Amber Is Not a Storygame

[Panjumanju]

I may be preaching to the choir, but, where do people get the misconception that Amber is a storygame?

I have nothing against storygames in particular. But the goals of a storygame are directly in contrast with Amber Diceless. A storygame places the narrative above individual character considerations, making concessions in one player for the benefit of the group. You make choices for the community in a storygame in order to improve the narrative and overall fun experience.

In contrast, there isn't a more selfish and individualistic RPG than Amber Diceless. The Dungeons & Dragons tradition of "don't split up the party" (or it will be a headache for the GM) is more story-gamey than what happens in Amber, where characters will regularly drift off into shadow to pursue their own goals, even if the universe is crumbling. Characters may plot against each other - they may kill each other, which certainly does not have the goal of fostering community for overall enjoyment.

Is it the dice? "It can't be a RPG unless it has dice?" That still wouldn't make it a storygame, unless "if it's not a RPG it must be a storygame" is the logic, which implies a very shallow perspective on the hobby.

//Panjumanju

[AmazingOnionMan]

A storygame places the narrative above individual character considerations, making concessions in one player for the benefit of the group. You make choices for the community in a storygame in order to improve the narrative and overall fun experience.

Is this the new, current definition? Or is it time for a new 100+ page flamefest on what a storygame is and isn't?

If you want, you can try to avoid the flamefest and use this thread to tell me(and any other uninformed miscreants) about AMBER, preferrably while avoiding words like "storygame", "shared narrative games", "swine" and "ruining the hobby". I know next to nothing about it, except for it being diceless.
I like dice.

[Kaz]

In contrast, there isn't a more selfish and individualistic RPG than Amber Diceless. The Dungeons & Dragons tradition of "don't split up the party" (or it will be a headache for the GM) is more story-gamey than what happens in Amber, where characters will regularly drift off into shadow to pursue their own goals, even if the universe is crumbling. Characters may plot against each other - they may kill each other, which certainly does not have the goal of fostering community for overall enjoyment.

But there's nothing in the D&D rules that says you CAN'T split the party. We've done it plenty of times while using D&D rulesets.

And what stops a group of Amber players from getting frustrated that their party is split?

I'm not sure Amber is a storygame by the definitions you've laid out, but I don't personally feel that is a traditional RPG. Without a random mechanic, it's just asking the DM his opinion on your actions. Therefore, it isn't interesting to me either. But to each his own.

[finarvyn]

I've never really been sure what "counts" as a storygame, as many RPGs are focused in one manner or another on the story. Certainly, ADRP is a low-numbers game with a minimalistic game mechanic. I'm not sure what that makes it other than "rules lite".

Compare ADRP to Dungeons & Dragons. Both have stats, both feature conflict, both allow people to tell stories. D&D has specific rules for many situations, but in a way so does Amber Diceless since you can buy individual Powers and Items and the like. The similarities are certainly easy to find.

As far as differences go, the "dice versus diceless" thing is the most obvious difference. And using dice means certain layers of charts and tables to guide in their use. That makes ADRP and D&D superficially look different.

If a storygame becomes one where no game mechanic at all is used, then maybe I've never played a storygame, because I can't imagine running a cooperative story without some predetermined guidelines. Amber Diceless certainly is not that.

I suppose that my final conclusion is either (1) I don't know what makes a storygame, or (2) ADRP is not a storygame.

[finarvyn]

I know next to nothing about it, except for it being diceless.

An interesting comment posted in an Amber Diceless forum. I'll toss a few ideas your way.

Amber Diceless begins with a system of resource management. You get a certain number of points to spend on character creation, so this promotes a certain level of game balance.

Amber Diceless has three key attributes that help in conflict resolution (psyche, strength, warfare) and one key attribute that helps determine duration (endurance). When a conflict occurs, a Game Master determines which attribute best describes the conflict and uses the attribute value as a guide to determine the outcome. If the outcome isn't certain, additional factors can come into play.

Characters can also have special powers such as magic or shape shifting. They may also be particularly lucky or unlucky. Those powers might influence the outcome of a conflict. If the conflict still seems evenly matched, the Endurance of the character might be the deciding factor.

So, while ADRP has a somewhat vague and abstract conflict resolution mechanic, it isn't totally a whimsical "who wants to pick the winner" system, either. There are guidelines that allow the Game Master to follow a series of choices (see the "flowchart" thread) and rules as to who can win and why.

Maybe that helps a little?

[soviet]

A storygame places the narrative above individual character considerations, making concessions in one player for the benefit of the group. You make choices for the community in a storygame in order to improve the narrative and overall fun experience.

What? That's not how storygames work

[Panjumanju]

Is this the new, current definition? Or is it time for a new 100+ page flamefest on what a storygame is and isn't?

If you want, you can try to avoid the flamefest and use this thread to tell me(and any other uninformed miscreants) about AMBER, preferrably while avoiding words like "storygame", "shared narrative games", "swine" and "ruining the hobby". I know next to nothing about it, except for it being diceless.
I like dice.

This isn't a "flamefest" at all. To evoke the word 'storygame' is not inherently inflammatory. There is nothing wrong with a storygame; it's not ruining anything, and only Hunter S. Thompson can use the word 'swine' without impunity.

This is not a thread to criticise storygames, but to identify the impetus whereby Amber Diceless is being misclassified as one. I like dice, too, it doesn't mean you can't have a RPG without them.

But there's nothing in the D&D rules that says you CAN'T split the party. We've done it plenty of times while using D&D rulesets.

You are correct. But the system certainly penalises those who do split the party. I like D&D and there's nothing wrong with it, but it has strengths and weaknesses like any other game.

And what stops a group of Amber players from getting frustrated that their party is split?

Given the setting it's easier for characters to travel long distances, and to communicate over even longer distances. Characters are only separated, really, when their players want them to be. Cabals easily form - most conversations become private, and rarely is there a player experiencing 100% of the game session.

The main consideration is time. If you get separated from your D&D party, it could take the next hour of play to get back together because one group got into a fight with some goblins. In Amber, between travel and communication, it's easy to bring people back together when they need to be - so the player who wanted to do their own thing for a little while is not necessarily punished with twiddling their thumbs for a game night waiting to get back into things.

I'm not criticizing Dungeons & Dragons, it's just the nature of the beast.

Without a random mechanic, it's just asking the DM his opinion on your actions.

Rather than assuming your GM is an unfair power-tripping idiot, Amber Diceless necessitates a trust towards your GM, and invests them with a certain responsibility to arbitrate between known factors. That does not make the mechanic arbitrary - in fact, it makes decisions in the game less arbitrary than a dice mechanic, because whatever happened must be the result of consequence.

If a storygame becomes one where no game mechanic at all is used, then maybe I've never played a storygame,

A storygame must have structure, even if it is a different structure from a more traditional roleplaying game. I don't think something entirely without rules still constitutes a game, but that's an entirely separate issue.

What? That's not how storygames work

I've never really been sure what "counts" as a storygame, as many RPGs are focused in one manner or another on the story.

For the purposes of this thread I define storygame as a game where narrative responsibility at least partially rests on the players, even if it is just in a more general sense a higher level of abstraction from the character whereby the player is expected to be accountable for something grander within the game mechanics.

While the language could be tightened, I haven't found more of a theme running through all the conflicting definitions of storygaming than that.

My point is only this - by any definition of a storygame, Amber is not. So where is this misconception coming from?

//Panjumanju

[soviet]

I don't think that anyone who actually plays storygames seriously thinks of amber as a storygame. I would imagine that when people say this what they are really doing is highlighting the ridiculousness and hypocrisies of pundit's crusade, whereby games that use certain buzzwords or techniques are condemned as non-RPGs... unless they are written by his friends or commercial partners.

[AmazingOnionMan]

This isn't a "flamefest" at all.

Yet.

To evoke the word 'storygame' is not inherently inflammatory.

Then this one will be a first.

This is not a thread to criticise storygames, but to identify the impetus whereby Amber Diceless is being misclassified as one. I like dice, too, it doesn't mean you can't have a RPG without them.

I don't classify Amber as a storygame, but as stated, I don't really know much about it. I'm hoping for enlightenment here.

If I'm to venture a guess, the diceless thing is the kicker here. I can only imagine the players, in order to build up their "momentum" in tasks and contests, have to sidestep into some dodgy metagaming instead of rolling a die and state "I crack the bastard's head for 11 damage".
I could be very wrong, feel free to tell me so.

[arminius]

The main reason people call Amber a storygame is to troll Pundit. That's the beginning and end of it.

[Justin Alexander]

I may be preaching to the choir, but, where do people get the misconception that Amber is a storygame?

They try to rationally apply the standards RPGPundit proposes for determining whether or not something is an RPG or an STG on this site and it goes poorly.

A storygame places the narrative above individual character considerations, making concessions in one player for the benefit of the group.

This definition seems a little inaccurate. There are actually storytelling games that feature winners.

I'm still going to go with STGs being defined by the use of narrative control mechanics -- i.e., mechanics which specifically determine who controls the outcome of a chunk of narrative or which actually determine the chunk of narrative directly. (More here.)

In any case, Amber is clearly not an STG. The only thing that meaningfully distinguishes it from dozens or hundreds of games that nobody would dispute being an RPG is the fact that it doesn't use dice. And clearly the use or non-use of dice doesn't determine whether or not something is an STG.

The argument can certainly be made that the lack of dice means that Amber is not a "traditional RPG". But that's a fairly meaningless statement because the phrase "traditional RPG" is a meaningless term which only becomes locally meaningful when somebody draws an arbitrary line in time and declares that anything innovative past that point voids the "traditional" label.

[TristramEvans]

It doesn't fit the definition of Storygame I use.

[RPGPundit]

I don't think that anyone who actually plays storygames seriously thinks of amber as a storygame. I would imagine that when people say this what they are really doing is highlighting the ridiculousness and hypocrisies of pundit's crusade, whereby games that use certain buzzwords or techniques are condemned as non-RPGs... unless they are written by his friends or commercial partners.

I love how you're trying to suggest here that there is no such thing as storygames, even though there are games that literally CALL THEMSELVES "storygames" and explicitly reject the term RPG.

But no, its just a word I invented to slander games I don't like, even though there are many RPGs I don't like that I've explicitly stated are NOT storygames.

:rolleyes:

[soviet]

I love how you're trying to suggest here that there is no such thing as storygames, even though there are games that literally CALL THEMSELVES "storygames" and explicitly reject the term RPG.

But no, its just a word I invented to slander games I don't like, even though there are many RPGs I don't like that I've explicitly stated are NOT storygames.

:rolleyes:

Wow you're really reaching here. In future please respond to the things I actually post rather than the things you were apparently hoping I would post.

[The Yann Waters]

The argument can certainly be made that the lack of dice means that Amber is not a "traditional RPG". But that's a fairly meaningless statement because the phrase "traditional RPG" is a meaningless term which only becomes locally meaningful when somebody draws an arbitrary line in time and declares that anything innovative past that point voids the "traditional" label.

Most diceless RPGs out there simply replace random chance with, say, some form of resource management. I doubt that just adding more dice to their systems would cause a sudden shift in their trad cred.