To Still 'Game' Without Dice

[RPGPundit]

I think a fair statement is that this is the sort of self-congratulatory codswallop that only people who aren't grownup are wont to say.

You can think what you like; Amber's system trains people to be top-quality GMs by throwing them head-first into a game that demands this of them.

[Bren]

Amber's system trains people to be top-quality GMs by throwing them head-first into a game that demands this of them.

That may or may not be the case. Playing make believe without dice doesn't automatically make the play more grown up. After all, we all played games of pretend without dice when our ages were in the single digits. That didn't turn us into grownups.

I know you like Amber. You've said so many times. It certainly fits your preference for player skill over character skill in negotiations in RPGs. And your experience may well show a correlation between playing Amber and you or other people you know becoming more mature. But since maturity correlates with aging, maturity correlates with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with causing or enabling maturity.

Wanting to GM an RPG without mechanics isn't a sign of maturity. It's just a different preference about how to play an RPG. Thinking that it is a more mature style of play is utter codswallup.

[Panjumanju]

Playing make believe without dice doesn't automatically make the play more grown up.

I agree that we cannot assert Amber players are more mature, but it does demand a lot of its GM - as the sole arbitrator of rules - and demands a strong sense of trust between the players and their GM. This is probably what is at the heart of Pundit's assertion.

It's certainly not for everyone.

However, I will criticise your misunderstanding that Amber Diceless is some kind of a magical tea party. It's not even "rules light". Just, none of those rules require dice. I can understand the criticism that the game is "inaccessible" or even alienating, because the rules are not written for easy comprehension and even then often ambiguous. In some instances this was intentional, in other cases it was poor writing. But there are certainly rules - strong rules, and I would take offence at any suggestion that this somehow isn't a roleplaying game because it does not please everyone.

//Panjumanju

[Bren]

I agree that we cannot assert Amber players are more mature, but it does demand a lot of its GM - as the sole arbitrator of rules

All traditional games place the GM in the role of the sole arbitrator of the rules. There is nothing exceptional about Amber in that regard.

- and demands a strong sense of trust between the players and their GM. This is probably what is at the heart of Pundit's assertion.

Possibly. Linking mutual trust and maturity is another undemonstrated, self-congratulatory claim.

It's certainly not for everyone.

No RPG is.

However, I will criticise your misunderstanding that Amber Diceless is some kind of a magical tea party. It's not even "rules light". Just, none of those rules require dice.

I don't think I do misunderstand Amber Diceless, nor did I say it was a magical tea party.

The game does not have a mechanical way of resolving who wins in a fight, say an unarmed combat between Corwin and Gerard. Gerard is the strongest so he should win, but Corwin may use some sort of trickery or situational advantage to get the edge. Whether the trick succeeds or not is much more up to the players ability to persuade the GM than it is based on any mechanics. I recall the rules used that exact example confrontation from the books.

I can understand the criticism that the game is "inaccessible" or even alienating, because the rules are not written for easy comprehension and even then often ambiguous. In some instances this was intentional, in other cases it was poor writing. But there are certainly rules - strong rules, and I would take offence at any suggestion that this somehow isn't a roleplaying game because it does not please everyone.

I didn't claim that game was inaccessible or alienating. From what I recall from reading the rules the game isn't particularly inaccessible - other than the fact that it requires more than one or two players for the stat auction mechanic to work in any meaningful way.

It's a niche game that didn't particularly appeal to me since it eliminates the uncertainty resulting from rolling dice which is one of the major appeals of an an RPG to me when I GM. I would say Amber is similar (though orthogonal) to Pendragon, in the sense that it is of limited appeal and unsuitable to what actually interests many players. Claiming, as Pundit did, that it magically makes one a better or more mature GM is as silly as claiming that playing Pendragon makes one a better or more mature player. Both claims are unsupported (and most likely unsupportable,) self-congratulatory codswallup.

[Panjumanju]

All traditional games place the GM in the role of the sole arbitrator of the rules. There is nothing exceptional about Amber in that regard.

I'm sorry, but there is - players have no mechanical control during play. All the rules are run through the filter of the GM. There is no self-regulating understanding of turn order or actions within a turn or other common ground of understanding. In nearly all other games there is a framework of understanding between the player and the GM.

For instance, when I'm running Dungeons & Dragons I don't have to know all of the special abilities of different character classes people are playing - when they come up, players can tell me what they do and if it doesn't sound right we can all look it up. Part of the responsibility of the rules can be with the players.

Amber renegotiates that dynamic to say to the player: "Just focus on your character, not the mechanics." This puts the onus of the rules in the hands of the GM, which is an unusual circumstance when the rules of most other roleplaying games are formed to govern potential points of contention such as turn order, or actions within a turn.

Some people see this as a weakness in the system.

Linking mutual trust and maturity is another undemonstrated, self-congratulatory claim.

I said only that Amber requires mutual trust. Only Pundit claims that necessarily leads to maturity. Of course I agree with you that it's not something that could ever be substantiated. However, in Amber a mature approach to the game is *required* or there's *no game at all* - it would fall apart horribly and lead to people misunderstanding the structure, because it has no framework against immaturity.

Many people also see this as a flaw in the system - the requirement of maturity, rather than allowing different levels of play.

I didn't claim that game was inaccessible or alienating.

No, I did. It is a frequent criticism of the game, and I feel the criticism has merit. I was trying to contextualise my defence of Amber Diceless, because the game is not without flaws.

I don't think I do misunderstand Amber Diceless, nor did I say it was a magical tea party.  

"Magical tea party" by implication; you said you were unconvinced it had rules, rather than guidelines, and equated the system to a game of 'make-believe'.

The game does not have a mechanical way of resolving who wins in a fight,

This is a frequent criticism of Amber Diceless from people who have not read or not properly applied the rules, usually from a bad GMing experience. The idea that the substance of conflict is one's ability to dazzle the GM is a false impression. There is a thicket of threads in this very forum defending that this is not the case.

This is not a flaw of the system, although many people who have received a poor impression of the system claim that it is the case.

By another example - if your first impression of Dungeons & Dragons was poor, (as is the case for many of us when first running or playing D&D) you're still going to experience D&D later under a better GM (or improve your own GMing skills) so long as you continue to participate in the hobby at all. Bad experiences with Amber Diceless are more permanent, because the system is not well explained, making it too easy to misunderstand its structure (like imagining that conflict is all faint slinging) and the game is too niche to draw you back in by virtue of just sticking to the hobby.

In summation, Amber has rules. It is a roleplaying game.

//Panjumanju

[Bren]

I'm sorry, but there is - players have no mechanical control during play.

Then what do you mean by the game having rules that govern conflict? If there are no mechanics to the conflict, then what rules are you talking about? If there are mechanics governing conflict than the game isn't run by GM fiat.

I've run quite many games where the players had little to no knowledge of the rules. All their actions were filtered through my knowledge of the rules. But the rules actually existed. And we could, should we choose, walk through those rules. Does Amber have such mechanics or not? My impression is that other than comparing ranks in abilities it does not have such rules. Now it is quite possible I am mistaken since it has been many years since I looked at Amber, but if so it should be pretty easy to dispel my impression that the GM decides combat based on (1) relative ranks in applicable abilities which is a straightforward mechanistic comparison where A > B > C and (2) any subjective situational modifiers that the GM allows based on what the player describes their character doing.

Some people see this as a weakness in the system.

I see the lack of unexpected outcomes for the GM as a weakness of the system for my interests.

I'm not particularly interested in having an argument about the meaning of "game," "roleplaying," or the meaning of the concatenation, "roleplaying game." All of those discussions seem as unproductive as arguing with a story gamer about the meaning of "story."

I said only that Amber requires mutual trust. Only Pundit claims that necessarily leads to maturity. Of course I agree with you that it's not something that could ever be substantiated. However, in Amber a mature approach to the game is *required* or there's *no game at all* - it would fall apart horribly and lead to people misunderstanding the structure, because it has no framework against immaturity.

Many people also see this as a flaw in the system - the requirement of maturity, rather than allowing different levels of play.

A claim that Amber requires maturity amongst the participants to function is nearly as impossible to prove than any of Pundits claims. Pundit's comments on this topic (and others) displays what is sometimes a profound lack of maturity, so you will perhaps forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical of your claim that maturity (in contrast to trust in the GM) is a requirement for Amber to function for roleplaying.

"Magical tea party" by implication; you said you were unconvinced it had rules, rather than guidelines, and equated the system to a game of 'make-believe'.

I haven't seen any examples of what I would describe as rules governing play. I have read examples of guidelines for play. If you want to provide some examples of rules or link to some existing thread that provides examples, I am happy to reconsider my opinion.

This is a frequent criticism of Amber Diceless from people who have not read or not properly applied the rules, usually from a bad GMing experience. The idea that the substance of conflict is one's ability to dazzle the GM is a false impression. There is a thicket of threads in this very forum defending that this is not the case.

Citations of rules, examples of play, or links to threads would be nice.

[RPGPundit]

I was actually talking about maturity as a GM.  Though in fact, the Amber-system games require maturity in general, too.

[Panjumanju]

Citations of rules, examples of play, or links to threads would be nice.

You seem to be misreading a lot of what I've spent not a small amount of time writing, and seem stringent in holding to misinformation about Amber Diceless.

This is a forum dedicated to the game, and the burden of proof is not on me. Although it seems that you have come into the Amber Dicless forum just to decry it, if you do want to try it someday there is a wealth of information here.

//Panjumanju

[Bren]

You seem to be misreading a lot of what I've spent not a small amount of time writing, and seem stringent in holding to misinformation about Amber Diceless.

This is a forum dedicated to the game, and the burden of proof is not on me. Although it seems that you have come into the Amber Dicless forum just to decry it, if you do want to try it someday there is a wealth of information here.

//Panjumanju

My comment was directed at Pundit's unsupported claim that Amber is a training ground for better GMs and a game that requires maturity. You seem intent on turning my statement about his comment into an attack on Amber as an RPG and equally intent on attributing to me whatever mean things about Amber people have said to you in the past. It makes attempting real communication difficult and tiresome.

Setting Pundits' statement on the amazing, possibly magical, powers of personal development provided by GMing Amber, as I have said a couple of times now, the diceless nature of Amber removes one of the key aspects of RPGs that I find interesting - the uncertainty and unexpected results that rolling dice provides to the players, and more specifically to the GM. Therefore I don't have a lot of interest in playing Amber and far less interest in GMing Amber.

My lack of interest in Amber should not be taken as an attack on anyone else's liking for the game.

I was actually talking about maturity as a GM.  Though in fact, the Amber-system games require maturity in general, too.

I think you have mistaken correlation with causation. You are more mature as a GM than you were before you ran Amber, because you became an older, somewhat more mature person for a host of reasons, mostly unrelated to Amber and all of those reasons correlating to your increase in age and experience.

[RPGPundit]

So first, I'm a bit confused what you're doing here, in this sub-forum, if you have no interest in Amber (or I would presume in the Amber-derived games)?

And no, I directly became a better GM BECAUSE of Amber.  Because the Amber rulebooks written by Erick Wujcik contain some of the best GMing advice ever written, and because for the Amber game to end up being really great it demands that the GM step up his game and develop a bunch of skills that in other games are potentially less developed by reliance on more structured rules or randomness.

Amber is obviously not the ONLY game that makes you a better GM for successfully running it. But I've never experienced any other game that makes you a better GM overall the way Amber does.

[finarvyn]

I suspect the term "better GM" is the sticking point. Running ADRP doesn't make me a better D&D GM, but it does teach me certain skills that I wouldn't have acquired as a D&D GM. For example, in D&D I can have an "off day" and run my players through a few random encounters to kill time and they probably won't notice the difference. In ADRP the GM has to be "on" the whole time becasue every action and/or encounter has purpose. I can't just stall for time without the storyline stalling as well. That makes being an ADRP GM a very demanding and draining experience.

[Bren]

I suspect the term "better GM" is the sticking point.

You are correct.

[Panjumanju]

I suspect the term "better GM" is the sticking point. Running ADRP doesn't make me a better D&D GM, but it does teach me certain skills that I wouldn't have acquired as a D&D GM. For example, in D&D I can have an "off day" and run my players through a few random encounters to kill time and they probably won't notice the difference. In ADRP the GM has to be "on" the whole time becasue every action and/or encounter has purpose. I can't just stall for time without the storyline stalling as well. That makes being an ADRP GM a very demanding and draining experience.

Thank you for expressing that better than I did.

//Panjumanju

[Spinachcat]

But I've never experienced any other game that makes you a better GM overall the way Amber does.

I would love for you and other Amber GMs to elaborate on this in its own thread. The diceless thing is very alien to me, but improving my GM skills is always a high interest.

Any examples of Erick Wujick's GM advice you could share?

[RPGPundit]

Most of it is right there in the Amber and Shadow Knight books. Spectacular GMing advice is probably the majority of the content of both of those, either directly or through the description of how to manage the rules.