I think that an interesting discussion is whether the Endurance attribute is over-rated or under-rated. I apologize if no one finds this interesting, but I have had discussions on other Amber forums and usually find a wide variety of opinions on this issue....
Many ADRP players seem to think that Endurance is a wasted stat because it doesn't directly affect the outcome of a conflict. Certainly, Psyche, Strength, and Warfare can be closely associated with success or failure in a conflict, but Endurance seems to be worthless to many.
I would argue quite the opposite. Endurance has connections to all three of the main conflict attributes, thereby making it the most important of the four. A character can win a mind battle, swordplay, or a martial arts duel in a hurry as long as that character dominates in that attribute. But in Amber, it seems like most characters are similar in their abilities and true domination is rare. Therefore in the majority of conflicts, since there is no clear and dominant winner, the conflict should begin to default to Endurance to determine the victor.
In the ADRP rulebook, when Erick writes a simulated auction among his players, the GM tells the players that each attribute is the most important. The reader is encouraged to believe that all four are equally critical, but I think the correct answer is that Endurance is the best!
Just an opinion. :D
Yes, to me, Endurance has two things going for it:
1. Its the great tie-breaker.
2. Its the battery that lets you power most of the Powers.
It won't save you if your opponent has a clear attribute advantage against you in whatever contest you're having, but if you're close it can give you the time you need to come up with something, or even to tire the other guy out if your End is vast superior to his.
RPGPundit
Endurance is only important to the extent that the GM makes it so.
There's almost never ties, because the first person to occupy a particular "rung" always has the advantage, so the concept of "tie breaker" is a slippery one.
Endurance is listed as being the battery for the powers, but not to what extent. The GM can make Amber level endurance enough for most any task, or he can exhaust people after the most minimal power use.
I only directed two auctions, but in both of them I managed to "sell" endurance as the most important one- the one with most points invested on. As a GM, I try to make it a valuable attribute, as the first placer is the only one who can really keep a straining rhytm for days on end, use powers continuosly and so on.
I mean, there's a reason why the protagonist of the novels ain't Benedict nor Fiona nor Gerry, right? Corwin wasn't only the dirtiest sonuvabitch- and yes he was, Brand was a real sport beside him- he also had the batteries to keep going, and ultimately that was one of the reasons he reached what he did. I mean, he wasn't the best swordman, nor the strongest or the mindman, but he built a whole fucking universe just with wit and gut.
Quote from: OthaThere's almost never ties, because the first person to occupy a particular "rung" always has the advantage, so the concept of "tie breaker" is a slippery one.
Ah, but to me a "tie" implies two combatants who are near each other, not only the case of exact equals. My reasoning is that ADRP is designed with a ranking in mind and that since there should never be two individuals with the exact same ranking, if a tie implied sameness then there would be zero point in having Endurance at all. Clearly, since Endurance is included in the "big four", it is intended to have an impact on the game.
So ... the gray area becomes a matter of how close to one another the two attributes should be before the GM rules that Endurance takes over. Is it a matter of closeness of ranks? Is it a matter of closeness of points spent? This is where the "art" of being a GM kicks in.
However, as a numbers guy I would be happier if there was some sort of guideline for me to use. Not too specific, because I don't want my players to get so hung up on the numbers that they try to min/max the game.
Either way, I like Endurance because it can assist in all three fronts of conflict resolution.
Quote from: finarvynSo ... the gray area becomes a matter of how close to one another the two attributes should be before the GM rules that Endurance takes over. Is it a matter of closeness of ranks? Is it a matter of closeness of points spent? This is where the "art" of being a GM kicks in.
However, as a numbers guy I would be happier if there was some sort of guideline for me to use. Not too specific, because I don't want my players to get so hung up on the numbers that they try to min/max the game.
Hopefully this is an issue that can be resolved in the second edition. Personally, I think it's one of the game's major flaws. It can be repaired by a good GM, but that takes attention and energy away from other areas.
Quote from: OthaHopefully this is an issue that can be resolved in the second edition. Personally, I think it's one of the game's major flaws. It can be repaired by a good GM, but that takes attention and energy away from other areas.
No, its one of the game's strengths. As soon as more static rules are put into place, you have rules lawyers jumping in, and players trying to manipulate the system rather than focusing on their actions as they should be.
RPGPundit
I hate to call it a "flaw", certainly, but it is one factor that makes running ADRP intimidating to the novice GM. Most games are such that a person with little RPG experience can quickly get into the game with fast-play type rules. Some games require a bit more work to get started. Amber is really hard to play at first because it's so different than most games on the market.
I look at it this way: lots of Amber GMs are quick to tell people "No, it's supposed to work this way..." but that kind of thing should be found in a rulebook someplace.
As a player of RPGs for a couple decades I owned ADRP for a couple years before I ran it. It was nothing like a traditional D&D game and I was always a bit scared to try it and botch it, and then I played in a convention game run by Erick. At that point I "got it" so much more than just by reading about it. Now it looks obvious how to play, but at first....
I'm far from a novice GM and the idea of it is daunting to me.
Quote from: RPGPunditNo, its one of the game's strengths. As soon as more static rules are put into place, you have rules lawyers jumping in, and players trying to manipulate the system rather than focusing on their actions as they should be.
RPGPundit
There's that "should" word again.
Quote from: OthaThere's that "should" word again.
The word "should" was no where in the quote you cited?
RPGPundit
Quote from: finarvynI hate to call it a "flaw", certainly, but it is one factor that makes running ADRP intimidating to the novice GM. Most games are such that a person with little RPG experience can quickly get into the game with fast-play type rules. Some games require a bit more work to get started. Amber is really hard to play at first because it's so different than most games on the market.
Amber isn't meant to be for novice GMs. And in any case I've been GMing Amber since I was 16. Not particularly well (at that age) mind you, but I was doing it. So it can't be all that hard.
Learned it all by myself, too.
The problem is, the second you have the would-be author of 2nd edition coming in and saying, "ok, let's make some guidelines", you will be killing the potential freedom of the GM to set his own campaign. If you define "if you try to do x with WAR, then y should happen", you are instantly defining something about WAR that suddenly hamstrings the GM. It means that suddenly WAR has to be the same power level in every campaign, and thus the creativity of the GM is out the window.
If you define that "in the case of b, STR should supplant WAR as the attribute for the contest", then you will immediately have all the little rules lawyers of the world doing "b" just because they KNOW that has to be the end result, and the creativity of the player is out the window, replaced by the same kind of mechanical "actions for the sake of modifiers" that you see happening in other RPGs.
There's no way I can see of putting in the kinds of guidelines that you are talking about without killing the independence of the system and the ability to toolkit it to your liking. Putting these kinds of rules in a new edition would make Amber a POORER game, not a better one.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThe word "should" was no where in the quote you cited?
RPGPundit
QuoteNo, its one of the game's strengths. As soon as more static rules are put into place, you have rules lawyers jumping in, and players trying to manipulate the system rather than focusing on their actions as they should[/i][/u] be.
It wasn't?
Maybe a new Amber could benefit from a sourcebook of suggested guidelines? Whether you use them or not is completely up to you and your players just get told "yeah, I bought it. It had some interesting ideas. Let's get back to the game."
It has been suggested elsewhere that such system guidelines could be included in the "three versions" motif that Wujcik uses for each of the elders.
Likewise three versions of other features, like 'startup' and creating backgrounds and wounds, etc.
Implicitly, it would ignite the GM's creativity and show everyone that there is not one true method.
Amber could also benefit from a Hackmasteresque seperation of GM and Player info. The Hackmaster PHB tells you only what you need to play. It doesn't even tell you what your 3rd level fighter needs to roll to hit AC 6. Pretty much everything not related to character creation and maintenance is located in the Gamemaster's Guide, which is completely off limits to the players.
Sure, you can't prevent them from running out and buying a copy, but if a player quotes a GM rule in a game he's automatically slapped with a roll on the Smartass Smackdown table. An alternative metagaming penalty could be applied in a diceless game. Although I've found that trust works better than punishment in my group/
Quote from: James McMurrayIt wasn't?
Oh, that one. Yes, right. I was sleepy.
Yes, that one is right. Players should be focusing on their actions, not on being slimy little rules lawyers. Fuck you with a spoon if you think different, bitch.
RPGPundit
Quote from: ArrefIt has been suggested elsewhere that such system guidelines could be included in the "three versions" motif that Wujcik uses for each of the elders.
Likewise three versions of other features, like 'startup' and creating backgrounds and wounds, etc.
Implicitly, it would ignite the GM's creativity and show everyone that there is not one true method.
Yes, if that had to be done, it should be done like that. Because if you put only one suggestion, no matter how many times you make it clear "this is only a suggestion"; it will be taken to mean a law.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditOh, that one. Yes, right. I was sleepy.
Yes, that one is right. Players should be focusing on their actions, not on being slimy little rules lawyers. Fuck you with a spoon if you think different, bitch.
RPGPundit
How eloquent. Of course, you could have saved yourself some typing and simply accessed your memory, as I've said several times that rules lawyers suck. Hell, I've even suggested that players not be told some of the rules of a game. If you were to read instead of lashing out every time you stub your ego on your own foolishness you'd know that.
Quote from: RPGPunditFuck you with a spoon if you think different, bitch.
Pundit, I don't know you personally, but comments like this seem destined to generate bad feelings between posters. As moderator of this forum, I would think that you would hold yourself to a higher standard than the rest of us slobs.
If we want to encourage the Amber community to thrive and grow, we should think about the way we present ourselves to those who might happen upon a thread and stop to check it out. Even if such comments were meant in jest between friends, I would suggest that we all try to remain civil and discuss topics rather than sling insults. :(
Just my opinion.
You obviously don't know him. He created this board as a place where he could ridicule the people that got tired of hearing from him on their own boards. That it has become a place where gamers come to chat owes itself more to the other mods than him. In short, he doesn't care abut making this place somewhere that Amberites will come to chat. It's just a place where he can shove his tongue up Erick's ass and berate anyone whose idea of Amber differs from him.
My advice is to ignore him and chat with everyone else, since you don't seem the type to dive into the fray. If you can wade through his BS he does sometimes make some good points. The problem is that it's usually too much work, especially when he gets a Swine hair up his ass.
Wow. I guess I wandered into a minefield by accident. :eek:
I'll try not to take Pundit's comments personally, then. It's a shame he has to be so grumpy, however, because he does seem to have a wealth of good ideas and interesting opinions.
By the way, I really love the Pundit smiley ---> :pundit:
To Pundit's credit, he seems intent on keeping this forum relatively free of his usual obsessive slander, though, presumably out of respect for Wujcik.
He's done a pretty good job of it too. A couple of slipups, but nobody's perfect. :)
Quote from: finarvynWow. I guess I wandered into a minefield by accident. :eek:
I'll try not to take Pundit's comments personally, then. It's a shame he has to be so grumpy, however, because he does seem to have a wealth of good ideas and interesting opinions.
By the way, I really love the Pundit smiley ---> :pundit:
There's no minefield, James has just been intentionally dedicated to attack me at every turn pretty much since he got here. Since absolutely nothing will stop him from his intended course, there is nothing at all to be gained with treating him as a faithful participant of civil discourse, since that's clearly not his purpose here. He is only on this board to attack me, and to destabilize the forum.
He has claimed now, on another thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=52969&postcount=165), that he's going to stop doing this, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
You can interpret my actions any way you like, Fin, but keep in mind that I'm owner and principle admin of this forum, and yet allow people like James to be here. In almost any other RPG Forum, he'd have long since been banned for this kind of attitude. So you have to ask, who is really being "Civil" here? Were his constant attacks on my person in any way "civil"? Would it be more "civil" for me to ban him than to respond the way I have?
RPGPundit
Again, your persecution complex is flaring up. You post so much that "at every turn" would be a full time job. And you obviously also don't read or remember, as I've partaken in lots of civil discourse, some of it even with you.
And dude, in any other forum I wouldn't be poking at you because you wouldn't be allowed in. You know, like the forums you've been banned at?
And like I said, I'll hapiily chill because it was annoying people. However, I'd ask that you also drop it, rather than looking to get the last word in.
And as I said, you've been pretty good about not ranting on this forum and I'm glad for that. You have slipped a few out, but it's a subject you're passionate about, so it's to be expected.
And if I've ever told a lie about you, let me know and I'll retract it instantly. Well, let me rephrase that. If I've ever told a lie about the Pundit persona I'll retract it. See finarvyn, I forgot to mention that the RPGPundit screen name is a persona. What the real person is like underneath is I have no idea, but he has himself admitted that the character is meant to behave like an ass. Another reason to take what he says with a grain of salt.
And now, so there is at least a little on topic conversation in this post, what are some good ways to bend a contest so that your superior endurance can take effect? I'm thinking that going for a hell ride would work, as they either chase and get exhausted quicker or leave you alone. If you're in some sort of negotiations you could haggle over every niggling little detail ("No, I think we should spell it theatre"). Anything other ideas?
I have a high Endurance. Can I get the last word in? :)
So....
Any chance we can get this thread closed? I think its value is pretty much gone.
Quote from: James McMurrayAgain, your persecution complex is flaring up. You post so much that "at every turn" would be a full time job. And you obviously also don't read or remember, as I've partaken in lots of civil discourse, some of it even with you.
And dude, in any other forum I wouldn't be poking at you because you wouldn't be allowed in. You know, like the forums you've been banned at?
Around here, James, I get the last word.
If you were on any other forum and treated any other mod the way you have been acting toward me, you wouldn't be here anymore.
Remember that when you think I'm such an asshole. Yeah, I'm such an asshole that I'm letting you consistently piss all over me in every part of this site, and my only concern is that its getting the point where if you can't stop yourself from doing it, and so far it appears you can't, you will actually harm the stability of the boards, by constantly derailing threads by turning them into attack rants about me rather than staying on topic.
If you want to "fight the man" stop jumping in and saying "Look!! look how stupid RPGPundit is!! Look at me while i say he's stupid!! look at me! over here!!"; and start arguing with my ideas instead. Either that, or shut the fuck up, if you find the former impossible. You are allowed to ignore what I say. You're allowed to argue with me. You're not allowed to just go around consistently insulting me with
personal attacks,
especially if doing so inevitably leads to a thread (like this one) being thrust completely off-topic and getting ruined for the rest of the posters.
It is not your job to try to educate anyone else about me, and on the other hand if this is just (as you claimed) your own private way to get your jollies, then your right to do so stops where you end up disrupting the forum, and you might as well (if it really is about you, and not about getting attention) just keep your laughs private, to yourself.
Now please, drop the topic here. Failure to do so will be interpreted as an near-retarded level of inability to do so.
RPGPundit
Quote from: OthaSo....
Any chance we can get this thread closed? I think its value is pretty much gone.
On this board, we don't actually close threads. You can feel free to start a new thread with a similar topic if you like...
RPGPundit
Reposting since it was ignored. Anyone wanting to remain on topic please feel free to reply:
QuoteWhat are some good ways to bend a contest so that your superior endurance can take effect? I'm thinking that going for a hell ride would work, as they either chase and get exhausted quicker or leave you alone. If you're in some sort of negotiations you could haggle over every niggling little detail ("No, I think we should spell it theatre"). Anything other ideas?
Quote from: finarvyn...as a numbers guy I would be happier if there was some sort of guideline for me to use. Not too specific, because I don't want my players to get so hung up on the numbers that they try to min/max the game...
Here is the guideline.
Let the players know, ideally during the Attribute Auction, that wimpy bids are likely to result in the specific Attribute being weak.
For example, from time to time I've pointed out that the Attribute Auction sets the 'ladder' for the player characters. Not for the non-player characters. If, for example, the auction for Endurance sputters out, then I might (and have, on many occassions) point out that the player characters might have some problems when they face off against, say, dwellers from the Courts of Chaos, or some other factions.
This 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
This, to me, seems paradoxical.
On the one hand, you encourage players to bid high in an attribute because NPC's might be better at them if they don't.
On the other hand, you say that once the bids are over, you shift campaign focus to the ones where they DID bid high.
Can you see why I see a contradiction?
Quote from: OthaCan you see why I see a contradiction?
Yes, but it's really two different effects that often work together.
1. If players don't bid anything high, they think they have "worked the system" and gotten great characters for low prices. Then, when they encounter NPCs in the game, they find that their attributes are worth exactly what they paid for them. I encourage my players to bid high because they are competing with NPCs as well as establishing a ladder within the party.
2. I like to shift the focus of the campaign in the direction where they bid a lot because they are really voting for a campaign style. One of my groups is really big on Psyche so they get more magical and mind-attacking style in their game. Another group really likes Warfare, so their opponents are often more into swordplay and a totally different style. Of course, sometimes I throw a big Psyche type at my Warfare crowd just to keep them on their toes, but I let their bids help me define my campaign. The same kind of thing happens in my D&D games where some groups are all fighters and others mostly spellcasters -- their choice helps me decide how to challenge them.
So ... I don't see this as a paradox because I have more than one goal in mind and their bidding can satisfy those goals at the same time.
Does that help?