TheRPGSite

Hey Erick,

Care to give us the story about how this article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/) came to exist?

RPGPundit

"Dice and Diceless: One Designer's Radical Opinion"

Yeah... pretty radical stuff. :rolleyes:

Its a pretty radical rebuttal of the standard Forge pov; though whether that was what Erick intended or not is unclear to me.

RPGPundit

His points are basically:

• Games with dice involve more than rolling dice.
• Only games without dice don't have dice in them.

What am I missing?

3. Games with dice are no better or worse than diceless ones, just different.

Quote from: RPGPunditCare to give us the story about how this article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/) came to exist?

I was reading a few postings about diceless role-playing which seemed based on the assumption that diceless role-playing was somehow a different kind of role-playing than otherwise. Not just in terms of the flavor of the game, or in terms of various techniques and systems, but in the core nature of how diceless games were to be played.

Since I disagreed, I wrote the article, wherein I tried to get across:

1. All role-playing games are dominated by 'diceless' resolutions. In other words, if you rolled dice for everything that might have a random outcome, you'd never get around to having any fun. Therefore, any role-playing is, mostly, a diceless activity.

2. Dice-rolling, or any other random event resolution, is really a relatively rare activity in role-playing. When done well (as in the case of most successful RPGs), dice are applied only when the results have an interesting impact on the progress of events.

3. Any dice-based role-playing mechanism dependent on dice can be replaced by other, non-random number generating mechanisms. In fact, from one RPG to another, it's possible to find replacements for every dice mechanic.

In the years since 1985, when I ran my first diceless campaign, I've run countless other games, many based on published systems, others of my own design, without using dice. I won't say that running without dice is necessarily more fun, or better, but I will claim that the players generally didn't miss the dice, found their adventures just as chaotic and bizarre (real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting), and didn't feel that the experience was at all different.

I'd say the article was successful. At least to the extent that, as far as I know, none of the contents were ever contested.

Erick

I have to say that it was easily the best thing I ever read on the Forge. Of course, that's not exactly a high standard to set it against.

But no, the article was quite good; I was more curious about what brought you to post it on the Forge in the first place; and whether it was something you did as a rebuttal to the theorists, or whether you approved of what the Forge was doing, and if so whether that had changed since the time you wrote that article.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Erick Wujcik(real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting)

I agree with this. No GM plot survives contact with the PCs. :keke:

I feel a little sorry for Pundit. Finding that Erick has an article published over at the Forge must be like a right wing Christian discovering that the minister at his local church spends his saturday nights dressed in black robes and listening to the Beatles played backwards. :)

Quote from: TrevelyanI feel a little sorry for Pundit. Finding that Erick has an article published over at the Forge must be like a right wing Christian discovering that the minister at his local church spends his saturday nights dressed in black robes and listening to the Beatles played backwards. :)

Hardly; it was a little more like trying to find out why a fellow freethinker would have gone to a Creationism website; but when it was clear that it was in order to offer a rebuttal to their dogmatic beliefs, well, that clears it up, doesn't it?

RPGPundit

I don't understand this.
What is the Forge supposed to stand for???
Aside from Terres de Magie (the custom-made bullshit whose sole author and GM almost disgusted me of rpgs after years of gaming), I fail to see what could suscitate such hate in a RPGer world

Quote from: RPGPunditHardly; it was a little more like trying to find out why a fellow freethinker would have gone to a Creationism website; but when it was clear that it was in order to offer a rebuttal to their dogmatic beliefs, well, that clears it up, doesn't it?

RPGPundit

Dashed nice of those "creationists" not only to entertain the free thinker's point of view, but also to continue to display it years after the fact.

You'd almost think that some of those "creationists" weren't so tied to their "dogmatic beliefs" as you like to presume. ;)

Euh... That's well and good, but what are the forge's supposed dogmatic beliefs?

As far as I see, it's just a forum dedicated to RPGs, mostly independant ones (whatever this may be), I'm rather at a loss.

Quote from: CroakerEuh... That's well and good, but what are the forge's supposed dogmatic beliefs?

There's quite a number.

1. The most fundamental: that RPGs must be focused into one of three types: Gamist (where the game is about mechanical competition between the players and "winning", not roleplaying; most of them believe D&D is/should be a "gamist" game), Narrativist (the only really cool option of the three and what they subtly suggest is the actual "right" kind of play, which is mostly pretentious story-gaming where you "address premise" a lot), or Simulationist (anything they don't like but can't lump into gamist). Any game that tries to combine elements of this is "incoherent" and will be horrible.

2. Most regular RPGs do exactly that, and are therefore terrible. The Forge justifies the fact that these games (like D&D or Vampire) are popular by claiming that most roleplayers are in fact "secretly miserable", lying to themselves and others either intentionally or unconsciously.

3. Forgies believe that games, in order to hold to one solid "creative agenda" must have very strictly-defined rules that govern almost every action of significance; things should never be left up to GM fiat, and any game that does that (like Amber does) will be "Poorly designed".

4. Forgies generally believe in "creating story", and that to do this in a way that "empowers players" means stripping the GM of any authority and power, leaving him as nothing more than a strict facilitator of the rules with no personal authority (like the banker in Monopoly). Hence, the opposite of what Amber does.

5. The forgies hold as one of their dogmas that "immersion" (the idea of getting into your character) as a goal in roleplaying is false. They claim that "Immersion" doesn't actually exist, its impossible to achieve it, and that if you could achieve it it'd be mentally unhealthy, and that people who think that "immersion" is the main point of roleplaying (ie. most roleplayers) are either profoundly ignorant, mentally ill, evil, or all three.

Those are just a handful of the main ones. But you can see how a game like Amber, which is from their point of view incoherent, GM-tyrannical, player disempowering (to them!), and naturally leading to immersion; and yet is wildly more successful than anything they've ever come up with, and succeeds better at doing everything they claim to want to do than anything they've tried, would be a real sore spot to them.

RPGPundit

Wow.  Wrong on every single count.

Thanks, Pundit, some things seems strange indeed when explained like that.

Otha, you disagree with him, what's your pow on this?

There's no point in going into details.

The fact is, the Forge is a place where a great deal of debate goes on.  It's not this kind of monolithic "our way to play is the best way" kind of place.  Most of the points Pundit pulls out are outdated, and even way back when, there were those who agreed and those who disagreed.

What seems to have happened is that Pundit visited once, several years ago, read up on some of the latest theories, filled in the gaps with his own presuppositions, decided he understood the Forge inside and out, and left.

He doesn't even know that a great deal of the discussion that used to go on at The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/)  has moved to Story Games (http://www.story-games.com/forums/).

Quote from: OthaHe doesn't even know that a great deal of the discussion that used to go on at The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/)  has moved to Story Games (http://www.story-games.com/forums/).

You're new here, aren't you. :haw:

Quote from: RPGPunditThose are just a handful of the main ones. But you can see how a game like Amber, which is from their point of view incoherent, GM-tyrannical, player disempowering (to them!), and naturally leading to immersion; and yet is wildly more successful than anything they've ever come up with, and succeeds better at doing everything they claim to want to do than anything they've tried, would be a real sore spot to them.

I've already noted this, but this is nonsense.  

I came back from AmberCon NorthWest recently.  There were a bunch of other Forgies / Story-Gamers there.  We've gotten along fine with the more traditional Amber DRPG fans.  The two past years I ran a traditional Amber DRPG game along with Polaris (a GMless Forgie game), and gotten many of the same players.  This year I ran a non-Amber Parlor Larp ("Hamlet") and an Amber game using Spirit of the Century rules ("Big Trouble in Little Amber").  I played in two traditional Amber games, a diceless Space Opera variant, a boardgame-turned-RPG, and Best Friends (a diceless but GM-using Forge-related game playing a bunch of teenage girls).  

There are differences of styles, but everyone gets along fine in it.  We've joked at times about who drinks the Kool-Aid or whatever, but there is no animosity.

Apropos the topic...

If the Forge has enforced dogma that rejects and wants to silence what Erik Wujcik says, then why exactly would Ron post his essay in his essay list?  

Really, I was not terribly pleased by Ron's essay list in that I thought it was not very inclusive of the points of view of Forge posters.  However, among the few he did accept were Wujcik's essay -- which suggests to me that he didn't have as much of a problem with that as with the other submissions by Forge members.

Quote from: StuartYou're new here, aren't you. :haw:

Actually, no.  I just didn't speak up on this topic early on.

Quote from: OthaActually, no.  I just didn't speak up on this topic early on.

(Pundit is familiar with Storygames...)

Quote from: jhkimI've already noted this, but this is nonsense.  

I came back from AmberCon NorthWest recently.  There were a bunch of other Forgies / Story-Gamers there.  We've gotten along fine with the more traditional Amber DRPG fans.  The two past years I ran a traditional Amber DRPG game along with Polaris (a GMless Forgie game), and gotten many of the same players.  This year I ran a non-Amber Parlor Larp ("Hamlet") and an Amber game using Spirit of the Century rules ("Big Trouble in Little Amber").  I played in two traditional Amber games, a diceless Space Opera variant, a boardgame-turned-RPG, and Best Friends (a diceless but GM-using Forge-related game playing a bunch of teenage girls).  

There are differences of styles, but everyone gets along fine in it.  We've joked at times about who drinks the Kool-Aid or whatever, but there is no animosity.

A tribute to the tolerance of Amber fans, I suppose. Let's hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.

RPGpundit

Quote from: jhkimApropos the topic...

If the Forge has enforced dogma that rejects and wants to silence what Erik Wujcik says, then why exactly would Ron post his essay in his essay list?  

Really, I was not terribly pleased by Ron's essay list in that I thought it was not very inclusive of the points of view of Forge posters.  However, among the few he did accept were Wujcik's essay -- which suggests to me that he didn't have as much of a problem with that as with the other submissions by Forge members.

Because Erick is far more famous and respected in the RPG world than any of the Forge's self-styled "celebrities", and the mere presence of something of his on the Forge adds legitimacy to them and the concept that they're somehow doing real academic work. In other words, its publicity.

RPGPundit

Certainly can't be because they respect his ideas.  Nope.  Simply not possible.

:haw:

Sorry for the necromancy, but this thread scratches a few itches.

I never realized Erick had an article at the Forge. Wow. OTOH I'm not that surprised, the radical approach of diceless roleplaying is in a way a rpg theory of its own, and it probably had an influence on theory people in general. Today diceless is still very sulfurous and I know I would have to argue quite a lot to convince a traditional gamer to even try it.

Now I agree with you Pundit : it seems that Erick's conception of game mastering would be at odds with the general attitude of storygamers. Many of them sound like they're in a crusade against the potential abuse of power from a wicked despotic GM. Though Ron Edwards and others seem to be nuanced when they explore "railroading", "illusionism" and "participationism", and show that the nature of the relationship between a GM and his group, the openness of the dialog and how people agree to share narrative control is important. Still some forgie discussions (about the democratization of narrative control and how it is important that players have a veto rule as a big red button any time something in the common imaginary space would go wrong) reminded me of the propaganda aspect of some anti-terrorist rhetoric. It felt like some phantasmagorical threats and fears were projected on me about bad GM Fiat/despotism when my experience was on the contrary that Erick's game (both as player and GM) had always made me feel empowered and free.

Let me ask you something Pundit. I was quite surprised of your attachment to ADRPG. My first contact with your opinions on rpg has been via your blog. And the overall feeling wasn't really shouting "Amber diceless player", more like "hardcore old school grognard". Have you loved Erick's Amber game at first sight or did it take some acclimatization before you get into it ?

PS : It feels weird to post in a thread where Erick actually wrote. But very grateful too.

Quote from: boulet;261839Let me ask you something Pundit. I was quite surprised of your attachment to ADRPG.

*whispers* Pssst, it's all ablout the beatstick ;)

At least let him answer first, you unctuous cretin.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;261877At least let him answer first, you unctuous cretin.

I assume that's directed at me?

What is particularly unctious or cretinous about assuming that Pundit's answer to this question will be substantially the same as it always is, that contrary to his perception of Forge doctrine, which tends towards a limitation of GM authority in favour of granting the players more power, ADRPG maintains and even enhances the traditional importance of the GM as ultimate arbiter of all things in the game - i.e. it's all about the beatstick.

Unless you think Pundit is going to surprise us all with a radical new explanation?

lol

Nonetheless, I think a little more courtesy would have been better. What's the point in calling people names?

Et salut, boulet, je me sens moins seul maintenant! Et c'est marrant de me dire que je dois être le seul à capter ton pseudo ;)

Ouais tu te tapes un joli fardeau : un boulet rien qu'a toi :D Enchanté de te croiser !

Pleased to meet you too :)

Quote from: boulet;261839Sorry for the necromancy, but this thread scratches a few itches.

I never realized Erick had an article at the Forge. Wow. OTOH I'm not that surprised, the radical approach of diceless roleplaying is in a way a rpg theory of its own, and it probably had an influence on theory people in general. Today diceless is still very sulfurous and I know I would have to argue quite a lot to convince a traditional gamer to even try it.

Now I agree with you Pundit : it seems that Erick's conception of game mastering would be at odds with the general attitude of storygamers. Many of them sound like they're in a crusade against the potential abuse of power from a wicked despotic GM. Though Ron Edwards and others seem to be nuanced when they explore "railroading", "illusionism" and "participationism", and show that the nature of the relationship between a GM and his group, the openness of the dialog and how people agree to share narrative control is important. Still some forgie discussions (about the democratization of narrative control and how it is important that players have a veto rule as a big red button any time something in the common imaginary space would go wrong) reminded me of the propaganda aspect of some anti-terrorist rhetoric. It felt like some phantasmagorical threats and fears were projected on me about bad GM Fiat/despotism when my experience was on the contrary that Erick's game (both as player and GM) had always made me feel empowered and free.

Let me ask you something Pundit. I was quite surprised of your attachment to ADRPG. My first contact with your opinions on rpg has been via your blog. And the overall feeling wasn't really shouting "Amber diceless player", more like "hardcore old school grognard". Have you loved Erick's Amber game at first sight or did it take some acclimatization before you get into it ?

PS : It feels weird to post in a thread where Erick actually wrote. But very grateful too.

Welcome, Boulet.

And to answer your question, it was love at first sight.  I would not call myself a "grognard": I love brilliant games.  Two of my favorite RPGs are Amber and Over the Edge, neither of which are very conventional at all, and certainly not "old school".  

The difference between me and the Forgies is that I like games that really ARE genius, while they like games that talk a lot about how brilliant they are and how brilliant the readers are for liking the game, and in reality have no substance to show for it.

That's why so many of the Swine despise Amber; they like stuff like Nobilis: big and wordy and pretentious and flowery with no actual meat to it whatsoever, but something that strokes the ego of the reader/player saying "you're so artistic and clever for liking this game, and better than other people who don't 'get' it".

Amber is totally unpretentious, and it proves the lie to all the crap the Forgies love.

RPGPundit

Hey!

I like nobilis! :lol:

Quote from: Croaker;264313I like nobilis! :lol:

Besides, as far as I know, the Forge crowd doesn't hold Nobilis in particularly high regard, and Borgstrom has never even posted over there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;264039That's why so many of the Swine despise Amber; they like stuff like Nobilis: big and wordy and pretentious and flowery with no actual meat to it whatsoever, but something that strokes the ego of the reader/player saying "you're so artistic and clever for liking this game, and better than other people who don't 'get' it".

But isn't one of your usual arguments against Nobilis that the rules are too comprehensive and fail to leave enough room for GM interpretation (which can't really be the case, of course, when the GM is just as much in charge of adjusting the difficulty levels for PC actions as in other RPGs)? Let's face it, mechanically the game is far more "traditional" than Amber: as said before, it essentially runs on a roll-over system much like any other, except that the dice are replaced with non-random resource management. Even that stumbling and stuttering which Wujcik mentions in the original essay is covered by "Peak Performance", all the everyday miracles with difficulty 0 that any Noble may sustain indefinitely, giving an in-game reason why rolling for every little inconvenience wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

No, that's never been my argument about nobilis. I have argued that the rules are practically incomprehensible, due to the awful writing. I have also argued that the rules disempower GMs, but not due to completeness. And I've argued that the core of the system, the gobbledeygook all peeled away from it, is basically an incredibly stupid beancounter system.

RPGPundit

No, that's never been my argument about nobilis. I have argued that the rules are practically incomprehensible, due to the awful writing. I have also argued that the rules disempower GMs, but not due to completeness. And I've argued that the core of the system, the gobbledeygook all peeled away from it, is basically an incredibly stupid beancounter system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;264758I have argued that the rules are practically incomprehensible, due to the awful writing. I have also argued that the rules disempower GMs, but not due to completeness. And I've argued that the core of the system, the gobbledeygook all peeled away from it, is basically an incredibly stupid beancounter system.

And yet you've consistently failed to present a PC action that the rules wouldn't cover, or to explain how spending an occasional miracle point for exceptional effort is more "stupid" or cumbersome than allocating action points or keeping track of hit points...

Anyway, contrary to what someone in that "rules light" thread over at the general RPG forum mentioned in passing, Nobilis (along with the likes of Active Exploits and Marvel Universe) proves that diceless games aren't necessarily any more "thespy" than their diced counterparts, and that ultimately there's no reason why non-random systems couldn't offer as much complexity and detail in the actual resolution mechanics as those that place a greater emphasis on pure chance.

Quote from: Croaker;264313Hey!

I like nobilis!

Me, too. In addition to the ideas present in the game, one of the draws for me is that it reminds me of Amber.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;264975In addition to the ideas present in the game, one of the draws for me is that it reminds me of Amber.

Well, even though it's Lord of Light and Creatures of Light and Darkness and Jack of Shadows that the book cites as influences by Zelazny, noticing similarities to Amber too isn't that much of a stretch: after all, both feature noble families of demigods who by virtue of what they are command aspects of reality itself and rule worlds unknown to common mortals.

Quote from: GrimGent;264892And yet you've consistently failed to present a PC action that the rules wouldn't cover

So what? I'll concede this point to you, with the rebuttal that the game has the inherent disadvantage that to find out how to "cover a PC action" you have to read the book, and be exposed to the utterly bafflingly crapulent Borgstrom-writing.   When you're not trying to figure out what the fuck she just said, you're groaning at how utterly utterly awful the fiction is, or wanting to throttle her for just how obvious her utterly undeserved high opinion of herself is.

Quote, or to explain how spending an occasional miracle point for exceptional effort is more "stupid" or cumbersome than allocating action points or keeping track of hit points...

I have, on many occasions. Nobilis replaces either random chance or the variation of options with a boring collection of bean-counting mechanics.

QuoteAnyway, contrary to what someone in that "rules light" thread over at the general RPG forum mentioned in passing, Nobilis (along with the likes of Active Exploits and Marvel Universe) proves that diceless games aren't necessarily any more "thespy" than their diced counterparts, and that ultimately there's no reason why non-random systems couldn't offer as much complexity and detail in the actual resolution mechanics as those that place a greater emphasis on pure chance.

Your game sucks ass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;264975Me, too. In addition to the ideas present in the game, one of the draws for me is that it reminds me of Amber.

Seanchai

In the sense that Borgstrom pathetically tried to parasitically live off the success of other better games that came before her, by trying to rip off the style and atmosphere of Amber, only failed utterly turning it into a pretentious semi-incomprehensible wuss-game?
Yes, I suppose in that sense it would remind one of Amber, in the same sense that say, someone who plagiarized a brilliant researchers work and then added some of their own utter garbage to try to cover it up would vaguely remind you the original brilliant researchers' work. The few things that are good are not a product of the plagiarists' own mind, and is sullied by the fact of the plagiarists' theft and the mangling of the work by trying to mix it with the plagiarists' own utterly uninspiring insipid pretentious pathetic second-rate ideas.

So yes, in that sense I guess Nobilis could remind one of Amber. But of course, in that sense it does so only in a way that damns Nobilis utterly for what it is: a horrible pretentious cheap attempted rip-off of amber to try to bilk Amber's greatness and fame.

RPGPundit

:lol:
At least, you've got style

Tell me, aside from Amber and, maybe, other Erick RPGs, is there any game you do like?

Quote from: RPGPundit;265914Nobilis replaces either random chance or the variation of options with a boring collection of bean-counting mechanics.

That's in the eye of the beholder, I suspect: "Aspect 3" is no more boring than "Strength 3", and all the options that you might care to try out are still there, generally resolved by beating the difficulty levels set by the GM as in most other roleplaying games. The existence of an easily identifiable system which despite the lack of a randomizer nevertheless functions much like those of conventional RPGs is in fact why Nobilis has often been touted as an alternative for players looking for more of a "game" than the drama-driven play which its predecessors (such as Amber and Theatrix) focused on. Those mechanics do their small share to dispel the unfortunate misconception that "diceless" equals "systemless", and demonstrate what Wujcik already wrote at the beginning of the thread: there's no intrinsic difference between diceless and diced play beyond their superficial approaches to the element of chance.

It may not be to your taste, but eh, there's no arguing about that. I'm not too keen on rehashing the same old ill-informed debate for the hundredth time, in any case.

Quote from: Croaker;266086:lol:
At least, you've got style

Tell me, aside from Amber and, maybe, other Erick RPGs, is there any game you do like?

Sure, tons! Pendragon, Qin, Two-Fisted Tales, D20, classic D&D (rules cyclopedia), most palladium games, Over the Edge, Everway(mostly), Call of Cthulhu (original and D20), Gamma world (the old version), WFRP, Alatriste, Aquelarre, Continuum, Space:1889, most games by precis intermedia, IHW and most games by Flying Mice, and of course Forward... to Adventure!

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent;266133That's in the eye of the beholder, I suspect: "Aspect 3" is no more boring than "Strength 3", and all the options that you might care to try out are still there, generally resolved by beating the difficulty levels set by the GM as in most other roleplaying games. The existence of an easily identifiable system which despite the lack of a randomizer nevertheless functions much like those of conventional RPGs is in fact why Nobilis has often been touted as an alternative for players looking for more of a "game" than the drama-driven play which its predecessors (such as Amber and Theatrix) focused on. Those mechanics do their small share to dispel the unfortunate misconception that "diceless" equals "systemless", and demonstrate what Wujcik already wrote at the beginning of the thread: there's no intrinsic difference between diceless and diced play beyond their superficial approaches to the element of chance.

Amber is not "drama-based"; it is a fully developed very functional system. Your claims are lies, typical of Nobilis fans, trying to give Amber a bad reputation as "imperfect" or "incomplete" (it is not), or that Nobilis somehow represents an improvement over Amber (it does not, in any way).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;266514Amber is not "drama-based"; it is a fully developed very functional system.

And yet even after all these years it still suffers from the reputation of being little more than a set of loose guidelines for freeform play. I don't see how there can be any question about that: just yesterday I noticed a thread on another site mention "the reliance on GM fiat" and "the lack of hard rules" as "common mechanical complaints" about Amber. And yes, freeform and resolution by fiat are both perfectly fine options too, naturally enough, but not necessarily something that potential players might be looking for in a game as such. Otherwise the same objections wouldn't crop up in every freakin' discussion about diceless RPGs, and I wouldn't have to do the "diceless =/= systemless" schtick over and over again.

Quote from: GrimGent;266538And yet even after all these years it still suffers from the reputation of being little more than a set of loose guidelines for freeform play. I don't see how there can be any question about that: just yesterday I noticed a thread on another site mention "the reliance on GM fiat" and "the lack of hard rules" as "common mechanical complaints" about Amber. And yes, freeform and resolution by fiat are both perfectly fine options too, naturally enough, but not necessarily something that potential players might be looking for in a game as such. Otherwise the same objections wouldn't crop up in every freakin' discussion about diceless RPGs, and I wouldn't have to do the "diceless =/= systemless" schtick over and over again.

The fact that people who have an ideological (usually anti-GM) agenda repeat the same lie over and over again does not make something true.

There's nothing "systemless" or "fiat" about 3rd rank beats 5th rank, or 4pt weapons can penetrate 1pt armor.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;266647There's nothing "systemless" or "fiat" about 3rd rank beats 5th rank, or 4pt weapons can penetrate 1pt armor.

I 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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;266513Sure, tons! Pendragon, Qin, Two-Fisted Tales, D20, classic D&D (rules cyclopedia), most palladium games, Over the Edge, Everway(mostly), Call of Cthulhu (original and D20), Gamma world (the old version), WFRP, Alatriste, Aquelarre, Continuum, Space:1889, most games by precis intermedia, IHW and most games by Flying Mice, and of course Forward... to Adventure!

RPGPundit

???

Then, I don't understand your hatred of some RPGs, especially since some of these depends heavily on pure chance for most things, which, IMO, depowers both the GM and players. Something Nobilis (since we were speaking of it) doesn't do

Quote from: Croaker;266727Then, I don't understand your hatred of some RPGs, especially since some of these depends heavily on pure chance for most things, which, IMO, depowers both the GM and players. Something Nobilis (since we were speaking of it) doesn't do

That would be because Pundit has somehow fixated on the misreading that the GM advice for "never saying 'no'" is meant to function much like the Principle of Narrative Truth from Wushu: whatever the players say happens right there and then, and the GM has absolutely no authority to decide otherwise.

Quote from: GrimGent;266740whatever the players say happens right there and then, and the GM has absolutely no authority to decide otherwise.

Even Wushu mentions the possibility of veto. It's not a GM privilege but still no one has complete impunity.

Quote from: GrimGent;266725I 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.

Its the GM's duty to tailor these levels to what he wants in his campaign, to establish them from the beginning and to make those levels clear to his players.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Croaker;266727???

Then, I don't understand your hatred of some RPGs, especially since some of these depends heavily on pure chance for most things, which, IMO, depowers both the GM and players. Something Nobilis (since we were speaking of it) doesn't do

Its simple: If you look at that list, you'll find that all those games, while very different in style and format, have one thing in common: none of them suck.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;267506Its the GM's duty to tailor these levels to what he wants in his campaign, to establish them from the beginning and to make those levels clear to his players.

However, that does make it impossible to compare the abilities of the PCs across campaigns, or even to decipher how they relate to "canonical" NPCs: in your game Strength 1 could be enough to lift a car, in someone else's a building, and in yet another the same rank might move mountains. Moreover, just by looking at the character sheets the players wouldn't be able to tell whether their PCs are Supermen or regular guys who did some weight-lifting back in college, since the ranking has actually little to do with what the characters can achieve (beyond PvP, of course). That's simply not what the attributes represent, which can be a problem if you prefer more objective information about the available in-game options.

Quote from: RPGPundit;267507Its simple: If you look at that list, you'll find that all those games, while very different in style and format, have one thing in common: none of them suck.

RPGPundit

I beg to differ. I like some, don't like others, and don't know a few.
For exemple, I've always hated the % system of CoC.

Which can only mean one thing: We have different tastes. Which should imply just that, and nothing more, certainly nothing like "this game is awesome while this one is utter crap".

Quote from: GrimGent;267593However, that does make it impossible to compare the abilities of the PCs across campaigns, or even to decipher how they relate to "canonical" NPCs: in your game Strength 1 could be enough to lift a car, in someone else's a building, and in yet another the same rank might move mountains. Moreover, just by looking at the character sheets the players wouldn't be able to tell whether their PCs are Supermen or regular guys who did some weight-lifting back in college, since the ranking has actually little to do with what the characters can achieve (beyond PvP, of course). That's simply not what the attributes represent, which can be a problem if you prefer more objective information about the available in-game options.

So what? The fact that the game scale is independent of the ranks-scale means that you can tailor your game to any level you want. You could thus use Amber mechanics for a mortal, human, non-amberite game, or you could use Amber rules to play the Olympian gods if you wanted to.

That's a feature, not a bug, you dumb fuck.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Croaker;267842I beg to differ. I like some, don't like others, and don't know a few.
For exemple, I've always hated the % system of CoC.

Which can only mean one thing: We have different tastes. Which should imply just that, and nothing more, certainly nothing like "this game is awesome while this one is utter crap".

Us having different tastes means you are wrong.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;268126The fact that the game scale is independent of the ranks-scale means that you can tailor your game to any level you want. You could thus use Amber mechanics for a mortal, human, non-amberite game, or you could use Amber rules to play the Olympian gods if you wanted to.

Yes, because the ranks are unrelated to actual competence in any absolute terms. They will tell you that Tom is stronger than Dick, who in turn is stronger than Harry... but how strong is Harry? The system doesn't deal with that: it's only concerned with solving particular conflicts between a limited number of characters. You could rename Strength "Superiority #3" without changing anything mechanically, since it's not strictly speaking connected to anything in the setting beyond the small cast in the middle of the stage.

That sounds suspiciously Forgey.

Whats is your security clearance citizen ? You seem aware of some very sensitive data...

Computer I think we've got a traitor here !

There's nothing Forgey about the GM having choices. Its just the opposite; the Forge failed to learn that crucial lesson from Erick Wujcik, and have instead dedicated themselves to creating games where the GMs are choiceless; and of course attacking the games that are far better and more interesting than their own.  Hence the concerted attack on Amber by the three of you in this forum.

RPGPundit

There's nothing Forgey about the GM having choices. Its just the opposite; the Forge failed to learn that crucial lesson from Erick Wujcik, and have instead dedicated themselves to creating games where the GMs are choiceless; and of course attacking the games that are far better and more interesting than their own.  Hence the concerted attack on Amber by the three of you in this forum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;268343There's nothing Forgey about the GM having choices. Its just the opposite; the Forge failed to learn that crucial lesson from Erick Wujcik, and have instead dedicated themselves to creating games where the GMs are choiceless; and of course attacking the games that are far better and more interesting than their own.

Personally, if I were to run Amber, I'd in all likelihood discard the ranks entirely after the auction and instead use only the invested points as an objective scale from the human norm upwards. Of course, that would result in the players themselves setting the power level for each attribute during the initial bidding.

Its kind of assumed that the players do contribute to setting the power levels; in that an attribute that had a lot of bids in the attribute auction should be assumed to be more significant for a campaign than an attribute that was mostly ignored.

RPGPundit

Its kind of assumed that the players do contribute to setting the power levels; in that an attribute that had a lot of bids in the attribute auction should be assumed to be more significant for a campaign than an attribute that was mostly ignored.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;268342Its just the opposite; the Forge failed to learn that crucial lesson from Erick Wujcik, and have instead dedicated themselves to creating games where the GMs are choiceless

There are no Forgenik games with a GM in which the GM doesn't have choices. You're such a drama queen.

Quote from: droog;268497There are no Forgenik games with a GM in which the GM doesn't have choices. You're such a drama queen.

We 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.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent;268141Yes, because the ranks are unrelated to actual competence in any absolute terms. They will tell you that Tom is stronger than Dick, who in turn is stronger than Harry... but how strong is Harry? The system doesn't deal with that: it's only concerned with solving particular conflicts between a limited number of characters. You could rename Strength "Superiority #3" without changing anything mechanically, since it's not strictly speaking connected to anything in the setting beyond the small cast in the middle of the stage.

Ahem.
 
The weight you can lift in real life is not absolute. It changes when you travel from the Earth to the Moon. Likewise, the weight an Amberite can lift is not absolute. It changes when they travel through shadow.
 
Relationships remain constant. For this reason a comparative system is the smart choice.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;268650The weight you can lift in real life is not absolute. It changes when you travel from the Earth to the Moon. Likewise, the weight an Amberite can lift is not absolute. It changes when they travel through shadow.

Nevertheless, from the mechanical point of view there's rather little point in, say, describing a world with such crushing gravity that an ordinary car would weigh as much as a mountain if you have no yardstick for measuring the difficulty of lifting that car or a mountain on Earth (or in Amber, for that matter). In a game with an objective scale for determining the required effort, that's simply a matter of adjusting the difficulty level to suit the situation. Without the scale, you need to ask for a GM call on the matter before even considering any plans that might involve heavy lifting, since the attribute system in itself isn't designed to cover environmental factors like that: you can never tell for certain what your PC should be capable of at the moment.

And of course, the whole issue of the multiverse raises the question of whether it's possible to find a world where your rivals would be much weaker than you, if only because that's how the local laws of physics operate...

Quote from: GrimGent;268728Nevertheless, from the mechanical point of view there's rather little point in, say, describing a world with such crushing gravity that an ordinary car would weigh as much as a mountain if you have no yardstick for measuring the difficulty of lifting that car or a mountain on Earth (or in Amber, for that matter). In a game with an objective scale for determining the required effort, that's simply a matter of adjusting the difficulty level to suit the situation. Without the scale, you need to ask for a GM call on the matter before even considering any plans that might involve heavy lifting, since the attribute system in itself isn't designed to cover environmental factors like that: you can never tell for certain what your PC should be capable of at the moment.

Yes, I can see how confusing it is for you. Sometimes my PCs weigh things (just last night, one of the characters weighed ingredients for a potion) but usualy they just intereact with the gameworld.
 

QuoteAnd of course, the whole issue of the multiverse raises the question of whether it's possible to find a world where your rivals would be much weaker than you, if only because that's how the local laws of physics operate...

It's called a mountain. Stand on top and throw stuff down. Suddenly your strength is uber. :emot-raise:

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;268871Sometimes my PCs weigh things (just last night, one of the characters weighed ingredients for a potion) but usualy they just intereact with the gameworld.

Ah, but it's that interaction that I'm talking about, too: hurling a table at approaching soldiers in the heat of a brawl, for instance, or (to use an example from an older thread) kicking in a wooden door. When you take into account that in the setting someone could well be capable of lifting cars or mountains, knowing just how your character can reasonably interact with their surroundings becomes somewhat more difficult to discern without guidance from the system. That's the disconnect I get from the attribute ranking: a PC's description might include the details that "he holds the third rank in Strength" and "he can effortlessly juggle heavy tables", but the two are not necessarily related in any way. Unless another ranked character is the target of the thrown table or trying to keep the door from opening, the GM is required to make completely on the fly and on his own the decision about whether those attempts succeed or not. And I've never much cared for the notion that an RPG session is the GM's private little story hour.
 

QuoteIt's called a mountain. Stand on top and throw stuff down. Suddenly your strength is uber. :emot-raise:

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a world where fire doesn't burn redheads or where weapons weigh ten times as much in the hands of men than in those of women: situations where the universe itself functions differently from what you might expect, that is. (Wouldn't tactical positioning with thrown missiles fall under Warfare, anyway?)

Quote from: GrimGent;268877Ah, but it's that interaction that I'm talking about, too: hurling a table at approaching soldiers in the heat of a brawl, for instance, or (to use an example from an older thread) kicking in a wooden door. When you take into account that in the setting someone could well be capable of lifting cars or mountains, knowing just how your character can reasonably interact with their surroundings becomes somewhat more difficult to discern without guidance from the system. That's the disconnect I get from the attribute ranking: a PC's description might include the details that "he holds the third rank in Strength" and "he can effortlessly juggle heavy tables", but the two are not necessarily related in any way. Unless another ranked character is the target of the thrown table or trying to keep the door from opening, the GM is required to make completely on the fly and on his own the decision about whether those attempts succeed or not.

But 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. If the GM disagrees, then he says something like "Actualy, these tables aren't that heavy." And if you disagree with the GM then you say something like "Yeah, but after trying to lift that damn car I want to go easy on my back." and so on.
 

QuoteAnd I've never much cared for the notion that an RPG session is the GM's private little story hour.

So? Roleplay. TALK TO THE GM.
 

QuoteWell, I was thinking more along the lines of a world where fire doesn't burn redheads or where weapons weigh ten times as much in the hands of men than in those of women: situations where the universe itself functions differently from what you might expect, that is.

That accounts for your dislike for ADRPG. Common sense doesn't apply to nonsensical shadows or shadows where there are a thousand incoherent* exceptions. The game slows to a drag as the GM has to explain what happens to (for example) strawberry blonds, bald redheads, non-redheads that dye their hair red, shapeshifters and all the other corner cases.
 

Quote(Wouldn't tactical positioning with thrown missiles fall under Warfare, anyway?)

No, deciding to go to the top of a mountain is something that the player does.
 
*by "incoherent" intend the non-swine meaning.

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 (http://www.gnomestew.com/hot-buttons/the-12-rpgs-every-gamer-should-play-before-they-die). "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 (http://www.gnomestew.com/hot-buttons/the-12-rpgs-every-gamer-should-play-before-they-die). "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.

Quote from: SunBoy;269999Which 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.

And yet that example about an Amberite trying to lift a car keeps cropping up in forum posts and blog entries about the game, probably because it's straight out of the novels. (With great effort, in light gravity, Corwin manages to lift one end of their vehicle into the air.) Clearly personal ability to affect their surroundings does remain a concern for any number of players: otherwise there wouldn't be arguments over, say, Gerard going mano-a-mano with Hulk. Having the PCs easily defeat any creature from the Shadows, no matter how strong or swift or resilient those might be, is only one interpretation of the situation, and by no means uncontroversial.

Oh, and if you want to play an "Uzi-wielding happy-go-lucky killing machine with no remorse whatsoever" in V:tM, check whether the GM is willing to run a Sabbat campaign. Humanity and the loss thereof isn't much of a problem when you follow the Path of Whatever I Was Going To Do Anyway. (Personally, I was always more of a Mage kind of a guy.)

Quote from: Anthrobot;269957I'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?

In short, some of this is most visible in combat:

Low skill: You'll miss most attacks, and, when you hit, your opponent will miss most defenses. Boooring, at least to me

High Skill: You'll succeed in most attacks, who will almost always be parried. Much more boring, again to me.

Later games, like Elric, have tried to deal this this, but with difficulty.
Add to this the fact that skill are often low, so that you'll often fail, and this gets much more cumbersome than, say, a dice+skill vs dice+skill system.

Quote from: GrimGent;270005And yet that example about an Amberite trying to lift a car keeps cropping up in forum posts and blog entries about the game, probably because it's straight out of the novels. (With great effort, in light gravity, Corwin manages to lift one end of their vehicle into the air.) Clearly personal ability to affect their surroundings does remain a concern for any number of players: otherwise there wouldn't be arguments over, say, Gerard going mano-a-mano with Hulk. Having the PCs easily defeat any creature from the Shadows, no matter how strong or swift or resilient those might be, is only one interpretation of the situation, and by no means uncontroversial.

I've never said PCs can always defeat Shadow-guys, I said that's what amberites seem to think through the books, and I said that's not what's ultimately important for the characters. And that's my opinion, and the general way in which I play and GM Amber. I respect other people's right to do it wrongly ;)

Of course, the mano a mano with Hulk thingie would depend on the Shadow. If you accept the theory that amberites are superior to Shadow-dwellers just because, meaning Gerry's actually the strongest bloke in the Universe, then he'll pulp the greenie. If not, then it would depend on Gerard himself, actually, and on whether or not he chose to be in a Shadow where he could be bested. Or else, in the smarty-pants that put him there.

Quote from: GrimGentOh, and if you want to play an "Uzi-wielding happy-go-lucky killing machine with no remorse whatsoever" in V:tM, check whether the GM is willing to run a Sabbat campaign. Humanity and the loss thereof isn't much of a problem when you follow the Path of Whatever I Was Going To Do Anyway. (Personally, I was always more of a Mage kind of a guy.)

He. Point taken. But I guess you got mine, didn't you?

Quote from: GrimGent;269075We 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.

My idea of "story" in this context is the idea that in a game you have to end up producing a "story" and that this "story" should be more important than the playing of the actual game, or anything either the GM or the players do, that this is somehow the goal.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;273319My idea of "story" in this context is the idea that in a game you have to end up producing a "story" and that this "story" should be more important than the playing of the actual game, or anything either the GM or the players do, that this is somehow the goal.

My idea of the "story" is that one will inevitably be generated by the actions chosen by the PCs during actual play, little by little, but whether anyone in the group will consider that a goal in itself or a meaningless by-product will also vary from one player to the next. As said before, in my games no one prevails because what they attempt is "cool" or "dramatic." If they do succeed in their pursuits, the result is a story of success; if they fail, a story of failure. I can make either course of events as dramatic as necessary.

Quote from: RPGPundit;273319My idea of "story" in this context is the idea that in a game you have to end up producing a "story" and that this "story" should be more important than the playing of the actual game, or anything either the GM or the players do, that this is somehow the goal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this sound too much linear to me.

I mean, as a player, I like to be free of my actions, and, as a GM, I hate railroading players.

What's more important to me? Everyone having fun. As grimgent said, a story, good or bad, is the result of what happens in game, but no one should feel constrained by that: If the players are happy describing things and interacting between themselves, fine by me! I won't try to drag them in my story, although they might suffer the consequences of ignoring signs and portents. Which'll make another story.

Quote from: Croaker;273506Maybe I'm wrong, but this sound too much linear to me.

I mean, as a player, I like to be free of my actions, and, as a GM, I hate railroading players.

I agree, that's my point. To quote grandpa simpson: "I ain't fer it, I'm agin it!"

Its why I say Storygamers are Swine.

RPGPundit