I go by Paul, but people can me referee, GM or DM if it makes them feel good. I don't know how hard it is for other people to assume the role I do in my games. My players all say they prefer for me to deal with all the hassles that come with it-the stuff I see as entertainment really.

As for what makes a GM: I'd say a willing to try is about all it takes. To be a good GM-well that's kind of all in how you see at your table. For instance some people would say a mastery of the rules-but hell I don't even know all of the rules. (I have a player who takes care of that, the obscure and little used stuff that even I don't know.) We've had players run games, with no knowledge of the rules, where we helped them.

We have a pretty collaborative approach to our game-if you forget something we remind you. If I forget they remind me. No one needs to cheat, or be super competitive about the whole thing.

So I guess to me it's all about what expectations you bring to the table with you.

Soylent and Serious have go the right of it. Gaming is a social activity and at the end of the day how difficult a specific role is depends on the interactions of the people involved.

As to what I like to be called. I find "Your Eminence", is an accurate title for the role in question.

Regards,
David R

Leadership skills help.

There, i said it.

Quote from: David R;495996Gaming is a social activity and at the end of the day how difficult a specific role is depends on the interactions of the people involved

Very much this. Whether it's easy or hard is pretty much a function of group expectation.

There are many hats the GM can potentially wear. The most basic is the role of MC - the person who keeps things moving, adjudicates, and makes sure everyone goes home happy at the end of the night. For this function referee seems like a good name. But there there's also setting creation and the design of the actual adventure, either of which can be simple or complex, or can be replaced by someone else (i.e. an author of RPG books, or in part by the players on a collaborative effort). These things might be done on the fly or prepared before-hand, whatever you are happy with. I think that GM is the most fitting term for when it's all in - an no, I don't think it implies mastery over the other people at the table.

Personally, I like wearing all the hats at the same time and I put a lot of work into it because that's what I like. Do I find it hard? No. Would a newbie who tried to do the same thing find it hard? Probably. But then the newbie would probably start somewhere else and find his own comfort level.

Is GMing a barrier to entry? No more than the ability to read and comprehend a game book. Personally, I think that finding enough like-minded people to consistently devote one or more nights a month to gaming together in a group is a much bigger barrier.

It's really nothing. A couple of times now I've had to miss my IRC StarCluster 3 game, and the players just went ahead and played without me. I really don't have to be there it's such a cushy job.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;495972Because "Hollyhock God" is just too lame for words? :O

-clash

Hollyhock God is my new personal name for a GM.

It's not hard, but one has to want to do it. I was a GM, at least part-time, when I was 13.

Early on we used Ref, or Referee. The idea was, a person who knew how the game worked who could resolve disputes between players. The players would have to agree on the ref before the game, based on their judgement that the ref knew the rules well, ..and was impartial, i.e. not preferring one player, or one group of players over the other.

A few years down that road, and the ref became known as the GM or Gamemaster. A GM has more responsibilities than a Referee, The GM has to handle of the player interactions with non-player characters, he has to set the scenes (No matter what anyone says this requires some background work, out-of-game), and narrate some to otherwise fill, charge, or inspire the imagination of the players at the table. A GM is also charged with keeping the game moving, and keeping it interesting for all the players, so summarizes, conducts, re-phrases, throws dice, talks in funny voices, and does whatever else is necessary to keep the game entertaining, and enjoyable, for the largest group of players possible.

Anyone can do it. Doing this really well is an art form. It creates lifelong memories for the players, as well as challenging the players to get better at playing the game, in participating, and in improving themselves in the process.

By using the word "art" you reveal yourself as a swine, please kill yourself to save the hobby.

Wait, I mean, I agree with everything you said.

Quote from: RPGPundit;495957Are you of the opinion that anyone can GM? What are the basic skills require? Does the skill set required to the GM consist of things so difficult that it is a "hurdle" in our hobby?

I think that:

(1) It generally takes a larger time commitment to GM than to play a traditional RPG.

(2) It's generally true that the GM needs a better grasp of the rules than the other players in order to be effective.

(3) The improvisation techniques used by the GM are generally more complex than those used by other players.

(4) A GM generally needs to be much better at multitasking than other players.

With that being said, being a GM isn't rocket science or neurosurgery. Anyone with interest, imagination, and a little bit of free time can do it. (Assuming they're not socially incompetent.)

QuoteDo you think that there is a lack of GMs (or good GMs) out there; or is that rubbish?

I think the biggest hang-ups to new GMs are #2 and #3 above. And this also means that some games (like D&D) are much better at "recruiting" new GMs than others.

I've also come to believe that a major indicator of whether or not your game will be successful is your ability to convince people to GM it. Because of #1, interested GMs will find players with relative ease; interested players will rarely manage to find a GM.

By extension, I think one of the major problems the industry has today is that it has become less and less friendly to recruiting new GMs (both inside and outside the hobby). D&D, for example, has become marginally less friendly for new players in the past thirty years. It has become severely less friendly to DMs. And 4th Edition, despite trying to make it easier for DMs, actually made it harder. (Because most experienced gamers really have no idea what makes a game easier for new DMs to run. And 80% of it isn't mechanical.)

It doesn't help that the hobby drastically reduced the ratio of players-to-GMs post-1980.

Quote from: RPGPundit;495957Are you of the opinion that anyone can GM?

Yes, absolutely.

Quote from: RPGPundit;495957What are the basic skills require?

An understanding of how sessions/campaigns work (can be picked up after playing a couple).

Realising that it isn't a competition between players and GMs but is rather a collaboration.

Basic knowledge of the rules used.

Consistency.

Quote from: RPGPundit;495957Does the skill set required to the GM consist of things so difficult that it is a "hurdle" in our hobby?

No, it is very easy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;495957Do you think that there is a lack of GMs (or good GMs) out there; or is that rubbish?

Rubbish, pretty much.

There may be a lcak of people willing to be GMs, but if you have a group of players then one of them will probably agree to be a GM, even if it's on a rotating basis.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;496065It doesn't help that the hobby drastically reduced the ratio of players-to-GMs post-1980.

I think this is huge, actually. When one GM handles 20 or more players, you don't need many GMs, and the natural sorting-out means that you get the best of the several wannabe-GMs in your rather large group to be the guy. You need fewer, and the one you end up with is likely better.

Quote from: RPGPundit;495957Are you of the opinion that anyone can GM? What are the basic skills require? Does the skill set required to the GM consist of things so difficult that it is a "hurdle" in our hobby? Do you think that there is a lack of GMs (or good GMs) out there; or is that rubbish?

RPGPundit

We taught ourserlves how to GM from snippets out of books when we were kids, I don't see how that can be any more difficult now.

Quote from: jeff37923;496122We taught ourserlves how to GM from snippets out of books when we were kids, I don't see how that can be any more difficult now.

You had ROCKS? We had to make the rocks ourselves from a cloud of atoms. And we LIKED it!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;496126You had ROCKS? We had to make the rocks ourselves from a cloud of atoms. And we LIKED it!

-clash

Atoms? Luxury! We had to make our own atoms from random subatomic particles we could find by searching for vacuum fluctuations and siphoning off the necessary particles with artificial event horizons. And heaven help you if you got your hand stuck in the black hole.

Anyone can try to GM. All it takes is a willingness to put in the time to learn a game system and then a desire to run something.

Anyone that is capable of learning from their mistakes (we all make them) will become a better GM over time. There is no substitute for experience when it comes to running an RPG.

It's the GMs that think they are special snowflakes just for running games that probably shouldn't be GMs.