So, what elements of GMless play are emphasized?

What mechanics help emphasize those elements?

How (examples of mechanics) do you make a GMless system?

Is there a means to make a crunchy, trad like GMless game?

Bill

I think that Universalis is the perfect reference for this. It really sets the standard for GMless. Then again, it's no longer strictly an RPG.

Quote from: brettmb;238867I think that Universalis is the perfect reference for this. It really sets the standard for GMless. Then again, it's no longer strictly an RPG.

Why is that? Just for my point, if you play or act out roles within a game framework (diceless, diced, GMless or not does not matter) then you are playing an RPG. But then again, I have a pretty broad definition.

Bill

For one, you change elements in the game, controlling characters' fates. It's more than just roleplaying. And more than one player can control the same character in turn, so there's no longer a personal attachment. Now that's just one example of GMless. Others are not necessarily the same.

EDIT: The game does not pretend to be an RPG. It is a storytelling game. So, while it has rpg elements, it has a much wider scope.

Quote from: HinterWelt;238800How (examples of mechanics) do you make a GMless system?

Is there a means to make a crunchy, trad like GMless game?

Some things I did in my earliest Traveller games which I played without a GM and which some people played without other players:

1) Randomize everything that you can so that you can use dice to decide things.  Rules that generate encounters, reactions, items, situations, and so on are especially useful here.

2) Have the players play teams of characters rather than single characters.

3) Run opponents for each other's characters so that, in essence, each player takes on the role of running opponents for the other player or players.

4) Detail the tactical encounters using random elements and treat the big picture in more sweeping strokes.

One someone different way to approach it would be to look at the game Necromunda and consider how it could be turned into a game with no GM, with each player playing a gang fighting the other players for turf.  You start out by generating their little corner of the Underhive, which places exist there, divide them up among the gangs, have them generate NPCs for their own territory, and then have them fight for control.

Quote from: brettmb;238891For one, you change elements in the game, controlling characters' fates. It's more than just roleplaying. And more than one player can control the same character in turn, so there's no longer a personal attachment. Now that's just one example of GMless. Others are not necessarily the same.

EDIT: The game does not pretend to be an RPG. It is a storytelling game. So, while it has rpg elements, it has a much wider scope.

I think I see what you are saying. I suspect I would still call it an RPG but I can see how others may not. You still take on roles? Also, you have a game framework? By game framework I mean some manner of either resource management or random gaming elements.

I really should be checking these games out. I just have so little time lately.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: John Morrow;238919Some things I did in my earliest Traveller games which I played without a GM and which some people played without other players:

1) Randomize everything that you can so that you can use dice to decide things.  Rules that generate encounters, reactions, items, situations, and so on are especially useful here.

2) Have the players play teams of characters rather than single characters.

3) Run opponents for each other's characters so that, in essence, each player takes on the role of running opponents for the other player or players.

4) Detail the tactical encounters using random elements and treat the big picture in more sweeping strokes.

One someone different way to approach it would be to look at the game Necromunda and consider how it could be turned into a game with no GM, with each player playing a gang fighting the other players for turf.  You start out by generating their little corner of the Underhive, which places exist there, divide them up among the gangs, have them generate NPCs for their own territory, and then have them fight for control.

Is this Necromunda from GWS? A kind of board/minis game like Tyrannids?

Thanks,
Bill

OK, I love this stuff.  

First of all, I like to think in terms of authority (which can be precise) over GM (which is a fuzzy collection of responsibilities).  So a "GM-less" game just divides the necessary authority differently.  Chances are good it isn't an even distribution.

So what gets emphasized?  I guess you need some highly procedural elements to help frame the game.  For example, in Polaris, you play with four people, you rotate, and when it is your turn, the guy opposite you provides your adversity and the people in either side provide support to your protagonist.  In The Shab Al-Hiri Roach (my game) you have six events, and a new event starts when everybody has had a scene in the current one.  So these games tend toward focused procedures, although not necessarily focused play.  

Getting at your question about crunch, I think you could easily make D&D 4e (for example) into a GMless game.  You'd parse all the different bits of authority and hand them out to the players, so I'd be in charge of skill challenges and you'd handle world building, and Clash would deal with encounters and NPCs.  It wouldn't be the same game, there'd need to be a degree of consensus and collaboration built in socially, but it'd totally work.

EDIT:  Totally agree that Universalis is a good reference.  One nice thing about that game is that the in-game currency allows you to create new rules on the fly.  So if you want some effect, you can propose it and pay for it.  I played for the first time at Gen Con and it was pretty fun, although I'm not crazy about the fiddly-ness of it.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;238926OK, I love this stuff.  

First of all, I like to think in terms of authority (which can be precise) over GM (which is a fuzzy collection of responsibilities).  So a "GM-less" game just divides the necessary authority differently.  Chances are good it isn't an even distribution.

So what gets emphasized?  I guess you need some highly procedural elements to help frame the game.  For example, in Polaris, you play with four people, you rotate, and when it is your turn, the guy opposite you provides your adversity and the people in either side provide support to your protagonist.  In The Shab Al-Hiri Roach (my game) you have six events, and a new event starts when everybody has had a scene in the current one.  So these games tend toward focused procedures, although not necessarily focused play.  

Getting at your question about crunch, I think you could easily make D&D 4e (for example) into a GMless game.  You'd parse all the different bits of authority and hand them out to the players, so I'd be in charge of skill challenges and you'd handle world building, and Clash would deal with encounters and NPCs.  It wouldn't be the same game, there'd need to be a degree of consensus and collaboration built in socially, but it'd totally work.

EDIT:  Totally agree that Universalis is a good reference.  One nice thing about that game is that the in-game currency allows you to create new rules on the fly.  So if you want some effect, you can propose it and pay for it.  I played for the first time at Gen Con and it was pretty fun, although I'm not crazy about the fiddly-ness of it.

See, this has always been my stumbling block in GMless games. Mind, I understand the whole "Well, you need buy in for any game" but I have seen so many games that players should really just be players and more than that, they enjoy just being players. The codification tends to come in a form of what happens organically in my games (horribly trad in function) which is a player contribution to the plot/story/whatever you want to call it. So, instead of the guy across the table is your adversary, it is John jumps in and riffs an awesome description of a bad guy. I roll with it and build on to it.

Now I got off topic there, sorry. The point being is that I have seen really two fundamental problems with GMless.
1. Player competitiveness.
2. Individual player "ego" or belief as GM I can do anything.

Both of those can be overcome with buy in but player I have not seen (and I admit to be very limited in GMless games) a game that iron clad solves this. Partly because of the division you mention. The GM has a certain amount of fiat, creativity or whatever you want to call it and it can be used improperly for many reasons.

I think I am rambling there. I will take a bit and see if it comes clearer.

Bill

Edit: Sorry to see you changed your sig. It was very appropriate.

I hear you.  I think one dirty secret is that people who like to GM tend to like GMless games.  I love to GM, so that's my primary motivation for designing games that share that fun.  With the right game, having five friends all having permission to cook up cool situations and throw crazy characters at me feels five times as satisfying.  

I've seen people who prefer the traditional GM-player model warm up to it over time, though, usually after testing the water with games that give players a little more authoring ability without thrusting it on them.  That said, if your friends aren't into it, they aren't into it.

Universalis is a little mind-bending in that "ownership" isn't really possible, unless you all agree and buy the "PC gimmick".  Responsibility for characters flies around the table.

Quote from: HinterWelt;238925Is this Necromunda from GWS? A kind of board/minis game like Tyrannids?

Yes, the board/minis game from GW.  You can download the rules here (legit -- it's the GW Specialist Games site).  Look particularly at the Campaigns chapter, including the Territories section.  I don't think it would be too difficult to adapt that sort of thing into a randomly generated campaign environment for a more RPG-like game.

Quote from: John Morrow;239001Yes, the board/minis game from GW.  You can download the rules here (legit -- it's the GW Specialist Games site).  Look particularly at the Campaigns chapter, including the Territories section.  I don't think it would be too difficult to adapt that sort of thing into a randomly generated campaign environment for a more RPG-like game.

O.k. I bought into this game about 20K for my stores when it came out and we ran 100s of hors of demos. Yes, with that understanding I completely agree. This would lend itself very well to GMless play.

I do think that a lot of wargames can though. The nature of the definable limits brings a manageability to the "scenario" issues. For example, I can move 5 spaces and fire my blaster another 15. This is quantifiable and clear. I want to talk with the arms dealer and convince him to join my cause might require a moderator.

I almost think to get a truly GMless play you need a highly codified system or rely on player buyin quite a bit. I do not like either of those solutions but I have nothing better.

Bill

QuoteI almost think to get a truly GMless play you need a highly codified system or rely on player buyin quite a bit. I do not like either of those solutions but I have nothing better.

But don't stop looking. I really believe the first really good GM-less/solo system will sweep the whole gaming scene (like D&D first did or later M:tG). Ideally such a thing would also be modular - adding more details, different genres, more adventures, etc.

I like your Drats plan quite a bit...maybe a selection of premises or plot twists with key words that signify player choices/interactive points might allow for events in-game that the players themselves may not think of or wouldn't want because it hinders the progress of the story. This way there's a bit of suspense and outside inspiration rather than say, a bunch of Trekkies just playing out their fanfic tales (i.e. Everybody buys into the game, but not necessarily in a creative way)

Highly codified systems would work if the details themselves are more interesting than the complexity of the methods used to generate them. IMO, the days of the ASL style megagame is over - people just don't want to do that kind of heavy lifting anymore. It has to play simple and feel complex. Some of the late-80s gamebooks came really close to greatness (Fabled Lands) but IMO, the paperback format was just too limiting for what the system itself could be capable of. Perhaps by mixing elements from everything that has gone before in game design you might get a game-package that works (as opposed to just a rulebook, maps & a die).  

Programmed gamebooks, rpg-style character gen, solo wargaming, generation software like Tablesmith, collectible (modular) cards, pbp wargames - all of these have elements that could work well together if you experiment with them.  

Here's a GM-less playtest experiment you could try - choose an rpg game you'd like to simulate...something your group of players are all in agreement on.  Play a game of 1,000 Blank White Cards and stipulate every new card must adhere to the genre or campaign setting. After a while, shuffle and play again but only add a new card when one in your hand won't suffice. Continue this way until you think you've got a big enough sampling...then try adding character sheets or a map with counters. Again, play through the cards but this time adding only new cards for things that would require a change to the character sheet or map. Remove or alter old cards that don't work as you go.

For some simple inspirations look at some of the Warpspawn Games or a nomic game (Dvorak). Just turn it all up to 11.

I think, that random tables for encouncers, equipment and stuff are no good for GM-less game, cos it that case you let the game GM you...

QuoteI think, that random tables for encouncers, equipment and stuff are no good for GM-less game, cos it that case you let the game GM you

In GM-less matrix games it is possible to have a selection of different tables which are consulted after a series of arguments + counter-arguments that function like standard Die Modifier lists. The table is STILL random to a degree but the players themselves determine that degree through the strength of their arguments/counter-arguments.

An example:

Player A Argument: The armies of the dead overrun the countryside killing everyone in their path

Because (1) The army has 10,000 skeletal warriors led by a lich-king
            (2) The humans are terrified of the undead and flee
            (3) The human army has already retreated into the capital

Player B Counter-Argument: The peasants band together and bravely turn back the army of the dead

Because  (1) The peasants have lots of spears & farm implements
             (2) The undead are naturally slow, stupid and easily crushed to dust
             (3) A friar from the village temple is carrying the Tooth of St. Nhutsack

After discussion, its agreed that the Argument is Strong (+1) and the Counter -Argument is nothing but WEAK (+1). The Resolution table is consulted with a total modifier of +2. At this point, critical failure would be impossible in with a small table.

Resolution Table d6
1 Critical failure
2-3 Failure
4-5 Success
6 Critical success

This is a very basic example and doesn't go far. I would add a bigger range of modifiers using key words and broaden the Resolution Table to d00 or bigger

Example: A FRIAR from the village TEMPLE is carrying the TOOTH of ST. NHUTSACK

Friars are pretty wimpy...the table gives them a -2
Temples offer decent but not outstanding sanctuary...+1
The Tooth of St. Nhutsack is a very powerful artifact of GOOD that resists the power of EVIL and this is one of those times....so +5

So this particular Counter-Evidence would be worth (5+1-2) -4 to the Argument's roll on the resolution table

Players may also be given chips or beads which have a set value like +5 which can be used at any time without requiring an argument or counter-argument. This injects some competition and unpredictability and is good if not everyone is up to intellectual snuff.