RPG History: Limiting GM Resources

[Lxndr]

Fastlane does something that, as far as I'm aware, not too many roleplaying games does: it gives the GM limited resources to spend on the world and the opposition of the PCs, much in the same way PCs have limited resources to spend in return on their characters and their actions.

In most RPGs I've run across, the GM is effectively unlimited, at least mechanically.  If he wants to put opposition in front of the PCs, he can throw in a minor obstacle, or a major one, and it doesn't faze him in the slightest.  He needs another world-shaking NPC?  No problem, he'll just pull it out of his ass!  The GM has an unlimited budget in building the opposition to the PCs, while the players have a limited budget in trying to overcome that opposition.  

(Please be aware that this is not meant to be a negative judgment - I definitely enjoy games like DitV or Sorcerer, where the statting-of-NPC-things is unlimited).

I know Fastlane wasn't the first to give the GM limited resources, and it will definitely not be the last.  But I can't think of too many other games that do similar things.  Maybe that's just because it's early in the morning.

My Life With Master is similar in some respects - the GM is limited to the Fear and Reason that the game started with, and so can't arbitrarily decide later to roll more dice.  The game Rune (which I own) has a somewhat detailed "balance" between the adventures and the players.  And I know there are others, I've read about them or heard about them, but no names or implementations are coming to mind.  I blame the time of day, and my recent convalescence.

Either way, I'm curious and would like to hear from you:  what games do you know that limit the GM's resources/ability to affect the world, mechanically?  And in what ways do they do so?  I'd like to know more about Fastlane's potential idea-space heritage, even if they're just cases of parallel evolution.

[lumpley]

Remind us how Fastlane does it?

For the record, Dogs' NPC stats aren't unlimited. The proto-NPC thing isn't optional. But I'm not at all disagreeing, Dogs doesn't limit the GM the way Fastlane does -

Or Primetime Adventures. In Primetime Adventures, the GM gets to roll only a set number of dice over the course of the session. During the session, the GM gets some of the dice back, based on the PCs' success.

I consider limiting the GM mechanically to be a major and important development in RPG design, by the way.

-Vincent

[Lxndr]

PTA!  How the heck did I miss out on PTA?!  Yeah, I know how PTA does it, and I liked it so much (still do).  Guess it must be too early.

I suppose I should've described how Fastlane does it:

In short, everyone has chips.  Chips are the resource that players use to improve their characters, and also bid to win conflicts.  Chips are also the resource that the GM uses to increase the importance of given NPCs, as well as spent to win conflicts (the GM doesn't get to bid, instead he gets all the chips the players lose - even if it's a player vs. player conflict, with no GM involvement).

New chips come in to the players, eventually get lost to the GM, who eventually spends them and they go back into the ether...

[Marco]

I beleive that Mutants and Masterminds limits the GM's supply of resource points for the villains to the extent where a consolidated action by the PC's is almost guaranteed success.

I am not, however, certain of this.

-Marco

[Lxndr]

I ran that game once (M&M) and while I think you're right in that the # of "Hero Points" for the GM is limited, the GM is still allowed, per the rules, to create, say, 100 level 20 NPCs to throw against 2 level 1 NPCs.

Still, it is a limit.

[James Holloway]

IIRC Rune did something like this.

[M. J. Young]

My understanding is that Hackmaster referees are limited to scenarios that spend no more than a number of points calculated based on the character levels of those entering the scenario. I don't know how it works.

--M. J. Young

[Zubon-do]

PACE gives the GM a set number of points for successes just like any player.  Most of the game involves playing with the GM/player balance of pips.

[contracycle]

IIRC Rune did something like this.

Rune is in a sense a GM-less game, in that the player currently acting as GM is acting as a player given that specific job.  They are given points with which to create the adventure, to buy monsters and traps and so on, and score points for themselves (as players) which can then be spent on their character when taking a turn as a player.

[Lxndr]

These are all good examples, but I would love to see specific examples, such as that I didn't do in my first post, but I did after a little prodding from lumpley.  Could any of you that have given examples so far give, well, examples of the examples - how the system works to restrict the GM in one manner or another?  I'd prefer that to a list of names.

[anonymouse]

I wrote MARKED some time ago; it might not be what you mean when you're looking for "other games", but as far as I can recall it's mostly complete..

Essentially, the game pits the single character versus the universe (GM). Universe has 1000 dice. These dice never refresh (although you'd use 6 dice, say, for one conflict, and each time you roll those wouldn't count as "refresh"). When the player manages to exhaust the GM's pool of dice, game is over, player wins.

This the kind of thing you're looking for, Lx? I really like the concept, partially because I'm enamoured with scenario games, and games that end very clearly in the rules -- as opposed to the neverending D&D campaigns of our youth which simply went from one dungeon to the next.