To what extent do you feel it's possible to create an RPG-type game where all the players in the game are in competition with each other.  (This doesn't mean they're directly attacking each others character -- only that at the end of the game there is a single "winner")  What changes would this require in the style of gameplay from a regular RPG?  What if the GM was also a competitive player?  How would the role of the GM differ?  How would this change the quality of the game's story / virtual world?  Can you create this type of game without relying on a gameboard, cards, etc?

For this discussion, please:

• refrain from using any terminology from external RPG theories.  When trying to express an idea, do your best to use plain language.  If I wanted to see Forge theory terms, I would have posted this at the Forge.
• avoid derailing this discussion with debating what is, or is not, an RPG.  Let's keep that discussion seperate from this one, and focus on an "RPG-type game" here.

In Harm's Way has a competitive side - the PCs are competing with each other for advancement in rank, where one will go on and the others be disposed of - and is a very traditional RPG. I don't write anything else. The GM is not competing, and I can't answer any of your other questions, as I didn't address them, but competition, in and of itself, is not an RPG-breaker.

-clash

Here's my post from the original thread.

QuoteIt is indeed very possible to have a great game which emphasizes competition between the GM and the Players. Hackmaster for instance is based around this idea. What's important in those sistuations is still trust though. The players have to trust that the GM will tie his hands behind his back enough such that there will be no inescapable conditions they themselves have not created.

Likewise the GM has to trust that the players will not cheat. Often when the game is a competition, the challenges are harder, the rewards less. Because the GM is at least partially* freed from the "give them a good time" philosophy, he doesn't have to worry about eventually putting a Hackmaster +12 in front of the PC that's been seeking it since childhood, unless that PC overcomes all the obstacles.

It requires a GM willing to "lose." By that I mean willing to no destroy the PCs at the first opporunity. If a win is defined as a PC death, and complete victory is a TPK, it's up to the GM to seek those methods fairly.

It also requires people capable of playing a game without getting personal. If someone is the type to pine for the fjords every time a character dies, competetive roleplaying is not for them. Likewise if a GM it the type of person that must win at any cost, competitive GMing is not for them (but they'd probably be custom fit for the player side of the table).

It's certainly not for everyone, but it's most definitely doable. And can be a blast with the right group.

* I say partially because the need for a good time is still there, but it shifts from standard RPG fare to being defined as "a good battle between GM and players." The GM has ultimate power within bounds, and the players have several heads instead of one.

Further on in the thread I stressed the need for trust of the GM, and a GM who is willing and capable of restricting himself fairly. I suppose a game built specifically for GM/Player competition could alleviate this somewhat, but competitive play should be possible in almost any system.

Descent is a dungeon crawl game using modular boards and scenarios. One player acts as the dungeon master while the others take on the roles of adventurers cooperatively exploring a fantasy dungeon.

The game is directly competitive between the dungeon master and the players -- but it's all boardgame and tactics.  The DM doesn't "describe" what's happening in the game, and the player's don't "roleplay" beyond what they might do in any fantasy themed boardgame.

Is it possible to still have a DM who is describing the game world, and players who are "roleplaying" while having competitive play that includes the DM?

Definitely.

Quote from: StuartTo what extent do you feel it's possible to create an RPG-type game where all the players in the game are in competition with each other.  (This doesn't mean they're directly attacking each others character -- only that at the end of the game there is a single "winner")  What changes would this require in the style of gameplay from a regular RPG?  What if the GM was also a competitive player?  How would the role of the GM differ?  How would this change the quality of the game's story / virtual world?  Can you create this type of game without relying on a gameboard, cards, etc?

For this discussion, please:

• refrain from using any terminology from external RPG theories.  When trying to express an idea, do your best to use plain language.  If I wanted to see Forge theory terms, I would have posted this at the Forge.
• avoid derailing this discussion with debating what is, or is not, an RPG.  Let's keep that discussion seperate from this one, and focus on an "RPG-type game" here.

You're really talking about two different things:

1. Can you have an RPG where the players are all competing with each other in one form or another. The answer to this is "sure". Paranoia is such a game, Amber is such a game; to a certain extent some games of CoC are such a game, where the competition is to see who dies last.
Lots of games can be that way.

2. Can you have an RPG where the players are competing with the GM, or with everyone else including the GM? This is a much more dubious scenario.  Arguably, Hackmaster is like that; but then Hackmaster is really just one big parody of what some people imagine 1st edition AD&D to be like, with rules lawyering turned to 11.

I couldn't see any other kind of actual RPG that would work that way, no.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartDescent is a dungeon crawl game using modular boards and scenarios. One player acts as the dungeon master while the others take on the roles of adventurers cooperatively exploring a fantasy dungeon.

The game is directly competitive between the dungeon master and the players -- but it's all boardgame and tactics.  The DM doesn't "describe" what's happening in the game, and the player's don't "roleplay" beyond what they might do in any fantasy themed boardgame.

Is it possible to still have a DM who is describing the game world, and players who are "roleplaying" while having competitive play that includes the DM?

Hmm, an interesting proposition.

You COULD have an RPG that was a dungeon crawl (or something similar) where the "GM" is nothing more than the player who makes the random rolls to determine what the group encounters. The GM could then also have his own PC and participate in the game along with the other players, with the exact same rules.

However, to really be true player/GM competition scenario, the determinants for the setting (the dungeon or what have you) would have to be 100% random, including the details of which monster attacks who, etc etc.  If the "GM" got to decide anything, then he would instantly be in a position of advantage over the rest of the group, and his PC would be nothing more than a "GMPC".  Typically, this sort of situation can lead to a lot of GM-abuse, though there's no particular reason why it has to, if your GM is fair. But it would still be an illusory "competition", if your GM was able to "decide" that the monsters would never attack his PC first, or whatever.

In other words, to be truly "competitive"; the GM would have to no longer be a GM in the real sense of the word.  He'd be more like the "banker" in Monopoly. Just another player with some extra responsibilities.

RPGPundit

I've been thinking a lot about competitive play as it pertains to my game.  The player bit is *very* solid (I think so, anyway) but I'd really, really like to get the option for competitive GM play in there as well.

I think the key is in how the different players score points.  The players might score points by doing the standard -- explore, combat, treasure -- but the GM needs to score points a bit differently.

This is the tricky part.  Ideally they would get points from doing "standard" GM type things -- running NPCs, describing the dungeon, etc.  But that doesn't seem entirely practical and every way I've looked at so far seems open to abuse.

I'm spending a lot of time looking at games like Descent, Scotland Yard, Shadow of Dracula, etc -- I think they have elements that might lead to success in this endeavour.

Have you seen Rune?

http://www.runegame.com/runerpg.php

Robin Law's game of competitive Viking Battle?

The players swap the GM role after every encounter, and theres a points system for building encounters.

The GM scores points for doing damage to characters and making them fail tasks. Looks well worked out.

Yes, I've had a look at Rune -- some good stuff in there, although it's not what I want to end up with at all.  It's *way* too complex to build encounters -- one of my design goals is a game that you can setup and play quickly.  I'd also like to have one player be able to play as the GM from beginning to end, rather than have all the players take turns with the GM role.

It's an interesting game though.

Quote from: RPGPunditArguably, Hackmaster is like that; but then Hackmaster is really just one big parody of what some people imagine 1st edition AD&D to be like, with rules lawyering turned to 11.

Gotta disagree with that. It is definitely the most enjoyably funny game system I've ever read, but it is also an excellent game system. People use it for serious campaigns all the time. Swing on by their forums and ask around if you don't believe it. Most people there play serious, parody free games.

QuoteHowever, to really be true player/GM competition scenario, the determinants for the setting (the dungeon or what have you) would have to be 100% random, including the details of which monster attacks who, etc etc. If the "GM" got to decide anything, then he would instantly be in a position of advantage over the rest of the group, and his PC would be nothing more than a "GMPC". Typically, this sort of situation can lead to a lot of GM-abuse, though there's no particular reason why it has to, if your GM is fair. But it would still be an illusory "competition", if your GM was able to "decide" that the monsters would never attack his PC first, or whatever.

No competitive game should ever have a GMPC in it unless the GM is known to be unsmirchably fair. Even if he is that fair but it isn't known, the presence of the PC will probbaly cause problems. More than most, a competitive setup needs a strict demarkation between different sides of the screen.

Speaking of screens, the screen should be transparent as well, because hidden die rolls detract from the competitive environment.

QuoteThis is the tricky part. Ideally they would get points from doing "standard" GM type things -- running NPCs, describing the dungeon, etc. But that doesn't seem entirely practical and every way I've looked at so far seems open to abuse.

I think any setup you make that allows competitive GMing without strict hamstringing of his powers is going to be open to abuse.

Quote from: James McMurrayGotta disagree with that. It is definitely the most enjoyably funny game system I've ever read, but it is also an excellent game system. People use it for serious campaigns all the time. Swing on by their forums and ask around if you don't believe it. Most people there play serious, parody free games.

Well, um, I'm sure that its an "excellent game system", given that I LOVED that system back when it was called AD&D 1st edition.

RPGPundit

Agon is a cool game of mythic Greek monster hunting in which the GM is flat out using all of the resources at his disposal to get the heroes while the players are trying to gather the most glory so their hero will be remembered throughout time.

It is good fun and definitely competitive.

The GM builds each island with points and has a resource well to draw from.

Its different but certainly competitive (with a GM) and really fun.

Actually, (not trying to pimp here at all) Squirrel Attack! does this very well. Essentially, each squirrel has a set of Goals that they attempt to achieve during the adventure. The GM is the ultimate arbiter as to whether the goals were achieved and awards points. Some are as simple as 1 point for each nut brought back to Nuttopia while others get a bit more subjective like converting the dogs to communism.

This point system could easily be overlayed on any standard game and is very simple and straight forward. It relates to the goals and traits of a character and how well the player is able to portray and attain those goals. Guidance needs to be rendered by the GM to make sure acceptable goals (you don't want too hard or too easy) but it does work well in play. We had a great game at GenCon.

Bill