[Long] GM Refusal to Explain Ruling

[John Kim]

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.  

Well, unless I'm misreading something, I don't see a Creative Agenda mismatch here at all.  Both Bateson and Tony were agreed that story issues shouldn't influence the results of the combat.  The tricky question is about whether details like how long it takes to raise Logrus will influence the combat.  i.e. This is actually a technical disagreement, not necessarily a split over agenda.  

As I understand it, Tony is saying that in his interpretation of the Amber rules, such details aren't important or binding.  He determines the outcome of the combat primarily based on some fixed comparison of attributes and relevant powers.  This takes precedence over descriptive details in the rules like whether Logrus requires concentration and the described situation.  So description like throwing the chair don't change the results of the combat.  (Presumably there is some effect, so being naked and bound hand and foot might give you some penalty when fighting, but not much.)  

I think that Captain Bateson wasn't aware of that.  He thought that tactical action based on the definitions in the rules would have an effect.

[captain_bateson]

John,

Within the game itself, I don't think the idea of the strict Karmic combat resolution was explained. However, I had read a thread on an Amber website where Tony had put forth such an idea. But, from my reading of that thread, I still wouldn't have expected the system that was actually used.

He'd proposed that when two warfare characters faced off, the fight would be determined entirely karmically, ie, the character with the highest warfare wins, no matter tactics or strategy. The idea is intended (and please speak up, Tony, if I am misrepresenting anything here) to prevent someone with greater fencing knowledge, for instance, talking his or her way into beating a player with higher Warfare but no fencing knowledge. And to prevent a player from babbling on and on about what his character is doing in the fight in the hopes of hitting some magic phrase that will make the GM allow his or her actions (I dislike this in Amber too, mostly in regards to powers). I, personally, have a lot of problems with this method of resolution, but that's not relevant here (maybe a thread...?)

Anyway, I still thought that, even using this strictly karmic method of combat resolution, that things like the amount of time to raise the Logrus and such would be in play. I don't necessarily think that strict karmic resolution means that those kind of factors are left out, since they are factors within the game world affecting the resolution, not things outside the game world affecting resolution (such as a player's fencing knowledge).

So, ultimately, I never realized that we were using a strictly karmic system, but, even if we were, I would still have expected the combat to go much differently, because it was not obvious to me in any way that a strictly karmic system would get rid of things like the time to raise the Logrus and such. Does that make any sense?

And yes, since I didn't think we were using a strictly karmic system, I did think that my character's actions in the combat would matter. That is true. I did think that throwing a chair in order to more quickly hit my opponent and keep him from raising the Logrus would have an effect. Even under the strict karma system, as I understood it, the chair still would have hit my opponent, based on my character's superior warfare, just not any faster than had I just ran up to attack him. But I never understood that the system would take out the priniciple limitation on powers, their time factors.

Assuming that's what happened or how the system worked. I'm not even sure that's what happened. I think so, but I still don't really know what the ruling really was, but this is my best guess.

[John Kim]

The idea is intended (and please speak up, Tony, if I am misrepresenting anything here) to prevent someone with greater fencing knowledge, for instance, talking his or her way into beating a player with higher Warfare but no fencing knowledge.
...
Anyway, I still thought that, even using this strictly karmic method of combat resolution, that things like the amount of time to raise the Logrus and such would be in play. I don't necessarily think that strict karmic resolution means that those kind of factors are left out, since they are factors within the game world affecting the resolution, not things outside the game world affecting resolution (such as a player's fencing knowledge).  

Actually, I think the same principle still applies -- i.e. under the pure karmic system, player skill in coming up with effective plans shouldn't influence the outcome, because that means that the result was decided by player skill rather than character skill.  Choice of tactics like throwing a chair to disrupt concentration are dependent on player skill, and the Karmic system tries to minimize that influence.  i.e. A player who just says "I try to beat him" will do just as well as you who had carefully pondered the implications of the various powers.  

Of course, this approach means that you as player can't do much to influence the fight, and specifying more detail may just be a problem for believability (i.e. the player of a master of warfare PC describing flawed tactics or vice-versa).  It also means that the fight can't be described in much detail without sacrificing plausibility, because the players aren't the masters of warfare that the characters are.  I think there are a lot of reasons why people might dislike this approach.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Cap, thanks for clueing me in - it was indeed the phrasing that you spotted (and clarified) that had me squinting suspiciously.

Anyway, I think it's now time for this thread to spawn little threadlets and be permitted to rest in peace. The karma system topic seems like a good one for its own thread somewhere (Theory, maybe, or maybe here in Actual Play if it's specific to the game in question).

Thanks everyone,
Best,
Ron

[captain_bateson]

John,

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but let me try to be a little clearer. I thought that, in a strict karmic system, if I attack someone it would be Warfare vs. Warfare. Warfare is faster than powers. Unless the other character has powers ready to use, then Warfare would decide things.

I don't think that's what Tony's idea of a strict karmic system means. All I am saying is that a strict karmic system of resolution seems to mean different things to different people.

[calebros]

I think it's not a general gaming problem. It's an amber specific problem, like the one that happen to friends of mine a feww years ago in a very similar way. Let me sum the thing up :

- in Amber, you play godlike beings
- every attribute is the more important, so everyone is the biggest badass
- rules are contradictory : warfare is the only attribute relative to combat but metamorphosis gives you awesome combat powers.
- ...

So basically evreyone envisions his character as the ultimate guy, which of course is impossible (like something elese before breakfast in Ron's articles). That's why, in my opinion, Amber is COMPLETELY ill suited for strongly gamist play with high competition among participants.

Captain bateson seems to enjoy a powergaming, high competition gamist play that Ron's article describe as "can stay functionnal with very adequate rules and participants". The trick is that the rules are not adequate.

But the worse of it is taht, while every system has a random element, the random element of Amber is the GM's call, thereby transforming in game conflicts on rules points into out of game's conflict about GM's fairness. Or, to use Ron's terminology, rules problem are transferred on the social contract level. The trick is that, as the rules are contradictory, rules problem are unavoidable.

As I practiced LARP vampire, which can also become quickly competitive and rules based, I can assure you that this game could be translated in an forum based game much more apppropriated to the style of play you are looking for.

That was just my 2 cents.

Emmanuel

EDIT : some of the numerous spelling mistakes

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

My previous post actually was angling toward closing the thread, but you know what? At 65 and counting, it's still damn good reading. So cool - let it continue.

I may still split it apart from an earlier point. Not sure yet.

Best,
Ron

[captain_bateson]

Okay, then, I will dive back in!

calebros: Is it an Amber-specific problem? I've sat through a lot more rulings arguments in other games than Amber. In fact, this was the first time that something like this has happened in my over fifteen years of playing Amber. I've never come to such loggerheads with a GM.

And, most of the time, even in PC vs. PC conflict, there's not really much difficulty determining who will likely win. In fact, I think that is what makes the GM Forcefield so obvious in Amber. A character doesn't have six or ten attributes, ten feats, and fifty skills that make it hard to judge against another character with six or ten attributes, ten feats, and fifty skills. Yeah, there are some judgment calls from time to time, when certain combinations of powers and attributes come into play, but those aren't when the arguments happen, by and large. The arguments happen when it is pretty obvious who should win and he or she doesn't. Most of the time it's because of a GM Forcefield, which I'm still not clear wasn't the case here, since I still don't understand the ruling, but here it was also not because of the Amber rules (in my opinion), but because we were using alternate rules and I didn't know it.

I think most Amber players realize that no character is the "ultimate" character, especially after sitting through the auction, which makes clear all the ways in which your character sucks if you didn't win all four auctions (which I have never seen happen). Especially if they've read the books. The characters are godlike with respect to most of the denizens of the universe, but not each other. Corwin can kill hundreds of men going up the face of Kolvir, but Gerard can beat his ass with superior strength. No, I rather think most Amber players have an understanding that Amber characters have weaknesses. At least, the people I play with do! I certainly didn't think my character was invincible: I was trying to get away! I just thought she was easily good enough to do what I wanted. Not any different than any other game, really.

I don't think I'm actually that much into powergaming or gamist play, though I see how mostly knowing me through this thread would give you that impression. I don't really like Vampire or Vampire LARPs. I played in Vampire LARPs a long time ago when the game was brand-new, but now I don't find them fun at all. No, I love Amber, actually, and this is the only time it has gone bad for me (well, there was one other, a loooong time ago, but that wasn't just me -- the players as a group quit all at once because the game was so bad).

I guess I have disagreed with pretty much your entire post. Sorry about that. If you could expand on any of your thoughts or bring some new ones, I'm more than willing to consider and discuss them.

[calebros]

There is no problem with you disagreeing on my post. I don't think I am the supreme RP authority.

Now more seriously, I can see height parameters that affect the outcome of a battle, six of wich are somewhat gamist. All of these parameters are rulewise correct, though they may determine different outcomes for a battle.

1 - Strength in the relevant score. Presently warfare.
2 - Strength in a non relevant score used as a substitution. Example : Benedict atacks Gerrard who uses awesome blows with a solid hallberd to make his strength be the deciding factor
3 - Use of a relevant power, which is not necessarily quantified. For example, maetamorphosis can trump warfare.
4 - Superior karma
5 - Situationnal advantage (your character is exhausted, your opponent prepared himself for the fight)
6 - Clever tactics (ouch, this one is the more open to endless and pointless arguing)
7 - Story interest, which can often be interpreted as 8 by the loosing side
8 - GM preference

Points 6 and 7, though relevant, are fully open to discussion. There seems to be a consensus around here to ban point 6 (a very clever idea IMHO, which will put play forward and assume both character's are somewhat skilled tacticians, with far above human tactical intelligence)

7 is very relevant, especially when a character uses a very cheap tactic that is contrary to story interest, an example of which could be : so I have human rank in warfare but I use a 16 points armor that fucks everyone else. However it's not the default situation.

8 is of course what you might complain about

However, points 1 through 5 are equally valid. You consider point 1 to be relevant. GM used point 3 and 4. Both of you have opinions that are legally defendable according to the rules. Which puts the discussion at social contract's layer.

That's why I think that Amber's system must be highly refined before bieng used for highly competitive play, whereas I see Vampire rule being suitable for competitive play even though being flawed (there are a few holes in "Laws of the night", none of which is gameblocking). Because any vmapire LARP argument could be decided at rules level.

[captain_bateson]

calebros: What does "#4, Superior karma" mean? That one I'm not clear on.

Well, since I still don't really know what the ruling ultimately was, it is difficult for me to respond. Let me see if I can put together something coherent here.

Umm... hmmm. Okay. I don't agree that the ruling delivered was legal by the ADR rules. I think the GM has to be using a variant system to come up with that ruling. I'm not sure exactly what the system is, so don't ask. I still don't understand the methodology used to arrive at the ruling.

But, as such, I don't know whether it's really about Amber or not. I rather think that this problem would develop in a lot of games if the GM was using an alternate conflict resolution system ("home rules") of which the players were unaware. Saying, "the Vampire LARP system is better than Amber at handling highly competitive play," doesn't make much sense to me when I don't think we were using the Amber rules.

Let's say you show up at a Vampire LARP. You get into a fight, a fight which you were willing to risk getting into because, under the Vampire LARP rules, you should win. Then, the GM doesn't use the system, but does something else, and rules that you lose. Would you call that a problem of the Vampire LARP rules or a problem of not using them?

By the normal ADR rules, with all the factors in play, I think the outcome of the conflict under discussion was pretty clear. Tony was just using a different system and I didn't know it.

There certainly are flaws in the Amber system, but I'm not sure this situation resulted from one of them. I rather think it had more to do with communication, trust, Creative Agendas, and the Social Contract.

[Eszed]

I don't know anything at all about the Amber system, so I can't comment on the last few posts.

BUT, I'm happy to see that both of the principals in this discussion, Tony and Captain, agree that there is/was a mismatch in their Creative Agendas.  I say I'm happy, because that's the area of discussion that is relevant to all gaming groups, so I'm going to try to wrestle this thread back to my original line of inquiry:

What were everyone's CAs?

We've seen a pretty clear answer from Captain.  He likes to play straight ahead fighters because he wants to feel powerful in ways he does not in everyday life.  

I haven't yet seen Tony lay out his Creative Agenda like that, nor has he answered any of the questions I (or Valimir or Mike) asked that might reveal what it might be.  

I don't know, Tony, maybe you have something clearly in mind which you haven't shared with us.  I'd love to know what it is -- or, at the very least, to hear why you are wary of laying it out in the open for everyone to look at.

Maybe, though, you don't have a clearly articulated CA -- that's fine, though it might (MIGHT) be a reason things broke down between you and Captain -- in which case, tell us more about the game and the world and then let Ron and Val and the other posters here with even more experience than you and me help us understand how you can make your ideas and Captain's (or someone like him) work together into a kick-ass game.

cheers,

[TonyLB]

The reason I am wary of getting into any discussion of specifics here is that I believe it will inevitably drag me back toward discussing the actual facts of the case.

We had a serious, emotionally charged, misunderstanding.  It colored everyones interpretation of events.  I believe it has caused everyone to remember some things accurately, unconsciously edit others, and to forget (or never perceive in the first place) yet different things completely.  I really need to go out and rent Rashomon.

The net result is that I do not agree with Caps portrayal of what happened, much less his imputation of motives.  And what good can possibly come of thrashing through that?  Cap will feel under attack, I'll feel obligated to defend my statements, and as the armor goes up both of us will be less able to hear the useful things being said around us.  The cost is too high.

[captain_bateson]

Tony,

Don't worry about me. If you want to continue this discussion, then do so. If not, then you're right to stop. I have little emotional attachment to the subject anymore. It might be different for you since you're still running the game in which it happened. But I'm pretty much discussing this out of intellectual interest and because I get bored at work a lot. If you want to forward a different interpretation from mine, feel free, at least in terms of worrying about me.

Thanks!

[Eszed]

Tony,

I don't care about the actual facts of the case between you and Captain -- as you point out they are likely being mis-remembered, re-edited, and/or selectively forgotten by everyone involved.  

I'm trying to figure out your respective CAs.  

I feel like I have a pretty good handle on Captain's, but so far you've dodged every question I (and others) have asked you that might have revealed something about your goals for play.

Are you willing to tell us ANYTHING else about your agenda for the game?  

I thought I'd asked questions that couldn't possibly involve your misunderstanding or characterising anyone's motives, but maybe I was wrong.

How about this:  How's the game gone since Captain left?  What's happened and how satisfied have you been with play?

cheers,

[Larry L.]

Let's say you show up at a Vampire LARP. You get into a fight, a fight which you were willing to risk getting into because, under the Vampire LARP rules, you should win. Then, the GM doesn't use the system, but does something else, and rules that you lose. Would you call that a problem of the Vampire LARP rules or a problem of not using them?

If I am following correctly, this is an excellent distillation of CapB's whole frustration. If you have a piece of paper in front of you defining a character's capabilities, that says if you do X you can expect outcome Y, (i.e. a character sheet) is it unreasonable for the player to assume that if he wants outcome Y to happen in the game/narrative, he should... well, merely do X? If not, isn't this the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast?

Obviously it is (or is it?) a legit gripe in a gamist mode, but what about the other GNS modes?

This is something I've run into before as a player in certain "broken" systems where it is a given (Impossible Thing stated at the beginning of the rulebook) that the GM may and should trump the rules, and it seems inevitably to lead to player frustration and breakdown of the social contract. The GM/referee's wisdom is obvious to the player is obvious to the player for the most part, so there doesn't seem to be any further need to hammer this out in social contract. But at some point one of these "rulings" conflicts with the player's wishes for authorship of his character, and everything breaks.

While it's obvious that a communications breakdown lead to this (and pretty much any other) dispute, I was hoping Ron's et al. RPG theories as to creation of a non-broken system would address this pitfall. Can we say Amber as a system is "broken" in some regard because of this? Can systems (or perhaps more accurately, social contracts) be designed so as to prevent it from coming to this?

If I'm completely hijacking the thread here, please let me know. I'll be happen to re-state the issue as a new thread divorced of this particular play example.