[Amber] Playing with Strict Karma

[John Kim]

The definition of Calvinballing is actually kind of dangerous, because it makes the line between someone genuinely and earnestly disputing a rule interpretation, and someone Calvinballing a question of what's going on in the player's mind, which is impossible to prove one way or the other.

But that's the point, calvinballing involves camoflaging the whole thing as something reasonable for a player to contribute and quite okay. If calvinballing was dog ball obvious, no one would/could do it.

It's hard or impossible to tell them apart. But dangerous or not, the practical needs of running a enjoyable session require some evaluation to be made at some point.

Here I completely disagree.  If the actions in question are nearly indistinguishable, then I don't see why I as GM should give a damn what the secret intention is.  i.e. If a player is "calvinballing" in a completely reasonable manner, then it is fine by me.  Conversely, if a player is being annoying about rules, then I will have a problem with it even if he isn't intending to "calvinball".  So, no, I don't have to distinguish them to have a fun game.   I just make reasonable rulings and explain them openly.  Sure, I have to draw a line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" -- but that line can wiggle about with very minor effects.  i.e. There's no objective line between these two which is critical.  

Though really I can't figure out why your character couldn't run out of the bar, throwing a chair as a distraction. Sure, it'd be more boring than what was likely to happen (I doubt it was all done to kill your PC...if that's even possible in amber), but basically the system used encouraged you to run off, so it was system Vs what the GM wanted.  

Well, that seems pointless to me.  In this case, the opponent had Logrus coming up, whose tendrils can reach through Shadow far faster than a person can run.  Running away puts him where his opponent can reach him through Logrus but he can't strike back.  Given time he can lose himself in shadow such that it would be difficult if not impossible to search for him.  But if he's right there and the Logrus is nearly up, it seems clear to me that he's just running into the tendrils.

[Callan S.]

Here I completely disagree. If the actions in question are nearly indistinguishable, then I don't see why I as GM should give a damn what the secret intention is. i.e. If a player is "calvinballing" in a completely reasonable manner, then it is fine by me.

I think the idea is that calvinballing isn't reasonable. Perhaps the forge calls reasonable calvinballing 'rules drift', instead.

Well, that seems pointless to me. In this case, the opponent had Logrus coming up, whose tendrils can reach through Shadow far faster than a person can run. Running away puts him where his opponent can reach him through Logrus but he can't strike back. Given time he can lose himself in shadow such that it would be difficult if not impossible to search for him. But if he's right there and the Logrus is nearly up, it seems clear to me that he's just running into the tendrils.

Oh, when I read it it was mentioned summoning this wierd thing took two minutes or so. I thought it'd be enough time to scarper.

xiombarg: Thanks for saying more fluidly what I might have otherwise said.

[captain_bateson]

Noon:

First off, I'm not in this discussion because I was, as you say, "wronged". I'm just finding it interesting. But I think you're showing a lack of respect for my participation if you choose to view everything I say as, "He's just saying that because he was wronged." I'm assuming that your participation is in good faith and I hope you will give me the same courtesy. I would appreciate it.

Second, your murder analogy is not apt. If I kill someone in self-defense and the district attorney decides to prosecute, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove I committed murder, and I have a chance to dispute the allegation in court. But, when you said that my defense of the intimation that I might have been Calvinballing set off your Calvinball sensors, it became clear to me the danger here: if there's no way to tell whether someone is playing Calvinball or not AND defending one's self from an accusation of playing Calvinball is itself seen as playing Calvinball, then the player automatically stands guilty as soon as he or she is accused. There is no opportunity for defense. No appeal.

Your murder analogy would only be apt if a person who killed in self-defense couldn't defend him or herself without it being seen as "proving" that he or she committed murder. That's not the case.

It just worries me whenever someone sets up a condition in which someone is guilty as soon as they are accused. That seems to be what is set up by here. I legitimately question a call. The GM's Calvinball sensor goes off. Any further attempt by me to explain myself is seen as further playing of Calvinball -- and, the more reasonable my defense, the more it apparently the more likely it will set off Calvinball sensors. So, now, the more reasonable I am is seen as further proof that I am playing Calvinball, so the GM does not feel obligated to explain his or her ruling. If am unreasonable, then, even if it proves I am not playing Calvinball (though I doubt it would), the GM does not feel obligated to give me a ruling because I am being unreasonable. And I now wear the scarlet letter of being a Calvinball player. It's a no-win situation for the player.

I guess what I am saying is this: a definition is only useful if it gives one the ability to discriminate between the thing being defined and other things. I'm questioning the usefulness of the definition of Calvinball because it doesn't help us discriminate between someone playing Calvinball and someone lodging a legitimate grievance. It also offers someone accused of playing Calvinball no way to defend him or herself, by definition. I think that's a problem. Maybe there needs to be a thread on Calvinball. I don't know.

How does this touch on the idea of strict Karma adjudication in Amber?Well, first off, you brought it up because you thought they were related. Also, it seems that a big part of the idea behind the strict Karma system is to eliminate the playing of Calvinball. But, if we can't discriminate between legitimate questioning of a ruling and playing Calvinball, will a strict Karma system really resolve the problem? It won't eliminate the asking of questions and questioning of judgments, at least not with most groups. Keeping the rules secret sure won't work and will likely backfire. It especially won't help if the GM does not resolve, in advance, the very good questions you raised earlier about how long things take, who gets to go first, etc.

Which begs the question of whether a strict Karma system is any more or less likely to dissuade or eliminate Calvinball than the system outlined in the ADR rulebook. Conversely, if the GM does better define the things you point out, will a strict Karma system dissuade or eliminate Calvinball any better than the system outlined in the ADR rulebook? Moreover, how does the cost/benefit analysis come out when the amount a strict Karmic system decreases Calvinball (if any) is compared to the loss of player freedom and input?

I don't know. But I think those are some of the questions our discussion on Calvinball raises.

John: Yes, the Logrus thing was top on my mind in my decision to attack rather than flee the bar.

Noon: The question of how long it should take to Shape Shift, summon the Logrus, and create Logrus tendrils was part of the argument which was never resolved, so I don't know what Tony's view of it was. I thought I should have had time to attack or run. Tony seems not to have, but I don't really know what he actually thought. You'd have to ask him.

[Mike Holmes]

Good point. We can actually chuck all thoughts about who is wrong and who is right in the case of Calvinballing, because the culprit is the system. With an appropriate system you just can't Calvinball, or, rather, there's no need to do so. Basically a system that allows you to Calvinball is almost asking the player to do so. I really can't call it the fault of the player that's doing it. They're just as confused about what they should be doing, and interpreting like mad to protect themselves.

Can't you see that this is precisely what you were doing, Captain?

Not your fault, the system makes it so that you feel a need to be defensive  (and by system here, I refer actually to both the original system and Tony's drift of it). So you act defensively, trying to ensure that the GM doesn't accidentally take away that part of play which you value. It's a completely sensible reaction. In this case, it is "self-defense."

It doesn't have to be that way, however. There are plenty of systems in which you can feel safe and never have to question the GM. Instead of seeing them as an adversary from whom you have to rip a favorable result, they're a facilitator who works with you. As a result of the system, not of any particular attribute of the GM.

This was precisely Ralph's point. The system causes the calvinballing, and then the typical response is to hide the rules. This is so classic a case of this thatit's not even a question of whether this is the case, but rather how we can enshrine this example for future generations.

Mike

[captain_bateson]

Well, I still don't really agree with your interpretation. I don't think the system is the problem in this case, and I don't think Calvinballing is an apt term for what happened.

The problem wasn't with interpreting the rules. I think rather it was with interpreting Tony's statement of "we don't throw the rules out the window even when dramatically appropriate," in the light of the ruling and his refusal to make an explanation. Tony and I weren't differing, in my opinion, over interpretations of the rules. Tony wasn't using them. He was using an alternate system. He thought, somehow, that everyone understood this. I didn't. As far as I knew, saying that we're going to adhere to the rules means adhering to the rules in the rulebook, unless the GM has established alternate rules. Tony thought he had established what the alternate rules would be. But I had no knowledge of them and therefore interpreted his statements about not throwing the rules out the window in the light of the ADR rulebook rules.

Further, it was a problem with the social contract. Tony felt that it had also been established that his rulings were not to be questioned. I never got that memo.

As far as interpreting the rules, I wasn't exactly finding little nitpicky phrases here and there in the rules and adding them together to get a new interpretation. I guess it depends on what you consider interpretation. I'm not sure how else to interpret rules like, "A full-body shift takes 1-2 minutes," other than to think a full-body Shape Shift will take 1-2 minutes. In this case, it didn't. From Tony's statements about adhering to the rules, I was under the impression that we would be following the ADR rules at all times. But we never were. Tony meant that we would not throw out his ALTERNATE rules even when dramatically appropriate.

Calling it Calvinballing when a player questions a GM ruling that grossly and flagrantly violates the rules, as this one did, further demonstrates my assertion that the term Calvinballing has little or no meaning. We weren't arguing over whether or not a Feat lets the player act twice this round or twice next round or something. We were arguing about whether the rulebook was in use at all! As far as I could tell, it wasn't. It wasn't like Tony interpreted one rule differently than I would have. The whole damned ruling did not (and still does not) make any sense whatsoever in the context of the ADR rules. Calling that Calvinballing is like calling it Calvinballing if, in a D&D game, the GM decides that player's Armor Classes no longer matter, that players only get to act every third round while bad guys act every round, and that hit points are stupid so everyone just has 5 hits, all at once, for no apparent reason, and acts as if it has always been that way, refusing any kind of explanation. Would it be Calvinballing to point out that the rules allow players to act in each round? Or that characters are supposed to build up hit points?

Also, a big part of the problem was that Tony had preemptively implemented the false solution to Calvinball -- hiding the rules -- at the same time as he altered the rules. And then came up with the idea that the social contract freed him from explaining his rulings.

So, from my point of view, a ruling that was in no possibly way consistent with the ADR rulebook was made. When I asked for an explanation, I got hit with the preemptive strike against Calvinball at the same time as the sudden change in the social contract hiding the preemptive strike against Calvinball. Since the strike was preemptive, there had not been any Calvinball in the game, and there was no way for me to know that Tony was worried because he'd seen Calvinballing before at some point in his Amber career and implemented the hide-the-rules policy. So I acted on what was available to me: Tony's public statements about following the rules and the rules themselves. A rule has absolutely no use whatsoever if you become a Calvinballer just by referencing it, especially in a case as egregious as this. No system with a GM would be immune to Calvinballing then, because the rules in place that prevent Calvinballing could not be used as a challenge against a Calvinballer because it would be Calvinballing.

BTW, I don't even own the freakin' ADR rulebook. That's how much of a rules lawyer and Calvinball player I am. I haven't needed it in years. Because I don't get into these kind of fights playing Amber. Not until now. I only consulted the rulebook when another player asked me in a PM to tell him where in the rulebook he could find the rules supporting my objections, and I had to call a friend to look stuff up for me. My objections weren't, "On page 19, it says that demi-humans get a +1 against mistletoe wielding hunchbacks on April 20th, therefore the Lord of Evil dies." My objections were things like, "Did he Shape Shift instantaneously? Or did it take a long time like in the ADR rulebook? If it was instantaneous, what did my character actually see? And if not, why didn't my character do something during that time?" This is not nitpicky, Calvinball-type stuff. This is: "What color is the sky in your world?" type stuff. I was asking not only to try to overturn the judgment: I was asking because I had no freakin' idea what had just happened in the game world. I still don't really know if the other character transformed instantaneously or if my character just stood frozen for two minutes or maybe something else. I don't know.

So, fine. If that's Calvinballing, and if that shows that there's a weakness in the Amber rules, even though we weren't using them in the first place (I just thought we were), then fine. To me, that simply means that every dispute over the rules in any game anywhere at any time is Calvinball and therefore Calvinball is a meaningless term.

But, I would be interested to know what you believe makes a game safe and non-adversarial no matter the GM. I almost never feel adversarial with Amber GMs, but it happened this time. I just don't know how, absent a GMless system, that the system can account for what an asshole a GM can sometimes be. But, if you have some examples, I'd love to hear them!

Thanks!

[Valamir]

Hey Capt.  I don't think anyone is trying to point the finger at you or anything.  The whole situation is unfortuneate enough for there to be a) plenty of blame to go around and b) no point whatsoever to assigning it.

From a purely educational perspective though there is some usefulness in disecting the situation a bit.  I hope we aren't crossing a line with you.

As far as interpreting the rules, I wasn't exactly finding little nitpicky phrases here and there in the rules and adding them together to get a new interpretation. I guess it depends on what you consider interpretation. I'm not sure how else to interpret rules like, "A full-body shift takes 1-2 minutes," other than to think a full-body Shape Shift will take 1-2 minutes.

Here's where I think the problem does come from the system.  I'm doing this from memory here not having played in a decade...but I don't recall any sort of time management system in Amber at all.

How long is a minute?  Does it vary by shadow?  Is this an Amber minute?  Also is this a real measurement of time?  Or is it like the 1 minute combat round in AD&D.  Yes the round was 1 minute long, but would you really use that to argue that it takes 1 minute to swing an axe?  Probably not.  Further is there any equivelent list of how long it takes for other actions.  How long does it take to throw a chair?  You could argue that it takes much less than a minute to throw a chair, but then you could also argue that it takes much less than a minute to swing a sword in AD&D.  Do you see where the inherent problem is in any system that leaves some items open to pure subjective interpretation and then appears to give precise measurements to others?

And of course finally, how do you know that it didn't take 2 minutes for the power to activate and your character just didn't notice it for 1 minute and 59 seconds...

Without a system for determining when things happen in relation to each other and who's declared actions take precedence you have all kinds of room for this.  Is there a set of instructions for this in Amber?  I don't remember any.  And without such a set of instructions than it seems perfectly reasonable for the GM to make things happen in whatever order he feels makes sense, barring a procedure the contrary.  

So if the GM wanted to say "he's been bringing that up for a while and you just didn't catch it" what rules support is there to suggest he's not supposed to do that.  Anything?  Not that I recall...but as I said, my memory is 10 years old on this.

[Andrew Norris]

Ralph,

on that last bit (timing) I would admit that (like most of the rules in ADRPG) it's not specific. However, there's definately at least one place in the rulebook where it's unequivocably stated that if a sword is coming at you while you're trying to invoke a power, the sword's going to win. And that note's for things that arguably take less time than the 1-2 minutes involved in Shape Shift.

Honestly, debating the issue as phrased (absent Tony telling us more about his side) is almost impossible, because there really isn't anything in the visible, observed rules to support it. We just don't know enough about it to make a specific ruling. I recognize, though, that that's not why we're banging on it -- we're doing so because it's a helpful example.

(Then again, there's several places where the book uses hyperbole and contradicts itself, but those are usually restricted to play excerpts illustrating how the GM might screw with the players' heads.)

[captain_bateson]

Val: No, no lines are being crossed. I just found it interesting that the way the idea of Calvinball was being applied it could apply to anytime a player challenges a GM's ruling. I know I wasn't playing Calvinball. But the logic problems with applying the term were to juicy to pass up.

With regards to time management... uh... well, doesn't that mean that every game that doesn't set forth exact times for every possible action is vulnerable to such a problem? Even in round-based games, I've still seen all kinds of, "Well, how many rounds do you think that will take?" sort of discussion, because no game can cover even a portion of the actions players will take.

I guess I'm saying this: In every game, time estimates have to be made. It's just a question of how often. Amber does give, as Andrew noted, a lot of information on how long things take and what is faster than what. But no, the Amber rules don't tell you how long it takes to throw a chair. I guess the game assumes that the players and GMs can figure that one out on their own. I imagine your response will be, "See, it's open to different interpretations." Yeah, but if a player and a GM can't agree that it takes less then a minute to throw a chair, then the problem is not the game system. And, sure, a player can say, "It takes thirty minutes to throw a chair. The rules don't say differently!" But there is a certain basic level on which the GM and the player have to have an understanding in order to play together. Like agreeing on using the English language with standard (for instance) American usage. Or that communication has meaning. But then you devolve into philosophy of linguistics. But that's not the system's fault. Like with your D&D example. One of the fundamental basics of old D&D was the "round" and what you could do in a "round." If the player or GM just chooses to deny the basic premise of the game, that you can only swing once per round, then there's no game. There's only a game if the players and GMs agree to abide by the artificial rules of the game. In the case of Amber, actions take as long as they really take, and only very rarely have I seen significant discussion about how long it takes to throw a chair, for instance.

And I don't think that's what happened here anyway. I believe, from what I have gathered from Tony, that his resolution system just doesn't take the time it takes to invoke powers into account. So, while I was arguing that it only takes a second to throw a chair, I was unknowingly making a meaningless argument to Tony, whose system ignores those factors. I just didn't know that. I don't think, if Tony were using the normal ADR rules and taking the time to Shape Shift into account, that Tony would debate that a character can throw a chair faster than another can Shape Shift (though his first defense of the Shape Shifting was that demonform was a "familiar form" and thus the other character could shift to it very quickly... which, I think, led me on a wild goose chase, thinking that time did matter when it never did... I think Tony was trying to appease me without telling me the rules and didn't realize this would only add to my feelings that the rules were being trampled -- the rules, BTW, say that shifting to a familiar form takes 1-2 minutes, more if it's not familiar). So, once again, I have to say I don't think the ADR system was the problem. We weren't using the system. THAT was the problem.

I asked the noticing question too. For the record, my character, who is very familiar with Chaos and Chaos Lords, was backing away eyes warily locked on the other character in case he did something like, oh, say, Shape Shift. Or, say, get up from the table and move toward my character. My character was looking for those signs. But, even so, I didn't know whether my character had missed it somehow or if the other character had transformed instantaneously or what, because Tony would not and has not told me. All I know, still, is that the other character was able to Shape Shift, raise the Logrus, and form Logrus tendrils without my character noticing and before my character could get out of the bar. Since Shape Shifting alone takes 1-2 minutes, if my character had failed to notice the shift, she would have left the bar and been six blocks away by the time the other character finished shifting. This is what I mean about this ruling being layer upon layer of wrong. Each explanation leads to another contradiction. That's why I can't puzzle it out. I mean, I'm not trying anymore. I've given up. Who cares? But I hope you can see the problem. A number of people have played Devil's advocate for me on this issue in an attempt to see if there's a logic that I've missed. But I still haven't found it, they haven't found it, and sorry to say, you haven't found it.

There are a lot of problems with the ADR system, in my opinion. I say this to allay fears that I am just an Amber apologist. I'm not. But I sincerely think this issue stems from using home rules without the players realizing it and then not explaining those rules. Not the system. Unfortunately, since the system was not in play when the whole thing happened, I don't think it says much about the system one way or the other.

[Callan S.]

CB,

The murder analogy was given by xiombarg, not me. I said it was something similar to what I would say and I support it, but I didn't say it, it isn't mine. As for the wronged thing, thats something else from his post.

Now, you've given two long posts about it, but I'm already aware its all too easy to call witch, in terms of calvinballing. Yes, it doesn't require evidence, yes the other person can't defend if one accepts it doesn't require evidence. Yes, that makes it dangerous.

THAT is why its not a black or white thing...its a shade of gray, a guaged meter. Because you can never be sure, since it is primarily an assertion of belief rather than anything else. Someone can show up on that meter even if their not calvinballing. It's like my partner, she went to the air port and the explosives detector beeped around her, TWICE! That doesn't mean she had explosvies on her.

But man, I even mention that your showing on the meter and you create two massive posts delving into its logical phalacies. Thats the point though, it should be clear that it ends up being a matter of faith...the matter of the case can be argued on and on without end. Without resolution by logic, you move on to the next resolution method which involves who you trust. Now I'm just another internet stranger, so you shouldn't believe me casually...but your posts keep falling back to proving how illogical it is, thus it shouldn't be applied.

Now, either trust me on this or not, but that just makes the calvinball meter rise more, for me. How do you get out of this loop? Stop trying to dismantle belief/gut feeling with logic. As a peer I've read the posts and realised the technical details are all so DAMN MESSED UP, I can not apply logic here. Instead I'm running on gut instinct, because that's all myself or many other posters can offer. Its okay if you don't believe me, but don't turn to a logical dismissal, because I didn't offer it in that spirit.

Now lets look at something I said previously:

No, I'm not making a conclusion about you, I'm saying if you were defending yourself the same way in the game/after the game and Tony was already leery about calvinballing because of the system....well, its a car accident waiting to happen, IMO.

See, no conclusion. You show up on the calvinball meter, but quit being shocked about that, we all do every so often. What I WAS saying is that if you've been banging off e-mails to Tony in the same vein that you've been banging off posts to me, Tony's calvinball meter was probably ticking up like mine did. And if he was already leery of calvinballers, its a recipe for disaster.

It doesn't matter whether what you were doing, like my partner showed up on the explosives detector...imagine if they had a suspicious report about someone who looked like her as well. She would be completely innocent, but still end up in an 'interview' room for a couple of hours.

It sounds terrible, and its horrible to accuse an innocent man. But unlike your the suggestion this sort of thing gets people killed in other circumstances (and should be avoided at all costs because of that), in this case you got a snow job from your GM.

I think this calvinballing bit is actually a secondary problem, something that occured after the event in game. Its related and important, but something happened before that to trigger it all.

[captain_bateson]

Noon,

Sorry about the misattribution of the murder analogy.

I've about said everything I ever wanted to say on Calvinball anyway, so feel free to move the discussion forward.

[Erick Wujcik]

One thing is certain.

This thread, and the preceding one, definitely reassure me that I'm doing the right thing transferring my Amber Diceless to Guardians of Order!

Still, since many here are unfamilar with the conventions and habits of Amber Diceless Role-Playing, I'll try to insert a different perspective on the discussion.


First off, let me respond to the following observation:

...There are plenty of systems in which you can feel safe and never have to question the GM. Instead of seeing them as an adversary from whom you have to rip a favorable result, they're a facilitator who works with you. As a result of the system, not of any particular attribute of the GM.

Personally, as a Game Master centered kind of guy, I've got quite a different perspective, and I find myself wanting to re-write Mike's post, as follows:

...There are plenty of Game Masters with whom you can feel safe and never have to question the system. Instead of seeing them as an adversary from whom you have to rip a favorable result, they're a facilitator who works with you. As a result of the Game Master, not of any particular attribute of the system...

Again, I have a strong Game Master orientation.

Which brings me to Tony's posting from the start of this thread, and the following line:

...You look at the stats, and you know immediately who's going to lose, how badly, and how quickly it's going to happen...

Huh?

Say what?

This is a long, long way from a "rules-drift" (as Tony put it). It is, in fact, contradictory to 40+ pages of rules and extensive examples from Amber Diceless Role-Playing, not to mention ignoring pretty much the whole of Roger Zelazny's source material.

Still, Tony, being the Game Master, is entitled to run his game any way he sees fit. I wouldn't call what he's doing merely "rules-drift," but it's his priviledge to run things according to his own lights.


Which brings us to the player's perspective, which I will sum up with the following quote:

...I outlined the factors in the ruling that contravened the rules...

'Captain,' it seems to me that you are violating the 'rules' even more than Tony. For all your protests that you've been involved in play-tests, early Ambercons, and so forth, you seem to have missed the core elements of the chapter entitled: "How to Play a Character in Amber."

For example, from page 76:

...ignore anything you hear that your character has not heard... when you are playing in character, you've got to ignore everything you know...

And then, to be more specific, from page 78:

Arguing with the Game Master is always a bad idea...

I'd go once step further, and say that while arguing with the Game Master is always a bad idea, it's even worse to take that argument into a public forum (especially this Forum, as opposed to one of the many Amber Diceless forums, where at least it would be on topic).

Still, let me finish the quote from page 78:

...Rather than questioning your Game Master's action, instead ask questions from your character's point of view...

This wasn't meant to be 'flavor text' or 'fluff.' No, I was writing this from extensive experience on how to role-play, in Amber Diceless and elsewhere, in such a way as to enhance the experience for both the players and the Game Master.

You see, I've had my share of bad Game Masters. And I've learned a thing or two.

For example (since this is a thread on Game Mastering, I'll wander a bit around the topic), I remember vividly innocently joining a group not knowing that five of the eight people at the table were from the Game Master's regular group. Ignoring his other deficits as a GM, the flaws of this particular session included:

* The Game Master blithely ignored all new-comers in favor his regular players.
* Gave his regular players extensive character sheets, with pages of background, as opposed to nothing for the new-comers (my character sheet, aside from the numbers, said, in total, 'Cleric - Lawful Neutral'), all the while empasizing that the winner would be awarded based on 'role-playing the character.'
* Gave up 'treasure' at the end (a set of magical swords) that were only useful to a particular character class, a set that included his girlfriend and two of his buddies, but none of us new-comers.
* And, get this, actually ran a duplicate of a scenario that his regular players had encountered a couple of months previously.

Definition of not-fun: hearing, "hey, I remember this!" from the regular platers for three solid hours.
[/list:u]

My beginner mistake, which I never made again, was to protest the utter incompetence of the Game Master.

However, in retrospect, weeks later, I realized that I had erred.

That I was the one responsible for having fun.

What I should have done, you see, is to simply react in character to all this idiocy. Playing the 'Cleric - Lawful Neutral' I should have simply responded in kind, thanking or cursing my gods, admiring the vast good fortune of my fellow role-players, and using the Game Master only as my own personal foil.

In subsequent visits to that particular convention (which, in addition to some consistently great Game Masters, always seemed to include a few of the worst), I developed a much better technique for role-playing.

From that point on, instead of railling against the bad Game Masters, I would embrace them, stupifying them with my totally 'in-character' perspective on their worlds. When told a rule by a GM, I'd respond with, "What does my character see?" or "How does that apply from my character's point of view?"

After all, worst case, I could always have a good time speaking in character with the other player characters... and we'd laugh our butts off, in character, with our observations and reactions to some totally illogical GM ruling or description...

In other words, I'd sum up my perspective, and that of the rules and guidelines of Amber Diceless Role-Playing with the following:

As with stage magic, role-playing demands a certain 'suspension of disbelief.' Put your faith in the Game Master, and always, always, always, always look through the eyes of the character.

Clear?

Erick

[captain_bateson]

Erick,

I'd be happy to discuss this with as soon as you pay me the $7.50 you owe me.

Just kidding. Anyway, as I've tried to make clear, I didn't understand, in character, what had happened. That was a big part of the problem. It's hard to react to something in character if you don't understand what it was that your character experienced/saw/heard/felt. I didn't.

I did ask questions to attempt to establish what had happened from my character's point of view.

As I said, perhaps in this thread, perhaps in the other, I only started getting into specifics from the rulebook once another player asked me where he could find stuff to back up the questions I was asking.

Just for a reality check on the "never argue with the Game Master thing," in my scenario called "The White Road" at AmberCon...uh...maybe 6? You argued with me for like ten minutes about some power or spell you wanted use and my interpretation of it. I bring this up not to accuse you of hypocrisy, but merely to point out that while it is true that arguing with Game Master may not be a good idea, it's a difficult ideal to live up to, especially when you think you're getting screwed. You didn't ask me questions from your character's POV. You acted like you were the GM and kept trying to hand down a ruling to me, though you were the player. No one can live up to the ideal you have set. Especially when you can't get the GM to tell you what the hell your character experienced. I suppose you could say that I could have played it like my character had a stroke or something and missed what was going on, but then that breaks my ability to believe in the game.

Putting utter faith in the Game Master is also an unreachable ideal. Your players don't do it, Erick, and you don't do it. Once again, I know, because you questioned something Corwin did in "The White Road." If you had utter faith in the GM, you wouldn't have done that. No one can live up to your ideal, not even you, so don't act as if they can and don't say that I should have.

What you always seem to have missed, in my opinion, is that the ideals you outlined in the book are unrealistic and beyond most players and GMs. They're good ideals and they would work in a perfect world. But then, so would the League of Nations. Also, I rather think that the player and the GM are mutually responsible for each other's fun. Why continue to play in a game like you've described? Just to make fun of it in character? That might be your choice. It's not mine. You don't seem to get that people have different playing styles and that not everyone likes yours. I don't. I made a vow after AmberCon 6 never to play in one of your games nor to allow you to play in one of mine, because our styles of play differ too greatly. You think the GM should be inviolate and unaccountable to the players and I don't. But you don't really, either, because when you play, you expect accountability and the right to question the GM just like everyone else.

I think one of the most fascinating things about you creating the Amber game is that you created a great system and yet I have felt you always missed the reasons why it was great. You're like the creator of a TV series who has to be gotten rid of halfway through the first season because he doesn't get why people like the show. He thinks it's something else than what it really is. I have always felt that way about you, Erick.

BTW, Jim and Ron both think the ruling was outlandish too, so apparently they don't "get" Amber either. I'll bet if I ask Carol and Don they would agree with me. I bet a lot of the old guard would. So don't make it out like it's just me. Ron was on the phone with me when the ruling came down and his reaction was much more explosive than mine.

Also, I brought the discussion of this ruling (which is actually supposed to be located in another thread) to the Forge and not to an Amber board because I knew that Tony had gotten a lot of his ideas for that game here, and because I thought some of those ideas might have been the problem. On an Amber board, I would have been much more likely to get sympathy: Tony's ideas about strict Karma went over like a lead balloon on one. But here, I was more likely to get a useful answer. That's all.

[captain_bateson]

Oh, one other thing: Tony had explicity done away with the idea of only thinking and seeing things as your character would. In fact, I was the lone proponent that people should play their characters properly. Tony said to me something like, "I do not care at all about you doing what your character would do." He didn't want that: he wanted Narrativism, not Simulationism, and our character's POVs were only important as far as they advanced the story.

I was actually going against the grain of the game BY asking questions about what had happened in character. I was the one who was arguing FOR your ideas as stated above in your message, Erick, which was against the grain of the game.

So, it's a non-sequitir, though you didn't know it, to say that I should have been looking at things through my character's eyes or whatever. Those "rules" which you are quoting from the ADR book were already done away with by Tony before this happened. I was the only one still clinging to them, in fact.

[Halzebier]

My beginner mistake, which I never made again, was to protest the utter incompetence of the Game Master.

There may be some wisdom in postponing judgement for a while, i.e. to give the DM a chance to realise his vision, but I think it is at best a problematic strategy.

For instance, speaking up early  may save everyone involved a lot of grief later on. In-game actions may provide clues, but humans err and will overlook these.

Say you're playing in a game which is taking a dark turn you are not comfortable with. If you react by having your PC express unease, this may be misread by the DM as excellent roleplaying feeding into the game's horrific atmosphere... And when he gets to the really sick stuff, you will be offended, the game will come to a halt and you have one big mess on your hands.

However, in retrospect, weeks later, I realized that I had erred.

That I was the one responsible for having fun.

I have rather a different view on this matter. I think everyone at the table is not only responsible for having fun, but also for (a) communicating what he deems fun (or unfun) and (b) looking out for the other participants' fun.

I do not game with people who do not subscribe to this view.

(At cons, things are slightly different, but I still expect common courtesy and sportsmanship.)

What I should have done, you see, is to simply react in character to all this idiocy.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I think that trying to solve issues with the game, the people involved, the rules and anything on the metagame or social level *by one's character's actions or DMing decisions* is a spectacularly bad idea.

I have seen this cause no end of grief, in way too many games I have played in myself and in uncounted games I have read about on the net.

I'm surprised to find someone advocate reacting in-game to out-of-game problems - am I perhaps misreading your position?

Regards,

Hal

[Mark D. Eddy]

To drag this howlingly back to the original topic:

Am I wrong to say that a strict Karma resolution mechanic is significantly at odds with the Amber Diceless Roleplaying system, which is a Drama emphasizing Drama/Karma hybred? If not, then my original statement still stands – the entire problem that has spawned over a hundred posts was that the system being played was not the system the player was expecting.

I can see an argument for claiming that a strict Karma mechanic could work with the Amber setting, but (again) it would be best not to claim that it was ADR. Much like saying "I want to play D&D, but without the dice," saying "I want to play Amber without the Drama mechanic," is saying "I want to play the game, but let's ignore the system."

And that's where the dysfunction lies.

(And, bouncing back to the sidebar issue: Is there any way to play a Drama mechanic without everyone seeming like they're Calvinballing?)