Resolving conflict in Amber without GM favouritism

[jibbajibba]

Uh ... I'm pretty sure I have a third position:
iii) the game is what it is.  It relies on GM judgments, and that has plusses and minusses.  It may not be the right game for a particular person, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean it's broken, it means that the same exact game can be perfect for Bob and terrible for Kevin because Bob and Kevin are looking for different things in a game.  There clearly are people for whom Amber is the perfect game, and that's totally cool ... lucky them, frankly!

Yes but that isn't a position...
What you are effectively saying is that you either like it or don't well yeah but why?
In any case I am not looking to split yet more hairs what I want is some practical solutions to real game dilemas. How do people actually tackle these questions when they arise?

[PGiverty]

I'd really like to get this back on track if possible. That's not to say there haven't been useful suggestions. If you want theory discussions about what Amber is or isn't, want to suggest non-standard ways of distributing the GMs power, or anything else, take it to another thread.

1. All games require GM judgement. This isn't about that.
2. Within the current rules, the GM must use judgement to determine the outcome of contests.
3. The rules as they stand offer system methods for dealing with conflicts.
4. There is no dichotomy between describing conflict in words and having and underlying maths-based system which, when combined with GM judgement, determines the outcome of conflicts.
4. This thread is about **mechanical guidelines** in addition to those in the rules, but within their spirit showing how the mechanics can be applied to conflicts. This can be through a mechanical breakdown of an example (such as the one Erick pointed at), or other suggestions. In particular, to what extent can environmental factors affect the outcome of a conflict, independent of raknings?

If you don't think any such guidelines can exist, keep off the thread (unless you are Erick!)

[Arref]

How many Hellhounds with Amber rank strength and endurance does it take to take her out in each of these situations

i) Helena acts as she does in the example and offers no defense until the hounds are on top of her.
ii) Helena stands her ground and faces them with a blade.
iii) Helena manages to retreat into some sort of narrow cave entrance where the hounds can only come at her one at a time.

OK, here goes. Please ask questions or point out my errors.



Assumptions: ranks range from Amber 1x to 5x better for First Rank
Helena is 3rd rank Warfare, 2nd rank Strength.

i) Helena offers no defense until the hounds are on top of her.

GM: OK, you hear the hellhounds running up behind. Break from Julian to deal with them? Or something else?
H: No, finish Julian.
GM: OK, you're hit from behind. Hard and knocked flat to ground. Shapes everywhere around you. No chance for a weapon. Your gear and clothes don't stop the razor steel teeth. At least two of the hounds grab you, one at each arm. Pain, wounds. Your turn.
H: Can I tell how many?
GM: Yes, you see six. A pack, not a full cohort.
H: What's the chances here without a weapon, warfare judgment?
GM: Grim. With your strength you might hold them off, but they'll keep hurting you. You guess you could handle three, but they won't stop—once you start killing them they'll frenzy. That's how you've heard Julian trains them.
H: OK, I'll use my strength and protect my most vulnerable parts. Anything that would take real time to heal. Fetal position, guts toward the ground. Maybe a handler will call them off if I can last.
GM: OK, you'll be hammered and chewed for a long time. Blood and pain. You don't black out. The hounds clamp on you a few times and shake you. You think they are trying to get some reaction. Do you do any defensive strikes? Or stick with your plan?
H: I'm dead if I fight them. I'll try to stay alive until help comes or the sitch changes.
GM: OK, you'll nearly pass out from blood loss. An hour of this, a ranger shows up and calls them to heel. You'll stay conscious as they get you some first aid. You'll live.

Notes: GM reacts to Helena's warfare as 3x and her strength as 4x. Helena gives environ advantage to the hounds. She could have injured/killed a couple hounds here with strength, but wisely chose to 'play dead'. Helena's endurance is not known, but even if she had killed two hounds, her injuries would have accumulated very fast. The hounds represent about 6 times 1x of damage and they can all hurt her almost every round.

ii) Helena stands her ground and faces them with a blade.

GM: OK, you hear the hellhounds running up behind. Break from Julian to deal with them? Or something else?
H: Damn, leap up with the long knife and face them. How many?
GM: Six, a pack, not a full cohort. How do you want to defend?
H: I’m guessing all six can coordinate attacks on me at once?
GM: That's right. You could try to use the trees nearby.
H: Can I do that now? Get to the trees?
GM: If you run or leap for the trees, you think they'd be on your back.
H: OK, I know they are tough, can I kill one as soon as they get to me? Head shot?
GM: if you get the knife into an eye, yes. I don't think you want to try stabbing past the teeth. These dogs might be able to snap your blade off.
H: Good point. OK, that's my plan. Kill one of the six, avoid damage as I can. Maybe I can judo push a dog off with my left hand.
GM: OK, they roll at you in a wave of razor teeth. They'll go for your limbs, but you anticipate that. You nail your select hound right through the eye. You dodge several snaps at your limbs as hounds jump at you, you twist and spin. Two miss completely. One you shove off-track with your left hand. Two hounds hit you at running speed knocking you off your feet. One of those snaps teeth on your calf and holds. The second hound to hit you doesn't get a grip and falls differently than you and the gripping hound.

Your move?
H: I’m so screwed. Warfare judgment now. How long can I last if I kill one on every pass?
GM: Good question. You think the leg wound and the gripping hound are going to slow your dodges now. But if you could kill one every turn, you might live through it. If they wound you every turn, you could die.
H: I don't like those odds. If I stop fighting now, will they stand down?
GM: No. You've killed one. They'll be in frenzy now.
H: *&%*&^%$!!! OK. I have to kill the gripping hound. Since that hound is a fixed target, I have advantage. Can I kill it and defend with the blade against the others? I want to switch to opportunity fighting. They will come to me.
GM: You think that's a decent plan.
H: OK. Best I can do now. I stab the gripping hound through the eye.
GM: It dies nicely. You also slash at several leaping dogs scoring on their tough hides. No serious damage to them. Four remaining hounds, two miss you leaping and snapping. One gets you a minor gash on the dagger arm. The last tries for your other leg and nails it with a snap. It holds on.
H: I'm so screwed. I'm still on the ground aren't I? Trees too far away?
GM: Yes, knocked down first turn. You'll never make the trees without getting hit from behind. The dogs move faster across ground than you do.
H: Wait! What if I switch to strength? Can I kill two a turn? There are four left. I could take damage for two turns, yes?
GM: getting rid of them faster would definitely shift things to your favor. And they are right on top of you, aggressively, which gives you great chance to grab them each turn.
H: I can't believe I didn't do this first! OK, throw the dagger at one of them, but I'm switching to strength. I'll grab two necks and slam their heads together.
GM: hard as you can? Are you trying to kill or stun?
H: Kill! Kill!
GM: OK. The dagger throw hits, but only gashes an incoming dog. Two hounds end up in your hands. You crush their heads together, they go limp. You're not sure they are dead but they are out of the fight right now. The dog gripping your right leg still digs teeth deeper and snaps its head back and forth. You hear your leg fracture. The last dog gets a glancing hit on your arm, no dodge because of the hounds in your hands.
H: I threw them away from me quickly as soon as they were out.
GM: True, but all these attacks come within seconds of each other. You've taken a minor wound to your sword arm.
H: But I'm alive and they are toast now! OK, break the neck of the dog on my leg. And push off the other one if it jumps me.
GM: Two handed attack on the gripping hound? Or keep a hand free for the leaping dog?
H: I can snap a neck with one hand. If I can't, it'll still be without air once I get my hand on it. Second hand free for defense.
GM: Right. This works well. You do snap the hound's neck with one hand. You also slap aside the leaping hound before it gets a hit on you.
H: YES! I pivot on my hip, not trying to get up. I kill the last dog as it comes for me.
GM: You do. Well done.

Notes: GM reacts to Helena's warfare as 3x and her strength as 4x. Helena gets environ advantage on the hounds by readying for them. She could have been hit six times with no defense. She reacts to six simultaneous attacks. She gets hit once. But she loses position because a dagger against the mass of attacks doesn't continue to give her command of the space around her. An important point is ability to wound: the hounds can each wound at Amber rank, while Helena can wound them at 3xAmber expertise. This is why she can kill in a single hit given a good chance. When she doesn't have such good opportunity, the fight stretches longer and the wounds are less telling.

Killing the dog first turn, changes the attack instructions of the hounds to "all out attack" which gives Helena advantage. The dogs are not dodging or defending.

The dogs are Amber ranked and do not pose a serious threat to Helena in strength or warfare, but there are six of them trained to coordinate. It is ironic here that six Amber men attacking would not do as well, being neither as trained nor as courageous as the hellhounds.

The battle really changes when Helena switches to strength. She's higher ranked and she can kill with either hand. The hounds are down to 4x when she does this, and she also has a 4x ranking in strength. She wins.

iii) Helena retreats into narrow cave entrance.

Helena wins. She cannot be attacked by more than two or three hounds at once. Either strength or warfare will allow her to kill/defend against the hounds.

[Otha]

First: Thank you for this detailed response.  This is a MUCH better example of play than the previous one.  It actually shows some of the mechanics.

Just a quick question on this:

Given that a hellhound, canonically, can rip the bumper off a car, why isn't she more badly injured when a hellhound grabs her?  Is it tougher to rip a limb off an Amberite than it is to rip a bumper off a car?

[jibbajibba]

Excellent.

So stripping off the eloquent in-game examples.

i) No defense - Helena will go down to 6 dogs. If she defends and plays dead they might loose interest if she takes one down with Strength chances are they will frenzy and won't stop until she is literally dog meat.
ii) Against 6 dogs toe to toe Helena is likely to take a wound a round and end up pretty mauled but will probably survive. I would assume if there were more dogs to take the place of those she kills that she would go down after taking 5 or 6 of them dependant on her tactics.
iii) if she can prevent all but 1 or 2 dogs attacking her she will eventuall win and is unlikely to suffer much more than minor wounds

So from that we can deduce some possible mechanics.

Against 6 Amber ranked oponents a high ranked player will win but take wounds if they fight tactically, loose if they offer no defense and win if they can can limit the enemies to 1 or 2 at a time (endurance might come in here but versus 6 its unlikely).

Now Arref you were using a mechanism here the 1x Amber damamge or 3x etc as a way of saying how many ranks above Amber. So the 1st ranked out of 5 would have 5 x amber ability and 5 amber ranks would be equal to them ? So does this mean in a game with 12 ranks between top and Amber the top rank is 12 times tougher than Amber rank?Doesn;t that make creatures like Hell hounds relatively less tough in games with a lot of players? is that logical?
Does this simplify to 3 hounds (helena 3rd rank is 3 ranks above Amber) equal Helean toe to toe. When she switches to Strength at 2nd rank she can take 4 dogs?

If we extrapolate that .... if the top rank warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and 2 hounds (1 + 1 ) would they be equal? would we expect a result equal to (ii) in the example where the 1st rank proably takes Helena as quickly as possible (she would no doubt go all out defense) whilst the dogs chew him a bit, or dispatch the dogs quickly to face Helena head to head, risking an attack from Helena in the interim? What if the top ranked warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and the second rank warfare (4) would they loose unless they could take an oponent out very fast ?

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

Does anyone agree with this mechanism? Disagree with it? There have been posts that suggested 1st rank versus 2 1.5 ranked would beat them. This ruling would appear to disagree with that assumption.

Anyone got any other breakdowns? I assume Arref is from the "roleplay it out and the numbers will take care of themselves side of the fence" though he does underpin his decisions with logical rules that are maintained reasonably consistantly (I am not sure you can break a dogs neck with one hand, no leverage. You might be able to crush a vertebra or a windpipe but a 200 lb mastiff in a frenzy is not an easy beast to grab and its not about strength so much as the size of your hands). There must be an alternate view from the 'Newtonian' school ie every combat action has an equal and oposite reation. 50 warfare + defensive fighting = 75 warfare or something ... anyone anyone?

[Arref]

First: Thank you for this detailed response.  This is a MUCH better example of play than the previous one.  It actually shows some of the mechanics.

Just a quick question on this:

Given that a hellhound, canonically, can rip the bumper off a car, why isn't she more badly injured when a hellhound grabs her?  Is it tougher to rip a limb off an Amberite than it is to rip a bumper off a car?

Hmm. There are a lot of ways I could answer that. I'll try to stick to rules as presented and not wander.

A car is not very real, has no defense and is of mortal construction. If we continue the implied rank factors from the rules, a Chaos ranked auto would be built to .2x reality. Any Amber rank strength (1x) could tear pieces of it off. Breaking a mortal car (.04x) would be easy.

I prefer to look at this in a metaphysical way, rather than actually try to sell to the Players that shadow is 'cardboard'. It is tougher to rip a limb off an Amberite. Many times tougher not even accounting for Stuff. The universe does not imagine Amberite Endurance in any way similar to a nameless car from shadow.

Amberites are not made of steel. Physics is not the explanation.

[Arref]

Excellent.

So stripping off the eloquent in-game examples.

i) No defense - Helena will go down to 6 dogs. If she defends and plays dead they might loose interest if she takes one down with Strength chances are they will frenzy and won't stop until she is literally dog meat.
ii) Against 6 dogs toe to toe Helena is likely to take a wound a round and end up pretty mauled but will probably survive. I would assume if there were more dogs to take the place of those she kills that she would go down after taking 5 or 6 of them dependant on her tactics.
iii) if she can prevent all but 1 or 2 dogs attacking her she will eventuall win and is unlikely to suffer much more than minor wounds

You got the gist of it. Your assumptions about Helena's Endurance are unsupported because we didn't build that into the example. We know she is tough, but not how tough.

In theory, six hellhounds are tougher than Helena in warfare and strength. I picked six to demonstrate that even a coordinated, trained attack of 6x could be broken down and dealt with by a 4x rank Strength.

You've got a lot of questions here... and I'm not sure I'll get to all of them. Remember this is just one GM's opinion.

So from that we can deduce some possible mechanics.

Against 6 Amber ranked oponents a high ranked player will win but take wounds if they fight tactically, loose if they offer no defense and win if they can can limit the enemies to 1 or 2 at a time (endurance might come in here but versus 6 its unlikely).

Now Arref you were using a mechanism here the 1x Amber damamge or 3x etc as a way of saying how many ranks above Amber. So the 1st ranked out of 5 would have 5 x amber ability and 5 amber ranks would be equal to them ? So does this mean in a game with 12 ranks between top and Amber the top rank is 12 times tougher than Amber rank?

No, this is tangential reasoning not supported by the rules. First ranked extends to 5x in the text examples. You might take it a step further if you think you can support that Benedict or Fiona or Brand are 6x examples for their Attributes. Endurance and Corwin are the "mechanic range" I cited for ranks. If you feel Corwin's Endurance is less impressive than Brand's Psyche, you could have a 6x.

Doesn;t that make creatures like Hell hounds relatively less tough in games with a lot of players? is that logical?

In games with a lot of players, PCs will be closer together within the 5x range. The range does not get larger. You do not get PCs with 12x ability.

Does this simplify to 3 hounds (helena 3rd rank is 3 ranks above Amber) equal Helean toe to toe. When she switches to Strength at 2nd rank she can take 4 dogs?

Very roughly, yes. Because we set the hellhounds at Amber rank. But look at the example again. Threats built up from numbers to equal a ranked character are not as tough or dangerous as the ranked character. Helena deals with 6x in the example. And notice how important tactics, choices and advantages might be in the three examples. In the first examples she's terribly injured. In the second, badly injured. In the third, hardly injured at all.

If we extrapolate that .... if the top rank warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and 2 hounds (1 + 1 ) would they be equal? would we expect a result equal to (ii) in the example where the 1st rank proably takes Helena as quickly as possible (she would no doubt go all out defense) whilst the dogs chew him a bit, or dispatch the dogs quickly to face Helena head to head, risking an attack from Helena in the interim? What if the top ranked warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and the second rank warfare (4) would they loose unless they could take an oponent out very fast ?

Coordinating attacks is very difficult in the fury of battle. Without talking through every example you ask above, I want to get across the idea that Helena and four hounds might not take First Rank (5x). Why? Because the clever First Rank will make sure that the force against is whittled down fast. It really depends on play choices. Most advantages would go to the First Rank. I would often expect First Rank to win.

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

I really don't know that you understand the examples I gave. 3rd ranked warfare should kick the snot out of two Amber ranked opponents. Again, I would expect 4th ranked (2x) to win against two Amber ranked opponents with less damage than (ii) example. Unless bad choices or bad stuff got in the way.

Anyone got any other breakdowns? I assume Arref is from the "roleplay it out and the numbers will take care of themselves side of the fence" though he does underpin his decisions with logical rules that are maintained reasonably consistantly (I am not sure you can break a dogs neck with one hand, no leverage. You might be able to crush a vertebra or a windpipe but a 200 lb mastiff in a frenzy is not an easy beast to grab and its not about strength so much as the size of your hands).

Once again, I want to be clear about the rules' conflict logic involved being tied to ranks and NOT physics.

When you suggest, "not about strength so much as the size of your hands" you are veering off into putting 'shadow science' constraints on a conflict system that is simply beyond it.

Think cinematically. Think about the PCs as protagonists in a novel.

Or, if you will, think about the notion that Strength ranked PCs have innate understanding of physics, weight, mass and velocity such that the sudden neck grip works with the dog's own momentum and direction to introduce a sudden grip, shift, change of vector that the dog's neck-discs cannot handle. The dog's own velocity mass plus expert wrench from Helena's hand snaps the neck.

Don't get so bogged down in details. You'll end up arguing physics with your players instead of having fun.

[jibbajibba]

yup this was a typo by me

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

Should have said will win (was typing fast in between an application deployment) mea culpa.

The note about breaking a dog's neck with one hand was throw away and cinematically you wouldn't be able to do it no. You could kick a dog 50 feet into the air, grab a dog and hit the other dogs with it, snap a dog's neck with  a well placed karate chop (though unlikely). Normally they would do some funny twisted head lock and then untwist ... but we digress...

Okay you seem to saying that you have this number system were top rank is 5ish and Amber is 1 and we descend in 5 mulitples down to Chaos and Human. Given that exceptional top rankers Gerard, Benedict ext might push this to 6 or even 7. Okay that seems like a reasonable set of numbers.

You didn't answer the toughie though 2 rank 1.5 versus the rank 1. How do you resolve this?
I have to think under your rule of thumb 2 bright erudite rank 1.5 (or even rank 2s ) should take your rank 1. Good tactics , a plan to take him down...

The physics arguments make no sense. If you take and army from shadow and bring it to Amber they don't have rubber swords and card armour. The reason why Amberites use swords is because its one of the few laws of physics that applies shadow wide, I stick you with a big bit of steel and you bleed a lot. Cinematically of course the Hellhound would not rip of a leg. When was the last time Mel Gibson lost a limb or even failed to get up after a 50 feet fall to concrete. My PCs rarely get killed unless it advances the plot in someway. That is what NPCs are for (look if you fight Ortha he will slice you in half with that axe see what happened to Areff...).

Overall though you have really helped. I would never reveal any of the mechanics to a player by the way so have no fear there. I make it all seem as seemless as possible. My GM problem isn't conflict resolution per se its being fair in conflict resolution. If I have 5 dogs attacking someone with 50 warfare my problem is making the result different enough from 5 dogs attacking someone with 10 warfare who uses the same tactics and has a prettier turn of phrase. I will work with a 25:5:1 ratio now and I think that will be a good template which I can chose to ignore if I want to. Interestingly you say you can extrapolte these from the rules? How so? Chaos is 10 points behind Amber and 15 points above Human I make that more of a 5:2:1 ratio or a 25:10:1 but anyway I think yours looks better.

[Arref]

yup this was a typo by me

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

Should have said will win (was typing fast in between an application deployment) mea culpa.

OK, that's cool.

Okay you seem to saying that you have this number system were top rank is 5ish and Amber is 1 and we descend in 5 mulitples down to Chaos and Human. Given that exceptional top rankers Gerard, Benedict ext might push this to 6 or even 7. Okay that seems like a reasonable set of numbers.

The rank range I cite is based entirely on pg. 20 of the rules, The Potential of Endurance. There's nothing written that suggests this data applies to all Attributes but in talking mechanic guides, it is telling. The notes are not prescriptive but much more detailed than anything else in the rules.

You didn't answer the toughie though 2 rank 1.5 versus the rank 1. How do you resolve this? I have to think under your rule of thumb 2 bright erudite rank 1.5 (or even rank 2s ) should take your rank 1. Good tactics , a plan to take him down...

As a dry response looking at the numbers with no roleplaying, First Rank would have a mythic fight against two 1.5 ranks. The fight would last a long time. First Rank would have to exploit every slight error made by her opponents to win this fight. The conflict suggests First Rank would lose. But read the rules again... in a fight like this, EW would easily rule that First Rank escapes to fight another day.

The physics arguments make no sense. If you take and army from shadow and bring it to Amber they don't have rubber swords and card armour. The reason why Amberites use swords is because its one of the few laws of physics that applies shadow wide, I stick you with a big bit of steel and you bleed a lot. Cinematically of course the Hellhound would not rip of a leg. When was the last time Mel Gibson lost a limb or even failed to get up after a 50 feet fall to concrete. My PCs rarely get killed unless it advances the plot in someway. That is what NPCs are for (look if you fight Ortha he will slice you in half with that axe see what happened to Areff...).

Think about the dichotomy of what you just wrote. You're agreeing with me that physics has 'shallow' bearing on the combat. As Otha points out, canon says the hellhounds can rip a steel fender off a moving car. As we understand danger and wounds, that suggests any hit by a hellhound might tear off a limb or chunk of flesh the size of a melon.

I think Helena should have more narrative power than that, as I understand what Zelazny shows me.

Overall though you have really helped. I would never reveal any of the mechanics to a player by the way so have no fear there. I make it all seem as seemless as possible. My GM problem isn't conflict resolution per se its being fair in conflict resolution. If I have 5 dogs attacking someone with 50 warfare my problem is making the result different enough from 5 dogs attacking someone with 10 warfare who uses the same tactics and has a prettier turn of phrase. I will work with a 25:5:1 ratio now and I think that will be a good template which I can chose to ignore if I want to. Interestingly you say you can extrapolte these from the rules? How so? Chaos is 10 points behind Amber and 15 points above Human I make that more of a 5:2:1 ratio or a 25:10:1 but anyway I think yours looks better.

Points and ranks are not the same and not intended to equate. Points are for building your character. Ranks are for playing your character. Merge them and you mess up the system.

Truth is, I do not use this rank range (25:5:1) myself. My 'house rules' are here and suggest a different range, since I like my amberites to be closer to Chaos and mortal caliber. That's how I read the canon material.

But to each his own.
I'm glad I helped.

Here's something else that might help you be more fair: "prettier turns of phrase" nudge the conflict like advantages might favor it, they do not make up for ranks unless the advantage is piled ten deep.

[jibbajibba]

Points and ranks are not the same and not intended to equate. Points are for building your character. Ranks are for playing your character. Merge them and you mess up the system.
QUOTE]

To be honest I don't use ranks at all I use bare points but assign them through an auction. Heretic!!! but each to their own ....

I know what you mean about the disparities between Amberites and Humans I am of the same base school myself.

I agree that Helena has more narrative power it's the pseudo explanation about physics that is 'dubious' and in no way mirrors the books.

[gabriel_ss4u]

I think the problem is that the question is inherently flawed.

There are no mechanical guidelines for adjudicating combat within the existing Amber system.  It says "take these things into account" but never really says how.

So I can't suggest any.  The only way to suggest guidelines would be to extend the system.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question?

I haven't finished the whole thread yet, but wow, Otha.... you really were stirring up some shit here. :stirthepot:

How-oh-how are you going to be conscious of sub-conscious actions??
Some of the things you suggest are pretty goofy. I'm not trying to pick on you... but wow.... what horse-shit.

The players settle contests on their own?
why not just have no secrets in a secrets-based game?
If 1 player is better than the other at explaining things, so what. that is their skill in communications and knowledge. The one who lacks at it, will have to learn through experience.
And if their experience happens to include some biased GM and some lawyer-type argumentative players, then most likely their gaming experience is gonna suck!
I think it's the goofiest idea to try to make this game GM-less,
who will keep track of secrets?
who will arbitrate good or bad stuff?
who will describe the scene and the enviornment?
the players?
oh, You'd probably use some pre-formulated rolling dice-chart... right?
well, that will take a long time... but who will decide battle outcomes?
I only play with really good players, so I may be spoiled and not used to so many people being unhappy or difficult with such an awesome game.
I'd love to have a gaming session with Jibbajibba, RGPundit, Wujcik, Arref, and a few others on here.
But Otha, I believe I would not enjoy gaming with you.
When your arguments would surface, I'd probably use some of that GM bias you're so afraid of....
oh.....
now it makes sense, this unnatural fear you have of it....
Well, you'd better have alota good stuff.  :wink:

[Otha]

How-oh-how are you going to be conscious of sub-conscious actions??

Exactly.

The players settle contests on their own?

Yep.

why not just have no secrets in a secrets-based game?

Because then it wouldn't be Amber.

If 1 player is better than the other at explaining things, so what. that is their skill in communications and knowledge. The one who lacks at it, will have to learn through experience.

I'd rather not have that be a factor.

And if their experience happens to include some biased GM and some lawyer-type argumentative players, then most likely their gaming experience is gonna suck!

I'd rather not have that happen.  Given that every GM is biased (due to the inability to filter out subconscious bias, as you mention earlier) it's universal.

I think it's the goofiest idea to try to make this game GM-less,
who will keep track of secrets?

This idea doesn't make the game GM-less.  It just takes the GM out of the adjudication process.

who will arbitrate good or bad stuff?

No need for it.  Act like a sonofabitch and people will treat you like one.  Stuff comes around.

who will describe the scene and the enviornment?

The GM, or the players.  

the players?

Sure.  After all, if a shadow was found by a player character, then it's the player's job to describe it.

oh, You'd probably use some pre-formulated rolling dice-chart... right?

Nope.

well, that will take a long time... but who will decide battle outcomes?

The players.  I thought that was clear.

[gabriel_ss4u]

no, you're not clear on it.
well, I guess you are, but it still doesn't make gaming-sense.
Look, Otha, I agree that players can run most everything in an Amber game.... from description of shadow to creating plot devices.... I mean, they are advancers of the story-line.
HOWEVER, the idea on keeping Stuff (G/B/&Z) I like.
It adds a character to this game that is like no other... it shouldn't be taken away.
Also
if I... as a player, have a secret... and have done something behind the scenes that I want no-one to know, my trap is set for the other player....
THEN WHAT?
If there is no GM, who will monitor secrets of the players, and implement secrets of the elders?
So some other player would have to arbitrate it?
What if i don't want any other player knowing what my PC has done?
Can I count on some other player to act within the perimeters that my 'brain re-arranging' has done?
The job of a GM is to be impartial.
If you have trouble with impartial GMs, you should realllly look for a good one... then find matching good players, and I'm sure you will have a much better time without trying to re-work all the rules.
See, I don't think you really truly have the grasp of what it is like to have a GM that has enough experience and love for the game, that they CAN be unbiased.
'I' have that experience.
My GM is like that, and has thusly taught me to be like that. (Though I admit, I'm not as good as he in total unattachment, but I'm faaaaarrr better than I was years ago.)

I believe that if you had the right group, w/  the right GM,.... you'd be singing the praises of it thereafter.
I believe if you gamed w/my group.... you'd maybe see something you're not used to....
I have been to groups with bad players and bad GMs, but I don't stay w/ those groups.
aaaaaand, I don't try to re-work core rules to exclude integral parts of the game, and I don't care what you think.... the GM IS an integral part of this system.:crazy:

And Merry Christmas everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Croaker]

Merry christmas, gabriel

Btw, you both have good points, and they are far from incompatible: A GM can let a lot of latitude to his players (in fact, some GM-power could even be an integral part of exalted powers), but is really important for all those things one wish to be secret and for surprising the players.

[Otha]

Also
if I... as a player, have a secret... and have done something behind the scenes that I want no-one to know, my trap is set for the other player....
THEN WHAT?

If NOONE knows, then it's really rather moot.  It isn't really a part of play until someone else knows, even if it's only the GM.

If there is no GM, who will monitor secrets of the players, and implement secrets of the elders?

Good question.  Given that abolishing the GM is one of the things Erick suggested, it's a valid one.

It's a bit of a straw man in this particular instance.

Let's say a player sets up a trap.  The GM hears the trap, and says, "Hm, that's pretty sneaky.  I'll rate that an eight."  He hands the player a card or something worth eight points.

Then, when the player is in a conflict and that trap goes off, he uses up that secret and gains the numeric advantage of it in the conflict.

So some other player would have to arbitrate it?

No.

What if i don't want any other player knowing what my PC has done?

Then you'll never be able to use it, because in order to use it you have to let the other PC know about it.

Can I count on some other player to act within the perimeters that my 'brain re-arranging' has done?

Good question.  I suppose it depends on the player.

The job of a GM is to be impartial.

It's the ideal of a GM to be impartial.  I've already established that it's not perfectly attainable.

If you have trouble with impartial GMs, you should realllly look for a good one... then find matching good players, and I'm sure you will have a much better time without trying to re-work all the rules.

Even a GM who tries his hardest to be completely impartial will fail.  There is no such thing.

See, I don't think you really truly have the grasp of what it is like to have a GM that has enough experience and love for the game, that they CAN be unbiased.

That's a point on which we will have to agree to disagree.  I agree that it is a laudable goal; I disagree that it is perfectly attainable.

'I' have that experience.
My GM is like that, and has thusly taught me to be like that. (Though I admit, I'm not as good as he in total unattachment, but I'm faaaaarrr better than I was years ago.)

So you have achieved GM nirvana, and even your subconscious mind is now perfectly rational as to its judgements?  Congratulations.  When is your flight to Tibet?

I believe that if you had the right group, w/  the right GM,.... you'd be singing the praises of it thereafter.

I have played under some wonderful GM's, and had wonderful games.  I have run Amber games that the players have sung praises over.  That is the foundation I am working on, not the wall I am battering down.

I believe if you gamed w/my group.... you'd maybe see something you're not used to....

Indeed.  

...
aaaaaand, I don't try to re-work core rules to exclude integral parts of the game, and I don't care what you think.... the GM IS an integral part of this system.:crazy:

You are either not reading, or being deliberately ignorant in order to erect straw men.