Resolving conflict in Amber without GM favouritism

[jibbajibba]

In my system, Hugo's blade would be a stat of its own that could be invoked in the conflict system.  The rules under which it could be invoked would depend on the item in question, but items, shadows, and other such tricks (and they're all tricks) are always less available than pure attributes.

For example, Hugo's sword wouldn't be able to help him as much in Amber, because it can't alter shadow there.

After an enemy learns about it, he'd be able to take steps to make it less useful.  Confront Hugo in Amber; throw a bunch of earth elementals at him first to eat up spells; what have you.

Hugo's blade is no different from Corwin's Black Grass.  It's a trick he's got up his sleeve.  The only difference is that Hugo's blade is useful in a more diverse set of circumstances.  

Now you may be saying that you don't like this system because it makes your Hugo's sword less powerful than attributes.  I call that a feature, not a bug.  There's no way, in my system, to create an item (or trick) that's unbeatable.  Amber has plenty of "cheats" in the Item rules (and other stuff) that have to be beaten down with GM fiat in order to keep the game balanced.

No I totally agree that stats should be tougher than powers which should be tougher than items which should be tougher than allies... which should be tougher than summon creatures etc etc ... from the charcter outwards. So saying Hugo's sword is not as tough as a stat is a given.
However Hugo's sword is nothing like the black grass. Number of reasons for that.
i) The black grass when used is obvious. The grass grabs your feet. Maybe Corwin can command nature but since he hasn't used this before and it only works on black grass its probably the grass (point of order Benedict had been fighting creatures from the black circle for years ... surely he must have encoutered the grass before ... Zelazny thinking inside the box again). The sword affects combat in a hidden way. Only someone with High Pattern would know that shadow had been manipulted. A good GM would present the minor edge it gives Hugo as luck, fortune, maybe good stuff ... This means that it can be reused multiple times on the same opponent.
ii) The sword presents any number of effects. Like shadow its infinite. Black grass just grabs your feet.
iii) From a game balance perspective , much as you argue stats are worth more than tricks, a paid for item has cost points (severitus could have been summoned in which case its an expenditure of time and this point has less merit). Something that cost a player points should have the edge over a random environmental variable.

The whole point of the sword and really of Hugo is that he is subtle. A sword that does pattern damage would be cheaper than severitus but far less fun. Hugo's whole drive is to be the trusted friend/brother that betrays you in the final act and you find out has been screwing with you all along. If you are going play that role you need to keep your cards close to your chest. The sword is a representation of that a mix of flexibility and secrecy,

Reducing the sword to a 'this gives you +10 Warfare in situations where you can invoke it' I think takes away a lot of the fun of it. Its a bit like the move from a roleplaying game to a MMORGP where all spells, items etc effectivley just give you a combat bonus and casting enlarge on your opponents armour thus rendering them incapacitated is just not an option.

[gabriel_ss4u]

This is self-contradictory.  A secret must be divulged to the GM to be enacted.

Furthermore, a secret that is held by the player and known to the GM but never used in a conflict is pointless.  

If the GM then says, "Okay, that's worth four points under such-and-such circumstances" and hands a note (or whatever) to the player, then that player doesn't need the GM around to use the secret.  The player can then just use the note in a conflict to get the extra points.  The GM's job is done.

Allowing secrets to be used once before they're gone is quite canon given that each of Corwin's dirty tricks gets used precisely once.

OK, I guess you missed the obvious on that, but it was easy to do.
no
What sounded contradictory was just quickly stated; you don't divulge the secret to the 'players', only to the GM, until such time that it IS effected in the story and whichever players become privy to the info, then so-be-it.
But this secrets = points?
I dunno, This sounds too LARPy fer me.

And those dirty tricks being used once.... it might become boring in the storyline for your main character to keep using the same tricks. That's just writer's purgative.
It doesn't make sense to keep the Trumps in the Library, but in the story it was much simpler in the story for them to be there.
They aren't there in MY campaign. Are they in yours?

[Otha]

What do the trumps in the library have to do with it?

[gabriel_ss4u]

Otha;
What do trumps in the library have to do with it???

OK, I think most people of like-mindedness, would agree that trumps, these powerful items, should not simply be placed in a locked case in a sometimes locked library.
This is one of the writing choices RZ used in his story that I consider was only to advance the story, IMC they are not simply easily available, (and to an Amberite, THIS is easily available.) So, common sense! that's what trumps in the library have to do with this.
Often, I and my Amber friends laugh or roll our eyes at the 'trumps in the library' thing.

I think jibbajibba was on it pretty much.
A secret that everyone knows is not a secret.
Otha, You complain and rave about GM's not being fair, or being too biased, but you expect players to receive 'player knowledge' and NOT be swayed by it?
I think most players have less control when it comes to being able to keep player knowledge from messing with character knowledge.
(example; My  character Roman was in a plot; the #1 in warfare slighted me in front of everyone, and I was no-where near his prowess.
I got the #2 in warfare to duel him, as they dueled, I had my 'item of power' which had alternate shape, "me", sit in with all the other players and watch, while 'I' was away in a tent, and waited to trump the #1 who had it comin'.
In this the #2 was aware of my plan, but no one else was.
(EXCEPT THE GM, who played it well according to MY preset hand-signals to him for commencement of the prearranged Trump-attack.)
As it was, it would have been successful, EXCEPT one of the PLAYERS yelled out, OUT OF CHARACTER, with player knowledge of what was going on, , She yells; "Drop your sword!" giving another player the chance to save his pride/life/circumstance/ whatever.
But this was a case of Players doing this... NOT GM
(and yes, the GM allowed it, yes, I disagreed, but couldn't speak, as I was mum on the matter and feigning ignorance like the others, but I had to roll with it.
So I understand that GMs can make a game difficult Otha, But I think it is far more difficult without them. EVERYONE has biased actions in gameplay now and again.

CASE 2;
I, in the same campaign, was given a few trumps of the newer generation. We ALL received them from Dworkin, we suspected. Found them lying on our beds upon returning to our rooms.
I brought this to the GM on the side, stating I thought it was unfair to make my player so useless as to my main power (TRUMP), he was giving away the thing I could bargain for. His answer was... do something about it.
So I did.
I created Trump cases, named & #ed, and gained access to their rooms, and left it on their beds - the cases. These other trusting Amberites used the cases, placed their trumps within, and I transported them to me as they were in were my items, with a spell, and NO-ONE knew who did it, but me and the GM.
That is a secret that would have to be divulged in your game, right Otha?

I like playing with like-minded players that don't try to fit everything into a structured framework for the uninitiated. I do lots of framework in Amber, but mostly for source material, not for game mechanics.

The idea to break down every power to purchasing individual talents of the power, or the idea of getting rid of a GM, are both insane to me.
I understand the GM is not needed for everything, Sometimes when I GM'd I DID have a co-GM. (who was also a player)
someone that could run side-stuff when I was busy with others.
Granted, this is rare to find people that mesh like that.
But it ain't impossible.

Otha, you asked Jibbajibba;
Do you play the style where the player can know nothing that the character doesn't know? It sounds like it.
I believe we play the style where we can speak in 1st person or 3rd person should we choose. I tend to do more characterization and use 1st person conversation, or the easy I say: "....."
Players can know what the character doesn't, but this creates the same problem you don't like.
this creates biased choices.
And I would be more worried about 7 biased players choices rather than 1 possibly biased GM.
We all learn from our mistakes.
Some of us even live past them.

[gabriel_ss4u]

I was hoping you might reply, but I'll take that as you agree....

If not, please at least refer to my point, I am actually open to hearing your reply, (I'll even read it all the way... LOL)

Anyone else see it my way or close?

[Otha]

Nah, I'm pretty much done.  My ADD kicked in and now I'm bored with this.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Fair enough....

but turnabout is fairplay.