True GM Vs players, with infinite GM elephants/resources

[Callan S.]

Ah, I don't know why I bought the AD&D monster manual and GM book. At first it was the crappy artwork to laugh at...but now they mezmerise me. Not in terms of their terribly baroque/heavy backsourcing/mindless rules, but in the strange surge of enthusiasm that dominates their every page. It's quite inspiring in a way.

Anyway, here is a design goal in brief: The GM is pitted against the players and has infinite resources to use against them. However, the GM needs to get over a certain score to beat them. How he can score points is quite detailed. The game lasts for a pre set time, either four hours or until all PC's are dead.


It's pretty obvious that if the GM has infinite resources and a Vs goal, he just calls 'rocks fall, everyone dies' and that's it. However, using ultimate power straight away is worth a  tiny amount of points. In fact you have a respawn mechanism for PC's, based  on it. Based on how far away the GM came to winning, the dead PC's can respawn in better and better  ways,

Eg, GM came really close to winning, they get raised and loose a  level and all equipment.
GM wasn't all that close, they get raised, loose a level but keep equipment.
GM was miles off, they get raised with all equipment, all levels.
(note: You can have in between steps to these, obviously).

Thus 'rocks fall, everybody dies in the first minute' would be weighted so that it scores sweet FA points, thus everyone comes back as if nothing happened next game (and you only wasted five minutes!).

Basically the way you'd weight various attack methods (and you can only use the ones listed in book, singly or in combo, no making up ultimate death machines, then BS'ing how they work in the game), would mean that you'd be trying to use the least amount of resources (because they earn your more points) for the most amount of effect.

Some tools for this would be the use of blank cards where the GM has written a situation and multiple choice options. He reads out the situation, the players respond, he then asks 'does this mean you'd like to do ' and reads out one option that is closest and they can say yes or no. The PC's can also ask for all the options to be read out, but though more gamist sound, it isn't quite as fun. Anyway, once the group makes its choice, the GM flips the card to reveal what the pre determined result of that is. This ensures no railroading to doom, regardless of what you do...which make making tactical choices more rewarding.

Any glaring problems so far? Have I been clear enough in outlining the goal, for you guys to make an evaluation?

[jdagna]

Well... my first impression is why favor this kind of format over a wargame?  In a typical wargame, both players buy their armies with points, then hold each other accountable to following the rules, thus splitting up the GM's responsibilities as referee.  As you reduce the scale of a wargame smaller and smaller, you get something that looks increasingly like an RPG (as the evolution to Chainmail and then D&D suggests).  A small-scale Warhammer battle where each player pits his army/hero against some or all of the other players would be basically what you're talking about, while eliminating a lot of overhead in the GM position.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Justin, I think you're not quite seeing the exercise. I get it precisely - we are talking about a form of Gamism which is universally labeled "impossible," except by the people who practice it regularly and quite rightly give the rest of us one, brief, contemptuous glance before going back to have a good time.

Callan, perhaps you might consider that your "points" don't have to exist. "Points" never exist - what matters is the esteem and appreciation of one's strategy and guts, which is sometimes marked or tabulated by points.

And all you need is a group which assigns esteem based on exactly what you describe. No "points" necessary; in fact, the points which do exist are merely ways to organize the player-characters' improvement, which is a minor part of this sort of play.

[Yeah - that's right. Character improvement, leveling-up, etc, are a minor part of this sort of play. What matters is whether you can hack the pressure right now, whatever level you are, whatever magic items you have.]

Esteem in this group is based on how well you work with what you have. Once you get the "esteem" issue down, then I think you can see that the GM does not have "infinite power." I don't even know where people get this idea, except from 'way over in Simulationist territory. The GM has no such thing.

Think of it this way. On one side is a football team, and on the other side is a guy in a battle-suit. They have to play something resembling football. The team plays like it always does, and the battle-suit guy has specific advantages that no team-member has (e.g. ranged weapons, he's allowed to shoot the ball; he can shoot out an extensible arm; etc).

But the battle-suit guy does not have "infinite power." He merely has special privileges. If he uses something resembling "infinite power" (e.g. shoot the members of the opposing team), he gets no respect. No more than a football player would get no respect by (e.g.) knifing an opposing player on the field.

I'd really like to take this opportunity to say that the commonly-voiced, puzzled concept that "How can you compete against the GM? He's infinitely powerful!" represents an extraordinary mis-understanding of Gamism from the ground up.

No, Gamism is not defined by players-vs.-GM competition. But it can include this sort of play easily.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

yup, in fact, in some ways a point system like this might well undermine the much more powerful, but largely covert, esteem function.

As an exercise it might be a useful one to illustrate to a non gamist how this sort of competition works but I don't know that a mere point system (however cleverly crafted) would be sufficient to get a non gamist group to actually play this way effectively.  Rune tried something like this, and while it was a fun romp, I don't know that it appealed to many as anything other than a diversion (for those who don't play this way) and was largely unnecessarily baroque to those who do.

Interestingly, my pre-highschool group played very much in this manner and while there was the usual assortment of arguements over rules, thrown dice, and shrieks about "cocked dice" the only REAL dysfunctional event that ended our gaming for a good couple of years and nearly ended some friendships was when I violated this unspoken social contract.  I used the "Infinite GM power" to weasel out an incredibly absurd rules lawyer interpretation* that hosed my best friend.  I "won" but the loss of esteem was devastating.

[Walt Freitag]

Sure.

I think there are a lot of different varieties of this esteem-game, based on different payoff-vs.-outcome payoff schedules. Here's one from some of my play:

Players win by a lot: players gain a little esteem, GM gains none
Players are tested but win comfortably: players gain maximum esteem, GM gains a little
Players just barely win: players gain a little esteem, GM gains maximum
Players just barely lose: GM and players both lose a little esteem
Players lose by a lot: GM loses a lot of esteem, players win or lose none

The players gain the most esteem from a handy win, that is, a win by a comfortable margin. Hence, it's to their advantage to make maximum use of resources (renewable resources, that is; more on this later) but they also want to see the GM challenge them enough to keep them clear of the "easy win" category. But the GM wants to push back, because he gets the best payoff when the players just barely eke out a win. However, he can't push too hard, because the GM's payoff, unlike the players', has a sharp drop-off if the players end up losing (a bit like going bust in Blackjack). There's tension between the players wanting to win handily and the GM wanting them to win by the skin of their teeth, but because the game isn't zero-sum, there's also a shared desire to avoid a lopsided contest either way.

There's even a possible in-game analogue to the players' esteem in this kind of game: the PCs' supply of non-renewable resources such as limited-charge magic items or hero points. A close contest that forces the players to expend these resources in order to win shifts some esteem from the players (who still garner some for their victory) to the GM in a very tangible way by removing the items or points from the character sheet.

The exact shape of the payoff curves is going to differ between groups, especially in the pyrrhic outcome range between close-call player-character victory and TPK (total party kill). One GMs idea of the ideal "close call" is that one PC comes very close to death; another's, that only one player-character is left alive. Some uncomfortable adjustment when switching between groups is likely.

- Walt

[Scripty]

I see this as not only possible but already within our grasp. In fact, I think this type of play could be accomplished (and satisfactorily I might add) using the CR's in D&D. First off, all monsters have a Challenge Rating, as do all traps. All you have to do, IMO, to play this way is to limit the total amount of "CR points" available to the GM, along with the caveat that only X amount of CR points can be spent on any one single challenge.

Next, you need a map. A dungeon or some other location within which play will occur. If there is no real map to speak of, then one could be generated using the old random dungeon charts found in the back of the 1st edition AD&D DM's guide.

Therefore, the DM's sole responsibility in prepping for the game is to bring a number of encounters whose total CR does not exceed the max. CR limit for the group. Each single encounter then would not exceed the CR max for a single encounter either. Neither the DM nor the players know what the outcome of the game will be. There's no need for an over-riding plot. It is essentially the DM vs. the players on a neutral field of battle.

You could even randomize the encounters by rolling a six-sider (old school style) and only allowing the DM to introduce an encounter in a room/area where he rolls a 1 or a 2. Following that, rolls can be determined to find out which side, if any, is surprised by either using Spot/Listen checks or the old standard six-sided die.

If one side is surprised by the encounter, then their opponent places their forces on the board and then his own. For example, if the PCs are surprised but the DM is not, then the DM would place the PCs on the board where he wants them at the start of the combat and then place his own forces. Likewise, if the DM's group is surprised and the PCs aren't.

If neither side is surprised, then they would roll initiative and the side losing initiative would place their forces on the mapboard first, followed by the side that won initiative. This gives the side winning initiative the opportunity to react to enemy movements on the opponents' end. Alternately, you could allow the side winning the initiative to choose whether or not they place their forces on the board first.

Using Spot/Listen checks to determine surprise would also change things quite a bit as well as it would allow the other side to place individual characters in the conflict.

I think it's certainly doable and could be a lot of fun.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think this sort of play is not only possible, but common. I also think it has been occurring full blast since the early 1970s, if not before.

Best,
Ron

[Scripty]

I'm sorry, Ron. Actually, I was the one who wasn't clear. My post wasn't a response to your post. I wasn't disagreeing with you or anyone else. I was merely stating my opinion in support of Noon.

I totally agree that this kind of play has been going on for quite some time, but (much like my experience with the CRPG) I'm not sure it's been streamlined into a system like Noon proposes. I think a group certainly could play D&D 3 or 3.5 like this, but the various elements would need to be tweaked in order to work towards that goal.

The result is, IMO, that groups play rpgs like Noon proposes but that the rpg isn't actually suited to that style of play resulting in a disconnect between the group's objectives and the tools that they are choosing to use, much like you propose in your "System Does Matter" article.

Along with my big CRPG epiphany found here CRPG leads this horse to water..., I think that there is definitely a place, or an unfilled need, for the type of game that Noon proposes.

Everything else was just brainstorming on my part. I'm sorry I gave the impression otherwise.

Scott

[timfire]

While reading this thread, I think a few lightbulbs turned on in my head concerning the whole GM-as-opponent issue. The whole bit about esteem was especially insightful.

[Callan S.]

Hi Ron,

I do appreciate that esteem can manage all of this/cap GM power, and I know you feel gamism is a highly intuitive modes.

However, I don't think its intuitive enough, in terms of everyone managing esteem aptly. When I refer to unlimited GM power, I should be more exact 'Unlimited GM power…on paper'. What isn't on paper matters far, far more. However, the problem I see with that is not everyone will share a similar mental copy of how to manage this, no matter how intuitive. Although what is on paper doesn't matter as much as what's in our heads, it is an extremely good way of sharing an exact copy (baring problems with interpretation).

I also have to say that that type of 'mostly managed in our heads' play isn't attractive to a goodly wedge of traditional game players (IMO). I think it only really appeals to the 'make a game out of it' gamers. This is an example which I don't mean to be harsh, but remember the Simpson's where principle Skinner is trapped under newspapers for days. He starts bouncing a basketball near him, to see how often he can do it in a minute. He made a game out of it. RPG's appeal in the same way, they have so much material to make a game out of, in that particular way.

The design goal here isn't really to draw in traditional gamers via design. But it is an attempt to be at least accessible to them, rather than consciously perpetuating a design that tends to isolate the hobby and appeal to only those gamers who can make a game out of it.

And really, people who do keep figuring out how to manage infinite GM power (via esteem, peer pressure, thrown dice) just keep re-inventing the same wheel. Often you have to redesign it for each game, something I'd like to skip on occasionally as a buyer, atleast.

Valamir: It's possible to undermine esteem this way, but only if someone's forced to play. Really, when its all layed out on paper, they can read it and think either 'Yup, that jives with my sense of esteem' or 'This would make me feel bloody silly to play, no way'. Interestingly enough, when the esteem method is only in the groups heads and no cold hard examination can be made before committing to play, you can get players suddenly realising the esteem system isn't to their taste and yet socially obliged/forced to keep playing that session, perhaps more. It's also easier to say 'This systems esteem method sucks' than 'I don't want to play with you guys because your sense of esteem sucks', though this is just a small point.

Walt

There's even a possible in-game analogue to the players' esteem in this kind of game: the PCs' supply of non-renewable resources such as limited-charge magic items or hero points. A close contest that forces the players to expend these resources in order to win shifts some esteem from the players (who still garner some for their victory) to the GM in a very tangible way by removing the items or points from the character sheet.

It's also a strong example of how esteem can be reflected/managed on paper. :)

Scripty: I've been a quiet admirer of CR for awhile now. I think how easily you showed they could be used to manage infinite GM power shows part of their real nature.

However, I do like the sense there is no ceiling on what the GM can use on you (which I realise is kind of an illusion if bigger things mean fewer points for him and he'll loose). Limmits on CR used instead give a clear ceiling. But obviously CR can blend with the 'no ceiling' idea quite easily, if used to calculate scores at the end.

[anonymouse]

Getting back to the original post, I think the best way to start would be by coming up with a point scorecard, something you could apply to just about any system, and then giving it a trial run with the two systems I can think of that overtly go for GM/PC competition: Tunnels & Trolls and Donjon.

See how it works out with those; if something's missing, then start thinking about making a system from scratch for it.

Despite Ralph's ookiness about undermining, I think it'd be far more beneficial to explore this kind of thing in the open.

(if you wanted to broaden the concept further, you could write a packet of "scenario cards" with their own scoring rules. each session or couple of sessions, you'd randomly pull a card - GM Wins, Water Theme, Rescue a Princess, et cetera - and focus the metagame in a new direction. i think this would be super-awesome.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Callan, are you familiar with Rune? I'm not sure it accords with your "infinite power" parameters - and in fact, I'm awfully puzzled about what you mean by that in the first place - but it certainly features a set of GM-points and player-points that seems similar to what you're talking about.

Also, I think you might be misunderstanding my point. My point is not to say, "Oh, never mind system, they'll do it in their heads." It is rather to say that your system should be built to support what people are doing in their heads, and to have some faith that they will. No one has to explain to players of Trivial Pursuit that (a) the person who makes it to the center wins, but (b) the person who answers the most and the hardest questions is the "trivia smart dude." They don't have to be the same person, and typically, everyone playing is OK with that.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

anonymouse: I haven't (regretably, from what I've heard) had any experience with tunnels and trolls, but it would sound interesting. But with Dunjon, I downloaded the demo resolution chapter. Basically there are two...I'll say 'squeak' points in it. At those points it relies on the faith Ron mentions in his post, which I'll tackle in a moment.

But yes, adaption of a current system (which scripty basically suggested too) seems the smartest option. However, most still have 'squeak' points that need to be patched or left unused.

[Callan S.]

Hello,

Callan, are you familiar with Rune? I'm not sure it accords with your "infinite power" parameters - and in fact, I'm awfully puzzled about what you mean by that in the first place - but it certainly features a set of GM-points and player-points that seems similar to what you're talking about.

Also, I think you might be misunderstanding my point. My point is not to say, "Oh, never mind system, they'll do it in their heads." It is rather to say that your system should be built to support what people are doing in their heads, and to have some faith that they will. No one has to explain to players of Trivial Pursuit that (a) the person who makes it to the center wins, but (b) the person who answers the most and the hardest questions is the "trivia smart dude." They don't have to be the same person, and typically, everyone playing is OK with that.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Oddly my only familiarity with Rune is your gamism essay, where you mention its incoherance on the GM Vs player stance, leaving the players entry into a rune cult in the GM/opponents hands. At $60 Australian as well, I don't think I'll look into it for research. Things like warhammer quest and pantheon (I think from hogs head new line games) are interesting research resources. BTW, how are you confused on infinite GM resources? As I said, before you factor in user esteem, unlimmited power is there on paper.

As to system, I didn't think you were saying system doesn't matter. What I do think your saying is create X amount of system, then let the users develop the rest according to their specific esteem requirements. Further, that the RPG designer should have faith in the user to do that.

To be blunt, I'm a bit sick of the designers putting faith in myself and my group. Primarily, because if our group puts in enough effort, it can make up for any number of lacking elements in the design (I'm implying this can go from 'have faith in them' to 'have faith that they'll make up for our weak product'). Secondarily, because I'm sick of having faith put into us, so when we sit down to a casual game on a sunday night after the long working week and after a few beers, we still have to act like gentlemen for this product to operate. And I mean gentlemen while still operating within the system, analogies about chess not working if you punch the other guy refer to meta game activity. Typically in RPG systems you can do something right by the system, but really its wrong.

I totally understand people coming away from the game with it in mind that Jim won in this way and Bob won in that way as well. What the actual system designates as a win isn't as important. However, what if I do want the systems opinion (which is the authors opinion) as well as my peers, for whatever reason? For example, trivial pursuit doesn't say it ends after an hours play and...hope you had a good night! That's it!

Much as most RPG's play that way and I have many flight hours of playing that way, I'd prefer some closure that doesn't rely on end user esteem, occasionally in a system.

[JamesSterrett]

Might be a *very* different game from the one you have in mind.  However, the following riffs off of a wargame scenario balancing mechanic.

The wargame mechanic:  The scenario provides sides A and B.  B initially has overwhelming combat power.  Players alternate *removing* units from side B; the last player to remove a unit from side B commands it, and the other player commands side A.  Thus, for example, you might have this happen:

"I can win as Side B without that tank company." (The tank company is now out of the game.)

"Yeah?  Well, I can do it without this artillery battery."

[This goes on until one player replies....]

"Prove it."


Moving this to RPGs:

It would be, perhaps, an odd RPG - right on the borderline with a wargame, really -  but if you had something similar to the experience point values and Challenge Ratings of D&D, and a points rating for other lethal aspects of the game, players could essentially bid to see who would wind up being the GM:

"I can keep your party from beating the Foozle, even *without* a troll!"

"Yeah, but I don't even need the goblin horde!"

"Prove it."

The newly-minted GM does some last-minute figuring to place traps and monsters, and off we go....

I'm not at all sure it's something I'd want to play, but there may be a seed there you can use.


Edit:

Duh.  Turn the bidding on its head!  Make the players bid up the *GM's* resources, taking turns.  The player who refuses to up the ante has to be the GM.

"We can beat this dungeon even if it has a dragon!"

"Um...  No we can't."

"Right-o - you're the GM!  Prepare your scaly lizard for its doom."