Design Challenge from Hell

[Jonathan Walton]

So, I am currently tackling the design challange from hell, like the title says, and I need the help of the Forge's most brilliant minds.  Heck, even not-so-brilliant minds would be of help, since my non-brilliant mind is failing me.

The game in question is "We Regret to Inform You (The Gamemaster is Dead)", which is summerized (in very long form) http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3663">here.

Basically, this is the deal:
-- "The GM is Dead" is a generic mini-campaign that can be played with any game system.  The idea is that you use the game as a story arc within your ongoing campaign (in the way most people used boxed adventures).
-- The first thing that happens in the campaign is that the GM gets murdered by one of the Players.  However, before his brain stopped functioning, the GM put important clues about his mysterious murder into the gameworld.
-- Now, the Characters, from within the gameworld, must unravel the mystery of the GM's death, with the complication that one of them is secretly the pawn of the murderer.  Oh, and there is no GM, so things are a little strange.

Here's the design challange:

When the campaign begins, the Characters have just (thanks to the circumstances surrounding the GM's death) come to the startling realization that they are, in fact, Characters in a roleplaying game and (worse perhaps) the GM is dead.  This is not the kind of "God is dead" stuff that Nieztche talked about, this is literally "the person who controls everything in your reality is gone and will not be coming back."

At this point, the Characters are stuck in a single location (since the GM isn't there to describe them traveling to anywhere else), they can't do anything that relies on GM interpretation or rolling dice (since the GM's dice, as evidence, have been confiscated by the police), any NPCs have stopped functioning and stand around like statues, and the Characters basically have to invent GM-less gaming from scratch.

And I need guidelines to help them do this.

THAT's the problem.

So far, this is what I've been working on.

Every roleplaying system that could be used to play "The GM is Dead" (ones that have a GM, follow certain traditional guidelies, etc.) requires the Characters to be defined in certain ways:

-- Each Character has a name.
-- Each Character has one Player associated with it (sorry Universalis).
-- Each Character has Traits (skills, attributes, magic plowers, merits, flaws, etc.).  These are innate to the Character and cannot normally be taken away.
-- Each Character has Tools (objects, weapons, trinkets, supplies, food, even things like the limbs on their body, sensory organs, dragon's wings, etc.).  If they lose these tools, they lose certain capabilities.
-- Each Character can die, get hurt, become tired, overextend themselves, get drugged up, catch a disease, or somehow get weakened, which is the only real way to affect their Traits.

If there are any others that I've missed, I would appreciate someone pointing them out.

Now, without a GM to govern the use of Traits and Tools, and without dice to act as an impartial judge, I was going to assume that Characters would not be able to do anything that required a dice roll or other arbitration.  They wouldn't be stopped by any outside forces or crazy coincidences, they just couldn't attempt it.  It would be like trying to fly just because you wanted to; nothing would happen.

What could the players do:
-- walk around within the boudaries of their current location (a small city, a large mansion, whatever was designated at the beginning of the campaign)
-- talk (to each other, or to the NPCs, who wouldn't answer back)
-- make any normal actions that wouldn't require a dice roll (taking a bath, kicking a frozen NPC dog, etc.)
-- use any Traits or Tools that didn't need GM/dice approval (flying around, doing things with overwhelming chances of success, i.e. using supernatural strength to lift something fairly heavy)

What couldn't the players do:
-- anything that required a skill roll (picking locks, brain surgery)
-- damage something (kicking the dog wouldn't do anything to the dog, except moving it; the players could jump off cliffs with no fear)
-- use any Traits or Tools that required the GM's approval (casting complex magics, using supernatural strength to pick up something unbelievably heavy).

Now, using this as a model, I eventually want the Characters to take more and more control over the gameworld, in effect, taking over for the absent GM.  Though the first part of the campaign will be pretty static (though the Characters should have fun exploring the new limits on their actions), I want things to eventually progress to the point where the Characters are creating their own adventures, all in an effort to track down clues to the GM's death.

Now... how the hell do I do THAT?

Mind-boggled,
Jonathan

P.S.  I do have some thoughts on how to progress from here, but would like to see what other people would suggest.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Wow! This is, beyond most doubts, one of the weirdest ideas I've come across.

Initial impressions:

I don't think this would work all that good as something to inject into an ongoing game. Maybe it would, but it kind of screams one-shot the way lobsters scream in boiling water. But you seem to realize this.

This is kind of weird since the only thing to do as a PC is whatever does not require a GM. So you might want to make up an enigne for this that does not require GM interpretation for some tasks otherwise the players will get frustrated since they really can't do anything, you see. But this would counter the use any system thing, unless you *do* use Universalis and this engine springs up via the rule gimmick thing.

What you need to do is figure out how you see this game being played. It sounds like you see GM-less. That could work, but, again, you might to reconsider the "for any system" thing because a system purposefully designed for GM-less play would be better. OR you could actually have a GM, but just have the stuff you described in place "because the GM is dead." I don't recommend that, but it's your call

Now, the effect of this game, not the actual play but the resulting feel when playing, is similar to one of those time-stopping stories like the recent Clockstoppers movie or The Girl, The Gold Watch And Everything. Essentially the world is frozen. The only thing to interact with are the other player characters. It then becomes like one of those mystery things, sort of but not quite like the opening in Aliens when they get to the colony and have to piece together what happened from whatever clues are there since there's no one to ask.

OK, I had been applying my mind to how I would execute this sort of idea. Instead I'm going to try to work within what you've already given for how you would do this idea.

I like that the characters are confined to their current location because the GM can't describe the next location. You need to figure out how to allow the player characters to interact with and explore this environment without a GM. I see a game board a la Clue, laying out a town and a little of the surrounding countryside. It would require a book which contained descriptions of these places and what the characters can find if they look.

The hard part to get around is the no dice rolling thing. Rolling dice is just such a basic how we do stuff in an RPG thing that trying to think how it would work is nearly impossible. Or just very, very painful. You might want to consider d20's take ten and take twenty rules. In this way, the PC can do *some* tasks, but then you'd have to set up possible tasks in advance. That may be more trouble than you want to deal with and not the point of this exercise at all.

Let's think about this, basically you're left with the "automatic actions." The PC's can walk around, talk to each other. Pick up objects and such.

The problem here is the same problem above when it comes to interacting with the enviroment. How do you search the room for clues if there is no GM to tell you what you find. How can you read an important document clue if there is no GM to tell you want is written on the parchment. How can you go into a new location within the present location if the GM can't describe it.

I've got a workaround for all of this. Here's what I got. I don't think it's even remotely what you wanted but it may proove inspirational:

First of all, it's more or less a board game. This makes going from one place to another a matter of just moving a token on a board. I see it as typical fantasy stuff, so there are the typical characters: fighter, cleric, magic user, etc. The board is broken down into several major locations, with sub-locals within each major location. I see things like Forrest, Swamp, Town, Castle, etc. Castle, for example, would be broken down into things like Dungeons, Throne room, Tower, etc.

Now, how the game works is people move their tokens into each location. They find out what's in each room because, before he died, the PC's had already explored much of this location. So each player has a notebook with what is found in each place. When player go into places, they all must search their notes to see what is in these places. Naturally, players might withold information, but it would be nicer to have a mechanic for that like Clue.

Doing this, the players find clues that will help them figure out who killed the GM. Who killed the GM should probably hinge on the Character and not the Player, because to make it work for the Player, the GM must prepare the whole thing so that it fits the player, and some GM's are pretty ham-handed about that sort of thing. This way the clues can be subtile.

There needs to be a way to make any character the killer, to up the replay value, and a variety of clues so that upon playing a couple times, it doesn't become obvious who killed the GM from the first clue. I also see red herrings, false clues that point to one character, but there are counterclues that negate this clue, to keep people on their toes.

I do see the combat system remaining. You can't make any unopposed rolls with no GM to give you the target number, but the PCs can still fight each other since combat rules really don't need GM interpretation. This way, the game can end with the other players trying to catch & kill the murderer with the murder trying to get away. Climax, my boy.

Or such is my take on it. I hope I was helpful.

[Kester Pelagius]

So, I am currently tackling the design challange from hell, like the title says, and I need the help of the Forge's most brilliant minds.  Heck, even not-so-brilliant minds would be of help, since my non-brilliant mind is failing me.

I will presume you've already looked into the "murder mystery" angle and not found much help in that sort of game.

So, basically, you want this to pick up with the Characters-- or did you mean Players?  If Players, then defininatelylook into turning this into a murder mystery game-- after the GM fails the big save vs Death and the Players are left milling about wondering how long they should wait to dive back into the chips and soda, and still at least *appear* tactful.

All this is made a bit more difficult by the removal of dice from play... or is it?

Maybe, now just maybe, since the dice are gone the Characters must then look around for the next best *alternative* method to generating random results to move the game along.

Suggestions:  Cards, standard or Tarot.  Either will do.  (Though standard who probably be better, less baggage.)

So, having found this *alternative* method of generating random results perhaps the crux of the problem should now shift to the rules which will state how the Characters are to attempt to us those random charts, or something?

It's an interesting premise.  One which is ripe for using all those *alternative randomizers* which Players tend to balk at using in normal play.  In fact this could probably serve as a neat way to introduce a variety of non-standard gaming concepts to Players.

Ok, so I might not be the brightest bulb in the room, but it's an idea.


Kind Regards.

[Jonathan Walton]

Wow! This is, beyond most doubts, one of the weirdest ideas I've come across.

You and me both.

It kind of screams one-shot the way lobsters scream in boiling water.

Well, there are a couple of reasons I'm suggesting it as part of an ongoing campaign.  Basically, the gut-reaction I want the players to have is that their world is crumbling around them.  However, if they have no real attachment to the gameworld or their characters, you don't get this.  Also, if "the GM" is just some metagame convention, who cares if he's dead?  However, if you've been playing with this guy for months/years and all of a sudden he's "dead" for the purposes of the game, isn't that a bit creepy?

It's the fact that I want there to be REAL pre-established background between players and characters (and not the kind you can just hand out, like "You dislike Character #3 because he killed your grandmother"), providing some emotion to back up the weirdness of what's happening.

It sounds like you see GM-less. That could work, but, again, you might to reconsider the "for any system" thing because a system purposefully designed for GM-less play would be better.

The idea was to strip games down to the point that they're all fundamentally the same.  Without a GM or dice, all you have are Characters with Traits & Tools.  Then what I was intending to do was rebuilt a system for conflict resolution that only relied on the things that all games have in common.  That's why I was aiming for it to be "for any system," because you'd be decontructing the system as soon as you began playing.

I see a game board a la Clue, laying out a town and a little of the surrounding countryside. It would require a book which contained descriptions of these places and what the characters can find if they look.

This would work for certain games, but what about others?  If different groups come to the game wanting to play (for example) Forgotten Realms, Traveler, Vampire, Fvlminata, and Kill Puppies for Satan, the same location isn't going to work for all of them.  That's how I got screwed on the game board idea.

For a while, I was pondering making a really bizarre board that had regions labeled "Self-Doubt," "Inter-Character Conflict," "Railroaded Plot," and the like, where you could apply those regions to any setting you were playing in.  However, I soon discarded that as too abstract.

The location, in my mind, isn't a problem if the group picks a place that all the players are comfortable with, i.e. a place that they've spent a significant amount of game time in and call all describe pretty accurately.  For instance, if Bob wants to go to the store and steal some weapons from the frozen NPC shopkeeper, he already knows how to do that because it's understood that there's a shop in town.

Does that make sense?  How well do you think it would work in practice?

You might want to consider d20's take ten and take twenty rules. In this way, the PC can do *some* tasks, but then you'd have to set up possible tasks in advance.

Hmm... Good advice there.  The only problem would be calculating what the eqivilent of Taking Ten would be in a game that didn't use D20's for conflict resolution.  We could have guidelines for how to calculate that (half of the maximum roll), but it would probably just be easier to have general guidelines of the types of actions the Characters can accomplish.

How do you search the room for clues if there is no GM to tell you what you find?

Ah, this part I have a solution to ;)  The "clues" are a metagame concept that are worked into the basic mechanics of the mystery.  If you really want to know how the GM-less mystery stuff works, you can read the long outline linked from the top of this thread.  If not, just trust me that the mystery itself is covered and somewhat unrelated to what the Characters do within the gameworld.

What I'm most concerned with here is the mechanics of allowing the Characters to "Do Stuff" without a GM.  I already have detailed plans about what they're going to do and why they're going to do it.  My main concern at this point is HOW to let them do it.

They find out what's in each room because, before he died, the PC's had already explored much of this location. So each player has a notebook with what is found in each place.

Now THIS is an interesting idea.  It more resembles the "murder mystery" mechanics that Kester mentions below, but somewhat different, in that it takes a real gaming-centric view of them.

I'll have to ponder this suggestion more...


All of that was very helpful, thanks.  I would definitely appreciate any other thoughts you had, as well.

Later.
Jonathan

[Jonathan Walton]

I will presume you've already looked into the "murder mystery" angle and not found much help in that sort of game.

I'm definitely stealing some components from those kind of systems, but I'm trying to do something a little harder than what they accomplish:

1) Have no set number of players, or a set place for the mystery to take place.

2) Have no "host" (GM), who runs the game and knows all the secrets.

3) Empower the Characters to really influence the way things turn out (instead of the railroaded style of most murder mystery games).

So, basically, you want this to pick up with the Characters-- or did you mean Players?

Definitely the Characters.  The Players are far-removed from the in-game events, and the Characters have no real knowledge of them at all.  That's why it's a mystery ;)

Maybe, now just maybe, since the dice are gone the Characters must then look around for the next best *alternative* method to generating random results to move the game along.

Alternative methods are definitely what I'm aiming at, but I don't know about alternative *random* methods.  After all, I kind of got rid of dice for a reason.  I guess I'm envisioning a resource-allocation game mechanic more like Nobilis or Universalis (minus the dice on the latter), but I'd be open for other suggestions.

Still, I did have the thought that maybe the Characters could find the GM's dice somewhere within the gameworld, enabling them to (in strange and limited ways) recover the abilities that they had lost.  However, I wanted them to already be used to playing without dice by the time the dice returned, so they wouldn't continue to use the dice as a crutch.

In fact this could probably serve as a neat way to introduce a variety of non-standard gaming concepts to Players.

:)

This is, in fact, how I came upon this idea in the first place.  I'm all about non-standard gaming and wanted to do something so out-there that people would think it was impossible.  Now, of course, I have to ensure that it's not impossible after all...

Sigh.

Later.
Jonathan

[Kester Pelagius]

Greeting all,

Just one brief comment as I pass by...

They find out what's in each room because, before he died, the PC's had already explored much of this location. So each player has a notebook with what is found in each place.

Now THIS is an interesting idea.  It more resembles the "murder mystery" mechanics that Kester mentions below, but somewhat different, in that it takes a real gaming-centric view of them.

I'll have to ponder this suggestion more...


All of that was very helpful, thanks.  I would definitely appreciate any other thoughts you had, as well.

When Jonathan said "Characters" I assumed he meant Characters, divorces from the Players, ergo also divorced of the demon "Player Character Knowledge"... sort of like the hook some fantasy short stories have used to jumpstart their stories.

Here is a game, these are the players, but then there the Characters, who are seperate entities existing simulaneously with the Players, who don't really know the Players are controlling them yada yada yada type of thing.

If this isn't the case then this idea might as well be dropped as a universal module plug-in concept and turned into a board game.  The premise is sound enough that, with a little work, you can have a board game that used cards, tiles (for the creation of the game area), etcetera to create a pseudo-murder mystery with flavorings of FRP game.

Not exactly like Clue or forget the exact name, something Baker Street (have mercy on my imp of memory ye ealdor Sherlock Holmes gods!) or the like.  The premise of game play would be in the set up.  The Characters would be predefined, perhaps set up as in Talisman or Magic Realm, and the meta-game goal would be discovering... well... whatever Jonathan decides he wants the goal to be.

Of course this can be something which changes, like in Clue, every game.

Just another random thought on my way to take the garbage out.


Kind Regards.

[M. J. Young]

I think the problem may be deeper than you suggest; but perhaps if we can see that, we can get closer to the solution as well.

At this point, the Characters are stuck in a single location (since the GM isn't there to describe them traveling to anywhere else), they can't do anything that relies on GM interpretation or rolling dice (since the GM's dice, as evidence, have been confiscated by the police), any NPCs have stopped functioning and stand around like statues, and the Characters basically have to invent GM-less gaming from scratch....

Now, without a GM to govern the use of Traits and Tools, and without dice to act as an impartial judge, I was going to assume that Characters would not be able to do anything that required a dice roll or other arbitration.  They wouldn't be stopped by any outside forces or crazy coincidences, they just couldn't attempt it.  It would be like trying to fly just because you wanted to; nothing would happen.

What I see as the problem is a fundamental disagreement about "anything that required a dice roll or other arbitration." Part of the function of the referee is to determine (to "arbitrate", if you will) just what things require a die roll or additional arbitration. That is, how many times do you hear a player ask, Do I have to roll for that? The question is asked because part of interpreting the rules (the referee's job) is determining when the rolls are necessary.

For example, you list walking across the room as something the players would be able to do because no check would be necessary. One world I like to use for Multiverser starts the character in the cargo hold of a ship. When he announces that he's going to walk across the room, I tell him that he has to roll for it--because the rocking of the boat makes walking considerably more difficult until you have adjusted to it. Almost never does a player have to roll for his character to walk across a room; but he walks across the room without a roll because the referee by his silence has decreed that no roll is needed. If the character were drunk a roll might be required. If the floor was exceptionally slick, say from fresh wax or spilled oil, that might require a roll. We don't roll because the referee has decided there is nothing here that requires a roll.

Now, obviously you want to get away from using rolls to determine outcomes. The answer to your mechanics problem seems to be here: the characters must recognize that they can make the decision that this is something they can do without a roll.

But now you've got another problem; and the other problem is that once the players get wind of this, they're going to be doing the impossible by declaring it automatic. How do we solve this? Well, you wanted unusual resolution, so how about this: the characters can do anything which the players unanimously agree they can do. If any player says, "no, that's ridiculous," it becomes impossible. If any says, "I don't know about that," it can't be done. Any time a player expresses doubt about the possibility of a character being able to do something without a roll, he's right by virtue of the fact that he expressed the doubt.

That just might work.

I have not read the other thread; but it seems to me that if the player who is the murderer knows his own identity, this might well become a tool he could use to derail efforts to discover him, while at the same time his use thereof becomes a clue to his identity.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

Hmm, nice.  That would seem to work to me.  It could even get a bit Mage like.  If the system used for the not-happening RPG could be driven to automatic success or failure, the characters might have to accumulate modifiers by other actions which drive the success chance above or below 100%, thus obviating a rll and hence the presence of a GM.  Anything they can do through the system as an automatic action they can still do.

So if the system were AD&D, a Thief character with 80% chance of climbing a wall would not be able to do so because that would require a roll; but if they acquired modifiers in excess of 100% that would not need a roll, and so they can climb the wall.

The character of the player-who-is-the-murder doesn't know whether they did or not at the outset, MJ - they don;t know anything the players know as players, they only know what they know as characters, IIRC.  But the character might find out that their associated player was the murdere, and then try to warn them.  I'm a bit shaky on that - for one thing, I'm noit sure I understand why the identity of the murdering player is visible in the game world.  I'll leave that for Jonathan to clarify.

[Gwen]

And if the GM left clues in the world, how would the players find them if the whole world is static and nothing moves or talks and no one is there to describe the clues?

[Andrew Martin]

Now, using this as a model, I eventually want the Characters to take more and more control over the gameworld, in effect, taking over for the absent GM.  Though the first part of the campaign will be pretty static (though the Characters should have fun exploring the new limits on their actions), I want things to eventually progress to the point where the Characters are creating their own adventures, all in an effort to track down clues to the GM's death.

Now... how the hell do I do THAT?

I'd think that the most obvious answer would be to introduce a meta-system (I'm not sure if that's the right term) that allows the players to evenly distribute GM power by player consent, and so "animate" and "illuminate" the game world for the Player-Characters.

After all, it's only by player consent that a GM can function. :)

I'd suggest my Token system, which is part of my GM-less Star Odyssey RPG, and is been tested in a fantasy game (Swift system), Ratio, and in a WW Exalted game that I'm currently running on Sundays.

[Jonathan Walton]

Okay... Thanks for the great comments, people!  I'm going to tackle these in order...

the characters must recognize that they can make the decision that this is something they can do without a roll.

I was pondering whether or not to use something like this, because I think it would work well in two different respects:

1) The phrase "You'll have to roll for that" would be one the Characters would all use on each other, to prevent them from doing things that the GM would normally require to roll for.  In this way, they would start taking over some of the GM's responsibilities at the beginning of the game.  I don't think it matters WHAT players decide to approve.  If the game suddenly soars off to become Epic-Level Exalted Nobilis, with players eating mountain ranges for breakfast, that's cool... as long as the players arbitrate somewhat consitantly.

2) If the players begin by arbitrating some things, it'll be easier to get them to divide up GM responsibilities as the game progresses.  For instance, say one Character's action is eventually something like "I convince the NPC to give me all his money.  He readily agrees and forks it over."  Now, at the beginning, other Characters are likely to say "That's out of line" and ban the action, but if the players slowly get used to the idea of Character-controlled NPCs or other things, they might be open to allowing those kinds of actions.

I could also try to imitate the Universalis mechanic of having someway for players to show how much they approved or disapproved of certain actions, bidding coins (or tokens, as in Andrew's system) to support or deny them.  This way, if the vast majority of the group was determined to foil a Character, the Character's player wouldn't possibly have enough coins/tokens to push the action through by him/herself.

That just might work.

I agree.  I think I'm beginning to view this as more likely a possibility than I first thought.

I have not read the other thread; but it seems to me that if the player who is the murderer knows his own identity, this might well become a tool he could use to derail efforts to discover him, while at the same time his use thereof becomes a clue to his identity.

Actually, contracycle's right about this point.  The players aren't really concerned with or representing The Players of the roleplaying game.  They're simply playing the Characters, who have no OOC knowledge except what little they've learned since the GM's death.  It's sorta like predestination vs. free will.  The Characters don't FEEL like they're controlled by some cosmic puppetmasters, but that's what's actually going on, though they seem to be making free choices.

However, The Players know everything that the Characters are doing (though the opposite is not true), so if The Player-that-is-a-Murderer suspects that the PCs are on to him, he might try to escape (OOCly, not by sabatoging the game).

If the system used for the not-happening RPG could be driven to automatic success or failure, the characters might have to accumulate modifiers by other actions which drive the success chance above or below 100%, thus obviating a rll and hence the presence of a GM. Anything they can do through the system as an automatic action they can still do.

This is definitely something I should mention or stick in a sidebox.  Thanks.  It would make sense for the players to take advantage of the specific mechanics of their game to do any tasks with no margin of error.  Obviously, I don't think I could give rules for this (though I might give examples from the more popular rules systems), but I should definitely allow for that possibility.

And if the GM left clues in the world, how would the players find them if the whole world is static and nothing moves or talks and no one is there to describe the clues?

Well, it sorta works like this:

1) The "clues" are a metagame mechanic.  Before play begins, the characters each fill out cards that have their Player's name (The Rules-Lawyer, The Munchkin), possible murder weapons (a bag of D100s, +6 Vorpal Blade), possible murder locations (the bathroom, the backyard), and possible motives (the GM killed my favorite character, he always makes me play orcs) on them.  Yes, like Clue.

2) Some cards are drawn randomly and stuck in a secret envelope.  These are the "Facts" of the murder.

3) As the game goes on, the Characters gather "clues" (the cards not in the envelope), which allows them to eliminate possibilities.  However, there are a few complications.

4) Since each player invented his/own weapons, locations, and motives for the cards, the Characters don't even really know what the _possibilities_ are, and have to find out by Diplomacy-like negotiation and intrigue.  And some of the Characters/Players could be lying to try to throw you off.  You also need to know what other Characters clues are, and they don't have to tell you (since you could be a pawn of the murderer).

5) So the clues are really metagame.  When, in the campaign, a Character "discovers a clue," what this really means is the player draws a clue card, gaining a little more information.  There is no in-game representation of "a clue" unless creative players want to invent one ("I found signs indicating that it couldn't possibly have been a chainsaw that killed them GM").

The clue mechanics are mostly nailed down, but I'm still probably going to fiddle with them once I know how the rest of the mechanics are going to work, to make everything have a unified feel.

I'd think that the most obvious answer would be to introduce a meta-system (I'm not sure if that's the right term) that allows the players to evenly distribute GM power by player consent, and so "animate" and "illuminate" the game world for the Player-Characters.

Nice thought.  Put together with M.J.'s suggestion of a consensus-building mechanic, I'm beginning to see how these type of powers could be distributed.  Another possibility I was pondering was having in-game McGuffin's that game powers to specific players.

EXAMPLE:  Bob the Space Cowboy somehow manages to gain The GM's Dice, an artifact of great power.  He is now The Dicemaster and has the power to arbitrate all in-game uses of dice.

What do people think of something like that?

Later.
Jonathan

[Sylus Thane]

This is just a stray thought that ran through my head.......................................................................What if the players and the characters swapped places? I know it's wierd but just follow it through. The Gm kicks the bucket just as he's about to have something horrendous happen. He rolls the dice, then all of a sudden, ack, he slumps over on the table. The dice kepp rolling in an eeries slow motion sort of way and when they stop..........................BOOOOOOOOOOOM! The players are now in the frozen world the GM was describing and the characters are now sitting in a living room wondering what the hell happened and why these strange dice keep rolling near them whenever they try and accomplish something. I know this sounds kind of odd but it gives you in a way a two for one type of game. The people involved could either still be the players trying to figure out how to get out of the frozen imagination of one of their dead friends or be the characters trying to figure what kind of world their in now that fate has delivered to them and needs to be conquered. I know this idea isn't exactly GMless but it might give you what you were looking for because if they are the players they would have to look for the clues to get them out and if they are the characters it's them in the really real world totally controlled by strange little dice rolling around and stopping when they try to do something.

It isn't totally diceless or Gmless but just an idea that jumped out of my head.

Sylus

[Jonathan Walton]

The "swapping places" is neat, but significantly different from what I'm trying to do here.  Definitely an idea to keep in mind for another game though.

There are a few places in the game where I was thinking of having the Players and Characters interact, though.  For example, I had the idea that all of them would show up at the GM's funeral and have a chance to discuss what was going on (this would be where the PCs would get the little OOC knowledge that they have).  I was going to have each player taking on the roles of both Player and Character at different times, enabling everyone to interact with everyone else (except that a Character couldn't interact directly with their Player).

This isn't doing exactly what you're describing, but does do the interesting thing of putting the Players and Characters in a interesting realm that isn't quite OOC  or IC, just some vague middle ground somewhere.  I'll definitely be interested to see, during playtests how the Characters (who will probably be a little over the top) interact with the Players.

Should be real fun :)

Later.
Jonathan

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Jon,

Was just reading something and had a flash-pan bit of "hey that might be interesting for" your game.  Don't know if you're still working things out or not but here goes...

What if you had the players create the characters as you've outlined.  But, now here's the interesting bit, instead of having the characters played by the player that created them what if the players, as a whole, were able to move/manipulate the actions of the characters (any) during play?

This way it would involve the group as whole in game play, more, they would be literally setting the scene as their in-game decisions unfolded.

Also the "murderer" could be working to create disinformation, point the characters in the wrong direction, all while the players are trying to hvae the characters collect as many clues as possible.

The idea could probably be developed way better than this.  But, as it stands, what do you think?


Kind Regards.