This topic is relevant to my interests. I think PbtA brings a few things to the table that facilitate GMless/full play. Many GM’d PbtA games provide a fair amount of narrative authority to the players, taking a bit of a half-step towards GMless play. Also, the structure of moves (triggers and outcomes) helps answer the “What can I do?” and “What happens next?” questions that arise (explicitly or implicitly) at the table. There’s a natural rhythm to play. It’s the difference between playing an instrument and just winging it, versus having some sheet music and riffing on the notes in between.
At the same time, the GM does have a really robust role in many PbtA games. Move outcomes (particularly failures) often give the GM complete narrative authority. Also, players are encouraged to view the world through their character rather than an authorial perspective. Even simple concepts, such as “never speak the name of your move” sorta’ break down when you’re putting the triggers in the hands of the players.
So, I think GMless PbtA means leveraging the advantages of the engine, and exploring alternatives for where it breaks down.
For my own PbtA-adjacent game, which supports solo and co-op GM-less, I set out to do a few things:
- Get the players comfortable with an authorial perspective through world-building exercises and the framing of the moves.
- Create very visible gameplay loops. In the fiction and mechanically, your vows are what drive your character. Progress tracks measure your headway towards your fulfilling a vow. You can’t make progress unless you overcome threats and obstacles. Fulfilling a vow is how you measure character advancement and gain narrative and mechanical rewards. Meanwhile, by the virtue of the mechanics, vows will tend to go off the rails and trigger new quests. I think (hope) this gameplay loop creates an inertia that helps drive story and facilitates play from both the authorial and character perspectives.
- Fold the GM moves into outcomes.
- Use dice mechanics that extend the PbtA range and create a bit more of a mathematical focus on weak hits and misses as the sweet spot for story. Moves tend to waterfall into new complications.
- Use resource management mechanics for player engagement to help fill in some of the cracks of decision-making that you lose without a GM.
- Use oracles (random results and generators) to help answer questions and trigger narrative surprises and revelations. Most of these prompts are somewhat abstract, so still require player interpretation (they aren’t “GM emulators”), but in practice they really do allow you to get out of your head and take the story in unexpected directions.
- Provide reference materials for those who aren’t interested in diving into the rulebook in any depth, as long as you have someone who can function as a bit of a facilitator when necessary.
That said, one challenge discussed here that I didn’t address is the logistics of narrative authority within a group, ensuring spotlight sharing, resolving disagreements, etc. I have some nods to this in principles, and I think the format of the moves helps, but I realize that’s probably weaksauce for a GMless game. I can imagine that some folks will bounce off it or encounter frustrations because it doesn’t regiment that aspect of play to a greater degree. The saving grace, if any, is that’s it’s built for small groups (two players GMless is the sweet spot), so less of an issue than at a table with 5 or 6.
