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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 3700919" data-attributes="member: 945">This is what I got out of Ryan's last entry...The model he describes very much sounds like Round-Robin GM'ing, which I've advocated for years on these very boards.  I was even planning on running a couple of sessions of it at Gen Con this year, but chose not to go at the last minute...Anyway, RR GM'ing is essentially a game whereby everyone takes turns GM'ing, and continues the "story" from the last GM. At first, someone has to create the story out of nothing, and that's the hardest part - but when pressed to be creative on the spot, people usually turn up pretty good stuff.These games almost always tell a story. I've ran this scenario many times over, and while it's completely different every time, the basic format remains the same - It almost always manages to fit into a 4-hour slot - you get plot development, introduction of a MacGuffin (not always, but most of the time), introduction of a villain, some combat, and a final showdown, and resolution.  It's amazing how it manages to just work itself out that way.  The games are extremely free form and almost paint Impressionistic-level paintings with wide brush strokes of narrative across a huge swath of campaign. But they're always fun and always interesting.Even at it's best, a regular game of D&D hardly comes close, actually, because the "story" is gestalt - greater than the sum of its parts, contributed by more than one person, with twists and turns the original author couldn't possibly dream up. The biggest problem with Round-Robin GM'ing is that everyone at the table has to be comfortable GM'ing. Not everyone is, and the better the GM, the better this game becomes. I've ran this at Gen Con with ENWorld folks whom I consider to be excellent GMs, and it turns out superb. CAPES! is another game which sort of utilizes the same model - each player sort of takes turning dictating how the story turns out. The rules are very broad - you resolve an entire scene with the dice (I think they're are dice; I've only played it once) or by raising the stakes against those who oppose the resolution of the scene in the same manner in which you wish it to occur.  In D&D, this would be sort of like saying, "I walk into the room and kill everything" and the DM says, "Ok, roll the dice". In such a system, armor class and hit points are more or less meaningless minute details that only seek to complicate the game. Personality and story are very much in tact - role-playing does not have to be discarded. But the minutia of the game (which I suspect many people find enjoyable) is painted over in broad strokes. Attacks of Opportunity are replaced with broad decision trees regarding how and where the party wishes to go and what they do.  The game is fundamentally changed on many levels if you go to that extreme.I believe what Dancey is advocated is more a round-robin approach. In Round-Robin, the current GM plays the roles of the monsters and NPCs, and his own PC becomes an NPC for the duration of GM'ing. For Round-Robin to be successful, though, the game has to play fast - very fast, like C&C or 1e fast. 3rd edition is much slower; chargen takes longer. I don't much care for C&C, but I've often felt like it would be the perfect vehicle for Round-Robin because combat is much faster, and chargen is a snap. With this game, pace and speed is crucial.Anyway, I've blathered on enough.  Those are my thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification