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!")

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

(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...