I'm a bit of an eclectic, which means I seem some value in some of what the forge has been up to, though I'll admit some of the attitude and vocabulary choices are more than a little offputting. That said, allow me to present a situation in which I think Forge type games might prove useful.  

Since dividing the RPG playing population up is a popular pastime, I'll get in on it and point out that among the many ways to do this, there is the rather basic one consisting of two types, GMs and Players.

Imagine the following situation:

You are hanging out with some roleplaying friends, and someone suggests a game. Everyone's up for the idea, so you ask "who wants to GM?" Everyone looks around for a couple of seconds, and then, to everyone elses relief, someone volunteers. The GM suggests CoC, and you're off and running.

Now imagine the same situation, only this time when you ask "who wants to GM?", everyone raises their hand.

Now me, I was never much for playing, I've always preferred GMing. Doing the design work and thinking on my feet, reacting to what the players do, is where the fun is for me. Being a player is frustrating; I have to hold back any ideas I may have about the plot, setting, NPCs, and so forth, because I'm not running the game. Try and get five people like me to play a traditional game, and things probably won't go so well.

Many of the Forge games are all about spreading GM-like powers throughout the group, which seems ideal if you have a group made up of lots of GMs.

So when everyone raises their hand in the second scenario, a suggestion like Universalis might well be the ticket to fun. Everyone can add to the setting, NPCs and plot, everyone can play off each other, and a group of GMs can have fun "Roleplaying" without players.

It shouldn't be that difficult to test the hypothesis. Do a survey at Wizards, and another at the Forge, asking about preferences with regards to playing or GMing traditional games, and if you find significantly more (proportionally) GMs at the Forge, the conclusion that Forge games are designed for groups of GMs to play together, rather than traditional groups made up of one GM and some players, could be justified.

Thoughts?

Crap. I meant to post this is theory. I'll put a note in the Help Desk, if someone who can move it sees it here first, could you please move it to theory?

Actually, I think it's safer to say that the Forge games (well, many of them, anyhow) appeal to theorists -- be they GMs or players. For the causal gamer (per Laws) who just wants to get the play out and have some fun, what theorists like about many games of Forge origin can immediately become obstacles.

Most Forgite games that I'm aware of have a few things in common. The game is usually pretty short and they have some new-fangled resolution mechanism (or mechanisms for stuff where there wasn't one before).

Not much time involved. No real craft. It's modern "art" all over again. You basically got rules lawyers who want to do it quickly. Rather shit on a tampon than mix tempera.

Quote from: apparition13Thoughts?

One thing to be aware of:  There is a pretty significant disjoint between people who have the skills to be a solo GM and people who have the desire to be a solo GM.

I, for one, made a game with distributed GM roles precisely so that I could get to play a lot more, without (a) feeling guilty that I wasn't GMing and/or (b) chafing at things that the GM was doing that I would do differently, if I had the authority.  With distributed GMing, I get to have the authority when I need it, but back off and let other people run things when I feel like it.

So if you're in a surveying mood, I'd be interested to see the answers to both the question of "Do you prefer to GM or play?" and "Do your fellow players ask you to GM often?" or something similar.

Quote from: TonyLBOne thing to be aware of:  There is a pretty significant disjoint between people who have the skills to be a solo GM and people who have the desire to be a solo GM.

I'm not so much interested in the GMing skills of RPers as their preferences. I suspect poor GMs with players who were more skilled at GMing may be the source of some of the frustration with traditional games, and some of the desire to write rules that minimize the delitorious effects of poor GMs, expressed at the forge.

QuoteI, for one, made a game with distributed GM roles precisely so that I could get to play a lot more, without (a) feeling guilty that I wasn't GMing and/or (b) chafing at things that the GM was doing that I would do differently, if I had the authority.  With distributed GMing, I get to have the authority when I need it, but back off and let other people run things when I feel like it.

That fits with my hypothesis. How common a design goal would you estimate this is?

QuoteSo if you're in a surveying mood, I'd be interested to see the answers to both the question of "Do you prefer to GM or play?" and "Do your fellow players ask you to GM often?" or something similar.

Do you have a "seat of the pants" feel for what the answer would be, at least from forgites?

I thought about attaching a simple poll, but decided against it. I'd like to get more feedback before trying to formulate something, although the limit of 10 items makes it somewhat problematic to do here in any case.

Anyone know of a poll-hosting site, or some such thing?

Quote from: apparition13Do you have a "seat of the pants" feel for what the answer would be, at least from forgites?

God, I really have no idea.  You'd have to ask people.  I can pretty much only answer for myself, and even then the answer is ... a simplified version of the complex threads that actually came together (intentionally and accidentally) in design.

Quote from: TonyLBGod, I really have no idea.  You'd have to ask people.  I can pretty much only answer for myself, and even then the answer is ... a simplified version of the complex threads that actually came together (intentionally and accidentally) in design.

Well, that's kind of the point of this thread, put the idea out there and see how people respond. Point 'em in this direction.

From my experience: I ran this Dogs campaign, and it was noted that 3 of the 4 players were experienced GMs (and of an interesting distribution: friends T, C and R most frequently loved & GM'd D&D, White Wolf and homebrewed-LARPs, respectively...). Their opinion was also that having those GM skills from other games gave them necessary skills for playing DitV. I myself disagreed, but I can see where they're coming from.

I personally like rules that make it easier for me to run things; as a player, I like having enough creative room to play in, but doesn't mean I need overly decentralized authority or stuff like that. (For reference, my cool DM running straight-up C&C worked IME.)

Quote from: DevPFrom my experience: I ran this Dogs campaign, and it was noted that 3 of the 4 players were experienced GMs (and of an interesting distribution: friends T, C and R most frequently loved & GM'd D&D, White Wolf and homebrewed-LARPs, respectively...). Their opinion was also that having those GM skills from other games gave them necessary skills for playing DitV. I myself disagreed, but I can see where they're coming from.

How did the non-GM player do? Did you get any feedback from that player as well?

QuoteI personally like rules that make it easier for me to run things; as a player, I like having enough creative room to play in, but doesn't mean I need overly decentralized authority or stuff like that. (For reference, my cool DM running straight-up C&C worked IME.)

Given the choice between a straight up trad game and one with more decentralized authority, all else being equal, which would you prefer to play in?

Quote from: apparition13How did the non-GM player do? Did you get any feedback from that player as well?

In fact, that player had a harder time with some of those improvisational parts. I'm not sure if that was due to the nature of the system or just the player's preferences.

QuoteGiven the choice between a straight up trad game and one with more decentralized authority, all else being equal, which would you prefer to play in?

I'd prefer the more decentralized one (assuming both have an interesting enough pitch).

Quote from: DevPIn fact, that player had a harder time with some of those improvisational parts. I'm not sure if that was due to the nature of the system or just the player's preferences.

If you have played with this player in a more traditionally structured game, how did they do under those circumstances?

QuoteI'd prefer the more decentralized one (assuming both have an interesting enough pitch).

This is for anyone who wants to respond:

Please list games in the following categories:

GM only;
Prefer to GM, but will play;
Both equally;
Prefer to play, but will GM;
Play only.

Is there a pattern to your answers in terms of traditional/non-traditional games?

Given that the Forge mostly consists of:

1. would-be game designers
2. pretentious theorists
3. really fanatical RPG collectors who by default tend to be the GMs

Then what you could say is not so much that this game is made for groups where "everyone wants to be GM" as it is for a group where no one wants to be a "mere" player.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that the Forge mostly consists of:

1. would-be game designers
2. pretentious theorists
3. really fanatical RPG collectors who by default tend to be the GMs

Then what you could say is not so much that this game is made for groups where "everyone wants to be GM" as it is for a group where no one wants to be a "mere" player.

RPGPundit

Well, people have different temperments. Some don't want to be a "mere" player, others don't want to be a "sucker" GM. This bifurcation isn't the only possible way to look at Roleplayers, but I think it could prove useful, which is why I'm trying to examine it here.

Out of curiosity, what would you say your GM to play ratio is. Are you usually the GM, a player or does it run about even? Any idea what it is about what you like that you like? In other words, why do you think you have the preferences you do?

QuotePlease list games in the following categories:

GM only
Anything with a traditional set-up (ie when it's left to the GM to determine the structure of play). RuneQuest, V&V, GURPS etc.

Prefer to GM, but will play (depending on who's GMing)
HeroQuest, Sorcerer.

Both equally
Pendragon, My Life with Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. Anything with a strong procedure for play.

Prefer to play, but will GM/Play only
No specific game (depends on mood). I'll always run a game if I feel up to it.

QuoteIs there a pattern to your answers in terms of traditional/non-traditional games?

Definitely. I know the time-honoured tricks well enough that I have no interest in playing under them (I've GMed a lot). It's like being a passenger on a motorbike.

PD is a traditional game that is highly structured, like many of the Forgenschweiner games (though with very different aims from those). I like that in a game – it means I know what to expect when playing. I don't like everything I've tried, but I know why in each case and it wasn't the GM.

HQ and Sorcerer are great games, but they require too much deciphering by the GM for me to feel easy about them. They need talented or hard-working GMs who understand how to make them zing.