(cross posted from rpg.net)

Hey, guys. I've been reading the Forge for a while now, and really enjoy it. A lot of the stuff on here has really influenced my GM/gaming in general quite a bit, so I figured I should go ahead and sign up. Anyway, here's my situation:

During my last session of our Hyborean Age game, I brought up John Wick's Wilderness of Mirrors and how I liked his take on having the GM be just another player that plays a different role. You know, as opposed to being the "god" of the game, or as one of my players refers to the GM "the universe."

The universe guy says WoM is a stupid idea and that the GM HAS to have complete control over the story and game. I challenged that with GM-less (Capes, Contenders, etc) games to which he replied that "they would never work."

Me, being into experimental gaming as much as I am (the Conan game aside) took this as a personal challenge, and plan to play our next session of Conan sans GM. I'll make a character and just play the game this week. Here's what I've got planned, mechanics-wise:

-I'll give everyone 3-5 "plot points" or whatever. Player's can cash these in to take narrative control of the story whenever they want, provided that it doesn't conflict with the narrative that another player has established.
-Everyone has a veto and can veto anyone else's actions as long as there is a good reason. If the veto is contested, then we go to a vote. (We already do this in our regular games)
-Players receive more plot points by bad stuff happening to them, whether they narrated it or not. This involves losing stuff, taking damage, being hunted by guards, made fun of, negative reputation, etc.
-Players can introduce NPC as they wish, and other players can take control of them by spending plot points.

That's about all I've got for it for now. Anyone tried anything like this? How did it work? Advice? Maybe giving a reward for establishing and resolving conflicts?

ed.s

Ed,

I'd like to know a bit more about your group in general, if you don't mind delving into that.  What are their ages and how long have they been playing?  What kind of games are they used to?  Do you guys have relationships with each other beyond the gaming group?  Is the "Universe" guy alone in his doubts about GMless play?  What is play like with regards to the distribution of authority in your normal sessions?  You say you are an "experimental" gamer.  Are there others like that in the group?

I've got some comments and perhaps some advice on GMless play and certain games like Capes and Universalis in particular but I think answers to my questions above might solidify them some.

Welcome to the Forge! 

Like Andrew, I'd love to hear more about your group before pontificating, but I can't resist pontificating a little anyway in advance - you may be better served by using a game designed to dispense with the GM role in introducing the concept to your friends.  That said, no game in the world is going to work for somebody who wants it to fail.  If your friend believes that GM-less games will never work, he's right (for him), and as long as everybody's clear on that it's not worth trying to prove him wrong.

Let's hear more about your particular circumstances, though.

Welcomes from me as well. Like Jason and Andrew, I'd like to hear more about the group. Specifically, you haven't touched on the style and course of your normal play at all. What things are the players interested in in the game? Are they invested in the fiction and the setting of the game? Would it be likely that they'd try to "win" the game by trying to figure out ways to rake in plot points without taking meaningful damage? Do you imagine that they would create colorful NPCs with a variety of motivations if given a chance? Give us more general context on how you play.

Also, listen to Jason. We all like to think that we're really good gamemasters and designers, but going into ostensibly hostile circumstances with an untested amalgam system seems like something I'd hesitate to do. Of course, by crafting these small (or not so small) changes into an already familiar system you're operating on familiar ground with your group in a way. If you think that's a large enough benefit to justify using a non-playtested experimental system, then it probably is. But do by all means consider starting a non-GMed game fresh with a system specifically intended for the purpose!

Thanks for the responces, guys! I'll fill you all in on my group and write a proper post later after work. We're actually playing this Thursday night, so I'll post some of the fallout then as well. Thanks again!

ed.s

OK, here's a detailed breakdown of our group...we're all pretty diverse, but our games usually turn out well. Usually.

M-Guy who refers to the GM as "The Universe." 34, started playing in college in the early 90's. Really enjoys Planescape, Ravenloft, Urban Arcana, d20 system in general. Normally plays support characters, and usually really ineffective ones at that (ie, total noncombatant Halfling with few applicable or useful skills in Warhammer Fantasy rpg) One of my best friends and former roommate, we spend a lot of time debating rpg theory. His reason for gaming (self proclaimed) is the social interaction and imagination aspects.

G-39, Old school gamer (only guy in the group that's been playing as long as I have) typically plays alpha-leader characters. He's a fun guy to play with and gobbles up plot hooks like mad (which I love), but is very rooted in the 80's paradigm of gaming. Favourite games: Earthdawn, Shadowrun. He plays due to his interest in theatre, but also as an escape (he's had a rough past couple of years)

N-24, gaming since the early 90's. He really just likes to game no matter what (as long as it isn't hard sci-fi), but is recently finding himself interested in narrativist games after my running of a Wushu one-shot (which he loved). His favs: Ars Magica, Hackmaster (in theory, anyway, we've never played it). Another one of my best friends. He usually plays characters to explore other personalities, which I think is why he's getting into more rules-light/freeform games. He's been the most responsive and enthusiastic about my general interest for indie gaming.

S-24, gaming two years or so. Actually a really fun guy to play with considering his short exposure to the hobby. Picks up on all of my gns/big model ranting surprisingly quickly despite almost zero exposure to rpg theory. He's somewhat of an anomaly in our group in that he got into rpg's via ccg's and miniatures gaming instead of vice versa. Typically plays a fighty type character, which I expect given his gaming origins, but he's picking up on our deep RP style fairly quickly. He games because....well, I haven't really figured out why yet. Maybe because his wife does...I dunno.

J-25, the weird guy of the group. He's that guy that typically plays a character that is so weird to the point of being almost incompatible with the rest of the group (he's not trying to derail the games, he just a weird guy). J enjoys Call of Cthulhu and Deadlands more than anything in the world. Given his interest in games, he's pretty open to new stuff and really wants to play Dogs in the Vineyard. He games for escapism as well, but also as a creative outlet as when he runs a game, he turns the weirdness dials up to eleven and rules. He's been gaming for....well...at least since the early 90's.

B-25, gaming for years. He's the guy that I'm at odds with most of the time. B loooooves d20 with an unholy passion and thinks that Ebberon is the best thing EVER. He also digs WW's Orpheus. He fancies himself a writer, and plots grand, epic (read:long) fantasy games that seem like huge railroads to me. He's not a bad guy to play with per se, but he tends to camp everything up as he likes being the center of attention. As in, playing a fairly comedic character in WHFRP or, during a heavy simulationist superhero game, taking a crap all over Marvel Comics physics with a gross abuse of a teleport power.

Then there's me: I've been gaming since 1983, I have a laundry list of favourite games, such as: Unknown Armies, CineUni, WHFRP, Feng Shui. Essentially, I like games where the mechanics of the game tend to add to the atmosphere of the game as opposed to working against it, or doing neither (which is why I actively dislike d20, Palladium, et al) and ones that empower players and let them bring the awesome as opposed to shutting them down for trying to do whatever they want. I tend to favour a rules light, fast and loose approach to gaming and I always want to try something new. I'm currently reading the following stuff and really want to play: Dogs in the Vineyard, Spirit of the Century/Fate, Primetime Adventures, Burning Empires, the Mountain Witch, Lacuna. I don't really have the patience for super rules heavy games anymore. As far as my interest in "experimental" gaming, I've always really dug the concept of troupe-style play, weird storytelling techniques (I've got a writing and film background and a deep love for Kurt Vonnegut and David Lynch) and am working on a game for gnostic-style games that involve a single PC and a committee of GM's.

As far as our group's playstyle....here's a short history of our group. I've been playing games with M and N for years, but eventually quit as life got in the way of gaming. I ended up up drifting back in late '05 when M was running a Serenity/Firefly game that was pitched to me as "Sorta like Cowboy Bebop." The group tended to really like the "plot point" mechanic of that game (can't really remember how it works...something like you can spend them to get to do a minor edit or brief narrative). We all HATED the system (I hated the setting too, and would rather have played Traveller), but it really didn't matter since we were heavily into roleplaying our characters and doing tons of character interaction.We then switched to a brief superhero game that was a dud, and then to a lengthy old school-style game of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay that was a lot of fun. G then ran a gurps New Mutants game that was....enjoyed by everyone, but I found to be really heavy-handed on the NPC's. Really heavy....as in, we couldn't do anything without G's npc's following us around, including during the finale. After this was over, I assumed that I was going to take back over as GM, and had planned to run some newer stuff (Burning Empires in particular, maybe Sorcerer). We spent one entire game session talking about the next game (which lead to a ton of arguing about system, setting, etc, with folks pulling out the "it doesn't matter what system you use as long as you're having fun with your friends, so let's just play D&D" argument), and then general consensus was for a d20 forgotten realms game (gah) which I opted out of, but then agreed to play in a d20 game as long as I could 1. run it, and 2. pick the setting. I went with Conan since I've been reading the Howard books like mad lately and really enjoy low-magic high adventure fantasy and weird tales-type stuff. I insisted on running it so that I can ignore large chunks of the ruleset that don't affect me as a GM. I've been sneaking narrativist concepts into this game as we've been playing and getting a good respose from it. Things like letting players narrate their own (and each others) success and failures...I'd honestly rather play this with a full blown conflict resolution system like Burning Wheel or something, but it seems like I'm locked into this game for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, sorry that was so long.

Eero: I don't think anyone would try to "win" the game by raking in plot points since they would see very quickly that there isn't anything to do unless they spend plot to make something to do. We don't really have any powergamers among us anymore. Since most of us all run games anyway, I think that (most) everyone would be able to create interesting npc's. Again, I'd totally rather use a system designed for this sort of thing, but it's only going to be for one session, and like I said, I'm a bit locked onto this game for the time being.

Jason: I'm honestly not trying to prove M wrong, I'm trying to show him that there is so much more that you can do with an rpg besides count hit points and level up. He's the kind of guy that will usually try anything at least once, and really enjoyed my minigame of Wushu.

Andrew: I hope most of my post above answers the questions you had. I'm still a bit fuzzy on "distribution of authority" though. Can you explain this further?

thanks again!

ed.s

Cool, that's good stuff and helps clear up your circumstances.  It sounds like you have a fun group of people to play with.  Speaking as a guy who almost ruined a similar group by preaching at them about new play styles and techniques, I'll caution you to avoid One True Way nonsense, particularly if they are all grooving on your current play style.  If you are the only guy at the table who is itching for something different, consider going and finding that rather than trying to change a successful group.

That said, if everybody is open to new stuff, by all means interleave new games and ideas with the old.  I'm not convinced that house-ruling GM-less play is the best course of action, but if you are confident with the system and your friend's openness to try weird experiments, your initial ideas seem pretty solid. 

Some things that have worked for my group - kickers and bangs, which are concepts that can be easily ported from Sorcerer to any game.  Short runs of games with interesting mechanical and thematic bits, which it sounds like your group would be open to, might introduce interesting possibilities to your friends.  I know for us, playing The Mountain Witch was eye-opening and a lot of fun.  If it's a time-limited thing, there's really no risk, and if it is a success, there are probably elements everyone will welcome into whatever long-term game you are running. 

I've done a lot of thinking along similar lines about how to mess around with d20 for a more collaborative effect.  A while ago I wrote about the idea of a kind of "mad libs" idea, where all the players write down story ideas, npcs, favorite opponents or allies, situations and locations, and the GM (or a designated player) can draw them out of a hat and must incorporate them into the game. 

The other day I had another idea, inspired by Donjon, that you can apply the same success mechanic to D&D as is used in Donjon:
Player: "I'll listen at the door"
GM: "Ok, roll the dice"
*clatter*
Player: "I roll eighteen"
GM: "Ok, what do you hear behind the door?"

SO the players not only narrate how they succeed, but alter the game world to fit with that success.  Donjon has pretty tight rules for dealing with search rolls "I find the orb of infinite wealth!" but you can patch that in D&D.  You can also restrict it to only natural twenties, or whatever you're comfortable with.

Good luck with your game!

Thanks.  All that information helped.

I'm going to suggest something besides your GM-less system.  I'm going to suggest The Framework.  It isn't really GM-less but is rather a rotating GM meta-system that sits on top of whatever system you normally play.  The structure will be familiar enough for your traditional gamer friends that it shouldn't be too jarring to them and it will underline the point that more than 1 person at the table can wield GM powers without the game blowing up.

If you really want to jump right into GM-less systems, I'd suggest actually using something designed and playtested specifically for that kind of play.  Use Capes or Universalis.  Both are very good systems that should serve your purposes well.  Using a system that hasn't been designed and tested with a group that isn't familiar with this style of playing is taking a significantly greater risk that the game falls flat.

I would also consider taking the 2 or 3 guys from this group that seem the most interested and most open to this new kind of game you are wanting to play and just giving it a try with them.  From my own experience, I had 2 people in my regular group that just didn't like (or want to like) the style of games I was generally wanting to play.  When I included them in Capes and other games they were a distraction due to their attitudes.  So, when I want to play those kinds of games, I just don't invite them.  When we play D&D or something more traditional, I do invite them.  It isn't like you have to have the whole group participate in every game activity.

Andrew-Thanks for the input. I'd never seen The Framework, but it actually sounds pretty close to what I was wanting to do in the first place. Again, I really didn't want to permanently switch to GMless games for my current game, I just wanted to do a one off. We did order Capes, though and are going to try that pretty soon. I've been wanting to have another day of gaming as well with select folks, but my work schedule doesn't really permit this.

Simon- what you're saying about success rolls is almost exactly how I've been running d20 Conan and we're all really digging it. Furthermore, since I'm a big fan of mook systems (like Feng Shui and Wushu, etc where mooks are either affecting the conflict or not) I've taken to running mook battles like this: Take, for example, some Vikings. Instead of tracking "hp" for each one, I mechanically run the encounter as though it were one Viking, but give it enough hit points or whatever for the encounter to last as long as I want it to, and let it act enough times as is logical given the circumstances. Cuts my bookkeeping way down, which is a superchore in d20.

Jason-I was really "one-true-way-y" a year or so ago after I discovered this site, but realized what an ass I could be at times, so I've mellowed out a bit on that front. Instead, I've taken then approach of "there's so much more you can do with rpg's, and we're just scratching the surface. Why don't we try something new?" Of course, I probably come across a bit more abrasive in person...

So we're playing tonight...I'll post later.

ed.s

Ok, so we ended up playing this last Thursday. Here's what happened:

B ended up cancelling to study for his ASVAB, so we were down a person. I was ok with this, since I'm pretty sure this kind of thing works best with less players. We had some distractions and last players, and ended up starting over an hour late. These kinds of things really annoy me, so I was in a pretty bad mood going into the whole thing.

Anyway, everyone besides N and I was a bit put off by the concept. N and I ate it up and were really happy at one point in which we went to the kitchen and everyone kept on playing, throwing in tokens, etc. Neat. M kind of stonewalled the story system, not out of a desire to horde plot points, but I think just to try to prove that it wouldn't work. He was in a weird mood, though, and kept doing stuff that isn't really characteristic of him ("confusing" the main villain's name, etc.) G got into it after a while, S did too, J is usually a pretty timid player, so didn't bring much to the table. The plot stayed (fairly) on track and we had a pretty good time. Not one of the better game sessions I've had, but not the worst by any means. Other's reactions ranged from "Cool!" to "meh" to "I was skeptical at first about this style of play, but I actually began to enjoy it, and will do it again, but not on a regular basis." So I was happy.

What I learned:
-I actually like dm-less. Can't wait to play Capes.
-My game design skillz are not so bad. I think I'll try to write something...um...complete soon.
-Certain people in my group can be really unfun at times.
-I really, really hate d20 even more than I thought I did, and I didn't think that was possible.
-I probably either need to find another group or quit gaming altogether. Feh.
-I really want to get back to running my Wushu 300 Spartans/Camelot 3000 game that I'm working on.

Thanks again for the input everyone!

ed.s

ED.S wrote:
The plot stayed (fairly) on track and we had a pretty good time.

The initial established plot was that we were searching for a way out of the town we were in. Most everyone's plot points were spent to advance this or to hinder it in exchange for establishing and resolving conflict.

ed.s