Distributing GM power

[Otha]

All REAL RPGs need a strong GM. But no game moreso than Amber.  Amber needs a strong GM more than any other RPG out there, because there is no other advocate in the game beside the GM, and practically no limit to what players can do aside from the GM's judgment and ability to moderate situations.  Any suggestion to disempower the GM is not just ridiculous but based on a clear desire to destroy the game.
RPGPundit

So you disagree with Erick's advice at the end of the book, that the GM could be done away with in an Amber game?

[Malleus Arianorum]

Amber needs a strong GM. It could be GMed by a single person. It could be GMed by vote. Heck! It could even GMed by a H.A.L. The crux is, if the dictator, popular vote, or program is strong the game will be awesome to the max.

[Otha]

I don't think that's how Pundit means it.

[RPGPundit]

I think you could in theory play GM-less Amber (like in theory you could with any other RPG) but at that point it would evolve into something totally different than a normal RPG; and what's more, it would require some very clear planning and very mature players.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Oh, absolutely, it would not be a "normal" RPG, we certainly agree on that score.  It would be a very strange RPG to most people.

As for clear planning... maybe, maybe not.  It certainly would require up-front discussion.

Mature players?  Hm, not moreso than Amber does anyways, but I suppose a particularly dictatorial GM could rein in fractious players, so maybe you're right.

[jibbajibba]

You could play with a distributed GM, ie each player takes control of their characters section and governs intersections. you could play kind of gmless if there was no 'plot' ie you set up a common environment and all characters were just there (I am thinking of a tradditional Throne War) .
The trouble is any distributed system would evenually decay into one or 2 GMs. There is a great book 'Political Sytems of Highland Burma' which describes the Kachin society in which there is an oscilation between egalitarian society and hierarchical society and the author (was it Leach ? ) outlines a number of concepts that could be just as well applied to a distributed/no gm model.

[Otha]

There will always be leaders in a group of people (well, any group that can get anything done) but there's more to being a GM than being a good leader.

[RPGPundit]

There will always be leaders in a group of people (well, any group that can get anything done) but there's more to being a GM than being a good leader.

I agree that a GM has to be more than just a leader (though he does have to be a leader); one of the other principle things he does is put the brakes on other guys who are leaders in the group.

One of the biggest problems I could see with a "GM-less" game is that it would not be egalitarian as one would suppose, but would rather end up with a "alpha-male" contest among those who are "leaders" in a gaming group for control of the group (if there are more than one), or a single guy becoming the primma donna of the whole affair (if there's only one leader-type), and in either case the players who were not the "leader" type would end up marginalized and secondary.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

It could happen that way, and certainly there are groups that aren't mature enough to handle a GM-less game, but I don't think it's necessarily universal.

A mature player can police himself.

[finarvyn]

I guess my problem with a GM-less game is that the story may not take a direction. I'm not trying to advocate bullying or railroading players, but a GM has the unique distinction of having a big-picture view of what is going on and a GM-less game seems to be lacking this.

Not a problem if you play Monopoly, although you could argue that the guy who designed Monopoly is really the GM becasue he designed the goals of the players and set forth a master plan.

Every attempt we have made to run a collaborative story has failed. Maybe it's just our group but players just seem to mill around until eventually someone gets pushy and presents an idea, whereupon the others tend to follow that person's lead -- in essence we wait for a GM to emerge from the pack.

Just my experience.

[Otha]

Having someone take a leadership role in pushing the story forward isn't the same as having a GM.  That's only one of the GM's roles.

[Sargon]

I cant' imagine playing GMless, but I have played with a rotating GM, which has some similar aspects.  Tht said, the current active DM holds msot of the power in terms of campaign direction, etc while it's their turn, though there is some collaboration and some general thigns are decided by concensus.  otoh it's a small group of mature and close knit friends and is played a bti more cooperatively than most amber games, so YMMV.

[Croaker]

Ars magica is supposed to somewhat use rotating GMs and secondary GMs. I've never tried it personnally, but, from what I've read, there's usually a "main" storyguide, with one or the other taking care of things like "stories in the enchanted wood  down there", a particulat NPC, or taking care of laboratory activities.

It seemed to work well

[Trevelyan]

Amber needs a GM more than other RPGs.

In a diced game, the GM generally determines plot and NPC activity. These can be farmed out to some form of group consensus so long as there is a solid method for dealing with teh consequences of those decisions. I've played in an Exalted game where we used a similar approach - we discussed where we wanted the PCs to go in broad strokes before the game, but anyone was free to chip in a few details, a sub plot or similar interruption along the way. BUT, once thatsituation arose, we had a neutral 3rd party in the form of the dice to determine the outcome.

In Amber the GM has all the traditional plot responsibilities (which might be shared), but also has responsibility for determining the underlying metaphysics of the setting and the way in which powers, in particular advanced powers, work. This could arguably be decided by a group, but it would require considerable effort in advance, or else a willingness to suspend either continuity or rationality behind the functioning of powers.

Moreover, several of the more appealing and distinctive parts of Amber such as the continuing mystery over PC and significant NPC stats would be lost.

[gabriel_ss4u]

OK,.... I pull out my blaster and fire,... lemme see, I AM 1st ranked, and have 1 more pt of good stuff that him, so, it works.  Yawn
:::smile:::
boring

need a GM


Had an alternating GM in Amber with a 2 person game for 3 yrs.
1/2 NPCs were his, 1/2 were mine, some shared, but it worked really well.
Even determined a process for attribute  auction for the 2 of us on the other family members. consisted of knowing how we wanted each of our NPC siblings to be, and bidding in short order.  So effectively, we were bidding for 4 people (Amberites) / each, at the same time.
It worked well.

I guess the only real reason to wonder if there would be no GM is 'cause everybody wants to PLAY!