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

I dunno, you think maybe it would have had a warm reception here?



Fuck, dude, what do you want? I played a game I enjoyed, and I posted it to a site where that game is popular. So? You said (repeatedly) that GMless gaming can't work and could not be fun. Tony said well, what about people who DO find it works and DO find it fun? You said, "Where's your evidence?" Given that the only "evidence" that exists for this (and possibly, the only kind that could exist) is actual play, whether first- or second-hand. So I offered my expereince as a datapoint. But it doesn't count because I posted it to the wrong website?

So, I guess the bottom line is, do you believe that GMless play can work (not, "will always work" or "is the One True Way to play"), or not? If an account of firsthand experience with it working didn't convince you, what would? What exactly are you looking for here?

Peace,
-Joel

Games with GMs are not all the same. Eg. the difference between an auteur and a referee.

The Wikipedia definition of RPG works for me with one edit:

QuoteA role-playing game (RPG, often roleplaying game) is a type of game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional* characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

*There's no reason they have to be fictional.

Any other layers of definition on top of that reflect: personal preference, industry history, marketing, internet culture, etc.

Personally, I'm starting to like the term "Hobby Games" because it includes War Games, Board Games, Miniatures Games, and Card Games -- many of which have substantial roleplaying elements and often overlap with the above definition of "roleplaying game".

Just going to bring up another point.

Traditionally, in sports, the need for a referee is only when there's a significant chance for people cheating.

Oh, and back to Spike (I'm not gonna bother quoting because it was a while ago):

In videogames, you said system itself is GMing the game for you. Most GMless games either A. Spread the creative love to all the players, thereby making everyone the GM (this however kills the one true vision) or the system and setting handles it all by itself. Your arguments to me muddle over into some grey areas.

So I pose a question Spike. What do you think a GM actually is?

I think a GM is a player who's sole purpose is dedicated to running, rather than playing, the game. If the system handles all the GM responsibilities, it is effectively a GMless game.

I do not think that the designers of the game are running it. I also don't think that the game is the GM.

I think this is possible in the context of the term Role Playing Game.

I think, given the immense popularity of the videogame RPG's like Final Fantasy, that the popular definition of the term RPG is actually, in fact, GMless stat based videogaming.

Regardless, Gary Gygax lost his chance to give RPG a hard definition 30 years ago, so what makes you or others think that you can "take the term back" when it hasn't been strictly about D&D and games exactly like it for 29 years.

Going on a year and a half ago I posted something of a manifesto about gaming on TBP, at least as it applied to me.  In it I stated my position, but since its been a while and I don't recal how refined my arguements were I'll readdress the relevant position here.

The GM is a player. His character is the world and all that is in it. With the exception of the other player's characters his control over 'His Character' is as absolute as theirs.

This is a bit on the extreme end of things, mind you, and it doesn't address things like fudging.  The actual 'Manifesto' covered where authorities and 'absolute' controls began and ended.

Does that answer your question about where I stand on the GM's position at the table?  


As for the rest, certainly things get muddled. We are discussing 'living concepts', not static bits of history or science. Language changes as people use it, gaming has changed quite a bit as well.    

I'll accept it is possible for a 'book' to play the role as GM, a la my examples of CRPG's.  There may even be a game out there that tries this... not counting the 'chose your own adventure' games. I'm going to suggest that such a thing would be a miserable failure, a book has even less interactivity than a crappy CRPG engine does. The 'System' alone can not really be a dynamic adventure, as you seem to suggest. A game that merely removed the GM as arbiter of rules (in some ways, Burning Empires does this, the GM is as bound by the rules as the players are) is more RPG like than game that allows for GM flexibility of the rules, but mandates 'shared GMing'.

And I'll reiterate that Franklin's position is not mine: A shared GMing game could be a riot, a real blast to play.  I just don't think it's a proper RPG, and I'm attempting to prevent unnessesary  muddying of the language.

Quote from: SpikeAnd I'll reiterate that Franklin's position is not mine: A shared GMing game could be a riot, a real blast to play.  I just don't think it's a proper RPG, and I'm attempting to prevent unnessesary  muddying of the language.

I understand that. I'm more aguing the point that a GMless RolePlaying Game is still a Role-Playing Game. By positing that the GM is a Player (which I wholeheartedly agree with) a Video-Game RPG does not fit your definition of an RPG even though the majority of people (the ones who ultimately decide what a word means) consider it one.

RPG is a broad term, an RPG with a GM is recently been called a "Traditional RPG". The GM is a tradition, not a requirement. I Posit instead you call RPG's with GM's GM RPGs or maybe even Traditional RPG's.

Quote from: MelinglorI dunno, you think maybe it would have had a warm reception here?

Fuck, dude, what do you want? I played a game I enjoyed, and I posted it to a site where that game is popular. So? You said (repeatedly) that GMless gaming can't work and could not be fun. Tony said well, what about people who DO find it works and DO find it fun? You said, "Where's your evidence?" Given that the only "evidence" that exists for this (and possibly, the only kind that could exist) is actual play, whether first- or second-hand. So I offered my expereince as a datapoint. But it doesn't count because I posted it to the wrong website?

So, I guess the bottom line is, do you believe that GMless play can work (not, "will always work" or "is the One True Way to play"), or not? If an account of firsthand experience with it working didn't convince you, what would? What exactly are you looking for here?

I do not believe that GMless play can work properly. That's just the way I see things. In my experience, a game group needs a single person who guides the game and who makes decisions aboput plot. Anything else will just result in a mess.

However, I apologise if I insulted you and your game in a previous post.

Thanks
Frank

Quote from: FranklinI do not believe that GMless play can work properly. That's just the way I see things. In my experience, a game group needs a single person who guides the game and who makes decisions aboput plot. Anything else will just result in a mess.

So you've got this belief that it can't work.  And Joel has this actual play post about it working for his group.  And, needless to say, I can point you to dozens upon dozens more posts of the same type.

Where do we go from there?  Those actual play posts strike me as evidence that GMless play can work.  And if it can work then your theory that it can't work is shown to be wrong.  Your experience stands, but the conclusion you draw from it is too broad.

Does it strike you that way?  Or do you hold to your theory despite the existence of these posts?  And if so, is there anything anyone could possibly say that would make you question your theory?

Quote from: FranklinI do not believe that GMless play can work properly. That's just the way I see things. In my experience, a game group needs a single person who guides the game and who makes decisions aboput plot. Anything else will just result in a mess.

However, I apologise if I insulted you and your game in a previous post.

Thanks
Frank

Yeah, but that's evidently wrong.

I mean, we have people here who play GMless games for whom it works.  Clearly therefore it can work.

It reminds me of a discussion I had on rpg.net, I made the point that one couldn't immerse playing games like DitV as the need to think at the meta level during conflict resolution inevitably conflicted with immersion.

I think it was Old Scratch who rather inconveniently went on to describe how he immersed while playing Dogs.  I don't understand how he could, it makes no real sense to me even now, but I accept he did.  The reality of the world is that different people have different tastes and different talents, what is a barrier to me isn't to him.  Cool, in a way that's much more interesting than had I been right.

So, here we have guys who have enjoyed GMless play.  We could if we haven't ourselves enjoyed it stick our fingers in our ears and ignore them, but I think it's more interesting to say "Dude, how the fuck?  I can't even imagine how that would be fun.  How did you manage that?" and then listen with interest.

I mean, the only alternatives are to suggest they're liars or to suggest that they don't know when they're having fun.  Neither of those options is acceptable to me, or indeed credible.  I don't see why they would lie (and it's not like it's just one guy, lots of people say similar things) and I don't think it's rational to conclude that people don't know when they're having fun.

Quote from: KrakaJakI understand that. I'm more aguing the point that a GMless RolePlaying Game is still a Role-Playing Game. By positing that the GM is a Player (which I wholeheartedly agree with) a Video-Game RPG does not fit your definition of an RPG even though the majority of people (the ones who ultimately decide what a word means) consider it one.

I'm a simple soul, if playing the game requires that I play a role it's probably some form of rpg.  GMs are a useful tool, not a necessity.

For the type of rpg I most enjoy GMs are necessary, but that doesn't mean all rpgs need have them, merely that the rpgs I most enjoy likely will.

The thing is though, there doesn't have to be one definition to rule them all.  Spike's definition of rpg can be different to mine which can be different to Darth Tang (who famously excluded Ars Magica as it didn't have an equipment list).  If I don't think Mortal Coils is an rpg that doesn't stop us discussing Mortal Coils, it just means we have to dance round the language a little bit (actually, I think MC is an rpg but it was the example that came to mind).

I'm far more interested in whether a game is fun than whether it is an rpg.

Quote from: BalbinusI think it was Old Scratch who rather inconveniently went on to describe how he immersed while playing Dogs.  I don't understand how he could, it makes no real sense to me even now, but I accept he did.  The reality of the world is that different people have different tastes and different talents, what is a barrier to me isn't to him.  Cool, in a way that's much more interesting than had I been right.

I'm still inclined to think that the real problem here is that 'immersion' is a Rorschach blot. What Old Scratch means by it may be quite distinct from what you mean, and there is very little way of telling.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm a simple soul, if playing the game requires that I play a role it's probably some form of rpg.  GMs are a useful tool, not a necessity.

For the type of rpg I most enjoy GMs are necessary, but that doesn't mean all rpgs need have them, merely that the rpgs I most enjoy likely will.

The thing is though, there doesn't have to be one definition to rule them all.  Spike's definition of rpg can be different to mine which can be different to Darth Tang (who famously excluded Ars Magica as it didn't have an equipment list).  If I don't think Mortal Coils is an rpg that doesn't stop us discussing Mortal Coils, it just means we have to dance round the language a little bit (actually, I think MC is an rpg but it was the example that came to mind).

I'm far more interested in whether a game is fun than whether it is an rpg.

I agree, but I'd rather not dance around the language at all. I'd like to say RPG and have it mean the same thing to him as it does me. The world is not relative, and neither is language.

When I said Role-Playing Game I thought I meant Role Playing Game. When he said it, he meant "limited scope of of the term RPG. I don't like these new games that're being developed and I don't want it associated with what I like to do".