How well would Amber handle warzones

[mAcular Chaotic]

I was thinking of running a Battle Royale type of game, where there are a lot of players who are out to kill each other through various means. It would use the ADRP rules but not the setting.

Normally killing other PCs isn't something that's supposed to happen often in Amber due to the web of alliances and other political intrigue. But if the game was to just focus on the players determined to take each other out from the start, how well could Amber support this?

It doesn't have to be just like Battle Royale, but any kind of scenario like that in general.

If you've never heard of it, Battle Royale is a movie and book where the government takes school children in a dystopian future, pits them on an island, and forces them to fight each other until one one is left. The Hunger Games is very similar.

[jibbajibba]

depends on the setting.

If you mean a pure battle Royale type "arena" game then Amber would handle it quite poorly.

In this setting equipment and availability, skills, luck, benefits of forming groups and alliances for their effect on combat would all be critical. Amber covers these things poorly.

If you mean a different setting, say we base the game in an Italian City state something like Venice and we have a political arena like a parliament or a council and players vie for control of factions and and work behind the scenes to climb the ladder. That setting is perfect for Amber.

Oh and in Amber you are absolutely and totally expecting PCs to kill each other. It's just that you expect them to do it without getting caught or better still even suspected, better still you get their own allies to kill them because they suspect betrayal.

[mAcular Chaotic]

In this setting equipment and availability, skills, luck, benefits of forming groups and alliances for their effect on combat would all be critical. Amber covers these things poorly.

Doesn't this just fit with Amber's idea of having to change the circumstances to fit your favor when fighting though?

Plus the auction in the beginning would be even more fitting.

[Panjumanju]

Very well. The Throne War scenario outlined in the core rulebook is almost exactly a Battle Royal. I've run Amber games at cons that were essentially that.

Just, you'll have to think of how to rearrange the Attributes a bit. If there aren't any Powers then Psyche needs to take on more meaning. I'd take the social and leadership aspect out of Warfare and give it to Psyche. Alternatively you could just make up your own Attributes appropriate to Battle Royal, like Wilderness Survival, Deception, Martial Arts...ummm...swimming?

I think it's a good fit.

//Panjumanju

[mAcular Chaotic]

Well, if I went down that path, I could think of quite a few different Attributes. Not sure if having like ten different Attributes would be a good idea though... but then again, Amber itself packs an awful lot of subjects into just four tiny categories.

For instance, it doesn't really make sense that two people facing off in a video game would be decided by Warfare.

[Panjumanju]

For instance, it doesn't really make sense that two people facing off in a video game would be decided by Warfare.

But it also doesn't make any sense to devote a whole Attribute to video game victory. (Unless you're going to run a TRON game with the Amber rules, which is a completely legitimate setting, and I would like to join your game, thank you very much.)

The idea behind Amber's four Attributes is that they encompass all relevant possibilities, to various degrees of abstraction, that are typical within Zelazny's setting, and manage to be very well balanced among each other. I suggest having few, balanced Attributes that can bring up all relevant possibilities for the right setting, not having more of them. 10 Attributes will make the game near impossible to run, and confusing for players, without really adding any depth.

Keep it simple.

//Panjumanju

[jibbajibba]

But it also doesn't make any sense to devote a whole Attribute to video game victory. (Unless you're going to run a TRON game with the Amber rules, which is a completely legitimate setting, and I would like to join your game, thank you very much.)

The idea behind Amber's four Attributes is that they encompass all relevant possibilities, to various degrees of abstraction, that are typical within Zelazny's setting, and manage to be very well balanced among each other. I suggest having few, balanced Attributes that can bring up all relevant possibilities for the right setting, not having more of them. 10 Attributes will make the game near impossible to run, and confusing for players, without really adding any depth.

Keep it simple.

//Panjumanju

There may be some more debate about the attributes and they are not very well balanced or clear as written.

Now they aren't terrible but the fault is that they mirror the Amber books and they don't mirror the Amber universe of which the books are one iteration.

By way of clarity.
Warfare is too encompassing. It covers a load of stuff in the abstract like playing a video game or any battle of strategy from decrypting a cypher to disarming a trap. This makes no sense. But more than that even the stuff that falls into the Warfare category quite legitimately doesn't need to be linked.
By way of explanation. In the books we have Benedict paragon of Warfare. Benedict is a great swordsman and also a great leader and general. However, the two aspects of Benedict are not actually linked. You can think of many great generals who woudl be crap at hand to hand combat, Napoleon, Ceasar etc etc Zelazny could easily have written a character who was a great general but unable to fight with a sword. Likewise he could have written a character who was invincible in a fight with no stategic nous at all. Because the rule book conflates these two things, and it does so becuase Benedict, it is now impossible to create an Amberite like napoleon or Bruce Lee.

The same is true of Strength. Gerard is the strongest Amberite he is also the best at unarmed combat. So in the game Strength equates to skill at unarmed combat. Once more this takes the instance of Amber you get in the books and hard codes it rather than taking the underlying principles of Amber and rulling for these which allows the characters in the book to emerge as a possible instance from the rules.

So in a sense the game has rules that directly result in the book characters rather than rules that lead to the emergence of those characters as one possible option.

[mAcular Chaotic]

On that note, there's another setting with lots of combat I was contemplating. But that's not the problem.

In this setting each PC is a mage that summons heroes from legend to fight alongside them against other PCs. It's almost as if everyone has their own personal Benedict at their right hand. They are more powerful than the PCs, but the PCs command them.

The problem is that there's an incentive to just have the NPC do all the work, so the PC does nothing but stand around and watch.

Ideally you'd want the player to at least be involved in telling the NPC what to do, but that doesn't make sense in the midst of blow by blow combat. Nobody has a strategy discussion while they're in the middle of dodging a thrust. So that means once one of those NPCs starts to fight (perhaps against another player's NPC right hand man) the combat is pretty much out of the player's hands.

There's nothing stopping the player from taking on a more active role, but there's nothing forcing them to either. What's the best way to deal with this? Or is it something not to worry about?

[Artifacts of Amber]

Well in a mage summons things kind of game you can either go

1) they have things fight for them via Pokemon or a hundred other manga sort of things.

2) or make it like a video game where the mage becomes/ fuses with / or completely controls the fighting thing/machine whatever. More like Battletech.

I think the middle ground would be the way you describe it. Why risk themselves. Unless you have the rules of contest be literally both have to fight. setting it up as a tag team sort of thing either they tag in and out or both have to tussle to win.

Don't think Amber is the game for that though, since I would want to build my summoned monsters in a more technical way than Amber rules allow, but that may just be my mind set.


Just my thoughts

[mAcular Chaotic]

On thinking about it, it's not really an Amber problem but a logic problem. The problem would exist regardless of the system being used. It's the old problem of why you would do something if there's somebody else stronger around to do it...

[Croaker]

I guess you're wanting to play a game based on Fate Stay Night?

Options, ideas:

- Consider that the summons cancel each other out. That is, sure, you've summoned your Hero, but the enemy has done the same. What do you do when they're duking it out? Especially as there may be something that need to be take care of
- Take the emphasis away from combat and into intrigue.
- Have the player play the Hero, rather than the summoner.
- Have the player play both: The psyche is the summoner's, while his over attributes are considered to be Human. The other attributes are the Hero's. Depending on what you want, shift to what the summoner or the Hero is doing.

Good luck, keep us posted!