Dungeon Masters/Game Masters sometimes get free food or some cash chipped in for a published adventure the group wants to play.
People pay to get into gaming conventions to play tabletop games and I think the GMs are often compensated a little bit like maybe food or like a few dollars for working the whole day.
People pay a lot to see a movie even when it sucks. The rising cost of a movie ticket and popcorn paints an ugly picture.
Would you ever hire someone to run a game for you or your group?
Would you ever or have you ever paid to play in a game or campaign?
Some might think that it's somehow wrong for the GM to be paid. People who have GMed probably think otherwise. It's a lot more costly both in time and effort and money for a GM to run a decent campaign. For DnD, a player needs 1 book. A DM is expected to get 3. Add in miniatures, dungeon tiles, DM screen, and paperwork. It starts looking kind of scary if someone becomes devoted to making every session a "full" experience.
What's your take on this?
What would you expect from a DM if you were paying?
Is it really such a bad thing for a DM to be paid?
How much would you pay for "professional" service? If a session is like 3 hours long, maybe it's worth paying the cost of a movie ticket if the session is done well. Especially if the session is done to fit the players' schedule, not the DM's (convenience).
I see nothing wrong with paying a DM.
I would not pay a DM.
Seriously though, I consider it a social event to hang out with friends. However I see nothing wrong with throwing in a few bucks for an adventure everybody wants to play.
I do find excuses to buy him minis or bring free maps/items cards I get with other purchases. Love thy DM. :D
I enjoy DMing, so I don't think I could offer to DM for a fee with a straight face, even to total strangers.
I might even consider paying someone to DM, but I would definatly have some form of contract. Including things like -Optional rules you want to include must be run by us first. If we dont like i we are not paying. I think I would also want the DM to provide some sort of proof of their skills, and it had better be pretty amazing. Proof in the form of a video taped session or letting me sit in on a session. In all likelyhood though, I wouldn't pay someone to DM, I can find free DMs who are passable enough, and if im lucky good DMs.
I see nothing wrong with a DM wanting to be paid.
I see nothing wrong with paying a DM.
I would not pay a DM.
Quoted for truth.
Helping chip in for pizza money is a completely different story.
Helping chip in for pizza money is a completely different story.
And the DM doesn't have to bring the beer.
I would not pay someone to DM. Its a game for crying out loud!
I often DM. It can take a lot of time to set up a good campaign, but it is time spent world building - perhaps my favorite part of the hobbey!
As for the game costing the DM more, that doesn't have to be the case. The DM doesn't have to own all of the miniatures, dungeon tiles, and adventures used in the game. I have a good collection of D&D accessories and if someone else in my group wanted to run a game using them I wouldn't have a problem.
This is so amusing to visualize. If I could get the DMs to do that sort of thiing on camera, heaven yes, I would pay them. Probably not otherwise.
At the very least, that's just ethical. I sometime spend hours a day crafting encounters, towns, etc. that they may never even see depending on their choices. However, they know I care about their enjoyment, and in small appreciation they assist me with supplies.
I don't think it's a big deal...but you do run into the conflict of interest issue...is the DM going to take it easier on the group or give in to their silly whims if he's taking their money to do the job?
I don't feel my son DMs any differently than he did before I started giving him money. And he killed one of the characters in our group last week, so I don't think he's taking it easy on us.
If it wasn't my son would I be willing to pay?
Probably not, but I have been known to give my DMs gifts of dice and other gaming supplies.
But straight up cash, no.
When I ran them for the non-friend groups, one was at a convention (not part of the scheduled programming) and the other was because I was asked to. Both of these games, I said, "Hey, these are good games. We're going to play them; at the end of this game, if you think the game was worth money, feel free to make a cash donation of whatever you think the game was worth." Also, I brought snacks and drinks and sold them at a 15% markup.
First game I walked away with a $30 profit; second game I walked away with $40-something (forget how much the snacks made me).
You'd be hard-pressed to live off that; for a four hour session, that kind of taking isn't even minimum wage. These are pre-set games, so I can re-use them again and again without additional development time, but there's still the time it take to run them and the expense of getting to the venue. If I was going to do it as a business, I'd have to tailor games to accomodate larger groups, so as to be entertaining more players-per-hour, or have a base fee of $10 just to show up or something. The difficulty is that even for a good GM with a good game, sometimes it just doesn't fire, and it's neither fair nor good PR to charge players for a game that isn't better than whatever their normal DM can deliver.
But I think it's worth promoting the idea of pay DMs. There ARE DMs and games that are significantly better than anything you've ever played out there, and we need to encourage those experiences to come out of hiding. I think there is nothing wrong with paying for an above average game, and I think that kind of culture will promote DMing as a craft, raise the profile and recognition of the hobby as a whole, and be good for all of us in the long run.
I put in quite a bit of effort when it comes to DMing. I own all of my books and make it a point to own any that might have the potential to influence or strengthen my game. This usually means I own all of the books my players have no interest in (Open Grave would be a fair example). I also own any book my players could potentially use not only so I can research what they might be interested in but also so they have access to it. Ultimately this means I buy nearly every book that comes out while the majority of them own a simple few.
I've known quite a few good DM's that go into a game with a minimal amount of preparation and can spin a good tale. I'm a DM that takes copious amounts of notes, fills notebooks with stories and different adventure paths, buys minis to tailor my campaign, and uses pretty much every other tool I have at my disposal. It takes a long time, its arduous, but it can pay off.
With all of that said, I don't really enjoy DMing. I don't get the same thrill that I have when I actually get to play D&D. Unfortunately, outside of a random con event I haven't been in a D&D campaign for possibly over 10 years. I'm the only one in my group willing to run a campaign, so its the closest I can get to the game I love. I do have fun DMing on occasion, especially when my story pays off, but I'd much rather be playing.
Despite all of my prep work, despite the fact that I own all of the books and let people freely use them, I don't get any added benefit outside of spending time with my friends, which as any DM can attest to, isn't always fun and games. I would love it if my players said, "Hey, the foods on us since you're running the game," but that isn't the case.
So one long winded explanation later, no I wouldn't want to get paid. I'm still enjoying the game to the degree that I can, but I would like to see some benefits come my way. Some sort of appreciation for the work I put into it all.
Sometimes I feel like I should be paid.
I put in quite a bit of effort when it comes to DMing. I own all of my books and make it a point to own any that might have the potential to influence or strengthen my game. This usually means I own all of the books my players have no interest in (Open Grave would be a fair example). I also own any book my players could potentially use not only so I can research what they might be interested in but also so they have access to it. Ultimately this means I buy nearly every book that comes out while the majority of them own a simple few.
I've known quite a few good DM's that go into a game with a minimal amount of preparation and can spin a good tale. I'm a DM that takes copious amounts of notes, fills notebooks with stories and different adventure paths, buys minis to tailor my campaign, and uses pretty much every other tool I have at my disposal. It takes a long time, its arduous, but it can pay off.
With all of that said, I don't really enjoy DMing. I don't get the same thrill that I have when I actually get to play D&D. Unfortunately, outside of a random con event I haven't been in a D&D campaign for possibly over 10 years. I'm the only one in my group willing to run a campaign, so its the closest I can get to the game I love. I do have fun DMing on occasion, especially when my story pays off, but I'd much rather be playing.
Despite all of my prep work, despite the fact that I own all of the books and let people freely use them, I don't get any added benefit outside of spending time with my friends, which as any DM can attest to, isn't always fun and games. I would love it if my players said, "Hey, the foods on us since you're running the game," but that isn't the case.
So one long winded explanation later, no I wouldn't want to get paid. I'm still enjoying the game to the degree that I can, but I would like to see some benefits come my way. Some sort of appreciation for the work I put into it all.
Hm. You know your friends much better than I do of course, but you might consider being open with them and telling them what you just told us. Maybe next time they'll bring the beer and snacks. ;)
You're really not talking about paying a friend that is DMing. You're asking what you expect to pay and what you expect in return for hiring a semi-professional/expert DM. That would be something you would discuss with the person you were trying to hire to DM for you. Just like you do for any service like tree-cutting, lawn mowing , etc. Its whatever you guys decide is fair. They should tell you what you're getting, and what to expect, and how much they want to be paid. Then you can discuss whether you want more , or you want to pay less and get less from them, etc. You would also discuss whether or not you provide food/drinks/snacks and whether or not that is taken out of their pay or if that is added onto the pay for the time they are there.
I would think about pay for other jobs and compare them to how much work the DM is offering. If you think he's working about as hard as your average mcdonalds worker, pay them that much hourly, and if they do extremely well pay them a nice tip at the end. If you think they're doing work equal to someone making $20/hr pay them that. I don't really think DMing is that hard to do well if you have imagination and can handle some number juggling/memorizing and know your ruleset.
No one is really going to say what a fair payment is going to be for every such DM. Some are going to be over the top excellent with their delivery and descriptions. They might bring all kinds of neat props and their own sets of miniatures/gamemats/pre-made maps/etc. Someone like that I would pay pretty well.
If you're just paying someone to come in and run your adventure and just fill in the slot of DM and not really go over the top and they're using all of your props/maps/minis/etc then I wouldnt pay them nearly as much. It really all depends.
If the DM is a total babe and she jumps out of a cake while I have a lot of $1 bills handy, absolutely.
What I can certainly imagine paying for is GMing workshops- have a real pro sit down and run a 2-3 hour session for a group who want to hone their GMing skills, with another 2-3 hours in training, discussion, critique, practice, etc.
I wouldn't accept pay to GM for friends just because I wouldn't want the pressure to be professional. Then again, maybe I would! I am getting into RPGA and convention GMing because I really want to have more pressure to increase my skills with an unbiased audience. I really want to push the envelope and see the potential of this hobby.
If the DM is a total babe and she jumps out of a cake while I have a lot of $1 bills handy, absolutely.
That would be a different kind of Dungeon Master.
If the DM is a total babe and she jumps out of a cake while I have a lot of $1 bills handy, absolutely.
Would that be an acrobatic check to make sure she doesnt wang her head on the coffee table when she jumps out and a bluff check against her insight when you later drunkenly tell her that you love her and you want to take her away from her life of red lighting?
Also, would that be dungeon mistress ?
Technically I always get paid to DM though. As the general houserule, I don't pay for the pizza or beer.
That would be a different kind of Dungeon Master.
That would be a different kind of dungeon, as well. :D
Thankfully they're all intelligent mature young adults and not complete dicks or idiots, so the idea hasn't occured to any of them.
I would not pay someone to DM.
Its a game for crying out loud!
I play soccer, and in exchange for being player-coach, my playing fees are waived for the season. In exchange for serving as referee for the other games on Saturday, I get paid $10 a game.
Little league, pop-warner football, soccer, and even the chess club have membership fees. Having some of those fees go toward compensating the individual that has to do outside-the-meeting preparation is not at all unreasonable. If the game is Dungeons & Dragons, that would be the DM.
Above, I said that I would not pay a DM. I wish to amend that. I would gladly pay to play in a game run by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Mike Mearls, Scott Rouse, Chris Perkins, or Bill Slavicek. I think I would even pay to play in a game run by Shelly Mazzanoble. These icons (or celebrities) of the game would provide a gaming experience that I have not had, and that would be worth money. How much money? That, I am not sure of. If one of them makes me an offer, I'll consider it.
Then I would shoot myself for being the most pathetic nerd ever.
I guess there is a precedent for that though-- bar trivia nights basically pay a guy to proctor a game of Trivial Pursuit. Also, I have no problem paying for other entertainments like movies and bowling. One could even interpret MMORPGs as paying for a DM of sorts-- it's a game experience set up by somebody else, after all. But once a commercial element has been introduced into the game play itself, expectations can change dramatically. I'd rather keep my D&D playing informal.
As far as Dm barter items, its kind of an unwritten law of love in my regular group. The DM usually doesn't have to chip in if we pool for dinner (nor does the person who is letting us play in their home if we aren't at the game shop playing).
Its not unheard of for our players to randomly get their current DM a shiny new dice, split the cost of a module or sourcebook that the group wants to use, or chuck a pack of minis, or tiles,or what-have-you at them evey once in a while. But then again my group are close friends,and have been so for years.
Yes DMing is work. But it is a labor of love in most cases. The closest I have gotten to actually getting paid for DMing, is to set up with the game store owners, for myself to receive several promos and usually free food and drink for running several rounds of a particular event for a game day.
love,
malkav
I see nothing wrong with a DM wanting to be paid.
I see nothing wrong with paying a DM.
I would not pay a DM.
This.
Except, I am a DM. I do not charge my players because I enjoy setting up the game, but here's how it sets out.
DM
3 Book Minimum
Likely 1 - 2 Books for the Campaign
Time planning the story and encounters
Battlemat
Possibly Minis and/or Tiles
Less fun
Players
1 Book Minimum
Likely 1 or 2 Books for character options
More Fun
Maybe $5 spread among all of them for snacks, IF they pay for them
My players never pay for food, I do so....
I can completely see why a DM would want to be payed. However I'm a writer and enjoy crafting stories and I play for my friends who I also draw free art and write free stories for... so yeah.
Pay your dm with either free snacks or drinks.
This is usually how it works out in our group assuming we all have income at that point in time.
There are a couple of people that, given theior experience and knowledge in DMing, that I would gladly play, if I could be assured of a great experience. hat they would ensure that the dungeon would be tailored to the expectations of the group I play with, etc...
The WotC guys for sure.
Yax (or any of the other people from Dungeonmastering)
Johnn Four, (from Roleplaying Tips)
Philippe-Antoine Ménard (The ChattyDM
Due to our style of play, all of the players and the DM are a team. Sure, without a DM we don't have a story to play, but a DM without players has no one to help him tell his story. We all need each other.
As far as expenses, we all share the cost of pizza once in awhile, otherwise we all take care of our own snacks and drinks. Thats not to say we don't help each other out.
I could understand throwing some cash if our DM was always out buying source books, because we all would get some use out of them. Even chipping in for a module or two.
Even if our group was hard up for a DM I don't think we would pay for a professional. I don't they could give us what we look for in a Dungeons and Dragons game. Besides, there would be no way of knowing how they run a game until they actually did it for ya so you might end paying a "Party Killer" or a even just a boring DM.
If the DM is a total babe and she jumps out of a cake while I have a lot of $1 bills handy, absolutely.
Quoted for Truth.
Now for an actual answer:
I have been contacted regardign the possibility of DMing LFR at a local convention this year.
I assume I will get in for free, should I end up doing that, and I wouldn't expect actual monetary compensation unless I ended up running more than 4 events. (I feel if I'm working for 16+ hours over one weekend, It's not unreasonable to expect some form of additional compensation aside from a free entrence. Heck, free food goes a long way.)
For me, D&D and other RPG's are a good way to get together with friends and have some light-hearted fun. I run the games 90% of the time, and I've never so much as demanded food. Though, I am pretty much of the mind that I'm not driving anywhere if I'm running a game. That's new for me, so I guess I'm a pretty lenient DM.
I play soccer, and in exchange for being player-coach, my playing fees are waived for the season. In exchange for serving as referee for the other games on Saturday, I get paid $10 a game.
Little league, pop-warner football, soccer, and even the chess club have membership fees. Having some of those fees go toward compensating the individual that has to do outside-the-meeting preparation is not at all unreasonable. If the game is Dungeons & Dragons, that would be the DM.
Above, I said that I would not pay a DM. I wish to amend that. I would gladly pay to play in a game run by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Mike Mearls, Scott Rouse, Chris Perkins, or Bill Slavicek. I think I would even pay to play in a game run by Shelly Mazzanoble. These icons (or celebrities) of the game would provide a gaming experience that I have not had, and that would be worth money. How much money? That, I am not sure of. If one of them makes me an offer, I'll consider it.
I don't know.
I've given some more thought to this subject since my initial gut reaction last night.
I mean, I HAVE accepted money for writing an adventure (from WotC for Reality Check)... Which is half of DMing in the first place... and I suppose I would accept money for DMing if it were at a local gaming store as some sort of service for customers...
but I can't imagine anyone actually being willing to pay a DM for his services.
There seems to be a bit of a hoop-la on other forums about debating whether or not a DM should be paid for services.
Dungeon Masters/Game Masters sometimes get free food or some cash chipped in for a published adventure the group wants to play.
People pay to get into gaming conventions to play tabletop games and I think the GMs are often compensated a little bit like maybe food or like a few dollars for working the whole day.
People pay a lot to see a movie even when it sucks. The rising cost of a movie ticket and popcorn paints an ugly picture.
Would you ever hire someone to run a game for you or your group?
Nope. Never. Even if I didn't want to DM, we'd find one of our friends who would.
Would you ever or have you ever paid to play in a game or campaign?
Other than books, food, etc, the only time I've ever paid to play was going to a con. But even then, I was paying to get into the con, not as much to just play.
Some might think that it's somehow wrong for the GM to be paid. People who have GMed probably think otherwise. It's a lot more costly both in time and effort and money for a GM to run a decent campaign. For DnD, a player needs 1 book. A DM is expected to get 3. Add in miniatures, dungeon tiles, DM screen, and paperwork. It starts looking kind of scary if someone becomes devoted to making every session a "full" experience.
I DM because I want to hang out with my friends. I spend the extra time and effort outside of "Sunday Night" because I want to tell an intriguing story, and have fun with my friends. It's not really work to me, it's fun.
Even when I was just a player, I always bought the core books, just to have them. So that wasn't an extra expense to me. I've spent maybe $15 on miniatures, my players have probably spent $100, and no, we don't play DDM. One of my players bought a bunch of dungeon tiles, but I usually use a battlemat or printed battle map. Who needs the DM screen again? I haven't used a screen since 1995. Tape flags in your book work just as well. If I had to guess, I've probably spent a bit more on stuff than my players, but it's so marginal that it's not even worth mentioning.
As far as food is concerned, we usually all pitch in for food if we order pizza, chinese or whatever. People will bring snacks and drinks for everyone. As the DM, I typically don't buy snacks, but that's only because my players told me not to worry about that.
What's your take on this?
See above.
What would you expect from a DM if you were paying?
If, hypothetically, I had to pay a DM in order to pay, which I wouldn't, they had better be the best damn DM ever. If the game is mediocre, he'd be fired in an instant.
Is it really such a bad thing for a DM to be paid?
I believe in the free market. If there's a demand for something, then there's probably a supply. If you want to pay, that's cool. I just wouldn't do it.
How much would you pay for "professional" service? If a session is like 3 hours long, maybe it's worth paying the cost of a movie ticket if the session is done well. Especially if the session is done to fit the players' schedule, not the DM's (convenience).
I think you know my answer to this one.
Smeelbo
So, to back up what I said above, the difference in amount of money spent on the game between me and my players is very minimal. Since 4e has come out, I've probably spent maybe $200 on books and other various equipment. Two of my players have probably spent that much on books and other things to help me, and the others have spent maybe around $50. No one feels slighted in the least because we're all there to play. I would never ask my players for money, and anything they've 'donated' to me, I've really just put into the group pool for anyone to use.
love,
malkav
I've never been paid to DM. I've been bribed.
Hey, "bribe" is just a way to say "paid to do something you shouldn't be paid to do".
On the other hand, if someone INSISTS on paying me to DM, I wouldn't say no - - Does that include medical and 401k? :D
As for paying a friend to DM, I don't see it as out of the question. High school or college players could certainly chip in some cash to motivate a DM to decline that overtime at whatever crappy part time job they are working and instead spend those hours on game prep or an actual session.
Good DM's definitely put in a lot more hours than the player's do. Presumably they enjoy that world building/ encounter building time, but it's still effort on their part. That effort should definitely be recognized. Kind words, buying snacks, or even paying the DM for his or her time are all reasonable ways of compensating the DM for the hours of prep work that result in a great session.
I think a lot of the people responding need to reread the original post or maybe the OP should have rewritten his title to be less misleading. He isnt really talking about paying your best friend the DM to continue doing the job he's been doing for fun since you guys started playing D&D.
I quoted his entire original post, and answered his questions. He never clarified whether it was paying a friend or a stanger. All he said was 'somebody.' To answer the question, I would not pay 'somebody' to DM. I have nothing against people who'd be willing to. I just don't see the point.
I'm originally from South Jersey, the nerd capital of the world. There are simply tons of gamers there. When my friend opened a comic book store there, he asked me to DM a game for anyone that wanted to join, in order to increase the "community" feel of the place. Since I love DMing, I gladly agreed - no payment was even discussed, then. I just loved the idea.
Within one month, the game had 25 people.
So, we had a small issue. The first thing we did was try charging - not as a way to make money, really, but just as a way to limit the number of people. You didn't even have to pay to play the game directly - you could just only play if you spent 5 bucks in the store that day. So people bought packs of minis or chipped in for books, and I saw some of it. Also, Alex (the owner) stared charging me only cost for any gaming product I wanted. So I got free snacks, cheap books, and free minis. Cool.
But the game didn't shrink any. In fact, it began to grow.
We split the game into two, and now I was DMing two nights a week (on top of my own normal weekly for-fun game at home). But when we split the game to two nights (and made the rule you could only play in one) we discovered that the size of the group had acted as a deterrent to several other people, who now joined. So now I had two 20-person groups, and more people still wanted to join.
So one day I made an off-hand comment about how the only reason I wasn't in there every day DMing was because I had to work. I LOVE DMing, and I would do it five days a week if I didn't have to work. The players, shockingly quickly, offered to match my weekly salary to run games 5 days a week that they could be in. With that many gamers, it didn't come out to that much per person to pay me, so they really wanted to do it. So it wasn't so much that I would accept money to DM, as much as I would accept money to DM and NOT TO WORK, because I still need to eat.
We were just working out the details of this with the owner (how much would we split, etc.) when I got a promotion at my company that came with a transfer and I had to move to Delaware. So the idea never came to fuition, but there it was. I was going to be paid to DM.
Now, some people might have issues with it, because they'll have the attidude of "Well, if I'm paying, then I want a +5 Holy avenger and a million hit points," but that attidude doesn't really pan when you're only paying 5% of the game's cost and everyone wants a balanced, fun experience. In all that time, I never once had a player quit the game.
- Johnny
I quoted his entire original post, and answered his questions. He never clarified whether it was paying a friend or a stanger. All he said was 'somebody.' To answer the question, I would not pay 'somebody' to DM. I have nothing against people who'd be willing to. I just don't see the point.
I don't know if I could agree with that. I mean, yeah, you can find somebody who is willing to do so for free, but that could be said about every profession. Should we stop paying teachers because some people love to teach, or computer programmers because some people like to program on computers?
The way I see it, being paid to do something you love to do is the American dream. Why not make money for being a DM if that's what you love to do? More importantly, why not pay your DM for his services?
One must also consider the amount of time and effort put into providing a quality gaming experience. It's easier to find players than a DM because people need to work for a living too.
There is also talent to consider. A good DM has to be a good storyteller and good at handling the players at the table. A good DM has to be able to think on his or her feet when the players do something absolutely unexpected with their characters.
There is also production value to consider. What does the DM use to help the players visualize the adventure? Not everyone has a well-practiced imagination for fantasy or has seen a lot of fantasy shows or movies or read a lot of fantasy books. Are miniatures brought in by the DM? Dungeon tiles? Pictures?
Everyone at the table may be involved in the storytelling, but it is the DM who must coordinate the story and provide response to the majority of the players' words and actions.
Personally I don't want any of my games to degenerate into a miniatures war game. The DM is responsible for making sure that there is actual role-playing involved and guiding the players if they get stuck or go blank-minded.
Having a professional who guarantees good service or the service is free at your hiring disposal say 4 or more days of the week with negotiable times and stories catering to your preferences would be very convenient. Especially if you don't have the time or inclination to go looking for a free DM.
I'd look for group size no more than four, A variety of possible game seystems...hard core world, great story.
Playing twice a month, I'd pay 20.00 per session for that.
But that's because I'm more than able to fill that role myself & still be happy.
I don't count games at conventions - because although, yes, I'm paying, & paying per game, I'm paying in general. The DMs then get reemburssed some amount (more than just a few dollars/day at GenCon) based upon how many blocks/hours they run.
While it wasn't cash, I have been paid for DMing -- for two different campaigns. Each session, my players brought me a new gaming book. At least two thirds of my D&D 3.x and SW d6 materials were supplied in this way. I was definitely motiviated to give my players the best story possible, and they were motivated to fully participate. It was a good experience.
As for outright paying a DM. if they were realy good i would agree to a small amount.
Decades have passed and now I find myself as the DM. For my friends I don't mind that I've dropped a lot of coin with no payment; hell I usually have food, drinks, and I always host it at my house! Other people bring snacks too but nobody has bought any other gaming materials or accessories for the group or DM. They've bought only what they need for themselves or just mooch off others for dice and books.
If it were a more professional atmosphere I would not have a problem charging money or accepting money. Something like running a game for a store or a convention. Hell even if some group of players wanted to pay me to DM for them I'd do it. I put a lot of time and effort into creating a great gaming experience for the players and have no problem checking my ego at the door. So accepting payment for my services would not be a problem :D
A labor of love is still labor; lots of people get paid to do what they love and even for 'playing games'.
I love GMing. I typically do a lot of winging things (I do some mental preparation, but its usually when I'm bored and don't have anything better to do, or need to do something mentally when doing a repetitive physical task that isn't dangerous enough to warrant particular attention), so I don't really have a work load, and its as fun for me as the players. Although I don't get as attached to the games I run as the players.
Admittedly though, i'd rather find a friend. But beggars can't be choosers.
Voice Chat work? I've been thinking about GMing a game over voice chat for a while(two to three two to three hour sessions a week isn't cutting it, particularly not with everybody getting dragged off to ski trips by relatives. People who hate to ski.), and would do that for free. Not going to be D&D though.
An intriguing proposition, but voice chat feels somehow empty to me. It lacks the hallmarks of genuine social interaction. Plus, i'd actually like to get some use out of my 4e books.
As others have said, there are plenty of alternative ways to thank a DM for the time they spend preparing for a game: comped snacks and drinks, miniatures, props, and sourcebooks. These are all things I would be comfortable with giving as a player and receiving as a DM.
The groups I have played with have all taken a "share and share alike" attitude, ensuring no one feels like they're being taken advantage of. People would share responsibilities for bringing food and drink.
I see nothing wrong with a DM wanting to be paid.
I see nothing wrong with paying a DM.
I would not pay a DM.
I wish you still posted in the Previous Edition forums.
Would I ever pay? It would have to be very special citcumstances with an author or designer (for example) I had the utmost respect for. And even then, it would be a one-shot deal.
Also no I would not pay for another person to DM because I can run the games, and I know other people more than capable of running games if I need a break.
I'm not even running the main campaign, but b/c I'm the most popular DM in my group... I was expected to generate three separate sessions, each of which ran over 4 hours long. I didn't want to work that hard on Spring Break!
The temptation to charge a fee was there...
I wouldn't expect to be paid for my services as a DM if it were my regular group, although I certainly wouldn't feel guilty about working out an agreement that I don't need to pay for any food bought for the game, since I'm contributing the extra prep time and most likely using my own miniatures/dice/battlemaps/etc. I'd never demand it, but I'd certainly accept any sort of monetary contribution or barter as a sign of respect for the extra work required of the DM in comparison to the players.
If a group didn't have a competent DM and wanted to hire a stranger to run a game for them, I can see there being some monetary compensation for it.
After all, the guy's taking time out of his schedule to prep and run a game for strangers, possibly in addition to whatever other games he runs or plays in.
But any monetary compensation wouldn't be on the level of an actual employment situation... maybe $20-30 total per session, depending on just what kind of game he's running... If the guy's just reffing your hack'n'slash dungeon crawl, that's not the same thing as if he's creating a true detailed campaign for you.
This of course also assumes that the DM is going to give his best effort to run the game just as well, if not better, than he would if he were running it for his normal gaming group/friends - i.e., tailoring the adventures and tone of the game to exactly what the party wants, running the game their way instead of his....
(a) you need to play with some better DMs, or
(b) you're holding a double standard.
Keep on the Shadowfell goes for $20 to $40 in Australia, depending on where you buy it from, and it's terrible; if you're paying for that, but you'd never consider paying a DM who brings a half-decent self-created six-session game to the table, again, it's a double standard.
Well there is a big demand for DMs, but what is a DM's job?
To sit around a gaming table, setting up a story for them. And telling them what they can and cannot do to an extent.
I thought players pay for the DM by buying taking turns buying the snacks/going to eachother's houses so you can mooch off their fridge? lol
Well there is a big demand for DMs, but what is a DM's job? To sit around a gaming table, setting up a story for them. And telling them what they can and cannot do to an extent.
Well, while I don't accept your analogy, I'd point out that very good dommes can make very large sums of money even in no-sex situations. But that's beside the point.
The DM's job, in a story-based game, is to construct and deliver a story. It's a performance, exactly like an actor or a magician. And while certainly the average person would not pay just any old person who gets up and tries to entertain them, not all people are equal, and there exist performers of quite exceptional skill and talent, who it is well worth the money to see perform.
I'm not saying your normal DM is that guy; I am saying that that guy exists, and if you haven't seen him yet, you should keep looking, and when you find him, express your appreciation. And if you're a DM, if you're not that guy yet, then you can do better, and there is no shame in aspiring to improve your craft until you reach that level.
We obviously have a primary DM who we see as the best at the trade ... but none of us would ever pay him to do it.
Then he's not the best in the trade. Given the chance to game with enough DMs, you will, eventually, have a game that makes you realise that what you've been playing up until now is a Saturday morning cartoon in a world that also includes some of the best movies ever made.
The fact that you have not seen quality deserving of payment does not mean that such quality does not exist.
Then he's not the best in the trade. Given the chance to game with enough DMs, you will, eventually, have a game that makes you realise that what you've been playing up until now is a Saturday morning cartoon in a world that also includes some of the best movies ever made.
The fact that you have not seen quality deserving of payment does not mean that such quality does not exist.
False. When I say best in the trade I am referring to being the best out of those of us who play. Obviously we are biased and think our small band of DM's are the best, and that our primary DM is THE best, but there is always room for improvement and there could eb someone better. However, the way we play is fun, we enjoy ourselves, we have our laughs, we escape this world into a land of fantasy for an entire day(We play for 12 hour stretches, so DMing for that length of time takes its own mental constitution) and we come out all happy.
Now having experianced that, and having that as my standard for D&D play, why in the hell would I cough up cold hard cash for a DM? I already have a style of play with DM's and Players who make the experiance enjoyable, what reason is there for me to go shell out money to get someone to come do for us what we already do for ourselves? I don't need a DM who has me quaking in my boots in awe of the depth of his plotlines and his ability to perfectly imitate a hundred voices and handle a myriad of seperate plotlines and make every playing experiance a replica of The Lord of the RIngs, or 300, or some other epic film. I just need a DM who makes me go "Hell ya that was fun!". With this goes my one of my stand by phrases, if it ain't broke, don't F*&* with it!
However, the way we play is fun, we enjoy ourselves, we have our laughs, we escape this world into a land of fantasy for an entire day...and we come out all happy.
Now having experianced that, and having that as my standard for D&D play, why in the hell would I cough up cold hard cash for a DM?
What you're saying is analogous to, "I have fun throwing a ball around in my backyard; why would I ever want to go to the Olympics?" or "I've got the script to Citizen Kane and my friend can do funny voices; why would we want to watch the actual fillm?"
I'm not saying that your game now isn't plenty of fun, or that you should stop playing. Schoolkids have fun putting on class plays for their parents and teachers; that kind of thing is an absolute blast but it doesn't mean I'm going to fork out $50 to see a bunch of random 12-year-olds do the nativity.
I'm saying that there's another level. The amount of fun you can have is exponentially larger than what you are experiencing now. You will go to a game, and you will not be imagining you are somewhere else - you will actually be somewhere else, and after the game you will go home shaken, and you will dream about the game, and in later months it will seem as if it was a place you physically went to, like a foreign country you visited briefly.
... okay, when I put it like that, it sounded spooky. But it's not. These games exist; I and people I've played with can testify to it, and it's as far above a beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl as the moon is above the Earth.
I would love to roll up a character and play. It's something that I would pay for.
I would never accept money as a DM though. I do what I do because creating creatures and situations from whole cloth is as natural to me as breathing. It would be like demanding a nickel every time I blinked my eyes.
Also, I fear it would ruin the spring of creativity that flows through me. Money would, as it so often does, muddy the waters.
Tell your party you're taking a break from DMing.
That sucks. When I first got into D&D it was years before I got to okay. I owned all the books (which I mostly inherited), so I was the only one who knew enough of the rules.
Tell your party you're taking a break from DMing.
I tried that once. They all kind of looked at me and finally one of them asked, "Can we finish this campaign out so that we'll be starting fresh when you come back?"
I feel like a Disney princess. "Some day my chance will come!"
There seems to be a bit of a hoop-la on other forums about debating whether or not a DM should be paid for services.
Dungeon Masters/Game Masters sometimes get free food or some cash chipped in for a published adventure the group wants to play.
People pay to get into gaming conventions to play tabletop games and I think the GMs are often compensated a little bit like maybe food or like a few dollars for working the whole day.
People pay a lot to see a movie even when it sucks. The rising cost of a movie ticket and popcorn paints an ugly picture.
Would you ever hire someone to run a game for you or your group?
Would you ever or have you ever paid to play in a game or campaign?
Some might think that it's somehow wrong for the GM to be paid. People who have GMed probably think otherwise. It's a lot more costly both in time and effort and money for a GM to run a decent campaign. For DnD, a player needs 1 book. A DM is expected to get 3. Add in miniatures, dungeon tiles, DM screen, and paperwork. It starts looking kind of scary if someone becomes devoted to making every session a "full" experience.
What's your take on this?
What would you expect from a DM if you were paying?
Is it really such a bad thing for a DM to be paid?
How much would you pay for "professional" service? If a session is like 3 hours long, maybe it's worth paying the cost of a movie ticket if the session is done well. Especially if the session is done to fit the players' schedule, not the DM's (convenience).
I personally would never pay a GM to run a game - if I was that desperate to play, I would just run one myself.
That being said, if a GM is particularly talented, I don't necessarily see the harm in a reasonable fee IF the players agree.
Certainly not the price of a movie ticket (until they make GMs that can create 3D illusions starring the highest paid actors representing my character), but a buck or two per player wouldn't be that bad.
Anyway, interesting discussion.
If a player pays for a DM's services and his character croaks after a couple of sessions, will he feel he's got his money's worth? If he brings up an idea that's a little out there and the DM decides against it, will the player be as cool with that as he'd be if playing for free?
Seriously, you have to be in one of my games some time. I'm not "the guy" who's going to commercialise DMing yet, but even starting out... these questions aren't even relevant. I'm at an uncharacteristic loss of words to explain it, but the sort of games we're talking about, it's just a completely different world. It's like looking at a car and saying, "But I don't have room in my house for it," or looking at a dog and saying, "Where do the batteries go?"
It's not - those are terrible analogies - and I can only come back to saying it's another level. You'll know it when you see it, and once you do you'll be looking at every game you're ever in, before or afterwards, through new glasses.
I'll say this, though. The DM who makes money from his craft isn't going to be running D&D.
I'll say this, though. The DM who makes money from his craft isn't going to be running D&D.
It really depends on how much the DM is making, unless you mean that you don't consider paid running of D&D as D&D.
Some more questions come to mind.
1. How many people end up with bad DMs because there isn't another DM available or other groups are full?
2. How many DMs want to take a break from DMing or have to quit for a while because of other more important time consumers like work or taking care of a baby?
3. How many players have groups where nobody wants to or is able to DM?
4. How much work do you actually think goes into a session for most DMs? How much work do YOU (or YOUR DM) put into a session? The sacrifice in time and resources may vary for different DMs so that might influence a person's opinion on this subject.
5. Even if the paid DM were just decent (not bad, not great either) but you have fun anyway, would you pay for the convenience of having one around? Actual price is a factor here so consider that as well.
It really depends on how much the DM is making, unless you mean that you don't consider paid running of D&D as D&D.
No, my point was largely that D&D mechanically inhibits roleplaying; the best possible story-driven D&D game falls somewhere in the "slightly above average" part of the spectrum for story focused systems and near the bottom of the spectrum for systemless and single-mechanic play. It's a shamelessly combat-centric game, and you don't need a great DM to adjudicate combat.
The games we're talking about, that are worth paying for, are no more going to happen in D&D than a mod of the original Doom being this year's biggest selling computer game.
D&D is great and all, but it's like one of those little pretend-pianos for children, with only eight keys, and you can have fun playing Frere Jacques on it, but there's no real wonder that you're saying, "Yes, but no one would ever pay for music."
Now I'd compensate some who designed and adventure. That makes sense. Compensating someone who designs a world is another case where it makes sense. Paying the person who host the game makes sense. But paying someone just be the DM for another person's content at my house makes not sense.
No, my point was largely that D&D mechanically inhibits roleplaying; the best possible story-driven D&D game falls somewhere in the "slightly above average" part of the spectrum for story focused systems and near the bottom of the spectrum for systemless and single-mechanic play. It's a shamelessly combat-centric game, and you don't need a great DM to adjudicate combat.
The games we're talking about, that are worth paying for, are no more going to happen in D&D than a mod of the original Doom being this year's biggest selling computer game.
D&D is great and all, but it's like one of those little pretend-pianos for children, with only eight keys, and you can have fun playing Frere Jacques on it, but there's no real wonder that you're saying, "Yes, but no one would ever pay for music."
I disagree with that.
D&D is just a medium that's it. A true artist can tell their story through any medium and it will come out beautifully. D&D works just fine for that. I've played in game with one such talent person. I've played many systems with this person and each worked equally in his hands.
I run a LARP. For those of you who don't know what it is (and I'm sure most of you do), a Larp is a live-action roleplaying game. It's like any generic fantasy-genre game, but uses costumes, props, physical activity, and combat simulation. It's about one thousand times nerdier than regular D&D, but also hilariously fun.
People pay me to run this game. I run it every other month, for a full weekend. It costs $50 to play, though you can get discounts for various things. The exchange for this money is a great game, with a high production value - the level of immersion is great, and it feels really awesome to actually bash an orc with a hammer (it might be foam, duct tape, and pipe - but it's still really awesome).
So people pay me to do this - mostly because things like renting a campsite and buying/making these props costs money, as well as the food we provide. But there's also the fact that the game is just really great. Maybe that's just the level D&D would have to get to in order for someone to pay.
If you're interested, the website for the larp is www dot thefifthage dot com.
Oh, and if any of you have ever seen that video for the Portal larp... yeah, I'm in that video. I'm famous!
- Johnny
You can pay me $100/hr to DM for you. Every kobold in my campaign drops +6 weapons.
Can I just say that if you're someone who's paid $10 or more to see a film or play, or buy a book or DVD, and you'd never consider paying a DM, either:
(a) you need to play with some better DMs, or
(b) you're holding a double standard.
Keep on the Shadowfell goes for $20 to $40 in Australia, depending on where you buy it from, and it's terrible; if you're paying for that, but you'd never consider paying a DM who brings a half-decent self-created six-session game to the table, again, it's a double standard.
You pay for the Monopoly set. Do you pay someone to be Banker?
You pay for a game. You don't pay to play with friends.
What you're saying is analogous to, "I have fun throwing a ball around in my backyard; why would I ever want to go to the Olympics?" or "I've got the script to Citizen Kane and my friend can do funny voices; why would we want to watch the actual fillm?"
I'm not saying that your game now isn't plenty of fun, or that you should stop playing. Schoolkids have fun putting on class plays for their parents and teachers; that kind of thing is an absolute blast but it doesn't mean I'm going to fork out $50 to see a bunch of random 12-year-olds do the nativity.
I'm saying that there's another level. The amount of fun you can have is exponentially larger than what you are experiencing now. You will go to a game, and you will not be imagining you are somewhere else - you will actually be somewhere else, and after the game you will go home shaken, and you will dream about the game, and in later months it will seem as if it was a place you physically went to, like a foreign country you visited briefly.
... okay, when I put it like that, it sounded spooky. But it's not. These games exist; I and people I've played with can testify to it, and it's as far above a beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl as the moon is above the Earth.
In other words, everyone plays the game correctly, but some people play the game more correctly than others.
I don't know why DM would ever be paid. In a game you you have you have 5 players. One DM, Striker, defender, leader and controller. The DM is really just one of the players with different scope in the game. So now I'd never pay someone to play a game with me, that's stupid.
Now I'd compensate some who designed and adventure. That makes sense. Compensating someone who designs a world is another case where it makes sense. Paying the person who host the game makes sense. But paying someone just be the DM for another person's content at my house makes not sense.
I don't really agree with your assessment of the DM being "just one of the players," unless:
-the non-DM players in your game spend several hours each week getting ready to play
-your DM is God's gift to improv and just wings everything freestyle at the table
-your DM is lazy and puts no prep time into the game, but you're all OK with the mediocre game that results
In general, there is differentially more work that falls on the DM's shoulders, and differentially more responsibility for keeping the game moving along and staying fun. I suppose I can imagine someone wanting to get compensated for all that extra work.
That said, it would be a very special case in which I might be willing to pay someone to DM. I might be willing to pay some of my favorite authors (like Guy Gavriel Kay) to run a game. It's odd to think of a game as a service, though, and I'm not sure what my expectations would be in that situation. I play RPGs as a social activity (both DMing and PCing) -- for fun. In general, I wouldn't charge someone for the privilege of having fun with me and socializing with me, nor would I pay someone for the privilege of having fun with them and socializing with them.
The question of cost does come to mind. In the last group where I was involved, two of the players collected minis. We all had all the books any one of us would have needed to run the game. I, personally, painted all the main character minis. We all got together at one of the players houses.
Food, booze, and other expenses were pooled and split.
To top it all off, our DM loved what he did. He set up the campaign world himself. He wrote all the adventures. He committed to every character that he portrayed for us. He was probably one of the best DMs I've ever seen.
And we never paid him.
-your DM is God's gift to improv and just wings everything freestyle at the table
Other than mechanics in some games, improvising everything isn't that hard, and the world grows complexity very quickly. It doesn't take that much prep work before a game, maybe 10 minutes of thought on the world. Some people have an effective improvisational style, and some people don't, some people can make plans that work for them, and when some people plan it gets in the way. Then there are a rare few who have an effective improvisational style, and can make plans that work for them. I'm in the effective improvisational style camp, if I make actual plans before a game, its a hindrance. A friend of mine GMs with plans, and they work for him.
Other than mechanics in some games, improvising everything isn't that hard, and the world grows complexity very quickly. It doesn't take that much prep work before a game, maybe 10 minutes of thought on the world. Some people have an effective improvisational style, and some people don't, some people can make plans that work for them, and when some people plan it gets in the way. Then there are a rare few who have an effective improvisational style, and can make plans that work for them. I'm in the effective improvisational style camp, if I make actual plans before a game, its a hindrance. A friend of mine GMs with plans, and they work for him.
Glad to hear it works for you. You would be one of the rare ones (if we're talking about D&D). Even for non-D&D games, though, unless a DM has a heck of a memory he or she is going to forget details between games without notes and prep (Tolkien made up his stories to tell his kids at bedtime, and even he had to take notes because his kids caught him forgetting details). That world complexity is a curse if you can't remember that the evil Count Gerard actually lives in Claremount Castle (not Felwood Keep), and that six months ago he had a fondness for ice cream (not chocolates).
The worse difficulty, which you did point out, is mechanics. Mechanics makes up much of the core of D&D, and because game balance is such a central focus, ignoring prep on those mechanics means not-so-fun games in general. One probably needs to stat our the monsters beforehand, and spend some time balancing encounters. It's boring as all get out watching someone flip through the MM for stats, and a lack of prep frequently means long, boring, excessively difficult, or excessively easy combats. Gnolls might be thematically fun to fight, but you're going to need to tweak their stats hard if you've got a level 1 party fighting them. One needs to ensure that there are enough challenges of different types that they engage each of the PCs' strengths. Otherwise, some of the party will just be along for the ride. Also, treasure parcels and the entire magic-item-focused system means one needs to plan out when treasure is dispensed and what items make up the treasure in order to keep the game balanced.
If you're playing a game that de-emphasizes level-based mechanics (like the White Wolf games, for instance), you can get away with a lot more improv than in a game like D&D.
In any event, I would argue that an ace improver who makes the world out of whole cloth from his or her imagination right on the spot is a fairly special commodity, and quite different than the rest of the people at the table.
I disagree with that.
D&D is just a medium that's it. A true artist can tell their story through any medium and it will come out beautifully. D&D works just fine for that.
It can be done; I'm saying it's fighting uphill. I've had this argument elsewhere so I won't recap it in full here, but if you look at the D&D character sheet it's about 70% combat-related; if you look at the PHB it's about 80% combat. None of the mechanics actively encourage roleplaying or story structure and the DMG is, to be honest, one of the worst collections of DM advice I've ever seen anyone charge money for. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. D&D is telling players, explicitly, every time they look at their sheet, that their first port of call for conflict resolution is the pointy end of their weapon.
You theoretically can play the Moonlight Sonata as arranged for belly slaps and musical farts, and there's some argument to be said that it takes just as much talent as the piano version. I'm pretty confident in saying that the superior artist is still the one who's working with the piano.
You pay for the Monopoly set. Do you pay someone to be Banker?
You pay for a game. You don't pay to play with friends.
You're responding to my "pay for Keep on the Shadowfell" comment. Your analogy's not great, which I'll come to in a second, but to work within it, what I'm talking about is a situation where Monopoly is an expendable commodity - you play it once, and it's not much good afterwards - and your "banker" is bringing his own set to the table, which will be used up in the process.
If you're prepared to pay for a pre-created adventure of poor quality (ie Keep on the Shadowfell) when it comes in a booklet on a store shelf, why are you not prepared to pay for a pre-created adventure of at least poor quality (and possibly high quality) that's created and brought to you by your DM?
And it's a bad analogy because the banker has no role beyond rules arbitration. It's a role that could be performed by a dedicated computer or robot, were you inclined to go to the effort of making something like that. A good DM brings more than rules arbitration to the table - he brings a performance, a showmanship, that entertains to a level beyond what is strictly contained in the system and in the game notes.
To everyone who mentioned the "you don't pay the players" argument, I say this: why the hell not? Would you pay for the chance to play with "celebrity gamers" like Wil Wheaton or Vin Diesel? Almost certainly there's a lot of people who'd say "no", but there's plenty of people who'd say "yes". And Diesel and Wheaton are not adding anything beyond their mere presence. What about someone who brings such showmanship, such gusto to the table that they really enrich your game? Who spurs on his fellow players to new heights, who so raises your game that that one session you had with him will always be remembered as your best gaming experience?
Quality is quality, and quality is deserving of recompense. Once again, you're all thinking too small. The fact you haven't experienced that quality doesn't mean it's not out there, and you should be addressing your arguments to whether you'd pay the perfect DM, not whether you'd pay your friend Joe who runs your weekly dungeon crawl.
I don't really agree with your assessment of the DM being "just one of the players," unless:
-the non-DM players in your game spend several hours each week getting ready to play
-your DM is God's gift to improv and just wings everything freestyle at the table
-your DM is lazy and puts no prep time into the game, but you're all OK with the mediocre game that results
In general, there is differentially more work that falls on the DM's shoulders, and differentially more responsibility for keeping the game moving along and staying fun. I suppose I can imagine someone wanting to get compensated for all that extra work.
That said, it would be a very special case in which I might be willing to pay someone to DM. I might be willing to pay some of my favorite authors (like Guy Gavriel Kay) to run a game. It's odd to think of a game as a service, though, and I'm not sure what my expectations would be in that situation. I play RPGs as a social activity (both DMing and PCing) -- for fun. In general, I wouldn't charge someone for the privilege of having fun with me and socializing with me, nor would I pay someone for the privilege of having fun with them and socializing with them.
That extra work is parcel to the DM having legitimate authority. It's why the game can go on if one player has to miss a session, but there's no game if the DM can't make it. The work involved should be part of the DM's fun. If the DM is not having fun creating the adventures, something is wrong and it's not the lack of financial compensation.
That extra work is parcel to the DM having legitimate authority. It's why the game can go on if one player has to miss a session, but there's no game if the DM can't make it.
I'm not sure I agree with this. A DM can have legitimate authority when running a module. What enables legitimate authority is a respect for the game and for the other players, and an effort to ensure that people are having a fun, meaningful experience.
The work involved should be part of the DM's fun. If the DM is not having fun creating the adventures, something is wrong and it's not the lack of financial compensation.
If you look at my post, you'll note the part where I agreed with this sentiment, at least for myself:
I play RPGs as a social activity (both DMing and PCing) -- for fun. In general, I wouldn't charge someone for the privilege of having fun with me and socializing with me, nor would I pay someone for the privilege of having fun with them and socializing with them.
What I was saying was that it's differentially more work for the DM than for the rest of the party, so the DM is *not* just like all the other players.
All that said, I would like to point out that just because something is fun doesn't make it not work. I enjoy my job, but anyone who suggested that I do it for free because many parts of it are fun would be laughed out of my office. Someone can enjoy all the extra work involved in DMing and still wish to be compensated.
I wouldn't pay for a DM except in very special circumstances (as I said previously), nor would I charge for my time as a DM. But I can understand why others might want to. People get paid for work because they produce something of value to others, not because they're doing something that's not fun.
People get paid for work because they produce something of value to others, not because they're doing something that's not fun.
And I'd add that it's not just that the work gets done, it's that it gets done better than anyone else. You're paying for something you're unable to produce yourself; probably something that no one else you know is able to produce. You're paying a premium for a premium product.
And I'd add that it's not just that the work gets done, it's that it gets done better than anyone else. You're paying for something you're unable to produce yourself; probably something that no one else you know is able to produce. You're paying a premium for a premium product.
Actually, I'll stand by my assertion that the real marker is value to others. For instance: I can cook a hamburger just as well as the cook at a restaurant. But paying that cook to cook for me (and the buyer to buy the meat, the bun, and the fixings, and the waiter to serve it to me) saves me time, and that's worth the extra cost to me beyond just the cost of the materials.
Desirable things that one cannot produce oneself do tend to cost more than things that one can easily produce oneself (this is why convenience store clerks get paid less than movie stars). But again, the marker is value. Rare, desirable things have more value.
Regarding your other observation on the topic:
Quality is quality, and quality is deserving of recompense. Once again, you're all thinking too small. The fact you haven't experienced that quality doesn't mean it's not out there, and you should be addressing your arguments to whether you'd pay the perfect DM, not whether you'd pay your friend Joe who runs your weekly dungeon crawl.
I understand that you view yourself as an outstanding DM, and I'm glad your players enjoy playing with you and find it an enriching experience. Your DMing might well have enough value to some people to make it worth them paying for it.
But your overall line of discussion is something of a straw-man argument. Without knowing whether a perfect DM is out there or what a perfect DM would do, it's impossible for anyone to judge whether they'd be willing to pay for that service. The perfect DM might hand out $1000 bills to all the players every session. I bet everyone on this forum would pay $50 a session for that. In general, though, people have a range of quality that they expect something to fall between, and they form judgments based on this, not based on Platonic ideals. An example:
Could seeing a movie totally change my life, causing me to leave my wife, forsake my religion and move to a new country? I guess it's conceivably possible, but I don't believe it would ever actually happen. So, if you asked me: "would you ever leave your wife, forsake your religion and move to a new country because of a movie?" I would be justified in saying no. I deem the possibility small enough to ignore it, based on my experience, the experiences of others, and my knowledge of how the world works.
I think that's what most people are saying when they say they would "never" pay a DM. Might the DM exist that they'd be willing to pay? Conceivably possible, but they don't believe that person really exists. People are entitled to that opinion, even if it differs from yours.
Actually, I'll stand by my assertion that the real marker is value to others.
Agreed. Read my use of the word "quality" as a subjective assessment by the buyer rather than an objective measure, and my apologies for not using a word that more accurately conveyed that.
I understand that you view yourself as an outstanding DM (etc)
Sometimes I do. But more realistically I regard myself as a DM that attempts to be outstanding. I like my DMing style but it would be a sad world if what I can do is the pinnacle of the craft. I can see the flaws in my own play, and if I'm capable of doing that then, realistically, there must be people out there who can improve.
What frustrates me is that I know that normally, once you set your foot on the path of improvement, it takes only the briefest visit to an internet forum to reveal how little you know, and to uncover those who are whole worlds above you. I last played D&D, prior to 4E, in 1996. Twelve years have passed since then while I played other systems. In that time, computer game development, for example, has grown from a craft largely about technical competency and putting colours on screens into a genuine art, with celebrity developers and entire university programs devoted to unlocking the sociological and psychological drivers behind what makes one design philosophy more fun than another.
Twelve years have passed, and I've come to these forums, and sure, there's lots of great DMs here, and there's lots of people who have things to teach, but these gurus, these masters of the craft, that in any other internet community would be handing down answers that make you realise you're at the bottom of an august and infinitely tall totem pole, aren't present. They're not here. They're not at ENWorld, they're not on the various blogs and review sites. Where the hell are they?
Twelve years have passed and roleplaying has gone nowhere; if anything, since the release of d20, it's taken an evolutionary step backwards. D&D's king of the market again, with all its grubby little combat-centric awkwardness, and everyone's written off art and storytelling as a bad idea.
This is my frustration; and I'm sorry when it comes off as arrogance, or as negativity, or as elitism. But it's genuine and it's real. Every second person here should be doing what I'm doing, and doing it better, and making me small and quiet. And hell, none of you are dopes, none of you are slouches, you've got talent and it's not small talent and I would be privileged and humbled to play in some of your games, but none of you are that guy, the one who's moving forwards towards something exponentially higher, and it's bugging the hell out of me that I can't find him.
Rant over. Sorry.
In short; you pay for movies; a good DM can deliver an experience on par with a good movie; ergo, payment.
This is my frustration; and I'm sorry when it comes off as arrogance, or as negativity, or as elitism. But it's genuine and it's real. Every second person here should be doing what I'm doing, and doing it better, and making me small and quiet. And hell, none of you are dopes, none of you are slouches, you've got talent and it's not small talent and I would be privileged and humbled to play in some of your games, but none of you are that guy, the one who's moving forwards towards something exponentially higher, and it's bugging the hell out of me that I can't find him.
Rant over. Sorry.
No worries. It's good to be passionate about good gaming.
That's a really intriguing suggestion you seem to be offering. You're more or less saying that if people actually treated DMing as a profession (let's face it, computer games/MMOs -- which you talk about as a standard of comparison -- are totally a profession for their creators, and very lucrative), then the quality of DMing would rise. That could well be. Practice is what raises the performance level in almost any human endeavor. Being paid to practice is usually what enables people to have the time to get really good.
I guess my main concern is that it would be impossible for a good DM to serve enough people to make a good a living. The closest approximation is module design, but that's a pale shadow of the full "good DM" experience IMO. Authors are successful as professional storytellers because they can get an inexpensive product to many, many people. If 20 people had to cover all of Stephen King's income, he'd be a poor man. The only other option I know of is the Medieval/Renaissance patron system. I promise, If someone wants to pay me $200K a year to come and DM for them on retainer, I'll be the best DM you ever saw. :D
As for the issue of a lack of storytelling support in D&D, I guess the question is what the market really wants. I believe that many of the hardcore RPers are playing games other than D&D (I know that my group and I play many other games besides D&D -- but we play D&D too), and that WotC know this. They aren't going for this market directly. While White Wolf's forums probably have a higher per-capita number of pretentious posers than here, I bet they have some awesome GMs too.
In short; you pay for movies; a good DM can deliver an experience on par with a good movie; ergo, payment.
The real difference between a movie experience and a DM/player experience, IMO, is that the movie is completed and presented to you, while the game is collaborative. I would be much more willing to pay someone to tell me a story than I would be willing to pay them to collaborate with me on writing a story, even thought the other person did more of the work in the collaboration. Only if you believe that the players' roles in actually executing the story are insignificant does a game experience directly equate to a movie. Too, the DM derives value from the players being present (as I'm sure you well know from your games -- DMing to an empty room is no fun at all, and DMing for bat players sucks). Under those circumstances, I'm much more inclined to see the interaction as a fair trade situation, even if it's a little lop-sided.
I guess my main concern is that it would be impossible for a good DM to serve enough people to make a good a living.
As to that point, you're looking at at least $20AUD an hour to break even and live off if you're doing 8 hours of games a day, or $40 if you're running a single 4-hour game a night. Works out to less if you're working weekends, but it's still assuming a full booking schedule, which it's going to take a while to build up to.
Given my experience of the average finances of a gamer, it's probably unrealistic to expect a regular group of four to five players to cough up $20 each per session, although it's looking more likely if you're taking $15 and then selling them each enough snacks and drinks to make another $5 profit out of them. If you drive you could maybe tack on another $5 each to do lifts to the venue.
The market's probably in special events; in the same way people will cough up to go play laser tag, go bowling, go paintballing or what have you, you sell one-off games as premium events; something people do to celebrate, or team build, or for birthdays or what have you. It's like buying a "How To Host A Murder" but it comes with its own DM who does all the arranging for you, and you pay a little extra as a result.
As DM, you make sure you've got good large-scale games ready to go, that deliver a quality experience for seven to eight players, and then smaller ones for if it comes to that. 7 to 8 player games can be very good, and in fact better than small games at times, but again, we're not using D&D here; this is a systemless or gimmick game.
I should say that there are actually people who make their living as DMs out there, it's just that they don't think of it like that. They run "corporate team building exercises" or "disaster response simulations" but really, they're running large scale RPGs and charging through the nose for it. And while that's not ideal because it's not building the profile of the craft, it's probably a good place to start your business model from, and go from there. A well-reputed three-person company running disaster sims can net upwards of half a million dollars for a single one-day exercise; you can't say that's not celebrity money.
Because it changes the dynamic away from what it is, and the current dynamic is one of the primary reasons I play D&D.
Right now, it's "Me and my friends get together and tell a story." If I was charging for my services as DM, it would be, "Me and my clients get together and tell a story."
Even if said 'clients' also happen to be friends, it's a shift in dynamic, and one that I fully expect would make the game less enjoyable.
That's not to say that there aren't DMs who provide fun worth paying for - there are; I'm likely one of them. But once the paying starts happening, the nature of the fun changes, and that's not something I'm willing to accept.
Can I just say that if you're someone who's paid $10 or more to see a film or play, or buy a book or DVD, and you'd never consider paying a DM, either:
(a) you need to play with some better DMs, or
(b) you're holding a double standard.
That makes no sense at all.
None of the mechanics actively encourage roleplaying or story structure
Roleplaying or story structure don't need mechanics.
In short; you pay for movies; a good DM can deliver an experience on par with a good movie; ergo, payment.
Again, that makes no sense. It's kinda like saying the only way to have good sex you have to pay for it.
As to that point, you're looking at at least $20AUD an hour to break even and live off if you're doing 8 hours of games a day, or $40 if you're running a single 4-hour game a night. Works out to less if you're working weekends, but it's still assuming a full booking schedule, which it's going to take a while to build up to.
Given my experience of the average finances of a gamer, it's probably unrealistic to expect a regular group of four to five players to cough up $20 each per session, although it's looking more likely if you're taking $15 and then selling them each enough snacks and drinks to make another $5 profit out of them. If you drive you could maybe tack on another $5 each to do lifts to the venue.
It's more like coughing up $32AUD ($22 USD) per person per session for a group of 5. That's steep for most gamers. Even then, $40K AUD/year, with no benefits, no paid vacation, and no guaranteed income isn't awesome.
Add to that the fact that you're going to have to be $32 AUD a session better than what people are now getting for free, and the picture looks pretty bleak.
The market's probably in special events;
A well-reputed three-person company running disaster sims can net upwards of half a million dollars for a single one-day exercise; you can't say that's not celebrity money.
That totally is celebrity money. But I'm not sure the one-shot model works reliably, nor that the dollars are there for it.
1) It's hard to produce an engaging, moving, compelling 8-hour one-shot that leaves everyone fulfilled and happy at the end. The problem is that combat is too slow relative to the rest of the game (even with the 4e speed-ups). It would be even harder to produce a series of different ones.
2) Bowling can be explained to a newbie in 5 minutes. Same with Laser Tag. D&D takes hours to get familiar to the point of comfortability with the rules (even in 4e). This makes D&D weekends/parties a much more niche market (and thus harder to commercialize). Also, people don't think of Bowling parties as "geeky."
3) Team building exercises/disaster sims make money because they are viewed as being beneficial to business. People don't go to them for fun (most of the time), and if they did, they wouldn't pay that kind of money for the experience. To get the "celebrity money," one would have to convince business that D&D Weekend was of value -- a *tall* order.
You have very rightly pointed out that there are well-paid professions out there that involve interactive role-playing of one sort or another. So one can hone related skills with commercial benefit. But I don't see this washing over to D&D.
Perhaps the closest thing out there right now to main-stream paid RPG is LARP-lite activities, like Medieval Times or the Ren Fairs. LARP is probably the right place to get one's feet wet in DM-for-pay, since the rules are simpler (in general), combat does not take such a disproportionate mechanical/time load, and it's easier for people to feel like they're actually part of the story. I believe someone in this thread posted that he does charge to run LARPs. The activity is miles from main-stream, though, and isn't "proper" enough to reliably attract talent. For instance, the best bands and singers on the Ren Fair circuit aren't top-tier in quality. They're good, and people enjoy the music. But no way do they pull in 6+ figures per person of income from it. Also, relative to the respectability factor, just imagine this conversation:
Teacher: "So, Billy, what do you want to be when you grow up?"
Billy: "I want to run LARPs!"
Teacher: "Storytelling is a great profession. But wouldn't you rather write books or make movies? You like books and movies, don't you?"
That being said, D&D is a game about friends getting together and enjoying themselves. Hiring someone to Dungeon Master for you is not usually going to be nearly as fun as having a friend take the big chair.
Now, granted, if I knew a freelance DM and I liked his DMing, I'd absolutely pay him -- it's no different than going to a convenience store a friend owns and buying from them. It's his business and his breadwinning, so I ought to respect that and pay him accordingly.
But I wouldn't seek out a freelance DM, and I have to say that I doubt most people would. Thus, it is not a practically functional occupation. At the now.
1) It's hard to produce an engaging, moving, compelling 8-hour one-shot that leaves everyone fulfilled and happy at the end. The problem is that combat is too slow relative to the rest of the game (even with the 4e speed-ups). It would be even harder to produce a series of different ones.
2) Bowling can be explained to a newbie in 5 minutes. Same with Laser Tag. D&D takes hours to get familiar to the point of comfortability with the rules (even in 4e). This makes D&D weekends/parties a much more niche market (and thus harder to commercialize). Also, people don't think of Bowling parties as "geeky."
As to these two specific points, which are good points in the context of D&D, I refer back to my comment that the pay DM won't be running D&D. You only need to run combats if three conditions exist:
(a) it's an action-themed game; and
(b) there's narrative doubt as to whether PCs win (ie, there's a strong story if they win, and a strong story if they lose, and they're different stories); and
(c) there's no room for movement on the ideological issues underlying the conflict - combat's a battle of ideas, and if one of those ideas can be shifted, resolve the conflict through the dialogue, even if there's theoretically a fight going on around it.
I run three-hour games that have no character sheets, no dice, and almost no rules. Core aspects of characters are pre-generated and the plot takes place in tight, tensely-paced scenarios. Every possible conflict between a player and the environment has a pre-determined outcome; it's a matter of players picking their conflicts, not ramming through wherever they please. Inter-player conflict is resolved at first instance through player interaction, and failing that by DM fiat where the most narratively interesting outcome prevails. No rules explanation - the game starts before they even know who their character is. Much like a film or story, character detail is revealed by story progression, rather than infodumped at the start.
For larger groups, I use character sheets, which contain loose character background with plenty of room for improv. Characters get three to four skills, at which they are ranked "Master" or "Apprentice". If you have a skill, you are infinitely good at it, limited only by the constraints of the story. In inter-player conflict on the same skill, Master rank beats Apprentice rank, and there are never more than two people with the same skill. This supports party role differentiation and a high level of conflict resolution, while still allowing me to start the game while people are still reading their sheets, and without having to explain rules.
I keep saying it: D&D is the niche corner of a niche market. It is a highly evolved, highly specialised subset of roleplaying, aimed exclusively at combat-centric generic heroic fantasy. The money's at mainstream, and mainstream means (a) stories people can personally relate to, and (b) low/no pre-required knowledge.
There seems to be a bit of a hoop-la on other forums about debating whether or not a DM should be paid for services.
Dungeon Masters/Game Masters sometimes get free food or some cash chipped in for a published adventure the group wants to play.
Sounds fair enough for me. In my case, since I am not only DM, but host, I ask that my players all chip in for snacks and drinks. When we started playing and my wife was in the game (she had to quit due to job obligations), she was always in the mindset of hostess and kept making food and making sure we had enough drinks. We were spending about $20 a session. I put a stop to that. While I do try to have at least SOME drinks and snacks available, my players mostly bring some for everyone to share, and we chip in together for things like pizza.
People pay to get into gaming conventions to play tabletop games and I think the GMs are often compensated a little bit like maybe food or like a few dollars for working the whole day.
I used to do this a lot. I work 7 slots the whole convention, and I get my badge for all 4 days paid for. I also would get my hotel room for 4 days and night ni the hotel adjacent to the convention hall paid for. Most times, I also got a free book as well. The RPGA is pretty good to its judges.
Would you ever hire someone to run a game for you or your group?
Would you ever or have you ever paid to play in a game or campaign?
No, and no. i agree with the people who said that playing DnD, whether DMing or not is about hanging out with friends, it is not a business transaction. I believe the RPGA GM rewards are in place because the GMs are largely GMing for strangers and sacrificing their own time at the con to run a game, usually the same one or two modules over and over.
Some might think that it's somehow wrong for the GM to be paid. People who have GMed probably think otherwise. It's a lot more costly both in time and effort and money for a GM to run a decent campaign. For DnD, a player needs 1 book. A DM is expected to get 3. Add in miniatures, dungeon tiles, DM screen, and paperwork. It starts looking kind of scary if someone becomes devoted to making every session a "full" experience.
What's your take on this?
Again, as a more or less full-time DM I'm opposed to the idea of making my friends pay me to DM. I have all the books I have by my own choice, same with minis (I also like the skirmish game). But I like to write good stories. DMing for me is about sharing those stories in my head and allowing the players to play the major roles in an unfolding saga.
It's what I like to do.
What would you expect from a DM if you were paying?
A
epic.Is it really such a bad thing for a DM to be paid?
If all the players paying for it agree to it? Of course not. Any kind of business transaction in which both sides are in agreement as to price and services is fair. I just wouldn't do it myself.
How much would you pay for "professional" service? If a session is like 3 hours long, maybe it's worth paying the cost of a movie ticket if the session is done well. Especially if the session is done to fit the players' schedule, not the DM's (convenience).
If we're only talking one-shot sessions and nnot a continuous storyline? I wouldn't. At all. No contest.
I keep saying it: D&D is the niche corner of a niche market. It is a highly evolved, highly specialised subset of roleplaying, aimed exclusively at combat-centric generic heroic fantasy. The money's at mainstream, and mainstream means (a) stories people can personally relate to, and (b) low/no pre-required knowledge.
I'm not sure I'd say D&D was a niche corner of it's market, since D&D is the lion's share of the table-top RPG market. But in the overall role-playing/storytelling environment, I agree that there's a lot of ground beyond D&D.
I still maintain that it's hard to judge how much money is actually in main-stream storytelling for roleplaying (storytelling in general is a multi-billion dollar industry, taking into account books, movies, and the like; but roleplaying is very different than generic storytelling because of the interactive aspect -- as we've been discussing). People do indeed spend money for fun on things like murder mystery weekends -- that's genuine roleplaying, but it's not wildly popular or hugely lucrative. I'm willing to believe that there's some money in being a storyteller for roleplaying experiences, but as to how much? Hard to say.
All that said, when the discussion is being held on the D&D forum, talking about whether one would ever pay a "Dungeon Master" (not even the more generic "Storyteller"), I feel pretty comfortable focusing my comments on the D&D side of the market. Whether one might, in the abstract, be willing to pay someone for providing a "roleplaying experience" is a very different question than whether one would pay for a genuine D&D DM to run a genuine D&D game on a regular basis; or further, whether one could reliably make a living as a genuine D&D DM.
Every possible conflict between a player and the environment has a pre-determined outcome;
Impossible.
Impossible.
For all things that the DM has specifically envisaged, the solution is as envisaged. For all things he hasn't, the solution is whatever is more dramatically interesting. Ignoring the inherent fun of combat as a kind of minigame within the larger story, dice are otherwise only a conflict-resolution crutch for DMs who are not yet comfortable with their storytelling and plot-structure skills.
Ignoring the inherent fun of combat as a kind of minigame within the larger story, dice are otherwise only a conflict-resolution crutch for DMs who are not yet comfortable with their storytelling and plot-structure skills.
Actually, dice make the unfolding of the combat/conflict seem less like the capricious whims of the DM, and makes the accomplishment of overcoming challenges feel more like an accomplishment (actually winning feels markedly different than having a friend just walk up and say "you win"). That's why lots of DMs who don't pay attention to what the dice say still roll dice behind a screen.
Or is this what you meant by "the inherent fun of combat as a kind of minigame within the larger story?"
Or is this what you meant by "the inherent fun of combat as a kind of minigame within the larger story?"
It's a part of it. But as I've said elsewhere, combat is conflict resolution. Conflict resolution through dice can be good, but ultimately a little unsatisfying, as players win through the will of the dice, rather than any inherent worth on their own part. It can be said that players make their own luck through good tactics, but if the challenge here is indeed tactics, why not have a diceless tactical combat in the style of chess?
Dice are a crutch; the step up, once you remove the crutch, is dealing with conflict by directly addressing the issues that it's a metaphor for. If it's a swordfight, describe the combat, but the real conflict is happening in the dialogue.
Look at the climactic battle of The Empire Strikes Back; Vader doesn't win that fight because some dice are rolled. Vader wins because of the story leading up to that point. Yoda tells Luke that Luke's not ready to face Vader; Luke makes a choice, and goes anyway. And it's not just that he's not ready as a Jedi, or not ready as a swordsman. It's that he's not mature enough yet, and that's how Vader wins. He knocks Luke down at one point, and you can see here what the fight's really about - Luke is scared out of his wits. Moments later, Luke loses his hand and his weapon and starts backing away. From Vader's "surprise round" through to Luke getting disarmed is less than a minute of screen time; the conversation that follows ("Luke, I am your father") is another two minutes, and it's vastly more memorable than anything in the battle scene.
Mechanically, as a DM, what you'd be doing there is describing a combat, letting the player add some flair on their character's behalf (in the movie, Luke hits Vader's hand moments before Vader takes Luke's), and then declaring the disarming by DM fiat. Yoda told Luke what was going to happen; he made a choice, having been informed of the consequences of the choice. And then you play through the conversation, because that's the real meat of the scene.
Never, in a good story, is combat resolved entirely by luck. It has a pre-determined ending, because it's the only ending possible within the scope and tone of the novel, given the characters' previous actions. The reader doesn't necessarily guess the outcome in advance, but in retrospect, given the whole story, its predetermination seems obvious. And none of that predetermination in any way effects its quality as a story.
... I am WAY off topic now, and I suspect I'm not going to convince anyone I haven't already, so I think I'll formally retire from this thread and thank everyone for their contributions. And if anyone wants to go on discussing story-driven predetermination or anything else I've raised, please feel free to start a thread in the DM forum and I'll gladly bring my best debate.
That being said, I am in full support of taking care of food and drinks and having the supplier of house and the DM not worry about such things.
For all things that the DM has specifically envisaged, the solution is as envisaged. For all things he hasn't, the solution is whatever is more dramatically interesting.
So the standard D&D adventure design model for the past 35 years. Gotcha.
However, you did not say "For all things that the DM has specifically envisaged, the solution is as envisaged…" you claimed "Every possible conflict between a player and the environment has a pre-determined outcome".
Even if that were the case, that every single possible interaction had a predetermined outcome, you'd simply be reducing D&D to little more than a glorified Choose Your Own Adventure book. The dynamism of unexpected player/DM interaction is a huge part of what makes RPGing unique and interesting.
Ignoring the inherent fun of combat as a kind of minigame within the larger story, dice are otherwise only a conflict-resolution crutch for DMs who are not yet comfortable with their storytelling and plot-structure skills.
And?
The DM would obviously have to be known in the local gamer community for one thing, and have a history of experience that can be confirmed.
Recommendations and/or good reviews would be key as well.
Other than this, what do you think would be important?
A+ experience.
And the DM doesn't have to bring the beer.
Considering more than half the people in our gaming group are underage, that isn't a problem for us.
I don't think our DM would accept any money anyways. He's one of those old DM's that have been playing since Gygax ran the game out of his (mom's) basement.
My wife threw me a surprise D&D session at the local comic shop for my birthday this year (I'm ALWAYS the DM when we play and have been complaining for some time that I never get to "just play" the game). It was awesome! It came with a DM for us and 5 friends for 3 hours and everyone got a 20% discount on everything in the store, for $50 total. Everyone was very happy, including the DM/store owner, who sold a ton of books at the end of the night. Getting to know the DM was awesome too since we're relatively new to the area.
A+ experience.
That sounds like a good quality return for the price being paid.
The amount being paid vs. what is actually being paid for.
The element of convenience I think is key in separating a paid DM from a regular DM. The paid DM is there where and when you need one because you're the paying customer.