Since running an Amber DRPG game, it has become hard to replace as the most intense and invested RPG experience I, or the players, have had. This has nothing to do with my ability to run a game, as evinced by running dozens of different kinds of games with this same group in varying capacities, and never having the consistent success I did with Amber. I think this speaks to the strength of the system, or perhaps the system in conjunction with its source material.
The problem I run into is this: how to adapt the success of Amber to tackle a non-Amber story, without sacrificing its advantages? I can't imagine trying to adapt the system to deal with anything less than ubermen. Understanding that different systems have different uses, and if I wanted something "smaller in scope", such as a grass-roots level game where characters cannot lift cars over their heads, then Amber is probably not the system for it. How can you repeat the success of Amber, without inter-dimensional travel, without ubermen, without...well, is it really Amber any more at that point, and would it work at all?
I'm sure greater minds than mine have put their head to this issue since 1991, and I'm curious if anyone here has tried to stretch Amber beyond Amber, and if anyone has had any success as such.
//Panjumanju
Dang it! I thought you were going to be talking about adventuring in either the world of the Primal Pattern, or the world of Corwin's Pattern.
-clash
Quote from: Panjumanju;489737I think this speaks to the strength of the system, or perhaps the system in conjunction with its source material.
I sincerely doubt it has to do with the system or source material, since there really isn't a system, and getting emotional investment out of gamers is something that happens all the time in other rulesets.
I have no idea how you play Amber - or more accurately, how you're playing Amber differently from every other RPG you play - so anything I say is wild speculation at best. Let me suggest this for consideration: what encourages emotional investment in ADRPG isn't the fact that the Scions of Amber are ubermenschen[1]; it's that the fact that they are ubermenschen means that all the normal mundane things that gamers normally like to have their avatars obsess over - XP, gold, magic widgets, followers, etc - just don't matter. You want a $THING? Go for a walk, it's yours. Now what?
Amber's basic setup ensures that the only thing the characters
can care about are their relationships with each other and the important NPCs, because those are the only things that you can't trivially go out and get during a short walk through Shadow.
That's not unique to Amber. There are games like Burning Wheel that bake character motivation right into the mechanics, books like Play Dirty that talk about making emotional investment part of any game, and source material like Hercules: The Legendary Journeys where none of the protagonists really care about material goods or temporal power.
So if you're not getting the same level of emotional buy-in from your players in other games, look at what those games encourage your characters
and players to care about, and try adjusting those things.
[1] And, also, there's very little in the source that backs up the ADRPG's depiction of the Scions as being superpowerful demigods.
Quote from: daniel_ream;489744I sincerely doubt it has to do with the system or source material, since there really isn't a system, and getting emotional investment out of gamers is something that happens all the time in other rulesets.
I have no idea how you play Amber - or more accurately, how you're playing Amber differently from every other RPG you play - so anything I say is wild speculation at best. Let me suggest this for consideration: what encourages emotional investment in ADRPG isn't the fact that the Scions of Amber are ubermenschen[1]; it's that the fact that they are ubermenschen means that all the normal mundane things that gamers normally like to have their avatars obsess over - XP, gold, magic widgets, followers, etc - just don't matter. You want a $THING? Go for a walk, it's yours. Now what?
Amber's basic setup ensures that the only thing the characters can care about are their relationships with each other and the important NPCs, because those are the only things that you can't trivially go out and get during a short walk through Shadow.
That's not unique to Amber. There are games like Burning Wheel that bake character motivation right into the mechanics, books like Play Dirty that talk about making emotional investment part of any game, and source material like Hercules: The Legendary Journeys where none of the protagonists really care about material goods or temporal power.
So if you're not getting the same level of emotional buy-in from your players in other games, look at what those games encourage your characters and players to care about, and try adjusting those things.
[1] And, also, there's very little in the source that backs up the ADRPG's depiction of the Scions as being superpowerful demigods.
Right; Corwin never battled to the gates of Amber alone, all his followers killed on the way, through a horde of soldiers.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering. :)
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;489773Right; Corwin never battled to the gates of Amber alone, all his followers killed on the way, through a horde of soldiers.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering. :)
:D
And neither did Benedict fell trees to his left and his right with ONE blow when he tried to kill Corwin after being informed that he'd slept with Dara.
Übermenschen? No fucking way :)
I know I'm asking a lot by expecting reading comprehension on the fucking Internet, but you may want to re-read the Ascent of Kolvir scene again. Take note of the fact that they were fighting up a single file stair against vastly inferior opponents with a buffer of mooks in front of them, and Bleys got chucked over the side before Corwin made it to the front, and that as soon as they got to the top they gave up because they were surrounded by the same mooks. Context matters.
Quote from: The Guns of AvalonBenedict's arm moved with near-invisible speed, like the tongue of a toad, and his blade passed through a sapling I'd guess at three inches in diameter.
I can do that with a decent machete.
The Scions of Amber are far superior to normal people, even highly skilled normal people. But they aren't demigods, and they really aren't anywhere near as powerful as the ADRPG says they are.
Seriously, this "OMG t3h Amber1tes are s00perheroeZ!!1" nonsense has been debunked a million times already.
Quote from: Panjumanju;489737Since running an Amber DRPG game, it has become hard to replace as the most intense and invested RPG experience I, or the players, have had.
The key question is what you mean by "most intense" and "invested".
I'd also be curious what other systems you've tried with this same group without achieving the same success.
Right now the goal you're trying to achieve is kind of vague to us out here in cyberspace, but with some more specificity we can probably figure out the exact mechanical and meta-mechanical aspects of Amber that clicked for you and yours.
Quote from: daniel_ream;489982I can do that with a decent machete.
Fucking bullshit you can.
I've been an active full-contact martial artist for 27 years, and I've trained my share of blade combat styles.
You can't fell a full-grown or even half-grown tree with one fucking swing of a machete. If you claim you can, I laugh into your face. No kidding.
How about a heavy falchion? Or a woodsman's axe?
Or a light chainsaw, which I can and have wielded (ill-advisedly) one-handed?
I admit to not having twenty-seven years of full contact martial arts training, and so I am unaware of any combat styles that teach how to cut down trees, as opposed to wounding human beings.
My point was simply that being able to cut down a three-inch sapling in a single swipe does not equate to demigod status. Better than human? Damn right. But this whole Amberites-as-gods thing is an invention of the game. It's not in the source fiction.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;490013I'd also be curious what other systems you've tried with this same group without achieving the same success.
With the same group we have played Dungeons & Dragons 2nd/3/3.5/Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, Wearwolf, Changeling: The Lost, FASA Star Trek, Fate, Marvel Superheroes FASERIP, Shadowrun, and several home-brew player-designed systems.
We have been playing weekly for three years, loosly for upwards of eight. The average player in the group has about 10 years of Roleplaying experience. We actually run two groups in the same space (kitchen-livingroom distance) and reshuffle players every couple of months. I ran this game for 18 sessions with 7 players.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;490013The key question is what you mean by "most intense" and "invested".
The differences between the Ambergame and other RPGs I've run is this:
* Attendance was perfect over the 18 session game we played, further, people arrived early so they could start engaging other players about the game.
* There was nearly no out-of-game talk during the sessions. Players were much more interested in furthering the game. When I left the room to discuss private events with one player without the others knowing, in game conversation continued.
* I was bombarded with emails during the week with player's questions and scheeming about what they'd like to do next.
I found this an unusual level of investment. Strong emotional reactions and dedication to one's character crop up in any game, but were much more pronounced in this one.
What I would like to emulate in future RPGs is this sense of investment. I don't think the story I was running was mind-blowing, I don't think my direction was in any way signifigantly better than it was in the past, but I do think there was *something* about the structure of Amber as a system brought out the best in my players.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: daniel_ream;490045How about a heavy falchion? Or a woodsman's axe?
Or a light chainsaw, which I can and have wielded (ill-advisedly) one-handed?
Benedict used a sword in that scene, if I'm not mistaken
QuoteI admit to not having twenty-seven years of full contact martial arts training, and so I am unaware of any combat styles that teach how to cut down trees, as opposed to wounding human beings.
Funny man, you.
From time to time, it's very useful to test the edge holding ability of blades. Tree trunks are among the traditional tools for doing exectly that.
QuoteMy point was simply that being able to cut down a three-inch sapling in a single swipe does not equate to demigod status.
Does the book say it was 3-inch saplings that Benedict cut down?
Off the cuff, I'd say it was trees, not saplings.
QuoteBetter than human? Damn right. But this whole Amberites-as-gods thing is an invention of the game. It's not in the source fiction.
I agree with you on this. But no mortal could do what they do in the books, bot by a long shot.
Quote from: Panjumanju;489737The problem I run into is this: how to adapt the success of Amber to tackle a non-Amber story, without sacrificing its advantages? I can't imagine trying to adapt the system to deal with anything less than ubermen.
Fundamentally, I think that the ADRP rules system works best with characters who are better than their surroundings. This could be something like Conan, John Carter of Mars, Pirates of the Caribbean, James Bond or other settings where the heroes can do cinematic things. I don't think they have to be supermen and/or indestructable, but they should have a decent chance of success becasue the ADRP glosses over many of the picky details of the character in order to focus on the action.
We played cyberpunk, Shadowrun and Hong Kong movie action for years, using a customized ADRP system. Worked perfectly.
Quote from: finarvyn;490073Fundamentally, I think that the ADRP rules system works best with characters who are better than their surroundings.
That's a very good point, and a very practical solution. Thank you.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: finarvyn;490073Fundamentally, I think that the ADRP rules system works best with characters who are better than their surroundings.
I'm going to point out again that it's not that the characters are demigods; it's that the characters primarily care about their relationships with each other that drives emotional investment. The setting creates a milieu where there is nothing else
to care about, but that's a sufficient, not necessary condition. You could get the same result from a bog-standard feudal Europe setting. George R. R. Martin did.
I would think Amber could be used for a "wuxia" setting pretty effectively.
RPGPundit
I'm not so sure, Pundit. Wu xia is heavily about the acrobatic fight scenes, and I don't think ADRPG gives the players enough tools to carry that off well, any more than say Wu Shu does. Plus it would throw almost all the focus on Warfare.
Fights between ranked opponents in Amber often tend to be pretty quick affairs unless somebody falls back on trying to drag the fight out through turtling. The rule support that, but it's really not how wu xia combats work.
Quote from: daniel_ream;490953I'm not so sure, Pundit. Wu xia is heavily about the acrobatic fight scenes, and I don't think ADRPG gives the players enough tools to carry that off well, any more than say Wu Shu does.
We played Wuxia with the ADRPG system for years, and we had absolutely amazing scenes, action and otherwise. Personally, and this is the experience our group has made for years, both Wushu and Amber are sufficient "tools" for Wuxia and bullet ballet.
QuotePlus it would throw almost all the focus on Warfare.
Sounds like a thorough misunderstanding of the genre to me. Wuxia definitely is a far cry from fighting only. There's a lot more to it.
QuoteFights between ranked opponents in Amber often tend to be pretty quick affairs unless somebody falls back on trying to drag the fight out through turtling. The rule support that, but it's really not how wu xia combats work.
The ADRPG rules *suggest* that a GM could handle fights between ranked opponents this way. Then again, it helps to remember that the Wuj also postulated "Drop the rules", aka adopt them to your individual needs.
If you want the fights to last longer, then make them last longer. I mean, it's a snap with the ADRPG rules, right?
Another idea to make fights last longer is to make the opponents about as strong as the characters... again, this is the GM's fault, not the fault of the ADRPG rules.
Probably the lack of a RNG makes some difference. Compare it to Diplomacy (the best board game ever) in which there is no random factor and because of that you just can't send your armies straight at the enemy and expect anything to happen to them but get bogged down, so you've got to think laterally and be a devious bastard as that's the only way to win. Similarly in Amber if you're up against someone with a higher stat then you, you've got to cheat since if you don't you have 0% chance of success, which encourages the right kind of devious bastard thinking.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;491077The ADRPG rules *suggest* that a GM could handle fights between ranked opponents this way. Then again, it helps to remember that the Wuj also postulated "Drop the rules", aka adopt them to your individual needs.
If you want the fights to last longer, then make them last longer. I mean, it's a snap with the ADRPG rules, right?
Another idea to make fights last longer is to make the opponents about as strong as the characters... again, this is the GM's fault, not the fault of the ADRPG rules.
This is basically just Magical Princess Tea Party at this point, though. Although to be fair pretty much all of ADRPG is Magical Princess Tea Party anyway.
Quote from: daniel_ream;491149This is basically just Magical Princess Tea Party at this point, though. Although to be fair pretty much all of ADRPG is Magical Princess Tea Party anyway.
:D
I fully understand. We had guest players who hated the system, and we had others who love it...
Looking back, I think what ADRPG added most to the intellectual development of myself and the people I played with was the notion that you didn't need huge volumes of crunchy rules, or "balance", or anything else to roleplay.
In retrospect I really don't think ADRPG is a complete system, inasmuch as there really isn't a system there beyond "whomever's better at bullshitting the GM wins".
If I were to run it today I think I'd be looking at grafting on some kind of lightweight resource management mechanic that represented emotional investment. Ranks still Rule, but if you want to switch up the fight, you can win - but what are you willing to risk for your victory?
Or maybe that Jenga mechanic for Dread. There's a lot of "just how far can I push this" in the first chronicles, and that would be an interesting way of engendering that feel in the players.
I can accept your opinion (grudgingly, I admit), but I can't understand it.
Since its first day, ADRPG was seen as incomplete by some people, and this continues to confuse me.
When Erick was still among us, I had a very interesting communication with him (by snail mail, just imagine ;)) Back in the day, he wrote me he'd never understand people who tried to graft more mechanical stuff on the rules. The rules were complete as they are, he wrote.
I tend to agree, but at the same time, I'd like to ask two questions:
- Why is ADRPG not a complete system for some of you?
- Why do you feel the need for more or different rules?
Looking forward to your replies!
Norbert
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;491475I can accept your opinion (grudgingly, I admit), but I can't understand it.
Since its first day, ADRPG was seen as incomplete by some people, and this continues to confuse me.
When Erick was still among us, I had a very interesting communication with him (by snail mail, just imagine ;)) Back in the day, he wrote me he'd never understand people who tried to graft more mechanical stuff on the rules. The rules were complete as they are, he wrote.
I tend to agree, but at the same time, I'd like to ask two questions:
- Why is ADRPG not a complete system for some of you?
- Why do you feel the need for more or different rules?
Looking forward to your replies!
Norbert
Incompleteness is what makes this game complete for me... :)
It's a matter of taste I suppose.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;491475- Why is ADRPG not a complete system for some of you?
- Why do you feel the need for more or different rules?
As it stands, the sum total of the system is: Highest rank wins any conflict, unless you can convince the GM otherwise. That's not really a system at all, it's moderated freeform storytelling.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but like any other form of moderated freeform storytelling (PbP, MUSHes, etc) there's no framework there for people to hang their mental hat on. It's been my experience that the vast majority of gamers are absolutely
terrible at storytelling. They have no sense of genre, literary tropes, character, or any of the things that make a story Make Sense instead of being a disconnected series of ramblings.
In a (good) game with actual mechanics for things, the mechanics constrain your choices to the things which are sensible for the setting and/or genre, and the mechanics deliver setting/genre-appropriate results. Fiasco, for instance, does an excellent job of baking the assumptions of the genre it's emulating right into the mechanics. You have to work really hard to play a game of Fiasco and
not have it come out like a Coen Bros. film.
Amber doesn't do any of that in its actual mechanics. The Character Creation rules are a thing of brilliance, but when it comes to resolving anything else, there's pretty much nothing for the GM to use.
The basic conundrum of ADRPG is the canonical "Corwin tricks Benedict into fighting on the Black Road" scene. Corwin vs. Benedict => Benedict wins, and probably by rather a lot. He's First Rank vs Third Rank (possibly 2.5th; Corwin consistently ranks Bleys above him). Ah, but Corwin Plays a Trick on Benedict, and dupes him into fighting on treacherous ground!
Hang on a second.
Benedict? "all-there-is-of-military-science-thunders-through-his-head" Benedict? Can tell what kind of weapon you're carrying and what it's capable of by observing your stance from a mile away Benedict? Benedict lets Corwin gull him into a trick as simple as backing him into loose scree?
You can argue that Benedict's furious with Corwin for schtupping Dara and that's clouding his judgement, or that he's just run through Hell and is a bit peaked, or he's missing an arm and his balance is off, or whatever. Okay, fine. Simulationism FTW. But at which point in that list of external factors does the GM decide, "that's enough for Benedict the Super Duper God of War to fall for such a simple ruse" ?
(More generally, PCs can try to win a conflict by shifting it from an Attribute they're weak in to an Attribute they're strong in. But how does the GM determine whether the attempt to shift the nature of the conflict is successful?)
The game doesn't give you any tools for deciding that beyond "the better roleplayer wins". But that's just the same as saying "whoever's better at BSing the GM wins".
That can be fun, but it isn't a system. It's just Mother-May-I in Amber.
I think if I were to run a game of Amber again, I'd graft on the Jenga mechanics from Dread. Higher rank wins, but if you want to trick the other guy, or switch up the contest to something you're stronger in, draw a block. If you draw it successfully, your ruse works (and he can try a counter-ruse the same way). You can concede at any time with relatively mild consequences. Topple the tower, and you lose and lose badly. Thrown in the dungeon with your eyes burned out kind of badly.
It gives a way of adjudicating things that's a lot less arbitrary, and isn't even dependent on a GM, and adds suspense to the big conflict scenes.
Quote from: daniel_ream;491519As it stands, the sum total of the system is: Highest rank wins any conflict, unless you can convince the GM otherwise. That's not really a system at all, it's moderated freeform storytelling.
I disagree. The players need not be concerned with the "story" at all, only their own character. They play a role, not manage story, which brings it firmly into the realm of Role Playing Game and not Storytelling Game.
The intention behind the mechanic was for players to focus on their character, not on their character's representation through little fiddley numbers and trait subdivisions.
I agree with you that as a GM, the "at what point do you make the call" on circumstance outweighing Stats is a difficult one, and when to decide that someone has, essentially 'switched' Stats is a difficult call, and the process is undefined in the game rules.
So long as the GM can establish a clear understanding in their own mind, leaving such matters in mystery gets players out of the mindset of trying to fiddle with the Game side of the RPG in order to aid their Role.
In my opinion, this is entirely a system, a fully realised and complete system, which does what it sets out to do very, very well. The players don't have to be storytellers, they just have to play their role. Nothing has to be arbitrary, everything can follow logically from consequence, however fantastic the circumstance. There is a tremendous onus on the GM, yes, moreso than in other systems, to keep everything straight and make the call. But I think if you want to introduce Jenga into the middle of the Amber DRPG, then you're missing the point.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;491732[...] the process [for adjudicating conflicts] is undefined in the game rules.
In my opinion, this is entirely a system, a fully realised and complete system [...]
See, I consider these two things to be inherently contradictory.
I've been running ADRPG since the book came out, and the number one issue that's always come up is that at the end of the day, it's not what your character is or even what his ranks are. It's whether you can BS the GM. That absolutely killed immersion for most of my players, because conflicts weren't resolved by anything to do with the
characters, they were resolved by the persuasion abilities of the players. People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.
Quote from: daniel_ream;491739See, I consider these two things to be inherently contradictory.
There is nothing contradictory there - I said the process of cross-stat conflict resolution is undefined. Although it is mentioned in the rules, there is no explanation of how to effect that transition, drawing the assumption (and given the internal consistency of the ruleset otherwise, I assume this is the conclusion that what Eric Wujcik wanted us to draw) that it should be treated the same way as 'Same-Stat' conflict. Further, if I can guess his perspective - that moment of transition is too contextually varied to be summarised in rules, and ultimately falls to the GM's reason, anyway. I think something should have been mentioned about this in the core rules, because even a line of clarification would have been helpful, but I don't think it is too difficult to guess at his meaning. Certainly, it would be in keeping with the spirit of the game.
This is poor editing, not an incomplete ruleset.
Quote from: daniel_ream;491739It's whether you can BS the GM. [...] People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.
You've certainly been playing for longer than I have, and I respect that. I've been giving a lot of thought to your statement about good verbal skills winning the game, but ultimately I do not think it holds water.
This is not a personal attack on you, but I think that point has less to do with Amber and more to do with GMing.
If a player can charm a GM and get away with whatever they want, it can happen in any system. For the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that Amber DRPG is more susceptible in this regard than most systems. Why? If you've been relying on "The rules say no" to stop player BS instead of just, "No", then I can see it being a problem. If you have especially self-entitled players who insist that they must get their way because there are no rules to say otherwise, then again - I can see BS as King being an issue.
The only other way I can think of your statement about smooth talk = victory (I paraphrase) having relevance to the system is if it were capable of swaying the numbers so drastically as to make them almost arbitrary. I do not believe this is the case, but the most pronounced example is the previously mentioned encounter with Benedict and Corwin in the forest.
But even looking at all the examples brought up in the earlier post, it depended less on Corwin's advantageous factors and more on Benedict's limiting factors. If it were the other way around, I could see more a case for Corwin's player having BS'd the GM, so to speak.
I think most people see it as a weakness that the system does not clearly outline "If Stat >= X away from opposing Stat THEN:", because it would give GMs a welcome wall to fall back on in narrative uncertainty. I have been frustrated with this, too. However, not putting too strict of a definition on it (just as Eric Wujcik refused to say exactly how many new points players should be getting and when) allows the GM a narrative freedom to analyse the situation critically, knowing the full-bodied context of the game, and come to the solution that makes the most sense for the game, rather than having outcome dictated by some Outcome Table. I think this is a strength of the system, even though it puts considerably strain on the GM to perform.
In short, under confident direction of the GM, I don't think the advantage of BS is mighty enough in the Amber DRPG to shift the entire challenge rating, so to speak, of the game system.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: daniel_ream;491739I've been running ADRPG since the book came out, and the number one issue that's always come up is that at the end of the day, it's not what your character is or even what his ranks are. It's whether you can BS the GM.
I, too, have been GMing ADRPG since it came out, and we've never had this issue. Really, never. I'd say, and this is only my personal opinion, of course, that this problem is not a problem of the system, but of your GMing style.
QuoteThat absolutely killed immersion for most of my players, because conflicts weren't resolved by anything to do with the characters, they were resolved by the persuasion abilities of the players.
Absolutely alien thinking to me. ADRPG is the one and only game that has provided consistent deep immersion again and again and again. No other game had such a depth as ADRPG.
QuotePeople with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.
Sorry, but this is your fault as a GM. We have a couple of very quiet players in our group who *dread* speaking in front of more than two persons, but their characters are as good as their ranks are, period.
The thing is, Amber is a pretty complete system. The real problem here doesn't come out of the rules being incomplete, but of a great number of people failing to actually read the rules and understand them properly. This is because a lot of the way the rules of Amber were written was in a somewhat unorthodox style for an RPG book, much of the rules were written up in what seem at first glance to be descriptive material and examples of play. This is the kind of stuff that many gamers skip over when they're reading a rulebook.
The truth is that the whole "Amber is just higher rank wins and then trying to convince the GM otherwise" is utter bullshit. There is much more structure to it than that, but the critics (and some of the fans as well) have failed to apply that structure.
That's not really Amber's fault, except maybe in the sense that Erick could have written the rules to the game in a more traditional structure; the error, if it exists at all, is not of mechanics but of the rulebook's format.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;493879The thing is, Amber is a pretty complete system. The real problem here doesn't come out of the rules being incomplete, but of a great number of people failing to actually read the rules and understand them properly. This is because a lot of the way the rules of Amber were written was in a somewhat unorthodox style for an RPG book, much of the rules were written up in what seem at first glance to be descriptive material and examples of play. This is the kind of stuff that many gamers skip over when they're reading a rulebook.
The truth is that the whole "Amber is just higher rank wins and then trying to convince the GM otherwise" is utter bullshit. There is much more structure to it than that, but the critics (and some of the fans as well) have failed to apply that structure.
That's not really Amber's fault, except maybe in the sense that Erick could have written the rules to the game in a more traditional structure; the error, if it exists at all, is not of mechanics but of the rulebook's format.
RPGPundit
This unorthodox style is one of the things that made the book so interesting for me. Instead the traditional structure is so boring... particularly when coupled with traditional ideas...
Quote from: Panjumanju;491837In short, under confident direction of the GM, I don't think the advantage of BS is mighty enough in the Amber DRPG to shift the entire challenge rating, so to speak, of the game system.
All you're doing here is replacing "BSing the GM" with "following along in the GM's personal epic". I don't think "Higher rank wins, unless the GM arbitrarily decides otherwise" is any better.
For an example of what I mean about BSing the GM, someone with a better knowledge of fencing, or riddles, or anatomy, or whatever, is going to have more to work with than someone who doesn't. If Bob describes his character as attacking with a two-handed overhead slash, and Roy points out that this leaves Bob's centreline open for a quick stop thrust that should be crippling if not fatal, what happens? The guy with the higher Rank wins? Sure, but what about Corwin vs. Benedict? Do we penalize Bob for not knowing very much about swordfighting and hand the win to Roy? Do we assume Bob's higher Warfare means he gets the slash off before Roy's stop thrust? If not, how does the GM make that call?
(For anyone inclined to argue that you're not supposed to describe conflicts blow-by-blow that way, I put to you the following question: how
else are you supposed to feint/trick/dupe your opponent in a way that gives the GM something to work with? What, exactly, is the difference between "quick as lightning, I spit out the correct answer" and "I see through his clumsy attempt at a feint and skewer him like a pheasant" ?)
Seriously Daniel, go back and reread the ADRPG rules. You appear to have missed a lot.
BSing the Gm can happen in any game if the Gm lets it happen. Dice don't change that.
You seem overly focused on tricks. Tricks can make a small difference, but they only serve as one small part of a good Amber player's arsenal. A player can do lots of things to shift the odds in her favor that don't involve tricking anyone.
If the opponent doesn't have much endurance wear them out. Make them chase you, deal with hazards, fight lesser foes and generally do anything that will use up that endurance.
If the opponent favors a big nasty weapon, use a small one and fight them in close quarters where they don't have room to swing.
If you have a strength advantage club your opponent with large objects. Bringing a sword to fight someone wielding a solid hardwood table may prove less than useful.
Make your opponent aware of something awful that will happen very soon if they don't stop it so they rush the fight and take chances you can exploit.
Have an ally distract your opponent with a Trump call at a crucial moment.
The ADRPG centers on shifting the odds, not BSing the GM.
A GM needs to impartially adjudicate the things that PCs and NPCs do to improve their odds of winning and not just let anyone with the gift of gab get something for nothing. I consider that a general rule of GMing, but it proves especially important for ADRPG.
Well put, Lorraine.
I have really enjoyed reading about Amber DRPG and hope that I get a copy for Christmas like I asked. While I have 0 experience in ADRPG I have done other GMing. (Most if it in Star Wars RPG.) And I am a huge fan of the Amber series (and I am reading it again now). I have a huge difference in ability to BS in my group of players. For me the key to preventing the BS from overwhelming me as GM is that I have to keep the plot in mind. If the plot that I have in mind needs something to happen, then it will happen no matter what the players do or try (unless they find that I left a plot hole you could drive a star destroyer though, in which case shame on me and I have to think very fast on my feet). But if the proposed things can head towards my plot ends I just work them in, often with complications thrown in. The difference between a good and an excellent GM is whether the players notice this. If they feel led by the nose there will be resentment (Notice Merlin's attitude at times), but in my games they have so much lattitude they generally accept that some things 'must' happen for the story to go forward. I only use mechanics and dice rolling for determining random things that, in my experince, role playing just doesn't do well. Combat being the big one. But I digress a bit.
Back to Zelazny's approach. Benedict (NPC) is tearing after Corwin. Corwin the player tries to lose him, but never convinces Zelazny the GM that what he tries will work. But Zelazny needs Corwin, he still has more story to tell. So Zelazny allows the player Corwin to try to trick Benedict by the flimsy trick of using the Black Road to tie him up. (Maybe even tosses Ganeleon/Oberon at Benedict to give the player more time to think of a solution?) But notice that Corwin had to risk death a couple of times to set it up. It wasn't easy to get Benedict to the right position. Zelazny didn't make it seem easy to BS the GM, Corwin the player had to work at it and take risks to achieve his ends. This would be magnificient GMing and I aspire to reach this level.
(Just on a side note, Benedict's cutting of trees does seem a bit too much but still plausable. 3 inch hickory/oak - no way unless it's a lightsaber he is wielding or the vorpal sword from Luke's Looking Glass Bar. 3 inch willow/balsa or a spongier wood than we have on our earth - sure that I can belive. Especially from someone from a family that can lift cars and with that much experience with blades.)
{Ok did some digging and here is an interesting website on the whole cutting power of swords. After reading it I think he could do it:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/38819521501/p/1
It is an internet site and you have to decide if you believe the writers or not. Up to you, but I think several make good enough points that it is possible. In particular: "I know how well I can cut. I know how well I have been able to cut, and I know how well I do now at the age of 66 (at the time of this writing of this chapter). The best cut I ever made with a sword was with a Japanese-style blade I was testing to destruction. I sheared a 3 1/8th inch sapling in half, and length of the cut was 6 1/2 inches along the diagonal. I have seen a better cut made by Jim Fikes, a blacksmith friend of mine in Alabama. But I have no illusions as to how this compares with a 10th century warrior who had grown up using a sword." }
I have not played Amber DRPG yet. (Hoping for a copy of the main rule book for X-Mass) but I have GMed a free style of Star Wars RPG and have players of very different levels of BSing ability. The key for me not to be influenced by BS is to keep the plot of the adventure in mind. If I can work what the player wants to do into the plot then it works, if it doesn't then it won't work. I probably have to think fast about why it didn't work out the way the player planned but that is part of the fun of being a GM. But to show what my thoughts are through a classic Amber scene think about this:
Benedict (NPC) is storming after player Corwin. Corwin tries to elude pursuit by distance and time. Zelazny the GM doesn't think he has made it far enough so here comes Benedict. Ganelelon (NPC?) spots him and the race is on. Corwin knows he can't beat him in Warfare so he tries to elude him in other ways. Zelazny doesn't think that his tricks are good enough so on comes Benedict. Player Corwin picks a spot knowing a conflict is upon him (making the most of limited choices). Benedict makes mincemeat of his attempt at using a woods to slow him down (defeating his attempt to change the use of Warfare/reduce his effectiveness at it?)
{as a side note here is an interesting discussion on the cutting power of swords against wood. http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/38819521501/p/1 , I think Benedict could do it if it was a reasonably soft wood such as pine or poplar and not something like oak or hickory.}
But Zelazny needs Corwin to survive, he has more story to tell. He tosses Ganeleon at Benedict to slow him down just a bit and give player Corwin a bit more time to come up with something good. So when player Corwin attempts to trick Benedict with the admittedly weak trick of the Black Road he allows it, but makes it very dangerous. Corwin almost gets killed, and is injured getting Benedict into position. The ruse then succeeds and Corwin manages to get away. Corwin the player didn't BS Zelazny into success, he had to work for it. I aspire to be this good of a GM.
Does this sound like a session of Amber? I only know what I have been reading on the site so far so feel free to correct me if I am off.
When I read in the Shadow Knight sourcebook that Zelazny would have made an awesome GM, I immediately started re-reading the series. So many things take a new light if you read with that kind of idea in mind.
Just realised that this is a moderated post. Apologies on the double post. Feel free to delete the weaker of the two posts.
Quote from: daniel_ream;490371I'm going to point out again that it's not that the characters are demigods...
Thanks for pointing this out again for those who might have skimmed the thread and not caught the other times you pointed it out. :)
Whether Amberites are demigods or not really does not matter. Each game master will have to make this decision for his or her own campaign. The key is that folk of Amber tend to be a lot better than average at doing things, which was the heart of my suggestion that cinematic role playing works best with ADRP. Jack Sparrow isn't a demigod but he would work well under ADRP because things he attempts just seem to go right and he doesn't need to roll dice a lot. If characters are average then the randomness of dice becomes a more useful tool to determine success.
I don't know how you define a demigod.
- Merlin and Luke were able to run at near-olympic speeds. That's pretty darned cool. On the other hand, I don't think that Zelazny ever tried to compare Merlin's sprinting to The Flash.
- Corwin and Random together could lift a car. I suppose the fact that it was a smaller car makes it slightly less impressive than if they had lifted up an all-steel Buick, but I know I couldn't do that. Zelazny never compared Amberites to Superman, but I think he would win becasue he can move planets.
Others have cited additional examples of how Amberites are better than an average human. Just how much better is where the debate begins and my interest diminishes. The beauty of the ADRP rules system is that each GM gets to make "the call" on this. All we know is that ranked is better than "Joe Average Amber" which is better than Chaos which is better than Shadow.
Quote from: daniel_ream;490371...it's that the characters primarily care about their relationships with each other that drives emotional investment.
This isn't a specific trait unique to ADRP, but certainly character diaries and the like encourage players to care more about their characters. I'm not sure that it's the one factor that really defines ADRP, but maybe I don't understand the intent of your post. :o
Quote from: daniel_ream;491739I've been running ADRPG since the book came out, and the number one issue that's always come up is that at the end of the day, it's not what your character is or even what his ranks are. It's whether you can BS the GM. That absolutely killed immersion for most of my players, because conflicts weren't resolved by anything to do with the characters, they were resolved by the persuasion abilities of the players. People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.
This sounds like a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules. I can't believe that you've been running ADRP since 1991 and missed the way conflct resolution works. The top option in conflict resolution is supposed to be the comparrison of attributes. The extras are small modifiers designed to allow the scales to tip one way or the other for close calls.
I have this same problem with the "Endurance is worthless" posters. If you look at the rules it's pretty clear that when conflict attributes are similar, the contest defaults to Endurance and who can keep going the longest. That makes Endurance potentially the best of the four attributes, not the worst, since it has the possiblilty of influencing warfare conflicts, strength conflicts, and psyche conflicts.
The rules are simple, yes, but they really are designed to handle almost any situation. And very little of it is "BS-ing the GM."
Just my two cents.
Quote from: finarvyn;496640I'm not sure that it's the one factor that really defines ADRP, but maybe I don't understand the intent of your post. :o
Clearly.
You split the sentence in two, which might be why you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
The Amber Chronicles are fundamentally about self-discovery by the protagonist. Since that doesn't work very well as a group RPG, the ADRPG chooses to fall back on the complex love/hate relationships between all the major characters. In the Chronicles, the characters don't really care about anything other than their relationships with each other because
one of the setting's defining aspects is that nothing else does matter. Amber is the only real world, and everything else is Shadow, therefore the only thing
to care about is Amber (well, specifically, the Amber royal family).
It's not an accident that for a single point you can have a whole universe to yourself and define it however you want, and there are no mechanics for that
except when other people might choose to mess with your Shadow. Every part of character creation is designed to create the love/hate relationships between the players. There simply are no rules for anything else, including power politics, ruling a kingdom, exploring Shadow, researching new spells, etc, because none of those have to do with the central conceit of the game: Make It Personal.
QuoteThis sounds like a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules. I can't believe that you've been running ADRP since 1991 and missed the way conflct resolution works. The top option in conflict resolution is supposed to be the comparrison of attributes. The extras are small modifiers designed to allow the scales to tip one way or the other for close calls.
Everyone on this thread wants to keep telling me I don't understand the rules or don't understand how conflict resolution works or generally keep flapping their big Amber penises in the wind and yet not one single person has addressed the central point of contention: Amber conflicts between PCs are
either foregone conclusions
or are determined by whomever can better BS the GM that their trick/defense beats the other guy.
Here's a nice, simple hypothetical: Gerard with a claymore is fighting Benedict with a cavalry saber. Gerard is first Rank in Strength and Benedict is First Rank in Warfare. Clearly the only way Gerard can "win" this fight is to shift the terms of the battle from Warfare to Strength.
Keeping in mind that Warfare as written
includes the ability to spot such stratagems, how would you adjudicate an attempt by Gerard's player to shift the terms of the conflict from Warfare to Strength?
RTFM. Seriously Daniel, RTFM.
I have begun to believe that if the Archangel Corwin descended from the heavens, resurrected the Wuj and the two of them together sat you down and walked you through a platonic ideal of Amber Diceless combat that you would complain that they BS-ed you.
How to adjudicate Amber Diceless Conflict for Dummies.
1. Determine the field of conflict.
2. Determine the relevant primary attribute.
3. Determine any relevant secondary attributes
4. Determine any relevant pre-existing advantages such as stuff or items.
5. Use your judgment to impartially weigh the above factors and decide who will win and by how much if nothing changes.
6. Allow the players to try to shift that balance through role played actions.
7. Use your judgment to decide how much and in what manner each role played action shifts the balance.
8. Describe consequences along the way such as wounds culminating eventually in an end to the conflict through withdrawal, defeat, or victory.
You seem to have a problem with the idea that a GM can exercise judgment without giving in to BS. This personal issue combined with an unwillingness to RTFM suggests that you may find games other than ADRPG more appealing. It does not make ADRPG in any way a flawed system.
In the conflict between Gerard and Benedict you have picked a simple but ultimately useless example. Benedict has a tremendous advantage in Warfare and you have chosen a warfare contest. Gerard has chosen poorly. Consider the difference between them as something on the order of 6 to 8 ranks. Most actions will shift the balance by some fraction of a rank and Benedict has as many opportunities to shift things in his favor as Gerard. Gerard loses. Gerard loses as badly as Benedict wants him to unless Benedict has a complete idiot playing him. Gerard still loses because Gerard has a complete idiot playing him in the first place to have his character challenge Gerard to a swordfight.
BTW the ADRPG rules specifically use Gerard and Benedict in a swordfight as an example of a fight which Gerard cannot win. You might notice this if you went and RTFM instead of getting snarky with people who have in fact RTFM.
In order to have any hope of defeating Benedict Gerard needs to change the contest away from Swordfighting. I personally recommend a contest of who gets up first with fewest wounds after Gerard smashes the building supports and drop the building on both their heads as a contest that favors Gerard over Benedict.
As to how to adjudicate a less unbalanced contest. Use your judgment. The ADRPG does not provide specific benchmarks for how much any one thing will shift a contest. The Wuj trusted ADRPG GMs to make these determinations.
In my experience every RPG has GMs use their judgment in some situations. The ADRPG extends that to all situations.
Some actions, including most tricks, will only have a tiny effect.
Some actions, such as recruiting a competent ally or arranging a major distraction will have a significant effect.
Some actions such as knocking down the building on top of the combatants will change the playing field and force the GM to calculate for a new contest.
Benedict's Warfare will make it blatantly obvious that Gerard wants to shift the Contest to who gets up first after the building falls. That doesn't make that a fight he can win easily. Benedict can withdraw and yield the building to Gerard. He can rush the fight and put himself at greater risk in order to try to win the fight before the building collapses. He can position himself to minimize damage to himself from the collapse. He can wound Gerard in hopes of having an advantage post collapse. He can try something creative.
Withdrawal works. Gerard can't stop him. Smart PCs and NPCs will run away to fight another day.
Rushing the fight has serious risks. Benedict will certainly inflict grievous damage on Gerard that way, but a lucky/unlucky break might let Gerard hit Benedict in return. Gerard hits amazingly hard.
Wounding Gerard will work, but may not shift the eventual contest enough.
Positioning himself will work, but gives Gerard the option to take a wound in order to share that position. Getting stuck in a collapsed pocket within a building gives Gerard a serious advantage in subsequent contests. Positioning himself by a window gives Gerard an easy option to withdraw from the fight.
Something creative may or may not work.
Quote from: Lorrraine;496719RTFM. Seriously Daniel, RTFM.
I have begun to believe that if the Archangel Corwin descended from the heavens, resurrected the Wuj and the two of them together sat you down and walked you through a platonic ideal of Amber Diceless combat that you would complain that they BS-ed you.
No, I would complain that like your lengthy post, the mechanics of ADRPG conflict as written are no more than the GM arbitrarily deciding who wins. Go re-read post #31 on this thread again, since you're such a huge advocate of people re-reading things.
QuoteAs to how to adjudicate a less unbalanced contest. Use your judgment. The ADRPG does not provide specific benchmarks for how much any one thing will shift a contest. The Wuj trusted ADRPG GMs to make these determinations.
The problem with that is he gave absolutely no guidance whatsoever on how to do that. Even his examples consist mostly of "here's people saying stuff about their characters!" with no indication of how or why the GM made the decisions they did about the outcome. Take Godfrey's fight with the "tavern maid" (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/examples/amber_combat.html):
QuoteNotice how any wounds are based on whether or not tiny deceptions work or fail.
Bullshit. There's no description given of how the GM in that passage is deciding whether the deceptions "work or fail". It's clear from the description that the tavern maid beats Godfrey in both Strength and Warfare, yet at the end he still gets in a hit, despite being outmatched in two relevant Attributes
and being wounded, and he didn't use any "deception" to do so. How did that happen? Did the NPC decide to take the wound to end the fight amicably? Who the hell knows? "The Wuj"[1] doesn't say, in that example or anywhere else for that matter.
The ADRPG deliberately sets up all conflict in the game as between blooded major characters, preferably PCs, and then fizzles out when it comes to giving any real advice on how to adjudicate that in a way that isn't the GM just arbitrarily deciding the outcome.
You don't like Benedict vs. Gerard? Fine. Explain to me how Corwin, the third or fourth best swordsman in Amber by his own reckoning, fools all-there-is-of-military-science-thunders-though-his-head-First-Rank Benedict into backing onto dangerous terrain, a trick even novice fencers were taught to watch out for. (cf. "The Hun in the Sun").
[1] Seriously, what the fuck.
Quote from: daniel_ream;496729No, I would complain that like your lengthy post, the mechanics of ADRPG conflict as written are no more than the GM arbitrarily deciding who wins. Go re-read post #31 on this thread again, since you're such a huge advocate of people re-reading things.
I responded to post #31 with post #32 above. I would suggest that you reread it, but...
If you can't see the difference between a GM impartially adjudicating a conflict and a GM arbitrarily deciding who will win then you will never understand the ADRPG system.
Objecting to the lack of guidance in the ADRPG system I can accept as a legitimate criticism. Erick could have provided more and clearer examples.
I will need to dig out my Amber novels and reread the Benedict vs Corwin duel before I can use that as an example. The difference between Benedict (Warfare Rank 1) and Corwin (Warfare Rank 2.1 bought up to just behind Eric) makes the fight much more even than Benedict fighting Gerard (Warfare Rank 7 or worse).
Found it.
Quote from: daniel_ream;491519You don't like Benedict vs. Gerard? Fine. Explain to me how Corwin, the third or fourth best swordsman in Amber by his own reckoning, fools all-there-is-of-military-science-thunders-though-his-head-First-Rank Benedict into backing onto dangerous terrain, a trick even novice fencers were taught to watch out for. (cf. "The Hun in the Sun").
Quote from: Corwin"I knew he would come in the same as before, and my right leg was across and back behind my left, then straightening, as he did. I gave his blade but the barest beat to the side as I sprang backward onto the black road immediately extending my arm full length to discourage a balaestra.
Then he did what I had hoped. He beat at my blade and advanced normally when I dropped it into quarte..."
Benedict did not back onto dangerous terrain. He followed Corwin onto dangerous terrain. He took a risk because if he stayed off the dangerous terrain then Corwin might escape across it. Benedict's rage would not allow him to let Corwin escape without trying to follow. That action seems perfectly in character for Benedict.
Quote from: daniel_ream;496674Everyone on this thread wants to keep telling me I don't understand the rules or don't understand how conflict resolution works...
I'm trying to come up with a diplomatic way to say this so I don't spark off another wave of hissy-fit. I suspect I can't do it, and anything I say will be quoted along with your next attack.
Bottom line is this:
1. If you have one opinion and every one else has another, you might stop to reconsider your position.
2. If you don't like ADRP as written, don't play it.
3. If you don't like ADRP, don't go to an ADRP board and tell others that the game is broken or that they are idiots. That's called "trolling" and is just designed to start fights.
Seriously, when I first read ADRP I didn't "get it" either, but then I played in a game where Erick was the GM and it really opened my eyes to the whole thing. You have to start with a GM who is fair and players who want to enjoy a game of words instead of a game of dice. Erick did this stuff so naturally. If the GM doesn't "get it" then the campaign is doomed and players end up trying to push the GM around.