Should you PAY your GM?

Let's start with the conclusion: GM-for-pay is okay.

In other words: there is nothing wrong with paying someone to run a game for you, or charging people for a game you're running.

I say that with some certainty but little experience: I always GM for free. 

I GM for my friends, on my schedule, using the system and adventures of my choice (always with some player input). I buy the books I want, and everyone in my group helps me as needed. 

On the other hand, a GM-for-pay typically runs games for strangers, often using the most popular system (like D&D 5e) and well-known settings. A group of friends can often negotiate a situation in which they can all play together with a stranger DM.

I think GM-for-pay makes sense for several reasons. 

Preparing a module like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd takes considerable effort. There is an important distinction here: I think learning settings and modules takes work. It can be fun, but the real fun as a GM, at least for me, is running the game with the players.

[And I found running ToA way more fun that just generating a dungeon randomly or whatever. It was worth the effort. But there was an effort].

Once a GM learns the material, they can run it countless times. While it remains exciting for new players every time, the GM might lose some of the fun because there is no sense of discovery that comes with experiencing it for the first time.

And, in a way, I feel bad that some of this effort is wasted: all the unexplored rooms, all the things that could have gone differently, etc. Running the same thing multiple times is interesting, It is just not as fun as doing something new. And, since you can't usually run the same module to the same people twice, you have the additional effort of finding new people if you want to do that.

There are also practical matters, such as buying setting books, paying for subscription apps, etc. These responsibilities usually fall on the shoulders of the GM. At the very least, it is fair to expect the players to contribute.

In short, given the effort involved, it’s completely fair for someone to charge for GM services if there's demand.

I see this as a win-win. More players can experience various systems, settings, and adventures without needing to invest heavily in preparation. You could do the same without touching money: a group interested in trying multiple systems could take turns GMing for each other. Being able to do it for money just makes the process easier in some circumstances. It also allows people who really like to GM to be able to get some money so can dedicate more time to this, do this a lot, and get better at it.

Another aspect that is probably overlooked is the idea of "Player systems" and "GM systems". I ran a  D&D 5e campaign a while ago. It was fun, but I'm unlikely to do that again; I find 5e to be too much work for the GM. OSR games are much more fun for me to run.

When you look at GMs-for-pay, D&D 5e is the most common system offered. Of course, "official D&D" is always very popular, but I think the fact OSR games are easier to run also explains why paid GMs are less common (and the whole idea is less popular in OSR circles).

I have never actually paid a GM. But I started playing RPGs in a game store. It was free, but they encouraged me to buy a book; so it was not completely without interest on their part. And it was awesome.

Then I wanted to learn more and more systems. I went to conventions and signed up for tables without considering what the GMs got out of it. Later, I invited strangers to learn RPGs with me. It was fun, but not as fun as learning when I was a novice (and probably not as fun as playing with my friends). And it took time and effort.

I also played several games where the GM was testing his own system or setting. I didn't pay for that, but the GM obviously had an "ulterior motive". Some of these games were awesome, and some even became awesome books eventually.

[I have done the same thing as an author; in fact, nowadays most of the things I publish are specifically made because I want to play then. I play-test stuff with my friends].

In short... one day, I might pay to play a game. I think having the option is good, but it is not necessary. If you have time to spare (maybe a clear schedule or enough time to search for a perfect game in several places), and maybe some social skill, you can play free games endlessly. You can make new friends and rotate the GM role if you want. 

When I was younger I had more time and less money, so the thought of paying for a game would never occur, but maybe I'd have played even more if I knew that existed (at a fair price!).

Paying for a game does not make it better or worse. It is like any other business. 

I have friends who are great professional cooks; they enjoy making food, and cooking to their friends for free, but they also sell food, and it is equally tasty. I enjoy food even more when cooked by someone I like, but not every meal has to be like that.

I think a similar reasoning will apply to most fun activities: boxing, running, playing the guitar, chess, and so on. Sure, you can do it for free, and you can do it for fun; but there is still a place for professionals, experts, teachers, and tutors.

---

(On a final note, some people say GM-for-pay is intrinsically good because commerce is intrinsically good, as both the buyer and the seller can hope to be satisfied by the end of a transaction they freely agreed to. While I do see the merit in this argument, one could make a counter-argument talking about cigarettes, alcohol or whatever, which would be beside the point IMO).

A Farewell to Arms, VALIS, And the Truth Shall Make You Flee, Braving the Wilderness, Psycho-Cybernetics

Here are some very short reviews of some books I've read lately. The one-sentence summaries (in italics) are not entirely mine, but copy-pasted from AI (and edited by me) to save you a few clicks.

I gave each book a rating, but to each might have been influenced by my expectations - so my judgement of Dostoevsky (one of my favorite authors) is probably a lot harsher than an author I haven't read before., and so on. Highly subjective, of course.

I avoided the number 7 because it is too easy to choose 7 when you're unsure, so I forced myself to choose between 6.5 and 7.5 when that was the case.

A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway (rating 8/10): Set during World War I, this novel follows the love story between Frederic Henry, an American ambulance driver in the Italian army, and Catherine Barkley, a British nurse. The story explores themes of love, war, loss, and existential struggles, as Frederic grapples with the chaos of war and the fragility of human connections.

This is a good book, but I found it depressing and soul-crushing, so maybe you should avoid it if this kind of narrative bothers you.

Anyway, I have the impression this is the opposite of a war book, not only because it is anti-war, but also because it subverts many of the usual tropes. There is no heroism, no epic victories, not even dramatic defeats - people are wounded and killed by error or accident, often by their own troops, and most soldiers are uncertain why they're even fighting. In any case, it is still an interesting portrayal of World War I.

Maybe Frederic can leave this war behind one day, but no one can escape the realities of life and death.

VALIS by Philip K. Dick (rating 7.5/10): A semi-autobiographical, philosophical science-fiction work, this novel delves into the mind of Horselover Fat, a character based on the author himself. It explores themes of reality, divinity, and madness as Fat tries to understand the visions of a mysterious entity called VALIS.

If you like PKD, this is probably a must-read. In a way, it ties together many of the author's ideas about religion, reality (and alternate realities), conscience, and so on. I don't find it as interesting as his short stories but it is still an enjoyable read. 

I started reading without knowing how autobiographical it was. But apparently PKD has been through things that could actually fit some of his outlandish stories.

And the Truth Shall Make You Flee by Daniel C. Jones (rating 8/10): This book examines the psychological and social barriers that prevent people from seeking and accepting truth. It challenges readers to confront their biases and fears, offering insights into how we justify our beliefs rather than genuinely exploring evidence.

I've been obsessed with cognitive biases lately, especially confirmation bias. I've started a new blog discussing some of these ideas, but I'm unsure if I can add much to the discussion.

Anyway, this book was recommended to me by the author, who happens to be connected with me on X - a happy coincidence, since I only use X for RPG talk.

The book is about confirmation bias. I think understanding this bias is an extremely important tool if we hope to have any understanding of reality at all. I think the author manages to explain this bias while giving a fair shake to both theists and atheists, for example.

Braving the Wilderness by Brené Brown (rating 5/10): This non-fiction work examines the concepts of belonging and authenticity. Brené Brown argues that true belonging requires embracing one's vulnerability and individuality, even in moments of solitude. The book inspires readers to find strength in their uniqueness and connect more meaningfully with others.

This reads to me like standard self-help. The core concept is interesting and helped me reflect on being myself while still trying to be belong to something bigger. In short, you can never feel like you belong if you're just pretending to be someone else in order to adapt.

A fairly interesting and useful idea but could probably be explained in a much shorter format.

Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz (rating 8/10): A self-help classic, this book focuses on the power of self-image and how it shapes our behaviors and outcomes. Dr. Maltz combines principles from psychology and cybernetics to teach readers techniques for improving confidence, overcoming negative thought patterns, and achieving personal goals.

This also reads like standard self-help. However, it not only has a better "ideas-per-page" ratio but it was also written in 1960, and I guess it must have inspired several more famous self-help books. 

It could also be shorter, but I found myself writing down at least one central idea from each chapter. If you like self-help stuff, you should read this one.

The most memorable idea for me was that the author, a plastic surgeon, realized that several people traumatized by their own looks (with or without a reason) would still find themselves very ugly after being "fixed" by surgery. I've heard about some experiments with (fake) facial scarring that could confirm these impressions; I think the subject deserves further study.

It makes you think about how much of self-perception - and, well, reality - is just in our minds. Maybe this is a common theme in several books mentioned here.

Minimum viable setting

How to make the "minimum viable setting"? 

What I want to do is create something that leaves almost NO work for the GM.

But writing down every detail of the setting is not only nearly impossible but also mostly useless; the GM will only use a fraction of it, and facing a 1000-page book might be fearsome even in PDF format.

One alternative is creating the entire thing randomly as you go - e.g., using appendix B. 

As you can see in the link, I find it a bad idea. You should know where mountains are, and see them from a long distance. The same goes for the sea, major cities, countries, but... what about small villages, etc?

Well, these could be randomly generated. Maybe you start with a more detailed map of your surroundings, but after a few hexes you're in uncharted territory.

When I think of it, I find that this is exactly what my favorite setting, Dark Sun, is missing. You have a good hex map and a setting description that is detailed enough, but it definitely needs its own appendix B (and C!).

Notice that you cannot just use the existing appendices; you must create new ones that take into account the setting's unique ecology, climate and demography.

Once you have these two (big map plus generator of smaller features and encounters), you are almost good to go.

You'd still need a few random tables of relevant details, so you don't need to keep coming up with new ones on the fly. For example:

- Names.

- Special features (i.e., things that make each village memorable; there are good example in Dark Fantasy Places).

- Relation with existing factions.

The third one deserves further explanation. In some settings, there are important conflicts (e.g., Law vs. Chaos, Magic vs. Religion or Technology, Good vs. Evil, Guelphs vs. Ghibellines) that will affect settlements and NPCs. 

Sometimes they are obvious and generalized: all dwarves hate orcs, etc. You don't even need a table for that. But if you have something more nuanced, you could use a table with results like "strong support for the king", "this village is divided between Guelphs and Ghibellines", or "this town hates elves/magicians/knights/etc.". 

As you can see, even without an overarching conflict, these tables can add flavor to otherwise boring villages.

If your setting has dungeons, you probably need those too. Maybe we can reach a similar compromise here: a few big dungeons (or even a megadungeon) written in advance and a few randomly generated dungeons if you find one by accident. 

Suffice to say, I'm not a big fan of dungeons generated with the appendix A. But maybe you could make different tables (with fewer 45º corridors and more coherent layouts) to create something worthwhile.

Other than Dark Sun, here is how some of my favorite settings deal with this stuff:

Carcosa. The setting is incredibly interesting and detailed. Every time I read it, I want to run a campaign (and it might be my next one). Still, I think it is not quite ready for use.

Some villages/castles are too lean and a bit simplistic/boring. You could easily replace most villages with a random generator that gave you not only color, numbers and alignment, but also some distinctive features.

Or just add such a random table or one line to each village: "this village hates sorcerers", "this village loves fighters and centers around an arena", "this village is built underground", etc. [I'm sorry to sell it gain, but: Dark Fantasy Places is PWYW!]

The map is not great either; I find the positioning of mountainous and rivers a little weird and random. Not a big problem but I'm tempted to create my own.

Qelong: I find this a great example of a setting that is both small and complete. It has hex descriptions, coherent random encounters and a satisfying meta-narrative.

Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation: say what you will about 5e, these are both awesome, well made settings, with detailed places, good encounter tables, and clear factions/conflicts.

What they lack is more organization (as described here) and a few additional random tables. Both have HUGE hex maps but very sparse; most hexes are empty.

Fortunately, there are several 3rd-party product detailing additional dungeons, features, etc.

And I must acknowledge that they got the map almost exactly right:

This means everyone knows the coast, and the mountains are obvious from afar, but the inner area is not known by adventures.

In short, maybe that is all you need to start:

- A good, incomplete map, plus some random tables to add villages, ruins, lairs (geography).

- Random encounter tables (ecology).

- Random villages (demography).

- A few factions/conflicts (history).

What else I'm missing?