Build your own canon

[boulet]

When reading Amber cycles we have three possible attitudes on how we define canon and how it reflects in our games :

1 - "If it's written it's canon" it should be the way to go for most of Zelazny's narration. Sure someone could start a campaign with some exotic idea like "Dworkin didn't create the primal pattern. Actually it was..." but it's safe to assume that most GMs consider "Dworkin, creator of the Pattern" an objective truth.
2 - "When Corwin or Merlin tell us about something we should be cautious." Both narrators are humans. Humans are fallible and even lie sometimes. They may lie by omission or actively. Subjects like royal succession are obviously controversial. This means we, as GMs, can challenge their logic and even contradict them.
3 - "Come on Roger ! I can't believe you included this in the story !" It might happen. There may be pieces of the story that you get disturbed by. It could be for aesthetic reasons or gameplay implications...

In general in my campaigns I use Merlin's cycle as a good source of fluff but not so much as canonical background. I really hate the concept of Logrus and Pattern as beings the protagonists could discuss/bargain/swear allegiance to. It's probably more about my perception of the divine than a real issue with Zelazny's work since most of you seem on board with this concept. I also couldn't care less for Pattern/Logrus' ghosts. It's too artificial and kitsch for me. Those are instances of point #3. I would also ditch most of the storyline of Merlin's cycle because my sweet spot when it comes to starting point is right between the two cycles.

What about your vision of the canon ?

[Xenon]

there is 'the complete Amber sourcebook' by theodore krulik, printed in 1996. wonderful source, includes bits on the moonriders and the creation of the pattern swords.

some people do corwin-series only canon. others include merlin, others include the short stories (which confirm the swords as spikards, and add in the mirror realms). heck, you can make a strong argument that merlin's tale is illusionary falsehood from the point where he is told to 'go back'. some people use all of the ADRPG, others leave stuff out, make partial powers, or change rules they don't like(usually magic).

Really, most of Amber comes down to learning that what you assumed was true was an incomplete picture of reality. not wrong, just missing little facts. The pattern can be considered a construct of infinite shadows, a trump of the eye of the serpent drawn in the blood of an advanced shapeshifter. how we interpret the pattern can define a campaign, and there is a lot of range to work with from canon.

[SunBoy]

IMO, as far as plotlines, it all depends on the particular lines you want to follow as a GM when you start your campaign, and then in your player's decisions. I mean, what if you start between cycles, and some player decides to look out and then wipe out every single drop of Brand's blood. If he succeeds (and if you look at the rulebook, he could), Merlin's cycle just doesn't happen, and that's that.

But about cosmogony, metaphysics, etc., just like Xenon here said, I think that if it makes for a good campaign, knock yourself out. Of course, please don't have Jesus stepping out of a flying saucer to save Oberon's arse with Teh Holey Bazooka, but as long as something fits the tone, I think it's ridiculous to get picky about how "in page 354 Roger said the third mirror to the right was framed in brass, not bronze!!!" We're not playing Hackmaster, here.

Oh, and welcome, Xenon.

[gabriel_ss4u]

What about your vision of the canon ?

Most all of Corwin's story is canon to me.
Just a few things like trump decks in the library, god-like beings having dorm sized rooms, little things like that I tend to change to befit the immortal demi-god thought process. ( I mean... would you renovate? Castle Amber atop Kolvier is much bigger IMC.)
Also the deaths. (Kinda like comics, ya never know who's really dead)


I use alot of elements from Merlin's series, but not all.
Oberon & Swayvill still sit on the thrones, even if they're not on them ....of course, this does not apply to short campaigns.
my yrs. long campaign has evolved waaayyyy past the books, but I always enjoy coming back to the 'beginning' of a campaign.

I can't wait to unleash 'my' Amber upon future players.
Thanks to RZ & EW for bringing us this joy.

...and welcome Xenon, look forward to your joining the discussions.

[Corambis]

The way I see it, there is a "primal" idea of Amber.  Zelazny took this idea and created it's first shadow by writing the books.  They're maybe not a perfect refection of the true concept.  Undoubtedly he forgot things, or changed things, or any number of things happened.

Then we have the Amber DRPG, which is the shadow off of Zelazny's written work.  It is not a perfect replication of Zelazny's writings (although excellent in their own right, don't get me wrong), just as Zelazny's writings are an imperfect replication of his original idea.

Finally, or perhaps not so finally, we have the next set of shadows, which is the canon of the various GMs, which in many cases may vary from campaign to campaign.  It's already at least three steps removed from the "primal idea", so there is a lot of room for flexibility.  Part of the fun in playing in an Amber game is that you aren't playing in Zelazny's Amber stories; you're creating new ones.  In doing so, the GM and players are creating new canon.  This doesn't change Zelazny's or Wujcik's or any other GM's canon, any more than a change in a Golden Circle kingdom affects the reality of the city of Amber.

That being said, I think it works best when players observe the generally accepted canon provided by Zelazny and Wujcik, or at least present a plausible explanation why it didn't.  There are certainly any number of creative ways to spin a major change in canon.  I've been mulling over the idea that when Corwin created his Pattern, it instantly flung him into that Pattern's sub-universe, that thanks to Corwin's expectations exactly replicated the "real" one.  The entire Merlin series of books would then be a product of this sub-universe, while in the real universe, Brand is still loose and maybe Oberon didn't fix the Primal Pattern.  The PCs could either be inhabitants of Corwin's universe that eventually find the truth out and "escape", or children of the real Amber who go looking for Corwin and find themselves part of the Merlin stories...

[boulet]

Superb mise en abyme Corambis. Thank you.

[weilide]

To be nitpicky about the whole thing, any time one has a first-person character narrator the whole idea of canon becomes a little iffy. All we can be certain of is that the narrators (Corwin, Merlin, Luke, etc) made the statements contained in their various books and stories. For example, we know that Corwin stated that he believes with good reason that Dworkin created the primal pattern, but that does not preclude subsequent evidence emerging to the contrary.

Having said that, however, I'm generally inclined to take all Zelazny-penned materials as good enough for jazz, so far as canonicity is concerned, and try to deviate as little as possible.

[RPGPundit]

I tend to stick close to canon, but add a lot of additional material to that canon. I think that makes things more interesting than outright changing canon (though "alternate histories" do also have their place).

RPGPundit

[Koltar]

When reading Amber cycles we have three possible attitudes on how we define canon and how it reflects in our games :

1 - "If it's written it's canon" it should be the way to go for most of Zelazny's narration. Sure someone could start a campaign with some exotic idea like "Dworkin didn't create the primal pattern. Actually it was..." but it's safe to assume that most GMs consider "Dworkin, creator of the Pattern" an objective truth.
2 - "When Corwin or Merlin tell us about something we should be cautious." Both narrators are humans. Humans are fallible and even lie sometimes. They may lie by omission or actively. Subjects like royal succession are obviously controversial. This means we, as GMs, can challenge their logic and even contradict them.
3 - "Come on Roger ! I can't believe you included this in the story !" It might happen. There may be pieces of the story that you get disturbed by. It could be for aesthetic reasons or gameplay implications...

In general in my campaigns I use Merlin's cycle as a good source of fluff but not so much as canonical background. ....A bunch of Stuff I don't get because I should really read the darn books......
What about your vision of the canon ?

Boulet.

Could I borrow the gist of thois OP for a new thread in the RPG section?

Or urge you to start it?

Look, I have never read the Amber novels (been meaning to) but while browsding whjo was doing what on here - this thread title perked my ionterest.

 This same idea of "Building Your Own Canon" would also work for RPG campaims set in the STAR TREK or STAR WARS universes - oer even someplace like FORGOTTEN REALMS.
I get really sick of that special breed of rules lawyers that maybe should be called Setting Lawyers.

What you suggest is sort of what J.J. Abrams did with the new TREK movie or what Ron Moore did with the BSG idea.

Is it okay with you if I start a similar thread in RPG  area?


- Ed C.

[gabriel_ss4u]

If I haven't said it yet; Welcome Corambis.

on that note, I really think you did a good job of concisely pinning the tail on the Amberite.
I really like the theory of the Merlin series being off-shot from the Corwin Pattern, good twist. (not for my campaign, maybe a short).
btw Corambis, is your handle a combination of Corwin (of) Amber is.... (something dirty I suppose)?

[boulet]

Steal away Ed ! Eat your heart out ! I'm flattered if anything.

[Corambis]

If I haven't said it yet; Welcome Corambis.

on that note, I really think you did a good job of concisely pinning the tail on the Amberite.
I really like the theory of the Merlin series being off-shot from the Corwin Pattern, good twist. (not for my campaign, maybe a short).
btw Corambis, is your handle a combination of Corwin (of) Amber is.... (something dirty I suppose)?

Thanks for welcoming me to the forum, and for the kind words regarding my posts.  With regards to my handle, it is actually the name of my character in the Amber game I play in at the moment.  I always find it hard to come up with a good name for any character I play in a game, and in this case, I wanted a good Amberish sounding name, so I took a lesson from the master and decided to borrow from Shakespeare  After pouring over a list of names from the works of Shakespeare I found on the Net, I came across "Corambis", who may or may not have been an earlier version of Polonius from Hamlet, or at least from a version remembered by some of the actors:

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/hamletfaq.html#corambis

When I saw the name, I fell in love with it, first because of the overall sound, but I also liked the hints of "Corwin" and "Amber" that you picked up on as well.  It's since crept out of the Amber campaign I am playing in and seen a good deal of use as a general internet handle for me as of late.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Cool, I like it too.

It rolls off the tongue; ::sounding like Antonio Banderas mixed w/ Ule Brenner :::
" Cor(trilled r~)-AM-bisss"

(sorry Ule if I misspelled yer name, I'm too lazy to look up 'The King & I' cast)

[Croaker]

This same idea of "Building Your Own Canon" would also work for RPG campaims set in the STAR TREK or STAR WARS universes - oer even someplace like FORGOTTEN REALMS.
I get really sick of that special breed of rules lawyers that maybe should be called Setting Lawyers.

Well, I don't care too much about canon, so long as the spirit of the thing is respected.

That's why, IMO, even if, for exemple, "batman begins" doesn't follow canon batman on some things, I don't care at all, and find it to be a great Batman movie.
That's also why I don't like the new Star Trek movie. While I don't care one bit about non-canon things like the characters having been to school together, or spock and uhara having a relationship, I deeply ressented the fact that it more like a Star Wars movie (although I like Star Wars) than a Star Trek movie.

Same thing goes for Amber. Alternate campains in which, for exemple, Brand wins are fine to me. Campains in which Amberites are a paladin-like good guys opposing the Evil forces of Chaos, I have more difficulties with (although this could be done cleverly, as a kind of "pattern colors your perception"-like campain)

[jibbajibba]

Well, I don't care too much about canon, so long as the spirit of the thing is respected.

That's why, IMO, even if, for exemple, "batman begins" doesn't follow canon batman on some things, I don't care at all, and find it to be a great Batman movie.
That's also why I don't like the new Star Trek movie. While I don't care one bit about non-canon things like the characters having been to school together, or spock and uhara having a relationship, I deeply ressented the fact that it more like a Star Wars movie (although I like Star Wars) than a Star Trek movie.

Same thing goes for Amber. Alternate campains in which, for exemple, Brand wins are fine to me. Campains in which Amberites are a paladin-like good guys opposing the Evil forces of Chaos, I have more difficulties with (although this could be done cleverly, as a kind of "pattern colors your perception"-like campain)

totally agree with this. As I mentioend before I never use the 2nd generation Amberites in my games. why would I want 16+ NPCs who are all tougher than the players. I let the players make their own Amberites but they have to stick to the style, flavour and spirit of Amber. I don't want a royal house made up of Conan, The Wicked Witch of the East and Spiderman.