Amber: All Power to the GM

[The Yann Waters]

Did I miss something? Or did I already forget part of the conversation?

Nah: it's just that the discussion over the principle of "always saying 'yes'" is one of the longest-running debates at the site, with Pundit opposing it at every turn.

[alexandro]

Why? The game specifies that you're in control of what your character knows.

p. 198 the GM decides the character didn't actually have time to study lockpicking in the past.
p. 229ff. the characters have to ask the GM if they have memory of something
...
etc.pp.

[SunBoy]

Whoa, stop right there. That's NOT what I meant. The whole "say yes to your players" is WAY another thing. I'm just saying that, not having to roll dice, and not having to keep an exact time track, the cases in which the GM will tell you: "No, you just can do that" are pretty minimal. You know what your player can do, so you won't say "I'll just fly away", or whatever. You won't either say, "I'll draw with the move, then attack, then use the extra standard to move... no, wait, can I do that? You'll say: "I'll draw my sword and take a swing, then try to disengage to bring him closer to the trap". And you won't say "okay, that's 250 xp, and 1500 gp, so I'll do the item. Can I cast a light to work at the lab, or will taht disrupt the whole thing?". You either do the Trump or not. Am I making sense?

[SunBoy]

Yeah, well, but I'll wager my underoos that player hadn't specified he was a locksmith before, right? That only goes for showing the benefits of a detailed background. You can't just come up with "well, I may have been an aeronautical engineer in some shadow..." when you need it. Lockpicking is not what you'll call "basic knowledge", right? Even more when, being an amberite, you can probably topple anything that's not a vault...

[alexandro]

But the player assumed it was part of his "I was trained in the Courts of Chaos" background and the GM decided "No, it isn't" copping a lame excuse about the character wandering off to do something different at the time.

[The Yann Waters]

You either do the Trump or not. Am I making sense?

Of course, and that's no different from what all the bickering has been about in the other threads. To recap: if a character by all rights and logic is capable of something, then she should be allowed do that as well when the player so chooses, without arbitrary interference just because the action wouldn't fit into the GM's masterplan.

[RPGPundit]

Actually: no. But that would be another thread


Thats pretty much how I run it.
But when you look at the examples in the book: you try to find something using the Logrus? You have to pick your words to exactly describe your actions in such away, of what the GM expects you to do in order to succeed.  Want to walk the Pattern? The GM decides where you go and how long it takes before you reach your destination. Heck, even when it comes to remembering stuff or if your character has the right skills to do something, the GM decides what your character has done in the past (this is where game stops for me- players should have complete control over their character backgrounds)...

I believe your skills are something that you (the player) works out, in conjunction with a GM.  The GM decides things that your PC usually wouldn't have any choice about in his background, like who his parents are.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

p. 198 the GM decides the character didn't actually have time to study lockpicking in the past.
p. 229ff. the characters have to ask the GM if they have memory of something
...
etc.pp.

Dude, what game are you quoting here? P. 198 is the Character section for Random. Its got nothing to do with what you were saying.

As for p.229 you seem to have totally misinterpreted it.  The relevant section says:

"all players operate blind, depending on the GM for eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin. In addition the GM has to report on what the character remembers".

This doesn't mean the PC must ask the GM for permission to remember something; it means that the GM is responsible for telling the PC stuff that might have occured in his character's past that would be relevant to his present, like saying "Oh yeah, Jim: your character remembers having seen a picture of this dude in Benedict's room, years ago when you were a kid: the picture MIGHT have been a trump, but you're not sure now, because that was long before you were old enough to have ever used a trump or known how they worked".

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

Of course, and that's no different from what all the bickering has been about in the other threads. To recap: if a character by all rights and logic is capable of something, then she should be allowed do that as well when the player so chooses, without arbitrary interference just because the action wouldn't fit into the GM's masterplan.

I agree with this. What I disagree with is the idea, bandied about in various theories, that the Player should get to suddenly decide his character has abilities, powers, or knowledge that he previously showed no indication of having just because the player would really like to...

RPGPundit

[alexandro]

Dude, what game are you quoting here? P. 198 is the Character section for Random. Its got nothing to do with what you were saying.

make that 105

As for p.229 you seem to have totally misinterpreted it. The relevant section says:

I was referring to the following pages, such as the "Monster Bashers" and "Rules Lawyers" section on page 230 (which pretty much violates the section you quoted), the memory on p.231/32...etc.

[alexandro]

I agree with this. What I disagree with is the idea, bandied about in various theories, that the Player should get to suddenly decide his character has abilities, powers, or knowledge that he previously showed no indication of having just because the player would really like to...

That assumes the player already has a pretty clear idea, what his character is going to be like, BEFORE play begins.
But roleplayers are (mostly) no writers or actors and are constantly retooling and retrofitting what they want to play (heck, even most writers are developing their protagonists during writing and most actors need some time to feel into their roles, before they can say how they are like).
As long as it doesn't ruin plausibility I usually say: go with it.
In the example (p. 105) the player came up with something he would imagine his character doing and fitted it into the context of his character background in a way that made sense. No problem here.

[Otha]

That assumes the player already has a pretty clear idea, what his character is going to be like, BEFORE play begins.

Some GM's require the player to have everything about the character decided before play begins.  Personally, I think it's lame, but there you go.

To me, anything that hasn't been revealed in play doesn't really "exist" yet, and can be easily changed.

[RPGPundit]

make that 105

Ok, looking at that quoted section now, I agree that there's a bad choice of wording in that section, but not the way you think.  the case is this: Kevin wants to suddenly have "lock opening" as a skill, when he never had anything like this before.

I quote:

"Kevin: ...I examine the lock
GM: Hmm. I don't remember anything about Roderick [kevin's character] studying lock's. Where did you get this experience?
Kevin: ...wasnt it part of my standard training out in the Courts of Chaos?
"

Now. You think the part that was wrong is that the GM goes onto say:

"GM: As you look at the lock, you're reeminded of the time you took off to learn skate boarding on Shadow Earth."

You think the GM should have said: "oh ok, cool, sure you could have learned Lockpicking as part of being a Chaos Lord.. that makes perfect sense, because its what you the player wants":

I agree that the GM's answer is a bad one. But what I think the GM should have said is: "No. And fuck you for trying to think up such a lameass excuse just to get away with adding a new skill to your list which you obviously have no better reason for having. I mean, fuck's sake you moron they don't even HAVE locks in the Courts of Chaos, and now you want me to just give you a new skill because you pretty-please want it? Fuck you!"

Do you see the subtle difference in our positions there?

Anyways, the basic point is that the section you're quoting is one on interpeting failure. The point of the examples given is that the PCs are supposed to fail.  The only bad advice Erick is giving there is not that he should let players think up dumbass reasons to get away with shit like what Kevvy-boy wanted to do, but rather that he felt the need to somehow incorporate Kevin's little whim as part of story and find a convoluted reason why he STILL couldn't do it; when in fact the GM should simply have said "No, fuck off" and left it at that.

I was referring to the following pages, such as the "Monster Bashers" and "Rules Lawyers" section on page 230 (which pretty much violates the section you quoted), the memory on p.231/32...etc.

"Monster Bashers" is advice for specifically dealing with a player that is being disruptive by being excessively-aggresive at every turn. Rules Lawyers for specifically dealing with players that try to use the rules against the GM, and more specifically for those especially annoying players that try to interrupt the game as its being played to try to argue about rules with the GM instead of acting BASED on what the GM is telling them.
The player in the example is more worried about his powers and item than about the fact that a grenade landed in the room, and is trying to stop play to argue with the GM or find out why his power didn't work, when he should just focus on the game (perhaps after a single instance of double-checking to make sure the GM hadn't simply forgotten about the Danger Sense).

I don't see how either of those contradict the section in p.229. Again, as for the "sample memory" sections, I don't see how any of these contradict p.229 either.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

That assumes the player already has a pretty clear idea, what his character is going to be like, BEFORE play begins.
But roleplayers are (mostly) no writers or actors and are constantly retooling and retrofitting what they want to play (heck, even most writers are developing their protagonists during writing and most actors need some time to feel into their roles, before they can say how they are like).
As long as it doesn't ruin plausibility I usually say: go with it.
In the example (p. 105) the player came up with something he would imagine his character doing and fitted it into the context of his character background in a way that made sense. No problem here.

No, he was just being an opportunist.  Had he come up with said idea at another moment than "conveniently" trying to have lockpicking when a lock needed picking, I might buy your argument, but as it stands, the guy was just trying to take advantage.


RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

Some GM's require the player to have everything about the character decided before play begins.  Personally, I think it's lame, but there you go.

To me, anything that hasn't been revealed in play doesn't really "exist" yet, and can be easily changed.

Right, but anything you haven't mentioned to the GM likewise doesn't "exist" at all, and anything once play has started that you want to "add" about your character should only be doable with strict GM approval.

"Oh yea, btw, I know I never mentioned it to you before but I'm actually lord master of the 192 Armies of Yul K'tchaun.  So I'll just blow the Horn of Namak, which I also never mentioned I had to you (silly me) and summon up my hordes to deal with this here ork. Geez, you know, you're a boring GM, you really should have taken my abilities I never mentioned to you before into account when you designed this encounter".

Fuck that.

RPGPundit