TheRPGSite

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

Quote from: RPGPunditThe 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.

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



!i!

Quote from: GrimGentThe 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

Quote from: RPGPunditAmazing 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.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOh, 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

Quote from: Erick WujcikPlease, 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!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHonestly, why do you let this jackass represent your game like this?

I'm surprised Erick even needs to ask.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHonestly, 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

Considering

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

And taking into account

QuoteI'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.

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.

Quote from: SunBoyI'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.

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.

Quote from: OthaIt'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" (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=339498) sort of a thread over at RPGnet, by the way.

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.

Quote from: SeanchaiThe 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.

I realised that as I wrote my posts above, but sometimes you just need to put a name to a bad smell.  Pundit's post was an excuse to make his usual attacks against the usual suspects, and it belonged over in his personal opinion forum.

So why don't we make this official?  I'd like to suggest that this thread be moved to The RPGPundit's Own Forum, where one would expect to find personal screeds like this.

!i!

Quote from: PGivertyCan 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.

Well, unfortunately the Guardians Of Order forums don't exist anymore, but there you had this whole group of guys who basically came in there explicitly to try to convince GoO that a "2nd edition" Amber game should run on Nobilis rules, and not Amber's.

Likewise, on RPG.net you often see Swine taking potshots at Amber.
They hate it because it gives GMs "too much power"; because it doesn't believe in using mechanics to simulate social interaction; but mostly they just hate it because it actually works, unlike their theories.

RPGPundit

P.S. If you want evidence of the above, just check out the current RPG.net thread that was linked to above.  Look at what guys like Topher say ("it depends entirely on GM fiat") Eric Tolle ("Nobilis should be adapted to Amber"), etc.

P.P.S. Erick, you could have added a link to this forum on your post over there. Nothing like free advertising!

Quote from: RPGPunditLook at what guys like Topher say ("it depends entirely on GM fiat") Eric Tolle ("Nobilis should be adapted to Amber"), etc.

"Could be" is what Tolle suggested, not "should be"; and in all fairness, such conversions already exist on the 'Net. It all comes down to preferences in the game mechanics.

Quote from: RPGPunditP.P.S. Erick, you could have added a link to this forum on your post over there. Nothing like free advertising!

I thought about it.

Then I decided it would be better to put a link to this forum on the Phage Press website.

Erick

Quote from: Erick WujcikI thought about it.

Then I decided it would be better to put a link to this forum on the Phage Press website.

Erick

Ohhh.. that's very cool too!

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaParaphrasing:
   "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?

While I don't agree with RPGpundit's every sentiment, I do get enormous enjoyment out of his ability to articulate those sentiments.

Besides, he's a big fan of Amber Diceless. Even better, he's a vocal fan of Amber Diceless.

And he managed to nag me into participating in this forum.

What can I say? I like the guy.

Erick

I didn't think RPGnet was the big pigpen... last time I was there, the people had a pretty wide range of opinions.

Quote from: RPGPunditP.S. If you want evidence of the above, just check out the current RPG.net thread that was linked to above.  Look at what guys like Topher say ("it depends entirely on GM fiat") Eric Tolle ("Nobilis should be adapted to Amber"), etc.

P.P.S. Erick, you could have added a link to this forum on your post over there. Nothing like free advertising!

Thank you for the link. I can see some evidence of what you say, but mainly it seems to be an Amber love-in.

I've really enjoyed the Amber I've played, but when things are very closely matched in a conflict, I do think it's a little "Mother May-I". I'd really like some suggestions for non-arbitrary ways of deciding who should win very close contests based not just on who is the most persistent arguer. Maybe a different thread?

Quote from: PGivertyI'd really like some suggestions for non-arbitrary ways of deciding who should win very close contests based not just on who is the most persistent arguer. Maybe a different thread?

Thank you for phrasing positively something I've been saying negatively for some time.  Bravo!

I have started another thread to discuss the issue of non-arbitarty conflict resolution. I even tried to summarise the argument but then I got involved in a long convoluted example that in retrospect probably has very little to do with the topic :)

OK, so I went totally ignored again. I offered a "pistol flaunting at dawn" about Amber to anyone willing to take it, and nobody answered. Option one, it went at the bottom of page 1 just seconds before JimBob post, so maybe it passed unnoticed. Option two, no one is willing to argue against Amber, what will be great, and Option three, nobody gave a shit, what I sort of dig, too. So, wich one was it?

Quote from: SunBoyI offered a "pistol flaunting at dawn" about Amber to anyone willing to take it, and nobody answered. Option one, it went at the bottom of page 1 just seconds before JimBob post, so maybe it passed unnoticed. Option two, no one is willing to argue against Amber, what will be great, and Option three, nobody gave a shit, what I sort of dig, too. So, wich one was it?

At a guess, the truth lies somewhere between #2 and #3. I don't think that folks generally carry any sort of long-standing grudges against ADRPG, although some of them might personally prefer a system with a little more "game" to it. That's just not something worth arguing over.

I'm with GrimGent on this.  I have little reason or desire to argue against ADRPG.  My complaint was with the false dichotomies presented regarding who would like the game and why.

!i!

Yeah.  Y'know, when you post:

Quote from: SunBoyOh, and offer's open to anyone who doesn't like Amber.

... in a forum all about Amber ... I mean, who's going to be interested?  Haven't you pretty much picked a population that is heavily self-selected to be people who do in fact like Amber?  I don't think you should take the whole "People ignored me" too personally :D

I don't. I'm not crying right now. The reason this post took me three weeks to answer was NOT that I was crying and feeling bad and depressed and listening to Evanescence. Really.
Oh, and you might be right about audience selection. But I'm not that sure.

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.

Quote from: finarvynI don't "get" Nobilis

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


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit*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.

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.

Quote from: GrimGentHey, 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

Quote from: RPGPundit*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.

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

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.

Quote from: finarvynWhile 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 (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/amber/).  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.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, it isn't a litmus test for swine.  I'm a theorist and swine according to Pundit, and I have regular Amber Diceless games (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/amber/).  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

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, 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 (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/amber/rebma.html) 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.

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

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?

Quote from: RPGPunditit 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.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf 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.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, 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.

Good point on the multidimensional empowerment.

A 'game' where the GM has *all* authority... is a novel.

Quote from: RPGPunditit 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?

I think the problem here is that you're assuming that if one swine says something, that automatically means that all other swine believe the same.  While this might not technically be a conspiracy theory, it's still pretty dumb.  

It might be utterly confusing to you, but different people do have different opinions -- rather than conforming to your preconceptions of them.  I have never had a problem with traditional GM power.  

Quote from: Lee ShortHaving 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.

Well, you might not have used those rules, but Spirit of the Century allows players to spend a fate point to make minor declarations (p12) or "invoke for effect" (p40) to make "less minor" declarations.  This isn't particularly Forge-related -- it's similar to what can be done with Ars Magica Whimsy Cards, Torg subplot cards, Buffy the Vampire Slayer plot twists, or Adventure! dramatic editing.

Quote from: OthaSo...

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?

I would like to hear their reasoning and explanations.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI would like to hear their reasoning and explanations.

Might be worth raising in its own thread, in a forum that non-Amberphiles will also read.  You might get a broader audience than five pages deep in a thread of a different topic in a specialty forum.

Quote from: jhkimCompared 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.

But it is ignorance if those same players fail to realize that the GM has just as much control in most of the other games. The illusion of the dice behind the screen is that any one might beat any thing at any time, if only the dice cooperate. Any person who has run a RPG with dice knows that this is a sham because the GM has total control of how many and how tough the opponent. The GM has just as much control in other RPGS, it's just more obvious in ADRP because of the lack of dice.

Quote from: jhkimBelieve it or not, some people genuinely might not like your favorite game.

:D

Quote from: jhkimFred 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.

I've had conversations with Fred on boards and by e-mail and I'm pretty impressed with the way he does things, and hope someday to play in a game he GMs. :cool:

Quote from: RPGPunditI would like to hear their reasoning and explanations.

RPGPundit

I think the basic argument is that some people like more than one flavour of ice cream :what: