I got interviewed over at Primeval Press. If you're interested it's at:
http://www.primevalpress.com/articles/interviews/nixon.html
Feel free to discuss here.
Very nice interview. You also convinced me to pick up DitV.
Gary
I have to say I am flattered. Thanks for the kind words.
I am in total agreement about an RPG needing a GM. Otherwise it is a different kind of animal, in the same way that a Poodle is a different from a Great Dane.
Keith
I'm going to to disagree with the notion that an RPG requires a GM, and especially that a "good" game requires one.
This is, obviously, not to say that I think a GM can't be a crucial factor in a great game.
If I understand the generally supported (if loose) definition of RPG 'round these parts, it's that we require Color, Setting, Character, System and Situation. We, the players, explore, and negotiate events in a shared imaginary space. I don't think that requires a GM.
I'm going to put my money where my mouth is on Dreamspire. We'll see how it turns out. The question then will be "is it an RPG?" Dunno. Don't are. It's something. I'm interested in the game, not the label.
Matt,
If you squint at my answer, you'll see that I'm really saying "Someone needs to be forced to break the ice" and "conflict and resolution should not initiate from the same person." Follow those two, and whether you ever use the term GM doesn't matter. Capes is a great game, and it says it doesn't have a GM. (In actuality, the GM role flits from person to person, but...)
Anyway.
Hi,
I was thinking of Ron's term "helmsman" fit perfectly. Sort of a leader to the whole affair, though that role might shift around the table during play. I tried inadequately to explain that idea under the concept of a ball being passed.
Chris
Right, I hear you. But it's couched in language like this:
QuoteIs there some key element that you feel is necessary for an enjoyable session of role-playing?
A GM. This response is really here to irritate some friends I've been having this discussion with: is a GM necessary?
and
QuoteI am in total agreement about an RPG needing a GM.
You answer (and Keith's) was, superficially, yes. GM's are necessary. But, looking past that, you're really saying that we need, as you say, icebreakers and conflict introduction/resolution.
So you're saying one thing, meaning another. And I'm hearing you across the board. It's cool.
Any info. on these discussions you've been having with friends about GMs being required or not?
Matt I would like to clarify my response. I believe that there needs to be an Alpha. He is the individual in the group that starts shit up and keeps shit in line. Call him GM, pack leader or mother, I don't care. Every game needs someone to drive the car, even though he may be taking all his directions from that asshole playing his game boy instead of looking for that street you are supposed to turn on in the passanger seat.
Keith
I don't think he's "Saying one thing and meaning another." He's defined GM as "A person providing conflict, who is different than the person providing its resoloution." instead of the traditional "This specific guy that runs the game."
I don't think its stretching the terminology of "GM" to say that in Universalis, everyone is a GM when they provide conflicts, and it is better if another person provides the soloution.
Clinton, reading your pro-GM propoganda, my first thought was "he obviously needs to play some Polaris like nobody's business." Show up in indie_netgaming sometime and we'll be glad to give you a schooling. *cracks knuckles* Ben certainly schooled me.
I really think in the games where there is no GM, that there is still a GM. That role is just spread out over all the players, a "collective" GM, as it were.
Gary
Hi guys,
It might be worthwhile to note that traditionally, the GM was basically in charge of a collection of duties- which can be easily passed around. But, going from what Clinton is talking about, being sort of an initiator/facilitator, is also a seperate thing.
Clinton, did you mean all the above, or was "GM" shorthand for the facilitator idea given that you probably didn't want or have time to explain the whole Big Model on the website?
Chris
I meant two things:
a) The facilitator idea. This is usually one person.
b) The separation of conflict and resolution. These duties can be passed around.
Before anyone gets too up in arms over (b) I mean this:
- One person makes up what's wrong.
- Another person says how it turns out.
Yeah, Clinton, I'd agree with that.
I'm literally, right now, working through the design of Dreamspire. The process I've got outlined loosely involves players taking turns. Each player has a shot at doing something to increase his primary character's influence in the gameworld.
So, during a given player's turn, he announces what he wants to do. Something like "I want to control the constable of Beggar's Hall. Anybody gonna stop me?" Other players can help or hinder. If anyone opposes, conflict resolution enuse. If no one opposes, the player explains how he does it, and maybe spends some currency to do so.
Each player is introducing a conflict, and others may act against him to resolve it. So, it's a bit fuzzy, but I think that's the same as what you're saying.
Quote from: Bob GoatMatt I would like to clarify my response. I believe that there needs to be an Alpha.
Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, I agree with Keith here.
I think that we're all in agreement with Clinton that there basically has to be a final arbiter of things, and that this can pass around. But, even early on in designing Universalis, we were going to put in rules for a "first player." Because, I actually do believe that someone needs to push everyone, and a game really can benefit from a vision that comes largely from one person. So that the vision is coherent and followable. Even in a game like Universalis, it's important to have this, because some players will just be in more of a "follower" mode sometimes, and can't do anything without someone in the lead.
So why doesn't Universalis have a "first player" rule? Well, what we discovered, is that it happens automatically. You don't need a rule for this position. Somebody will just always step forward and take this position. Humans, being the social animals that we are, always take up stations in a pecking order, or in terms of leaders and followers. It's almost tautological - if you have followers, that implies leaders, too. If a player can be a follower, then others can be leaders. And these situations adjust themselves to the group present.
If someone has the gumption to even suggest playing Universalis in the first place, they've got at least enough gumption to be the leader. So they, or somebody with more leadership ability will be there to step in to fill this role. So I do not believe that you need to put in rules for this sort of thing in an RPG. Just like Ron always points out that the "Points of Contact" in a game like Universalis are probably higher than they have to be in regards to who resolves what, when, etc, I think one can have a facilitator role, but that in many cases it's just not neccessary to appoint one.
So, as with anything, I think it depends on the specific design. I can get behind either concept. Specified facilitator, unspecified...as long as it's all part of the overall system and well considered, I'm sure it's the right decidsion for he game.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesInterestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, I agree with Keith here.
I think that we're all in agreement with Clinton that there basically has to be a final arbiter of things, and that this can pass around. But, even early on in designing Universalis, we were going to put in rules for a "first player." Because, I actually do believe that someone needs to push everyone, and a game really can benefit from a vision that comes largely from one person. So that the vision is coherent and followable. Even in a game like Universalis, it's important to have this, because some players will just be in more of a "follower" mode sometimes, and can't do anything without someone in the lead.
So why doesn't Universalis have a "first player" rule? Well, what we discovered, is that it happens automatically. You don't need a rule for this position. Somebody will just always step forward and take this position. Humans, being the social animals that we are, always take up stations in a pecking order, or in terms of leaders and followers. It's almost tautological - if you have followers, that implies leaders, too. If a player can be a follower, then others can be leaders. And these situations adjust themselves to the group present.
If someone has the gumption to even suggest playing Universalis in the first place, they've got at least enough gumption to be the leader. So they, or somebody with more leadership ability will be there to step in to fill this role. So I do not believe that you need to put in rules for this sort of thing in an RPG. Just like Ron always points out that the "Points of Contact" in a game like Universalis are probably higher than they have to be in regards to who resolves what, when, etc, I think one can have a facilitator role, but that in many cases it's just not neccessary to appoint one.
So, as with anything, I think it depends on the specific design. I can get behind either concept. Specified facilitator, unspecified...as long as it's all part of the overall system and well considered, I'm sure it's the right decidsion for he game.
Mike
Holy crap! We are in agreement!
However, even though the role of the Alpha tends to be filled naturally in a game group, I think it helps a lot to point that mother out. For example, when learning all the life saving crap like CPR and Water Rescue, the one thing they stressed is when you are on a rescue, point to a specific person and say, "You, go call 911!" I think the same principle applies here, cause if you don't, everyone will be milling around for a while why you try to save some half-drowned kid's life.
Keith
The CPR situation is true, because it's a stress situation. Yes, if you're playing with an entire group of stress-puppies, who view making decisions like what monster to throw at a fictional character as hard to make, then you'll have a problem.
Again, however, it's my experience that if you have the gumption to decide to play in the first place, that somebody in the group has the very minimal reqirements that it takes to be "first player." I mean, I've seen some otherwise pretty damn timid people (let's face it RPG player can trend this way), who've taken up this role.
I mean, all we're talking about here is a person who can speak up and say, "So who's turn is it now?"
Nobody's life is at stake in RPGs (not any I've played, at least). So I think that baring very unusual circumstances, that you don't absolutely have to point out an alpha. Worse, I'd postulate that if you have to do this because nobody would naturally, that you're in some serious trouble anyhow. Sounds like a group with players who are going to all turtle anyway.
Again, that's not to say that it is harmful to point one out. If you feel the need, go ahead. I just think that the other option is valid as well. For example in games that do a lot of other handholding to ensure play progresses. Like Universalis where there's a turn order, rules for interrupting, for challenging, etc, etc, etc.
Mike
Mike,
You mean to tell me in all your years of role-playign you never had a deadly d4 incident?
You have a much rosier picture of humanity than I do. People are sheep and will go on grazing until someone (the sheep dog) tells them, time to go back to the pen. Like you said, role-players often have a tendency to trend towards the timid end of the pool and I think it is important to help them over that hump by reinforcing the need for the role.
Also, we have all played with the one guy who is always right and tries to dominate play by sheer force of his/her personality. By reinforcing that person X is the Alpha I think it can help deal with person Y who wants to be in charge. But this is all social contract stuff, or as I like to call it Pack Relations.
Did I even have a point in all this?
Keith
Relating my own expierience:
There seems to be a couple of thing were referring to as "First Player"(Or "Alpha", but I hate the term.)
1 - Voice of Authority
2 - Introducer of Conflict
3 - Iniatilizer/Energizer
No. 1 is pretty much nessecary. In my own expiereince, the Voice of Authority has to be one guy that's representing all of the formalized desires of the group for the game, whether it takes the form of an assumed social contract or their argeeance on the text of the game.
If the one guy stops being an authority, than the game loses cohesiveness, and if he stops representing the deisres of the group, well, it'll be shitty for them.
No.2 is variably usefull posistion depending on the makeup of the players and how much conflict they want that they aren't able to provide themselves. This posistion can be one guy, the whole group, a system, or any combination thereof.
No.3 This is again, nessecary to the degree that the average players wants energy/momentum and cannot provide it himself, and is something of a group variable wherin every person has a certain giving and receiving of it, with the game's shared general energy/momentum a result of how much everyone gives without receiving.