Ahem... Erick's Forge Adventure?

[The Yann Waters]

Which is a very pretentious way of saying no, actually we don't give a toss about how much our character can lift, as long as he can lift more than his cousin, because that's the way Amber works, that's the way amberites think. In Amber, if you wanna heave the fucking lorry, you will, as long as there are no cousins trying to push it down.

And yet that example about an Amberite trying to lift a car keeps cropping up in forum posts and blog entries about the game, probably because it's straight out of the novels. (With great effort, in light gravity, Corwin manages to lift one end of their vehicle into the air.) Clearly personal ability to affect their surroundings does remain a concern for any number of players: otherwise there wouldn't be arguments over, say, Gerard going mano-a-mano with Hulk. Having the PCs easily defeat any creature from the Shadows, no matter how strong or swift or resilient those might be, is only one interpretation of the situation, and by no means uncontroversial.

Oh, and if you want to play an "Uzi-wielding happy-go-lucky killing machine with no remorse whatsoever" in V:tM, check whether the GM is willing to run a Sabbat campaign. Humanity and the loss thereof isn't much of a problem when you follow the Path of Whatever I Was Going To Do Anyway. (Personally, I was always more of a Mage kind of a guy.)

[Croaker]

I'd like to dangle you, like Gerard did to Corwin in the Amber books, over a precipice and ask you the question "What is so bad about the percentile system in CoC?" I find it an easy mechanic to use.
Since this isn't the forum for such questions would you mind enlightening us as to your opinion on the matter in the main rpg forum?

In short, some of this is most visible in combat:

Low skill: You'll miss most attacks, and, when you hit, your opponent will miss most defenses. Boooring, at least to me

High Skill: You'll succeed in most attacks, who will almost always be parried. Much more boring, again to me.

Later games, like Elric, have tried to deal this this, but with difficulty.
Add to this the fact that skill are often low, so that you'll often fail, and this gets much more cumbersome than, say, a dice+skill vs dice+skill system.

[SunBoy]

And yet that example about an Amberite trying to lift a car keeps cropping up in forum posts and blog entries about the game, probably because it's straight out of the novels. (With great effort, in light gravity, Corwin manages to lift one end of their vehicle into the air.) Clearly personal ability to affect their surroundings does remain a concern for any number of players: otherwise there wouldn't be arguments over, say, Gerard going mano-a-mano with Hulk. Having the PCs easily defeat any creature from the Shadows, no matter how strong or swift or resilient those might be, is only one interpretation of the situation, and by no means uncontroversial.

I've never said PCs can always defeat Shadow-guys, I said that's what amberites seem to think through the books, and I said that's not what's ultimately important for the characters. And that's my opinion, and the general way in which I play and GM Amber. I respect other people's right to do it wrongly

Of course, the mano a mano with Hulk thingie would depend on the Shadow. If you accept the theory that amberites are superior to Shadow-dwellers just because, meaning Gerry's actually the strongest bloke in the Universe, then he'll pulp the greenie. If not, then it would depend on Gerard himself, actually, and on whether or not he chose to be in a Shadow where he could be bested. Or else, in the smarty-pants that put him there.

Oh, and if you want to play an "Uzi-wielding happy-go-lucky killing machine with no remorse whatsoever" in V:tM, check whether the GM is willing to run a Sabbat campaign. Humanity and the loss thereof isn't much of a problem when you follow the Path of Whatever I Was Going To Do Anyway. (Personally, I was always more of a Mage kind of a guy.)

He. Point taken. But I guess you got mine, didn't you?

[RPGPundit]

We may have different opinions on exactly what constitutes a "story" in this context, though. Didn't you once lament your players' unfortunate tendency to interfere with your carefully orchestrated cut scenes and set speeches? I'd never do that.

My idea of "story" in this context is the idea that in a game you have to end up producing a "story" and that this "story" should be more important than the playing of the actual game, or anything either the GM or the players do, that this is somehow the goal.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

My idea of "story" in this context is the idea that in a game you have to end up producing a "story" and that this "story" should be more important than the playing of the actual game, or anything either the GM or the players do, that this is somehow the goal.

My idea of the "story" is that one will inevitably be generated by the actions chosen by the PCs during actual play, little by little, but whether anyone in the group will consider that a goal in itself or a meaningless by-product will also vary from one player to the next. As said before, in my games no one prevails because what they attempt is "cool" or "dramatic." If they do succeed in their pursuits, the result is a story of success; if they fail, a story of failure. I can make either course of events as dramatic as necessary.

[Croaker]

My idea of "story" in this context is the idea that in a game you have to end up producing a "story" and that this "story" should be more important than the playing of the actual game, or anything either the GM or the players do, that this is somehow the goal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this sound too much linear to me.

I mean, as a player, I like to be free of my actions, and, as a GM, I hate railroading players.

What's more important to me? Everyone having fun. As grimgent said, a story, good or bad, is the result of what happens in game, but no one should feel constrained by that: If the players are happy describing things and interacting between themselves, fine by me! I won't try to drag them in my story, although they might suffer the consequences of ignoring signs and portents. Which'll make another story.

[RPGPundit]

Maybe I'm wrong, but this sound too much linear to me.

I mean, as a player, I like to be free of my actions, and, as a GM, I hate railroading players.

I agree, that's my point. To quote grandpa simpson: "I ain't fer it, I'm agin it!"

Its why I say Storygamers are Swine.

RPGPundit