The Forge Archives

So Ron tossed this off in the Adept Press forum, almost anecdotally.  I really thought it was a great articulation of something that i wanted to do.  After some thought i've got a design tenet that i don't know is possible to fulfill.  Anyway, before going into it here's what Ron said:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsWow ... I just had this sudden vision of a mutual player/GM relationship in which both people are GM and both people play characters, simultaneously.

Possible? Theoretically, yes. In-teresting.

Ok.  After spending some time mulling this over i came up with the following design tenet.  Note: this is simply my interpretation of how to execute this, i'm sure there are many more some of which are probably better.

A system needs to be developed that allows the sharing of Director Stance authority between multiple participants without the use of currency (i.e. coins, winning rolls, etc.)

What i'm looking for:

1. Has anyone attempted this before?  I've never seen a successful execution of this, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened or that no one has tried.
2. Does anyone have any idea how this might be done?  Is this even possible, or is it merely wishful thinking at work?

Finally, i know that there are other ways to execute this GM/PC simultaneous play, but i want to focus on the one i've presented.  Feel free to run with the idea...

Thomas

I've had some experiences that are somewhat similar.

In the first, we had a multiplayer sim, where the leader of each faction was simultaneously GM and play.  So it was like having 3 GMs and 120 players.  GMs could make rulings on their own or come to a consensus.  None of that is really helpful for you.  The interesting part came when the GMs and their characters started to act together.  What you saw were two kinds of outcomes:
1) mutual authorship: each person would write in whatever he wanted during his "turn" and the other person could veto it if something seemed wrong.  Turns were informal yet we had a very good intuitive feel for when to hand things over (basically once you had made progress toward developing or resolving a conflict, but you never finished doing either in your turn so that things only got resolved when both people worked on it for several turns in a row).  
2) role-swapping: if a GM and a regular player wanted their characters to interact, they could bring in one of the other GMs to arbitrate.  This GM often continued to use his character (as an NPC, if you will).  You could easily extend this so that everyone in the group acts as a GM for a certain scene, with the GM role moving around the table as desired.

I think #1 probably plays out much like Universalis already does, but while still meeting your requirements.  #2 doesn't really fit your criteria, since it's a revolving GM, not a simultaneous thing.

Now, my question for you is this: if you're avoiding bidding or dice, how is your system going to be different from a basic variation on multiple-author stories?

PS: I know you wanted to avoid dice, but I think Donjon's fact system could very easily be used to share GM and player roles, with just a few procedural changes.  Basically, you'd need a way to develop monsters and set difficulty ratings... or a way to change the system that didn't require these.

If you haven't, read the opening post of my Adventures in Improvised System down in Actual Play.  Ignore all the stuff about whether we were successful or unsuccessful in making the game happen, and notice: who's the GM?

Consider that coins or whatever only formalize a social arrangement.  If you can come to a social arrangement without them, you don't need them.

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpleyConsider that coins or whatever only formalize a social arrangement. If you can come to a social arrangement without them, you don't need them.

Absolutely. But you can't package "peace on Earth and goodwill towards men". The masses generally need their social arrangement to be formalized. They at least need an example of such formulation.

-Chris

Well, okay.  Thomas, could you say a bit about "no currency"?  If I may, I'd guess that what you're trying to get at is simultaneity: you want sharing, not turn taking?

-Vincent

http://www.twistedconfessions.com/twists/quirc.php>QuIRC is vaguely shared-GM-player - every player has a particular viewpoint character.  But QuIRC uses a form of currency, as well as a mechanical system to resolve conflicts.

Ok.  The no currency thing.  You've got it pretty much down Lumpley.  As was tossed around in all the Yin/Yang Roleplaying threads (which i'm too lazy to link) currency tends (note: doesn't nessecarily create) competition.  I'm looking for a cooperative sharing of authority.

Over on IRC it was presented to me (i can't remember, i think it was Justin) that what i'm looking for is some sort of Constitution for roleplaying.  The question that arises is: can we create a sort of Universal Constitution that is portable between most groups (which is what i would prefer), or are we instead going to need to create a set of guidelines on what such a Constitution needs to cover for any given group.

Oh, and i did enjoy Adventures in Improv.  I've done similar things myself, but that's not quite the same as traditional play.  Then again, i guess what i'm proposing isn't either.

It was also suggested to me that i get a group and just play a shared GM game until it works like i want it to, then make rules that mirror the effects of Actual Play...  I'll probably try it, i just don't know how well the local group will handle it.

Thanks for everyone's input, and i'm always eager to hear more.

Thomas

Now that i've got a little bit more time, i wanted to elaborate on the specific desire to not use Currency or Dice in this.

I've noticed with stuff like Universalis, which is an excellent execution of currency usage, there is always the question of whether or not you can afford to spend coins now at the expense of not being able to do other cool stuff later.  There's this implicit (or so it seems to me) encouragement to be frugal with your Facts.

With dice, Donjon is the only one i have any experience at all with, there is a sense that pre-planning is almost completely pointless since the dice will be deciding things more than any single player.  There's a sense that the dice may screw up whatever you might want to execute, regardless of whether everyone would really enjoy your idea or not.

I guess the main reason i would like to execute this is that there is excitement to be had in the mystery of what a GM has planned.  Sometimes there's a scene i want a character or party to have, but often i enjoy being surprised and reacting accordingly.  A framework that facilitates the ability for everyone to play in both roles seems to me to be a "very good thing."

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Dice or other structured features of play can still provide the effect you're looking for. I submit that Sorcerer, Elfs, and Trollbabe resolution all fit the bill nicely in different ways. Self-promotion aside, I also highly recommend Dust Devils (perhaps the purest and cleanest such system available), Everway, The Dying Earth, and HeroQuest. An older source to check out is Tunnels & Trolls. Some of these utilize currency and some do not, but the main point is that the dice element provides structure, but not quantified "narration units" like Donjon does.

I think that Pace, octaNe, InSpectres, Extreme Vengeance, Story Engine, and Legends of Alyria are too far along the spectrum that you're trying to avoid, but I'm mentioning them here for reference purposes.

Best,
Ron

Thanks Ron, i've been meaning to get a copy of Dust Devils for a couple of weeks anyway, looks like that'll be happening today...

I don't know if i've muddied the waters or not, but what i'm really trying to get here is a system in which everyone gets that sense of mystery.  No one person is the GM, all players are.  This means that you never know what might get tossed into the mix (like in Universalis), but there's still a strong sense of character ownership.

Thomas

Not to be pimping out Donjon too much, but the dice don't really have that effect.  If you succeed, you name your facts and the GM must include them in the story.  If you fail, the GM names his facts and you include them in the story by doing the narration yourself.  There's nothing in the rules (as far as I remember) stopping you from introducing your original idea as you work the GMs facts in (unless someone wants to object).

Anyway, that wasn't me on IRC, but I think the suggestion to form a constitution of sorts is a good one.  And I would definitely develop it though play, though you might need to start off with a rough draft to get things moving.

PS: After my game last night, I can assure you that the GM can easily have a sense of mystery when dealing with a group of inventive and creative players, in any system.

Quote from: LordSmerfI don't know if i've muddied the waters or not, but what i'm really trying to get here is a system in which everyone gets that sense of mystery.  No one person is the GM, all players are.

As Vincent intimated, all the players in our group are also gms.  There are many game elements that we share, but we also each have our own turf (characters, world elements etc.), about which we can divulge as much or as little as we feel called. We usually hold back information to create suspense or mystery.  

Fang formulated this well with his concept "proprietorship" from Scattershot:

Quote from: Fang LangfordProprietor - The Player who 'owns' some element within the Game. Usually a Player becomes the Proprietor for anything belonging to their Persona or arising from their Persona's description or Actions. This also means that the Gamemaster is largely the Proprietor of the world within the Game (seeing as their Personae, the Regular Characters, own much of it), this is relaxed whenever a Player first brings up something that no known Regular Character is connected with. Players may turn over any element they are Proprietor for to any other Player whenever they wish. You may use other's elements only with their (at least tacit) approval.

This gives a general framework into which elements can be introduced and by which responsibility for them is assigned (eg an unwritten rule in our group is "you name it, you play it"). Our interpretation of these rules is broader--everyone has the the power of a gm to introduce world elements (places, plot, cultures etc). But world elements are more likely to be group property than are characters. If any of us wants to claim sole proprietorship we just stake our claim.  And if all are agreed, then mechanically, thereafter if anyone wants to do anything about or with that element, we have to talk to the person who claimed it first.  These agreements are, of course, subject to change over time, flexible and negotiable.

Fang also talked about introducing suspense into games that were much more creatively co-operative than the norm, though he does recommend using dice. In general, Scattershot might be worth a look.


Regards,
Em