TheRPGSite

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.

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

Hrm ... Well, I'll have to make one up, but I'll give it a try.  I'm sure there will be many nits that scream to be picked, but I hope I can at least get across the general gist:

   In a hypothetical game called Labyrinth, one player takes on the role of ordinary people drawn into an otherworldly, symbolic realm (hereafter called the searcher).  Sarah (from the Labyrinth movie) and Richard Mayhew (from Gaiman's Neverwhere) are examples from fiction.  At least one other player takes on the role of a native of the otherworldly realm who acts as companion to the searcher (Hoggle and Ludo in Labyrinth, Door and the Marquis in Neverwhere).

The game-master does the usual game-master stuff, which means that he's doing a lot of the description of the Labyrinth and its unworldly properties.

In this (again, hypothetical) game, the game master's purpose is to draw the searcher fully into the otherworld.  The searcher has a limited supply of mundanity tokens, representing their connection to the world outside the labyrinth.  The GM wants to get as many of those tokens as possible.  They have two direct methods:  (1) offering temptations (neat gee-gaws, insights, powers, etc., with mechanical benefit to the conflicts in the labyrinth) which the searcher may lose mundanity in pursuing and (2) threatening the companion (so as to make the searcher desire the temptations more).

The GM may never tempt companions, or directly threaten the searcher.  The GM may do other stuff (like cause a dragon to swallow the moon) but it has no mechanical consequence.  If the GM wants to do his thing, get those tokens, he needs to be concentrating on crafting the right threats and temptations to move the player of the searcher.

The searcher does not succeed by keeping their mundanity.  The searcher succeeds in the classic "Complete the quest" way.  We all know how you measure and adjudicate on that, right?

The companion succeeds by making the searcher love and cherish them.  I'm not going to outline how you'd measure and adjudicate that, but I'm pretty sure it could be done.

In the Labyrinth movie, the GM just barely fails to empty Sarah of mundanity tokens.  In Neverwhere the GM totally owns Mayhew, lock, stock and barrel.

In both stories, the searcher succeeds.  Most of the companions also succeed (the Marquis?  Probably not)

I could see a game like that making for some really fun stories.  The roles could have a nice, powerful synergy, even though they are (a) very different, (b) not adversarial and (c) selfishly motivated.

Does that help?

Quote from: StuartIn 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.

What I think people are looking for is the equivalent of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in economics, allowing two people to play the same game differently and for different reasons but still benefit each other.  To that end, looking over some of the material being published and shown on TV about Milton Friedman might provide some useful insight.  In a 1994 interview shown on C-SPAN this well, Friedman talked about how prices transmit information between buyers and sellers concerning damand.  As demand exceeds supply, prices go up.  As supply exceeds demand, prices go down.  Thus a person mining copper in one country doesn't need to know what it's being used for when it's purchased, but they can tell a great deal about the supply and demand based on what people are willing to pay for it.

So maybe what first needs to be identified here is a common currency between player and GM that they can trade in.

But in my experience, the best GMs are the ones who are playing because of the players.  They either enjoy entertaining others or like having their world and plots respond to what the players do.  In other words, the GM runs the game GMs to enjoy watchin the players play.  Rich Skrenta made an analogy between his pay by electronic mail game Olympia as a basement train set that a person might build and enjoy watching run.  He enjoyed having other people play in his "train set".  I think there is a similar mindset behind a lot of GMs.  Often the players have very different goals.  Thus I'm not sure you are going to find any common currency between what many GMs do and what many players do.  But by all means try to find one.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat I think people are looking for is the equivalent of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in economics, allowing two people to play the same game differently and for different reasons but still benefit each other.

Very cool!  Thanks. :)

Quote from: TonyLBIn a hypothetical game called Labyrinth, one player takes on the role of ordinary people drawn into an otherworldly, symbolic realm (hereafter called the searcher). Sarah (from the Labyrinth movie) and Richard Mayhew (from Gaiman's Neverwhere) are examples from fiction. At least one other player takes on the role of a native of the otherworldly realm who acts as companion to the searcher (Hoggle and Ludo in Labyrinth, Door and the Marquis in Neverwhere).

Super cool!  Labyrinth (the movie) is a big inspiration for me.  Anytime I'm talking about Fantasy RPGs not needing to be about kicking in doors, killing things, and taking their stuff -- I'm probably thinking about that movie. :)

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, 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.

Well, in the model I described, the GM is a distinct role.  It's simply not a role that's always held by one player but held by a player only for a scene.  The assumption was that the players don't want to be a GM, which seems to be a complaint that I've seen from time to time online.  So the goal is to encourage them to act as a GM and be in demand as a GM by giving them benefits when they aren't.  This would allow everyone to trade a common currency, which is traded during play.

Maybe you could do something with that train set model.  The goal of the GM is to get the players to see or use as much as possible of what they put in their adventure without forcing the players to see or use it.  This goes back to early dungeon design, where the GM lays something out and the players explore it.  In this model, the goal of the GM is to produce a percentage of stuff used, perhaps losing points for things that have to be made up on the fly.  This would appeal to GMs who enjoy planning and anticipating, but probably not to GMs who like winging it.

I do think that perhaps some sort of "best score" mechanism rather than a win-lose mechanism might help you avoid the problem of having the GM compete directly with the players.  It let's GMs compete with themselves and other GMs, thus avoiding the whole common currency problem.

Quote from: TonyLBDoes that help?

Hugely actually.

For me, this is something I get from boardgames, I've recently been looking at games like Descent precisely for this sort of fun.  For me, it's something that is different to rpgs, not in that you don't play roles but in that it is for me a different sort of reward.

Now, were you an inquisitive sort of person, you might well ask me why I find that fun in a boardgame and not in an rpg.  I think the answer is linked to why I can find many Forge games fun but tend not to play them as much as trad games, and that's because I play rpgs for the freedom to explore character while telling multiple stories.  I don't want in an rpg an enclosed experience, and when I do want an enclosed experience I generally don't want an rpg as the things that make rpgs fun for me would get in the way of that more focussed play.

But now I'm not sure I understand the distinction I'm drawing myself, for all it feels real to me.  Do you have any better understanding than I do of the distinction I'm trying to draw?

Quote from: BalbinusBut now I'm not sure I understand the distinction I'm drawing myself, for all it feels real to me.  Do you have any better understanding than I do of the distinction I'm trying to draw?

I suspect that I may ... though, y'know, it's very possible that I could be wrong.

Forge game designers have been hitting these sorts of issues, and developing a mental toolkit as part and parcel of creating the games.  Each game that gets created gets to build a little more on the thought that's gone before.  But the ideas are still in their infancy.  So, to my mind, they've only really started tackling the easiest cases where this type of interaction can be set up ... and a focussed, enclosed, short-run game is by far the easiest such situation.  It allows you to create finite victory conditions for everyone, and to set your initial conditions in a way that helps get good results.

It's sort of like saying "How hard is it to design an automobile from scratch?"  Well ... the answer to that question depends on how far the auto needs to run, and under what variety of conditions.  In order to design a car that can travel 100 yards on a known, flat, enclosed track?  Oh hell, I could do that ... with rubber bands and duct-tape.  But to make a car that can travel a hundred thousand miles over all manner of roads, in all manner of weather, with minimal maintenance?  That's so far beyond me I wouldn't even know where to begin.  I think there is often metal involved.

I think that what you're seeing is very real, but it's a historical reality of where these types of games are right now, not an inherent that must always be the case.  There's no inherent reason why these techniques need to be linked with short-run games, but they are right now because that's the low-hanging fruit, and people are plucking it.

Personally, I want games that have the potential to serialize out into infinity (at the same time, of course, I want the same game to give a satisfying experience from start to finish in one hour ... I'm greedy that way), so I am in total sympathy with your feelings.

So ... how'd I do?  Did I actually understand what you were feeling, or am I way off base?

I think you got there fine actually Tony, but I guess my issue then becomes since I am pretty happy with what we have now this is just not such a burning issue to me.

That said, does Burning Wheel have anything to teach?  That is the closest to trad gaming of any indie game in a sense, a hybrid if you will.  It is open ended, I could run a real time several years fantasy campaign with it, but it is also designed to provide a more focussed play experience.

I'm not sure it does do what you're looking for, though Burning Empires may get closer, but it may be one of the steps on the way and with such a distant goal immediate steps may be what we first need to look for.

This may add nothing to the discussion but I just need to write it up. What I've been thinking about is the Third Way :D A lot of it is inspired by Levi's Natural roleplaying thread, Tony's post in this thread, John Morrow's neat idea in this thread, a lot of other games....

Okay, the set up is simple. All the players (including the GM...or rather there's no GM at this point of time) agree on game. Game here is pretty specific. Let's say the group, agrees to play a fantasy game (mood, theme etc has been agreed upon beforehand, with the beginning adventure revovling around their quest to save the leader of an influential cult. They all agree on a setting  -published or homebrewed - and each of them, has a rough idea as to what they would do, if they were the GM. They all create characters.

Someone starts as a GM introducing the adventure or his take on it (and his character is considered a NPC). They play for a couple scenes and at some predetermined point, each of the remaining players vote to either carry on with this particular GM's take on the adventure or move on to the next person on the list who takes off from where the voted off GM stopped but building on and changing the game with her own ideas.

Again the same process is repeated but if she survives the vote she carries on. Anytime the other players feel the adventure is getting stale or it's just not working they can vote at the appointed time. If the adventure is going to everyone's satisfaction, the GM can go on untill the ending.

Okay, it may not be very logical, but it would be something I would like to try. (BTW are there any games like this only well thought out - I think PTA does something like this. If this is the case, ignore my post :D  )

Regards,
David R

Sounds like it would result in a game way too narrow in scope to be a success within the hobby.

Quote from: TonyLBNo, seriously!  Mock if you will.

Mock! Mock!

No, seriously -- I've read your exchange with Balbinus, and I think I see some kind elemental separation in approach to GMing here:

I see GMing as being an act of creation similar to what authors or movie directors do. I see GMing as being largely an expression of the GM's creative vision (The game -- a whole -- is a combined creative effort, of course).

I see things like vision, sense of humor, the ability to sketch characters, settings and situations evocatively and economically, and so-on, as being key qualities to a successful GM -- these things are hard or impossible to impart with rules or mechanics.

Call this the "Auteur Theory of GMing"

I read your post, and you're looking for a rules structure to focus your GMing. You want to "play the game" and have successful GMing emerge from your use of the rules.

To me, that concept is alien -- I'm not saying that it couldn't happen; just that it's a profoundly different way looking at the activity.

It's like saying, "I want a set of rules that, when I follow them brilliantly, lets me create a great movie or novel."

To be clear: I think rules, craft, theory, etc. can certainly help a GM -- just like taking a creative writing class in college or studying literature or whatever, can help someone become a filmmaker or a novelist... but I think those kinds of rules don't really address the 80% of what makes games fun for me.

And when I look at forge games, I feel that the cost paid in freedom is too high for those games to appeal to me. Whatever's gained in DiTV's focused mechanics is lost in it's inability to tell a variety of stories.

The Auteur Theory of GMing v. The Mechanical Theory? Maybe there's another  thread somewhere in this...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm not sure it does do what you're looking for, though Burning Empires may get closer, but it may be one of the steps on the way and with such a distant goal immediate steps may be what we first need to look for.

Having played in 3 Burning Empire campaigns, I would say it does exactly what Tony is looking for. It's a work of brilliance!

Quote from: TonyLBI 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.

Have you looked at Rune (http://www.ogrecave.com/rune/review.shtml)?


Cheers,
Roger