[Long] GM Refusal to Explain Ruling

[Loki]

Tony, to clarify something, you said that you were caught off guard by what Captain's actions meant about your social contract.

Were you taken off guard by Captain's PC's actions, and the extent to which he'd gotten the drop (rules-wise) on the other character? If so, what was it about letting the other character counter Captain's PC's actions that was important?

I think I'm having a tough time getting my head around what the issue was from your perspective.

[TonyLB]

[ Edited to reduce confrontational tone. ]

No, his characters actions themself gave me no pause.  The issue was that, having issued a ruling, I was a little surprised to have the Captain insist that I justify it to his satisfaction.

Not that it's an unreasonable thing to ask if the social contract supports it, just that I hadn't had any other PCs asking it to that point in the game.  I had fallen into a complacent assumption that we had tacitly agreed that people would accept that final rules-authority rested with the GM, even when they didn't agree with the particulars of how I'd interpreted the rules.

But it was only one incident, and I extrapolated immediately to the hypothetical case where every ruling would be treated that way.  That's entirely my fault, and something I deeply regret having handled so poorly.

[captain_bateson]

It never even occurred to me that you were surprised by my request for an explanation. In fact, while I was waiting for the ruling, you popped in and out a couple of times without posting, and I told a friend of mine on the phone, "Uh-oh. I think he's going to pull a GM Forcefield and he doesn't want to post it while I'm here, because he knows how quickly he'll hear about it."

I actually assumed that you knew I would say something, given both my propensity to question things throughout my time in the game, and the abundance of GM Forcefields in Amber games. That's kind of interesting. Had you ever seen a GM Forcefield before, or used one before as a GM? I'm just wondering if you knew how common it is. That could be a difference in experience at work: I've seen GM Forcefields over and over again for over fifteen years and it never occurred to me that you might not be aware of how common and frustrating they are. Thus, it never occurred to me for an instant that you would be surprised by my response. As I said, I rather thought you expected it.

I would like to as a couple of questions. I don't mean them to be confrontational, but if they come across that way, please feel free to ignore them. I don't need an explanation anymore, but I am still curious.

When you posted the ruling, were you aware that it would be difficult for me to understand in the context of the rules?

And,

When I challenged the ruling, did you ever make the connection between your hard-line stance about never throwing out the rules and why I was challenging?

I ask in part because, I believe, you are aware of the scene in the Pattern room in the other game in which you and I both play (yes, Tony and I are both players in another game together). Did you happen to notice that when I tried to knock Tybalt out in the Pattern room, and he supposedly had both a physical AND a mental Pattern defense up, so I couldn't hit him, that I didn't challenge the ruling? (Even though it was overturned anyway).

That was because, in that game, we're using that goofy partial-powers system, and I didn't know whether or not he could do that. I thought it seemed awfully powerful and unbalancing (especially since he was also on a Trump at the time), but I couldn't tell if the rules forbid it or not (the rules we're using from this website are really, really, ill-defined). I'm guessing you never put together the fact that I didn't challenge that ruling but challenged this one, though my character was foiled by a power character in both instances. The difference being, simply, that in the other game the established rules seemed to allow it, but in your game, the established rules (in this case, the actual ADR rulebook rules) didn't.

Of course, that's probably not fair. It's not like you sit around thinking about my characters all day. :^)

Anyway, Tony (or anyone else, of course), answer if you so desire. Thanks!

[TonyLB]

When you posted the ruling, were you aware that it would be difficult for me to understand in the context of the rules?

No I was not.

When I challenged the ruling, did you ever make the connection between your hard-line stance about never throwing out the rules and why I was challenging?

Well that's difficult to answer.

Or, rather, I immediately drew the connection between the phrase "hard-line rules stance" and your objection.  But I'm no longer sure I know what you meant by it.

I had declared that I would not contravene the rules in order to achieve "desirable" story outcomes.  In Forge terms, I intended to make it clear that the Karma system wasn't going to have a whole lot of wiggle room.  The balance of attributes and relevant powers would control outcomes, who wins and how quickly, and details like what weapons and tactics you're using, or how important it is to your character to win the battle, would have little if any effect.

But there's this other thing that I think you may be saying which is quite different, and which I really wasn't geared to hear.  You seem to be implying that you read the ADRPG rules as a system of cause and effect rules for simulating reality, and that I had promised to objectively apply those rules, starting from first causes and proceeding mathematically to the final result.

Now these may seem similar, but I think that in practice they are often opposites.  I'm going to put out a (hopefully) short example.

Tremont duels with Benedict.  In the course of having all of his internal organs perforated in alphabetical order, Tremont manages to score exactly one miniscule scrape on Benedict's pinky.

Now the fun part:  This having been established, Tremont reminds the GM that his blade is covered with a deadly and instantaneous poison.

Hard Karma:  "Ah, well then you didn't even manage to get the pinky wound."  The pole star of the ruling is that Tremont loses because of the attributes.  The question of whether or not Benedict gets cut is secondary.

Hard Cause & Effect:  "Benedict gasps once and keels over, dead."  The pole star of the ruling is that Benedict was cut.  The question of whether this implies a band-aid or a pine box is secondary.

Before I chatter too much about how this theory changes the way I perceive our misunderstanding... am I even vaguely on the right track about how you see "hard line rules"?

[captain_bateson]

Wow. It never occurred to me, not once, that it wasn't obvious to you before you posted that the ruling didn't fit the rules. Uh... I've been trying to figure out what to say for twenty minutes, but I've got nothin'.

I, uh, don't understand your examples. Um... it seems to me that the difference is that in hard cause and effect is that the GM's mistakes can effect the game? I don't think that's your point, is it?

The balance of attributes and relevant powers would control outcomes, who wins and how quickly,

Uh... I knew about your karmic idea from reading it on Shadows of Amber, though I didn't at all understand that's what you meant by "not throwing the rules out the window." I'm really confused...

You seem to be implying that you read the ADRPG rules as a system of cause and effect rules for simulating reality, and that I had promised to objectively apply those rules, starting from first causes and proceeding mathematically to the final result.

Wha...? Um, I don't understand. I did think that if the book says Shape Shifting takes two minutes, then it takes two minutes. Is that what you mean? I don't think I'm reading you. Are you saying that your "karmic" system takes all of each character's abilities into account and weighs them without consideration of things like that powers take time to use? Is that even close?

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Captain & Tony, the last few posts are grading back into "justify what you said to me earlier" territory. If you want to go that route (which I, anyway, think is only destined for suffering), then it's gotta be by private message or email.

Unless either of you can raise an issue that's suitable for community discourse, we oughta call the thread closed. Let me know.

Best,
Ron

[captain_bateson]

I agree, Ron. I understand what happened now and that all I could do was walk away.

[DannyK]

As the player of the Chaos Lord in the scene under discussion, I've been loath to enter the discussion, but I wanted to add this: I think Capt B. is an excellent player, and Tony is an excellent GM.  It's unfortunate that things didn't work out, but they obviously didn't.

[captain_bateson]

Thanks. I enjoyed playing with you. It's really too bad it worked out this way. Other than when Tony and I were talking past each other, I really enjoyed the game. I miss it.

[Eszed]

Wait! Wait!  I've been too fascinated by this discussion to want it to end with a whimper of 'well, we'll just agree to disagree'.  

Captain, it seems like an (initially) simple situation to me.  You, through your character's actions, tried to affect the game world in a particular way, and were told that it wouldn't work.

It seems like your initial reaction to may reveal a deeper fear: that if your character's abilities are less important within the game world then your creative input (as a player) will be curtailed.  

Is that fair?

I've run into that frustration in other games, usually because the system is broken, but here it seems like you are afraid that your character's attributes are being made less important  (the GM Forcefield -- great phrase).

Hence your appeal to 'the rules', which in this context you felt offered you (or any Warfare-using PC) more opportunity for creative input than Tony was willing to allow.

I don't know why Tony wasn't willing to let you have that creative control -- maybe he thinks Warfare abilities are inherently uninteresting, maybe he thinks your ideas of where you want the story to go are totally the wrong direction, maybe he doesn't like you personally – or maybe he has some reasons that really aren't dysfunctional at all.  I'm going to ask him some things in another post.

Am I onto something here?  I get the sense that you put a lot of time into this character and into creating the setting for this game.  Could your reaction to what happened in game be motivated by the fear that your input is being devalued?

[Eszed]

[edit.  eh.  damn double posts.  sorry]

[Eszed]

Tony, I understand your distinction between Hard Karma and Hard Cause and Effect, and I think they imply two different approaches to running games and creating game worlds.  I even think I prefer your approach to the one that Captain seems to prefer.

However, I think that issue is a red herring.

I agree with Valimir, and I'd like to see you address this :

I'm thinking that this whole issue boils down to trust: whether Captain B trusted Tony to not use his GM power to hose him and whether Tony was deserving of that trust.

Specifically:

What direction did you WANT the scene between Captain and Danny's PCs to go?  What was the Hard Karma in mind when you made the ruling you did?

And, even more importantly:  What direction were you AFRAID the scene would go if you'd let Captain's PC get that attack off?

Because it seems that there is another layer of trust involved: your trust in him not to use his character's abilities (or, as he would say, 'the rules') to inhibit your (or anyone else's) creative input to the game world.  

Did you (do you) trust him not to hose you and the other players?

[Eszed]

DannyK,  I have a question for you, too.  It doesn't sound as if you played any part in these negotiations (this argument, as it turned out).  I'm not at all familiar with the Amber system, but it seems (from reading this forum) that rulings are meant to be negotiated between participants, which might certainly include you.

Why did you not get involved?

It sounds like Captain's action, had it succeeded, would have put your character at grave risk, and so Tony's ruling (possibly) saved your character's butt.

Maybe I'm making an unfair assumption here, but is it possible that your complacency about a dispute about a situation which involved your character is just a little bit like hiding behind the GM to protect 'your guy'.

I don't know what kind of player Captain is, but could you have offered to resolve the dispute between him and Tony by saying something like 'hey, guys, let's say he hits me once and runs away'?  Do you think he would have taken advantage of this opening to kill your character?

[captain_bateson]

Eszed,

I don't think it's about creative control or input. I think it's mostly about transferrence: I hate feeling impotent. I feel impotent all the time in real life, since there are so many things I can't control. So, when the GM Forcefield comes up, I feel like my character has been rendered impotent and thus, at least within the realm of that game, I have been rendered impotent as well. I like my characters to be active and have control of their own destinies (which is why I play Amber and not Call of Cthulhu), and when I feel that is taken away, I become angry. If bad things happen to my character fair and square, I don't complain or mind. But I do mind when I feel that the GM ruled against me in order to accomplish some metagame agenda and my character is being sacrificed for it. Does that make sense?

Probably not. I'm kind of complicated. I'm not even sure why I do things sometimes. But I think it's something like this.

[DannyK]

Eszed, I dunno; I try very hard to be a peaceful person and I think that, a lot of the time, agreeing to disagree is a damn fine idea, in gaming and elsewhere.  In fact, that's part of why I like gaming: my characters are usually highly verbal and opinionated, even spiteful.  When the spitefulness spills out of the game into the gaming group, I don't like it.  And I'm comfortable with being that way, honestly.  

I did talk a little OOC with Capt B about possible ways the combat could go and try to assure him that I had no intention of trying to kill his character or keep her from her mission.  I was just looking for a good barroom brawl scene, actually. I'm a simple man. :)

Just to speak to the situation: the combat had not really gone very far, it seemed to me that neither character was in serious danger of death -- there were too many options for escape on either side.  I genuinely think it was a disagreement about "the way things oughta work", not a matter of people pushing or bending the rules because they were afraid of losing their guy.  In fact, both Capt B. and I had already shown admirable willingness to let our characters get screwed with in the service of a cracking good story.  

And that's about all I have to say about the matter, I think.

Edit: just noticed that Capt. B. cross-posted with me.  I think he put his finger on the most important issue here, and probably the biggest difference in play styles between him and I.  Almost all of my characters, by design, either want something impossible for them or are dreaming of something they lost... the Chaos Lord in this game, for example, is working for Amber against Chaos, even though his sympathies are basically the other way around.  He's a walking contradition that can never get straightened out.  Almost all my characters, in whichever game I play, are broken in some essential way.  Seeing them get hosed a little more adds to the fun.  Despite what I wrote above, I'm guessing Capt. B. doesn't feel that way.