Quote from: Bill;625826I only know the bare basics of Amber, but how does it handle a situation where one hero is in hand to hand combat with 1,000,000 enemies all with a lower value?

Does he still win but it just takes a long time to  mop them all up?

I have not read the Amber rulebook for many. many years.

Well you can't actually get into hand to hand combat with 1 million guys ... well unless they were all really really small which is of course always possible in Amber.

Typically I use a rough scale of dozens, a dozen humans could beat a Chaosite a dozen chaosites an Amberite etc .... but with ranks its more complex.
Tactics matter a lot so in the book Corwin fights his way up a staircase on the side of a mountain and becuase he is only facing one or two enemies at a time and has supernatural stamina he kills hundreds.

Its similar to say how many men can superman fight at once except ... if a guys stabs corwing through the chest with a sword he will die, probably.

Quote from: The Traveller;625841Well no. A referee acts as a neutral party working between two or more teams to ensure fair play. Who are the two teams here?

The players (who *may* be multiple teams under certain conditions), and the NPCs of the World (who typically *are*  multiple teams).

It is not setting (which includes the creation of said NPCs), I would contend that setting is always bias in a well ran PnP RPG towards the players.

Quote from: gleichman;625851The players (who *may* be multiple teams under certain conditions), and the NPCs of the World (who typically *are*  multiple teams).

Which is just what I said, if the referee controls one team, what sort of referee is that? A GM isn't a referee. Some of the skills used in refereeing come in handy for GMing at times, certainly, but beyond that the comparison stops working.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625849Tactics matter a lot so in the book Corwin fights his way up a staircase on the side of a mountain and becuase he is only facing one or two enemies at a time and has supernatural stamina he kills hundreds.

Bleys does the heavy lifting there IIRC.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625854Bleys does the heavy lifting there IIRC.

You are correct though its probably a tie as Corwin doesn't talk much about his own exploit but waxes lyrical about Bleys.

Quote from: The Traveller;625853Which is just what I said, if the referee controls one team, what sort of referee is that?

Similar to the kind used when you're playing chess against yourself, verifying that each move is legal and under the time limit. Or similar to the the kind used when you're playing both sides of a wargame, again verifying that each move is legal and while attempting to win on both sides.

The latter is where PnP RPGs actually got the concept to begin with, it only shifted it slightly to bring the PCs in.


In a traditional PnP RPG, the GM creates the setting and NPCs with a bias toward player success (an author role). During actual conflict he then plays those NPCs to the best of their ability (as defined during creation) actually trying to win (i.e. he's the OpFor). As the game progresses, he will verify that the rules are followed by both the NPCs and the players at all times (the referee role).

There's nothing hard or twisted about that. That's why the original PnP used the term referee when describing the role of the GM, it is indeed a major element of his duties. He wears multiple hats.

Well, good ones do that is.

Quote from: gleichman;625857Similar to the kind used when you're playing chess against yourself, verifying that each move is legal and under the time limit. Or similar to the the kind used when you're playing both sides of a wargame, again verifying that each move is legal and while attempting to win on both sides.

Except this leaves out the concept of the players completely, in both of your examples there is only one agent. A more accurate comparison would be one person playing against another person while one of them also adjudicates the rules. It's really not applicable.

Quote from: gleichman;625857The latter is where PnP RPGs actually got the concept to begin with, it only shifted it slightly to bring the PCs in.

If by "shifted slightly" you mean the game wouldn't exist without players. This thread is an attempt to clarify the role of the GM beyond handwaving and poor analogies which came part and parcel with the original concepts. That means a lot of pat comparisons are going to be removed, which is for the best.

Quote from: The Traveller;625863This thread is an attempt to clarify the role of the GM beyond handwaving and poor analogies which came part and parcel with the original concepts. That means a lot of pat comparisons are going to be removed, which is for the best.

The traditional descriptions are not handwaving, there are actual and required roles.

In a traditional PnP RPG:

- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)
- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)
- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

Failure on any of the above points indicates either a bad GM, and/or the play of a non-Traditional RPG.

It's that simple. Your goal to define things otherwise is foolish and counter-productive.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625817doesn't really cover Amber as there is no concept of a chance of sucess in Amber.

Sure it does as the outcome of any conflict resolution is not always certain at the start. It just not a straight forward analysis of odds but more like a mini-game in of itself.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625817Also All you have actualy done is add A gamemaster is a referee for a to your definition of a roleplaying game. So basically you are saying the GM is just the referee of a roleplaying game...

Yes the GM is just a referee. You have the straightforward refereeing of the game mechanics, along with the much fuzzier refereeing of how to roleplay the NPCs in response to the player's roleplay of the character.  

Both instances involve the referee looking at what the players did, looking at a set of guidelines and deciding the results of the actions. For mechanics the guidelines are the game rules. For NPCs the guidelines are their personalities and motivations. And so on for the other aspect of the adventure.

The problem of storygames vs tabletop roleplaying has been their focus on making stuff up during the middle of play that in tabletop RPGs are defined before the session begins.

The only time you should have to make stuff up in the middle of a tabletop RPGs is when the sessions goes beyond the limits what the referee detailed. For example what color a mug is or moving off the amp. Even then there are still guidelines a prepared referee can use to remain objective and fair to his players. Random tables or reasoning from the premise of his setting are two techniques that can be employed.

Quote from: gleichman;625866- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)

The best ability of the NPCs? Or of the referee? If it is the referee then the referee is not being fair as NPCs should have personalities, and motivations that dictate how well they truly fight.

Quote from: estar;625869Yes the GM is just a referee. You have the straightforward refereeing of the game mechanics, along with the much fuzzier refereeing of how to roleplay the NPCs in response to the player's roleplay of the character.  

The GM is not a referee in any standard definition of the role. By dint of participating they fail to be a neutral, non-participating ajudicator. You don't see the ref in football picking up the ball and moving it to where they'd prefer play to be taking place.

Quote from: estar;625873The best ability of the NPCs? Or of the referee? If it is the referee then the referee is not being fair as NPCs should have personalities, and motivations that dictate how well they truly fight.

The NPC of course.

An Orc isn't Sun Tzu and shouldn't be ran as if he was.

Quote from: Kiero;625874The GM is not a referee in any standard definition of the role.

In a traditional RPG...

The GM enforces the rules on both the NPCs and the PCs, he does this in a neutral fashion no matter who the ruling may or may not favor. That is the actions of a referee. If he fails to do this for any reason, he has failed as referee and is a bad GM.


To use some other examples of GM failure:

- He may also fail as an Author by failing to create an engaging play experience for his players. Thus he would be a bad GM.

- He may also fail as an OpFor by just plain being bad at running his NPCs according to the abilities of those NPCs. Thus he would be a bad GM.

And so on.

I understand where the hatred for the term referee is coming from on this site. This is after all in general a group of people who think they can as GM change and add rules on the fly- the very idea that in traditional play the GM's job is to enforce the rules equally on both NPCs and PCs is an impossible concept.

But that concept was baked into the original generation of RPGs, which used the term referee in describing the role of the GM extensively.

To remove this function of the GM is to play a non-traditional RPG.

Quote from: gleichman;625866The traditional descriptions are not handwaving, there are actual and required roles.

You can't be a referee if you're also participating. You can be something similar to a referee some of the time, use some of the skills of a referee, but you aren't a referee.

You touched on this yourself when the element of players existing was mentioned regarding your "playing against yourself" analogy.

This:

Quote from: gleichman;625866- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)
- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)
- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

is not a bad description of some parts of GMing, but it's missing out on a lot of nuances of the interactions between the GM and other elements of the games, as you begin to expand upon yourself...

Quote from: gleichman;625866- He may also fail as an Author by failing to create an engaging play experience for his players. Thus he would be a bad GM.

...so now "an Author creating an engaging play experience" has been added to the "simple" list. Do you see why it is neccessary to examine the role of the GM a little further?

Quote from: gleichman;625866It's that simple. Your goal to other define things otherwise is foolish and counter-productive.

Sorry, I don't believe anyone appointed you arbiter of what constitutes purity of gaming. I also don't believe we're really at odds here, I'm just taking it much further than you have.

Quote from: gleichman;625876The NPC of course.

An Orc isn't Sun Tzu and should be ran as if he was.

Yup.

One of my pet peeves is when a gm runs mindless zombies as if they were a navy seal team.

And when a gm ha senemies move directly toward pc's suicidally when the npc would, by any common sense, flee.