Hi.

This is my first post here, so I will introduce myself first. My name is Stefan, I'm from Germany and I'm studying math and Latin for becoming a teacher.
I've been writing RPGs since I was 15 or so. Most was crap, of course, but recently I've been writing the rules for AERA (<- German page) recently, which is pretty well received. (We're heading towards our first printrun.)


Now, I had an idea for a little game about professional monster hunters in some undefined fantasy setting. Central aspects of the game would be choosing the right weapons for the monster, setting up traps, brewing zombiecides, etc. So it's pretty gamist, I guess.

My problem is, that it might be pretty boring for the game master. Game masters in general have to offer some opposition to the players and loose in the end. That's not generally a problem, as the GM controlls most of the game.

If the GM is more or less limited to play the characters' prey now, that won't be very interesting. I can see two solutions for the problem:

1.) Get rid of the GM.
2.) Add gamist elements for the GM.

There are quite a few good games without GMs around (I especially enjoyed Capes), but this isn't really what I want to do. My problem is that I can't really come up, with anything for number 2.

So what can a GM win (if anything)?


Thanks in advance.


P.S.: I apologize, if this isn't the right channel, but I didn't really know were to put it.

You might want to check out Scarlet Wake. It is a very gamist game! The twist in it is that as each protaganist character gets the spotlight time, the other players act as the antagonists. As the spotlight shifts around from player to player, different people get the chance to use their character in a scene, while the other folks become the opposition. There is no game master as such, but all of the players are engaged at all times.

1of3,

Here's an idea. Have everyone create characters. Then the players go through the process of choosing the monster, the traps, etc... etc... And the Monster has a goal too (ie Eat the Characters, Get Away, Grab 1 Character and Run Away, or something else). At that point, one of the players becomes the GM. The GM plays the monster(s) while the other players play their PCs. the PCs get rewarded for overcoming the monster while the GM get rewarded (and can apply it towards his PC) for accomplishing the monster's goals. The next encounter, someone else is in the GM hot seat. Rinse. Repeat.

Hi Stefan, and welcome to the Forge!

The game to look at here (that I'm aware of, anyway) is Rune, written by Robin Laws for Atlas Games a few years back. All challenges that the players face are rated, the GM is not "allowed" to present "too high" a challenge rating, the reward (for the PCs) is entirely driven by that rating . . . so the GM can either a) lapse entirely into "referee" mode, or b) make his own game out of giving the players the "right"-rated challenges (where right can be defined in lots of ways, I guess - try to kill the PCs? Try and slow down their advance? Try and speed up their advance? All are, I think, possible).

When I looked at it, I thought it was too involved/complicated to hold my interest as a player, never mind as a GM, but there may be something for you to use in it somewhere . . . .

Gordon

Howzza, :)

I'd like to second Gordon's suggestion that you read into Rune. If you really want to crank up the gameplay aspects of RPG gaming, I've never seen anything quite like it.

Cheers,

J.

Moin moin, Stefan, und herzlich willkommen :)

Bob and others have already given excellent suggestions.

Rotating GM duties might be fun, especially if you give a reward for being the GM (they get some special XP for their characters or something similar). That seems to be the most viable option at this point.

Playing completely GM-less is tricky if the players do not compete, because the adversity provided is somewhat bland, and if the monster has different tactics to choose from, you get into the issue of how to make those choices. I personally believe that GM-less Gamist play needs to be competitive to be fun (see my own P/E), but I'll gladly be proven wrong! :)

Now, we do know from computer games that cooperative play of players versus the machine are great fun, so if that could be done, I am sure it would be successful. I think there is at least one trading card-based game under development around here (Hunters?) that works that way. Maybe that's requiring the complexity of something like Rune to work, though.

Or you could keep the GM. It seems to me that your game will require someone to create the monsters, their special abilities, clues to those abilities, the places they live and hunt, the social dynamics of PCs. The GM may find creating all this challenging - rather like stocking a dungeon.

If you keep the fixed GM, I'd say the solution to your problem comes from limited GM resources with the same kind of potential for exploitation that you see among the players.

So, basically, you could give the GM a number of points equal to the number of points the characters have available, and have him set up a monster with special traits, resistances, immunities, weaknesses and such totalling this amount of points. That way, while the players are working to set up the perfect hunt, the GM is working to set up a counter.

Of cause, this requires a sort of GM against player mentality to be present.

Hello,

Simon, Donjon fits that bill almost perfectly. The GM and players are expected to participate in an ongoing enjoyable struggle over "what's there" in the adventure, using victorious dice as currency to add and overcome details. Winning is a little vague, but losing sure isn't.

Best,
Ron

The players have ten chips and can give any number of them to the GM at the end of the game, to reward him as they see fit.

(side note: Hell, this seems to always be done the other way around with the GM arbitrarily patting the players on the head.)

What do these points do? Apart from brag worthy-ness (which is vital for gamism): "As a GM of monster hunter, I got 80 points from only running four sessions! I'm a kick ass GM!"

Well, the number of points you have could be compared to a chart and you get quirky powers (the selection is listed) you can add to monsters. Eg; 50 points might mean you can add one quirky power to four seperate monsters. This way the GM get's to pull stuff like "Here comes a vampire...who loves sunlight!". Shocking fun!

But really that's just there to support the bragging rights, which is the important part.

Very nice ideas.

I wanted to focus mainly on One Shots. I’m not sure, if will add rules for character development. So awarding the GM with XP, might not work that well, although I will think about it, if I include character development. (Patting the GM on the head is wonderfully weird.)

Rotating GM duties aren’t that easy either. To be effective it would have to happen during a single session. Maybe I’ll go with an optional rule for an especially bloody game: If a character dies, the character’s player and the GM change seats.

I will surely use the point based monster creation. The idea so straight and simple, I didn’t even think about it. Great.

komradebob wrote: You might want to check out Scarlet Wake. It is a very gamist game!

1of3 wrote: Are there light rules or a preview for Rune available on the Net?

It is extremely difficult to create a foolproof GM system, mostly it depends on the GM himself.

I GM an extremely gamist game, and the way I enjoy myself is:
1) Make every battle important story-wise. Then make every battle a decent challange and attempt to beat the players, while playing on even playing ground as them.
This works well when the game is more tactic based than luck based, because players will always be better at micro-tactics than the GM, simply because he has to deal with Macro-tactics aswell.
2) The GM should contribute extreme amounts to the story, but he should allow the players actions to determine the end result, that way the GM gets the satisfaction of getting to explore a story, while the players enjoy playing a game.

Personally, I think rotating GMs is an extremely viable option.

1of3 wrote: Very nice ideas.

I wanted to focus mainly on One Shots. I’m not sure, if will add rules for character development. So awarding the GM with XP, might not work that well,

Hi guys!

Long time lurker, small time poster... please be gentle, I'll try my best to say something meaningfull and not violate Forge etiquette...

I must first say that I have left gamist games behind me for some reason. This is not to say that I think gamist games are a bad thing, it's just not quite my cup of tea any more for reasons unkown to me.

However, once upon a time I was very much into this gamist kind of play and I fondly remember the good old days when I was an avid Shadowrun GM! The way we played the game was very gamist indeed. Everything focused on how to overcome challenges in the fastest and most ellegant way, gain rewards for it which in turn are used to raise the ability to overcome challenges.

For me as a GM the fun was in coming up with challenges that where reasonably hard but not impossible. I had to take into account the special abilities of the players (where there any magic users? Hackers? How strong was the strongest fighter?) and think of every possible way they could try to overcome the challenge. My goal was to make them work for their victory but not to kill them in the process. This turned out to be extremely challenging for me. More often than not the players would find an approach that I haven't thought of or abused a rule that I hadn't taken into account.

Now, my main task was to come up with buildings that were heavily defended and populate them with apropriate guards.
I guess for your GM the task might be to create a monster that is somehow well enough "equipped" (with talents or whatnot) so that it becomes challenging to hunt down. You could even give it some minions and a hideout/keep!
Once you give the GM and the players enoguh possibilities to go at that (different weapon types, magic, etc) things get interesting.

Anyways, I have to leave now but I'm more than willing to elaborate on this (simple) concept.

Greetings,
Sven

Hmm. If you're making a game that is mostly meant to be played as one-shots AND there are rotating gamemaster possibilities, you might consider a reward system that rewards the players, rather than their characters. If the same reward system is used for both the players and the gm, and the reward currency transfers with the player to new characters or a session as gm, you could have a very gamist game indeed.

Sven, and 1of3, you might both want to check out this thread which examined a similar issue. There seemed to be consensus at the time that gamist participation by a GM (referred to in that thread as the "esteem game") was quite possible, and quite common, with or without specific rules bringing it to the fore. That is, a GM can indeed "compete" with players despite having seemingly unlimited resources within the game. The key is understanding what the GM's socially understood victory and defeat conditons really are. If you think about real players' real reactions in play, it's clear that in the vast majority of cases, a GM victory is not a total party kill, and a hard-fought success by the player-characters is not a GM defeat.

Sven's prescription of "hard but not impossible" is the crux of it. I've likened this form of GM competition to a game of Blackjack -- or Chicken. You get cred for verging as close as possible to the threshold of disaster without going past it.

- Walt

Intriguing.

What about that:

Normally the GM does not only create and controll the antagonists, but also controlls parts of setting, that are important in the conflict.

- The GM can grant the allies, clues and equipment - or deny them.
- The GM can use the environment against the players.
- The GM can attack, whenever he wants. (The PCs have to approach the antagonists first. Enemies do just appear.)

Before the session starts players and GM can spent points to controll these aspects.
That not only limits the the GM's power, but also helps to shape the session. If the players spend all their points for allies, the game might be about helping in defending a fortress.