Hello,

I want to share some thoughts about our new Amber campaign.

It's been a very long time since I've last played with Veke, the GM. There were some very serious issues couple of years ago that made me stop playing in his group. The play had become boring and frustrating for me. I was actively reading Forge at the time, and came to conclusion that I was a Narrativist while the GM was (is) mostly a Simulationist.

Despite the problems we did have many very good sessions back then, especially with Amber. Many times we understood each other very well. Clashes were all too common, though. Often I felt powerless and impotent as a player, incapable of affecting the story in the way I wanted. Some of these issues may have been caused by the Amber rules, that give the ball to the all-powerful GM.

We have continued to talk about roleplaying after I parted, and discussion has helped us to understand each other better. A year ago Veke played a while in my short-lived Sorcerer group and we had a blast. I noticed that he can get kicks out of Narrativism, too. Clearly our situation isn't hopeless!

Couple of weeks ago we decided to try again. We started a new Amber campaign, happening 20 years after the previous one. We made some rules tweaks that encourage Narrativism and give players more power:

[1.] We use kickers.

(My kicker: Istwan, son of Deirdre, has fallen in love with and married a human sorcerer, Erika, and now Erika is pregnant. Istwan and Erika truly love each other, but it may well be that the covenant of moon witches has just tricked the Amberite to produce a special child to help in their wicked plans.)

[2.] The speed of character improvement depends on your Stuff. If you have Good Stuff, live is easy and improvement is slow. With Bad Stuff life is really unfair and dangerous, but you also learn faster. Between sessions players may increase or decrease their Stuff by one or two points, so the players are in control of their characters' destinies.

This was a compromise ruling that we both liked very much. I felt that the original rule, that encourages winning big challenges, was very unjust for me, because often I want my character to lose... In Amber it's especially fun, because of the law of Karma: often you know in the beginning of a great war that you are probably going to lose in the end. For some wicked reason I just love to ride in this death spiral, suffering like hell and waiting for the worst to happen.

Usually in Veke's games anybody who wants to play can join, but this time we decided to be very selective with players. We both wanted to include Kristiina, who played in my Sorcerer group. She has very little experience in roleplaying, and is always an enthusiastic and entertaining player.

She's also a hardcore Narrativist (I think), and this is very important to me. In our earlier campaign I was often the only Narrativist player, and I didn't have much of an audience for my Narrativist moments of glory. Veke did understand me, but often he was the only one.

We have now played three times with just us three players. We hope to get one more player in the near future.

I had ambivalent feelings about the first session. Kristiina was having fun, and it was entertaining to watch her in action. But I had problems. Again I was feeling impotent.

Prince Random came to visit Istwan and Erika at unfortunate moment, and Istwan offended him. In response, Random killed Erika's old grandmother and threatened to rape Erika. Istwan tried to get Random out of his house, but nothing he did seemed to produce any effects. Istwan tried friendly talk, Trumping for help, and finally challenged Random for a duel for the first blood, hoping that the all-powerful prince would just hack Istwan into pieces, and then leave him alone, his blood lust satisfied. None of this seemed to alter the situation in any way! Random just laughed away all the attempts, and didn't even take the duel seriously. I was frustrated and running out of ideas. The story didn't flow naturally.

After the session we discussed these problems. I felt that Veke didn't take my contributions for play seriously. He didn't give my character's actions the weight they demanded. I didn't want Istwan to succeed always, no, but I wanted his actions to produce dramatic effects, good or bad. "Nothing happens" is so damn boring... Veke said that he was just doing what was he always does, reacting like a simulationist GM. Luckily he did understand my point.

A time for another rules tweak!

[3.] I suggested that each player could have two or three "coins" for each session. When a player spends a coin, his character's next action becomes mighty important story-wise, causing dramatic consequences, good or bad. The coins are a player's way of telling the GM: "This action is really, really important to me, please pay special attention to it!"

(We've been discussing widening the role of coins. Perhaps they could be spend on anything, not just actions. Players could spend coins on people or Shadows that they consider interesting, and in response the GM would increase their story-weight. Again the effects could be either helpful or damaging for the player.)

This one change made all the difference in the second session. And not just the ruling, though it was very important. I was feeling empowered as a player because the GM seemed to actually care about my point of view. This time the group seems to be truly democratic, not despotic like it used to be in the past.

In the last two sessions everything, just everything clicked in place. Everybody was loving each others characters, including gamemaster's, and paying them attention. We all had audience, everybody got to be a star. Game was fast-paced, dramatic, and very intense. Istwan and Nina (Kristiina's character) were true protagonists, their actions had tremendous impact to the story. Everybody was building on everybody's ideas. It was just wonderful. After the third session we were filled with creative energy, and we had to drink a couple of beers with Veke to cool us down before we could sleep. For me it was the best gaming session ever.

In the past we have been mostly playing with men, and it's clear that Kristiina adds much to the game. One important effect is that we guys don't argue with each other so much when Kristiina is playing with us. Secondly, romance and sex seem to have become more important themes than they were before. With Istwan I get to explore darker aspects of male sexuality, it's scary and fun.

From the very first session Istwan's and Nina's destinies became intertwined. We decided that they had known each other 60 years ago. At that time Istwan was very different, an evil brigand, mystic and artist, looking much like Rasputin. Nina was just a 12-year old, sad and crazy girl, who had just escaped from a mental hospital. These two had a wierd relationship: Istwan was like an abusive father to the girl, not trying to cure her, but toying with her madness, drawing inspiration from her wild visions. (I'm looking forward to playing some intense flashback sessions...)

Well, now Istwan ja Nina meet again. Istwan is much more stabile than he was back then, and a much better person, but Nina is still walking on the edge of madness. After all these years Nina has only good memories of Istwan, and seems to trust him instinctly. Istwan feels guilty... Its interesting as hell to see how this relationship develops. Istwan has a history of evading responsibility: he has cruelly abandoned (at least) one wife and an adopted daughter, so that Istwan's enemies wouldn't use them against him, trying to protect them by abandoning them. He's afraid of love and caring, seeing them as a weakness in a dangerous universe. And now this young cousin from the past suddenly appears to remind Istwan about his evil deeds and responsibilities. Does he have the courage to become a better man?

Hmm, I think that's all for now. I wanted to share this story in part because I've read some pretty harsh (and justified) critic against Amber in these forums. I admit Amber clearly needs tweaking before it works. I wanted to show how we have succeeded in making this great game work for us with some pretty easy tweaks.

If anyone has some other ideas or rules tweaks for Narrativistic Amber, I'm interested to hear!

Coolness.

Mikko Lehtinen wrote: Prince Random came to visit Istwan and Erika at unfortunate moment, and Istwan offended him.

When a player spends a coin, his character's next action becomes mighty important story-wise, causing dramatic consequences, good or bad. The coins are a player's way of telling the GM: "This action is really, really important to me, please pay special attention to it!"....Players could spend coins on people or Shadows that they consider interesting, and in response the GM would increase their story-weight.

Does the player who is GM'ing, get any of those coins? Or would that cause a power clash and/or he's happy in his simulationist position and recieving explicit player tells through the coins?

Have people been ending the session with coins still hoarded? Do those carry over to future sessions?

Allright,

I'll tell you more about coins. But first I'll give you some more background information and clarification. This will be another very long post.

My initial post's subject talked about "Narrativist Amber" but that's not the whole truth. Really our game's a hybrid, maybe of all three, N, S, and G. I get most of my enjoyment from N, and so does Kristiina, I think. N is clearly the strongest CA, the one that binds us three together.

The game is absolutely not No Myth. The GM has the universe in firm grasp. He spends his nights having intimate conversations with Elder Amberites, and writing down cosmological ponderings. The GM handles Powers and the Shadow as a true simulationist. He has a very good idea if some power stunt is possible or not. Too often it's the latter - for me, the boring option.

But we've been talking about this much, and from now on I have a powerful weapon in my hands: the coins. If I want to make some obscure power stunt, I'll just spend a coin and something real cool (good or bad) WILL HAPPEN. That's reassuring. I don't want to argue about powers with the GM, I want to use them in creative ways, and surprise everybody. With the coins I just might have a chance. No power stunts yet in the new campaign, this is just theorising.

Why does this game work for us? Mostly it is because we trust each other, and are willing to make compromises. We have a working social contract. There used to be some big status issues in the past (a couple of years ago): I was aggressively questioning the GM's rule, and it made the group feel uneasy. Well, some status issues might still exist, but in a much lessened form. We've learned something.

Kristiina is helping the situation a lot. She's a beginning roleplayer who reacts to situations instinctly, surprising me and Veke every time. She hasn't any bad roleplaying habits. I think Kristiina is firmly standing with me in the N camp, and this might be the biggest reason why Veke is willing to make compromises.

Adding another player might change the situation dramatically, and that's why we are very selective. We've been thinking about Robert, who is mostly a gamist. I trust him, and this is the most important thing for me. I'm going to explore dangerous themes (love and sex) with my character, and this makes me vulnerable. I really need to trust everybody on the table.

We've been having a lot of roleplaying fun with Robert in the past. (And to say the truth, also a lot of roleplaying boredom.) Our characters ALWAYS fight much of the time, and often hate each other with passion. Almost the same holds true for us players, in real life... our friendship has always been a quite uneasy one. Like me, Robert is using his old character. This Salvador - a nasty Warfare guy - scares the hell out of my character, Istwan, but curiously I think I'm really missing Salvador. Just like Istwan-Nina, this is another very intense and interesting relationship between player characters.

The Amber rules help us in some important ways, and hinder in other ways.

I think the GM has too much power in conflict resolution, but the coins help us in this problem. At least now the players have some control over tempo, and a way to make certain actions very important.

Let's talk Elder Amberites. From my Narr point of view, Veke is using them very well. All of our characters are woven tight into a big relationship map, full of family taboos, seduction, intertwined love and hate, children abuse, well, all kinds of ancient and scary shit for us to find out. I find the basic premise of Amber: "What would the next generation be like?" to be a very interesting one in this context.

Yeah, the Elders are gods. But that hasn't really been a problem in our game. (I'll talk about that Random incident a bit later: it actually turned into an engaging story in the second session.) The focus of the game has been on the younger generation. There are a LOT of children, and most of them are very interesting NPCs. Elders remain importantant, but mostly in indirect ways, through their children.

We talk a lot about the Elders, in character and otherwise. And when we are talking about Elders, we are often really talking about our premises. Lately we've been discussing cruel seduction (through Deirdre) and passionate love gone really, really wrong, turned into abusive and violent sexuality (through Corwin). These same themes are very important for the younger generation, too, in various ways. These themes turn up a lot in play, it seems that the younger generation has inherited many of the sins of the fathers.

Well, some of us try to be better than them, and some believe in the purity of the younger generation. We really wouldn't want to do the same mistakes as our parents, but what can you do? Maybe it's in the genes. One of the most important premises is Family vs. Morality. If all the relatives are evil bastards, how much should the family mean to you?

As you may have realised by this point, Veke is good at creating Bangs that really make me tick. In this way he is a good Narrativist GM. And I'm good at communicating him what I want. In this way we have a very good player-GM relationship. This Narrativist aspect of Veke makes me want to keep playing with him despite his simulationist habits in other areas.

Ok, practical examples of coin usage...

The second session started with Istwan in this volatile situation with uncle Random. This is what I did: First I Trumped to two of my cousins, one of them Nina (who I met for the first time), to meet uncle Random. Also, there was Fiona spying us with her mystical powers. I needed these witnesses.

I used a coin and purposefully insulted Prince Random as badly as I possibly could. Everyone of us knew that this could well be a suicide. We heard Fiona laughing at Random, and my younger cousins were scared as hell about my risky move. Prince Random absolutely had to defend his honor in some very, very cruel way. I knew I was going to suffer for this.

But I knew I had to do something to change Random's attitude towards me. Otherwise he would continue picking on me and my wife, and that would be unbearable. I knew that Princess Fiona had done something nasty to Prince Random, and that was the real reason why he was acting like an asshole.

This is what Istwan said to Random: "You call yourself a Prince of Amber? I laugh at you. You're apparently not the honored Elder Prince that I thought you were. A Prince wouldn't act so cowardly. You come here to bully on me, but you're really angry at your older siblings. They think of you as the little one, and you're scared to challenge them. Do you really think that bullying me makes anybody to respect you?"

Yeah, I was trying to make him really angry, but wanted him to divert his anger somewhere else. If he would kill me, that would only prove my words, it wouldn't be enough to restore his honor... He had to do something else. Or so I hoped. I wanted him to rebel against his elder siblings.

This speech, a dramatic act enhanced by a coin, led us to some very, very interesting situations.

I thought that I would die. The next scene was a fine restaurant, where many of the younger generation were sitting. There were many friends, and many new faces. Random planned on punishing me in front of all my cousins. But when Random called me to come to the stage, I rebelled. I asked my cousins to fight with me against this Prince of Amber, and many were willing, for their own reasons. A fantastic fighting scene ensued.

I knew we were going to lose. By challenging Random I just wanted to show that Istwan was a badass. Both Random and Istwan somehow knew that this fight was just some kind of show, but all of the younger cousins thought we were for real, and they were scared. Both Random and Istwan kind of needed this fight, they wanted to show the new Amberites who they were.

The fight lasted more than two hours, real time. It was real fun. It was like a dance between Istwan and Random. Both of them enjoyed themselves and forgetted the actual reason why they fight. Some of the cousins suffered very ugly wounds, but in the end, when Random had finally won (the margin of victory wasn't actually that big, we could well have won), he wasn't too harsh on Istwan. He just cut off one of Istwan's testicles...

As an aside, cousin Boromir fought on our side only because he has a crush on Nina. And in the fight Random squashed Boromir's genitals very, very hard. Ouch! Boromir WILL remember this fight for a long, long time, and it will alter his relationship to both Nina and Istwan. I'm guessing that Boromir will develop the same kind of mad obsession toward Nina as his grandfather Corwin has to Deirdre. These kind of things really seem to be in the genes in our game... And I'm afraid that Boromir is already a bit jealous for Istwan, who seems to be very close to Nina, though it's not sexual.

Somehow my plan had worked, and I had got Prince Random to respect me. And I started to respect Random, who had shown in the fight that he's really a fair and fun-loving Prince, who is actually not too serious about the honor-issues. And I (the player) had succeeded in making some important statements about my character: Istwan is a very impulsive person, who sometimes does crazy things. All of the cousins will look at Istwan differently from now on.

Here I'm using confusingly "I" a lot when I talk about my character, but really in the game I'm often in author stance, doing things to make game more interesting for all participants.

Oh, and Kristiina used a coin in the fight. She wanted Nina to touch Random's leg and establish a mind contact. Then Nina communicated to Random telepathically: "Oh Prince, if you'll win this fight, I'll surrender to you..." She meant it sexually. For a while Random was very distracted, with a smile on his face, and we got an easy hit on him. And I suppose Random's attitude toward Nina changed a lot. After the fight he didn't punish Nina at all, he just let her go. And no, he didn't expect Nina to keep her promise. Random was acting like a gentleman, he seemed to really like this young girl. I suppose Nina's act helped Istwan, too, because Nina made Random happy.

The coins are our way of ensuring that our best ideas get through to the GM. They really do seem to work.

Noon: no, the GM doesn't have coins. I think it would be a power clash. The GM presents us the world, often in a simulationist way, but we, the players, are free to choose what parts of the world interest us most.

Tony: in the second session Kristiina didn't use one of her coins, I think. It didn't carry over to the next session. And in the third session neither of us used any coins! But there really wasn't any need, because everything we did was dramatically important anyway. The story was advancing in a horrible pace, and we didn't want to speed it up any more with coins... I guess I remember my coins in situations when the story needs some extra puch.

Maybe the coins could be used to make up player-introduced Bangs.

In the next session I plan to use a coin to make up a conflict for my character, Trollbabe-style. I want Istwan to be ambushed while he is Hellriding, and that the ambushers have some kind relationship with Salvador, Robert's character. I talked about this possibility to Veke, and he okayed it. I want to harness the power over Shadow as a Narrativist tool that is controlled by me, the player, and not always by my character. The coins may help my in this project.

I think Veke okayed the coins because they are NOT an automatic way to make the character more powerful. The story might just as well take a more dangerous twist. He, the GM, has the final word on what effects the proposed action has, as long as the story advances in some meaningful way. So the players are not stepping on his shoes too much with the coins.

Using a coin to boost an action is a lot like saying "I want a conflict" in Trollbabe. If you use a coin, the proposed conflict will be resolved now, and in a fun way. "Nothing happens" is not an option for the GM. In my opinion Amber needs this kind of structure to make the story flow smoother.

So when you weren't spending coins: it was because you were already getting the effect on the story that you would have spent coins to tell the GM you wanted?

It sounds like you just created a mechanic that taught your GM the concept of Stakes and Aggressive Scene Framing, and now you'll probably never need to use it (actively) again, because it will always be there (potentially) reminding him that the point of the game is to get to the good stuff where your characters are important.

Cool stuff!

TonyLB wrote: It sounds like you just created a mechanic that taught your GM the concept of Stakes and Aggressive Scene Framing, and now you'll probably never need to use it (actively) again, because it will always be there (potentially) reminding him that the point of the game is to get to the good stuff where your characters are important.

Cool stuff!

I love mechanics that let you say things without actually saying them. Particularly when you wouldn't be comfortable voicing those things straight out.

People say "What can rules do, beyond arbitrating disputes between players?" Well, here is one thing: They can give you the tools to say "You are boring me, chum," to a good friend when you need to, in a way that doesn't hurt.

I think also I have learned something via that coin mechanic.

Every time I spent a coin, I was trying to be very clear about my goals, and it markedly improved the game. Often our Amber game has been about "task resolution": the players have been announcing their actions, not goals. I think the GM doesn't always even understand what the goals are, especially in social situations, and that's one reason why the game is sometimes boring.

I'm used to conflict resolution in other games: Sorcerer and Trollbabe. But Amber is a very different animal because of it's lack of mechanics. I think I reverted back to my old ways for a while (perhaps I didn't have any other choice), but the coin mechanic reminded me about the importance of conflict resolution.

I could use some help here. I suppose we could start using some kind of formal "announce goals" phase? Maybe conflict resolution could be run like this:

1. "I want a conflict!"
2. Announce goals. What are the possible consequences for this conflict?
3. Some free narration. Everybody tells what their characters are actually doing while trying to reach their goal. The players try to impress the GM.
4. The GM makes his final judgment based on Karma and players' narration, then narrates how the conflict ends.

Just quick thoughts. I have no idea if something like this would work in Amber. Perhaps it would speed up the play. What do you think? If anyone has thoughts about Amber and Conflict resolution, I'm very interested to hear.

Perhaps the GM doesn't like this idea, I don't know. I'm glad about our coin mechanic, because it already *is* a formal conflict resolution system, at least in the conflicts that are most important to the players, and works very well.

This writing and the replies have got me thinking. Maybe it's not that useful to discuss conflict/task resolution in Amber. It might be a quite confusing discussion. The system ain't perfect, but we're used to it, and at the moment it seems to work very well for us. Our game is rolling. I think it's time to stop theorizing, to sit back, relax, and just enjoy a good game. (Of course, if anyone wants to talk about any aspects of our game or Amber rules, I'm willing!)

I think what has been going on in the last two sessions is a major change in the social contract. The coins mechanic has helped us to put in practise some very important ideas, that we have been discussing for ages. The coins gave me new courage. I felt empowered and hurled Istwan into action, making decisions fast, trying to accomplish big things in mere moments of play time. The GM adjusted. We got the tempo right. I want my Amber to be like this, fast and big-scale.

We all noticed how fun this kind of playing is. I think the next step is to adjust our social contract a bit, so that we can start playing like this all the time, even without coins. We already started this process in the last session. I believe this process won't be very intellectual: theorizing won't help much. There's no real need to argue about the game theory anymore. The next challenges will be emotional: We need to learn not to take the game sooo seriously, not to stress about it. We need to forgive and forget all that useless fighting that has been all too typical for our games in the past. We need to learn to be kinder to each other. :-)

Good gaming to everyone!

This is what Istwan said to Random: "You call yourself a Prince of Amber? I laugh at you. You're apparently not the honored Elder Prince that I thought you were. A Prince wouldn't act so cowardly. You come here to bully on me, but you're really angry at your older siblings. They think of you as the little one, and you're scared to challenge them. Do you really think that bullying me makes anybody to respect you?"

Tony wrote: I love mechanics that let you say things without actually saying them. Particularly when you wouldn't be comfortable voicing those things straight out.

Noon wrote: Umm, that sounds like you were provoking the GM to address premise! How exactly did this simulationist GM react to this provocation?

It may be that the coins aren't facilitating your addresses of premise so directly. Instead they may be facilitating your teaching him narrativist play.

(snip)

So yeah, it's a game mechanic that lets you say a lot of things, without actually saying them! :)

Hi Mikko,

Food for thought: in many cases, when a person describes his actions using the phrase " ... I was just ..." it's a giveaway that it's a very, very important action to them, emotionally.

I'm calling attention to it because this conversation illustrates a common misunderstanding about Narrativist play - that it somehow advertises itself to the participants during play itself.

All role-playing feels like "playing my character." In any Stance, using any Techniques, in the context of any Creative Agenda. A non-fun breakdown of "playing my character" means a non-fun breakdown of Exploration.

Creative Agendas are like values - they inform our actions and provide context for the specific "what I want" at any given moment, but without being articulated. In fact, they are usually falsely articulated even when we honestly try. They are best understood inductively, from generalizing across undebatable observations.

"Hey, looks like you were Addressing Premise."

"Oh, I was just spontaneously playing my character."

That is a non-response. It's a dodge, avoiding actually looking at one's own actions. There is no "I was just." The proper response to such a statement is,

"Yes, I know you were spontaneously playing your character. That is why it is interesting to look at the content of play at that moment. And the content appears to be Addressing Premise."

I bring all this up because I suspect such phrases and dodges are common in your discussions with your group.

Best,
Ron

Synchronistically, I've just been discussing Amber Diceless Role-Playing (ADRP) in my friend's LiveJournal. It gives my two cents on why Amber is so prone to un-fun play and why Drifting it is so prevalent and fruitful.

Ron,

I wasn't dodging behind my character! I really should have been clearer, but I was in hurry when writing that post.

Mikko Lehtinen wrote:

Noon wrote: Umm, that sounds like you were provoking the GM to address premise! How exactly did this simulationist GM react to this provocation?

Was I doing that? I don't know, I was just reacting instinctly, doing what "felt right".

Hello,

Mikko, you've mis-read my point. I am not discussing player vs. character goals at all. I fully understand that you are talking about yourself, not about being "in character."

I am discussing your "I don't know" that I spotted and that you now have mentioned. Your phrasing in that post was indeed avoiding answering the question.

Fortunately, you have realized this already:

After I posted the answer I found myself fully agreeing with Callan's comment, but at the same time I was pleasantly surprised that I really was subconsciously provoking the GM to address the premise. That's very cool.

Part of my confusion came from the fact that we have never consciously defined our premise. But now that I think of it, after all this writing about our campaign, we've had a very coherent shared Amber-premise for a long time. That makes me happy.

Michael S. Miller wrote: Synchronistically, I've just been discussing Amber Diceless Role-Playing (ADRP) in my friend's LiveJournal. It gives my two cents on why Amber is so prone to un-fun play and why Drifting it is so prevalent and fruitful.

It seems that, as written, ADRP seeks to replicate the dysfunction of the *characters* in the relations of the *players & GM.* No wonder so few people play it as written, and so many drift it into something functional and fun.

Mikko Lehtinen wrote: We've been having a lot of roleplaying fun with Robert in the past. (And to say the truth, also a lot of roleplaying boredom.) Our characters ALWAYS fight much of the time, and often hate each other with passion. Almost the same holds true for us players, in real life... our friendship has always been a quite uneasy one. Like me, Robert is using his old character. This Salvador - a nasty Warfare guy - scares the hell out of my character, Istwan, but curiously I think I'm really missing Salvador. Just like Istwan-Nina, this is another very intense and interesting relationship between player characters.

Ron, I'm glad I managed to answer your question even through the slight misunderstanding. You and Callan did catch me off guard with your questions, and maybe I was being a bit defensive for a while, trying to answer the questions quickly, although I didn't quite understand what was going on. Learning sometimes feels like that: a bit unsettling.

This is what I'm thinking now: If I understood my CA better in an actual roleplaying situation, it would be easier to communicate my desires to the GM and the other players. Not "I just want to do this", but "I want to do this because it's relevant to our Premise." I believe this kind of communication would be very helpful for the group.

Sure we dodge a lot. That's because we don't have a shared language to talk about CAs, or at least we are not fluent in it. But after all this writing here I may have learned a) what I most want out of this Amber campaign, and b) to express my desires more clearly. The next thing we should do is to talk about our Premise with the group, and formalize it somehow, perhaps by writing it down.

And now I know what's the best use for the coins, if I want to maximise my enjoyment. I should use them in actions that address our premise. That should be a clear enough signal to the GM, too.

I don't want to "force" the other players to play Narr. (Although there definitely is some interest.) But I can do all these very helpful things while not becoming an irritating control freak in the eyes of the other players, and without excessive Forge-talk. Cool!

I'm interested in seeing how this coin mechanic works out in the long run.

I've tried "grafting" a coin mechanic onto GURPS in the hopes of facilitating Narrativist play; this fixed exactly nothing. The players still turtled up in their familar play modes. Tokens were squandered on either novelties which didn't interest any of the other players, or as means of bypassing conflicts. I had the same old crappy set of tools to diagnose players' interests and keep everyone engaged. I had to put the poor thing down.

Now in your game, it sounds like players have at least latched onto the coins as a means of constructive feedback to the GM. Which, as Tony points out, is more elegant socially than blunt criticism. This experiment may likely be useful in bringing to light deficiencies in the social contract. Once this has happened, though, I suspect a more complete re-evaluation of system will be in order, lest the gimmick itself becomes an enabler of dysfunctional habits.

The next session is tomorrow.

I haven't told you most anything about the last session, which I consider the best ever. It was full of conflicts that addressed the Premise. (Now that I've learned to think about the premise like that. Our premise is a bit hazy, and somewhat difficult to define, but we do know what kind of conflicts we want to see in Amber.) PC actions were dramatic, and the outcomes surprised everybody. Both Nina and Istwan transformed because of what happened, I'm talking about big personality changes here. Now we just have to repeat the success. Just to remind you all that despite this talk about our group's problems, at the moment everything's wonderful.

I'll keep you posted if interesting thoughts surface. I'll tell you about the coins at least.

Hi Mikko,

The only reason I spotted the 'provoke the GM' moment, is because it happened to me. I have a thread on it here in actual play somewhere (I think it was called "Player pitching the GM some nar?"). It was in a PBP, with its low social feedback, of all places!

On another note, this thread so reminds me of the minor adjustments I was suggesting about Rifts, where its pitfalls might turn around and actually support narrativism: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15105

Noon wrote: On another note, this thread so reminds me of the minor adjustments I was suggesting about Rifts, where its pitfalls might turn around and actually support narrativism: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15105

Hey,

we didn't actually play tonight after all. But I just had a very good conversation with the GM. I told him what I've been writing here in Forge, about the responses, and about my revelations.

First we had a short chat about our Amber premise. He asked what I thought the premise was, and I told him this:

WHAT DOES THE FAMILY MEAN TO YOU?
1. Family vs. Morality. Is it okay to care about a family that is thoroughly rotten? Would betrayal be a better idea, for morality's sake?
2. Purity of the young generation? Are we going to be same kind of assholes as our parents? How will we deal with our own spouses and children - are we going to make the same mistakes as our parents? Have we inherited the sins of our parents?
3. Which side is stronger: Familiar love or hate, ambition, and playing the Machiavellian game?
4. Are family affairs more important than the lives of the Shadow people?

It was a magical moment. He just watched me for a while, and said: "Yep. That's it." No need to negotiate anything. :-)

We agreed that the war between Law and Chaos was really just Color. What really mattered was the Family. Law and the Pattern were important only because they were ancient family traditions.

Then I told him that this Amber campaign, and the earlier one, had actually been Narrativist from the very beginning. That means 22 sessions or something like that. I told him numerous examples how we had been addressing the premise (as presented above) all along. Not just me, but all of us, all the time; even Robert the Gamist. This had been a textbook example of Narrativist campaign, and we had not noticed it!

The GM said: "Hey, maybe I'm actually quite Narrativist myself."

We've had no language to talk like this before. Yeah, we've been discussing CAs in theory, but not in the context of actual play, not quite like this. (Thanks, Ron, for noticing my dodge.)

The lack of a shared language is actually quite literal. We had to speak a lot of English, because I didn't know how to translate some of the key Forge concepts in Finnish. Eero, are you reading this? I believe you are the professional here. Could you tell us how to translate these vital concepts: a) Addressing Premise, and b) Creative Agenda. I really have no clue. ;-)

We talked about the problems we've had in the past, and how to avoid hazards in the future. I firmly believe that this shared understanding of our CA will guide our way from now on, making things easier.

We talked about the one solution we already have: the coins. We discussed my use of coins in the famous "Random incident". He said that he would never have reacted so strongly if I hadn't used the coin, and that he was really happy about the way things turned out, about the big fight against Random and all. He agreed that the conflict addressed our Premise very directly.

The GM has always hoped that the players would take initiative, just like I did. He wants the players to shake the game world, and has been wondering why they don't do it. I'd say that in our Amber campaign he has been a Narrativist GM with strong Simulationist habits, or something like that. Bad habits die hard, and these habits are at least 15 years old. He's very happy about the coins, because they will force him to do things differently.

Hey, two coins/session means I can shake the world at least twice in a session. I'm happy.

Miskatonic wrote: This experiment may likely be useful in bringing to light deficiencies in the social contract. Once this has happened, though, I suspect a more complete re-evaluation of system will be in order, lest the gimmick itself becomes an enabler of dysfunctional habits.

Mikko Lehtinen wrote:
The lack of a shared language is actually quite literal. We had to speak a lot of English, because I didn't know how to translate some of the key Forge concepts in Finnish. Eero, are you reading this? I believe you are the professional here. Could you tell us how to translate these vital concepts: a) Addressing Premise, and b) Creative Agenda. I really have no clue. ;-)

Cool!

("Big Model" is haughty? I only called it that because it's "bigger" than GNS by itself. Oh well.)

Thanks guys.

Mikko, you might be interested in my discussion of how Gamist and Narrativist play do and do not interact, in the two essays.

Best,
Ron

Thanks a lot, Eero!

That list is very useful to me. I'm going to teach at least five words of everyday Forgese to my group.