This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Amber: All Power to the GM  (Read 7677 times)

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #105 on: December 16, 2006, 10:45:13 AM »
Quote from: GrimGent
Of course, and that's no different from what all the bickering has been about in the other threads. To recap: if a character by all rights and logic is capable of something, then she should be allowed do that as well when the player so chooses, without arbitrary interference just because the action wouldn't fit into the GM's masterplan.


Meesa thinks we're disscusing two different thingies here, Mister Jedi. I wouldn't deny that arbitrary railroading-biased judgement it's not only perjudicial to the game, I found it's sorely lame-assed. But I don't see where you get the idea of ADRP system as it is enforcing or suggesting that. Of course you CAN railroad the plot, but you can also do it in any other RPG. Hell, i've seen railroading in masterless sessions, and THAT'S lame. The book's "lockpicking" case is not relevant here. Lockpicking as a part of his Chaos Lord training? Gimme a break. He could as easily have said, "Well, I've picked a thing or two about locks in that modern shadow, so I try to figure out how to open it", and that would have been not only acceptable, but more believable.
And about the "5000+ pages of background"... come on, Alex, mate. You HAVE to know that "I spent a few decades as a pirate in a Renaissance Shadow, the a few more in a cyberpunk one and finally, after serving in the Napoleonic navy and three or four years wenching in some XIX century-style France I got back to Amber" gives you a detailed enough background along with giving you room to both RP and skill picking. A GM who tell you that a thieving background doesn't come with all you've mentioned, is definitely an asshole (this not having anything to do with any pederastic behaviors the Pundit wants to assign him). So please, I really think you're coming up with artificial reasons to critic the system. Anyway, if that's what you think, what's the solution you proposse for the system? Maybe apply some kind of "Skill point" system? Don't know, maybe 10 for a character point, with saving and/or exchanging possibilities? Any thoughts?
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

The Yann Waters

  • Doesn\'t Hate
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 2691
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #106 on: December 16, 2006, 11:30:37 AM »
Quote from: SunBoy
I wouldn't deny that arbitrary railroading-biased judgement it's not only perjudicial to the game, I found it's sorely lame-assed. But I don't see where you get the idea of ADRP system as it is enforcing or suggesting that.
I'm not. What bothers me is the curious misconception that the various variants on "saying 'yes'" in any of those RPGs which treat the principle seriously somehow amount to "instant gratification", and that the group can use it to get whatever they want, whenever they want. I'm yet to see a single game which works out like that during play: even Wushu with its Narrative Truth doesn't give the players control over the pacing of the scenes.
Previously known by the name of "GrimGent".

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #107 on: December 16, 2006, 11:53:43 AM »
That's true. Did I make myself clear in separating those two concepts? I wasn't trying to preach the "Always say yes" bullshit, what I was trying to say was that in a good Amber game, the QUESTION shouldn't arise too often, because you usually know what your character can and cannot do, and since the player is not taking in account the rules he doesn't have to ask about them, he just simply has to state the character's intended course of action. And I find that great.
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

The Yann Waters

  • Doesn\'t Hate
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 2691
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #108 on: December 16, 2006, 12:08:41 PM »
Quote from: SunBoy
I wasn't trying to preach the "Always say yes" bullshit, what I was trying to say was that in a good Amber game, the QUESTION shouldn't arise too often, because you usually know what your character can and cannot do, and since the player is not taking in account the rules he doesn't have to ask about them, he just simply has to state the character's intended course of action. And I find that great.
You could say exactly the same thing about Puppetland, though, in which all the stats are limited to the brief lists of what a character can do and what it cannot do, without involving numerical values in any way. Uncertainty only becomes a concern when you run into unknown factors like strange new acquaintances, and even then mathematical calculations have nothing to do with resolving the situation. Immersion-wise, that's a good thing.

(And of course, I'm in the "never say 'no'" camp rather than a proponent of "always say 'yes'", since the former is considerably more practical...)
Previously known by the name of "GrimGent".

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #109 on: December 16, 2006, 12:15:14 PM »
Puppetland, huh? Mate, there seem to be a lot of games you know and I don't. That one sound interesting. Any good link?
And about the topic at hand, well... now's just rethorical. I'm not into any of those premises, I mean, the "You can try..." thing rapidly becomes boring.
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

The Yann Waters

  • Doesn\'t Hate
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 2691
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #110 on: December 16, 2006, 12:34:20 PM »
Quote from: SunBoy
Puppetland, huh? Mate, there seem to be a lot of games you know and I don't. That one sound interesting. Any good link?
The abbreviated version used to be available from the old website of John Tynes. The Wayback Machine should be able to get that... Ah, here.
Quote
And about the topic at hand, well... now's just rethorical. I'm not into any of those premises, I mean, the "You can try..." thing rapidly becomes boring.
Not if you know what the character is capable of in the first place. There's a difference between "Can I pluck the moon from the sky like it was a silver dollar?" and "Can I bring peace between these two warring gangland families?" In the first case, success is in all likelihood determined directly by the stats, always depending on whether that sort of a thing is even possible in the setting, and the player already knows whether his PC would be left reaching for the skies in vain. In the second case, there's really nothing stopping the would-be peacemaker from going ahead with his efforts no matter what his stats are and trying to convince both parties into a truce, even if the chances of succeeding might seem pretty much non-existent.
Previously known by the name of "GrimGent".

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #111 on: December 16, 2006, 01:41:27 PM »
Quote from: alexandro

Where? It is obvious the player is confused as to what is actually happening. The GM could have said: "I didn't make a mistake. The object flying through a window didn't constitute a danger, but NOW your cat is sensing a danger. What are you doing?" instead of using a needlessly byzantine sentence construction to further confuse the player.

The whole examples reek of a GM, who isn't treating his players like adults capable of making informed decisions, but like children, who must be taught what "true roleplaying" is like.


Shit, the player is trying to stop the fucking scene to complain that it should changed, retconned back, so that his character's danger sense would go off before the object came through the window.  
And then instead of dropping it, he continues to try to argue based on what's on his character rather than on what his GM is telling him.

That kind of player apparently DOES need a lesson in how to roleplay...

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

alexandro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • a
  • Posts: 137
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #112 on: December 16, 2006, 04:11:47 PM »
The GM is the one arguing.
Instead of flat off deciding "No, the object flying through the window didn't constitute a danger. Lets move on.", he goes off on the stupid "who is asking this?" debate, stopping the scene in its tracks.
Why do they call them "Random encounter tables" when there's nothing random about them? It's just the same stupid monsters over and over. You want random? Fine, make it really random. A hampstersaurus. A mucus salesman. A toenail golem. A troupe of fornicating clowns. David Hasselhoff. If your players don't start crying the moment you pick up the percent die, you're just babying them.

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #113 on: December 17, 2006, 09:31:01 AM »
Quote from: James McMurray
How do you get that recipe when you're the one introducing your group to the game and don't have another Amber GM to watch? Certainly you can get to be a good GM on your own, if you've got players willling to tell you when you're screwing up, but Amber seems to take GM involvement in the game to an entirely new level.

The way I finally "got it" was to play in a game run by Erick and to watch to see what he did. I had read the rulebook several times, but couldn't really get the correct feel for play because I was too much a D&D-style gamer. Once I saw it in action, it made so much more sense.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #114 on: December 17, 2006, 10:22:56 AM »
This whole thread has wandered off into strange directions.

I think that the examples in the ADRP rulebook are supposed to show how an interaction might occur, but are not the definitive authority on any one point. Clearly, the GM could have said something "better" in some cases, but I'll bet that most of the examples came from actual game logs and the GM didn't have the luxury of a "do-over".

1. As far as background goes, a general background is fine to determine general skills and player should never be able to just pull skills out of his butt in the middle of an adventure. A general life sequence should be determined, and if the player wants to add to the list it should be in between game sessions and after GM approval.

If a player was a thief for ten years, it would be appropriate to assume that he had skills in lockpicking, picking pockets, lurking in shadows, dealing with a fence, being interrogated by authorities, and so on. There is no reason why a player would have to assemble a comprehensive list of all actions taken or skills learned.

However, if the player decides that he was such a good thief that he never got caught, deciding later on that he could beat a lie-detector would be cheating.

And after failing to pick a lock nine times, a player shouldn't be allowed to add the thief background later in anticipation of the tenth lock because this would be contrary to events established in previous game sessions.

Deciding that a character could pick locks because he was Lord of Chaos is just dumb. It's a poor example, and those sorts of things should be cleaned up in a 2nd edition because they are misleading.

2. On the lockpicking example in general, just because the players can’t get through the locked door right now doesn’t make it railroading. As a GM I enjoy putting challenges in front of the players and hinting that they would like to beat these challenges, and then they spend a lot of time coming up with good ideas (most of which get shot down) on how to beat the challenge.

Eventually they win if they are persistant enough, and they feel good about their victory. Since we are only seeing a small slice of the campaign (and an example of how to make the characters fail at something) we don’t really know why the door was locked and by who and therefore shouldn’t whine about not allowing the players to succeed.

Part of the problem in ADRP is that players get so used to success that they often whine if they fail at something. This doesn't happen in a diced game because they know "the odds" before they try an action, but in diceless they can just blame the GM.

3. As far as "danger sense" example goes, my interpretation is that a player has been using this ability far too much and the GM is trying to shake things up a little. Should the GM have said it better? Perhaps, but the important thing is to give the player the sense that he doesn't "know it all" because the GM is trying to maintain some level of unknown and curiosity.

A good player might curse or rant for a moment because of the failure of the ability, but then wonder "okay, so why didn't it work this time" and take the adventure off into new directions as he tries to solve this latest puzzle. A poor player will sulk or quote rules or continue arguing about why life isn’t fair.

If the GM never lets the player use "danger sense" it would be railroading, but as shown it's probably more of a plot device.

Quote from: alexandro
The GM is the one arguing.
Instead of flat off deciding "No, the object flying through the window didn't constitute a danger. Lets move on.", he goes off on the stupid "who is asking this?" debate, stopping the scene in its tracks.

4. When the GM asks "who is asking this?" it’s not stupid at all. The GM is trying to keep the scene going; trying to remind the player to play the game rather than argue the rules. I would say that the GM is staying “in character” while the player is metagaming to argue a point.

A few years ago, I slipped on ice on my driveway and broke my leg. At no point did I look to the sky and scream “No! My dexterity is too high for this!” but that’s what the player just did.

Just my two cents.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

alexandro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • a
  • Posts: 137
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #115 on: December 17, 2006, 02:30:45 PM »
The eternal shizophrenia:
1.) arguing about "trying to change reality"
2.) arguing that reality sucks, because you KNOW there is a intelligent (and fallible) person behind it

...and how is staying in-character by force any better?
Why do they call them "Random encounter tables" when there's nothing random about them? It's just the same stupid monsters over and over. You want random? Fine, make it really random. A hampstersaurus. A mucus salesman. A toenail golem. A troupe of fornicating clowns. David Hasselhoff. If your players don't start crying the moment you pick up the percent die, you're just babying them.

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Amber: All Power to the GM
« Reply #116 on: December 17, 2006, 07:55:36 PM »
Quote from: alexandro
The eternal shizophrenia:
1.) arguing about "trying to change reality"
2.) arguing that reality sucks, because you KNOW there is a intelligent (and fallible) person behind it

...and how is staying in-character by force any better?

Well, I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here but I'll give a thought or two in the best way that I can.

What we're talking about in general is a game, and games must have rules, and nowhere is it written that the player must understand all of the rules. In fact, in my campaigns, most of my players prefer not to know the rules. That way they don't fall into "rules lawyer" mode.

During the course of an adventure there are always things that happen which can spark a couple of reactions by the players. One reaction is to stay "in persona" and react as the character would react, trying to cope with the situation as best as possible. Another reaction is to stop and discuss as players what the situation represents and how to best deal with it. This would be like "calling a time out" to assess the situation.

Either response can be acceptable depening upon the game group, but the more "real" the game the more the GM would hope for the "in persona" response. ADRP tends to be more "real" as it lacks the dice, so players aren't discussing the odds or consulting charts. The problem with the metagaming "time out" is the fact that any momentum in the scene gets shut off as the players discuss out of character. Simply put, it can kill the mood. In some games that may be okay, but in Amber I really dislike anything that breaks up a scene like that.

Staying in character "by force" sounds pretty bad, but when players drift out of "persona" mode and into metagaming mode it's important to remind them of this fact. I suggest that the GM was offering a gentle reminder rather than forcing the player to do anything. The GM was asking if the character was acting that way in order to remind the player to stay on track.

Just my opinion.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975