Topic: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
Started by: heironymous
Started on: 11/28/2005
Board: Indie Game Design
On 11/28/2005 at 1:32pm, heironymous wrote:
[Stake] near-final version and GM-less
I've posted a more complete version of Stake at the usual spot:
http://www.malcontentgames.com/stake.pdf
General comments welcome, bur I'm particularly interested in discussion of the "GM less" rules.
The only other thing I plan to add are some sample characters, of a variety different genres. I don't plan to develop a specific world to go with it.
On 11/28/2005 at 2:26pm, Jasper wrote:
Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
Hi,
Seems to me that the GM-less, rotating-narrator-role rules are much preferable to the normal rules. You write,"this can look like friends telling each other a story." That sounds a lot more fun than "narrator tells me a story." The only advantage to having a single narrator is if you don't trust everyone at the table, and you want that pre-scripted story, like you discuss in the beginning. So I think you have to decide: is this (as it seems) a Story Now kind of game? If so, ditch the Narrator. He doesn't do anything necessary. Make cycling-narrator-rights the norm. If the answer is "no," and this isn't about Story Now, I think you should sitll settle on one or the other.
The only hang-up in this department is when the temporary referee gives up his character to someone else while he judges the conflict. Won't this make people loath to be referee? And, moreover, if his own character is involved (controlled by someone else) won't the referee's impartiality still be compromised? I'd suggest simply excluding the referee's character from the conflict. There also aren't any rules for choosing the referee. Maybe select from among the players who's character's aren't participating, with some sort of resource to keep track of who's done it too much, and push the selection away from him. If everyone's character could be involved, allow someone to volunteer, and as a last resort just make some kind of roll.
One small point: I don't think "fiat" is a great word. Fiat implies that the statement is done arbitrarily and can't be overruled. But your fiat statements certainly can be overruled in a wide variety of ways (and hopefully aren't arbitrary either). Maybe just "statement" or "proposition?"
On 11/28/2005 at 3:32pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
It looks like you've removed one explicit rule ("One player will take on the role of GM, with the following powers and responsibilities") and neglected to put anything explicit in its place. I will always defer to playtesting as the best way to find out whether this works. But, absent that, my intuition is that this rules change will put a great strain on the ability of the players to play together well.
Now any group can make any system limp along, if they're creative enough. So the examples here are going to sound soluble: you'll look at them and say "Yes, but a sufficiently God-like group of players wouldn't get into such a problem." I won't dispute that. Nonetheless, here are some problems that I think groups will encounter more frequently than they would otherwise:
• Arguments over narrator impartiality ("You're totally using the role of narrator to benefit your own agenda!")
• Arguments over who gets to be narrator
• Following these two, a general unwillingness to enter situations where a narrator is necessary
• Arguments about how temporarily reassigned characters are played ("That's not what Hillbilly Bob would do!")
So, I'd love to offer some advice for achieving your design goals for the GM-less play. What are your design goals for GM-less play? Why do you want to pursue this model, rather than the far more well-explored avenues of GM-central play?
On 11/28/2005 at 9:00pm, heironymous wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
Jasper wrote:
Seems to me that the GM-less, rotating-narrator-role rules are much preferable to the normal rules. You write,"this can look like friends telling each other a story." That sounds a lot more fun than "narrator tells me a story."
I think it sounds more fun to some people (maybe you, maybe me) but not to everyone. Frankly, I worry that a lot of players (not Forge readers!) would be lost without a GM. I think a GM-less system asks more of the players, and I'm (empirically) surprised again and again how enthusiasts of a supposedly highly creative hobby lack creativity.
The only advantage to having a single narrator is if you don't trust everyone at the table, and you want that pre-scripted story, like you discuss in the beginning. So I think you have to decide: is this (as it seems) a Story Now kind of game? If so, ditch the Narrator. He doesn't do anything necessary. Make cycling-narrator-rights the norm. If the answer is "no," and this isn't about Story Now, I think you should still settle on one or the other.
You are right, but those are two big advantages: cohesive story (plot) and "fairness" (whatever that is). The down side of course are railroading and the fact that there's no such thing as an impartial GM (nor, IMHO, should there be). Even if the GM never fudges the dice, he can always fudge the circumstances leading up to the die roll in the first place.
I guess I'd like to have my cake and eat it too, and allow the system to accomodate both preferences. Fundamentally, I intend Stake to resolve actions based on how much a character cares about the result, not so much about how competent the character is. I don't see that as being inherently GM-driven or GM-less.
The only hang-up in this department is when the temporary referee gives up his character to someone else while he judges the conflict.
Well, that's not the ONLY hang-up, as Tony points out in his email (more on that later)...
Won't this make people loath to be referee? And, moreover, if his own character is involved (controlled by someone else) won't the referee's impartiality still be compromised?
Maybe; depends on the player I suppose. It occurs to me though that maybe there should be some advantage to being a ref (built into the rules) to offset any disadvantages (or vice-versa). Now if I could just come up with something ... It needs to be addressed structurally, though, not just as wishful thinking (as Tony points out, quite rightly).
I'd suggest simply excluding the referee's character from the conflict.
Not always possible. BUT, there could be a rule that the referee's character can never benefit nor be penalized as a result of any actions adjudicated by the ref. Might be tough to implement in an ironclad fashion (there's ALWAYS someone out there cleverer than me who can come up with a workaround)
There also aren't any rules for choosing the referee. Maybe select from among the players who's character's aren't participating, with some sort of resource to keep track of who's done it too much, and push the selection away from him. If everyone's character could be involved, allow someone to volunteer, and as a last resort just make some kind of roll.
I think I implied it would be by vote, with a rotation, but more specifics would be good. By order of priority, the referee should:
--Not have his character directly involved in the action
--Not have a Passion, Kith & Kin, Murk, or Stake trait pertinent to the action
--Not have ref'd the last X actions, where X equals the number of players minus 1 (convoluted way of saying it's his turn)
--Be selected by the group by voice vote
--Make the highest roll on a 1d6
One small point: I don't think "fiat" is a great word. Fiat implies that the statement is done arbitrarily and can't be overruled. But your fiat statements certainly can be overruled in a wide variety of ways (and hopefully aren't arbitrary either). Maybe just "statement" or "proposition?"
It means "let it be done"; I think "make it so" fits my intent. If it's a proposition, that implies uncertainty, then it's either a basic or conflict roll.
On 11/28/2005 at 9:19pm, heironymous wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
TonyLB wrote:
I will always defer to playtesting as the best way to find out whether this works.
Right!
But, absent that, my intuition is that this rules change will put a great strain on the ability of the players to play together well.
Now any group can make any system limp along, if they're creative enough. So the examples here are going to sound soluble: you'll look at them and say "Yes, but a sufficiently God-like group of players wouldn't get into such a problem." I won't dispute that. Nonetheless, here are some problems that I think groups will encounter more frequently than they would otherwise:
• Arguments over narrator impartiality ("You're totally using the role of narrator to benefit your own agenda!")
• Arguments over who gets to be narrator
• Following these two, a general unwillingness to enter situations where a narrator is necessary
• Arguments about how temporarily reassigned characters are played ("That's not what Hillbilly Bob would do!")
So, I'd love to offer some advice for achieving your design goals for the GM-less play. What are your design goals for GM-less play? Why do you want to pursue this model, rather than the far more well-explored avenues of GM-central play?
You raise some great points, some of which I've just addressed in my response to Jasper ("arguments over who gets to be narrator").
I'm not confident I can structurally address arguments over narrator impartiality. If the players find themselves arguing about impartiality often enough that any benefits of no GM are outweighed by the contention, then they probably should get a GM.
Maybe you do get to play Summitdweller Robert in the action you ref, but gain no benefit nor lose anything (so refereeing a catastrophe that harms everyone's character is a great way to save your own!)
My primary goal in offering a GM-less option is to give players so inclined an opportunity to create their world as they play in it. I've already started down that path by allowing players to set difficulty levels for their actions, and by allowing the player alone decide whether his character dies. It don't think GM-less play is inherent to Stake, but an interesting option to explore.
On 11/28/2005 at 9:25pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
hieronymous wrote:
I'm not confident I can structurally address arguments over narrator impartiality.
Well, one way is to make it so that being the narrator is something that people pay a price for (perhaps tokens, perhaps later disadvantages ... whatever), and whoever wants to pay the highest price gets the authority. The free market doesn't solve every problem, but it's really good at "Does he deserve X" problems ... people generally deserve what they pay for.
hieronymous wrote: My primary goal in offering a GM-less option is to give players so inclined an opportunity to create their world as they play in it. I've already started down that path by allowing players to set difficulty levels for their actions, and by allowing the player alone decide whether his character dies. It don't think GM-less play is inherent to Stake, but an interesting option to explore.
Okay ... first, let me clarify voice tone. The following question is genuine, and to be accompanied by a look of attentive interest. It is in no way snarky. So, having clarified: Why not just allow any player to create the world, and to play NPCs, while still retaining the GM as objective arbiter?
On 11/29/2005 at 12:54am, heironymous wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
TonyLB wrote:
Well, one way is to make it so that being the narrator is something that people pay a price for (perhaps tokens, perhaps later disadvantages ... whatever), and whoever wants to pay the highest price gets the authority. The free market doesn't solve every problem, but it's really good at "Does he deserve X" problems ... people generally deserve what they pay for.
Ooh. I hate to open a can of worms, but I don't agree with that assertion at all. All I know is that people pay for what they pay for. Although I like the "high price for authority" thing. In the GM-less version of Stake, you need a referee to adjudicate actions (BTW, you may remember that the GM is often referred to as the "judge" in ancient DnD texts, I believe). I've made the distinction between the narrator (the GM), and the ad hoc adjudicator (the referee) intentionally. The ref isn't meant to take the reigns of the story so much as serve as an "impartial" judge. That's a tall order I admit.
TonyLB wrote:
Okay ... first, let me clarify voice tone. The following question is genuine, and to be accompanied by a look of attentive interest. It is in no way snarky. So, having clarified: Why not just allow any player to create the world, and to play NPCs, while still retaining the GM as objective arbiter?
No snark taken (is that English?).
I have no agenda about GM-less games, one way or the other. I run GMed games all the time. And I do believe that of everyone sitting at the table the GM is the most impartial, because s/he has (at best) the interests of the game/story/group at heart, whereas the players tend (a generality) to be more self-interested. Sure sometimes players are altruistic, and will play in character even if it means their demise; and sure, some GMs get really reactive when you whack their pet NPCs. But in general, I agree that a GMed game is the "fairest".
BUT (and I say this as a GM) there is a tendency to railroad. It's a necessary condition of Plot. I can't have a breathtaking plot culminating in some Big Idea if I don't get the players there. And sometimes I have to herd them a little. Sometimes a lot. OR I could give them free will, but then I'd have to be prepared to give up on my Big Idea (and maybe a lot of Little Ideas along the way too). Sometimes I do; sometimes not. My thinking is (and it's only a notion) that maybe a GM-less game might allow for more focus on Theme and less on Plot. That's not good or bad, just different. And something I'd like to explore.
On 11/29/2005 at 1:12am, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
Ohhhh ... okay. I see where you're coming from. I think I disagree, but I see.
See, now I'm tempted to go all referential on you, and say "Let's talk about Bangs, from Sorceror," and such. There's really a wealth of good technique embodied in existing games that have dealt with these issues in various ways. Rather than ask for a reading list from you (which always strikes me as something like asking you to provide your credentials, which I don't want to do) let me provide you with the games I've read that I'll likely want to refer to for examples: Sorceror (always), Dogs in the Vineyard, Polaris, Universalis and my own Capes. If you've got any preferred system that you'd like me to slant my discussion toward, feel free to clue me in. I can make many of my points by reference to any one of these systems.
On 11/29/2005 at 3:45am, heironymous wrote:
RE: Re: [Stake] near-final version and GM-less
Can you make your points non-referentially?
I've read about Dogs, am scheduled to play it but haven't yet; I've read the LT version of Sorcerer, as well as your Capes quickstart. That's it from your list. So those are my creds, or lack thereof.
You may be suggesting that I at least ride in other people's carts before reinventing the wheel, a perfectly fair comment.