Quote from: Doctor Jest;420222I'm another who just doesn't "get" Amber Diceles. It seems to me that the stats and rules are just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to cover over what is basically free-form GM fiat in disguise. At which point why have rules? There is nothing wrong with pure GM fiat, but I don't get why the convoluted process is needed.

Thank you.  And I got my impression of Amber Diceless in the worst possible way.  I shelled out cash for it . . .

Did you play it?

Well, this has quickly devolved from "games I wanted to like that forever reason just don't click with me" to "games I hate".

Quote from: TristramEvans;420321Well, this has quickly devolved from "games I wanted to like that forever reason just don't click with me" to "games I hate".

And of course "You're wrong for not getting it, let me tell you how you're wrong and why it should click for you."

Quote from: thedungeondelver;420353And of course "You're wrong for not getting it, let me tell you how you're wrong and why it should click for you."

Yes,

People get VERY attached to and fond of games that they really like and enjoy. This means they get naturally protective and defensive about them - they want to respond vigorously.

 Thats why I have restrained my natural impulse to respond to at least 4 posts in this thread.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420284Did you play it?

Four different aborted campaigns and I kinda sorta ran it myself in a fifth campaign where I implemented a bunch of dice rolling mechanics.  Two campaigns ended with the stat auction (all different players except for myself and I wasn't involved in either Psyche {? can't recall the stat names anymore} auction).  Each time two players decided they each wanted her/his character to have the top Psyche score and would not stop upping the bidding.  Saw only one out of the four character builds, the player had sold all his other stats down to human norm levels. had no Pattern, Sorcery or Trump abilities and essentially agreed to develop the entire game world for the GM in exchange for points.  One game ended because none of the players ever acted publically, each attempting to remain a hidden figure in the shadows.  The last of the four ended when four out of six players walked away in frustration upon discovering that the Courts of Chaos' most minor characters overshadowed all the Amberites of their generation.  My radically altered campaign lasted about a dozen sessions then ended by mutual agreement that we would all rather be playing Ars Magica.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;420363Four different aborted campaigns and I kinda sorta ran it myself in a fifth campaign where I implemented a bunch of dice rolling mechanics.  

Aaaaaaaargh!
I recall one mail exchange with the Wuj when he complained about people not understanding the diceless thing. Sorry, I had to mention that

QuoteTwo campaigns ended with the stat auction (all different players except for myself and I wasn't involved in either Psyche {? can't recall the stat names anymore} auction).  Each time two players decided they each wanted her/his character to have the top Psyche score and would not stop upping the bidding.  Saw only one out of the four character builds, the player had sold all his other stats down to human norm levels.

GM's fault. Wuj expressively mentions in the rules that buying down an attribute to (Human) is NOT advisable... one quote from the book:

Kevin: So, what do you think?
GM: I think it looks really bad.
Kevin: What's wrong?
GM: Well, for starters, you're going down to Human in both Strength and Warfare. As far as I'm concerned, that's suicide for your character.

Quotehad no Pattern, Sorcery or Trump abilities and essentially agreed to develop the entire game world for the GM in exchange for points.  

If Wuj had had something like that in mind, there would have been no need for the attribute auction, shadow and artifact creation. That's a loophole the player discovered, alright, but it's the GM's fricking DUTY to disallow that.

By the by, we had one character that spent all of his 100 points on... Good Stuff He was real fun, like a rumbling, bumbling Jackie Chan, but without the skills

QuoteOne game ended because none of the players ever acted publically, each attempting to remain a hidden figure in the shadows.  

Again, that's not the fault of the rules, but of the GM. The rules don't encourage that behavior, at all.

QuoteThe last of the four ended when four out of six players walked away in frustration upon discovering that the Courts of Chaos' most minor characters overshadowed all the Amberites of their generation.  

I understand that frustration, but this also has nothing to do with the rules. No rule told the GM to use the attribute values he used. His decision, his game. And, obviously, it was crap.

Man, I wouldn't wanna play in those groups, either.
All I can say is no game works if it's run by an idiot...

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420375Aaaaaaaargh!
I recall one mail exchange with the Wuj when he complained about people not understanding the diceless thing. Sorry, I had to mention that

It's the designer's mission to make sure potential players understand "the diceless thing." If people aren't getting it, it needs better explaining.

cyberpunk 3. Unfortunately we don't need to say anymore about what could have been.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;420406It's the designer's mission to make sure potential players understand "the diceless thing." If people aren't getting it, it needs better explaining.

The Amber Diceless rulebook is *packed* with examples of diceless play. Can't get any better than that, really.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420442The Amber Diceless rulebook is *packed* with examples of diceless play. Can't get any better than that, really.

Yeah, you can, if people who've read that book and in some cases have owned it for going on twenty years (me) are saying there is a disconnect.

EDIT: And falling back on the old canard of "well, you're just not intellectually equipped to understand it" just doesn't wash.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;420458Yeah, you can, if people who've read that book and in some cases have owned it for going on twenty years (me) are saying there is a disconnect.

EDIT: And falling back on the old canard of "well, you're just not intellectually equipped to understand it" just doesn't wash.

I dunno, 20 years is a long time. I understand Amber not being someone's cup of tea, it's certainly not mine, but what about it is causing a disconnect? Do you not understand the system? Not understand how it's supposed to be played? Is the setting confusing to you?

I mean, Amber isn't Nobilis, it's actually a pretty straightforward rulesbook.

Quote from: Koltar;420359Thats why I have restrained my natural impulse to respond to at least 4 posts in this thread.

Same here (fewer posts though).

Quote from: TristramEvans;420462I dunno, 20 years is a long time. I understand Amber not being someone's cup of tea, it's certainly not mine, but what about it is causing a disconnect? Do you not understand the system? Not understand how it's supposed to be played? Is the setting confusing to you?

I mean, Amber isn't Nobilis, it's actually a pretty straightforward rulesbook.

I understand how it is supposed to be played (at least, I believe I do, from reading the examples of play). What I don't understand is why it bothers with a rule system for that kind of play. I don't see what the game rules actually add in value for the cost of the overhead. It seems a convoluted way to come around to the GM deciding if the player's efforts were enough to win or not.

Right on the back of the book, it says it's a "Time Consuming" system. I can agree with that. I just don't get why it's so time consuming when everything about it really just seems like a big game of "GM May I?". It seems to me you could ignore the majority of the rule system and not only will the game not be harmed, but it might actually be the better for it.

So either I'm really missing something about the rules (which I'm perfectly willing to accept as the case), or the rules are rather pointless (which I am equally willing to accept). Either way, it doesn't "click" for me at all.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420375Aaaaaaaargh!
I recall one mail exchange with the Wuj when he complained about people not understanding the diceless thing. Sorry, I had to mention that



GM's fault. Wuj expressively mentions in the rules that buying down an attribute to (Human) is NOT advisable... one quote from the book:

Kevin: So, what do you think?
GM: I think it looks really bad.
Kevin: What's wrong?
GM: Well, for starters, you're going down to Human in both Strength and Warfare. As far as I'm concerned, that's suicide for your character.



If Wuj had had something like that in mind, there would have been no need for the attribute auction, shadow and artifact creation. That's a loophole the player discovered, alright, but it's the GM's fricking DUTY to disallow that.

By the by, we had one character that spent all of his 100 points on... Good Stuff He was real fun, like a rumbling, bumbling Jackie Chan, but without the skills



Again, that's not the fault of the rules, but of the GM. The rules don't encourage that behavior, at all.



I understand that frustration, but this also has nothing to do with the rules. No rule told the GM to use the attribute values he used. His decision, his game. And, obviously, it was crap.

Man, I wouldn't wanna play in those groups, either.
All I can say is no game works if it's run by an idiot...

I understand a good GM can make any game work and a bad GM can ruin any game and poor play can ruin any game; some games though cause special difficulties.  I don't really like the setting/concept of Amber as a game; I hate excessive arbitrary decision making on the GM's part; my experiences of five games with five different GMs (including myself, but I imposed a shitload of dice rolling mechanics before running it) the other four of whom I respect as decent GMs (make no claims for my own skills) saw total trainwrecks in eighty percent of the games and a gradual loss of interest in the remainder.
Game 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.