Erick Wujcik said this, in another thread:
QuoteThis perspective explains Corwin, and why, in Zelazny's books, Endurance is hugely important. Effectively, Corwin bid high on Endurance, higher even than the highest bids for other Attributes. Therefore, in Zelazny's version of Amber, Endurance ended up being the decisive Attribute over and over again.
Erick
So is it your position then, Erick, that whatever attribute ends up getting the most points bid for it should be the one(s) that define the game more? Should this be a result of conscious effort by the GM, or should it happen organically?
RPGPundit
Hmm. In yet another thread he said:
QuoteHere is one answer.
It really should depend on how the player's vote. In other words, how many points do they collectively bit in each attribute.
In the very first Amber Attribute Auction, back in 1985, Number one in Psyche went for the insane bid of 92 points. Numbers two and three weren't far behind. Obviously, if the players cared that much about Psyche, and put their points behind their convictions, then the Game Master has a certain obligation to make sure Psyche is powerful.
In that campaign, I made sure that those three maniacs were feared by everyone else, and even the elders kept away from Psychic battles when they were on the scene.
Yes, each attribute is 'the most powerful' - but the players ultimately decide, by their participation, which of the attributes is dominant, and which less effective.
So are you saying generally speaking that in that campaign, the guy who was 1st ranked in Psyche should be MORE fearsome than the guy who was 1st in Warfare? And should be able to beat them in a fight?
RPGPundit
I think he's talking about players sending a message to the GM, about what kind of game they want. It's the equivalent of a new D&D group where all the PCs are melee characters--clearly, spellcasting isn't in their interest (except as opposition).
Quote from: JongWKI think he's talking about players sending a message to the GM, about what kind of game they want. It's the equivalent of a new D&D group where all the PCs are melee characters--clearly, spellcasting isn't in their interest (except as opposition).
Yeah, that's what I figured too, but I wanted to see how seriously he saw this, and to what extent. Because its one thing to say "well, all my players are fighters, so they want a fighter-themed game"; and another to say "all my players chose Warfare, so
in my universe Warfare is more significant than other attributes". Its a very interesting take...
RPGPundit
It definitely makes sense though. "Give them what they want, then leave them wanting more" and all that.
Methinks it's a little dangerous one. It's certainly valid, but if taken to the extreme, then the guy with the sword will never be able to beat the psycho? It calls for good roleplaying, though. Fear the Braino (and find sneaky ways to bring him down)!!
Quote from: RPGPunditit's one thing to say "well, all my players are fighters, so they want a fighter-themed game"; and another to say "all my players chose Warfare, so in my universe Warfare is more significant than other attributes".
Suppose a GM decides that Warfare (or any other attribute) is more significant than others in his game. Is that a bad thing?
I think that
in Zelazny's version of Amber Strength is clearly inferior to the rest, and my proof of this would be the limited number of times that Strength seems to come into play compared to Warfare and Psyche. There are numerous swordfight-type instances where Warfare is a key, and several Trump-contact examples (or cases where Corwin refused to make Trump contact) where Psyche would be the stat of choice, but not too many for Strength.
The ADRP rulebook clearly gives the notion that all attributes are equal in value to all other attributes, but this is clearly a function of the style of the campaign in question. I can imagine a game where no one really has any Psyche at all, but then when they encounter a Psyche-powered foe the group could really face a challenge. The players get to "vote" for their preferences in campaign style by spending points in the auction, and while the GM probably will take this under advisement there is nothing that says every aspect of the game has to follow their preferences.
Just me thinking aloud....
An interesting exercise is after the auction is done (or maybe after chargen is done, to account for any buy-ups/downs), is to add up the total score for each Attribute. tells you something about the nature or expectation of the campaign. My old 'Loose Ends' campaing (http://brandspace.mrfred.net) had Endurance as the clear high cummulative score; which meant, as Jim Henley (of talking bear fame) put it, it was about "putting up with sh*t".
Quote from: mrfredAn interesting exercise is after the auction is done (or maybe after chargen is done, to account for any buy-ups/downs), is to add up the total score for each Attribute. tells you something about the nature or expectation of the campaign. My old 'Loose Ends' campaing (http://brandspace.mrfred.net) had Endurance as the clear high cummulative score; which meant, as Jim Henley (of talking bear fame) put it, it was about "putting up with sh*t".
Interesting perspective, Fred. Welcome to the forum, by the way!
RPGPundit
I prefer bidding on ranks. That way the system balances itself out -- unpopular attributes are less expensive and therefore a better deal.