Sounds Like a computer game or a board game, not sure how it would work...
I have been reading about how players are lamenting the high degree of control the DMs have when it come to campaigns. I was wondering what your thoughts are when it comes to having no DMs for a game? Or perhaps limiting his control to just facilitating the game, not changing anything so that the story takes a life of its own?
There are some RPG systems who work fine without DM, usually using some sort of narrative truth and vetos (what every player says is true, unless vetoed)
Works nicely if you find the right people...
|
I'm gonna say possible but unlikely.
The best way I'd say it a rotating DM. That way everyone gets use to the Rules first. The only problem is how suprise the rest of the team w/out someone calling the shots that episode. And how do you prevent player/GM knowledge ruining everyone's fun when they spoil all the secrets/foes for everyone else.
The only way I've seen this work is with narrative systems where the players more or less take turns narrating the story.
With that control comes a lot of responsibility. I wonder if those lamenting want the control without the responsibility or if they are truly willing to take on the added responsibility.
I have seen plenty of free form games on IRC and PbP without GMs. As Malaclypse mentioned, there are Indie games that are designed to function without a GM.
|
Rotating GM.... Seems like the players would know whats coming at them, read the module all the way thru.. and prepare for what you know is coming when its your to to jump back as a player.
Not my cup of tea.. but I guess this could work for others. Seems it would be difficult if your campaigning.. module maybe if you sectioned it for each person taking a turn???
Rotating GM.... Seems like the players would know whats coming at them, read the module all the way thru.. and prepare for what you know is coming when its your to to jump back as a player.
Not my cup of tea.. but I guess this could work for others. Seems it would be difficult if your campaigning.. module maybe if you sectioned it for each person taking a turn???
well actually my group has done rotating dms, and you dont all run the same module. Its best if its homebrew because then one dm just picks up where the other leaves off, building on events. But i guess to some degree it might work if you split up an AP as they are at least seperate books. Either way, it is possible for player to not metagame even if they have some idea of whats coming, but it can definately take some of the mystery out of the game. So i definately advise homebrew for this sort of thing.
As for no dm at all, i cant really imagine how that would work. I mean obviously someone has to run the adventure, even if he is a player too, if he isnt going to be a story teller and just essentially dice roller and npc talker, why would you take on that extra work? Doesnt seem feasible to me.
|
As for no dm at all, i cant really imagine how that would work. I mean obviously someone has to run the adventure, even if he is a player too, if he isnt going to be a story teller and just essentially dice roller and npc talker, why would you take on that extra work? Doesnt seem feasible to me.
Unless you have a pre-printed product designed to be run without a DM?
I don't think it would be very easy to do (without a PC app), but its possible to take the ideas behind solo-run mods which existed in the 80's and 90's and have a similar format for multiple players.
Players take turn reading sections and rolling opposition dice - they make choices and deal with the consequences and/or encounters. Wouldn't be much on the RP side - more of a tactical dungeon exploration with set encounters - maybe with a randomized map and a booklet with multiple choice options and effects for success or failure at any given encounter or room? Enemy actions would have to be heavily scripted as would any pc choices.
Just throwing out ideas here that are not using freeform gaming.
Mine lends itself more to a board game than an RPG.
Interesting exercise.
Edit: Got Napalmed!
That will be interesting, but to be honest, the storytelling would suffer if there were no GMs around when they are supposed to. But if you have agreed upon the set of rules that would govern your game, then why not try it? I think there are games that are designed like this. I've played some and have liked it.
Anyone remember the old Lone Wolf series of books? That and computer RPGs are the best analogies to games without a DM. They can be fun, in their own way, but you have to accept some limits, as neither the book/prepublished module/computer system can adapt and change things as quickly as a DM can because of the limits of the data they have. consequently, you pretty much have to follow a predetermined plot, with some branching allowed (a lot in some computer games). Even the best and biggest computer games have more limits on what you can do than a pen and paper game with a good and flexible DM. But it can be done.
Rotating DMs can be lots of fun, and I've done it before, but we usually have each run an entire adventure to conclusion in the same persistent world, usually a few weeks at a chunk, then switch out. It is a kind of fun and challenging experience to have to adapt to what other DMs do and how they change the world.
I have been reading about how players are lamenting the high degree of control the DMs have when it come to campaigns. I was wondering what your thoughts are when it comes to having no DMs for a game? Or perhaps limiting his control to just facilitating the game, not changing anything so that the story takes a life of its own?
What happens when nobody can agree on what should or should not be allowed or how a rule works. That to be is the mean advantage of the DM. You don't get locked up in a debate if everyone is not on the same page.
As far as world creation, I think a multiplayer created world is better since everyone put into it, and not a lot would be arbitrarily restricted. It also gets rid of the "my world, my rules" nonsense(sense of entitlement).
I'd have some skirmishes with GMs before, actually had a lot of them, especially when they make it less fun to play the game. You mentioned that you've played some games, is it still within Pathfinder (what did you do) or some other game?That will be interesting, but to be honest, the storytelling would suffer if there were no GMs around when they are supposed to. But if you have agreed upon the set of rules that would govern your game, then why not try it? I think there are games that are designed like this. I've played some and have liked it.
The problem with a game that has no dm is it essentially becomes a tabletop wargame. There is nothing wrong with such games, and in fact I happen to really enjoy them, but there are other gamesystems that do this much better then pathfinder would without a dm. Even conflict, which is a set of rules for player vs player skirmishes in pathfinder require a dm to run them.
In my old Ars Magica campaign, we'd have multiple storyguides with "authority" over elements of the game world. While I was alpha and was responsible for temporal/nobility issues, and the overall continuity of the saga, we had a beta who dealt with matters of the Infernal, the Divine, and the Order and a gamma who dealt with matters of the fey and Islam.
This way we would have some clear lines of mastery and deference.
So, for example, if I running the game as the alpha determined that the journey the PC's were on an encounter with a fey ambassador, I'd immediately yield the story to the gamma. I might assume the role of a grog or other, tertiary character and he controls the game until the dealings with the fey were over.
All other storyguides defer to eachother within our specific realms of speciality. We may also establish other boundaries (The local lord, Guibert de Puy, is under the beta's control although he's nobliity (which the alpha would normally control)). Even with questions, issues of motivation, etc. If we suspected a story might veer towards a particular issue, we'd choose appropriate characters at the start (grogs, companions, magi) to help eliminate possible conflicts of interest.
This worked best in a saga style campaign though - where it wasn't just a jumble of adventures with the same, singular PC's forced through. It created a consistent timeline from point A to B, involving a community of characters. I can't imagine trying to do this with Pathfinder (or D&D in general). It just works so much better with Ars, at least that's my opinion.
Maturity was a necessity.
Depends on what you're playing. Pathfinder without an arbitrator and storyteller would be difficult. I'm not sure that's something I'd want to try, not on the long term.
If you want to sit back and free form RP, that's a different matter. There's whole online communities that just make up character backgrounds and interact with each other. But action tends to be low and predictable; social interaction OTOH is great.
Rotating GMs can also work; we played some Spirit of the Century where the GMs split responsibilities and I think you could fully rotate the responsibility as well. That's also a very fast and loose system that allows a lot of "player control" anyway, though you really do need someone to arbitrate the drama (and hand you back fate points).
I was wondering what your thoughts are when it comes to having no DMs for a game?
I play lots of games without GMs.
Risk, Assassin's Creed II, Red Dead Redemption, BF2142, Quake (I think I played them all on and off), Disciples III, Heroes of Might and Magic V, Civilisation IV, Checkers, Poker,...... I could go on.
Or are you talking about RPGs?
Then no. Doesn't work. You need someone who arbitrates the rules (because this isn't supposed to be a board game or computer game, it's supposed to be a reasonable approximation of a whole fantasy world where "the game rules don't mention it" is not a reason something doesn't work), someone who controls all the underparts and extras, and who plays narrator.
Or perhaps limiting his control to just facilitating the game, not changing anything so that the story takes a life of its own?
What do you mean, "not changing anything"? If you mean "No 'cheating'" (by which I mean no fudging dice rolls for the story's sake), I could see that working (though I prefer it if the GM can do that - and by can I mean both "is allowed to" and "is competent enough to properly do").
But without a storyteller who gives you your context, you're limited to what the rules tell you. You need an adventure book who gives you possible courses of action and the consequences for each choice. It devolves into something akin to a board or computer game. Might as well play one of those.
|
|
A group of friends have been enjoying Dungeon Bash. It may fit your desires. But that tends to be more of a squad tactical combat game.
|
|
This worked best in a saga style campaign though - where it wasn't just a jumble of adventures with the same, singular PC's forced through. It created a consistent timeline from point A to B, involving a community of characters. I can't imagine trying to do this with Pathfinder (or D&D in general). It just works so much better with Ars, at least that's my opinion.
I think that the fundamental difference is in Ars you were playing within the confines of an assumed history on Earth. So playing out one part of 2nd Crusade may have many variances with differing storyguides, but for the most part the historical outcome would be the same. So one GM picking up where another left off in a game that is set within the confines of human history is easier to pull off than you (IURD) running the first half of the Village of Hommlet, then me running the group on the ruined moathouse, with Dave following up and running the Temple of Elemental Evil part of the series. With every player and DM always having a character in play for each part.
I just think it's harder to run fantasy modules with multiple GM duties then say a multi-part horror rpg that takes place and revolves around a few battles during the Civil War. The latter is much easier to pull off due to the assumed and understood surface history of the events.
Maturity was a necessity.
Any time there is a case of shared responsibility that is always going to be the case, plus there has to be a 100% unbiased mindset.
You don't want Storytellers skewing the story to aid them later on when they are players, or using it as an opportunity to revenge some slight from one storyteller to another when his turn comes up.A GM-less game does stand to meet some difficulty. Primarily it would be adjudicating success in roleplaying with npcs. That is the biggest problem. Combat, research, even some RP investigation can be handled on a yes-no "choose your own adventure" style of information dissemination. The actual roleplaying without a DM amongst party members is a possibility, but the interaction doesn't work if you are talking to a book of choices or to a PC (unless it has really great AI and programmed responses). Plus the option to go off script (literally) doesn't exist. If the solution to the problem isn't on the list then it doesn't exist in that game.
Or are you talking about RPGs?
Then no. Doesn't work. You need someone who arbitrates the rules (because this isn't supposed to be a board game or computer game, it's supposed to be a reasonable approximation of a whole fantasy world where "the game rules don't mention it" is not a reason something doesn't work), someone who controls all the underparts and extras, and who plays narrator.
Or are you talking about RPGs?
But without a storyteller who gives you your context, you're limited to what the rules tell you. You need an adventure book who gives you possible courses of action and the consequences for each choice. It devolves into something akin to a board or computer game. Might as well play one of those.
Hi KaeYoss: Two things, actually. First, there are a lot of RPGs that are designed to limit the role of the GM... that is the game needs a GM but not as how we know them in PF and DND (DMs/GMs are always right they are gods!) A good game that I'm playing now is Conflict RPG, give it a spin.
Second, having this kind of concept is really nothing new, but I disagree when you say that the RPG devolves into a board game or a computer game. Not really. If the RPG was designed to be player driven (as all RPGs should be) then there is really not much of a need for a GM except to facilitate the game. I would say, though, that it takes away the fun from being a GM, but everybody else gets a whirlwind of a time.
@Brian: I haven't heard of Lone Wolf. I agree that a GM would be a good addition to the games if only they were sensible enough to make the game even more fun for everyone, or at least have the sense to make it logical.
Good GMs can indeed be hard to find. Certainly it is harder to find them than it is to find players. Some good players aren't willing to invest the time to GM (and it is a considerably greater time investment, even if you are running published adventures). Some players just don't want to because they enjoy playing more. And some are just not well-suited for it temperamentally. Some of the best players I know fall into that last category, and are smart enough to release they wouldn't be good GMs.
Actually, frustration with less than wonderful GMing is what leads an awful lot of people to start doing it themselves. If you find yourself getting frustrated with the way your GM is handling something, maybe it is time for you to give it a whirl. I can guarantee that sitting behind the screen for a while will give you a whole new appreciation for how difficult the job is, and perhaps make you a bit more sympathetic when the GM is struggling or having an off night.
Even conflict, which is a set of rules for player vs player skirmishes in pathfinder require a dm to run them.
Conflict actually made PF more fun for me. I suggest that you guys look it up.
@Leifstorms: I've been hearing about Conflict on other boards, sounds like fun. But I wasn't able to find it when I googled it.
Well thankfully that much we can easily answer. here it is
There are games designed arround not using a GM. They usually are not combat based, and focus on the story. They have some mechanic for conflict resolution (the ones I have seen have used bidding with some resource). Some have even allowed 1 player to take control of annother player's character for a scene.
I have not played a tabletop like this, but I have played in some LARPs that do this. It has been a lot of fun every time, but you really need the right people.
I have been reading about how players are lamenting the high degree of control the DMs have when it come to campaigns. I was wondering what your thoughts are when it comes to having no DMs for a game? Or perhaps limiting his control to just facilitating the game, not changing anything so that the story takes a life of its own?
I think that if someone could write a system like that it would be interesting to see.
But in my experience, GM's are seldom a problem. That means that I recognize that some GM's definately ARE problems but really it is usually a player with control issues's that is more of a problem.
And frankly most bad Gm's are also folks with control issue's.
Now I would be very intrigued to see a workable RPG with no ref in it just because the concept sounds interesting. But really, I am sort of taken back by the, what seems to me, rising tide of players wanting GM's/DM's/Ref's to have less and less 'control'.
Seriously the issue usually is trust and maturity, not your game system. If your group is mature and trusts each other than pretty much all these 'GM' issues don't happen.
I've done it. It was awesome, wholly unique. It was like RPG jazz. Narration and characters would just swing around between people, with someone hopping in with good ideas when appropriate. It was so unique, though, that I don't know if I can recommend it. It's not at all like a conventional RPG experience.
I've done it. It was awesome, wholly unique. It was like RPG jazz. Narration and characters would just swing around between people, with someone hopping in with good ideas when appropriate. It was so unique, though, that I don't know if I can recommend it. It's not at all like a conventional RPG experience.
It can work when everyone is the same level, but that is often not the case.
I believe TSR had a few modules that could be run without a DM for basic D&D. Knight of Newts was one, and Rage of the Rakasta might have been another (either that, or it was a solo module). There was also the Card Master adventure design deck, which was essentially a random adventure tool that could be used without a DM. Of course, finding any of this means digging around a lot on eBay these days.
|
You could do this using the Mythic GM Emulator, especially if you use some of the automated tools for it (I wrote an HTML / JavaScript implementation of the system, which is on the Mythic Yahoo Group).
Basically its a framework that allows you to pose Yes / No questions and get a semi random answer (its guided by your estimation of how likely a Yes is).
So say the PCs are in a tavern when a young lad runs in and says he is a Kings Messenger with an urgent summons for the PCs. A player may ask "Is his uniform genuine?", you decide on how likely that is, perhaps 50/50 or "unlikely" if impersonating a Kings Messenger is a criminal offence. Then you roll dice to determine when his uniform is genuine or not. If you get a No a PC might declare that they will confront him drawing a sword, in which case the next question may be "Does the youth flee?" with a "Very Likely" probability.
It has other stuff too, including two phrase idea generators - basically use whatever first comes to mind give the two phrases. So for example if you get "Move toward a thread : Abuse The intellectual" you might think that you come across a young Wizard being beaten on the street and somehow that will give you a clue to coming closer to your goal.
Mythic GM Emulator at DriveThruRPG
Mythi GM EMulator HTML Page
I think to do this with Pathfinder you would need a good stock set of NPCs to use at a moments notice - as you won't be able to prep specific foes.
Question: Is his uniform genuine?
...BF2142....Really?
Everything you typed before and after that became a .....blur.
Yeah. And why not? The ability to get into a big battle walker and step on people is worth it all by itself. :)
Haven't played for some time, though.
If the RPG was designed to be player driven (as all RPGs should be) then there is really not much of a need for a GM except to facilitate the game.
In my opinion, player-driven can only go so far. Who decides where they go? Okay, that's a player issue. But who decides what they'll find there? That's where you need a GM.
And, if there is anything resembling quests, you need a GM for that, too.
|
|
...BF2142....Really?
Everything you typed before and after that became a .....blur.Yeah. And why not? The ability to get into a big battle walker and step on people is worth it all by itself. :)
Haven't played for some time, though.
Naw, its very cool - I actually got in the top 3 with one of the weapons. Much better game than the newer Bad Company 2.
So more admiration and shock, that's all.
|
In my opinion, player-driven can only go so far. Who decides where they go? Okay, that's a player issue. But who decides what they'll find there? That's where you need a GM.
And, if there is anything resembling quests, you need a GM for that, too.
Having grown up in freeform PBeM games, I can say you do not need a GM as we know it in D&D. No one person decides what happens in the world, as each player contributes a little piece of it. You'll usually have a moderator that acts as a referee when two people come into conflict, but he usually doesn't come up with every quest or judge every action. As mentioned before, it requires a great deal of cooperation, which is why large, long-running groups are hard to find.
...BF2142....Really?
Everything you typed before and after that became a .....blur.Yeah. And why not? The ability to get into a big battle walker and step on people is worth it all by itself. :)
Haven't played for some time, though.
Naw, its very cool - I actually got in the top 3 with one of the weapons. Much better game than the newer Bad Company 2.
So more admiration and shock, that's all.
I haven't played any other BF game, but this one intrigued me.
I do hope there will be a sequel.
Having grown up in freeform PBeM games, I can say you do not need a GM as we know it in D&D. No one person decides what happens in the world, as each player contributes a little piece of it. You'll usually have a moderator that acts as a referee when two people come into conflict, but he usually doesn't come up with every quest or judge every action. As mentioned before, it requires a great deal of cooperation, which is why large, long-running groups are hard to find.
Where's the challenge? If you just sit around and tell stories and how you want them to unfold, you don't need all those rules that deal with challenges and how to overcome them.
And that's why the classic RPG needs a GM - To populate the world with NPCs and challenges.
I could see a game style set up to work with just players and no freeform narrative, but it would take a specific setup on the side of the game material:
- The campaign setting would likely need an overarching theme that's fairly simple, so that deviation down different avenues won't destroy the game.
- A preset set of scenarios that can be revealed a-la "choose your own adventure" style (as simple as "go to next card once successful" or as complicated as "go to page 13 if X, page 14 if Y, etc").
- Change all rules to "players make all the rolls", and creatures have a set list of rules: fixed or rolled-by-players for initiative and actions.
The way this can be done in a way that's still entertaining is if you set up combat opponents that are typically simple, such as mindless undead or animals, and have the main aspect of player "success" being how well they perform against the overarching theme/campaign.
I was thinking of making an E6 Modern game that ran like this in a "Zombie Apocalypse" style campaign. Encounters or adventures would be survivalistic in nature, and the overarching theme would be to try and "find the cure" or try and halt the evil corporation's advancement of their world ending research, (or stopping the zealots that got their hands on this accidental research from weaponizing it, or making it spread further, etc).
It's definitely a unique game experience, and the random nature of the modules could make for a repeat playing experience.
Make it particularly hard, and it could be like Arkham Horror, where the players are trying to "win" with no real DM running the game against them.
|
|
Where's the challenge? If you just sit around and tell stories and how you want them to unfold, you don't need all those rules that deal with challenges and how to overcome them.
And that's why the classic RPG needs a GM - To populate the world with NPCs and challenges.
That's what the other players are for. You've split up the DM into all the players, who make up the NPCs and challenges your character encounters. Then your characters hav to work together to overcome the challenges you all made.
Instead of the DM saying 'there's an ogre, what do you do', YOU are the one saying 'there is an ogre, what do we do?'. That is the difference.
And yes, you don't need all those rules for challenges. That's what freeform is about. You don't even need a character sheet.
|
|
You could do this using the Mythic GM Emulator, especially if you use some of the automated tools for it (I wrote an HTML / JavaScript implementation of the system, which is on the Mythic Yahoo Group).
Basically its a framework that allows you to pose Yes / No questions and get a semi random answer (its guided by your estimation of how likely a Yes is).
So say the PCs are in a tavern when a young lad runs in and says he is a Kings Messenger with an urgent summons for the PCs. A player may ask "Is his uniform genuine?", you decide on how likely that is, perhaps 50/50 or "unlikely" if impersonating a Kings Messenger is a criminal offence. Then you roll dice to determine when his uniform is genuine or not. If you get a No a PC might declare that they will confront him drawing a sword, in which case the next question may be "Does the youth flee?" with a "Very Likely" probability.
It has other stuff too, including two phrase idea generators - basically use whatever first comes to mind give the two phrases. So for example if you get "Move toward a thread : Abuse The intellectual" you might think that you come across a young Wizard being beaten on the street and somehow that will give you a clue to coming closer to your goal.
Mythic GM Emulator at DriveThruRPG
Mythi GM EMulator HTML PageI think to do this with Pathfinder you would need a good stock set of NPCs to use at a moments notice - as you won't be able to prep specific foes.
I've used Mythic extensively with my wife, so we can play along side one another and let the story tell itself. It works well.
|
|
I have been reading about how players are lamenting the high degree of control the DMs have when it come to campaigns. I was wondering what your thoughts are when it comes to having no DMs for a game? Or perhaps limiting his control to just facilitating the game, not changing anything so that the story takes a life of its own?I think that if someone could write a system like that it would be interesting to see.
But in my experience, GM's are seldom a problem. That means that I recognize that some GM's definately ARE problems but really it is usually a player with control issues's that is more of a problem.
And frankly most bad Gm's are also folks with control issue's.
Now I would be very intrigued to see a workable RPG with no ref in it just because the concept sounds interesting. But really, I am sort of taken back by the, what seems to me, rising tide of players wanting GM's/DM's/Ref's to have less and less 'control'.
Seriously the issue usually is trust and maturity, not your game system. If your group is mature and trusts each other than pretty much all these 'GM' issues don't happen.
You know, funny thing about that. I was told that I was a railroading control freak DM who doesn't let the players come up with creative solutions because the captain of the guards didn't believe that the theives guild was based in the super guarded castle archives and the players should be allowed to go investigate...umm yeah. I'm all for creative solutions...but what ammounts to basically asking somebody who works at the pentagon that you know that there are terrorists there so you should be given full access isn't creative...it's bloody stupid. I was actually being nice and not having them get arrested for it actually.
Where's the challenge? If you just sit around and tell stories and how you want them to unfold, you don't need all those rules that deal with challenges and how to overcome them.
And that's why the classic RPG needs a GM - To populate the world with NPCs and challenges.
That's what the other players are for. You've split up the DM into all the players, who make up the NPCs and challenges your character encounters. Then your characters hav to work together to overcome the challenges you all made.
Instead of the DM saying 'there's an ogre, what do you do', YOU are the one saying 'there is an ogre, what do we do?'. That is the difference.
And yes, you don't need all those rules for challenges. That's what freeform is about. You don't even need a character sheet.
A dragon god who's my best friend eats you all. I win!
A dragon god who's my best friend eats you all. I win!Where's the challenge? If you just sit around and tell stories and how you want them to unfold, you don't need all those rules that deal with challenges and how to overcome them.
And that's why the classic RPG needs a GM - To populate the world with NPCs and challenges.
That's what the other players are for. You've split up the DM into all the players, who make up the NPCs and challenges your character encounters. Then your characters hav to work together to overcome the challenges you all made.
Instead of the DM saying 'there's an ogre, what do you do', YOU are the one saying 'there is an ogre, what do we do?'. That is the difference.
And yes, you don't need all those rules for challenges. That's what freeform is about. You don't even need a character sheet.
I do not!