You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [Roleplaying Games] GM-less Play RPGs, A Treatise in One Part
This is an epic - EPIC - dive into this really cool GM RPG methodology, thank for it. I'm doing a bit of research into game design, especially regarding questions of control, power and sharing so this has inspired some thoughts for me and given me more leads to look into.
Resteeming!
Be careful – role-playing game design has been a terrible thing that has consumed most of my life, so if you get me started talking I can probably write multiple treaties at least this long and dig around in my ridiculous collection of role-playing games and wargames for examples.
Seriously, I've wasted my life. I've enjoyed it, but this is what it's come down to.
If you have any questions or thoughts that you would like to hear me ramble about, let me know. I'm sure I can dig some up.
Ha, yes I will be.
I took the time to watch the roughly three hours of gameplayer on Miscroscope with you and your buddies. I was struck by the observation that while it purports to be GM-less you in fact spend a lot of time steering the group. Would it be fair to say that while there is no traditional GM you do in fact need a chair? Or perhaps it was just in the case?
If no one has played before you definitely need a facilitator, someone who is familiar with the mechanics and can prompt people when they have a vast variety of things that they could do and start getting a little analysis paralysis. Most of them were brand-new to the system, and I thought it was important and interesting to have people who had never really engaged with it before have their experience documented.
Also, I might tend to be a little dominating in many social contexts but I'm working on it!
Especially with new groups, and this is true of any RPG which allows for free-form play as a significant component, keeping them on task and on focus can be a full-time job. That's where the process of building trust over multiple experiences really shines.
I think you'll see that, actually, as play progresses and people become more comfortable with going ever further afield outside of the "potentially silly," and even dipping into some serious emotional waters once in a while.
(I'm actually right in the middle of working on a new article about traditionally architected GM-full RPGs that I actually like. So if you've enjoyed this article, prepare yourself – hopefully by the end of the night I'll have something new for you.)
It definitely got into more of a flow as the hours went on.
I've read a few reviews of Microscope in the last few minutes and I think I understand it a bit more too. I think I'll get a copy and try it out, seems pretty cool. I know what you mean about the dominating personality, and I can see that the more open the format the more people's innate characteristics come out. I guess that's part of the fun too. So you also have the mischievous trickers who are pedantically trying to mess people up, just a little, and people get bored sometimes, etc. so natural leadership can be good.
I love the format though, especially since the game is the game of the game, if you get me. I read once that children playing "make believe" games often spend far more time coming up with the rules, and challenging the rules in gameplay, than actually "playing" the game. These DM-less games seem to have turned that into an art-form, because while the fundamental rules are not at question, "what happens" seems to be largely "the rules". Sorry about all the quotes! So much qualifying.
Looking forward to the next post.
Part of the appeal is providing a "safe" context (not in the sense of "safe space" as it's generally meant now, but a predictable space) where experimentation and even failure by some definitions are acceptable. Not every idea is going to be accepted by the group. Not every idea is going to be funny. Not every idea is going to be emotionally moving. Not every idea is a winner.
But within the context of a lot of GM-less gaming, it's okay that all those things are true. Everybody's there to explore stories together. Sometimes those stories are all about the conflict between people at the table – and it's okay to both win and lose them.
As people get more comfortable with that fact you can let people be mischievous tricksters who are just trying to mess people up, and you can let people be bored and then take aggressive action to shake up the table – and they don't need a leader because they've learned that they can trust the very minimal mechanics to be faithful arbiters and they don't need anything more.
Hopefully I'll continue to be putting out stuff you're interested in.