Hi everyone ! It's great to see a forum board about AMBER DICELESS here - looks like some of the GoO message board veterans are here, too :)
Well, in case you are interested in this kind of things, I've written a (very short) set of alternate rules for Amber that tries to do away with auctions and other features I didn't like in the original system (like Stuff) while keeping the spirit, flexibility and dicelessness of the game. It's here :
http://amberway.free.fr/REBMA.html (http://amberway.free.fr/REBMA.html)
Advice, feedback and (constructive) criticism welcome !
I failed to find anything worth while, or changes that made sense beyond the reasoning of "I personally didn't like it, so I changed it". There's nothing in your rules that are better than Erick's original rules, and a few things that are worse. You claim that you resolve problems caused in mechanic and emulation by the fact of your removing the auction, but I don't see where you do.
In short; no.
RPGPundit
Uh... ?
I never claimed that my rules were "better" ! I've got an immense respect for Erick Wujcik's original system (as shown in my review of the game for RPGnet) but there were things that, in practice, did not work for me as a GM. That's why I was talking about ALTERNATE rules - you may either like them or dislike them, that kind of appreciation is as subjective as the reasoning that prompted me to devise these rules in the first place...
You're absolutely right on this point : these rules are the reflection of a completely subjective vision... but unless I was betrayed by my Write English skill, I don't think I've ever presented them as something else (and certainly not as "perfect" or even "objectively better"), here on in the PDF itself. Since the Amber rpg is all about creativity and experimenting, surely there's room for alternate rules and subjectivity... don't you think ?
If you think these rules were of no interest to you (or are actually complete trash), fine, I can live with that - but I really think you should avoid using this kind of "self-appointed authority" tone everytime somebody posts about their house rules. Surely there is room for creativity and subjectivity (aside from your own) here, too ? No ?
And I don't want to start any controversy, flame war or anything here. I just wanted to talk about the game and share questions, ideas and even (why not ?) system stuff with other GMs and players - I guess that is was the basic idea in the first place...
These alternate rules actually work well in play - within the boundaries of my own campaign and gaming style. I posted about them here because I think they might be of interest for GMs with similar styles/approaches of the game/universe. Of course, if you're perfectly happy with the original system, there rules (or any other alternate rules, for that matter) won't be of any interest to you. That seemed pretty obvious to me in the first place that my alternate system could only interest GMs / players who disliked the auction system and the "relative ranking" system (or simply felt it didn"t work for them in practice).
And if you think the rules have flaws, I'd like to know about them - what "few things", in your opinion, were "made worse" by this system ? Note that this question is not ironic or anything - I'm really interested in discussing these things, because it might help me to refine or expand the rules (or explore other possibilities) - but I would really appreciate you to go beyond the "I-like-the-original-rules-better-so-that's-why-think-your-rules-are-crap" line of reasoning - otherwise, our discussion will simply be a sterile clash of subjectivities rather than an exchange of views.
First of all, what's to stop two people from buying rank 1?
How do you then determine who's better?
You say it doesn't matter, but it pretty obviously does, if you're changing a fundamental mechanic of the system and aspect of the emulation of genre...
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditFirst of all, what's to stop two people from buying rank 1?
Nothing. In this system, ranks are much like what they are in game systems like Castle Falkenstein : many characters can have rank I. Which means that, within this system, they roughly have the same degree of ability.
Quote from: RPGPunditHow do you then determine who's better?
Excuse me but the rules do address this issue - it's even one of their core subjects (see p6, under Conflict Resolution, for instance or p7 - Fate & the Game). Your question make me feel like you haven't carefully read the rules - if indeed they were to "function" like you imply they do (ie no way to break ties between two characters with the same rank), these rules would indeed be completely absurd and useless...
I'm not going to repeat here what's already in the PDF, but the main idea is (to sum up) that when a conflict oppose two characters with the same attribute rank, the situation is resolved by comparing other factors : such as weaponry, terrain, tactics, motivation etc. In this respect, this is quite close to the approach used in the original Amber RPG, ie when a conflict occurs, the character with the better attribute wins... unless other factors apply. In my system, many characters can be of a roughly equivalent level - thus, if two characters with, say, Warfare rank II fight a sword duel, victory will be determined by other factors (including tactics, or even Strength - using an approach that is not very different from the original rules - but that being said, I agree that it IS different)
Quote from: RPGPunditYou say it doesn't matter, but it pretty obviously does, if you're changing a fundamental mechanic of the system and aspect of the emulation of genre...
RPGPundit
But I never said "it didn't matter"... especially since I've never written what you have (mis)interpreted. Perhaps you read the pages too quickly - frankly, reading your comments, I really have the feeling that you are not commenting my rules but a hasty misinterpretation of them.
And as for the emulation of genre, you will notice that my mechanics do not stray very far from those of Amber RPG - because I too think that the Amber rules do a fine job of emulating the Amberverse (the four attributes and the freeform approach to skills etc etc)... I too think that genre emulation is a very important factor (perhaps the most important one) in RPG - and especially in a game that is based on a cycle of novels like Amber. But then again, genre emulation leaves room for personal interpretation... especially, I think, in the case of Amber. When you read Amberzines, campaign logs etc, you quickly note that every GM or troupe has its own version of the Amber universe - even in terms of system and the game itself leaves room for nuances and interpretation (such as the "should Trump Artists have Pattern or Logrus as a pre-requisite" question, which receives the best possible answer in the game ie do what you like)... I really don't think the changes I've devised (ie using an absolute rank scale for attributes instead of a relative one - it all boils down to this, in the end) are turning my game into "something that is not Amber". But then again, it's a matter of subjectivity.
I hope my answer has helped clarifying some misunderstandings (or perhaps, more correctly, misconceptions). Again (sorry if I repeat myself), if I had interpreted them like you did, I too would find them useless and broken... I understand that one might not be convinced after a cursory first read but believe me or not, these rules work well in play - within, once again, my specific style of play and interpretation of the Amberverse;
The "answer" you provide there isn't an answer, its the absence of clarification. What you're doing is REALLY making the game into what some accuse it of, pure DM fiat. That's what I meant by you "claiming to resolve" the problem but then not doing anything to resolve it. You're just saying "yea, now you can tie, good luck with that..."
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThe "answer" you provide there isn't an answer, its the absence of clarification. What you're doing is REALLY making the game into what some accuse it of, pure DM fiat. That's what I meant by you "claiming to resolve" the problem but then not doing anything to resolve it. You're just saying "yea, now you can tie, good luck with that..."
RPGPundit
Absolutely not ! Once again, I get the feeling that you have misread the PDF. I do provide an answer and a system (ie Endurance for extended conflicts etc) and even if it IS open to GM fiat, it does not seem to be more so than the original rules - at least in my perception... but then here we go again, I suspect that our disagreement is a very subjective one about what the game can/should be.
Believe me or not, but I've been using this system for years now and it has never caused any excess of GM fiat. But perhaps I can develop further... If two characters have the same Attribute rank and none seems to have a clear advantage over the other, then the only way for a winner to emerge is to use trickery, subterfuge or to move the conflict on to another field (not to mention using powers etc) : and that seems to me to be very much in keeping with the Amber spirit (ie cheat if you cant' win etc).
Another interesting (at least in my opinion) consequence of this is that it tends to create statu quo between Amberites of the same overall power level (ie the young generation, the old timers etc), which means that conflict between such characters will often involve intrigue, dirty tricks etc rather than frontal confrontation - but then again, if you are sure your Warfare is better than the other guy's, everything will happen as with the original rules.
Sure, it involves some degree of GM fiat (or arbitrary adjudication) - but the original rules did, too (just take a look at Stuff, for ***sake !) and I really don't think this alternate approach increases this in a really significant way - but then, it all boils down to interpretations, styles of play etc.
So you don't like my system - all right, I can live with that ! That being said, I'm a bit bothered by the tone of your replies - even when you HAVE misinterpreted things, you are constantly trying to turn your entirely subjective views into some sort of objective truth - I don't think any discussion here will go in very interesting directions if somebody (be he a Pundit, Bill the Butcher or whoever) is acting as if he held the One and Only Sacred Truth about Amber...
I am having endless fun watching this thread.
Quote from: OthaI am having endless fun watching this thread.
Could you please elaborate ?:confused:
I think he means that the amount of work each of the two participants puts into each post could not be more disproportionate.
Sorry olivier, I'd like to comment on your rules but it's been ages since I even tried Amber, so I'm not the person to go to. And RPGPundit's hero-worship of Eric can only temporarily be broken by his worship for Jonathan Tweet, so you're a little out of luck getting constructive comments that way ;)
There's only one guy who gets to be the last word on this particular subforum, and that's Erick, not me.
I'm just a guy who wants very much to make sure the quality of Amber as an RPG isn't compromised. What you've done here, and I'm sorry if you feel very proud of it, seems in my own opinion to be useless at best, and counterproductive at worst.
RPGPundit
Quote from: olivier legrandCould you please elaborate ?:confused:
I like watching Pundit get cranked up. For once it's not me and I can just lie back and watch.
My favorite Amber rules are those in the ADRP core rulebook. I do not share Pundit's dislike of alternate systems, but enjoy reading them and looking for interesting ideas. Having said that, there are a few parts of these alternate rules that I wanted to randomly comment upon...
1. The PDF is pretty, but the large graphics means not a large quantity of rules. Taking out the graphics, the text would reduce to just over 3 pages. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but there is less substance than I hoped there would be.
2. The idea of the ranks is interesting and I have tinkered with something similar in my own campaigns. It also reminds me of the "Amber Alive" LARP rules that I have seen somewhere on the 'net. However, I find the use of roman numbers a bit distracting. I'd almost rather see ranks in terms of dots or stars (* or ***** instead of I or V) because that's more visual. I see this as a minor nit-pick, but I thought I would mention it.
2 (cont). When I did a rank system, I was always troubled by how to set up the scale. Sometimes I did a dot per 5, sometimes a dot per 10. I have even tried something with the square roots (16 = 4 dots, 49 = 7 dots, etc) and can never quite decide how to make it work to my satisfaction.
2 (cont). What your rank system does to is to get rid of the effect of tiny differences in attributes. In traditional ADRP, a GM might rule that characters with a 48 and a 49 are not the same, but to me the difference is so minimal that I would tend to ignore it. Your system would give both a rank of V, which would tend to make a GM assume automatically that both characters were pretty much equal. This may have a book-keeping advantage, I'm not sure.
3. Do I understand correctly that Endurance only comes into play in the case of ties? That seems a little bit limiting somehow. I know that there would be more ties now that we're rounding to the nearest 10, and perhaps that takes care of the problem.
4. You have restructured the cost for powers, but I don't recall seeing a rationalle as to why you did this. I have always found that the ADRP point values seem pretty correct for the power levels.
5. The section on goals is interesting, but not actually a change of any kind that I can see. Goals would appear to supplement the character quiz.
6. I don't quite understand your passage on Fate. I see that Fate will replace stuff, but it seems to do the same thing so I'm not sure what you gain by the switch. Also, the fact that characters can customize the number of points spent in each attribute doesn't mathematically remove the need to have stuff. This seems like a strange conclusion.
Anyway ... I applaud your efforts and appreciate the fact that you were willing to share your work even though I may not make use of it. It's clear that you have spent a lot of time putting together a PDF that reflects what works in your campaign, and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks! :cool:
Quote from: finarvynWhat your rank system does to is to get rid of the effect of tiny differences in attributes. In traditional ADRP, a GM might rule that characters with a 48 and a 49 are not the same, but to me the difference is so minimal that I would tend to ignore it. Your system would give both a rank of V, which would tend to make a GM assume automatically that both characters were pretty much equal. This may have a book-keeping advantage, I'm not sure.
Yes; your assumptions are correct. The idea was to reason in terms of broad degrees of ability (as for creatures or Human/Chaos/Amber rank) rather than in terms of points - simply because I (and my players) felt more comfortable with this way of measuring attributes.
Quote from: finarvynDo I understand correctly that Endurance only comes into play in the case of ties? That seems a little bit limiting somehow. I know that there would be more ties now that we're rounding to the nearest 10, and perhaps that takes care of the problem.
Essentially, yes, Endurance is the big tie-breaker... and this only makes sense, as you notice, in a system where ties are going to be far more frequent than with the original rules... but one must keep in mind the following : a tie with this system does not have the same meaning as a tie with a purely point-based system - it simply means that, all other things being equal, the two opponents are roughly in the same league... and as noted in the PDF, "all other things" are very rarely "equal" in a real fight - that's where weaponry, tactics, terrain etc might all come into play.
Quote from: finarvynYou have restructured the cost for powers, but I don't recall seeing a rationalle as to why you did this. I have always found that the ADRP point values seem pretty correct for the power levels.
Yes, these changes are pretty arbitrary. But remember that the system does not use auctions, so players will not spend their points in the same manner. That being said, the main behind these cost changes was to align Pattern with Logrus and Shapeshift with Trump Artistry - I guess that's a side-effect of an excessive taste for system symetry.
Quote from: finarvynThe section on goals is interesting, but not actually a change of any kind that I can see. Goals would appear to supplement the character quiz.
You're right - this section is more an "emphasis" than a "change" - the idea is to give goals a possible effect (even a moderate one) on action resolution.
Quote from: finarvynI don't quite understand your passage on Fate. I see that Fate will replace stuff, but it seems to do the same thing so I'm not sure what you gain by the switch.
You are right, again - Fate is just another way of envisioning what the original rules called Stuff - or more properly, some aspects of Stuff. The big difference is that, unlike Stuff, Fate is not quantified or measured. I admit I never liked Stuff in the first place - my gripes with this are essentially the same as those expressed in an early Amberzine article (I think the title was "When Bad Stuff happens to good people" or perhaps it's the reverse :D ).
Quote from: finarvynAlso, the fact that characters can customize the number of points spent in each attribute doesn't mathematically remove the need to have stuff. This seems like a strange conclusion.
No, it doesn't remove the need - but I think it does lessen it. That being said, I wanted to remove Stuff in the first place and took this into consideration when devising the system.
Quote from: finarvynAnyway ... I applaud your efforts and appreciate the fact that you were willing to share your work even though I may not make use of it. It's clear that you have spent a lot of time putting together a PDF that reflects what works in your campaign, and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks! :cool:
Thanks a lot for your comments !
1. For those interested in a follow-up, "When Good Stuff Happens to Bad People" by Jack Gulick appears in Amberzine #7.
2. What I like about the "stuff" system is two-fold. First, it can serve as a bank for players to store points while they are waiting to advance somewhere. Second, it can provide a rationalle for who gets bad things to happen to them. Combining these two ideas we gain a system where a character's luck may go up and down with adventuring; the player will encounter a "hot streak" or "cold streak", if you will. If a character wants to stay continually lucky, he can keep stuff points in the bank. Persoonally, I like the fact that stuff is quantified, as it makes my job as a GM easier.
3. I understand the desire for symmetry in the power costs, but since Logrus also requires Shape Shifting the costs are all off anyhow. I would be inclined to stick with the original values, but it's your campaign.
Just some thoughts.
Fin, how do you feel about the way the stuff system, if it fluctuates, causes a character to drift back and forth between a villainous and heroic outlook?
I tend to de-emphasize the hero/villian "outlook" aspect of Stuff and focus on the good luck vs. bad luck part.
Certainly it makes sense that if a personal always has bad luck, his or her outlook on the way of the universe may become jaded but I don't think that this has to be because the character is evil or sinister. The character could be tired and worn-down by bad luck, always expecting the worst.
Actually, I rarely give experinece points so it turns out that my character's Stuff doesn't fluctuate much at all. If a player opts to be lucky or unlucky I tend to keep them that way. Advancement in powers and attributes tends to occur through game play and I keep notes but rarely ever actually "bank" many of the points in Stuff.
However, my players often notice small dips in luck after they gain something significant. What I do is give them temporary Bad Stuff which lasts for only a short while before they return to their usual level of Stuff based on the original character concept.
Quote from: OthaFin, how do you feel about the way the stuff system, if it fluctuates, causes a character to drift back and forth between a villainous and heroic outlook?
One of the very few major errors of the 1st edition, in my opinion, is the linking of "luck" (stuff) to "alignment". Its one of the things I'd get rid of, probably the only thing I'd get rid of directly as a full-blown rules change.
There shouldn't be any alignments in Amber. Everyone is a self-interested bastard.
RPGPundit
::gobsmacked::
Yeah, right. Go say that to Gerry. :p .