It totally works for us: Monsterhearts without an MC.

It totally works for us: Monsterhearts without an MC.

It totally works for us: Monsterhearts without an MC.

Without the usual mechanical work for the gamemaster, nor a need to push hard from the fronts it’s really just the fictional consequences that needs to be settled, which we do quite effectively. The tempo’s a bit slower, but it puts more spotlight on the characters and gives extra time to explore them. Top fun!

Anyone else tried something similar?

13 thoughts on “It totally works for us: Monsterhearts without an MC.”

  1. We did! we tried several ways of solving it, and it worked great for a single session. We still have to try it with front development, but I have ideas! 

  2. We have just been starting a game! The isle of Skye in the Middle Ages: right now we have just created the PCs, and the only pseudo-MC moments were asking questions about PC-NPC relationships. We ultimately took turns asking them, as everyone was interested in the relationship net taking form.

  3. The game itself is pretty strong at pointing out when gamemastering is supposed to happen, in those cases we each bring our best idea and go with the most fun one. Moves are harder when you have more heads inventing nasty fallout. No actual rule changes, just consensus. We share playing the npc’s, so whichever player is not in a scene plays them as strongly as possible. We started with outlining the classroom and then made large index cards for each of the npcs that became story-relevant for notes and a quick sketch.

    The first session was a bit tricky as we had to establish the tone and logic of the game together, but session two was a torrent of scenes and ideas from everyone. There’s more character focus as everyone is a player first and gm second, we naturally want to spend time on our own teen monsters first and foremost. 

    I’m sure an element is the nordic playstyle we’re used to, which has a lot less character advocacy and no Czege Principle. Which means we make a lot of trouble for our own characters and everyone around them. 

  4. Seems like GMless would be better as “low focus GM for short amounts of time”.

    I don’t see how you could have compelling story lines when they are derived by consensus. I am definitely ready to be schooled on how I’m wrong about that.

  5. William, consensus doesn’t mean lowest common denominator, nor that it is low focus. 

    It does mean that everyone has a say in the direction the story goes. Which means everyone should have some skill at creating stories. In my game, we’re all experienced nordic larpers or gamemasters, so we’re used to having the reins of the story, sharing that job is just more fun for everyone.

    Other than that, a lot of good comes from basic improv abilities. I suggest reading Graham Walmsley’s Play Unsafe for rp-based improv. If you want a focused story, reincorporating and strongly using themes are magical tools.

    Because everyone is contributing, the story becomes personally relevant to them. Instead of having someone else translate into the game what seems to be important for you, you get to say it out loud. And the other players will surely follow your cues.

    It might take some of the surprise out of twists, until you get to know each other and what is acceptable to bring in, even when unexpected. Some of the best moments have been a completely improvised story where everyone goes “Wow, YES! Of course SHE’d be behind it all. It makes perfect sense!” Even the person suggesting it.

Comments are closed.