It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Jeff_Slater posted this in another thread, but I wanted to spin it off and dig in.Jeff_Slater said:
Follow could be worth trying out as GMless option, after the group gets more used to GMless games, but with some caveats. Follow is most successful when players stay close to the story archetype and genres the Quests are built for, and when everyone is committed to the same tone. Follow will automatically create creativity, so one shouldn’t try to be overly clever or creative or try too much; doing so can often create a sprawling and unsatisfactory story. Just naturally build on each other’s contributions instead of trying to force things or throw in unexpected or clever twists. As stated above, Follow builds the creativity in the story automatically as an emergent property; it will arise naturally as the story unfurles. So to be successful in Follow: 1) Don’t try too much, or try to be clever, just make a scene that would naturally follow from the previous one; 2) Agree on a tone and make sure players stick to it; 3) Focus on believablity; Gonzo is almost always a bad idea; 4) Keep the story focused and tight and build on other player’s contributions; 5) Don’t stray to much from the Quest’s story archetype; staying close to the Quest’s story archetype keeps players on the same page and telling the same story— archetypal stories are archetypal for a reason.
I have some great alternate success/failure rules for Follow if your interested. I also have some suggestions about how to approach and contextualize success/failure in Fiasco. With this approach to Fiasco my group has never had an unsuccessful session and we’ve played it a lot.