Why would anybody want to GM?

[Ginger Stampley]

I've got a reason that is related, but not identical AFAICT, to any of the reasons that have gone before.

When I started gaming, I was playing with a group of GMs who had related but not identical high-fantasy homebrew system campaigns. It was pretty clear who got "taken seriously" and who didn't, after a while. I was young, one of very few women in the group (a la Highlander, there can be only one), and one of the mid-range seniority players had it in for me (as in, I've had a lot of the bad experiences female players have with hostile male players).

I wanted to be senior, I wanted more narrative control as a player, and I wanted to be taken seriously. GMing was a route to all that, so I tried my hand at it. And sure enough, it worked: I moved into the ranks of senior players, had plots and rewards designed for my characters, was taken more seriously when proposing rules modifications, etc.

It turns out I'm not so bad at being either a traffic cop or a facilitator (for most folks; everybody has people they're just plain incompatible with), and I enjoy those roles, so I still GM or at least co-GM with my husband, who complements what I think of as my weak spots (and vice versa). Also, sometimes I want to push gamer crack (koff*DogsintheVineyard*koff) on my friends, so I GM.

[Emily Care]

Great thread! And great breakdown, Clint. Can't wait to see your essay.

I primarily co-gm, and I find I miss greatly the powers to develop world, multiple characters, situation et al if I am cut out of them a la the traditional gm-player division of duties.  I very much think of all the tasks of role-playing as ones that anyone can do, but that for given goals different groupings will be more effective.

When I have the trad gm, it's been because I wanted to play something and if I did, I had to pick up the reins.  I've loved it, actually. There is a real thrill to be had from having to respond to so many people's interests and ideas.  It's kind of like sparring with multiple opponents, somewhat overwhelming at times, but an adrenaline rush.  

There are so many games now that throw the old mold out the window and choose a layout of who does what that really makes sense for that particular game, that I think we're coming to the end of a long period of tunnel vision about all this.

yrs,
Emily

[Mark Woodhouse]

I'll join the chorus. I GM because...

1.) I rarely get what I want most (empowerment) as a player. As GM I have more freedom to set the pace and influence the social contract.

2.) I like to create stuff and show it off. GM-ing lets me create more stuff beyond one character.

3.) I get to pick a game and recruit people to play it, as opposed to settling for whatever game and group is available.

As GM, I prefer to emphasize the "traffic cop" role, but distribute the creative and facilitative tasks as much as possible. I run into trouble with players who are not comfortable taking on any GM duties, but I feel that I've got the skills to dial back to a more traditional power split generally.

GM fatigue does tend to set in after a while, though, if I am carrying the majority of the load.

[Marco]

I've thought about this, while reading the thread--and I find that I GM for very similar reasons for playing: the creation of something that feels like a story to me--a creative exercise coupled with the emotional imact of that comes from the more randomized inputs that less interactive media gives you (when you are watching a movie you are kind of "along for the ride" in the sense that you don't control the imaginary space).

When I play I am more immersed.

When I GM I am less immersed.

However, for me, it's a pretty similar pay-off. I usually feel empowered in both situations (in the sense that I get a say in my level of empowerment).

I usually feel that I am working partially as an assistant in both cases (as a GM, the facilitation is obvious, as a player my facilitation is often directed towards *other players* or even the GM as in "I'll really get into this situation which will drive the GM's enjoyment of the game.")

As a GM I do have to moderate/time-slice/step out of immersed SOD-feeling in order to run the game (I'm not saying there aren't powerful moments as a GM--but they are more tempered by some intellectualized decision making).

As a Player I don't have to do that so I spend more time in the imagined emotions of my character.

I would say that as a GM I feel far more like the author of "the story."

As a Player I'm far more like the protagonist.

And, as has been noted, these are, kinda, the same thing.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

I know another reason why someone runs games rather than plays them; I don't think it's been mentioned, and it's a bit unnerving in some ways. One guy I knew ran games and refined his illusionist techniques within them, and some people claimed that he did it so that he could use the games to test the psyches of the various players, so that he would know how to manipulate them when he wasn't playing. I don't know if it's true, but it's an interesting counterpoint to a lot of what has been said here.

Something I got from this thread though: if you really want to play a game that no one plays, the answer may be to think of someone who would be good at running it, buy the necessary books, and give them to him for his birthday. I know that I got a lot of my game books as birthday and Christmas presents, and I've done the same for others in my gaming group, and no one has ever resented it.

--M. J. Young

[Lance D. Allen]

Another reason to GM that I didn't mention is something I realized when I read Ben's comments in his LJ about needing an audience..

As GM, I get to be the audience, and the director. I get to toss something at the players, and see what they'll do. Most times, this is just whatever. But sometimes, I toss something at the players, and suddenly.. BOOM. They do something that just blows me out of the water.

Riddle: I threw not one, but TWO sorcerers, and two undead minions at a player. My expectation? He'd sneak off and get help. What he did? He charged in, killed both sorcerers and neutralized the undead.. And WALKED (well, staggered) AWAY from it!

V:tM: I threw a lower gen, older, wiser, more powerful vampire at a couple players, just as a sort of intimidation/foreshadowing deal. And they killed him. I tossed the Prince of the City and a semi-powerful old nemesis of the PCs into a high-class bar the PCs (Sabbat, btw) happen to visit. The Prince is discussing his plans with the nemesis.. My expectations? Listen to what is said, and leave to make use of it. What they did? Attacked, and damn near killed both of them, driving them both to show their powers in full view of the public to effect an escape.

I think that's the real pay off of GMing to me; Those kickass "No shit, there I was..." stories. As a player, you get to be an intimate part of some good ones. As a GM, you're not quite as intimately involved, but you're part of a whole lot more of them.

[Callan S.]

1.b.  Social accolades.  This sorta goes with the previous one.  The GM GMs because they want the social recognition of the group; they want to be the center of attention.

I consider both 1.a. and 1.b. to be really dysfunctional, but I think they're pretty common.

Really? 'Cause I missed that one, but I'll definitely mark it down as a reason I GM. You see, people really like the guy who will GM. And me, I love to be loved. Each week, I think "I can't wait to show them the crazy shit I came up with this week."

But, it makes a better game. I'm motivated each week to top my performance from the week before.

On reflection (prompted by this thread), I think I've been looking for my material to be loved, and via that, be loved as a writer. Thinking about that, it'd actually be more rewarding to just want to be loved oneself. After all, I've put more work into myself than the game notes I just wrote, so it'd make sense for it to more likely happen to me than my work.

[Jaycenn]

Starting out in 2nd grade I played for quite a while.
It wasn't until I moved to Texas at 9 that I didn't have a GM, so I became one.  Recruiting my siblings to play until I found gaming friends helped me learn, and I even dabbled in games other than AD&D.

For years I wouldn't GM unless I read throught he FULL module.  Often highlighting areas that concerned me or didn't flow and went back through it a second time.  Then a few days before the first session I'd read it again.  Overkill, sure.  But it helped me keep the flow of the adventure because I knew exactly what was coming up and where to flip the pages to.

Our sessions were sometimes a month apart, and I would actually read the module from the point we left off through the end again before the next session to hone my flow & skill.

The core of my enjoyment was watching the story unfold and seeing the players reactions.  I eventually tired of the written module and I began writing my own adventures.  I always gained my greatest satisfaction by "wow"ing the players.  A subtle twist here, a horrifying creature there.  Perhaps a mystery unfolding before them.  I like to think that I challenged the players.

Our H.S. group introduced me to rotated GM status.  It was new to me, but playing was truly enjoyable to me.  Yes, we had some heated discussions about proposed modifications to the rules, GM's perogative, etc....
But it helped (most of us) to grow, I think.

A few years ago - I GM'd in the start of our current group (Billy, Luke-my brother, Nick & Cory) because I wanted to start a group and I had the most GM experience.  It seemed a given.  It started with a few others, but was glad to get Billy in with us.  After GM'ing for over a year we started to branch out & both Billy and Luke took the GM spot at times.  It was refreshing to me & Billy's play testing and introduction of ideas has opened me to new adventures.  Before then, I never really explored the mechanics of it.  We'd make up some rules that made sense, and some that didn't; but we didn't really take ownership of the game.

Now, Sure I'll GM.  I enjoy it, I do like the "control", and I think I do it farely well.......   But I'm having so much fun playing now.  Luke has suprised me in how well he's excelled as a new GM, and Billy's GM style has really flourished.  I completely respect how Billy involves the players in developing the story and the game mechanics.  It's more of a "Team" effort to make the experience an adventure for everyone.

My turn to GM is coming up later this year...
I will reluctantly give up playing, but I have some ideas (no hints yet) and will thouroughly enjoy unfolding an adventure for the group again.
It's a win-win situation for me.

[ffilz]

Hmm, thought I'd add my own perspective...

Perhaps it's somewhat dysfunctional, but I think the biggest reason I GM is that I have found it to be the only way I can get a game that is fun for me.

I'm interested in branching out to playing, but I've found it very hard to. Look at what happened in the Fudge game I played in last summer.

Frank

[Kat Miller]

I'm gathering a collection of reasons We GM.

1 - No choice.  No one else wants the position.  A play group has chosen a Gamer to GM.  

2 - Better than the alternative.  A gamer wants to play a specific Game, or doesn't like playing under other Gms

3 - Status.  There are social perks to GMing, and some female gamers have found that they are taken more seriously by other gamers if they GM
This includes those who do it for the appreciation of our peers

4 - Control.  This includes those who do it because they like Facilitating, and Traffic Cop duties.

I'm not listing Dysfunction under reasons because I believe that to be a symptom of a dysfunctional gamer rather than an impulse to take on the duties of GM.   Yes There are gamers who like to GM to lord power over others and to mess with peoples heads, but there are also Players who never GM who like doing the same thing.  

Am I missing any?

[Marco]

I'd prefer Facilitation to Control.  But I'd break that down further.

What you have is two "I don't want to but I gotta" choices and one "'cause people love me."

I think there's an authorial aspect to being a GM that could be considered Control--but there is also a Facilitation aspect to it that is more like creating an environment for other people to control.

-Marco

[Russell Impagliazzo]

Most of the GM ``tasks'' mentioned in the Story Now essay (and earlier in this thread)
do not make GMing sound very creative or involving.   ``Traffic cop'', ``facilllitator'' and
``output generator'' don't capture what I find exciting about GMing.  (I personally GM about as often as I play, and would feel a lack if I only did one or the other, not both.)   By the way, I am fine with sharing traditional GM duties,  and frequently collaborate to some extent.  I don't think of myself as GM as ``controlling the situation'' more than the players do, but I do have a wider
opportunity for creative input.  In particular, I enjoy that GMing allows more
creative input that can be done off-line, in prep time rather than game time.
In Forge terms, my response probably reveals a Sim bias; however, in say rpga terms
I would classify myself as a Dramatist GM.
As GM, I have creative input in the following ways:

World and setting creation.  I really enjoy trying to make up a workable fantasy setting.  While to some extent, I could get the same thrill writing a fantasy novel, actually running a game in a world tests the world and brings it to life.  If I'm writing stories for myself, I can write characters and situations that go along with, rather than challenge, the assumptions
of the setting.  If I can't get the players to buy into these assumptions, then they need to be reexamined to make the world more vital.  On the other hand, if the players start using
setting logic and can extrapolate from what they've seen to new situations, then it feels like the world has consistency.  Their extrapolations can also define aspects of the world that I hadn't yet filled in.  

Defining situation.  As GM, I can define the initial situation that the characters find themselves in, and introduce new elements to that situation.     This is different from
``writing'' or ``controlling'' the story.  My favorite technique is to add some ``background
elements'' that may or may not provoke interest from the characters.  Those that provoke interest are elaborated on and moved to the foreground.  So the players are controlling the direction of the game, but the initial creative input that points out a possible direction is from me as GM.  (This can be as basic as giving the players a map of the world.  One of the players points to an area and says:  The ``Pact Lands'' sounds cool!  Let's go to the Pact Lands!''  In my notes, there's a sentence about the Pact Lands,which by the time they get there needs to be fleshed out enough that it feels like a real place.)
This process is a loop:  the closer they get the more details there need to be for them to see.  

Path prediction: This is not really creative, but it is a fun challenge to keep guessing what
the players will do.  When this NPC offers them a job, will they take it, decline it politely,
or respond with hostility?  This allows me to put more prep on likely paths, both in game and out of game.

Improvisation and modelling:  This is the other challenge, which happens when I fail
to predict the path.  OK, now what happens?  What's not only a plausible response to the PC's unexpected actions, but a fun one that keeps the game moving?  

Narration:  Providing the players a stream of information for them to understand the situation and to base their decisions on,  in a way that's entertaining and intellectually stimulating for them.  For example, the PCs are going to use an ability to speak with birds of prey to gather information about a bandit's hideout.  What attitude does the local kite have?  How would it perceive the bandits?  (IMC, the kite had a nickname for the bandits,  ``weaselworm''.  The PC's correctly deduced that the door to the hideout was trapped and should only be opened wide enough for a slim person to wriggle through.)  

Pacing and mood:  Using verbal cues and events to enhance the general level of excitement at key points,  while realizing when the players need time-out to strategize or interact among themselves.  

Themes:  Recognizing and accentuating themes that have develloped in play.  For example, IMC, there's a growing theme, ``To what extent is it appropriate to make deals with the enemy?  How binding are commitments to the enemy? ''  I picked up that these particular PC's were unusually open-minded with respect to their willingness to negotiate with ``evil''  characters and began slowly accentuating this theme, by
introducing more NPC's that , although ``evil'', had goals in common with the PC's.  
(I should perhaps point out that I don't think this is a Narrativist-style thesis.  I have no
interest in proving any answer to this question, and do not think that the PCs answers are the players' answer.  It's a way of exploring character.)  

So GMing is a creative challenge, where I'm