GMless gaming techniques

[talysman]

Michael's thread on GMless play was slightly derailed by a technical discussion on how to do it, and he asked that technical discussed be moved elsewhere. I agree that it's off topic for his thread, so I'm starting a subthread here.

as I mentioned, I'm thinking of writing a book on GMless techniques. I've been pretty open about the techniques I think work, but I'd like to see what other solutions people may have come up with.

first, the definition and ground rules. GMless gaming, for the purposes of this thread, is: any method of play where the GM roles of arbitration and creativity are dissociated and change from moment to moment, and where setting and situation (not just character) can be created by any player. I'd also like to rule out the following discussions from this thread:

[*] advocacy of any particular GMless gaming or GM gaming mode, or feelings about either;
[*] discussion of semantics, except to ask what another participant meant by a particular word;
[*] opinions on whether or not a particular Creative Agenda is possible in GMless gaming (a potentially useful discussion, but better left for the GNS Theory forum.)
[/list:u]

in other words, I want to restrict this thread to techniques only. there are a couple arbitration and creativity techniques out there; let's list them and examine when they are effective and when they are not.

[Valamir]

Sounds like a good thread.  It might be useful if you could provide some of the examples you're already thinking of so we have an idea of what you're looking for by "techniques"?

[clehrich]

Ralph, you hit the nail on the head.  I've been thinking about this since the thread came up, and I'm still confused.

Here's a possibility:

Bidding resources to take over some particular thread or storyline.

Is this what you mean by techniques?  What do you want discussed about them?

Sorry, I'm just honestly very confused, but interested.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This is a terminology post - not a correction, but rather a suggestion.

I suggest that "GM-less" is an abominable and misleading term. I suggest that past discussions of "GM-ful" or "GM-task-distributed" play have thoroughly demonstrated that GMing-tasks are always present in role-playing, and that the only questions about them are:

a) which ones are concentrated in one person at a time

b) does responsibility for these tasks shift from person to person

c) how negotiable are the conclusions/input from the current GM-task person

Does any of that make sense? I certainly also think the floor is open for a better term, although this might not be the thread for it (your choice).

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

Hi Ron,

I suggest that "GM-less" is an abominable and misleading term. I suggest that past discussions of "GM-ful" or "GM-task-distributed" play have thoroughly demonstrated that GMing-tasks are always present in role-playing, and that the only questions about them are:

a) which ones are concentrated in one person at a time

b) does responsibility for these tasks shift from person to person

c) how negotiable are the conclusions/input from the current GM-task person

I'll have to agree that a discussion of terminology would be worthy of a seperate thread. I thought of your opinions on the term "GMless" when I composed my post, but I've never agreed with that analysis; to me, "GM" means "Game Master": a person filling a role. that person controls several necessary duties in RPGs, although particular designs or styles may weaken or eliminate the GM's control of a specific duty. so, from my viewpoint, it's "GMing tasks" that needs a new name. I think you can see that you and I are going to have trouble agreeing on terminology, there, even though we agree on the analysis of GM behavior.

but the three questions you raise are a good starting point to help me clarify the questions Chris and Ralph have about this thread's purpose. I'm looking for a catalogue of GMless techniques and an analysis of how they work. first, let's acknowledge that there are two extremes of role-playing on the "GM" axis:
[list=1]
[*] FIXED: one person controls a GMing task for an entire game session;
[*] FLEETING: one person controls or shares control of a GMing task for only a brief moment.
[/list:o]
Fixed and Fleeting GMing represent a continuum, with the following rough stages:

[*] MOMENT-TO-MOMENT: task control can change the next time someone speaks or makes a roll;
[*] SCENE-TO-SCENE: task control only changes when the time and place in the game world changes;
[*] AREA-TO-AREA: locations or times are grouped in large contigous blocks, with task control changing when the area changes (example: each city has a GM);
[*] GAME-TO-GAME: task control remains fixed for an entire session or perhaps multiple sessions.
[/list:u]
I am mainly interested in play that has moment-to-moment or scene-to-scene control changes for all GMing tasks, because this seems to be an underdeveloped area of play. however, since GMing includes a broad range of tasks, there are many games that are mostly Fixed GM in nature, but have Fleeting GM control in one narrow area; I'm willing to look at any Fleeting techniques, even if the example comes from an otherwise Fixed game.

now, for the GMing tasks themselves. each task creates or controls some aspect of the game, although for the sake of brevity we can consider creation to be "control of rights of creation" and just talk about control in general.  I haven't come up with a categorization of the aspects yet, but the five areas of Exploration seem like a good scheme for now:

-- CHARACTER can be divided into PC and NPC, of course, with NPC split into extras, supporting cast, and minor and major opponents (mooks and bosses.) a traditional GM is in theory the sole controller of all NPCs, but there are plenty of examples of otherwise Fixed games where players have Fleeting ability to add or even control extras and supporting cast, and even a few where minor (or even major) opponents are farmed out or have shared control.

GMless character control techniques include "grunt pools" of extras that are communally controlled, bidding or gambling for control of major NPCs, arbitrary addition of NPCs through Director Stance, and so on.

-- SETTING and COLOR sort of go together, since whether a particular element of a game is Setting or Color seems to generate debate (I'm in favor of Color being the abstract qualities like genre expectations, versus the concrete person/place/thing elements of Setting, but that's a different discussion...) Setting and Color in the broad sense are jointly selected by the entire play group when the players first decide what game they wish to play, but control over Setting and usually Color as well traditionally becomes Fixed in one GM afterwards.

GMless Setting and Color control techniques would be much the same as NPC control techniques and could include bidding/gambling for control rights or arbitrary creation (perhaps with veto rights from the group.)

-- SITUATION is where generating plot, calling for scenes, and setting difficulties would fall. again, this is traditionally completely in the domain of one Fixed GM, but I think we've seen more experimentation with Fleeting Situation control than in any of the other types of Exploration. historically, the first examples of Fleeting Situation would be things like Whimsy cards and limited scene-calling.

-- SYSTEM seems to be almost always controlled by the GM in any Fixed approach, but I think a case could be made that players arguing about whether an in-game action is possible or impossible would be an example of majority veto over GM power. arbitration powers in general, if they are not broken up into the other four types of Exploration, could be considered the primary System GMing task.

looking over what I've just written, it seems that, beyond classifying a particular technique as scene-to-scene or moment-to-moment and identifying which element of Exploration it covers, you can also specify whether a Fleeting control technique is personal (player has complete unique control at the moment,) disputed (two or more players suggest alternate interpretations and the disagreement is resolved by bidding, gambling, or some other method,) collaborative (the entire group agrees to a change,) or impersonal (the nature of the change is determined by cards, random tables, etc., with the players mainly having invocation rights.) you can also classify techniques based on whether they are metagame or have an in-game explanation.

I suppose where we should start in this thread is to see if we can gather examples of each combination of Fleeting techniques suggested by the crude breakdown above, as well as look for any examples of a GMless technique that hasn't been covered yet. I'd also like to see a discussion of what techniques work well in what situations. for example, I think there are a couple of Narrativist games that use bidding System control techniques; do they work in that context? has anyone tried bidding for control in Sim games? what was the effect on play?

if this seems like too broad an area for discussion, we can focus on technique examples for now and see if we can fill up the "example chart".

[talysman]

oh, duh. I forgot some examples.

I had some examples in the Usenet thread I alluded to elsewhere, but it's probably easier to look in this Forge thread for the most relevant excerpts.

the example I covered there dealt with plot generation. I gave a Fixed by Area example of plot control in a traditional D&D-like RPG, plus an example of Fleeting by Scene. both of these would be considered personal forms of control: there was no bidding, gambling, or veto mentioned, although technically the second example was a suggested variant of Fungeon, which thus depends on Fleeting by Scene Setting control determined by gambling. the third example in that thread would be Fleeting by Scene (or maybe Moment) based on an impersonal method, although that last part is debatable -- the players make the cards themselves.

I also posted a lengthy example of plot generation for a proposed GMless Call of Cthulhu game. hmmm. I think this one included more than one technique. the first part is a proposed rule-change that allows triggering Fleeting by Moment Scene/Color creative control; technically, an impersonal method, although again the phobic tendency is selected beforehand by the player. the second part is also an impersonal Fleeting by Moment method, but for Situation. the prep for the card system is either collaborative (goup decides as a whole which GOO and four minions are involved,) or purely impersonal (prep decks of index cards with official minions and GOOs, then draw for each.)

[Callan S.]

Ron: do you just mean decentralised power? The idea of 'GM-less' isn't abominable...people are just used to a strong authority figure, and when it's gone they don't notice the authority is still there, it's just not condensed into one person. GM-less is a fine term, because there is no GM anymore. It's only a problem in that it doesn't really give an idea on where the authority and power is now.

talysman: Can I ask, does GM-less techniques include something like warhammer quest. For those who haven't played it, it was a random dungeon hack where pretty much everything was automated rather than GM decided. You rolled attacks against your own character, etc. Meanwhile there were enough action options to make some expression of character if you wanted.

Is that one? Or is it unapplicable and/or to simple? I'm just trying to get my bearings.

[Emily Care]

Hi John,

Writing a book on alternative narrative rights/responsibility distribution is a big job. Thanks for taking it on. Even just delineating the terminology would be a big help in trying to communicate why and how this kind of thing is possible, positive and fun.  

Here's a few examples I've tried to classify using your schema. I'm just recollecting off the top of my head for some of them, so, folks, if I misrepresent a rule, please correct me.

Universalis  Is anything fixed in this game? character, setting, system, color and situation may all be created by any player, and proprietorship of any given element may be taken by other players, although it may be retained by the initial creator. However, this means that all control is moment-to-moment.

Inspectres The already recently mentioned Confessional gives fleeting situational control to players. Would this be on a scene-to-scene basis, or  moment to moment? The skill roll resolution chart splits up outcome resolution between player and gm. (as described here.  This is a fairly common form of non-trad nar. resp. dist.: moment-to-moment character/situation based.

Zak Arntson's Shadows An example of split, fixed nar. responsibility. Players are entirely responsible for outcome resolution in this game. Through Shadow rolls players narrate the desired and also the "not-desired" outcomes, so it is fixed. The gm holds fixed responsibility for scene-framing (situation) and calling for rolls (system).  Players are also responsible for providing setting and color, but are supported in this process by the gm. Everytime I look at this game, I am impressed anew by it's elegance and effectiveness.


Ars Magica  The narrative sharing going on here is primarily in the realm of character (players have fixed responsibility for multiple characters), but development of setting seems likely to be open to players due to the fact that the written system is covenant based. This might result in area-to-area switches in setting creation, the gm would most likely have more control over other covenants, mundane settlements etc. I must admit to being baffled by the thought of this game having such centralized rights since it's the game I've played most and I've never been in a campaign that reflected this. But then, the idiosyncrasies of any gaming group will of course affect the way any written rules set is actually enacted. It does seem likely however, to me, that this game may experience drift of the written fixed nature of gm control of: setting/color, and perhaps also of situation.  But nothing in it particularly makes me think this would happen with system.

Trollbabe and Donjon  Both have rules that are somewhat similar to the skill roles in InSpectres. Outcomes of conflicts in Trollbabe may be narrated by gm or player, and the player has several chances to change who gets to do so.  Trollbabe might be a good game to disect in greater depth.

In DonJon, players and gm have mutualistic responsibility for situation, and thus for setting. What the characters do determines what the situation is, which can impact setting. If the player spies to see if any orcs are around, they make it so, and thus orcs are now in the world. But is no-myth narration like this fixed or fleeting?

Sorcerer  This is a near insignificant example considering the game, but I believe that in Sorcerer, anyone can call for a resolution roll.  This means that there is fleeting, moment-to-moment responsibility for system shared among all participants.

Soap  Player scene-to-scene responsibility for situation. Fixed, I believe, since scenes do not change hands. Each player gatekeeps what other characters are allowed in to the scene.

Otherkind Situation is split between player and gm, but player has to prioritize aspects of the situation and who narrates each part is decided by the player, based on rolls. Complex. Is it fixed player? Fleeting gm?

Well, that's enough for now.  Questions I have based on this are:

Are there any current systems (of complete games) that use scene-to-scene divisions? Is Soap really one?  

Character is the locus of narrative control for players in most games. Discerning where the boundary is in each game for player creation of setting/situation/color, and limits of gm ability to edit actions or attributes of character would probably be a good angle to approach traditional games from to put them on the continuum, or into the chart.

How to determine if a system has fixed or fleeting control is unclear to me. Gradations in between might be helpful: e.g.  split/cooperative, fortune determined, currency based, etc.

Hope that's of some use.

Best,
Emily Care

[talysman]

Hope that's of some use.

thanks, Emily, it is indeed. for one, it's a reminder that I still need to get Universalis; I should probably also get Soap. Universalis is, from what little I know about it, a prime example of Moment-by-Moment control shifts of every possible element of play. I was thinking of it when I consider bidding as one of the possible methods of shifting control.

looking over my outline and some of the comments you have made, I see I need to think about what seems to be two emerging categories of techniques: techniques to shift control and techniques to generate content. in some cases, a technique does both: whimsy cards generate content (the seed, at least) and temporarily shift control to the person playing the card. I have not actually seen the original whimsy cards, although I remember a similar concept of "rune cards" in one of the Rolemaster suppliments.

to answer the question about Fixed and Fleeting, I seem to have hopelessly confused things there; sorry about that. Fixed and Fleeting are just alternate names of the scale represented by Moment-to-Moment through Game-to-Game. any control that lasts for an entire session or longer is Fixed; any control that shifts from scene to scene or faster is Fleeting.

Area-to-Area is a little problematic, because the size of the areas can affect how often control shifts. if control only shifts once or twice in a game session, I would call it Fixed, while if it shifts at regular intervals, it's Fleeting.

starting with traditional Fixed games (D&D/Vampire/GURPS,) you progress to more Fleeting control, starting with high-end Area-to-Area, which I haven't seen any game use in the rules as written; however, I've seen Dragon articles that describe rotating GM options, assigning one city or country to each GM. Aria also mentions high-end Area-to-Area as an option. neither of these mention switching GM control in the middile of a session, but it would certainly be an implied possibility.

more Fleeting would be low-end Area-to-Area. Rune seems to be the definitive example of this; each player designs Encounters, which are one or more caves/rooms. control is expected to switch several times during the session.

next would be Fungeon, which would be Scene-to-Scene or Area-to-Area, depending on how you would interpret it. it's definitely more Fleeting than Rune, because three people control seperate aspects of each area -- so you can consider each room to be broken up into a fight scene and a treasure/trap scene.

my Troubadours of Verticaille, as clumsy and vague as it is, describes pure Scene-to-Scene control shifts. each player calls for scenes, which are then resolved. you can also see this in Trollbabe, even though it technically has a GM; I'm certain I remember the rules stating "any player can call for a scene".

Universalis, as you said, would be Moment-to-Moment, because any player can take control of one or more elements during the current scene, and control can shift several times before the scene is over. my Court of 9 Chambers also has Moment-to-Moment control shifts in a regular pattern, based on dice (player sets up scene and rolls dice, then anyone with matching motifs can interject them into the scene.)

the methods of shifting control would be a seperate topic, although I can see where there's a potential confusion. for example, in InSpectres, anyone can call for a Confessional at any time (unless I misunderstood the rule.) but do you consider that Moment-to-Moment, even though it's not supposed to happen too often in a game? especially since a player whose character is affected can use an automatic veto, which means no shift of control has happened. hmmm.

you also raise a good point about distinguishing games/techniques that actually shift control from those with a fixed but split power division. I do want to talk about Fixed games with 50-50 or 60-40 splits instead of the usual 90-10 split in an Illusionist game. I also need to think about alternate distributions of control for characters, which are normally considered to be purely the players' property, but in some games aren't quite. for example, in-game use of emotion-affecting magic, mind control, or sanity loss takes control of a character's behavior away from the player; on the other hand, hardline rules about character death and applying penalties are also issues of GM control of someone else's character, but some games have questioned or shifted even this control.

quite a bit to think about!

[talysman]

oops, forgot Callan/Noon.

I never played Warhammerquest, although I've read the rules when it was Advanced HeroQuest (not the HeroQuest that used to be HeroWars. damn, this is confusing...) I think the game itself is written more as a boardgame with high potential to be used as a roleplaying tool, but the techniques it uses could potentially be transferrable to other games. wasn't it mainly a random table technique?

also, I seem to remember it having a GM, but being more collaborative than usual (the players draw/assemble the room, the GM populates it. but this may have been someone's variant rules I read on the web. could you describe some of the portable techniques? nothing highly detailed, just maybe some general notes on which elements are controlled by whom, how control shifts, how content is generated.

was it pretty much like the Enchanted Realms boardgame?

[Mike Holmes]

You might also want to reference Ian Millington's work.

www.collaborativeroleplay.org.uk

Also, John, do you mean Magic Realm? (I have it on the brain as I've a game scheduled on Saturday) :-)

http://www.magicrealm.net/

Mike

[Callan S.]

oops, forgot Callan/Noon.

I never played Warhammerquest, although I've read the rules when it was Advanced HeroQuest (not the HeroQuest that used to be HeroWars. damn, this is confusing...) I think the game itself is written more as a boardgame with high potential to be used as a roleplaying tool, but the techniques it uses could potentially be transferrable to other games. wasn't it mainly a random table technique?

also, I seem to remember it having a GM, but being more collaborative than usual (the players draw/assemble the room, the GM populates it. but this may have been someone's variant rules I read on the web. could you describe some of the portable techniques? nothing highly detailed, just maybe some general notes on which elements are controlled by whom, how control shifts, how content is generated.

was it pretty much like the Enchanted Realms boardgame?

Hi,

I've no idea what the enchanted realms boardgame was like, sorry.

As for warhammer quest, it was actually completely GM'less (Well, there were three sections in the book, and the last talked about adding a GM only if you wanted too...mechanically it wasn't needed) and very random table driven (well, actually it mostly used decks of cards to draw from, for encounters, dungeon design, etc). Everyone can help layout the rooms and monsters via the rules, so it doesn't matter who does it. And once monsters were placed, on the monster phase each player rolled against himself.

The thing is, it set up a conflict and then offered various ways to approach it (which were hard codified in the rules). Of course, the more ways you have to approach something, its more likely you do things in a way that expresses a particular roles traits.

So the really transferable idea is that the conflict or story doesn't matter (ie, you don't need a GM to make a story). Conflict is just there so PC's can express who they are by how they take it on.

Oh, and they can enjoy killing things and taking their stuff, but that's the gamist side. :)

[talysman]

Callan: thanks for the info. I think the early incarnation did require a GM, because I seem to remember the bit about splitting the duties of creating the next area. they must have realized a GM was superfluous if your main goal is to sell Warhammer miniatures.

Mike: thanks for the info on Ian Millington. I think his essays may be good for a point of reference, although it took me a while to figure out how I disagreed with him.

and yeah, it looks like I meant Magic Realm. I must have been think about the way tiles got "enchanted".

[M. J. Young]

There's an interesting thing that sometimes happens in Multiverser play; it works particularly well there, because the players don't expect their characters to interact necessarily, or to be in the same universe with each other. I've been in games in which I was running most of the players in their worlds, but one of the players I was running was at the same time running me. Thus, whenever I was playing my character, the other referee was running my game, but I was running the game for everyone else.

This makes me wonder whether something similar might not be accomplished in more traditional games. Could there be a game referee who was responsible for adjudicating all the actions of the player characters, but at the same time one of those players be responsible for adjudicating the actions which the referee attributes to all the non-player characters? It wouldn't be quite the same as having one player or co-referee run the monsters/NPCs, but rather it would represent a shift in adjudication between the "sides" as it were, requiring each side to adjudicate the actions of the other.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

--M. J. Young