Are GM-less games one shots?

[Sebastian K. Hickey]

I'm digesting as many Indie games as I can right now, but it will never be enough.  I have to make a design decision for one or both of the projects I'm working on, and I need your experience.

The GM-less games I've played, and heard of others playing, seem suited to one or two nights of play.  Have you played a GM-less system for more than one or two sessions?  Can they be run successfully in the long term, say 10+ sessions?

The problem I foresee is to do with closure, part of that obsessive urge to rectify disharmony.  In a collective, where participants are not arbitrarily opposed, I believe there is a tendency for gamers to seek out that kind of closure too early.  In other words, to set up discord and antagonism is integral to the creation of story, and it's great fun.  But after some time, the collective will become easy and they'll want to tie up loose ends.

If you have a good GM, loose ends rarely get tied up, and that addictive process of resolution carries the game forward.  It's the cliffhanger principle, right?  If you lose it, wouldn't the game lose pace?  Are there any games that successfully incorporate that principle in their design?

Am I talking rubbish?

[Jason Morningstar]

Hey Sebastian, I think the reason you see a lot of short-form GMless games is the provision of some moderating structure that helps guide the game in the absence of a player with massive authority.  It makes things easier and keeps everyone focused, but it isn't the only way to approach GMless play. 

A game that is well suited for long-term GMless play in my experience (its designer does not agree and included a GM role, but whatever) is In A Wicked Age. 

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Sebastian.

Also keep in mind that many indie games (both GMed and GMless) create story material at MUCH faster pace than many traditional games. A single session of Capes or Shock: could easily cover the same amount of story that might fill half a dozen sessions of a more traditional game like Hero or GURPS. Many (but by no means all) indie games react to the reality of shrinking leisure time and the difficulty of accomplishing to long-term play.

Are your concerns truly about real-world time constraints (i.e. 10+ sessions), or the amount of fiction generated?

[David Artman]

There are certainly long-term play options with GM-less games--Universalis is the obvious example. Hell, if you're not getting long-term play out of Uni, you can change the rules to provide some "oomph" (e.g. a Gimmick whereby you can pay a cut rate for Facts you generate using Abulafia Oracles or similar to instantiate some new twist or foe or complication).

As for the need of a GM to make cliffhangers or to drive the story, I think that's a false premise. Many story games actually shift narrative drive to the players as it is--check out Burning Wheel BITs--and the option of generating an uncertain or fraught situation is available to all (the "cliffhanger" aspect just means you end the session at that point, for the sake of anticipation). And as mentioned above, In A Wicked Age re-generates the situation every Chapter, with only the limited continuity of the We Own list there to thread it all together into a semi-episodic story arc (as opposed to a serial, which is how most "campaign" play works, or purely episodic, which is how a bunch of one-shots using a common system plays: viz Prime Time Adventures)

[Sebastian K. Hickey]

First, errata:  'the collective will become easy' should read 'the collective will become uneasy'.

game that is well suited for long-term GMless play in my experience (its designer does not agree and included a GM role, but whatever) is In A Wicked Age.

Thanks Jason.

Many (but by no means all) indie games react to the reality of shrinking leisure time and the difficulty of accomplishing to long-term play.

That makes a lot of sense to me.  I was wondering what was behind the movement.

Are your concerns truly about real-world time constraints (i.e. 10+ sessions), or the amount of fiction generated?

I care less about story and more about the pervasive emotional response.  In other words, I want players to feel attachment, excitement and consequence.  My experience tells me, the more I invest, the greater the return.  It's pretty old fashioned.  But if I run a standard RPG game for 6 weeks, my players care more about their characters and the stories than they do if I run I one shot.  There's more time, and that seems important.  Even if it's just a case of all the players starting with the mindset, 'I've got to play this character for 6 weeks.'

Now, just because that's what I've always believed, that doesn't make it right.  So I'm willing to change my mind.  I just need to know it's the right thing for my game and at the moment it seems like more work to get rid of a GM than to keep one.  But is that just obstinacy?

There are certainly long-term play options with GM-less games--Universalis is the obvious example.

Don't get me wrong, Universalis is the game I 'sell' to any new gamer I meet, but I don't find Universalis a compelling serial game.  Maybe I'm playing it all wrong... or else I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Many story games actually shift narrative drive to the players as it is--check out Burning Wheel BITs

It's true, narrative does get shifted pretty regularly in modern games.  I love it.  I think it's fundamental to offload some of the work onto the players and I'm a big follower of sharing control.  But is sharing part of the control the same thing as sharing all the control?

As for the need of a GM to make cliffhangers or to drive the story, I think that's a false premise

Point taken.
Any more suggestions of games to research?

Imagine you met an 80s gamer who suddenly teleported to 2009 and and wanted to design a contemporary game.  Imagine he hadn't played enough indie games.  Imagine he had an all right idea but just needed to make sure he wasn't making decisions about his game just because that's what they did in the 80s.  How would you convince him to go GM-free?  What games should he play before he got too far into design?

N.B. Very important... Are games with GMs still popular?  Would you be discouraged by an indie game because it had a GM?  What if the back cover promised an easy, GM friendly pick-up system?

[Moreno R.]

Hi Sebastian!

A GM-less game that usually is played in more than one game session is Polaris (and his "historic" supplement/variant "Thou art but a warrior". Others are Annalise, Dirty Secrets and Spione

All of these can be played as one-shor, but they work much, much better with a slower play on more game sessions (but they are not really "long-term", usually you don't play more than 3-4 game sessions).

[Jason Morningstar]

I wouldn't worry about long-term play as a design goal necessarily if what you are after is emotional investment and response.  You can accomplish it in shorter form.  Many, many games that are usually played as one-shots really benefit (and even thrive) when played across multiple sessions.  Personally I think three sessions is the sweet spot for a lot of games.  Primetime Adventures (shamefully played as a toothless one shot all too often) absolutely sings across five sessions. 

[Ben Lehman]

Polaris is playable in "campaign" mode, but you cycle through characters about once every 6 sessions or so.

The "short" game of Polaris is 4-8 sessions. The one shot version is ... not as much fun.

yrs--
--Ben

[JoyWriter]

One way to make universalis last longer could be to increase the number of conflicts by reducing scene refresh rate. If you put in one of those random oracle mechanics too, then you should have more than enough twists and conflicts to keep your group wanting to resolve things.

[Callan S.]

Probably to get to the long you have to enjoy the short first. Try just enjoying the short for awhile - the stamina may build

Also it may be a case of "Quick, wrap this up before the gods of gaming come and smite us!!1!"

[Sebastian K. Hickey]

Thanks for the examples guys.  These are games without GMs that benefit from longer periods of play.  They are independent, and probably represent an important shift in roleplaying game design: Now everyone has the same kind of fun, for as long as they want, without any extra homework.  It's a marvel.

Although I'm still no wiser about how to write my system, and whether or not to include a GM, I have learned something very important.  Your replies indicate that there is some respect for GM-less games in the community.  This means that the inclusion of a GM should be treated like any other game rule.  It doesn't make or break a game, it either serves or hinders.  I'm sure there are plenty of games that fail, irrespective of the GM phenomenon, and plenty of games that succeed too.  So it's up to me to figure out what I need to do, for my game.  And that's that.

God, I'm making it sound like the moral message at the end of an 80s cartoon.  Maybe I have been sent through time after all...

In any case, THANKS!  You're the best.

[henebry]

Also keep in mind that many indie games (both GMed and GMless) create story material at MUCH faster pace than many traditional games. A single session of Capes or Shock: could easily cover the same amount of story that might fill half a dozen sessions of a more traditional game like Hero or GURPS.

It's funny to hear you say this, as I was going to mention Capes as an instance of a GM-less game that seems designed for multi-session campaign play. Maybe I'm just not playing it the way I should, but in all the Capes sessions I've run, we've gotten one or two scenes played in 2-3 hours. This is a shame, as it means I've never really had a chance to see at first hand how Capes' Story Points metagame system works. I'd thought my problem was in getting people to commit to several sessions, but maybe I've just not been pushing the clock hard enough.