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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[pawsplay]

And here's the only flaw I see in your post.

Because it's not BASICALLY the same as having multiple GMs. It's a table filled with GMs, all vested in the game world, all dedicated to make the play experience good for EVERYONE, not just their own personal glory of finding the magical broom of Iuz.

Which means, nobody gets their own personal glory. Is that a net win? I have no objections to shared storytelling experiences. I've played in some. However, it is a distinctly different style from the traditional RPG, and also requires recruiting multiple GMs. I don't know what everyone else's experience is, but usually it's an accomplishment to recruit just one. But clearly, if you like being a player, or if you like being a GM who facillitates players, the "all GMs" game is going to miss in some ways.

It is certainly possible for everyone to play meta, but it detracts from the immersion. A dedicated GM has a big advantage in creating immersive play, in that the GM has responsibility for most of the meta stuff. In effect, "the world" is the GM's character and there is no role confusion. Whereas in the all GM game, each player must either juggle between meta, GM stuff and immersive play, or give up on immersion in a character. If everyone is the GM, if all characters are effectively NPCs, then the game becomes a matter of shoulds rather than I-wills. It makes sense for this, wouldn't it be cool if, etc., versus, "I attack the guard."

The traditional GM gives up attachment to individual characters, but what they get in return is the opportunity to orchestrate events and interactions. They have great narrative power. If you run a multiple GM game, no one GM has authorial control. I can invest motivation in the evil lieutenant if I know what he's for; it is harder to invest when I know another player might narrate him in an entirely different direction. There is a difference between narrative uncertainy and actual ignorance. In the multiple GMs scenario, illusionism is virtually impossible. There is absolutely no way of knowing where a narrative thread could lead.

So the no-GM, all-GM game can certainly work. Just like how you can have a band without a conductor, or a string quartet without a lead player. But in that case, every person must not every contribute to the leadership but accept outcomes of it. It is possible to take a working four person GMless game and wreck it simply by adding a fifth person who is not a good GM. It is possible for the game to stop working because the GMs start seeing different artistic ends.

But most importantly, in the multiple GM game, nothing can be delegated. That may sound contradictory, but it is both true and important. I cannot simply dictate a challenge, check, or other game mechanic. I cannot even state what mechanic will be used. Anything could be overridden or modified. I cannot ask the player, "What would you like to happen?" Instead, I can only invite my fellow player to do as they wished to do anyway. I cannot point to a book or a campaign plan or anything and say, "This is our campaign bible." I cannot let the dice decide.

So, apart from the impracticality of finding so many talented people and grouping them together into one group, and convincing them of the interest of a GMless game, you face an obstacle which I consider significant. There is no one to play the role of cold, hard, inarguable reality. Instead, you have mutiple realities competing for salience, evidence, and regard.

Taken to its natural end, it is not a roleplaying game at all, but a narrative game. No roles, no role-playing.

 

[pawsplay]

Let me examine the idea of a GMless game from a traditional RPG standpoint. I am using this definition:

A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events. Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules. At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions as if that character. Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.

Obviously, the first part works. Narration and logically connected events is assumed. Also, critical game decisions can be made collaboratively using a set of rules. There is some slippage here, in that the rules, lacking an authority to enforce them, are not as firm as in traditional games, but assuming a wide agreement, we are still on safe ground here. Now, the third criterion, taking on the role of a specific character, making decisions as if that character, can be true in a GMless game. However, in that case you have the double-vision problem, playing both immersively and meta. On the other hand, you can forsake having a specific character, in which case, AFAIAC, you have exited the genre of RPGs. Lastly, the idea of adjudicating any possible action again is problematic with the lack of an authority on what is real or not.

So the meta-structure of a GMless is different. It is not characters exploring a world, or to put it another way, the players exploring the narrative limitations set by the GM. Instead, it is the negotiation between players of the narrative constraints. It is simply a differnent kind of game, period.

 

[Ariosto]

I can see how the lesser investment on your part due to the sharing of effort in a GM-less game can make it easier to take it in stride when people disturb "your" story -- because then it's also "theirs."

To judge from the "fireball in a crowded tavern" example, though, I think that the biggest return would come from a social contract with players selected for being on the same page with you.

In my experience, GM-less games tend to call for being a lot more flexible. Players usually have not less but more power to make changes such as setting fire to a tavern.

That power can be reined in sharply with more formalized rules, as taken to an extreme in "paragraph" games such as Tales of the Arabian Nights. I suspect you have something much more free-form in mind.

Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant game is a published "story-telling" game I have enjoyed and can recommend. It is not GM-less, but incorporates some distribution of "authorial" powers. Unfortunately, it is long out of print.

The Dark Cults card game by Kenneth Rahman is a pretty good GM-less game. I think it may have been advertised as for two players, but we always played with teams. I don't know whether it's still in print.

As an aside, in the original D&D game not only may you play an orc -sympathizer but you could play an orc. "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top."

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

D&D is just a set of game rules and makes no assumptions about stopping any orcs. Its possible to run whole campaigns with mercenary or downright evil PC's. Its when the DM and the players don't both agree to play that type of game that the problems arise.

Whose methedology of adventure design are you talking about? WOTC? If you are writing your own campaign material then that methodology is yours.

Challenging the character? The character is a fictional collection of abilities and traits on a piece of paper. Its the player that needs to be engaged and entertained. Take the player out of the equation and ask the character what he/she wants and see how far you get.

 

[SabreCat]

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.

Huh. I don't get it. I do the exact same thing you're talking about: immerse in a character, see the world from his or her perspective, and choose that character's actions. But somehow, because I do that less often than you, or because during the times I'm not doing that I also invent elements of the world outside my character in addition to rolling dice and eating Doritos... I'm not role-playing, I'm acting?

All right. I cede. If the above style of play intrudes on what you (and pawsplay et al.) consider sacrosanct role-playing, then I'll call my play style "story gaming" when I converse with you. But to me and others I talk with, it's still role-playing gaming, 'cause we, y'know, play roles. In a game.