Quote from: Skywalker;674772D&D without a GM is not an RPG IMO. You can still roleplay whilst playing it, but you can do that playing Monopoly or even Chess if you wanted to.

The removal of a GM means that the essential element of cooperation between players in RPGs is removed and you end up with some form of competition between the players or with the rules to compensate and adjudicate what happens. The goal of the rules necessarily stop being simply a measure of the characters and the world they are in and become a way to deal with that competition.

That isn't to say some form of round robin GMing is not RPGing, but that clearly has a GM, just one that moves.

Why would the players require a gm to cooperate?

Just curious.

Quote from: Bill;674902Why would the players require a gm to cooperate?

Just curious.

Nerds need a referee or else they'll start arguing about the airspeed velocity of swallows.

Quote from: The_Rooster;674907Nerds need a referee or else they'll start arguing about the airspeed velocity of swallows.

Thats ridiculous!


Are we talking African or European swallows?

Quote from: Bill;674449I even see round robin gming the same setting as problematic.

But I know some people make that work.

I actually think a round robin DM set-up could be fun to try.  You'd have to be careful not to meta-game DM knowledge, but that issue is present in a lot of shared setting (i.e. Forgotten Realms) where players may know the big secrets that characters do not.  

I think it would also depend on the scope of the setting and how distributed missions could be.  Doing a series of caravan guard missions to different destinations (with different sub-sets of the same mercenaries) might be more credible than playing Rappan Athak.  

Or a vampire setting could really work well with this sort of shifting cast and the way it would make elder vampires capricious.

Quote from: Bill;674402To play devil's advocate, I would sat tabletop dnd is much more fun with a dm.

'Needs' is debateable.


Has anyone out there played an rpg with no gm at all? How did it go?

I admit to being very biased in favor of having a gm.

Well I tried the Mythos GM emulator once. It was kinda boring, like a choose you own adventure book where you already know what each page says.

Plus it feels really sad, like playing monopoly with yourself. Role playing is a social activity for me.

All that said, I could see why story games wouldn't need a GM.

Quote from: Bill;674902Why would the players require a gm to cooperate?

Players can cooperate by agreement. The same is true in a competitive game. However, removing a GM requires something to replace them in order to adjudicate situations where agreement is inappropriate, takes too long or just cannot be reached. This often has the effect of shifting the focus of the game play to competing via such replacement and reducing cooperation.

Removal of the GM as ultimate arbiter is a huge step towards moving towards a wargame or storygame.

Quote from: CRKrueger;675300Removal of the GM as ultimate arbiter is a huge step towards moving towards a wargame or storygame.

Depends which type of wargame. Some chit and hex wargames don't use a referee, but the miniatures wargaming tradition from which D&D emerged (in part) very much included the referee making rulings and if necessary modifying/adding rules to suit particular situations arising from game play. The rules were starting points, particular game tables had their own sets of house rules, rules were made up on the spot, etc. So ... it depends what type of wargame you are talking about.

Quote from: Votan;675185I actually think a round robin DM set-up could be fun to try.  You'd have to be careful not to meta-game DM knowledge, but that issue is present in a lot of shared setting (i.e. Forgotten Realms) where players may know the big secrets that characters do not.  

I think it would also depend on the scope of the setting and how distributed missions could be.  Doing a series of caravan guard missions to different destinations (with different sub-sets of the same mercenaries) might be more credible than playing Rappan Athak.  

Or a vampire setting could really work well with this sort of shifting cast and the way it would make elder vampires capricious.

My friends and I did round-robin DMing back in yonder days. I really like the idea, and I wish I could find a group interested in trying it now.

Well, you can whip out "random solo" tables such as those in the 1st ed. DMG, but that definitely falls short of the full D&D experience. It also falls short of some people's narrow definition of role-playing game, but I'll bet some of the people to whom that poster on the other forum was probably trying to appeal would agree that it does not meet their definitions either.

Quote from: Benoist;675311Depends which type of wargame. Some chit and hex wargames don't use a referee, but the miniatures wargaming tradition from which D&D emerged (in part) very much included the referee making rulings and if necessary modifying/adding rules to suit particular situations arising from game play. The rules were starting points, particular game tables had their own sets of house rules, rules were made up on the spot, etc. So ... it depends what type of wargame you are talking about.

Such a referee however sits between two obviously competing players and doesn't have a number of the other responsibilities and powers that a DM traditionally has. As such, adding an independent arbiter referee to a wargame has much less impact to that wargame than removing a DM from an RPG IMO

Guh. It grates on me when the discussions on TBP devolve into "Include everything!" so that the discussion gets shut down and everyone agrees that twiddling your thumbs in the dark is a valid way of playing Dungeons & Dragons.

Shit, I don't care how other people pretend to be elfs, but man, is it that "troublesome" that D&D is expected to be played with a dungeon master?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;675549Guh. It grates on me when the discussions on TBP devolve into "Include everything!" so that the discussion gets shut down and everyone agrees that twiddling your thumbs in the dark is a valid way of playing Dungeons & Dragons.

What the fuck have you got against Twiddle & Thumbs?

MY DARKNESS IS JUST AS GOOD AS YOUR DARKNESS!

Quote from: Bill;674902Why would the players require a gm to cooperate?

Just curious.

WTF??

Without a GM (or DM) its not a roleplaying game.

That's why.


- Ed C.

Sounds like Polaris is one of those idiots that thinks all RPGs are called D&D.