Dismantling the Game Master

[GMMichael]

Game masters are players of RPGs*, yet their experiences are often significantly different from that of player-characters. The traditional GM supplies the setting and outcomes, while the PCs provide the (hopefully) best intentions of the main characters. Some game designers have found that no one or everyone should GM, removing the official GM-role from their games.

What if the traditional GM's role were partially relegated to the PCs, making the GM's job easier and possibly more attractive to new GMs? Are PCs less likely to play a game that gives them a hand in GMing? Are there any games that already do this to one degree or another?

Off the top of my head, I can see PCs tracking combat turns, recording damage and/or conditions, doing rule look-ups, rolling dice for NPCs, or even playing enemy minions in combat. What would you do to lighten the GM's load?

* You might say that GMs are the competition of PCs that qualifies RPGs as Games.

 

[Emberashh]

Strictly speaking a lot of that was never supposed to be solely on the GMs plate to begin with, and its a weird self perpetuating aspect of the hobby that even people who absolutely hate it will turn around and say "yeah, only one person needs to actually know how to play the game".

There's also just a lot of preemptive infantilizing in that, a cynical assumption that people won't learn to play without a GM there to hold their hand.

Edit: I'll also say a big part of the issue is that the GM is all too commonly not treated as an equal player, and sometimes not even as a player at all, both culturally and in the design of many games. Its why so many resist doing it and a big reason why this culture self perpetuates, and most anybody has figured to do to address it is to just chase minimalism ad absurdum, which in turn often leads to just eliminating the role outright.

Though to be fair, I arrived there myself from the opposite approach, but thats only because I chased the fun, as the player experience in Labyrinthian proved to just be too enticing, and going for solo/coop will likely pay dividends for getting people to break from the weird mindsets they keep trying to come at the game with.

 

[KoolMoDaddy-O]

I didn't respond in the Do You OSR thread but I might as well here: A big reason why I've begun exploring OSR games is because I wanted to find relief from the massive burden that 5e puts on the DM, especially with bookkeeping -- doing most of the rolling, keeping track of damage dealt and NPC hp, etc. My investigation led me to the Borg games (specifically Pirate Borg) which lifts a lot of that weight; for example, the DM doesn't roll for the NPCs to attack but rather the players roll to defend and all the DM has to do is keep track of the bad guys' hp. Combat moves so much faster when the bottleneck of everything having to flow through the DM is removed.

Another perk of Borg is the abundance of random tables for every little thing instead of expecting the DM to constantly improvise. It also injects a fun chaos into the game, especially when the random dots start connecting into some kind of narrative pattern.

 

[mamba]

There definitely are games that outsource all dice rolling to the players. Monsters do not have attack rolls, players have defense rolls

Other than that, mostly play a simpler game. 5e is the upper limit of complexity I am interested in, and it would help if the classes were less powerful, so that is what I would address next.

 

[CleverNickName]

One part of being a GM that I've peeled off and handed to the players was treasure placement.

Before, I would painstakingly roll up a detailed treasure hoard, right down to the last coin. "You find 230 pp, 3300 gp, 2 emeralds worth 350gp each, and a longsword +1."

Then I realized: the players care far more than I do about what treasures they find. So for randomly-placed loot, I describe it like this: "You find 230 pp, 3300 gp, 2 gems worth 350gp each--Bob, what kind of gems are those? You also find a weapon +1--James, what kind of weapon is it?"

Of course, quest-specific items and rewards aren't random, and so those aren't handed over to the players to determine. But for everything else, I'm content to let them dial it in to suit themselves.

 

[Reynard]

I think there is a significant portion of the player base with no interest in sharing GM responsibilities and who are there to experience RPG play almost as passively as watching television or playing a (linear) video game.

 

[innerdude]

Ironsworn: Starforged 's co-op mode (all players have co-equal GM authority) is literally some of the most fun I've ever had in tabletop roleplaying. Ever.

It was absolutely incredible.

It's not the same experience as D&D, though, mostly through emphasis on things other than combat (though its combat mode is surprisingly robust for a non-tactical, narrative-style rules system).

I honestly feel like it's a unique and singular experience everyone should try, as long as you do it with at most 3 players.

 

[overgeeked]

You might say that GMs are the competition of PCs that qualifies RPGs as Games.

No one should, really. In any competition between the players and the referee, the referee wins by default. "Rocks fall, everyone dies." Or the old saw about the referee having infinite dragons. Not only is there no competition between the players and the referee, it's effectively impossible for there to be anything remotely resembling competition between them. The imbalance of power is too extreme.

 

[overgeeked]

What if the traditional GM's role were partially relegated to the PCs, making the GM's job easier and possibly more attractive to new GMs? Are PCs less likely to play a game that gives them a hand in GMing? Are there any games that already do this to one degree or another?

Off the top of my head, I can see PCs tracking combat turns, recording damage and/or conditions, doing rule look-ups, rolling dice for NPCs, or even playing enemy minions in combat. What would you do to lighten the GM's load?

Absolutely. There's a lot of bookkeeping the referee can hand off to the players.

There's also a fair amount of creative work the players can take over, if everyone's on board. Worldbuilding as a group works great for some players. Either on the spot or ahead of time. You see this in games like Fabula Ultima and Daggerheart. Naming NPCs, naming factions, naming businesses, etc. As long as everyone's on the same page or okay with the occasional goofy name.

One of my favorite ways of unloading the burden is following the advice in the Game Master's Handbook of Proactive Roleplaying. Instead of the referee making a story and pushing the players through it, the referee pulls from the players' stated goals and builds scenarios and encounters. No more worry about finding the right hooks. The players provide them all.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think there is a significant portion of the player base with no interest in sharing GM responsibilities and who are there to experience RPG play almost as passively as watching television or playing a (linear) video game.

This is true, but I think it's worth mentioning that a lack of interest in sharing GM responsibilities can be for reasons other than seeking passive entertainment -- one of the big ones being a desire to explore a world from the perspective of an inhabitant of that world, with no powers of authorship and only limited access to information beyond the character's.

What if the traditional GM's role were partially relegated to the PCs, making the GM's job easier and possibly more attractive to new GMs?

Speaking for myself, I GM because I enjoy the tasks traditionally associated with the GM's role, and I have no desire to outsource them.