[TAROT] GM vs GMless

[7VII7]

I had planned on making TAROT GMless as to common opinion GMing is a thankless, boring task and in my opinion alot of potential RPers are put off by the thought of needing one, however it's quickly becoming apparent that TAROT is becoming too large & complex to be GMless, so here's some of my ideas to help it out,

1) Ease the GM's burden by allowing the players a good amount of leeway in the game,
2) Allow the GM to have a "champion" that works sort of like a PC but with restrictions on what he can do
3) Encourage hous rules
4) Include a mechanic to allow the players to veto GM's actions
5) Make it easy to make NPCs, Monsters, Adventures, etc, & so on, with something similar to character sheets,

Any additional ideas or any questions about my ideas would be greatly appreciated.

[Vladius]

I like the GM... considering I am one...

I don't think that it's against popular opinion to have one, outside the Forge anyway.

1)That sounds good, but you'll have to be careful about actually making it a rule and where the line is drawn for "leeway."
2)The GMPC is a dreaded thing, so your restrictions will have to be pretty strong.
3)The point of house rules is that they're made up by individual GMs, so they're not necessarily a very good restriction.
4)That sounds okay, but if his/her decision is completely vital to the story, it makes things quite easy to derail. Maybe you could do it like Congress, where the GM can veto the veto, but can be overruled by 2/3 majority.
5)This could be a great idea. Having a basic template for monsters and stuff that's really easy to make and that takes about a half page would be extremely convenient.

If you do decide to go GMless, you might want to divide up the roles of a GM amongst the players - one does the math and figures out the rules, another tells the story, etc.

[Mike Sugarbaker]

I'd also put forth a sixth idea:

6) never mind "common opinion" and "potential RPers" (and actual RPers too, for that matter) and make the game you are passionate about making and playing. Creative work is hard enough when you're serving your own drive; don't make it ten times harder by serving the drives of someone who doesn't even necessarily know you!

Me, I think having or being a GM is great, provided that the game backs that GM up with clear instructions on how to make the game fun for all players (GM included). If a GM sounds like the way to go, go for it - just make sure you tell the GM what to do.

[Adam Dray]

Vladius, GM is a game role, not an identity.

7VII7, is there another name I can call you by?

Why do you think you need a GM? I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to understand your reasoning. What "GM" duties do you see in the game? Have you seen Ron's thread about the four types of authority?

[Vladius]

Vladius, GM is a game role, not an identity.

7VII7, is there another name I can call you by?

Why do you think you need a GM? I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to understand your reasoning. What "GM" duties do you see in the game? Have you seen Ron's thread about the four types of authority?

Oh, unless I happened to reject Ron Edwards as speaking for everyone on the forum. Which I do.

I don't speak for 7VII7 but I personally disagree with the "Four Types of Authority" model. It has too many tangents, and never addresses the problem of the overlap between the individual roles. It merely insists that they are different, without any backup. If you have control over the story whatsoever (a requirement of his beloved "Narrativism," a concept I also disagree with), you need to have control over where it is going, at what time the players get to a specific place, what they will do there, and how far the rules can be stretched for them to accomplish what they need to accomplish.

[Adam Dray]

Vladius, I really think you are being confrontational for no good reason. Please read my post far more charitably than you are doing.

I have no idea why you're making this all about Ron Edwards and "speaking for everyone on the forum." Stop tilting at windmills. PM Ron already and have it out with him. Stop taking it out on passersby, please.


To clarify what I said in my earlier post:

Whether you agree or disagree with the Four Types of Authority in the post I linked, it is a very useful way of thinking about rules. Certainly don't let it be the only way you think about rules, because assigning authority is just a small piece of making a working game. Also think about how to get players to agree on stuff in the first place.

I'll let you start another thread with some actual play examples if you really want to discuss the authority model. It wasn't my intent to discuss that thread's merits and demerits; only point to another way to think about ways to divide up responsibilities among players (GM or no).

I write games that need a GM. I also write games that don't need a GM. I want to understand why 7VII7 thinks his game needs a GM so I can discuss the topic meaningfully and intelligently.

I don't think "I like the GM... considering I am one..." is a useful design consideration. Maybe you prefer games with a GM and hate with a passion all GM-less games. That's fine. I simply argue that you're only a GM when you are sitting in the GM chair. Most of the time, you're not a GM. It's not an identity. It's a role during RPG play for certain games.

[Vladius]

I'm sorry if you're reading everything I say as a "design decision." It was a joke, because I currently run a D&D 4th edition campaign and it would never work if I didn't keep everything together as the GM.

You invoked the model in the first place, by suggesting that a GM is completely unnecessary and that it was a "role" and not an "identity" and then linking to the place where it was introduced and saying "haven't you seen this?".

I contend that there is no reason why a game should not have a GM, as those that do tend to be far superior than those that don't (in my opinion, but if you look at the sales of games with GMs, like D&D, Shadowrun, etc. there is a somewhat objective way of measuring how much better they are.)

[Adam Dray]

Wow. No, I really didn't do those things. My link had nothing to do with GM role vs. GM identity at all; just types of authority. They're separate topics, divided in my post by white space and by asking 7VII7's real name. I didn't say "haven't you seen this?" I asked if he had (as a recommendation to read it for ideas). Read charitably, geez.

I've played in plenty of games that didn't require a GM to "keep everything together." They were designed to work that way, though. 4E was not.

I think I see a disconnect. When I say "GM is a role," I mean that it is a hat you wear, not an identity that's stamped into your DNA. It might be a hat that only one person wears (for the entire length of play), as in D&D. It's still just a role. In other games, the GM role is passed around. Like, in Annalise, each player picks a Story Guide to GM his or her scene, so each person might be called on to be a "GM." In The Shab-al-Hiri Roach, there's truly no GM (not even a temporary one), since all those responsibilities are shared by all players. These games are a blast to play.

Why should a game not have a GM? Well, for one, sometimes no one wants to be the GM. If you can eliminate this as a one-player role by spreading out the responsibilities in one of those two ways I mentioned, above, then everyone gets to be a "player." My friend Daniel and I are enjoying a really cool one-on-one Annalise game. We almost chose to play Darkpages but that required one of use to be GM.

Sales is not necessarily an indicator of "better," or the Ford Focus would be a better car than the Rolls-Royce (flawed analogy, I know, but it sorta works). Obviously the people who are writing GM-less games think they're better, though, right? So applying some sort of universal standard or "appeal of the masses" argument doesn't work. Better for whom?

Anyway, our bickering is derailing 7VII7's thread. Let's stop.

[Vladius]

I suppose you could say that, but if I'm a GM, I'm still currently a GM for that game for as long as the game lasts, including the times in between sessions.

I'm sorry for bickering. I recognize I might have sounded a tad harsh. I apologize.

I also don't like starting every sentence with "I."

The reason for assuming a GM is that 7VII7 said that the game would be too large or complex to not have one. Which means, we either have to get into a debate over whether a game can be complex without a GM, or we can think of suggestions.

[Mike Sugarbaker]

Largeness and complexity don't imply the need for a GM; in fact they might be an argument against centralizing the responsibilities associated with a GM into one player - many hands make light work, after all.

But the truth is, whether or not to have a GM depends entirely on other things - what the game should feel like for the players, how they relate to each other's contributions, and where their contributions are coming from.

[Vladius]

Actually, they do. The players need to be focused on their characters' actions, which is difficult if they also have to arrange the story for the other characters, interpret the rules for them, etc. The GM conveniently puts these duties in one person, which frees up space for the players to concoct plans, to decide what they're going to do, and to feel like they're playing a game and not writing a short novel. It's called an RPG for a reason. You play a role, within the confines of a game.

Largeness and complexity do imply the need for someone to be in charge of them, usually one person if you're around the table.

[Adam Dray]

Vladius, have you played any games that don't have a GM? Which?

You keep railing on GM-less games and I want to know that you've at least tried a couple and know which ones so I can understand where you're coming from.

[Vladius]

No, I haven't, sorry.

This isn't about me.

[dindenver]

777,
1) Ease the GM's burden by allowing the players a good amount of leeway in the game,
  This is smart. But even more important is to design the game in such a way that it is EASY to adapt to players new ideas. In other words, find a way to lower the amount of prep. Game complexity is not that hard to deal with if the setting/normal play mode has almost improv-type flexibility. You can look at published D&D modules for an example of th opposite of this. If players do stuff that is not in the module, the GM is SCREWED. How does your game prevent this?

2) Allow the GM to have a "champion" that works sort of like a PC but with restrictions on what he can do
  GMPCs are bad mojo. Approach with great caution...

3) Encourage house rules
  I am not sure how this makes GMing easier. In fact, this would mostly just open the door to hurt feelings when a player gets the shaft because the GM forgot to mention a house rule to them...

4) Include a mechanic to allow the players to veto GM's actions
  This is a great mechanic, if you don;t trust or like GMs. But an awful mechanic if you like/want GMs.

5) Make it easy to make NPCs, Monsters, Adventures, etc, & so on, with something similar to character sheets,
  This is pure gold. The biggest barrier to improvisation and using a payers ideas over your own is the amount of work involved. Take that barrier away! I double-dog dare you!

  Also, I would like to echo that sentiment, make the game you would want to play. Not the game you think a bunch of faceless "gamers" want to play. you will never be able to market, sell it or make sound design decisions if you lose sight of what you want out of a game.

[7VII7]

The GM Champion idea would be precisely made to help prevent the problems involved with the GMPC, the way I see it, better to adress the problem on my own terms instead of the individual GM's.