2 Comments

I do think more groups should delegate "meeting manager" responsibilities differently. For instance, I see use in designating a non-GM player as the time tracker, reminding the table when to take breaks and when it's near the end of the session.

At the same time, I understand why the GM has traditionally been the assumed meeting manager. While a game can go on with one non-GM player, it can get very awkward if the GM doesn't show up to a pre-scheduled session. If the GM weren't the organizer, the thinking goes that the GM might not be as invested in showing up and nudging other players to show.

The solution may involve a group having plans for if the GM doesn't show, such as having an alternative game and players who are willing to assume GM duties. This is a departure of the assumed default model that RPG groups come together for one game only, and I wonder if more groups would benefit from departing from that model.

Expand full comment
author

Sorry, missed this last week! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I agree that a lot of meeting manager type work can get distributed through play culture. I play with the Gauntlet a lot and it's very common for players to do some of that stuff, especially calling for breaks and thinking about how much time is left and so on.

Yeah, a GM not showing up without mentioning before hand but that's really a bigger issue. A GM being able to cancel well in advance (which is a basic expectation) would solve that issue. Worst comes to worst, if they do cancel last minute, players can play a game without the GM (could be a boardgame if face to face) or just cancel the session (if online, this isn't so bad, don't have to drive home).

Expand full comment