Amber: All Power to the GM

[Otha]

You also see a shitload of "Bang! You're dead" "AM NOT you missed" "DID NOT!!"

Yes, and that GM task isn't inextricably linked to being responsible for NPC's and setting.

Let me hold up your sign for you:  :forge:

Traditionally, one person, the GM, has been responsible for a long list of tasks:

• Referee
• Timekeeper
• Scene-changer
• Setting creator and authority
• Authority over IC/OOC information
• Authority over plausibility
• etcetera

These tasks don't have to all fall on one person.  For example, in many Amber games, a gamemaster will assign the task of timekeeper to the players.  "Let me know when I've had five minutes with this player, then I'll wrap up or make a cliffhanger, and it'll be your turn."

What you seem to be saying, is that because someone has to be the referee, to prevent "Bang, you're dead!"/"No, you missed!" problems, that by definition, that same person has to be the setting authority over what the world is like.

Can you see that this is not necessarily true, and that at least some people might prefer a game where it isn't?

[Otha]

This is all organic stuff, folks, you don't need any complex theory to grasp how its done. Anyone who's convinced you of that lied to you.

You don't need theory to ride a bike that someone built for you, but you do need theory to modify it competently.  

"Hey!  I'll make this gear in the back really really BIG so my bike will go WAY faster!"

"What do I need brakes on the back wheel for?  They're just added weight.  I'll just rely on the front wheel brake."

"Bending these front forks is complicated. I'll just make them straight up-and-down."

You *can* learn how it works by trial-and-error, but you'll repeat a lot of mistakes needlessly.

[James McMurray]

By involvement I mean that the GM must not only be involved in every decision about what happens, he must actively decide practically everything. In most games large portions of those decisions are made by the dice.

[The Yann Waters]

By involvement I mean that the GM must not only be involved in every decision about what happens, he must actively decide practically everything. In most games large portions of those decisions are made by the dice.

Or the mechanics themselves without a need for GM arbitration, in the case of other diceless games: to use the earlier "invisible assassin" example, the situation might come down to a conflict between invisibility at level 5 and vigilance at level 6, with the minimum levels determined by the rules and then possibly raised by the players (through the expenditure of resources if necessary).

[RPGPundit]

Or the mechanics themselves without a need for GM arbitration, in the case of other diceless games: to use the earlier "invisible assassin" example, the situation might come down to a conflict between invisibility at level 5 and vigilance at level 6, with the minimum levels determined by the rules and then possibly raised by the players (through the expenditure of resources if necessary).

The game you're talking about there is Nobilis, that game already exists. If that's the game you want, go play it.

Don't try to force my game to be Nobilis. I, personally, think Nobilis is the most idiotic beancounter system imaginable.

Amber is resolvable with GM arbitration, most gamers on earth prefer it that way, those who argue that there should be no GM/a castrated GM are a definite minority, and will gain nothing here.

I don't want Amber to be reduced to a beancounter game, much less one where by spending "Miracle points" or whatever you can have a player beat benedict.

My system (as in Amber, the system I love): if you stand any chance of beating benedict you need blood, sweat, tears, a lot of balls, and imagination.

Your system: To beat benedict you need 20 more Beanpoints.

Which one is more appealing, fucktard?

RPGPundit

[James McMurray]

Do we really need another thread about Nobilis? Haven't there been enough of those already to sate your need to bash the game? I thought this was the Amber forum.

See, when I read that post I took the "raised by the player" to mean it had been raised since character creation by some sort of experience point scheme. I certainly didn't take it as "I'll spend my beanpoints to beat Benedict." Why can't "resources" mean just that? Are there no such things as in game resources, meaning that anyone who uses the word is instantly trying to preach about Nobilis?

Especially when the person you're apparently thinking is saying Amber should be Nobilis has actually said this about miracle points in the past:

That said, although the system can be used for other kinds of high-powered fantasy easily enough, it's definitely not generic or suitable for all the games out there, and I'd consider trying to insert it into, say, Amber a genuine mistake.

[The Yann Waters]

I don't want Amber to be reduced to a beancounter game, much less one where by spending "Miracle points" or whatever you can have a player beat benedict.

Endurance is what I had in mind, actually, and allowing players to temporarily improve their chances at the actions governed by the other attributes by sacrificing points from it, at the risk of exhausting the character more quickly.

[Arref]

Endurance is what I had in mind, actually, and allowing players to temporarily improve their chances at the actions governed by the other attributes by sacrificing points from it, at the risk of exhausting the character more quickly.

A friendly GM proposed a system for 'burning Endurance' to raise Attribute rankings. I don't know if anyone playtested that, but the idea has some appeal. A casual read of the Zelazny text shows Corwin used this trick several times.

It would also make the 'dying on the Pattern' issues more transparent to the Players.

[RPGPundit]

Endurance is what I had in mind, actually, and allowing players to temporarily improve their chances at the actions governed by the other attributes by sacrificing points from it, at the risk of exhausting the character more quickly.

Calling it "endurance" instead of "miracle points" doesn't really change what you're trying to do here.

In the end, you're trying to turn a game that is based on the descriptive into a game that is based on creative accounting, and basing it on your favourite diceless game to do so, despite earlier statements to the contrary.

Why can't the GM just be trusted to take a character's Endurance into account, instead of the PC being allowed to "spend" his endurance points as a substitute for creativity, and worse, as an easy way to "beat" NPCs in ways that would go directly against emulation of Genre.  Corwin does not and cannot beat Benedict by "spending Endurance points"; he  beats Benedict by thinking of something very sneaky and managing to deceive him.

RPGpundit

[James McMurray]

Why does it have to be a substitute for creativity? Is there no such thing as supplements to creativity? Where one has a resource and spends it creatively?

[The Yann Waters]

Corwin does not and cannot beat Benedict by "spending Endurance points"; he  beats Benedict by thinking of something very sneaky and managing to deceive him.

And a barbarian PC in D&D won't think about what he does in terms of his "Strength attribute" or "hit points". Sure. But just as that little distinction between IC and OOC terminology wouldn't stop the barbarian from fighting and suffering wounds during the game, there's no reason why using Endurance in this fashion in Amber couldn't serve as a mechanical representation of Corwin going to some trouble in order to pull off the deception and tiring himself in the process.

[RPGPundit]

The point is that Amber, as it is played now, doesn't require the player to think in mechanical terms AT ALL other than keeping in mind what his strengths and weaknesses are attribute-wise and what powers he has. But he does NO juggling with mechanics.

Its one of the things that makes the game almost unique in actual play.  Most games, after a few sessions, the players don't even look at their character sheets. You don't get to do stuff in Amber by jiggling your stats anymore so than you do by rolling dice, you have to describe it all in terms of what your character is actually doing, and it stops there.  That makes the game wonderful.

You would want to remove that, and turn it into a beancounter game.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Its one of the things that makes the game almost unique in actual play.  Most games, after a few sessions, the players don't even look at their character sheets. You don't get to do stuff in Amber by jiggling your stats anymore so than you do by rolling dice, you have to describe it all in terms of what your character is actually doing, and it stops there.  That makes the game wonderful.

Hm.  What you seem to be saying here, is that in your experience, players are incapable of getting into character if the game has any significant mechanical 'business' like resources to track or odds to consider.  Is that accurate?

[James McMurray]

Not at all. He's saying it's easier to get into character without the mechanical bits. And that part is definitely true. I haven't played Amber, but from my experience the fewer numbers you throw into a game the more likely the average player is to get into a character. They can focus less on what gives the biggest bonuses and more on what sounds the coolest or most reasonable.

It's not a 100% perfect measuring stick though. I've known people that can get into character no matter what the game system is like, and people that get a better idea for who their character is when they've got numbers to give them creative nudges.

[RPGPundit]

Hm.  What you seem to be saying here, is that in your experience, players are incapable of getting into character if the game has any significant mechanical 'business' like resources to track or odds to consider.  Is that accurate?

No. what would be accurate would be to say that if the player doesn't have to consider mechanical aspects AT ALL (in the sense of juggling with different stats/spending points/rolling checks), then he's able to switch over to a much more fully-realized descriptive style.

RPGPundit