praguepride:
BUT the bottom line is that while I'm perfectly willing to fund books, dice, snacks...those are things I would do for friends anyway but to pay them to be in my presence just sours the whole underlying concept, in my mind.
This is a very salient point. Money can change relationship dynamics. It doesn't
have to but it can and often does. That's especially true when you consider that there's plenty of fun to be found in the hobby - we wouldn't do it if there weren't - but everyone can have an off night. Sometimes sessions just... kind of suck.
And sucky sessions are generally just shrugged off as a part of the whole RP thing, because sometimes everyone's off their game. But if you're
paying someone to entertain you, then your expectations are likely to shift pretty dramatically in regards to what you get out of
every session you pay for. You go from messing around with friends of an evening, to actively paying for a service that, presumably, you expect to receive.
If the act of dishing out money to your GM damages the spirit of the game then I can see how it might be a
disincentive.
However, NowhereMan makes a good point:
NowhereMan:
I also payed a GM once or twice to run games that no one in our group wanted to run. Payment wasn't a lot, especially when split across all members of our group (7-ish at the time), but the game was enjoyable enough for everyone.
I can see a lot of benefit coming from this. I can't count the times that members of my old troupe would say they wanted to play this, or try out that, but nobody was actually willing to run the game. Someone (usually me) would get talked into doing it and would almost invariably find that when we were badgered into running games we, as the GMs, wouldn't enjoy it that much. And when your GM doesn't enjoy the game they're running it probably won't be running for very long.
So what about a mid-way point, a compromised incentive? Rather than offering money, offer to pay for their meal. 'If you run this game we'll pony up and pay for your lunch,' or whatever. Most people would do that for a friend anyway, if someone was short on cash, so it's less of a social pressure, but still reimburses your GM for their time and consideration in doing the job that you, the players, don't want to do.
As people get older and move apart, as well, travel distance becomes an issue. My old troupe now live scattered anywhere from an hour and a half to two and a half hours' travel from me, so joining in with them is no longer a reliable option I can pursue. Which is sad, but oh well. That's life. In circumstances where a GM has spent a significant amount of money on travelling to the group, whether they're running a game that nobody else wants to or not, I think it's reasonable in most circumstances for the group to put money toward their travel costs.