Amber Is Not a Storygame

[finarvyn]

Love the Gygax quote, by the way. I've used it as part of my signature on some of the boards where I lurk, and my games tend to be very rules lite. Many times my players don't know the rules, but they tell me what they want to do and I tell them what to roll.

I don't think using little or no rules has anything specifically to do with Storygames. In fact, most story games have much more rigid rules, and don't broke with any of that old school roleplaying "Rulings vs Rules" stuff. Storygames distinguish themselves from RPGs more in the way they alter the traditional dynamics being player and character, and GM and players.

My OD&D campaigns involve stories. I have a general story to tell and the players add to the story with their ideas and actions. The dice add to the story by bringing in a random element which none of us could predict. My ADRP campaigns involve stories. I have a general story to tell and the players add to the story with their ideas and actions. There are no dice to bring in that random element. Does this mean that one is a "story game" and one not? Or both are? Or neither are? I guess I always assumed that a story game would be one where we tell stories. Does rulebook thickness define a "story game"? Is it the dice or lack of dice? Maybe we need to agree upon a solid definition first and then look at game properties second.

This discussion is telling me that I really have no idea what constitutes a "story game" for most folks. I guess for me I've always thought that a "story game" is one where the story is more important than the mechanics. If a game involves me moving around miniature metal figures and rolling lots of dice, that doesn't sound like a "story game" but Amber Diceless does none of that. In ADRP the story trumps the mechanic. (Little pun there. Har.) Maybe my concept of "story game" isn't like the standard definition.

[Sydius Mendoza]

......and only Hunter S. Thompson can use the word 'swine' without impunity.

About fucking time! I've been waiting for someone to voice this sentiment since I started lurking on this site a couple years ago.

Storygame? Roleplaying game? WHO GIVES A FUCK?!? They're games!!! You like the games you like. Who the fuck do ANY of you think you are to look down on how somebody else chooses to game. You think any amount of sanctimonious blogging will stop games you don't like from being made, sold, and played? SPOILER ALERT: It won't, because nothing fucking will. EVER!

Play the game. Simple as that. Doesn't matter what game, or how you want to classify it. Just play the fucking game, and grow the fuck up.

[Panjumanju]

Storygame? Roleplaying game? WHO GIVES A FUCK?!? They're games!!! You like the games you like. Who the fuck do ANY of you think you are to look down on how somebody else chooses to game. You think any amount of sanctimonious blogging will stop games you don't like from being made, sold, and played? SPOILER ALERT: It won't, because nothing fucking will. EVER!

Play the game. Simple as that. Doesn't matter what game, or how you want to classify it. Just play the fucking game, and grow the fuck up.

It wasn't my intention to cast any kind of value judgement on storygames, I just wanted to raise this as a point of classification. If we all just played the game instead of talking about it as well, there would be no therpgiste.

The fact that Jdurall - someone quite deeply involved in the construction of Amber Diceless as it stands today as a property, is the only dissenting voice on the issue of Amber as a storygame, I think is significant.

//Panjumanju

[Sydius Mendoza]

It wasn't my intention to cast any kind of value judgement on storygames, I just wanted to raise this as a point of classification. If we all just played the game instead of talking about it as well, there would be no therpgiste.

The fact that Jdurall - someone quite deeply involved in the construction of Amber Diceless as it stands today as a property, is the only dissenting voice on the issue of Amber as a storygame, I think is significant.

//Panjumanju

Panjumanju,

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to come across like it is directed at you personally. It's been a annoyance that has been building steadily for some time now. Like the endless bitching about rpg.net or whatever that site is they can't shut up about on Pundit's forum. It all detracts from the hobby we all claim to love and want to discuss.

Talking about the games would be one thing. But this endless debate about what is a story game and what isn't is stupid and infantile. I honestly don't care about the classifications. Couldn't possibly care less. I do like games. And I like discussing the games that interest me. ADRPG is most certainly a topic I love to talk about. But do we have to classify what category of game it is to be able to enjoy it and talk about it?

[Panjumanju]

Panjumanju,

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to come across like it is directed at you personally. It's been a annoyance that has been building steadily for some time now. Like the endless bitching about rpg.net or whatever that site is they can't shut up about on Pundit's forum. It all detracts from the hobby we all claim to love and want to discuss.

Talking about the games would be one thing. But this endless debate about what is a story game and what isn't is stupid and infantile. I honestly don't care about the classifications. Couldn't possibly care less. I do like games. And I like discussing the games that interest me. ADRPG is most certainly a topic I love to talk about. But do we have to classify what category of game it is to be able to enjoy it and talk about it?

Oh, I hear ya. I didn't think you were necessarily talking about me. I share many of your frustrations.

However - and this is not necessarily directed at you - I think classification is important, and the semantic distinction of words I would classify as 'super important'. I am not satisfied with the lazy thinking of "everyone has their own definition so let's just leave it", and the ilk of that thought, what essentially amounts to "this is too hard to talk about so let's not."

Storygames are an important off-shoot of Roleplaying Games. Amber certainly occupies a nebulous space in the hobby. And where better than the official Amber Diceless Forum to talk about where Amber Diceless fits?

//Panjumanju

[Sydius Mendoza]

Oh, I hear ya. I didn't think you were necessarily talking about me. I share many of your frustrations.

However - and this is not necessarily directed at you - I think classification is important, and the semantic distinction of words I would classify as 'super important'. I am not satisfied with the lazy thinking of "everyone has their own definition so let's just leave it", and the ilk of that thought, what essentially amounts to "this is too hard to talk about so let's not."

Storygames are an important off-shoot of Roleplaying Games. Amber certainly occupies a nebulous space in the hobby. And where better than the official Amber Diceless Forum to talk about where Amber Diceless fits?

//Panjumanju

I grok. To be more specific, it's not classifications that bother me. It's the zeal I can't abide.

[jibbajibba]

Like most of the other posters I don't care about labels, maybe its an ADRPG thing, Pundit sucked up all the concern about 'storygame swine' so none of the rest of us give a crap:)

However, I think Jason is simply confusing games that are about stories with storygames. An easy mistake to make unless you have been following the discussions.

Amber is a game that puts huge emphasis on story. There are pages devoted to how to go this etc etc .
Storygames however are doing a different thing. When people refer to storygames they are, well on this site at least, talking about games where the players have narative control. Now this doesn't mean narative control of their PCs it means they can alter elements of the game as it plays out.

Examples help.
In a 'Storygame' the PCs may be about to meet an important NPC, Call him King Paul. The players may well have options to spend some sort of plot point to influence this meeting.
So they might spend a plot point to make the King particularly happy due to his daughter's birthday, or they might spend a plot point to have the king be a friend of one of the PCs, or to fall in love with a PC etc etc
The players are influencing the game through a narative meta mechanic.

Now nothing like that happens in Amber. The GM might decide that the king falls in love with a PC, or that due to the PCs high good stuff the King is in a fine mood etc etc . The GM might be encouraged to do these things becuae it makes a better story.
Now the PCs may have powers that can effect the king, they might have a spell that uses High Compelling to make him fall in love, they might be able to shift shadow to find another king in a much better mood. Those things are not like narative mechanics because they rely on the powers of the PCs they are therefore more like Charm spells or fireballs.

Now nearly all RPGs have some of these narative mechanics and they range from the very minor stuff you can do at chargen to stuff you can do in play. Amber touches on some stuff at chargen you can establish relationships or allies but in narative mechanics terms it's marginal. Outside of this there is nothing.
Amber doesn't have a hero point mechanic like James Bond that can be used to modify rolls or to stumble across a clue or a solider of the right size who's uniform you can steal.
It certainly doesn't allow the PCs to describe how their attempts to complete tasks fail or suceed with "complications". The GM is very much in charge of determining the effects of failure or to describe the actions of NPCs etc. In this regard Amber is very traditional.

So in short Storygames are not really about story in games they are about a difference in the roles that players take and in how those roles interface with the game world.
Amber is a traditional game with a non-traditional task/conflict resolution mechanic about PCs who's own powers can shape worlds, that places a great emphasis on story and plot.

[Evermasterx]

Maybe we can say that in Amber the players can modify the story only through their characters, while in a storygame they can do that also through dedicated rules (typically spending points or playing special cards)?
Something like Universalis?

[Jason D]

It's a true statement, but correlation is not causation. Both Amber and the sub-genre loosely defined as storygames took RPGs in innovative directions. It does not follow that Amber is a storygame.

You have probably the best rolplaying pedigree to argue your point, and it does have merit, but you're being pretty ungraceful about it. So, come on, how is Amber like a storygame?

//Panjumanju

My apologies for seeming ungraceful.

The comment was more tongue-in-cheek than pedantic, but I am afraid I came across poorly.

I certainly do not mean to put words into Erick's mouth at all. Which is why I prefaced any statements about his possible views with "I have little doubt that..." to indicate that it's my own belief.

I just find that the central premise of this discussion boils down to:

   Is Amber a storygame?
I hate storygames!
I love Amber!
Therefore, Amber can not be a storygame.

I find that argument mildly ridiculous.

I talked to Erick a lot about game design theory, and he was passionate about challenging assumptions about what a game was, or could be. He frequently abandoned rules for games midway through sessions, and ran largely-improvisational story-based games at the drop of a hat. He loved giving narrative control over to players, encouraging it through aspects like Stuff, contributions, etc. Which seem inherently storygamey.

So, I'm just baffled at the insistence that Amber can not be a storygame when, by most indications, it is the trailblazing, earliest, epitome of one.

[Jason D]

Like most of the other posters I don't care about labels, maybe its an ADRPG thing, Pundit sucked up all the concern about 'storygame swine' so none of the rest of us give a crap:)

However, I think Jason is simply confusing games that are about stories with storygames. An easy mistake to make unless you have been following the discussions.

Amber is a game that puts huge emphasis on story. There are pages devoted to how to go this etc etc .
Storygames however are doing a different thing. When people refer to storygames they are, well on this site at least, talking about games where the players have narative control. Now this doesn't mean narative control of their PCs it means they can alter elements of the game as it plays out.

Examples help.
In a 'Storygame' the PCs may be about to meet an important NPC, Call him King Paul. The players may well have options to spend some sort of plot point to influence this meeting.
So they might spend a plot point to make the King particularly happy due to his daughter's birthday, or they might spend a plot point to have the king be a friend of one of the PCs, or to fall in love with a PC etc etc
The players are influencing the game through a narative meta mechanic.

Now nothing like that happens in Amber. The GM might decide that the king falls in love with a PC, or that due to the PCs high good stuff the King is in a fine mood etc etc . The GM might be encouraged to do these things becuae it makes a better story.
Now the PCs may have powers that can effect the king, they might have a spell that uses High Compelling to make him fall in love, they might be able to shift shadow to find another king in a much better mood. Those things are not like narative mechanics because they rely on the powers of the PCs they are therefore more like Charm spells or fireballs.

Now nearly all RPGs have some of these narative mechanics and they range from the very minor stuff you can do at chargen to stuff you can do in play. Amber touches on some stuff at chargen you can establish relationships or allies but in narative mechanics terms it's marginal. Outside of this there is nothing.
Amber doesn't have a hero point mechanic like James Bond that can be used to modify rolls or to stumble across a clue or a solider of the right size who's uniform you can steal.
It certainly doesn't allow the PCs to describe how their attempts to complete tasks fail or suceed with "complications". The GM is very much in charge of determining the effects of failure or to describe the actions of NPCs etc. In this regard Amber is very traditional.

Thank you for the observations!

I do think a huge confusing part of this discussion is that Amber characters, by dint of heritage, have access to a degree of narrative control that is relatively unique.

Most traditional games use system/mechanics to model the relationship between the characters and the physical world, using dice as an abstract "fairness" mechanic. Amber, instead, posits the characters as masters of reality, able to manipulate reality at whim, even altering their characters as the story fits.

I can't remember if it's in the core book or one of the interviews he did about the game, but Erick described an aspect that went into his design of Amber, where players should feel free to add elements of backstory to their characters when faced with appropriate challenges, such as announcing they'd spent years apprenticing to a locksmith when faced with a challenging locked door. Or suddenly being an expert in riddles when challenged with one, solely so the player can simply announce that their character would know the answer.

While working on Lords of Gossamer & Shadow, I became quite aware that the player characters in that game did not, by default, have access to those levels of probability manipulation and meta-reality manipulation. That, in some ways, felt like an emergent and almost defining characteristic of the setting.

[jibbajibba]

Thank you for the observations!

I do think a huge confusing part of this discussion is that Amber characters, by dint of heritage, have access to a degree of narrative control that is relatively unique.

Most traditional games use system/mechanics to model the relationship between the characters and the physical world, using dice as an abstract "fairness" mechanic. Amber, instead, posits the characters as masters of reality, able to manipulate reality at whim, even altering their characters as the story fits.

I can't remember if it's in the core book or one of the interviews he did about the game, but Erick described an aspect that went into his design of Amber, where players should feel free to add elements of backstory to their characters when faced with appropriate challenges, such as announcing they'd spent years apprenticing to a locksmith when faced with a challenging locked door. Or suddenly being an expert in riddles when challenged with one, solely so the player can simply announce that their character would know the answer.

While working on Lords of Gossamer & Shadow, I became quite aware that the player characters in that game did not, by default, have access to those levels of probability manipulation and meta-reality manipulation. That, in some ways, felt like an emergent and almost defining characteristic of the setting.

The adding backstory on the fly is interesting certainly not in any of the books released and something as a GM I would frown upon because it seems opposite to the books. Corwin knows a lot of stuff but he and indeed Merlin, often encounter mundane stuff they can not solve or don't know the answer to.

The Powers you describe as Amberites having where they can control the world are defintely in play, but they are powers of the Amberites. If an amberite wants to summon a Djini they can do that in may ways, conjuration, Logrus, a spell that opens a shadow portal to a world of djini etc etc  if the player controls a PC with any of those powers he can summon a djini. What they can't do is summon a djini because they spend a 'meta' point. So the PC has to have the power to change the reality the player can't just change it because it makes for a better story and they spent a 'point'. That is the fundamental diffference between a narative mechanic as we see to a great degree in story games and a (I hesitate to use the term as it pushes us toward GNS a little more) simulationist mechanic that aims to simulate the powers that Amberites possess in the books.

Now it might seem like an odd division and even odder to ostrasize a swathe of RPGs becuase they use more of these mechanics than some other games and I wouldn't advocate that by any stetch. But it is a clear division in how the mechnaics interact with the world and more importantly the players.

Now I personally think that if Erick were writing Amber Diceless now he would replace Stuff with a pool of points that could be used for narative control to a degree. Spent a point to have this area covered in black grass, spend a point to have the jewel of judgement save you from  Caine's blade, spend a point to have Dworkin wander into your cell, well maybe 3 points for that, I spent 3 years in an escapology show 2 points ...etc etc ... I think it would have been an incredibly likely outcome when we look at how ubiquitous those type of resource pools are and when we look at some of the ways stuff is flagged for use in the game.
I have run it like that at Cons by the way where the players bid for premade characters, positions and items and they keep the left over as a stack of poker chips an ablative stuff pool and yes it works very well. But its not in the core rules and there are no such directions in the rules.

[AmazingOnionMan]

So, I'm just baffled at the insistence that Amber can not be a storygame when, by most indications, it is the trailblazing, earliest, epitome of one.

Somewhere in Uruguay, the dusty remains of what used to be teeth is obscuring the sun...
I don't care if Amber is a storygame or not, I'm officially intrigued.

[finarvyn]

I'm just baffled at the insistence that Amber can not be a storygame when, by most indications, it is the trailblazing, earliest, epitome of one.

As I mentioned before I am getting the feeling that my definition of "storygame" must not match the accepted one, but I have to say that my "gut feel" agrees with Jason on this.

Amber, to me, has always been very different from old school RPGs. The term "story game" really seems to be an apt description.

[gleichman]

So, I'm just baffled at the insistence that Amber can not be a storygame when, by most indications, it is the trailblazing, earliest, epitome of one.

It is, the other would be Theatrix and it came along a couple of years later.

Compared to modern storygames the most important evolution in design is that Amber is a storygame aimed mostly at the GM, while many of the modern versions give much of the power to the players. Otherwise the goals are nearly identical unless one gets into splitting hairs.

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, none of that is even remotely accurate.