Idea: Delayed GM

[Callan S.]

I was reading a thread on the palladium boards where someone asked about games with just one player and one GM (they can never get all three friends together). To add some quirky thought, I suggested the third friend writes a pick a path like scenario, with some openess in how they can resolve conflicts. Then the two friends who can get together both play. As almost a side thought, I said you'd show the solutions you came up with to the absent friend latter, for his acknowledgement/some granting of cred.

But then I thought, isn't that an interesting behavioural modifier? If the  players know that their 'work' is going to be checked up latter, they will have to police themselves in a much different way than usual. Usually you only have to account to the cel, to the group of people who are at the table in the heat of the moment. Instead now they face the fear, I think, of being shown up latter when their solutions are given to the delayed GM to look at. After all, a GM who is there at the game has a stake in the game being fun, which often means he'll be permissive. Sometimes to the point where he doesn't inject any conflict*. While a delayed GM has no such stake and could be quite critical. You wouldn't know as a player...you'd have to assume the worst critique from them you could handle and yet still get past the obstacle.

The cool thing is, you could grab anyone for this delayed GM role, even non roleplayers. They just need to read the notes on how you defeated conflicts after the matter (I'm thinking in gamist terms here, as you might have guessed) and give their okay or whatever.

Public evaluation of step on up! Scary but oooh, challenging!

Terminology note: I'm aware the GM is just another player and here, when there are just players really its "GM-full" play, not GM less. But this does add a slant to the whole thing...what happens when the person you seek credibility from isn't a player, like my delayed GM idea?

* Okay, I might be trying to over state a problem here to show up the usefulness of this technique. Please feel free to debate this as a problem.

[Andrew Morris]

I think the GM in this situation would be a player, same as always. It's no different than play-by-email games, for example. I don't have any personal experience with this, however.

[contracycle]

RPG, the reality TV show.

More seriously, I could see this working if you had an interested remote GM.  But this kind of thing operates better when the judgement is made by the public; that accolades due the cunning and the brave can be awarded.  Ours, unfortunately, is a poor visual medium, and pity the poor GM who had to type up their every session and mail them off to the remote judge.

I think the principle is sound but the medium is unsuited to it.  Maybe with neverwinter nights, or similar.

[Callan S.]

I think the GM in this situation would be a player, same as always. It's no different than play-by-email games, for example. I don't have any personal experience with this, however.

I think you may be right, but what does this mean? I'm talking about just having someone who perhaps never roleplays but would read novels and such. And they would be just handed the log to read, and might respond with a "Yeah, that was an okay read".

It might not seem very different, but this person has nothing that compels him to treat the writers as peers. When your in a roleplay group you end up in the position where you either treat the other persons contributions with the respect a peer deserves, or you walk (or you stick around and have really bad sessions). Here the reader doesn't need to make that decision. It's a very different dynamic, different like that between band member and band member Vs the difference between band and audience. Audience are players, but not with the same player to player relationship as band members have to other band members.


Heya Contra,

Remember there is no GM who'll have to type this up, all the players would share that responsiblity. I agree that the medium doesn't quite fit this, but that's because the players aren't rewarded to make a decent write up. Currently gaming groups aren't rewarded to be anything but lazy toward forfilling what an outside judge might prefer (and it usually shows).

[Andrew Morris]

It sounds like what you're describing is more an issue of having a "GM" who is removed from the social contract, rather than a GM who is simply separated in time and space. And that's...well...weird. It seems more like gaming in public than anything else. When I was younger, my friends and I would play RPGs at the local diner. I did find that we were more restrained than when we were at someone's house for a session. Is that what you're bringing up?

[Callan S.]

It sounds like what you're describing is more an issue of having a "GM" who is removed from the social contract, rather than a GM who is simply separated in time and space. And that's...well...weird.

Yep, that's what I'm bringing up. :) Anyone else feel this would be weird to do? Where does everyone think RPG culture is on this?

I'm thinking it would be pretty wierd. Like a bunch of guys with musical instruments, who have been playing each weekend in the garage together for ages, suddenly heading into a bar and playing there. Good weird! :)

And here's an old link, where I realise I've almost brought this up before: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12044

[John Kim]

It sounds like what you're describing is more an issue of having a "GM" who is removed from the social contract, rather than a GM who is simply separated in time and space. And that's...well...weird.

Yep, that's what I'm bringing up. :) Anyone else feel this would be weird to do? Where does everyone think RPG culture is on this?

In my experience, there are quite a number of times when people playtest a scenario written by someone who isn't directly present.  Is this similar to my idea of Will the Writing Guy in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14266">Mechanics, Contribution, and Doug the Dice Guy ?

[Callan S.]

The idea started out with a remote GM who wrote it up too. But I also want to progress to the idea of someone who doesn't write up the game at all (that's why I mentioned a non roleplayer), who'll just look at the logs after for their approval. One of the players does the usual write up of material to inject into the session, but still just plays as normal. It's this seperate person who looks over the logs, who grants this type of credibility. You'll have to live up to the expectations of someone who wasn't there at the time and didn't get the fun of being in the group like all the players are.

Indeed, I wonder if roleplaying culture has been using the GM role as a substitute for an outside audience, for many years. A role the GM can't really support.