Conquest of the Horde

Quote:"GMs should sacrifice absolutely everything in the name of my entertainment and expect no thanks or support from the players they serve. They shouldn't be considered special, or otherwise important in any way despite the free-time they spend in the service of others."

"Well, would you ever be willing to do the job, as you describe it?"

"Oh god no, I just think other people should be required to do it, or else step down immediately so the responsibility can fall to someone else, as long as it isn't me."

"What about when that regimen inevitably drives everyone who was initially willing to do the job into the ground?"

"..."

I personally see no problem with this, if I took on the position of GM I wouldn't expect thanks or support, because no one -has- to.

1) The GMs are only human, doing their best in an unpaid volunteer position that they likely have to juggle with work and/or schooling. You may not like hearing this, but cut them some slack. They're not getting paid for this, they're not getting any sort of credentials or diploma for all their hard work.

2) Of COURSE being a GM means you get GMly powers. That would be like working at a coffeeshop and being told you have to pay full price for every cup of coffee and every pastry. Perks are necessary to balance out all the hard work and dedication of the individual.

3) Yes, favoritism happens. If you find that you just can't play unless a GM does a lot of things for you, maybe you should revise how you RP. Take some time out of game and maybe work on all-text RP in the forums or something to remind you that this is just an engine for roleplay, and the real value should come from your writing.

On the other side...

1) Yes, GMs should check profiles more. The "one-a-day" rule sounds good.

2) Yes, GMs need to come down harder on people who are writing poorly, but

3) Yes, we ALL need to calm down before we jump down people's throats about their writing.


How about Kret or someone sits down and writes out a comprehensive list of GMly duties (daily, weekly, monthly, whatever is expected in whatever time frame)? That way the players can see what kind of work these volunteers go through, and can respect the level of stress they may have. Also, the GMs will have a point of reference for what they need to do. (This sort of thing may already exist on GM-only boards, but it would be nice to show the rest of us who don't seem to think the argument that "this is an unpaid job" is valid).


... okay, so I'm flip-flopping again for a second. YES, this is a stressful thing to be a GM. I wouldn't know from first-hand experience, but I have an idea. GM burnout rate is similar to barista turnover rate at my job, and all it takes is to have more GMs/baristas/what-have-you available to work. Someone put out the idea to have different GMs every other month (two teams switching out monthly) to avoid burnout. I like this plan!





Also, as players? We are being given a FREE game with FREE help from VOLUNTEERS. It wouldn't kill us to show a little respect and thanks every now and then. We don't have to agree with or like our GMs, but we should at least understand what they go through.

Quote:1) The GMs are only human, doing their best in an unpaid volunteer position that they likely have to juggle with work and/or schooling. You may not like hearing this, but cut them some slack. They're not getting paid for this, they're not getting any sort of credentials or diploma for all their hard work.

Yes, and GMs have the option to step-down if it's too much.

There's, okay thanks for making the server better, just to say out of respect. But if it gets too much, either step down, or the players will begin to bring it up, and start to complain. What's better?

A server with 16 inactive GMs?

Or a server with 7 active GMs?


It's just that, it's a volunteer job in the end, their conscious choice. It's not our job to become all happy, and cater to their needs of 'too much' work, or whether or not they're even doing their job.

For once, Spiralin, I agree with you. Better to have a few active GMs than a lot of inactive ones.

I'm more referring more to all this crazy drama going around *points at thread*, and people trying to downplay how much hard and unpaid work these people do put into the game.

If people burn out, they can leave -- and they do. But once we get down to precious few active GMs, think about how much MORE work those few are doing -- for the same amount of drama and downplay as before.

That's true, though, I guess picking GMs for CotH must be hard since it's beginning to become so limited. I don't know, maybe the team is afraid, I truly have no idea.

I think some of this may have been taken out of context. I didn't expect to start another debate when I posted an update explaining why changes may not be immediately happening or visible.
GMs are indeed volunteers. There are some perks to being one from a player standpoint, such as not requiring normal profiles for their characters and being able to spawn normal versions of items. However, they do not have any ability to get other things like titles or prestiges willy-nilly. Not one has been able to start a prestige since it was closed, and I generally only give titles to completed prestige characters where it'd fit. The only exceptions off-hand have been a Warlord title for one of Amerason's orcs for that Barrens storyline a while back, and Doctor Mansfield even further back (because it was spur of the moment and cool). I didn't even know who the player was at the time; I saw the flagRSP and thought it uniquely fitting. However, I'm straying off-topic.
I am extremely critical of any 'unique' idea or request that any GM makes because it may not look good from a 'non-GM' point of view. Aesthetic things, like titles, I almost certainly won't do unless there's a very good reason.
That's it for now until another break. I will acknowledge that good points have been presented from various opinions, and request that any future replies acknowledge them as well.


(Posted via my phone)

Spiralin Wrote:I personally see no problem with this, if I took on the position of GM I wouldn't expect thanks or support, because no one -has- to.

... I don't know what to say to that. I really don't.

You're holding people to standards you admittedly would not hold yourself to, and then make judgements when they don't live up to it? It's not hypocrisy, it's just... Completely unreasonable.

If you have the option of making an experience more pleasant for someone who's doing you a service, wouldn't you want to? Are you really content to just keep driving people into the ground for as long as it suits your purposes and doesn't require you to actually take on responsibility? How can you justify that kind of mindset?

How will you play on CotH when you run out of people willing to take posts that say, 'you should work harder or gtfo'?

puncturedwords Wrote:2) Of COURSE being a GM means you get GMly powers. That would be like working at a coffeeshop and being told you have to pay full price for every cup of coffee and every pastry. Perks are necessary to balance out all the hard work and dedication of the individual.

This.

This is just a randomn question I'm throwing out and I doubt anyone will answer, but, how many of you have been a GM, not on a server of about 5 people, of 15 or more?

I have.

Your wording seems a little tricky there.

I was a GM on a rather big server back in the day, but it wasn't for WoW so I don't know if that would count. I did have to assist people with their problems in the game, and English wasn't the primary language there.

So from what some of us are saying... being a GM should be a second job?

It's not. Sometimes it might seem like one to the GMs, but it's not. Or rather, it shouldn't be.

I don't think we should expect them to treat it like a job. They're not being paid. And it's not like it's a volunteer process where you go 'Ohey, I want to give up RPing to be a GM'. It's not.

Look to what a GM is in DnD. They do more work than the players. They get little thanks. They get blamed if they mess up. If they point out an error to a player, there's a chance said player might be sour and get angry back at the GM. It's also built into some people's heads that the GM for DnD is a slave to the players. Or the GMs are overseers that must break everyone into order in their 'game'. It's not.

It's a cooperation between the GMs and the Players to create something grand. And if one side fails to recognize that the other side is a living person who gives up their free time to support the other and aid in this great and joyful creation... well... the shit hits the fan quickly.

Please. Respect the GMs. And don't expect them to drop everything the moment you call for them. Patience won't kill you.

Because if GMs were slaves to players, then I assure you, I would be possibly the worst GM ever for my Dark Heresy group.

I have, a couple of times. It gets a little boring, but recipients of your work who are appreciative and recognize your effort make things far nicer.

Personally, I don't see any problem with GMs getting a perk here and there. GM controls are rewards in and of themselves, for example. And not having to write profiles helps too. You can make your characters more powerful than that of the average player with no complaints. Plus, people respect you more than they would a normal player.

What I disagree on is being ambiguous about them. Why not establish what's a GM perk, and what isn't? It gets a little... odd.. seeing players and GMs disagree on what constitutes a side-benefit.

Is it just me, or have we been regurgitating the same stuff for awhile now?

And I honestly see no point in asking if people have GM'd or not, if you're interested in that maybe you should start a new thread, since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the original topic.

Terant Wrote:Actually, it's completely fair. They're acting like they HAVE to do it! They don't! Of course I'm grateful that they do it. It's a hell of a lot of work. Sometimes it's hard work. But if someone is complaining about that work, they have the right to NOT DO IT and NOT BE A GM.

"Man my job sucks. I have to go from 9 to five. Sigh."
"Quit then."
"I can't."

You're saying that anyone who has a job and complains about it doesn't have to do it. Oi. That's silly.

It has something to do, most of the people on -this- thread are throwing things around all of a sudden...yet I doubt they've ever been a GM. I'm not stupid Nostra, I know what I'm doing...which is something I'd imagine most posters in this thread...don't.

And Aph, that's...different. That kind of job is what life hinges on