Distributing GM power

[RPGPundit]

I certainly see your point.

RPGPundit

[gabriel_ss4u]

Thanks

I was kinda feelin' like Corwin in the dark, except my torment inflicted seems by Droppa instead of Eric... LOL

[alexandro]

This is what I said:

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!!!

See? I said (and marked the relevant passages for you to see) that I find GMs who aren't railroading bastards easily.
Is that really that hard to understand or are you just obtuse?

[gabriel_ss4u]

Dude... re-read yer shit

English IS your 1st language?

"rare as finding a GM who isn't"
=
you find more that are... which would lead to my observation.... can we get off it now?

nICE USAGE OF THE WORD OBTUSE, BUT YOU NEED TO MASTER THOSE EASIER ONES FIRST.
ANYONE READ IT THE WAY i DO?

[alexandro]

Dude?

OK, lets see...English really isn't my first language, but despite this fact I consider myself quite fluent in it.

There are a couple of concepts introduced in this short fragment, which you might look at in detail, using the Socratic Method:
1.) the difficulty of finding good co-GMs is equal to the difficulty of finding non-railroading GMs.

it is as rare as finding a GM who isn't a railroading bastard

2.) the difficulty of finding non-railroading GMs is equal to the difficulty of finding decent players.

it is as rare as finding [...] players who don't get mental problems when their characters lose sometimes

3.)a) finding decent players is (in my experience) not very hard.

players who don't get mental problems [...] are not that hard to find in my experience

3.)b) by the same token: finding non-railroading GMs is (in my experience) not very hard.

finding a GM who isn't a railroading bastard [...] not that hard to find in my experience

Conclusion:
1.) In my experience I've dealt with more decent GMs/players than crappy ones.
2.) According to this experiences I consider finding good co-GMs not a very hard task.
So this is that. I really don't know, how to spell it out for you any clearer. If you don't get it, its your loss. At least I try to communicate effectively and do my best to put my point across in a way that is understandable to most readers.

I even tried my best to read your posts and get your meaning, ill-formatted as they are, because that is common courtesy in a discussion. I pointed out that you might get more attention, if you organized your ideas in a way that would make them easier to read and understand (a piece of advice I have been given myself some time ago by a fellow forumite and which I've followed since). If you get all apologetic about this, flaunt your lack of appreciation for form and coherence and engage in pretzel-logic arguments to "prove" I said other things than I actually did, than I can't help but feel sorry for you.

Anyways, enough of this little semantic squabbling, lets get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

[gabriel_ss4u]

:hurr:

LOL, dude... ok already...
:hang:

you can be my friend...

[Nihilistic Mind]

I lol'ed.

[Taewakan]

I think you could in theory play GM-less Amber (like in theory you could with any other RPG) but at that point it would evolve into something totally different than a normal RPG; and what's more, it would require some very clear planning and very mature players.

RPGPundit

Have any of you played a live-action game?
I've been Head ST for a couple of them - mostly V:TM.
The player centered LARP looks NOTHING like the game in the books. People play what they want to play. If the ST interferes they play around him (or her).

Remember the old saw about power corrupting and absolute power... well, you know the rest.

Tabletop is nice because of the control a DM can exert. The DM is like the fence around the playground. Let's face it, the Amber multiverse leaves a LOT open for the characters to play with.

[RPGPundit]

Remember the old saw about power corrupting and absolute power... well, you know the rest.

Except when it doesn't. And we have 40 years of excellent GMing to prove that.

Let's face it, the Amber multiverse leaves a LOT open for the characters to play with.

That's true, at least... as for the "fence around the playground", in my experience when you have no GM (or a very weak GM) you just replace the theoretical "tyranny" of the GM (who's job it is to try to make the game fun for everyone) with the factual tyranny of primma-donna players where the bossiest player (or the most clever at influencing everyone else) rules the roost (players' jobs being to just make the game fun for themselves).

RPGPundit

[Taewakan]

Except when it doesn't. And we have 40 years of excellent GMing to prove that.

I started gaming back in '77 when Chainmail first came out. I moved a lot after that. I've DMed and Played on three continents and in four American states.
The worst does exist.
That you haven't experienced it is a blessing for you.
Truthfully, I envy you. My best experiences are the ones I try to build upon. My Amber game ran for five years averaging once a week and between three and five players. It is hard to argue with success, so I won't.

That's true, at least... as for the "fence around the playground", in my experience when you have no GM (or a very weak GM) you just replace the theoretical "tyranny" of the GM (who's job it is to try to make the game fun for everyone) with the factual tyranny of primma-donna players where the bossiest player (or the most clever at influencing everyone else) rules the roost (players' jobs being to just make the game fun for themselves).

RPGPundit

Like I said above. You are right.
My experience (seven years in the LARP circuit) is that the larger the group, the less fair the game is. Even in terms of Amber, fair is pretty much a function of access to the Storyteller and the size of your cabal/resources. Some people have the ability to live for the game. Others, not so much. Welcome to RL.
Which is why I prefer a smaller group, rather than a larger group of dedicated players. It is just personal preference though. Those with the ability to take advantage of their resources might disagree with me - after all might makes right is the rule of such games.
Not a criticism, just an observation.

This reminds me of an ADnD tourney where I was voted MPV. Our group started out BIG - more than twenty players. (Lots of players and too few DMs.)
My cabal identified the bad eggs (a group of six) and killed their characters off in the first half hour. We went on to win the tourney, even with the bad eggs playing NPCs and monsters against us (complements of the DM).

Once upon a time I believed with all my heart that math is not an opinion.