Author: Erik Warner

Hey all, here is a game that I found and then got my fingerprints on/tried to design. Thanks to any brave souls, should you endeavor to work through the tangled mass of ideas here.

I’m posting this so that I get off my ass and finish a formalized playtest feedback document, and so that I stop fidgeting with stuff before I have any idea what I’m doing.

It’s about zombies. It’s PBTA. What more can I say?

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.

So, I’ve been working on an Apocalypse World hack. After stealing from it and many of it’s progeny; most blatantly, undead apocalypse survival horror title “On The Fraying Edge” for some time, I’ve come up against some of my biases concerning Gm authority. The game has come a long way, but I’m not ready to share just yet; but I plan to use these next months to work to make it so. In hopes that intention may turn to motivation, I’ll try to be more involved in publishing my reflections. Maybe they’ll be helpful to you, maybe they’ll cause incense; regardless, I wanna participate in a community.

I’m currently struggling to answer the question: can a GM effectively give player characters GM-tier authority? Having recently viewed Ep. 46 of fun-time GM advice show Office Hours, I have become unsure of my desire to hack a game wherein such authority as is given to the GM could be shared, if not a built-in scaffold for learning the game. Anxiety over powerviolence between GM’s and the looming Czege Principle cannot be ignored!

Both the role of the GM and the role of the PC are essential to the game. GM authority can be understood [briefly] as the responsibility for following the rules [the agenda, principles, and using the moves as in PbtA] as well as the provision of context, and irritation to the state of the PC’s lives. Discussion ensues (1). Games which focus the discussion on the characters’ lives as living statements of identity draw this context from the choices which the characters make, and the honest portrayal of circumstances within the setting. The things that stand between PC’s and the things they need and want are usually given by the GM, but can also come from other PC’s [in the case of PvP combat]. Why can’t the GM role be shared like the PC role?

That the authority to introduce these things, to control the framing of scenes, is something which is best done by one person seems the most apparent answer. Establishing such details as those required by the PC’s in making a Hard Holder or Hocus seem to require already hint at this kind of shift; but do not require that the player of that character behave as a GM would. Nor does this playbook choice allow the player to frame the scene: it instead marks them as the content within the occasion of the frame. I want to write a game which allows explicit access to the tools and responsibilities of the GM playbook to multiple players in an empowering and demystifying way; but without disturbing the continuity of “the narrative” in the process—without GM squabbles. The issue is that when GM’s fight amongst themselves, they return to the position of the PC, as an individual intention/interest. In order to unify the threats, it’s typically given to just one individual to make them up. But teaching people to run games—to do most anything—means involving more than one person: can a game be about that? About finding people that you trust? Maybe in the undead apocalypse.

1.) http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/conflict_resolution.pdf  Czege principle concept-map.

2.) http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=21694.msg222607#msg222607  Czege principle discussion summary (for context)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhRz42j-rjI&index=47&list=PLAmPx8nWedFVGdrP2JmcYzdvZC8sWV5b4