Anarchy in Game Design

[rosscowman]

Mr. TV-Head sayz “Anarchy is CHAOS!”         

That’s not what I’m talking about. When I say anarchy, I mean- an+archos = no ruler. I'd like to discuss ways of sharing the GM duties, and how this compares to the traditional GM-Player roles.

An example:  I’ve been experimenting with “Hotseat” GMing in my gaming group. It goes like this.
 
1. We all make characters (Over The Edge Style without the dice. 2 Advantages, 1 Disadvantage, 1 Secret, anything goes.)
2. We all come up  with a place, a character, and a chapter title, these get shuffled and passed out along with their secret.
3. We each take turns running a game session, conflicts are resolved by flipping three coins. (The ninja could take out the thugs with 1 Heads while the chicken would definitely need all three)      
4. Who ever goes last wraps up the story. You can stop right there, start again with new characters or continue the story.
         
The players continually amaze me with the plot twists and with  the characters they create (a bottle of absinth who can seduce others into doing it’s will?  A scottish monk who goes berserk at the mention of earl grey tea?  A tractor tire with an inferiority complex!?) The crazy thing is, every time some character, some situation will just be too weird and I think “there is no way this can work”  but it always does.

Try it out with your gaming group. It also works well with RPG weary folks who chafe at the restrictions to their creativity or the numbers.

[Ben Lehman]

That’s not what I’m talking about. When I say anarchy, I mean- an+archos = no ruler. I'd like to discuss ways of sharing the GM duties, and how this compares to the traditional GM-Player roles.

BL>  This has been going around the Forge a lot recently.  Here are some threads that you have probably already seen but should be good reference for other's posting.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8500">Credibility For the Player
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8551">The Tactics Project (this is my baby... mmm...)
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8549">GM/PC Play Simultaneously
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8335">Men Are From Universalis (and the root thread, adventures in Improvised System)
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8191">There is Only Players in RPG
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7629">An Approach to Multiple Simultaneous GMs

There are also a gazillion threads linked inside those threads which all contain useful information.  A number of participants around here are used to this sort of play, and will be happy to point you to more historical threads.

Also, go check out the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewforum.php?f=21">Universalis forum, where people are discussing an PRG designed just for that sort of play.

yrs--
--Ben

[Daniel Solis]

The crazy thing is, every time some character, some situation will just be too weird and I think ?there is no way this can work?  but it always does.

This gives me renewed faith in the viability of WTF? as a viable game. :)

[rosscowman]

Thanks ben, for the references.
Interesting how some systems even do away with the concept of the player character. In AD+D etc... players invest time for their characters to grow powerful focusing on the economic systems where acheivement is measured and assigned a currency. The focus of the game becomes these currencies and the point by point advancements they bring.
The focus of the game becomes the accumulation of power. Of course this gets pretty silly. High level characters, the grandure of  merlin and strider and Drizzt Do'Urdens;  collapses under it's own complexity.  

What happens if you give the players everything at the onset.
All the level ganing in D+D is really pointless isn't it? I mean the monsters just keep getting bigger. They have to, otherwise the game would cease to be challangeing.
After reading Nobilis I realised that no character was too powerful to be challanged. (Though it would be interesting to run a game where a player chose to be omnipotent)

[Ben Lehman]

Thanks ben, for the references.
Interesting how some systems even do away with the concept of the player character. In AD+D etc... players invest time for their characters to grow powerful focusing on the economic systems where acheivement is measured and assigned a currency. The focus of the game becomes these currencies and the point by point advancements they bring.
The focus of the game becomes the accumulation of power. Of course this gets pretty silly. High level characters, the grandure of  merlin and strider and Drizzt Do'Urdens;  collapses under it's own complexity.  

BL>  Depends on how graceful the system is and how skillfully it is handled.  Accumulation Gamism (where you play challenge games to get more ability to face similar challenges) is not fundamentally broken as a play-style.

What happens if you give the players everything at the onset.

BL>  Amber.  (Or Nobilis or Pantheon or...)

:-)

But there is a difference between "everyone has director power" or "no GM" play and "non-Gamist" or "non-Accumulation" play.  For instance, Tactics will hopefully encourage players to gain levels for the group's characters without needing a strong GM, if any at all.

yrs--
--Ben

[Mike Holmes]

What happens if you give the players everything at the onset.

They'll string themselves up by the long rope you give them. That's probably something Ron said about his game Sorcerer. In that game, you start out with your character knowing how to do every special power that exists in the game. More and more games are realizing that "advancement" isn't a neccessary part of RPGs. Sure it can be fun, but it's often largely distracting from other styles of play.

Mike