Some very thought-provoking things have been said in this discussion. For what it's worth, I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions. I couldn't have said any of it better myself.

Anyway, I agree with Martin about the issues regarding a separate meet-up group. But should the consensus be to have another meet-up (like on alternate Saturdays or Sundays) I would be happy to do my part to make that happen smoothly. Then again, I'd imagine there'd have to be some consideration into the kinds of games with a GM-role that might be played there.

Like I said before, there are good reasons for the current "no GM" stance and a lot of thought went into it, I am sure. It was not an arbitrary or hasty decision which is why I am totally fine with it.

And I'll stand by the group as well, which has thus far been a great experience for me, whatever results from this discussion.

Just by way of clarification, suggesting a different meetup for GMed games doesn't imply (or at least, I didn't mean it to imply) splitting this group. I look at it as providing more gaming opportunities, which IMHO is a good thing :) I personally would go to both groups, as time and scheduling permits. The way I see it is that this group has been successful at attracting a lot of people, and now some of those people might like to start a new group to pursue certain common interests that aren't the focus of this original meetup. Nothing about this implies a turf war, after all why should one expect that a particular group is appropriate for every interest of the participants? For example, in a meetup devoted to Japanese cooking it may be that several of the members also like Chinese; if those members go on to form a Chinese cooking meetup that doesn't imply there was anything wrong with the Japanese one, or that the Japanese group was "banning" Chinese dishes. One could see it as simply good manners; why insist on making Chinese dishes in a Japanese cooking group? :) Rather I see it as a strength of the meetup that it gave birth to a new one.

Oh one thing I wanted to ask Martin, regarding "I'm not sure I can see how having a second community that meets alternate Saturdays with different rules is better than just having a different rules meetup on alternate Saturdays." If I understand you correctly, is what you're proposing that on certain days we play only GMless games, and that on other days we also allow GMed games, as opposed to having GMed games be a possibility at every meetup? Just wanted clarification.

Best Wishes, Manu

Yep, that's the compromise I mean, though to be clear I still don't think we should ban GMed games. Re: your other post, the reason it would be strange is that this is "Story Games Seattle", not "GMless Story Games Seattle", so this is more like having an "Asian Cuisine" meetup which actually only does Japanese food, and then a second "Asian Cuisine" meetup which also does Chinese.

(Which I now realize sounds like an argument for playing anything and all "Story Games", which is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we should play all the story games that work well at our meetups, and since GMed games have often worked well at our meetups in the past, they're not the right set of things to ban.)

I think it's great that people are excited to get together to play GMed games. But I'm not interested in owning it or being ultimately responsible for it, so it would have to be a separate group.

Go start a group! I'll probably even come by and play.

I think having more gaming groups is great. If I recall correctly Manu was trying to get something like this together long before this discussion came up.

I realize that A) I am kind of late to this party and B) I'm kind of new to this group and storygaming, but I thought I'd throw in my (short) two cents.

Just from reading through the responses, I'm leaning toward Sam and Sev's take on this. I don't think there needs to be a hard line and maybe it's okay to take games on a case-by-case. Maybe let the host be the arbiter? "No prep," "Single session," and "Play to find out" are all phrases that really ring true to me, if the term "GMless" doesn't do it for some folks. I hope that the community doesn't feel the need to split because of this issue. . .

This might be entirely unrelated since I don't know the game or remember the name, but I thought I'd mention: A few weeks ago I came late to a storygame event where I almost was put in a group that was doing some sort of dungeon crawl before being switched to something else, and I was very relieved not to be what I, personally, thought of as "stuck" in a dungeon crawl. So I appreciate the need for clarification, despite the murky waters.

Added you to the list, thanks Jasmine. I think the game you were nearly sorted into before we played Love in the Time of Seid was a D&D reskin of the GMless hack of Danger Patrol. I don't think any of the rules under discussion apply to it. But if you find yourself about to feel "stuck" in a game, definitely speak up.

And you are totally a fully fledged and experienced member of the group, and it's never too late for discussion, so no apologizing for contributing. :-)

I just want to mention and re-emphasize that GMed story games that are no prep, etc. can usually be simply hacked by having a rotating GM/MC (thus preserving the "everyone has equal narrative power/opportunity" principle), or by the kinds of strategies exemplified by Monsterheartless and as described by Vincent Baker (see my post on that subject in the separate thread).

Best Wishes, Manu