The Myth of Faint

[Panjumanju]

I've now read one too many posts that say some variation of the idea that Amber Diceless as a system is entirely based on GM faint. (First of all, the word is "fiat", or even - in the context of exchanging blows - "feint", but anyway...) This is nothing but a popular RPG myth.

The conflict resolution steps in the game are very simple:

Step 1. The highest rank wins
Step 2. The GM is in charge of interpreting that win
Done.

Are there exceptions to this? Yes. Just like everything else in roleplaying games, it depends on context. Amber Diceless is not more arbitrary than throwing down dice to determine who wins, and then still having the GM narrate the outcome. Yet, people seem to believe that you can bluff or charm the GM more effectively in Amber Diceless than in any other RPG. Bluffing, feint, and hand-waving are not system-dependent.

I'd argue a game with near-universally applicable advantages like Fate are far more susceptible to buttering up the GM to get an advantage to apply that should not. When you have only 4 attributes, as in Amber, everything you could do has to fall under those 4, anyway.

5 Ways I Imagine This Myth Started

1. People reading the game, not playing the game, and feeling entitled to make a call on how they think it plays. Or,

2. They had a bad hand-waving bullshit GM once (hey, can't that happen in any game?) and now they've written it off. Or,

3. Amber just doesn't have the paper-trail to decision making that many games have, and so causes insecurity among players who think it must all then be hand-waving and bullshit. Or,

4. The player, for some stupid reason, sees a GM as the person who's out to get them, and not as someone generous enough with their time to run a game for fun.

5. Just hearing about it on the Internet

I call for an end to the myth. Play the game. It's fun, I swear.

//Panjumanju

[zircher]

I've now read one too many posts that say some variation of the idea that Amber Diceless as a system is entirely based on GM faint. (First of all, the word is "feint", but anyway...) This is nothing but a popular RPG myth.

True, true.  That's been my experience as well.
--
TAZ


PS: The word you may be looking for is fiat.  :-)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat

[Panjumanju]

PS: The word you may be looking for is fiat.  :-)

You're right! Amended accordingly.

//Panjumanju

[RPGPundit]

First off, great subject. But (as people pointed out in the thread) it's GM Fiat, not GM 'faint'.

Anyways, your argument is good, but you still open yourself up in that argument for people to claim that if it is not pure fiat it is still a "mother may I" style of play. Except it's not, not if it's played correctly.

If it's played correctly, then there are very strict guidelines for how the system should resolve what happens, and 90% of the resolution process should be based on correct interpretation of the system and no 'gut feelings' from the GM.

The problem has been, in Amber, that the rulebook itself doesn't do the best most organized job of explaining this. But it is clear to me that this was the intent, based on conversations I had with Erick Wujcik.  Those conversations formed the basis of how I ran amber, and were later explained in much more precise and clear guidelines of how to resolve combat situations, that I provided in the Lords of Olympus RPG.

[Panjumanju]

Not that I was spoiling for a fight, but I was expecting more contention on this subject.
Turns out...everyone loves Amber?

//Panjumanju

[Thondor]

First off, great subject. But (as people pointed out in the thread) it's GM Fiat, not GM 'faint'.

Anyways, your argument is good, but you still open yourself up in that argument for people to claim that if it is not pure fiat it is still a "mother may I" style of play. Except it's not, not if it's played correctly.

If it's played correctly, then there are very strict guidelines for how the system should resolve what happens, and 90% of the resolution process should be based on correct interpretation of the system and no 'gut feelings' from the GM.

The problem has been, in Amber, that the rulebook itself doesn't do the best most organized job of explaining this. But it is clear to me that this was the intent, based on conversations I had with Erick Wujcik.  Those conversations formed the basis of how I ran amber, and were later explained in much more precise and clear guidelines of how to resolve combat situations, that I provided in the Lords of Olympus RPG.

I keep thinking I should pick up LoO one of these days. Amber always grabbed me cause I loved the books so much.

The rules do have more variance than just greater number always wins. Such as - if the values are close and the "superior" opponent attacks recklessly, (trying to quickly dispatch what they  assume is a low skilled opponent), they should end up seriously regretting that decision.

Not that I was spoiling for a fight, but I was expecting more contention on this subject.
Turns out...everyone loves Amber?

//Panjumanju

Posting it to an Amber/Diceless subforum is likely a big part of that. The folks who read and respond are probably folks who like the system.

Oh, and Panjumanju if your who I think you are, I hope to see you at Phantasm this year. If you decide to run a Amber or other Diceless game, I'll certainly want to play

[Panjumanju]

Posting it to an Amber/Diceless subforum is likely a big part of that. The folks who read and respond are probably folks who like the system.

You're right, it leans too close to an echo-chamber. I just thought posting anywhere else was too likely to get: "What's Amber?" or "Ewwwe, diceless!" Part of what prompted this was I was listening to the Dead Game's society podcast (http://dgsociety.libsyn.com/amber-diceless-roleplay-dgs-episode-35) and they spent the first ten minutes talking as though they couldn't stand the system. Then the next fifty minutes obsessing over such fine setting details as the Elder Amberite's birth-order, and RAW play, quoting segments of Wujcik from - I'm pretty sure - an Amberzine article. While I accept that a lot of geeks are kinda self-loathing, it reminded me that even people who love the system don't stand up for it very often.

Oh, and Panjumanju if your who I think you are, I hope to see you at Phantasm this year. If you decide to run a Amber or other Diceless game, I'll certainly want to play

I am who you think I am! And I will be at Phantasm, running a game of my own, and the rune-based "Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok". Over my dead body will I run Amber again at a convention. That was a nightmare! A nightmare that deserves its own thread...

//Panjumanju

[finarvyn]

I agree that ADRP has a bad reputation. It could be a bad GM, might be a lack of understanding of the rules.

As the OP suggested, the core mechanic is very simple. It's the exceptions that make the game interesting, but they are what also make the rules lawyers fidget. If a person wants to "work the system" by number crunching then ADRP is the wrong game, but if a person wants to "work the system" through role play then ADRP works fine. I suspect that the problem is really that number-based gamers are trying to apply what they "know" to a more role-play situation.

[Thondor]

I am who you think I am! And I will be at Phantasm, running a game of my own, and the rune-based "Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok". Over my dead body will I run Amber again at a convention. That was a nightmare! A nightmare that deserves its own thread...

//Panjumanju

We'll I will certainly see you there.
And now you have me very curious about your experience running a session at a con.

[finarvyn]

I am who you think I am! And I will be at Phantasm, running a game of my own, and the rune-based "Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok". Over my dead body will I run Amber again at a convention. That was a nightmare! A nightmare that deserves its own thread...

I'd like to see that thread, just because I'd like to know what makes Amber so bad at a convention. I'm assuming the players were all self-serving powermongers, but that seems appropriate for Amber.

Actually, the "Fate of the Norms: Ragnarok" campaign sounds awesome. Care to share any details?

[Panjumanju]

I'd like to see that thread, just because I'd like to know what makes Amber so bad at a convention. I'm assuming the players were all self-serving powermongers, but that seems appropriate for Amber.

I'll make a new thread about it. Somehow, somebody went to AmberCon, so it must be possible.

Update: Thread is here: https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39970-Pros-and-Cons-of-Amber-at-Cons

Actually, the "Fate of the Norms: Ragnarok" campaign sounds awesome. Care to share any details?

At risk of detailing my own thread...Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok is a really neat system. It uses runes you draw instead of dice to roll. So, your character's abilities are signified by different symbols on the runes that can go into effect when you draw them.

The premise is: Ragnarok has begun. The sun and moon have been devoured by giant wolves, plunging the world into darkness and perpetual winter. The final battle could still be years off. You are vikings, and adventurers, struggling to survive in a dark filled with monsters.

Full disclosure: I'm a freelance writer, writing much of the system's upcoming Bestiary, so I have a vested interest.

Here is the core book on Drivethrurpg if you'd like to check it out: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/112998/Fate-of-the-Norns-Ragnarok

//Panjumanju

[Headless]

Personally I like DM faint better.  "Fetch me my fainting couch my corset is too tight."  

Amber is incredibly context sensitive.  I think the players and the DM (as judge) need to be on the same page more so than any other game.  

On the one hand in Eric's book he says "Benidict can never be beat.  No matter what."  But in the novel Corwin beats him becuase he knows abput some attack grass.