Quote from: FranklinWhat is your evidence then? I've never seen a GMless game work, none of the people I've ever gamed with have. It's just going to end up as a fight over who gets to shout the most and act the smartest. Without a GM and RPG cannot work.

So where is your evidence?

My earliest role-playing games had no GM.  Why?  Because we never needed a GM when we were playing with action figures and toy cars when we were younger and we just carried that in to our first role-playing games.  We managed to do just fine without fighting and shouting.  Though I do personally think games with a  GM are better, that's not the reason why.  

It seems that as a child, the people I knew had the skills to cooperate without fighting and shouting that you seem to assume that nobody has, and I think that's your problem.  You assume that people can't cooperate without one person being put in charge above them.  Not always true.

Quote from: Spikeit is in some ways more true that for CRPG's that System DOES NOT matter.... since you don't see it anyway.

Contrary to your statement that it is pure system. People are not still die hard FFVII fans today because it had a great system.

In video game RPG's ALL you see is the result of the system. Also in CRPG, there is no-one there to guide you or call fowl or create gameplay because it doesn't need it. The system has eliminated the need for a GM.

And yes a game of pure system and setting with no GM like FFVII has legions of die hard fans.

Quote from: KrakaJakIn video game RPG's ALL you see is the result of the system. Also in CRPG, there is no-one there to guide you or call fowl or create gameplay because it doesn't need it. The system has eliminated the need for a GM.

And yes a game of pure system and setting with no GM like FFVII has legions of die hard fans.

Have you missed the part where I explained that I consider that the game itself, as written and designed by the design team has all the attributes of a decent GM?  It has a good story arc, a fair bit of flexibility within certain limits, and is the arbiter of the rules.  You are in fact interacting with a single vision... brought to you by many people, but a single vision at that.  

Now, if you took the same idea, but instead you and all the other people playing were able to rewrite various areas of the game as they saw fit... and everyone playing had to abide by those changes, then you loose the dynamic.  But CRPG's don't have that flexibility, and RPG's, with a single (or occasionally shared) GM don't normally allow that sort of wankery from a player at the table.

These other games, with no GM at all, however, are nothing but that. Player A says that people from his country can fly, player B pops in and claims they are all purple, and player C, high from one too many hits off the crack pipe suddenly declares that there are no women in the world, and everyone is a eunuch, but they reproduce by frottage...

Okay, worst case senario there. But the point is: When everyone is responsible for what is going on, no one is. Thus you have a completely different dynamic... one that makes for a completely different game. Not and RPG. Stop being mooches and come up with your own damn name for this type of game.  Magic did it with the 'Collectable Card Game', rather than trying to be just 'card games' which confuses the poker playing crowd.  Now its the GM-less gamers turn.

Y'know, I personally have played a Gm-less game recently, and everyone involved had lots of shouting-match-free fun. And with a bunck of folks that normally play D&D quite enthusiastically.

Peace,
-Joel

I think this is actually a really easy question.  RPGs have only 2 primary elements: (1) roleplaying, and (2) games

You and your friends can play poker while pretending to be dogs and it qualifies as an RPG.

If you only pretend to be dogs or only play poker, you're not playing an RPG.

I've tried to explain this "if you can't lose, it's just roleplaying" sentiment to some folks, but most just refuse to accept it.

There's nothing wrong with just roleplaying.

Quote from: MelinglorY'know, I personally have played a Gm-less game recently, and everyone involved had lots of shouting-match-free fun. And with a bunck of folks that normally play D&D quite enthusiastically.

Peace,
-Joel

Are you defending against a point no one made?  

All I've said is once you remove the GM the nature of the game changes fundamentally, just like in card games where you remove the four suits and replace them with pretty pictures and a bunch of weird new rules.

There is no comment on superiority of play. My only comment was that GM played RPGs have first dibs on the name 'RPG' and those other games without GM's should stop trying to pretend to be something they aren't.

Y'know, there are more people in this thread than just you. Get over yourself.

Quote from: FranklinIf a game does not have a GM who has the piower over the story and the plot then it isn't an RPG. I can see how people might enjoy games that don't have GMs, but they are not roleplaying games, they are just the same as sitting round a fire and telling ghost stories. But the people who write those games try to tell us that they ARE roleplaying games and they they ARE better than games that have a GM. So evceryone shouting and making a mess of things with nobody to stop them, it just cannot work. If you have a GM they can make things run smoothly and give a better game for everyone. Games without a GM are like the communism of gaming: thye do not work ion the real world.

Quote from: FranklinSo, if you have a group of people playing a game without a GM, then everyone is going to give everyone else equal time and everyone is going to get their go? No your not. It's that kind of idea that is utter rubbish. There will always be people who are more forceful than the rest and will have more to do and end up running tghe game. So why not make them the GM and run the game PROPERLY in the first place?

No game without a GM can possibly work because that's not the way people work.

Quote from: FranklinWhat is your evidence then? I've never seen a GMless game work, none of the people I've ever gamed with have. It's just going to end up as a fight over who gets to shout the most and act the smartest. Without a GM and RPG cannot work.

So where is your evidence?

That's what I was responding to. Maybe if you actually read the thread. . .

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorY'know, I personally have played a Gm-less game recently, and everyone involved had lots of shouting-match-free fun. And with a bunck of folks that normally play D&D quite enthusiastically.

Peace,
-Joel

And of course the report on play is on the Forge. Why does that not surprise me at all?

Thanks
Frank

Quote from: FranklinAnd of course the report on play is on the Forge. Why does that not surprise me at all?

Thanks
Frank

And that is relevant how?  It actually worries me that someone could reach the adult stage of their lives and remain convinced that it's a physical impossibility to play a game without some kind of central, controlling figure forcing everyone to get along and not have it turn into a shouting match about who gets to be dominant.  Are you and your peers honestly that socially inept and selfish or are you just talking shit in some inane and ridiculous attempt to make out the GM-less games can't work?

I mean fuck, at least Spike is posting coherent, well thought out reasons for his points (which aren't, I might add, that GM-less games can't work).  I don't, personally, happen to agree with him but I can appreciate his perspective and his reasons for stating that GM-less games are no longer truly RPGs.  You, on the other hand, are contributing fuck all other than 'I'm a selfish twat who can't play with others unless someone brandishes a big stick at me and I refuse to admit that most other people are mature enough that they don't actually need Big Stick Guy to threaten them, no matter what evidence is posted to the contrary.'  Grow the fuck up.

Quote from: MelinglorY'know, there are more people in this thread than just you. Get over yourself.


That's what I was responding to. Maybe if you actually read the thread. . .

Peace,
-Joel

There is a reason I use quotes when I pop in with a specific response, Mel.  Some of us don't lurk in just one part of the forum looking for forge related comments to attack or defend, so its nice to not have to re-read the entire fucker each time someone makes a reply. :rolleyes:

Try it sometime.

Quotes: Not just for post padding anymore.

Quote from: SpikeThere is a reason I use quotes when I pop in with a specific response, Mel.  Some of us don't lurk in just one part of the forum looking for forge related comments to attack or defend, so its nice to not have to re-read the entire fucker each time someone makes a reply. :rolleyes:

Y'know, I do that too ... but when I see a response that I don't think addresses what I've been talking about, I just say to myself "Oh!  They're probably talking to somebody else.  I could figure it out if I reread the thread, but who's got the time?" and I move on without responding.

I recommend it as a strategy for lower blood pressure

Quote from: TonyLBY'know, I do that too ... but when I see a response that I don't think addresses what I've been talking about, I just say to myself "Oh!  They're probably talking to somebody else.  I could figure it out if I reread the thread, but who's got the time?" and I move on without responding.

I recommend it as a strategy for lower blood pressure

Yeah, but assuming all posts all the time are about me is so good for my Ego!

Well, at least we're clear on that.

Quote from: SpikeYeah, but assuming all posts all the time are about me is so good for my Ego!

I remain unconvinced that the egos of most of the posters on this site need boosting  

Oh c'mon, that's like saying soneone can have "enough heroin."