Players who go off and "do their own thing"?

[Ian Warner]

I get the players to set their own goals. These are the stuff they get Experience for. So a player might have 'Establish the most profitable trading firm in Amber' I might decide that there is enough risk in this to make it work 2 points. Kill Caine to get revenge for the death of my mother might be a 6 point. These are experience points just like campaign level stuff.
The advantages of having these is that very few players sit round doing nothing because they have 1 or 2 personal goals they will persue. They might wander off track from my plot, but I ahve no trouble with this and where possible I will have interwoven their personal goals into my plot some how. The current most profitable trading firm in Amber is actually a front run by the followers of the major villain etc etc

That's actually written into the system in Duty and Honour and Beat to Quaters. I find it a bit unweildy but it's a good idea.

[RPGPundit]

Do they want ponies too?

In my experience yes, a lot of them do.  There is this assumption I run into with certain kinds of players that whatever they think they want to do, that should be something that I as the GM should be obliged to somehow "work into" the plot, making it a centrally important feature of what's going on. They get annoyed if that doesn't happen; which in my campaigns, if there's no good reason why it wouldn't, doesn't.

RPGPundit

[warp9]

In my experience yes, a lot of them do.  There is this assumption I run into with certain kinds of players that whatever they think they want to do, that should be something that I as the GM should be obliged to somehow "work into" the plot, making it a centrally important feature of what's going on. They get annoyed if that doesn't happen; which in my campaigns, if there's no good reason why it wouldn't, doesn't.

RPGPundit

I guess a part of that gets into the question of what you mean by "the plot."

Speaking as a GM: in my own games, there is generally not a specific plot, there are just a bunch of people (PCs and NPCs) going after their goals, and sometimes/often these things conflict. Whatever the PCs choose to do is going to be a centrally important feature of what's going on, at least from their own perspectives.


On the other hand, speaking as a Player: I have run into certain kinds of GMs who try to force a given pre-set plot down the throats of the PCs. I disagree with this type of practice.

[RPGPundit]

By the plot I mean the organic unfolding of the various potential events of significance set to begin happening from the start of the campaign.

In my typical amber game, I have anywhere from 3-10 "situations" that are going on, about to happen, or going to happen later on in the campaign.  I don't know where they will lead, ultimately speaking, but i have a good idea of where the general direction is (based on the motivations and methods of the NPCs involved in each "situation").  The interaction of the players is the most unexpected influence.  By "plot" I don't mean a grand story that is happening artificially, and could thus be theoretically changed artificially by fiat; i mean the general events taking place that are acting and reacting according to those situations the PCs create for themselves.

RPGPundit

[Malleus Aforethought]

I kill them and let others take their stuff.

In most games, I would generally disapprove of such, but in Amber, especially in the midst of a Throne War, they probably deserve it.

[RPGPundit]

If you (the GM) have to kill someone, something isn't being done right.  It should be the other players who (directly or indirectly) kill someone; or the players themselves who essentially engage in unintentional suicide.

RPGPundit

[warp9]

By the plot I mean the organic unfolding of the various potential events of significance set to begin happening from the start of the campaign.

In my typical amber game, I have anywhere from 3-10 "situations" that are going on, about to happen, or going to happen later on in the campaign.  I don't know where they will lead, ultimately speaking, but i have a good idea of where the general direction is (based on the motivations and methods of the NPCs involved in each "situation").  The interaction of the players is the most unexpected influence.  By "plot" I don't mean a grand story that is happening artificially, and could thus be theoretically changed artificially by fiat; i mean the general events taking place that are acting and reacting according to those situations the PCs create for themselves.

RPGPundit

That makes sense.

[warp9]

Hopefully I would have nailed the character/player out of the game before he turned up. Theres nothing worse that a Lone Wolf character.

It is in the interests of all players to create characters which are dependent on the rest of the group in whatever capacity.

I fully disagree.

From the main Amber DRPG book, page 78:
   
Amber gives you some really high quality intense role-playing experiences. You are allowed to operate independently, or in very small groups, have lengthy conservations with non-player characters, and get the Game Master's undivided attention.

In return, you've got to wait when another player, or player group, is monopolizing the Game Master's time. Trading your own quality time for "down-time" while waiting around.
You might also consider the example of the Throne War (also from the main book).

In fact, I've never liked the idea that the PCs should all be "joined at the hip" in any game. And I've never found it that hard to wait while some other player has the GM's attention.

[jibbajibba]

I fully disagree.

From the main Amber DRPG book, page 78:
   
Amber gives you some really high quality intense role-playing experiences. You are allowed to operate independently, or in very small groups, have lengthy conservations with non-player characters, and get the Game Master's undivided attention.

In return, you've got to wait when another player, or player group, is monopolizing the Game Master's time. Trading your own quality time for "down-time" while waiting around.
You might also consider the example of the Throne War (also from the main book).

In fact, I've never liked the idea that the PCs should all be "joined at the hip" in any game. And I've never found it that hard to wait while some other player has the GM's attention.

Totally agree with Warp on this.

Amber really promotes wandering off on your own. But it should be an option in all games.

The whole OP here is only really true in as much as is there is an issue when a PC heads off on their own if they also want you to entertain them. So a lone PC that heads off into shadow constructs a mighty army of pattern charged robots and then attacks amber is fine. They were happy doing their own things and hatching their own fiendish plots so no worries.

[RPGPundit]

Honestly, I didn't even think that was up for debate.  In my games the players are almost NEVER all together in the same place, and often they are ALL off on their own doing different things.  

But I thought what we were talking about here was something different; not that the group doesn't operate as a "party" (which really, in most Amber games they shouldn't), but when one or more player characters are basically utterly isolated, separating themselves from all relevant places and events significant to the rest of the game.

RPGPundit

[warp9]

Honestly, I didn't even think that was up for debate.  In my games the players are almost NEVER all together in the same place, and often they are ALL off on their own doing different things.  

Perhaps not debate between you and I, but if you look at the following comment from this very thread, it seems at there is some debate on the matter:

Hopefully I would have nailed the character/player out of the game before he turned up. Theres nothing worse that a Lone Wolf character.

It is in the interests of all players to create characters which are dependent on the rest of the group in whatever capacity.

I know that I've had a big problem with this sort of thing when dealing with a number of other GMs in the past.

And I think that there are a number of related issues here. . . .

There are GMs who seem to feel that they are the sole author of the singular plot of the game, and rail-road everybody into the same path.

And there are GMs who may not advocate rail-roading everybody, yet who still feel that the PCs should all be working together, and who do not tolerate "Lone-Wolf" PCs (which seems to be Lawbag's perspective as stated above).

[Croaker]

Well, it can be a problem if the PC avoids all that you threw at him, just wanting to write his own story without anyone interfering in any way.

I've had a character, in a throne war, storm in shadow and avoid all contact with other PCs, to go to a shadowrun universe the player knew by heart. There, he began avenging himself on a lot of NPCs that bothered him in Shadowrun.
I had him stumble upon things, presented him challenges, but every time it seemed like he had something real or potentially able to defend itself, he flew more into shadow in order to tell what he wanted to tell.

Luckily, these seldom happens, but it is boring to the GM and to the other players, since no one could effectively interact with him on an equal footing (Save by stripping him of his powers and railroading him, of course).

[warp9]

Well, it can be a problem if the PC avoids all that you threw at him, just wanting to write his own story without anyone interfering in any way.

I've had a character, in a throne war, storm in shadow and avoid all contact with other PCs, to go to a shadowrun universe the player knew by heart. There, he began avenging himself on a lot of NPCs that bothered him in Shadowrun.
I had him stumble upon things, presented him challenges, but every time it seemed like he had something real or potentially able to defend itself, he flew more into shadow in order to tell what he wanted to tell.

Luckily, these seldom happens, but it is boring to the GM and to the other players, since no one could effectively interact with him on an equal footing (Save by stripping him of his powers and railroading him, of course).

I can see how that might be annoying, but I'd still come down on the side of letting the PCs do their own thing, rather than trying to force them into something.

That being said, anything which threatens the whole multiverse may be hard to ignore---even for somebody hiding off in Shadow. And BIG threats to the multiverse are a common theme of Amber games.

For example, in the Corwin books the Black Road manifested in various ways across shadow. It took the form of a fairy circle in the land of Lorraine. And it seemed to stay with Corwin and Ganelon pretty well when they were trying to shift away though Shadow, while running from Benedict.

[RPGPundit]

I think that the fact that it forces the PCs to at least marginally end up coming together is the real main reason why "threats to the entire multiverse" are such popular themes for Amber campaigns; "it was in the novels" being only a secondary reason.

RPGPundit

[Cranewings]

I usually give the players every chance to get in on the action. If there is an excuse, at all, I'll get them in. I think it's important to keep them at the party, in the party, if they want.