[Amber] Playing with Strict Karma

[captain_bateson]

Mike,

Hmm. I can see your point about being pushed into playing Calvinball by incoherence. But you only see that from the God's eye view of the situation, which is hard when you're in it.

I think my resistance to the idea that I was playing Calvinball stems from the fact that my intention was never to play Calvinball and I never felt that I was, since I didn't know about the strict karma system Tony was using. So, I guess it's kind of like particles and waves or the speed of light: it's all relative. By the point of view of the "strict karma system" being used I was playing Calvinball, but since I didn't know about the system, I had no way of knowing I was playing Calvinball.

So, maybe, my objection is about intent: I don't want to have to take responsibility for playing Calvinball when my actions fit the definition of playing Calvinball only when viewed in terms of a system put in place by the GM without my knowledge or consent. That is to say, my actions would not have been Calvinball if we were using the standard ADR rules, but since we weren't (unbeknownst to me), my actions became Calvinball, which means my actions themselves didn't define whether or not I was playing Calvinball. The GM's choice of system and lack of clarification did. I'm resistant to the idea that someone else's actions can define my actions without my knowledge or consent. Does that make any sense?

Nevertheless, I see your point. I think that the problem is that "rules lawyer" and "Calvinball" seem like perjorative terms and no one wants a perjorative term applied to them. Especially in a case like this, where the exact same action can become Calvinball based on factors outside the person's control. Maybe there needs to be a separate term for involuntary Calvinball, like the difference between manslaughter and murder or something (not that it's good to be convicted of manslaughter, but it's better than being called a murderer). Or, perhaps, the terminology you used would work: "malicious Calvinballer" vs. "involuntary Calvinballer." Something like that, to make it clear what the player's intent was. I might have been less defensive (though maybe not) had I understood the difference.

You say, essentially that the drift (and that's what it is) to Narrativism is playing a different system.

I think someone else said this, actually (Erick?), and I'm not sure that it matters (or that it's not a distinction without a difference), so I'm not going to dispute whether it is drift or not. I do agree with Tony and others either in this thread or the other that his modification of the game did not, in and of itself, promote Narritivism, nor was it an obvious and natural outgrowth of the move to Narritivism.

I understood (from coming here) that Tony was trying to run a Narritivist game. But I don't think that it automatically follows that a strict karmic system is necessary to run Amber in a Narritivist mode. Thus, knowing Tony wanted a Narritivist game did not lead me to understand that a strict karma system was in place. I think, perhaps, Tony thought the link was clear and thus did not need to be explained, but it wasn't clear. At least not to me.

I was thinking about all this over the weekend, and I think part of the problem is that Tony was hoping, through his choice of system, to control the players' emotions and thoughts, which is impossible. He didn't want players to want to win in PC vs. PC conflicts. So, he instituted a system that he thought would eliminate that desire. No system can do that. Especially when the players don't know about it. And I'm not even sure that the GM should be making such value judgments about what the players should or should not value about the game. That's like trying to control how your boyfriend/girlfriend thinks. I think trying to control the thoughts and desires of the players is, in and of itself, fraught with peril and probably leads to disaster. But I could be wrong.

The social problem is irrelevant, since I'm not in the game anymore. We are in a different game together, but that's a different game, and I think we're both doing a good job of not bringing problems from this game into the other game.

[RaconteurX]

Mark Eddy mentioned Nobilis as an excellent "resource allocation" diceless system. I second his opinion, and will also mention the several other such systems on the market: Active Exploits and Marvel Universe. All could be used quite effectively for Amber and in many ways are superior to Amber Diceless Roleplay. I recommend them to any diceless enthusiast who wants less vague rules.

I know many people who play "hard numbers" ADRP, and it works best if the gamemaster is able to define what is and is not possible for any given character to accomplish at a certain level of ability. Most gamemasters do not, alas, and that leads to conflicts over what I like to call "perception of competence". What ADRP fails to mention is that sometimes story needs take priority over character competence. Everway and Theatrix both address this superbly and at length, and I consider them to be the premiere diceless gamemastering resources.

As an aside, I have met pretty much all of the original ADRP playtesters at various conventions over the years. Which is our captain_bateson, I'm forced to wonder?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

It's far past time for this thread to be laid to rest, and for secondary topics to be taken to their own threads. It's now closed.

Michael, your curiosity about captain_bateson may or may not be satisfied by contacting him or her directly, but that is the only permissible way to find out.

Best,
Ron

[RaconteurX]

It's far past time for this thread to be laid to rest, and for secondary topics to be taken to their own threads. It's now closed.

So the life of a discussion is now defined as one week after the last post made... got it. Pardon me for attending Origins then falling ill for a week afterward.