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

[Chaotic Archon]

I don't understand the funny part. Obviously, if the game is more about the players, it is less about the characters. Some people like the immersive, dramaturgical side of role-playing. Further, I don't see where egos come into this. Playing a character within a story rather than telling the story you prefer seems to be less ego-driven.

The GMless game effectively puts the players in the position of choosing to be collaborative, competitive, disruptive, or passive, which is precisely the position they were in before they removed the GM. All you have removed is an outside decider as to what will be considered real or not, in case there is any incongruity.

I 100% agree with you that some some people like immersive, dramaturgical roleplaying. I didn't mean to imply that people don't. I don't mean to say that playing a character within a story or telling a story has any 'edge' on being more or less ego driven. I'm talking about the less balanced player who's social confines prevent them from enjoying positive attention during a game. This is about a small subset of players that always seem to find their way into games. I'm talking from a purely personal perspective here, you might have never encountered 'this' player. Unfortunately, my friends and I have had more than our fair share of them, so they are a consideration.

I was unintentionally vague with that quoted comment, sorry. Let me rephrase it:
Some players have a very strong ego when they play. They want attention and channel that want through their character's deeds. I'm fairly certain that most of us have played with this type of person or at least heard horror stories of this person. What I meant about it being funny (perhaps ironic was a better choice of words?) is that if the person took a step back from the game, they'd possibly see that they're getting more positive attention by being part of the process instead of trying to garner it through mechanically 'beating' the process.

I disagree with you that they are in the same position that they were in with a GM because 'that' player is no longer collaborating, competing, disrupting, or being passive to a story teller that determines the outcome of that behavior. They are doing those things to themselves as well. Since they're actions include themselves, I'd like to think they'd be less inclined to disrupt their own play. I'm not saying this is 100% applicable to every player, but I believe that it's reasonable to assume the player isn't going to create a scene for the party, and then go out of his/her way to disrupt the events as that player unfolds them. As for competing, since resources are player generated, trying to get every coin, magic item, or treasure doesn't do much because the players can simply deprecate those things. I think you're dead on that a passive player will continue to experience things almost identically with our without a gm (in effect, that person is just allowing the party to be his/her gm....so they probably don't really apply to much of this conversation aside from being table candy )

 

[Chaotic Archon]

Strictly speaking: Only in that it removes "the GM." We can't remove an insistence if it wasn't there in the first place. In fact, we can't remove it at all! Someone is still free to insist, "You can't set the inn on fire! You're wrecking the story!" Others are still free to insist, "Yes, we can! In fact, we are!"

That can depend a bit on rules structure and presentation of game premises. Dark Cults is by design a competitive game, and the last sentence of that passage has an especial (although not unique) relevance to 3E/4E D&D.

However, much more depends on the group of players. Now, someone so inclined can get hung up not only on "my character's awesomeness" but on "my story/world elements' awesomeness". He or she can get into an adversarial role not with the now-absent GM (which taken to an extreme would be a losing proposition without the latter's self-restraint) but with other players (potentially beatable within game rules).

Again, more 3E/4E-isms -- with no clear reason why they should be any less relevant if something similar is the rules set in play.

Reasonably, the other players' actions are no less significant. In any case, an unreasonable player can always find someone else to blame.

In short, the nature of the game does not change the nature of the players -- but the nature of the players can change the nature of the game!

I was trying to comment on Pinto's idea of how gm-less gaming applied to D&D might play out. So I did base my ideas on 3/4-isms

When I say "remove GM insistence", I mean remove the preconceived idea that the party is going to accomplish XYZ in order to progress the GM's story along. If X or Y doesn't happen quite right, the GM *CAN* apply those situations again, under different circumstances to 'insist' the story follows a path. The implication was that this helps remove 'gaming on rails'. You're right that a party member could still insist on a course of action, but the power to insist on a series of events is removed unless the party as a whole agrees with it (or ends up in a stalemate and throws dice at each other until someone spills their mountain dew).

As for players taking it to the extreme or being unreasonable, I agree this could be a huge issue and I thought I mentioned it in my cons to this type of gaming. Without a group of thoughtful and respectful players, removing the GM could lead to a very bad night of gaming.

I think you're spot on with 'the nature of the players'. This game only works well with certain players. I would never assume that this type of game would change the nature of a bad/egotistical/disrespectful player.


Back to the original request by Jim, though, I'm just giving my 2 cents on what I think the pro's and con's of this type of game would be. I'm not trying to tell anyone 'how it will be'.

 

[jim pinto]

before i forget…

years ago, white wolf did a set of cards called the Story Path.

absolutely fantastic game device… very similar to the purple cards mentioned earlier, except very specific in tone. check them out.

i was actually toying with the idea of making some decks of cards for GMs and players (similar but not identical, they would have NUMEROUS functions)… maybe through studio2 or something… although it would be about $20, i suspect, for 100 cards… not exactly an add on purchase.

also, check out the concept of oracles among the zero-prep indie crowd. again. a massively useful tool for world-building, scene prep, and so on. Sons of Liberty's "mad lib" style adventure design is also a brilliant tool to steal from.

lastly, my own magnum opus… the ultimate toolbox… was completed a few months ago (with the ibachs, jeff and dawn). it's 400 pages and it makes these processes much more approachable.

 

[jim pinto]

Let me be very clear about one thing...

the PCs should always be allowed to burn down the inn. I'm not advocating any kind of censorship.

But they should also be aware that the driver can pull the car off to the side of the road anytime he wants.

The problem with the DO ANYTHING YOU WANT model of what I consider ID-driven gaming, is that it makes no sense most of the time. When I game, I tend to play characters with a somewhat obnoxious streak about them. It's probably cathartic, considering I never get to game and always GM.

BUT

I always accept the consequences of my actions. And because of my play style, I always give the GM more rope to work with, more fuel for the campaign. Not less.

The burning tavern example is a great paradigm for this thread because it examine so many polarized issues. The fact is, setting off a fireball inside the city has one effect on game play… you are a wanted man now.

Two effects… you're also a douche.

 

[Ariosto]

Yeah, those cards from White Wolf were nifty -- I never owned 'em, but played with 'em.

The Pool is (as I recall) a good example of a game with rules entirely focused on "authorial currency." It has a GM with veto power, but I don't think that role is necessary. I have not looked at (much less played) it in a long time.

 

[Korgoth]

GM-less gaming strikes at the very heart of why I game: exploration. The GM is the guy who creates a world (an entirely new one or a variation of someone else's world or even of the real world). He makes determinations as to what is there.

Then I get to explore that. I get to find out who lives where and what they are like. I get to find out what's really in that cave. I get to find out why that moathouse really isn't abandoned. I get to find out the answer to the riddle posed by the robotic guardian, and I get to find out what it was guarding... maybe even why.

Without a GM who defines these things beforehand, my reason for gaming falls apart.

 

[jim pinto]

GM-less gaming strikes at the very heart of why I game: exploration. The GM is the guy who creates a world (an entirely new one or a variation of someone else's world or even of the real world). He makes determinations as to what is there.

Then I get to explore that. I get to find out who lives where and what they are like. I get to find out what's really in that cave. I get to find out why that moathouse really isn't abandoned. I get to find out the answer to the riddle posed by the robotic guardian, and I get to find out what it was guarding... maybe even why.

Without a GM who defines these things beforehand, my reason for gaming falls apart.

Korgath. I respect this point of view. And I actually like gaming this way once in a while. Part of my contention about the "experience and discovery" model is that too often PCs take advantage of a GMs hard work and instead of making his job more enjoyable, they pull the fireball trick for no reason other than to do it.

Even if you only play the cooperative model ONCE, players can become more invested in what it is that drives the to game. I know there's no cure for "bad players" and/or "bad GMs" (defined by whatever lexicon you like), but I think experimentation is what made D&D even "happen" as a concept. To assume there's only one way to do it… well… that's like the people who love taking advantage of the technological exploits of Edison, but could care less how he did it.

And I don't want to be that guy, either.

Here's a question for you, Korgath... Would you ever try this style of play? Even for just a couple sessions?

 

[SabreCat]

I find the "exploration" objective a curious one, for various reasons:

- The game world doesn't exist. The only "thing" you're learning about when exploring is a construct of the GM's imagination. Is there a special reverence toward the minds of people who make stuff up about trees and monsters?

- It relies on one person being able to convincingly "fake it" when the players explore a direction or detail not covered by whatever degree of outside-of-gametime work they've done. The GM's job is to help you fool yourself that you're learning new things about a predefined world, even in those cases where you're in fact learning about whatever popped into the GM's head when prompted with your question about this mountain range or that culture.

In other words, you know there's a man behind the curtain. But in order for your reason for gaming not to fall apart, as you put it, you have to place yourself in a very particular mindset to keep yourself from remembering that he's there.

You can have discovery, and surprise, and even a coherent world without this elaborate dance, this bubble that it's one person's job to keep floating in the air without bursting. And I found that realization deeply liberating!

 

[Ariosto]

SabreCat, that's getting needlessly artful. Ever played Battleship or Stratego?

More to the point: If you've ever played D&D as it was originally designed to be played, then you should recognize that the experience is different. The point of the GM-less (or any "story" driven) approach is to produce a different experience.

The Dungeon! board game is GM-less, and yet another experience (more akin to Clue).

Only a portion of the environment in an RPG is made up on the spot. The OP, as I recall, placed some importance on the amount of preparatory work a GM does. Moreover, improvised elements immediately become established elements, and character-players may not immediately (if ever) learn all the ramifications that are nonetheless established.

They do not decide what those are!

How, in a GM-less game, are there to be persistent and consistent elements that are nonetheless not common knowledge? In a GM-run game, there can be limited information concerning things about which information exists. In a truly GM-less game, whatever is not commonly known effectively does not exist.

The Clue and Dungeon! examples show how one can to a limited extent emulate "real" (there even when you're not looking) elements -- but that is extremely limited. They cannot affect play unless a player knows of them.

One could have a "multi-GM" game in which Player A is GM only to Player B, their characters being (for all practical purposes) in different "worlds." I do not think that's what is being contemplated here.

Neither Battleship nor Stratego fits the common definition of an RPG, but in a sense each is about "playing the role" of a military commander. The information each player possesses or lacks is in keeping with that role.

 

[SabreCat]

Ah. OK. The Battleship/Stratego example as illustrative of "playing a role" is helpful, I think. So the player and character need to have access to very similar sets of information for it to count as "playing a role" by your definition/preference.

I guess I have a few questions, to see if I can come to understand this by another step or two:

First: regarding "things about which information exists." (I think this is the less pertinent question, but it does interest me.) To what extent is the pre-existence of the information even important? In Battleship, if I were a horrible cheat and/or had poor impulse control, I could grab the game board, spin it around, and see the whole layout of those ships I'd been searching for. They're objectively verifiable. But in the GMed RPG scenario, there's not necessarily anything of the sort, and indeed there certainly isn't in all those cases where the GM improvises instead of reading/revealing from maps or notes. If there were a hypothetical GM who could improvise everything of his gameworld without preplanning... would revealing that be a disappointment to a player who prefers the exploration style?

Second: Isn't it true that players already know more, and have control over more, than their characters do? Can't players already partition off some portion of their knowledge for the character's use, and leave other portions for their own? (I know my character has 3 hit points left, and thus has a 50% chance of falling unconscious from a 1d4 dagger blow. The character knows he's reeling from his wounds and doesn't have much fight left in him, but nowhere near that level of detail.) In what way do you feel that GMless/collaborative storytelling play prevents a player from doing this in a similar fashion with world information and narrative authority?