Ahem... Erick's Forge Adventure?

[RPGPundit]

:lol:
At least, you've got style

Tell me, aside from Amber and, maybe, other Erick RPGs, is there any game you do like?

Sure, tons! Pendragon, Qin, Two-Fisted Tales, D20, classic D&D (rules cyclopedia), most palladium games, Over the Edge, Everway(mostly), Call of Cthulhu (original and D20), Gamma world (the old version), WFRP, Alatriste, Aquelarre, Continuum, Space:1889, most games by precis intermedia, IHW and most games by Flying Mice, and of course Forward... to Adventure!

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

That's in the eye of the beholder, I suspect: "Aspect 3" is no more boring than "Strength 3", and all the options that you might care to try out are still there, generally resolved by beating the difficulty levels set by the GM as in most other roleplaying games. The existence of an easily identifiable system which despite the lack of a randomizer nevertheless functions much like those of conventional RPGs is in fact why Nobilis has often been touted as an alternative for players looking for more of a "game" than the drama-driven play which its predecessors (such as Amber and Theatrix) focused on. Those mechanics do their small share to dispel the unfortunate misconception that "diceless" equals "systemless", and demonstrate what Wujcik already wrote at the beginning of the thread: there's no intrinsic difference between diceless and diced play beyond their superficial approaches to the element of chance.

Amber is not "drama-based"; it is a fully developed very functional system. Your claims are lies, typical of Nobilis fans, trying to give Amber a bad reputation as "imperfect" or "incomplete" (it is not), or that Nobilis somehow represents an improvement over Amber (it does not, in any way).

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

Amber is not "drama-based"; it is a fully developed very functional system.

And yet even after all these years it still suffers from the reputation of being little more than a set of loose guidelines for freeform play. I don't see how there can be any question about that: just yesterday I noticed a thread on another site mention "the reliance on GM fiat" and "the lack of hard rules" as "common mechanical complaints" about Amber. And yes, freeform and resolution by fiat are both perfectly fine options too, naturally enough, but not necessarily something that potential players might be looking for in a game as such. Otherwise the same objections wouldn't crop up in every freakin' discussion about diceless RPGs, and I wouldn't have to do the "diceless =/= systemless" schtick over and over again.

[RPGPundit]

And yet even after all these years it still suffers from the reputation of being little more than a set of loose guidelines for freeform play. I don't see how there can be any question about that: just yesterday I noticed a thread on another site mention "the reliance on GM fiat" and "the lack of hard rules" as "common mechanical complaints" about Amber. And yes, freeform and resolution by fiat are both perfectly fine options too, naturally enough, but not necessarily something that potential players might be looking for in a game as such. Otherwise the same objections wouldn't crop up in every freakin' discussion about diceless RPGs, and I wouldn't have to do the "diceless =/= systemless" schtick over and over again.

The fact that people who have an ideological (usually anti-GM) agenda repeat the same lie over and over again does not make something true.

There's nothing "systemless" or "fiat" about 3rd rank beats 5th rank, or 4pt weapons can penetrate 1pt armor.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

There's nothing "systemless" or "fiat" about 3rd rank beats 5th rank, or 4pt weapons can penetrate 1pt armor.

I suppose that part of the problem lies with extending the effects of the attributes beyond ranked opponents and to the setting at large. What burdens can someone with the third rank in Strength lift? How far can someone with the fifth rank in Stamina run before collapsing? More often than not, gamers like to know these things, and learn what their characters are capable of in general.

[Croaker]

Sure, tons! Pendragon, Qin, Two-Fisted Tales, D20, classic D&D (rules cyclopedia), most palladium games, Over the Edge, Everway(mostly), Call of Cthulhu (original and D20), Gamma world (the old version), WFRP, Alatriste, Aquelarre, Continuum, Space:1889, most games by precis intermedia, IHW and most games by Flying Mice, and of course Forward... to Adventure!

RPGPundit

Then, I don't understand your hatred of some RPGs, especially since some of these depends heavily on pure chance for most things, which, IMO, depowers both the GM and players. Something Nobilis (since we were speaking of it) doesn't do

[The Yann Waters]

Then, I don't understand your hatred of some RPGs, especially since some of these depends heavily on pure chance for most things, which, IMO, depowers both the GM and players. Something Nobilis (since we were speaking of it) doesn't do

That would be because Pundit has somehow fixated on the misreading that the GM advice for "never saying 'no'" is meant to function much like the Principle of Narrative Truth from Wushu: whatever the players say happens right there and then, and the GM has absolutely no authority to decide otherwise.

[boulet]

whatever the players say happens right there and then, and the GM has absolutely no authority to decide otherwise.

Even Wushu mentions the possibility of veto. It's not a GM privilege but still no one has complete impunity.

[RPGPundit]

I suppose that part of the problem lies with extending the effects of the attributes beyond ranked opponents and to the setting at large. What burdens can someone with the third rank in Strength lift? How far can someone with the fifth rank in Stamina run before collapsing? More often than not, gamers like to know these things, and learn what their characters are capable of in general.

Its the GM's duty to tailor these levels to what he wants in his campaign, to establish them from the beginning and to make those levels clear to his players.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

Then, I don't understand your hatred of some RPGs, especially since some of these depends heavily on pure chance for most things, which, IMO, depowers both the GM and players. Something Nobilis (since we were speaking of it) doesn't do

Its simple: If you look at that list, you'll find that all those games, while very different in style and format, have one thing in common: none of them suck.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

Its the GM's duty to tailor these levels to what he wants in his campaign, to establish them from the beginning and to make those levels clear to his players.

However, that does make it impossible to compare the abilities of the PCs across campaigns, or even to decipher how they relate to "canonical" NPCs: in your game Strength 1 could be enough to lift a car, in someone else's a building, and in yet another the same rank might move mountains. Moreover, just by looking at the character sheets the players wouldn't be able to tell whether their PCs are Supermen or regular guys who did some weight-lifting back in college, since the ranking has actually little to do with what the characters can achieve (beyond PvP, of course). That's simply not what the attributes represent, which can be a problem if you prefer more objective information about the available in-game options.

[Croaker]

Its simple: If you look at that list, you'll find that all those games, while very different in style and format, have one thing in common: none of them suck.

RPGPundit

I beg to differ. I like some, don't like others, and don't know a few.
For exemple, I've always hated the % system of CoC.

Which can only mean one thing: We have different tastes. Which should imply just that, and nothing more, certainly nothing like "this game is awesome while this one is utter crap".

[RPGPundit]

However, that does make it impossible to compare the abilities of the PCs across campaigns, or even to decipher how they relate to "canonical" NPCs: in your game Strength 1 could be enough to lift a car, in someone else's a building, and in yet another the same rank might move mountains. Moreover, just by looking at the character sheets the players wouldn't be able to tell whether their PCs are Supermen or regular guys who did some weight-lifting back in college, since the ranking has actually little to do with what the characters can achieve (beyond PvP, of course). That's simply not what the attributes represent, which can be a problem if you prefer more objective information about the available in-game options.

So what? The fact that the game scale is independent of the ranks-scale means that you can tailor your game to any level you want. You could thus use Amber mechanics for a mortal, human, non-amberite game, or you could use Amber rules to play the Olympian gods if you wanted to.

That's a feature, not a bug, you dumb fuck.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

I beg to differ. I like some, don't like others, and don't know a few.
For exemple, I've always hated the % system of CoC.

Which can only mean one thing: We have different tastes. Which should imply just that, and nothing more, certainly nothing like "this game is awesome while this one is utter crap".

Us having different tastes means you are wrong.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

The fact that the game scale is independent of the ranks-scale means that you can tailor your game to any level you want. You could thus use Amber mechanics for a mortal, human, non-amberite game, or you could use Amber rules to play the Olympian gods if you wanted to.

Yes, because the ranks are unrelated to actual competence in any absolute terms. They will tell you that Tom is stronger than Dick, who in turn is stronger than Harry... but how strong is Harry? The system doesn't deal with that: it's only concerned with solving particular conflicts between a limited number of characters. You could rename Strength "Superiority #3" without changing anything mechanically, since it's not strictly speaking connected to anything in the setting beyond the small cast in the middle of the stage.