TheRPGSite

Okay, so a thought just recently popped up in my mind.

Some games spell everything out for the players ie have a lot of these pieces(Shadowrun Comes to mind). Some games don't (D&D, Mage: the Awakening).

A lot of people define the 2 essential pieces of an RPG as this

1. System (mechanics for playing the game)
2. Setting (explanation of the world players inhabit)

Now, some games come with other pieces, which some consider essential or non essential and I'm curious what people think of are essential ingredients to a good RPG. Ingredients like:

DM/GM/ST/REF - As a world representitive and referee, providesrs of actual play. Final arbitor in all decisions.

Character Creation Rules/Balance - I know people say there is no such thing as balance, but a semblance of fair or limitation for character creation. A few RPG's actually don't have these.

Setting Detail- D&D does not come with a setting, but rules for making one, WoD comes with a meta setting, Exalted has a fully fleshed out setting history all the way down to small intrigues between minute servant characters.

Chance Mechanisms - Dice, Cards, Driedels etc. Most games yes, however, some well recieved games have not used them, leaving only character strategy and/or GM decision to determine outcomes.

Social Mechanisms - Mechanics for social interaction. The debate rages whether having them supports or denies the act of roleplaying. These seem to be applied to at least a minumum degree in most games.

Genre - Some games are universal, most games play to a specific genre. Genre's are specific ingredients unto themselves, but 'some genre' is more successful then no genre, and where really does the crossover happen (i.e. the Buffy RPG, how many Non RPGers played the RPG and how may RPG players started watching the show? Or, how many D&D players read fantasy Novels because of D&D or how many Fantasy readers started playing D&D?)

Fantasy - This seems to be the an ingredient no-one leaves out of RPG's, not just Elves and trolls, but a fantastic element of some kind is always present. Either the characters are not average, or more than average things are going on around them or both.

Strategic Combat - Most games have combat with strategy (rather than JUST luck) as a major factor in determining the outcome. The only games I've seen without strategic combat have no combat at all.

Escalating Player Power - Most RPG's have it, most other tabletop games don't. If a players only piece is his character sheet, is this is the only way for him to visually see his characters progress outside of his own imagination.

Visual Play Aids - As simple as a thematic character sheet, all the way up to maps, gameboards, minis, props portraits etc. Considering RPG's are usually judged by the quality of their writing.


Just my thoughts questions, comments and opinions on the extra ingredients to a RPG.

Personally I don't believe that there are any essential ingrediants for a good RPG.  Different RPGs do different things and I've played RPGs that I consider good with various combinations of the ingrediants that you mention.  However I'll have a crack at your ingrediants, one at a time, viewed entirely through the lens of my own, personal preferences.

DM/GM presence:

I've got no real opinions either way on this one.  I think for a more traditional RPG then a GM is necessary but, equally, if a game is designed right then distributing GMing duties equally amongst the players can work absolutely wonderfully.  I have equally high regard for WFRP, Nobilis and Polaris for instance.  The first is very traditional, the second has such high powered players that, whilst the GM (or HG) has the traditional role, their powers are comparatively diluted and the third has no single GM with players taking on the role jointly in a round-robin style from scene to scene.

Character balance:

I do, personally, prefer things to be reasonably balance in a mechanical sense.  It can be very boring if your character is massively incompetant compared to the rest of your group, especially in a more traditional game like D&D.  Of course it doesn't always have to be that way and in games that lean further towards the pure roleplaying side of things (i.e. eschewing the tactical/strategic game side of the hobby to a greater or lesser extent) then mechanical balance becomes less of an issue.  (Note: I'm not saying that D&D players don't 'roleplay,' I've played the game extensively and such claims are bollocks.  I'm just saying that part of the fun of D&D and its ilk is the tactical side of gaming the system, something that you get short chamnged on if your particular character is mechanically weak through no fault of your own.)

Setting detail:

I prefer some setting myself.  Nothing too detailed though.  Broad brush strokes that allow you to fill in details yourself tend to be more my thing.  I'm not a fan of creating a home brew world totally from scratch, mostly because I'm lazy ;) .  Equally too much setting can lead to feeling that your 'doing it worng' if you mess up setting details.  That's not a very rational worry but ti is one that can crop up.  Saying that I love WFRP :D .

Randomisers:

Randomisers are usually desireable but not essential.  As I mentioned earlier I'm a big fan of Nobilis, which is a purely resource management system.  Mortal Coil seems to work in a similar way although I've not tried out the conflict rules in that in any meaningful way (the game I played in only had 2 conflicts, it was immense fun though!)  Equally rolling dice is fun!  (I prefer dice to drawing cards/whatever for purely aesthetic reasons.)  Still, my luck with dice is legendarily poor so I'm, sometimes glad of the chance to ditch the randomness.  It's usually fun though.

Social conflict mechanics:

I think I prefer my games with these to be honest.  I don't like them to be too intrusive (an argument between characters or with an NPC shouldn't devolve into a dice roll immediately) but I think that they should be there.  Otherwise you can easily end up with the problem of a back and forth argument between players where there's no incentive for either of them to give in and no mechanics to determine who wins or loses or, in some ways worse, you can get the problem that the loudest, most confident voice at the table gets to run the show.  That isn't fair on the other players, period.

Genre:

Again I prefer my game to have some form of genre affiliation.  I'm not a big fan of universal systems like GURPS (although I played Savage Worlds last week and the system seemed neat) but, equally, if the system works as a universal system with appropriate supplimental bolt-ons then fair play to it.  I don't mind learning new systems for new games but some people like to stick to a single system and a universal system with genre/setting specific suppliments fulfills that need (plus the suppliments can be full of shiny goodness to steal for other games!)

Fantasy:

Fantasy isn't essential but there's a reason the the VAST majority of RPGs (and certainly all of the big, successful ones) contain elements of the fantastic.  (Note: I'm not defining fatasy in terms of LotR, etc., alien visitations to an otherwise vanilla modern day Earth would count as having fantastical elements IMO.)  It is those elements that help set the games apart from roleplaying your ordinary life.  So, yes, fantastical elements are a desireable trait for me.  On the other hand I had good fun playing Contenders the other day and that has no fantasy in it at all in the base game (although some might argue that it's closer to a card game with extra flavour but that's a debate for another thread.)  Not only that but I could see a mob game or a straight historical game with no fantastical elements at all being great fun.

Strategic combat:

Again I think that this depends on the game.  I think for more traditional RPGs then strategic combat is essential and damn good fun.  However for certain indie games it is far less important and, whilst 'combat' occurs it doesn't appear in the traditional sense.  Where combat and its outcomes are dictated by exactly the same system as is used to resolve any other conflict then strategy is largely irrelevant; it instead becomes all about setting the scene in a favourable manner and who has the most relevant traits/edges/whatever the hell you want to call 'em.  So, yeah, depends on the game.  I like both, depending on what mood I'm in.

Escalating player power:

I like my characters to grow and that growth to be refelcted in the mechanics.  However that growth doesn't necessarily have to correspond to my characters abilities increasing.  In most games it does and indeed should (I don't know about you but I'd get pretty damn bored of running around as a lvl 1 D&D character forever) but if a game is designed for short term play of a few sessions then it's not relaly important.  Indeed it can be fun to see your character deteriorate in the right game.

Visual aids:

Whilst not essential you can't really go wrong with some good visual aids.  The most basic (and closest to essential) is to have a clean, well designed and thematic character sheet.  Past that props are always cool, who doesn't liek getting that note or map handed to them for real rather than just having it read out?  Especially if it's been appropriately 'aged' or uses a relevant font or whatever.  Minis are less relevant although well painted ones are always a nice addition and bloody useful in some games (D&D combat really is better with them an a battlemat, although you can play perfectly well without.)

So, in summary, I don't see any element as completely essential and different mixes of the different elements can produce some very good but very different gamers.  Chalk me up as a fan of variety!

Because this topic is often filled with theory bullshit, I will attempt, in my fullest, to leave it bullshitless. With that I dive forward.

Quote from: KrakaJakDM/GM/ST/REF

Yes, necessity or it isn't an RPG.

QuoteCharacter Creation Rules/Balance

Of course there has to be a way to make your character, but "balance" is the topic that will forever haunt every RPG. "Balance" is not necessary.

QuoteSetting Detail- D&D does not come with a setting, but rules for making one, WoD comes with a meta setting, Exalted has a fully fleshed out setting history all the way down to small intrigues between minute servant characters.

You have to have a setting, of course. What, are you characters going to attack darkness? *chuckle*

QuoteChance Mechanisms - Dice, Cards, Driedels etc. Most games yes, however, some well recieved games have not used them, leaving only character strategy and/or GM decision to determine outcomes.

Yes, you need chance mechanisms, preferably dice.

QuoteSocial Mechanisms - Mechanics for social interaction. The debate rages whether having them supports or denies the act of roleplaying. These seem to be applied to at least a minumum degree in most games.

No. Social "mechanisms" should not be part of the rules. The best thing the rules can do is make suggestions about how your group should act, but any game that *MAKES* you roleplay is lame.

QuoteGenre

RPGs do not have to have a specific genre to be successful, though Fantasy is the most popular.

QuoteFantasy - This seems to be the an ingredient no-one leaves out of RPG's, not just Elves and trolls, but a fantastic element of some kind is always present. Either the characters are not average, or more than average things are going on around them or both.

See above. What, you've never played Fallout?

QuoteStrategic Combat - Most games have combat with strategy (rather than JUST luck) as a major factor in determining the outcome. The only games I've seen without strategic combat have no combat at all.

This isn't monopoly. Hell, even Monopoly has strategies.

QuoteEscalating Player Power

I think you mean "Level up". It's been around since the beginning.

QuoteVisual Play Aids - As simple as a thematic character sheet, all the way up to maps, gameboards, minis, props portraits etc. Considering RPG's are usually judged by the quality of their writing.

It helps keep play fast and intuitive, but certainly not required.

Quote from: KashellYes, necessity or it isn't an RPG.

Says who? Not that I agree or disagree, but explain yourself. There are plenty of people out there who do not agree with this statement. There are RPG's out there without a GM role in it and plenty of people who enjoy them.

Quote from: KashellOf course there has to be a way to make your character, but "balance" is the topic that will forever haunt every RPG. "Balance" is not necessary.

Some RPG's do not have rules for creating characters (try Inquisitor). You just stat out the character as you imagine him or explain your concept to the group. Character creation is strictly for a semblance of balance. So you contradict yourself by saying this.

Quote from: KashellSee above. What, you've never played Fallout?

Fallout is a fantastic (ie unreal) setting. I'm talking more along the lines of "realistic". Or even more so, "mundane". Plain people doing ordinary things.

Quote from: KashellI think you mean "Level up". It's been around since the beginning.

But does it need to be in an RPG to be successful? Or can a RPG with static character stats for a long term campaign be successful?

I came up with another ingredient for discussion.

Campaign Based Play- Most RPG's are built for long term campaign play. However, there have been quite a few games either leaned toward (like AFMBE) or only supportive (Like Ninja Burger) of one shot play. Is there any other model for an RPG out there besides the Campaign and the one-shot?

Quote from: KrakaJakI came up with another ingredient for discussion.

Campaign Based Play- Most RPG's are built for long term campaign play. However, there have been quite a few games either leaned toward (like AFMBE) or only supportive (Like Ninja Burger) of one shot play. Is there any other model for an RPG out there besides the Campaign and the one-shot?

A lot of the current crop of indie games (both Forge-associated and not) work with a model of short term play, i.e. 'campaigns' specifically geared towards only lasting a few sessions.  As an example PTA has 2 default 'season' lengths defined in the book, either 5 episodes or 9 episodes.  So, yes, there is another model out there however there aren't a whole lot of options past one shots, short term play and long term play (without further breaking long term play down anyway; a long campaign could last for months or it could last for years for instance.)

Quote from: KrakaJakSays who? Not that I agree or disagree, but explain yourself. There are plenty of people out there who do not agree with this statement. There are RPG's out there without a GM role in it and plenty of people who enjoy them.

An " RPG " without a GM is a game without a world, monsters, loot, story points, etc....

I assume, we're talking about tabletop RPGs here. Video game "RPGs" are simply complex adventure games.

QuoteSome RPG's do not have rules for creating characters (try Inquisitor). You just stat out the character as you imagine him or explain your concept to the group. Character creation is strictly for a semblance of balance. So you contradict yourself by saying this.

As most RPGs use some sort of mechanism to determine randomness (usually dice) it's hard to imagine a RPG without character creation rules, stats, skills, etc. Even as you described Inquisitor (which I've never even remotely heard of), that does have "Character creation rules", because you have to decide which stats your character will use. That's a decision. That's a rule.

I'm saying Balance in an RPG will always be the killer subject. "Why is skill Zeta5 more powerful than skill Beta12?" will always be the complaint and the cry of every power gamer. In general, I'm of the opinion that balance should not be around a single type of character, but rather, in the game as a whole. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "whoever cries loudest wears the fattest crown."

QuoteFallout is a fantastic (ie unreal) setting. I'm talking more along the lines of "realistic". Or even more so, "mundane". Plain people doing ordinary things.

Personally, one of the quotes I live by is, "Nothing good can come by hanging out with ordinary people." The ordinary is boring, even in real life, much more in games. I can imagine it now,

"Ok Paul, roll your Construction Worker check."

"WHOO HOO! NATURAL 20!"

"Ok, when you nail the board this time, your beer belly jiggles, and you get it right in place."

QuoteBut does it need to be in an RPG to be successful? Or can a RPG with static character stats for a long term campaign be successful?

Look at D&D -- the most successful RPG of all time. Look at so called "RPGs" that are video games, such as Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger. Leveling up, or getting more powerful is pretty important, I'd say.

Quote from: KrakaJakCampaign Based Play- Most RPG's are built for long term campaign play. However, there have been quite a few games either leaned toward (like AFMBE) or only supportive (Like Ninja Burger) of one shot play. Is there any other model for an RPG out there besides the Campaign and the one-shot?

I don't see anything wrong with how you play a setting. I've seen some damn good 5 or 10 part "campaigns", some good one-shots, and long campaigns all.

Of course, the most rewarding is the long campaigns, in my opinion.

Quote from: KashellAn " RPG " without a GM is a game without a world, monsters, loot, story points, etc....

Really?  My own play experiences tell me differently.  Besides, I would hardly consider all of those things necessary either, certainly not all at once anyway.

Look at Polaris as an example, it has no GM yet has a world, monsters and plenty of story.  The only thing that it doesn't really have is the taking of phat loot from corpses which, whilst it can certainly be fun, isn't exactly a requirement.

Quote from: KashellI'm saying Balance in an RPG will always be the killer subject. "Why is skill Zeta5 more powerful than skill Beta12?" will always be the complaint and the cry of every power gamer. In general, I'm of the opinion that balance should not be around a single type of character, but rather, in the game as a whole. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "whoever cries loudest wears the fattest crown."

And yet you don't like social mechanisms in your game?  I find that interetsing as, to me, one of the main reasons for having some kind of 'social combat' system (for want of a better term) is to prevent exactly that kind of thing, i.e. loudest player gets his way all of the time scenarios.

Of course maybe you meant something different by 'social mechanisms' in your initial post?  It did read somewhat like you were assuming they meant some kind of mechanics to dictate the form and method of your roleplaying, however that's not what most people mean when they talk about social mechanics.  They're generally referring to a system to determine who wins an argument (and even then I would suggest that most groups don't bust them out unless neither participant in the in-character argument is willing to back down.)

Quote from: KashellPersonally, one of the quotes I live by is, "Nothing good can come by hanging out with ordinary people." The ordinary is boring, even in real life, much more in games. I can imagine it now,

"Ok Paul, roll your Construction Worker check."

"WHOO HOO! NATURAL 20!"

"Ok, when you nail the board this time, your beer belly jiggles, and you get it right in place."

See now that's just being silly for the sake of it.  No one is suggesting anything like that.  You could have a perfectly fun rpg that involved no fantastical elements whatsoever.  Are you telling me that a game about 1920's mobsters couldn't be fun?  How about a game set during one of the multitude of wars throughout history?  Exploring deepest, darkest Africa in the early part of last century?  None of that needs to contain any element of fantasy to be a fun game, at least IMO.

Quote from: Geoff HallDM/GM presence:

I've got no real opinions either way on this one.  I think for a more traditional RPG then a GM is necessary but, equally, if a game is designed right then distributing GMing duties equally amongst the players can work absolutely wonderfully.  I have equally high regard for WFRP, Nobilis and Polaris for instance.  The first is very traditional, the second has such high powered players that, whilst the GM (or HG) has the traditional role, their powers are comparatively diluted and the third has no single GM with players taking on the role jointly in a round-robin style from scene to scene.

If 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.

Thanks
Frank

Quote from: FranklinSo evceryone shouting and making a mess of things with nobody to stop them, it just cannot work.

...And that is precisely why a working set of rules to regulate the actions taken by the PCs is far more necessary in an RPG than any form of strictly enforced central authority. As long as the group has achieved a consensus on the system and the setting, the role of the GM isn't vital, always assuming that the game in question wouldn't suffer from the absence of pre-existing private information and its gradual unveiling during the session (as in the old problem of GMless whodunits). As with randomizers, this is just one of those things that isn't really integral to roleplaying games; traditional roleplaying games, yes, but not all of them.

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.

Thanks
Frank

What complete and utter rubbish!

Let me start out by stating that I don't think either kind of game is superior; I like plenty of games with GMs (I believe that I put WFRP 2nd Ed. as my top game in my top 10 on these very forums) but I also like some games that don't have a GM.  The idea that those games devlove into everyone shouting and making a mess of things is, quite frankly, laughable and if they do it says rather more about your group than it does the games themselves.  It's perfectly possible to have an RPG with distributed GMing (i.e. the players share the duties in some form or another) and have it run smoothly and be immensely fun.  Not everyone starts power tripping the moment they realise there isn't some central figure in control :rolleyes: .

In certain situations having a GM-less game is an advantage, specifically if you have a group of creative individuals but no one who likes to GM (which is, annoyingly, precisely the situation that I find myself in at the moment.)  In that case the choice shouldn't have to be between no game and 1 poor sod doing something that they don't enjoy and, with GM-less games, it doesn't have to be.  Of course if you have someone who enjoys being the GM then cool, play a game with a GM, there are lots of excellent ones out there and if someone finds GMing fun then all the better.

Quote from: Geoff HallWhat complete and utter rubbish!

Let me start out by stating that I don't think either kind of game is superior; I like plenty of games with GMs (I believe that I put WFRP 2nd Ed. as my top game in my top 10 on these very forums) but I also like some games that don't have a GM.  The idea that those games devlove into everyone shouting and making a mess of things is, quite frankly, laughable and if they do it says rather more about your group than it does the games themselves.  It's perfectly possible to have an RPG with distributed GMing (i.e. the players share the duties in some form or another) and have it run smoothly and be immensely fun.  Not everyone starts power tripping the moment they realise there isn't some central figure in control :rolleyes: .

So, 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.

QuoteIn certain situations having a GM-less game is an advantage, specifically if you have a group of creative individuals but no one who likes to GM (which is, annoyingly, precisely the situation that I find myself in at the moment.)  In that case the choice shouldn't have to be between no game and 1 poor sod doing something that they don't enjoy and, with GM-less games, it doesn't have to be.  Of course if you have someone who enjoys being the GM then cool, play a game with a GM, there are lots of excellent ones out there and if someone finds GMing fun then all the better.

I have never, ever seen a group where there is no one who wants to GM. In fact I've never heard of a group where there is no one who wants to GM. If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering? Surely at least one person has enough skill and imagination to run a game? If nobody wants to do that then a game without a GM is a pretty poor excuse.

Thanks
Frank

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.

If the game has a well structured set of rules it can work perfectly fine, that's all there is too it.  I've played games without a GM that were really fun and not dominated by any of the players.  All it requires is a decent set of rules and people who are willing to be grown up about the whole thing.  Like I say, no GM != instant power tripping and derailing of fun.  Is it really so difficult for you to conceive of people gaming together and being happy to let each other have their share of the limelight without someone telling them to do so?  Really?

Quote from: FranklinI have never, ever seen a group where there is no one who wants to GM. In fact I've never heard of a group where there is no one who wants to GM. If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering? Surely at least one person has enough skill and imagination to run a game? If nobody wants to do that then a game without a GM is a pretty poor excuse.

~Shrugs~ So what?  To be fair most of the time I've gamed there's been someone happy to GM but certainly not all of the time.  I've gone to game club sessions where the regular GM hasn't felt like it and none of the other regulars wanted to and been left with no game at all for the evening.  Equally in my group none of us enjoy GMing, it really is as simple as that.  Sure, one of us usually bites the bullet and does it for a bit but the games tend not to last that long as the GM isn't enjoying their role.  Combine that with extreme lack of time to actually prep for games and you get a situation where it's often either no game, someone doing something that they just don't enjoy to please the rest of the group or playing with a no/low prep GM-less game.  As to the comment "If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering?"  Gee, I don't know, maybe because we enjoy the hobby as players and would quite like to play some roleplaying games?

Quote from: FranklinNo game without a GM can possibly work because that's not the way people work.

Well ... how do you explain the people who play GMless games and have a good time?  Are they just deluding themselves somehow?  Are they actually playing GMed games?  Are they actually not enjoying themselves?

Even if there weren't evidence that GMless games can work, you'd be in a pickle trying to prove a negative.  But given that people have plenty of actual play experience of these games producing fun, challenging and dramatic results ... man ... you've really got a hard row to hoe here, with this argument.

I think the GM is the most evocotive form of theory. I also wasn't aware there were people who felt so strongly for the GM position.

My position is this, most leisure games have no referee. You don't need a ref in chess, you don't need one for munchkin, you don't need one for Monopoly (a GM-less strategy RPG if I ever played one!).

I also posit that the GM is the least requested role in RPG's. Most players would rather play than GM. Even those that like and enjoy GMing would rather be playing. So a successful game might be one with only players.

Oh, and tell me again? Communism doesn't work?
China does not agree.

Quote from: KrakaJakOh, and tell me again? Communism doesn't work?
China does not agree.

Yeah but China is fucking terrifying; hardly poster boy for the all conquering political juggernaut of communism!

Yeah, China is terrifying. Since adopting communism it has emerged as a world superpower, a title previously held by only the USA (and North Korea, another communist country, is beginning to follow suit). 2.5 Billion of the near 7 billion people on the planet live in communist countries. I never said it was all conquering, but it is certainly successfull. However, I'm not here for political debate.

I do not agree that a game with no GM couldn't (as other posters have already proved it does) work.

Quote from: KrakaJakYeah, China is terrifying. Since adopting communism it has emerged as a world superpower, a title previously held by only the USA (and North Korea, another communist country, is beginning to follow suit). 2.5 Billion of the near 7 billion people on the planet live in communist countries. I never said it was all conquering, but it is certainly successfull. However, I'm not here for political debate.

I do not agree that a game with no GM couldn't (as other posters have already proved it does) work.

Oh I'm not saying that China aren't successful, indeed it is their very success that makes them terrifying!  But this conversational thread has absolutely nothing to do with your questions so I'll ignore it from now on.

Erm, I answered your questions didn't I?

I need to find a new thread to terrorise!

China is only communist on paper.  In truth the country is still run by much the same beaurocratic regime that has held sway since the time of the Han dynasty...if not earlier.  In fact, a good portion of their rise in status as a world power is the fact that they are adopting capitalist techniques to increase their economy, and without the democratic model feel no need for 'fair business practices' on the world stage.

That out of the way:

GM's are necessary for RPG's. Bear with me here. Polaris is fun, it looks like an rpg to some extent. GM's aren't necessary for "GAMES", thus chess, monopoly, polaris...  If you remove this element, the nature of the game becomes so radically different that it is not an RPG anymore, and demanding the title loudly only attempts to muddy the waters.  If I tell you 'card games' you probably will be thinking poker, blackjack... things like that. If I then pull out a deck of UNO cards, or a World of Warcraft Card Game box,  you'll have to wonder if we are talking the same language. There is a difference between the two. Not a value judgement, not a moral superiority argument. A difference. Polaris is fun, I believe you. It's just a different type of Game. Sorry, RPG"S with GM's got to the name first.  Even videogame RPG's have a GM of sorts. Its the developers/designers/computer it's running on, but it's there. Someone other than the player creates the world and the events in it, the players authority over the game is limited to making choices about what to do. The better run games (and computer RPG's) allow greater player input...


Fallout as 'average' compared to 'ordinary': fallout may have had a fantastic setting, but the characters were hardly extraordinary people in traditional respects. For christs sakes, rats were a decent challenge starting out!  Even at 'high level' play an ordinary punk with an ordinary gun was a challenge if you didn't wear heavy armor. Anyone could kill you. Thus, the characters are 'average' people for a long time.  Construction Dude is ordinary, mundane. Unless construction Dude has something unusual happen in his life, no one will want to play him. Now, if he gets a call saying his younger brother has been killed for failure to pay off his drug debts, and CD goes to New Yawk to find out who did it... then CD is a fun idea to play.

 Inquisitor: Cross between RPG and tabletop wargame with small units of big models. Four inch tall more or less. Character creation was a cross between defining your character with a few random rolls within acceptable ranges for that 'type' of character and roleplaying rules were non-existant except for combat.  Could have been adapted to an RPG with little effort, but combat was a nightmare for non-wargamers.

Social mechanics: A lack does not mean loudest player wins. Fallacious argument unsupported by any evidence. What is provable is that existing social mechanics (and really complete ones at that) tend to remove any attempts to roleplay out interaction by rolling dice and 'forcing' issues.  

To whit: In my RQ game the players have on real option, their influence skill, when doing social stuff. Good rolls make the NPC's better like them, bad rolls do nothing or make matters worse. Naturally, the players want to win influence rolls all the time, but as a GM I force them to actually ask questions to which they want answers. EG Roleplay.  In Exalted, they can make an 'interrogate' action (more or less) and 'force' me to divulge the answers they want based on dice rolls, and they do this regularly. They use the charms and social combat rules to supplant actual efforts on their behalf to talk to people.  Worse, I've seen exalted players actually turn social mechanics on their fellow PC's to force other players to do stuff, something that doesn't happen in games without clearly spelled out social mechanics. in this the Pundit puts it best: Gaming is a social activity,a nd the social stuff has to happen at the table, on in the dice. Combat has to be diced (and ruled) because you can't attack bob with a real sword without fucking up the game for everyone.


Paraphrased for your convience.

Quote from: SpikeIf you remove this element, the nature of the game becomes so radically different that it is not an RPG anymore

Why?

I mean, I understand that you've got a big pile of analogies (card games, and video games, and such.)  But you never actually make an argument for why removing the GM makes it "not an RPG."  You just assert it, baldly.  We're not hard of hearing, y'know ... it's not like we're going to suddenly say "Oh ... you mean that it's not an RPG!  Why didn't you say so in the first place!"

I've played RPGs with no GM, and I do very much the same thing I do in games with a GM.  You play a character, live your role, work the mechanics, create a story and try to beat the bad-guys.

I've yet to hear an argument why I shouldn't just say "If it feels like an RPG and plays like an RPG and sounds like an RPG then it's an RPG."

Quote from: TonyLBWhy?

I mean, I understand that you've got a big pile of analogies (card games, and video games, and such.)  But you never actually make an argument for why removing the GM makes it "not an RPG."  You just assert it, baldly.  We're not hard of hearing, y'know ... it's not like we're going to suddenly say "Oh ... you mean that it's not an RPG!  Why didn't you say so in the first place!"

Don't be obtuse, Tony.  Did I tell you you weren't having fun? Did I say you weren't playing a game? No and No. I said they aren't RPG's.  Just as checkers looks a lot like Chess, it isn't however chess at all.

RPG's have certain defining characteristics that make them RPG's rather than some other sort of games. One of those characteristics is the 'traditional' GM/Player dynamic.  

Let me say that again. The GM/Player Dynamic.  

I didn't say 'GM'. It's a dynamic. You remove one peice of that and you lose it. Now, you build up some new dynamic in your alternative game, but it's radicially different.  As I've pointed out, I consider most Computer RPG's to retain this dynamic with varying degrees of success.

Here is the rub. In the 'traditional' sense (and btw, by bringing in the term traditional to describe the new stuff as different from the old stuff, you acknowledge that the new stuff is in fact different. Obviously our disagreement is 'how far'.) The GM is the distinguished opposition, the sole visionary who spins the world and all that is in it, he is also the arbiter of rules.  Various games and groups run this various ways, from Burning Empires view that the GM is literally the opposition and is as bound by specific rules as the players, to more touchy feely crap where the GM gives the players wide latitude in what they can do (Say, Seventh Sea, where the players can suddenly announce there is a chandelier they can swing from provided they are indoors, or the Unisystem's plot point mechanism).   The players provide characters and introduce a variable into the equation. Their control is finite but unmistakeable.

Now, let us look at a shared narrative GM-less game. No player provides the distinguished opposition. Oh, sure, a player might chose to create a conflict for the party to resolve, but he's also part of teh resolution of the problem he creates.  There is no single vision, there is a shared vision. This is a fundamental change in tone. If you can't grasp it without me drawing pretty pictures and analogies, I'm sorry, but we'll have nothing to say to one another.

'Oh, but it's just a more co-oppertive RPG expirence' or some other crap like that. Yes, and skipping rope is more cooporative than Dodgeball, but oddly I don't see too many boneheads trying to say that skipping rope and dodgeball are 'the same type of game'.  Any idiot with two brain cells to rub together can see the fundamental differences.

Or are you suggesting you only have one braincell? :rolleyes:

Or do you need me to draw it with more gaming related analogies like the difference between five card stud and Magic: teh Gathering? I mean, hey! they both use cards, right?:raise:

Quote from: SpikeNow, let us look at a shared narrative GM-less game. No player provides the distinguished opposition. Oh, sure, a player might chose to create a conflict for the party to resolve, but he's also part of teh resolution of the problem he creates.  There is no single vision, there is a shared vision.

Well, I suppose that's one vision of GM-less play, but it's not the only possibility.

How about a game where the player across the table is always your adversary, and that position (necessarily) rotates as different players are spotlighted in different scenes?  Whatever conflicts he introduces, he is whole-heartedly behind sticking right to you, but then he takes his turn as player and you stick adversity to him.

How about a game where players compete to provide the most passionately engaging adversity (while simultaneously fielding adversity from other players toward themselves)?  Whoever does the best job of getting people to step up and face a challenge gets more power to influence the game.

I've played both of these games, and they sure feel like roleplaying games to me.  Would your hypothetical "No adversity, no challenge, just fluffy bunnies and rainbows" game feel different?  I don't know.  I haven't played that game.

Tony

You are still missing the single cohesive 'vision' of the world angle. Opposition is only one part of the dynamic, and arguably the weakest because Opposition can be created out of anything. You can get opposition out of a 'chose your adventure book', for example.

An RPG GM, even one using a preprinted world, creates a lot of stuff. Good or bad, he makes the world work. Then the players show up and discover it, explore it, muck it up. In good games, this is fun for everyone. In bad games one side takes it personally and refuses to allow for the cooperation. But always that cooperation is across a very real line of control. Players control their characters and actions, GMs control the world and everything else. That is the standard.

Now, I'm not going to claim expertise over these GMless games, but I can tell you this... if there is a GM, even in inanimate one like an inflexible book/computer program, then they aren't really GMless. Otherwise the players have to somehow fill that void amongst themselves... by definition if they want something resembling that dynamic of play. If they aren't even creating that dynamic then what they are doing is more like Improv theatre without an audience. If they are, they still lack that 'exploring someone elses idea', because they have to share that role amongst themselves.

Player X creates these ideas, but player Y can change them when it's his turn, and player Z can use mechanic zeta to claim it was all a dream. No one is running the show and there isn't anything to explore but your ability to bullshit one another for four hours.

Now: If you start talking to me about all these ways you can write the rules to recreate the roll of the GM to eliminate that without actually, you know, having a GM I'd have to ask you this: Why don't you just fucking have a GM then?  Or is this some weird game of chicken where the goal is to get as close as possible to having a GM without actually having one?

Quote from: SpikeYou are still missing the single cohesive 'vision' of the world angle.

Oh, okay.  I don't think that's central to roleplaying.

For instance, suppose I GM Amber, and I have players create their own shadows, with empires and factions and wildlife (as the rules say I should).  Then we play out large parts of the game with me throwing adversity (perhaps outside foes) at them in these worlds they've created.

There's no single cohesive vision there.  We've all contributed, in different ways, mediated by the rules.  But it's still an RPG.

I don't think a Single Cohesive vision, or even a cohesive vision is essential to roleplaying. The fact that I can play a game of Dungeon & Dragons with one group and have the game be different in another group and still be able to call it D&D is proof positive you don't need a single cohesive vision.

Like I posit before, an RPG requires 2 elements in my book, System & Setting. Not a complete setting, the example of what the system is there to create.

Which brngs me up to your computer/console RPG argument.

Those are just system (to the extreme, that only a computer processor can handle it) and setting as well. They're games designed to not need a GM. The designers are the Game Designers, not the GM's from afar. If the system is broken in a computer RPG, there is no outside force to save it.

Tony: The way Amber is set up you have the traditional dynamic I've suggested. That you chose to dilute it by focusing on what the players bring outside their characters (the shadows they create) is your business and essentially irrelevant to what is, or is not 'RPGing' as a whole. This is arguing by exception, and not to dissimilar (though less disgusting) then the 'but what if there was a blind kid' arguements you occasionally run into when discussing city ordinances.

Further, by ditching the dice... the random element, it is possible to argue that Amber is already on it's way out of teh 'RPG' catagory into the as-yet unnamed catagory of 'Games that superficially resemble RPG's but are not'. Luckily, I don't really care that much about dice/no-dice so I don't have to worry about that arguement.


Jak: Within the same game  you do have that cohesive vision. Moving to a new game you trade that one cohesive vision for a new cohesive vision, don't you? Thus the dynamic remains a constant.

As a rebuttal to your CRPG arguement: You are forgetting that even electronic RPG's have an 'adventure' and a 'world' that was designed by someone. The very best are like games run by great GM's, the worst are very much like games run by bad GM's... wander around lost and aimless, or railroaded openly, fighting with no fucking clue what the point is.  Notice I didn't say the best CRPG's are like games run by the 'Best' table top GM's. However, you DO still have that dynamic. The GM may be a developement team, but as the 'system' is actually transparent (being done entirely by the machine behind the scenes) it 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.

Quote from: SpikeTony: The way Amber is set up you have the traditional dynamic I've suggested. That you chose to dilute it by focusing on what the players bring outside their characters (the shadows they create) is your business and essentially irrelevant to what is, or is not 'RPGing' as a whole. This is arguing by exception

I ... really don't think so.

The vast majority of actual game sessions that I have played or heard of involved a give and take between the many visions at the table.  The GM contributes some material, and the players contribute some material, and it all goes in a great big mixing pot to create a fusion greater than the sum of its parts.

If I'm DMing D&D, and somebody brings me a character backstory about their doddering warlord father, and the cunning but evil older brother who took over their clan and exiled the young hero, I'm going to focus on that.  That's awesome stuff.

Are you seriously arguing that anybody who does that is no longer playing an RPG?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... how do you explain the people who play GMless games and have a good time?  Are they just deluding themselves somehow?  Are they actually playing GMed games?  Are they actually not enjoying themselves?

Even if there weren't evidence that GMless games can work, you'd be in a pickle trying to prove a negative.  But given that people have plenty of actual play experience of these games producing fun, challenging and dramatic results ... man ... you've really got a hard row to hoe here, with this argument.

What 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?

Thanks
Frank

Quote from: FranklinSo where is your evidence?

Well, what kind of evidence would you like?

I'm not going to come to your house and play the game with you, if that's what you're asking.  I think you'll probably have to settle for actual play reports from third parties who have played the games and enjoyed them.  Will that satisfy you?

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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22949.0). 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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22949.0). 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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22949.0). 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 :D

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 :D

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

:D

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!

:D

I remain unconvinced that the egos of most of the posters on this site need boosting :p  ;)

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

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".