PDA

View Full Version : I Do Not Pay To Play



Pex
2021-01-28, 10:39 PM
I joined a new Meet Up group with the hopes of finding a new campaign to play. There were games but you had to pay a compensation fee. I refuse so didn't join. I asked if there were games that did not have a fee, and the group owner said they only use compensated DMs who spend their valuable time to run a game. Shut that I thought and left the group. I DM. I play in other games. Hopefully make new friends. You never have to pay to play. I'm not the DM's customer. He's not sacrificing anything or blessing us with his presence to deserve recompense. It's not jealousy I don't get paid. I'm offended they charge and feel sorry for those who do pay.

Before the Virus Apocalypse I had no problem with renting a table from an establishment if it was a reasonable fee the table as a whole could divide up to pay. A high price everyone paid individually I would not do. If it was a business like a deli restaurant with a seating area of course you buy their food. Free Public Areas were also acceptable if we couldn't play at someone's home.

Tanarii
2021-01-28, 11:10 PM
Man, all I ever did was tell my players to bring table snacks as bribes. I knew I was doing it wrong!

(Not really, I pay my fair share of the traditional pizza.)

OldTrees1
2021-01-28, 11:27 PM
Different people play the game differently. It was wise of you to not play a way that was a bad fit for you.

MarkVIIIMarc
2021-01-29, 12:03 AM
I joined a new Meet Up group with the hopes of finding a new campaign to play. There were games but you had to pay a compensation fee. I refuse so didn't join. I asked if there were games that did not have a fee, and the group owner said they only use compensated DMs who spend their valuable time to run a game. Shut that I thought and left the group. I DM. I play in other games. Hopefully make new friends. You never have to pay to play. I'm not the DM's customer. He's not sacrificing anything or blessing us with his presence to deserve recompense. It's not jealousy I don't get paid. I'm offended they charge and feel sorry for those who do pay.

Before the Virus Apocalypse I had no problem with renting a table from an establishment if it was a reasonable fee the table as a whole could divide up to pay. A high price everyone paid individually I would not do. If it was a business like a deli restaurant with a seating area of course you buy their food. Free Public Areas were also acceptable if we couldn't play at someone's home.

That's cool. I haven't ever paid to play either. Ppl pay for things all the time though.

I was wondering under what circumstances I'd pay to play. How about if I could be the fourth player in a group DM'd by Mercer with the blonde, the red head and the dark haired gal as the other players? Heck, Grog makes me smile, him too. Seems three hours with the group would be presumably more fun and memorable than even getting a Dan Marino autograph.

Would you pay to join that group above (if I weren't there of course).

Fable Wright
2021-01-29, 12:08 AM
Paying the DM changes up the dynamic of the session. You can feel cheated if it's not up to expectations, you leave the table more easily, and the DM can find themselves well out of a group. On the DM side, you have to do more work, since a quick "I didn't prep that for this session" is a bit of an unacceptable excuse.

I don't think it's inherently bad—it's a sign of a healthy community that there are people who are willing to pay, and it means there's more of a market for niche goods like giant minis and terrain sets that you just wouldn't have in years past become produced more, driving down the price.

But I don't the stress of being judged when I'm running something for fun, I don't want a group to die because players don't think the investment of their dollars isn't worth it, and I certainly don't want to pay to play the game when it's more fun and less stressful with friends doing it because it's fun.

There are people who paint minis professionally, and people who paint minis for fun. Neither's doing it wrong.

Mastikator
2021-01-29, 12:55 AM
Agreed. If the DM has some *expenses I don't mind all the players helping by paying their fair share. But I'm not paying for anyone's time. Roleplaying is only a hobby and I wouldn't want to be at the table with someone who thinks their time is more valuable than mine.


*expenses like minis or paper or whatever is needed to run the game, or food, etc.

AvatarVecna
2021-01-29, 02:28 AM
IME DMing has never been an experience worth paying for. Even absolutely phenomenal games are a good deal about the social aspect hanging with friends, and money taints that for me. I'm running a game where one of the players was so excited to play through it that they bought me the book for it so I wouldn't have to, and ever since it's felt like I'm obligated to run even when I'm not really up to it.

Kane0
2021-01-29, 02:30 AM
I both host and DM, all i ask is for people coming around to pitch in for food and drinks

KaussH
2021-01-29, 03:44 AM
I have payed to game. I donated to charity to play with Dave Arneson once, i pay to play at some conventions ( gencon comes to mind). I ran cthulhu for childs play and so all the players paid.
I have seen pro gms who charge to run, and i have seen gms charge a table dues kinda thing ( often for table use and expendables)

While its a hobby, some gms do a Lot of work above and beyond. Props, food, prizes, maps, ect. If you dont want to pay to play, thats you, but its 100% ok for a gm to ask too.

Seto
2021-01-29, 04:14 AM
I probably wouldn't pay to play either, or ask to be paid for running a game. I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm offended, though. I actually considered it. The reasoning being that GMing is a set of skills you can refine. Finding your style, prepping the game, organizing the game, managing the players' schedule, managing the rhythm and ambiance at the table, rules knowledge and arbitration, balancing encounters, improvisation, storytelling, voice acting... Of course you don't need to be good at all of those to run a game ; you can throw something together quickly and have fun with your friends. But for those of us who are perfectionists, man, being a GM is hard work, especially if you play the more complex systems out there. I've spent countless hours practicing, reading blogs and watching videos about how to be a better GM, honing the craft...
Of course, I don't do it to get paid. I do it because I love it, it's a hobby and a passion. But if all this time and effort investment could also earn me some money, wouldn't that be nice?

So, the reasons I don't do it are:
1- I don't think I'm good enough yet, for all my effort. If I'm being paid, I have an obligation to deliver high-quality content. I don't want that pressure to perform and I'm afraid of burnout.
2- I'm blessed with a gaming circle of friends. If I had no one and had trouble finding people to game with, I'd consider paying to play. Similarly, running a game for strangers requires more incentive that running it for friends.
3- I don't want to normalize it too much in the hobby. I think it's fine that some games are paid and some aren't, but if being a paid GM were to become the norm, we would see a decline in new GMs. People would think "oh, I would like to try GMing, but I don't know how to do it, and if we just pay a professional, they will run a game much better than I could. Why even bother?". And that makes me sad.

Zombimode
2021-01-29, 05:15 AM
While its a hobby, some gms do a Lot of work above and beyond. Props, food, prizes, maps, ect. If you dont want to pay to play, thats you, but its 100% ok for a gm to ask too.

So? It's STILL your hobby.

Pelle
2021-01-29, 06:39 AM
Not wanting to pay to play is fine, and normal. Thing is, if no one wants to GM unless they get compensated somehow, you can't force them to GM for you. Typically though, it's the person who wants to game the most that steps up to GM, so it's not an issue most of the time.

Cluedrew
2021-01-29, 08:26 AM
Well if you (anyone reading this) have seen the threads I have made arguing that "easy to run" should be more of a design goal than it should be you might gather that I agree, running a game is a lot of work. And if you want to get paid to do work I am not going to hold that against anyone.

That being said I do like the "friends playing a game together" mode of play hence my thoughts that it should be made easier or at least spread around a bit. Just asking one person to pore their heart out into the game isn't a reliable way to set up a game.

Imbalance
2021-01-29, 09:02 AM
No, I wouldn't either, but consider a couple of things:

First is that old chestnut: "if you're good at something, never do it for free."
Followed by: "find out what you love to do, then figure out how to get paid to do it."

We're well past a point in this hobby's swollen popularity that the Professional Dungeon Master is a legitimate title to put on a resume, especially since it bears no resemblance to what it might have meant just fifty years ago and just about everybody has a clue about what it means today. Google it. You can hire someone (fees vary) to essentially be your party planner, but for sessions of rpg's instead of, say, a wedding reception.

Why? Because there is demand. Just check the pbp recruiting here - somebody puts up a query for interest and it's flocked within minutes with ravenous players willing to play anything just to get into a campaign. I won't venture to guess the ratio of willing GMs to players, but I'll bet it's pretty lopsided. Not everyone is so privileged to have ample hosts ready and able to run games as a leisure activity / some people have more money than friends / some DM's might just be worth compensating for how well they run the table.

No, I dont need to pay a pro to run a game for me, but I'm not going to knock those who do nor those GM's who decide to turn a hobby into a job.

TheStranger
2021-01-29, 09:06 AM
Well, I’m not a big fan of paying to play either. But if somebody feels like they’re happy to pay for a convenient and high-quality experience, I’m not going to tell them they’re having their fun wrong. And in this economy, I’m not second-guessing anybody who wants to sell a service and can find a buyer.

Are we still talking about D&D?

Kardwill
2021-01-29, 09:42 AM
I don't get paid when I GM, and I never payed a GM either (although I sometime payed a fee for entrance at a con). And I think I would be really stressed if I tried to run "as a pro" (GMing puts enough pressure on me already ^^)

But I understand the idea, and would not be offended.

I mean, aside from TTRPGs, my other big passion is trekking. Quite often, I'm the "guide" : I'll get a few friends together, check the maps, design the trek, look for points of interest, check the weather, tell everyone where and when we should meet, and then we have a fun day, walking and talking and joking together. And I don't get paid.

But sometimes, I will pay a professional guide to organise the trek for me. And I will have a fun week, walking and talking and joking with everyone else in the group. Yet, the guide is paid for their service. Not only for their expenses, but for their time and expertise.

Sometime, I'll pay for a concert, sometime I'll just sit in the sofa while a friend grabs a guitar.

In my opinion, TTRPGs are the same. The usual is a group or friends, or GMs running stuff for fun because they like it, but it does not mean that paid GMs are a sin. As long as someone is willing to pay them, professionals GMs have their place. Especially in a time where a bunch of new players are getting into the hobby but don't have the time nor the desire of getting into the GM chair.

Tvtyrant
2021-01-29, 10:39 AM
Sounds like they see it as a business. So you just move on to some other group that sees the DM as part.of the hobby, problem solved.

Batcathat
2021-01-29, 11:30 AM
Put me down as another "Haven't done it myself but doesn't see anything wrong with it". It's not that different from something like writing fiction or creating music, I think. Almost everyone who does it do so because they love doing it and most never earn anything from it, but it's fine that some people do.

Willie the Duck
2021-01-29, 12:04 PM
No, I wouldn't either, but consider a couple of things:

First is that old chestnut: "if you're good at something, never do it for free."
Followed by: "find out what you love to do, then figure out how to get paid to do it."

We're well past a point in this hobby's swollen popularity that the Professional Dungeon Master is a legitimate title to put on a resume, especially since it bears no resemblance to what it might have meant just fifty years ago and just about everybody has a clue about what it means today. Google it. You can hire someone (fees vary) to essentially be your party planner, but for sessions of rpg's instead of, say, a wedding reception.

Why? Because there is demand. Just check the pbp recruiting here - somebody puts up a query for interest and it's flocked within minutes with ravenous players willing to play anything just to get into a campaign. I won't venture to guess the ratio of willing GMs to players, but I'll bet it's pretty lopsided. Not everyone is so privileged to have ample hosts ready and able to run games as a leisure activity / some people have more money than friends / some DM's might just be worth compensating for how well they run the table.

No, I dont need to pay a pro to run a game for me, but I'm not going to knock those who do nor those GM's who decide to turn a hobby into a job.


Oh, I certainly understand the impulse to do this. Who doesn't have a hobby and wish they could get paid for doing it. Honestly it's probably healthier in theory than all those people that think they are going to be the next great game designer and produce Heartbreaker #3068251 or the chaff on DMSGuild. Certainly the imbalance between people who want to play and people who want to DM makes it seem that this is at least a product (more DMs available, but with a fee) people actually want.

That said, it does kind of rub me the wrong way. Or at least I think it would in other contexts*. In my heart, this is supposed to be a game that friends (or at least friendly acquaintances) play together. That's how it's always worked for me and isn't that the way it's supposed to be? :smalltongue: I know, plenty of people game with relative strangers just like you might log onto a server for a multiplayer computer game and play with someone you don't really know.
*I'll be honest, OP's constant soapboxing on tyrant DMs kinda poisons the well of the discussion for me

I suppose I would be worried that, were the setup of paid DMing really catch on, someone who would do the thing for the love of it would be compelled to treat it as a fiduciary endeavor. However, that level of cultural shift on the matter seems farfetched to me.


I was wondering under what circumstances I'd pay to play. How about if I could be the fourth player in a group DM'd by Mercer with the blonde, the red head and the dark haired gal as the other players? Heck, Grog makes me smile, him too. Seems three hours with the group would be presumably more fun and memorable than even getting a Dan Marino autograph.

I feel like celebrity experiences or the like are a different kind of thing (possibly one a person doesn't want to pay for as well, but still different). You're really paying for someone notable to show up. Kinda like sci fi or comic cons, where people pay to be in the presence of their favorite writer or actor or whatnot and not actually be doing any given thing except interacting with them (and maybe signing something).

Pex
2021-01-29, 01:06 PM
There's also a cynical side to it. If I were to pay the DM then the DM is Dispassionate, and I don't like that DMing style. A Dispassionate DM isn't a Tyrant or Killer DM. Rather, he doesn't care. He can't be a tyrannical or a killer DM then he wouldn't get paying customers. The Dispassionate DM doesn't give a Hoover about your character. I want a DM who cares about his players, who wants PCs to succeed. No, that doesn't mean being Monty Haul and of course have challenges and obstacles to overcome. I want DMs who play with their players, not against them (Tyrants, Killers) nor despite them (Dispassionate). When you slay the dragon and defeat the beholder I want the DM to cheer along with you. When you have to retreat because dice luck is making the mindflayer too powerful for you I want the DM to empathize. Dispassionate DMs don't either way. It's always move on to the next encounter/what do you do now? A Professional DM wouldn't care. Defeat the monster. Great. Go on to the next one. Fail and die, so sorry, so sad, next character please.

Seto
2021-01-29, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure why you think that. I agree that a paid GM couldn't be a "killer GM" ; they have to take extra good care that the experience is satisfying to the players, because now the players are customers, and that's what brings in money. So they can't be actively adversarial to the players. But beyond that, they can be dispassionate, they can cheer for the players, they can be more or less invested in a particular group or adventure, depending on their style or personality. There's nothing about money that would make everyone "dispassionate", as you classify them.

I mean, I've run adventures for groups of strangers before. Not for money, but for fun. I was invested in it everytime, and part of the fun is seeing how each group would play the same adventure differently, in a unique way. I wouldn't call that "dispassionate", and I don't see why money would change this particular trait. Besides, part of being a good GM IMO is to cater to the players and make them feel valued: work their backstories into the adventure, regularly offer situations that will give them the spotlight, identify the players' individual style and adjust the game to it. I don't see money diminishing that either, on the contrary, I'd say it's essential to being a professional GM.

Tanarii
2021-01-29, 01:33 PM
First is that old chestnut: "if you're good at something, never do it for free."
Followed by: "find out what you love to do, then figure out how to get paid to do it."
Yeah, I've found that's just a recipe for taking something that's a labor of love and ruining it.

----------------

Unrelated to the above, but I thought about it some more. I'd never take money to DM, if only because I'd feel guilty if I had to kick a player from the campaign.

Tvtyrant
2021-01-29, 01:39 PM
Yeah, I've found that's just a recipe for taking something that's a labor of love and ruining it.

----------------

Unrelated to the above, but I thought about it some more. I'd never take money to DM, if only because I'd feel guilty if I had to kick a player from the campaign.

I feel the opposite. I would be much more likely to kick disruptive players from a campaign if money was on the line, because I am being paid to give people a good experience. If I am DMing for free I am less likely to do things that are stressful, like properly moderate the group. It's like getting yelled at during work vs yelled at during home life; I will smile at someone and soothe them if they are yelling at me if it is for money, at home I either walk away or engage.

Batcathat
2021-01-29, 02:12 PM
There's also a cynical side to it. If I were to pay the DM then the DM is Dispassionate, and I don't like that DMing style. A Dispassionate DM isn't a Tyrant or Killer DM. Rather, he doesn't care. He can't be a tyrannical or a killer DM then he wouldn't get paying customers. The Dispassionate DM doesn't give a Hoover about your character. I want a DM who cares about his players, who wants PCs to succeed. No, that doesn't mean being Monty Haul and of course have challenges and obstacles to overcome. I want DMs who play with their players, not against them (Tyrants, Killers) nor despite them (Dispassionate). When you slay the dragon and defeat the beholder I want the DM to cheer along with you. When you have to retreat because dice luck is making the mindflayer too powerful for you I want the DM to empathize. Dispassionate DMs don't either way. It's always move on to the next encounter/what do you do now? A Professional DM wouldn't care. Defeat the monster. Great. Go on to the next one. Fail and die, so sorry, so sad, next character please.

So your logic is that as soon as a GM charges for their service they instantly stop caring? Why would that be the case? Yes, a professional GM would have some motivation beyond personal enjoyment but that's true of literally anyone making money off anything and most people still care about their job.

It's not like anyone turns to professional GMing to make a fortune, I would guess most of them are super devoted to GMing and just figure they might also make a buck from it.

Darth Credence
2021-01-29, 02:55 PM
OK. Don't want to pay, don't pay. Fair enough.
But the idea that no one should be paid seems kind of strange to me. I mean, the same logic can be applied to so many things:

I'm not going to pay that bartender to mix me a drink! I mix my own drinks, and it's fun to do, so why should I pay them?
I'm not going to pay for someone to drive me to the airport! I drive friends to the airport, and that's what people should do, so the Uber driver should just become my friend and give me a ride for free.
I'm not paying for that doctor to give me an exam! I used to play doctor as a kid, and I never charged anyone, so they shouldn't charge me.


Feeling sorry for people that pay someone to DM is, of course, your prerogative. But if it makes people happy, then let them be happy.

Catullus64
2021-01-29, 03:15 PM
There's also a cynical side to it. If I were to pay the DM then the DM is Dispassionate, and I don't like that DMing style. A Dispassionate DM isn't a Tyrant or Killer DM. Rather, he doesn't care. He can't be a tyrannical or a killer DM then he wouldn't get paying customers. The Dispassionate DM doesn't give a Hoover about your character. I want a DM who cares about his players, who wants PCs to succeed. No, that doesn't mean being Monty Haul and of course have challenges and obstacles to overcome. I want DMs who play with their players, not against them (Tyrants, Killers) nor despite them (Dispassionate). When you slay the dragon and defeat the beholder I want the DM to cheer along with you. When you have to retreat because dice luck is making the mindflayer too powerful for you I want the DM to empathize. Dispassionate DMs don't either way. It's always move on to the next encounter/what do you do now? A Professional DM wouldn't care. Defeat the monster. Great. Go on to the next one. Fail and die, so sorry, so sad, next character please.

I feel like you're actually making a decent case for paid DMs, by articulating the emotional labor involved in running a fun game, on top of all of the actual labor. It's not as though people are giving professional DMing a run because they don't care about the game and its shared emotional experiences. Balancing ruthlessness and compassion is important for a DM, and if someone can do that really well, it's a service worth being compensated for, if the people you're doing it for aren't your personal friends.

I feel there's a little bit of sour grapes running through this thread, not to name names. For most of its history, D&D was not visible in the public eye to anything like the extent it is now; demand has skyrocketed, and making side money from Dungeon Mastery is possible in a way it wasn't before. Maybe some of the indignation at being expected to pay a DM comes from the knowledge that even ten years ago, a DM would kill to be able to make even side cash, let alone a living from the game, and that the kids today have it too good. Not accusing anyone individually, but examine your own motives accordingly.

Democratus
2021-01-29, 03:34 PM
There are DMs in my home town who are paid to run games for kids. Because they are great at handling kids at the table and running the kind of stories they love.

Nothing at all wrong with this.

Pex
2021-01-29, 03:44 PM
So your logic is that as soon as a GM charges for their service they instantly stop caring? Why would that be the case? Yes, a professional GM would have some motivation beyond personal enjoyment but that's true of literally anyone making money off anything and most people still care about their job.

It's not like anyone turns to professional GMing to make a fortune, I would guess most of them are super devoted to GMing and just figure they might also make a buck from it.

If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging. He would be playing casually with friends and potential new friends. Once you charge your players aren't friends. They're customers. When it's a professional setting your PC is just a character who exists, not a person in the gameworld. I dare say Adventure League is the same thing despite not paying. Sure, a group of friends can play using Adventure League rules, but inorder to work it requires methodical bureaucracy. There's no emotional connection. Your character cannot affect anything beyond the module. With a Dispassionate DM in general you cannot affect anything beyond the Campaign Plot. The Dispassionate DM doesn't care if your PC lives or dies, succeeds or not. He just runs his gameworld and in his view the players are lucky to be in it. It's an attitude.

Democratus
2021-01-29, 03:53 PM
If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging. He would be playing casually with friends and potential new friends. Once you charge your players aren't friends. They're customers.

Having owned a business, I can assure you that these two are not mutually exclusive.

Having paid friends to run games I played in, I can guarantee that "dispassionate" wasn't the style embodied.

It's not an either/or choice.

KaussH
2021-01-29, 03:55 PM
So? It's STILL your hobby.
A lot of people craft as a hobby, and also sell said crafts. Same kinda thing.

icefractal
2021-01-29, 04:06 PM
If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging.

So are you saying that only unpaid performers have any passion for their art? As soon as they get paid to play somewhere (or even get tips, maybe) their music / acting / etc becomes visibly soul-less? Because to me that sounds like BS.

Batcathat
2021-01-29, 04:06 PM
If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging. He would be playing casually with friends and potential new friends. Once you charge your players aren't friends. They're customers. When it's a professional setting your PC is just a character who exists, not a person in the gameworld. I dare say Adventure League is the same thing despite not paying. Sure, a group of friends can play using Adventure League rules, but inorder to work it requires methodical bureaucracy. There's no emotional connection. Your character cannot affect anything beyond the module. With a Dispassionate DM in general you cannot affect anything beyond the Campaign Plot. The Dispassionate DM doesn't care if your PC lives or dies, succeeds or not. He just runs his gameworld and in his view the players are lucky to be in it. It's an attitude.

Again, being paid for something doesn't automatically - or even usually - mean you're dispassionate about it. Take me for example. I love my job, I throw myself into it with everything I got and I don't think anyone who knows me would say I'm dispassionate about my job. The fact that I want to get paid for it doesn't change that and the same is true of a lot of people. Do you really think someone stops caring the moment they're fortunate enough to turn a passion into a paying job?

And yes, if someone pays you to GM they are indeed your customer and while they could certainly change the dynamic, I don't see why it would make it more dispassionate. Do you only seek out unemployed doctors to ensure they care about your health?

Tanarii
2021-01-29, 04:43 PM
If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging. He would be playing casually with friends and potential new friends. Once you charge your players aren't friends. They're customers. When it's a professional setting your PC is just a character who exists, not a person in the gameworld. I dare say Adventure League is the same thing despite not paying. Sure, a group of friends can play using Adventure League rules, but inorder to work it requires methodical bureaucracy. There's no emotional connection. Your character cannot affect anything beyond the module. With a Dispassionate DM in general you cannot affect anything beyond the Campaign Plot. The Dispassionate DM doesn't care if your PC lives or dies, succeeds or not. He just runs his gameworld and in his view the players are lucky to be in it. It's an attitude.
Which is exactly why I don't take money for things I'm doing for fun or entertainment. It kills the love rapidly.

That's not to say I can't enjoy a challenging work environment, but that's a different kind of enjoyment. It's not the same as drawing, or climbing, or Kung fu.

OTOH I absolutely prefer a dispassionate DM, both being one and playing with one. I do not want a DM who robs me of my victories by giving me a helping hand. I don't ever want to be that DM. So maybe I should try a paid DM and see if it really pans out that way. But I suspect far more important to my enjoyment will be other factors ... like if they're a "storyteller" DM.

Mr Beer
2021-01-29, 04:59 PM
I don't pay or charge since I'd rather hang with my friends and play an OK game than join a paid group of strangers and have a great game with a bunch of well thought out props and gadgets. But if someone can make a few bucks from their skills, why not? I guess feel ripped off if I paid professional prices and got a sub-par game but that's what the free market is all about.

OldTrees1
2021-01-29, 05:08 PM
If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging. He would be playing casually with friends and potential new friends. Once you charge your players aren't friends. They're customers. When it's a professional setting your PC is just a character who exists, not a person in the gameworld. I dare say Adventure League is the same thing despite not paying. Sure, a group of friends can play using Adventure League rules, but inorder to work it requires methodical bureaucracy. There's no emotional connection. Your character cannot affect anything beyond the module. With a Dispassionate DM in general you cannot affect anything beyond the Campaign Plot. The Dispassionate DM doesn't care if your PC lives or dies, succeeds or not. He just runs his gameworld and in his view the players are lucky to be in it. It's an attitude.

It is good to know what you don't like. However in this case you are conflating 2 things you don't like. There are free dispassionate DMs (AL sometimes) and there are passionate paid DMs (just like any other artist that is passionate and funded, RPGs are just a more interactive form of art than most games).

That is why I started (in post 3) with:

Different people play the game differently. It was wise of you to not play a way that was a bad fit for you.
You made a wise call. You don't need to defend yourself. You don't need to attack this other style to find an unneeded justification for your own wise personal choice. Your wise decision does not need a defense.

Mordar
2021-01-29, 07:03 PM
I don't pay or charge since I'd rather hang with my friends and play an OK game than join a paid group of strangers and have a great game with a bunch of well thought out props and gadgets. But if someone can make a few bucks from their skills, why not? I guess feel ripped off if I paid professional prices and got a sub-par game but that's what the free market is all about.

I'm all on board with any given "you" choosing to pay or not pay...but I'm curious about this specific response. You can both play "OK games with friends" and "great games with strangers". They are by no means mutually exclusive...and you could certainly pay to play a great game with those same friends and a paid DM. I strongly suspect you're also good with going out with your group of friends to a movie, a sporting event, dinner, etc wherein you are all paying for someone else to provide your group entertainment, so I don't see that particular obstacle.

In a nutshell, my position is this: I would absolutely pay to play, but there are a number of criteria that must be met (professional means professional...they best do a good job and present themselves as a professional or there wouldn't be a second go), it must be a reasonable amount, and there must be some special considerations for customizing the experience.

Hell, people pay money to watch other people play single-player video games. This makes a bijillion times more sense to me.

- M

Tanarii
2021-01-29, 07:56 PM
In a nutshell, my position is this: I would absolutely pay to play, but there are a number of criteria that must be met (professional means professional...they best do a good job and present themselves as a professional or there wouldn't be a second go), it must be a reasonable amount, and there must be some special considerations for customizing the experience. The biggest problem with that is there are almost no professional grade DMs out there. Even the most popular online video makers aren't fantastic (Mercer, Coville). But they're still a leg above what you find at the average convention or store.

We're almost all amateurs who think we're that good. :smallamused:

KineticDiplomat
2021-01-29, 08:10 PM
What we have here is a well known phenomenon in behavioral economics. Namely, people do not make Rational Decisions in many cases, and a sense of injustice is one of them.

Take the famous experiment where researchers through patterns of reward promised chimps three tasty figs for a thing, then only gave said chimp two. Wild, hysterical anger, occasionally even destroying the thing. When promised one and delivered two - elated happiness. Joy!

Congrats, you are the chimp. You are used to GMs being free. If one charges, why, evil! Horrible! Irrational anger! They’re screwing you and must have many character flaws! The fact that it is an economic transaction equivalent to one recreational soccer league paying its refs while another one uses volunteers doesn’t come into it. You’re used to free, so the lines are drawn for moral outrage.

A large part of this also comes from the context. There is very little outrage over a celebrity GM selling time for charity. And I’m willing to put it out there that if your local hobby store/bar had a man in a polo with a logo on it running a cost per session game as part of that enterprise’s formal business, you might not play, but the vitriol would be gone. Just doing business, of course the game store wants to make a little money (arguments on whether a free game would encourage more sales can be shelved for now).

So yes, some GMs will want to try to sell their time and services. Much like any other budding entertainer, the vast majority will not have sufficient qualitative appeal to make it worth buying, but it’s just business. They’re offering you a service for a fee - in a perfect world of economists if you want to buy or not is a matter of whether you think your money is worth what you get back. You can always choose not to buy, or if there are no volunteers in your area, or they take more time and effort to find, have smaller groups, etc. well that’s just variables in the local market.

Only you won’t think like that. At some deep reptilian part of your brain, you think you’ve been screwed, and now the full powers of your conscious thought will go into rationalizing and justifying your basic market position - that you don’t think buying DM time is worth it. That’s fine, entirely human, but not a very good basis for objective judgment.

Mordar
2021-01-29, 08:28 PM
The biggest problem with that is there are almost no professional grade DMs out there. Even the most popular online video makers aren't fantastic (Mercer, Coville). But they're still a leg above what you find at the average convention or store.

We're almost all amateurs who think we're that good. :smallamused:

I was trying to be diplomatic and avoid certain tropes...I want someone highly skilled with a "knack", but the professionalism was more about demeanor, presentation and attitude. Clean, timely, polite/pleasant, maintains proper decorum, work ethic, that sort of thing. You know, no game store trolls bopping in 25 minutes late wearing a stained black t-shirt smelling like it hasn't been washed in weeks, carpet f-bombing, running outside to smoke every 15 minutes and belching Mountain Dew constantly.

Doesn't have to be a great actor or anything of that nature, and certainly not someone capable of making their entire living by running RPGs...but they better be well above average and in no way odious or afflicted with manchildia.

- M

Jorren
2021-01-29, 08:44 PM
I am certainly not opposed to the idea of paying for a GM any more than I would be inclined to pay for any other service. However, the quality of GM'ing that I would get (at least in my mind) by paying is not significantly better than the kind that I could get for free. At least not enough for me to pay what I think would be fair wages.

Secondly, if I am paying someone to GM I am going to be thinking of that person as an employee, the same expectations of I would have of any other contractor. And no, you don't get to go to my fridge and grab a beer like my friends do (at least not without asking).

Pex
2021-01-29, 09:12 PM
Which is exactly why I don't take money for things I'm doing for fun or entertainment. It kills the love rapidly.

That's not to say I can't enjoy a challenging work environment, but that's a different kind of enjoyment. It's not the same as drawing, or climbing, or Kung fu.

OTOH I absolutely prefer a dispassionate DM, both being one and playing with one. I do not want a DM who robs me of my victories by giving me a helping hand. I don't ever want to be that DM. So maybe I should try a paid DM and see if it really pans out that way. But I suspect far more important to my enjoyment will be other factors ... like if they're a "storyteller" DM.

A caring DM doesn't mean giving the game away. It's about attitude, not the game itself. In my barbarian game that I've talked about from time to time, PCs have died. The DM was sad it happened along with the rest of us, but it happened. When we do something awesome he cheers along with us. He's very much into Rule of Cool. The caring DM is into the story the players make as much as the players are. Players can succeed and achieve goals in games with Dispassionate DMs, but to them it's just "Congratulations. Anyway, a new problem arises." I prefer the DM who celebrates and mourns with the players.


It is good to know what you don't like. However in this case you are conflating 2 things you don't like. There are free dispassionate DMs (AL sometimes) and there are passionate paid DMs (just like any other artist that is passionate and funded, RPGs are just a more interactive form of art than most games).

That is why I started (in post 3) with:

You made a wise call. You don't need to defend yourself. You don't need to attack this other style to find an unneeded justification for your own wise personal choice. Your wise decision does not need a defense.

Sure, they're not the same. One does not cause the other. It's more that Adventure League and Pay to Play tends to attract Dispassionate DMs. Call it in my opinion if you prefer. Regardless, I do not believe in paying someone to DM. Being a DM is not providing a service.

Kapow
2021-01-29, 09:13 PM
I don't see a problem.
It is a service.
I probably wouldn't use it, but I don't need to.
Perhaps for a one shot.
I know some people who have tried/try to get paid for GMing.
They did stuff like Game Clubs and family game nights (birthdays I think)
Seemed to be fun, but the pay isn't that good for the workload.

In a round about way, I get paid to GM and even play.
And I am by no means a professional.
I work at a youth center and I introduce the kids to RPGs and other games since 15 years. Because I am passionate about it, I get them to try new stuff.
So, some of them start to GM and I get to play.
And I get paid for it by the government (books and minis too)
Actually I believe it's great that I can get paid for doing the things I love.

RifleAvenger
2021-01-29, 10:23 PM
If the DM wasn't Dispassionate he wouldn't be charging. He would be playing casually with friends and potential new friends. Once you charge your players aren't friends. They're customers. When it's a professional setting your PC is just a character who exists, not a person in the gameworld. I dare say Adventure League is the same thing despite not paying. Sure, a group of friends can play using Adventure League rules, but inorder to work it requires methodical bureaucracy. There's no emotional connection. Your character cannot affect anything beyond the module. With a Dispassionate DM in general you cannot affect anything beyond the Campaign Plot. The Dispassionate DM doesn't care if your PC lives or dies, succeeds or not. He just runs his gameworld and in his view the players are lucky to be in it. It's an attitude.
As someone who has a lot of artist and writer friends, the notion that "people who charge for art aren't truly passionate" is the kind of attitude that is used to browbeat creatives into working for "exposure" or "passion's sake" instead of something they can use for rent or food. For some GMs, their campaigns are art - the players being effectively cocreators should factor in, but in many systems the GM does the heavy lifting. If a GM thinks their effort is worth compensation, and the players agree, I see nothing wrong with that.

As a GM, I don't ask for pay, but I'd never cast aspersions on those that asked for it. I just wouldn't play at their tables.

If you're afraid this will become a widespread thing and make it so that most tables are pay to play, don't be. So long as OGL rules and free or pay-what-you-want products are available for free online, the only barrier to GM'ing is to have an idea, some players, and some spare time. There's no way for pay-to-play GM's to create a "market" where free alternatives don't exist. Within individual communities like the one you found that have payment as a policy? Sure. But not on the scale of the entire TTRPG community.

Bugbear
2021-01-29, 10:34 PM
I've done the pay to play for years and years....it works out great.

The first big point to mention is gaming items. You might think it's typical for a player to make an investment into the game, such as a Players Handbook, dice, paper, something to write with, and so forth: but you'd be wrong. Some players show up with...maybe...a character sheet and that is it. They have to borrow dice or borrow a book, and don't care to spend a single penny on the game.

Though, some players do buy dice...and every book they can find....and maybe some nice game related items for themselves only. Few players are ever willing to buy anything for the game. For the most part, asking a player to buy something for the game that everyone playing the game will use is little more then a joke.

A great, easy example, are miniature. All five players agree they want to use miniatures for the next game. So the DM suggests each player buy one box of miniatures for the game, for everyone to use. Five miniature boxed sets is a fair number to get started. Of course, many players will flat out refuse to buy miniatures for the game...and most will whine and cry about not having money. And even if they do 'agree' they are still very likely to forget or do the classic "not have the time to go buy them yet"...but they "say" they will...someday.

So, the end result, is that it is MUCH easier and simple to just have the DM charge per game a set amount of money. Then the DM will buy all the needed game items.

-----

The second big one is focus. If you play with a group of best friends in a casual game there really is not much of a problem. You get together, hang out, goof around, and maybe even play the game. It does not really matter what you do though, as it is all fun.

Now, if it is anything except a group of fun friends hanging out....well, that is where the problem starts. Hanging out, goofing off, and relaxing is fun *if* that is what everyone wants to do. Often some players, and just about always the GM *want* to actually play the RPG. They don't want to hang out for six hours and do 'nothing': they want to play the RPG for six hours.

Way, way, way too often a group of players will say they want to play......and then come over and avoid playing the game. Most often the GM not only wants to play the game, but has put an investment into game preparation. And this assumes each player shows up at all, as ghosting is VERY common.

And needless to say this is roughly 100% worse when your talking about an online game. Everyone log in at 6pm and we will play the game we all want to play and agree to play at this set time and place. And STILL people will ghost. All the time, nearly every time.

But there is an amazingly simple way to stop all of the above: Pay to Play. Amazingly once a player pays to play, they show up ready to play EVERY time. Amazingly a player that pays to play shows up at 6pm and says "lets start the game", and never says "hey lets goof around all night and do nothing". Quite often even the goof ball person who avoids playing like it's a plague will suddenly be the "lets get this game going" person.

And it works wonders online too. Amazingly all the players will log in and be ready to play EVERY time.

The motivation of money is amazing.

Kvess
2021-01-29, 10:44 PM
I can't help but feel that the deeply negative comments on this thread are coming from a place of fear, and I can sympathize with that. When you participate in a community where something is provided for free, you probably would be resistant to the idea of paying for it as a service. I think that's misguided.

Charging to run D&D sessions isn't an unfamiliar concept to me. I have worked at a community centre, where one of the programs we promoted was a 'Hireling DM' table, where a student at the nearby university would charge a fee for weekly games and it helped put him through school. As far as I am concerned, if someone can cover their costs running games of D&D that is a better use of their time than many of the jobs I had when I was a hapless student.

I personally wouldn't want to charge my friends to play D&D, but if I thought I could provide for my family and create a consistently amazing experience for players, I would become a professional DM in a heartbeat. No questions asked.

druid91
2021-01-29, 10:52 PM
I'm not sure why you think that. I agree that a paid GM couldn't be a "killer GM" ; they have to take extra good care that the experience is satisfying to the players, because now the players are customers, and that's what brings in money. So they can't be actively adversarial to the players. But beyond that, they can be dispassionate, they can cheer for the players, they can be more or less invested in a particular group or adventure, depending on their style or personality. There's nothing about money that would make everyone "dispassionate", as you classify them.

I mean, I've run adventures for groups of strangers before. Not for money, but for fun. I was invested in it everytime, and part of the fun is seeing how each group would play the same adventure differently, in a unique way. I wouldn't call that "dispassionate", and I don't see why money would change this particular trait. Besides, part of being a good GM IMO is to cater to the players and make them feel valued: work their backstories into the adventure, regularly offer situations that will give them the spotlight, identify the players' individual style and adjust the game to it. I don't see money diminishing that either, on the contrary, I'd say it's essential to being a professional GM.

Eh, I could see a paid DM being a killer DM, as long as the kills were fair and they were upfront beforehand that a given campaign was MEANT to be hard.

Pex
2021-01-30, 12:06 AM
I play with a few people who enjoy miniatures. They have beautiful collections and a few like to paint their own. Before the Virus Apocalypse they would bring miniatures to the game for everyone to use. Other players get to have a PC miniature. The DM can use monster and terrain miniatures unless he has his own to bring. I see no reason why I have to pay for their hobby. It's their miniatures. They get to enjoy seeing them in use. I certainly enjoy using them in game play if available. I actually bought a PC miniature from Hero Forge as a present to myself to use in a game where no one had a miniature collection. We'd use dice, coins, whatever was available until a player 3D printed her own miniatures. We also sometimes use Theater of the Mind. Still, I will not pay for stuff the DM keeps or already has.

Luccan
2021-01-30, 12:37 AM
I joined a new Meet Up group with the hopes of finding a new campaign to play. There were games but you had to pay a compensation fee. I refuse so didn't join. I asked if there were games that did not have a fee, and the group owner said they only use compensated DMs who spend their valuable time to run a game. Shut that I thought and left the group. I DM. I play in other games. Hopefully make new friends. You never have to pay to play. I'm not the DM's customer. He's not sacrificing anything or blessing us with his presence to deserve recompense. It's not jealousy I don't get paid. I'm offended they charge and feel sorry for those who do pay.

Before the Virus Apocalypse I had no problem with renting a table from an establishment if it was a reasonable fee the table as a whole could divide up to pay. A high price everyone paid individually I would not do. If it was a business like a deli restaurant with a seating area of course you buy their food. Free Public Areas were also acceptable if we couldn't play at someone's home.

If neither party feels forced into the business arrangement, I don't really care if they choose to engage with it. I doubt I would, there are a lot of free games out there, but given those games can often fall apart I can see the relatively better assurance of a paid service being appealing. I have no doubt it changes the dynamic, but if everyone is getting what they want out of it and no one is being exploited, who cares?

Ok, I'll admit I have a small, unreasonable worry about this becoming the norm, where almost no one DMs unless they're being compensated and the majority of players suddenly stereotyping Free DMs as subpar because they aren't paying a ridiculous amount of money for them to run the game, but this seems unlikely to come to pass.

Foeofthelance
2021-01-30, 01:10 AM
I play with a few people who enjoy miniatures. They have beautiful collections and a few like to paint their own. Before the Virus Apocalypse they would bring miniatures to the game for everyone to use. Other players get to have a PC miniature. The DM can use monster and terrain miniatures unless he has his own to bring. I see no reason why I have to pay for their hobby. It's their miniatures. They get to enjoy seeing them in use. I certainly enjoy using them in game play if available. I actually bought a PC miniature from Hero Forge as a present to myself to use in a game where no one had a miniature collection. We'd use dice, coins, whatever was available until a player 3D printed her own miniatures. We also sometimes use Theater of the Mind. Still, I will not pay for stuff the DM keeps or already has.

As someone who collects and paints minis as well as DMs, I can entirely understand why a pay-to-play scheme is attractive.

To start, no, I don't charge my players. I buy and paint the minis on my own time and my own dime. On the other hand, I game pretty much exclusively with my friends and don't have to pay for food and drink when I'm DMing.

On the other hand, if I was DMing for strangers at a game store or an off-the street group, I would happily let them charge and pay me a percentage of the door. Because first, minis and paints aren't cheap in time or materials. If I'm pulling them out for strangers, getting paid is a safety net for someone breaking something small and fragile. Doesn't even need to be deliberate, accidents happen. Additionally, I'm expected to referee 4+ strangers, fulfill their individual needs for the game (Are they roleplayers? Battle junkies? Beginners?) and tell a story almost entirely on the fly. Even prewritten adventures can't predict everything the players will do, that all falls on the DM. There is no guarantee that I will enjoy myself in the process. So a bit of compensation seems appropriate in that situation.

GrayGriffin
2021-01-30, 04:38 AM
One of my friends runs paid games for kids and teens as part of a larger youth program. She loves doing it and she loves the worlds she makes, but it's her job and she deserves to be compensated for it. She also runs free games for her friends when she has the time. But the paid games come first, and she is also willing to return payments if she can't make a session (though not if the kid misses the session on their own). It's a commitment on both sides.

MrStabby
2021-01-30, 07:33 AM
So for me it would be something I would be willing to pay for - in the sense that the value of the service is worth more than the money I would be paying, but I would have a lot of reservations.

1) It seems like it might be unfair to the DM. They are taking a lot of risk unless everyone already knows and is happy witht he rest of the group. The biggest impact on my enjoyment comes from the quality of the other players rather than the quality of the DM (in terms of typical variance).

2) The DM is required to serve the players, which means that trust is sometimes needed. Players say they want some type of game or some set of rulings, DM thinks that the game will be better for everyone a little different given what they know about the upcoming campaign etc.. So normally you can just think "DM is a player too, their choice, their perogative about the type of game they want to run" and just go along with it till it makes sense. If the players are paying then they will worry a bit more about which way the game is going.

3) I think that there are signs that a DM is good or bad for the role of paid DM. I think you need a degree of professionalism to make it worthwhile - not least the alarm bells that start ringing if the prospecive DM doesn't do proper requirements gathering, doesn't know what type of game is desired, doesn't know what type of setting the group wants and so on.

In practice, it would be tough to justify though and I would be a bit skeptical of the idea.

That said, 5PCs paying the same price as a movie ticket for a session say $10 meaning $50 for a 2 hour session would be well below the US median wage and even lower when you consider the prep-work needed. In the UK hiring an actor is usually about £50 per hour (about $70) so I just don't really see most groups being that happy with the outlay. Not saying that a professonal DM is only an actor, but trying to guess at a profession with some overlap of skills, where you would look for a degree of preofessionalism, where they are often employed on low number of hours per engagement and where there is generally no need for a specific set of formal qualifications.

Faily
2021-01-30, 09:18 AM
I'd personally not be interested in paying to play, or to get paid to GM (my performance-anxiety would be through the roof with that).

On the whole, I enjoy that RPG has a low barrier point of entry for players. You don't need to buy a console, your own copy of the game, or maybe upgrade your PC to run the game... back in the day, playgroups had a single diceset to share between them. A new player might invest nothing financially at all in the game (and borrow dice, player's handbook, etc), and I think that is a good thing. It makes roleplaying games open for all sorts of people to try without a cost, something I find invaluable considering how many people in challenging economic-statuses find escape in such hobbies (ranging from kids who might not have much of an allowance to people trying to make ends meet).

I don't mind that you technically pay to play at conventions. Usually the cost of such tickets cover the cost of the space used+goes to the Con's funds to cover their costs (and run more in the future). I've never played at a convention simply because I don't like having pressure of socialising with unfamiliar players and GMs (especially in a scenario where I paid to play with them) as well as running through a module in time. I'm a person who enjoys the social interaction with my fellow players and to have a good time with them, rather than being in "serious mode" during play-time.

If people want to pay people to GM for them... good for them I guess? If they feel satisfied with it, then that's good. It's just not something I will do or want to do.

Only "costs" I have paid to play with a GM is bribing them with food, or helping pitch in for projects for the group (like one GM that made battlemaps for the group), or pooling money with the other players to get them a birthday gift. And those are costs I consider to be normal between friends and that I enjoy doing, without expecting some superb GMing in return.

JNAProductions
2021-01-30, 10:06 AM
I'll echo those who say there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

But I agree with Pex that I wouldn't do it, as a DM or as a player. Asking players to chip in for snacks or books or fees for renting space, yes, 100%-we're all using those, we should all share the burden. But straight-up, pay me for DMing/pay the DM for their time? Nah. Not for me.

Faily
2021-01-30, 01:31 PM
Just the idea of getting paid to GM sets my anxiety into hard-drive mode.

If I flub a session normally? It's fine. Everyone has off-days, the only thing my players lost was time, which was hopefully still well-spent socialising and having fun even if I weren't giving it my A-game.

If I flub a session and people are paying customers? *insert panic attack*

LibraryOgre
2021-01-30, 01:41 PM
A lot of people craft as a hobby, and also sell said crafts. Same kinda thing.

I mean, RPGs are my hobby, and I sell some of the material I create for them, and have done work for other people at their request.

That said, I don't have a conceptual problem with folks getting paid to DM... not for me, but I'm also a semi-pro DM, myself, in that I run RPG groups as part of my job as a librarian.

KaussH
2021-01-30, 02:58 PM
The biggest problem with that is there are almost no professional grade DMs out there. Even the most popular online video makers aren't fantastic (Mercer, Coville). But they're still a leg above what you find at the average convention or store.

We're almost all amateurs who think we're that good. :smallamused:

Well in a world where you are not pay for play, you cant really be a pro, there are no single guidelines.

That said, I disagree, I have played with gms who I could very much see running games for money, as a pro. They have good organization, prep, some props but not too much, ect.

There are a lot of "hobbies " out there that are also sources of money.



Heck, a lot of larps are pay for play.

Mastikator
2021-01-30, 03:17 PM
Well in a world where you are not pay for play, you cant really be a pro, there are no single guidelines.

That said, I disagree, I have played with gms who I could very much see running games for money, as a pro. They have good organization, prep, some props but not too much, ect.

There are a lot of "hobbies " out there that are also sources of money.



Heck, a lot of larps are pay for play.

I think one of the salient things is what are you paying for: the stuff the DM provides or the DM's time. If it's the stuff then the players are chipping in, if it's time then the you're paying for a service. Those are two fundamentally different things and come with two mutually exclusive relationship types. One is friend the other is client.
I'm not friends with my boss. I am friends with my DM. And when I DM I am friends with my players.

KineticDiplomat
2021-01-30, 03:53 PM
While we’re on the topic, to be clear, you aren’t actually paying for the GMs time or property. That’s the largely discredited Labor theory of Value. You are buying a very specific service, and ultimately it is that service that has value to you (or doesn’t). A GM can put twenty hours and many props in and still make it a crappy session, and you still wouldn’t want to pay for it.

As another side note, many groups do informally pay the GM: if you ever had a group where the GM doesn’t pay for his part of the pizza and beer for the night, congrats, you paid your GM. He might be a friend, you may all still socialize happily, but pay you did. Just not very much, and not in a direct transaction.

And since we’re rolling on that, the idea that all paid services immediately mean a completely sterilized professional relationship is quite demonstrably false. You might find any number of blue or white collar jobs where the client and the provider are friendly or even friends. The insistence that a paid GM has to be treated like a random retail employee or landscaper has more to do with you attempting to prove to yourself you aren’t being screwed by buying something that’s free elsewhere than it does any iron bound code of transactions.

KaussH
2021-01-30, 04:03 PM
I think one of the salient things is what are you paying for: the stuff the DM provides or the DM's time. If it's the stuff then the players are chipping in, if it's time then the you're paying for a service. Those are two fundamentally different things and come with two mutually exclusive relationship types. One is friend the other is client.
I'm not friends with my boss. I am friends with my DM. And when I DM I am friends with my players.

I would say,stuff for the game, game snacks, cooked meals could all be wrapped up under services as well.

I get the feeling a lot of the people here havent dont a lot of con gming. A lot of times when you run at a con, its not with friends.

I get some people not wanting to pay a gm, but to be honest if a gm wants to go pay for play, sure, go for it. A gms time is worth money. Heck anyone's time is worth money,but in a Lot of games, players bring themselves to the table. Often dice, sometimes books, and their story. The gm may have maps and spare dice and extra books and figures and prizes and props and hours of world building and a setting and ..... the list can go on. Now that's a great thing to do for friends and a hobby but, no reason it cant be a paid job as well.


Paid gming is never going to push out all unpaid gms, but it might be a nice thing from time to time :)

False God
2021-01-30, 05:30 PM
I joined a new Meet Up group with the hopes of finding a new campaign to play. There were games but you had to pay a compensation fee. I refuse so didn't join. I asked if there were games that did not have a fee, and the group owner said they only use compensated DMs who spend their valuable time to run a game. Shut that I thought and left the group. I DM. I play in other games. Hopefully make new friends. You never have to pay to play. I'm not the DM's customer. He's not sacrificing anything or blessing us with his presence to deserve recompense. It's not jealousy I don't get paid. I'm offended they charge and feel sorry for those who do pay.

Before the Virus Apocalypse I had no problem with renting a table from an establishment if it was a reasonable fee the table as a whole could divide up to pay. A high price everyone paid individually I would not do. If it was a business like a deli restaurant with a seating area of course you buy their food. Free Public Areas were also acceptable if we couldn't play at someone's home.

I mean, except his time and effort to run a game. Ya know, the two primary commodities people get paid for to do basically anything else. And his skill as a DM may be quite good. You know what they say: "You can have it fast, good, or cheap: pick two." Cheap and good? Might take a while to find a table. Fast and cheap? Low quality. Fast and good? That'll cost ya.

I get you don't want to pay to play, that's totally your decision. It is also equally another person's decision to charge for their time.

LibraryOgre
2021-01-30, 05:59 PM
I mean, except his time and effort to run a game. Ya know, the two primary commodities people get paid for to do basically anything else. And his skill as a DM may be quite good. You know what they say: "You can have it fast, good, or cheap: pick two." Cheap and good? Might take a while to find a table. Fast and cheap? Low quality. Fast and good? That'll cost ya.

I get you don't want to pay to play, that's totally your decision. It is also equally another person's decision to charge for their time.

And the players' choice to pay for it, no less.

Tanarii
2021-01-30, 06:27 PM
I mean, except his time and effort to run a game. Ya know, the two primary commodities people get paid for to do basically anything else. And his skill as a DM may be quite good. You know what they say: "You can have it fast, good, or cheap: pick two." Cheap and good? Might take a while to find a table. Fast and cheap? Low quality. Fast and good? That'll cost ya.As I often tell my boss, that saying isn't accurate. You can only pick one. :smallamused:

TheStranger
2021-01-30, 06:34 PM
I think one of the salient things is what are you paying for: the stuff the DM provides or the DM's time. If it's the stuff then the players are chipping in, if it's time then the you're paying for a service. Those are two fundamentally different things and come with two mutually exclusive relationship types. One is friend the other is client.
I'm not friends with my boss. I am friends with my DM. And when I DM I am friends with my players.

This is kind of the key to this discussion, I think. If D&D to you has a strong social element, then of course you would never pay for a DM. In this model, the point of the game is largely to interact with the other people at the table, both in and out of character. In that case, paying a DM is like paying somebody to pretend to be your friend, which hopefully none of us have done since maybe third grade. This is how I think of D&D - I play it to hang out with my friends, and I'm not going to pay some rando to hang out with us. I am, of course, more than happy to welcome a new player (potential friend) to the group.

Of course, there is a paradigm in which the players are all friends, but the DM is set apart socially. This has come up a few times in this thread, with people talking about running games for children. However, in that case the DM clearly isn't going to be part of the players' social group. But if my friends and I hire a DM, that's another adult who's there, doing something that would normally make them part of our social group, but can't really be part of our social group because we've paid them to be there. That's not inherently wrong, but it runs counter to all my gaming experience to date and I'm not really interested in exploring it.

OTOH, if what you're really after is the *game* aspect of D&D, or the specific experience of playing your character in or out of combat, then the DM is providing a service that allows this to happen, and it's not particularly strange for them to be paid for it. This kind of also applies if the circumstances mean that the DM isn't going to be part of the social group, like the "DM-ing for kids" examples. In this model, the DM is more akin to the dealer at a blackjack table. You and your friends (or a group of strangers) are doing your thing, and they're providing the service that makes it possible. I'd say that the DM at a con falls into this category, and if I had any interest in playing at a con (I don't), my only objection to paying the DM would be whether I was getting my money's worth. Game night at a local game store could also fall into this model.

False God
2021-01-30, 06:37 PM
And the players' choice to pay for it, no less.
If you're saying "If they want to play that game, they have to make the choice to pay and play or not pay and not play." then yes.

Because it'd be awfully rude and certainly a violation of an actual contract(if there was one) if they agreed to pay, played, and then didn't.


As I often tell my boss, that saying isn't accurate. You can only pick one. :smallamused:
Fair enough, I think the core of the statement "You get what you pay for." remains true either way.

We've all played with questionable to outright bad DMs before I'm sure, and it's more likely than not they were free of charge.

The upside, hopefully, to paying for a DM would be that people would be more willing to publicly talk about their experiences, like you would with a sandwich shop or a repair guy. A quality DM could make a lot of money running good games.

MrStabby
2021-01-30, 07:18 PM
This is kind of the key to this discussion, I think. If D&D to you has a strong social element, then of course you would never pay for a DM. In this model, the point of the game is largely to interact with the other people at the table, both in and out of character. In that case, paying a DM is like paying somebody to pretend to be your friend, which hopefully none of us have done since maybe third grade. This is how I think of D&D - I play it to hang out with my friends, and I'm not going to pay some rando to hang out with us. I am, of course, more than happy to welcome a new player (potential friend) to the group.

Of course, there is a paradigm in which the players are all friends, but the DM is set apart socially. This has come up a few times in this thread, with people talking about running games for children. However, in that case the DM clearly isn't going to be part of the players' social group. But if my friends and I hire a DM, that's another adult who's there, doing something that would normally make them part of our social group, but can't really be part of our social group because we've paid them to be there. That's not inherently wrong, but it runs counter to all my gaming experience to date and I'm not really interested in exploring it.

OTOH, if what you're really after is the *game* aspect of D&D, or the specific experience of playing your character in or out of combat, then the DM is providing a service that allows this to happen, and it's not particularly strange for them to be paid for it. This kind of also applies if the circumstances mean that the DM isn't going to be part of the social group, like the "DM-ing for kids" examples. In this model, the DM is more akin to the dealer at a blackjack table. You and your friends (or a group of strangers) are doing your thing, and they're providing the service that makes it possible. I'd say that the DM at a con falls into this category, and if I had any interest in playing at a con (I don't), my only objection to paying the DM would be whether I was getting my money's worth. Game night at a local game store could also fall into this model.

I don't know about this. I mean I wouldn't pay someone to be my friend but I would pay a taxi driver to take myself and my non remunerated friends somewhere. I would pay to be entertained whilst with my friends. I can have a social side to the game by being with my friends whilst we all play in a game where the DM's time isn't free. Not that I think I disagree with all of your points, but I don't think that paid for needs to mean not social.

TheStranger
2021-01-30, 07:48 PM
I don't know about this. I mean I wouldn't pay someone to be my friend but I would pay a taxi driver to take myself and my non remunerated friends somewhere. I would pay to be entertained whilst with my friends. I can have a social side to the game by being with my friends whilst we all play in a game where the DM's time isn't free. Not that I think I disagree with all of your points, but I don't think that paid for needs to mean not social.

But that's my point. In those examples, the person you're paying isn't part of the group of friends. When I play D&D, the DM is part of the group of friends. So yes, you can have a social experience with a paid DM, but it's a different experience in a fundamental way. I wouldn't want to try it, personally. Paying somebody to come into my house for several hours and be a part of the experience but not part of the social group seems really weird to me. But if it works for you, go for it.

Spriteless
2021-01-31, 08:49 AM
I think in this situation I would go all consumer report on them. I'd ask if they had any references for the GMs, so I can see if their style was compatable. I'd ask how big the tables were, you get more value at a smaller table after all. And then DM a game like I was going to end up doing all along. Brah I make jokes about poaching 3 players from the 10 player table normally this is going to be awkward when I'm poaching customers.

KineticDiplomat
2021-01-31, 09:18 AM
1. You’re free to “poach” customers. That’s called a market.

2. The greater issue here is that people seem to be implying that a paid GM somehow needs more scrutiny than childcare, a higher performance standard than the tax prep place you used last year (I dunno, some of you may have personal accountants), and more professional detachment than the sub-contractor who is carrying rocks out of your yard. I mean, really, I know people who have better relationships with their cleaning lady than many are implying they could have with a paid GM.

Could we all just accept that many people don’t feel like paying a GM (I mean, I don’t, so I get it) without the adult version of pretending to be a schoolyard badass?

Bugbear
2021-01-31, 11:11 AM
Could we all just accept that many people don’t feel like paying a GM (I mean, I don’t, so I get it) without the adult version of pretending to be a schoolyard badass?

It's not like paying your friends to do things is something that is never done. You have a friend come help you move, paint a room, watch a pet, or dozens of other things and you quite often pay them for their time and effort. It might be casual, you provide snacks and water, plus lunch for everyone that helped you move....but that still counts.

And it's even more so if you ask a friend to do something like say DJ a party, bake a cake, put on a magic show for the kids and other such things.

And lots of social meet ups, groups and clubs have fees to join and fees monthly and even fees for events.

AntiAuthority
2021-01-31, 11:20 AM
Smart choice not to play with those people. Even if you don't have fun, you might feel like you've invested too much money into it to stop, which... Isn't a good reason to keep playing. These guys probably aren't the greatest DMs to ever grace the world with their presence, so nothing of value was lost by not playing with them.

DwarfFighter
2021-01-31, 11:33 AM
So your logic is that as soon as a GM charges for their service they instantly stop caring?

Yeah you know. Like doctors, cops, firefighters, first responders, charity volunteers, soldiers. Once that first paycheck is in it's all just about bringing in more business instead of solving problems!

-DF

KineticDiplomat
2021-01-31, 11:43 AM
Bugbear is on the money. We have all had relatively informal arrangements with friends before, and did not require moral outrage or belief that they now are emotionally detached automata to whom we’re just a source of cash, or for that matter feeling like we have the right to really put the screws to them “cause you work for me now MOFRaCKI!”

So you don’t want to pay for GMing, great, let’s not pretend the idea of paying for it requires us to flex mightily because it’s a grave injustice or terrible ask.

Friv
2021-01-31, 11:53 AM
I have actually paid a friend to run a game, once; he was part of a service operated through a restaurant, which ran a "game and a meal" for a group. It was a one-shot, not a campaign, but it was fun, and it didn't change how our general games operated.

And add me to the pile of people saying that it's fine not to want to pay to play RPGs, just like it's fine not to want to join a choir with membership fees, or a local sports league with membership fees. But that doesn't change the fact that the conductor of the choir is no less caring than if they were a volunteer, and the referees at the sports league don't care less because they're able to spend more time focusing on their goal. I do writing for fun, and I also have a published book, and I can tell you that I didn't spend less time caring about how people would react to the book. I have bought art pieces from friends, and that doesn't change how much they like their work.

DwarfFighter
2021-01-31, 12:04 PM
I don't really now if I'm on the OP's side here or not. I mean, I am not against paying for a service, but I would like to know what I am paying for, and how much.

I think an admission fee to play at the venue is fine. Snacks and drinks sold a the venue? Fine. Gaming handouts? Fine. Renting gaming materials, like costumes or props to use, instead of bringing your own? Fine, though this is heading outside of what I consider relevant to an RPG - I personally don't LARP.

Paying the GM? I can see how that could create an incentive for the GM to weigh their decision towards appeasing their players to encourage return business, or at least going full neutral as to not offend. But then again, if the temptation of returning business is even a factor, surely GMs will realize that providing a Good Game is the better business model! I mean, it's the free market in miniature scope, so this could really swing either way, with excellent GMs providing great service, and wash-out by-the-number Monty Haul GMs providing only the bare minimum of the game experience.

For me, it depends on if...

The Price Is Right

-DF

Kraynic
2021-01-31, 12:39 PM
I have some problems with people that expect to be paid to run games, but that may be due to the ones that I have run across. I suppose I should say that my reservations are for long term games, not one-shots or convention style events. I also have no issue with people pooling resources for the person running the game to purchase more materials, to provide food, to rent a reliable place to play, or anything similar.

1. "Professional" DM

What makes a DM a "professional"? Is it just that they say they are? So far, that seems to be the criteria. As if demanding money makes you more imaginative than the next person. Somewhere upthread there was a mention of Mercer and Colville and how they aren't exactly exceptional (other than marketing), but it seems to me that they do something that most "professional" DMs don't. They run their own content for the most part. Personally speaking, if a "professional" DM just runs modules, then they aren't much of a "professional".

2. Marketing double talk

Following the whole bit about what makes a professional, paid DMs usually do some self promotion. As part of their marketing, there is definitely a portion that proclaim that any DM that doesn't charge for their games is a sub optimal DM that is incapable of running a truly enjoyable game. Therefore, you can only get a truly enjoyable game when you are paying the DM.

3. Loot Boxes and Micro Transactions

Oh, those aren't just for MMOs anymore. Some DMs actually advertise that not only do you need to pay them to run the game, but you also need to pay for any magic or unusual items you want your character to have as the game progresses.

I suppose that excuses the DM for unexpected TPKs. "If only you had coughed up some money for magic items, you wouldn't be making new characters!"

4. Growth of the hobby.

This is definitely personal opinion, but I don't think it is good for the future of our hobby to be telling newcomers that you have to be a "professional" to run games. Even worse, that you shouldn't even try unless you are a "professional", because you are just going to be running a subpar game that no one should enjoy.


All that said, if you are paid to run games and you encourage people to start up games of their own, then good for you. I expect there are good paid DMs out there that are actual supporters of the hobby instead of just being leeches firmly attached to it. There are definitely some of the latter floating around.

Tanarii
2021-01-31, 01:15 PM
2. The greater issue here is that people seem to be implying that a paid GM somehow needs more scrutiny than childcare, a higher performance standard than the tax prep place you used last year (I dunno, some of you may have personal accountants), and more professional detachment than the sub-contractor who is carrying rocks out of your yard. I mean, really, I know people who have better relationships with their cleaning lady than many are implying they could have with a paid GM.
Those people are all servants though. That's actually a step down from what people are worried about here.

I'll be honest, that's why I couldn't accept money from players to DM. My campaign is not their servant.

KaussH
2021-01-31, 02:18 PM
Smart choice not to play with those people. Even if you don't have fun, you might feel like you've invested too much money into it to stop, which... Isn't a good reason to keep playing. These guys probably aren't the greatest DMs to ever grace the world with their presence, so nothing of value was lost by not playing with them.

Not sure if you meant it this way,but this reads like "charge shaming " aka if your a gm charging for game, your not any good. That presumes a Lot

AntiAuthority
2021-01-31, 03:13 PM
Not sure if you meant it this way,but this reads like "charge shaming " aka if your a gm charging for game, your not any good. That presumes a Lot

Nope, not at all.

I mean, if I did something for free and had a bad time, that's one thing. If I paid for something and didn't enjoy it, that'll make me feel worse, as I wasted not only my time but also my money.

Same way with how certain people will stick with something they hate solely because they invested too much into it. Usually it's time. But if money comes into play, they have more incentive to stay because, "I don't want all that money I already invested to be for nothing."

But basically, I and people like me would be more irritated if we spent money on something we didn't enjoy is what I'm getting it... And might stick around longer than we would otherwise because we already spent money on it.

Not saying all GMs that charge are bad, but they're just as human as the next person. They might suck or they might rock. There are also free GMs that might suck or might rock. If people want to pay for GMing, that's cool. I usually play with people for free though, as I'm aware that with money involved, I'm going to feel obligated to stay at a game longer than I otherwise would.

Cluedrew
2021-01-31, 09:08 PM
Again I'm fine with both options existing and would prefer it if neither side shamed the other.

Still I'm not about to because the games I like the most are prefaced on the fact that everyone is making notable contributions in which case why isn't everyone getting payed? So if I was to pay money for a session it would be something like a "role-playing coach", not a GM.

KineticDiplomat
2021-01-31, 09:37 PM
@Tanari

Sure, they’re servants, but so is a doctor or a lawyer at some point. They are providing a service to a client. The point was more that people are so outraged at the idea paying a GM that they are posturing as if they’d behave in ways far more drastic than they do for their children, their taxes, or their home. And that just seems...artificial.

As far as campaigns not being servants to players, that’s the age old trade off of the creative: unless you’re one of the extraordinary few who can do exactly what they want and still make a buck, chances are if there’s money involved some of your creative vision is going to have to make an accommodation. That said, at the “meet up group” level of money OP is talking about, I don’t think the pressure is that high. And of course you campaign had to provide some service to your players besides your own artistic feelings about the matter, or they wouldn’t play.

Tanarii
2021-01-31, 09:47 PM
All it would take is one Karen and I'd feel justified in my position :smallamused:

False God
2021-01-31, 11:42 PM
Those people are all servants though. That's actually a step down from what people are worried about here.

I'll be honest, that's why I couldn't accept money from players to DM. My campaign is not their servant.

Do you not make adjustments at all for your players? Must the players accept your campaign 100% the way you want to present it or leave the table?

No judgement, just asking.

Jay R
2021-02-01, 12:02 AM
I have never paid for a DM, and never will. There are several reasons, but the primary one is that I also enjoy DMing, and I can always do that for free instead of paying somebody else to do it.

But I have no problem with somebody who charges for it, and no problem with somebody who pays for it. Not everybody is in the same situation as I am, and my solution is not necessarily right for somebody else.

Somebody who has more money than time, and wants to guarantee that the DM will always be ready on an agreed schedule? Why not? It's not for me, but that doesn't matter to anybody but me. An out-of-work DM who needs the money? I have no problem with the idea of helping him for awhile.

There are lots of things that some people pay for and some people don't. A couple of friends came over and fixed a plumbing problem for me when I was out of work. I have no problem with that, and I have no problem with professional plumbers.

I watch college teams play football for free, and I watch pro teams play football. Both are fine.

I've gotten an emergency call from a friend, and helped get him to a hospital. I have no problem with that, and no problem with taxis and ambulances.

I used to mow my own lawn. Now I pay to have it done.

I sometimes cook dinner, and sometimes go to restaurants.

I teach fencing for free. I teach statistics for pay These are very different relationships, and they are both fine.

I've been a Scout leader for free, and I've been a Ranger at Philmont Scout Ranch for pay. And I'm glad to have had both opportunities.

Do what works for you.

Elves
2021-02-01, 12:11 AM
It's escort vs date basically. Not really sure what the paid DM brings you that you can't do yourself though. Not sure what that says about me if you look back at the analogy.

MrStabby
2021-02-01, 04:52 AM
All it would take is one Karen and I'd feel justified in my position :smallamused:

I have come accross a couple of people on the internet dicussing D&D talking about Karen but I don't know who she is or why I should know her. I am a bit puzzled. Is she some kind of abstraction of a player stereotype? Timmy, Johnny, Spike and Karen?

Seto
2021-02-01, 05:46 AM
I have come accross a couple of people on the internet dicussing D&D talking about Karen but I don't know who she is or why I should know her. I am a bit puzzled. Is she some kind of abstraction of a player stereotype? Timmy, Johnny, Spike and Karen?

It's not specific to D&D. I... wanna say it comes from reddit? Not sure. Anyway, "Karen" refers to a stereotype of an obnoxious, entitled, vindicative person. Especially if she's a customer. She's the kind of person who will more likely than not demand to see your manager to complain about you.

Misereor
2021-02-01, 06:08 AM
I joined a new Meet Up group with the hopes of finding a new campaign to play. There were games but you had to pay a compensation fee. I refuse so didn't join. I asked if there were games that did not have a fee, and the group owner said they only use compensated DMs who spend their valuable time to run a game. Shut that I thought and left the group. I DM. I play in other games. Hopefully make new friends. You never have to pay to play. I'm not the DM's customer. He's not sacrificing anything or blessing us with his presence to deserve recompense. It's not jealousy I don't get paid. I'm offended they charge and feel sorry for those who do pay.

Before the Virus Apocalypse I had no problem with renting a table from an establishment if it was a reasonable fee the table as a whole could divide up to pay. A high price everyone paid individually I would not do. If it was a business like a deli restaurant with a seating area of course you buy their food. Free Public Areas were also acceptable if we couldn't play at someone's home.

I'm the forever GM who only gets to play once every quadrillion years, so it's not terribly relevant for me, but my thoughts are...

Everyone at the table are playing the game, and everyone is there for their own enjoyment. If we're talking money for services rendered, why shouldn't the players receive anything for their time? Aren't they contributing to the enjoyment of the GM? Is the rule that when it comes to common expenses everyone kicks in, but the only enjoyment of the game that is worth anything is what the GM provides?

It's a free market of course, but I'm gonna go a step further than you and arrogantly state, that if we are measuring whose time and contribution is more valuable, then I will always insist on being the one getting paid, whether as player or GM, at the table, in cyberspace, with Bill Gates, Einstein, or anyone in a a run on sentence competition.

KineticDiplomat
2021-02-01, 07:30 AM
That’s the Labor Theory of Value again. You aren’t being paid for your time (or a GM for his time). You’re buying a commodified service, subject to all the typical surrounding factors, of which scarcity and quality. The GMs can/are asking for money and not the players because outside of niche systems it is harder to find a GM than players, and often that role is assumed to be a burden within a group that goes “well, I guess I can GM...”. The value of a paid GM lies in the fact that people are willing to pay for him either for positive reasons (he adds quality!) or negative (well I certainly don’t want to do it).

The rest of the “no GM is worth my money, who does he think he is” with the scathing indictment that they must have ideas above their station...well, that’s the chimpanzee inside who feels screwed because they’ve gotten GMs for free before.

DwarfFighter
2021-02-01, 08:03 AM
Isn't this comparable to paying, or not paying, to play a video game?

-DF

Kardwill
2021-02-01, 08:05 AM
Everyone at the table are playing the game, and everyone is there for their own enjoyment. If we're talking money for services rendered, why shouldn't the players receive anything for their time?

When I'm doing a trek, everybody is participating, climbing the same mountains, helping out the slow or wounded, socializing, sometimes cooking. And everybody enjoys the trek. And yet, only the guide gets paid. Nobody would pay me to walk with them, but the guide is providing a service I'm willing to pay for.
And I can be my own guide (It happens all the time when I'm walking with my friends). But sometime, I want to do a trek I wouldn't do by myself, so I pay a pro.

If the GM is providing a service the players are willing to pay for because they don't want to/can't GM a game themselves, they're welcome to do it. Although GMing in this kind of setting sounds like a chore.
And I can see many cases where such a "service provider" would be handy : Birthday party animation, GMing for a bunch of kids one afternoon, GMing for a group of adults that want to try RPGs once without investing too much of their time...
Just as I wouldn't be completely opposed to a player getting paid to play, although I doubt they would find any customer willing to pay for their service, unless they're a celebrity. ^^

Thinking about it, paid players do exist : There are streamers out there that get paid to play in front of a camera (there is at least one such group in France, where the players are voice actors that get a fee for their game time, and I imagine there are many more in the anglosphere?)

Imbalance
2021-02-01, 08:45 AM
Oh, ho! Just you wait until the Game Master's Union gets the votes it needs to organize. No more unskilled GMs; you'll call the local hall and get whoever they send you.

Batcathat
2021-02-01, 09:00 AM
Isn't this comparable to paying, or not paying, to play a video game?

That feels like an odd comparison. When buying a video game you pay the creator/publisher to own the actual game, when you're paying a GM to run a game for you, you're basically paying a third party for a service. Though I suppose it's a little more similar to video games where you have to pay a monthly fee or something like that to play.

Chronic
2021-02-01, 09:00 AM
Considering how bad most DM are, and that to me the players bring almost as much to the table, I find it in bad taste. But hey, it's capitals man, as soon as something become popular, someone's gonna do it's best to make money with it and explain that's normal for you to pay for it.
I will never pay to play a game, I will never be paid to GM a game.
I don't mind pitching in for something my DM can't afford by himself, or asking for it if I'm a GM, so long as it's to improve our fun.

Elves
2021-02-01, 09:03 AM
Isn't this comparable to paying, or not paying, to play a video game?

-DF
No, because the game is a product that's no different whether you pay or not, while a game is a social event where paying the DM changes the social dynamic (making them a hired entertainer)

Democratus
2021-02-01, 09:08 AM
No, because the game is a product that's no different whether you pay or not, while a game is a social event where paying the DM changes the social dynamic (making them a hired entertainer)

How is a free entertainer better or worse than a paid entertainer?

TheStranger
2021-02-01, 09:19 AM
How is a free entertainer better or worse than a paid entertainer?

It’s not. But the role of the DM in my game isn’t “entertainer,” it’s “friend who happens to be DM.”

You can absolutely pay a DM to be an entertainer, and I’m not shaming that. But paying the DM changes the nature of the experience in a way that I and others aren’t particularly interested in.

Tanarii
2021-02-01, 09:57 AM
Oh, ho! Just you wait until the Game Master's Union gets the votes it needs to organize. No more unskilled GMs; you'll call the local hall and get whoever they send you.

I'm more worried about when the players unionize

GrayGriffin
2021-02-01, 10:02 AM
2) The DM is required to serve the players, which means that trust is sometimes needed. Players say they want some type of game or some set of rulings, DM thinks that the game will be better for everyone a little different given what they know about the upcoming campaign etc.. So normally you can just think "DM is a player too, their choice, their perogative about the type of game they want to run" and just go along with it till it makes sense. If the players are paying then they will worry a bit more about which way the game is going.

My friend has a set of campaign settings with set descriptions of what the campaigns will entail, as well as what will and won't be allowed. Even if people are paying her, they're not allowed to force her to deviate from those set rules. Just like how you can't force the actors on a stage to go along with what you think the story should be just because you paid for a ticket.

Tanarii
2021-02-01, 10:24 AM
My friend has a set of campaign settings with set descriptions of what the campaigns will entail, as well as what will and won't be allowed. Even if people are paying her, they're not allowed to force her to deviate from those set rules. Just like how you can't force the actors on a stage to go along with what you think the story should be just because you paid for a ticket.
That's a set play.

Hiring a DM is more like hiring someone to draw your family or your Dog. It's an uncreated product.

And in case you're unaware, many paying customers demand unreasonable creative control from artists. After all, they're paying for the product, right?

Imbalance
2021-02-01, 11:45 AM
That feels like an odd comparison. When buying a video game you pay the creator/publisher to own the actual game, when you're paying a GM to run a game for you, you're basically paying a third party for a service. Though I suppose it's a little more similar to video games where you have to pay a monthly fee or something like that to play.


No, because the game is a product that's no different whether you pay or not, while a game is a social event where paying the DM changes the social dynamic (making them a hired entertainer)

I'll go out on a limb and suppose that DwarfFighter specifically was referring to MMORPG's and the like, where the host server fills the role of game master and the comparison is fairly apt.

Max_Killjoy
2021-02-01, 11:54 AM
How is a free entertainer better or worse than a paid entertainer?


The GM is a player filling a particular role at the gaming table.

The GM is NOT an "entertainer".

Kardwill
2021-02-01, 12:44 PM
The GM is a player filling a particular role at the gaming table.

The GM is NOT an "entertainer".

The GM is a player who still tries to entertain the table, usually.
Maybe your table is different, but it's been a constant on most games I played for the last 36 years. That's the reason why being the GM puts a lot more pressure on me than being a player : Even if I'm a strong advocate of collaborative storytelling and shared creation (I despise the "GM = god" mindset), it's still "my game" in my mind, with the pressure not to "fail" the other players. I had several "GM burnouts" because of that "pressure to entertain" put on the GM.

How often do you hear "I'll play any game as long as the GM is good"? Even if in my experience as a player, the entire table will be the defining factor of a "fun" game more that the GM themself, they're still largely held accountable for the success or the failure of a game.

OldTrees1
2021-02-01, 01:10 PM
The GM is a player who still tries to entertain the table, usually.
Maybe your table is different, but it's been a constant on most games I played for the last 36 years. That's the reason why being the GM puts a lot more pressure on me than being a player : Even if I'm a strong advocate of collaborative storytelling and shared creation (I despise the "GM = god" mindset), it's still "my game" in my mind, with the pressure not to "fail" the other players. I had several "GM burnouts" because of that "pressure to entertain" put on the GM.

How often do you hear "I'll play any game as long as the GM is good"? Even if in my experience as a player, the entire table will be the defining factor of a "fun" game more that the GM themself, they're still largely held accountable for the success or the failure of a game.

Sidenote: Multiple players can approach the game as "I want to entertain myself and my friends". When the motive is shared it can decrease the pressure.

However a hired entertainer has the motive of "I want to entertain the customer" as an additional motivation.

TheStranger
2021-02-01, 01:18 PM
The GM is a player who still tries to entertain the table, usually.

I’m going to break this in half.

“The DM is a player...” Right. The DM is a part of the social activity that the other players are engaging in.

“Who tries to entertain the table.” Sure. Nobody’s denying that the role of DM has a lot of added responsibility.

Point being, you can pay for the second part. You can’t pay for the first part. If you’re paying your DM, all you’re getting is an entertainer. Whether that’s a reasonable substitute for a DM who’s also part of the social group is a matter of personal preference.

And yes, you and your friends can hire a DM so that all of you can play, with no expectation that the DM will be part of the group. I think that also changes the social dynamic of the gaming session, though. Again, whether that’s something that appeals to you is a matter of preference.

Mastikator
2021-02-01, 01:37 PM
The GM is a player who still tries to entertain the table, usually.
Maybe your table is different, but it's been a constant on most games I played for the last 36 years. That's the reason why being the GM puts a lot more pressure on me than being a player : Even if I'm a strong advocate of collaborative storytelling and shared creation (I despise the "GM = god" mindset), it's still "my game" in my mind, with the pressure not to "fail" the other players. I had several "GM burnouts" because of that "pressure to entertain" put on the GM.

How often do you hear "I'll play any game as long as the GM is good"? Even if in my experience as a player, the entire table will be the defining factor of a "fun" game more that the GM themself, they're still largely held accountable for the success or the failure of a game.

The GM is not more responsible for entertainment than the players are. They are not just an audience, they should bring more to the table than just an appetite.

KaussH
2021-02-01, 02:54 PM
The GM is a player filling a particular role at the gaming table.

The GM is NOT an "entertainer".

That depends on the game and gm i would presume. In a lot of games the gm is not just a player, but something else entirely.

KaussH
2021-02-01, 03:05 PM
I’m going to break this in half.

“The DM is a player...” Right. The DM is a part of the social activity that the other players are engaging in.

“Who tries to entertain the table.” Sure. Nobody’s denying that the role of DM has a lot of added responsibility.

Point being, you can pay for the second part. You can’t pay for the first part. If you’re paying your DM, all you’re getting is an entertainer. Whether that’s a reasonable substitute for a DM who’s also part of the social group is a matter of personal preference.

And yes, you and your friends can hire a DM so that all of you can play, with no expectation that the DM will be part of the group. I think that also changes the social dynamic of the gaming session, though. Again, whether that’s something that appeals to you is a matter of preference.

Or.. or.. you could pay your gm who is also your friend. Much like you can pay a repair person who is also your friend, or pay a friend to tutor you, or pay a friend to make you a hat or...

My point being, just becouse someone is a friend, their work isnt free automatically. You can pay a stranger and that can be fun, but the group can also pay "bob" to run games so no one else has to.

TheStranger
2021-02-01, 03:37 PM
Or.. or.. you could pay your gm who is also your friend. Much like you can pay a repair person who is also your friend, or pay a friend to tutor you, or pay a friend to make you a hat or...

My point being, just becouse someone is a friend, their work isnt free automatically. You can pay a stranger and that can be fun, but the group can also pay "bob" to run games so no one else has to.

There’s a difference, though. In all your examples, the service you’re paying for isn’t social interaction. I’d have no problem paying a friend for a tangible thing like a hat or repair work. I’d feel a little odd paying a friend to tutor me, but I’d consider it. But in that case, they’re “at work” instead of hanging out and having fun. So if I just want to hang out, it won’t be while they’re working.

Of course, if I had a friend who ran paid games at the local game store or something, and I decided to go drop in, I wouldn’t expect a freebie. Kind of like having a friend who’s a bartender and paying your tab, I guess - I’m interacting with them while they’re at work so I’m doing the expected thing in that context. But I wouldn’t want to pay that same friend to DM our home game, any more than I’d pay my bartender friend to mix drinks at my house. Nor would I expect that service from either of them.

Like I said earlier, none of this is right or wrong and people should do whatever works for them. I’m just trying to explain/explore the mental lines I, and I think other people, are drawing.

KaussH
2021-02-01, 03:50 PM
I think part of the issue here is, what did we think a gm does?

In most games, when I gm, I run most the world/setting. So I make sure I know all the basic rules, detailed rules that apply to the pcs in the game , anything that came up in season 0, general notes about plot, setting, issues I am tossing at the players, ect. I also provide a hub point for the players, write up or read modules (more write than read these days, unless I am seeking inspiration or running an intro game) . In some games, I provide most the figures, the battle mat, sometimes dice, maps, props. If pcs want to write complicated backgrounds, I give them some "world details that are or are not" and then incorporate the backgrounds into the game in small or larger ways (add towns, history people know, ect)
If it's an arc, new game, or one shot, I may also make pre made characters with little details or the like. I might also provide mini world write ups. Links to online spellbooks, dice rollers, ect.

I expect players to.. show up, read the character sheet, and play. At the least but more is great

So in my view, the gm is way more front loaded with stuff to do, and while I get to be social, I am also managing players and environment and one to one stuff and.

Now for me it is meat and drink to do so but..
I would say that I dont see gms as just a player.

Willie the Duck
2021-02-01, 04:02 PM
I honestly think Kardwill's trekking analogy is best. Or maybe this: being a DM is like being a team captain and organizer for some kind of adult league athletics such as an Ultimate Disk or ____ball (foot-, soft-, base-, broom-, etc.). They are in a way just another team member. However, they clearly have more work involved (plus some responsibility, potentially) in the endeavor of having fun. Likewise, people rarely have trouble helping defray legitimate costs incurred in the process, but actual compensation (barring it be something like a school or parks board employee doing this as part of their role) is something of a thorny topic.

Overall, I deeply suspect that paid DMing will continue to be niche. It's not what most people want. However, people trying to make it a thing is just the free market doing what the free market does -- lots of enterprising individuals trying to monetize their skills through sheer moxie and force of will. Plus, I can imagine 'professional DM' is the kind of thing you might want to put on your blog or Youtube channel as a way to pad your credentials. To me it just speaks to the thriving marketplace of ideas surrounding gaming at the moment.

TheStranger
2021-02-01, 04:07 PM
I think part of the issue here is, what did we think a gm does?

In most games, when I gm, I run most the world/setting. So I make sure I know all the basic rules, detailed rules that apply to the pcs in the game , anything that came up in season 0, general notes about plot, setting, issues I am tossing at the players, ect. I also provide a hub point for the players, write up or read modules (more write than read these days, unless I am seeking inspiration or running an intro game) . In some games, I provide most the figures, the battle mat, sometimes dice, maps, props. If pcs want to write complicated backgrounds, I give them some "world details that are or are not" and then incorporate the backgrounds into the game in small or larger ways (add towns, history people know, ect)
If it's an arc, new game, or one shot, I may also make pre made characters with little details or the like. I might also provide mini world write ups. Links to online spellbooks, dice rollers, ect.

I expect players to.. show up, read the character sheet, and play. At the least but more is great

So in my view, the gm is way more front loaded with stuff to do, and while I get to be social, I am also managing players and environment and one to one stuff and.

Now for me it is meat and drink to do so but..
I would say that I dont see gms as just a player.

I agree with all that. A good DM does a lot of things to make the game work. But in my gaming experience they’ve been there first and foremost to have fun as part of the gaming group. And everybody at the table knows that -it’s part of the basis for how people interact during the game.

Money changes that. It changes the way the DM perceives their relationship with the players, and it changes the way the players perceive their relationship with the DM. Even if it changes absolutely nothing about the game, the underlying social assumptions are different.

Cluedrew
2021-02-01, 07:52 PM
Even if it changes absolutely nothing about the game, the underlying social assumptions are different.Sure, but is it worse?

I'm serious, I kind of have to be because a lot of the "assumptions" (less social but still some very important fundamental ideas about how I approach the game) I use are different than the norm around here. And you can tell me I'm doing it wrong but I won't believe you because people have had fun in that game. So I agree it would be a different way to play. But if people think they are getting their money's worth out of it I'm not going to tell them they are wrong.

Tanarii
2021-02-01, 08:07 PM
I agree with all that. A good DM does a lot of things to make the game work. But in my gaming experience they’ve been there first and foremost to have fun as part of the gaming group. And everybody at the table knows that -it’s part of the basis for how people interact during the game.

Sounds like you've only done home gaming then. And that's fine. From everything claimed, it's the hugest part of where games occur.

But other that rare one shots, I haven't done that regularly in almost ... twenty years I think. Basically, since shortly after college. Because home groups and hard to find, and they IMX never last before personal life gets in the way.

I still wouldn't charge (or pay) though.

King of Nowhere
2021-02-01, 08:35 PM
Considering how bad most DM are, and that to me the players bring almost as much to the table, I find it in bad taste. But hey, it's capitals man, as soon as something become popular, someone's gonna do it's best to make money with it and explain that's normal for you to pay for it.

this makes the whole thing look worse than it needs be. I would say it otherwise: as soon as something becomes popular, someone will be willing to pay for an excellent performance. I mean, we have all kind of professional sports where highly trained people get paid (with amounts varying from handsomely to ludicrously) just to let others watch them play. Isn't that ridiculous? would you ever ask for people to pay to come look at you playing anything? but those people are very good, and some people are willing to pay to look at them.
Or, a bunch of cosplayers enacting some scene from your favourite book is not something you would ever pay to watch. But a bunch of cosplayers enacting scenes from your favourite book in front of a camera is called "movie adaptation", and it sells.

there's nothing wrong with the whole mechanism. when something becomes popular, there will be enough people willing to spend cash to watch the pros that there will be a niche for the pros to make a living. if nothing else, that there are paid DM just means roleplaying is becoming popular


It's not like paying your friends to do things is something that is never done. You have a friend come help you move, paint a room, watch a pet, or dozens of other things and you quite often pay them for their time and effort. It might be casual, you provide snacks and water, plus lunch for everyone that helped you move....but that still counts.


The GM is a player filling a particular role at the gaming table.

The GM is NOT an "entertainer".

and this dicotomy is the whole crux of the issue, the one thing at the root of all the disagreement. Is DMing a chore, or fun? is the DM an entertainer, or a player? How you answer this question dictates how you consider paying a dm. If you see the dm as a friend playing with friends, then eeww, paying one would be like paying somebody to be your friend. gross. But if you see dming as a chore, a nuisance that someone has to do so that the other people can have fun, then certainly, paying one makes full sense.
Just like i would never pay someone to go out with me, but i would pay someone to paint a room.

i would not pay to have a DM, just like i would never pay to have someone play fotball with me, or play chess with me, or to have a chat with me. because i have the concept of the party as a group of friends playing together, dm included. I am lucky that in my group we have at least 2 good and willing dm, me included, and possibly a third one. maybe i'd be willing to see things differently if nobody in my group wanted to dm?
other people see the party as a group of friends playing while a dm provides entertainment for them, and in that case, paying makes perfect sense.

LibraryOgre
2021-02-01, 08:41 PM
The Mod Ogre: This is going deeply into "Insulting a play style preference." I think it is done, now.