Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079171Trying to grasp a bit more: so is the problem shared power or how the shared power is represented? I've read some games that share much more power among the players, played a few, but I do not recall any being quite like this in how it presented itself. Is there a solid example I can look at?

I would not say it is a problem of power share per-se so much as it is a problem of treating the DM as an adversary that must be defeated, restrained, contained, or eliminated. As was noted by others earlier in the thread normal gaming sessions can have the DM playing off the things the PCs do or the players say, suggest, or guess. Using the players as a springboard of ideas.

On the PCs finding a skeleton with an arrow in its ribs one player might wonder if elves did this? And the DM might think that is a neat idea and secretly run with it. Or a player or the group might ask the DM to run something where they fight mindflayers. And the DM obliges.

The more extreme end of the Storygamer lot though wanted to dictate to the DM what happens. No asking. There ARE mindflayers and thats that.

And theres a wide variance of storygamer too. Some are pretty mild. All they really ask for and want is the DM to run with a sort of plot to it. Though in this case "plot" may be "The stuff we did" rather than anything specifically planned out. Or "plot" might be to them just the overarching plot of an adventure. "There are hobgoblins and orcs building a fort in the swamp" And some want plot heavy sessions. Grove's players and his particular playstyle for example.

Quote from: Omega;1079179I dont know? I have never seen Amber played. Though one of my players has it. I thought there was more to the game than just bidding at chargen?

Mechanically? ...not much. The rest is basically, "do you have this power? OK; how do you want to try to use it to solve this situation?" and the GM narrates success or failure. It's much more socially driven than it is mechanically. You compare Player 1's stats to Player 2's when you're in conflict (which those stats and ranks between them were determined in the bidding war). In theory, person with higher number wins. In reality, the HOW matters much more than the number. And the how can be affected by luck ("Good Stuff" or "Bad Stuff") and what powers someone has, and how they use them.

But you can't pin a number to those things. (That is, "I have Pattern, so that gives me +X to my Warfare skill, putting it above yours!" Does not work like that.)

Quote from: Omega;1079180The more extreme end of the Storygamer lot though wanted to dictate to the DM what happens. No asking. There ARE mindflayers and thats that.

This sentence, probably my ignorance, but I have never actually seen a game run like that. I can't think of one that has that sort of a setup in its rules. Well, except for one anime-inspired where there was literally a way to usurp the GM and make the GM become another player, but it was incredibly tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't adversarial.

I'm not an Amberite, but IIRC from reading it, the players don't NEED to stop role playing their character and be presented with choices that their character could not make.  

Sure, with no dice rolling, and the GM simply using stat comparisons and fiat to resolve close contests I can certainly see players moving to OOC discussing of other traits and factors that might lean in their favor.  I don't see it mandated though, like the 2d20 choice whether to buy more dice while knowing that gives the GM his "GM Fuel" currency to spend, or Fate where deciding to spend a point to invoke an aspect determines whether your Schrodinger's whatever is going to take effect.

The biggest problem with Amber is that the characters are basically reality-altering Gods who can simply affect things on a level few other games can do.  With any other game, those would be OOC abilities requiring Authorial Stance.  With Amber, it's just roleplaying the character.  They don't need to spend a dramatic point to pop in a shotgun behind the bar, they can just make one.

It's such a different form of game due to the diceless nature and the power level of the characters that Amber really defies definition.

I can totally see some tables going full storyteller and use Amber for a collaborative story.
I can also totally see some tables staying in character the whole time because no rules in the game prevent it.

I think Erick Wujick designed it that way on purpose, which is part of the brilliance of the design I can appreciate, even if it's not my thing.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079183This sentence, probably my ignorance, but I have never actually seen a game run like that. I can't think of one that has that sort of a setup in its rules. Well, except for one anime-inspired where there was literally a way to usurp the GM and make the GM become another player, but it was incredibly tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't adversarial.

Theres some older threads here and elsewhere where it came up a few years ago. As noted. For a time there was a big push to push storygaming over traditional RPGs or co-opt them. Pundit's "Swine" were a real thing. Though seems to have died out mostly, or at least mellowed out. Ever so often someone will trot out one of the storygamer buzzwords like "the fiction". But thats fallen into disuse too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1079185I'm not an Amberite, but IIRC from reading it, the players don't NEED to stop role playing their character and be presented with choices that their character could not make.  

Sure, with no dice rolling, and the GM simply using stat comparisons and fiat to resolve close contests I can certainly see players moving to OOC discussing of other traits and factors that might lean in their favor.

So there is still a system in there. Such as simple stat comparison, which some other RPGs use? Like character A has a stat of 12 and B has a stat of 13. So B wins just barely?

Quote from: Omega;1079187So there is still a system in there. Such as simple stat comparison, which some other RPGs use? Like character A has a stat of 12 and B has a stat of 13. So B wins just barely?

Yes... but no, not really. In theory, 13 wins over 12 in a straight fight. So 12 is doing what he can to make sure the fight isn't straight. But if you're looking for a systemic way that's expressed, there isn't one.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079189Yes... but no, not really. In theory, 13 wins over 12 in a straight fight. So 12 is doing what he can to make sure the fight isn't straight. But if you're looking for a systemic way that's expressed, there isn't one.

I think I can guess where that is going. Pretty darn sure I've seen that sort of on the fly system for an older RPG but cant recall the name.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1079185I'm not an Amberite, but IIRC from reading it, the players don't NEED to stop role playing their character and be presented with choices that their character could not make.  

Concur mostly with what you said, and that I think Erick probably designed it like that as well. Especially concur with the authorial stance bit.

QuoteSure, with no dice rolling, and the GM simply using stat comparisons and fiat to resolve close contests I can certainly see players moving to OOC discussing of other traits and factors that might lean in their favor.  I don't see it mandated though, like the 2d20 choice whether to buy more dice while knowing that gives the GM his "GM Fuel" currency to spend, or Fate where deciding to spend a point to invoke an aspect determines whether your Schrodinger's whatever is going to take effect.

Moving to an OOC discussion about other traits and factors is pretty common at some tables. If my Psyche is higher than your Psyche, but my Warfare is lower than yours, I'm going to make damn sure I get the fight into a Psyche battle, even if we started in a Warfare battle. At other tables, I've seen it as a more cloak-and-dagger not expressing that I'm trying to shift the battle to Psyche, but with a nudge-nudge to the GM that that's the direction I'm  moving in.

So it's a bit subtler than buying a move, but it's still, basically, "buying a move," just expressed more indirectly through shadow and guile. Your currency is wits.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079164And which are the linear scene-by-scene railroad 1990s 'adventures' other than White Wolf's? Call of Cthulhu's vaunted scenarios/campaigns?

The worst one I ever bought was 'Rogue Mistress' for Chaosium's Stormbringer.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1079167A lot of the later 90s Ravenloft adventures felt a bit railroads (at least more so than the early 90s adventures). They were no all linear but they often had things the GM has to force, or many were structured in Acts. There was still good content in them, but I ran them again not too long ago and had to step around the railroad bits.

Well, it sounds like a normal published, pre-planned scenario. Kinda like what FFG pushes for all its major RPG lines; it certainly did for their 40K lines - and there some very fine adventures among them.

Quote from: Omega;1079175But what bugged me is that the PCs boat is going to get either wrecked or at least foundered no matter what they do. This is another one where as a DM I would have the PCs make stat checks and whatever to beach intact rather than it being inevitable.

Yeah, that's the thing about railroady adventures: the GM can always allow the adventure to go off-the-rails, see above. Railroading is more a GM technique than scenario design technique. Most in-scenario railoads can be taken off the rails by the GM. And if there is an occasional hard-scripted event that the players cannot prevent from happening it's no big deal either. I find it healthy when the players realize that their powers are limited and that some things are destined to happen no matter what they do. If that's an exception, it works for me.

The major caveat that comes to mind is that when the sea dragon will sink the ship anyway, then there's no point in having the players fight it in the combat system: you might as well just narrate it, the dragon being the force of nature that it is.

Quote from: S'mon;1079197The worst one I ever bought was 'Rogue Mistress' for Chaosium's Stormbringer.

Let's hear it.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079169...so by that definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game. The only thing it has is a bidding system, at character creation. (And I love me some Amber, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good definition.)

Got it in one.  It's not.

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Storygames: Director stance predominance.
Fiasco, A Quiet Year, Polaris, My Life with Master, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Microscope, etc.

Narrativist RPGs: Author + Actor stances predominance.
Fate, Sorcerer, Apocalyse World (and derivatives like Dungeon World), Smallvile (and derivatives like Marvel Heroic), Burning Wheel (and derivatives like Mouse Guard), Lady Blackbird, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chuubo, Nobilis, Hillfolk, etc.

Traditional RPGs: Actor stance predominance.
Vampire, D&D/OSR, Runequest (and derivatives like Call of Cthulhu), Traveller, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.

Hybrid RPGs: Some mix of the above two.
The One Ring, Kult: Divinity Lost, Beyond the Wall, Mutant Year Zero (and derivatives like Tales from the Loop), FFG Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Blades in the Dark, Pendragon, etc.

(that's my personal take anyway )

I agree 100%. It's all about stance.

Quote from: amacris;1079285I agree 100%. It's all about stance.

What's the difference between Director Stance and Author Stance?

Quote from: S'mon;1079304What's the difference between Director Stance and Author Stance?

Director Stance involves what I have described above as narrative mechanism: mechanisms that give players control over more than PC intent. All the others focus on character intent/actions.

Author stance is not doing what you think would be plausible for the character (that is Actor stance, getting in character) but doing whatever you want out of meta concerns and then retroactively justifying it with in-setting reasons. The latter part is important, without it it would be Pawn Stance.