Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaotic Archon" data-source="post: 4715901" data-attributes="member: 21828">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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'.</blockquote>

Verification