Anyone?

Quick survey of collective memory...

Are there any games currently available that set up a combative/oppositional relationship between players and GM?

I'm particularly interested in functional examples.

Thanks.

I'd like to think that my IGC game Battle of Frozen Waste is functional. Haven't tested it yet, though, so I don't know. At least it's definitely confrontational, as the "GM" is supposed to plunge the world in eternal darkness, while the other players, at least initially, are opposed.

Any chance you can define your terms a bit more clearly? Does "oppositional" mean that the GM should be in opposition to the players having fun? Or in opposition to the players achieving their Creative Agenda for the game?

Or do you (as I initially suspect) mean that the GM should explicitly be in opposition to their achieving things they want to do in the shared-imaginary-space, but in cooperation with them in having fun and pursuing a creative agenda?

Does Rune fit the bill?

Xcrawl.

Well, it's not a GAME per se, it's a D20 setting... but yeah, it very clearly sets up a winner/loser thing between the players and the DM.

Eero, AdamDray and Vaxalon:

Thanks for the examples.

TonyLB:

Right you are - I should've focused my question more. Getting rusty.

In any case, (and slipping into Forge-speak here) I'm looking for particularly Gamist leaning examples, where the Step On Up is explicitly at least in part between the players and the GM.

I've taken a taste of My Life with Master, and Donjon - both of which come at this issue in slightly different ways.

However, I'm most keenly interested in games where the GM has an actual character sheet (regardless of whether or not this character ever appears during actual play) - and their traditional 'powers' (most notably Credibility) are only accessed via points of contact with the system.

Does that help focus it up a bit more?

Thanks.

ORX, man. It fits the bill, at least in my mind. For a GM, it is all about whooping the player's butts, while for the players it is about hanging on for as long as possible. The GM is constrained in his ability to do this via the mechanical resources s/he is given as GM, no fiat allowed (ie: no "The ancient red dragon attacks your 1st-level party" scenarios).

There's a high degree of resource management involved, as well as coming up with tactical approaches to play for either side, because the whole is built around a dice-game. That is, one could play the game very functionally without the role-playing aspects (and I, in fact, suggest first-time groups do just that!).

Doesn't Hackmaster fall into this category? The referee is very strictly limited regarding what he is permitted to throw at the players, and the players have the authority to penalize the referee if he violates the rules. I think there's that player-versus-referee aspect both in the metagame and in the game-within-the-game, in different ways. This assessment, though, is based on reports of the design, as I've not read it myself.

--M. J. Young

Well, my own project (Capes) does what you're talking about in terms of creating concrete rules for Credibility and Authority. There's OOC competition to provide the most interesting stories and conflicts, which in turn gives you more story resources to play with (either to favor your preferred characters or to continue torturing others).

But I don't know if it qualifies for your "Antagonistic GM" question, because once those rules were in place there wasn't any point to making the GM role separate from the other players. So everybody's doing that, all the time, to everybody else. I suppose it could be viewed as a game of all antagonistic GMs, but then who's the protagonist?

Does Paranoia count? I don't know if this is quite the same as what you're looking for....

Can't any 'Dungeon Tromp' be played in such as way? If you play D&D as a gamist kinda game, I would expect the GM to try and wipe out the PCs with with a guile. I know that if I played D&D as a combat game I'd aim for high PC casualty rates. I'd kinda expect the same thing from the Warhammer RPG.

It seems like a lot of gamist games would place the GM in a position where it was PCs vs. GM's dungeon. "Hey guys, I built a dungeon that's going to wipe you out and you out hitpoint every monster and trap in the thing."

My game in development doesn't have a GM per se, but there is a definate antagonist role in Death's Door.

Each player takes on (at some point) the antagonist role in direct opposition to the active player. See my recent thread in the Indie Design forum, where the On Driving Conflict essay gives specific advice to the antagonist on how to oppose.

thanks,

James

John Uckele wrote: Can't any 'Dungeon Tromp' be played in such as way? If you play D&D as a gamist kinda game, I would expect the GM to try and wipe out the PCs with with a guile. I know that if I played D&D as a combat game I'd aim for high PC casualty rates. I'd kinda expect the same thing from the Warhammer RPG.

Yeah, how to facilitate gamism seems to be a confused issue. It was for me as well, for many years.

Basically gamism is like a martial arts student sparring with a master. The master could kick the students ass any time. Why doesn't he? Because that is not sparing...it's ass kicking.

I like to think gamism is a human urge to learn about conflict in advance and try and figure how to diffuse it and that's why it's fun. Actually, I think that about sim and nar as well.

All:

Lots of good feedback. Thank you.

greyorm:
I D/Led the sample chapter of ORX. It looks pretty cool, and may be on point. One question: does the game provide rules for how the players can, for wont of a better term, 'attack' and/or wrest away narrative control from the GM? If so, I'll be very interested to look over how you handled that.

M.J.: Hackmaster I've heard of, but never seriously looked into. I might have to. Again, I'm not looking for a game whose text encourages GM/Player antagonism - but one that codifies that into part of the rules, either at the meta-game level, in actual play, or perferrably both.

TonyLB: I've got the most recent PDF copy of the game I could find - got it a week or so ago. It's a little lite (which isn't bad, I'm assuming that's the only available beta playtest version). I took it for a short spin with some folks, and it's pretty cool. But, the shared naration stuff seems to facilitate Nar much more strongly - at least it did for us in actual play. Maybe we drifted a little too much?

GreatWolf: Paranoia is the classic example - except IIRC, the Computer/GM has pretty much ultimate power to snuff the PCs. A large imbalance of power. I'm looking for something where PCs and GM are on more equal footing.

John: I agree with M.J. on this 100%. Any game can be viewed and played (usually via drift) in an antagonistic way. I'm looking for examples where this is not only encouraged in the game, but supported explicitly by the mechanics.

Blankshield: I commented on your game, and I've read through the design stuff you've got so far. It's an interesting conceit, and has the potential to lead to lots of good Story Now. I see an element of Step On Up in the structure of the game, but that's not largely the point of the game, is it? Did I miss something?

Noon: you say that facilitating gamism "was" a confused issue for you? Do you have any insights now about how a game system or specific mechanics can do so?

Again, I appreciate everyone's willingness to help out on this. I'll check your suggestions out. Thanks.

Jason E Leigh wrote: Blankshield: I commented on your game, and I've read through the design stuff you've got so far. It's an interesting conceit, and has the potential to lead to lots of good Story Now. I see an element of Step On Up in the structure of the game, but that's not largely the point of the game, is it? Did I miss something?

M. J. Young wrote:
I presume that a game in which the referee and character players are truly in adversarial positions must place limits on the referee power, or the event is fixed.

Hey Jason.

Scarlet Wake is built around an antagonistic relationship between players, who are split into two groups, called... wait for it... the Protagonists, and, you guessed it, the Antagonists. This effects everything in the game, from play structure to credibility distribution, and from resources to rules.

The Step On Up in Scarlet Wake is, I'm told, very explicit between Protagonists and Antagonists, which is good because that was my goal when creating it.

Character sheets are a little different. It's not like the "players" have character sheets for their characters, and the "GM" has a character sheet for their powers, more like everyone is a player with a sheet containing both their personal character and all their character's enemies (the "GMs" characters). The role of the GM rotates and is split up between players.

I'm doing a horrible job of summarising SW in typical game terms... but if you read it (it's not all that long), you'll get the idea.

-Ben