So spun off from the "Can anyone be a good GM" thread...
I contend a player that has never GM'ed before has a one-sided view of what makes a "good" GM. I'm not saying their opinion is invalid or anything. I'm saying the very experience of running a game (see below) is invaluable for understanding what makes a good GM or not. Mainly because being a "good" GM takes time and experience and lots of failures that become common to all "good" GM's that learn from those same inevitable mistakes. If you're just a player - these things are likely invisible to you.
SO - that brought up an interesting question
How many of you have players that have never really GMed at all? By that criteria I means the following:
1) Not a One-Shot.
2) At least a full adventure or module that takes multiple sessions to complete.
and have you ever asked why they never GMed and if so - what was their response?
for me - I think of my current group of players, only one has GMed and he gets insanely nerve-wracked after about the 4th session trying to keep up the pace. He likes the idea of GMing, but has a hard time keeping himself out of the game when players do things he doesn't account for. (I also think he tries to make his games *far* too large in scale for his relative inexperience).
I've never been heavy on GM's in the group, though it is even more skewed at the moment because of an influx of new players. In the (mainly) long-time group, out of 10 players, 3 have met your criteria of running a full adventure or more. Though with two of them, I wasn't there when they ran it. In the new group, there are currently a total of 14 players possible, though we'll never have them all. Only one has been a GM, and that player is overlap with the first group. Another 2 are getting ready to start, though.
As to what makes a good GM, I find that my biggest problem with many of them is that they didn't get to see me when I had less experience. They mistake some of the things that I do more or less well now as natural talent, when it is really experience. I've had more than one tell me they are uncomfortable running because they "can't measure up"--despite me telling them that it isn't that difficult. Critically, the 2 new players that are seriously preparing to GM are doing it elsewhere, with new players. I encouraged that, as "you'll make mistakes, but keep moving, have fun anyway, laugh about it."
Out of the 20 or so people I've played in regular D&D groups with over the decades, I'd say the breakdown is:
4 have DMed regularly
6 have DMed on occasion
10 have never DMed
I have a mix of players who meet these criteria or don't.
Some of my best players have never GMed at all.
But all of my worst players have never, or barely, GMed before.
Out of the six people I currently game with, only 1 has any real GMing experience. One other put us through a Deadlands adventure and that scared her off of running again as she couldn't deal with adjusting on the fly to some things that were really unexpected.
I have to agree that it seems unlikely most "good" GMs just started that way. I know I made plenty of mistakes when I first started and I still do. I'm constantly encouraging my players to try taking up the reins of GM even if it's just temporarily but they're mostly happy to stay on the other side of the screen. The primary excuses I hear are that they either don't think they'd be very good at it or simply that they don't have the time, which I do understand.
A very rough guesstimate: about half have GM'd, and about a quarter GM on fairly regular basis (but not necessarily for the same group).
Out of the current group of 5 (including myself), 2 of us have GMed a lot, 1 has GMed some, and 2 never. As a slightly different take, only 1 (myself) has GMed extensively with systems other than some form of D&D, 1 ran a little bit of Traveller (LBB) in addition to D&D, 1 has only run D&D. No idea what any of that says.
About half. The usual reason is "I can't do it" or "I don't know how." Second most usual reason is "I'm not interested."
2 out of my current 11 cohorts.
When I ran, about half never had, because one of the features of that game was new players, as in new players to the hobby. Also because I was apparently so awesome, they never felt the need or urge. :-0
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026250About half. The usual reason is "I can't do it" or "I don't know how." Second most usual reason is "I'm not interested."
Same. and "I cant do it" is a valid excuse. Some people just can not manage the stuff a DM has to. Or would need so much prep or bookeeping to track it it becomes a chore rather than fun.
Generally people I mostly play with has never been a GM, or has been sometime in the long past, but refuse GM because everyone only wants to be a player. So naturally I seldom get to be a player anymore myself. Except from when my brother agrees to be DM (TSR D&D only). Getting family members into rpgs when they are young is indeed a long term investment.
My current group has eight players.
Three, including myself, are regular referees for us or other groups.
One is new to the hobby and planning her own campaign.
The remainder have never been the referee and are unlikely to ever be.
My last group had five members and all but one of us were referees for campaigns.
Quote from: Teodrik;1026284Getting family members into rpgs when they are young is indeed a long term investment.
It works very well. I had two older brothers. Four decades later, still playing... and now the tween nephew is rolling dice.
Oh, and my sister married a wargamer. She
understands.
By the standards set up in the opening post, none of my four players have ever GMed before. If you allow for one-shots, my oldest player (who mainly played in the 1st edition AD&D era) qualifies. Our youngest player is talking about maybe running a 5th edition game, although that probably wouldn't take place until the school year ends.
Have done so for quite a few. But I strongly encourage them soon after to get Behind the Screen. Reason is it tends to give them a taste of their own behavior, especially if they run for their own greenhorn friends, and they become less petulant and disruptive. They realize what effort it takes and become more appreciative of good player habits.
When you serve others, you quickly become sypathetic of those who serve you. (Also one of the reasons I believe everyone should serve -- suffer through -- a two-year draft into Retail/Customer Service. The agony helps bring back a touch of compassion and etiquette among those who went through the trenches. :p )
At least half of my players over the years never GM'd.
The rise of RPGA's Living Campaigns increased the number of players who took the hot seat because that version of GMing is just reading boxed texts and keeping everyone on the choo-choo train through the battle encounters. AKA, about the same GMing as running Descent, Warhammer Quest or other boardgame dungeoncrawler.
At cons, I tend to get more GMs at my table. I often have full tables of fellow con GMs because most cons give GMs priority sign-up.
I have a lot of players, but I'd say typically 4-5 in a group of 6 have not GM'd significantly.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1026295Have done so for quite a few. But I strongly encourage them soon after to get Behind the Screen. Reason is it tends to give them a taste of their own behavior, especially if they run for their own greenhorn friends, and they become less petulant and disruptive. They realize what effort it takes and become more appreciative of good player habits.
When you serve others, you quickly become sypathetic of those who serve you. (Also one of the reasons I believe everyone should serve -- suffer through -- a two-year draft into Retail/Customer Service. The agony helps bring back a touch of compassion and etiquette among those who went through the trenches. :p )
I was just going to ask - how many of you encourage your players to GM?
I think this is something that is vitally important not just for your group but for the hobby in general. Not everyone will like it, obviously, but they'll never know unless they try it. And you're spot on about players learning more about their own behavior as a player even after a short stint in the chair. I've seen it happen many times.
I also think that having more than one GM in a group has several good benefits:
1) Players that stick with one GM tend to fall into a rut of assumed behaviors. I always try to change things up a bit, but some of my quirks always come through and my players know what to expect when those things show. My taste in the types of campaigns I run, even when I try to do new things, will always shine through. Having other GM's gives a nice change of pace for everyone.
2) Friendly competition. When a player that has started getting comfortable GMing they'll start taking things they've learned from you or other GM's and creating their own spin on things. Which in turn you can learn from too. Nothing is better than having more than one GM in a group whose campaigns become challenges to try and outdo in fun-factor.
I like promoting new faces because they bring different voices to the table. I have received my share of compliments for GMing and requests for advice. :o But to me, though flattering and I accept as graciously as I can (and scarecely believing it myself,) I find that to be a distraction from learning from others' talents and life lessons. We all have something to share.
People bring a bit of themselves to the process of campaign creation and, for a want of a better word, storytelling (narrative description and improvisation,). I have only lived my life, so there is so much I can learn from other perspectives, drives, and internal coherency. Sometimes it is a bit of a peek into their psyche, too, but all "artists" develop their own voice. There is more than one way to see the world, and that's cool to me. :cool:
I want to de-mystify the process.
I find it's like a proto-school, a shared imaginary landscape where we all bring our preconceived expectations of coherency and go forth to make mistakes that'll have no lasting consequence. (Loved that advice: School is the Best Place Where to Make Your Mistakes. In Real Life Mistakes Cost Far More.) It's instructive that way. It gives people who normally were shunted before a place to develop and test out mistakes instead of the real world. There's the occasional power fantasy and power trip, but eventually most of us get over ourselves in time.
Running your own game before an audience helps practice the everyday exchanges of navigating social life, IME. I think that's something worth sharing for people to grow.
Quote from: tenbones;1026392I think this is something that is vitally important not just for your group but for the hobby in general.
My motivations are more primal. I can't help but teach in any group activity in which I'm involved where there are people interested in learning. RPGs are simply one more manifestation of that trait.
Current game: everyone has GM'd at some point.
Overall I'd say it's about 1/3 have, 2/3 haven't
I'd say about 2/3rds. It seems like there are always more people willing to do the light work of playing but not the heavy lifting of GMing.
Quote from: jeff37923;1026441I'd say about 2/3rds. It seems like there are always more people willing to do the light work of playing but not the heavy lifting of GMing.
That's largely been my experience. It all sounds good when people say "I wanna try to GM" - then they start, and realize there's a lot more going on than they thought.
I haven't taken a survey but based on what my players have said and conversations I have had. In group 1, we have three players and 2 have GM'd (sounds like pretty regularly). We just added a 4th player who has GMd quite a bit. In group 2, that is harder because it is somewhat rotational, but among roughly 5 people, I know 3 have GM'd regularly. Group 3 we have four players and I believe 2 have GM'd.
My group of 7 players has 3 regular gms and a couple who will do a one-shot now and then.
The ratios have varied a lot over time ranging from 0% to 100%. Currently 2 out of 4 of us meet your GM criteria, but that's the lowest GM to player ratio I've seen since probably 1983.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026250The usual reason is "I can't do it" or "I don't know how." Second most usual reason is "I'm not interested."
I'd reverse the order with more "not interested" than "don't know how."
Quote from: jeff37923;1026441I'd say about 2/3rds. It seems like there are always more people willing to do the light work of playing but not the heavy lifting of GMing.
And there's a connection between the perception that it is "too much work" and the level of commitment. Many players just are not as committed or into RPGs as are those of us who GM.
My current Stars Without Number group is 5 players. I know that this is the first game for two of them, so they haven't GMed before. Two others have, and one I'm not sure about.
If our group of 5, 3 have not GMed since I started playing with them. I have no idea if they have GMed outside the group, though, as I have never asked.
Group of 5 been together for over 20 years, everyone has years of GMing experience as we rotate game masters every year or so.
Out of the 16 or so players spread out over my various campaigns, I think only about 4 have ever GMed.