Playing a GMless game

[RedMax]

11 hours ago, Rune Knight said:

I'm gonna have to disagree with RedMax there: I certainly don't want to do a rotating GMs thing. The best way that I see this working is if we use a few good random tables, let the story flow freely, and negotiate together about what might happen at any point where improvisation fails us.

I do agree with Malkavian, though: I motion that we establish here what system, genre, and premise we'll use.

My vote for system would be Fate (Core), secondarily Ironsworn or another RPG like it.

I'm comfortable with fantasy, contemporary, and sci-fi settings in general, though I'm pretty engrossed in lots of sci-fi and fantasy right now, so a contemporary setting or something else would be preferable to me. I'm not saying I won't do fantasy or sci-fi, it just wouldn't be my first choice.

Once we nail down genre, I'll be able to suggest a few relevant campaign premises from my notes.

That's cool. I think it depends on your goal. 

 

I'm trying to think of a way to play a standard game, like D&D, so you can use a module and accomplish typical role-playing objectives within that system.

If you choose a system that uses a method that keeps randomly generating the scenario as you go, that can be super-fun as well. If the scenario is generated as you go, there are no spoilers, which is cool.

As long as it's fun, it makes total sense. 🙂

[Vladim]

1 hour ago, RedMax said:

That's cool. I think it depends on your goal. 

 

I'm trying to think of a way to play a standard game, like D&D, so you can use a module and accomplish typical role-playing objectives within that system.

If you choose a system that uses a method that keeps randomly generating the scenario as you go, that can be super-fun as well. If the scenario is generated as you go, there are no spoilers, which is cool.

As long as it's fun, it makes total sense. 🙂

I don't know if it helps, but here's a Reddit post explaining how to play a published module (5e but could be anything) with a solo system (Ironsworn but could be anything really, including Mythic GME & system of choice):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ironsworn/comments/wxcw00/if_youre_looking_for_ideas_on_how_to_run_premade/

[cailano]

What did GMs ever do you guys to make you want to take our jobs away?

Oh, yeah. That.

Well, fine! I'm just going to go make a player-less game! I'll tell the whole story myself and just decide what the characters do. Then I'll put a cover on it and sell it! How'd ya like them apples?

[Malkavian Grin]

1 hour ago, cailano said:

What did GMs ever do you guys to make you want to take our jobs away?

Oh, yeah. That.

Well, fine! I'm just going to go make a player-less game! I'll tell the whole story myself and just decide what the characters do. Then I'll put a cover on it and sell it! How'd ya like them apples?

Congrats, you'd be playing a solo game like the rest of us LOL.

On the off-chance you're being even somewhat serious, I play solo because I don't get along well with most people. Autism makes interactions unpredictable at best, which is why I'm a homebody. Solo lets me get away from all expectations and focus 100% on the fun. My imagination is vast and I talk to myself anyways. Not everyone has the same experience with solo games.

[shawnhcorey]

13 hours ago, cailano said:

What did GMs ever do you guys to make you want to take our jobs away?

Nothing. Just want to try something different.

[cailano]

@Malkavian Grin, for the record, I'm just kidding around. There is a part of my brain that sees systems for GM-less gaming, and as a person who enjoys GMing more than playing, I'm like, "hey!"

At the same time, I realize there are a lot more players without GMs out there than there are GMs without players. I also realize that there has to be a certain chemistry between GMs and players and that it isn't always there. Also that players may want to try a system that few are running.

Mostly, I was just making a joke about "playerless games" because then you're basically just writing a story. I also enjoy doing that, so I guess I have some player-less games, after all.

 

 

[Vladim]

There's many reasons to try solo games. To name a few:

• To have a game that's not dependent on others, so you can post whenever you want. Waiting for others & slow speed are some of the biggest issues with PbP.
• To develop a setting in a more organic/fun way.
• To play very niche games, that hardly ever advertise on Myth Weavers.
• To try new systems and mechanics, because with some rule add-ons (e.g. Mythic GME) almost all systems can become solo-able.
• To learn a written campaign well via playing, so that you can run it as a GM later.
• To improve as a GM, as being your own GM and player and critic all at the same time can help you analyze what makes games fun or unfun.
• To play a more focused, introspective game with a more consistent tone (as tone is solely defined by one person).

I am sure there are more that others can come up with.

[yxanthymir]

I'll be the first to throw a rock and say that solo games are not really games, but just a story told by one person, more similar to a book than a real game. If I could specify even more, they will be more similar to those books that have multiple endings.

It is possible to trace a direct comparison with GM-less games, that are more collaborative stories than real games.

Not trying to be critical, just giving food for thought.

[Vladim]

7 minutes ago, yxanthymir said:

I'll be the first to throw a rock and say that solo games are not really games, but just a story told by one person, more similar to a book than a real game. If I could specify even more, they will be more similar to those books that have multiple endings.

It is possible to trace a direct comparison with GM-less games, that are more collaborative stories than real games.

Not trying to be critical, just giving food for thought.

I think this discussion is not too meaningful to engage in without a clear definition of what constitutes a "real game". Even with a definition, it might go in the direction of pedantry, though perhaps there are directions of discussion that could offer interesting insights.

I'm personally not hugely interested in classifying and arbitrating what a "real game" is, but I'm happy to just follow the discussion for now, especially if it goes to interesting places.

[DarkisNotEvil]

@Vladim
That 'testing out obscure systems' pokes me for an idea. I do really need to get down in the weeds with GURPS... I'll mull it over. I'm a bit hesitant to start up a new project after realizing my Restitutor Orbis idea had way too much WT bait to prepare beyond initial groundwork.

[yxanthymir]

I don't think trying to make a definition of "game" would be a fruitful discussion. It would be difficult to reach one and very frustrating.

Instead I offer the reasons I don't think it is a real game. And I can resume in two reasons: Opposition, there is a lack of a clear opposition; and Knowledge, you have perfect knowledge about what will happen.

Although I never played a solo game, I played many times PCs in games that I was the GM, and all of them were not fun to play, because of the reasons I pointed above.

Not saying you could have fun, only that I cannot and I have a very difficult time imagining how someone could have amusement this way. I would have much more fun playing a game of solitaire or reading a book. But to each its own.

[Vladim]

1 hour ago, yxanthymir said:

I don't think trying to make a definition of "game" would be a fruitful discussion. It would be difficult to reach one and very frustrating.

Instead I offer the reasons I don't think it is a real game. And I can resume in two reasons: Opposition, there is a lack of a clear opposition; and Knowledge, you have perfect knowledge about what will happen.

Although I never played a solo game, I played many times PCs in games that I was the GM, and all of them were not fun to play, because of the reasons I pointed above.

Not saying you could have fun, only that I cannot and I have a very difficult time imagining how someone could have amusement this way. I would have much more fun playing a game of solitaire or reading a book. But to each its own.

I probably used to think the same before learning more about solo games. Now that I do, this line of argument seems to me akin to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Yes, solo games are different from traditional, GM-led ones. But I'd argue that their similarities are far more numerous. The fact that there's games that support all 3 modes these days (solo, co-op and GM-led) with highly overlapping rulesets attests to this. And I think there's an argument to be made for inclusivity over exclusivity in gaming (and any hobby, really).

Opposition and knowledge is easily addressed.

• There's nothing stopping you from having any kind of antagonist, as in any other game.
• Knowledge is not an issue if you don't follow a predetermined, prescripted plot, but instead start only with an opening premise, and let the story arise organically.

Solo games are quite different from running a GMPC. I've done both, and a solo is (usually) a more satisfying experience. To each their own, of course, but if you are curious I highly recommend the Me Myself & Die channel for some insight about how solo gaming can look like.

[Malkavian Grin]

@yxanthymir I completely disagree. I'll echo some of what Vladim just said.

You don't have to start off with a clear antagonist. Some of the best stories ever written do no tell you who is supposed to be the "bad guy" (and the really good ones don't even draw those kind of lines, letting them be just like you, only with different goals). The roll of the dice might just tell you that because of your last scene, you lose the trust of a dear friend who now views you as a enemy. Or any other number of things can happen!

And usually the entire point of solo games is to not know what's going to happen ahead of time. You really should give one a try (Ironsworn is a great place to start) and see how truly NOT in control of the story you are! The point of playing solo is to find the story in the emergent details.

Playing a GMPC is also nothing like playing solo. Again, you don't know the story, don't have to temper your reactions to situations, and can be just as surprised as your character by events. You do not have anything that the rest of the characters don't (which is usually that knowledge you mention).

Again, I'll suggest you actually go try a solo game and see just how different of an experience it is from crafting your own story of which you know all the details already. Some people have great fun doing this! Others, like yourself, may simply not enjoy it--and that's totally fine! But don't make assumptions about it until you actually know and try. You really can't judge solo play without having done it.

[yxanthymir]

4 hours ago, Vladim said:

Opposition and knowledge is easily addressed.

• There's nothing stopping you from having any kind of antagonist, as in any other game.
• Knowledge is not an issue if you don't follow a predetermined, prescripted plot, but instead start only with an opening premise, and let the story arise organically.

 

I don't see that easily addressed. Let's see the statements by parts. The opposition will be me, and I will know exactly what I will do. Even if I roll dice to make it appear random, it will not feel random. The dice will be, but the actions won't. In a game of Solitaire, for example, the opposition is my luck and my skill in the game; and I also cannot predict the outcome of a game.

About knowledge, even if I don't follow a predetermined path, the path will be my construction, and it will favor the story I am trying to make. So it will always arrive organically at what I am consciously and unconsciously trying to achieve. I may try to fool myself it will be different, but it won't.

But I believe people can find it fun, otherwise it wouldn't have strong defenders and game modes just for it, it just feels very weird in my conception of the idea.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by yxanthymir (see edit history)

[Vladim]

4 hours ago, yxanthymir said:

(...) Even if I roll dice to make it appear random, it will not feel random.

I don't understand this statement. There's obviously systems and oracles in solo games to randomize things like that, like enemy actions in combat, or story outcomes, which involve rolling dice but... why wouldn't it feel random? It is, by definition, random, and when I do it in my solo games, it feels pretty random to me.

Even in traditional play, when I am a player, I am constantly pushing for a certain direction in the story, based on my character's goals, personality, backstory, relationships etc... as well as my own (as a player) preferences. I don't really think solo games are all that different. Of course I will favor a particular kind of story (one that's interesting to me), but what's so bad with that? It's a feature, not a bug. And nothing's stopping me from randomizing as much as possible; I don't personally do it as (I think) it would result in a pretty crazy, incoherent story, but hey, if that is what you want, no-one can stop you! That's also part of the charm of solo play.

Anyway. Perhaps there's nothing we can agree on here except that we're both stubborn 🙂