Resolving conflict in Amber without GM favouritism

[gabriel_ss4u]

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.

It has to do with the NPCs and they affect the PCs directly.... follow me now...
I do something secret with an NPC that affects him going after or dealing with another PC.
WHO will get this stuff across if not the GM?
some other player I don't want knowing??? If the 'otha PC can't get the info out of the NPC, I'm not in the habit of giving free information away, like RZ's Amberites.
hmmmmm, no thanks. The secret remains.

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.

the GM hears the trap???
thought there was no GM to your point?
my point FOR a GM, Secrets are one of my reasonings. If this is your point CON... I don't get it.

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.

DUH!!!:duh:
YES the other player would know about it, but not necessarily from ME.
The GM let's the PC know about it, while I, the implementor of said secret, sit on the sidelines, letting the other PC wonder who was responsible....
does this make sense??

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

No duh, it's impossible for anyone, we're human.
I believe you would be looking for that 'ideal' best impartial percentile mixed with the abilities any great GM should have.
I don't even know why you argue this point.
NO ONE LOOKS FOR A PERFECT GM, 'cause they don't exist.
BUT there are a lot of great ones, you should try mine out.

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

Is THAT in the rules?
should I have a Lecter session w/you?
did your old GM... touch you?
The crying of the 'picked on by too-partial GMs'?
Or more to the point, a GM can't fit into a rules set, category, or chart, so they don't fit in your games.
warm?

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.

Easy for you to, you haven't gamed with him.

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 don't go to that shadow, you'll have to have tea with Aunt Sand & I sometime.

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.

This helps me see your POV a bit, and I can only say, you ever gamed with our group, you'd understand.

Sorry I got away abit there.... I did think you were 'biased' on this GM issue.
I truly don't agree w/most of your points, but then, I'm not much for LARPin' either.
I like full contact LARP (LOL)

GM's RULE!!!

(Is it LARP you are talking about all the time?) / (please, if we continue this out-drawn point, lets do it on chat or mail)

[Uncle Twitchy]

In my experience, the games and LARPS that had weak, ineffective GMs or no GMs whatsoever turned into excessive PC role playing masturbation that were really, really lame. I'll take a game with a strong GM any day of the week.

[Otha]

Let me be clear, because I think the point has been lost.

The only thing I'm doing here, is removing the GM from the "conflict resolution" loop.  He still runs the NPC's, he still sets up NPC-based plots, he can still be "strong".

Once the GM has put together his NPC's, he can engage the PC's in the conflict resolution system as well.  He can even use his resources to put together NPC's that are unbeatable except by groups of PC's in cooperation.

None of anything else that GM's do is really affected very much by this idea.

[gabriel_ss4u]

In my experience, the games and LARPS that had weak, ineffective GMs or no GMs whatsoever turned into excessive PC role playing masturbation that were really, really lame. I'll take a game with a strong GM any day of the week.

That's my uncle!
(I think, damn inbred gods...)

Otha, I see your point, but I'm neither looking for a GM to be 'strong' or 'weak', I need them to be effective.
And a good GM is effective at conflict resolution.
They can add those fun 'non-biased' (as much as is possible for the individual), twists and descriptions, bringing in possible "behind the scenes" manipulations by elders or what have you.
Say player1 & player 2 have the conflict, what player1 doesn't know is that player3 is in the wings with the trap/arrow/spell/whatever, and they are hidden, and don't want player1 to know his effects in the battle, as he is allied w/ player2.
OH, guess that has to be known for the conflict to be resolved in your system...
is this correct?
(I agree it can be done, but it will lack so much dimension)

[Croaker]

I may be wrong, but I think Otha may want something like this:

Player 1 is ranked for 10 points, and has superior weaponry (+2), total 12 points
Player 2 is ranked for 5 points, but has very superior armor (+4), a clever trap prepared ahead (+4), total 13 points.
With precise criterias on what constitutes superior, very superior or owerwhelming weaponry/armor advantage... Something like the Alienoid, new Marvel rpg... system.

=>Player 2 should win by a narrow margin, but good/bad description of the fight by either of them may modify the counts by +/-4, allowing either palyer 1 to win, or player 2 to win more easily.

This reposes mostly upon defined criterias and charts, thus minimizing the "subconscious bias of the GM" otha talks about.

=> He still wants a GM, but he wants him to have less judgments to make about the outcome of a conflict.
=> You should be able to find a common ground.

[gabriel_ss4u]

his sounds like a good way for a GM to playtest NPCs.
But a good way to play a campaign? Nahhh
Otha, is there a way to perform the situation I mentioned without a GM?
and if so, by whom? a random non-involved in the plot player?
See, the secrets make it impossible to impliment thm without the GM, unless you want everyone, or someone, knowing who did what.
Secrets DO NOT have to be divulged to be enacted. They simply have to be implemented by a player to the GM.
(NON-LARP)

[Nihilistic Mind]

In a LARP, you would want the GM to be aware of a PC's secret ( well, in any game, really ). Especially if that secret involves another PC.
I imagine that the GM would then 'want' to be present to resolve 'that' paritcular conflict.
But let's say there's one GM to 12 players, normal conflict resolution could still be achieved without the GM making a call so that several conflicts can be resolved simultaneously to keep people playing rather than waiting for the GM.

[Croaker]

Yup, LARPs usually depends on players being fair and not cheating to determine the outcome of fights.

[jibbajibba]

Otha isn't saying do away with GMs he is saying use a more structured framework for conflict resolution that removes the GMs need to determine each conflict situation in a one off and possibly arbitary way.

You can't just make a list of combat modifiers because conflict in Amber can take on a load of forms.

Most games say conflict is resolved by taking your stats and my stats comparing them and then adding in a random die roll. In essence my stats come to 5 yours come to 6 I rolled 3 for a total of 8 you rolled 3 for a total of nine you win.

In Amber we have no dice, obvioulsy, so the core rules say if my stats are 5 and yours are 6 you win. But that would be pretty dull so description and roleplay take the place of dice but the GM needs to interpret the 'value' of this new variable and its in the nature of people that some of their 'dice' will be 'loaded'.

I think, and I may well be putting words into Otha's mouth in absentia, that Otha is looking for more detail on the extra bits. That is all. He isn't looking to get rid of GMs, so secret stuff isn't an issue he isn't looking to move to GMless games. He just wants some more formal rules on now to negotiate this stuff.

I think its nigh on impossible because of ranks. If the game were to use raw points in place of ranks it would be easier because then you could have numerical values (probably for levels of clever tricks as opposed to actual specific ones) for stuff and it would be easier. With ranks it becomes so much harder. A difference of 3 ranks in my game where I have 4 players is very different to one in your game where you have 10 players.

Did I start to rant there and go off topic .... hmmm.. maybe

[Otha]

Secrets DO NOT have to be divulged to be enacted. They simply have to be implemented by a player to the GM.

This is self-contradictory.  A secret must be divulged to the GM to be enacted.

Furthermore, a secret that is held by the player and known to the GM but never used in a conflict is pointless.  

If the GM then says, "Okay, that's worth four points under such-and-such circumstances" and hands a note (or whatever) to the player, then that player doesn't need the GM around to use the secret.  The player can then just use the note in a conflict to get the extra points.  The GM's job is done.

Allowing secrets to be used once before they're gone is quite canon given that each of Corwin's dirty tricks gets used precisely once.

[Otha]

I think its nigh on impossible because of ranks.

I *am* doing away with ranks.  

As for the opportunities for roleplaying and handling combat "round by round" as it were, the system has that too, though I'm not talking about that here.   You're right, it's a bit offtopic.

[jibbajibba]

I don't think Gabriel is talking about stuff like Corwin's dirty tricks. (Hey  I am trying to explain what i think somebody else thinks again...)
I think Gabriel, and correct me if I am wrong , is talking about specific things in character background.

I have an example. I have a character called Hugo. Hugo has mid ranked warfare, however he also has an intelligent blade. This blade as well as being able to speak and sing and rack and use named spells can also manipulate shadow reality and has Low ranked Amber warfare.
In a combat situation if Hugo does not think he can win quickly he always swtiches to a defensive stance and tries to stop himself getting killed. Meanwhile his sword, and its called Severitus, is looking for options. The sword will try to manipulate the current shadow to give Hugo an advantage, a rug might become gathered up such that a retreating foot could get caught on it, a candle might gut out leaving the room in darkness to allow Hugo's escape. In desperate circumstances Servitus is like to use one of its racked spells to either teleport Hugo to another location, Increase his strength immnesely or do any one of the dozen or so tricks it has been prepped with.
These things are perhaps more akin to the secrets that Gabriel is refering to.
In a fight with a guy ranked above him. I as a player do not want to have to declare that my enchanted blade manipulated reality I just want my opponent to trip over, I don't want to let my opponent know that when I disappeared in a puff of green smoke it was my sword. Let them think that I have strong allies, or can cast magic with no lynchpins whilst in conflict.

In addition to this Hugo , in a fit of Pique, once seeded the Tarot case in Amber's Library with a number of unusual trumps. Most of these were trump traps set there for no other reason than to spread confusion and distraction whilst he worked towards darker aims. When another player took one of this trumps and fell into a trump trap I didn't want Hugo to have to reveal it was his trump or that it was constructed with x much psyche that was enough to overcome that character and suck them in. Without a GM this would simply be impossible. The GM knows the strength of the trap and its effect. The trap at no point is revealed to the other players and even its victim is unaware of its origin. You would be unable to resolve this conflict without GM intervention. You could of course assign it some sort of 'value' which added to Hugo's psyche would determine its effect and this value should be set and perhaps derived from some 'official' source (where we can accept the rule book as official).

Does that make any sense at all to anyone appart from me?

[Otha]

Hugo has mid ranked warfare, however he also has an intelligent blade. This blade as well as being able to speak and sing and rack and use named spells can also manipulate shadow reality and has Low ranked Amber warfare.

In my system, Hugo's blade would be a stat of its own that could be invoked in the conflict system.  The rules under which it could be invoked would depend on the item in question, but items, shadows, and other such tricks (and they're all tricks) are always less available than pure attributes.

For example, Hugo's sword wouldn't be able to help him as much in Amber, because it can't alter shadow there.

After an enemy learns about it, he'd be able to take steps to make it less useful.  Confront Hugo in Amber; throw a bunch of earth elementals at him first to eat up spells; what have you.

Hugo's blade is no different from Corwin's Black Grass.  It's a trick he's got up his sleeve.  The only difference is that Hugo's blade is useful in a more diverse set of circumstances.  

Now you may be saying that you don't like this system because it makes your Hugo's sword less powerful than attributes.  I call that a feature, not a bug.  There's no way, in my system, to create an item (or trick) that's unbeatable.  Amber has plenty of "cheats" in the Item rules (and other stuff) that have to be beaten down with GM fiat in order to keep the game balanced.

[Otha]

In addition to this Hugo , in a fit of Pique, once seeded the Tarot case in Amber's Library with a number of unusual trumps... Most of these were trump traps set there for no other reason than to spread confusion and distraction whilst he worked towards darker aims. When another player took one of this trumps and fell into a trump trap I didn't want Hugo to have to reveal it was his trump or that it was constructed with x much psyche that was enough to overcome that character and suck them in. Without a GM this would simply be impossible. The GM knows the strength of the trap and its effect. The trap at no point is revealed to the other players and even its victim is unaware of its origin. You would be unable to resolve this conflict without GM intervention. You could of course assign it some sort of 'value' which added to Hugo's psyche would determine its effect and this value should be set and perhaps derived from some 'official' source (where we can accept the rule book as official).

You know, I hadn't thought of general dickery as an option.  Usually, when someone is laying a trap, he's laying it for a specific person or group of people.  

Do you play the style where the player can know nothing that the character doesn't know?  It sounds like it.

Joe walks up to three other players.  All of them have characters in Castle Amber.  "Livingston is laying a trap in Amber, but he doesn't really care who falls into it.  He's just being a dick.  Which of you would like to be the one to have a go at it?"

Kathy says, "Oh, I'll have Aimee be the one.  She needs a good reason to be mad at someone.  Will she know who it is?"

Joe: "Well, it's a trump trap.  Aimee doesn't know Livingston has Trump, does she?"

Kathy: "No, but it'll give her a good reason to investigate.  Sure.  So how does it go down?"

blah blah blah...

[jibbajibba]

You know, I hadn't thought of general dickery as an option.  Usually, when someone is laying a trap, he's laying it for a specific person or group of people.  

Do you play the style where the player can know nothing that the character doesn't know?  It sounds like it.

Joe walks up to three other players.  All of them have characters in Castle Amber.  "Livingston is laying a trap in Amber, but he doesn't really care who falls into it.  He's just being a dick.  Which of you would like to be the one to have a go at it?"

Kathy says, "Oh, I'll have Aimee be the one.  She needs a good reason to be mad at someone.  Will she know who it is?"

Joe: "Well, it's a trump trap.  Aimee doesn't know Livingston has Trump, does she?"

Kathy: "No, but it'll give her a good reason to investigate.  Sure.  So how does it go down?"

blah blah blah...

You are right players only know what their characters know and the above conversation would simply never happen in any of my games. For starters in conversation everyone uses first person. Never been discussed its just how we do it. And the whole nature of that conversation is simply ... well not Amber old boy.
And yes Hugo is a bit of a dick but he is a Clever Dick. Suffice it to say the trump traps furthered his schemes in a very useful sense.
I don't agree at all that a trap is usually aimed at a specific person. Its usually used to protect a particular thing from any person that turns up and not knowing who the bad guy is who you can trust and who is just screwing with you is simply how Amber needs to be played.