Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080414Would you like me to get the page number again, where the players CAN?

Amber Core Book, first printing 1991, page 106, under the heading Choosing Random Events, sub-heading Leaving the Choice to the Players.

QuoteYet why should it be random? A novelist or screenwriter doesn't pick a random  encounter. No, they pick whatever "random" event is most interesting, or the one that works best to move the story along. Why should they want any boring events? Or purposeless  events? Or events that repeat themselves? It's the same in role-playing. All the Game Master has to do is visualize or list the possibilities, and then select the one choice that seems to work best for the current role-playing situation.

Leaving Choice Up to the Players. If, and only if, there seems to be more than one attractive possible event, then let the "decision" fall on the actions of the players. Note that it isn't player "choice," it's player "action." After all, the players don't know that they are making the decision for you.

That is some funky wording going on there.

Quote from: Omega;1080419That is some funky wording going on there.

That doesn't sound at all like player's being presented with options and making a choice OOC.  That sounds like the GM presenting a couple of options to the characters, and rolling with what is chosen.

Quote from: kythri;1080420That doesn't sound at all like player's being presented with options and making a choice OOC.  That sounds like the GM presenting a couple of options to the characters, and rolling with what is chosen.

The players are still dictating to the GM which scenario to go with.  Which according to Pundit's 'Storygame' belief is a key element of what makes one.  But Amber can't because it's one of the greatest games ever.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080423The players are still dictating to the GM which scenario to go with.  Which according to Pundit's 'Storygame' belief is a key element of what makes one.  But Amber can't because it's one of the greatest games ever.

If the characters are presented an option, in character, and make a choice, in character, then the players aren't dictating to the GM, OOC, what to do.

Quote from: Omega;1080419That is some funky wording going on there.

It sounds like part of the advice I give about running sandbox campaigns.

For anything that the players do as their character there are one or two consequences that are likely to occur. However there are also consequences that are less probable but still make sense given the circumstances. Part of the creativity of the sandbox referee is picking the consequence that would be the most fun and interesting and not always going for the most likely. Just keep in mind that a mix of likely and unlikely consequences needs to be maintained if the campaign is to remain believable in the eyes of the players.

To me the wording in Amber is a incomplete statement of what the author is trying to get at. Which is not to be a slave to the dice and exercise some judgment over which events in the fore mentioned table get used based on what the players are interested in.

Quote from: kythri;1080427If the characters are presented an option, in character, and make a choice, in character, then the players aren't dictating to the GM, OOC, what to do.

But there's no mention of character there, right?

Anyway, it's indeed funk worded and regardless of intentions, one thing is firmly grounded in the 90s: the inability to communicate properly what the game is about. Lol

Quote from: estar;1080444It sounds like part of the advice I give about running sandbox campaigns.

Among other things.
Its saying things should be like in a movie or book, but also saying the players have decisions, but also saying the players decisions are an illusion, but also saying the players decisions are a springboard. Just that one little section is all over the place. You could read it in several different ways.

Quote from: Itachi;1080457But there's no mention of character there, right?

To be fair, no, it doesn't outright make a distinction between players and characters, but then again, RPGs of yore operated under the assumption that people reading the books weren't fucking idiots, and could decipher what was being implied.

Quote from: Omega;1080620Among other things.
Its saying things should be like in a movie or book, but also saying the players have decisions, but also saying the players decisions are an illusion, but also saying the players decisions are a springboard. Just that one little section is all over the place. You could read it in several different ways.

Yep, it's so badly communicated that different players ended up playing the game in stark different ways and think they were playing it right all this time. Bizarre.

Quote from: kythri;1080635To be fair, no, it doesn't outright make a distinction between players and characters, but then again, RPGs of yore operated under the assumption that people reading the books weren't fucking idiots, and could decipher what was being implied.

Well, it does say PLAYER ACTION, and last I checked Amber was not a Boffo Larp so anyone who isn't a moron or a story game ideologue would assume they'd be actually meaning character.  That assumption unfortunately leaves out Brady and Itachi however.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1080675Well, it does say PLAYER ACTION, and last I checked Amber was not a Boffo Larp so anyone who isn't a moron or a story game ideologue would assume they'd be actually meaning character.  That assumption unfortunately leaves out Brady and Itachi however.

I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit.  This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs.  Seriously what is your real issue Brady?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1080676I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit.  This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs.  Seriously what is your real issue Brady?

I'm against Pundit?  

I AM??  

AND NO ONE TOLD ME???

...WHY AM I THE LAST ONE TO KNOW THESE THINGS?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1080676I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit.  This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs.  Seriously what is your real issue Brady?

Jealousy and envy.  

Quote from: Itachi;1080669Yep, it's so badly communicated that different players ended up playing the game in stark different ways and think they were playing it right all this time. Bizarre.

That can be said of every RPG and board game ever. Somewhere, somehow, no matter how clear the rules are. Someone WILL read them in the most screwball or contrary way possible.

This pops up ever so often over on BGG. A term like "You may move 3 squares on a turn" and you will have 4 different interpretations all based on the word "may".
Someone will read that as "You may move 1-3 squares". Another will read "You may move 3 squares, Or not move." Another will read it as "You move 1-3 squares. Or Not move". And someone else will read it as "You roll a d3(1-half d6) and move that many spaces"

Or the debate over what 5e Goodberry actually does. Or a notation of "The weapon does 1-6 damage" and someone will read that as you can choose 1 to 6 as your damage. Or be confused what dice you are supposed to roll. Or even that dice are rolled at all. I kid you not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1080675Well, it does say PLAYER ACTION, and last I checked Amber was not a Boffo Larp so anyone who isn't a moron or a story game ideologue would assume they'd be actually meaning character.  That assumption unfortunately leaves out Brady and Itachi however.

er. How so? Player action to me means the player is doing something outside the actual characters actions. EG: Spend a fate point. Your character did not spend a fate point to reroll a die. The player did. (Of course a few RPGs have allowed characters to do that. TORG comes to mind I believe.)