GM-lite / GM-less Games

[Andrew Cooper]

I'm not at all sure that this is the place to post this message but it concerns wanting to actually play, so I'll put it here.  Ron can feel free to move it somewhere else, should he wish.  I'm going to give a little background and then ask my question.  Here goes...

I've designed and programmed a MUX/MUSH engine.  A MUX is an online, text-based game server.  It's basically a multi-player online game.  Generally, instead of being fully automated where players just run around the game and beat up on computer-controlled enemies, MUXes have very few (if any) computer controlled characters/monsters/enemies.  MUXes need GMs (aka Staffers) to organize and support the players.  It's kinda like a 24/7 IRC chat game with lots of players and GMs in the same overlapping setting.

Most MUXes use comercial RPGs for their system.  White Wolf, D&D, and others are all very common.  The problem that I've run into is that such games require a whole lot of GM input and it puts way too much pressure on the Staff in these games.  My idea is to abandon this practice and go with a GM-lite or GM-less gaming system.  So, finally, here is my question:

Does anyone have any suggestions for a GMless game that might work well in this type of environment?  I'm not just asking this without having done a little research on my own.  I've looked at several games that I thought might work fairly well; The Pool, The Framework (which isn't really a game by itself), and some others.    Any games suggested would have to be licenced such that it wouldn't be illegal for me to use it in my game or one where the author could be contacted and asked.  I certainly don't want to infringe on anyone's material without permission.

Feel free to ask any questions, if my request isn't detailed or clear enough.  Thanks!

[TonyLB]

As a technical issue:  Can you do conflict resolution (as opposed to task resolution) in a MUX environment?  I don't know how much of the SIS is socially constructed these days, versus how much is constructed by the application of the computer database structure.

[Andrew Cooper]

Tony,

Yes, you can and it is my preferred way of doing things.  Otherwise the play bogs down significantly when there is a scene with a lot of players, especially complex scenes (for task resolution) like combat.  Imagine 10 players playing via IRC doing a combat scene with D&D and you start to understand the problem.

I've been using The Pool a good bit and it seems to work pretty well.  Still, it generally depends on a GM also.  I'd like something where the GM tasks are distributed a bit more.

[TonyLB]

Well, there are Capes and Universalis, both of which have no GM-role.

[M. J. Young]

Well, there are Capes and Universalis, both of which have no GM-role.

I don't know enough about Capes, but it seems to me that Univeralis would suffer (in this context) from the same thing Legends of Alyria faces: the players create too much of the setting, props, et cetera to be truly workable in an online environment. It requires a more intimate level of cooperation, I think, than these larger games can support.

I'd like to be proved wrong, though, if someone can do something with Universalis.

--M. J. Young

[daMoose_Neo]

I'd say that'd be the drawback a lot of GMless/lite games face.
I know with my Imp Game, also GMlite (first five minutes of play actually), players are responsible for nearly everything, from outcomes of botched rolls to additional geography- played 1 scenario with two groups, one fleshed out a whole town which was initially implied, the other sidestepped the implied town and created two new ones- a thespian villiage and a lettuce farm populated by talking rabbits with mexican accents.
Unless the program supported some kind of scripting language on the fly, nearly any game that operates thus would be difficult to play- traditional games (D&D, WoD) have an advantage in that the GM pre-generates almost everything anyway.

[Andrew Cooper]

Thanks for the ideas guys but I think there's some confusion about what a MUX game is.  Let me explain in more detail, so that you can see what kind of system I'm looking for.

To think of a MUX, picture a large, glorified chat program.  The program is not significantly different than a group playing on IRC except that it is created specifically to facilitate role-playing.  It has functions to save and display character sheets, dice rollers, separate rooms that represent locations in the setting, a bulletin board system, a mail system and other functionality to help in role-playing.  The server itself doesn't handle any of the mechanics except for generating a character, saving the character sheet, and providing dice rolling capabilities.  So, think of a game like EverQuest where there are no pre-generated, computer controled quests or enemies.  Every quest , every monster, every NPC and all in-game actions are actually handled by a real, live GM (aka a Staffer).

Here's the problem.  Traditionally, on a MUX, all credibility (in the Forge sense of the word) is given to the Staffers.  It's how they manage the state of the game setting.  After running a scene with some players, the Staffer posts the results to a Bulletin Board for the other Staffers to see and discuss and thus the setting changes based on the actions of the players.  Any scenes that do not involve a Staffer lacks credibility until a log is reviewed by a Staffer and he approves/disapproves the results.  This works fine for a very small number of players but consider the issues that would arise if you had 150 active players, 60 of which might be online simultaneously at any given moment, and 10 Staffers.  Suddenly, the majority of play is without a Staffer involved and thus has zero credibility with the setting and thus (forgive the crude analogy) is like a great deal of mental masterbation.

I'm looking for a system that would help fix this situation.  Where players have some of the GM power to create and play NPCs, narrate each others successes and failures, and basically hold far more credibility in the game.  This would allow for less Staffer intervention and a more dynamic setting.
The system also needs to have very low handling times (I think I'm using this term correctly) as running scenes via chat can be slow enough without having the system turning slow into glacial.  The Pool is a good example of what I would call low handling time.  Also, conflict resolution tends to lower the number of times the dice must be rolled which is a good thing, in my estimation.

I've looked at Capes and have some ideas for it.  The idea of creating conflicts and bidding/competing for their outcomes has some real possibilities.  I'm only vaguely familiar with Universalis.  My knowledge begins and ends with what I've read here on The Forge.  I'll have to pick up a copy of the game when I can afford it (maybe next month).  Imp I know absolutely nothing about.

I hope this helps in defining the problem some more.

Thanks,

[TonyLB]

Ah... I thought MUX were more the descendants of the MUDs and MUCKs of my youth, where the computer system very much did try to maintain an objective, manipulable record of the shared imaginary space.  That would have been hard.  Book-keeping is easy.

I try not to get too horribly hard-sell about Capes, but I think it may be your best bet for a reason above and beyond the GM-lite aspect:  Specifically, I'm a computer programmer by training, and I worked my behind off making the Capes rules as objectively applicable as possible.  There is no subjective judgment on how the rules apply.  You could have players run them with the following commands:

[*]/play character C[*]/newevent X[*]/newgoal X[*]/vetoconflict[*]/ability X on die D of conflict C[*]/acceptroll[*]/rejectroll[*]/react[*]/noreact[*]/nr (fast shortcut for no-react)[*]/stake X from drive D on side S of conflict C[*]/split die D of conflict C into X dice[*]/raise inspiration I with ability A[*]/inspiration X on die D of conflict C[*]/claim side S of conflict C[*]/noclaim[*]/resolve conflict C[*]/gloat die D of conflict C[*]/buyaction for character C[/list:u]And... I think that's it.  That would cover the entire system.  You could also add "/narrate X", "/andthen player P" and "/notyet" commands if you wanted to keep a formalized log of narration.  Which would be fun, but might not match with the social standards of the folks playing your game.

All of this is assuming that your MUX cannot ask players questions and wait on the answers.  If it can enter a modal question state then you can lead people by the hand much more:  "It is your action.  Do you wish to create a Conflict or use an Ability?"  "Using an Ability:  Do you wish to use a Power, Style or Attitude?"  "Using an Attitude:  These are the attitudes you have not yet used this scene.  Choose one." and so on.

[Andrew Cooper]

A MUX is a descendant of the MUDs and MUCKs of your youth.  They just descend from the social / role-playing MUDs instead of the more game-oriented ones.  I could go into a whole history of the programs but that would bore everyone to death.  Suffice it to say that MUSH / MUX split from MUDs in order to pursue different goals (or as we like to say around here, Agenda).

It looks like I'm definately going to have to grab a copy of the full Capes rules.  In the meanwhile, I have a question about it.  It seemed from reading the abbreviated version of the rules that characters (PCs) were not bound strictly to a single player.  Is this normal for all Capes play?  MUX players are used to dealing with the setting via a single PC and I'm not sure the jump to sharing / trading characters within the game would be an easy sell to them.  Still, just an objective way to handle conflicts and keep track of setting would be invaluable to me.

[TonyLB]

Playing multiple characters is so normal to Capes that I would describe it as "essential".  Without a GM to handle (say) the evil slime monster, somebody needs to be playing it.

Yes, there are other ways that you could share the responsibility for non-spotlight characters.  But in Capes you're strongly motivated to play them (to the hilt, I might add).

[Andrew Cooper]

Tony,

That's not exactly what I meant.  I would expect that the villains and secondary characters would be played by various players and played to the hilt.  I guess what I'm asking about are the heroes themselves.  If my PC is Minuteman, is there a time in the game where Liberty Lad's player actually plays my character?  Are the PCs shared also?  Having all the supporting cast shared is exactly what I'm looking for.

[Edit: Punctuation.]

[CPXB]

This this is precisely on target, hehe . . . .

Until recently I played in an online chat environment where I promoted the use of a variant of The Puddle rules.

The strength of the rules for online play is that the conflict is resolved in one roll that determines who narrates the outcome within broad guidelines.  Chargen is also ridiculously simple and the rules fit on about two pages, so even rules-adverse online types can theoretically get them.  ;)

[TonyLB]

Gaerik:  "Spotlight characters" who are not shared is a house rule so common that it has its own page (p. 119).

I tend not to call them "player characters" because... well, y'know, there just aren't any non-player characters.  Who would play them?

But yes, you can invest emotionally in one character with the expectation that you will have sole control over them.

[M. J. Young]

Let me suggest a strictly social solution to what seems to be the problem.

The problem, as I understand it, is that a Moderator must be present or must review a transcript of play in order for it to be certified as really having happened in the game world; this is frequently done in cooperation with other moderators through a bulletin board. However, it is inherently limiting in how many people can play, because a small number of moderators can't cover everyone. Being a moderator, though, has significant credibility and major impact on the game world, so you don't want everyone who logs in to have that power--it would disrupt the game significantly.

What I'm going to suggest is distributing moderator tasks to a second tier "senior player" group. Establish some requirements and require nomination by a moderator or senior player as entry requirements for this group. Give that group the ability to certify online events and transcripts just as moderators do, and to record them in whatever way moderators would.

This would spread the load among a significantly larger segment of the community, make it possible for a player to gain status as a recognized authority on what is valid within it, and still leave the moderators some power over the process.

--M. J. Young

[JusticeZero]

From playing on MUSHes, one of the things I note happening a lot is fairly interesting.
Often, groups of players will become frustrated with the moderation system and collapse inward, finding some dark nook or cranny in the world where noone cares about and which has little if any effect on the world at large, and spend their time developing small scale RP in that place. You end up with these little patches of the world where a considerable number of people have an awareness that there is a heck of a lot of backstory being generated, but where it comes from ends up being smewhat apocryphal.