Distributing GM power

[Otha]

Amber needs a GM more than other RPGs.

...

In Amber the GM has all the traditional plot responsibilities (which might be shared), but also has responsibility for determining the underlying metaphysics of the setting and the way in which powers, in particular advanced powers, work. This could arguably be decided by a group, but it would require considerable effort in advance, or else a willingness to suspend either continuity or rationality behind the functioning of powers.

Moreover, several of the more appealing and distinctive parts of Amber such as the continuing mystery over PC and significant NPC stats would be lost.

Not universally true.

The "powers" in a GMless game like Capes have no special "rules" and basically work the way the player wielding them want them to work.

The mystery over PC and NPC stats can also be maintained without recourse to a GM.  You might need someone to take the job of maintaining the stats of NPC's, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a GM.

For example, each NPC might have one player who is its "minder" and knows its stats, etc.

[alexandro]

The thing is in Amber most of the "privileges" of the GM position are already available for the players by moving through Shadow:

- background authority ("I want to travel to a Shadow, where pirate empires rule the world and everyone uses laser pistols.")
- motivation authority ("I want to travel to a Shadow, where she can't act otherwise, than fall in love with me at first sight.")
etc.pp.

So the players already control pretty much anything, with the exception of elder Amberites (which are the GMs privilege to control in the game- in a sense they are his characters in the same way the players control theirs, with the game world and the (normal) NPCs being "neutral territory" that shifts from one participant to the other during the game, depending what is needed) and- possibly- the pacing (assuming you buy into the notion, that RPGs can move according to the rules of drama and it is the GMs right to shake situations up and create new ones, if he feels the story is breaking into a rut).

And a game Amber (much like Wraith) needs very mature and dedicated players in any case, because it is very much a "hands-on" game, that requires the players to invest quite a lot of work into their characters and the game to make it work and be good, unlike many other "traditional" games, which allow (don't limit, but allow) the players to be a bit more... reactive... and just have their characters react to whatever the GM throws at them.

[gabriel_ss4u]

The thing is in Amber most of the "privileges" of the GM position are already available for the players by moving through Shadow:

So the players already control pretty much anything, with the exception of elder Amberites (which are the GMs privilege to control in the game- in a sense they are his characters in the same way the players control theirs, with the game world and the (normal) NPCs being "neutral territory" that shifts from one participant to the other during the game, depending what is needed) and- possibly- the pacing (assuming you buy into the notion, that RPGs can move according to the rules of drama and it is the GMs right to shake situations up and create new ones, if he feels the story is breaking into a rut).

Let's not forget that all important thing like GM's creating & relating the STORY/campaign that the PCs are going through.
True that PCs have alot more power where they can sit by themselves and game w/out GM for a while, but it inevitably comes back to someone (GM) needing to describe the outcomes of actions that are contested against NPCs/elders, and the such. I don't think it can be done well w/out a GM.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Could the Players then all take on the role of GM at once, controlling different storylines of their own creation and playing their part into each other's storylines (as their own Player Characters)? Could players handle their own set of Elders to keep things smooth or how would that work out? They could switch who controls whom every game session or something...

A GMless game sounds like a lot of work... Theorizing about it is quite interesting. I wonder what it would turn out like in practice. A mess? A wonderful new way to play Amber? (perhaps on the short term, like, say, a con )

Anyone wishes to run an experiment by now? I'm curious but do not have the right group to play around with this idea yet.


I've always found that it takes an experienced GM to run an Amber game. I've seen someone run a terrible game of Amber, simply because he did not have the audacity to tell the players 'no'. Sadly, two players found that abusing the game would be fun. I suppose it was for them.

[alexandro]

Let's not forget that all important thing like GM's creating & relating the STORY/campaign that the PCs are going through.

Like I said, that is only true if you buy into the notion "RPGs=stories", which many here don't. If it is just a campaign where the characters are doing stuff that isn't connected to "the big picture"(TM) of stories and that may or may be not "dramatic", then you can just resolve things by looking at the stats of the participants and making a decision (if that isn't enough, then players who don't have characters present can make the call).

[gabriel_ss4u]

Like I said, that is only true if you buy into the notion "RPGs=stories", which many here don't. If it is just a campaign where the characters are doing stuff that isn't connected to "the big picture"(TM) of stories and that may or may be not "dramatic", then you can just resolve things by looking at the stats of the participants and making a decision (if that isn't enough, then players who don't have characters present can make the call).

One extreme or the other?

the notion isn't so all encompassing.
RPG = stories?
no, life = stories, and not all should be random player moves, or theoretically one could play Amber by one's self. (interesting, but ultimately boring)
If players made decisions (based on who was present or not in the given scenario), this would be too easily abused. I believe you need that impartial view and overall understanding of the 'world' story-line.
True I did it (1 on 1 gaming, 2 players, each acting as GM and player), but this was understood that there was 1 GM at a time, anytime the scenario/situation called for the knowledge of the other GM, it was segwayed (did I make that up?) momentarily, then back on track to the original GM.
If one could find a group of gamers that have the potential to act as co-GMs, that would be rare, as say... an honest elder?

I stand by my belief that there should be a GM for campaigns, for one shots I think it would be interesting to find out if it could work.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Is anyone going to do this at Ambercon?
try a GMless game?

[Uncle Twitchy]

Sounds like some LARPs I've been to.

Let me amend that.

Sounds like some of the weaker LARPs I've been to.

[alexandro]

@Gabriel: could you organize your thoughts a bit clearer, because it is hard to figure out, what you are getting at.

If players made decisions (based on who was present or not in the given scenario), this would be too easily abused.

Abused how? Allowing the PCs to get what they strive for? Big fucking hoo, that is already the case (unless you have a severely limited understanding of the "infinite possibilities" angle of the Amberverse.

If one could find a group of gamers that have the potential to act as co-GMs, that would be rare, as say... an honest elder?

No, it is as rare as finding a GM who isn't a railroading bastard or players who don't get mental problems when their characters lose sometimes (both of which are not that hard to find in my experience).

[gabriel_ss4u]

then alexandro, I feel sad you've had such piss-poor gaming experiences, don't take it out on me.
Funny, my players rave about games I host... guess ya need to look for another gaming group.

If ya can't follow my train of thought, and can't refer to it respectfully, figure it out... like a GM-less gamer.

[alexandro]

My gaming experiences have rocked so far, thank you very much.

Seems you are the one, who can't follow my train of thought.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Thank you for proving my point:
THIS is what happens when there is no GM.

I know you are, but what am I?

Can we please have a sensible response here... from someone else...

[Nihilistic Mind]

Thank you for proving my point:
THIS is what happens when there is no GM.

I know you are, but what am I?

Can we please have a sensible response here... from someone else...

But then what would happen to all this witty banter?

In any case, like I said, we can theorize about it but until it gets put into practice by a gaming group (of at least three) I will forgo the idea. I'm sure it can be done, but would it be fun?

In the end, what's the point of a GMless game? So that everyone can be a player? The typical Amber GM gets to portray great characters as well as NPCs of his own creation... What more could they ask for?

I say, instead of a GMless game, how about a game in which every [Player/GM] gets to control a cabal of elders? Someone could be Cymnea's lot, or Faiella's, or Rilga's, or Clarissa's.... This could accomodate a lot of [Player/GM]s. Thoughts?

[alexandro]

Sorry, but to this I have to invoke

[ :pundit: mode: ]

Spoiler

What is it with those lying pieces of crap, that every time someone so much as mentions sharing GM power, those stinking mouth-breathers automatically assume its because of bad experiences with their GMs. Makes you wonder what those fuckwads have to compensate for feeling the urge to talk crap about other peoples gaming experiences, which they don't know anything about. Those anal-retentive pricks are as pathetic as Freemasons in their desperate attempt to feel important, seemingly having such sorry little lives that they have to play up their own brand of "group identity", which they have to "defend" in the "War against the Swine" (failing to mention, like so often, that this kind of behavior is another common trait of a cult). They claim to have "escaped" the tyranny of RPGNet (where the atmosphere, this much they got right, really is kinda unbearable), but then they lapse into exactly the kind of behavior, which makes RPGNet such a shitty place, including sporting snappy "trademark one-liners", which serve no real purpose in the discussion other than make discussing with them intelligently pretty much impossible, since they try to drag it all down to the level of schoolyard arguments. Every time I see one (like Sett or gabriel here) use oner of those lines (which I have read like a thousand times over at RPGNet- usually resulting in a closing of said threads there, which isn't really any better) which serve no other purpose as to draw the other out into an emotional response that might weaken his position in the discussion, I seriously doubt the maturity and moral integrity of those posters.

[/ :pundit: mode]

The argument in short:
1.) gabriel made the claim, that players who are capable of co-GMing are hard to find.
2.) I disagreed, saying they were actually quite easy to find, if you went looking for them.
3.) gabriel somehow assumed by this, that the games of Amber I host must have sucked
4.) gabriel loses all credibility in an intelligent discussion.

'nuff said.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Like I said, that is only true if you buy into the notion "RPGs=stories", which many here don't. If it is just a campaign where the characters are doing stuff that isn't connected to "the big picture"(TM) of stories and that may or may be not "dramatic", then you can just resolve things by looking at the stats of the participants and making a decision (if that isn't enough, then players who don't have characters present can make the call).

OK dirty dice... awwww, did I huwt yow feewings???

Speak for yourself... NOT "many"

Look alex the andropamorphic-ass,
this is what you said you did: 2.) I disagreed, saying they were actually quite easy to find, if you went looking for them.

THIS is what you said: No, it is as rare as finding a GM who isn't a railroading bastard or players who don't get mental problems when their characters lose sometimes (both of which are not that hard to find in my experience).
Quite a difference in word usage...
YOU yourself say you find such 'railroading' GMs easily, If you have these type experiences.... that WOULD lead me to 'ass-U-not-me' that you had bad experiences... duh!!!

Look, I'm willing to not respond to your continued teenager rants as all you're doing is spewing misunderstood profane doo-doo.
Leave me alone, go pick on someone who cares, AND...

you said: (Andro-ass says:) If it is just a campaign where the characters are doing stuff that isn't connected to "the big picture"(TM) of stories and that may or may be not "dramatic", then you can just resolve things by looking at the stats of the participants and making a decision (if that isn't enough, then players who don't have characters present can make the call).

ok GENIUS...
If secrecy and knowledge (of ranks and abilities) are power.... WHO do you suggest look at the players stats to figure out the victor of said confrontations....
I guess as a player you think THIS is an acceptable idea??
Well, sounds like you may be one of those 'railroading' GM's you're ranting about, or even a railroading player... which may be worse.
You'd be happy to see everyone's stats, abilities, powers, items, secrets....
YOU sound like one of those players I keep out of my gaming groups.... but that would make sense, since you seem to come across so many

Please be more aware of what you write, if YOU can't even follow your OWN train of thought... don't take it out on me....
take a moment... re-read this whole thread....


OK.... did ya catch up yet?

and as far as me losing all credibility in an intelligent discussion? There would have to be more than 1 intelligent respondent between the two of us, and I'm the only one here youngling.
Your simple thoughts do not a point make.
So you hate 1 liners?
Don't make me pull out the Primal damage Rubber and ubiquitous Glue!
Seriously dude... GROW UP

Am I alone here?
does anyone else see my point???