So I Don't Think I Get Amber

[The Worid]

Perhaps it would make more sense if I had read the books.
On RPGPundit's advice (from his Xanga site) I got a copy of Amber Diceless, and read it. More properly, I read the character creation and task resolution sections, and (I admit) only skimmed the magic parts. The bidding mechanic was interesting, and I had hopes that I would like the game.
But I didn't. It seemed like a good two-thirds of the book could have been replaced with a page saying "Wing it" and nothing would have been lost. I kept looking at the next page, expecting a clever trick, and it didn't show up. Moreover, the play examples were irritating (not in that they existed, in their content), and the GM came off as a snide, patronizing jerk to me.
It's not the diceless aspect that bothers me, it's the lack of any meat to the system. I'm not trying to anger anyone who likes this game (I swear), I'm just wondering if I'm missing something here.

[weilide]

Hmmmm, could you be more specific? What kind of clever trick were you expecting but did not find? For that matter, what was irritating about the play examples? Granted, high art they ain't but they never made me angry. If you can qualify your objections a bit perhaps it will be more evident what is not working for you.

[Croaker]

the GM came off as a snide, patronizing jerk to me.

you wanna die :lol:

[jibbajibba]

I would have to say Amber is light on mechanics. If you came to Amber looking for a game that was diceless but had a number of clever interlinked mechanics that fit together like peices of perfect clockwork you woudl be mistaken.
However, the Attribute auction is genius. It's genius for a lot of reasons, sets up the competition between PCs, allows stats to be open ended and in doing so sets the tone of the whole game, but mostly because it was unique and inspiringly original. How many times have you picked up a game and been able to scan the character generation because it's a variation of 3d6 for 6 stats or pools of d10 or whatever. Amber has a unique mechanism (i am a heretic as I love the aution but don't like the ranking rules).
Yes a lot of the book is background and flavour different versions of NPCs and the like. I didn't think the examples were so bad.
I actually think the rules lite nature of Amber is one of its strengths. Ambers multiverse nature would mean there were two approaches. Cover everything to do that you would need a rule book so densely packed it creaked at the seems. Systems for space dogfights, 16th century duels, modern warefare, fantasy creatures, faey, werewolves... It would need to be a combination of D&D, WoD, Twilight 2000, Traveller and Rifts. You could do that but in play it would be unweildy and, because the protagonists can alter their reality at a whim, untimately flawed as you can't cover allt eh variables. The alternative was a rules light system with a single mechanic that was universal. That is what you get. I think you can put all the Amber rules on 1 peice of paper and I think that makes a nice change.

[The Worid]

Hmmmm, could you be more specific? What kind of clever trick were you expecting but did not find? For that matter, what was irritating about the play examples? Granted, high art they ain't but they never made me angry. If you can qualify your objections a bit perhaps it will be more evident what is not working for you.

Here's a quote found early in the book:

"Develop your dream character: the one you have always wanted to play – the one you have always wanted to be."

Okay, sounds good. Yet when we get to some of the character creation examples, that has gone out the window:

"Willy: Yeah. Like I'll have these six cats, and they'll each be
eight point items, and then...
GM: NO!"

...and Willy ends up not actually making the character he set out to, replacing it with a less interesting concept that he could buy without the GM causing trouble for him.

Later on, this character shows up again, in a section about rules lawyering:

"GM: A fist-sized object comes flying into the room, shattering
the window and splashing right into the big soup bowl.
What are you doing?
Willy: Greymer is here with me, didn't I have any warning?
GM: Your lynx, Greymer, looks startled and his fur is standing
straight up on end. What are you doing?
Willy: Greymer is supposed to be psychically sensitive to
danger. Why wasn't I warned?
GM: Greymer takes off for the door, so fast you'd think his tail
was on fire. What are you doing?
Willy: I don't get it. Greymer should tell me about this stuff.
Why didn't I expect this? Is this fair?
GM: Are you asking me?
Willy: Yeah, I'm asking you.
GM: What's the question?
Willy: Why didn't Greymer warn me of this attack?
GM: Are you asking as Willy, or as Garvin?
Willy: What's the difference? Just answer the question.
GM: If you are asking as Willy, I was going to suggest that we
get to it some other time, after the session. As to Garvin,
how is Garvin going to find out the answer?"

I fail to see how wanting to know why abilities the player paid good points for are not working on the GM's whim can be called "rules lawyering"; in fact, given the rules-light nature of the game, I fail to see how significant rules lawyering can even exist.

As for the the sort of trick I was looking for, I just wanted more about Good/Bad Stuff past "They are Good/Bad". Or perhaps an expansion of the bidding concept (which I found clever) into the game at large.

[finarvyn]

ADRP is a tricky game to get the hang of, initially, but it's so smooth once you figure out how it works. The key to the whole thing is trust. You need to trust that the GM isn't really out to "screw you" but instead wants to offer some interesting situations and plotlines in which you can interract. Amber characters aren't gods, but they can do a heck of a lot. Except that their foes can also do a heck of a lot.

It's like reading a comic book. Spiderman has these neat powers and can really whup on Jimmy the Average Crook, so we don't really bother to tell those stories. What is more interesting is when Spidey goes head-to-head against Doc Oc or Green Goblin or somebody else worth a story. Amber players are super, but they aren't supposed to win every time. If they did there would be no real story to tell. In the same way, Amber players aren't supposed to lose all of the time, either. The best stories occur when players get fun situations and get swept along in the action until some resolution occurs, then they catch their breath and jump in again.

ADRP is truly diceless in that there are no randomizers or tricky equations to come up with an answer to the "who will win" question. The results of the conflict are based on the level of attribute and the ability for a player to role-play the situation, and the GM gets to use those guidelines to make things happen in a way that may be frustrating short-term but is hopefully fun long-term. Some don't like the lack of a clear mechanic because a GM could abuse the system if he wants, but that's where the trust factor comes in. If you don't trust that I'm going to try to run the best game that I can, don't play in my campaign.

As to Erick’s arrogance in the rulebook, maybe it’s just his writing style. Certainly in person he was very understanding and willing to explain and discuss things, but when he made his GM-mind up you had to accept his rulings and keep moving. I find some of the examples in the rulebook a little tedious (pages of details about specific types of injuries by getting sliced, beaten, burned, etc) so I tend to ignore those parts. Other GMs may find that these are the best parts of the book. I think that many ADRP GM’s look at the rulebook as a tool box of goodies from which to pick and choose, or to use or discard as needed in a particular campaign.

ADRP isn’t for everyone. Several posters on this very board really dislike the system and continually look for alternative ways to play Amber. For me, I think that the system is fantastic because of the auction, the simple attributes, the method of conflict resolution, and so on. I think it provides a skeletal set of guidelines as to how to run a campaign using a particular style – a style which not everyone is comfortable or enjoys. I know I didn’t really appreciate some of the subtle aspects of ADRP until I got to run a character in some of Erick’s games. If you haven’t had a chance to play ADRP, you might see if there is a game convention or gaming group nearby where you can try it firsthand.

[weilide]

After sleeping on it and reading your subsequent posting I think I have a better handle on our different reactions. For me it really does come down to the books. The thing is, I really love those books. And the thing in turn that I love about the RPG is that Mr. Wujcik really went out of his way to create a kind of user's manual to the universe that Zelazny created. Put another way, I don't find game mechanics (point balancing, etc) to be very interesting so I'm perfectly content to have a system that more or less gets out of the way, which Amber delivers. On the other hand, I'm obsessed with story mechanics and I love the space that Wujcik devotes to discussions of the characters, the world, character creation (as opposed to accounting), quizzes, endless hooks implicit in the novels that can be expanded into new stories, the unanswered questions, and so on. In this vein, I love the "Zelazny-as-GM" section in the followup sourcebook that really puts Zelazny the storyteller under the scalpel. Essentially I really dig the parts of ADRPG that would serve someone writing an Amber fanfic as much as a roleplayer. In short, all the generic RPG mechanics stuff (the auction system, attributes, stuff) I can kind of take or leave because for me, in the end, the source material is really where it's at. Hope that helps. And regardless of how you feel about the game, you should really give the novels a try. They're great.

[Corvus]

I'll repeat the advice that you should try the novels.  Obviously I'm biased, but just as obviously they will help you make better sense of the game.

As for the in-book GM, some of the "style" I read as a bit tongue-in-cheek, for example the whole "Attribute X is the Most Important Attribute".  Other bits I took as a different approach to GMing; the example of the danger sense and the grenade is probably the most indicative.  In cases like this, players really need to just trust the GM and roll with it.  A lot of the game seems to be built around that.

[Malleus Arianorum]

I fail to see how wanting to know why abilities the player paid good points for are not working on the GM's whim can be called "rules lawyering"; in fact, given the rules-light nature of the game, I fail to see how significant rules lawyering can even exist.

I know what you mean. That example of rules lawyering seemed wierd to to me at first too. The GM is clearly in the wrong for forgetting about danger sense but the GM steamrollers through it anyway.
 
As I understand it now the point is not that as a GM you should never make a mistake. The point is that when a mistake occurs you should correct it and move forward without getting dragged into a rules fight.
 
It's counterintuitive but it is one of those 'tricks' you were looking for. By denying the players the opportunity to call a rules lawyering time out, you keep the story moving. Many of the GMing examples show the same senario: the player tries to stall and the GM asks "do you want to stall IN GAME?"

[The Worid]

I suppose I shall try to read the Amber novels if I have the time. Thanks for the responses; I can see the matter more clearly now.
However, what I see is that I don't care for this game. It seems oddly restrictive in terms of character creation for such a rules-light game (for context, one of my favorite games is GURPS, despite the complexity) and quite frankly, a bit of argument over whether or not something should have happened on the occasion is part of the fun for me, because it makes the game world seem more real and less like just a narrative device. That said, if you enjoy it, play it and have fun, because that's the point.

[RPGPundit]

The "Danger sense" incident, which I love because it taught me how to deal with these kinds of situations forever in the future; is not so much "rules lawyering" as it is players trying to one-up the GM.  And the GM making it clear that he's the Alpha Dog.

The Amber book teaches GMs to be brilliant majestic wonderful bastards.  If you embrace this way, World, it will not only make your life much easier as a GM but it will also make your adventures so much better.  You won't need to try to "create" a story out of your plot, but it will seem in retrospect as though you did. You will use the players' hopes and dreams against them in ways that will make them suffer immensely and they will thank you for it because it will be a far far better experience in gaming than they have ever had before.

In short, as a GM, you will become the God you are meant to be.

RPGPundit

[David R]

I kinda of get what you're saying Worid but I do think that the tone of the game and the role of the GM is perfectly suited to Amber....you would get this (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything) if you read the novels. I don't think it's the perfect example of what a functional GM shoud be but for Amber itself it's near perfect.

Once you understand this, Amber the rpg could be hacked for other settings. I'm going for another Zelazny book called Lord of Light : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Light.

Edit: I'd go further and say it's one of best examples of game design. A perfect union of theme, subject matter and mechanics.

Regards,
David R

[finarvyn]

And after all, who is to say that the "danger sense" episode is a matter of the GM forgetting at all? My interpretation is that the player bought some basic power for the cat, but it is highly possible that it won't work in all situations or against all potential enemies.

Maybe that makes the player feel cheated, but there may be some mega-plot happening here whereby the player will eventually find out why the cat's danger sense wasn't working.

[Corvus]

Maybe that makes the player feel cheated, but there may be some mega-plot happening here whereby the player will eventually find out why the cat's danger sense wasn't working.

Hence my point about "trust the GM".

[Croaker]

That's funny.

I never understood the danger sense episode as you guys.

To me, the GM didn't forget the danger sense. But he made it manifest in the animal's reactions instead of putting it loudly to the player.

An exemple with merlin would be this:
GM: frakir pulses at your wrist
Player: I go out of the house
GM: once out set the feet out, gunfire erupts. Frakir pulses a lot. What do you do?
Player: Wait. frakir is supposed to have danger sense. Why didn't it warn me?

Simply put, to me, instead of metagaming the danger sense, the GM warned the player "in story", since, aside from this, the lynx is a normal animal and can't talk. Thus, he warns his master the only way it can.