I looked at the argument, even though one guy left, it's pretty obvious he was being over aggressive as hell.

HollywoodMole said
I looked at the argument, even though one guy left, it's pretty obvious he was being over aggressive as hell.

This.

Based off what I saw, the above is definitely true - all things considering, Narrator chose a fairly common combination, and went a little over the top in pointing out that someone else did it, including leaving because of it.

In that situation, everyone could have handled it better, GM and players included. Probably could have talked to both of them, as Sword and Magic is common and no reason to quit an RP because someone else chooses it.

As GM, it was likely bad form(and left a bad impression on Experta) that you essentially told him, you weren't going to lose another player in that fashion.

Pachamac said is whether or not they're a decent, communicative person who can react to disagreements and constructive critcism well.

^- This is the most important skill set any player can possess. You can easily teach the basics of writing, such as word control and variance or grammatical rules... And, at the end of the day, whether a character is a typical knight in shining armour or something altogether atypical, what matters is their attitude. If they can take criticism on the chin, consider it without sacrificing what it is they enjoy most, work with their fellow players in collaborative plots and posts, talk to the GM about future character developments or to inquire about the plot and/or world... -That- is the best kind of player there is. There are sadly not too many of them, but alas, those are the ones you start, plan out, and finish RP's with. Everyone else is usually just along for the ride... If you're lucky.

Also...

@Gwazi Magnum: The reason having a GM is "accepted culture" is because people naturally tend to congregate in groups, and typically, follow someone who has authority of some kind, through charisma or strength or intellect or other such qualities. Whether someone takes power as a dictator or a democratically elected candidate is irrelevant to that fact. If you think otherwise, you ignore the real world, and its various societies and subcultures. Because last I looked, there's not one successful anarchist society on the planet. Plenty of dictatorships and democracies, though, which both have chains of command that distribute power out to what are essentially "lesser leaders" at "lesser levels" that micromanage the details while the "greater leaders" macro-manage the rest.

Also because if two players get into a fight, it's a lot easier to resolve with one person in power just saying "yeah okay that's enough of that, A, please change X, B, please do Y, both of you, please agree to Z so this won't happen again" and then committing the ritualistic execution move if either fail to do as told.

I wasn't asking why it's accepted by culture, I was simply highlighting there are ways to run an RP without a GM and it can still work well. It should also be noted RP's are not the same as say running a nation. There's far less people to deal with, and really only one main focus/goal in the end. To have a successful roleplay, as opposed to say covering all the necessities of living.

While no set leader in a political system is suicide, it is something commonly proven to be a viable system in running an RP. I'm mainly just arguing the "One size fit's all" mentality approach that seems to be happening here in that all RP's need a GM, and all GM's must get themselves involved on player conflict.

Magic Magnum said
Most of that post is largely the same argument I'll have the same response to, so I'm not going to make four different quotes simply reply with the same thing four times.So in regards to what I'm not quoting, I'm not making the assumption everyone is troublesome by default. I am simply acknowledging such players exists. Big difference.You can't act like every time there's a player conflict the GM is fully within their power/capability to resolve it peacefully and favorably. It doesn't always work that way. It's a nice sentiment, but you are doing no one any favor's by giving advice the assumes any failed attempt to make players get along is instantly the GM's fault. It's just flat out ignoring a type of player exist.I am not suggesting walking in and treating everyone like those kinds of players like you seem to be claiming I am. But simple acknowledgement that some battles a GM can't fix is rather important to notice and accept, especially when you're giving advice to GM's in need, so you need make them feel shitty about themselves when in fact they have no reason to be. TLDR: Admitting something exists is not the same as treating everyone like that something.Admitting something exists is not the same as being a Pessimist.It's happened on the Guild also, and even if it hasn't it's not a foreign concept. You can have an Interest Check, and OOC and an IC just like any other RP. It's just that authority and power is not majority being handed over to one person. It's a shared/equal effort, and nothing in the Guild forces you to have a GM, it's just commonly accepted culture.

Exploring options before making a decision isn't shitty advice. Destructive behaviour isn't a simple disagreement, but a threat to the roleplay itself and should be treated as such (again; read harder). Commonly accepted culture = relevance to topic. Brovo made me read this, but I'm bored with this now. So yeah.

Magic Magnum said
I wasn't asking why it's accepted by culture, I was simply highlighting there are ways to run an RP without a GM and it can still work well. It should also be noted RP's are not the same as say running a nation. There's far less people to deal with, and really only one main focus/goal in the end. To have a successful roleplay, as opposed to say covering all the necessities of living.While no set leader in a political system is suicide, it is something commonly proven to be a viable system in running an RP. I'm mainly just arguing the "One size fit's all" mentality approach that seems to be happening here in that all RP's need a GM, and all GM's must get themselves involved on player conflict.

... Because it works. If you have a group of individuals attempting to decide the fate of player X you are more likely to encounter problems than just having the GM do it.

Also most people who argue don't actually stop arguing long enough to really think about things and attempt to come to compromise.

Oh, and you brought up "common culture", so I expanded on it for you and noted why it's a natural glove fit to have a GM & players: It matches how the rest of society typically functions. Yes, you can do it without a GM, but why would you? That's incredible pointless. The GM's role is to play God and make the world and plot, to manage the excess details so that the players can focus purely on their own characters and on each other. I mean, yes, you could distribute that responsibility over the whole, but... Why? It's not like having a GM stops the players from making suggestions and requests... And it provides a central authority figure from which direction and rule can be established...

Brovo said ... Because it . If you have a group of individuals attempting to decide the fate of player X you are more likely to encounter problems than just having the GM do it. Also most people who argue don't actually stop arguing long enough to really think about things and attempt to come to compromise.Oh, and you brought up "common culture", so I expanded on it for you and noted why it's a natural glove fit to have a GM & players: It matches how the rest of society typically functions. Yes, you can do it without a GM, but why would you? That's incredible pointless. The GM's role is to play God and make the world and plot, to manage the excess details so that the players can focus purely on their own characters and on each other. I mean, yes, you could distribute that responsibility over the whole, but... It's not like having a GM stops the players from making suggestions and requests... And it provides a central authority figure from which direction and rule can be established...

Issues can also be started by the GM giving a ruling on player X's fate though if it's seen to be unfair, or made with other influence/motivation. This and players stopping an argument long enough to compromise though both heavily rely on the player's maturity. And I fully admit a system without a GM should be reserved for those who are more mature, because those who are not mature need someone with a better head on their shoulders making and calling some of the shots.

Personally I find there are two main advantages to a lack of a GM.

1. More overall creativity. You have multiple minds going 100% out in creating a plot/story, not one mind with the suggestions of others. Assuming they're mature enough to allow their creativity to co-exist and not override one another's creations it can make the world that much more expansive and meaningful for all the players.

2. Simply more freedom and liberty. I think everyone here would of ran into that dreaded point where you want to keep roleplaying but you have to stop because something happens that only the GM is at liberty to make a decision on. If there is no established GM and everyone shares control that issue can be resolved there by the players present and roleplaying can continue unhindered.

Now, this being said. It's not for everyone, it requires a lot of maturity to pull off right, and it's probably not something most people find works for their group. But it is something that at least some players work better in, and have more enjoyable roleplay's as a result of it. It just comes with the extra requirement of the players being able to resolve and establish rule and direction without any one person being responsible to manage it.

Magic Magnum said Issues can also be started by the GM giving a ruling on player X's fate though if it's seen to be unfair, or made with other influence/motivation.

... So go find a new GM if the current one is a dick. Or if you think every GM is a dick, be a GM. It's not like there's any barrier to entry...

Magic Magnum said This and players stopping an argument long enough to compromise though both heavily rely on the player's maturity.

Except you should never bet on people being anything less than stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and selfish. Call that pessimism if you want but I call it practicality: When you plan for the worst and hope for the best, you're ready if shit hits the fan, but pleasantly surprised if it doesn't!

Magic Magnum said And I fully admit a system without a GM should be reserved for those who are more mature, because those who are not mature need someone with a better head on their shoulders making and calling some of the shots.

... Or because GM's simply work and have since the 70's, but hey, what do I with my extensive 10+ years knowledge of D&D, Pathfinder, Rolemaster, and PbPRP knowledge know about these things?

Magic Magnum said Personally I find there are two main advantages to a lack of a GM.1. More overall creativity. You have multiple minds going 100% out in creating a plot/story, not one mind with the suggestions of others. Assuming they're mature enough to allow their creativity to co-exist and not override one another's creations it can make the world that much more expansive and meaningful for all the players.

I'm sorry, but... What? How is a person's creativity lessened by having a GM? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, all having a GM here would do is help ensure that the world makes coherent sense as one person ultimately decides what does and does not fit, instead of a few or even several minds all simultaneously adding to the world and each potentially causing errors to one another's works ranging from chronological to physical to scientific and so on.

In my experience both as a GM and as a player the level of creativity a player has is not affected whatsoever by their GM. It's affected exclusively by themselves, because, uhh... It's their creativity. If they wanna add a village, they can do that. If they don't, they wouldn't without a GM anyway. In fact I would almost wager you that if a group of people came together without a GM and a person just wanted to make a character, but felt they had to add more in order to look like they were contributing, it would actually be less creative and less fun than simply having the GM there who has all this stuff set up already, and is willing to take suggestions from those who want to add more than a character.

Magic Magnum said 2. Simply more freedom and liberty.

'Murica.

Magic Magnum said I think everyone here would of ran into that dreaded point where you want to keep roleplaying but you have to stop because something happens that only the GM is at liberty to make a decision on. If there is no established GM and everyone shares control that issue can be resolved there by the players present and roleplaying can continue unhindered.

Except that (assuming the GM is not a railroading dipshit) you can probably just continue whatever it was you were doing anyway. Unless that thing is waiting on the GM to respond with an NPC or something, in which case if the GM was merely a player controlling the NPC, that would in no way magically make that person suddenly less busy or inept at responding in a timely manner to the other player's inquiries.

Again, this in no way is an improvement from the system of a GM. If anything, if this was a player holding up another player, the GM can simply step in and go "nope now this is fixed" and blam, it's fixed. If the GM disappears altogether, then you simply replace the GM with another GM, one of the players can step forward to take over. If that's not the case and the idea dies, the idea would have died if that same person was not a GM and abandoned ship anyway.

Magic Magnum said Now, this being said. It's not for everyone, it requires a lot of maturity to pull off right, and it's probably not something most people find works for their group. But it is something that at least some players work better in, and have more enjoyable roleplay's as a result of it. It just comes with the extra requirement of the players being able to resolve and establish rule and direction without any one person being responsible to manage it.

Then why bother? If it requires so much "maturity" to pull off, then there is no point when the GM equivalent simply functions better. Not to mention it's much easier to determine things like thread ownership in this way. Say a player starts to repeatedly flame in one of my RP's, I just have to call a moderator over. I made the thread, so they know that it's my RP, and I'm allowed to drop someone if they're misbehaving.

Again. It's not that it's impossible. It's fully possible... It's just incredible pointless.

I've had experience with a non GM led RP that was incredibly successful. On my old forum, a user started up an rp that only ever involved the first post, and after that they vanished. But the rest of the players, of which there was about 6-8, simply carried on and used the setting that was available to detail their characters coming together and interacting, and together we would add and contribute things and build off each others' works and in the end we built up a pretty nice and vibrant rp that was successful. The original rp creator actually appeared much later and was stunned by the success and dedication of us players, and was quite bewildered by it. It was a fun experience.

However, the reason why it worked is because the RPing community I was a part of was pretty small, and most of the players there were familiar/recognisable to each other, even if we hadn't rped with each other before. And everyone there was, like I mentioned before, communicative, dedicated and willing to listen to advice and constructive criticism from each other in order to become better rpers. We all grew immensely, and in that situation, well... we really didn't need a GM. But that's because we were like minded rpers all with a similar rping skill level on a small and dedicated fanbase forum.

On a forum with a community as large and diverse (even within all of its various subcategories, there's a massive spectrum of 'skill' within Free, Casual and Advanced) as RPG, I don't think this kind of thing would work. And also partly because of how flaky a lot of players can be who end up needing to depend on a GM to guide and lead them. I think a GM less RP could work on this forum, but it'd be incredibly rare and unlikely, and a GM ran RP has a much better chance of success. That said, the % of successful rps is incredibly low anyway, so...

Magic said Personally I find there are two main advantages to a lack of a GM.1. More overall creativity. You have multiple minds going 100% out in creating a plot/story, not one mind with the suggestions of others. Assuming they're mature enough to allow their creativity to co-exist and not override one another's creations it can make the world that much more expansive and meaningful for all the players.

Brovo said I'm sorry, but... What? How is a person's creativity lessened by having a GM? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, all having a GM here would do is help ensure that the world makes coherent sense as one person ultimately decides what does and does not fit, instead of a few or even several minds all simultaneously adding to the world and each potentially causing errors to one another's works ranging from chronological to physical to scientific and so on.

In my experience both as a GM and as a player the level of creativity a player has is not affected whatsoever by their GM. It's affected exclusively by themselves, because, uhh... It's their creativity. If they wanna add a village, they can do that. If they don't, they wouldn't without a GM anyway. In fact I would almost wager you that if a group of people came together without a GM and a person just wanted to make a character, but felt they had to add more in order to look like they were contributing, it would actually be less creative and less fun than simply having the GM there who has all this stuff set up already, and is willing to take suggestions from those who want to add more than a character.

You'd be surprised. In my experience, I felt I had a lot more creative freedom in the GM less RP we played, simply because... well, there wasn't anybody around to shoot ideas down. In an RP ran by a GM, a good GM, of course players are encouraged to be creative and add and contribute to the world, but like you mentioned, a GM's job is to make the world and story coherent, and sometimes that leads to a situation where a player's idea is shot down. Done maybe once or twice or a few times, and even if it's done politely, it can be a massive blow to that player's confidence and creativity to the point where they might wish to stop trying based on only a few small ideas being turned down that don't fit, and which in turn would leaves more work for the GM. Of course that's down to the player themself and how they respond to that, but in a GM less rp you tend to not come across the situation where ideas are turned down. Although you do run the risk of a drop in quality of world/plot coherency.

I still think a GM ran RP is better simply for the coherency of the world and story (depending on a player's standards and expectations for that), although we did a pretty damn good job in our GM absent one about keeping a well structured and coherent world, but again that was down to the group and our communication between one another, which can work just as well within a GM ran one. They both have their pros and cons, I guess, but it depends on the RP, the RPers involved, and even the site itself, I guess.

Brovo said Except you should never bet on people being anything less than stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and selfish. Call that pessimism if you want but I call it practicality: When you plan for the worst and hope for the best, you're ready if shit hits the fan, but pleasantly surprised if it doesn't!...

Well at least I know you're not in agreement with Kestrel now who seemed to think all players could reasoned with and were reasonable people.

I would admit a GM less system is best reserved for a group of players who already know each other and their skills and maturity. Basically it's preferable in a closed/private group.
Such as say you started a Private RP with just Jorick and Kaga, there really shouldn't be any doubt on ability or skill. You're all familiar with one another, you know each others skills and limits and can plan and function around it.

In general though, I agree with your philosophy of it's better to prepare for the worst.

Brovo said Or because GM's simply and have since the 70's, but hey, what do I with my extensive 10+ years knowledge of D&D, Pathfinder, Rolemaster, and PbPRP knowledge know about these things?

A GM system working or your experience in RP's has never been questioned Brovo.

Brovo said I'm sorry, but... What? How is a person's creativity by having a GM? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, all having a GM here would do is help ensure that the world makes coherent sense as one person ultimately decides what does and does not fit, instead of a few or even several minds all simultaneously adding to the world and each potentially causing errors to one another's works ranging from chronological to physical to scientific and so on.

In my experience both as a GM and as a player the level of creativity a player has is not affected whatsoever by their GM. It's affected exclusively by themselves, because, uhh... It's creativity. If they wanna add a village, they can do that. If they don't, they wouldn't without a GM anyway. In fact I would almost wager you that if a group of people came together without a GM and a person just wanted to make a character, but felt they had to add more in order to look like they were contributing, it would actually be less creative and less fun than simply having the GM there who has all this stuff set up already, and is willing to take suggestions from those who want to add more than a character.

Pachamac already covered this but I'll repeat it because it was what I was going to answer with regardless. There are times a player can have an idea and it's simply shot down because it doesn't fit the vision or plan of the GM. And really if you want to prevent a lot of conflicts you just need make a system to help track it.

For example, on an old site I used to use we made a timeline system for RP's so there wouldn't be confusion as to which event happened before or after one another. Because it was a problem we started to mention, with references to events both in past and future as if someone was flying around in a TARDIS so we had to sit down and figure out how to fix this.

Also when I was in this system there was no standard or level of effort or production expected from players in terms in ideas or plot hooks. Everyone contributed when they had an idea and no one felt forced to add more or less than they currently were. Yes someone who is constantly paranoid about putting in effort is a potential problem, but like I said this system may not work for all players. But also many times this can simply be solved by explaining to them that they're fine the way they are.

Brovo said Except that (assuming the GM is not a railroading dipshit) you can probably just continue whatever it was you were doing anyway. Unless that thing is waiting on the GM to respond with an NPC or something, in which case if the GM was merely a player controlling the NPC, that would in no way magically make that person suddenly less busy or inept at responding in a timely manner to the other player's inquiries.

Again, this in no way is an improvement from the system of a GM. If anything, if this was a player holding up another player, the GM can simply step in and go "nope now this is fixed" and blam, it's fixed. If the GM disappears altogether, then you simply replace the GM with another GM, one of the players can step forward to take over. If that's not the case and the idea dies, the idea would have died if that same person was not a GM and abandoned ship anyway.

But the GM get's that responsibility/control over a lot more things than the typical player, so the progress and speed of the RP becomes far more dependent on that one person's time schedule than anyone else's. In all RP's you'll get cases where you can't do ________ because ________ isn't online at the moment. But generally the more even spread the control is the easier it is to find other means to keep the posts flowing when someone isn't available to reply.

And this also applies in regards to the GM clearing other players inactivity because the more you rely on them the more dependent the RP's pace becomes on if they're online at the moment or not. And if you're able to solve this just by changing DM's then the whole "Creativity/world of the GM" argument becomes a bit void because now it's another persons creative mind in charge. It simply becomes about ability to control and keep things going, where the more even spread it is the less room there is for stalling or restriction on the players.

Brovo said Then why bother? If it requires so much "maturity" to pull off, then there is no point when the GM equivalent simply functions better. Not to mention it's much easier to determine things like thread ownership in this way. Say a player starts to repeatedly flame in one of my RP's, I just have to call a moderator over. I made the thread, so they know that it's my RP, and I'm allowed to drop someone if they're misbehaving.

Again. It's not that it's impossible. It's fully possible... It's just incredible pointless.

If a certain therapy only works for say a small amount of people (mainly because only a small amount of people are in a position to need it) should we then simply not bother because it doesn't work with everyone?

The GM equivalent simply functions better only when the players lack the maturity to self-regulate. If you're with immature players or a group you don't know then yes it's simply better to have a GM. There's too many unknown factors to predict otherwise. You're free to disagree with that creativity can be hampered by a GM, or to say you simply wouldn't work as well in a GM-less RP. But that doesn't mean everyone feels that way, or that everyone functions better with a GM. There are people who simply perform better when someone else isn't given authority over them to regulate and approve or disapprove of their ideas and actions.

Thread ownership honestly doesn't count for anything, whose name is listed at owning the thread or having the original idea doesn't really matter much. It's the result and the collaboration of all the involved roleplayers that matter, and this is something that applies may you have a GM or not. If not there would be no point for a GM to gather interest in an Interest Check.

Even in a GM-less system for organizing the RP there will still be accounts with permissions to edit and alter features simply because that's how the engine works. The person who for example created the site would have those rights by default and this could be shared with everyone or simply those who felt like they wanted such access. In a case where a player is flaming it's just as easy to use those powers to get rid of them, or leave it to a group vote first. And if the vote honestly is not majority "remove the guy" then that's a clear indication it's not just one person causing trouble but there is an apparent conflict in the group that players need to be addressing and resolving.

It might be pointless for you, I can understand that. But there are players who do function better in such a system, or simply have more fun in such a system. Those are the players such a thing is meant for, I am not trying to prescribe this as the standard or 'better' RP system over all. It is preferable for a certain group of players, definitely a minority mind you. But just because it's preferable only for a minority doesn't mean it's pointless or should be ignored as a possible option.