[Amber] Two Sessions: Narrativism and Hardcore Gamism

[Mikko Lehtinen]

It's surprisingly hard to analyze the session or even my own motives for my actions. And maybe the GNS issues are complicating things in my mind more than helping. I notice that my posts are often contradicting each other. That's because this issue is a very emotional one for me, and it's hard to analyze one's own emotions. I don't think very much when I play Istwan, I just do what feels good at the moment.

Why did I feel it was a breach in the social contract?

Ginger: yeah, it definately felt unfair that the theft had happened when I wasn't there. Also, the theft forced me to stop thinking about any of the "real" issues on the table until this seemingly stupid issue with Salvador was solved. I wouldn't have wanted to. And with Amber's rules, conflicts between PCs can be very stressful, so much that I've often thought that it's better to avoid them. Feeling tired, I wasn't sure if I can handle it.

But maybe the breach wasn't that bad, after all. I felt like it was, at first. But maybe I was just conflict-shy, and I really was afraid of Salvador (and Robert?).

I had been Banged, but it came from an unexpected person, who I wasn't taking very seriously. It started with the Trumps, but after I accepted the challenge, it didn't actually get stupid at all. I had just made friends with Salvador, and I hated bringing that old rivalry on the table. But talk didn't do no good!

Thinking again, I'm not sure if I was playing Gamist after all, or whether Robert was. Sure it was a Challenge, for both the characters and players, and sure we both wanted to win. But there wasn't that much tactics involved.

Istwan was raising the Stakes, refusing to play-fight with Salvador. I think Salvador felt bad when he realized that this fight would hurt Nina. "Is rivalry between cousins more important than helping another cousin?" We both had to answer this question.

The conflict has always had real bite. This is the first time, I think, that it has turned into play-fight at all. I'm not sure what it means. Maybe it means that it's a time to form a real friendship between Istwan and Salvador? Because there's no hate left, just a an empty longing for violence. Sometimes violence isn't what it seems.

Oh, and there was a woman we both loved and were trying to protect, cousin Viola. She was forced to pick a side, too.

Viola's a twisted one, she sure thinks that violence is a form of intimacy. She was the only one who was trying to hurt Salvador seriously, but at the same time it seemed like she was actually flirting with Salvador.

The conflict ended with Istwan assaulting Salvador at an unexpected moment, and most of the other cousins quickly joined the fray, on Istwan's side. The actual fight wasn't that long. We had used the rest of the session by raising the stakes.

Yeah, it all fits the Amber theme. Maybe I'd better stop worrying too much, because everybody *did* have fun, and we did address the premise. Fuck, I take back my words that we were playing Gamist.

And maybe I should learn to take Robert more seriously. I do want to keep this rivalry as a subject of play, even though it is hot to touch. I can't keep backing away from this conflict, it's too important for that. The conflict left many unanswered questions on the table, and I'm looking forward to finding answers.

Good advice, contracycle.

EDIT: At the moment I'm ready to form a friendship with Salvador. I've got many good reasons to do that. But if that doesn't work out, I'm ready to kill the bastard. No more games.

[TonyLB]

Oh man... "I've grown to like you, and I want to be friends, but first we have to resolve this conflict... by my winning it, once and for all."  What a splendid basis for a sibling rivalry.

It sounds like a terrific thing to explore between Salvador and Istwan.  It plays exactly into the theme of "What is family?"  Can Istwan and Salvador see that they're trapped in that pattern?  Can their peers see?  Does it even matter anymore which side is right or wrong, stronger or weaker?  Are they such a polarizing influence that they, on their own, are helping to tear their peer group asunder?  And if so, even if the rivalry is really that bad, would unilateral surrender be any better?

It also sounds like, maybe, you're exploring these same questions between Mikko and Robert, and that's clouding the issue.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Oh man... "I've grown to like you, and I want to be friends, but first we have to resolve this conflict... by my winning it, once and for all."  What a splendid basis for a sibling rivalry.

Yes indeed! :-)

It also sounds like, maybe, you're exploring these same questions between Mikko and Robert, and that's clouding the issue.

Yeah, you're right.