The responsibility of GMing

[Jet]

I've had many GMs bail on projects before, and it's always annoyed me. Sorry if you're getting called out but please hear me out.

Your members have dedicated time, energy and resources into your RP. There is emotional cache tied into their characters and plot arcs, especially for those with personal stories they want to tell. Many times they've created lore for your RP (unless you completely disallow player lore, but that's uncommon) and hours upon hours of writing time. Time they could otherwise use to pursue other avenues.

Therefore, I think GMs have a responsibility to continue their RPs. It's like getting a financial investment from your friend. If you randomly decide to not follow through with your business idea, you're going against expectations you created. You've gathered resources from your friend, and then decided "Nah I'm good" which is wack in my opinion. No RPs don't have monetary aspects, but time & effort are equally valuable.

I genuinely believe you have a moral obligation to continue your RP. To be disciplined enough to post even if you don't feel like it, and to stick with the project until it naturally dies. I think it's amoral to harvest hundreds of collective hours from your members, and then pull the plug because you don't feel like it anymore.

In at least 1/3rd of RPs I've joined, the GM is the one who leaves and kills the project, not the players. In every case my hard work has been completely obliterated and rendered useless, because someone decided to make another RP, leave because of boredom, felt overwhelmed, or just flat out ghosted.

There are exceptions to this rule, as with any.

1. If something truly awful happened in your life, so be it. I don't expect a GM to continue after some huge tragedy has happened.

2. If the GM can't handle the project and passes it to members. As in they lack the GM skill to properly run things. This is more an acknowledgment of shortcomings, which is mature imo.

3. If the players refuse to post anything. This is a two way street of course.

Random late night thread because I was bored. This is just a philosophy I believe, but rarely see echoed. It might be more common than I believe, guess I'll find out in this thread.

Random closing thought, don't start RPs if your life can't accommodate them. I've joined RPs and then GM can't post because they work 40 hours, take 18 credits, are in greek life, have a girlfriend and participate in three school clubs. Like why would you bait me into joining, absorb my hard work and time, and then reveal you have 10 billion obligations before quitting?

I know I am harsh, and I know my standards may be unreasonable to some, but this hobby isn't like many others. It's not comparable to a club on a video game or TTRPG that can easily be picked up by a member. I've never seen an RP survive after a GM quits. It's an instant death sentence. If you quit, you are scrubbing hundreds, if not thousands of hours of work. I don't think that's morally right.

 

[Steve Jobs]

Do you feel the same way about players? I would certainly hope so or that would be hypocritical.

Anyway, having been on both sides of this situation... It's not that serious. The money analogy feels too heavy imo, a better example would be if somebody organized a club but never showed up/booked a room or a intermural sports league. It's inconsiderate and I think it is perfectly justified to not want to collaborate with the leaver anymore, but it is not the end of the world. There will be other opportunities.

If the GM isn't having fun then that should be enough of a reason to close shop. Forcing them continue a story just because it's their "moral obligation" feels entitled imo. What's the point in participating in a hobby that isn't fun? From a player perspective, why would I want to continue writing with someone who is doing this out of obligation rather than enjoyment?

As far as the exceptions go, it's hard to gauge what's considered a tragic enough event to qualify for leave? Financial stress? Bad grades? Bereavement? I'm not in the business of invalidating someone's real life issues or prying beyond a simple check in.

Leaving an RP in the hands of remaining players is certainly an option but not everyone is keen on letting the world they've worked on in someone else's hands. Or perhaps, they want to reboot the RP when their life is in a better spot.

It sucks when a GM leaves. It sucks when a player (or players) leave. Ghosting ain't great either. Nonetheless, RP is not a job and I am not the GM's customer.

 

[WhiskeyMarten]

It's the nature of roleplaying that people will lose interest in continuing, or something will happen that prevents them from continuing. I think it's an important thing to accept when you're collaborating with other people. If someone told me I was morally obligated to keep writing for them so as not to waste their precious hours, I'd encourage them to take up personal writing where the only person that can disappoint them is themselves.

Sure, I understand being annoyed, I've been there, but I personally don't consider it as big a deal as you seem to. Like, I'm currently in a roleplay that I've been in for over a year, 2k+ messages across two connected threads, a huge part of my life. If the GM were to quit and the roleplay was to die, life will go on, I'll find other things to do, I'll salvage what I've made and keep on trucking because that's what you do when a roleplay dies.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

I feel like an unspoken assumption is being made that a GM will always have time once they start the game, but that isn't always true. What if they decide to pursue more education? What if they have a kid? GMs are allowed to have a life and no roleplay is important enough for them to turn down opportunities or milestones.

 

[Idea]

In general terms I agree, though I wouldn't agree with all the specific criteria you set out. I do think a GM ought to be prepared to do what they can do to see through with their projects - something which I am woefully aware I have my shortcomings in myself - though I would consider more towards preparation than realization. Put another way, if ultimately a GM quits an RP I wouldn't necessarily consider that wrong even outside of the exceptions that have been laid out by you, but rather I would consider it wrong (and more specifically negligent) if the GM did not to begin with take the care to prepare things in a way as to ensure (as close to that as they can) that they will be able to sustain the roleplay which they are proposing to manage. Among those things is ensuring that you have enough time for the RP for the foreseeable future (outside of any extraordinary circumstances, though 'being a bit busy' should be something everyone expects) and not starting an RP on a random whim, the hype/motivation for which won't last a week, as well as ensuring whatever idea you go with is minimally sustainable past the initial phase of the RP without expecting players to do the work for you (because while interesting character dynamics-based developments can happen you shouldn't count on it, in my opinion). Put simply, being a GM isn't a job, but it is still a responsibility, and like any responsibility you shouldn't take it on if you're not planning on fulfilling said responsibility.

On the other hand, unexpected events, a loss of motivation despite one's initial beliefs, or the realization that an idea or group aren't something the GM can work with are all things which can happen though. There's also the matter of simply not finding something as fun as one might expect, though I'm a little more iffy on that being used as a justification, since a lot of the time people seem to have this bizarre notion that effortful things ought to be fun all of the time and so if something doesn't feel as fun for a low moment they call it quits, and I simply don't think one should be that flimsy as a GM. Nonetheless, the point is that there are times when despite one doing what they can to be prepared ultimately things don't work out, this having nothing to do with skills, tragedies or non-cooperative players. I don't think a GM who otherwise has been putting an adequate amount of dedication into the RP and has made sure to account for and attempt to prevent the aforementioned potential causes of unsustainability for the RP is truly blameworthy for their conclusion that they cannot continue to manage that RP. In short, as previously stated, because some things are simply beyond one's ability to control or predict, one's obligation as a GM is to ensure it has the potential to be sustainable, and to attempt to realize that potential, but one does not have the obligation to actually see that potential realized.

Furthermore, I would also argue that it would be counterproductive to try to force a GM into that obligation. Any GM who would want to quit due to a lack of motivation, sudden lack of time, or even just not finding things fun will surely not be giving their all. In fact it has the potential to put them in a perpetual poor mood, leading to all sorts of negative consequences OOC and IC alike. For players investing their time and effort into the RP, they would be putting even more of that while getting a bad experience. At least if the RP ended they would simply move to what hopefully would be better shores. But if they care enough about what they made for that RP to stay, then it would be an anchor dragging them down deeper and deeper until the pressure finally gets them. A waste of time and effort for everyone, as opposed to at least the possibility of a better experience elsewhere, albeit sacrificing one's prior effort. A textbook case of sunken costs.

That being said, perhaps the ideal solution here would be a compromise. The GM leaving without saying a word is as with any other kind of ghosting, a pretty rude thing to do, and a bit worse on the GM's case (though I would also argue that ghosting is at least understandable and a phenomenon here to stay due to the characteristics of a lot of RPers, but that's a whole other topic). Simply quitting on a whim or half-assing things from the start is also something I think we can all agree is not something a GM should do. So excluding those cases, and assuming the GM acknowledges their player's needs at least to some extent, I think a good compromise here would be an expansion of your second exception. What if a GM who for whatever reason - even one entirely unrelated to skill - considered they could not handle the responsibility, simply assisted the group in finding a replacement? The GM's obligation would not then be to remain against everyone's practical interests and despite a lack of a real obligation to, but rather they would ensure the group could continue despite their absence by letting the group decide, should they want to continue, who could be a replacement, then helping said replacement by providing them with all the necessary information etc that was specifically meant for the GM of the RP. I believe such a compromise could keep the strengths of a relatively stable presence of a GM without the counterproductive effects or excessiveness of attributing to them an obligation to personally stay.

 

[Risotto]

I genuinely believe you have a moral obligation to continue your RP. To be disciplined enough to post even if you don't feel like it, and to stick with the project until it naturally dies.

I disagree. Partly because content created by someone who doesn't want to create it doesn't tend to be the best. I rather have an rp die than have it turn to shit.

But mostly it's because I don't think any time and effort is wasted by an rp dying. I mean, you still had fun up to that point, right?

 

[Jet]

Steve Jobs

1. No because losing a member doesn't auto kill the RP. There's also much less emotional cache & writing time spent on their character, by other people. I think players have a moral obligation to be up front & either leave or be active, because paralyzing a group with inactive characters is wrong. This is coming from a habitual GM. In the last few years I've ran way more RPs than ones I've joined, so my bias should support GMs. Yet I don't think players have the same moral obligation to stay.

2. Time is money, classic saying. Writing requires time & effort. I think a GM quitting is closer to the money example than the club one. However, here's another analogy. You've been working on a huge art piece on the side of a building. It's taken you almost 100 hours to complete this task, working in tandem with an artistic team. However, today your team lead decided to pour black paint over the entire thing. That's what it means when a GM quits.

3. Is personal responsibility really this dead? As a GM I can't disagree more. I sold everyone on a promise of a long, lively RP. They answered that promise with hours upon hours of hard work, planning, plotting, OOC discussion, emotional investment and lore building. It is so messed up to destroy that because "I'm not having fun." As the GM I can always tweak things to be more fun. There's no excuse.

4. We are all smart here. There's a difference between "I lost my family" and "I got a bad grade." If getting a C- is enough for you to quit GMing, then do something else with your time.

5. RPs die when GMs leave. I've seen it happen over a dozen times. The RP has never recovered, and this experience is echoed among my friends.

Closing thought. I think it's sad how flippant you're being about people's time and effort. The fact that hundreds of hours is worthless compared to a GMs fun factor. Wild.

WhiskeyMarten maybe I should've made this clear, but I'm a career GM. I rarely join projects anymore. This is a personal philosophy I abide by.

I don't think GMs exist to serve me. I think my players deserve my continued activity and engagement, because I sold them on a promise, and in return they gave me hours upon hours of hard work. This isn't just a hobby. It's hard work, and when a GM leaves, that work is erased.

As for your RP. The GM has even more responsibility to continue. You can be chill about it, but I believe in dedication, following through on promises, not absorbing time and effort and wasting it.

 

[Risotto]

You've been working on a huge art piece on the side of a building. It's taken you almost 100 hours to complete this task, working in tandem with an artistic team. However, today your team lead decided to pour black paint over the entire thing. That's what it means when a GM quits.

I don't see how that's a fair comparison. I mean, what exactly is stopping a group from just continuing when their GM leaves?

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

3. Is personal responsibility really this dead? As a GM I can't disagree more. I sold everyone on a promise of a long, lively RP. They answered that promise with hours upon hours of hard work, planning, plotting, OOC discussion, emotional investment and lore building. It is so messed up to destroy that because "I'm not having fun." As the GM I can always tweak things to be more fun. There's no excuse.

Maybe I've joined bad rps, and I'm asking this honestly, but how many players are really spending hundreds of hours on a single roleplay? Plotting often seems to be pretty superficial from what I've seen, and at least half the time you can hear crickets in the OOC thread or Discord server. Writing a post can take a while, especially if the group is fond of large word counts, but from my experience, it seems rare that players put a lot more time in a roleplay than just responding.

 

[Jet]

Maybe I've joined bad rps, and I'm asking this honestly, but how many players are really spending hundreds of hours on a single roleplay? Plotting often seems to be pretty superficial from what I've seen, and at least half the time you can hear crickets in the OOC thread or Discord server. Writing a post can take a while, especially if the group is fond of large word counts, but from my experience, it seems rare that players put a lot more time in a roleplay than just responding.

The last RP I made went for 18 months and had over 300K words. We had enough writing to make a novel.

Imagine if I just said "ehhhh I'm bored" and closed shop? How is that morally acceptable?

Risotto

True in theory, but I've never seen this happen, and I've seen many GMs quit. It's a bullet to the head.

 

[Lorsh]

 

[Risotto]

Risotto

True in theory, but I've never seen this happen, and I've seen many GMs quit. It's a bullet to the head.

Sounds like that is on as much on you and the rest of the players then.

 

[Jet]

I don't see how that's a fair comparison. I mean, what exactly is stopping a group from just continuing when their GM leaves?

Sounds like that is on as much on you and the rest of the players then.

New leaders were selected, but any and all passion and energy leaves the RP. Just get back to me when you've been in a dozen RPs abandoned by their GMs.

 

[Pretty Little Creature]

This is why I enjoy the idea of role-playing over discord, so you have financial sway with boosting or a server where you can contribute financially because it solidifies responsibility and expectation. Yet, on the other hand. If I do something in my free time, I expect others to be responsible for keeping things going; it's a two-way street. It is not just the gm but the team if they are not contributing; that's a transparency or communication issue. I think the Gm should just be lightly guiding the ship.
I have also learned how to become emotionally invested in stories and plot off role play. You know, I just write on my own. That helps too. My creativity doesn't just rely on someone's response. Your creativity and time aren't wasted that way, and extra work for possible future role plays.
Also, you Gm anything at all? That could be a solution as well. You know you can always make your own role plays and avoid this frustration all together

 

[Beckoncall]

I love GMing -- but only maybe 1:2 of my roleplays comes to a successful conclusion. (maybe more, but I haven't been keeping track.)
Sometimes the light that carries on an RP dies, or more likely it sags under it's own weight -- in the GM, in the players, or a mix of both. I'm usually eager to start another project even if another one dies out.
RPs can just be hit or miss sometimes -- but I can testify that many of my players really like them. Even if sometimes they suddenly die.
The longest RP I GMed lasted THREE YEARS --- "Flight from Muurdaan" -- so sometimes things really click and carry on -- but even then I took breaks now and then.
I'd encourage GMs to take breaks ... like shows have "seasons" -- before abandoning their RPs... but sometimes it's not possible.
What kind of Group RPs do y'all like? Maybe I can cook one up that won't collapse (or maybe it will?)

I'm presently running a 40k Tau RP on RPN called "Progress as Tau Shall", but will likely have other irons in the fire soon enough.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

The last RP I made went for 18 months and had over 300K words. We had enough writing to make a novel.

Imagine if I just said "ehhhh I'm bored" and closed shop? How is that morally acceptable?

I support your idea that dropping a roleplay should not be a decision made lightly - by a GM or a player, really - but people and life change in 6+ months. Maybe the foundational premise has become dull. Maybe they have tried to rediscover the spark but nothing is really working. Maybe the GM has realized they don't like most of the characters, and maybe they've tried to encourage development only for that to just kinda fall flat. And again, maybe the GM's life has changed to where they have new responsibilities and no longer have the time to run a roleplay like they once did.

Might I be disappointed if a roleplay I really liked ended before I was ready for it to? Sure, but I'm not going to scorn the GM, and like others have said, I wouldn't want someone to continue something they're really not feeling, because eventually it does reflect in the quality of their outputs. I don't see shackling someone to a project as being any more morally acceptable. It just seems to me like the other extreme.

 

[Pretty Little Creature]

I second, third and fourth not scoring gms. I have had role plays last for years before, but nothing came out of guilting players or mods. that is a quick way to lose people if you have a holier-than-thou expectation. Unless you're being paid you kind of have to live with what you get and learn to manage disappointment a bit better

 

[Jet]

I second , third and fourth not scoring gms. I have had role plays last for years before but nothing came out of guilting players or mods. that is a quick way to lose people if you have a holier than thou expectation. unless your being paid you kind of have to live with what you get and learn to manage disappointment a bit better

I've mentioned many times that I'm usually a GM. I'm explaining the standards I hold myself to, because I respect and value the work and time others dedicate to my project.

A Sparkling Zombie

Boredom is such a bad reason to squander the work of your members. Since when did we ignore personal responsibility and commitments? You've made a commitment and promise to people. You should soldier on through hard times, be creative enough to find enjoyment, and respect the promise you made to people. This, once again, is coming from a GM, not a player.

This whole thread stinks to high heaven imo. It's wild how popular it is to treat RPs as throwaway projects, tossed aside when things are boring. Yes there will be times when your scene is ass. When you're uninterested and drained. When you don't want to write with certain partners or continue a plot.

That's the hard part. Staying dedicated even when things are tough. It's no different than a relationship or consistently hitting the gym. You need to be disciplined, not filled with temporary motivation or a craving you want to scratch.

If you think temporary boredom means you can torch hundreds of hours of work, you shouldn't be a GM. Being a GM is an act of service, not personal gratification. The players aren't there to grant you a good time. It's exactly the opposite.

Seems people have it backwards. Explains why 95% of RPs only last a few weeks.

A Sparkling Zombie

Further edit. I don't hold members to the same standard. I've had many people leave my RPs and it doesn't bother me, because it doesn't destroy anyone's work. It doesn’t ruin anything for anyone. If it doesn't harm anyone, how can I judge it negatively?

My underlying point is this. GMs have a responsibility not to harm, devalue or destroy their users' work. If you quit your own project, you're certainly harming & devaluing it. Therefore, your personal enjoyment, boredom, stress etc, must be weighed against the member's collected work. In most cases, the GM is found wanting in that regard, yet they leave anyway.

I find that annoying and I think GMs need to be held to a higher standard. You are not just a hobbiest having dumb, mindless fun. You are the curator of many narratives and plotlines, characters and plans. If you leave, you destroy those things. I don't understand why that is an unpopular opinion.

 

[Idea]

If you think temporary boredom means you can torch hundreds of hours of work, you shouldn't be a GM. Being a GM is an act of service, not personal gratification. The players aren't there to grant you a good time. It's exactly the opposite.

Uh, no. GMing isn't an act of service. GMing is a bigger responsibility than being a player, yes, and a bigger commitment, but neither players nor GMs are in the RP for the other's sake. Nor should they. They are there to work together, to build something together, and to have fun together. Yes the point is that everyone gets to enjoy the experience, be it for the matter of fun or accomplishment or whatever personal reason that might be, and it just so happens in this particular structure one given member may have higher authority and responsibility for the collective project, but ultimately people are in projects for their own interests and not as some kind of sacrifice. It's not the players being there for the GM's sake, nor vice versa, it's everyone being there, working together, for their own sakes.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

Being a GM is an act of service, not personal gratification. The players aren't there to grant you a good time. It's exactly the opposite.

Eh, I feel like it's 75-25. I'm not going to fault a GM for quitting if they dread most of what their players output, especially if they've tried to nudge players into performing differently. I feel like that tends to turn sour after a while, and then no one is having fun.

I didn't see Beckoncall's advice on taking a break before I posted and I think that is pretty sound.

I agree with your general idea Jet. I just don't take it to the same extent or feel as strongly about it if I experience a GM quitting.


Maybe a GM support board could help some people?

 

[Jet]

Uh, no. GMing isn't an act of service. GMing is a bigger responsibility than being a player, yes, and a bigger commitment, but neither players nor GMs are in the RP for the other's sake. Nor should they. They are there to work together, to build something together, and to have fun together. Yes the point is that everyone gets to enjoy the experience, be it for the matter of fun or accomplishment or whatever personal reason that might be, and it just so happens in this particular structure one given member may have higher authority and responsibility for the collective project, but ultimately people are in projects for their own interests and not as some kind of sacrifice. It's not the players being there for the GM's sake, nor vice versa, it's everyone being there, working together, for their own sakes.

Yikes.

GMs are there to make RPs fun and engaging for their members. Imagine saying game devs aren't there to make their game fun for players...

This is, again, coming from a person who GMs more often than I join.

Also I never said sacrifice. I said service.

GMs are in a privileged position. We have a whole group of people writing in our worlds, reading our lore, investing in our creation. The least we can do is prioritize the fun & creativity of our members, which makes it a service position.

These are all opinions at the end of the day, but I think you've got things backwards.

A Sparkling Zombie

I agree that GMs can suffer in the way you describe, but much of that is self inflicted. Why start an RP with writers they haven't vetted? Why sit idly as people make ill fitting characters they hate? Why start the RP if the group is obviously trash to be around & write with? And how, when they have complete creative control, are they getting zero enjoyment from the project?

I feel like these things come from poor decision making, aka the GM screwed up somewhere. They didn't do their job properly and instead of taking accountability, by recruiting new members perhaps, they nix the entire RP and ride off into the sunset.

I know I'm an extremist. I tend to have very strict, stoic moral sensibilities, so I understand why you don't agree with me. However I'm not speaking gibberish either.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

Why start an RP with writers they haven't vetted?

I do think there is a bad trend on RPN where a lot of GMs seem to blindly accept whoever first joins their games, or at least that's how it seems to me when they allow anyone to post to the character thread without prior discussion.

I don't think reviewing players beforehand is foolproof though. Just like a job interview, a person can seem pretty solid and then turn out to be subpar when it's time to do the actual work.

 

[Risotto]

New leaders were selected, but any and all passion and energy leaves the RP.

I mean no offense, but if you're fully capable of continuing the rp but it still dies, you can't entirely blame the GM.

If people wanted to continue the rp, they'd continue the rp.

Don't get me wrong, the GM leaving their roleplay sucks. And I'm not advocating that a GM drop everything and close down shop the second they get bored.


But at the end of the day, it's a hobby. And if people don't enjoy doing it in the long run, you can't expect them to continue doing it. Treating GMing as a second job isn't healthy, regardless if you're a player or GM.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

But then again, I guess something is wrong if the GM feels that way about most of their players after reviewing them, so never mind, lol.

 

[Idea]

Yikes.

GMs are there to make RPs fun and engaging for their members. Imagine saying game devs aren't there to make their game fun for players...

GMs are in a privileged position. We have a whole group of people writing in our worlds, reading our lore, investing in our creation. The least we can do is prioritize the fun & creativity of our members, which makes it a service position.

Fun fact: Game devs are paid to make games fun for players. Sure some indie developers maybe just want to develop a game for free for people to enjoy, but even those are doing so because they want to create the game or they want the fame or the praise, or some similar motivation. But I don't think one can reasonably told that someone who is paid to make a game fun has an obligation to continue doing so if their pay is suddenly cut. Someone who's developing a free game for the fame or praise doesn't have any obligation to whatever few fans they have if the game is really obscure or if 99% of the feedback is from trolls trying to put them down.

It's not that GMs shouldn't focus on trying to make the games fun and engaging for their players, but if this comes at the expense of their own goals in doing so it becomes a pointless exercise that will inevitably become a mess for everyone involved. What does it matter if people are writing in your world, reading your lore, investing in your creation... If you yourself are not enjoying the fact they are doing that? If anything at that point it can become intrusive, someone writing themselves into your work despite this bringing you nothing.

Of the many reasons to RP, none of them is "to make the world a better place", "for charity", "to bring a positive contribution to society/the world" or any similarly selfess reasons. People have personal reasons to RP. People have personal reasons to GM. That much isn't the "should" or "shouldn't" things be a certain way, but the practical reality of why we do these things. Of course, one might say "even if our motives in practice are different from a selfless motivation, we should take a selfless approach", but this shouldn't just be assumed. The reason why things ought to be different from what they are, and more importantly in what way, is something which must be justified.

My point isn't the GMs should prioritize themselves over the group, but that the group doesn't get priority over them either. The idea of reciprocity doesn't apply where one side's contributions aren't actually helpful to the other side. If some high-nose artist came around and made a sculpture of himself in the middle of the street thinking it was a great contribution to it, no one else is obligated to do anything for him just because he had good intentions and genuinely put in the effort. But if the artist doesn't care about the town, but the town would actually thinking a sculpture from that artists would really help them, then even in serving their own interests they would work together, likely in such scenario by one sculpting and the others paying. If the people didn't pay or if the artist didn't sculpt, then the only obligations would be to the work done that far, and that all parties had initially set in place ways to attempt to ensure they would hold their end of the deal.

Also I never said sacrifice. I said service.

I never said you did. But it was the most suited word for highlighting my objection. The obligation exists because of the benefit to the GM not in its absence. In your words a GM should give their players "a good time" in the interest of themselves having "a good time". Neither is there for the other's sake.