Why does the younger generation have to be younger than the 'elders'?
Think about it...
Benedict is far older than Corwin, Corwin's far older than Gerard, Gerard is far older than Random.
We tend to think of the younger generation as being roughly contemporary, but they don't need to be. The PC's could have cousins who are easily old enough to be as competent as your average Elder, or moreso.
Given the expectations of "balance" that some people have, it might be interesting to throw in an NPC cousin that was as dangerous as an Elder.
Agreed.
Look at the imbalance between Rinaldo and Merlin and Martin.
Martin is logically much older than either of the other two, and Rinaldo is much smarter and savvy than Merlin.
I'm confused. Why isn't this thread about how Amber sucks balls and needs a revamp? Isn't that why you're here? ;)
I definitely agree that age is a very fluid thing in Amberites. As a player I'd rather face down an unknown quantity then "yawn, just another elder." This isn't to say that a campaign involving elders has to be boring, but it definitely seems cliche that ___ decides to take over Amber / get revenge on Corwin / etc.
I'd say mostly for game balance. presumably, those who are old would have higher stats, greater powers, more experience and knowledge. so it's easier for all the PCs to be relatively young (on the Amberite-practically-immortal scale, of course, which in games I've run means around 200 years old.)
obviously, it's not etched in stone; if a good character background requires a PC to be a lost child of Osric, and thus older than most of the elders, I'm sure it can be worked out...
Game balance?
I don't understand.
Since when do the PC's have to encompass ALL of the youngers?
Given that in Shadow time and age are highly malleable, I don't think there'd be a big problem with having some of the PCs be centuries (or more) older than other PCs, without changing their actual point base.
RPGPundit