Apparently even suggesting D&D needs a DM is 'troubling' now.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?696754-Troubling-Statement-In-Recent-Podcast
This is why you don't huff glue and post.
And you felt the need to drag the argument over here, why?
C'mon, we're not the "rpg.net refugee camp" that people make us out to be, we're better than that shit.
People seem confused.
It is quite possible to play dnd, and to roleplay, without a gm.
I would not want to play that way myself, but you certainly can do it.
Just more of the "My way is the only way" I guess.
By the context of the podcast it obvious that they are talking about tabletop roleplaying games not one of it descendants like LARPS, MMORPG, etc. For tabletop roleplaying games the human referee is one of the elements that sets it apart from its wargame progenitors.
If you standing in the mid 70s and looking at what tabletop roleplaying gamers were doing different than wargamer one element that would leap out is universal use of a referee. Along with other elements like a focus on individual characters, the players acting cooperatively, the freeform ability to attempt anything the character could possibly due, etc. Elements which combined to make tabletop roleplaying games a different beast then the parallel line of development for wargames, miniature wargames, wargames campaigns, diplomacy campaigns, etc.
The other types of roleplaying games alter the tabletop RPG setup in various ways. For example MMORPGs and CRPGs substitutes simulation code for a human referee among other things.
Mike Mearl is correct and accurate to point out the necessity of a human referee.
Quote from: Ladybird;674379And you felt the need to drag the argument over here, why?
C'mon, we're not the "rpg.net refugee camp" that people make us out to be, we're better than that shit.
Mostly, because I know you aren't.
And because I thought the link was hilarious.
"This apple totally tastes like an apple. What about people who like oranges? Don't you think your apples should be more inclusive towards the orange demographic?"
(Bonus Tangency edition: "...not to mention rambutans! As a deliciously fragrant, vivacious rambutan dolefully trapped inside the body of a completely average, slightly over-ripe apple, I am personally offended and outraged by your discrimination of the exotic fruit community, you rambutan-phobic fascists!")
Hmmm. So tabletop D&D needs a DM.
Water is wet.
these statements are equally newsworthy.
Quote from: Melan;674392"This apple totally tastes like an apple. What about people who like oranges? Don't you think your apples should be more inclusive towards the orange demographic?"
(Bonus Tangency edition: "...not to mention rambutans! As a deliciously fragrant, vivacious rambutan dolefully trapped inside the body of a completely average, slightly over-ripe apple, I am personally offended and outraged by your discrimination of the exotic fruit community, you rambutan-phobic fascists!")
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/clappo.gif)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674397Hmmm. So tabletop D&D needs a DM.
Water is wet.
these statements are equally newsworthy.
To 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.
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.
An rpg without a GM=totally possible. D&D without a DM= no longer D&D.
That thread is awful and no favor is done to anyone by linking it. But since I showed it to you I accept part of the blame :p
(also, look at those stupid purplers, haha, etc)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674403An rpg without a GM=totally possible. D&D without a DM= no longer D&D.
I don't think you go far enough.
It is not a traditional tabletop RPG without a GM.
And the OP is just another bit of proof that RPG.net has very little to do with RPGs anymore.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674403An rpg without a GM=totally possible. D&D without a DM= no longer D&D.
I think this is all mearls is saying. It shouldn't be controvertial. As far as I know there has never been a version of D&D without a GM. I do know people who played with co-GMs apbut they understood they were paying the game in a way that deviated from the rulebook (the campaign seemed like a blast from what they told me).
Still playing devil's advocate here.
What about collaborative gming?
I know people who have played with two dm's. If the dm's get along and the game runs smoothly with two dm's I can't help but ask myself...keep adding dm's until everyone is dming.
It's not how I play, but in theory it should work unless peopel have control issues; disagree about everyhting, etc...
Quote from: Bill;674408Still playing devil's advocate here.
What about collaborative gming?
I know people who have played with two dm's. If the dm's get along and the game runs smoothly with two dm's I can't help but ask myself...keep adding dm's until everyone is dming.
It's not how I play, but in theory it should work unless peopel have control issues; disagree about everyhting, etc...
A lot would depend on the maturity of the people involved. I think it could easily be a disaster. Too many GMs with alternate takes on the setting or scenario could make the same dungeon a very different thing from turn to turn and the GM knowledge/Player knowledge/character knowledge barrier would be tougher to maintain.
Quote from: Bill;674408Still playing devil's advocate here.
What about collaborative gming?
I know people who have played with two dm's. If the dm's get along and the game runs smoothly with two dm's I can't help but ask myself...keep adding dm's until everyone is dming.
It's not how I play, but in theory it should work unless peopel have control issues; disagree about everyhting, etc...
If everyone is DMing at the same time there is no one filling the role of player and thus no D&D.
You can share Dming but to qualify as D&D the dungeon master and player roles need to be represented.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674414If everyone is DMing at the same time there is no one filling the role of player and thus no D&D.
You can share Dming but to qualify as D&D the dungeon master and player roles need to be represented.
But they are represented. The people at the table are sharing the gm and player roles.
The closest I have personally ever come to this, is on occassion when I gm, the players do not need my intervention. The players are roleplaying with each other, performing skills, creating magic items; etc...
I am just saying that the right group might thrive with no gm.
I assume most groups would not.
Quote from: Bill;674408Still playing devil's advocate here.
What about collaborative gming?
I know people who have played with two dm's. If the dm's get along and the game runs smoothly with two dm's I can't help but ask myself...keep adding dm's until everyone is dming.
It's not how I play, but in theory it should work unless peopel have control issues; disagree about everyhting, etc...
The out of games roles are still there. There are still players and still referees. Instead of switching hats inbetween sessions they are doing it in the session. It more of a out of game logistical issue for the group to deal with rather than a fundamental change in the game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674403An rpg without a GM=totally possible. D&D without a DM= no longer D&D.
I'd say that even this stance is debatable, as only games where I've seen this work were collaborative storytelling rather than RPGs.
Honestly, it's probably only meant as a statement to reverse the direction that D&D 3 and 4 e had done in trying to minimize the role of the DM over the years. One of the bigger turn-offs in recent years was WoTC slow elimination of DM Fiat--there was even discussion of not needing a DM for effective play at some point.
I think this is just meant to be a statement that D&D is getting back to its roots, nothing more or less.
Quote from: Bill;674424But they are represented. The people at the table are sharing the gm and player roles.
If at any one time, a particular person is serving as a DM, then they are not filling the role of player. This includes DMs with a pet Mary Sue npc.
Players can certainly roleplay among themselves and perform certain functions without requiring DM assistance. That doesn't mean that they are filling the DM role during this time.
You can play D&D without a DM.
But you better have a referee ;)
Seriously though, that thread was started by Polaris, one of the usual suspects who needs to rail and bitch about literally anything Mearls says about Next, even if it's not really accurate.
But to be fair, a lot of posters there also said he was overreacting.
Quote from: Bill;674402Has anyone out there played an rpg with no gm at all? How did it go?
Yes. I have played D&D solo and with a group using Mythic: Game Master Emulator to, well, emulate the DM. It can work.
However, a lot of the content (random tables, NPC stat blocks, world maps and dungeons) still needed someone to create them. Also, the system doesn't do monster tactics all that well. I mean, you could use the Fate Chart to determine each monster's actions every round of combat, but that would be tedious. Instead, we collectively determined monster tactics based on what we felt was appropriate.
The game was still highly entertaining, though, and I'd recommend Mythic:GME - it is a good tool. Whether it produces the "D&D experience" is another matter.
Quote from: Jacob Marley;674438Yes. I have played D&D solo and with a group using Mythic: Game Master Emulator to, well, emulate the DM. It can work.
Mythic: Game Master Emulators turns tabletop roleplaying games into Computer Roleplaying Games.
Of course is not literally because you are still using Pen & Paper but the design of CRPGs is that human referee is substituted by a automated referee that uses algorithms to adjudicate the action.
There are roleplaying games which is any game where the focus is on the players acting as individual characters. Then there are the different subtypes. There is tabletop, CRPGs, MMORPGs, LARPS, Storygames, Brausteins, and so on. Each subtypes has its on characteristic with different advantages and tradeoffs. All of them are fun to play and have successful and unsuccessful individual games within them.
Again what Mearls was obviously talking about is tabletop roleplaying games. Games with the players act as individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee.
Quote from: Bill;674402Has anyone out there played an rpg with no gm at all? How did it go?
Back in the day, we tried playing D&D games without a DM a few times. We were largely using random tables from the DMG.
In practice, it felt more like a "roguelike" video game, than a real D&D game with a real DM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike
fyi,
I have never played without a gm, and don't think I would like it.
I even see round robin gming the same setting as problematic.
But I know some people make that work.
Quote from: estar;674444Mythic: Game Master Emulators turns tabletop roleplaying games into Computer Roleplaying Games.
Of course is not literally because you are still using Pen & Paper but the design of CRPGs is that human referee is substituted by a automated referee that uses algorithms to adjudicate the action.
I'd say Mythic:GME hybridizes the processes more than anything else. Unlike Computer Roleplaying Games there is still a human element, capable of disregarding the algorithm's output and making a sensible ruling.
A DM-less game would require a hefty amount of maturity from the players involved. I've had boardgames as a kid and teen that dissolved into board tossing arguments, and RPGs without a DM would be no different.
Still, DM-less D&D would cease to be D&D. If people want to play that, then they might be better off playing an MMO where the DM's job is taken over by the programming.
My impression of Mythic is that it reduces everything to yes/no questions. There's no designer. Doesn't mean DM to me at all. Arbiter, sure. But that's only part of the job.
Ugh... it's posts like that at RPGnet that make me HAPPY that I've been banned there (for not liking 4e enough apparently).
Of all the self-loathing victim-mentality bullshit posts... ugh...
I've role-played when playing something like Magic Realm (which is the closest thing to a GM-less fantasy game I've ever played), but I wouldn't say I was playing an RPG (aside from semantic nonsense like "I was playing a game, I was role-playing, therefore..."...spare me).
I dunno, that thread gave me a laugh before work this morning, but it's pretty clear MM was talking about tabletop D&D. I agree with the sentiment that D&D without a DM/GM/referee/whatever can be done, but it isn't D&D.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;674463A DM-less game would require a hefty amount of maturity from the players involved. I've had boardgames as a kid and teen that dissolved into board tossing arguments, and RPGs without a DM would be no different.
Still, DM-less D&D would cease to be D&D. If people want to play that, then they might be better off playing an MMO where the DM's job is taken over by the programming.
Board games work vastly differently from RPGs, so you needn't an arbiter as rules are the ultimate one.
Quote from: Rincewind1;674476Board games work vastly differently from RPGs, so you needn't an arbiter as rules are the ultimate one.
As a veteran of Avalon Hill's Squad Leader, Civ, and Third Reich, I wouldn't say that.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;674479As a veteran of Avalon Hill's Squad Leader, Civ, and Third Reich, I wouldn't say that.
I've pretty much played board games for the past 5 years at least one day a week, and I have about 50 - 60 games on Twilight Struggle, and I still disagree.
First of all, the rules are the simple ultimate arbiter in board games. There are loopholes that occasionally are fixed in the errata or require a judge, but those are usually the domain of tournament play, and often concern someone trying to play the game's loopholes rather than the game itself, but that's expected on tournament level. But none the less - unlike in RPGs, where you may expect the GM to "ad hoc" things not covered by the rules, in board games you can't walk into the village hex and roll for unit's Charisma to see if they can recruit peasants into the unit to refill lost Strength, unless there is a specific recruitment mechanic described as such.
Second of all - while a board game will often get you to "think like someone at the action", at the same time, it is not EXACTLY that, because victory is the ultimate goal, and unless some actions are rewarded/prohibited by the rules, you will stick by the rules and play to win, not play as your faction would do. I have yet to see a player say in Twilight Struggle "alright, it's turn 6 so it's Kennedy's rule in US, I shall concede as the alternative would be to cause you to start a nuclear war, which would grant me victory but doom mankind" or say during playing Game of Thrones "As I'm playing a Stark, I will not backstab you now despite the fact that I could take half your castles from you". Or go while playing Warhammer Fantasy Battle "I won't send in my knight unit, because although it'd be a move that'd win me the game, it'd cost the lives of half the unit, and the standard bearer is my favourite figurine". Well, on the last one, nobody older than 10.
I know there's this feeling when you play a board game that makes you go "damn, I really feel like people who had to make these decisions" - but you still make them without other "decision changing baggage", that's usually a part of an RPG.
Quote from: Rincewind1;674484I've pretty much played board games for the past 5 years at least one day a week, and I have about 50 - 60 games on Twilight Struggle, and I still disagree.
First of all, the rules are the simple ultimate arbiter in board games.
A referee is needed in double blind wargames, which do not always miniatures, where both sides have incomplete information. The referee job is not quite the adjudicate the action like in Tabletop RPGs, although it happens. It more like to adjudicate the scenario or more specifically what each participant knows.
Also a referee is used in games where there adjudication of orders or simultaneous turn orders. The classic example is Diplomacy. Granted that Diplomacy itself doesn't really need a referee but when you scale it up to dozens of participants then the need for a impartial referee to process all the turn orders becomes apparent.
Finally there are games that are basically like Free Kriegspiel. The essence you are presented with the information of the situation like if you were actually there. The referee is somebody experienced in the situation and adjudicates the actions of the participants as well as what each players knows at a particular point. In general in Free Krigspiel type games the particpants don't have access to the actual rules if any.
The classic form was a wargame run by the Prussian General Staff but it been applied to other type of situations.
So in the end there are many type of board/war games that use referees. By far the most popular ones don't but it not correct to say that all don't need a referee.
Quote from: estar;674486A referee is needed in double blind wargames where both sides have incomplete information. The referee job is not quite the adjudicate the action like in Tabletop RPGs, although it happens. It more like to adjudicate the scenario or more specifically what each participant knows.
True - I did not mean that an arbiter is unnecessary for board games, I was merely stating that given differences between board games and RPGs and the approach to rules in those two games, board games needn't an arbiter as much as RPGs do. You can also technically speaking play said double blind wargames with blind and pre - game notes which unit is which, relying on honour system.
If someone'd say during a wargame "I send my infantry to the nearby forest to gather wood for a makeshift bridge", I'd say "dude you can't, use your engineer brigade". During an RPG I may accept an attempt at making a horribly shoddy and risky bridge if there'd be one engineer present to oversee it.
Which is why I'm so - so on calling a GM an arbiter, as the role goes, in my opinion at least, past what an arbiter would mean - so a person who checks that everyone is playing fair. Though that'd be a lengthy discussion in semantics regarding arbiters making scenarios in wargaming as well, I expect.
Just to toss it out there - is HeroQuest a board game, or an RPG?
:)
Quote from: Rincewind1;674488If someone'd say during a wargame "I send my infantry to the nearby forest to gather wood for a makeshift bridge", I'd say "dude you can't, use your engineer brigade". During an RPG I may accept an attempt at making a horribly shoddy and risky bridge if there'd be one engineer present to oversee it.
This is the heart of the difference between boardgames and Roleplaying Games. Roleplaying game are games where the players are supposed to be able to try anything their character can attempt. Which is a huge range of options.
I deliberately said roleplaying games not tabletop roleplaying games because it pretty a common element that cuts across all the subtypes.
Even games with limits like CRPGs. CRPGs are limited but that just because of the tech and the process of development not because what the designer want. If they could they would encode a whole world for players to deal with. And CRPGs are often panned if they are too much of a railroad.
Of course even this isn't clear cut because first person games have a different goal than a CRPG.
In general my view is that for games any hybrid that can be made will be made. However for a particular type of game there is a core that it definitely that type of game. For tabletop RPGs the human referee is a core element. Remove it then you are rapidly becoming something other than a tabletop roleplaying game.
Quote from: Bill;674402Has anyone out there played an rpg with no gm at all?
The closest that I've played is
Polaris, which distributes GM duties so that the player on the opposite side of the table from you is in charge of all the adversity faced by your character, while the others mainly act as referees. This means that the different duties shift from player to player depending on who's in the spotlight at any given time.
Quote from: mcbobbo;674491Just to toss it out there - is HeroQuest a board game, or an RPG?
:)
Which Heroquest? The one with hex tiles or the one used for Glorantha? :-D
I am going to assume the former.
It is a wargame focused on individual characters. It not just the lack of a human referee. More telling is the fact the rules don't make you feel like you can attempt anything as those character.
To use Rincewind's example in Heroquest you can't send your Roman Legionaries into a forest hex to build a bridge unless rules state you can or you have the correct unit.
If you want a better example that confuses the line between RPGs and Wargames. Try these three from SPI
Freedom in the Galaxy
Lord of the Rings
Swords & Sorcery
All three feature the extensive use of individual characters combined with a board and unit counters. In fact in my neck of the woods I had some friends use these games as a setting supplement to use in their roleplaying campaign.
Or Mechwarrior, Battletech.
You can always find hybrids any combination that can be attempted will be attempted. But there is a core around which each type revolves.
I meant this one...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest
It actually has a GM who adjudicates the pre-published scenarios, runs the bad guys, etc.
But it's probably still just a board game, if not a hybrid.
Quote from: estar;674493This is the heart of the difference between boardgames and Roleplaying Games. Roleplaying game are games where the players are supposed to be able to try anything their character can attempt. Which is a huge range of options.
I deliberately said roleplaying games not tabletop roleplaying games because it pretty a common element that cuts across all the subtypes.
Even games with limits like CRPGs. CRPGs are limited but that just because of the tech and the process of development not because what the designer want. If they could they would encode a whole world for players to deal with. And CRPGs are often panned if they are too much of a railroad.
Of course even this isn't clear cut because first person games have a different goal than a CRPG.
In general my view is that for games any hybrid that can be made will be made. However for a particular type of game there is a core that it definitely that type of game. For tabletop RPGs the human referee is a core element. Remove it then you are rapidly becoming something other than a tabletop roleplaying game.
Agreed. My point wasn't to say that arbiters aren't needed in board games, so to speak - but that RPGs need that arbiter/GM however one calls it, much more than board games do, to a point when I seriously doubt possibility of GMless RPG, that is not revolving around collaborative storymaking idea rather than classic RPG. And as for Mythic GM Emulator, well, I've never used it, but the clue is in the name.
Quote from: mcbobbo;674500I meant this one...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest
It actually has a GM who adjudicates the pre-published scenarios, runs the bad guys, etc.
But it's probably still just a board game, if not a hybrid.
Looks like the same category as Descent or Warhammer Quest to me. So - not an RPG, though it relies strongly on RPG elements. Unless it allows the players to do things not covered by the rules.
Quote from: J Arcane;674371Apparently even suggesting D&D needs a DM is 'troubling' now.
Polaris pisses the sheets - file under 'bears wet, water wears rings, and pope shits in woods.'
Quote from: Rincewind1;674484I've pretty much played board games for the past 5 years at least one day a week, and I have about 50 - 60 games on Twilight Struggle, and I still disagree.
First of all, the rules are the simple ultimate arbiter in board games. There are loopholes that occasionally are fixed in the errata or require a judge, but those are usually the domain of tournament play, and often concern someone trying to play the game's loopholes rather than the game itself, but that's expected on tournament level. But none the less - unlike in RPGs, where you may expect the GM to "ad hoc" things not covered by the rules, in board games you can't walk into the village hex and roll for unit's Charisma to see if they can recruit peasants into the unit to refill lost Strength, unless there is a specific recruitment mechanic described as such.
Second of all - while a board game will often get you to "think like someone at the action", at the same time, it is not EXACTLY that, because victory is the ultimate goal, and unless some actions are rewarded/prohibited by the rules, you will stick by the rules and play to win, not play as your faction would do. I have yet to see a player say in Twilight Struggle "alright, it's turn 6 so it's Kennedy's rule in US, I shall concede as the alternative would be to cause you to start a nuclear war, which would grant me victory but doom mankind" or say during playing Game of Thrones "As I'm playing a Stark, I will not backstab you now despite the fact that I could take half your castles from you". Or go while playing Warhammer Fantasy Battle "I won't send in my knight unit, because although it'd be a move that'd win me the game, it'd cost the lives of half the unit, and the standard bearer is my favourite figurine". Well, on the last one, nobody older than 10.
I know there's this feeling when you play a board game that makes you go "damn, I really feel like people who had to make these decisions" - but you still make them without other "decision changing baggage", that's usually a part of an RPG.
Sure, they're not the same thing, but to me the presence of an arbiter/moderator/DM is one of the big things that separates the average RPG from the average boardgame. While an arbiter can be one of the players in a boardgame, a DM who is both DM and PC in D&D doesn't make sense; the DM has specialized knowledge that the PC's aren't supposed to have.
Quote from: mcbobbo;674500I meant this one...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest
It actually has a GM who adjudicates the pre-published scenarios, runs the bad guys, etc.
But it's probably still just a board game, if not a hybrid.
HeroQuest is a board game. It could be played as an RPG, however. Kinda like you can use an RPG to play a story game. ;)
Quote from: mcbobbo;674500I meant this one...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest
It actually has a GM who adjudicates the pre-published scenarios, runs the bad guys, etc.
But it's probably still just a board game, if not a hybrid.
That was an awesome game. Basically a dungeon board game.
On page 173 of my 1st Edition AD&D book there is a section entitled Random Dungeon Generation for Solo Play. If I were to follow those random tables and run a character through that dungeon, on my own, without a DM (hence Solo Play), am I still playing a tabletop rpg? Am I still playing D&D?
At what point does the game transition from being a tabletop rpg into being a computer rpg, storygame, boardgame, or whatever other subtype?
Quote from: Jacob Marley;674566On page 173 of my 1st Edition AD&D book there is a section entitled Random Dungeon Generation for Solo Play. If I were to follow those random tables and run a character through that dungeon, on my own, without a DM (hence Solo Play), am I still playing a tabletop rpg? Am I still playing D&D?
At what point does the game transition from being a tabletop rpg into being a computer rpg, storygame, boardgame, or whatever other subtype?
I would argue that there is still a DM involved, that being you. You are playing the role of the DM and the player.
Quote from: estar;674444Mythic: Game Master Emulators turns tabletop roleplaying games into Computer Roleplaying Games.
No, not even remotely.
Quote from: Jacob Marley;674459Unlike Computer Roleplaying Games there is still a human element, capable of disregarding the algorithm's output and making a sensible ruling.
There's that, but more importantly, the nature of the questions put to the Fate Chart are hugely important to the results. A computer game can only have as many possible responses as the programmers allow; the Fate Chart allows the players to ask to do any damn thing they can think of and determine the likelihood of it happening before the dice are thrown.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;674513Polaris pisses the sheets - file under 'bears wet, water wears rings, and pope shits in woods.'
I'm just glad this "offense collector" gave me a heads up to ignore list him before he starts taking issue with my posts at TBP.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;674513Polaris pisses the sheets - file under 'bears wet, water wears rings, and pope shits in woods.'
I remember Polaris on the official WotC forums and her being a pretty level-headed 3e/Pathfinder player. Wonder what happened.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;674757I remember Polaris on the official WotC forums and her being a pretty level-headed 3e/Pathfinder player. Wonder what happened.
Is it the same person? There are at least three mcbobbo's these days, for example.
Quote from: estar;674388For tabletop roleplaying games the human referee is one of the elements that sets it apart from its wargame progenitors.
If you standing in the mid 70s and looking at what tabletop roleplaying gamers were doing different than wargamer one element that would leap out is universal use of a referee.
Absolutely, totally, completely, and in every other way wrong.
The original 19th century military wargames used referees from the beginning. Further, the use of referees in historical miniatures wargames was virtually universal; go actually read any wargame rules from before about 1980. In point of fact, I can't think of any really popular miniatures wargames that did not have referees.
The entire original argument is total arse gravy, but not for the reason you state.
In England, especially in the Society of Ancients, they were called "judges" rather than referees. If a dispute arose over interpretation of a rule, each team would appoint one knowledgeable member to present that team's case to the judge.
This person was the "rules lawyer."
So now you know.
I was not discussing how board games were played by XIX century Prussian generals (the original wargames were designed as a theoretical military exercise, so of course they had arbiters), but how 99% of board games (and I mean board games in general, not just war games) are played today. That was the frame of reference, not the wargaming hobby around the beginnings of D&D.
From what I can say giving wargames I own (late 90s Polish publications), by the 90s the referee was relegated to tournament events even in relation to them. Yes, there are tournament rules there, but that's pretty much it.
Monopoly or Ticket to Ride does not need a GM as much (or even at all) as D&D or Warhammer does, because everything you want to do is covered by the rules precisely. And a lot of board games have about as much in common with RPGs as a cuckoo clock. Even in vastly complicated games such as Twilight Imperium, ruleset and FAQ are all the arbiters that were needed for dozens of games.
We'll be calling chess a GMless RPG by the end of this thread, at this pace. One could say, if one needs to be so pedantic (I know that's coming from me it's rich), that the necessity of a human arbiter, in place of common usage (for wargames at least apparently, for as I said, outside of tournament play I have not seen a single refereed board game in my life), is what sets RPGs apart from other tabletop games.
Of course, all that said - I am not denying that RPGs came out of wargames rather than say, chess, for a very good reason apparently. But there are many wargames and vast, vast majority of board games that needn't require a referee, and I have yet to see "packaged" hex wargame that left up matters of rules for an interpretation or freeform.
D&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.
Quote from: Old Geezer;674768Absolutely, totally, completely, and in every other way wrong.
The original 19th century military wargames used referees from the beginning. Further, the use of referees in historical miniatures wargames was virtually universal; go actually read any wargame rules from before about 1980. In point of fact, I can't think of any really popular miniatures wargames that did not have referees.
The entire original argument is total arse gravy, but not for the reason you state.
In England, especially in the Society of Ancients, they were called "judges" rather than referees. If a dispute arose over interpretation of a rule, each team would appoint one knowledgeable member to present that team's case to the judge.
This person was the "rules lawyer."
So now you know.
What you are missing from my statement is the following
QuoteFor tabletop roleplaying games the human referee is one of the elements that sets it apart from its wargame progenitors.
Having lived through the tail end of the time period, having read books on the topic as well as old newsletters I am well aware of the history of wargames both board and miniatures.
Also understand while you were immersed the miniature wargame community of the Upper Midwest in my neck of the woods, Northwest PA, the first exposure to wargames was through the hex and counter games published by Avalon Hill and SPI. Then D&D swept through and changed everything as far as gaming went. So the human referee was a very obvious difference to those of us used to playing chess, boardgames, and hex and counter wargames.
Again I do not claim that it was the only element that make tabletop RPGs different. As you well know Dave Arneson combined a bunch of things to make Blackmoor work the way it did.
I think this is awesome. It means I can be a player next session!
Quote from: The_Rooster;674789I think this is awesome. It means I can be a player next session!
haha, touche. I suppose I should be excited too, since I'm almost always the DM.
We played a campaign for about a year where we all ran armies using 2e Battlesystem. The armies occupied a continent and we founght each other in battles. In between battles we ran roleplay sessions where one player in the next day's battle woudl run a session for the other players who played pcs fromteh other army on a mission.
So examples were 3 goblins that had to break into a human camp and get the battle plans for the next day, 3 humans that had to try and weakend the undead hordes by retrieving an artefact, 3 elves that had to kidnap the human general, that sort of stuff.
The setting was copperative, the GM role rotated around the group.
I don't think its a big step from there to everyone DMs at teh same time.
I also think you could use a DM "deck" to make some generic rulings and then use human intervention from the group to resolve other stuff.
I think it would still be like D&D my figther woudl still have HP and a level, and weild a sword, ther ewoudl be an adventure, probably a prebuilt scenario that came with cards for description rather than a book.
One of the players draws the card for room 1, "The room is dark with a strong smell of rotting meat or something equally unpleasant....blah blah," " each round the party spend in this room roll a D6 if you roll a 6 then draw card 2...
run the dungeon like that kind of a choose your own adventure group RPG...
I still think it would be D&D a slightly different take on it but it woudl still be D&D I think
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.
The "value" of the TPB OP's idea was that he got to start a thread.
If I valued that kind of attention, I could likewise find many things "problematic".
Everyone can relax, I just Ouija Boarded Gary and he says you need a DM.
Whew. Now that's settled.
Quote from: Koltar;675577WTF??
Without a GM (or DM) its not a roleplaying game.
That's why.
- Ed C.
If you define roleplaying game as requiring a gm you are correct.
I think the roleplay part is more important though.
I would not call an rpg without roleplay an rpg; I would call it a wargame.
Quote from: tenbones;675644Everyone can relax, I just Ouija Boarded Gary and he says you need a DM.
Whew. Now that's settled.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Bill;675658I would not call an rpg without roleplay an rpg; I would call it a wargame.
Though a lack of roleplaying is definitely key, you can roleplay in any games. I have seen people roleplay in wargames, board games and card games. As such, it's difficult to hang much off of it without further investigation.
The unusual thing about RPGs IMO is that they can't operate without roleplaying. I think the use of a single person with the powers of a GM is an essential element in creating a game where something as complex as roleplaying is required. As such, the lack of a GM is a strong (but not the only) indicator that a game is no longer an RPG.
Quote from: estar;674388Mike Mearl is correct and accurate to point out the necessity of a human referee.
Most of the MMORPGs and console gaming folks just don't get it. Having a live in-game ref to adjudicate player disputes, as well as to adjust plot points, and pacing could help out an online game tremendously. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in one of the newer MMO's. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be very popular.
Quote from: GameDaddy;675780Most of the MMORPGs and console gaming folks just don't get it. Having a live in-game ref to adjudicate player disputes, as well as to adjust plot points, and pacing could help out an online game tremendously. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in one of the newer MMO's. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be very popular.
It was actually very common in earlier MMOs. The manpower requirement and logistics however rather preclude it from being practical for most anything bigger than a very large MUD. Ryzom basically bombed because it depended on GM events.
Quote from: GameDaddy;675780Most of the MMORPGs and console gaming folks just don't get it. Having a live in-game ref to adjudicate player disputes, as well as to adjust plot points, and pacing could help out an online game tremendously. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in one of the newer MMO's. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be very popular.
I doubt it. The strength of the MMO is the anytime availability. Got 30 minutes to kill before something interesting is happening IRL? Log in and do a few dailies or a couple simple quests.
A live person being available 24/7 would be too expensive to maintain.
Quote from: J Arcane;675845It was actually very common in earlier MMOs. The manpower requirement and logistics however rather preclude it from being practical for most anything bigger than a very large MUD. Ryzom basically bombed because it depended on GM events.
Yeah, that. Major selling point for NWN was the DM Client, which is awesome...and we can see how the game went :(.
Quote from: Rincewind1;675865Yeah, that. Major selling point for NWN was the DM Client, which is awesome...and we can see how the game went :(.
NWN wasn't an MMO. And as for how it went, it was so successful it propped up Atari for a number of years on its own revenues, and despite the matchmaking server finally shutting down last year there's still an active community of DM-ed games and PWs being run by direct IP. The difference is that the players were able to create and DM their own stuff.
Most other MMOs with DMed events only gave that level of power to staff members, which creates the problem of scheduling, because it consumes a lot of budget to have people on staff to work on that stuff instead of independent content, and so you wind up with a game where there's nothing to do except when the DMs are on hosting an event. This was what killed Ryzom at launch; unless you logged on at the scheduled times for the DM run events, there was fuck all to do on your own.
Quote from: Rincewind1;675865Yeah, that. Major selling point for NWN was the DM Client, which is awesome...and we can see how the game went :(.
It went farther than you think.
A local university used to host a summer programming class for high school students, and one of the platforms they used was NWN. I found out about it when I was at our local branch library and found a high school student/volunteer with laptop open, working on the toolset while she manned the summer reading program area. Curious, I asked her about it while one of my kids was picking out a prize, and she told me it was for an enrichment class she signed up for.
A friend of mine in LA was griping at me over his "game" he was playing this past weekend: a 4e session that consisted of a single combat encounter lasting over 8-hours(!) with no roleplaying at all. He said they literally could have played the entire session without the GM. He's thinking of quitting the group.
I immediately thought of this thread. LOL
Quote from: J Arcane;675875NWN wasn't an MMO. And as for how it went, it was so successful it propped up Atari for a number of years on its own revenues, and despite the matchmaking server finally shutting down last year there's still an active community of DM-ed games and PWs being run by direct IP. The difference is that the players were able to create and DM their own stuff.
Most other MMOs with DMed events only gave that level of power to staff members, which creates the problem of scheduling, because it consumes a lot of budget to have people on staff to work on that stuff instead of independent content, and so you wind up with a game where there's nothing to do except when the DMs are on hosting an event. This was what killed Ryzom at launch; unless you logged on at the scheduled times for the DM run events, there was fuck all to do on your own.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;676128It went farther than you think.
A local university used to host a summer programming class for high school students, and one of the platforms they used was NWN. I found out about it when I was at our local branch library and found a high school student/volunteer with laptop open, working on the toolset while she manned the summer reading program area. Curious, I asked her about it while one of my kids was picking out a prize, and she told me it was for an enrichment class she signed up for.
I know, I know, I'm still playing that game after all ;). But it did fade away as compared to even say, Ultima. That said, they are different things indeed.
I ponder myself if any of gents & ladies around here'd not be willing to give old NWN a spin :D. NWConnections are dead and I'd not mind DMing a game, though I'd probably need to build a module from a scratch - I don't think even my usual One Shot is available as NWVault is down, but I think I may still have the files for it somewhere...
Here at RPG.net we manufacture high grade Butt Hurt. If you are looking for Butt Hurt by the bulk come see us at RPG.net. please inquire about our special 4 E Butt Hurt. Remember we don't just know Butt Hurt we are Butt Hurt.
That is my take on rpg.net
Quote from: dungeon crawler;676236Here at RPG.net we manufacture high grade Butt Hurt. If you are looking for Butt Hurt by the bulk come see us at RPG.net. please inquire about our special 4 E Butt Hurt. Remember we don't just know Butt Hurt we are Butt Hurt.
That is my take on rpg.net
Rpgnet major export - butthurt
TheRPGsite major export - snark
The Gaming Den major export - retardation
Something Awful major export - malice
ENWorld major export - angst
Did I miss any?
Quote from: TristramEvans;676244Rpgnet major export - butthurt
TheRPGsite major export - snark
The Gaming Den major export - retardation
Something Awful major export - malice
ENWorld major export - angst
Did I miss any?
Dozens. To me Circvs Maximvs, K&KA, Dragonsfoot and OSRGaming (yes that's seriously its name) are the most obvious ones.
Quote from: P&P;676247Dozens. To me Circvs Maximvs, K&KA, Dragonsfoot and OSRGaming (yes that's seriously its name) are the most obvious ones.
Ah, of those only heard of Circus Maximus, but am not familiar with that board's culture. Is OSRGaming devoted to th entire osr or just D&D?
Dragonsfoot: where people to in hopes of actually getting into a conversation with Frank Mentzer.
He's got 6510 posts there. It's not difficult to talk to Frank...
And later these same assholes try to claim they're not trying to undo the RPG hobby...
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;676367And later these same assholes try to claim they're not trying to undo the RPG hobby...
RPGPundit
They just want to mold it in their image.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;676396They just want to mold it in their image.
By the time they're finished, the only game published will be:
VICTIM OLYMPICS: The Roleplaying Game
Play: Pick one person to be the Moderator. The other persons are Players. Players sit around a table and attempt to have a normal conversation about any topic drawn from the Conversation Card deck. However, players constantly monitor each other for ethnocentricism, heteronormativity, transphobia, racism, racial essentialism, mansplaining, male privilege, white privilege, and group-based attacks.
At any stage, a player may call out another player by shouting CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE! At this stage, a trial must be held before the Moderator. Players may attempt to argue their case by either asserting or denying said utterances constitute violations of the Policies. Players may cite precedent, context, or rules, with the moderator awarding points based on his interpretation of the rules.
Each player may bolster their argument by playing Victim Cards and Privilege Cards. For example, if you are a black female who was bullied at school, you may play these three victim cards in any argument. However, if you also happen to be wealthy, another player may play a Privilege Card against you, nullifying one of your Victim Cards.
White Males start with no Victim Cards, but may obtain them by adopting Marginalized Identities. One of the most powerful, of these is Pre-Op Transexual, which involves going round wearing a dress and garish makeup and pretending that this gives you great insight into being a woman. So powerful is this identity that it trumps the Cisgendered Woman identity. You may play a Privilege Card against any woman if they object to you asserting the right to be treated as your chosen gender identity when you enter their change rooms, toilets etc.
The Pre-Op Transexual identity is most potent when you adopt a Queer: Transwoman-4-Male identity but you may avoid this step by dating a woman who also has the Pre-Op Transexual identity, making the potent Queerified Reverse-Heteronormative Relationship Victim Trump Combo.
After all points are tallied, after being weighted by Victim and Privilege Cards in play, the moderator will deliver a Verdict based on the result: Carry On, Warning, or the BanHammer. The BanHammer removes a player from play for one to three rounds. Particularly egregrious or repeat offenders receive the PermaBan and are removed from play. The winner is the last one left standing, who is crowned the Ultimate Victim and Champion of the Oppressed.
It's a fun, fast-moving game, but unfortunately, like Diplomacy, best played with your worst enemies, because your best friends are going to look like your worst enemies after a few rounds anyway.
Who was it that said, "Tangency D&D would only have one class, but fourteen genders."
I saw it in someone's sig.
Tristram "Watch your Pockets" Evans.
Quote from: valency;676416By the time they're finished, the only game published will be:
VICTIM OLYMPICS: The Roleplaying Game
Play: Pick one person to be the Moderator. The other persons are Players. Players sit around a table and attempt to have a normal conversation about any topic drawn from the Conversation Card deck. However, players constantly monitor each other for ethnocentricism, heteronormativity, transphobia, racism, racial essentialism, mansplaining, male privilege, white privilege, and group-based attacks.
At any stage, a player may call out another player by shouting CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE! At this stage, a trial must be held before the Moderator. Players may attempt to argue their case by either asserting or denying said utterances constitute violations of the Policies. Players may cite precedent, context, or rules, with the moderator awarding points based on his interpretation of the rules.
Each player may bolster their argument by playing Victim Cards and Privilege Cards. For example, if you are a black female who was bullied at school, you may play these three victim cards in any argument. However, if you also happen to be wealthy, another player may play a Privilege Card against you, nullifying one of your Victim Cards.
White Males start with no Victim Cards, but may obtain them by adopting Marginalized Identities. One of the most powerful, of these is Pre-Op Transexual, which involves going round wearing a dress and garish makeup and pretending that this gives you great insight into being a woman. So powerful is this identity that it trumps the Cisgendered Woman identity. You may play a Privilege Card against any woman if they object to you asserting the right to be treated as your chosen gender identity when you enter their change rooms, toilets etc.
The Pre-Op Transexual identity is most potent when you adopt a Queer: Transwoman-4-Male identity but you may avoid this step by dating a woman who also has the Pre-Op Transexual identity, making the potent Queerified Reverse-Heteronormative Relationship Victim Trump Combo.
After all points are tallied, after being weighted by Victim and Privilege Cards in play, the moderator will deliver a Verdict based on the result: Carry On, Warning, or the BanHammer. The BanHammer removes a player from play for one to three rounds. Particularly egregrious or repeat offenders receive the PermaBan and are removed from play. The winner is the last one left standing, who is crowned the Ultimate Victim and Champion of the Oppressed.
It's a fun, fast-moving game, but unfortunately, like Diplomacy, best played with your worst enemies, because your best friends are going to look like your worst enemies after a few rounds anyway.
Sockpuppets will be introduced in an expansion pack.
Quote from: valency;676416White Males start with no Victim Cards, but may obtain them by adopting Marginalized Identities. One of the most powerful, of these is Pre-Op Transexual, which involves going round wearing a dress and garish makeup and pretending that this gives you great insight into being a woman. So powerful is this identity that it trumps the Cisgendered Woman identity.
The sheer amount of truth in this is staggering.
BTW Sac, it's in my sig below, it was Tristram.