Ok - this question dives into the simple. Why do you GM?

This question's been rolling around in my head for the longest time. Of all the supposed biases on the Internet in gaming, this one's real, too: people do look down on people who won't GM. Player-only players are considered the second-class citizens of role-playing, and GM's are the real creators, second only to game designers.

Fact is, I hate GMing. (Note to my group: It's ok. Really.) I love playing a character, whether I'm using him to create a story, win the game, or try and get in his little made-up head. GMing makes me not only be responsible for everyone else's fun, but spread myself over a bunch of NPC's, giving me no chance to really get into the game.

This isn't a GNS thing - I've seen GM's who really like being the anchor in creating a story, GM's who love to see if they can "beat" their players with tough challenges, and GM's who love creating a coherent world to play in.

My question is: why? Why are you drawn to GMing, and do you enjoy it more than being a player?

Simple creativity. It's an outlet. I like to detail settings as a form of escapism. Either as a player or GM. Traditionally, though the GM gets to do more of it, so in that sort of game I prefer to GM. But I do like play as well.

Mike

For me, it boils down to one thing: I've always been the GM. I really love to play, but at least 90% of the time, from jr. high until now, if I didn't own / read / design / teach the game, pick a night, organize the whole thing, I wouldn't get to play. 'Cept for GROS and the occasional game of Lunch Money.

Playing InSpectres w/ Jared, and later Universalis and Primeval w/ Mike and unheilig was the first time I 'just played' in years. I felt I was a little stumped during Primeval because of it, actually. It took me until Universalis (later in that day) to get into it, tho it could be because I was playing in a more familiar setting (Western on Mars vs. Epic Myth).

That's probably part of why I drifted away from a local group too - I was a player when I'm used to GM'ing, tho that's only a small part of it.

I do like GM'ing tho. I get satisfaction from setting up a scenario and seeing players enjoy playing. I like seeing that a game I designed works well in play. Or that the players remember it and refer to it like a movie they saw.

Sean

at first, i did it because no one else wanted to, and i liked the creativity.

then came the love of a challenge. i dislike loose, unstructured games, but i don't particularly care for games where every step is plotted out in advance. therefore, in order to give players the idea that there is an entire world of events unfolding about them, in which they can be spectators or active participants, i have to move quickly, and am frequently required to embellish like a bastard. they never look at the thing i want them to look at. they look at something else. something i haven't even considered. they never do what i think they might.

i look at a situation, consider some possible reactions (attack, run, negotiate, seduce, mock, rob, harass, befriend), and write down results for these possible reactions. they never do any of that. they do something else. in retrospect, it makes sense. but at the time, they're expecting a result, and i have to tell them something. i tell them, and they ask specific questions. and they always want a good answer.

i love that. i love being forced to invent and create on the spur of the moment. i love it when they feel like they're free to do whatever they want, and when they know that their actions have serious consequences in the world they inhabit. i love it when i say, hey, you run into your old pal f'thaxhas, the soldier, and they all grin and offer to buy him a drink. you old son of a gun, they say. how was that siege at mharringa? don't ask, he says, and they all laugh loud. good times with an old friend. then he follows them to the coast, where he's got a score to settle. but he doesn't make it. cut down by an assassin's arrow, meant for one of them. they avenge him, and then the silence and the elegy.

good old f'thaxhas. old friend.

and it's there, right there, shared. they'll never see that guy again. some good times, though. some real good times.

that's why i do it.

unodiablo wrote: For me, it boils down to one thing: I've always been the GM. I really love to play, but at least 90% of the time, from jr. high until now, if I didn't own / read / design / teach the game, pick a night, organize the whole thing, I wouldn't get to play. 'Cept for GROS and the occasional game of Lunch Money.

So, I'm planning/trying to GM a lot more than I have been. Why? I've thought about it, and . . . harsh as it may sound, I think it's about control. Control in its' literal, not pejorative, sense. In my case, I particularly want to control the amount of control - i.e., I want control so I can try and "force" the players to take some control. But the bottom line is, the GM has more power. Sometimes, you want power. You can use it for good or ill and all that, but it's still power.

Thinking back into my dim past, when I did a LOT of oD&D GMing . . . I think it was an important but subtle variation on control. The thing was, we had some rules, and an Avalon Hill "Outdoor Survival" map . . . but that was it. We NEEDED to do something - in our case, a kinda round-robin world-creation - in order to have a "functional" game, and to do that, someone needed to take control and establish "facts" about the world. So, those who were interested in that did so, and (looking back on it) we did a surprisingly good job of sharing power amongst those who were so inclined.

GMing provides a particular kind of creative outlet that it seems to me is, at its' core, about retaining control. Psuedo-paradoxically, in some forms of play you want control so that you can give it up, but it's still control. At least, that's how I'm thinking about it at the moment.

Gordon

I think part of it for me is control. I know what kinds of games I like & it's often easier to run them than to find someone else who's running them. I'm the only person in my group who presently has any interest in running Sorcerer or Le Mon Mouri (plus, Sean asked me to run it) or Over the Edge or Maelstrom.

Also, I have so many ideas for RPG runs, it's scary. There's no way I have time to run them all, so I run what I can. But I always have at least 10 different ideas running through my head at any given moment.

Finally, my Players are very complimentary when it comes to my GMing, which makes me want to GM more. (Similarly, I try to let them know as often as I can how much I appreciate them as Players. Positive feedback is a wonderful thing.)

For the most part, though, I just enjoy it. I love playing NPCs. I love setting scenes. I love presenting conflict & complications to Players & seeing where they go with it. I used to really be into worldbuilding, but I've grown less interested in that now. I'm much more interested in coming up with some interesting conflicts & cool color, using that as a springboard for Players to create a good narrative.

Huh. Good question, Clinton.

I want to be God. Is that wrong?

Seriously...it's a great challenge. Create a world, tell a story, balance dozens of NPCs, react to the input of six people, and be entertaining...all at the same time. It's a rush.

I am literally a different person while GMing. I think a lot faster, speak more clearly, express more. It's the only way I can regularly attain that level of, er, clarity I guess.

Clinton R Nixon wrote: Ok - this question dives into the simple. Why do you GM?

Fact is, I hate GMing. (Note to my group: It's ok. Really.) I love playing a character,

My question is: why? Why are you drawn to GMing, and do you enjoy it more than being a player?

I GM because I have a need to create stories (note "not tell" stories) I do write fiction. Yet gaming is a different flavor of creating stories alltogether, it's cooperative nature make is both better and worse than book fiction.

I also GM because very few gamers I know do so, and of those many of them just don't have a passion for it, some act like their whole purpose is to oppose players and take delight in maiming the PC's in creative ways. Others want to create stories but become mired in the mechanical nature of the games they use. So more often than not I get asked to GM because other players recognize the above situations.

Hey Clinton you shoulda let me know... :P I'll GM something sometime :)

I GM mostly because I was the only one who would do it, plus being the only person to bother to learn the rules :) But also, until I checked out the Pool, Donjon, and the whole lot of games that throw narrative control into the player's hands, it was the mass of visuals that I wanted to make happen that I never realized that it was about authorial control.

There's also the other fact that after playing "I check for traps" every 30 seconds, I knew I had to have framing control to cut out the boring stuff and get to the action.

Chris

Ah, the lone voice in the wilderness (aside from Clinton).

I HATE running games. Yes, even InSpectres (tho' that's been an easier pill to swallow than most). I'm pretty much in the same camp as Clinton as far as the reasons go.

In fact, one thing I want to do at GenCon 2002 is to have the InSpectres demo run by someone who has never GM'd or played the game before -- just a simple hand-out detailing the basic rules and me over their shoulder to throw a life preserver in time of need.

I think it could work.

But yeah, geez don't make me run anything. I suck at it.

I GM for a lot of the reasons that have already been mentioned: I did it first, I've done it most, it's kind of just become my job in the group. Then there's creativity, control probably as well, and getting to come up with a lot of the ideas about what we're going to play. All those things.

And I enjoy it. In fact, I can't really compare it to playing a character because I've hardly ever played one, and I've never played any character more than once with someone else as the GM. On top of that, I've probably played less than five times in the last twelve months, and that's way more than it used to be.

And there's another reason. I love RPGs. I'm obsessed with them. I know, I know, I'm not alone. But if I didn't GM, I wouldn't know what to do with my obsession. I think that's the main reason I GM. I'm probably the only person in my group who is thinking about RPGs on the ten minute walk to class. In the car. While watching TV. When people are talking to me and I'm not really listening. Before I go to sleep at night and while I'm eating breakfast. GMing is a way to apply this time to something. I guess I could be creating RPGs with this time, and I do that too, but I'd be creating them to play them as much as anything else, and probably to GM them.

I guess I GM because I am a GM. Not the best, hopefully not the worst, but "I am a GM" is my most defining characteristic.

Rich

Wow... well, I began GMing because nobody else was willing to give it a shot. One reason I keep GMing is due to the fact that I've moved often so I usually have to either introduce people to role-playing or pull people that haven't played in ten years back to role-playing just to get a game going.

I love to play (as opposed to GM) but I rarely get the chance. Being "The GM" doesn't really bother me too much. I've found that I have a passion for playing games that most people don't seem to posess so I'm willing to put in the time required to get a game going, be it board game, rpg, or whatever. GMing is also a fantastic opportunity to stretch my creative wings. It's like daydreaming out loud, distilled concentrated imagining. The best part is that there are other creative minds involved during play to help keep things interesting and dynamic.

Like anything else, not everyone can GM worth a damn. That's another reason why I GM, and maybe the most important. I don't consider myself a great GM, good maybe but not great. Someone has to be the instigator though, the catalyst that connects everyones minds together in the world of imagination. Even though I may bitch and whine about it at times I know being the GM is more than just work and responsibility. It is quite often a privelage.

-Chris

It's the only way I've found of getting at least some of the ideas out of my head.

I can't really stop having ideas, I get them constantly. I'm not an author so this is what I do.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: But yeah, geez don't make me run anything. I suck at it.

I get first dibs on playing in THAT game Mike!!!
Sean

Simple, heh. The variety of responses says otherwise.

I GM'ed originally to share my ideas with a GM-rich group. There were two guys at the pinnacle, Daniel and Sam, known for intricate plotting, and in Sam's case, agonizingly detailed world-building. In our misspent youth, lacking drugs, we liked to mess with our own heads creatively. This led to an interesting one-upmanship in trying to deliver intense experiences via RPGs.

Since we had a solid, though totally implicit, social contract, this worked pretty well. It generated what remains my main goal as GM: fuck with players' heads. Consensually, of course. At the same time, I was developing enthusiasm for the strange back alleys of metaphysics: Phillip K. Dick, William S. Burroughs, Gnosticism, Chaos Magic(k), Aleister Crowley, etc. I think I can truly say that if one did not exactly lead to the other, the occult and RPGs have fed into each other for me. I find a mind-blowing idea and want to share the altered consciousness that comes with it, and I want to share it. RPGs are one way I can do that.

With a new group of players, I've had to be more modest, and I'm still searching for the right level of grip on the tiller of the game. Players who don't have any memory of games, even PC games, where of course you examine every damn thing in the room really challenge me to deliver Bangs in more involving ways. Hard, but so far, very rewarding.

My ambition remains to mess with people. Thanks to reading on here, I think it might just be possible to do a genuinely surrealist RPG without dissolving into stupid puns. Sorcerer Nova Express, anyone? "You're dispatched to Earth, and it looks like the Nova Mob has had the place under Interdict way longer than they should have. This stinks, and you can see the handiwork of Hamburger Mary and 'Intolerable & Inescapable' all over. You follow the junk-beam network and have a good candidate to turn into a 'Dr. Benway' you have reports on for interrogation. There might be better candidates, but this scrawny, pathetic junky would definitely work. What do you do?"•

Hee hee hee.

--JB

• When the Nova Police want to interrogate someone, they force a possession by that someone's "image" onto a related party via sympathetic magic. Games that take inspiration from Naked Lunch should really read Nova Express as well, it's got much more technical detail.

I started as the GM because I was the only who bought the gaming books and bothered to read them. I would always read the book, think of a cool game and then get any of the players to read the book. (This was back in the early 80's when we were young and poor.) Inevitably, I would grow impatient when one of the players would take what seemed like forever to finish reading the book. So I just said "screw it" and would sum up the rules for the players, making me the de facto GM. (Patience has never been my strong point.)

Later on it became a matter of taste. I didn't like being a player because in my eyes few other GMs were good enough for me. Not enough NPC interaction, poorly handled combats, etc. I would end up taking over the reigns because I "knew" that I could do better. Plus I was still one of the few people who bought and read the books.

After a decade or so, I just didn't know how to be a player any more. GMing was like a safety blanket for me. I was the one who knew the rules and knew how things were supposed to work. I was the one behind the curtain. It was hard to give up that level of control and be a player. (And to an extent it still is sometimes.)

Years passed and GMing became a major creative outlet for me. I still create worlds, people and campaigns, even though I know that they'll probably never be played, just because I need to get them out of my head. They almost demand to be born.

Now, I GM because I like creating the bones of storylines and throwing them at the players and seeing where they end up taking them. I love nothing more than when I throw an idea out and someone takes it and runs with it. (My wife detailed an entire culture and belief system for a large tribe of Orcs in a D&D game solely from my saying that they live in many ways like the ancient Mongols and believed in rulership by strength.)

Also, I am definitely a Narrativist (it even reflects in my taste of video games) but most of the people I play with are Gamist in mindset. I'm slowly introducing more and more Narrativist elements into our games but in order to do this I need to guide the existing games and shift them, if possible.

And finally, I GM because most of my players are either relatively new to role-playing or have had only limited experiences ("I played D&D once or twice back in high school."). I'll let them get some confidence before trying to coax any of them into trying to GM.

I prefer GMing to playing for several reasons:

1.) I get more spotlight time. As the GM, I'm in almost every scene; when I play in other people's games, I wind up sitting around half the time, waiting for my turn.

2.) It's the only way I get to create story. My circle of friends is heavily biased toward Simulationist play, whereas I am more of a Narrativist. This makes playing in their games intensely frustrating for me, because I never get to explore my characters' themes.

3.) I'm damned good at it--about tied with one of my friends, and substantially better than the rest.

4.) I am extremely good at learning and applying rules. When I'm playing in a game run by a GM who is not as adept with the system as I am--and that's most GMs--I get very frustrated. Sometimes this comes out as rules-lawyering, sometimes as simple impatience.

If there were a Narrativist GM with good scene-framing skills in my gaming circle, I'd play more and GM less.

I GM for a lot of different reasons, absolutely every one of which has been mentioned by someone else already so I won't go into everything.

I love to play, too. But I don't often get the chance. People come to me, asking me to GM the game and the advantage of being a GM is that I can establish a time & place that fits in with my crazy schedule. I love to tell stories and create worlds.. everything that propels me as a writer, propels me to GM.

Laurel

I like GMing, but I haven't done it in years. It seems like you naturally float to the GMs spot, Clinton. Next time we game, go ahead and bully me into the GM position!! Heck I'll even GM our Wild Talents game if you like!

Why do I like GMing? Heck, for all I know, I hate it now, I haven't done it in so long. When I was GMing Planescape, I loved coming up with the crazy settings, situations and characters. It was a chance for me to create. The other big reason is the enjoyment had by everyone involved. I guess that means I'm a serviceable GM, which feels good.

I GM, because if I don't, I don't play. I've tried in the past to champion other GMs for my roleplaying games, and everytime the game has fallen apart after 1 or 2 games. The best run I had was an GURPS Atomic Horror game, where two different people GM'ed besides me (one who killed the game with their boring GMing style).

Which really amazes me because I don't consider myself a very motivated person. All it takes is to call everyone and make sure they show up on time. Rarely am I prepared to the point I should be for a session.

I think this is a worthwhile thing to consider: for a game to progress, does it have to be instigated by the GM? In, oh 5 years, I might have played as a Player in half-dozen times, but have GM pretty much every couple of weeks. I've never seen a player instigate a game. It's pretty much been me or nobody.

I think that's starting to change. Maybe I should become that player. To do that, I gotta kill one of the games I'm GMing currently.

Ah, such is life,

Steve Dustin

If my gaming group has another skilled GM, I'd much rather play than GM. But, when I do GM it's usually because no one else wants to, or because I don't dare give the reins to someone I deem unqualified.

I've discovered that most of the people I game with (Forgites like Moose, Paul and Tom excluded) are just no good at GMing. Even the ones that have gamed for 20+ years are still no good at it. So, rather than experienceing a misserable campaign, or walking out on a game, I simple volunteer to run.

,Matt G.

Steve Dustin wrote: I think this is a worthwhile thing to consider: for a game to progress, does it have to be instigated by the GM?

I GM whenever I can because not only is it a great creative outlet it is much more satisfying than playing.

Most of the GM's I have been under lack the ability to characterize effectivly, build interesting worlds or even do the kind of compelling stories that make gaming worthwhile to me.

If I have a good GM playing a character I like is Fun but those GM's are few and far between.

I love to GM and I agree with basically everybody here.
I love writing stories, but don't have the patience to finish most of them- they mostly exist as a bunch of characters, settings, plot outlines... which is perfect for running an rpg with;).
Also, I've played way too many videogames, while most of my players haven't. So, I copy some brilliant situations from great games like Final Fantasy 3/6.
I've also been trying to steer my friends away from traditional AD&D adventures, and the only real way to do that is to run the adventures yourself.
But, of course, this past decade or so, I've easily had more fun GM'ing than playing.

Well, my story is frighteningly similar to the vein above. The only comment of note is that by moving and joining other groups, I encountered other active GM's and had somd good long player spells. But playing would only make me want to GM more.

I GM because I love to see that look on the players' faces in that perfect beautiful moment when they are really 'there' in the game-world; the dining room becomes a dungeon and the dice in their hands have transformed into swords or rayguns.

Jeff

Most of the replies here are frighteningly similar to why I GM: the most common one is either "no one else will" or "no one else is good at it," or variations of the above. I did see a high amount of "I like to create the world/game/whatever" which is great - you people should be GMs.

In reference to the former reason, though - do you think GMing is an innate skill, or something that can be taught? (I vote for it can be taught.) If it can be, why aren't your players GMing? It seems selfish and irresponsible to me - much like that guy who always bums a ride with you or smokes your cigarettes, but never does anything in return.

Outside of gaming, if we know this guy, we normally stop being friends with him. But in gaming, it seems perfectly acceptable that someone would be the GM every time "because no one else wants to."

I call bullshit on this. One of the reasons I like my current group is that I know I could e-mail one of them and say "Hey - you want to run something this week?" and it would happen. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a real problem with them.

Clinton R Nixon wrote: In reference to the former reason, though - do you think GMing is an innate skill, or something that can be taught? (I vote for it can be taught.) If it can be, why aren't your players GMing? It seems selfish and irresponsible to me - much like that guy who always bums a ride with you or smokes your cigarettes, but never does anything in return.

Outside of gaming, if we know this guy, we normally stop being friends with him. But in gaming, it seems perfectly acceptable that someone would be the GM every time "because no one else wants to."

I call bullshit on this.

One of the reasons I like my current group is that I know I could e-mail one of them and say "Hey - you want to run something this week?" and it would happen. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a real problem with them.

Hey Clinton,

I think that with any skill those that have a bit of natural ability can pick up the torch and run with it with much less effort than someone who has to rely mainly on training instead of talent. So even if the desire might exist the large degree of effort required to attain a reasonable level of skill keeps most people from even trying. Such is human nature I suppose.

Inevitably in the groups I've GMd for one or more people get the itch and want to try their hand at GMing. I think they see how much fun I have being the imagination catalyst and they want to be able to weave their own ideas and daydreams into the mix as a GM. These players usually have the desire but not much in the way of natural talent. This suits me just fine though as I consider the desire the most important aspect of doing anything. With a little nudging and constructive criticism they do just fine.

Many players don't have the desire to GM, regardless of if they might be naturals or not. While I believe that everyone should give GMing a try if only to make sure they don't like it, I really don't want someone GMing for me that doesn't really want to. I would be upset though if I was feeling burnt out or was under the weather and a player wasn't willing to take the reins for a while and give GMing their best shot.

Wow, that was a ramble...

-Chris

Mike,

I'm not suggesting "classes." I mean, where did you learn to GM? Probably the same place I did - from playing. GMing is a sort of oral tradition - one thing I was glad to see mentioned in "Robin's Laws." If people are playing in a regular game and not learning to GM, then they're not paying attention.

Mike Holmes wrote:
But as most people see RPGs as a passive sort of passtime (more active than watching TV, but less active than, say baseball)

Well, then you have nothing to complain about. And you're lucky. Lots of players, unfamiliar with the duties, would balk. And I think that's their right.

Nobody is forcing you to play at all.

Forgive the tone of the post but I felt it was appropriate given your original post.

Clinton R Nixon wrote: I'm not suggesting "classes." I mean, where did you learn to GM? Probably the same place I did - from playing. GMing is a sort of oral tradition - one thing I was glad to see mentioned in "Robin's Laws." If people are playing in a regular game and not learning to GM, then they're not paying attention.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Um. I can't say anything to this except I'm in total disagreement, and completely baffled as to how you came up with this assertion. Playing RPGs is one of the most interactive pastimes I can imagine.

You really are curmudgeonly today, Mike. I'm asking a simple question - why play with people who aren't willing to do their share of the duties? I'm not attacking the institution of GMing.

Mike,

I'm not asking this because I'm saying you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in this:

I've got players who go entire sessions without speaking, practically, and not for a lack of trying to get them to. Even the more "active" ones mostly are there expecting to be social and be entertained. IME, and I've played with lots of people, the majority of people who play RPGs (as players mind you) come to the table expecting to be entertained, and just roll the dice when they are told to. I say this is passive because, they are not looking to add anything. They are only there to take.

Hey,

Um, I recall that the last time we discussed this who-entertains-whom issue, at least one valued Forge member got so mad that he quit the site, and a lot of other people displayed evidence of hurt feelings as well. There's a lot of emotion invested about this.

So ... well, it's Clinton and Mike, so I'm not worried much, but here it is: play nice, you two. Check your own indignation-level before hitting the keys, just in case.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Um, I recall that the last time we discussed this who-entertains-whom issue, at least one valued Forge member got so mad that he quit the site, and a lot of other people displayed evidence of hurt feelings as well. There's a lot of emotion invested about this.

Actually laughed out loud about the whole indignation level thing. Thanks, uncle Ronny.

Clinton R Nixon wrote: Mike,

I'm not asking this because I'm saying you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in this:
Why are you playing with these people? Again - I genuinely am interested in this phenomenon. It's why I started the entire thread. It doesn't seem like you get anything out of this arrangement.

On a different topic, I find your party analogy to be highly flawed. GMing a game is not like running a party - the game is there to provide entertainment to everyone, including the GM, and players are responsible for providing input and fun for everyone else.

Hi everybody,

These past few posts touch on one of the reasons I liked to GM: because I like to be surprised surprised by the players. Somehow -- especially in my incipit-Narrativist AD&D games back in high school -- I set up situations where I could then sit back and let the players delight me.

Oddly, this had nothing to do with an expectation of being entertained. And I never thought the players expectes me to entertain them. I would just think: what situations or narrative elements or sets or character would offer the players the most "toy" value -- and then let them riff. They always seemed to enjoy the opportunity.

You'll note that a lot of the energy behind the Interactive Toolkit was about bringing that energy back -- to let the players surprise the GM. After all the work done in either recreating fictional styles (Pulps in Justice, Inc, Star Wars, DC Heroes, CoC) I really missed the fun of creating stories -- which hinge on the character's actions and goals.

But again, this almost depends on not loving, as a GM, making up all the background stuff. I always saw my job as giving gifts to the players...

Okay, here it is:

I liked GMing because I liked giving the players opportunities to do unexpected things, and in turn, being engaged in plot, character and story opportunities I never expected.

That's it, right there. That's why I like to GM.

Christopher

Hope no one minds me bringing this back up, as it's a couple days old, but it seems like a really good topic.

Before discovering RPGs, I used to run "talking games" where I was the "GM" and usually one other person (sometimes two) was the player(s). I loved this stuff. I'd heard of D&D (the only RPG I'd heard of at that time) but I couldn't play it because my mom thought it was evil. So I did my own thing, no dice, no rules, just playing.
Then I got a Battletech Technical Readout, and used it to create my own RPG (with conversion charts to create my own mechs and everything). It was vastly different than the actual Battletech and Mechwarrior games, but it was fun, and it worked. Then I met a friend who introduced me (on the sly) to D&D and to Robotech. When I moved to Arizona, I created my own fantasy RPG based on D&D 1st. Ed, called Dragon's Legend (trite, no?)

Anyhow, to skip the rest of the history lecture, I've been making up the games as long as I've been GMing and doing RPGs in general. My very first RPG experience was on one I'd made up, with no previous gaming experience... and I ran it, because I knew the rules. Same thing for other games that I didn't create, for that matter.

I love to play (as opposed to GMing), and will do so whenever I get the chance. But at the same time, I like to GM. I'm probably not the best, because I haven't had the wide experiences of some, but I believe I manage to make passable stories, which people enjoy. I know I need work in the details, but in the end... So long as people enjoy my games, that's what really counts, isn't it? But my love of GMing probably stems from my creative nature. I live to create, whether it be works of fiction, detailing some facet of my FFRP forum setting, working on Mage Blade, the occasional piece of art, websites... The list goes on. I GM because it's an awesome, interactive creative outlet... But I like to play for the same reasons, too.

Yeah, I have a similiar history, only in my case it wasn't because my folks thought they were evil (they bought me my first D&D Expert Set and later the First Edition books for Christmas and Birthday presents), they just thought it was a cute phase I'd eventually grow out of, like legos.

At any rate I had no money as a child (unlike the $50/week allowances I know some kids get today, I got maybe $2 if I was lucky and did all my chores). So I was left creating everything.

I created my own version of the Dungeon boardgame, my own version of FASA's Star Trek Simulator, my own version of Conquistador, my own version of Star Frontiers, and on and on. Now that I have a comfortable amount of money on my own, I find myself buying all the games I used to not be able to afford and collecting far more than I ever intend to play, simply because I can.

Being the designer of most of the games we played, and later the owner of the largest collection of games in the group, made me the default choice for GM. I was always better at crafting amazing campaign settings and intricate plotlines than I was actually running the games though. My initial efforts were pretty much as Railroad Engineer. I remember my first gaming epiphany when I discovered the "All Roads Lead to Rome" Approach.

I've gotten much better, but would still love to have a chance to actually play an extended campaign of something as a player (with a good GM).