You had me completely up until: "Likewise, the Silent Heaven community exists as a way for players to heal from issues that may be affecting themselves and others. We all need therapy, but not everyone can afford it. By fostering a safe space to explore sensitive issues, we can help each other, and have fun in the process by dipping our toes into some psychological horror."

And then you lost me completely.

Please, do not do this. This isn't snark or MSB slamming, but professional concern from a mental health professional. Please do not set vulnerable people up to think that a game, a HORROR game, is going to be a stand in for therapy. It is not a safe space to explore genuine psychological trauma, it cannot be made to be a safe space without a lot more pre-assessment than any game is going to want to do, more professional support than any game has, and it is not fair nor safe to put other players in the position of supporting other players' unknown mental traumas.

This is a recipe for disaster that can do actual harm to actual people. People should seek out qualified, professional help for their trauma, and seek out games with internet strangers for entertainment and creative outlets only.

So, I've been hankering for a very specific sort of game for a very long time, and finally got around to writing down some information. Now that Ares is out, I actually think that (with some tweaks) the kind of play that Ares promotes might be a good fit for what I want from the game. It's not something that I'd ever expect to have a broad appeal: it's SF, but not hard SF with reams and reams of specialized equipment, but rather a focus on colonization and discovery, with some light sim elements (in that building the colony is a tentpole of the gameplay, and the colony has stats which can be impacted by events, which in turn impact other events, and it is entirely possible for the colony to fail and pretty much everyone to die...although that's not LIKELY. But it is possible) and some creative elements (in that players will have a hand in creating flora and fauna as it's discovered) and some survival elements (diseases are a thing, requiring food supplies is a thing, environmental hazards are a thing, etc.).

So, after writing far too much on it, I thought why not toss some of it out and see what other people think. It's definitely a niche project, but feedback is appreciated. I'll start with just the premise and 'who the characters are' and 'what do they do' broad strokes, but I can elaborate on most anything if people are interested.

Premise

All characters are crew and cargo of the colony ship Excelsior, which was bound for an officially chartered planet on the edge of explored space. Instead, after an unknown disaster in transit, the ship’s automated systems have crash-landed the vessel on an entirely unknown planet, outside of the known systems. Excelsior, once grounded, was never meant to take off again, and as the planet proves not immediately inimical to human life, the ship initiates colonization protocols, and its crew and cargo awaken.

What Do Characters Do?

There are three ‘core’ aspects of play on Excelsior, which will be facilitated and supported by staff:

Survival: The planet that the Excelsior has landed on is entirely unprepared for human colonization, and none of the scouting logs and readings in the ship’s databanks are relevant to it. Discovering and surviving the dangers is a key aspect of game play - there will be environmental hazards, predators, diseases, and unknown factors to discover, survive, and overcome. This aspect of play encourages and primarily engages scientific and exploration based characters.

Civilization Building: Each colonist and crew member was issued a specific plot of land with specific resources and rights - none of which are valid anymore. The agreed upon Charter for the creation of a probationary colonial government could, arguably, also no longer be valid. Determining how to set up the new government, how to honor (or not honor) the land grants, and other social and organizational issues is an ongoing source of conflict and negotiation, especially between factions who had originally planned to be separated from each other, but now must rely on others for survival in an unregimented environment. This aspect of play encourages and primarily engages diplomatic and social based characters.

Mysteries: The planet and vessel offer mysteries based in the past, and uncovered in the present. One of the biggest questions to resolve in the beginning is - how did the Excelsior get so badly off-course, and then choose to crash land on a planet that happened to be habitable by humanity? Was it truly an accident? And if it wasn’t, what was the purpose and - more importantly - are the perpetrators still in the colony and planning further disruptions? However, as the world is explored, further mysteries are uncovered with ruins and signs of ancient alien civilizations, as well as technology of unknown purpose and operation. This aspect of play encourages and primarily engages investigative and intellectual based characters.

Who Are The Characters?

Human: There are no playable alien races in Excelsior. Humanity has come in contact with a few alien species, but the level of integration is minimal.

Factions: The original colony plan had several organizational charters, as well as numerous independent settlers. The organizational charters provide starting factions, although it is expected that characters can create new ones or dissolve old ones as the game progresses.

Excelsior Crew: Excelsior’s crew were originally meant to serve as an immediate provisional government, and have been trained to work together, as well as having a hierarchy headed by the Captain, then the Executive Officer, three Division Heads (Engineering, Astrogation, and Internal Systems), and a Colonial Manager.

Solip Schism Services: Employees and executives of a megacorp who were chartered a significant amount of land and mineral resource rights in EUX-065’s southern continent. SSS specializes in resource extraction, processing, and shipment.

Xenoecology Unlimited: Researchers and administrators associated with a system-spanning nonprofit organization charged with attempting to catalog and preserve examples of all known life. Since every new planet is teeming with undiscovered flora and fauna, it is accepted that the fieldwork is a life appointment.

Interstellar Protectors: Members of a private security firm who were contracted by the colony to provide law enforcement and protection for the first five years of the colony, until native systems could be developed and filled. IP has a policing division and a quasi-military division.

The Navidison Initiative: A colonist collective who agreed in their organizational charter to abide by the teachings of Ophelia Navidison, a psychologist and theologian who preached genetic integration between human and environment; most members of TNI have genetic enhancements meant to aid them in adaptation with their chosen homeworld. This is not their chosen homeworld.

Independents: In addition to the orgs, there are thousands of colonists who gathered the money to pay for their own charter, and who may come from a wide variety of backgrounds, skills, and affiliations.

Colonists: All characters are colonists from the Excelsior. There are no natives or native humans on the planet, nor will there be any additional drops or contact with the wider civilization of humanity in the initial stages (and possibly not ever). New characters may either be freshly unthawed from the colony banks, or they can have been in the background and ‘emerge’ as main characters, but no non-Excelsior origins are accepted.

Whatever else one feels about rules and whatever?

The correct answer as staff to, "Someone is stalking me, I'm pretty sure they're on the game, and I'm afraid."

Is never, "Your out of game interpersonal relationships aren't my problem."

Not as someone running a game, and not as just a decent human being who cares about other people. Is it difficult to navigate the line of how much OOG info a staff member needs or wants to have? Absolutely. No one sane wants to put staff in the position of arbitrating whether people are being nice to one another on Discord, or trying to make sure that players only ever interact with players they like. In some cases, you just have to suck up that you might be playing with people you don't personally like. That is a qualitatively different situation from allowing someone to stay on a game who is abusing or harassing another player, even if that abuse or harassment is happening outside the game.

Is it a sticky question? Absolutely. Are there reasons why a player can be legitimately uncomfortable existing on the same game as another player that do not warrant removing the latter player? Yep. Is it a pain in the ass to navigate where that line is as a GM? Absolutely. Will GMs get it wrong? Most of them will at least once. It's hard.

Because it's something that requires sensitivity, judgment, and discretion. And as a player, I want to see that GMs have all of that, and aren't going to fall back on mindless, "But we have a RULE," like a 'code is law' cryptobro.

@Ghost said in Cyberrun:

@surreality said in Cyberrun:

what sort of website would someone want PenDes to have?

When I wrote this I was directly alluding to the fact that an online gaming site wouldn't want to advertise 'online simulated pedophilia' because then it would fall onto the radar of watchdog groups and investigators. Of course they wouldn't have a website. Best keep the haven of pedophilia RP a hush hush underground club.

If only these pedophiles were also slut shamers, right? They'd be in trouble, then.

Hahaha...no.

First of all, there is a whole lot of 'online simulated child molestation/sex/rape' available on the internet, indexed and accessible to anyone who wants it. Why? Because it's not illegal in most countries. Because no actual children are harmed. Because much like the murder of simulated people, nobody in law gives a fuck about the molestation of simulated children. Because those children don't exist, and weirdly enough, in crimes that actually matters.

Because there are far, far more actual kids getting actually raped and trafficked than child welfare or law enforcement can even close to keep up with, and the last thing they need is some idiot pearlclutching chucklefucks cluttering up their already horrific and overloaded dockets trying to report consensual fake sex between adults because it's icky.

Please be aware that anyone who harasses law enforcement to try and get them to investigate text sex games is someone who is taking up time those investigators can be using to investigate actual crimes, hurting actual kids, involving actual child rapists. No one involved in child welfare is going to thank you for taking their time away from laying the groundwork necessary to get a kid away from their stepfather, or to shut down a child trafficking ring, in order to investigate forty year olds who like to call each other Daddy and Baby Girl while pretend-fucking.

People enjoy fantasizing about taboo shit. It does not, at all, mean they want to do taboo shit in real life - in fact, that's the appeal of the taboo, whatever that taboo is. Just...don't play the damned game. It looks like it's set up where you literally never have to think about the icky sex other people are pretending to have.

I'll say:

I've been in gaming for over 20 years, and I've been GMing for a lot of that time. I've dealt with problem players and disruptive players, and plain icky players (like the guy who came to his first session and wanted to have me narrate him raping NPCs when I was a 16 year old girl - this was also his last session).

And I've never really had problems with 'sensitivity'. I've run some absolutely horrific scenes, too. One of my favorites was an series of events that led to a PC having to talk other PCs through cutting his arm off. Even on MU*s, I find that just taking a moment when you're pitching a plot to people to ask what they don't find fun, or if there's anything that they particular do not want to engage with right up front by itself cuts out 90% of problems.

You don't have to aim for 'not offending anyone', because you're never GMing for EVERYONE. But I feel like you should try to respect your actual players as people, and that's all I try to do. I don't want my players to have a bad time - and I don't want to game with people who enshrine 'telling their story' over people having a good time together. I always ask for feedback after running a scene, because that's good GMing. I want to make sure people had fun, I want to know what worked, I want to know what didn't work.

It's not particularly burdensome, because the outcome is something that I very much WANT: I want people to have fun playing in the world I make, or the plot I run. I want all sorts of people to have fun doing that - not everyone, because nothing's going to be for EVERYONE. But for as wide an audience as is appropriate for what I'm doing, and is feasible.

It's not even about 'empathy', primarily. I don't consider a game successful for myself as a GM unless everyone walks away having had a good time. Doesn't mean a perfect game. But if there's something that has actively worked against 'having fun' I want to know about it - for MY sake as much as anyone else. I want to be a good GM. Which means understanding what you're putting out there, and how it's landing. And when it's not landing.

My cynical suspicion, after Arx, is that I'd give it three months before the Chancellor's daughter is married to the head of the Black Raven in a huge public ceremony attended with pride by the city's finest humans, and several of the pixie prostitutes are given mansions in the Square by their human True Loves.

Can I, in all seriousness, suggest reaching out to a professional therapist about getting help for your struggles? Because you're not handling it well, and it's not a game's job, or the staff's job, or any other person's job, to give you your 'really big step forward'. Take a break, get some help recognizing and working on social situations, then come back to games when you've got some strategies that you can practice.

@L-B-Heuschkel To some extent, there are several different issues:

1. People who use "have some ooc/ic separation" to be dicks in a way that would STILL BE A DICK even if we were sitting around playing cards or a board game. Like, rubbing someone's face in a loss, targeting another player to ruin their experience, mocking how someone plays - being upset about these things says nothing about one's ic/ooc separation, and trying to hide behind "oh, you just don't have good boundaries" is dumb. Bad sportsmanship is the center of it.

2. People who use "everyone gets attached to characters" to be dicks in a way that is manipulative and creepy, and yeah, would still be a dick if you were playing, idk, Warhammer tabletop or something, and decided that your faction was objectively the best and threw temper tantrums whenever you lost. They use their "attachment" to demand, overtly or covertly, that the game and other players conform to that attachment - I think my character is awesome, so I demand that you treat him/her like they're awesome, or my heart will break and it's all your fault.

These top two categories are 'bad actors', and the only thing that's really to be done about them is to refuse to indulge it either way, or argue with them, and ideally, uninvite them from games.

3. People who have legitimate problems separating IC and OOC events, whether on a chronic basis, or because there's some real life stress and they're hoping to use the IC world as an escapist fantasy. This, I think, is almost all players at some point in time, but some players more than others.

4. People who aggressively desire to separate IC and OOC, because they enjoy the freedom of the game not being 'real', and thus have a tendency to treat it sometimes very much as a 'game' even when their characters would/should take things more seriously, and thus have a tendency to be disruptive, provocative, dismissive, etc. Like 3, some people are like that all the time, to some degree, but almost everyone gets like this /sometimes/ in some circumstances.

These two categories, generally, are actors in good faith - they're pursuing their fun, and they don't intend to mess up anyone else's game, and they're not trying to make the game "their way"...but they can get on each other's nerves to a breathtaking degree, nonetheless.

For 3) I think it's important that each of us try and evaluate our attachment to IC events/characters, and recognize when stress or attachment levels are getting to a point where - intending to or not - you're in danger or ruining other people's fun, or your own! Like, it may be normal to 'feel sad' when something tragic happens to a character. But if an IC setback sends you into the pit of despair, if you cry when your character cries (and aren't the sort of person who is reduced to tears by Hallmark commercials like I am), or if your mood becomes /significantly/ linked to the success you're facing in RP? Those really are warning signs. It's probably time to take a break, either just walking away from the computer right now, or re-evaluating how much time/emotional energy you're putting into RP, and looking for other options to invest some of that. No one activity should be your primary emotional anchor, but especially not an activity that is, at its heart, about unexpected setbacks and conflicts.

For 4), I think it's also important to develop senses of emotional awareness and empathy for others' experiences. Like, sure, it's objectively no big deal if your fake character drops trou at a fancy event and moons fake people, and if you don't care that they got exiled/punished/killed for it, why should anyone? But even though that's not an event that really matters, it's still disruptive to the game, and in most games, makes a significant amount of 'unfun' labor for other players. So, even if it would be a hilarious way to go out, maybe don't. Instead, maybe think of ways, if you want to have that disruptive play experience, to bring other people into it as collaborators, instead of audience/antagonist.

@arkandel I want to have fun, and I want the players at my table to have fun. Of course I'm going to be sensitive to their needs and wants from this game we play together - I consider it the bare minimum anyone should expect of a cooperative activity.

Now, a big part of that is communication, and the recognition that sometimes, some people just aren't going to fit well in the same group. The players I play hardcore horror with are a different group than I play light-hearted fantasy adventure with. If something comes up that someone finds unexpectedly icky or unpleasant, then we talk about it. If someone discovers that our desires or styles are just not working, then that's not saying that either one of us are bad, but maybe we don't play the same games, or at least not games the other person is GMing. But part of that is being very open about people being able to bring their discomfort to you and knowing that you aren't going to get angry, or mock them, or try and 'reason them out of it'.

I don't have a lot of squicks in gaming. And I don't mind - and even enjoy - exploring a lot of 'problematic' material in games. But I don't spring those things on my players when I'm GMing without giving a heads up either in the beginning-of-campaign organization, or right before a scene (I particularly do that with descriptions of gore/trauma - just say, hey, does anyone have any issues with X, and then work from there), and if we unexpectedly hit something that a player didn't realize was going to affect them, then we...talk about it like adults and tweak things so that the game is still enjoyable to everyone at the table.

It is not going to ruin a game for a player to say, "Hey, I'm not going to enjoy the game if X is included." I'd much rather tweak a game to not include X, or make sure that the player knows this particular game isn't going to be for them, than have a player miserable at the table but feeling pressured to go along with it.

EDIT: Also, wow, that video is so full of shit, filled with dishonest cherry picking and white boy flailing about how using the pronouns someone prefers is JUST TOO HAAAAAAARD.

@saosmash Don't you know that there are a finite number of games in the world, so no one's allowed to create too many? And, obviously, it doesn't matter how many people have fun playing a particular game - if that game doesn't last for five years, then it must be a failure.

More seriously - @Cobaltasaurus does good design work, comes up with interesting settings and is willing to take risks on games that aren't a sure bet to get fifty log-ins a night. Sometimes that means that they don't catch on (and I hate every single one of you for not playing on the angel game, because I fucking loved that game), but MOST games don't catch on, or they have a brief honeymoon period and fall off into obscurity. That's just how the hobby goes. I, for one, am damned happy that she's willing to take chances on things people didn't think would succeed - single sphere Changeling games, FAE games, Witchcraft games, etc. because I think that each of those games contributed something to the hobby, both in way of fun for people playing, and in the way of code, ideas, inspirations.

There's nothing wrong with any of that.

Mechanically, I like when different character types can receive a variety of inherent features. I'm not as much into straight bonuses/penalties to stats - I feel like that's the most boring way to distinguish two different species. But things like, if we're doing D&D, darkvision? That's pretty cool. I liked the way 4E and 13th Age gave different races different ABILITIES - if you had the blood of dragons, you got a breath weapon. Fae got teleports. Etc. Things that could be adapted to a number of classes in different ways, rather than just being +2 to a stat (although they did that, too). I also like the way 13th Age gave each race AND each class a choice between two different stat bumps, so you could have almost any race/class combo without feeling like you were selling yourself short, mechanically.

Outside of mechanics, I enjoy being able to engage with concepts of prejudice and discrimination without necessarily having to bring 'real world' sexism or racism into a game; it gives it a little bit of distance, and sometimes it's fun to engage with a fight that isn't a fight you're in every day of your life. But settings without those factors are also good; I think it really comes down to what a particular group of players are comfortable with. That said, these days I have no love for 'always evil' races outside of the cosmic (demons, etc.); most of the time, it's just lazy.

@arkandel That last paragraph is a key piece, I think. I've definitely had the thought of "Why am I bothering to buy these social/intellectual skills or stats, when I know that I'll never get to roll them to do anything, anyway, without someone screaming 'social skills are not mind control' at me? Why not just stack up on combat skills and recognize that my character will always only be as effective as other people and the GM want them to be in the social arena, no matter what skills or abilities they supposedly have."

And then I go ahead and buy the social skills anyway, because I carry the tiny hope in my heart that somehow, someway, this game will be different.

@seraphim73 said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

I enjoy playing characters with large dice pools. Some of this is because I love posing people doing awesome things, and some of it is because I have to make up for my generally horrid dice luck. But as long as my character is within the same range as other PCs at what they're supposed to be good at, that's plenty good for me. Because posing utter incompetence can be entertaining too, as long as you know that's what you're in for.

As I've gotten older, this is one reason I've become more and more a fan of systems with some sort of metacurrency that lets you counter dice luck when it REALLY matters. Hero points, Fate points, Luck, whatever. There's nothing more frustrating than finally getting a chance to shine in your character's area of expertise only to roll a gigantic pool of NOTHING, or a Nat 1, or whatever outcome represents embarrassing failure.

And honestly, that's more a MU* thing. In a tabletop, I know that I'll get more chances to let my character shine. But in a MU* with a lot more players and a lot less attention to go around, there might be months between chances to Do My Thing, and of course all anyone's going to remember about my character from now on is that they Botched That Thing.

Wanting to have a character who is really good at the thing that you want them to be good at isn't wrong. But both systems and playstyles mean that having a character that is too optimized (either to 'do all the things' or so focused on a single scenario that they can do nothing else) tends to create some problems, in my experience. Some have already been mentioned, but also:

1. The player doesn't have fun when their character is outside of their 'niche', and torpedoes the 'nonfun' scene to get quickly to whatever it is their character is good at. ("Court is boring, so my barbarian punches the King.") Or they just tune out, which can be almost as bad, if it's a small tabletop group.

2. Other players start to tune out when the MinMax character does THEIR thing, because they feel like they have nothing to contribute to the situation. Ideally, in my opinion, every RP scene should have something for every PC to do (whether they choose to DO IT or not is up to them).

I believe in niche protection - I think every PC should have something to contribute to a group or game that other PCs can't easily replace. But with a group of minmaxers, that can be taken to too much an extreme where you're almost running four separate campaigns, where only one player is engaged at a time. Some systems almost demanded this (Early Shadowrun, particularly, had the game everyone else was playing, and then the game the Decker was playing), while others incentivize it (especially systems that tend to set difficulty levels for tasks high, and have high penalties for failing for tasks), so it's not something I tend to blame on players.

A lot of us have been trained to make the most maximized character we can have. And in MU*s, I notice this is promoted by people who ask for/demand a certain skill level before even letting you into a plot or giving you RP. Hell, even on ARES, with F3S - which is NOT a particularly 'high threshold' system - I've had to shut someone down because they wanted to find the mechanically "best" person to take on a plot scene, rather than base it on RP factors.

@alamias said in The Work Thread:

Lost my job today...while I was on vacation. Called me to tell me, wheefun.

Anyone know of need for a react front end developer?

Wow, that's a major dick move. I'm sorry.

@jennkryst said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

So WotC has lied about this too many times before for me to be 100% on-board. BUT.

Spelljammer confirmed?

Oh man. That would be delightful.

@betternow I'm...pretty forgiving with everyone I play with when it comes to actual play. I'm not interested in judging people's GMing or playing ability, and I try to come into every scene with an attitude of 'I'm going to have fun here'.

Does it always work? No. But it's usually because of OOC incivility or behaving in a way that suggests that the other player doesn't care about me being a human being who's just here to have fun (or even see me as a person).

So, yeah, I'm happy to forgive Random Player X when they run something that isn't brilliant, so long as they tried give everyone the opportunity to have fun.

I don't need to play against a grandmaster to enjoy chess. I just need someone to know how to move the pieces in the right directions, and not be a dick about how the game turns out. That's where I keep my expectations, and I end up enjoying a lot more scenes than I don't.

@bear_necessities said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

@arkandel said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

The problem with that is exactly what you'd expect. It's not coming up with the concept that's the blocker. Most people can cook up a "my dog was kidnapped by a goblin, get her back!" questline, WoW-style.
It's running it. That takes more time, effort, following up.

I think that about sums it up. Having the tools available (bingo cards, random plot generators, actual dungeons they can crawl) is great and I think it can be helpful but I don't think it makes an actual noticeable difference to the players who are willing to run scenes on their own. I would actually say that the people who would use those tools are already the people who would run small one-off scenes without them.

Yeah. I think this is where support comes in. @Devrex 's suggestion about having staff partnering with potential runners, working through mechanics with them, or being on hand to provide pinch hitting support (whether it's running a specific NPC, or what.)

Which is also an idea. When I played on a private pick up sort of MU*, one of the things that we did was have other players play specific NPCs for scenes. So there might only be one PC doing something important for their personal growth, but other players got to play from a stable of NPCs to be involved in that scene.

It's a 'small game' adaptation, for sure, and helpful in that it was a private MU* and so we didn't have to worry about Weird Player X having a meltdown and trying to burn the whole thing down with an NPC.

@betternow Although, I'll throw something out from the other side of it:

Matt Mercer is not a perfect GM. He is a good GM where characters and dramatic moments are concerned! But he forgets rules, misapplies them, does asspulls, drops plotlines or closes them out abruptly, etc. The players aren't perfect, either.

But they still have fun. Lots and lots of fun.

Because someone doesn't have to be a perfect GM or a perfect player to have fun playing or running. They don't even have to be very good - I've had some really fun times playing with GMs who were clearly floundering a bit both IRL and in MU*s, and I've had great scenes with other players who maybe weren't the greatest roleplayers or didn't know the rules, or weren't sure what they wanted out of the scene.

It's true that you're never going to find 20-30 people who are objectively GOOD at running scenes and who WANT to run scenes regularly all on the same game. Luckily, "good enough" is fine, and you can have a lot of fun with "good enough" as long as you remove the legitimately bad actors who make scenes unpleasant for other people (running or playing).

Although, back on the actual topic of this thread: I really want a human-focused urban fantasy game that's all about spooky shit, urban legends, horror, and being that tiny spark of light in the darkness. Set in a city, not a small town.

@zombiegenesis said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

@arkandel I agree with you on all points except one; the 'let's all' part. I can't speak for everyone but that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to find ways to encourage those who can and those who may want to try. Part of that is finding the right incentive system that doesn't ostracize those who can't or don't want to.

I really like the idea of automated prompts. Even something as simple as using an online writing prompt generator could be interesting.

This.

No one - except Derp, apparently - expects every player to be willing to make and run plots. That's an unreasonable expectation if for no other reason than these are games and not everyone finds GMing fun. Playing a game should not feel like work, and for a lot of people, GMing feels like work more than it does play.

That said, more people would probably be willing to try to run scenes (if not plots) if they got more support and guidance from games on doing so, and people could tackle the level of 'stakes' that were comfortable for them. The automated prompts and bingo cards are a good step forward - but it's a matter of encouraging and supporting players who do it, knowing that taking 'charge' of something is scary AND that their first experience might not go great because of a lot of different factors.

I.e. do not treat it like a job that is being delegated to someone, but rather treat it like the opportunity to get to introduce someone to something that is fun but stressful, and know that you're going to have to give some support along the way.

You still won't ever get to 100% comfort/interest in GMing. Probably not even 50%. Hell, I love GMing and sometimes I just...can't. Or an experience is so unpleasant that I just remember that I am not being paid for this shit, and walk away. But every single person who takes a chance with it, and has a good time is a win. Both because they did the most important thing in a game, have a good time, but also because they might be willing to do it again, one day. And again. And hell, maybe one day they feel up to doing something more complex. Maybe one day they even feel up to trying their own game.

And that would be cool. So, yeah, I'm all for trying new and/or interesting ways to get people to branch out into running things.