Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Maxperson · May 31, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
I did it by playing Fiasco. There's a number of other ways.

That's not a truly GMless game like it bills itself to be. It's one of those systems I just described where the players take the role of GM when needed, with players setting up the scene, etc.

Aldarc · May 31, 2019

Maxperson said:
That's not a truly GMless game like it bills itself to be. It's one of those systems I just described where the players take the role of GM when needed, with players setting up the scene, etc.

It still qualifies unless either Lanefan or you plans on arbitrarily moving the goalposts.

Maxperson · May 31, 2019

Aldarc said:
It still qualifies unless either Lanefan or you plans on arbitrarily moving the goalposts.

No goalposts have been moved. It fails to qualify as GMless at all, as it simply shares the GM role. If you make a claim and then do the opposite of that claim, you are a liar. The creators of that game are liars. For a game to be GMless, there can be no one that acts in that role at any time.

lowkey13 · May 31, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Aldarc · May 31, 2019

Maxperson said:
No goalposts have been moved.

So you're not moving goalposts: you're just not listening then? Gotcha.

Ovinomancer · May 31, 2019

Maxperson said:
No goalposts have been moved. It fails to qualify as GMless at all, as it simply shares the GM role. If you make a claim and then do the opposite of that claim, you are a liar. The creators of that game are liars. For a game to be GMless, there can be no one that acts in that role at any time.

Confused, if the "GM's role" is shared, then there's no GM -- the game is GM-less. Here'e the reference to the GM that's been proposed for this line of discussion:

"A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going"

You're now contending that if the game is co-ordinated, organized, and keeps running but these tasks are not assigned to any person specifically, then there's still a GM's role involved because the tasks still exist but are shared amongst the players? Okay, in that case, every game everywhere, not just RPGs, have a GM, so this isn't a valid unique criteria for RPGs.

hawkeyefan · May 31, 2019

Yeah, I think GM or host or facilitator kind of fluctuates depending on the game and media. Number of players may as well...I’ve heard of solo TTRPGs...are they significant enough to acknowledge? A physical place to play, or an internet connection are also necessary, but those kinds of requirements aren’t really related to RPGing, so I don’t know how much we need to include them.

Satyrn · May 31, 2019

Maxperson said:
That's not a truly GMless game like it bills itself to be. It's one of those systems I just described where the players take the role of GM when needed, with players setting up the scene, etc.

That sounds a lot like how players of old school poker (as seen on Star Trek: TNG) take turns being Dealer and inventing their own wacky rules for the hand.

Bedrockgames · May 31, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Yeah, I think GM or host or facilitator kind of fluctuates depending on the game and media. Number of players may as well...I’ve heard of solo TTRPGs...are they significant enough to acknowledge? A physical place to play, or an internet connection are also necessary, but those kinds of requirements aren’t really related to RPGing, so I don’t know how much we need to include them.

Solo RPGs have to simulate the GM though. And I think we can all largely agree, solo play feels quite different from regular play. I have think having a human referee (or referees in some cases) is the crucial thing that makes RPGs so different from say video games. A human mind can consider any possible course of action the player wants to try.

Lanefan · May 31, 2019

lowkey13 said:
?

But that’s the thing. I have. Certain RPGs don’t have referees or facilitators or hosts: so if multiple people (all of whom might DM other games) play, then ....

What?

That’s why most generic definition have some variation that discusses interactions between players, not just with a referee.

Doesn't have to be a 'referee', though it could be.

But there's always one person at the core; one person who - even if not the referee or whatever - at the very least initiates things by saying "let's play [game x]"...and who usually then provides the rules and who often ends up being a facilitator to some extent (convincing others to play, scheduling and co-ordinating, etc.).

And yes, this 'one person' could be different each time if your group is rotating through different systems or different DMs - but for each game or session there's still one key person that makes it go. And without that one person that game doesn't get played.

Aldarc said:
I don't think that it's necessary for us to build up the importance of this "someone" for RPGs as if it were something unique and particular to them.

The question is not one of what's unique to RPGs, though; it's one of what elements are required for all of them. That the same thing(s) may also be required for other types of games doesn't matter here.