Forked Thread: Why the World Exists [GM-less Gaming]

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by jim pinto

As for the term antiquated, what would you call a game system that plays fundamentally the same way, some 35 years after its inception.

Chess, Go, Poker.
Baseball, Soccer, Tennis, Golf.
Simon Says, Follow the Leader, Musical Chairs, Pin the Tail on the Donkey.
Jump Rope, Hopscotch, Cat's Cradle.

Now, granted professional versions of some of these activities may have changed in 35 years. But if you get 20 people together in a park today to have a game of baseball, it will be played basically the same way it was played 35 years ago. Similarly, the "cant" sung while jumping rope may vary widely, but the basics of jumping in and out have not changed.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

I don't know why you brought up PCat's group it is an example of the kind of game you want everyone to experience but which doesn't use your solution to accomplish it. So either, they are unique (and the existence of Sepulgrave's (et. al.) story hours prove they aren't) or you have focused on a symptom, not the problem.

I brought it up, because the person I was talking to continued to tell me that world-destroying PCs are okay by him. And I recalled, very quickly, how PCat's stories always evoked a game environment that I would kill puppies to be a part of.

In all honesty, I would love to write all day long about great gaming experiences and never-ever have to bring up bad ones, but it's just a habit of my writing style to open with an example of something negative (like an infomercial that makes fun of people who can't find their keys) before bringing up my actual point.

Dirty, dirty habit.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by jim pinto

Your example is exactly the principle of D&D play that I'm talking about. What if my character doesn't care all that much about farmers, or worse, thinks that sort of task his beneath him… let other adventurers deal with it. D&D has the built in assumption that I want to stop the orcs. I'm never allowed to make a character who is pro-orc. Under the present methodology of adventure design, I never will.

You've never played in a game where you didn't need to save the village? For all your talk about expanding our horizons, your problem is you've never really been in a sandbox.

ENWorld is full of DMs who will run with the idea that you turn down the farmer's plea for help. Some of them even joyfully so. The DMs who wrote some notes about orcs troubling the village farmers have several world burning villains sitting waiting to finally burn the world and your party's refusal to stop them when their were small is just the kind of sandbox event that makes DMs cackle with glee. They will run home from that session to look over their campaign notes and figure out "what happens if no one stops Morak the Marrauder?" Have you seen the Rat Bastard DM threads?

But apparently, this is not what you want to talk about. You want to talk about adding "modern" role-playing paradigms to D&D. So explain, if you have a player who doesn't want to invest in making up the world, how does your system of GM-less play accommodate them?

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

You've never played in a game where you didn't need to save the village? For all your talk about expanding our horizons, your problem is you've never really been in a sandbox.

ENWorld is full of DMs who will run with the idea that you turn down the farmer's plea for help. Some of them even joyfully so. The DMs who wrote some notes about orcs troubling the village farmers have several world burning villains sitting waiting to finally burn the world and your party's refusal to stop them when their were small is just the kind of sandbox event that makes DMs cackle with glee. They will run home from that session to look over their campaign notes and figure out "what happens if no one stops Morak the Marrauder?" Have you seen the Rat Bastard DM threads?

But apparently, this is not what you want to talk about. You want to talk about adding "modern" role-playing paradigms to D&D. So explain, if you have a player who doesn't want to invest in making up the world, how does your system of GM-less play accommodate them?

This is a good post. An excellent point. I actually GM 95% of the time. And no. No one has ever run a sandbox game for me. Close. But no. I run them all the time. Been running them before the term was coined, because it's how my brain builds worlds and situations.

And no. Never seen the Rat Bastard DM threads. I really only post on enworld when I get a bug up my ass about something. I really should visit more often.

Now, to address your question… how adamant is this player? I've seen people leave games simply because they REFUSED to even try vampire for a few weeks. "Call me when D&D starts up again."

I can't address people that are outright opposed, but the obvious investment of helping to make the world and build is there as soon as it start happening. I can't imagine someone sitting there, arms crossed, watching 3-6 other players having a great time with it.

They'd eventually get involved.

That said, if they didn't, the players could come up with a reward system (hero points or something) for every NODE of information that someone creates for the world. And everyone has to get 10 and only 10 NODES of information into the game.

Just spitballing.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by jim pinto

I brought it up, because the person I was talking to continued to tell me that world-destroying PCs are okay by him. And I recalled, very quickly, how PCat's stories always evoked a game environment that I would kill puppies to be a part of.

And that is part of the disconnect you are encountering in this thread. What you call pissing on the DM only has meaning if the DM has a story to tell. If the DM just has a sandbox for you to play in, sand can absorb a lot of piss. Okay, that analogy is getting into non-grandma territory. But amazingly, the analogy is very accurate. Players have to engage in highly self-destructive behavior in order to destroy a sandbox game. Setting off a fireball in a tavern when you can't escape the town is willfully self-destructive IMO.

As for your second point, your cause would be better served by abandoning this thread and starting over with a less "I'm going to fix X with Y" and more "Hey, would you play D&D in Y style? I do and here's how" introduction. Because right now it seems like this thread is about X.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

You've never played in a game where you didn't need to save the village? For all your talk about expanding our horizons, your problem is you've never really been in a sandbox.

ASIDE: Bear in mind that sandbox games are the least immune to the problematic player who wants to cast fireball in a crowded tavern.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

Chess, Go, Poker.
Baseball, Soccer, Tennis, Golf.
Simon Says, Follow the Leader, Musical Chairs, Pin the Tail on the Donkey.
Jump Rope, Hopscotch, Cat's Cradle.

Now, granted professional versions of some of these activities may have changed in 35 years. But if you get 20 people together in a park today to have a game of baseball, it will be played basically the same way it was played 35 years ago. Similarly, the "cant" sung while jumping rope may vary widely, but the basics of jumping in and out have not changed.

With the exception of go, the rules to all the games and sports you mentioned has evolved to some degree. Baseball now has about 500 rules, something the original I'm sure didn't. Gold has well over 1,000.

All of the kid's games remain unchanged. And yes. I would call Pin the Tail on the Donkey, antiquated. And that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just old.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by jim pinto

And no. Never seen the Rat Bastard DM threads. I really only post on enworld when I get a bug up my ass about something. I really should visit more often.

I wish my Community Supporter hadn't lapsed as I'm a bit strapped to re-up it. But hopefully some of those RBDM fans with search capability will come along and post some links.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

As for your second point, your cause would be better served by abandoning this thread and starting over with a less "I'm going to fix X with Y" and more "Hey, would you play D&D in Y style? I do and here's how" introduction. Because right now it seems like this thread is about X.

I am editing posts 1 and 2 as we speak.

[aurance]

Originally Posted by jim pinto

ASIDE: Bear in mind that sandbox games are the least immune to the problematic player who wants to cast fireball in a crowded tavern.

1) How does your GM-less system deal with this any better than a GMed sandbox game?

2) If you are advocating a truly freeform storytelling, such as your above-mentioned pro-orc or anti-farmer game, how is the "fireball in a crowded tavern" playing any qualitatively worse or better than your examples? And by what measure?

[FireLance]

Jim, thanks for your detailed replies. While I do agree with the potential benefits of GM-less gaming (although it seems to me that the games are not so much GM-less as they are collectively GMed) such as increasing the buy-in and involvement of the players/co-GMs, I think the biggest stumbling block for many players will be the amount of effort that they will need to put into the game.

However, I think there is a moderate approach between the traditional minimal player preparation approach (which, as you have noted, delivers an experience that MMORPGs are increasingly delivering better) and the effort required to play in a collectively GMed game: namely, investing the players with greater or lesser amounts of control over various elements that were previously the exclusive province of the DM: creation of world elements such as NPCs, locations and history, influence over plot, storyline, missions and (even if you expressed distaste for the idea in the other thread ) rewards. Perhaps this would be a middle ground that would be more palatable to the majority of players?

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by SabreCat

In many GM-less worldbuilding/storytelling games, you still play roles of characters who have limited information and limited world-changing power. The player has substantial abilities to define or change the setting with the consensus of the group, but the character only has those powers and knowledge appropriate to their part in the story.

It does mean you have to shift gears more often (and you always already do to some extent, whether it's when rolling dice or getting up to go to the bathroom) between metagame headspace and character-perspective headspace. Many players prefer to stay in the character's perspective as much as possible, and those players might find setting collaboration intrusive. But folks who are cool with flipping back and forth can totally dig a GM-less game and still play roles to the hilt.

There's a word for that. It was around long before D&D-type games.

Acting is a different activity from RPGing. What I mean by "role-playing game" -- if it pleases you better, substitute "the kind of RPG I like" -- is one in which the game element has to do with seeing things through Conan's eyes, not Robert E. Howard's. It means (to the extent possible) genuine mystery, suspense and choices -- not just pretending to have those experiences. Taking on an authorial or godlike perspective is indeed too intrusive for me.

That does not mean I don't enjoy such games. It means that they are to me distinctly different experiences from limited-information, limited-power -- yes, "simulationist" if you will -- games in which my role is firmly "in the shoes" of a character.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by aurance

1) How does your GM-less system deal with this any better than a GMed sandbox game?

2) If you are advocating a truly freeform storytelling, such as your above-mentioned pro-orc or anti-farmer game, how is the "fireball in a crowded tavern" playing any qualitatively worse or better than your examples? And by what measure?

I'm running on the assumption that players who are "vested" are less likely to burn down a tavern… especially if they helped name it, or populated it with NPCs. Or that your character has a stake in… or when you do in a GM-less game, the person to your left (if using that model of success/failure) gets to bring down the thunder.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by FireLance

Perhaps this would be a middle ground that would be more palatable to the majority of players?

They can help build with world with the GM, ala Burning Wheel, but then leave the GM to do the other moderator functions they are used to… only once in a while (once per sessions) being expected to activate a path of adventure (I talk about adventure paths in the Ultimate Toolbox, so I can't give that juice away for free).

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

What I mean by "role-playing game" -- if it pleases you better, substitute "the kind of RPG I like" -- is one in which the game element has to do with seeing things through Conan's eyes, not Robert E. Howard's. It means (to the extent possible) genuine mystery, suspense and choices -- not just pretending to have those experiences. Taking on an authorial or godlike perspective is indeed too intrusive for me.

That does not mean I don't enjoy such games. It means that they are to me distinctly different experiences from limited-information, limited-power -- yes, "simulationist" if you will -- games in which my role is firmly "in the shoes" of a character.

there was a time when i believed that RPGs should be about discovery. if the pcs aren't discovering anything, what is the point of the game. the GM-less model takes some of this away, to be sure.

your aim, is ideal. but i've never equated simulationism to roleplaying. i think there's subtle difference there. not enough to split hairs over in this discussion, but if i were making the jim pinto lexicon of gaming terminology, they would be different sections of the same chapter.

more puzzling, though… how do you maintain mystery in a collective game environment. bidding/debating/arguing are all methods of allowing the other players to drop surprises on the players, but this may not always be enough.

it's late and i've been posting my ass off today. time to let some other kids play.