Amber: All Power to the GM

[James McMurray]

Different Strokes to rule the world?

[Blackleaf]

When I'm the GM; I DONT WANT to be given "gameplay challenges/restrictions"; if I wanted that, I'd BE A FUCKING PLAYER.
What I want as GM is to have the freedom to create an emulated world without having to worry that a player's whims will end up ruining the whole environment because I'm no longer allowed to say "no" to him.

Fortunately you've got lots of games that are setup exactly the way you like.

Also -- my comments weren't about players controlling the narrative and introducing narrative elements the GM can't say "no" to.

I've started a thread in the Theory section to talk about competitive play to avoid derailing this thread which is Amber specific.

[alexandro]

I could live with the GM having total authority about the enviroment.
Everway works this way to some extent, as does Engel.

What I object to, is an alleged "game" having a set of rules (attribute ranks) but THEN giving the the GM the authority to overrule them, if he feels like it.
Invisible? He has a high enough Warfare to parry your sword.
Well, his Warfare didn't save him stepping on the trapped patch of grass on one Shadow, although a master tactician should have seen that coming.

That's just two examples of show how arbitrary Amber is in this respect.
It all comes down to what action the GM thinks "more fun" or even "more plausible" in his little mind.
But then, why do they have those rules in the first place?

It's no game. It's a fucking fiction contest.

[James McMurray]

I can see you're going to go far here.

[RPGPundit]

Fortunately you've got lots of games that are setup exactly the way you like.
.

Yes, and Amber is one of those games. And I'll fight like hell to stop anyone from trying to change my favourite game into one of the kinds of games I don't like, just because those are more fashionable and out of hatred for what's great about Amber.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

I could live with the GM having total authority about the enviroment.
Everway works this way to some extent, as does Engel.

What I object to, is an alleged "game" having a set of rules (attribute ranks) but THEN giving the the GM the authority to overrule them, if he feels like it.
Invisible? He has a high enough Warfare to parry your sword.
Well, his Warfare didn't save him stepping on the trapped patch of grass on one Shadow, although a master tactician should have seen that coming.

That's just two examples of show how arbitrary Amber is in this respect.
It all comes down to what action the GM thinks "more fun" or even "more plausible" in his little mind.
But then, why do they have those rules in the first place?

It's no game. It's a fucking fiction contest.

It is impossible for the GM to overrule the "rules" of the game, just like its impossible for a referee to overrule the "rules" of a soccer match, because he is the arbitrer of those rules. He defines how the rules are interpreted. There's no "cheating" involved.

The guy who defines how the rules work is the GM.  Therefore however he defines him can't possibly be "against the rules".
Now, a bad GM can do all kinds of stupid bad crap, and a game like Amber would be very bad under a bad GM. But Amber is made for good GMs to run.

Amber is a game that requires GOOD GMs, and makes them BETTER GMs.

Anyways, why the fuck are you posting here, and for your very first post at that, if you can't stand Amber?

RPGPundit

[SunBoy]

I'd say it all comes down to a little coherence.

That's just two examples of show how arbitrary Amber is in this respect.
It all comes down to what action the GM thinks "more fun" or even "more plausible" in his little mind.
But then, why do they have those rules in the first place?

1- for the players
2- as gudelines for the GM. Guide-fucking-lines. Of course it all comes down to what the GM thinks "more fun" in the moment! That's why it is a fucking  game! Don't tell me you never fudged a roll, changed the intended speech for a NPC, made a poor player's roll suceed, any kind of Deus ex machina for the game to be more fun! What are you playing for?
I want to make one thing clear, though. Of course, one point of a game having rules is to make it fair to the players. Among the players. So, if the GM believes Benedict can parry Johnny's invisible blade, OK, he can parry Jimmy's too. But then again, maybe it could be really cool if he was distracted just at that moment...

And now...

So why not move the GM under the rules umbrella, so that he has to obey the same kind of resource limits as the other players?  That's just taking a small step in the direction of GMlessness, isn't it?

And when that happens... wow.  You really CAN try to "beat" the GM because his resources are limited and you're on a more-or-less even footing.

No. It's just the same. Think about it for a second. How do you apply restrictions to the GM without having him being just anothr player? As long as he retains his right to forge (interesting word, that) the world, his power is infinite. And who's to say he can't beat you while abiding the rules? Why couldn't a very pissed off Swayvill be walking the same shadow you are? And don't forget that, as soon as you cut off the GM's right to kill you at a whim, you also cut off his right to save your ass at a whim. I think that, as a GM, one should have a token respect for the rules, but if you find that x will be cooler than y, and you know you won't be screwing up any players without a good reason, why go y?

It is impossible for the GM to overrule the "rules" of the game, just like its impossible for a referee to overrule the "rules" of a soccer match, because he is the arbitrer of those rules. He defines how the rules are interpreted. There's no "cheating" involved.

The guy who defines how the rules work is the GM. Therefore however he defines him can't possibly be "against the rules".

Now that's the other extreme. You can tweak rules, you can make things happen, but you can't forget you are trying to run things along a certain system. You can't just say "okay, now logrus tendrils can touch the pattern", just because. Neither one of the extremes is good, IMO. Absolute power over the setting? Yes. Absolute power over NPC? Of course. Last call on whatever happens? Definitely. Blatant incoherence? No, thanks.

[alexandro]

You know, I used to think like that, because I came from the WW Storyteller crowd.
"As long as I'm a good Storyteller and make everything as interesting and imaginative as possible, who is cares if I don't play by the rules?"

It is impossible for the GM to overrule the "rules" of the game, just like its impossible for a referee to overrule the "rules" of a soccer match

The rules of a soccer match: the players are trying to score goals, the referee is deciding if they are doing it in a way, that conforms to the restrictions (offside etc.) of the sport and fair play. If the referree is running on the field, trying to score goals himself, he wouldn't be doing his job and indeed "overruling" the rules.

You wouldn't want a GM to decide you don't go according to Ini order, but in the order he likes, wouldn't you?

For me, every RPG consists of 2 parts:
black and white: hard facts, things that are consistant in the world and/or the rules of the game
grey: things that are open to GM arbitration

Amber is unique in that respect, in that it has only one single "black & white" rule:
- someone of a higher attribute rank can beat someone of a lower attribute rank

That's it. In theory.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Amber, but it has some of the crappiest GM advice sections in the hobby.
Why should I bother buying a high rank, if I can simply outclass the other players in creativity, or I know the GM will let go anything army-related, because we served together, or...etc.

Amber is a game that requires GOOD GMs, and makes them BETTER GMs.

True. But Amber is also a game, that swallows whole novice GMs and turns them into Swine.

Anyway to answer your last question, I have been around here (and sometimes on your blog) for some time, but I haven't really had anything to contribute up until this point.

And somehow I missed the big neon sign on this post that says "Don't post if you in any way doubt that Amber is the greatest game in the world"

[Blackleaf]

It is impossible for the GM to overrule the "rules" of the game, just like its impossible for a referee to overrule the "rules" of a soccer match, because he is the arbitrer of those rules. He defines how the rules are interpreted. There's no "cheating" involved.

This is a bad analogy because, like alexandro said, it's easy to imagine situations where a soccer referee can break the rules and mess up the game.  Trying to score goals, injure players, radically changing the rules, or simply being incredibly biased.  To my knowledge there is no "rule-zero" in soccer.

[RPGPundit]

I'd say it all comes down to a little coherence.



1- for the players
2- as gudelines for the GM. Guide-fucking-lines. Of course it all comes down to what the GM thinks "more fun" in the moment! That's why it is a fucking  game! Don't tell me you never fudged a roll, changed the intended speech for a NPC, made a poor player's roll suceed, any kind of Deus ex machina for the game to be more fun! What are you playing for?
I want to make one thing clear, though. Of course, one point of a game having rules is to make it fair to the players. Among the players. So, if the GM believes Benedict can parry Johnny's invisible blade, OK, he can parry Jimmy's too. But then again, maybe it could be really cool if he was distracted just at that moment...

And now...


Now that's the other extreme. You can tweak rules, you can make things happen, but you can't forget you are trying to run things along a certain system. You can't just say "okay, now logrus tendrils can touch the pattern", just because. Neither one of the extremes is good, IMO. Absolute power over the setting? Yes. Absolute power over NPC? Of course. Last call on whatever happens? Definitely. Blatant incoherence? No, thanks.

This is a good post, Sun Boy. And my earlier post was not meant to imply that I think "DM incoherence" is a good thing.  Your point was excellent; the guideline for the GM has to be CONSISTENCY. The GM is entitled to set the rules as he likes, but a GOOD GM needs to be consistent in his rulings.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

The rules of a soccer match: the players are trying to score goals, the referee is deciding if they are doing it in a way, that conforms to the restrictions (offside etc.) of the sport and fair play. If the referree is running on the field, trying to score goals himself, he wouldn't be doing his job and indeed "overruling" the rules.

Yup, precisely.  And a GOOD GM won't be running around trying to act like a Player. He'll be doing his job, GMing.

For me, every RPG consists of 2 parts:
black and white: hard facts, things that are consistant in the world and/or the rules of the game
grey: things that are open to GM arbitration

Yes, this makes perfect sense.  Its just that in the end, the GM is "where the buck stops": He determines what's black, what's white, and what's grey.  If he's a good GM, he'll be consistent and clear in how he does it.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Amber, but it has some of the crappiest GM advice sections in the hobby.

That's wild, because I think its got the very best GM advice section in any RPG I've ever seen.

Why should I bother buying a high rank, if I can simply outclass the other players in creativity,

Because the player with the higher rank will have an advantage. Being creative is what you have to do IF your rank is lower than the other guy's.

or I know the GM will let go anything army-related, because we served together, or...etc.

If your GM is good, he won't do that.

True. But Amber is also a game, that swallows whole novice GMs and turns them into Swine.

That's never been my experience.

Anyway to answer your last question, I have been around here (and sometimes on your blog) for some time, but I haven't really had anything to contribute up until this point.

Well, welcome aboard! I hope that you post more often from here, now that you've broken your cherry.

And somehow I missed the big neon sign on this post that says "Don't post if you in any way doubt that Amber is the greatest game in the world"

No, of course you can post. Its just if you didn't like Amber at all, I would question your motives for posting here.  

It might help if you made a post or two, here or in a new thread, about what you really like about Amber! You know, so we would know where you stand on this.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

This is a bad analogy because, like alexandro said, it's easy to imagine situations where a soccer referee can break the rules and mess up the game.  Trying to score goals, injure players, radically changing the rules, or simply being incredibly biased.  To my knowledge there is no "rule-zero" in soccer.

Yeah, ok, its an analogy you can't stretch too far, I'll grant you. But you see what I was getting at in this?

Can you think of a better analogy, perhaps?

RPGPundit

[James McMurray]

The GM is closer to the league commisioner. He can change the rules if needbe. Some groups will have players like a single team, working together, and others will have players as their own teams, in direct competition. Some (albeit probably not in Amber) will even let the comissioner on the field.

[Blackleaf]

The GM role is a very unusual one in games.  Most other types of games (card games, boardgames, sports, etc) would be considered "broken" if you had to rely on someone to do the things many people expect the GM to do in their games.  They're the thing that makes classic RPGs like D&D "work", and yet the role contains the "seed of evil" that opened the door to everything you describe on the White-Wolf side of Swinishness and all that went wrong with gaming in the mid to late 90s.  Without the GM's limitless control of the game it seems unlikely you'll have the vast, immersive fictional worlds of RPGs that players are free to explore and creatively interact with.  Yet with the GM's limitless control, you've moved significantly away from the experience being a "game" and more into the hazy space between game and storytelling.  That has it's good and bad points.  And where on the spectrum from game to story seems equally vague and depends on the personality and talent of the individual GM in question.  

Ultimately, I think it's difficult to easily compare a GM to other roles.  A Referee?  Sometimes.  An Author?  Sometimes.  A Player?  Sometimes.  The Banker?  Sometimes.

[alexandro]

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Its just that in the end, the GM is "where the buck stops": He determines what's black, what's white, and what's grey. If he's a good GM, he'll be consistent and clear in how he does it.

Yes, he has every right to do so. But he should do so in advance, and inform the players, to make sure everyone is "buying into" the same game.

But for the sake of the discussion I'm referring to Amber "by the book" and if you run it by the book, the attributes are king.

Quote:
or I know the GM will let go anything army-related, because we served together, or...etc.

If your GM is good, he won't do that.

Maybe not conciously, but the fact remains that if you know how the GM thinks, you have a distinct advantage in ADRP.