Ok, let's address a common criticism of the Amber game: Bias.
Its true, and I will certainly not deny it, that if a GM is biased in favour of a particular player, or against a particular player, that can have a highly damaging effect on the game.
However, I would suggest that it is the same in ANY RPG. If a GM is a bad GM, then its not about the system, its about the dude. A biased GM will create just as much havoc in a game of D&D.
Now, in my own games, I am fairly certain that I am fair and unbiased toward all my players, and I can't really recall any situation where it has come up that a player has felt that I've been biased against him or for some other player in the game. In my years of GMing, I have had one or two times when someone accused me of being biased, but interestingly enough it was NEVER in an Amber game.
So, your feelings on this?
Has this ever actually come up as an issue for you in actual play?
RPGPundit
I have definitely been prone to GM bias.
It's my worst feature as a GM.
When a PC does something that suits the genre they are far more likely for it to work than other players regardless of skills and abilities.
This can happen in and game from Star Wars to James Bond but Amber if particularly prey to it.
When a PC describes their actions in a Amberish way I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
This hinders the less imaginative, less eloquent players and this really isn't fair.
I have tried to fight it but try as I might it often recurs.
As an example. A Pc got themsleves trapped in a Trump construct. This was basically a 3D trump pocket which was immune to Pattern and Logrus being inspired by the idea of a shadow pocket. The pocket was set up by another PC as a trap to snare nosy folks wandering round his appartment.The trap setter had advanced trump , the trap trigger had advanced pattern.
The trap setter had designed the shadow pocket to be very comfortable, a nice beach house a selection of wine, some nice artwork comfy, and very Amberish.The idea would be the trapped person would really have to wait to be released as only advanced trump would get them out
The trap triggerer didn't like being trapped so rather than taking an Amberish approach and enjoying a glass of Merlot whist waiting to be released they smashed everything and burnt the house down leaving themselves stranded on a desolate beach. Then they got incredibly frustrated that their Advanced Pattern wouldn't rescue them.
Now as a GM I should have probably not allowed ad trump to 'trump' (pardon the pun) Ad Pattern. The whole Trump pocket idea was a bit of a stretch and as Ad pattern costs more than Ad trump Ad pattern should probably dominate. However, the attitude of the players, one very Amberish one totally un-Amberish totally influenced my GMing of the situation.
I probably ought to have encouraged the triggerer to use the Pattern lens to check out where they were and let them know more explicitly that this was not a shadow but a trump (all be it a 3d one). I could probably have allowed them to escape using the pattern of the mind as well.
I allowed their approach and attitute to affect their powers and what they could actually do which was pretty bad.
Real problem is that in the same situation I might well end up doing the same thing again...
Quote from: jibbajibba;293203This hinders the less imaginative, less eloquent players and this really isn't fair.
I don't know that this is really the case. It would seem that imagination and eloquence are the very qualities being tested (perhaps along with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Amber books). There's nothing unfair about that, just as it's not unfair if you can crunch numbers better than somebody else.
What's problematic is the judgement of the GM.
I've never run into problems with the bias of the GM on a personal level.
The problem I run into with bias is when a GM is biased against a game concept. Stuff like power words not working, sorcery being way over powered, or playing in a world where the Pattern is on the fritz.
Quote from: RPGPundit;293139However, I would suggest that it is the same in ANY RPG. If a GM is a bad GM, then its not about the system, its about the dude. A biased GM will create just as much havoc in a game of D&D.
IMO, this can happen more easily in AMBER, because you can't rely on external factors to judge things, everything depends on you.
Nonetheless, this surely can happen in other RPGs. The dork who almost disgusted me of RPGs had one "favorite" (in fact, it was more the GM projecting his own fantasms on this guy), whose power increased faster than anyone else, and which had the campain centered on him, while every other male player risked castration at every turn.
Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;293371Stuff like power words not working
That's why I got read of the power wordz, to prevent the whining :)
Quote from: droog;293322I don't know that this is really the case. It would seem that imagination and eloquence are the very qualities being tested (perhaps along with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Amber books). There's nothing unfair about that, just as it's not unfair if you can crunch numbers better than somebody else.
What's problematic is the judgement of the GM.
Yeah but in a game like 4e for example the player has skills at a certain level, they roll dice and the outcome is determined. The player's eloquence, imagination etc is rarely tested. Yes a player who could think tactically has an advantage but this advantage is limited by the hard and fast numbers on their character sheet. Usually tactical advantages favour the party above the individual in the case of 4e. The skilled tactician will organise the play group and dictate tactics for everyone else so they all benefit.
It's a bit like job interviews. If you are interviewing someone for a data processing role where they sit in a darkened room for 8 hours a day crunching numbers you should be looking for someone that can do that but in the interview the guy/girl that can interact with you, is well presented, personable, clean and doesn't smell has a big advantage over the smelly, rude guy in the Fields of the Nephlim tee-shirt even though he might be much better at doing the job.
Exactly. That's one of the issues I have with RPGs: you can rarely totally escape yourself.
Sure you can improve, but what if you want to make a character who's a master of warfare and strategy when you are awfully bad in it? In amber, a "good" roleplayer, doing vivid and clever descriptions, might get the drop of you simply because, as a person, you can't match him.
Worse, what if a very shy person want to play a very social guy? Sure, you can talk somewhat, but still...
The alternative, of course, is to purely ignore roleplay to concentrate on character stats, but this is very bad, and boring.
One possible issue, sadly impossible in RPGs, was the Fallout option: If you were stupid, you understood little, and had crude dialog option, while more socially-oriented characters had better options.
I did play in a game once where one Advanced Shapeshifter could barely do anything without straining themselves, while the other Advanced Shapeshifter once impersonated the Courts Of Chaos - including the inhabitants.
Mind you, this was the same GM-player pairing where the player wrote the plot, the GM ran it, and the player's character got extra experience for solving it.
The potential to abuse the system is present in all RPGs. It's just more obvious in Amber Diceless because of the lack of randomizers.
In a D&D campaign, the players have no idea how many orcs are supposed to be behind that door. If it's late in the session and the characters are really fit then I might decide they need a big battle to give them a challenge, and the number of orcs may swell. If it's late in the session and characters are almost out of hit points and spells I might decide to back off so as to not kill the party, and the number of orcs may drop. That's a GM bias for or against the entire party.
If you mean bias against one individual, then the same thing can happen but hopefully the players won't stand for it for long. The toughest bad guy could always fight one particular character or that "random" event might always "happen" to impact the same person. Doesn't matter whether or not dice are involved -- simply picking on a player isn't fun for anyone in any game system.
I can't stress enough that role playing is about trust. Either you trust the GM to run the best game he can, or you don't. Amber Diceless is no different, really.
As a fellow GM, living in Sweden, Im all with you on bias, and I know that I have a tendency to favor actions that goes along with the mood or the setting.
In my personal world and experience with other GMs however, this is a good thing as long as you are open about it since it keeps enhancing the mood.
On another side note, the very first thing I ditch from any system is as many dice rolls as possible, so Im used to the only rule enforced is that the Gm is right.
Croaker: an idea i run across in a rule theory discussion was to simply assume the player was right, so if we have a character who is First in warfare, but the player suck at strategy, just assume that for some weird reason, like the exact weather condition that day, the strategy works, this way, the strategic genius who didnt bother buying warfare since he "knows it" actually come out loosing, and the First get to feel good and that his character knows what he is doing, however this does obviously not work in a tight spot.
Sry for my bad sentence structure and lack of punktation. Tnx
I do have a suggestion here, and actually it applies to far more situations than just DMing, though we can use that as our example.
The answer here is to always assume that you could become unfair at any time. The Pundit says, "Now, in my own games, I am fairly certain that I am fair and unbiased toward all my players, and I can't really recall any situation where it has come up that a player has felt that I've been biased against him or for some other player in the game." Now, no offense meant, but I believe this is something no one should ever say. The reason why is that once you've decided that you've got a problem beaten, (being fair) you tend to stop observing yourself to check and see if this is really the case, instead simply assuming that since you made the ruling, it must BE fair, since you made it, and you are fair.
(This rule also goes for being a good driver.)
Now this is not not to say that the Pundit isn't a fair DM, only that this is a very common trap that many, many completely normal people people fall into with their thinking. "Good Christians" assume everything they do is righteous and become assholes, good programmers get sloppy with their code because they've been working on Windows for years and assume they always know best, and good DMs act in an unfair manner because they know that they they are fair... and thus lose that moment of self-reflection that a little doubt would bring, and don't stop to determine if what they're doing is right or not.
Sorry if I overstepped or over-answered, but the notion of never truly mastering anything and always striving to improve is something I believe in very strongly, and you can work it into any aspect of your life. But especially riding a motorcycle.
OOOOh so right.
I remember a... well, let's say a class I once had, where it was said that people that most work-related electrical accident come from professionals, because unknowing people, being conscious of their ignorance, are very, very careful, while cognisant people can get cocky and forget elementary notions of security, because "it's gonna be alright".
Nevertheless, none of my Amber players have ever protested to me that I've demonstrated an unfair bias for another player.
RPGPundit
Re: electricians v.s. noobs
That's true of anyone who responds to emegencies. More danger = more injury.
Quote from: RPGPundit;294418Nevertheless, none of my Amber players have ever protested to me that I've demonstrated an unfair bias for another player.
RPGPundit
Nor did I mean to imply that you you had. Sorry if I've given offense. Just because a thing
can happen, doesn't mean that it has, or that it must.
I only meant to say that it is my belief that as soon as you think you no longer have anything to improve upon in a specific area, you are more likely to develop problems there, because people in general are less likely to be critical of themselves in an arena they think they have mastered.
I am sure you are the mostest fairest Amber GM ever. ;)