No, seriously!  Mock if you will.

I would like a system that states clear goals and methods for GMing, and which is structured such that, so long as I am pursuing those goals with those methods, I'm doing my job as a GM.

As I wrote in another thread, this already exists for PCs:

Quote from: TonyLBFor instance, how clued out would you have to be to have the following response?  "Okay, I'm a fighter.  There are some orcs.  They have taken my pie.  Uh ... hrm.  I really ... well ... there are just so many potential options here.  It's a real puzzler.  I suppose I could always bake another pie.  Where would I get more ingredients?"

I want these kinds of tools for the GM.

D&D already has half the equation:  The method of the GM is "monster encounters."  If there were a clear goal to go along with that then you'd be on easy street.

Like if Eric wanted his character to confront his fear of abandonment, and my goal was to facilitate that, then I'm in good shape.  How do I use monster encounters to highlight his fear of abandonment?  Easy.  I craft an encounter to separate the group, then a big-ass encounter for Eric's character on his own ... one that he has to run from, because he doesn't have group support.  Maybe even a nasty critter that does a cat-and-mouse hunting game, to really turn the screws on the fear of being alone.

I don't know about you, but I think that would be awesome.  Would I, as the GM, have to think "Okay ... how do I make sure the player is having fun?"  I think not.  All I'd have to worry about was emphasizing how alone and powerless the character is, and giving the other players a fair chance to track him down and rescue him (or abandon him and search for treasure, if that's their thing).  The rest would work itself out.

Are there systems that hand the GM both sides of that equation:  both clear, achievable goals and simple methods?  If not, what would we have to do in order to make one?  What's a reasonable set of methods?  What's a reasonable type of goal?

So you are looking for something like advice on the correct way to approach challenging a PC?  A set of scenarios?

Your example seems like it would be doable in most games that have a mechanical advantage/disadvantage system or something like RoS's Spiritual Attributes.  The player chooses "Fear of Abandonment" as a trait, you as the GM pick up on it and craft an appropriate challenge.

I haven't had a sip of coffee yet, so I might be missing something here?

I think what you're missing is that I don't want it to be one of those things I need to consciously decide to do.  I don't want to say "Oh, hey, maybe it would be a good idea if I were to challenge the players Whatever."

I want it to be the point of me playing the game, in the same way that acquiring property and bankrupting my enemies is the point of Monopoly.  I want selfishly gaming the system to result in good GMing.

Quote from: TonyLBI think what you're missing is that I don't want it to be one of those things I need to consciously decide to do.  I don't want to say "Oh, hey, maybe it would be a good idea if I were to challenge the players Whatever."

I want it to be the point of me playing the game, in the same way that acquiring property and bankrupting my enemies is the point of Monopoly.  I want selfishly gaming the system to result in good GMing.

Selfishly gaming the system rather defeats the point of why I rp.  I'm not saying it's wrong for you to want it, but it would help to understand the attraction.

Quote from: TonyLBI want it to be the point of me playing the game, in the same way that acquiring property and bankrupting my enemies is the point of Monopoly.  I want selfishly gaming the system to result in good GMing.

I think that what you probably want to do is to eliminate the GM, then, and put everyone on a level playing field like Monopoly.

Have the players trade in GMing time for each other.  For example, if I call on you to roleplay what happens when the party goes to the tavern, you get to call on me to create a combat encounter in the woods as we travel through them.  Add rules to limit what a player's own character(s) can do while they are in GM mode but figure out some reward system that they can benefit from when they are in player mode.

A crude example would be that each time you get called on to GM, you get a point.  You can use those points as hero points for your character, trade them in as experience points, and use them to deflect a GMing request on to another player if you don't want to GM a scene.  The interesting dynamic here is that one player could use their points to trigger a combat encoutner travelling through the woods but then assign another player to run the encounter as a GM.  Players who do a good job of GMing will get called on to do it and benefit, but if they get sick of doing it, they can use the points they accumulate to push it off onto someone else (e.g., "I don't want to run this encounter.  I'm spending a point for Bob to do it."  Bob says, "I don't want to run the encounter and spend two points for you to do it."  "Three points for Bob to do it." Etc.  Whoever winds up having to GM the scene gets all of the points bid to make them run it.).

Yes, I know there are some problems to overcome but the earliest Traveller games I played had no GM and we ran encounters for each other, so it's possible to do something like this and have fun.  Just an idea to chew on.

Quote from: BalbinusSelfishly gaming the system rather defeats the point of why I rp.  I'm not saying it's wrong for you to want it, but it would help to understand the attraction.

Uh ... it's just a tool.  I don't get how it could defeat the point of why you RP.  To me that's like saying "Using a cordless drill would defeat the point of why I build things."

Quote from: John MorrowI think that what you probably want to do is to eliminate the GM, then, and put everyone on a level playing field like Monopoly.

Yeah, but I've done that already.  Now I want to figure out a way to make the GM a distinct role, but still one that has its own structure ... a structure that meshes with the (different) structure under which the players play the game, to create fun.

Quote from: TonyLBI think what you're missing is that I don't want it to be one of those things I need to consciously decide to do.  I don't want to say "Oh, hey, maybe it would be a good idea if I were to challenge the players Whatever."

I want it to be the point of me playing the game, in the same way that acquiring property and bankrupting my enemies is the point of Monopoly.  I want selfishly gaming the system to result in good GMing.

I get what you're going for, I think.  I've been following your threads on how the GM can win and such lately, too.  You want to be just as much an active participant in the game as a player...less of the "referee" aspect of GMing, more of the "active antagonist?"

One option might be to limit the situation.  Classic dungeon crawling is suited to this style because the options, resources and tactics are so well-defined, and it seems that a number of tightly focused indie games do this as well.  I haven't really had much experience with the latter, but we still play an adversarial dungeon crawl in my group on occasion.

Another option might be to look at board games that eliminate the GM.  Avalon Hill's old Magic Realm game, which has an active online community, is the closest thing I've ever found to a GM-less RPG in the classic sense.  The system pretty much handles all adjudication.  It also allows for you to attempt an extremely wide variety of actions and set your own victory conditions (anything from digging up treasure to raising armies); the game is extremely complex as a result, but provides an experience like no other.  And multi-player games can result in a lot of role-playing, as individuals team up and stab each other in the back to pursue their goals.

Not sure I've really said anything you haven't thought of, though.  You've given this a lot of attention, and are getting at an area that seems to be ignored by many who think a lot about RPGs.

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... it's just a tool.  I don't get how it could defeat the point of why you RP.  To me that's like saying "Using a cordless drill would defeat the point of why I build things."

We may be talking past each other, to me selfishly gaming the system sounds like an objective rather than a tool.

I play for the freedom and the social aspect, I guess I struggle to see how this is compatible with those goals, but that may be simply that I am missing your point.

Quote from: KenHRYou want to be just as much an active participant in the game as a player...less of the "referee" aspect of GMing, more of the "active antagonist?"

Well, I'm not at all sure that antagonism is the only role available (there's non-adversarial stuff like world-framing and the like in there as well) but yeah, I agree with your summary in the broad strokes.

Quote from: BalbinusI play for the freedom and the social aspect, I guess I struggle to see how this is compatible with those goals, but that may be simply that I am missing your point.

Okay.  You play fighters, right?  Do you regret the loss of freedom that comes with not having spells to cast?  Or do you find sufficient freedom within the stuff a fighter does to make it worth your while?

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  You play fighters, right?  Do you regret the loss of freedom that comes with not having spells to cast?  Or do you find sufficient freedom within the stuff a fighter does to make it worth your while?

I don't much play class based games, but I see your point.

No, that's fine, but I struggle to see how that translates in any meaningful way to the GM's role.  Well, save that if I decide to run a fantasy game I don't regret the loss of elves and dragons.

But I'm struggling with that relates to the broader topic.  Do you have a concrete example of what you're thinking of?

Quote from: KenHRYou want to be just as much an active participant in the game as a player...less of the "referee" aspect of GMing, more of the "active antagonist?"

As GM although I am in no sense an antagonist, I am at least as much an active participant as any player and if anything far more so, as I have little downtime during a session even if I want it.

"Antagonist" was a bad choice of words on my part.  I should have emphasized the "active participant" part of my post and used the antagonist role as more of an example (though there are far more constructive examples to use).

Most of the time, I don't play against my players so much as along with them, as Balbinus says.  Never had a campaign that wasn't made richer by everyone adding their own details.

Anyway, I really do think it comes down to structure.  I think to go after what you want, Tony, you need either a tightly structured situation or a tightly structured ruleset.  Focus on a situation and choose two or three aspects of that situation that are most important.  Build your rules and assumptions on only those aspects.  Good boardgame design uses this approach, and I see it in many early systems like the original Traveller, which feels like a bunch of wargame subsystems bundled together with a character creation system (I mean that in the best way possible!).

Actually, I think the original LBBs are an example of what you're thinking of.  If you run the game strictly by the book, you can boil most procedures down to a series of checklists that tell you exactly how to proceed: arrive from jump 100D from planet, check for starship encounters, expend fuel, dock, check for legal harassment (modified by Admin or Streetwise skill), etc.

Quote from: TonyLBI want it to be the point of me playing the game, in the same way that acquiring property and bankrupting my enemies is the point of Monopoly. I want selfishly gaming the system to result in good GMing.

I agree with this -- I've been thinking about it a lot lately.  Everyone at the table should have an actual game to play/win.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that what you probably want to do is to eliminate the GM, then, and put everyone on a level playing field like Monopoly.

I initially started thinking along these lines... but asking players to act as the GM detracts from one of the main reasons people like RPGs -- the Immersion / Virtual World.

There are boardgames like Descent, which are very confrontational between the GM and players -- but it's basically just combat.  I'd like to see something that allows the GM to play-to-win by introducing narrative elements as well as combat and traps.

In the game I'd like to play (and possibly the one I'm working on) I want the GM to be playing a solitaire type game that's intertwined with the player's game.  I don't want the GM to be just out to destroy the players, but I don't want them to be completely independent of their actions either.

Currently, I'm thinking the answer lies in the way all players are rewarded.  XP for killing things and taking their stuff probably isn't the right answer.