So, now that plots are happening more I wanted to find out what everyone thought was fair for karma distribution to GMs?  For players I think we are hammering it out pretty quickly.  4-6 karma per run, as per the book, and less or more than that should the situation be exceptional.  For GMs however, there still seems to be a wide variation.

Two things have to happen for players to get appropriately rewarded for a plot.  1) An agreement amongst the players on how much karma should be given the GM, and 2) One person to give the karma.  Without both of these things we risk setting the standard at overcompensating for running or undercompensating and I'd like to see neither.

The general guideline I'm developing for myself to reward a GM follows:
If they participate, +50% of what the plot is worth goes to them for running.  They are being compensated with both nuyen as well as karma, but should get a little extra for doing the run.
If they do not participate, +100% of what the plot is worth.  Seeing as karma is all they are getting for such hard work.

Pretty simple, huh?  I think if you really really liked the GM you add on another 50%, if you thought the run didn't go so smoothly you subtract 25%.   For example:

A decent run where the GM had a say: 4 karma given to players. 6 karma to GM.
Same without GM playing:  4 karma given to players, 8 to GM.
Apply modifiers for good or bad running and you have a range for the GM of 4-10 karma for all scenarios.

Anyone else have any ideas? Or want to work with me to develop this guideline.  The second part will mostly happen in a plot, we all need to decide who's going to give karma for a plot, and have only that one person give it.

The 150% would be the only karma the GM gets, right?  They wouldn't reward themselves the full karma value of the plot, then get 150% reward from the player.  That would be insane.

There's also a problem with having a rigid structure for karma awards: it gives the GM an incentive to inflate karma.  A GM who gets nothing has incentive to give a fair amount, whether that's a lot or a little.  A GM who gets rewarded based on how much he gives, well that GM is always going to give more, isn't he?  I'm not even talking about cheating, even fair minded people who don't want to give themselves special treatment will find themselves giving more, probably.

So, I don't think there should be a standard amount.  Players should give the GM what they think the plot was worth, regardless of how much the GM gave them.  If we have that quid pro quo, it's going to encourage a karma bonanza that quickly goes out of control.

I do agree with NES that there should be agreement between the players, though.  The players should page each other, decide how much to give, and then one person should award it.  Otherwise, we have the possibility that the GM gets way too much or way too little.  If everyone gives the GM 4 simply because they don't communicate with each other, the GM might end up with 24 karma for a standard run.  Or if some people forget to give anything, a GM might end up with 2 karma for a substantial run.  So communication is vital.

I think that NES' numbers aren't terribly off base, but we just don't want to have an explicit agreement where the GM gets a calculated amount based on what she gives.

I think players should give the GM what they think best. But why should the GM get more karma than players? The GM isn't risking anything. The players should be risking life and limb.

I'm not against a general model for rewarding karma. At the very least, it can help people figure out what the GM should receive in those cases where the participants can't agree on a number.

What I am resolute on, is that GMs should be awarded karma for being a GM (it's not a given and I appreciate that NS does this), and that GMs should be awarded more karma than players. My reasoning for this, is that having been both, in "tabletop" games and online, being a GM is a lot more work. I would like to reward GMs for that work, and encourage them to continue engaging in it. I'm not sure establishing hard rules on the matter is the right thing to do, but I think that as a rule of thumb, awarding GMs 150% of the karma awarded to players is not a bad idea. (i.e. in a run where players are awarded 6 karma, the GM should receive at least 9).

I know that GMs work harder. I've GMed my share of runs so I know what it takes. But karma is a measure of experience. Experience is gained through risk. The GM's character, especially if it isn't running, isn't learning anything through experience and risks nothing. So why should the character get the benefit of something they aren't even in? I get the feeling people treat karma more like money instead of experience.

I agree with Spoof. Karma should be given to only those putting their characters at risk. If you must give karma, award them for the quality of their scenes, like the books suggests for characters who's RP is exceptional. At the very most, good GMs should get 1, maybe 2 karma for good scenes. Total. For those GMs that put their own character into the scene, I say they should earn LESS than the other characters.

If you really want to reward the GM for all their hard work, how about running something for them next time? More fun all around.

-Hades

That's all well and good that people don't want to award karma for GMs.  In fact, it might even work if you ever had a MU* where the players were so forth coming with runs we were spilling over with them.  As it stands, there are days in which no one does anything but idle OOCly.  And the people who make the game continue are those players who are running plots, making scenes on the grid, etc.  Not the people sitting OOC doing nothing.

My notes about percentages are rough estimates, of course.  What the players agree to give is what they give.  I am holistically against giving GMs nothing, and only slightly less against giving them less than the other players.  Karma isn't only a measure of experience as stated, in fact if you look at the chart there are tons of things that grant karma other than experience.  Making things fun, cinematics, good RP, etc.  The GM does all of this AND still manages all the numbers, came up with the plot, and chose to create fun for others.  That needs to be rewarded or it will stop.

Again, I fully agree that IF we ever get to a point where everyone's just running plots left and right like a mad puppy in heat tries to get itself off, than yes, no Karma for running stuff because you'll get your fair share when the next person runs something.  But to say that they don't deserve anything in the current situation is to not only deter running of plots without one's character (because presumably someone with their own character in the plot is getting karma and nuyen like a normal character according to Spoof's reasoning) but it also just deters plots almost in their entirety in the current state of the MU*.

I didn't say that GMs should receive nothing. I said that players should determine what GMs get. And saying that it needs to be rewarded or it will stop sounds like a threat. If people don't enjoy GMing, they shouldn't do it. If they do, karma is just a nice extra.

GMs should get karma, because we want to encourage runs.  The best way to encourage runs is to actually pay GMs for them.  And since nobody's going to shell out any money, and we can't bribe the GM with food like in real life, karma is a good solution.

I disagree that karma is awarded solely for taking risk, however.  Karma can be awarded for roleplaying, or creative thinking.  Karma is awarded for moving the plot forward, too.  The book flatly contradicts the notion that karma = reward for risk taken.

Also, do players really risk their characters' lives on a MUX?  In my experience, no.  People tend to cling to their +sheets, and if a GM makes a run that is truly dangerous, truly a threat, she has to deal with either a) a shitstorm of OOC complaining and second-guessing every call, or b) players ICly running away.  And b) is decidedly more rare.  But both of those serve to push GMs away from running anything with a real risk of death.  In my experience, most plots are cakewalks designed to increase karma and nuyen, where taking the most boneheaded strategy (walking in the front door and shooting) is never the kind of death trap it ought to be, and almost always works without any casualties.

Until every plot actually caries a realistic risk of death, I don't think it's right to deny the GM a reward for failing to risk anything.  I do, however, think that perhaps double the player award might be too much karma for a GM.  Keep in mind that the GM's karma goes to the GM's character.  As such, a player who GMs all the time would be able to advance twice as fast as every other character on the MUX.  This might be seen as a strong incentive to GM.  But it could also be seen as the fast track to creating game-breaking karma monsters.  Both are true, it just depends on perspective.  I think that GMs should receive at most the same karma as the players, or maybe 1-2 bonus karma above what the players earn, but not double.

Karma, by the book, is ONLY rewarded to the players by the GM on a run.

This defeats your argument.

Players should GM for each other. If someone doesn't return the favor, don't run stuff for them. And really, you want to give the GM extra karma for a crappy milk run? Please.

And I don't know why some of you want MORE karma. You get an average 2.5 karma every other day....

-Hades

Zoot alors!  My argument is defeated!  I know because you said so.

But while I'm busy being defeated, I would also point out that the book says the GM may modify the rules however he wants.  If we want a system where GMs are also players, and their characters gain karma when they run plots to encourage them to run plots, we can have that.  And clearly, we seem to want that, comments from the peanut gallery (i.e. Hades) aside.  I don't think a quid pro quo for running plots would be effective.  There are people who simply do not GM because they don't like to or aren't good at it.  And there are people who GM more than others.  I think that's quite fine, and I don't begrudge the people who GM some extra karma.

Pulling the GM discretion rule.

Lame, Tear, lame.

-Hades, peanut gallery.

In the entire time that I've been here only two people out of the dozens I ran plots for ran a plot for me in return.

None of this matches the purpose of karma. It treats it like money. I can see players awarding MUSH GMs karma in thanks for a run but that's not what karma is. Karma is supposed to be experience. If the GM's character isn't involved in the run, how is the character gaining experience?

The book has nothing in it about karma awards to GMs. Shadowrun wasn't meant to be a MUSH. It's a gaming system. So I have no problem tossing a little karma to the GM. When I ran my own minor scene I was surprised and pleased when people gave me some karma, but I didn't expect it and I would never ask for it.

If you run something, run it because you like running it. If you only do it to get paid, or refuse to do it if the payment isn't enough, go play Mass Effect 2. The 150% suggestion is insane, and will lead to the karma meltdown Tear described. It's nice when a player gives you karma for something. It's not part of the general game mechanic "karma" and no amount of shouting "GM DISCRETION" will change that. It's an adjustment we make for MUSHes. Let players make their own decisions about how much karma to give. We're smart enough to know what your plot is worth.

To bring this topic back on track.  The question that I put to the playerbase was not whether or not GMs should get Karma, it is how much.  I had a system I thought was fair presuming the prescription of proper karma awards is followed in the book.  So, average run is 4-6 karma, meaning the average GM for said plot would acquire 6-9 karma or an inflation of 2-3, which is +50% of the karma awarded or 150% of the given karma.  That I'd totally agree with.

The other thing that I just wanted to make more public was people need to, as players, take it upon themselves to talk when a plot is coming to a close.  Nominate 1 person to give karma and then have that be done.  I'm only going to be able to do that in a few more plots before I start skimping on karma awards to the GM and we'll have actual karma inflation if I don't.

I don't begrudge anyone the karma they've given, I just want to more pro-actively seek to stop some of the exaggerated karma being given out that I've seen because of lack of communication amongst the players in a plot.