[Amber] Jonesing for constraint

[TonyLB]

So the saga of attempting narrativism in Amber DRPG continues...

We're at an interesting phase.  The players have gotten past the novelty of being able to take over some of the GM duties.  And now they're looking around, trying to figure out where the trail of breadcrumbs is that their characters are supposed to follow to get to the "real plot".  As part of the search they've been trying to shut down as many "distracting side-plots" as they can.

We worked at cross-purposes for a while :-)

I've now opened a dialogue with them about how much of the plot they expect the GM to dictate/force, and how much they want to have emerge from their characters choices.  So far I'm hearing roughly "eighty-twenty", which is to say that they want most of the plot to be determined by the GM, and they want their characters to be forcibly hooked into this plot, but they also want the scope to tell important stories on their own.  

I'm not entirely sure I know what that means, but I think that the players feel more comfortable when they have a fairly constrained scope of action... the ability to do anything gives them too many options to choose from.

So here's my question:  How do I apply constraints to their characters without provoking an adversarial relationship with the players?  Particularly if folks tend to respond in "my-guy" thinking, allowing the characters perceived motivations to influence the players thoughts, rather than vice-versa?

[Callan S.]

Scuse this if it isn't a very forgish suggestion:
1. Ask and guess what they want thier PC's to go through
2. create something like 10 problematic scenes and/or elements aplicable to #1 and then get them to choose something like 5 to 7 of them as the ones their PC actually goes through.

This gives creative focus. Obviously you want them to be able to tweak the scenes as well to fit the story they want to tell, but that could involve something similar to this suggestion as well. It's sort of like rolling 4D6 and dropping the lowest, in a way! ;)

Man, but I can't say I'm being technical or deep in my responce here.

[Andrew Martin]

How do I apply constraints to their characters without provoking an adversarial relationship with the players?  Particularly if folks tend to respond in "my-guy" thinking, allowing the characters perceived motivations to influence the players thoughts, rather than vice-versa?

I found Fang Langford's posts in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4994 very helpful.

[Mike Holmes]

How do I apply constraints to their characters without provoking an adversarial relationship with the players? Particularly if folks tend to respond in "my-guy" thinking, allowing the characters perceived motivations to influence the players thoughts, rather than vice-versa?

Have you considered that it's the system that's the problem? That is might not be supporting what you want to do?

Amber has this problem in that the only way to "win" if you're on the recieving end of the stick - have a lower stat - is to convince the GM to change the trait used in the contest. Which means that the GM has to "judge" when one attempted change is good enough, and when another is not. In the end, how can the GM end up not seeming like they're biased? Moreover they end up essentially sitting in judgement of the play of the player, meaning that the player has to see the GM as a sort of adversary to be overcome.

The whole game is permeated with this sort of problem.

What your players are asking for is "The Impossible Thing" (from the narrativism essay). What they really want, likely, is somthing like Bang driven play ala Sorcerer. This is what Callan's suggesting in short form. How familiar are you with it?

Mike

[TonyLB]

Mike, is your concern about the rules system inherent in Karma-based resolution, or is it specifically the way that Amber encourages players to avoid their karma rather than embrace it?

FWIW, I have problems with ADRPG as well (almost as many things I dislike as things I love), but my main gripe is more about how it encourages people to think that they should be playing characters who have already been perfected and completed.  It often makes it hard to get people to appreciate the wonder of being asked a question about motives and principles and realizing that your character does not know the answer, and needs to figure it out.

As for driving with Bangs, I have been trying to do so, but I am very inexpert.  I've had middling success, but many of the character decisions have been aimed at the impossible goal of returning to the pre-game status quo.

[Mike Holmes]

Amber is not karma based resolution. OK, I said that for shock value. But if the rules were that you were allowed to declare a contest, and then checked values, and the higher won, period, that would be karma.

Karma is when in Hero System it says that STR 10 can life 100KG. The GM looks at the box you say you want to lift, see's that it's only 50KGs, and tells you that you can lift it.

In Amber, the text suggests that what the players should do is to try to manipulate the situation in such a way as to cause the arena to shift from one comparison to another. The GM has no real rules for deciding if a particular description should work or not. So he has to fall back on his sense of Drama (remember that includes plausibility). Amber is really a Drama resolution system, and one that has very little framework.

And Ron speculates (and I wholeheartedly agree) that Drama without structure is a highly stressful way to handle resolution. As I said, the GM has to be a judge of the player's ability. Personally, I would probably just nod at whatever anyone said, so as not to be seen as competing with the players (and if you don't just allow anything, then you will be seen as the "hurdle" that they have to overcome). Meaning that nothing would ever get resolved. Worse, in this case, since you often have PVP competition this means that the GM is put in the position of having to choose between each player as to who is doing the best job of describing the situation. Meaning that he can't help but be seen as biased when both players think that they did the best job of trying to manipulate the scene.

It's just fraught with peril. At the very least, it promotes an odd Gamism, which would explain everything that you've experienced so far.

I see now the problem - you may be doing the bangs completely correctly, but the players are thinking that the input is illusionist. Classic problem, actually. And not easy to get out of. I've tried to solve this problem before. Some things that I've advocated (but which haven't always worked):

1. Being obvious about player power: What this means is just abdicating the GM role in all ways but as traffic cop. Make the players set up the scenes. Have them narrate all of the resolutions. Hand over to them all the normal powers of the GM, and let them drive for a while. Once they see how it works, then they can hand you back the power with trust that you aren't doing anything behind the scenes.

2. Narrativist Illusionism: If you were a really good illusionist GM previously, you might be able to get away with this. Tell them that you're moving to an "open" form of play where nobody controls the plot. You, as GM control the world, and they as players control their characters. Then, disguised as "just having the world do what it does," spring the bangs on them anyhow. It's possible to do this with it seeming completely like "just having the world do what it does." This way they think that it's an open game, and have nothing to "defend" against.

3. Play something else: Play a game of InSpectres or Soap. Once they've done that, they'll see the other possibilities much more clearly. Then you may be able to return to your original game with a new CA.

4. Talk to them: explain this very complicated issue in some detail, but without the jargon if possible. Continue the discussion into play. When the next scene happens, and you spring a bang on them say something like, "Now, this NPC is just doing this so that you have an interesting choice here. I have no idea what you're going to do, but your choice will determine where the plot goes next. If you try to minimalize it under the assumption that I'm trying to lure you into some trap or something you'll have missed the point of the encounter, which is to give you the authority here to dictate where the story goes.


I dunno. It's a hard row to hoe. Maybe if they're the analytical type you can have them lurk here and figure it out on their own. Another thing to try is to have them lurk on a game at IndieNetgaming - seeing how those go often is enlightening to people.

In any case, good luck, you may need it. It may happen that with these players, and with these rules that you just can't make it work. If so, consider changing one of the factors involved.

Mike

[TonyLB]

I got a perfect chance to tell somebody "This encounter was meant to give you the chance to determine where the plot goes next, so embrace it rather than defusing it."

And it worked... in a way.  The player came back and said "I don't have anything brilliant in mind.  You're the GM.  You think of something."

Which was a lovely opening, actually.  I got to just say "No, that's not how it works," and pull out a team-sports metaphor, highlighting that she is in the game to play, whether she's the best player on the field or the worst.

Seems to have worked pretty well in the single instance.  Under that prompting she came back with some nice possible thematic conflicts, we picked one, and we're cooperatively working the situation around to address it.

So thanks!  Your advice has been very helpful... as has your assurance that it is, in fact, a difficult task.  It's nice to know, when I find it hard, that it's not just because I'm a wimp :-)