Amber: The Litmus Test of Healthy Maturity in Gaming

[RPGPundit]

I think that its become clear to me now: Amber is the kind of litmus test.   If you are a normal gamer, like, say, the VAST majority of people who I've turned onto the game, you will be at first intrigued and later blown away by Amber. If you can get past the "diceless" thing, your next reaction is "where have you been all my life, baby?!" and "holy shit, sweet mother of Fuck, pure roleplaying!".  I concede that there might be a few people out there that just won't dig the setting, but they'll love the concept of the system.

On the other hand, if you are a Swine, you will hate Amber.

Amber is a system that does everything that Swine claim should be a recipe for gaming disaster: it has a system that puts a lot of power on the hand of a GM, it encourages immersive play, it doesn't address questions of "Story" or "Narrative" nor does it analyze your gaming group, nor does it use big pretentious words to show off the designer's intelligence.

And yet, it works like a charm.  It is the ultimate example of how utterly and completely WRONG gaming theory is in the real world.

Of course, as we've now revealed in the Pistols at Dawn thread, Gaming Theory isn't really about the real world of RPG play.  Gaming Theory isn't really about RPGs at all.  Gaming theory is about creating more gaming theory.  Gaming Theorists don't do gaming Theory in order to be better gamers; they do it because they FUCKING LOVE gaming theory.
See, if Gaming Theory was real, you'd have people bitching about having to do it. You'd have people saying "aw FUCK, my group is dysfunctional and I have to go work out the gaming theory now, and study these Ron Edwards' Essays. This is the part that really sucks about playing RPGs; but shit, what are you gonna do? If you don't do the theory, then you can't play a good game, after all..."

But, you guessed it, no one says that. Interestingly enough, everyone who claims that you NEED gaming theory to be a good gamer also by a curious coincidence give every appearance of creaming their fucking pants every time they think of gaming theory.  Its sort of like how Christians who say that its God, not them, who condemn homosexuality, all appear to want desperately to bash homosexuals' head in... yea, its just a lucky coincidence, I guess, huh?

Fuckwits.

So, back to Amber. The particular complaints about Amber presented in the blog I linked to above are brutally telling of the issues of Gaming Theorists. They claim its "Tyranny of the GM".  Of course, a few of them claim that ALL traditional RPGs are "Tyranny of the GM".

Naturally, Amber isn't just "GM-fiat", no matter how many time untalented hacks try to repeat that phrase. Instead, Amber is a system that acknowledges the significance of the GM in a way other RPGs don't do overtly, getting that significance out of the way of "fudging" and into the direct process of mechanics.  Its a system where the Rules matter just as much as D&D, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, or any other normal RPG, its just the GM's ability as a GM is directly tapped into that rules mechanic, instead of being something unspoken that hovers around the periphery.

But when the Parasites and their Swine buddies bitch about GM-fiat in Amber, what they're really complaining about is the importance of the GM and the existence of Hierarchies in gaming groups as a whole.
They won't be happy, apparently, until we get rid of evil fascist GMs altogether and replace them with the wise and benevolent rule of Micro-game Designers.

And there's the rub: Its a maturity issue. Clearly, people who get drawn to theory are people who, at the end of the day, have serious issues with trusting GMs, trusting their own gaming groups. They have been personally scarred, and they are projecting that personal issue to Gaming as a whole.

Its sort of like when Bruce Baugh, who admits to suffer from Chronic Depression and Psychological issues, claimed that I must be chronically depressed and have psychological issues.  Only it applies on the meta scale of the RPG hobby as a whole: little Ronnie had a mean GM, and now he thinks GMs are the problem.

Oh I'm not saying that EVERY gaming theorist has had a personal negative experience with GMs; in fact, at this point many are probably advocating GM-disempowerment for no reason greater than that its the fashion. They want to be seen as smart, so they do what the self-styled "smart guys" claim.  But the principle advocates of the "castrate the GM" movement are all obviously dudes who've been affected by a bad GMing experience and reacted to it with immaturity.

The solution, as I've said before, is not to disempower the GM in the light of giving that power to the game designers.

I mean, where the fuck do these guys get off? And people say I have an ego?!  Sure, I love to GM, but I'm not going to pretend to know what's best for EVERYONE's gaming group and demand that I have control over what other GMs do!

Amber is in fact a game that gives enormous freedom to the player, and enormous power to the GM, at the same time.  It is wide open. And to someone who's been affected by a bad-GM experience, I can see how it would be scary as all shit.  But the grown-up way to deal with this is to work on being a better GM, or if you're a player finding a GM that you trust.  One that's good at doing what a GM is supposed to do, who won't abuse his authority.
Its a scary solution, because there's no magic bullet, no little equation that lets you do something that works. But its also the only good route to get at what works.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

The particular complaints about Amber presented in the blog I linked to above are brutally telling of the issues of Gaming Theorists.

The links were in some other thread, perhaps? Because I'm not seeing any of those here.

[Ian Absentia]

Oh, my.  How...provocative!  And novel. And wrong.



!i!

[RPGPundit]

The links were in some other thread, perhaps? Because I'm not seeing any of those here.

Whoops, yes; this was a reference to the original Blog Entry I'd taken this out of; and for once you don't have to manifest: I wasn't talking about Nobilis.

Amazing though, even the suggestion of Nobilis manages to summon Grimgent!

Funny how even Grimgent immediately associated "Nobilis" with "bad ripoffs of Amber's better ideas".

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

Amazing though, even the suggestion of Nobilis manages to summon Grimgent!

Nah: since I take an interest in diceless RPGs in general, as well, I tend to read all the new messages which appear on this forum.

[Erick Wujcik]

Oh, my.  How...provocative!  And novel. And wrong.

Please, Ian, I'm sure you have a reason for posting. Be so kind (and I direct this at everyone) to explain why you think RPGpundit is 'wrong.'

I'm not saying he's right. I'm just trying to provoke some actual discussion.

Thank You!

Erick

[Ian Absentia]

Please, Ian, I'm sure you have a reason for posting. Be so kind (and I direct this at everyone) to explain why you think RPGpundit is 'wrong.'

Paraphrasing:
   "Normal" gamers who get the idea of diceless gaming will love Amber
"Swine" will hate Amber
Ridiculous, insulting preconceptions.  Fallacies that border on outright lies. And that's just right off the top, ignoring the rest of the screed.  It's the same garbage he recycles over and over.

Honestly, why do you let this jackass represent your game like this?

!i!

[David R]

Honestly, why do you let this jackass represent your game like this?

I'm surprised Erick even needs to ask.

Regards,
David R

[Seanchai]

Honestly, why do you let this jackass represent your game like this?

Yeah, millions will be swayed by Pundit's opines about the game. It'll be chaos. Dogs and cats living together. Biblical in proportion. Run. Run for your lives...

Yawn.

Do you realize what a tempest in a teapot this whole business with Pundit is? He says things you don't like. Big deal. The drama and weight behind his posts doesn't come from him - it comes from the half dozen people who run around like they have they to throw themselves bodily in front of innocent readers to protect them from Pundit's ideas.

Seanchai

[SunBoy]

Considering

Oh, my. How...provocative! And novel. And wrong.

And taking into account

I'm just trying to provoke some actual discussion.

...well then, lets do this: what about one of those "Pistol flaunting at dawn" or whatever it's called? I'll take on you, GrimGent, or you, Ian, or both. About Amber. I love the game, I love the novels, I've read the second and played and GMd the first, and, most importantly, I'm not Pundy, so I won't just babble and scream guturally about Swine in my soup. You WILL have to forgive any awkward sentences that happens to make the page (I'm not a native english speaker), but I know the message comes through. So, if you've got something you'd like to discuss with an unbiased Amber fan, I'm your chap. Oh, and offer's open to anyone who doesn't like Amber. If you do, no point in arguing, of course.
OK, modblokes, supposing someone wants to take the glove, can we do it in this subforum?
Okay, anyone, answer here please.

[Kyle Aaron]

I neither hate nor love Amber. I am utterly indifferent to it.

Does that make me a "normal gamer", or a Swine? I find myself wedged between the horns of RPGPundit's false dilemma.

[The Yann Waters]

I'll take on you, GrimGent, or you, Ian, or both. About Amber.

Hm? I don't really have anything against Amber: liked the books, never played the game. I just don't see any need for Pundit's "for or against", "my game versus everyone else's" rhetoric.

[Otha]

It's been my experience that the people that Pundit labels "swine" think Amber Diceless is a damn fine game... not the best ever made, but certainly an excellent addition to the roleplaying spectrum and added some new ideas to the RPG universe.  There are those who like playing it and those who dislike playing it, but I don't think many of them (aside from a vocal and opinionated minority) actively hate it.

[The Yann Waters]

It's been my experience that the people that Pundit labels "swine" think Amber Diceless is a damn fine game... not the best ever made, but certainly an excellent addition to the roleplaying spectrum and added some new ideas to the RPG universe.

There's currently a "Sell Me on Amber" sort of a thread over at RPGnet, by the way.

[PGiverty]

Can someone please point me at an example of a Pundit-defined swine dissing Amber. I'd love to see what they think is wrong with it.