MCWOD and Amber d20

[Cab]

I think the attraction of the "early" systems like TnT and OD&D stems from the fact that when player actions strayed outside the rules, Gamemasters would improvise, intuit, deduce and fiat their way through the issue... just like in Amber, difference being that they have dice around to bolster their authority.

To an extent I think you're right there, although I don't think that dice bolster the GMs authority.

I think that the enormous potential of an Amberite rather requires that a GM view the printed rules as a set of guidelines rather than as the way things must be done, and thats an ethos you get from rules light systems (which in D&D terms tends to be older ones).

I hadn't really considered this before, but I'm quite up for the idea of running an Amber campaign with D&D or T&T now

[Otha]

To an extent I think you're right there, although I don't think that dice bolster the GMs authority.

In some groups, there's a kind of "cult of the dice".  They're given almost religious significance.  Just watch someone roll their d20 a dozen times until a "natural" 1 shows up, so that it (by some mechanism) would NOT come up in play.

I think that the enormous potential of an Amberite rather requires that a GM view the printed rules as a set of guidelines rather than as the way things must be done, and thats an ethos you get from rules light systems (which in D&D terms tends to be older ones).

Well, there are games that are actually DESIGNED that way, such as Amber and its ilk, which function better than ones where you're just falling back on it because the system doesn't give you what you need.

[Cab]

In some groups, there's a kind of "cult of the dice".  They're given almost religious significance.  Just watch someone roll their d20 a dozen times until a "natural" 1 shows up, so that it (by some mechanism) would NOT come up in play.

Yeah, there are some idiots around who don't get basic probability, and they're not likely to be attracted to playing Amber :haw:  I haven't met many of them, but you do see members of any gaming group swear occasionally after a short run of bad luck.

Well, there are games that are actually DESIGNED that way, such as Amber and its ilk, which function better than ones where you're just falling back on it because the system doesn't give you what you need.

In fairness to those other games (and Amber is a tremendous game, which is why I'm posting here in the first place), its a bad GM who relies on dice or even the game system in that way; blame the idiot, not the system

[Otha]

System is a necessity if players are to have a solid idea of what to expect when they try things out.  The GM *must* rely on it (whatever system is being used) or he risks alienating his players.

If a player puts together a character based around book-style sorcery and conjuration, and the GM runs sorcery differently every time it comes up, that player is likely to feel cheated.

If a player works with the GM to build a construct using the SK rules, and pays the points to make sure that it stays under his control, and then it goes out of his control, he's likely to feel cheated.

The same thing happens when a GM ignores die rolls, whether for good or for ill, though in a smaller way.

So yes... system is necessary, and GM's need to rely on it.

[Cab]

System is a necessity if players are to have a solid idea of what to expect when they try things out.  The GM *must* rely on it (whatever system is being used) or he risks alienating his players.

Kind of, I mean, you should at least be consistent. To a point. But a good GM keeps the trust of the players through being fair; if sheer dumb bad luck is going to ruin everyones fun (which'll happen, especially in a game where dice rolls matter) then he has to know how to turn that around and keep the game flowing. Its a craft that has to be learned, and I'd argue that you have to go through that before you can appreciate the beauty and complexity of a game like Amber, and you need to understand how a game like Amber works before you can really get the context right in games with more randomness.

[crafty]

Just to butt in here a bit, I view my games and the ADRP as being like Amber and Corwin's Pattern, same idea, but there are differences.  Most of my players have never played straight ADRP, and wouldn't want to.  The rest have been told "hey, this is a different universe".  Actually one of my players pointed out it not just about the rules, but figuring out what the rules are.  

I do have to agree, you must be consistent.  I've taken to recording my games in order to ensure I know what I said at a session, so I can write it down later.  It sure saves my sanity, and makes it interesting to compare with  the diaries I receive.

[Croaker]

You'll bet!!!

I remember times when I had forgotten why I had introduced something, and had to work it out in the game so that it seemed coherent after all, be it even only to me :lol:

[James McMurray]

What about making hit dice beyond the first a factor of your Endurance? A couple of ideas spring to mind:

1) Each rank beyond Human for Endurance is worth XdY hit points.

2) Anyone with human rank endurance gets their base hit die and constituation. Someone with Chaos Rank gets to gain their constitution modifier every level (or maybe Con + 1d4). Amber ranked individuals get Con + d8 per level, or maybe Con + 4 + d4 if you want to highlight the difference between the ranks more).

What the ranks are is fluid. Perhaps feats can increase your ranks. Or they might be gained by templates.

Or maybe templates grant you access to the appropriate "Rank" feats. For instance, an Amberite gets access to all the Rank feats, but a Chaosite only gets access to Chaos Rank feats. The Amber template would also give you 4 bonus feats that can be spent on Ranks, while Chaosite gives you only 2. Perhaps the Amberite Ancestor feat, takable only at first level, gives you access to higher ranks but no bonus feats to buy them with.

[James McMurray]

I think a bigger concern is levels for Amberites. It doesn't make a lot of senes to me that an Amberite/Prince of Chaos, even a relative neophyte like Merlin, is going to be a first level dude with a +1 BAB, +2 saves, and 1d8+3 hit points.

Maybe PCs should be built more like Supers are built in Silver Age Sentinels. In SAS, each character has a certain number of build points to spend on super powers (i.e. Pattern, Artifacts, and Personal Shadows). That's also where you buy your stats. Finally, you can also buy levels with them, up to a max set by the GM when he chose the power level the game was meant to represent. The GM also recommends what level each character should, at a minimum, buy.

--

Another thing is hit points. Amberites don't die, or at least not easily. Loss of hit points should almost certainly not equate to death. Perhaps give Amberites negative hit points equal to twice their Con, and slow or remove the bleeding to death rates? That means that if someone really wants you dead they can do it, but makes it really hard for you to die to a lucky hit.

[James McMurray]

Just had another odd, then I'll shut up: maybe the Ranks are the classes. For instance, your burly war master might be Endurance 3 / War 4 / Strength 3. Ranks / Levels in Strength would grant large bonuses to strength, strength based powers like Throw Large Furniture, etc. Endurance would be a d12 hit die and increase your rate of natural regeneration. War would be the fighter class, with high BAB and lots of fighter feats.

[hgjs]

I'd be very curious to see someone try to make a set of rules for Amberites in D20 that didn't utterly break that game.

RPGPundit

You know, in fact I think you could do this almost without changing the system at all.  The players generate their characters as normal.  Then, based on their stats and descriptions, the GM secretly makes character sheets for all of them.  (Followers, artifacts, and sorcery would require some custom work.)  Then, the players play the game as normal, and behind the scenes the GM rolls the dice -- with the caveat that he can add appropriate modifiers to any roll as he sees fit -- and tells the players what happened.  The only big difference would be use of HP instead of scratched / wounded / etc., and that people don't fight worse if they're hurt or tired (although that's easily houseruled in as a modifier).

So yeah, you could do it that way, but I'm unconvinced it would add any real benefit.

Now, d20 Amber where the players use their sheets themselves would require re-writing the auction system, but I think it might work if the GM makes every dice roll in secret and can give situational modifiers to any roll.

[Otha]

hgjs, I think you misunderstood the proposition.

[Croaker]

Well, in this case, the D20 would just be a facade for playing "real amber", wound't it?

[Otha]

Exactly.  So you wouldn't really be playing a D20 Amber, this would just be an unusual way of getting your Amber stats set up.

[finarvyn]

I never reallly thought that Amber could be done using the d20 system. Too mathematical, not loose enough for my liking.

I'm not a fan of 3E but ... (major snip) It just seems to be well written overall.

So why post this on an ADRP forum?

...now I think that it would be possible to create a d20 Amber rulebook in a way that could actually be fun to play.

So, I take it that nobody here has actually seen Monte Cook's World of Darkness? I get the impression that the d20 Amber debate is the same old tired and generic discussion that I've seen before both here and on other boards, and not influenced one whit by the content of my original post.

I mean, I started off by saying I wasn't a big fan of d20 in general and the overall shouting of the boards seens to echo that sentiment. Makes sense; that's why you're here instead of ENWorld.

My whole point was that it seemed like if MCWOD could handle the WOD setting perhaps it could also excel at handling Amber, but no one has commented on this at all. Everyone seems to focus on generic d20 arguments, which I agreed wouldn't be a good fit. :confused:

In other words, you've already made up your mind and the fact that a new product might be better than the old one doesn't matter because you already know that it's impossible for your old ideas to be incorrect. It's almost like people don't really read posts, but instead look for key words so they can comment on them. :raise:

Am I just overly sensitive here?