Amber GMs: Have you ever "dumped the rules"?

[Norbert G. Matausch]

In the Amber DRPG book, Erick suggested to dump the rules, and later, to "dump the GM". While I'm no fan of GM-less play, I really like "dumping the rules" at one point in the game, when everybody has settled in and found his/her character's voice.

How about you? Do you play Amber by the book, or do you wing it?

[Panjumanju]

I could never make the commitment to myself to really let go of the rules without feeling that the game would then devolve into happy-story-funtime-hour.

Already Amber Diceless falls under enough undue criticism from people who have not played it and do not understand its methods. If we start telling people we're playing without rules, we'll be stoned to death in the RPG Arena.

Players can ignore (or never learn in the first place) the rules as they see fit, so long as they represent their character well, and have a good idea of their character's capabilities.

However, as a GM I feel like I need the rules to help manage available possibilities and keep myself impartial to the action at hand. Otherwise, I have a very hard time deciding - for instance - when the proverbial axe should fall on killing a character who has gone out of their depth.

Maintaining the rules, for me at least in my role running games, maintains Amber as a Roleplaying Game. Getting rid of them - I'm not sure what that becomes, but, it's certainly a lot less manageable for a night of play.

//Panjumanju

[Artifacts of Amber]

I have never Dumped the rules entirely though I have ignored them in some cases. With Amber's serious lack of rules it seems it would be simple to dump them but isn't for me.

But saying what are the actual rules may help define that for you and me.

Things like

 Highest Rank wins

Is about the only rules to me. Interpretation of that varies from GM to Gm and from game to game for some GM's. Powers and character creation is just sentences to define the character and could be done as well (Almost) as writing a background or detailing the characters abilities. Not in my opinion really rules so much as a way to define things so the GM and player are on the same page. Hell just saying you can find a shadow of desire isn't a rule since everyone has their own mind what that may mean. But it gives us a more common place to start defining an ability.

So I think it really depends on what you consider the "rules" of Amber DRPG.

Is character auction a rule. Maybe?

Hard to say for me.

Just my thoughts

[RPGPundit]

I think more than "dumping the rules", the ideal state is "transcending the rules", where you get to where the rules become so ingrained in your GM skillset, in the campaign, etc. that you're running them effortlessly. Amber is the type of game where that can happen.

[jibbajibba]

I think more than "dumping the rules", the ideal state is "transcending the rules", where you get to where the rules become so ingrained in your GM skillset, in the campaign, etc. that you're running them effortlessly. Amber is the type of game where that can happen.

I think transcending the rules sounds pretty wanky and I would just call it dumping the rules but pretty much this.

I change a lot of rules in any game and Amber is no different. However I tend to up the beancounting to make actual play easier so i run with a skill system to eliminate the 'but I worked on a starship for 10 years of course i can retrofit a B series command droid with the internal parts of a microwave to create a portable beam laser'.
Likewise I use partial powers so the players scope is reduced to what they have recorded, they can extend partial powers in any and all directions but they need to do it up front.

In play I never open a rule book, why would I need to?

[finarvyn]

I've played ADRP with minimal rules, but can't bring myself to dump them altogether. Seems like with no rules you get "let's pretend game" instead of "role playing game."

[Croaker]

Same here.

If anything, I tend to add rules, but to make my life easier.
Like, when 2 peoples fight, how big of an advantage to you need if your opponent's got a sword and you're bare-handed, that kind of thing. I do not burden players with this.

[RPGPundit]

I think transcending the rules sounds pretty wanky and I would just call it dumping the rules but pretty much this.

There's a difference between just saying "I'll just play with no rules!" and saying "I've become so awesome at this that I just organically embody the rules".  The former is the refuge of incompetent GMs who don't want to learn the rules (like so many "artists" who claim they're breaking the rules of art when really they're just masking a total lack of ability).  The latter is where you have studied and practiced the rules over and over again so much that you don't need to refer to them anymore.

RPGPundit

[Taewakan]

I look at rules as tools that help me run a fun game. If the tool isn't doing the job, I get another tool or just go hands-on, so to speak.

For the artist in me, I like the idea of transcending the rules. I've also run many many sessions where it was pure role-playing. No reference to rules at all.

After a while the players learn what their characters can and can't do and not all encounters are about testing the limits of their numbers.

Plus - I LOVE moral and ethical dilemmas.

Just because a character can, should she?

[Cinniuint]

We played a no rules game once. Started by setting the stage and the PCs wandered off doing whatever. I think it went maybe 15 hours before it was decided that a GM was needed. Might have gone another 30 after that but I don't think so. GM was strictly an arbiter, not a story teller.