Gamemaster run or Cooperative GMless game?

[knightkrawler]

For GB, I seem to recall that he plays quests with a Groundhog Day, Lazarus, Video game style do-over loop, which likely finds even less support on the forum than your RPG cross-over style. To each his/her own.

Nothing like a game of vanilla HQ after snorting a big ol' line from a space-goat's ass cleavage.

[Goblin-King]

For GB, I seem to recall that he plays quests with a Groundhog Day, Lazarus, Video game style do-over loop, which likely finds even less support on the forum than your RPG cross-over style. To each his/her own.

We did this when we were kids.
I remember when we were quite deep in the original quests. Somehow there were no survivors.
Conversation went something like this:

So, uhm, yearh... You all died I guess.
How do we get our equipment and gold back?
You don't. You are all dead.
Whaaaat?
You can make new characters and pick up where the others died.
But we don't get our equipment back?
No... Would you rather just rewind time and try again?
YES!

But actually I've recently tried playing D&D for the first time ever! Yay!
Two new guys and two veterans.
We were doing really poorly. Bad rolls and bad decisions. Clinging to our lives. Reaching 0 HP left and right.
But we kept finding healing potions. My demon master resurrected me a couple of times. It was obvious these events weren't planned.
And honestly I didn't find that so much fun.
I get that the GM didn't want to stomp us and that he had put work into his campaign.
But I kept thinking "just let us die on this dungeon floor already"!
When we finally made it out of the dungeon it didn't really feel as an accomplishment...

[Tott]

I voted GM, as you get a much better story-telling experience that can include twists, secrets and surprises in a much more structured manner than a co-op game.

[whitebeard]

I like the Game master variant more, mainly because there can be a narrative in the dungeon setup that ties nicely with the narrative of the quest note and the overall campaign story.

A random dungeon is just that: random. Random means you remove any information and replace it with noise. There is no narrative and no thought-through setup. It's just... a row of rooms. For me that's boring. I need a story.

That said, sometimes, with a certain player type, it becomes a screaming match 4 against one about some rule details. With this type of player certainly cooperative is better.

Now if there would be a way to make it storyline driven and cooperative at the same time, I would like that most.

I do prefer the GM run games, for similar reasons. However, if I want to play I have to play the GM less variant and I have to say that Silver Tower solves many of these issues well.

In the end certain elements just don't work when you don't have a game master. Traps for example are not placed at all such that a search would have meaning, where in the former they would be placed with purpose. And when a choice comes up, it reads like a choose your own adventure. If something is important but not necessary, there is no way you can miss it in the same way the GM run version can.

Example 1:
GM version: "You are in a wide musty cavern. It is littered with mushrooms."

GM less version: "Musty Cavern: You are in a wide musty cavern. It is littered with mushrooms. If the players pick some, give this card to the player who explored the room."

Example 2:
GM version: "The door is locked and cannot be opened."

GM less version: "Locked Door: A wizard hero may use "Telekineses" to tear it from it's hinges or "Gas Form" to go underneath and unlock it. If he does read passage 08."

[Patroclus]

I vote for the GM. The games with no GM should have a lot of combat to keep you focused on killing, so it’s like you compare double dragon (beat em up) with monkey island (adventure). There are both great games but totally different.

I really like both styles (WHQ Silver Tower has a lot of fun) but for me the GM is very important.

[QorDaq]

I vote for the GM. The games with no GM should have a lot of combat to keep you focused on killing, so it’s like you compare double dragon (beat em up) with monkey island (adventure). There are both great games but totally different....

I think you make a great point here. One of the things that still needs to evolve in co-op, non-GM games, is a sense of discovery and puzzle-solving that is meaningful to the players. I suppose that is hard to do while keeping things random, though I think that the direction that some games have gone with having "Events" and the like are probably on the right track. But that could well be the most key element that is often missing in pure co-op.

As polarizing as the idea of legacy games can be, I can really see potential there as well. Imagine a Legacy HQ? Where choices were truly meaningful in terms of directing how the end game develops over the course of a campaign... Hmmm... I wonder if there isn't something to that?

[Goblin-King]

What do you mean when you say "legacy games"?

[QorDaq]

What do you mean when you say "legacy games"?

Likely the most notable example is Pandemic, though there have been more coming out (I think Risk was first?). Essentially games which conceal the outcomes of decisions until after you make the choice. More granular and interactive than choose your own adventure stories. The current polarization on legacy style games, is that often they actually have you destroy components and physically alter the game as you go. The detractors argue that you are buying a game with zero replayability, while proponents cite that the epic level of unknown/ unexpected campaign play over the course of a series of games makes up for this mechanic.

In the context of something like HQ, I am imagining a more "in the style of" as opposed to exactly copying the mechanics. Not entirely sure how that would translate, so I am spit-balling here.

[Goblin-King]

often they actually have you destroy components and physically alter the game as you go.

What the flying fraggle! There are games that do that?

[clmckay]

I actually have Pandemic Legacy. I never bothered destroying anything.

It's a very cool concept, Pandemics take on it at least.

You are expected to play two games per month, but can play as many as you like.

There's a deck that you draw cards from that correspond to a point in time: "Draw this card before your first game in July", etc. those cards have mechanics or items that change the basic rules of the game. For example, early in the Pandemic Legacy "story" you end up placing a sticker next to a disease that makes it impossible to cure. As the games progress, you find yourself putting stickers on the board (like if a city has an outbreak, eventually that city falls), on your character cards, etc.

I see people complaining that it limits replayability, but I don't think it really does. At the end if the year, I'll have a customized copy of pandemic that I've played a minimum of 24 times and a fun story that has unfolded. There's no reason not to play the final board state as often as desired. Let's face it if you're playing a legacy game you probably already own the vanilla version too.