Quote from: Professort Zoot;420758Game play examples from the texts suggested things like how the top Warfare stat holder could not be taken in by an invisible foe because he might just casually assume there is always an invisible attacker and move to counter it as a tactical exercise, I can't reconcile that with Corwin's victory over Benedict.  Zelazny's source material clearly encourages internecine conflict, but in the rules you either simply say X loses instantly or you see if you can appeal to the GM to let an impossible victory occur.  The very discussions I have seen about the development of the diceless philosophy leave me cold: preferring to avoid the objectivity of the dice in order to make a personal appeal to the GM (which is what it boils down to), makes the primary "game" mechanic sycophancy.

Utter nonsense. The rules do NOT say "x loses instantly".

And I love the constant use of the "Benedict example" as a way to say that Amber is broken. Its like saying D&D is broken because a 1st level wizard wouldn't be able to beat Elminster in a magical duel.

RPGPundit

Word, Pundit.

It amazes me that critics are still using the "the rules don't mirror the books" argument. After all, Zelazny himself okeyed the rules -- Wuj wrote about it in one of the first five Amberzines (if I remember correctly). That's good enough for me.

Perhaps it is wrong to think of them as critics. Think of them as people who want a game that models the books more closely than Amber does.

You know, I really love transhumanist science fantasy with horror elements, but Cthulhutech is fetish fuel, mildly and obliviously racist, and doesn't seem to offer a very interesting take on the Cthulhu mythos either. Also, the authorial voice used is very apparent and is kind of a pretentious dick.

I read it with pretty high hopes earlier today, since 4chan and RPG.net talk about it pretty frequently. Total disappointment. The setting is weird enough that it deserves a "Cthulhutech WTF?" thread to pick apart. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like so-so military mecha gaming with tentacle rape camps (seriously) in the background.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;421120The setting is weird enough that it deserves a "Cthulhutech WTF?" thread to pick apart. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like so-so military mecha gaming with tentacle rape camps (seriously) in the background.

The idea had potential, in theory.

 It failed to live up to that with horrible rules, and general tittering of the authors. My opinion is the authors seem to have written the game  after getting high, and watching some anime (Robotech, and hentai it seems.) In a single furious weekend. Then didn't feel a need to vet the mechanics, fact check it for some things, or just about anything else a good game should have done to it. They had more money than sense to put behind it--and it got them sales because of the idea, and artwork. Enough to put out supplements to continue the mess.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420991Word, Pundit.

It amazes me that critics are still using the "the rules don't mirror the books" argument. After all, Zelazny himself okeyed the rules -- Wuj wrote about it in one of the first five Amberzines (if I remember correctly). That's good enough for me.

He didn't just ok the books; Zelazny and Erick had a good working relationship and full information exchange.  It was not like most licenses where the author or company holding the license just puts a rubber stamp on "yeah, whatever", or issue a list of demands but don't really get what's going on.  Zelazny was quite familiar with the whole of the game, and ended up even playing it.

RPGPundit

I love Amber I think its the best RPG ever written.

I do think that Erick doesn't give enough annotated examples of play. By Annotated I mean where the GM's thinking is clearly explained through use of examples.

I also think that the level of superhuman-ness in the game is much greater than you get in the books. For example Amberites are not generally much smarter than humans. There are plenty of times in the books when you as the reader see that the Amberites can be easily tricked and fooled. They are smart and devious but no smarter or more devious than Machiavelli, Wallsingham or Danny Ocean. Liekwise Benedict int eh first 5 books is simply the greatest warrior in the universe. He can be beaten given luck cunning or force of numbers. Lintra cuts off his arm, Corwin could have killed him, Brand outsmarts him. This is very difficult to see as possible from the RAW. Brand shoudl be abel to handle multiple oppentns with ease, He should realise from Corwin;s actions that Corwin wants to lure him onto the grass for a reason and that reason is likely to be a tactical advantage, and he should have been tactically aware that Brand represented a magical or supernatural threat that should be eliminated at range. No expereinced RPGer woudl have fallen for any of those ploys and we are only human.

My final Criticism is that a number of traits get merged becuase of the books. So warfare covers swordmanship and tactics. These two do not have to be agregated, its only becuase Benedict is top in both that they become entwined. Likewise Strength and hand to hand fighting (and don;t get me started on Warfare and aikido )

But Amber's strength is that despite these flaws it shines. Shines with the richest depest Roleplaying experience you can have. The rules can be changed easily, the rules really are very lightweight and you could summarise the core mechanics in a paragraph. The attribute auction is one of the singular best things in the history of RPGs.
But the settign is the killer. Wel the way the setting and the game just work together. Despite all of Amber's flaws sas I noted above you can create some of the best games with it.

For those that doubt I invite you to a game at the next GenCon. I ran a game this year just gone and it was fantastic.

Quote from: Silverlion;421159The idea had potential, in theory.

 It failed to live up to that with horrible rules, and general tittering of the authors. My opinion is the authors seem to have written the game  after getting high, and watching some anime (Robotech, and hentai it seems.) In a single furious weekend. Then didn't feel a need to vet the mechanics, fact check it for some things, or just about anything else a good game should have done to it. They had more money than sense to put behind it--and it got them sales because of the idea, and artwork. Enough to put out supplements to continue the mess.

Someone on RPG.net said it was the new Rifts. First as tragedy, then as farce...

Quote from: jibbajibba;421255But Amber's strength is that despite these flaws it shines. Shines with the richest depest Roleplaying experience you can have. The rules can be changed easily, the rules really are very lightweight and you could summarise the core mechanics in a paragraph. The attribute auction is one of the singular best things in the history of RPGs.

Absolutely.
And again and again, Amber Diceless brings out the best in players. Just one example: One of my best friends happens also to be one of my players. He's a severe case of dyslexia. He has problems filling out a character sheet. But when we play Amber, he fills PAGES UPON PAGES with his character diary. Not one, and I mean, NOT ONE game has ever had a similar effect on my players.

Yes, the sheer levels of notes, private messages, emails and phone calls that I get from Amber players during the downtime between our games, which is just unbelievably huge compared to any other game I run, is proof of Amber's genius.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;420983Utter nonsense. The rules do NOT say "x loses instantly".

And I love the constant use of the "Benedict example" as a way to say that Amber is broken. Its like saying D&D is broken because a 1st level wizard wouldn't be able to beat Elminster in a magical duel.

RPGPundit

D&D is broken for a lot of reasons, that's not one of them.  I used the Corwin vs. Benedict example simply to show that the world Wujcik was simulating did not reflect his absolutist insistence on the stats.  Obviously Zelazny simply decided and narrated events, that's why it was a novel; Wujcik's game appalls me as a game, that much authority on the part of a GM doesn't mean a bad game, but it makes certain types of bad games far more likely.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;421885D&D is broken for a lot of reasons, that's not one of them.  I used the Corwin vs. Benedict example simply to show that the world Wujcik was simulating did not reflect his absolutist insistence on the stats.  Obviously Zelazny simply decided and narrated events, that's why it was a novel; Wujcik's game appalls me as a game, that much authority on the part of a GM doesn't mean a bad game, but it makes certain types of bad games far more likely.

It also makes absolutely incredible games more likely.  And I can tell you that every single campaign of Amber I've ever run has been absolutely incredible, even the bad ones.

The game does require a skilled GM.  Its boot camp for the absolutely the "elite force" of GMs. Just reading Amber will make you a better GM at any other game. Actually running it will make you an excellent GM at any other game. That's not a bug, its a fucking masterpiece.

RPGPundit

Cthulhutech definitely needs a WTF Cthulhutech thread. Cumbersome and bizarre mechanics tied to a setting that is at the same time unoriginal and embarrassing to talk about in mixed company. I don't think that IMR should have shafted WildFire out of their money for a solid year, but Cthulhutech is frankly pretty dumb.

Fundamentally, the idea of putting monsters from 1920s science fiction into contemporary science fiction is not new or interesting. People were literally doing that in the 1920s. Hell, people were doing it in the 1970s too (watch Heavy Metal if you don't believe me).

Cthulhutech is about as original and compelling as Dracula 3000 or Leprechaun 4.

-Frank

Pundit, I hereby confer this badge of honor on you:



All Hail Amber.

Since when is this thread about "why this game should really have clicked with you, and since it didn't, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?"

:huhsign: