I'v played in many groups where I was the GM and also the organizer. But the best groups (to me) are the long-running ones, that eventually become self-organizing to an extent.

Like, we always play at James' house on Thursday, and when a game ends, it's up for discussion what we'll play next, and who the GM will be. (Those games tend to have organizers too, but it's less obvious, and less work).

Quote from: One Horse Town;416234Once the game gets going, we abide by the GM's decisions. 'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

GM-less games are less weird and different than you might think, once you play a few. And GM games that share authority in other ways can also be enjoyable.

Also, to counter your Made-Up Internet Facts with real experience, I enjoy some GM-less games, but I'm usually a GM myself in most games I play. So my enjoyment of the GM-less stuff has nothing to do with some weird fear of GMs.

It's like, I mostly want cereal for breakfast. But sometimes, for fun, I like eggs. That's not because I hate cereal and I want to destroy it. I like cereal. But maybe one morning, eggs instead. You know?

NOTE: If this thread is not supposed to be about differing opinions on "GM as final authority", and is just supposed to be about the other thing (management vs leadership), that is cool. I won't rabble-rouse.

Quote from: BWA;416293[...]But the best groups (to me) are the long-running ones, that eventually become self-organizing to an extent.

Like, we always play at James' house on Thursday, and when a game ends, it's up for discussion what we'll play next, and who the GM will be.

This is my experience, too, although usually the "what'll we play next" discussion happens between sessions. Some GMs will gladly run more than once a week, some GMs less often, some GMs prefer to run for a while in a row with long breaks. Often I would see more than one campaign going on at a time, with sporadic one shots.

Quote from: Cole;416296This is my experience, too, although usually the "what'll we play next" discussion happens between sessions.

Right, same here.

I've heard of groups where everyone will bring new games or game ideas and have "pitch sessions" when a campaign ends, but I've never done that. It sounds cool, I just don't have a regular-enough group to spend a session on that.

Well, I have over thirty years of gaming experience and have walked out of only two games as a player.  In one the PCs were members of an elite mercenary group that governments hired to do things they did not dare have their names associated with (more because of the risk of failure than because they were hideously amoral); a sort of Mission Impossible group, where the rest of the players had the attitude that they never took any risks and the GM never forced us to.  The other was World of Synnabar.
I suppose on some level the power of ultimate arbiter must rest with the GM, but I have never had a problem with trying to build, if not consensus, overwhelming general agreement (including changing my mind as GM).  I like troupe play and my groups have been fairly good about dividing up preparation and hosting duties.  I never really think of my games as combat light, but we do a lot of other things which seem to take up more time.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416234Once the game gets going, we abide by the GM's decisions. 'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

I suppose they must exist but in my opinion it's just a matter of not playing with a GM who is an asshole. I suppose in junior high school when he's the only person in the 8th grade who owns the Monster Manual one might encounter this person but I think the Stockholm Syndrome GM is rare in the wild and is usually more of a bitter-non-gamer than a threat to the unwary player.

I'm our group's organizer, whether I am GMing the current game or not.

There is no reason why coordination of a group's activities must fall on the GM's shoulders, though that is probably the default assumption out there.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;416299*snip*
I suppose on some level the power of ultimate arbiter must rest with the GM, but I have never had a problem with trying to build, if not consensus, overwhelming general agreement (including changing my mind as GM).  I like troupe play and my groups have been fairly good about dividing up preparation and hosting duties.  I never really think of my games as combat light, but we do a lot of other things which seem to take up more time.

This sums it up nicely IME. And one may walk away as the last show of discontent.

Sure the "killer DM/myway-hiway" happens but it seems rare as those types would discourage people from coming back. In my 30 years exp. I have never seen a game run like this but the rumors persist...

If someone volunteers to be the org. that is cool as long as they don't feel trapped in the role.
I prefer to run games at the LFGS not only for the resources but to help them get some sales in support.
I would not invite some of the gamers I have met into my home.
I also encourage carpooling.

cool thread here...

I've only ever played with one GM who was a problem... more of a control freak/railroader than a 'killer'... and I solved that problem by leaving.
Otherwise I've never had a problem with 'what the GM says goes'... since most reasonable people are cooperative and want to get along... want the game to be fun... and don't want to force people into things they won't enjoy. It's more a matter of trust than subservience.
When I've been in games where players didn't have that trust things usually went all sorts of sideways until it was restored/they left/game ended.

Quote from: BWA;416295GM-less games are less weird and different than you might think, once you play a few. And GM games that share authority in other ways can also be enjoyable.

Yup. It is my experience GM-less or GM light can work suprisingly well and result in games with a high level of player participation and energy .

The issue is we have plenty of willing and eager GMs in our group who like GMing so going for one of these games is sort of like shooting ourselves in the foot.

A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

A GM-less game is like a car thats missing its engine thats pushed down an incline.  Sure it rolls for a little while, but the steering becomes non-existant and that final crash impact stop is a doozy.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;416377A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

A GM-less game is like a car thats missing its engine thats pushed down an incline.  Sure it rolls for a little while, but the steering becomes non-existant and that final crash impact stop is a doozy.


- Ed C.

Have you really tried gm-less games? No offence, but you don't seem like a guy who would go for this kinda game.

I've played in the gm-less games, and they worked fine, and you don't get to decide whether or not they were rpgs or engineless cars.

I've played them. This was my favorite one:



My ex-girlfriend loved it.

Quote from: Koltar;416377A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

A GM-less game is like a car thats missing its engine thats pushed down an incline.  Sure it rolls for a little while, but the steering becomes non-existant and that final crash impact stop is a doozy.


- Ed C.

Okay in fairness I've never played a GMless game that wasn't just a one shot so I can't say one way or the other whether after a while the steering goes and it would end in a crash.

I am not convinced that long term play is a necessary condition for a game to be a roleplaying game. I've played a fair few traditional one-shot games and I feel they have their place. Some games like Paranoia seem to be much better suited to one-shot playing.

Similarly, the presense of a GM is no guarantee any one campaign won't crash and burn.    

Finally, just wondering, how do you feel about traditional roleplaying game which get used for solo (thus GMless) play, most famously Tunnels & Trolls?

It's a complicated world, why get hung up on definitions?

We play a weekly game, so as others have said, it becomes self-organising after a while. We're all adults and manage to act like them - people are good generally at letting it be known when they have to miss a week.

There's me and one other guy who are the main GMs in the group and always have been, and yeah, what organising that does go on is done by us mainly. So things like making sure someone's getting a new campaign ready when one's about to end, and finding new players as people leave, that kind of thing.

In game, we're pretty traditional players. GM is final authority on the rules, narrates the results of actions after the dice are rolled, all that stuff. It's collaborative but there's a band leader.