TheRPGSite

In another thread, Fin said:

Quote from: finarvynHere'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

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

Quote from: OthaWow.  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:

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

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.

Quote from: finarvynI 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.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe 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.

Quote from: James McMurrayLikewise 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.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt 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.

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.

Quote from: OthaNow 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

Quote from: RPGPundita neutered GM and creating little player dictators...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Quote from: OthaYou say that like it's a bad thing.

By now,  after all the threads on the topic, (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2715) that shouldn't surprise anyone.

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.

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).

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.

Quote from: StuartI 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

Different Strokes to rule the world?

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen 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.

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.

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

Quote from: StuartFortunately 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

Quote from: alexandroI 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

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

Quote from: AlexandroThat'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...

Quote from: OthaSo 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?

Quote from: RPGPunditIt 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.

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?"

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteAmber 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":p

Quote from:  RPGPunditIt 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.

Quote from: SunBoyI'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

Quote from: alexandroThe 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.

QuoteFor 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.

QuoteDon'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.

QuoteWhy 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.

Quoteor 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.

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

That's never been my experience.

QuoteAnyway 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.

QuoteAnd 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":p

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

Quote from: StuartThis 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

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.

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.

QuoteYes, 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

QuoteQuote:
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.

Quote from: alexandroBut 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.

Not true.  For one thing, there are ALWAYS mitigating circumstances.  ALWAYS.

For that reason, the attributes are NOT king.  The GM is.  He can ALWAYS pull a reason out for who HE thinks should win the conflict, be it Stuff, tactics, dirty tricks, endurance, whatever.

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

Exactly.

Quote from: StuartThe 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.

This is resolved by effective player and GM-training, and in the group, not in the rules.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartWithout 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.

It does?

Do you have small children, or have you watched small children play recently?

When children play their imaginary games with toys and stuff, they are only limited by their imaginations and what the other players are willing to accept.

Quote from: RPGPundit...if you didn't like Amber at all, I would question your motives for posting here.  

I don't know about Alejandro, but...

I love Amber.

I have serious problems with ADRP.

Which are you talking about?

QuoteThis is resolved by effective player and GM-training, and in the group, not in the rules.

Enlighten me: How do you think a gaming group (who are RPing for the first time) should aquire this "training", if it isn't made clear in the book and to aquire it, they have to "game with the right people" (who they don't know).

This is an empty phrase I've seen repeated hundreds of times whenever in some forum a guy described how his game went wrong.
It isn't a solution.

Quote from: OthaI love Amber. I have serious problems with ADRP.

When Pundit says "I would question your motives for posting here", I think he means that since this is a forum about ADRP specifically that if you were not a fan of ADRP you probably wouldn't have a reason to be here except to stir up trouble.

This is not a forum about Amber in general, it's a forum about ADRP in particular. Look at the "The Official Amber DRPG and Erick Wujcik Fanforum" title and that should be the first clue. The overall assumption, I would assume, is that you like the ADRP system and are interested in discusssing various aspects of how to make the game run more smoothly, how to use particular elements of the game, and so on. It's not intended to be a "let's change ADRP into (fill in name of favorite game here)" forum.

Does that mean that posters are not allowed to suggest new ideas, additional options, and alternate ways to play ADRP? Certainly not, but keep in mind that extreme revisions may not be terribly welcome here any more than if you log onto the White Wolf site and suggest they redo their entire game to be d20 compatible. Or get onto the Eden boards and hint that they could make a better game if they would just scrap that pesky Unisystem.

There are other places where you can do that, and I mentioned some of them in one of these threads someplace. The Steve Jackson message board has threads on GURPS Amber, WotC has some threads on d20 Amber, and so on.

Just my two cents.

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

Do like me, then. Quoting one of the best sentences I heard in a movie as of lately:
-Don't even think so!!
-I never do.

Quote from: OthaIt does?

Do you have small children, or have you watched small children play recently?

When children play their imaginary games with toys and stuff, they are only limited by their imaginations and what the other players are willing to accept.

Well, it seems to me you're contradicting yourself a little here. Weren't you advocating for MORE rules for 2ed.? A children's play of pretending has been used to exhaustion as an example of what's an RPG. Well, in ADRP, your imagination isn't limited by annoying little rules that tells you what can or can't you do. You can build your own bloody universe, for Murphy's sake! Can I ask you a question? Have you ever actually played the game? Please do not take it as an insult, mate, because it's not meant to be one. It's just that I'm not sure that you've actually seen the system at work. And if you have, did you enjoyed it? Why?

Quote from: OthaIt does?

Do you have small children, or have you watched small children play recently?

When children play their imaginary games with toys and stuff, they are only limited by their imaginations and what the other players are willing to accept.

You also see a shitload of "Bang! You're dead" "AM NOT you missed" "DID NOT!!"

RPGPundit

Quote from: alexandroEnlighten me: How do you think a gaming group (who are RPing for the first time) should aquire this "training", if it isn't made clear in the book and to aquire it, they have to "game with the right people" (who they don't know).

This is an empty phrase I've seen repeated hundreds of times whenever in some forum a guy described how his game went wrong.
It isn't a solution.

Training is acquired through a combination of reading good GM advice, watching good GMs play, and lots of trial and error in practicing as a GM.  Amber isn't exactly a game for novice-GMs.

RPGPundit

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.

I don't think I understand. Why the GM's involvement should be greater? Or, in any case, which (traditional) game doesn't need an "involved" GM?
But, to the first part, yes, if you are just learning it could be really useful to aquire experience by listening to your player, as long as it is in the form of "mate, I really think we should be doing this this other way" and not in the form of "no, no, screw it, I should win!!"

What Sun Boy said.

This isn't a great mystery folks, ultimately, the ONLY way a Good GM comes to be is by practice.  Reading or getting advice helps, but you still have to get in there and GM.  And when you do, its all very straightforward.  The guys who are acting as though its some impossible task are really being disingenuous or naive.  Making a bunch of rules to direct GMs will not create good GMs, only good GMing practice will.  This includes getting used to and constant work on improving your adventures, and getting and listening to feedback from players.

This is all organic stuff, folks, you don't need any complex theory to grasp how its done. Anyone who's convinced you of that lied to you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SunBoyHave you ever actually played the game? Please do not take it as an insult, mate, because it's not meant to be one. It's just that I'm not sure that you've actually seen the system at work. And if you have, did you enjoyed it? Why?

I ran two FTF campaigns, both of which lasted a year or more.

I ran a PBEM for a few months, using a hybrid Everway/Amber system called "Amberway" that eventually went on to be used in the extremely long-running "House of Cards" PBEM run by Ginger Stampley.

I have seen the system at work.  I have felt the elation when a scene just clicks right, and I have felt the little knot in the bottom of my stomach when two of my friends are trying to convince me that they're "right"... and I know that I have nothing to go on.

So yes... I played.  Yes, I have seen the system at work.  And yes, I enjoyed it, but not as much as I could have, and likewise for my players.

Quote from: SunBoyOr, in any case, which (traditional) game doesn't need an "involved" GM?

As long as you define a roleplaying game as requiring a GM, then all roleplaying games require a GM, don't they?

Quote from: RPGPunditYou also see a shitload of "Bang! You're dead" "AM NOT you missed" "DID NOT!!"

Yes, and that GM task isn't inextricably linked to being responsible for NPC's and setting.

Let me hold up your sign for you:  :forge:

Traditionally, one person, the GM, has been responsible for a long list of tasks:

• Referee
• Timekeeper
• Scene-changer
• Setting creator and authority
• Authority over IC/OOC information
• Authority over plausibility
• etcetera

These tasks don't have to all fall on one person.  For example, in many Amber games, a gamemaster will assign the task of timekeeper to the players.  "Let me know when I've had five minutes with this player, then I'll wrap up or make a cliffhanger, and it'll be your turn."

What you seem to be saying, is that because someone has to be the referee, to prevent "Bang, you're dead!"/"No, you missed!" problems, that by definition, that same person has to be the setting authority over what the world is like.

Can you see that this is not necessarily true, and that at least some people might prefer a game where it isn't?

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is all organic stuff, folks, you don't need any complex theory to grasp how its done. Anyone who's convinced you of that lied to you.

You don't need theory to ride a bike that someone built for you, but you do need theory to modify it competently.  

"Hey!  I'll make this gear in the back really really BIG so my bike will go WAY faster!"

"What do I need brakes on the back wheel for?  They're just added weight.  I'll just rely on the front wheel brake."

"Bending these front forks is complicated. I'll just make them straight up-and-down."

You *can* learn how it works by trial-and-error, but you'll repeat a lot of mistakes needlessly.

By involvement I mean that the GM must not only be involved in every decision about what happens, he must actively decide practically everything. In most games large portions of those decisions are made by the dice.

Quote from: James McMurrayBy involvement I mean that the GM must not only be involved in every decision about what happens, he must actively decide practically everything. In most games large portions of those decisions are made by the dice.

Or the mechanics themselves without a need for GM arbitration, in the case of other diceless games: to use the earlier "invisible assassin" example, the situation might come down to a conflict between invisibility at level 5 and vigilance at level 6, with the minimum levels determined by the rules and then possibly raised by the players (through the expenditure of resources if necessary).

Quote from: GrimGentOr the mechanics themselves without a need for GM arbitration, in the case of other diceless games: to use the earlier "invisible assassin" example, the situation might come down to a conflict between invisibility at level 5 and vigilance at level 6, with the minimum levels determined by the rules and then possibly raised by the players (through the expenditure of resources if necessary).

The game you're talking about there is Nobilis, that game already exists. If that's the game you want, go play it.

Don't try to force my game to be Nobilis. I, personally, think Nobilis is the most idiotic beancounter system imaginable.

Amber is resolvable with GM arbitration, most gamers on earth prefer it that way, those who argue that there should be no GM/a castrated GM are a definite minority, and will gain nothing here.

I don't want Amber to be reduced to a beancounter game, much less one where by spending "Miracle points" or whatever you can have a player beat benedict.

My system (as in Amber, the system I love): if you stand any chance of beating benedict you need blood, sweat, tears, a lot of balls, and imagination.

Your system: To beat benedict you need 20 more Beanpoints.

Which one is more appealing, fucktard?

RPGPundit

Do we really need another thread about Nobilis? Haven't there been enough of those already to sate your need to bash the game? I thought this was the Amber forum.

See, when I read that post I took the "raised by the player" to mean it had been raised since character creation by some sort of experience point scheme. I certainly didn't take it as "I'll spend my beanpoints to beat Benedict." Why can't "resources" mean just that? Are there no such things as in game resources, meaning that anyone who uses the word is instantly trying to preach about Nobilis?

Especially when the person you're apparently thinking is saying Amber should be Nobilis has actually said this about miracle points in the past:

QuoteThat said, although the system can be used for other kinds of high-powered fantasy easily enough, it's definitely not generic or suitable for all the games out there, and I'd consider trying to insert it into, say, Amber a genuine mistake.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't want Amber to be reduced to a beancounter game, much less one where by spending "Miracle points" or whatever you can have a player beat benedict.

Endurance is what I had in mind, actually, and allowing players to temporarily improve their chances at the actions governed by the other attributes by sacrificing points from it, at the risk of exhausting the character more quickly.

Quote from: GrimGentEndurance is what I had in mind, actually, and allowing players to temporarily improve their chances at the actions governed by the other attributes by sacrificing points from it, at the risk of exhausting the character more quickly.

A friendly GM proposed a system for 'burning Endurance' to raise Attribute rankings. I don't know if anyone playtested that, but the idea has some appeal. A casual read of the Zelazny text shows Corwin used this trick several times.

It would also make the 'dying on the Pattern' issues more transparent to the Players.

Quote from: GrimGentEndurance is what I had in mind, actually, and allowing players to temporarily improve their chances at the actions governed by the other attributes by sacrificing points from it, at the risk of exhausting the character more quickly.

Calling it "endurance" instead of "miracle points" doesn't really change what you're trying to do here.

In the end, you're trying to turn a game that is based on the descriptive into a game that is based on creative accounting, and basing it on your favourite diceless game to do so, despite earlier statements to the contrary.

Why can't the GM just be trusted to take a character's Endurance into account, instead of the PC being allowed to "spend" his endurance points as a substitute for creativity, and worse, as an easy way to "beat" NPCs in ways that would go directly against emulation of Genre.  Corwin does not and cannot beat Benedict by "spending Endurance points"; he  beats Benedict by thinking of something very sneaky and managing to deceive him.

RPGpundit

Why does it have to be a substitute for creativity? Is there no such thing as supplements to creativity? Where one has a resource and spends it creatively?

Quote from: RPGPunditCorwin does not and cannot beat Benedict by "spending Endurance points"; he  beats Benedict by thinking of something very sneaky and managing to deceive him.

And a barbarian PC in D&D won't think about what he does in terms of his "Strength attribute" or "hit points". Sure. But just as that little distinction between IC and OOC terminology wouldn't stop the barbarian from fighting and suffering wounds during the game, there's no reason why using Endurance in this fashion in Amber couldn't serve as a mechanical representation of Corwin going to some trouble in order to pull off the deception and tiring himself in the process.

The point is that Amber, as it is played now, doesn't require the player to think in mechanical terms AT ALL other than keeping in mind what his strengths and weaknesses are attribute-wise and what powers he has. But he does NO juggling with mechanics.

Its one of the things that makes the game almost unique in actual play.  Most games, after a few sessions, the players don't even look at their character sheets. You don't get to do stuff in Amber by jiggling your stats anymore so than you do by rolling dice, you have to describe it all in terms of what your character is actually doing, and it stops there.  That makes the game wonderful.

You would want to remove that, and turn it into a beancounter game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts one of the things that makes the game almost unique in actual play.  Most games, after a few sessions, the players don't even look at their character sheets. You don't get to do stuff in Amber by jiggling your stats anymore so than you do by rolling dice, you have to describe it all in terms of what your character is actually doing, and it stops there.  That makes the game wonderful.

Hm.  What you seem to be saying here, is that in your experience, players are incapable of getting into character if the game has any significant mechanical 'business' like resources to track or odds to consider.  Is that accurate?

Not at all. He's saying it's easier to get into character without the mechanical bits. And that part is definitely true. I haven't played Amber, but from my experience the fewer numbers you throw into a game the more likely the average player is to get into a character. They can focus less on what gives the biggest bonuses and more on what sounds the coolest or most reasonable.

It's not a 100% perfect measuring stick though. I've known people that can get into character no matter what the game system is like, and people that get a better idea for who their character is when they've got numbers to give them creative nudges.

Quote from: OthaHm.  What you seem to be saying here, is that in your experience, players are incapable of getting into character if the game has any significant mechanical 'business' like resources to track or odds to consider.  Is that accurate?

No. what would be accurate would be to say that if the player doesn't have to consider mechanical aspects AT ALL (in the sense of juggling with different stats/spending points/rolling checks), then he's able to switch over to a much more fully-realized descriptive style.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ArrefA friendly GM proposed a system for 'burning Endurance' to raise Attribute rankings. I don't know if anyone playtested that, but the idea has some appeal. A casual read of the Zelazny text shows Corwin used this trick several times.

It would also make the 'dying on the Pattern' issues more transparent to the Players.

I wouldn't say Corwin does that... when he's  "out-attributed" he usually cheats his way out of the pinch, rather than "burn" his endurance...
And as for the Pattern thing, what can be more transparent that "you can die walking it. Be tired, and you're likely to die. Be injured, and you're even more likely to die." Come on, enjoy a little mistery. If negotiating the pattern were easy, do you think amberites would have horses? It'd be just a matter of Pattern/go to the bakery/Amber trump-go back/Pattern-go to kwik-e-mart/trump-go back.

Quote from: GrimGentthere's no reason why using Endurance in this fashion in Amber couldn't serve as a mechanical representation of Corwin going to some trouble in order to pull off the deception and tiring himself in the process.

Yeah, but then it would be just a matter of saying "okay, I'll burn 10 END. I think something sneaky", or worst "I'll burn 10 END. It's that enough? No? Okay, I'll burn 20" And remember that in that example Corwin actually was so tired that deceiving Benedict was his only hope, he couldn't outrun him.

And as for the involvement question, okay, I'll give the point, but I don't really find it more or less tiresome that calculating AC and thac0s and stuff. I actually run D&D quite "amberistically" in that sense, as in "yeah, well, let's say he needs a roll of around 15 to hit", or "that 50 hp, yeah, kinda time he dies".

Quote from: SunBoyI actually run D&D quite "amberistically" in that sense...

Why bother playing D&D if you're going to play that way?  It seems like a huge expenditure of money to buy the books if you're going to ignore them.

Quote from: OthaWhy bother playing D&D if you're going to play that way?  It seems like a huge expenditure of money to buy the books if you're going to ignore them.

Piracy, mate, piracy. WoTC have got more than enough money. And I don't let my players do it that way, nor do I let them know I'm doing it that way. Though it shows sometimes, that's for sure. And the books have pretty drawings. And spell lists. And all sorts of stuff I can profit from without having to bother with the little orc having a BAB of +1 or +2 or power attack.

Quote from: SunBoyYeah, but then it would be just a matter of saying "okay, I'll burn 10 END. I think something sneaky", or worst "I'll burn 10 END. It's that enough? No? Okay, I'll burn 20"

That depends on the details of the  resource management system, though: how many points do you have at your disposal at any given time, what's the extent of their effect, when will they be replenished, and so on and so forth... For instance, in MURPG you must constantly allocate points to various traits in order to accomplish any action and the pool is refreshed at the end of every round, while in Nobilis you start out with five points per each of the four attributes which may then be used to improve actions but also have to last for several sessions unless you find a way of regaining them. Needless to say, if the mechanics come closer to the latter approach, the players won't be spending their precious resources frivolously and instead will seek out more tolerable alternatives. They'll be sneaky, in other words.

Also, resorting to Endurance in this manner could only augment the kind of attempts which are plausible under the current system of Amber. Unless that already accommodates actions like "I think something sneaky", spending points wouldn't make it possible, either.

Wouldn't know, I haven't played any of those... and okay, maybe you could do it, maybe you could do it without it replacing "sneakiness", but... I don't know... I don't want to make Amber easier on the players... I think that's the core of it. ADRP already takes in account your END... and if you do things that would tire your character, it should be taken into account on subsecuents actions. And the "expendable" question doesn't assure you that someone won't use it, in some critical moment, as a substitute for something else. And the critical moments are the ones when good roleplaying should save your ass, not some point burning.

Exactly; there's nothing to be gained by what people like grimgent are suggesting, other than the destruction of the Amber RPG as it currently exists; something that is a vested interest to a certain faction of people who are humiliated by how well Amber actually works.

RPGPundit

What you fail to see is that ADRP already could be described as a beancounter game. The GM hast to keep track of all the elements (complete player backgrounds, complete NPC motivations, complete details about the Shadow they are in, complete descriptions of ALL the players involved in the scene...etc.pp.)- all of which are micro-managed in a Palladiumesque way through one person- and decide how these elements add up against each other and if one element is enough to counter all the other elements.

Tough job without resorting to railroading.

Having a clear set of guidelines what the characters can and can't do, instead of continually being forced to ask the GM "can my character do that?" makes play go smoother (for both GM and players) in my opinion.

What's all this "beancounter game" talk about?  Does that mean keeping track of stats like Hit Points and Gold and XP?

Quote from: alexandroThe GM hast to keep track of all the elements (complete player backgrounds, complete NPC motivations, complete details about the Shadow they are in, complete descriptions of ALL the players involved in the scene...etc.pp.)- all of which are micro-managed in a Palladiumesque way through one person- and decide how these elements add up against each other and if one element is enough to counter all the other elements.

Isn't that the GM's job in every game?

Indeed. And what you fail to see, Alex, is that in Amber, there are very few times when you ask "can I do that?", because the default answer is "Yes". You can do anything in Amber. You are a bloody god. And, when you're talking about a conflict, you don't ask "can I do this?", you say "I do this and that". And the GM tells you what happens. That's actually the brilliancy of the system, you know what you can and what you cannot do. You have trump, you can make trumps. You don't you can't. And you can do as fancy a maneuver as you can imagine. You don't have to worry about Movement Actions, or Tumble ranks or whatever.

Quote from: StuartWhat's all this "beancounter game" talk about?  Does that mean keeping track of stats like Hit Points and Gold and XP?

Pretty well; more accurately, its the idea that you are given x amount of points and then have to choose when to use those points to boost your stats to let you do stuff you couldn't do at the baseline of that stat.

This is how some diceless games deal with the issue of not having a random/dice element.

Its not how Amber does it, though.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SunBoyAnd what you fail to see, Alex, is that in Amber, there are very few times when you ask "can I do that?", because the default answer is "Yes".

Oddly familiar, that.

QuoteIsn't that the GM's job in every game?

Actually: no. But that would be another thread

QuoteIndeed. And what you fail to see, Alex, is that in Amber, there are very few times when you ask "can I do that?", because the default answer is "Yes". You can do anything in Amber. You are a bloody god. And, when you're talking about a conflict, you don't ask "can I do this?", you say "I do this and that". And the GM tells you what happens. That's actually the brilliancy of the system, you know what you can and what you cannot do. You have trump, you can make trumps. You don't you can't. And you can do as fancy a maneuver as you can imagine. You don't have to worry about Movement Actions, or Tumble ranks or whatever.

Thats pretty much how I run it.
But when you look at the examples in the book: you try to find something using the Logrus? You have to pick your words to exactly describe your actions in such away, of what the GM expects you to do in order to succeed.  Want to walk the Pattern? The GM decides where you go and how long it takes before you reach your destination. Heck, even when it comes to remembering stuff or if your character has the right skills to do something, the GM decides what your character has done in the past (this is where game stops for me- players should have complete control over their character backgrounds)...

Quote from: GrimGentOddly familiar, that.

:killingme:

Did I miss something? Or did I already forget part of the conversation?
Anyway.

Quote from: alexandroActually: no. But that would be another thread

:confused: Really?

Quote from: alexandroHeck, even when it comes to remembering stuff or if your character has the right skills to do something, the GM decides what your character has done in the past (this is where game stops for me- players should have complete control over their character backgrounds)...

Why? The game specifies that you're in control of what your character knows. Look at the character creation examples. The GM doesn't decide that. Actually, Amber is the game where you have more background freedom: maybe you've spent 200 years living with the neanderthals, maybe you're a starship pilot.

Quote from: SunBoyDid I miss something? Or did I already forget part of the conversation?

Nah: it's just that the discussion over the principle of "always saying 'yes'" is one of the longest-running debates at the site, with Pundit opposing it at every turn.

QuoteWhy? The game specifies that you're in control of what your character knows.

p. 198 the GM decides the character didn't actually have time to study lockpicking in the past.
p. 229ff. the characters have to ask the GM if they have memory of something
...
etc.pp.

Whoa, stop right there. That's NOT what I meant. The whole "say yes to your players" is WAY another thing. I'm just saying that, not having to roll dice, and not having to keep an exact time track, the cases in which the GM will tell you: "No, you just can do that" are pretty minimal. You know what your player can do, so you won't say "I'll just fly away", or whatever. You won't either say, "I'll draw with the move, then attack, then use the extra standard to move... no, wait, can I do that? You'll say: "I'll draw my sword and take a swing, then try to disengage to bring him closer to the trap". And you won't say "okay, that's 250 xp, and 1500 gp, so I'll do the item. Can I cast a light to work at the lab, or will taht disrupt the whole thing?". You either do the Trump or not. Am I making sense?

Yeah, well, but I'll wager my underoos that player hadn't specified he was a locksmith before, right? That only goes for showing the benefits of a detailed background. You can't just come up with "well, I may have been an aeronautical engineer in some shadow..." when you need it. Lockpicking is not what you'll call "basic knowledge", right? Even more when, being an amberite, you can probably topple anything that's not a vault...

But the player assumed it was part of his "I was trained in the Courts of Chaos" background and the GM decided "No, it isn't" copping a lame excuse about the character wandering off to do something different at the time.

Quote from: SunBoyYou either do the Trump or not. Am I making sense?

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.

Quote from: alexandroActually: no. But that would be another thread


Thats pretty much how I run it.
But when you look at the examples in the book: you try to find something using the Logrus? You have to pick your words to exactly describe your actions in such away, of what the GM expects you to do in order to succeed.  Want to walk the Pattern? The GM decides where you go and how long it takes before you reach your destination. Heck, even when it comes to remembering stuff or if your character has the right skills to do something, the GM decides what your character has done in the past (this is where game stops for me- players should have complete control over their character backgrounds)...

I believe your skills are something that you (the player) works out, in conjunction with a GM.  The GM decides things that your PC usually wouldn't have any choice about in his background, like who his parents are.

RPGPundit

Quote from: alexandrop. 198 the GM decides the character didn't actually have time to study lockpicking in the past.
p. 229ff. the characters have to ask the GM if they have memory of something
...
etc.pp.

Dude, what game are you quoting here? P. 198 is the Character section for Random. Its got nothing to do with what you were saying.

As for p.229 you seem to have totally misinterpreted it.  The relevant section says:

"all players operate blind, depending on the GM for eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin. In addition the GM has to report on what the character remembers".

This doesn't mean the PC must ask the GM for permission to remember something; it means that the GM is responsible for telling the PC stuff that might have occured in his character's past that would be relevant to his present, like saying "Oh yeah, Jim: your character remembers having seen a picture of this dude in Benedict's room, years ago when you were a kid: the picture MIGHT have been a trump, but you're not sure now, because that was long before you were old enough to have ever used a trump or known how they worked".

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentOf 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.

I agree with this. What I disagree with is the idea, bandied about in various theories, that the Player should get to suddenly decide his character has abilities, powers, or knowledge that he previously showed no indication of having just because the player would really like to...

RPGPundit

QuoteDude, what game are you quoting here? P. 198 is the Character section for Random. Its got nothing to do with what you were saying.

make that 105

QuoteAs for p.229 you seem to have totally misinterpreted it. The relevant section says:

I was referring to the following pages, such as the "Monster Bashers" and "Rules Lawyers" section on page 230 (which pretty much violates the section you quoted), the memory on p.231/32...etc.

QuoteI agree with this. What I disagree with is the idea, bandied about in various theories, that the Player should get to suddenly decide his character has abilities, powers, or knowledge that he previously showed no indication of having just because the player would really like to...

That assumes the player already has a pretty clear idea, what his character is going to be like, BEFORE play begins.
But roleplayers are (mostly) no writers or actors and are constantly retooling and retrofitting what they want to play (heck, even most writers are developing their protagonists during writing and most actors need some time to feel into their roles, before they can say how they are like).
As long as it doesn't ruin plausibility I usually say: go with it.
In the example (p. 105) the player came up with something he would imagine his character doing and fitted it into the context of his character background in a way that made sense. No problem here.

Quote from: alexandroThat assumes the player already has a pretty clear idea, what his character is going to be like, BEFORE play begins.

Some GM's require the player to have everything about the character decided before play begins.  Personally, I think it's lame, but there you go.

To me, anything that hasn't been revealed in play doesn't really "exist" yet, and can be easily changed.

Quote from: alexandromake that 105

Ok, looking at that quoted section now, I agree that there's a bad choice of wording in that section, but not the way you think.  the case is this: Kevin wants to suddenly have "lock opening" as a skill, when he never had anything like this before.

I quote:

"Kevin: ...I examine the lock
GM: Hmm. I don't remember anything about Roderick [kevin's character] studying lock's. Where did you get this experience?
Kevin: ...wasnt it part of my standard training out in the Courts of Chaos?
"

Now. You think the part that was wrong is that the GM goes onto say:

"GM: As you look at the lock, you're reeminded of the time you took off to learn skate boarding on Shadow Earth."

You think the GM should have said: "oh ok, cool, sure you could have learned Lockpicking as part of being a Chaos Lord.. that makes perfect sense, because its what you the player wants":

I agree that the GM's answer is a bad one. But what I think the GM should have said is: "No. And fuck you for trying to think up such a lameass excuse just to get away with adding a new skill to your list which you obviously have no better reason for having. I mean, fuck's sake you moron they don't even HAVE locks in the Courts of Chaos, and now you want me to just give you a new skill because you pretty-please want it? Fuck you!"

Do you see the subtle difference in our positions there?

Anyways, the basic point is that the section you're quoting is one on interpeting failure. The point of the examples given is that the PCs are supposed to fail.  The only bad advice Erick is giving there is not that he should let players think up dumbass reasons to get away with shit like what Kevvy-boy wanted to do, but rather that he felt the need to somehow incorporate Kevin's little whim as part of story and find a convoluted reason why he STILL couldn't do it; when in fact the GM should simply have said "No, fuck off" and left it at that.

QuoteI was referring to the following pages, such as the "Monster Bashers" and "Rules Lawyers" section on page 230 (which pretty much violates the section you quoted), the memory on p.231/32...etc.

"Monster Bashers" is advice for specifically dealing with a player that is being disruptive by being excessively-aggresive at every turn. Rules Lawyers for specifically dealing with players that try to use the rules against the GM, and more specifically for those especially annoying players that try to interrupt the game as its being played to try to argue about rules with the GM instead of acting BASED on what the GM is telling them.
The player in the example is more worried about his powers and item than about the fact that a grenade landed in the room, and is trying to stop play to argue with the GM or find out why his power didn't work, when he should just focus on the game (perhaps after a single instance of double-checking to make sure the GM hadn't simply forgotten about the Danger Sense).

I don't see how either of those contradict the section in p.229. Again, as for the "sample memory" sections, I don't see how any of these contradict p.229 either.

RPGPundit

Quote from: alexandroThat assumes the player already has a pretty clear idea, what his character is going to be like, BEFORE play begins.
But roleplayers are (mostly) no writers or actors and are constantly retooling and retrofitting what they want to play (heck, even most writers are developing their protagonists during writing and most actors need some time to feel into their roles, before they can say how they are like).
As long as it doesn't ruin plausibility I usually say: go with it.
In the example (p. 105) the player came up with something he would imagine his character doing and fitted it into the context of his character background in a way that made sense. No problem here.

No, he was just being an opportunist.  Had he come up with said idea at another moment than "conveniently" trying to have lockpicking when a lock needed picking, I might buy your argument, but as it stands, the guy was just trying to take advantage.


RPGPundit

Quote from: OthaSome GM's require the player to have everything about the character decided before play begins.  Personally, I think it's lame, but there you go.

To me, anything that hasn't been revealed in play doesn't really "exist" yet, and can be easily changed.

Right, but anything you haven't mentioned to the GM likewise doesn't "exist" at all, and anything once play has started that you want to "add" about your character should only be doable with strict GM approval.

"Oh yea, btw, I know I never mentioned it to you before but I'm actually lord master of the 192 Armies of Yul K'tchaun.  So I'll just blow the Horn of Namak, which I also never mentioned I had to you (silly me) and summon up my hordes to deal with this here ork. Geez, you know, you're a boring GM, you really should have taken my abilities I never mentioned to you before into account when you designed this encounter".

Fuck that.

RPGPundit

I have stopped letting my players write a complete character backstory before play begins. It just leads to cardboard cutouts and takes away RP oportunities. So the only facts that exist about the characters are the ones realised in play. If a new fact is added in play I look if it contradicts any of the previous facts and if not, I let it go.
A written CV of a character is a big pita.

Look at the example: the GM already decided that the lock won't budge, EVEN IF the player has the proper lockpick skills (and if he decided the player doesn't have lockpick skills, because he had a high enough Warfare rank to beat the lock...well thats railroading pure and simple). So the character wouldn't gain any advantage from being able to pick locks.
On the other hand, IF I let the character have his lockpick skills with the right explanation, that opens up a whole new set of possibilities: where did he learn them? what did his teachers ask from him in return? did he use them for personal gain? is it possible that even now he has a stolen object in his possesion, which he never considered, but that is very important to someone else? Great RP oportunities wasted by a stupid "no game" decisions.

Quote"Oh yea, btw, I know I never mentioned it to you before but I'm actually lord master of the 192 Armies of Yul K'tchaun. So I'll just blow the Horn of Namak, which I also never mentioned I had to you (silly me) and summon up my hordes to deal with this here ork. Geez, you know, you're a boring GM,

This is a bad example, because it crosses into something else: ignoring the rules.
What you describe are allies, artifacts, personalized Shadows...all of which you have to pay POINTS to have.

On the other hand you can have an gazillion of skills in Amber, because those don't cost you any points.
So I see no difference between writing a 5000+ pages backstory detailing every skill you are ever going to need and deciding on a spur of the moment if you have a certain skill or not (I also allow my players to save some of their creation points to add things like the above later, but if they spend all of them, they forfeit the right to posess anything that costs points besides the things they already described).

Quoteyou really should have taken my abilities I never mentioned to you before into account when you designed this encounter"

If your vision of how the encounter could turn out is that limited, that you can't handle the fact that the PCs might succeed in ways you have not anticipated, ...well than you are indeed a boring GM.

Oh and this is no "forgy" idea.
D&D already did something like that, long before Ron moved into his haunt. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)

Quote from: alexandroThis is a bad example, because it crosses into something else: ignoring the rules.
What you describe are allies, artifacts, personalized Shadows...all of which you have to pay POINTS to have.

On the other hand you can have an gazillion of skills in Amber, because those don't cost you any points.

That doesn't mean that the skills aren't also part of the rules.  There's a lot of free stuff in Amber; it doesn't mean that free equals "unimportant".

QuoteSo I see no difference between writing a 5000+ pages backstory detailing every skill you are ever going to need and deciding on a spur of the moment if you have a certain skill or not (I also allow my players to save some of their creation points to add things like the above later, but if they spend all of them, they forfeit the right to posess anything that costs points besides the things they already described).

I don't think you have to write a 5000+ page backstory; you do, however have to have a general accounting of what your character has done.  If the player in said example had, say, "10 years as a thief in an early modern shadow" as one of his skill-sets, it would make sense that he'd have some lockpicking skills.  As it is, he was trying to desperately shoehorn it because it was convenient for him at the time

Note also that the example you're taking all this from is an example about how to adjudicate failure; its not a DM advice section on "how to thwart your players"; so you're pretty well taking things out of context... the point of the example more or less depends on explaining different ways that players can fail at what they do.

QuoteIf your vision of how the encounter could turn out is that limited, that you can't handle the fact that the PCs might succeed in ways you have not anticipated, ...well than you are indeed a boring GM.

My players usually succeed at a lot of things in ways I hadn't anticipated, by actually finding creative ways IN THE GAME of getting things done; not by sneaking in retroactive revisions to their personal histories.

RPGPundit

Quote from: alexandroOh and this is no "forgy" idea.
D&D already did something like that, long before Ron moved into his haunt. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)

Last time I checked, Order of the Stick was not a D&D rulebook.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditLast time I checked, Order of the Stick was not a D&D rulebook.

No, but that's how it works for a lot of people.  I suppose you could have a game where the DM was an ass, and says, "No, you can't have a level of wizard, because you haven't been studying all along."

Exactly. Burlew has great meta-knowledge of how the game works.

QuoteAs it is, he was trying to desperately shoehorn it because it was convenient for him at the time.

And writing that 5000+ pages backstory is not shoehorning every skill into the character backstory (and I have to write the whole 9 yards, because otherwise the GM is going to say "Well, you were a thief in a modern day shadow, so you know about lockpicking alright. But you never mentioned in your backstory if you were ever caught or even interrogated by the local authorities, so I'm assuming you weren't, meaning you have no skills in dealing with the authorities. And you never mentioned in your backstory how you sold your loot; sorry but no black market skills for you...etc.pp.").

QuoteThat doesn't mean that the skills aren't also part of the rules. There's a lot of free stuff in Amber; it doesn't mean that free equals "unimportant".

How is what I said making the skills unimportant? Quite the contrary: the skills are to important to be decided up front, because they define who the character is.

Hmm.  Alexandro and Burlew make very good points.  :hmm:

Quote from: alexandroHow is what I said making the skills unimportant? Quite the contrary: the skills are to important to be decided up front, because they define who the character is.

So how many points do you have PCs set aside for acquired allies in-game?
How many points for items stolen from gods?
How many points for medical technology shadows that can heal serious injuries?

And how do you explain away opportunities in-game for such things not to happen because the PCs have run out of set-aside points?

The rules suggest Julian pays for his horse and hawks and stormhounds. Why then does Benedict not pay for every army he builds? Or does he?

I think the point comes down to "having something" (which is pretty much transitory and story driven) and then embedding a quality, item or ally that is "entwined with your legend".

I don't make PCs pay points for things that are easily added or taken away within the game.

Quote from: alexandroExactly. Burlew has great meta-knowledge of how the game works.

Only if "the game" is being run by a retard or someone who hates D&D.

QuoteAnd writing that 5000+ pages backstory is not shoehorning every skill into the character backstory (and I have to write the whole 9 yards, because otherwise the GM is going to say "Well, you were a thief in a modern day shadow, so you know about lockpicking alright. But you never mentioned in your backstory if you were ever caught or even interrogated by the local authorities, so I'm assuming you weren't, meaning you have no skills in dealing with the authorities. And you never mentioned in your backstory how you sold your loot; sorry but no black market skills for you...etc.pp.").

Show us where the bad GM touched you, Alex... if you can just come forward about the day the strange GM in the park had a present in his pants for you, then maybe we can drop this stupid fucking discussion.

You don't trust GMs. We got that. Amber might not be the game for you, then, since Amber is a game where the GM's power is absolute. That's unfortunate. You see, Amber is a game that depends on having GMs mature enough that they will be responsible with their powers, and Players who are mature and emotionally balanced enough that they can actually allow the GM to do his job without making a bunch of petulant primma donna demands or want to castrate the GM.

Anyone who fails on that level of maturity is obviously going to have a hard time, and will probably want to go play Vampire if they want to be a gloryhound GM, or Nobilis if they want to go and be mentally regressed toddler-players who need a mollycoddling mommy GM, or some Forge game if they want to "Take Back The Night" from the tyranny of the GM and burn some poor mock-up of a GM put up for the rest of the players to take their frustrations out on.

QuoteHow is what I said making the skills unimportant? Quite the contrary: the skills are to important to be decided up front, because they define who the character is.

Great, then it'd be nice if the players wouldn't use them to cheat.

RPGPundit

QuoteOnly if "the game" is being run by a retard or someone who hates D&D.

Huh? Have you even read OotS? The story of the OotS would great game and I would love to play in a campaign like that.
The humour comes from the fact, that the characters are commenting things from a player PoV, not from the background and story.

QuoteYou see, Amber is a game that depends on having GMs mature enough that they will be responsible with their powers, blah, blah, blah...

I already know about this. And I run it like that.
But at the point where:
- the GM is twisting the words of the players to justify his decisions
- the GM ignores being truthfull in what the characters see and makes a false or incomplete description of something, so the players will react in a certain way (but of course he only uses this "technique" on Monter Bashers and Rules Lawyers, who are Bad Roleplayers(TM) and don't deserve a good GM anyway...)
- the GM decides what makes sense for a PC to do

you are leaving the area of sensible use of GM-authority and are already subribibing to what I call elitist White Wolf-think.

QuoteGreat, then it'd be nice if the players wouldn't use them to cheat.

If the GM authority is absolute, the players can't cheat.
The player only made a suggestion to the GM and the GM was an ass about it, because he is operating under the premise that the players are the enemy and if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Its as simple as that.

Quote from: RPGPunditShow us where the bad GM touched you, Alex... if you can just come forward about the day the strange GM in the park had a present in his pants for you, then maybe we can drop this stupid fucking discussion.

You use this argument a lot.

I think you intend the "Bad GM touching you" concept to be ridiculous, and thus make the argument of the person you're debating with seem ridiculous as well.

Go watch The D&D Experience (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3217) or at least read the comments about "the old GM" in that thread.

After seeing that interview, this rhettorical device doesn't make me think "ridiculous" anymore... it brings that guy to mind -- and that guy makes me think limiting the GMs absolute control over a game isn't such a bad idea.

I think this particular rhettorical weapon should be retired.

Pundit: If you want to open this specific point up for further dicussion, I suggest Splitting the thread and starting a new one to avoid a derail.

Quote from: alexandro- the GM ignores being truthfull in what the characters see and makes a false or incomplete description of something, so the players will react in a certain way (but of course he only uses this "technique" on Monter Bashers and Rules Lawyers, who are Bad Roleplayers(TM) and don't deserve a good GM anyway...)

I don't see that in either of the two cases.  In the first, "Monster Bashers", the GM tells the player something is coming quickly at him: This would only be deceptive if the character is supposed to be very high ranked in Warfare; the whole point of the example is that the player in question is "attacking first, perceiving later", you can almost sense the player being one of those guys who interrupts the GM in mid-description to say "I stab it in the groin!!".

In the second example, it has nothing to do with perception at all. The GM clearly tells the player an object flies through the window, he doesn't lie about this or misinterpret it at all; the player then goes on to ignore what the GM has just told him is happening to try to argue that, because of something on his character sheet, something else "ought to" have happened. Its the player who's trying to alter the reality of the scene!

RPGPundit

Quotethe GM tells the player something is coming quickly at him

Zeppo, the amazing NPC, that moves faster than the eye can see, yet leaves you plenty of time to draw your weapon. :rolleyes:

If the player is really problematic he would attack the NPC anyway, no matter how the GM describes him.

GMs that alter their description to "goad" their players into making certain decisions are :fu2:

QuoteIts the player who's trying to alter the reality of the scene!

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.

Hallelujah, Stuart.

Quote from: GrimGentOf 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?

Quote from: SunBoyI 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.

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.

Quote from: SunBoyI 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...)

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.

Quote from: SunBoyPuppetland, 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 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050227060721/johntynes.com/rl_puppetland_www.html).

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: alexandroWhere? 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

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.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow 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.

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: alexandroThe 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.

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?

Quote from: alexandroThe 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.