What's the real difference between GM-less games and traditional GM-player RPGs?
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I’m curious how other people see it.
I enjoy a wide variety of TTRPG systems. These days I probably lean more toward narrative-focused games, but that actually isn’t the point of this post. These are questions related to this post. I also sincerely hope that someone can share their own opinions.
First, some people asked me what the difference is between GM-less games and more traditional GM-player structures. Mechanically the differences are obvious, but I’m not always sure how to explain it clearly. I’d genuinely like to hear how other people frame that distinction.
Second, if we accept that a GM is not strictly necessary in GM-less games, I often run into another problem: participant initiative becomes strangely low. Players hesitate because they keep wondering, “Am I allowed to do this?” Ironically, I’ve also experienced the exact opposite problem in traditional games, where some players become too proactive — especially the classic “I already know this monster’s stat” kind of behavior.
So I’m curious how people deal with both extremes:
excessive hesitation in collaborative play
excessive assertiveness or metagaming in traditional play
Finally, how do you personally view the relationship between GM and players? Do GM-less and traditional systems fundamentally create different relationships at the table, or do you think the difference is overstated?