Amber: All Power to the GM

[RPGPundit]

In another thread, Fin said:

Here's where we go back to the matter of trust. You have to trust the fact that the GM does not "want" to kill you. If you do something stupid to the point where the GM has to kill you, that's your fault.

One of the biggest misconceptions about RPGs (in my opinion) is that there is some sort of competition going on between players and GM. That's bull. A competent GM always wins. No challenge, so why bother. A GM gets to decide how many foes, how strong, what they can do, and so on. Killing PCs is easy; giving them a challenge which will almost kill them but most of them survive -- that's a bit harder.

The illusion of competition occurs because players tend to forget that the GM can do whatever he wants in any RPG. The illusion is maintained by the presence of dice, cards, or other randomizers which give players the sense that the GM is not all-powerful and that a good roll in the right situation can "beat" the GM. In Amber this illusion is totally shattered because there are no dice.

Trust your GM. He is trying to run a game for all to enjoy.

Yes.
Amber is especially significant because it removes all the elements that create this illusion of GM-Player competition, as it is so blatantly obvious that the GM can and SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO do anything that he fucking wants, always.

Just like in every game that is a REAL RPG.

Once you get past that, you cope with that as a reality, and realize that in fact, the GM is not your competition.  The GM is there to be the facilitator.
You don't have to worry about him "fucking you over" unless either you or your GM are children who are ill-fit for their job, because the GM is not there to make things hard for you, he's there to make things fun.  The only way he can be able to adequately make things fun for you without other players screwing things up by trying to hijack him for their own motives, is if its understood that the GM's authority is absolute.

Amber is very good at pointing this out for two reasons: first, it removes all the "illusion tools", the dice, etc, and is balls to the walls clear on the fact that the GM is god; and second, it emphasizes player vs. player competition, which also helps players realize that their "competitors" in an RPG are really other players, not the GM.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Wow.  I disagree with this on such an incredibly fundamental level that I doubt there's any common ground to discuss.

[finarvyn]

Wow.  I disagree with this on such an incredibly fundamental level that I doubt there's any common ground to discuss.

Otha, do you disagree with my original post or Pundit's response? Or both?

I can't see that a RPG can ever be a competition between players and GM, any more than a football game is a competition between players and referee. The role of the GM is to give players a visual picture of situations to interact with, challenges to overcome, and to help determine the outcome of the adventure. It cannot be a direct competition with the players. The players do not and cannot stand a chance in such a competition. In 30 years of playing RPGs, I have never encountered a player or party of players that I couldn't beat if I wanted to -- what would be the point?

This is not to say that I have never killed a character, but I cannot imagine a situation where I would ever try to compete with a player, and I can't imagine why that player would ever come back if I tried. The GM may "F you over" in a short-term setting, but over the long haul he shouldn't be doing that unless a player specifically gives himself piles of Bad Stuff, essentially F'ing himself over.

I guess I wonder at what "fundamental level" you don't agree. :confused:

[RPGPundit]

I think a lot of gamers, over the years, have been burned by megalomaniacal little dipshits using the GM position to go on ego-trips.  Hell, story-based gaming is partly created to appeal to that kind of GM...

But that doesn't mean that the fundamental reality of RPGs, that the GM has absolute power in the game, is wrong or needs changing. It means that you need to be careful to have good, responsible GMs, who will be as cognisant of their responsibilities as they are of their authority.

Especially in a game like Amber.  But amber lends itself to that, because it makes the GM's authority so open and visible, it becomes a very player-centric game! Curious, but true.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Here's what I disagree with:

• The GM can and SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO do anything that he fucking wants, always.
• The relationship between player and GM cannot be competitive.
• If not, it's not a "real" roleplaying game.

Now, at this point, you're going to hold up your sign. Okay, no, wait, I'll hold it up for you:

:forge:

Now with that out of the way, let's talk about Amber.

1E ADRP suggests (without giving you any details as to HOW) doing away with points, with rules, with the GM.

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.

[James McMurray]

I can't see that a RPG can ever be a competition between players and GM, any more than a football game is a competition between players and referee. The role of the GM is to give players a visual picture of situations to interact with, challenges to overcome, and to help determine the outcome of the adventure. It cannot be a direct competition with the players. The players do not and cannot stand a chance in such a competition. In 30 years of playing RPGs, I have never encountered a player or party of players that I couldn't beat if I wanted to -- what would be the point?

It is indeed very possible to have a great game which emphasizes competition between the GM and the Players. Hackmaster for instance is based around this idea. What's important in those sistuations is still trust though. The players have to trust that the GM will tie his hands behind his back enough such that there will be no inescapable conditions they themselves have not created.

Likewise the GM has to trust that the players will not cheat. Often when the game is a competition, the challenges are harder, the rewards less. Because the GM is at least partially* freed from the "give them a good time" philosophy, he doesn't have to worry about eventually putting a Hackmaster +12 in front of the PC that's been seeking it since childhood, unless that PC overcomes all the obstacles.

It requires a GM willing to "lose." By that I mean willing to no destroy the PCs at the first opporunity. If a win is defined as a PC death, and complete victory is a TPK, it's up to the GM to seek those methods fairly.

It also requires people capable of playing a game without getting personal. If someone is the type to pine for the fjords every time a character dies, competetive roleplaying is not for them. Likewise if a GM it the type of person that must win at any cost, competitive GMing is not for them (but they'd probably be custom fit for the player side of the table).

It's certainly not for everyone, but it's most definitely doable. And can be a blast with the right group.

* I say partially because the need for a good time is still there, but it shifts from standard RPG fare to being defined as "a good battle between GM and players." The GM has ultimate power within bounds, and the players have several heads instead of one.

[finarvyn]

The players have to trust that the GM will tie his hands behind his back enough such that there will be no inescapable conditions they themselves have not created.

If the players can only beat the GM when the GM chooses to be beaten, no true "victory" is possible. We must be saying the same thing in a different way.

Likewise the GM has to trust that the players will not cheat.

The GM doesn't have to trust the players at all. It's certainly possible to keep duplicate copies of character sheets so they cannot be modified, force players to make all dice rolls in the open so they cannot be fudged, etc. A good GM will extend trust to his players, but it's not mandatory. Any player who cannot be trusted won't get invited back to my gaming table, and if the GM railroads the party too much no self-respecting player would return.

It requires a GM willing to "lose." By that I mean willing to no destroy the PCs at the first opportunity. If a win is defined as a PC death, and complete victory is a TPK, it's up to the GM to seek those methods fairly.

But once again, it's the GM who decides to allow the players victories. The entire notion that the GM is beaten makes no sense. The player's do not "beat" the GM. The GM loses only when he chooses to lose, and it's not really losing as much as it is giving the players victories. The GM allows the players to have victores and losses as the storyline is advanced. It's not at all the same thing as beating the GM.

[James McMurray]

It's about setting up tough challenges and then running them. It's not "allowing them to win" it's "allowing them the fair chance."

And yeah, I guess you're right. I haven't had to be nor played with an iron fist GM since High School. To me the GM does have to trust the players. Why would you play with people you can't trust? And even more so, why would you work your butt off to GM for people you can't trust?

Edit: I just noticed the words "as the storyline is advanced" again. Competitive games are much less about storylines. I'd almost go so far as to say the two (storytelling and competition) are incompatible. Not quite, but almost.

[RPGPundit]

Now with that out of the way, let's talk about Amber.

1E ADRP suggests (without giving you any details as to HOW) doing away with points, with rules, with the GM.

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.

Do that, and now the players are competing with the GM, and not with each other.  And suddenly its not Amber anymore.

And no, making a bunch of rules that try to enforce artificial limits on the GM is not a step toward the kind of "GMlessness" that I think that Erick had in mind when he wrote that in the book. Instead its an argument in favour of a neutered GM and creating little player dictators...

RPGPundit

[Otha]

a neutered GM and creating little player dictators...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[The Yann Waters]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

By now, after all the threads on the topic, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

[James McMurray]

Otha, you'll learn if you're here for a while that RPGPundit declares pretty much everything he doesn't agree with as a bad thing. He's generally not one of those live and let live types. And the further you step away from traditional gaming the more irrational his vehement objections tend to get.

If you like debating/arguing then by all means continue. But if you want rational discourse with someone whose opinion is changable, look somewhere else.

[Blackleaf]

I don't believe that a game where the GM and players compete against one another would automatically be something other than an RPG.  It would be different from games like D&D and Amber, perhaps, but I don't think it would necessarily have to be a GM-less Forge-style game.  Rather than see it as the GM being neutered, I'd think of it as the GM being given some of their own gameplay challenges / restrictions - - but being able to play to win without pulling any punches.

What I'm unsure of is the quality of the creativity / description of the game world in such a game -- unless the quality of those things somehow helped the GM "win" the game.  Then again, quality of roleplaying / characterization is often not part of playing an RPG to "win" (eg. gain XP, advance in levels).

Note: Playing to win doesn't necessarily mean playing to kill the other character(s).

[James McMurray]

When we play a game of that style we generally use D&D. I suppose a game could be purposefully made for that style, but I think most games can fit that style of play. Assuming of course you have the trust and fairness thing going.

[RPGPundit]

I don't believe that a game where the GM and players compete against one another would automatically be something other than an RPG.  It would be different from games like D&D and Amber, perhaps, but I don't think it would necessarily have to be a GM-less Forge-style game.  Rather than see it as the GM being neutered, I'd think of it as the GM being given some of their own gameplay challenges / restrictions - - but being able to play to win without pulling any punches.

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.

RPGPundit