Amber: The Litmus Test of Healthy Maturity in Gaming

[finarvyn]

While I'm not a fan of Pundit's method of articulation sometimes, and I don't really agree that it has to be an "us versus them" thing, I think that Pundit does raise some valuable points.

It seems to me that the whole "GM fiat" thing is the sticking point that makes Amber-dislikers dislike Amber. They don't bash Roger Zelazny for lack of creativity, and they don't bash Erick Wujcik for lacking clever methods of conflict resolution. In general they seem to bash ADRP because the GM has too much control in the game.

I think that the distress over GM fiat is overdone and full of hand-wringers who don't really understand what they are talking about. Perhaps they had a bad session with a bad GM who handled things poorly, I don't know. What I do know is that I've played dozens of role playing games over 30 years and there are a few things that they all pretty much have in common. The GM is in control.* Sometimes that control is obvious (such as in ADRP) and other times it is hidden behind dice rolls and a GM screen (such as in D&D) but in every case the GM could totally overwhelm the players if he wanted. He doesn't because it's not fun for him or for the players. The illusion that the players can "beat" the GM is a comfort to many players who don't want to see behind the curtain, because if they did they would realize that the GM cannot be "beaten" and that there is not and should not ever be competition between GM and players.

It's okay if people don't "get" Amber, in the same way that it's okay that I don't "get" Nobilis, Everway, Sorcerer, and other games that many say are the best games on the planet. Many games are developed to emphasize different styles of play, and not every style is the best for everyone. It is my opinion that most of the problems that people have when playing ADRP are a result of the styles of the people playing and not caused by some flaw in the game system.

* Otha and others have mentioned a more collaborative game where the GM doesn't have much authority. They really like it a lot. I have yet to experience this and really cannot figure out how it works, but keep in mind that my comments extend only as far as the contact I have personally had with games. Have I played everything? Certainly not, but I've read and/or played dozens of games of all sorts of styles and find that once you strip away the fluff they all do prety much the same basic things.

Just my two cents.

[RPGPundit]

I don't "get" Nobilis

*watches the clock* any second now....


RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

*watches the clock* any second now....

Hey, I happen to agree: different strokes, and all that. It's none of my beeswax if other folks prefer their own favourites to the games that I play, although I'll certainly be willing to explain if there are any questions or misconceptions about them.

[Otha]

Finarvyn, I've tried to explain my problems, as a GM, with the judicial conflict resolution system in Amber, but I'll summarize here...

I don't like having that much responsibility.  I find myself steering events in the direction of the plot that *I* want, trampling over players that fight against it and rewarding players who go with it... even when I don't intend to.  Whether I like it or not, it becomes a significant factor in conflict resolution, whether the conflict in question conforms to that plot.

My plot preferences shouldn't enter into it, but they do, and I don't like that.

[RPGPundit]

Hey, I happen to agree: different strokes, and all that. It's none of my beeswax if other folks prefer their own favourites to the games that I play, although I'll certainly be willing to explain if there are any questions or misconceptions about them.

*checks his watch* yup, right on time.

Say Cao Cao, and Cao Cao appears.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

*checks his watch* yup, right on time.

Say Cao Cao, and Cao Cao appears.

I really don't have anything against people who "don't get Nobilis", you know. It's the second-hand misinformation that's the problem, and the people who somehow get what they are talking about completely wrong. After all, not all that long ago we had that "it's not a roleplaying game because you don't even play a person" discussion on these forums.

[RPGPundit]

Hey, I'm not commenting at all on the content of what you say. I'm just continuously amused by the fact that its a magical word with you.

Just like the old chinese saying: "say the name Cao Cao, and Cao Cao appears".
With you its "Say the word Nobilis, and GrimGent appears".

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

I'm not trying to get in the middle of an Amber/Nobilis argument that clearly has been ongoing for some time. I simply made reference to reading Nobilis and not getting it becasue Nobilis is one of those systems that many people think should be used for Amber. Frankly if GrimGent (or any other person here on these boards) is a Nobilis fan and wants to run that game system to do Amber, that's fine with me. I've seen d20 used for Amber and it's not "my thing", either, but I won't hate you for doing it.

My main point was that I just happen to like ADRP pretty much the way it was written.
1. I think that the conflict resolution system in ADRP is simple yet can be as complex as the players want it to be. If they want simple, I can do that. If they want to add details, I can insert modifiers as needed.
2. I enjoy having a hand in the way events unfold, and I don't think I step on my players toes in the process. I tend to design very open-ended campaign settings with many options, and am not a fan of pushing players in a particular direction. This actually frustrates my players sometimes and they ask "so what do you want us to do next?" whereupon I just shrug.

Is ADRP a perfect system? Probably not. My players happen not to like the auction, so I don't do that to them. It doesn't mean that the auction should be taken out of the rulebook, because other groups probably like it. That's why I hope that a 2E of ADRP takes its own advice (from the Elder section of the rules) and provides some options. Wouldn't it be neat to have a set of rules that says "here are three suggestions on how characters might be created"? This won't please everyone, but I think it would encourage more people to enjoy the game.

[jhkim]

While I'm not a fan of Pundit's method of articulation sometimes, and I don't really agree that it has to be an "us versus them" thing, I think that Pundit does raise some valuable points.

It seems to me that the whole "GM fiat" thing is the sticking point that makes Amber-dislikers dislike Amber. They don't bash Roger Zelazny for lack of creativity, and they don't bash Erick Wujcik for lacking clever methods of conflict resolution. In general they seem to bash ADRP because the GM has too much control in the game.

I think that the distress over GM fiat is overdone and full of hand-wringers who don't really understand what they are talking about.

Compared to other RPGs, an Amber GM has a lot of control -- so among people who dislike it, it seems natural that you'll find people who dislike that amount of control.  I don't think this is generally out of ignorance any more than any other game tests.  Believe it or not, some people genuinely might not like your favorite game.  

However, it isn't a litmus test for swine.  I'm a theorist and swine according to Pundit, and I have regular Amber Diceless games.  When I've gone to AmberCon NorthWest, I found a bunch of other indie RPG folks there -- I've run sessions of Polaris and played in Primetime Adventures there; as well as playing in various Amber Diceless games.  

Fred Hicks is author of "Spirit of the Century" and "Don't Rest Your Head" and is involved with Indie Press Revolution -- and he has been running great events at ACNW for years along with the others of the Evil Hat Games crew.

[RPGPundit]

However, it isn't a litmus test for swine.  I'm a theorist and swine according to Pundit, and I have regular Amber Diceless games.  When I've gone to AmberCon NorthWest, I found a bunch of other indie RPG folks there -- I've run sessions of Polaris and played in Primetime Adventures there; as well as playing in various Amber Diceless games.  

Fred Hicks is author of "Spirit of the Century" and "Don't Rest Your Head" and is involved with Indie Press Revolution -- and he has been running great events at ACNW for years along with the others of the Evil Hat Games crew.

Ok, so then the question would be, how do you guys run Amber? I mean, do you just suspend all your usual ideals of "Player Empowerment", do a full 180º turn for Amber, and revel in a game where the GM is actually the GM?
Or do you run Amber in some special, "player empowered" way?

RPGPundit

[jhkim]

Ok, so then the question would be, how do you guys run Amber? I mean, do you just suspend all your usual ideals of "Player Empowerment", do a full 180º turn for Amber, and revel in a game where the GM is actually the GM?  Or do you run Amber in some special, "player empowered" way?

I haven't actually played in a standard Amber Diceless game run by Rob Donoghue or Fred Hicks (though Rob played in my Princesses in Rebma game).  

I play a variety of games -- occaisionally some GMless ones, but more often ones with a traditional GM.  From what I've seen, it's not uncommon (though possibly not the norm) in the indie crowd to play traditional games as well.  For example, Clinton Nixon, Jason Morningstar, and Remi Trauer reported on their Twilight 2000 campaign a few months ago.  

The games of Amber Diceless games I've played had variations in the powers and character creation, but were pretty much by-the-book for resolution.  As I've usually played it, Amber Diceless does have some player-empowerment in the sense that if a PC has a personal shadow, the player can narrate what it is like.  I think that's in line with the norm for Amber.

[RPGPundit]

it raises an interesting question (though an off-topic one): why the hell do Theory people do that? I mean, in the last while I've heard several Forge-types mention it, that "most indie people play traditional games too!", as if that suddenly makes it all better. What it really does is seem utterly confusing and make them seem like hypocrites.

If there is such a problem with players being disempowered, why are all these Forgies running around playing GM-empowered games?

RPGPundit

[Otha]

So...

You're saying you don't understand?

Are you saying you want to understand?

Or are you dismissing them as hypocrites because their behavior doesn't match your conception of their philosophy?

[TonyLB]

it raises an interesting question (though an off-topic one): why the hell do Theory people do that? I mean, in the last while I've heard several Forge-types mention it, that "most indie people play traditional games too!", as if that suddenly makes it all better. What it really does is seem utterly confusing and make them seem like hypocrites.

Uh ... this is the "No True Scotsman" argument, isn't it?

   "No True Forgie would ever play Amber!"
"Uh ... but Forgies X, Y and Z do play Amber.  Doesn't that mean that your theory is bogus?"
"Man, why do they DO that?  It just shows that they're total hypocrites ... they can't even act like True Forgies!"Maybe they're not being hypocrites.  Maybe your theory's just full of holes.

If there is such a problem with players being disempowered, why are all these Forgies running around playing GM-empowered games?

For my part, I find games with heavy GM direction to be one fun taste.  Games with more distributed authority are another fun taste.

The fact that they are opposite techniques does not mean that a person has to choose to like one and hate the other.  Many people like both.

Yes, it's easy to get sucked into a Winner-Take-All argument where you say "I like my X ... and I must therefore rail against anti-X," but the fact that people have made that argument doesn't mean it has any truth to it, and it doesn't mean that everybody believes it.  There are reasons to like distributed authority that have nothing to do with any notion that centralized authority is somehow wrong or broken.

[Lee Short]

Ok, so then the question would be, how do you guys run Amber? I mean, do you just suspend all your usual ideals of "Player Empowerment", do a full 180º turn for Amber, and revel in a game where the GM is actually the GM?
Or do you run Amber in some special, "player empowered" way?

RPGPundit

Having played in numerous of their ACNW games, I can confidently state that the Evil Hat games definitely place full authority with the GM.  Near as I can tell, so does Spirit of the Century -- based on character generation and a single session of gaming.  So I'm not sure who the "you guys" are, but Fred, Rob, + Co have no "ideal of Player Empowerment."  Fred does an excellent, full-viking-hat, Oberon.  

In any case, Player Empowerment isn't a binary switch, it's a multidimensional continuum.  

I'd love to comment more, but I don't have the time for now.