I'm working on a martial arts based game design at the moment, (this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15793) and after some thinking I came up with the idea of throwing out the GM role. Instead, the GM role gets basically divided among players.

My main concern with this is who would arbitrate the NPCs and who would 'keep secrets' when in combat or in social maneuvering and trying to trick your opponent. (And example of this is to spike the punch in order to get another character drunk, who are you gonna tell that to so they make sure the effects happen in game?) Basically, I figured that you could tell it to another player who wasn't in the current situation or wasn't prominent in the current situation (denoting that at least three players are needed).

Another concern was setting the 'conflict' for this session (and possibly a couple of the following sessions). I think this can work by the players rotating the role of setting conflicts, and while their own conflict is being done the player's character can't participate or can only participate minimally (because they know how to overcome the conflict, or the 'true nature' of the conflict if it is a ruse). They can, however, still seek out and overcome personal conflicts, or missions.

One of the other concerns with this was NPC control; who would control which NPCs when? Well, I'm thinking at first NPCs are largely undefined with basic stats and skills etc... but no 'Traits'. As the characters exert emotional/social control over those NPCs, they gain the ability to apply 'Traits' to the NPC, which define their personality. At any given moment, the player with the most emotional/social influence on any NPC gets to control them, but they must act in accordance to their traits. So, if you have control of Bob the Farmer, and you want him to murder another NPC, you need to somehow give him a trait that makes him want to murder that fellow.

The last concern was rewards, but I think this can work out fairly well. When another player gives you a mission, they set the 'Stakes' (what you may lose from not completing the mission), a loose 'Limit' (how long you have to complete it, the sooner then the lower the 'Stakes' and higher the 'Reward' in general and the longer then vice-versa) and the 'Reward', which is what they get when completing the mission. I will probably provide loose guidelines for mission building once I flesh out the mechanics more. For training, there will be a set reward system that functions mostly off of mechanics, and for a Conflict, whoever set the conflict sets the 'Stakes', 'Limit', and 'Reward' for it - obviously Conflicts have higher 'Stakes' and 'Rewards' than missions.

Anyway, after seeing this, I just want to know whether anyone here sees any inherent flaws with this idea. Also, if you have any suggestions to make it better, by all means, post those as well.

Take a look at Legends of Alyria. This can be run without a referee. In essence, the players handle all the major characters, and the minor characters are incidental to play and so can be handled as they arise.

--M. J. Young

To toot my own horn outrageously: Capes grabs this whole "How do we make conflict without a GM or other adversarial position" issue by the throat and squeezes it until it begs for mercy. Give it a few sessions of play to see the patterns: I think they'll help you in thinking about how to address the issue in your own game, if only by highlighting the ways behaviors orbit around the question.

Thanks... how much does Capes cost to order or whatever? If it is relatively inexpensive I could probably buy it and take a look, I've heard many good things about the game.

Actually, the system I was working on was almost 'inspired' by what you have written for Misery Bubblegum - a system where players modify traits on each other (to a low extent) but more importantly on the NPCs in order to define them. The more traits they modify on NPCs, the more influence they have over them, and whoever has the most influence over a given NPC gets to control them, but they must act within the traits that are defined (thus to do something outside of the NPCs traits they must define a new one). I'm thinking traits encompass skills (for PCs mostly), personality (for NPCs mostly) and general roles/quirks that the character fulfills (such as Athlete, or Shy-Guy etc...)

Side Note: Was Misery Bubblegum at one point called Dulcimer's Hall, or was that a completely different game... Cuz I remember seeing the name Dulcimer's Hall and the mechanics I remember remind me a lot of MB.

Yes, Misery Bubblegum was originally Dulcimer Hall.

Capes is available for $10 PDF or $20 print+PDF at the web-site.

If you're doing GM-free world-building, I recommend also taking a look at Universalis, which is rock-solid in this regard.

Well, the major thing about that is the money issue for a job-less high school student. Although I am probably working tomorrow (Monday) but I need to save every bit I can so I can get my own fscking computer and keep it a lot more organized and virus free than the piece of junk I am working on.

A quick question (off topic too I believe) - do you think it would be better to put the designing on 'hold' or only minimally work on it until I have read through other GM-less (and indeed other Indie) RPGs? That is the thought that I have had (and frankly designing mechanics has slowed to a trickle with me already, with nothing anywhere near defined lol) but I am not sure whether it is right, or whether I should try to design with as little outside 'influence' as possible to stay original.

Originality is somewhat over-prized: you also run the risk of reinventing the wheel. And, if you find the perfect game for you has already been written, you then have what you need.

Lastly, I'm not sure its necessary, once you have figured out how to dispose of the GM, to actually do so. If you can build a GM-less system, then you could conceivably reintroduce an empowered player role to handle secrets and so forth, just as one player in Monopoly controls the bank.

My main idea right now is to try to create a system where such an 'empowered player role' can be traded from session to session. I believe I mentioned in either this post or my other one about having one player set up the conflict for a session (or possibly multiple sessions). This player could have some slight GM-powers, and probably be entrusted with 'secrets' and 'traps' that the players set for each other (not necessarily PCs setting for other PCs, but PCs setting traps and things for NPCs controlled by other players).