Topic: What's in it for the GM?

[DangerMan]

Open question; What's in it for the GM? Why do you enjoy GMing?

Im relatively new to GMing, but have played as a PC for ten years. I like it, but Im afraid I might get bored in the long rung.

What makes being the GM fun? What's the downsides, if any?

[RandalThor]

Funny you should ask this, as I just asked this of myself not to long ago. and found my gaming lacking; both playing and GMing. So, now I am not gaming at all, and will not be anytime soon, as far as I can see. Oh well, I guess there are other things to do.

But, to answer your question: Fun. Just like everyone else at the table, hopefully. I find the creation of a plot, a story, and obstacles for the players to (hopefully) overcome. Actually, I find that I get bored way more as a player than as a GM - players tend to keep you on your toes.

[GrumpyOldFart]

In a way it's like playing chess against half a dozen opponents simultaneously. The main difference is that they aren't really "against" you per se, it's just that if there are half a dozen players and you then there are 7 different meanings for "how this scenario should turn out", and you all get to play tug-o-war with it and see how it ends up.

As GM, you have a lot more "ammo", a lot more things you can hang on the scenario to make it come out in a way that pleases you. In return for that you get a lot more responsibility, if any of you 7 don't like the way the scenario is going, ultimately that's your problem. The other major "that's your problem" is whether or not the scenario and the setting make any sense. A logic geek with a really good memory can cause you as much trouble as a hack and slash power gamer.

Note that the above contains no mention of who "wins", who "loses", who lives or who dies. That's because these questions are often irrelevant to the issue of whether the game is satisfactory to players and GM. Play a few sessions of Paranoia and you'll see what I mean.

[Cory Magel]

It's a good question to ask.  The most important part that separates many of the good GM's from the bad GM's is whether they actually want to make sure their players have fun.  I know that sounds rather obvious, but without going into any detail, there is a GM I know who obviously cares more about himself having fun than his players.  Over the years less and less people have been willing to participate in his games.  So it is important for a GM to ask themselves why they are a GM.

For me I think it comes down to whether you like to create and tell the story or you want to be part of the story.  After that comes making sure your players are having fun.

I actually don't enjoy it as much as being a player, but the few times I've run the players have enjoyed it (and I know this because they've actually TOLD me that).  But I am a fairly liberal/lenient GM - I figure why else are we here other than to have fun, so don't be a stick in the mud.  I suspect our primary two GM's like it partially because they like to be the one in control.  One of the two of them I'm sure enjoys it for the tactical/strategy side of pitting himself against five to six players to see if he can outwit us (in a good way - he's not 'out to get' our characters or anything).

[ReaperWolf]

For me it's all about flexing my creativity followed by a voyeuristic impulse to put the PCs in harms way and watch them struggle but eventually overcome the challenges I conjure.

It's all about the give and take of the interactive narrative experience.

I love watching my players puzzle out my plots, defeat the antagonists, explore the strange vistas of my imagination, and roleplay their hearts out in the high-school melodramas that inevitably pop up during play.

>>ReaperWolf

[Vector Z]

Spending hours creating a detailed setting and history, carefully placing opponents, obstacles, props, plot devices and plot twists, and then purposefully inviting people to come rampage through everything, destroying all my work before I even understand what is happening satisfies the masochist in me.

But to answer your questions more directly, you have more room to be creative as GM, as you control everything but the PC's actions. Also, if you enjoy entertaining people, that's what being a GM is all about.

Only downside I can think of is that you're kind of responsible for everyone's fun. If there's ever a boring or dry gaming session, it's the GM's fault. Really, it is. But that's not much of a downside. After all, nobody bats 1000, and I have yet to be crucified for a lame session.

Besides that, agreed with Rand, GOF, Cory, and Reaper.

[Witchking20k]

I am GMing for 3 brand new players.  For me its really watching them explore the concept of roleplaying.  Last session one of them responded "in character" to an NPC.....soon the training wheels will come off......... <sniff sniff> I'm so proud.

[yammahoper]

Spending hours creating a detailed setting and history, carefully placing opponents, obstacles, props, plot devices and plot twists, and then purposefully inviting people to come rampage through everything, destroying all my work before I even understand what is happening satisfies the masochist in me.

Oh I so know that feeling...those players who could care less about the details, culture, racial predjudices or game balance and ask first "how man bg options do they have?"

GM's require thick skin.  Noe of what the players are about to do to your game world is personal, they juat want to have fun and their definition of fun probably includes less of your definition than you think.  I'll provide an example.

Party of three halfling nightblades, the toad brothers (toad sticker toad stomper and toad biter)...ok, do I really need to say more?  Anyway, they sought a spy in a large village.  Investigation boiled it down to two, either the Mayor or the Local Noble.  Partys solution upon narrowing suspects down to two was to hold a dinner and invite both suspects...and shoot them both dead under a hail of arrows. 

Maybe I should have changed via fiat the noble spy into a demonic werewolf and handed out some lessons in subtlety, but I was a victim of ambush just as readily as the poor NPC's and an easy target to their arrows of outrageous fortune.

The players of course had their PC's lay out many lies of how they had evidence the major was in cahoots with the spy and after a short investigation, walked free.

GMing is fun. 

[GrumpyOldFart]

Actually... what's in it for the GM?

Take a look at yammahoper's avatar photo.....

Yeah, that. 'Nuff said.   

[Fnord]

You might all want to check this link to learn about the real deal of GMing:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612

Plus, it's a really fun webcomic.

[providence13]

Or KOTDT's Lair of the Gazebo!

[Tolen]

For me, I get to play the games I want.

For example, I'm the only one around here that knows anything about Rolemaster in any of its forms.  No one wants to play it, no one certainly wants to run it.  So, if I want to play, I have to run.  That pretty much sums up every game I have run, it's always been under my terms.  No, I won't run WoD, no I won't run that Fourth edition stuff.  DM'ing is a lot of work, too much to waste on a system or setting I don't enjoy.

Having said all that, once I do get a group together willing to let me teach them a new game, then it becomes about letting the players do what they want.  And when I play (as opposed to GM), I get bored, and start trying to tweak and change things.  I'm one of those guys who'll write a short story for a character background, and then when that doesn't get hooked into a game, looks for a different character to play.

Again, it all comes down to wanting to play under my terms.

[rdanhenry]

You might all want to check this link to learn about the real deal of GMing:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612

Plus, it's a really fun webcomic.

A classic, but I prefer

http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html

Funny, but less dysfunctional. (And still in progress.)

[markc]

 I enjoy telling a story and have the players move through it.
MDC

[Nortti]

Good question. For me the important thing is in making stories. I get really carried away when I write the adventures. Thats what I enjoy when preparing the game.

During the game I enjoy the interactive nature of the adventure progressing. Making it really hard for the characters, but through all the hardship they manage to come out as victors in the end. They use all their wit, courage and tenacity to win. The satisfaction that players get from it is rewarding for me.

[intothatdarkness]

I like creating settings. Got a full world with cultures, history, etc. for my fantasy game, a detailed city for my spy stuff, and a county with history, multiple towns, etc. for my Outlaw game. It's the background I enjoy...painting the scene that the PCs will walk through. I also like coming up with things that let them in part write the history of the setting. They have chances to carve out realms in the fantasy setting (and by that I do mean set up kingdoms...one of the realms in my current game was founded by a character played ten years ago), develop their own leads, contacts, and interests in my city, and become major bandits, ranchers, or lawmen in the Outlaw setting. It's that collaborate bit that's also great fun.

And part of the reason I do that is that I'm often not satisfied with published settings. They don't have the level of detail I like (and by that I mean cultural stuff or believable history). I like dynamic settings, things that are open enough for my players to actually make a difference in what happens.