Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;268880But roleplaying isn't a problem to be avoided, roleplaying is what a roleplaying game is for -- to roleplay. If you're tossing tables and whatnot, then you roleplay picking up the table. That means that you make a good faith estimate of how well your character can do something and roleplay it.

You don't need a system of any sort for that, though. Even at this moment, countless more teenagers than would ever pick up Amber or D&D are doing precisely the same thing in their forum RPs around the Internet. At least in my eyes, a proper RPG makes a game of roleplay, and integrates both of those elements: in that way there's a firmer foundation for planning your character's actions than one person making the call on whether they succeed or fail "for the good of the story".

I was actually thinking about a comment on this blog entry. "I have run 5+ campaigns of Amber, and I consider it the game that really made me understand what being a GM was all about. Without the safety of dice, the GM becomes solely responsible for the outcome of the game." Thinking back on my nearly two decades as a GM, for me it's never been "all about" that, in diceless play or otherwise.

QuoteCommon sense doesn't apply to nonsensical shadows or shadows where there are a thousand incoherent* exceptions.

Not "nonsensical", only different, with an internal consistency based on principles that don't exist in the universe that we know. The characters can travel anywhere, after all, into any imaginable world. Would you say that they can't find a place where any tool meant to harm someone else suddenly grows heavier if a man wields it or where they can walk safely through fire because the colour of their hair matches the flames, simply because the GM doesn't feel like improvising and so stops them from going there, even if that would grant them a crucial advantage over some rival?

QuoteNo, deciding to go to the top of a mountain is something that the player does.

And success with executing any strategies that a player might come up with, taking advantage of the terrain and available arms or ammunition, is independent of any mechanical considerations? How is that different from a duel with swords, then?

Quote from: GrimGent;268882You don't need a system of any sort for that, though. Even at this moment, countless more teenagers than would ever pick up Amber or D&D are doing precisely the same thing in their forum RPs around the Internet. At least in my eyes, a proper RPG makes a game of roleplay, and integrates both of those elements: in that way there's a firmer foundation for planning your character's actions than one person making the call on whether they succeed or fail "for the good of the story".

Hello? Who are you talking to? I'm not talking about for the good of the story. You forge-y. Me roleplayer. Keep it streight.
 

QuoteI was actually thinking about a comment on this blog entry. "I have run 5+ campaigns of Amber, and I consider it the game that really made me understand what being a GM was all about. Without the safety of dice, the GM becomes solely responsible for the outcome of the game." Thinking back on my nearly two decades as a GM, for me it's never been "all about" that, in diceless play or otherwise.

I don't know why that would be.
 

QuoteNot "nonsensical", only different, with an internal consistency based on principles that don't exist in the universe that we know. The characters can travel anywhere, after all, into any imaginable world. Would you say that they can't find a place where any tool meant to harm someone else suddenly grows heavier if a man wields it or where they can walk safely through fire because the colour of their hair matches the flames, simply because the GM doesn't feel like improvising and so stops them from going there, even if that would grant them a crucial advantage over some rival?

I draw the line at stupid. Right now, what you've described (redheads don't burn) and the explanation for it (because it doesn't exist in the universe we know) is stupid IMHO.
 

QuoteAnd success with executing any strategies that a player might come up with, taking advantage of the terrain and available arms or ammunition, is independent of any mechanical considerations?

Going to the top of a mountain is a player's choice. Getting up there without being detected by the guards is Warfare as is finding the "perfect" spot. Throwing a rock off a mountain is player's choice. Hitting the target is warfare.
 

QuoteHow is that different from a duel with swords, then?

It's the same realy. If you show up to a sword fight with a sword, that [player choice] gives you an advantage over someone who left theirs at home.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;268884Hello? Who are you talking to? I'm not talking about for the good of the story. You forge-y. Me roleplayer. Keep it streight.

Excuse me? What do I have to do with the Forge? See, this is what happens when you start paying attention to those Pundit's "ideological warfare against the Swine" rants. All I'm saying is that there's more structure to defining in-game abilities and shortcomings mechanically than to simply going along with what the GM wants to happen. How can you prepare to play a role, to stay in character, if someone else must constantly inform you about the range of that role?

That is, I'm fundamentally opposed to the GM making judgments in favour of some story that he wants to tell instead of what the PCs by all logic should be capable of. And the absence of guidelines on just what those abilities entail under ordinary circumstances runs the risk of reducing the options of the players to a brief menu prepared in advance and intended to keep them firmly on the tracks. Incidentally, that's also why I'm suspicious of people ranting against "never saying 'no'" or about how "the GM can't break the rules because the GM makes the rules."

QuoteI draw the line at stupid. Right now, what you've described (redheads don't burn) and the explanation for it (because it doesn't exist in the universe we know) is stupid IMHO.

It's easy enough to invent an explanation for the phenomenon. Perhaps in that world red hair is a genetic trait associated with hereditary immunity to extreme temperatures. Maybe flames magically recognize their own kind in the colour and part to make way for such travellers. Infinite Shadows, remember?

QuoteGoing to the top of a mountain is a player's choice. Getting up there without being detected by the guards is Warfare as is finding the "perfect" spot. Throwing a rock off a mountain is player's choice. Hitting the target is warfare.

Yes: the execution of the action, what the character actually does, is governed by the attribute associated with tactics and weaponry, obviously. That would be why I couldn't quite fathom why you were using it as an example of Strength being "über".

Quote from: RPGPundit;268645We were talking about choices in how to apply the rules and choices in how to determine the campaign's power level. And the Forge's central philosophy, GNS, claims that the rules should always be played AS WRITTEN (that "houserules" are just the sign of a broken game) and that it should be the GAME DESIGNER and not the game master, who decides what any given game is about. If your group decides to play a game, they must play it the way the designer wrote it, and with the designer choosing all important details about the way the game is handled (like power levels).

So go tell another lie.

I would say rather that the notion you are badly summarising is that the rules of a game ought to be capable of communicating how to play that game; that house rules are a sign that the game needs adjusting to the group; and that the game designer benefits from having a clear vision.

Its true, Malleus. As far as I know, grimgent isn't a Forger. He is just a Swine, though, and certainly his taste in games go toward "story"; he's more of your old-school RPG.net Story-based-gaming White-Wolf-ripoff-game Bad-poetry-loving Swine.

RPGPundit

Its true, Malleus. As far as I know, grimgent isn't a Forger. He is just a Swine, though, and certainly his taste in games go toward "story"; he's more of your old-school RPG.net Story-based-gaming White-Wolf-ripoff-game Bad-poetry-loving Swine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent;268886Excuse me? What do I have to do with the Forge? See, this is what happens when you start paying attention to those Pundit's "ideological warfare against the Swine" rants. All I'm saying is that there's more structure to defining in-game abilities and shortcomings mechanically than to simply going along with what the GM wants to happen. How can you prepare to play a role, to stay in character, if someone else must constantly inform you about the range of that role?

As a roleplayer I make good faith estimates about what my character can do informed by the suggestions of the GM and my fellow players. Talking about the game isn't bad, it's good!
 
To your previous point, I stand corrected. You're Swine not Forge. Perhaps I should pay more attention in Punday-school? :emote-roll:
 

QuoteThat is, I'm fundamentally opposed to the GM making judgments in favour of some story that he wants to tell instead of what the PCs by all logic should be capable of. And the absence of guidelines on just what those abilities entail under ordinary circumstances runs the risk of reducing the options of the players to a brief menu prepared in advance and intended to keep them firmly on the tracks. Incidentally, that's also why I'm suspicious of people ranting against "never saying 'no'" or about how "the GM can't break the rules because the GM makes the rules."

The thing is, roleplaying gives you all three -- story, improvisation and logic. You don't need rules for remedial roleplaying therapy.
 

QuoteIt's easy enough to invent an explanation for the phenomenon. Perhaps in that world red hair is a genetic trait associated with hereditary immunity to extreme temperatures. Maybe flames magically recognize their own kind in the colour and part to make way for such travellers. Infinite Shadows, remember?

I stand corrected. You need rules for remedial roleplaying therapy. If that nose of wax is the best you can come up with I can see why you want rules to protect you from your GM's wrath.
 

QuoteYes: the execution of the action, what the character actually does, is governed by the attribute associated with tactics and weaponry, obviously. That would be why I couldn't quite fathom why you were using it as an example of Strength being "über".

So previously the reasons for throwing rocks from the top of a mountain were unfathomable to you. Glad we cleared that up. Let me know when you get the double entendre.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;269047As a roleplayer I make good faith estimates about what my character can do informed by the suggestions of the GM and my fellow players. Talking about the game isn't bad, it's good!

Talking about the game beforehand is always good: that way everyone will be on the same page about what to expect and what to avoid, and the GM can also take the opportunity to check that the rest of the group won't mind if he wants to play Calvinball instead of using the conventional rules. Waiting until later and then talking about the same issues during the session, on the other hand, to the extent of having to negotiate the abilities of the characters whenever they attempt anything more complicated than walking down the street and chewing bubblegum at the same time... that can break the flow of play. Even the kind of IC reports on character competence as used by the fairly obscure Finnish RPG Hiljaisuuden Vangit help to prevent that by presenting a more stable standard than "If everyone at the table agrees to it, my PC can do anything."

QuoteI stand corrected. You need rules for remedial roleplaying therapy. If that nose of wax is the best you can come up with I can see why you want rules to protect you from your GM's wrath.

I've GMed almost exclusively ever since starting with that Red Box D&D in the late Eighties, so that's not the problem. And when you tell the players that with a bit of thought they can confront their enemies in any conceivable environment, it's only natural that they'll head straight to the worlds which work to their best advantage. If a dimension-hopping PC with no other special powers worth mentioning is being tracked down by some fireball-tossing sorcerer who can follow him wherever he goes, why wouldn't he lead the pursuer to an altered reality where the flames will be rendered harmless or turned against their wielder?

Quote from: RPGPundit;268977As far as I know, grimgent isn't a Forger. He is just a Swine, though, and certainly his taste in games go toward "story"; he's more of your old-school RPG.net Story-based-gaming White-Wolf-ripoff-game Bad-poetry-loving Swine.

We may have different opinions on exactly what constitutes a "story" in this context, though. Didn't you once lament your players' unfortunate tendency to interfere with your carefully orchestrated cut scenes and set speeches? I'd never do that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;268126That's a feature, not a bug, you dumb fuck.

:/
Was this really nescessary?

Quote from: RPGPundit;268127Us having different tastes means you are wrong.

Ooookaaaaay... :banghead:

I guess that means end of "discussion".

Maybe we should all just stick to regular "amber" threads... Sigh... :rolleyes:

Do you honestly expect anything else?

Quote from: GrimGent;269074Talking about the game beforehand is always good: that way everyone will be on the same page about what to expect and what to avoid, and the GM can also take the opportunity to check that the rest of the group won't mind if he wants to play Calvinball instead of using the conventional rules. Waiting until later and then talking about the same issues during the session, on the other hand, to the extent of having to negotiate the abilities of the characters whenever they attempt anything more complicated than walking down the street and chewing bubblegum at the same time... that can break the flow of play. Even the kind of IC reports on character competence as used by the fairly obscure Finnish RPG Hiljaisuuden Vangit help to prevent that by presenting a more stable standard than "If everyone at the table agrees to it, my PC can do anything."

Calvinball -- great choice of words! :win:
 
But you answer your main question, I see nothing wrong wth unanimous approval from my players. If we are satisfied that we've dealt with something realisticly then I see no reason to belabor it further.
 
And I should note that threshold changes from group to group. Some groups are obsessed about the distinctions between horses and guns. In other games players are content to ride "a horse" and wield "a gun" and get on with the show.
 

QuoteI've GMed almost exclusively ever since starting with that Red Box D&D in the late Eighties, so that's not the problem. And when you tell the players that with a bit of thought they can confront their enemies in any conceivable environment, it's only natural that they'll head straight to the worlds which work to their best advantage. If a dimension-hopping PC with no other special powers worth mentioning is being tracked down by some fireball-tossing sorcerer who can follow him wherever he goes, why wouldn't he lead the pursuer to an altered reality where the flames will be rendered harmless or turned against their wielder?

One of the reasons why fire is so popular in fiction is because it's so interesting. The combustion triangle, flashpoints, backdrafts, those little trails of gunpowder the pirate monkies are always screeching about.... Fire is interesting. That's why it's a shame to gloss over it all with a redheaded Calvinball.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;269357One of the reasons why fire is so popular in fiction is because it's so interesting. The combustion triangle, flashpoints, backdrafts, those little trails of gunpowder the pirate monkies are always screeching about.... Fire is interesting. That's why it's a shame to gloss over it all with a redheaded Calvinball.

Ah, but it's not a case of Calvinball unless it changes the underlying rules without rhyme or reason. And as far as the game is concerned, whether it's possible to locate a world of fireproof redheads should depend on the internal consistency of the fictional setting, not realism in keeping with the universe that we know.

For instance, consider the old example of an Amberite searching for the Shadow of Marvel superheroes. Over there, a bite from a radioactive spider could grant someone incredible powers. Over here, that same someone would simply die from radiation poisoning. If in another world mutation is a source of beneficial abilities rather than the cause of a gruesome death by cancer which it is in this one, then it's not inconceivable that fire might behave differently elsewhere as well: to burn cold or under water, to heal wounds or sear away disease, to shun people whose hair has been dyed red. To decide arbitrarily otherwise would limit the scope of the setting unnecessarily, I'd say, and make it far more difficult to develop plots and schemes based on the cosmology since any assumptions that the players might have about it could turn upside-down at any moment.

(Of course, you could always be going for the theme of "you believe yourselves to be the masters of the universe, but you really know nothing about it", in which case that might be entirely appropriate.)

Quote from: Croaker;267842For exemple, I've always hated the % system of CoC.

I'd like to dangle you, like Gerard did to Corwin in the Amber books, over a precipice and ask you the question "What is so bad about the percentile system in CoC?" I find it an easy mechanic to use.
Since this isn't the forum for such questions would you mind enlightening us as to your opinion on the matter in the main rpg forum?

Quote from: GrimGentI suppose that part of the problem lies with extending the effects of the attributes beyond ranked opponents and to the setting at large. What burdens can someone with the third rank in Strength lift? How far can someone with the fifth rank in Stamina run before collapsing? More often than not, gamers like to know these things, and learn what their characters are capable of in general

Ok, this quote is sort of old, but I think it is the heart of the question.

Have you played VTM? I'm sure you have. Have you played an Uzi-wielding happy-go-lucky killing machine with no remorse whatsoever? No. Why? Because to play the game, you've got to get in character, a thing who is in one way or another tortured by the inevitable loss of his humanity (irk!).

Have you played Dread? If the Narrator (I think it was called that) asks "How do you feel about your son being a mutant zombie?" you cannot decide your character never had a son.

The point is, every game, (actually every human activity), presupposes (if that word didn't exist, it does now) some previous common ground, a corpus of symbols every participant understands. In this case, that previous corpus is the psychology of amberites.

Which is a very pretentious way of saying no, actually we don't give a toss about how much our character can lift, as long as he can lift more than his cousin, because that's the way Amber works, that's the way amberites think. In Amber, if you wanna heave the fucking lorry, you will, as long as there are no cousins trying to push it down. Amberites always refer to Shadows-dwellers as vastly inferior and easily defeatable thingies -even if they can't always take'em when it comes to blows. That's why the mechanics for solving conflicts are ultimately reduced to an abstract comparation of two numbers: to amberites, that's the important thing -to beat "the others". At whatever your doing, always. You can't be sure whether or not you can take the guy in the pink suit, but as long as you can get the upper hand on Cousin Eddie you don't give a fuck.

Other stuff:
On "GM fiat":
GMs are always deciding how things happen. Make no mistake, man, since the second the fat guy sits there with his books, his drink and his crooked smile, and says "Ok, so you see this big ogre" he is in control. No stupid drama mechanic can change the fact that if the ogre is four-meter tall and you're Estelle Getty, you're going down. In fact, it is so easy it's no fun at all. Who would want to do that? There is no such thing as "GM fiat". It can't be, since you're talking about the guy who plays you're eyes and ears. Actually, the whole fucking game world comes out of his arse. Someone who just want to show how powerful a monster he can come up with, or what an enthralling story he can write, is not a good GM. And the cure for that is not a new game, my boy, is a new GM.

Uh. Long winded. Sorry about that.

Oh, and OBVIOUSLY the guy who owned that fire trap was the only Irishman in Congo.