I'm interested in collaborative story telling in the purest sense so I took improv classes but they lack some things I like about TTRPGs. So I made my own system that is as small as possible. It's easiest to start with the entire rules then examples and explanations.
Here is the entire rule set:
1 person is a game master the rest are players. Each player controls their character and the game master sets the scenario, controls the world (NPCs), and decides if players succeed at uncertain tasks. Each person is improvising everything (it need not be comedy). Each player should have equal parts. The GM may talk more or less than a player depending on your style.
That's it. That's the whole thing. But it's a little hard to understand and has some implications that I'll now work through. Starting with some examples:
GM: "Bob: You stand under the window of the house of your girlfriend."
Bob: "I climb up the wall and open the window."
Alice: "Bob? What are you doing here?"
Bob: "I'm sneaking in so we can be together."
Alice: "I can see that but my parents are still home."
Bob: "Not to worry, I brought a door stop."
Does that sound boring? Then you've probably never done improv. This game may not be for you but here's a spicier example that you can't do in improv:
GM: "The dragon breaths fire down on you."
Bob: "I hold up my shield."
GM: "The fire proofing protects you entirely."
Bob: "I counter attack with my sword. Stabbing at the heart."
GM: "The dragon's hide is too thick and you sword only leaves a bruise. He slashes down with his claws."
Bob: "I stab at the hand as it comes towards me."
GM: "Too slow. Your shield is knocked away."
So why not just regular improv?
Most of the system is just improv but having a GM causes some key differences. Failure is impossible in improv (everyone must agree) but a GM's word is law. You can still cause yourself to fail but since the GM is an outside force you can now feel like you are "winning" since you can overcome challenges. Improv is short for improvisational comedy for a reason: comedy makes the most sense. You could also do slice of life and romance but not much else. A GM controlling the outcome of uncertain actions adds conflict which causes suspense and allows for action genre. A GM controlling the world allows for mysteries. A GM controlling any number of NPCs allows for more plot.
What if I don't need failure?
Then you don't need this system. Just do regular improv. Although a GM may still be useful for plot, it might not be a big enough gain.
How much should the GM talk? The 2 examples are opposite in that.
The goal is for everyone to have fun. The GM should talk as much as they like for the genre they are running in order for all players and the GM to have fun. A GM may opt to say as little as possible so that the end result would look like a play: character focused (NPCs are minor characters) with some narration. Or a GM may talk as much as possible so that it ends up looking like a choose your own adventure: lots of text with decisions (but open ended instead of multiple choice).
How is failure determined?
The GM decides based on the situation. Does it make sense? Would it be fun or drive the plot forward? They should not be using randomness like flipping a coin. If the genre is comedy then pick whichever is more funny. If the genre is action then pick whichever is more exciting (not too easy and not hopeless). It is possible for the GM to setup a puzzle where there is only a few ways to succeed and the PCs have to figure it out.
Can there be PC death?
Yes but since there's no character creation process the player can immediately enter the scene as a new character (if the situation and genre allow it).
What's the dividing line between what the GM vs players control?
As with this entire system: it depends on the situation and the group. A player shouldn't have to ask for permission to drink a beer and should be able to control what objects they have on hand. But there needs to be a group consensus on the matter which may adjust on the fly. Once you know each other better it might become obvious when to pause for an answer. PCs might be able to do some very unlikely things just because the genre expects "rule of cool" (or "rule of funny" etc). So there is no specific action that will always need permission. If the GM is tired of saying "yes, please continue" or a player tired of pausing for response then you should have more things be assumed to succeed.
How could there be plot if everything is improvised?
There can't be as much as a book but there can be more than regular improv. More rail roads means more plot but less freedom. That trade off will be determined by the group. But even with lots of freedom the GM controlling all NPCs and major events can direct certain things to build up and pay off. A GM can plan out how NPCs will act in certain situations and knows what the players won't be able to do. "No. As a normal human you aren't able to jump over the castle walls" is less freedom but not considered unreasonable since it's enforcing consistent in-universe physics but even a simple restriction like that allows a GM to plan what's possible (in regular improv you could totally jump it if you wanted).
This sounds really easy/hard.
This system can be easier than regular improv. If you are a very social person without social anxiety then regular improv might be as easy as walking (but that doesn't make it unfun). On the other hand, if you're like me with minor social anxiety but the desire to socialize then regular improv is both easy and hard. It's super easy because I can't be wrong: say anything I think of and everything is fine. It's hard because it's hard to say what I'm thinking. So there's a war in my mind whenever I do this (just like any social interaction). This system can be easier than regular improv because giving more structure makes it easier to make decisions. However a GM can also make a particular encounter within a game hard to win.
Why not just play Fiasco RPG?
Fiasco looks like a fantastic game and I would recommend it. It has more restrictions than this system which is both good and bad. It makes plot easier but only allows certain settings and styles.
Do I have to mime objects and actions?
No. You can if you want but don't have to. I don't like miming stuff, I'd rather describe what I'm doing while sitting at a table. This reason is why I consider this to technically be a TTRPG sorta.
Is this really a TTRPG?
Not really but I don't have a better term for it. Fiasco just says "RPG" but that uses dice and paper so it's easier to claim the "table top" part of TTRPG. As for "roleplaying game": you make a character and act them out so it certainly has as much roleplaying as the group likes. As for game: I technically wouldn't consider any TTRPG to be a game since there are no win/lose conditions but that's semantics.
