More struggles with GM authority: It’s complex.
The good news is that I was able to run a test/structured discussion about the On The Fraying Edge with a couple of kind souls last night. During the talk, I learned a bit more about how to start a play-test, and also figured out where to go in terms of teaching the game–particularly the character creation. The bad news, I learned a lot more than I thought I had to about GM fluidity.
The main question which came of the discussion is why would you want multiple GM’s in a game; what does that add to the experience, if anything?
I’m not comfortable with removing the GM role, of that much I am certain. So we start from a point where we have just one, as is in traditional TTRPG authority structures. Foremost to my consideration was that a game which helps its new GM’s in a structured and explicit manner, and which also gives a living example of this teaching would not only help new GM’s to break into the daunting solo experience of trying to run a game and not knowing the rules; but would also help experienced GM’s become better through occasional reapplication, and the process of co-gm teaching. Slowly, a GM team would emerge as a possibility, but not as mandatory for gameplay. Of further benefit, I think, is that it diversifies the vision/perspective during the process of prep.
My fears are that the second GM could get in the way; that the divided authority could cause conflict more than construction; and that in the worst case, the GM’s would be more inclined to filibuster or plan an adventure, rather than prep for the session.
When a GM tells you something about the game world, and it agrees with the rules, you believe it because they’re the GM. Whenever a PC says something about their character, and it agrees with the rules, you believe it because they’re a PC. Can two GM’s tell you about the world in a similar way that two or more PC’s can tell about their characters? The power to say things, even about the setting, can be donated to the PC’s momentarily (asking “How did you learn this?” after Spout Lore in Dungeon World, for example). The result of maintaining this divided authority in the co-gm role as a distinct role from the PC is that either GM could jump in when the players look to you, give you a golden opportunity, or ignore a soft move. Who’s to say what happens? If it’s true that the GM’s are equal, neither would have precedent; meaning it’s potentially an arduous decision to make without mechanical guidance. If it’s not true, and one GM or the other just knows and says more; why have the second GM? More acutely, what does the second GM do when the first is “in charge” if we must have the GM’s take turns?
If we split the threats, or at least split threat-jurisdiction, and both GM’s are active during a scene–making moves, responding in kind to PC’s, and barfing–it seems almost inevitable that conflict may arise. You can account for some such situations from a rules perspective, or mechanically (I’m looking at you, Duel of Wits); however, I feel there still remain situations where the collision of threats could be difficult to manage. I’m thinking of a situation where the PC’s are either ignored or made insignificant by conflicting threats. I want to avoid the GM becoming some kind of overpowered PC’s fighting against each other. I also don’t want to double the potency of the GM role. The more players in the party, the more moves they can make upon occasion to make one. So if the GM can be two perspectives reacting to the same trigger, where does that leave the players? Alternatively, the GM’s work together; but in order to keep the decisions objective, they decide that they need to plan-out the adventure for the players. This isn’t awful, I mean, I enjoy DnD–but I think this is avoidable as a consequence of multiple GMs.
Anyway, that’s my rant of learning. I’ll be back after more thinking.
There are various ways you can set this up. You might divide the GMs based on geographical location, for instance, or simply alternate turns each session, handing over prep. Or you could divide them functionally – for instance, one GM could focus on worldbuilding and continuity while the other handles tactical play and plays all NPCs, or something like that.
Have you looked at Brennan Taylor’s How We Came to Live Here? It’s got two GMs: one handles internal-to-the-village threats, and the other handles outside. Inside GM plays Outside’s first NPC in a scene, and vice versa.
I think that what I’m struggling with is that it’s difficult to have two or more GM’s as equals. In the case that GM jurisdiction is separated by geography, function, or some hybrid of those two–it seems as though rather than having one fully-functioning GM and another fully-functioning GM–we’ve split the role, or at least restricted the range of it.
I was asked last night during the Play test what the non-active GM would do when they’re not “in charge”. My first inclination was to say that they’d have to play some part within the setting around the PC’s (we can’t ignore the PC’s) as the other GM would describe that setting. I feel as though this answer is similar to what you’ve both described here, Robert Bohl, and As If. I wish, in my hackers heart, that I could formulate some way to encourage a fluidity in this balance of power. I’ve so far stolen the communal world-building within the group in the first-session (akin to AW) , and further support the transfer of authority via co-prep, or at least communication between the GMs. But I’ve still got a problem.
Think of the role of GM compared to the player character role. If the PCs had to share one role: one player in control of the character backstory and progression, and the other, in charge of rolling and choosing moves to make in combat, we would have a different game than if we had multiple independently controlled characters. I want both GM’s to have their own iteration of the role; I want to duplicate the GM, not divide it. I’ll consider the advice, and check out the game, if I can. Thanks.
It’s an art, and it will work (or fail to work) as an art. Like forming a band; there is no single definition of how the internal structure or responsibilities of the various band members “ought” to work out. It’s a matter of style, personality, priorities, chemistry and vision. Sometimes it clicks and all members are able to shift into a role that’s both practical and expressive for them. But sometimes it doesn’t click, and it’s no one’s fault. There are many GMs I’ve met over the years, but only a few I would want to tagteam with.
As If, fair point.
Erik, also worth looking at is Avery Alder’s Dream Askew. It is GMless, and it has playbooks for different parts of the GM duties. If I remember correctly, either control of those playbooks is fluid, or something about the way authority is distributed never leaves you feeling like one GM is secondary. I think it’s because everyone’s playing a protagonist, and you take up GM roles when your protagonist isn’t on screen. It’s been a while though, and I only played it once, but that’s my memory (linked below).
I’d still encourage you to dig into these games and see if there’s some way you can play with what they’re doing to make what you want to have happen, happen. Or sometimes, seeing how something is done in a way that’s completely wrong for you can help you springboard into something totally different that’s right for you.
Finally, I’d encourage you to check out those games because there may be other things at work that a summary can’t define. Like, I get your concern about someone being junior GM in How We Came to Live Here, but there are systems that make sure narrative power is shared, and a planning aspect that turns the GM group into a functional thing.
buriedwithoutceremony.com – Dream Askew
The issues I’ve run into with multiple simultaneous gms is less a conflict for authority or power, and more a case of fear of treading on your co-gms toes. Imagine two very polite folks standing at a doorway, gesturing and bowing “after you,” “after you, I insist.”
Clear definitions of authority seem to be the key here. Ideally, the rules of the game will be very clear in who’s responsibility it is for certain aspects of the world or answering certain questions.
/sub
Adrian Thoen I feel like this problem is at the social level. A true experience, no doubt, but I want to ensure I’ve not enabled or encouraged authority’s ugly abuse in the rules/practice. That said, I hadn’t thought of people being resistant or hesitant to share prep (for example). It’s something to think about, though. Thanks!
Robert Bohl been looking at Dreams Askew, no luck on the HWCTLH. Very eye opening! Thanks for suggesting the game to me. It’s given me solid ideas to work with; form is a beautiful lense to function, at least in design.
Ah yeah, HWCTLH is off the shelf while they consult with some Native American cultural experts. Maybe try to contact Brennan and see if he’d be willing to share the PDF for review?