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

[Lanefan]

But, I'm talking about playing your game differently.

Something the GM-Union obviously wouldn't stand for, nor would the PCs who are filled with glee as they drive their wrecking ball play style through the well-thought out game world designed by your GM.

I am the DM; and though I'd like to think my world is well thought out, it isn't perfect; and if the players adopt a wrecking-ball style I just don't see it as a problem.

Your somewhat "cynical" final paragraph strikes me as the exact thing I pegged as unappreciated. The GM is not the PC's personal maid, left to clean up the detritus of their shoddy and disrespectful play style.

Where to start on this one?

First off, a DM can be very much appreciated by those same players who are busy taking a hatchet to half her world; if only because she lets them, and doesn't try to force them onto the train.

Second off, building a world/game/campaign/rule-set is in some ways similar to making a piece of art, or music: you do what seems good, then turn it loose on the world for the critics to savage...at which point *it has left your control*. Same is true of a game world, the recipe is and should always be "Instant mayhem - just add players.".

Third off, "shoddy and disrespectful play style"??? That's a different thing, not usually related to what the characters do in-game. If they fireball a tavern in the capital city and half of them get executed for it, that's not disrespectful *or* shoddy. Unwise, yes, but very much handle-able provided the party does some recruiting to replace the dead. Big deal. Disrepect comes from not showing up to the game, or constantly arguing, or generally being an asshat to the other players out of character; and whether of not there's a DM involved ain't gonna fix that.

We read awesome fiction by PirateCat on Enworld and wonder… why can't our games be that good… and then we realize… wait… his players don't treat him like a doormat and are vested in the success of a truly epic journey… instead of a hackneyed punchline.

P-Cat's skill as an author doesn't hurt; he could probably write a fine story out of the most awful of games. Conversely, my own game logs tell a badly-written tale of woe and chaos...but don't (and can't, in-game) mention the number of times we all collapse in laughter around the table, thanks to the humour and entertainment the game is giving us. We're all vested in the success of having fun; and if an epic journey happens to rear its ugly head along the way, so much the better. And in the end, ain't that what it's all about?

This post isn't for the people who crap in their own game worlds and call it pudding.

This post is for the people who have (other) people crapping in their game world and want it to stop.

Simple answer: make the design robust enough to survive whatever the players do to it. And pick your players wisely.

Lan-"how many ExP is an epic journey worth?"-efan

 

[jim pinto]

I'm with you until this. Even in a GMless game people can still crap on the game world, I at least I have not seen a game that prevents problem players (players that crap on anything I term as problem players) from being problems.

I would also not call the older style antiquated. It might be old (though I'm getting close to the age where I'm uncomfortable calling something only 40 years old old ) but it still works and it works very well. It might not work for everyone, but nothing ever does.

Fair enough. I'm sure my momentum caught up to me at the last moment and I threw in the added punch.

As for the term antiquated, what would you call a game system that plays fundamentally the same way, some 35 years after its inception. Certainly a car company that still made cars by hand would be considered an antiquated method.

I never said it was a bad method. I said it was old. I'm pushing 40 myself, but I never want to game the way I did when I was 14. And I certainly don't want to game the way the 4E DMG advises me I should.

I've got more tools at my disposal then that.

 

[SabreCat]

Jim, why do you feel it's necessary to characterize GM-less play as a means to fix a "disease" or "problem"? Why can't it be an excellent alternative in its own right?

Because while I'm such a huge fan of GM-less play that I'm designing a game in that style, I agree with the above posters who've said you can't fix problem players with a change of narrative authority. Players who get frissons out of wrecking the GM's carefully laid plans aren't going to suddenly become attentive, considerate, and cooperative when you change up the rules for contributing to the fiction.

Here's a big thought: even traditional GM-player games with lots of narrative authority in the hands of one guy are collaborative. They're just a different style of collaboration than the one you're advocating. (Real basic example: GM dangles a plot hook about farmers kidnapped by goblins. Player comes up with a reason for his character to care, because he knows that way lies the adventure the GM has prepped. Boom, collaboration.) And both styles of collaboration are prone to abuse by people who would rather disrupt than build.

As an aside, calling other play styles than your preferred one "antiquated" or "cynical" isn't going to win people over. If you're trying to encourage people to expand their horizons and maybe try some new ways of setting up their games, putting them on the defensive isn't going to get anyone there.

 

[Crothian]

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

Robust. Something without a negative connotation attached to it. Games are more like art then a car. So, perhaps whatever people call the last popular idea of art or something. I'm not an art person, I have no idea what their jargon is.

And I certainly don't want to game the way the 4E DMG advises me I should.

I've got more tools at my disposal then that.

Not everyone does though. You're a better DM and player then I am. My tool box has a hammer and a bent screwdriver in it. So, what I need is something that tells me how to do the things you are doing.

 

[jim pinto]

Second off, building a world/game/campaign/rule-set is in some ways similar to making a piece of art, or music: you do what seems good, then turn it loose on the world for the critics to savage...at which point *it has left your control*. Same is true of a game world, the recipe is and should always be "Instant mayhem - just add players."

To use your logic, art galleries have dress codes. More importantly, most people that show up for opening night of an art exhibit are vested in art. They might actually even buy a painting. If the PCs are paying me for my time, I'll gladly let them urinate on the couch.

Third off, "shoddy and disrespectful play style"??? That's a different thing, not usually related to what the characters do in-game. If they fireball a tavern in the capital city and half of them get executed for it, that's not disrespectful *or* shoddy. Unwise, yes, but very much handle-able provided the party does some recruiting to replace the dead. Big deal. Disrepect comes from not showing up to the game, or constantly arguing, or generally being an asshat to the other players out of character; and whether of not there's a DM involved ain't gonna fix that.

I've made is abundently clear what I mean by this. I don't need to define it any more. When you crap on the GM's world, you crap on the GM. If it doesn't bother you that someone ruined your painting, then congratulations. You are the perfect blend of creative GM and patient sage. I doubt everyone would agree 100% with you about what is acceptable and what is not.

All that aside, the THRUST of my post was about a different way to play D&D, not to judge people who aren't playing well. To take umbrage with my original post, suggests that I didn't write a very good first and second post. I clearly stated I didn't want to have THIS kind of debate about it, but I didn't state what I actually DID want.

P-Cat's skill as an author doesn't hurt; he could probably write a fine story out of the most awful of games. Conversely, my own game logs tell a badly-written tale of woe and chaos...but don't (and can't, in-game) mention the number of times we all collapse in laughter around the table, thanks to the humour and entertainment the game is giving us. We're all vested in the success of having fun; and if an epic journey happens to rear its ugly head along the way, so much the better. And in the end, ain't that what it's all about?

Then it sounds to me as though this thread has nothing to offer you. Without sounding rude or anything, I've appreciated your input, but I don't see how it offers anything to the thread other than that fact that you don't agree. And I don't see how the thread offers you anything in return, other than the reinforcement that you like how you do things.

Simple answer: make the design robust enough to survive whatever the players do to it. And pick your players wisely.

I wish the DMG had those 20 words printed on every page.

And nothing else.

All kidding aside, if gaming were that easy, then no one would ever sell a single advice book or GM Aid. It's a wonderful ideal, but it's also naive to think that everyone games like you and that people aren't looking for a way to change an aspect of their play experience.

And it's kind of arrogant to assume that someone can't benefit from this kind of thread.

 

[jim pinto]

Robust. Something without a negative connotation attached to it. Games are more like art then a car. So, perhaps whatever people call the last popular idea of art or something. I'm not an art person, I have no idea what their jargon is.

Not everyone does though. You're a better DM and player then I am. My tool box has a hammer and a bent screwdriver in it. So, what I need is something that tells me how to do the things you are doing.

Dude. We should hang out and gencon and game together. I love to game with people who want to expand their experience. Seriously, Vincent Baker's In a Wicked Age. Put it on your list. Life-changing.

 

[jmucchiello]

What Crothian said just before I was going to. I've played with many players who would crap on the game if given GM powers. I've also played with players who would not pay attention well enough to act as result adjudicators regardless of how much it is supposed raise their investment. If you have a game where "player on the left describes the result" sitting to the right of either of these players is going to be a less than satisfying session.

There are some players who will never want to be invested in your RPG. They just like to show up and kill stuff. Heck, some just want to show up and drink your Mountain Dew. If your goal is to remove players who won't make up a nice character background or who won't memorize you sea god's holy symbol or who won't notice when the name of a just met NPC is similar to the name of the hero a bard was singing about in the tavern six weeks, the solution is to not play with those people.

PCat story hours are so good because he chooses to play with excellent players. They would thrive in the environment you describe but they don't need that environment. They already have a game, run the old fashioned way, that works as well as your proposed solution. Why? Because something about PCat and his players make it work.

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.

 

[darkwing]

Very interesting post.

I think your version of GM-less gaming would appeal best to those gamers who like world building.

As for myself, I'm an explorer. I don't really care for building worlds, but I like exploring them and heroically killing things that need killing. My version of GM-less gaming would be a published adventure that reads like a Lone Wolf book: "If the party chooses to follow the trail of the orcs, turn to page 141." The world would be revealed in the choices the players made by consensus. You could even run through the adventure again with different choices to explore other parts of the world and or story.

Your idea of taking turns controlling the monsters during the combat portions would work well in this version I think.

 

[jim pinto]

Jim, why do you feel it's necessary to characterize GM-less play as a means to fix a "disease" or "problem"? Why can't it be an excellent alternative in its own right?

Because while I'm such a huge fan of GM-less play that I'm designing a game in that style, I agree with the above posters who've said you can't fix problem players with a change of narrative authority. Players who get frissons out of wrecking the GM's carefully laid plans aren't going to suddenly become attentive, considerate, and cooperative when you change up the rules for contributing to the fiction.

Here's a big thought: even traditional GM-player games with lots of narrative authority in the hands of one guy are collaborative. They're just a different style of collaboration than the one you're advocating. (Real basic example: GM dangles a plot hook about farmers kidnapped by goblins. Player comes up with a reason for his character to care, because he knows that way lies the adventure the GM has prepped. Boom, collaboration.) And both styles of collaboration are prone to abuse by people who would rather disrupt than build.

As an aside, calling other play styles than your preferred one "antiquated" or "cynical" isn't going to win people over. If you're trying to encourage people to expand their horizons and maybe try some new ways of setting up their games, putting them on the defensive isn't going to get anyone there.

Sabrecat. Good post. My acerbic writing style always gets me in trouble at times and you've RIGHTLY called me to the mat. Thank god for editors.

My first thread post was sort of a slow-simmer introduction to my point about a possible solution to uncooperative players. There are others.

My second thread post, and the more important of the two, is to inject some GM-less ideas into the 3.x community. And yes, not everyone can use these tools and not everyone knows what to do with my post.

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.

This thread is a culmination of many factors, so many that it would be an arduous task for me to write them all. But the alignment system is part of it. Hit points. Views on heroism and game worlds that pander to the player instead of challenging the character.

The list goes on.

Thanks for your insight and keep me posted on your game design.

 

[SabreCat]

Thanks for your insight and keep me posted on your game design.

You say you'll be at Gen Con? Perhaps we have a meeting in the making here! ^.^ The ashcan of Blazing Rose is going to print within the next month, and hopefully will graduate to final product (outside playtests willing) by August. I'd be more than happy to show it off.