December 30th, 2001 -

At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a work-in-progress, I am not trying to present a diary of the progress. Expect the lead component of this thread to undergo changes as Scattershot does. This edition was originally put together on Thursday, December 27th, 2001. This series of articles will detail strictly the mechanics of Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to play' will have to wait until I have more of them centralized and organized. The third major component of the game, the setting and genre material is will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters.

In this installment, I am going to discuss how Scattershot initially treats the difference between gamemasters and players. This is not because the differences are important to stress, but in the light of how much overlap there can be, the difference exposes some of the latitude that the game mechanic must address. One of the primary concerns of Scattershot is to treat gamemaster and player alike, because their roles will blur more and more as people get beyond this traditional model.

Once again this latitude allows people who play Scattershot to 'find their own level,' either by trial and error or by informed choice (hopefully the technique section of Scattershot can help there). Ultimately this is about finding a balance between the extremes. Here are some of the more important extremes as demostrated by the differences between how Scattershot affords players and gamemasters in the 'thumbnail of gaming' chapter.

Character Creation:


In keeping with the 'emotional attachment' that is a result of a more detailed character creation system (as described in both the first regular installment of the [SCATTERSHOT:] articles and this article), players create characters for themselves.

Gamemasters, on the other hand, mostly create characters for everyone's collective enjoyment.

Play:


Because it makes little sense to have a game that is not for the players (being the bulk of the participants) and in keeping with the sharing principal I explained earlier, players must obviously drive play forward. While events in the game should not wait for player character action, the game should obligate the player characters to some kind of action. (Who wants to play inertia?)

In the antipode, gamemasters must therefore do what they can to facilitate play. This is one of the main reasons they traditionally create characters, for the facilitation of play.

'Flow of Play' issues, like pacing, scale, and scope:


Players can affect these.

Gamemasters must according to tradition.

Using the mechanics during play:


Players can invoke them whenever they feel a need for them.

Gamemasters are then expected to arbitrate. Because of the impartiality issues I described earlier, it is important for gamemasters to only arbitrate in a fashion that is 'fair' but also open under these mechanics. For this reason Scattershot is designed (counter to the traditional model) to allow anyone to arbitrate, not just the gamemaster.

I guess on some level this describes mechanics as the tool of the player which is then the responsibility of the gamemaster. In most traditional instances I know, in the application of the mechanics, the gamemaster mostly only responds to these (and is the only respondant); this is an unfortunate balance (that we feel needs to be changed). Scattershot's mechanics are meant to be a tool for everyone and should allow anyone to arbitrate, because of the overlap in all roles. However, ultimately, when an irreconcilable inter-participant conflict exists within the playing group, only then does Scattershot have the gamemaster be the final arbiter.

Next up, where and when are mechanics used or needed.

Fang Langford

Hey,

It's a tough issue, Fang, not the least because it seems as if everyone carries a load of unspoken assumptions about GM/player responsibilities and privileges, and very few are willing to air those assumptions, except in dysfunctional ways.

My writing of Sorcerer ('89 in the barest beginning stages; '94-96 in the nuts & bolts stages, '96-98 for the playtesting stages) shows horrible scar tissue and baseball-type stitches about this issue. There are still patches of prose that I didn't catch prior to book-printing, in which the term "GM" should really be replaced with "the group," or "GM decides" should really be replaced with "the player decides." I assumed up until the mid-late 90s that a GM was also the guiding ideologue of the group, and now I think differently.

Since Scattershot has Transition as a design goal (I like that term so much that I'm gonna keep it!), do you see GM and player roles/responsibilities as a labile feature of the game? Or do you think there's a way to set those things up in a stable way that still permits a variety of Transitional outcomes?

Best,
Ron

Because it makes little sense to have a game that is not for the players (being the bulk of the participants) and in keeping with the sharing principal I explained earlier, players must obviously drive play forward. While events in the game should not wait for player character action, the game should obligate the player characters to some kind of action. (Who wants to play inertia?)

In the antipode, gamemasters must therefore do what they can to facilitate play.

Ron Edwards wrote:

It's a tough issue, Fang, not the least because it seems as if everyone carries a load of unspoken assumptions about GM/player responsibilities and privileges, and very few are willing to air those assumptions, except in dysfunctional ways.

...or "GM decides" should really be replaced with "the player decides." I assumed up until the mid-late 90s that a GM was also the guiding ideologue of the group, and now I think differently.

Since Scattershot has Transition as a design goal (I like that term so much that I'm gonna keep it!), do you see GM and player roles/responsibilities as a labile feature of the game? Or do you think there's a way to set those things up in a stable way that still permits a variety of Transitional outcomes?

joshua neff wrote:

Fang wrote:

Gamemasters must therefore do what they can to facilitate play.

Thank you for using the word "facilitate". I also think the GM's primary role is that of facilitator. [Snip.]

I think the whole "what the hell is a GM" question is a topic worthy of a lot of thought. Do all RPGs have to have a GM? What about everybody being a GM? What does a GM do, anyway? These are all good questions.

You've got some good stuff here so far, Fang.

Fang--

While my gaming preferences remain solidly in the "one GM for a group of players" realm, I'm entirely unconvinced that there needs to be one GM to guide them all (*ahem*). I think GM-less play (which is really "everyone-is-a-GM" play) is a completely feasible option, & one which shouldn't be discounted. I sometimes think the idea that "there needs to be a GM" is a basic mistrust in decision-making-by-consensus, a holdover from playing in dysfunctional gaming groups. Lord knows,I've been in enough gaming groups in which somebody had to exert some sort of authority. But I've also been in groups in which consensus was the rule, not the exception.

I would love to see more RPGs which promoted & facilitated something other than the "one GM" concept. (& despite my own preferences, I'd love to play more "everyone's a GM" games.)

Josh-
I am currently writing a turn-based RPG where there is no GM, but the "non-active" players play all the NPCs and help drive the action, basically a reverse RPG.

Stuff that's all in the works and should get finished in '02.

But that's neither here nor there to the thread. My own idea is that everyone needs to work together to drive the story, or else just have the GM read to you all from the Chronicles of Narnia or something.

At the risk of contributing to thread-hijack, the Ars Magica game I play is fully co-GMed. Such a thing is entirely possible and, let me tell you, big big fun.

At the risk of using hot language, it's mechanic-less too. (By which I mean for mechanics we use the 'mechanics' that drive any shared creative process: discussion, debate, as much clarity as possible, willingness to compromise, and just generally all caring about the game.)

If you ask me, both mechanics and having a GM are for when the normal, day-to-day consensus that makes roleplaying happen breaks down -- and if you're willing to commit to consensus, you don't need them. But boyo that's me being pedantic. I'm really enjoying your posts, Fang. Looks like a great game so far.

-lumpley Vincent

First of all, thank you for posting the first Scattershot installment. It tackled a really tricky issue.

One of the problems, I think, in defining what GM-Player roles should be is because GMs and Players can all have such different game styles and personalities that whatever system of governance you establish, its not going to be what works for ~everyone~. What you have done in defining the differences between player "can" and GM "must" to fufill flow of play, for example, certainly helps pinpoint what you, as the developer, consider "ideal" Scattershot GM and player styles and might encourage participants to steer towards meeting your personal ideal.

Laurel

joshua neff wrote:

While my gaming preferences remain solidly in the "one GM for a group of players" realm, I'm entirely unconvinced that there needs to be one GM to guide them all (*ahem*).

I think GM-less play (which is really "everyone-is-a-GM" play) is a completely feasible option, & one which shouldn't be discounted.

I sometimes think the idea that "there needs to be a GM" is a basic mistrust in decision-making-by-consensus, a holdover from playing in dysfunctional gaming groups. Lord knows, I've been in enough gaming groups in which somebody had to exert some sort of authority. But I've also been in groups in which consensus was the rule, not the exception.

Mahoux wrote:

I am currently writing a turn-based RPG...
[Snip.]
Stuff that's all in the works and should get finished in '02.

Scattershot is meant to be formally for beginners so I have very little room to address this kind of play in the core products.

lumpley wrote:

At the risk of using hot language, it's mechanic-less too.

If you ask me, both mechanics and having a GM are for when the normal, day-to-day consensus that makes role-playing happen, breaks down -- and if you're willing to commit to consensus, you don't need them.

I'm really enjoying your posts, Fang. Looks like a great game so far.

You know, something's been niggling at me, & I think I just nailed what it is.

Fang, you've referred to "GM-less"/"everyone's-a-GM" play as "sophisticated", & that Scattershot, as primarily for beginners, shouldn't expect people to be able to easily achieve this level of play.

Here's the thing. I don't think it's sophisticated. Not any more than "traditional" RPG play.

When I was in grade school, my friends & I played Superheroes everyday on the playground. We spun long, elaborate narratives over the course of the school year. Villains died & returned, heroes were faced with conflict, & dumb fart jokes were made. There was no GM, all decisions were made essentially by consensus. I don't think what we were doing was any more sophisticated than playing D&D with one GM making decisions (in the style of, as you said, a representative democracy).

I guess I feel like you're not giving beginners enough credit. Especially considering they haven't had the dysfunctional RPG experiences a lot of us old timers have had. I think beginners could quite possibly handle a myriad of RPG styles easily. Which is not to say that the way you're going about Scattershot is wrong by any stretch of the imagination. You've obviously put a LOT of thought into this, & so far it looks really good.

Laurel wrote:

First of all, thank you for posting the first Scattershot installment. It tackled a really tricky issue.

One of the problems, I think, in defining what GM-Player roles should be is because GMs and Players can all have such different game styles and personalities that whatever system of governance you establish, its not going to be what works for ~everyone~. What you have done in defining the differences between player "can" and GM "must" to fufill flow of play, for example, certainly helps pinpoint what you, as the developer, consider "ideal" Scattershot GM and player styles and might encourage participants to steer towards meeting your personal ideal.

joshua neff wrote:

You've referred to "GM-less"/"everyone's-a-GM" play as "sophisticated", & that Scattershot, as primarily for beginners, shouldn't expect people to be able to easily achieve this level of play.

Here's the thing. I don't think it's sophisticated. Not any more than "traditional" RPG play.

When I was in grade school, my friends & I played Superheroes everyday on the playground. We spun long, elaborate narratives over the course of the school year. Villains died & returned, heroes were faced with conflict, & dumb fart jokes were made. There was no GM, all decisions were made essentially by consensus. I don't think what we were doing was any more sophisticated than playing D&D with one GM making decisions (in the style of, as you said, a representative democracy).

I guess I feel like you're not giving beginners enough credit. Especially considering they haven't had the dysfunctional RPG experiences a lot of us old timers have had.

I think beginners could quite possibly handle a myriad of RPG styles easily. Which is not to say that the way you're going about Scattershot is wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

You've obviously put a LOT of thought into this, & so far it looks really good.

When you were learning role-playing games for the first time, and the concept of having a scenario and background set up before play was broached, which would you say was simpler to understand? Having a gamemaster to 'handle' those things or creating a kind of understanding that some things are 'sacred' to some people an some things aren't?

When you differentiate between personal, in-character, frame of reference and external, making-up-the-world perspective, it becomes more complicated to say how gamers should switch freely back and forth between these ways of handling things than to say that one is player perspective and one is gamemaster perspective.

You might be the exception, but in my experience the days that play ended with arguments of 'did not' and 'did too' were extremely unsatisfying.

I think it is a lot to ask to describe what gaming is but stop short of giving any example of how to do it.

From my experiences 'over the counter' at the retail end, I have to say that only a few gamers actively seek out non-traditional forms of gaming.

I think I am beginning to see our differences here.

joshua neff wrote:

I was one of those kids who made up fantasy worlds & characters at the drop of a hat, so leaving it all to the GM was always kind of a pain (which is one of the reasons I often GMed).

When an author is writing a novel, do they really differentiate between "I'm making up a personal, main character" & "I'm making up a background character" & treat them differently? I don't.

I think the main reason that stuff is seen as different is because of tradition--it's how RPGs have been done. Which is different than how they could be done.

I think it is a lot to ask to describe what gaming is but stop short of giving any example of how to do it.

No argument there.

From my experiences 'over the counter' at the retail end, I have to say that only a few gamers actively seek out non-traditional forms of gaming.

Well, my own personal bias is this: I think the last thing RPGs need are more "gamers" buying "what gamers buy".

Let me watch a session of InSpectres & I'd be very curious to try it.

And when I try to hook new blood into a game (& I would dearly love to), I'm not going to do it with "traditional" RPGs.

Again, just my personal take on things. I think my point is this: I like what I see so far for Scattershot, & I think it's brilliant that you've thought about this stuff as much as you have, but I remain unconvinced that it's for beginners any more than any other RPG.

I find these kinds of people to be few and far between, and I think as your case demonstrates, they will not likely support a game line when they can create their own. (You do design, don't you?)

Or you are an unusual player (in my experience); not having that attachment to 'my guy' such that you become cautious about the lethal dangers. (I mean not differentiating between player character and non-player character as a player?)

My goal is not about pushing the limits like this. Are you saying that all new games must reach the boundaries of what has been done?

Then why do you see to have such a problem with using a seemingly traditional paradigm if only as the example?

Whereas I see this as possibly the only way to bring new gamers 'into the fold.'

You are truly unique sir.

I have a copy of the original InSpectres (I was quick to notice that it printed real nice onto 11" x 17" paper and saddle-stitched into a nice booklet with no blank pages). From my experience playtesting people who have never gamed, it would bomb seriously. It is just too brief to carry much of an understanding of how to game.

"Let me put it another way. When you were learning role-playing games for the first time, and the concept of having a scenario and background set up before play was broached, which would you say was simpler to understand? Having a gamemaster to 'handle' those things or creating a kind of understanding that some things are 'sacred' to some people an some things aren't?"

Having a GM is an easy way to play, hands-down. The GM's stuff is seperate, all the player has to do is "get in character".

That doesn't mean its the easiest way to play, nor the perfect approach. These things are always going to be a matter of personal and group taste.

I was/am wrestling with some of this in The Questing Beast (that is, with the idea of reaching an understanding of what is "sacred" to others and where you can draw the boundaries for shared creativity).

By the way, and forgive me if I've missed something important, but where exactly is Scattershot? I know its a work-in-progress, but of everything I've read I still can't find any concrete examples of how the game works (i.e. mechanics). Have you posted anything?

joshua neff wrote:

I haven't designed an RPG since high school (a long, long time ago). I get ideas every now & then, but generally I find that the ideas I get for games tend to be setting-based or premise-with-a-little-p-based, so I don't need new mechanics--I could just use Story Engine or Over the Edge or whatever.

Being the pervy narrativist that I am, I generally throw my characters into lethal (or potentially lethal) situations with gusto--or rather, I throw them into conflict. The character would try to avoid it, but I seek it out, because it's the only way the character is guaranteed a good narrative.

But that's not really my point.

I guess my point is that, yeah, identifying with "my guy" is important. But I still don't see any real difference between creating a PC & creating an NPC so that there needs to be two different kinds of players (a "regular" player & a GM) to do these two things. I don't see everyone-is-a-GM as being any more sophisticated.

I'm an optimist--I believe that given positive encouragement & good facilitation, people overall are pretty creative & can handle quite a bit of imaginative work.

My goal is not about pushing the limits like this. Are you saying that all new games must reach the boundaries of what has been done?

Oh, not at all. If people want to stick by what's been done, I think that's good, too. It's all good. I just happen to think that a lot of what stands as tradition in RPGs isn't necessarily useful,

but it stays around because people think it's supposed to be that way.

Then why do you seem to have such a problem with using a seemingly traditional paradigm, if only as the example?

It's not that I have a problem. I think it's fine. I just question how the traditional paradigm is any better for beginners than any other way.

the games & examples I've mentioned are "experimental" only in that they aren't the mainstream

I have a copy of the original InSpectres (I was quick to notice that it printed real nice onto 11" x 17" paper and saddle-stitched into a nice booklet with no blank pages). From my experience playtesting people who have never gamed, it would bomb seriously. It is just too brief to carry much of an understanding of how to game.

I wasn't talking about the text, I was talking about watching it being played (which I did one night at GenCon, & then I actually played it the next night).

Roleplaying is like sex--reading about will only take you so far. The only real way to learn how to do it is to just do it.

And the only way to get better at it is to keep doing it. So while I think that explanations & examples of play are really important, the only real way to teach people how to play RPGs is to play RPGs with them.

My point being--I don't think the games I've mentioned are all that experimental, except to longterm gamers. To beginners, it's all experimental, & one form of play isn't inherently more difficult than another.

James V. West wrote:

That doesn't mean its the easiest way to play, nor the perfect approach. These things are always going to be a matter of personal and group taste.

By the way, and forgive me if I've missed something important, but where exactly is Scattershot? I know its a work-in-progress, but of everything I've read I still can't find any concrete examples of how the game works (i.e. mechanics). Have you posted anything?

Then why do you have such a problem with Scattershot's starting point?

I also question your assertion that "everyone-is-a-GM" isn't playing an RPG. Huh? I'm not sure what kind of definition of RPGs you could have that would include Ars Magica as it is generally played but would exclude Ars Magica as lumpley & his friends play it. That would be, to me, a very problematic definition. What, then, is it? And who cares? It's close enough to roleplaying that I find drawing a distinction between them essentially useless.

Hey, I gotta say that I don't think Fang was excluding me and mine. I think he was saying that if none of us spent any time being players, but spent all our time being GMs, then it wouldn't be roleplaying.

There are lots of times in our game when nobody particularly feels like GMing, so we just sit there in character and shoot the shit. Since it's mostly a social/political/personality game, and not so much an adventure game, we still get a ton done, when no GM is even called for.

Hope I'm not way out of line, Fang.

I prefer GM-distributed to GM-full. A lot of the time, like I say, we have no GM at all. When we need a GM, we all pitch in.

-lumpley Vincent

PS: if anybody actually does think we're not roleplaying, they're wacked. If they came to our house and watched us, they'd change their mind.

[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-12-29 18:45 ]

lumpley wrote:
Hey, I gotta say that I don't think Fang was excluding me and mine. I think he was saying that if none of us spent any time being players, but spent all our time being GMs, then it wouldn't be roleplaying.

Hope I'm not way out of line, Fang.

I prefer GM-distributed to GM-full. A lot of the time, like I say, we have no GM at all. When we need a GM, we all pitch in.

Mike Holmes wrote:

I also question your assertion that "everyone-is-a-GM" isn't playing an RPG. Huh? I'm not sure what kind of definition of RPGs you could have that would include Ars Magica as it is generally played but would exclude Ars Magica as lumpley & his friends play it. That would be, to me, a very problematic definition. What, then, is it? And who cares? It's close enough to roleplaying that I find drawing a distinction between them essentially useless.

Whatever reason Fang has for saying that GM-full games are not RPGs,

is probably the same reason that Paul Czege and others say that Universalis (which fits the bill perfectly) is not an RPG. I'm not sure exactly what it is as nobody has been able to state the claim as other than a general feeling. But the claim gets made frequently.

I'd agree with Fang that, given the usefulness of teaching RPGs as a means to spread them, that the traditional method is probably best from a marketing standpoint. OTOH, if no RPG had ever been written before, and the core of gamers did not exist to do this facilitating, then I'd think that the GM-full method might be best. But that's not the way things are.

joshua neff wrote:

What I disagree with is your assertion that the one-GM/representative democracy model is the easiest & most accessible way of playing for beginners,

& that games with multiple GMs or with everyone as a GM are more "sophisticated"

& less accessible.

Also, I would agree that a lot of traditional aspects of RPGs remain because they work. That doesn't mean they're the only or the best way to design & play RPGs.

Superheroes have dominated the medium of comics. That doesn't mean they're the best or most accessible subject for comics. They've remained the dominant subject in comics for a variety of reasons that have little to do with "superheroes are just best for comics".

I also question your assertion that "everyone-is-a-GM" isn't playing an RPG. Huh?

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-31 00:25 ]

You know, you have yet to refute (as opposed to the repetitive denials) the idea that multiple gamemaster/players is not more sophisticated, whereas I think I have made a strong case about the differences.

Sigh. Why are you still attacking this straw man? I never said perfect accessibility was my primary goal.

Again you imply that I have said that traditional equates with 'best.' Why can't you see that we are only doing the 'best' that we can?

I still don't see what made you think I felt that traditional gaming was best for anything.

joshua neff wrote:

probably a signal to pull back & let it go. It was never my intention to attack you or your design, or to make you feel like you were being attacked. I will say in my defense that proposing alternatives is not anything like attacking tradition or your design. I'm not trying to tear anything down, merely include alternatives. But this whole argument has gotten pretty far off topic & out of hand, I think. Best to just drop it.