Co-GMing and Inheritance

Hello there,

Let me first say that I am a relative newcomer to this community having been a part of it for less than two months so I haven't had time to fully grasp how RP's are run on this site. However I come from a different RP community which although recently has burnt out, had a well-developed and functioning system for GMing.

If an RP can be visualized as a vehicle then we can suppose that the RP'ers are the engine that drives it forward. The body is the environment constructed by the GM and further manipulated by the players. The transmission and motive systems are the actions that the RP'ers pursue within the game environment. The fuel of this vehicle is imagination and determination both in equal parts. The electronics/lighting/control features is/are composed of the collective degree of discipline displayed by the players and the GM. When every part is in harmony, the vehicle functions as a well-oiled machine. There's one thing missing from this picture though: the driver. The driver is, of course, the GM. It is the GM's responsibility to manage the vehicle, point it in the right direction and apply throttle and brakes when necessary. They are the prime authority within an RP; they direct all and answer to none. But there is a problem...

You see, GM's are human beings, living creatures that have a life outside of the RP community and as you all know life can throw some serious curve balls at you. Or maybe its just that life for said GM might be on the edge, everything is very tightly timed and the slightest disruption will trigger a domino effect of scheduling collapse. My old community recognized this and also recognized that players who were heavily invested in an RP lose out when the GM is unable to fulfill his or her duties for whatever reason. To this end the OOC and IM systems of the website were utilized heavily in order to keep the RP'ers informed of any delays, dead zones, etc. Yet we found out that wasn't enough because there were times when a GM had to step down from his or her position as the driver of the RP permanently. Well what now? That vehicle has no driver to control it, what happens? Well it goes nowhere. What do you do in this situation? Well you may have had the foresight to have somebody ride shotgun with you: the co-GM.

The Co-GM will act just like a normal RP'er (and may be given some special permissions due to their authority) but unlike other RP'ers they will be informed of the GM's decision making before it hits the activity board. This is to keep the Co-GM informed of the desired direction of the RP, allows them to feel the flow of the creative dynamo and be ready to take the helm in the event that the first GM cannot continue for an extended period of time, or even just for a short duration. To this end this means that the Co-GM must possess formidable discipline as they are sworn to secrecy and must act as if they know nothing, or at the very least refrain from acting upon the information they are granted.

Then of course there is the unthinkable: what if both the GM and Co-GM are unable to fulfill their obligations for whatever reason? Who then is left to take command? Well ideally an RP'er will volunteer to take the helm and after being equipped with the information the GM and Co-GM had in their possession that player would know what to do. But reality is rarely ideal and power-trips happen. So then there must be a system of 'inheritance' established. The GM and Co-GM observe the actions of the players and analyze their capacity to follow and lead. This criteria will of course vary from RP to RP but the principle mechanics are the same, a player slated for inheritance must have a proper combination of discipline, creativity and perseverance. Inheritance is very "hit or miss", there is no science to selecting a player to inherit control of the RP and even if a player appears to be the perfect candidate it is ultimately up to them to decide if they want to grab the reins of command. This system was in it's experimental stages when my old RP community began to die off.

Whether or not a Co-GM or inheritance exists within an RP communication is crucial and having been a Co-GM myself before I made it my duty to keep players informed of developments, time tables and other insensitive material. This went a long way to stimulating interest in those RP's and I feel that the same methods can be applied here. I plan on starting my own RP sometime within the next few months and I will be utilizing these methods in order to maintain the integrity of the RP.

So then. Opinions? Similar experiences? Recommendations? Admonishments (be reasonable please)?

I think it is a rather genius plan and very well thought out. I have only been successful with this once on another website where I ran a game with over 40 players, not characters. I had three GMs, and they had their Co-GMs, and I was the Creator of the RP. It was highly successful and it still runs today without me checking in on it at all. It is the most success that I have ever had, and it is over a year old now. So, the system does work and can work flawlessly, though the end product may not be the same as it first was envisioned but that is a given.

I think it is all just up to personal preference whether others wish to utilize such a system or not.

Huh. I do have to say, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this depiction of GMs, in the beginning, at least. I view GMing as less of a dictatorship, and more of a creative visionary working together with all the elements, as one. Rather than "answering to none", the GM has to be able to establish legitimacy with authority, but in a way that doesn't alienate. You've got some heavy, strong language in the beginning, there.

However, analyzing the ability to lead is something that comes naturally, in any setting, inasmuch as a text-based roleplay. When everyone comes to the table with the longterm goal of just making the content better, I think it's easier to arrive to that point. Leave ulterior motives aside. It's all about telling a story.

Interesting point to Prose, too. Being able to let go of an idea that close to you shows a weird sort of trust. xD

-VV

Man, I wish I had read this article while I was wrestling with BB over his MV Pokemon League.

Instead of trying to assert myself as an equal, perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to be a lieutenant, ready to step in if he's not around. Just thinking about it, I can see how it would have led to a lot less ego collision. X_X

Eeeeh... I can't say I agree with this. If the GM is not there to confirm the Co-GM's existence, there is no reason to believe them when they come out saying they've inherited the RP.

Ideally, there should be multiple GMs. Not co-GMs, as that little co- right there is a useless limitation of the authority of someone who is /supposed/ to be helping a GM do their job and thus deserves the respect and title that comes with that work. 2 GMs will generally suffice, though more can be utilized in larger RPs. I would generally recommended that there be no more than 4, because the more GMs you have the larger the chance that they can't all agree on any given thing.

Ultimately, the "RPers vote in a new GM" concept is probably the best way to go about things should no GM remain left.

Rather than "answering to none", the GM has to be able to establish legitimacy with authority, but in a way that doesn't alienate. You've got some heavy, strong language in the beginning, there.

I know that this particular issue of authority has a number of valid theories and leadership structures related to it. Establishing legitimacy of authority I believe is also a very important component of running a successful RP. However I must also say that the very word "authority" implies that the GM possess a level of command innate to the position. The way I see it, a player in joining an RP has given the GM a level of command over the structure of activity within the RP that the player will undergo. As a player, I believe one can't just enter an RP and do whatever they will against the wishes of the GM just because they haven't "earned" that player's respect/fealty. A player has made a sacrifice in agency in order to be a part of a world created by the GM and other players. A player in the end does have authority in that they at any time can choose to leave should things not be to their liking. Like you said VV, the GM doesn't want to alienate the players because if that were the case, the players would leave.

When I say "answer to none", that means that in my mind the final decision making lies solely upon the GM. Sure, players can make suggestions and protests in order to influence the GM's decision yet ultimately the last word is not theirs to have. Again a player at any point can choose to leave and a good GM will always be open to the opinions of the players as it is the GM's job to steer the RP in such a way as to satisfy the players. This does mean though that they can't let others dominate their decisions, which is why I say "answer to none".

If the GM is not there to confirm the Co-GM's existence, there is no reason to believe them when they come out saying they've inherited the RP.

The existence of the co-GM is made public before the RP even begins, at least, that's the case in my experience. If there is no public announcement then yes, you're absolutely right, there is no reason to believe them.

Ideally, there should be multiple GMs. Not co-GMs, as that little co- right there is a useless limitation of the authority of someone who is /supposed/ to be helping a GM do their job and thus deserves the respect and title that comes with that work.

To me there's a functional difference between the two which is why they are differentiated as such. A GM creates the RP, it's backdrop and has an idea in mind as to the direction it will take. They steer the RP as necessary, make sure it doesn't get too far off track and handles grievances that may arise. A co-GM by comparison is a roleplayer who has access to privileged information and will also assist the GM in fostering greater cohesion between players. When the GM must take a leave of absence, the co-GM takes over the controls until the GM returns. Sure, a GM can do this as well but in my mind a GM must also actively manipulate the macro-structure of the RP. Two people doing this at the same time I find redundant unless the the scope of the RP is so vast that such a structure becomes necessary. I also find that it is no measure of disrespect to be called a co-GM for doing a co-GM's job. However if someone acting as a co-GM wishes to be called a GM, I don't see a problem with that either. That's on a case by case basis I feel though.

Ultimately, the "RPers vote in a new GM" concept is probably the best way to go about things should no GM remain left.

I feel this works as well when the RP isn't too ungainly in its numbers. However as the number of players goes up, so does the failure rate of this method of establishing new authorities (an eerie analog to state democracies). The structure of "inheritance" was established to bypass this problem and although this kind of unitary or oligarchical system may provoke some sour reactions, I feel its better that the RP continues to function despite maybe losing a few players. Now obviously if there is a massive protest to the proposed inheritance then things would have to be reconsidered.