The Gaming Den

OK, so 4e cuts the DM neatly out the of the game so that he is reduced to "backstory provider" and "guy who rolls monster dice."

What if an RPG went the exact opposite and went the way of one of the DnD clone board games where the DM is an active adversary trying to kill the players? Give him a system like Dungeonkeeper where he gets resources to play with so when he designs an adventure he tries to make them as deadly as possible.

Or as an alternative, what if you just make the plot co-op like Zombies or Arkham Horror? Is such a thing possible?

K wrote:Give him a system like Dungeonkeeper where he gets resources to play with so when he designs an adventure he tries to make them as deadly as possible.

Most folks already into the hobby wont like that. They will be all "but co-operative story telling, freedom, GM is god, yay!".

It would be more readily palatable if presented as a functional and in depth set of rules about level appropriate or character appropriate challenges.

Which amounts to very nearly the same thing, but don't tell THEM that.

You mean along the lines of Hero Quest board game by Milton Bradley and Games Workshop?

I think game design has hit a wall with the "DM vs players" and is trying to somehow make it more fair for players, which means to many that the threat of death of the character has become a problem. Some feel that a "permanent character death" means "game over" for that player, and it is not conductive of a good gaming environment where you ascribe to be able to play the game with no real "win or lose" type of system.

Others feel that without the PCD, that the game becomes something that detracts from the fun of having your choices have any meaning because you are meant to win fromt he start, and PCD is a part of those consequences for all the good that can come as a way to balance it with PCD.

The only way to really fix it would be to have two games, as not all people will agree on how to play.

Myself I think PCD is a strong parts of RPGs. Otherwise you really remove the game from it, and make it more into a narrative or story telling device rather than a game.

I like the DM having the ability to kill me for my own mistakes, but not overly trying to do so just for the sake of killing characters off willy-nilly. The threat of death to a character in a game adds to it IMHO.

What exactly does permanent character death have to do with the question?

Very little.

"Can we have mechanics that allow an adversarial GM?
Or can we have a GM free cooperative game?"

Permanent character death does not answer that one way or the other with its presence or lack of it.

I'd prefer a GM-free game but the trouble comes in:

Who writes the narrative arc such that they can interpret how your current on-camera actions affect off-camera plot elements?

I imagine there are solutions - Mythic, the Game Master Emulator is one of them - but I don't really know of any really satisfying ones.

Didn't "Rune" have an entirely adversarial player/GM relationship built into the game? IIRC the GM scored by killing characters, the players by defeating the GM's evil schemes. The highest scoring player became the GM for the next session.

How was the GM kept in check? Anything he did to the PCs (monsters, traps, environmental hazards, plot complications, etc.) had a points cost, and he only had a set budget of points with which to oppose player action.

Rune is an RPG that tried to make both GM-player adversity and railroad adventures features instead of bugs. Might be worth a look.

There are a number of GM-less games out there, though off the top of my head I don't know of any that play co-op against the game. I'll keep an eye out, though.

There was a game called Warhammer quest. It's players vs environment where everything is rolled randomly on charts or with cards drawn. It's a basic dungoen crawl engine though with very little thought to anything outside (other than going to visit a town to resupply).

Monster actions have strict rules that the player's themselves police amongst themselves.

It's very deadly in some ways with death just a d6 roll away.

The boardgame Descent is Players vs. DM.

The main problem I can see with making it players vs. DM is that we'll want to make it that the DM can win. This is fine if character generation is stupidly quick and simple, but at that point we move towards something we already have, Descent.

The problem with PvE where there is no DM is that if we get rid of the DM adjudicating things not covered in the rules players can only do what is in the rules. At this point we might as well make a boardgame or go online and play an MMORPG. Mostly because honestly computers can do better combat systems than what we are limited to on the table and if you can only do what the game specifies anyways, well why not just go play an MMORPG.

PhoneLobster wrote:What exactly does permanent character death have to do with the question?

Very little.

"Can we have mechanics that allow an adversarial GM?
Or can we have a GM free cooperative game?"

Permanent character death does not answer that one way or the other with its presence or lack of it.

A whole lot in the debate of DM vs player in such that a DM could continuously kill characters off to create the look of DM vs player, and the permanent character death in the sense that there is no readily way for the player to continue during the current session of the game, means they have been taken out of it by the DM.

So in the interest of empowering the DM to be able to do stuff contrary to 4th editions removal of the need for a DM, you would have tot ake into account just what the DM can do without rekindling the DM vs player debate as a negative thing, but more as a DM vs player party because the DM plays all the opponents, not that he is out to kill the PC party at every turn because of malice.

What if an RPG went the exact opposite and went the way of one of the DnD clone board games where the DM is an active adversary trying to kill the players?

The bolded part is exactly where this come into play. In a long term RPG you cannot have the DM overly trying to kill the player at every turn so their efforts are reduced to nothing but bit parts, while a board game this would work much better. Like in Hero Quest if all the character dies it is over, but in an RPG most times you try to prevent a TPK, and if the DM is always going for the TPK, or singling out one PC to kill, you will have problems and the game will not progress.

The big problem with co'op is that it is nothing but an exercise of cooperative story telling: there are no more PCs and NPCs, just major and minor characters. An entirely new set of rules has to be created for adjudicating differing visions ('The king is secretly a serpent man!' 'No he can't be! The king is secretly the father of Mme Rosewater the half elf!'). If you don't have those rules, it either becomes pure magic tea party or a co'op board game.

On the flip side, a purely adversarial DM isn't much fun either. If the goal of the DM is to 'win', there's no longer any reason to have helpful or even neutral NPCs; everything devolves into a combat encounter. Even if helpful NPCs are mandated, it becomes the DM's job to trick the PCs into killing them or to make them as unhelpful as possible.

The best compromise, I think, is the common ground: a strong set of rules to aid in adventure creation.

If we are talking about a generic game, why not have a situation where the DM “rotates” among the players like the “dealer” does in a game of poker. (Poker may not be the best example here as there are other card games where the dealer becomes the “bank” but I’m not going to push the analogy.) Instead of playing his character he takes on the role of the DM and gets rewarded for defeating the party. DM abuse would be mitigated by the fact that those whom he abuses will eventually get their turn at DM, so it’s either civil or it’s paranoia crazy.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:The big problem with co'op is that it is nothing but an exercise of cooperative story telling: there are no more PCs and NPCs, just major and minor characters.

That's how it is anyway: there are major characters (the PCs, or if I feel particularly self-important, "my character"), and the minor, unimportant ones (NPCs/everyone else).

I could see an adversarial DM if you also had a separate supportive DM. Devil's Advocate and Voice of the Lord, or whatever.

Alternately, I could see a system like Ars Magica where individual players could puppet around certain numbers of NPCs. That coupled with some pretty rigid rules for what you could get out of "towns" and you could plausibly be golden.

You're kind of missing an opportunity for players to really roleplay at that point though, which view as a serious problem. Such games could work, but they really seem to be pushing the limit of Boardgame vs. RPG.

-Username17

The DM gets X "Challenge points" per scene/encounter/adventure, what have you. He can opt to spend these on making people hostile, make the terrain difficult or make other bad things happen to the players.

The players each get Y "Plot points", which allow them to bypass obstacless, get benefits and make good things happen for the players.

All NPCs are assumed to be neutral/indifferent unless the DM or a player spends points to make them become hostile or friendly.

Example 1: DM spends some points to make the Sherif of Nottingham want to mess with Robin Hood, Little John, Maid Marian and Friar Tuck. Robbin Hood spends his points to get the NPC merry men to watch the forest for the Sherif's enforcers and Maid Marian spends hers to make the Sherif think she is innocent/fall in love with her/give her secret info. Little John and Friar Tuck both save their points for the upcoming fight with the enforcers.

Example 2: DM spends some points to send Elmer Fudd to go shoot Bugs Bunny and some more points to send Daffy Duck to inform Elmer of where Bugs is. Bugs spends his points to Duck-Rabbit Daffy, and dispose of Daffy/block Elmer's shot.

Example 3: Players are trying to find the Hand of Venca and are stumped trying to find it. They decide to spend points to have the Innkeeper give them useful advide. DM spends points to make that advice "Go ask the witch who lives just outside of town." and then make the witch have the players preform three tasks for her before she tells them where to look. The players spend points to preform the three tasks.