Quote from: apparition13Well, 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?

I'm almost always a GM.  My reasons are that I usually have more fun being GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBI, 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.

This is what I get (esp the bolded part) from most of the forge games discussions online. A bit off topic, but I started a thread about theory talk being aimed at GMs, here :  

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2501

I'm not so sure that Forge games = games for GMs, but I'm pretty sure, that Forge games = games for folks who do not like the trad GM/player dynamic

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'm pretty sure, that Forge games = games for folks who do not like the trad GM/player dynamic

Well ... what about the many Forge games that have a wholly traditional GM/player dynamic?  Are those included in your generalization?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what about the many Forge games that have a wholly traditional GM/player dynamic?  Are those included in your generalization?

Nope. But then again, I thought we were talking about about those games that didn't have a trad set up. So, let me try again :

Forge games (which does not have a trad GM/player set up) = games for folks who don't like the the trad GM/player dynamic.

Is this better Tony?

Edit: Just to be clear

From the original post:

QuoteMany 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.

and

QuoteIt 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.

So,  was just going with the flow.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what about the many Forge games that have a wholly traditional GM/player dynamic?  Are those included in your generalization?

Hey Tony, I'm a bit out of the loop with what has been coming out of the forge recently. What would you say are the forge games with a trad GM/player dynamic?

Quote from: apparition13Hey Tony, I'm a bit out of the loop with what has been coming out of the forge recently. What would you say are the forge games with a trad GM/player dynamic?

Well, lots of them.  Burning Wheel, Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Sorceror, carry, With Great Power, Agon, Dust Devils ... like that.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm almost always a GM.  My reasons are that I usually have more fun being GM.

RPGPundit

I'm with you on that. As a GM you get to do design. You get to design settings, NPCs, scenarios, make maps, do languages (if you're Tolkien or Barker), conspiracies, politics, and all the stuff that makes up the place in which play will happen. Once play starts, you put everything into motion. You bring the world to life, you put the scenario into play, you challenge the PCs and the players, and you have to react on the fly to everything the other brains at the table throw at you; interpreting their actions, integrating events, trying to keep up or, better yet, stay ahead; even though you're outnumbered and constantly caught off guard by the players; and you can do all of this, dance along the tightrope while juggling flaming laptops on which you are reading forums, writing a treatise on Hume and carrying on a conversation with you mother about her pie recipe and your uncle's drinking problem, because dammit, you're the GM and that's what GMs do.

On the other hand, what you give up is the depth and intesity of playing. Of designing your perfect little PC (all munchkined out or with a novel length backstory, it doesn't really matter), exploring the world and interacting with the rest of the PCs through the lens of your PC, characterizing, personalizing, immersing, caring about something that's only ink on a page, and then throwing it into harms way. Agonizing over every action, every throw of the dice, every conflict, because unlike the GM, all your eggs are in one basket, and everything is always at stake. Every victory is sweet, every defeat galls, and death brings despair as your lovingly crafted creation is consigned to the ether.

As GMs, we don't experience this.  Not the sense of threat, the anxiety, the commitment to every roll, the intensity of conflict, the depth of immersion, the comprehensiveness of characterization, none of it. There are always other NPCs, other taverns, other scenarios.

Not that I'd give up the seat of the pants creativity that is GMing to get the playing experience, but what if you could have both? Both the intensity of a player, and the creativity of a GM, and do it with other people who are like you? I think this is part of the design aesthetic of some forge like games. They get pitched as collaborative story telling, but what that really means is "let's us GMs get together and play without having to give up our GMing creativity".

Then again, I could be completely off base. The question is, does this lens, this way of looking at these games, have some use?   The nice thing is, it's a testable hypothesis, so it doesn't have to be just talking out of our asses.* That's why I started the thread, to see of there was any validity to the idea. So if anyone else would like to follow droog's example and pitch in, be my guest.



*Which is another frustration I have with proceedings at the forge. All that theorizing, all the trappings of science and academia, all those actual academics and scientists, and not even an attempt at testing an idea formally.

Quote from: droogGM 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.

Quote from: apparition13Is 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.

What do you mean by "a strong procedure for play"?

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: apparition13Hey Tony, I'm a bit out of the loop with what has been coming out of the forge recently. What would you say are the forge games with a trad GM/player dynamic?

Well, lots of them. Burning Wheel, Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Sorceror, carry, With Great Power, Agon, Dust Devils ... like that.

I'm familiar with the first five, to one degree or another. They do have a GM/player split, but would you say it's a traditional GM/player division of power and responsibility?

droog mentions DitV, MLwM and Sorcerer, but doesn't place them with "traditional" games, which he classifies as GM only. Where would you place them according to the fuzzy categories from above? How about the other games?

Quote from: apparition13I'm familiar with the first five, to one degree or another. They do have a GM/player split, but would you say it's a traditional GM/player division of power and responsibility?

I would, yes.  The GM describes the world, the players play their characters, the GM provides situation and adversity, etc., etc.  They're cleaving pretty closely to well-tested models of GM-player division of labor.

If the players can mandate changes to the world without it being directly connected to their PC's abilities and actions, then the game does not have the traditional GM/player split. This includes any game where the player can dictate the "stakes" of what an NPCs reaction will be if the player rolls better on his check than the GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf the players can mandate changes to the world without it being directly connected to their PC's abilities and actions, then the game does not have the traditional GM/player split. This includes any game where the player can dictate the "stakes" of what an NPCs reaction will be if the player rolls better on his check than the GM.

But isn't that what skills like diplomacy and intimidation have always done?

Are you saying that any game with social mechanics has, by definition, a non-traditional GM/player split?

When I or anyone I know uses Diplomacy or Intimidation, it is the GM who interprets how the NPCs react to the player's successful (or unsuccessful) roll.

Hell, no where is that more significant than with intimidation. In some Forgey pseudo-rpg the player has the right to demand that, if he passes x roll, the brutal warriors he's confronting will run away screaming like little girls.
In real RPGs, the PC can roll intimidation, but what effect it has is up to the GM; in some circumstances it might make his opponents flee, in some it might make his opponents surrender, in some it might just unnerve them; and in some it might do fuck all.

So no, its not fucking similar at all.

And no, wiseass, I'm not saying that a game with "any social mechanics at all" is not an RPG; I'm saying that games with pansy-assed Forge Theory social mechanics or "stakes-setting", or, in other words, all of YOUR FAVOURITE GAMES are not RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBBut isn't that what skills like diplomacy and intimidation have always done?

Actually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player. I think that is what Pundit's point was. When you make a successful diplomacy roll in D&D 3x, for example, your character succeeds -- the DM is still the one who decides how they succeed.

I (surprisingly) agree with Pundit in that I think it's the degree of authorial control that many indie games grant players which differentiates them from the "traditional" GM/player paradigm games such as D&D, Rolemaster, etc. In these games, the players react to a story, they don't help create it.

Personally, I prefer that players have some authorial control. Having to rely solely on dice and my GM to interpret the results of dice rolls fairly has lead to some of the worst campaigns I've ever played in. In games that utilize the traditional paradigm, if your GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed.

In games where players have some authorial control, players can often ensure they're having enough fun that the campaign need not be declared a total loss.

Quote from: jdrakehActually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player. I think that is what Pundit's point was. When you make a successful diplomacy roll in D&D 3x, for example, your character succeeds -- the DM is still the one who decides how they succeed.

I (surprisingly) agree with Pundit in that I think it's the degree of authorial control that many indie games grant players which differentiates them from the "traditional" GM/player paradigm games such as D&D, Rolemaster, etc. In these games, the players react to a story, they don't hel create it.

I think I agree as well. So even though Donjon, Elfs and Trollbabe have GMs, they fall on the non-traditional side of the divide.

QuotePersonally, I prefer that players have some authorial control. Having to rely solely on dice and my GM to interpret the results of dice rolls fairly has lead to some of the worst campaigns I've ever played in. In games that utilize the traditional paradigm, if your GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed.

In games where players have some authorial control, players can often ensure they're having enough fun that the campaign need not be declared a total loss.

I'd say if the GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed no matter what. On the other hand, if the GM is a noob, or not too creative, or can get flustered when his plans go to hell, not being responsible for everything can save a game.

Well there's a thought. Dispersed control = game for teaching how to GM? I might need to mull that over a bit, but I'll throw it out anyway.

Quote from: apparition13I'd say if the GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed no matter what.

Generally, yes -- but in games that grant players authorial control, you can manage to squeeze in  a few moments of fun. If your GM is a clueless dickhead, this is just next to impossible in games that utilize the traditional GM/player paradigm (IME, anyhow).

QuoteOn the other hand, if the GM is a noob, or not too creative, or can get flustered when his plans go to hell, not being responsible for everything can save a game.

Conversely, it can be horribly confusing. I've found that most games which eschew the traditional paradigm assume that the reader already knows something of RPGs. I can't see too many people who have absolutely zero experience with RPGs understanding, for example, Donjon or  Paladin.

Donjon, for example, assumes that the reader is intimately familiar with Basic D&D and many of the assumptions that sadi game makes (which Donjon then lampoons). Without that knowledge, I can see large swaths of Donjon not making any sense. In fact, I have seen it.

Paladin, on the other hand, offers no point of reference for hobby newcomers -- it simply gives the reader some rules and a few setting hooks. There isn't much information on how to actually play the game, let alone why one woudl want to (i.e., the premise is implied, not stated).

All of that ambiguity and assumption (something very common in indie games) makes then very un-friendly for first-time GMs, I think. I think that they're great for exprienced roleplayers who are looking to induct newcomers into the hobby, but I would never recommend an indei game to somebody who had no prior experience with RPGs.

No, for newcomers, I still think that games cleaving to the traditional paradigm are the best thing going (currently). Now, if more indie games dumped the assumptions and did more in the way of orientation (such as, for example, Burning Wheel: Revised does), I'd be inclined to take up a different position -- but very few indie games do that.