jim pinto
First Post
Last edited:
Forked Thread: Why the World Exists [GM-less Gaming]
jim pinto
First Post
continued…
This is an unorthodox approach to D&D. It is not for everyone. Please read and post your thoughts, PRO and CON for how this system could work, not whether or not you would play in it.
In order to examine the concept of running D&D as a GM-less endeavor, let's break down some of the functions of the GM and figure out how these projects can be handed off to the team of players engaged in this activity.
World Design. Back in the day, Last Unicorn Games produced one of the most underrated projects of all time. An RPG called Aria. In it, they described a new concept called the Metamyth, or mythbuilding. Instead of being an RPG about collecting treasure and killing monsters, it was an RPG about building a world, village, character, and myth. The second book in the series was fantastic and basically taught the players how to world build.
Using this system (or an abbreviated version), any team can build a game world worth playing in. Barring that, Burning Wheel has a fantastic world-building system as well. Barring that, everyone buys the same game world from company X and reads it. We did this one for Ravenloft, only we had a jerk at the table so it didn't go very far. But the experiment was worth the time.
Campaign. Not to be confused with world-building, the campaign is about the elements of the world that PCs want to explore. What's the widget they need to acquire? What's the dragon's name they need to kill? What's the thrust of the campaign that's worth sacrificing a year of your life to accomplish?
Stealing from the 36 Writer Plots, the campaign can be generated randomly or determined through bidding, or… just agreed upon by players who get along. The entire campaign thrust, however, should be about something, even if the smaller pieces to get to the THING don't always add up to the gestalt of the THING.
For instance, a campaign about wiping out the orc nation of Bone-Bone will probably be about an accumulation of power, some treaty signing, and a few quests to prove yourself worthy of this lauded goal. In the end, the final battle with the Bone-Bone orcs will be epic and massive, requiring all of the PCs resources (and even the expectation of failure).
Since the players can easily choose a campaign plot, we've eliminated another TASK from the list of things a GM must do to "entertain."
Moving on.
Adversaries. This one is pretty easy, actually. While it sounds complicated, it's not. First off, everyone loves making characters. Secondly, there are about 6,000 published books (number not verified) about NPCs and things to encounter. If you can't jot down a name, class, and a few relevant stats on an index card, then what good are you?
A stack of adversaries should be about 100-200 high depending on the scope of the campaign. It should be mostly NPCs of the dominate race in the game world. In fact, each card can be double-sided with NPCs on one side and monsters on the other. Draw one at random when you need to. Keep the important NPCs handy if you need to refer to them again.
Plot. This is a little trickier, but still manageable. In fact, rather than tell you how to do it, I'm just going to point to the successes of games like In a Wicked Age, Burning Wheel, Inspectres, and so on. Seriously good stuff and a lot of advice on how to let players build scenes.
Moderator. Here's where the fun comes in. Many players turn to the GM for interpretation of the die rolls. Why? Is his logic so much better than mine? Is he really smarter, more creative, more capable of determining what a '16' means? Why can't I narrate my successes? Why can't the guy to my left narrate my failures? When I designed George's Children this is the number one thing I did to remove a GM from the game and let everyone play.
It really is that simple. For that matter. Why can't the guy to my left roll the dice of the monster that is attacking me as well? In the open? Why does it have to be a secret?
XP and treasure should be a cinch to figure out if you can do all this other stuff. Although I'm guessing the rewards of running a GM-less game will resonate in such a way, that stopping to roll up treasure will stop being as fun as it used to be.
Cause and Effect. One of the most important roles of a GM is determining the ramifications of the PCs actions. If they burn down the village of ABC, how are the people in village DEF doing to respond? Again. Why is the logic of the GM so much better than the logic of the PCs? Couldn't the players themselves determine for themselves that they need to hide out for a while and/or skip town for stealing Mrs. Blankenship's pies?
Okay. I think I've said enough for now.
I think this is a good place for the discussion to begin.
This is an unorthodox approach to D&D. It is not for everyone. Please read and post your thoughts, PRO and CON for how this system could work, not whether or not you would play in it.
In order to examine the concept of running D&D as a GM-less endeavor, let's break down some of the functions of the GM and figure out how these projects can be handed off to the team of players engaged in this activity.
World Design. Back in the day, Last Unicorn Games produced one of the most underrated projects of all time. An RPG called Aria. In it, they described a new concept called the Metamyth, or mythbuilding. Instead of being an RPG about collecting treasure and killing monsters, it was an RPG about building a world, village, character, and myth. The second book in the series was fantastic and basically taught the players how to world build.
Using this system (or an abbreviated version), any team can build a game world worth playing in. Barring that, Burning Wheel has a fantastic world-building system as well. Barring that, everyone buys the same game world from company X and reads it. We did this one for Ravenloft, only we had a jerk at the table so it didn't go very far. But the experiment was worth the time.
Campaign. Not to be confused with world-building, the campaign is about the elements of the world that PCs want to explore. What's the widget they need to acquire? What's the dragon's name they need to kill? What's the thrust of the campaign that's worth sacrificing a year of your life to accomplish?
Stealing from the 36 Writer Plots, the campaign can be generated randomly or determined through bidding, or… just agreed upon by players who get along. The entire campaign thrust, however, should be about something, even if the smaller pieces to get to the THING don't always add up to the gestalt of the THING.
For instance, a campaign about wiping out the orc nation of Bone-Bone will probably be about an accumulation of power, some treaty signing, and a few quests to prove yourself worthy of this lauded goal. In the end, the final battle with the Bone-Bone orcs will be epic and massive, requiring all of the PCs resources (and even the expectation of failure).
Since the players can easily choose a campaign plot, we've eliminated another TASK from the list of things a GM must do to "entertain."
Moving on.
Adversaries. This one is pretty easy, actually. While it sounds complicated, it's not. First off, everyone loves making characters. Secondly, there are about 6,000 published books (number not verified) about NPCs and things to encounter. If you can't jot down a name, class, and a few relevant stats on an index card, then what good are you?
A stack of adversaries should be about 100-200 high depending on the scope of the campaign. It should be mostly NPCs of the dominate race in the game world. In fact, each card can be double-sided with NPCs on one side and monsters on the other. Draw one at random when you need to. Keep the important NPCs handy if you need to refer to them again.
Plot. This is a little trickier, but still manageable. In fact, rather than tell you how to do it, I'm just going to point to the successes of games like In a Wicked Age, Burning Wheel, Inspectres, and so on. Seriously good stuff and a lot of advice on how to let players build scenes.
Moderator. Here's where the fun comes in. Many players turn to the GM for interpretation of the die rolls. Why? Is his logic so much better than mine? Is he really smarter, more creative, more capable of determining what a '16' means? Why can't I narrate my successes? Why can't the guy to my left narrate my failures? When I designed George's Children this is the number one thing I did to remove a GM from the game and let everyone play.
It really is that simple. For that matter. Why can't the guy to my left roll the dice of the monster that is attacking me as well? In the open? Why does it have to be a secret?
XP and treasure should be a cinch to figure out if you can do all this other stuff. Although I'm guessing the rewards of running a GM-less game will resonate in such a way, that stopping to roll up treasure will stop being as fun as it used to be.
Cause and Effect. One of the most important roles of a GM is determining the ramifications of the PCs actions. If they burn down the village of ABC, how are the people in village DEF doing to respond? Again. Why is the logic of the GM so much better than the logic of the PCs? Couldn't the players themselves determine for themselves that they need to hide out for a while and/or skip town for stealing Mrs. Blankenship's pies?
Okay. I think I've said enough for now.
I think this is a good place for the discussion to begin.
Last edited:
D'karr
Adventurer
Well, I think you've misdiagnosed the disease. Each one of your examples happen due to lousy players. If you want to excise the cancer then you need to get rid of the idiots that are ruining games, not alter your games to cater to the idiots. The highlighted part above is the problem and the cause of the disease. You've learned to live with the disease. Instead of removing the tapeworm, you've decided that feeding it crackers is more beneficial.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
jim pinto
First Post
One. I clearly stated that this was an example and could be replaced with any.
Two. That I asked people to speak to the meat of what I wrote and focus on the subject matter. The example is not the subject matter.
Three. That I wrote about 3,000 words, of it, the example is merely 15% of my post.
Four. The assumption that gamers going through this particular problem (which isn't a unique problem) is counter-intuitive to me. As someone who writes a lot of advice in books, I have to assume good and bad players read them. Yes?
I don't care if no one thinks the GM-less gaming is a good idea. That's fine. It's just a theory, of which, I am exploring publicly.
That it resulted in these two posts… I don't know…
Last edited:
D'karr
Adventurer
Correct, but both of the "examples" you provided in your initial post have the same root cause, lousy players. So it seems to me that the second post that defines your "solution" to the problem begins by incorrectly determining what the problem really is.
But the example becomes very relevant when you are trying to fix something. It would be like me saying that I'm going to fix your car's fuel-injection valves when the problem is that the car ran out of fuel.
Your 3,000+ word solution is not relevant to the problem you initially described. You could have written an Encyclopedia Britannica volume and the basis for your assumption is still flawed.
The theory might be sound, but your approach to what it is supposed to fix is incredibly flawed. What would be the use of discussing my theory for fixing your car's fuel-injectors if the real problem is that the car ran out of gas?
Hopefully what I wrote above explains it.
Hi Jim,
Interesting stuff. I too found Aria and Aria Worlds to be fascinating books, though deeply flawed as part of a game. I've always found those books to be inspiring, though, and drew on their ideas when creating the World Burner for the Burning Sands: Jihad supplement for Burning Wheel.
The idea behind our thoughts on this matter in Burning Wheel aligns with your thesis quite well: Giving players ownership of some of the details of a game world or campaign creates player investment in the setting. It helps them really care about it.
You don't necessarily need to hand over the keys to the kingdom either. I think it works best to build up a framework for your setting and have the players help you fill in the gaps.
For instance, a few years back a buddy of mine ran an all-dwarf game. The campaign was a quest to find and a legendary dwarven hall that had been lost until a group of miners accidentally found a sealed chamber that contained a riddle that seemed to describe the route to the hall. We were seeking an artifact. The only other stipulation was that each dwarf be from a different clan.
The GM had us answer questions like: How was the hall lost? What's the artifact? Why do you need it? What disaster will strike the dwarves if you don't succeed? Why are the clan chieftains trying to stop you from going on the trip? What is the most terrible obstacle you fear you will face on the journey? Etc.
We answered those questions as a group and built on each others answers, and pretty soon we were all fired up about the game and the setting, and we knew what sorts of characters we wanted to play.
Anyway, generating player investment in the game and the setting, no matter how you go about doing it, is extremely important.
All that said, it seems to me that the "hours of prep" is another problem that could stand to be addressed.
Interesting stuff. I too found Aria and Aria Worlds to be fascinating books, though deeply flawed as part of a game. I've always found those books to be inspiring, though, and drew on their ideas when creating the World Burner for the Burning Sands: Jihad supplement for Burning Wheel.
The idea behind our thoughts on this matter in Burning Wheel aligns with your thesis quite well: Giving players ownership of some of the details of a game world or campaign creates player investment in the setting. It helps them really care about it.
You don't necessarily need to hand over the keys to the kingdom either. I think it works best to build up a framework for your setting and have the players help you fill in the gaps.
For instance, a few years back a buddy of mine ran an all-dwarf game. The campaign was a quest to find and a legendary dwarven hall that had been lost until a group of miners accidentally found a sealed chamber that contained a riddle that seemed to describe the route to the hall. We were seeking an artifact. The only other stipulation was that each dwarf be from a different clan.
The GM had us answer questions like: How was the hall lost? What's the artifact? Why do you need it? What disaster will strike the dwarves if you don't succeed? Why are the clan chieftains trying to stop you from going on the trip? What is the most terrible obstacle you fear you will face on the journey? Etc.
We answered those questions as a group and built on each others answers, and pretty soon we were all fired up about the game and the setting, and we knew what sorts of characters we wanted to play.
Anyway, generating player investment in the game and the setting, no matter how you go about doing it, is extremely important.
All that said, it seems to me that the "hours of prep" is another problem that could stand to be addressed.
I'm a big fan of distributing narrative authority and creative control in a campaign, but I like to do this in the context more traditional DM/player relationship.
As a player, I like asking the DM 'What do I see?' and 'What happens when I do this?'. I like a semi-objective participant in the game whose role is to create the environment my PC is exploring, interacting with and/or setting fire to. Sure, you can divide the DM's job among the players --and my group does, switching DM's every few months in the same campaign/setting.
I'm sure some people would enjoy switching DM roles multiple times during a single session, but that would be too... I don't know... messy for my group. A logistical nightmare.
As a player, I like asking the DM 'What do I see?' and 'What happens when I do this?'. I like a semi-objective participant in the game whose role is to create the environment my PC is exploring, interacting with and/or setting fire to. Sure, you can divide the DM's job among the players --and my group does, switching DM's every few months in the same campaign/setting.
I'm sure some people would enjoy switching DM roles multiple times during a single session, but that would be too... I don't know... messy for my group. A logistical nightmare.
Your examples should have been chosen to specifically extend and refine your argument, so that it made the meat more clear - folks should be able to address the examples as exemplars of what you're talking about, and then generalize back to the larger view. If the example does not represent your real point, remove it.
I expect these are connected. With 3000 words, you are apt to be less focused than you think - so the reader is free to focus on something they think is important, that you don't. If it wasn't the meat of your argument, it shouldn't have been in the piece for them to call out.
Self-editing is important. If you don't know why folks responded this way, try cutting it down to the bits that you feel are absolutely essential, and try again.
Remathilis
Legend
Clearly you've never plated "Nuclear-Options" Risk.
To quote Dr. Frankenfurtur, you've eliminated the cause, but not the symptom. The concept of players having ownership of the game-world (an idea I sometimes see in games, but far too little compared to the DM-as-storyteller method) is intriguing, but it assumes your players already have enough emotional investment to, you know, invent stuff.
Some players don't really care about creation of the game-world, they want to slay orcs. (Hell, some DMs don't even care about game-world creation; viva la campaign setting and adventure path!) While some groups are blessed with players involved enough to create plots and foes, some don't even want to get beyond the "my family was slain by orcs" method of background creation.
If the PCs are so paralyzed in a "free-choice" world that they resort to inaction (waiting for plot-hooks) or chaos (burning down the tavern), allowing them to create the plot-hooks or name the tavern isn't going to help.
Similar Threads
