I’m beginning to understand why different people game, that each person approaches the gaming hobby looking to satisfy different desires.

But why do we run games?

I understand that GMs will still approach the hobby looking to satisfy a particular desire. Is there more than that? What makes a particular gamer the GM? What Does the GM get out of being a GM?

I lack the words or terms to explain why, but I feel there is a difference between the steady player and the steady GM. I believe it goes beyond control issues. I had thought that this idea would have been over discussed but I have been having trouble locating previous discussions on this matter.

So, I’d like to know, when you choose to run a game, what influences your decision? Why do you run what you run? When your looking at a new game what are you looking for as a gm?

I used to think (foolishly) that I, personally, could more robustly pursue my Creative Agenda as GM than as player: "Sure, they just want to show how cool their characters are, but if I had the power of the GM I could show them how much better it is to address internal conflicts. They'll be so grateful!" Incoherence in sharp relief.

Nowadays I do it for variety, like playing catcher even though I'm best at shortstop. And, of course, I do it for logistics: to leverage the offer of GMing in order to form a game that would not otherwise have happened.

I evaluate new games no differently as a GM than as a player. The value of a game is to the group, no matter what position I personally hold.

Kat Miller wrote: I’m beginning to understand why different people game, that each person approaches the gaming hobby looking to satisfy different desires.

But why do we run games?

Hiya,

One thing I'm really happy about from all our babbling in these forums over the last few years is distinguishing between necessary GM-tasks vs. the artificial construct of "the GM" as a person.

Kat, I'm not sure if you've checked out any of that, but the basic idea is that there are (for lack of a better word) "organizing and management tasks" at all levels of play which get distributed among the people who are playing. I think they're listed in the Glossary under "GM-tasks."

Those tasks are absolutely necessary, but the distribution of them (and which ones, and when) varies all over the map. One such distribution is to shovel all or almost all of them onto one person, and for some screwy historical reason, this rather untenable option is often considered the default.

As far as I can tell, putting all the GM-tasks onto one person is a horrible idea, suited only for relatively messed-up or at least highly limited Social Contracts in the first place. At the very least, such a distribution is really tiring for the centralized person, and includes many unique self-moderating requirements for everyone else, some of which aren't typically fun in most activities.

Even "the GM" as usually assumed by most RPG designs and texts doesn't usually go that far.

I think a key element of any good RPG design is finding a set or distribution of these tasks which is fun for everyone, regardless of who's carrying which tasks at any given moment.

If a given approach to distributing them isn't fun for (say) me, then the answer to your question, for that game, for me, is "Never." That's why I can't fathom GMing Continuum, for example - the range of tasks which I woul be uniquely expected to carry is just out of my range of fun. Exalted also comes to mind (speaking only of the core book); I can see what I'm expected to do, and I recoil from it.

I hope that idea helps, or is interesting. If so, could you further describe what you had in mind with the phrase "the GM" in terms of the tasks?

Best,
Ron

I think Clinton's on to something. I used to be the GM for the longest time in our group. As a TA as well as my first job after grad school, my Facilitator duties were my favorite aspects of those jobs.

Of course, I also think that being a writer has something to do with it.

to pick up on the twin threads seeming to develop here ("Why I GM" and "What do you mean GM?")...

I drifted into the GM role because it was, under the assumed modus operandi of the local gaming culture, the only way to gain substantive input into the direction of the game. As a player, my tasks were to create a character with hooks for the GM to use, and then use tactical skill to "win" adventures.

And yes, once in the GM role, I continued this MO. Hey, that's The Way to play, right?

I'd happily go back to non-gm play if I could be sure I wouldn't be "colour" for the GM's plot... deprogramming of locals continues...

I also think that Clinton has an unfairly large share of the truth :-)

For me personally, there are a couple of reasons in addition to the facilitation and logistics stuff already mentioned:

- Surprise. When they think of something that wouldn't have occured to me in a million years, that's wonderful.
- Taste. There are games that I enjoy GMing, but wouldn't be particularly eager to character-play.

SR
--

I GMed (DMed, in those days) the first game I ever played, with my family, because I wanted to play more than anyone else and that was the way I could do it. (Also, I suppose, because it gave me power over my parents, which I used to kill my father's character over and over until they wouldn't play with me any more.)

Then I played at the local library club and had a blast. Then summer ended and I ran at my school because I was one of two kids who knew how to play.

Then I started GMing all the time because everyone else was terrible at it. I was so overjoyed when I finally got to high school and got to play again, because there were lots of people in our club who were really good GMs.

Now I mostly GM because even though I know some good GMs, almost none of them can reliably give the kind of play experiences I like except in one-on-one games, which are kind of a thing unto themselves (though not completely different).

I'm more comfortable with the GM's role because it's a giving role, EVEN in functional adversarial gamist play, and more obviously so everywhere else. You're providing stuff for other people. John Barth's story "Lost in the Funhouse" has a line about being the kind of person who makes funhouses for other people rather than getting lost in them yourself, and that always struck me as being exactly what being a GM is about.

I hate the GMs role currently because I'm in serious need of certain kinds of wish fulfillment right now that it doesn't provide me.

The observation that 'the GM' is something of a fallacy and that there are several roles there that can be apportioned in lots of different ways seems a rather liberating one, though one I've just barely really started to explore in practice.

Clinton, I agree with you that facilitation is extremely important. Let me ask a question though: there's social facilitation for both in-game and out-of-game issues, and then facilitation of playing that game with respect to system things and the communication of imaginative content (keeping everyone on the same page). These things seem like they could get subdivided, as long as you have multiple cooperating leaders, an agreed-upon distribution of authority for different tasks.

An example I remember from the old days were games with different 'teams' of adventurers in the same setting, sometimes adversarial, sometimes just separate, with the GM-team moving back and forth between the separate rooms to 'referee' (here in a more literal sense than normal) the separate groups.

I guess what I'm wondering is what breakdowns of the different kinds of authority (and kinds of facilitation that go with them) are functional relative to (a) traditional and (b) nontraditional apportionments of the cluster of duties that were once thought to go with 'being GM'.

This is in support of Clinton's "separation of conflict and resolution."

There's something pretty interesting my co-GMed Ars Magica group has been noticing. I don't know whether my fellow players would say it this way, but:

The GM wants to know your character in a very particular way.

I articulated it on my blog kind of like this: there are three ways of knowing a character.

First, as the character's player/creator/owner/author. I want to know my characters inside and out so that I can do them justice.

Second, as the character's audience/fan. I want to know my fellow players' characters because they are SO COOL and I catch my breath every time they come on screen. I can't wait to see what they do and I can't wait to see who it shows them to be.

Third, as the character's GM. I want to know your characters inside and out, but not so that I can do them justice - so that I can inflict upon them the exact right, very worst grief.

The player and the GM have the same goal wrt the character, which is to make the character shine. The player approaches it by learning what makes the character tick and playing it fully; the GM approaches it by learning what makes the character tick and playing fully against it. Between the two of us, the character comes to life.

--So, for Narrativist play at least, I'd add "providing the right adversity" to the list of GMing tasks.

Furthermore, I think that there are probably very good reasons to give the person responsible for providing adversity some serious rights when it comes to arranging the world around the characters.

I find it personally odd to be coming to this position, after arguing for my entire career here that the GM and the players are the same kind of thing.

-Vincent

Holy crap. Did I just convince Vincent of my wacky GM-central theories?

So, here's where I think we are on this. (By the way, we're thread-crapping all over Kat's topic here. Should we split? Maybe. We're figuring out what a GM is, which will tell us why you'd want to be one. If you're enjoying this - or not enjoying this - speak up, Kat.)

So, there's three - I'm adding a new one - different types of things we're talking about with the GM.

a) Traditional GM duties: making up the world, playing NPCs, introducing conflict.
b) Traffic cop duties: Apportioning the above duties out and refereeing.
c) The facilitator: the central social and authoritative focus for the game.

None of these have to be the same person. In fact, one person doing all this is weird and hard. This is evidenced as being recognized from the beginning by Gygax himself. D&D introduced the idea of a "caller," a party lead and co-GM who announced the actions of the members of the party to the GM. This "caller" had serious facilitator duties, while the GM was more of an input-output device, taking the traffic cop duties and the input-output duties (which is what I'm going to call the first item above.)

I'm seeing a schematic here, much like a computer. There's the "bus," which is part of your motherboard. It decides what data goes where. It's the traffic cop. There's peripherals - your modems, printers, scanners, and stuff. You put input into them and output comes out. In this case, though, it's your landscape designer, NPCs, and wondering monster generator. You put info into these, even if it's as simple as "I go around the corner" and out comes info, "Two stirges attack."

Finally, there's the guy who points at the computer and says, "Here's something neat. You guys are going to sit down and use this with me. What's the first input you want to put in?" He's the typist, but he's the reason everyone's there.

Using this, what do some games turn out looking like:

Early D&D
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: "player"
Output: "GM"
Facilitator: "caller"

White Wolf Storytelling
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: "Player"
Output: "GM"
Facilitator: "GM"
(see how one person does everything? see how it doesn't work?)

Dogs in the Vineyard
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: player or "GM"
Output: shared, generally conflict winner or opposite of input
Facilitator: "GM"
(pretty traditional, but apportions out input and output. this game is where my ideas are all coming from, by the way.)

Elfs
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: players
Output: "GM" or player (in the case of Dumb Luck)
Facilitator: "GM"

Universalis
Traffic cop: shared duty, everyone's responsibility
Input: one player
Output: another player, winner of conflict
Facilitator: guy who called for the game
(see! even the the GM-less game, there are people acting as the GM. we just don't call it that because it's spread out.)

I think of four categories of narrativist motivation:


• I can play to express my particular vision for a particular protagonist. (And for this I'd want a GM like Tom, or Vincent: "I want to know your characters inside and out...so that I can inflict upon them the exact right, very worst grief.")

• I can GM responsively (like Tom and Vincent), to facilitate (via appropriate antagonism) the player's expression of their protagonist.

• I can GM to express a particular vision about a particular antagonist of my own design. (And for this I'd want players who author their characters responsively.)

• And I can play to author my character in response to a GM's vision for antagonism.

I've done all four, at various times and with varying degrees of success. Right now I'm really itching for system-facilitated #3.

Paul

Hi guys,

I find myself GMing for several different reasons.

- Being a system monkey pushes me into being the Helmsman for a group very often.
- Few people I have met have a good grasp of how to run Nar or Gamist games, so I'd rather at least run it and introduce it for others
- I enjoy some elements of world building/interpreting setting

The first point is something I wonder how often occurs in general- that the person who is quick to grasp rules ends up being the helmsman and GM by default? If I had a choice about it, I'd probably get to be a player 50% of the time and GM 50% of the time.

Chris

Quick aside, then on to the main topic:

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: White Wolf Storytelling
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: "Player"
Output: "GM"
Facilitator: "GM"
(see how one person does everything? see how it doesn't work?)

Bankuei wrote:
The first point is something I wonder how often occurs in general- that the person who is quick to grasp rules ends up being the helmsman and GM by default? If I had a choice about it, I'd probably get to be a player 50% of the time and GM 50% of the time.

All of this is in my experience not particularly reflective of anything. But as to why people GM . . . .

1.a. The feeling of power. I put this one first because I'm thinking very particularly about a player I know who likes to GM and is hyper-controlling about it. He wants the players to do things HIS WAY and will use a great many social strategies -- pouting, cajoling, bribery leap to mind -- to have the players do things "his way". Which is the "right way". It is reasonably obvious to me that he GMs largely to feel in control of his life. And while this particular player is amongst the worst I've ever met, he is pretty far from the only person I've met who is a GM largely to be in charge of things.

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.

2. Someone has to do it. This was particularly true in the early days of gaming for me. Playing RPGs generally requires a GM and to play that game, someone had to do it. Usually the person who introduced the game to the group. Which put us in the common situation of the GM running a game he wanted to play in.

Also dysfunctional, but to a far lesser extent than 1, hehe, and if the person happens to want to do number 3 it isn't even so bad, most of the time.

3. Wanting to tell a cool story. Regardless of their CA, they have this thing they want to do in game. Under this catagory I'd largely place the other things people have been saying about why GMs GM, so I won't repeat them.

CPXB wrote:
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.

Hi Clinton,

And I'd bet that "GM-by-default" equals an unhappy GM.

This is a really interesting question, and one I've been thinking about quite a bit recently.

I used to think I took the role of GM because I was a frustrated novelist. Well, I'm currently in the middle (almost literally, as I'm about halfway done) of writing a novel, and I've found (to my surprise and delight) that writing fiction is absolutely nothing like being a GM, and the rewards I get by writing are completely different from the rewards I get as GM.

Part of it is that, like others have mentioned, it just falls to me. With most of the people I've played with in the past 5 years or so, Im the only person that will run the games I really want to play. (Mike Holmes has been running HeroQuest, but not in Glorantha--if I want Glorantha, I have to run the game myself.)

I also realize that, like Clinton, I like the feeling I get, the social reinforcement of "Wow, Josh sure throws some cool shit at us! We love it when he GMs!" And I really like coming up with cool shit to throw at players.

Which leads into: I really enjoy coming up with cool setting stuff, cool NPCs, cool plot bangs and throwing them at people. I love seeing what players do with them, I love being surprised by players as they come up with stuff that's far cooler than I ever could have come up with. I like doing the prepwork for the game (in fact, if I'm not running a game, I do prepwork for games I may or may not run in the future, because I get antsy if I'm not doing game prep). I like being the facilitator, I like being the bassist in the band. And I often think that I'm a better GM than I am a player,

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: 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.

Wow, to answer Ron’s Question about what I meant by GM, I going to use Clinton’s ideas on GM Duties:

a) Traditional GM duties: making up the world, playing NPCs, introducing conflict.
b) Traffic cop duties: Apportioning the above duties out and refereeing.
c) The facilitator: the central social and authoritative focus for the game

I was Looking at the GM more in the terms of the Traffic Cop and the Facilitator. I was wondering why certain people choose to do these tasks AND after they choose to do them what they look for in the games they run.

I’m looking at my own Gming history. I became a DM out of necessity. I wanted to play more than there were games looking for new (female) players. Being a DM allows me easier access to other gamers, because when I was younger it seemed that there was always more gamers than DM’s. I still like to play so I gravitated to players who also DM or encourage other players to DM but still ran more games than I played. (I eventually married my Dungeon Master)

When Mage came out one of my DnD players bought the game because he wanted to play it. He wanted me to run it. I started to have options on what to run. After Mage I still played DnD but didn’t choose to run it anymore.

Lots of changes have occurred since then, and I have a wealth of games I can play or run at my disposal. I still end up running more than I get to play. Both Mike and I get “itchy” to run a game if its been over 6 months between Gming something.

But I’m noticing a difference between games I enjoy playing and games I enjoy running. It feels like both activities are filling separate voids rather than the same one. There are some games that while being fun to play do not satisfy something. If I’m a player for too long a time, I pine to run something. Mike and I do freeform role play but it doesn’t satisfy his urge for a “real” game, and if he is a player for too long a time then he pines to run a game.

I enjoy playing TORG, but I have no inclination to run it. Mage is still a game I’ll run if given a chance. MLwM is a game than Mike and I both enjoy running and usually have to negotiate who gets to be Master. I know that for me certain games are more fulfilling to run than others, but I’m not sure why. I was looking to see if others feel the same.

That’s why I want to know what influences a person into volunteering to GM and what a person who assumes he will be the GM looks for in a game.

The responses have been very helpful,
Thank you.

Another role of the GM is to introduce the game in the first place.


When someone suggests a game that the group should play, generally speaking the suggester is the DM. Not always, but often.

Hey Kat,

Just curious, but do you, or have you, ever alternated? As I mentioned in my previous post, both my current group and my last alternated games. My previous group met several times a week, and generally, no one would GM more than one session in a row. My current group meets once a week, and while one of us is willing to GM for a few weeks in a row when there's a gap in the other's game, we usually alternate. This weekend, it was Dogs. Last weekend, it was Riddle.

This allows me to, mostly, fulfill both my urge to play, and my urge to GM. One of these days though, I'm going to try to convince Lx to run a TRoS game, and maybe I'll run a Dogs game.. That way, we both get to PLAY in the games that caught our enthusiasm.

Hi Lance,

married to another GM, I get a good deal of alternating. Sometimes its tasks, sometimes its Games and sometimes its groups as certain groups we game with don't mesh well with certain games or certain players. We're lucky to have a number of different venues to game with and luckier still to have 6 or so different gamers willing to take on the Gm tasks for different games.

I'm not looking to figure a way to balance the needs, so much as recognize that there are infact two different needs, and what feeds the GMing need.

I can recognize in myself the times I GM for control -
against gamers I don't trust to GM fairly, but I do trust to play nicely.

I recognize that I do GM for the social perk- to be loved.
Theres a certain high I get when I pull off a good game and the players are beaming at me because they have all had a great time.

I was hoping there was more to the desire to GM than being a controling attention seeking individual.

I am hoping to more fully understand the Gming desire and use what I learn to help game design

I was one of those people who read the rules to the game and told everyone else how to play. We had a small gaming group, playing board games and card games and Atari and pinball and the occasional wargame or bookcase game, and if my wife and I brought a game, I was the one who taught everyone else how to play. If Bob and Margaret (the other anchors of the group, other people drifted in and out) brought a game, Bob was the one who read the rules and explained to everyone how to play.

We treated D&D the same way. My gaming group bought the basic (1E) set for me, I read it, and I explained to them how to play. Since it was part of the rules that only the DM read the rules, that made me the DM. When Bob picked up Gamma World, he was the referee. We got Jan (my wife) to run Metamorphosis Alpha, which she swapped for Star Frontiers (more what she wanted to run), in part so that we would all take turns playing, and we'd have the opportunity to play with each other (Bob and I liked partnering in games, which we couldn't do if one of us was the referee).

After that, I got good at it, and people kept asking me to do it. Periodically eventually someone else would offer to run a game, but logistics usually caused those games to collapse--somehow I had managed to organize things such that I could keep a gaming group together for years, although I don't quite know how as organizational skills have never been my forte.

Also, I gained so much knowledge about how these games work that a lot of guys were afraid to have me as a player. In that regard, I'm reminded of a time when a rather novice player prevailed upon (Multiverser co-author) E. R. Jones to play a solo D&D game with this other guy refereeing. As I understand it, Jones created a character, asking at each step along the way whether he would be allowed to do this, have that, buy the other thing, gradually piecing together his paladin. Then play began. The novice referee had intended to railroad the scenario with a quest of some sort. Jones immediately broke the rails and got out of what the referee intended, leaving the poor guy completely at a loss for what to do next.

I'm not that bad; but I get very focused on play, and I think through these things several layers deep. In one game I recall the referee had established that a colony of orcs that had been peaceful for generations was suddenly raiding the local elves, no known reason. The other players were thinking in terms of busting orc heads and cleaning out the lair. I was thinking in terms of figuring out why they were suddenly so aggressive when they had not been for so long. The answer turned out to be that there was a rather nasty new boss in the area, a human psionicist who was trying to build the beginnings of an army for conquest out of the humanoids he was collecting. I bypassed the orcs and went for him--and the referee found himself scrambling to cover himself as his intended end scenario was suddenly pulled up to the beginning.

It's also worth noting that when I'm a player, I have a very difficult time not landing in the "facilitator" role. Often other players will look to me to provide the focus and direction for the group, but I find that makes me feel like the game is about my character, when it should be about everyone's characters. I really try hard not to take over the group, but it often lands in my lap anyway.

So I think some of us get put in the referee's role because we're good at these games, and you'd rather have someone really good at the game in the referee's chair than in the player's chair when you're the referee.

I get my pleasure here from making the game fun for everyone else, and in finding an outlet for my creative juices. I'm the kind of guy who likes to create things, particularly if others are going to admire them, so that's a big motivation for me. That's probably why I tend to run simulationist games, although I tend to drift a lot more between agenda when I'm on teh player's side of the screen.

--M. J. Young

To reference Clinton’s ideas on GM Duties,

a) Traditional GM duties: making up the world, playing NPCs, introducing conflict.
b) Traffic cop duties: Apportioning the above duties out and refereeing.
c) The facilitator: the central social and authoritative focus for the game

Unlike many people, I do all three of the above well and I find it takes no effort for me to do all three of the above without any risk of dysfunctionality in the gaming group.

At the same time, if I start out doing all three well, I can slowly encourage inexperienced players to risk finding their own conflicts and such, since they feel more secure taking these risks if they know that I can cover for them if they mess up. For example, when I game mastered, I made certain the quieter players sat nearer me and I always looked directly at them so that they no longer risked being accidentally drowned out by the naturally more aggressive and noisier players. As game master, I become not only friend and gaming comrade but the social agenda's safety net and training wheels.

There are too few people who have both the abilities and the inclinations to help others by allowing themselves to be made into living safety nets and training wheels. We become teachers, social workers, nurses, counselors, dirt-under-the-fingernails philanthropists -- and game masters who can handle all three functions.

Doctor Xero

My experience is very similiar to others who posted. Particularly Lance.

Why do we do it? Good question. For me, it's all I knew. The first game I ever played, I DM'ed. I sure didn't know the rules (I was 12 at the time), but no one could make stuff up like me. After my family moved to Texas, I ran into an existing group with its own DM's. When they said they wanted to play, I just assumed they meant they wanted me to run some campaign. Well, I showed up and ended up .. playing. (I was 16, then.) I learned something very valuable that day: I hated playing RPG's.

And I drove everyone crazy. Not having enough to do, stripped of my familiar powers, I about blew a fuse. When it came my turn to DM, I learned another astounding thing: I had no freaking idea what the rules were.

Time and again, the more learned, bookish players in our group would throw rulings in my face until I resolved to sit down and read the manuals. Then I learned something else: Gary Gygax is a fucking idiot.

So I thought, I know, I'll write rules that make sense. I mean, I was sort of going with my own rules, anyway, without really thinking about it. To be fair and accountable, I'll just write down everything I've been doing and that will fix the nonsense and simplify the drunken alien language.

My "extra chapters" drew mixed reactions. They frowned them down when I was playing but generally humored me when I DM'ed. I found that I liked design even more than DM'ing, and I made more and more changes. Until .. the four-hour fight against seven zombies. They fired me.

********

(Cut forward past college and computer career.) Joining Luke Neatrour's group and discovering the Forge has led to my first ever wa-hoo enjoyment as a player. Seriously. Now, my first attempt is to play the page, in all honesty.

I still prefer to GM. It's hard to express why.

I'm with CPXB. Honestly, I think most of the reasons why people want to GM instead of play are really dysfunctional. I know that's true of me.

I like "facilitator" as the really important role here. Just the guy who is sort of the occasion of the game, the locus of the game, the one guy you have to have to have quorum. Sure, he's got some responsibilities too, but those vary wildly.

In my Shadows in the Fog (see weblink below), I use the term Host. Partly that's because it's a Victorian thing, but also for me I think that's the central role in that game. If I'm the Host, that's my job: I'm the guy who's throwing the party. But my job, as Host, is simply to make sure that I do what I can to ensure that the party goes well. I don't decide what kind of fun people will have, or how, and I certainly didn't decide that John and Martha were going to get it on on the back porch. But you know, everyone had fun, so that's okay, and I'm the guy who has to do the tidying up afterwards.

But old-fashioned GMing? Wow. Prima donna dysfunction waiting to happen. Take a look at some of those RPG.net "scary DM guy" stories.

When I was in junior high and high school, I was in a circle of friends whose families mostly had modest incomes. One of my very best friends, however, comes from a family of some wealth. He was originally our GM for AD&D and other games for a few very simple reasons.

The GM had to be very familiar with the books. To be familiar with the books meant to have possession of the books. My friend could afford the books while most of us could not. His parents were wary to let him lend the books out for extended periods. My friend was most familiar with the most source material, and became GM by default.

The GM had to have a place to run the game in mind. My friend's house was larger (and better insulated for sound) than most others. My friend's parents were more permissive about having people over. Again, same friend, again GM by default.

As we got older and my friend and I grew closer, things changed somewhat. Most of us started earning some amount of our own money. We became more considerate, so we were allowed to play in each other's homes more often. We got cars and driving priveleges, so we could plan things more easily without bothering our parents. With these new freedoms, we all bought a few books for different systems. Most of us wrote a few (or a few dozen) of our own systems. All of us did some world building and background type work. My friend's parents trusted me (at least as much as they did him) after knowing me a few years and seeing me grow up, so he lent me many of his books.

We each ran the games we'd ourselves written, at least the first few times. Each person generally also was the first to read and to run a new system he himself bought. Most of the players preferred to play. My friend who normally GMed wanted to play himself sometimes, so I became the GM for most of those games that he didn't run. We'd take rotations on some games or in certain campaigns of others. Other games were strictly his to run or strictly mine, as we each found some games more fulfilling as either GM or player (or one or the other of us simply didn't care enough to learn about particular games to GM them).

I met different friends who were also into RPGs later in life. I found that some people just prefer to always be players and never GM.

That being said, I like to GM because I get tired of playing in groups who are always getting a Monty Haul or who are always getting swatted like flies by big nasty NPCs who have little business being interested in four first-level half-elven rangers or five no-name, no street-cred runners or three 100-point recently unemployed biotech researchers who haven't made up their minds to do anything more than start up a new firm.
I like to GM for players who are tired of these things too.

I like to GM because it gives me a chance to look into the players a little as I watch them play their characters. I'm not a psychologist, but I like to people-watch and I like to think about what other people are thinking and why.

I like to GM because I get tired of playing with three to six other living, breathing people and having my character forced into fewer choices per session than Link or a descendent of Erdrick. I like to GM for people tired of that, too.

I like to GM because I don't always want to play Rifts, Rifts, and more Rifts. There's a CoC group around here, some miniatures groups, and plenty of LARPers, but when I want to play a non-miniatures tabletop other than Rifts or Call of Cthulu, I usually have to be the GM. My games may not be better, but at least it's not the same game with the same problems year after year. I have more than one game I like, and I come with my own very different problems! I like variety, and I'm quite certain at least some other people do too.

I like to GM because I like to get people to playtest my latest crazy rules tweak to whatever system. I like to get them to try my newest, funkiest, craziest system from scratch once in a while, too. Or maybe my new setting and backstory for one or two sessions while on hiatus from another game, a one-shot with no commitment. Most people will try these with someone they've already played with. It's harder to find people at the local games shop who want to do these things right off.

I like to GM because I like to influence the style of play. If part of the group is in a hack'n'slash mood while the others are in a discreet diplomacy mood, I like to try to give each side a little of what they want. I don't care for an all hack-n-slash RPG (that's what FPS games are for) nor do I want to hear whining about using guns instead of butter every time a shot rings out. Some players are all one or the other, but most I have played with just want their shooting/talking/stealing/magic/whatever fix in part of the session and they are happy. Many players are in HnS mode after a bad day, but are more balanced and play their characters more subtly most of the time. It's good to throw a couple big bads the way of the HnS guy when noone will ever find the bodies. It's also good to give the indication that the PCs are outgunned and need to use their mouths instead of their weapons once in a while. I find the group holds together better if the GM takes such things into account, no matter how the session was intended to go before it began.

I like to GM because my wife is understanding about the hobby, so I can set up at my house, have my references already here, have the group come over, and be able to kick them out when my wife and I are tired. I like RPGs, but don't keep me in a session from 7pm to 3am on a work night. Feel free to kill my character if I leave that session at midnight and it's a problem -- I'd rather create a new character every week or two than have my wife and my boss mad at me when I roll into bed two hours before the alarm goes off and get nothing done once I get to work.

I like to GM because some players think I'm good at it. Some don't, but they can find a game with another GM, run the game themselves, or learn to deal with my shortcomings. I try to get better as time passes, and noone forces anyone to play in my group. For the most part, people who stay in a game I'm GMing like my style. A few have stuck around a while in groups because they had no alternatives, and as long as they weren't disrupting the group that was fine.

I like to GM because I like riddles, I like mystery, I like hiding Easter eggs, I like puzzles, I like talking in different character voices, I like playing the villian, I like playing the overlooked sidekick the valiant adventurer picks up in the second scene, and I like playing the comic relief. The players play one or sometimes two characters. As the GM, I get to play the rest of the people, and not just in speaking parts. I also get to be the architect, the city planner, the crazy mage who wrote a spellbook full of joke spells, the poet and bard, the journalist, the copywriter, the radio DJ, the referance librarian, the blacksmith who decides what kinds of things to keep in stock and what has to be ordered custom, the gardener who decided how to cut the hedges in front of the estate, the school administrator who decides to teach that magic is evil -- in a land with magic granted by a benevolent diety, and any other imagined person who not only appears but who helped shape the imaginary space before the player characters got there. When I've had time before a session, I draw, write, and sometimes even sculpt what the PCs might run across. If I don't use it because the players went a different route, I recycle it for use later in a different context. It's great fun when a player asks what's inside a book to hand him a notebook with three short stories in it (better if they are all written in a special quirky dialect the locals use). It's likewise great to have a drawing of the facade of a building the PCs will be seeing repeatedly. The players really get into the setting quickly when certain items are made more memorable. There's no need to go overboard, of course. A little extra time spent in worldbuilding and townbuilding makes a long-term campaign easier to run, IMHO. The players get a feel for what their characters might feel tied to, and are less likley to randomly decide to have the PCs move to the other end of the continent and become brigands. I GM partly because I enjoy these little works of background art and detail. I'd play more if other GMs did as much of it.

I guess I GM mainly because playing gives so many options, but GMing gives so many more. I'm not just talking about in the game session, and mostly not about that. A good player can exercise as many options as a good GM in a session (not so true for players under some bad GMs). The GM has more options in the session time, the play place, the setting, et cetera. Maybe it is about control, but I don't think of it that way. The players want someone else to take care of these details. The GM generally takes care of them.

I'm sure some of you have seen the home design shows in which a designer asks what has to stay, what has to go, and what's negotiable. They then take all these apparently random pieces, put them in a room in which you don't think they belong, and then the room comes together in the end. I like to think of being the GM as doing that. The players vote on a rules systems, premise, and general setting. They make characters that are thrown in the middle of that. I am there, as GM, to make NPCs, background story, little memorable details, decisions of color and size, and decisions of balance. That's it. It's their room. I'm just helping them breathe a little life into it.

Bankuei wrote: The first point is something I wonder how often occurs in general- that the person who is quick to grasp rules ends up being the helmsman and GM by default?

Groundhog - great first post! Welcome to the Forge.

Chris, what do you mean by 'old-fashioned GMing'? (Maybe this is a subject for another thread.) In my mind the phrase connotes the guy who sets up a play environment and lets the players explore it as they see fit, with no railroading, some guiding, a liberal hand with information and plot hooks for players to pursue or otherwise, and a strong emphasis on providing fair challenges and rewards - the style of many mid-seventies D&D players. I think a lot of people think of railroading and 'impossible thing before breakfast' type games as 'old fashioned', and I agree that that setup is more likely to be dysfunctional for more groups, but in fact this is a late development in the history of RPGing, only becoming commonly endorsed and accepted in the early eighties, and not by everyone even then. The first style I don't think has to be dysfunctional at all - it works for lots of groups, though the GM has to master some non-obvious but not too hard techniques to make it fly.

Well, anyway, enough grousing - if there's material there that's worth pursuing maybe we should take it to another thread. It's interesting how much overlap we're seeing between the posts here - does anyone have reasons that they GM that they think are really radically different from everything we've seen so far?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

CPXB wrote:
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.

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.

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

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?

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

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