly hurtful. I'm rather bad at resisting the bait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I don't have an issue with this. I'm pretty lucky and have usually had several games. But some of my forever GM's are older than I and have health issues.
I've been broke before and I know gamers who have had trouble getting work for all sorts of reasons.
Hiring a GM can be a way to scratch that itch of "I want to play a game or edition that isn't very popular."
I do think that Paizo should probably keep it on a separate forum. Or at least require "paid" in the post title. I've read a few games and started getting interested to find the buried lede that it was a paid game.
Would I pay for a GM service? No.
{snip}
I have no issues with the linked post or others like it. Just so long as it doesn't overcrowd the non-professional recruitments.
Agreed.
I find paid GMs extremely distasteful and against the spirit of playing and running roleplaying games.
{snip}
But if giving my opinion, I do not feel like this behavior of monetizing the hobby should be supported.
Agreed.
I fear that Paizo endorsing paid GMing will result in fewer, let's say "hobby" games because calling them "free" would imply the norm is paid
{snip}Hobby GMs will never be endorsed by Paizo. They will become second class GMs
{snip}Honestly, the apparent fervor with which Paizo came to the defense of an advertisement post suggests a lot about Paizo's plans for the new forum.
Agreed agreed agreed. Paizo is not doing anything to endorse the rest of us who do this for free, Maya.
And I, cynically, do not feel good seeing for my first time Paizo apparently asking for opinions on something they have already decided upon, apparently.
Agreed. I don't even understand what is gained by creating this forum thread. Is there a numerical threshold of unhappy users that, once reached, would cause this decision to be undone?
Because if not ... this was all very pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread doesn't belong in Recruitment.
I've encountered pay-to-play recruitments here before, and they don't bother me.
When my multitude of games period came to a close several years ago, I had PCs offer to pay to play in games that I had previously run for free. While I briefly considered it, I knew that the time investment would not be worth the pay off or that I would need to charge far more than anyone would be wiling to pay for a game (no matter how good it was) so I graciously declined the offers.
If a DM wishes to charge and a person agrees to pay to play I suppose that's the decision those parties have come to and that's fine for them. I currently run, and will continue to run, games free of charge (and play in ones free of charge as well).
It may well be a slippery slope, but then look at the evolution of MMOs. Video game roleplaying games were a one time purchase, then they moved to a subscription model. I don't play them so I don't know how well or poorly they are functioning under this model, but if a capitalist can monetize something and someone is willing to pay, monetization will certainly happen!
Way back in my teenage years we might have on occasion charged XP for slices of pizza or soda but those were different times :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run free games consistently since 1977. I'm never going to charge for my services and I'm never going to pay for someone else's (convention tickets aside, of course).
BUT, I don't care if others do. I make a decent living on my own and don't need the cash. Maybe others -do- need it. Who am I... or you... to judge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure where “who am I to judge” came from, but I never find it very useful, as I always, at least in my head answer “Clearly lots of people”. I actually find making judgments about the actions of other people’s activities a very useful tool for checking my own actions, checking my biases and understanding what I can about my place in the world, others’ place/s in the world and what motivates them to do whatever it is that I am observing. Without making judgments, there can be no accountability - it results in a system where folx are *afraid* of having or sharing opinions that should be aired, contested, contrasted, argued about and defended. So me. I’m judging. Judging doesn’t require that I am pure, or without fault. That thinking also leads nowhere. It merely means I feel something.
I’m definitely judging how I feel about continuing my association with a company that will promote paid GMs. I feel strong ties to this community, and what *I* see as its wellbeing. Obviously, an “imagined community” is just that, and if that is the way Paizo wishes to move, and the community by and large supports that, or doesn’t care enough one way or another for it to be a problem, then I will necessarily accept that I and the community are misaligned to such a degree that I remove myself from it. It is the way of change.
As long as paizo is careful about which it favour and how much.
I do think that Paizo should probably keep it on a separate forum. Or at least require "paid" in the post title. I've read a few games and started getting interested to find the buried lede that it was a paid game.
Society Play had a similar issue around the time things shifted from many people thinking Society Play was unwelcome in PbP/online campaign to many people thinking PbP/OC was exclusively for Society Play.
I want to look at the economics of this.
-snip-
This is similar to a trend I am seeing in my LFGS (Local Friendly Game Store). Several stores in my area are now charging a per-table fee for RPG gamers. Not all are. As opposed to card-flippers, which tend to bring in lots of income to a store, dice-rollers tend to have their costs outside the store (dice, minis, paid online character systems like Pathbuilder). They don't really make up the lost opportunity cost through selling sodas and candybars. So, it is understandable they want to charge for taking up space in their store. While I personally do not attend at a paid table store, it is understandable and reasonable that such exist. And, this may be the way things will move in the future.
You do bring a good point about the availability of physical space for offline games.
There is also some people who might turn a hobby into a secondary or even main source of incomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as paizo is careful about which it favour and how much.
I do think that Paizo should probably keep it on a separate forum. Or at least require "paid" in the post title. I've read a few games and started getting interested to find the buried lede that it was a paid game.Society Play had a similar issue around the time things shifted from many people thinking Society Play was unwelcome in PbP/online campaign to many people thinking PbP/OC was exclusively for Society Play.
I do get annoyed when I open a game to look at it and only find that it's PFS once it's opened.
-----
Another thing to mention is that the whole game industry is never very stable. The number of game companies that have died is huge. Paizo just lost a big chunk of money when a distributor went bankrupt. Definitely enough to impact their budget. Making games is also front-loaded. It takes a lot of money to make a good game book, and they only get any profit after all the work is done and they start selling it. Paizo isn't trying to monetize it's customer like the Hasborg, but if some people are going to pay anyway, why not offer a service?
-----
I'd be interested if they have ideas for different ways to pay. Right now most paid games I've seen are live events. I don't see how you'd set up a Pay for PBP system. But it's an interesting challenge.
As long as paizo is careful about which it favour and how much.
I do think that Paizo should probably keep it on a separate forum. Or at least require "paid" in the post title. I've read a few games and started getting interested to find the buried lede that it was a paid game.Society Play had a similar issue around the time things shifted from many people thinking Society Play was unwelcome in PbP/online campaign to many people thinking PbP/OC was exclusively for Society Play.I do get annoyed when I open a game to look at it and only find that it's PFS once it's opened.
-----
^ Agreed, This is annoying, and I think PFS and Non-PFS, Paid and Free games, either all need their own Sub-forums, or the Recruitment sub-threads for Campaigns get some new check boxes that either put in Text into the Thread name, or an ICON next to the thread name so there are no surprises about the game.
I don't see how you'd set up a Pay for PBP system. But it's an interesting challenge.
Paid GMing PbP, having done years of PbP, is particularly worrisome.
However, the more legitimate pricing is “per person per Chapter” or “per person per X%.” There’s still room for questionable business practices (e.g., someone drops partway through a pre-paid block, and then a new player is recruited and charged full price for the block).
I definitely would look askance at anyone charging up front for a full AP or even Module.
|
|
I don't see how you'd set up a Pay for PBP system. But it's an interesting challenge.Paid GMing PbP, having done years of PbP, is particularly worrisome.
However, the more legitimate pricing is “per person per Chapter” or “per person per X%.” There’s still room for questionable business practices (e.g., someone drops partway through a pre-paid block, and then a new player is recruited and charged full price for the block).
I definitely would look askance at anyone charging up front for a full AP or even Module.
Okay an unscheduled opinion question: How would you feel if the GM requested the players purchase the AP?
Who am I... or you... to judge?
"Who are you to have an opinion?" has to be the most purposeless and wasteful statement that could possibly be injected into a conversation.
Good job, Tarondor.
Okay an unscheduled opinion question: How would you feel if the GM requested the players purchase the AP?I don't see how you'd set up a Pay for PBP system. But it's an interesting challenge.Paid GMing PbP, having done years of PbP, is particularly worrisome.
However, the more legitimate pricing is “per person per Chapter” or “per person per X%.” There’s still room for questionable business practices (e.g., someone drops partway through a pre-paid block, and then a new player is recruited and charged full price for the block).
I definitely would look askance at anyone charging up front for a full AP or even Module.
PbP? It depends on a lot of variables. I've known very good and dedicated GMs and very good players who fail to complete APs. However, if it was Book at a time, my opinion would be better than if a GM popped up on recruitment and offered to run any AP if the players bought the entire series for them. Closer to the "per player per Chapter" model.
I think it's interesting. And I'll apply the 80/20 rule to how it will end up.
Let's say hobby/paid.
Some go to the gym, some pay a trainer.
Some go on hikes or site seeing , some hire a guide.
I'm an IT guy so, it's about service level agreement (SLA).
Once you start paying you have a level of expectation.
I don't feel the two models - hobby & paid are mutually exclusive.
As to judging, it's how we get through life.
We just can't allow ourselves to judge instead of thinking... we judge while and after thinking.
Okay an unscheduled opinion question: How would you feel if the GM requested the players purchase the AP?I don't see how you'd set up a Pay for PBP system. But it's an interesting challenge.Paid GMing PbP, having done years of PbP, is particularly worrisome.
However, the more legitimate pricing is “per person per Chapter” or “per person per X%.” There’s still room for questionable business practices (e.g., someone drops partway through a pre-paid block, and then a new player is recruited and charged full price for the block).
I definitely would look askance at anyone charging up front for a full AP or even Module.
I'd expect a lower price if the players had to pay for the AP for the GM.
I'd expect a lower price if the players had to pay for the AP for the GM.
You bring up a consideration.
One curiosity... you're paying to play, not survive. Not play a particular character.
I think an interesting dynamic will be... when a pay-to-play character dies. What happens to that session.
How quickly could they possibly have another character ready and continue enjoying the session already paid for.
The mind wanders. Not saying it's bad or good, just a consideration.
One curiosity... you're paying to play, not survive. Not play a particular character.
Actually, this is one of the things I think would be interesting about paid games. Playing some concept that doesn't work in most games. As well as games that few GM's offer. Like Unknown Armies, for example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This looks very akin to many other aspects of our society where most shrug and say, "If you want to, have at it. I'm not interested." And then there is a small contingent saying, "THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END!! BEWARE!!"
I'm with the former. I just don't care. It doesn't appear to have an effect on me. I've been playing since the mid 90s. Since the emergence of paid gming, I have seen no notable shifts.
For those curious, here is an example of a paid PbP game.
Note this link takes you to a StartPlaying recruitment page.
The GM charges $15 per "session," where a session is 1 week of players posting and then once at the end of the week the GM posts results. Imaging playing Kingmaker at 1 action per week where your account is autodrafted $15/week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those curious, here is an example of a paid PbP game.
Note this link takes you to a StartPlaying recruitment page.
The GM charges $15 per "session," where a session is 1 week of players posting and then once at the end of the week the GM posts results. Imaging playing Kingmaker at 1 action per week where your account is autodrafted $15/week.
That is disgusting....
reminds me of those old Hotlines that bill you by the minute, and they purposely drag out the call to get the most money out of you.