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.