Amber Beyond Amber

[RPGPundit]

I would think Amber could be used for a "wuxia" setting pretty effectively.

RPGPundit

[daniel_ream]

I'm not so sure, Pundit.  Wu xia is heavily about the acrobatic fight scenes, and I don't think ADRPG gives the players enough tools to carry that off well, any more than say Wu Shu does.  Plus it would throw almost all the focus on Warfare.

Fights between ranked opponents in Amber often tend to be pretty quick affairs unless somebody falls back on trying to drag the fight out through turtling. The rule support that, but it's really not how wu xia combats work.

[Norbert G. Matausch]

I'm not so sure, Pundit.  Wu xia is heavily about the acrobatic fight scenes, and I don't think ADRPG gives the players enough tools to carry that off well, any more than say Wu Shu does.  

We played Wuxia with the ADRPG system for years, and we had absolutely amazing scenes, action and otherwise. Personally, and this is the experience our group has made for years, both Wushu and Amber are sufficient "tools" for Wuxia and bullet ballet.

Plus it would throw almost all the focus on Warfare.

Sounds like a thorough misunderstanding of the genre to me. Wuxia definitely is a far cry from fighting only. There's a lot more to it.

Fights between ranked opponents in Amber often tend to be pretty quick affairs unless somebody falls back on trying to drag the fight out through turtling. The rule support that, but it's really not how wu xia combats work.

The ADRPG rules *suggest* that a GM could handle fights between ranked opponents this way. Then again, it helps to remember that the Wuj also postulated "Drop the rules", aka adopt them to your individual needs.

If you want the fights to last longer, then make them last longer. I mean, it's a snap with the ADRPG rules, right?

Another idea to make fights last longer is to make the opponents about as strong as the characters... again, this is the GM's fault, not the fault of the ADRPG rules.

[Daztur]

Probably the lack of a RNG makes some difference. Compare it to Diplomacy (the best board game ever) in which there is no random factor and because of that you just can't send your armies straight at the enemy and expect anything to happen to them but get bogged down, so you've got to think laterally and be a devious bastard as that's the only way to win. Similarly in Amber if you're up against someone with a higher stat then you, you've got to cheat since if you don't you have 0% chance of success, which encourages the right kind of devious bastard thinking.

[daniel_ream]

The ADRPG rules *suggest* that a GM could handle fights between ranked opponents this way. Then again, it helps to remember that the Wuj also postulated "Drop the rules", aka adopt them to your individual needs.

If you want the fights to last longer, then make them last longer. I mean, it's a snap with the ADRPG rules, right?

Another idea to make fights last longer is to make the opponents about as strong as the characters... again, this is the GM's fault, not the fault of the ADRPG rules.

This is basically just Magical Princess Tea Party at this point, though.  Although to be fair pretty much all of ADRPG is Magical Princess Tea Party anyway.

[Norbert G. Matausch]

This is basically just Magical Princess Tea Party at this point, though.  Although to be fair pretty much all of ADRPG is Magical Princess Tea Party anyway.

I fully understand. We had guest players who hated the system, and we had others who love it...

[daniel_ream]

Looking back, I think what ADRPG added most to the intellectual development of myself and the people I played with was the notion that you didn't need huge volumes of crunchy rules, or "balance", or anything else to roleplay.

In retrospect I really don't think ADRPG is a complete system, inasmuch as there really isn't a system there beyond "whomever's better at bullshitting the GM wins".

If I were to run it today I think I'd be looking at grafting on some kind of lightweight resource management mechanic that represented emotional investment.  Ranks still Rule, but if you want to switch up the fight, you can win - but what are you willing to risk for your victory?

Or maybe that Jenga mechanic for Dread.  There's a lot of "just how far can I push this" in the first chronicles, and that would be an interesting way of engendering that feel in the players.

[Norbert G. Matausch]

I can accept your opinion (grudgingly, I admit), but I can't understand it.
Since its first day, ADRPG was seen as incomplete by some people, and this continues to confuse me.

When Erick was still among us, I had a very interesting communication with him (by snail mail, just imagine ) Back in the day, he wrote me he'd never understand people who tried to graft more mechanical stuff on the rules. The rules were complete as they are, he wrote.

I tend to agree, but at the same time, I'd like to ask two questions:
- Why is ADRPG not a complete system for some of you?
- Why do you feel the need for more or different rules?

Looking forward to your replies!
Norbert

[Evermasterx]

I can accept your opinion (grudgingly, I admit), but I can't understand it.
Since its first day, ADRPG was seen as incomplete by some people, and this continues to confuse me.

When Erick was still among us, I had a very interesting communication with him (by snail mail, just imagine ) Back in the day, he wrote me he'd never understand people who tried to graft more mechanical stuff on the rules. The rules were complete as they are, he wrote.

I tend to agree, but at the same time, I'd like to ask two questions:
- Why is ADRPG not a complete system for some of you?
- Why do you feel the need for more or different rules?

Looking forward to your replies!
Norbert

Incompleteness is what makes this game complete for me...
 It's a matter of taste I suppose.

[daniel_ream]

- Why is ADRPG not a complete system for some of you?
- Why do you feel the need for more or different rules?

As it stands, the sum total of the system is: Highest rank wins any conflict, unless you can convince the GM otherwise.  That's not really a system at all, it's moderated freeform storytelling.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but like any other form of moderated freeform storytelling (PbP, MUSHes, etc) there's no framework there for people to hang their mental hat on.  It's been my experience that the vast majority of gamers are absolutely terrible at storytelling.  They have no sense of genre, literary tropes, character, or any of the things that make a story Make Sense instead of being a disconnected series of ramblings.

In a (good) game with actual mechanics for things, the mechanics constrain your choices to the things which are sensible for the setting and/or genre, and the mechanics deliver setting/genre-appropriate results.  Fiasco, for instance, does an excellent job of baking the assumptions of the genre it's emulating right into the mechanics.  You have to work really hard to play a game of Fiasco and not have it come out like a Coen Bros. film.

Amber doesn't do any of that in its actual mechanics.  The Character Creation rules are a thing of brilliance, but when it comes to resolving anything else, there's pretty much nothing for the GM to use.

The basic conundrum of ADRPG is the canonical "Corwin tricks Benedict into fighting on the Black Road" scene.  Corwin vs. Benedict => Benedict wins, and probably by rather a lot.  He's First Rank vs Third Rank (possibly 2.5th; Corwin consistently ranks Bleys above him).  Ah, but Corwin Plays a Trick on Benedict, and dupes him into fighting on treacherous ground!

Hang on a second.  Benedict? "all-there-is-of-military-science-thunders-through-his-head" Benedict?  Can tell what kind of weapon you're carrying and what it's capable of by observing your stance from a mile away Benedict?  Benedict lets Corwin gull him into a trick as simple as backing him into loose scree?

You can argue that Benedict's furious with Corwin for schtupping Dara and that's clouding his judgement, or that he's just run through Hell and is a bit peaked, or he's missing an arm and his balance is off, or whatever.  Okay, fine.  Simulationism FTW.  But at which point in that list of external factors does the GM decide, "that's enough for Benedict the Super Duper God of War to fall for such a simple ruse" ?

(More generally, PCs can try to win a conflict by shifting it from an Attribute they're weak in to an Attribute they're strong in.  But how does the GM determine  whether the attempt to shift the nature of the conflict is successful?)

The game doesn't give you any tools for deciding that beyond "the better roleplayer wins".  But that's just the same as saying "whoever's better at BSing the GM wins".

That can be fun, but it isn't a system.  It's just Mother-May-I in Amber.

I think if I were to run a game of Amber again, I'd graft on the Jenga mechanics from Dread.  Higher rank wins, but if you want to trick the other guy, or switch up the contest to something you're stronger in, draw a block.  If you draw it successfully, your ruse works (and he can try a counter-ruse the same way).  You can concede at any time with relatively mild consequences.  Topple the tower, and you lose and lose badly.  Thrown in the dungeon with your eyes burned out kind of badly.

It gives a way of adjudicating things that's a lot less arbitrary, and isn't even dependent on a GM, and adds suspense to the big conflict scenes.

[Panjumanju]

As it stands, the sum total of the system is: Highest rank wins any conflict, unless you can convince the GM otherwise.  That's not really a system at all, it's moderated freeform storytelling.

I disagree. The players need not be concerned with the "story" at all, only their own character. They play a role, not manage story, which brings it firmly into the realm of Role Playing Game and not Storytelling Game.

The intention behind the mechanic was for players to focus on their character, not on their character's representation through little fiddley numbers and trait subdivisions.

I agree with you that as a GM, the "at what point do you make the call" on circumstance outweighing Stats is a difficult one, and when to decide that someone has, essentially 'switched' Stats is a difficult call, and the process is undefined in the game rules.

So long as the GM can establish a clear understanding in their own mind, leaving such matters in mystery gets players out of the mindset of trying to fiddle with the Game side of the RPG in order to aid their Role.

In my opinion, this is entirely a system, a fully realised and complete system, which does what it sets out to do very, very well. The players don't have to be storytellers, they just have to play their role. Nothing has to be arbitrary, everything can follow logically from consequence, however fantastic the circumstance. There is a tremendous onus on the GM, yes, moreso than in other systems, to keep everything straight and make the call. But I think if you want to introduce Jenga into the middle of the Amber DRPG, then you're missing the point.

//Panjumanju

[daniel_ream]

[...] the process [for adjudicating conflicts] is undefined in the game rules.

In my opinion, this is entirely a system, a fully realised and complete system [...]

See, I consider these two things to be inherently contradictory.

I've been running ADRPG since the book came out, and the number one issue that's always come up is that at the end of the day, it's not what your character is or even what his ranks are.  It's whether you can BS the GM.  That absolutely killed immersion for most of my players, because conflicts weren't resolved by anything to do with the characters, they were resolved by the persuasion abilities of the players.  People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.

[Panjumanju]

See, I consider these two things to be inherently contradictory.

There is nothing contradictory there - I said the process of cross-stat conflict resolution is undefined. Although it is mentioned in the rules, there is no explanation of how to effect that transition, drawing the assumption (and given the internal consistency of the ruleset otherwise, I assume this is the conclusion that what Eric Wujcik wanted us to draw) that it should be treated the same way as 'Same-Stat' conflict. Further, if I can guess his perspective - that moment of transition is too contextually varied to be summarised in rules, and ultimately falls to the GM's reason, anyway. I think something should have been mentioned about this in the core rules, because even a line of clarification would have been helpful, but I don't think it is too difficult to guess at his meaning. Certainly, it would be in keeping with the spirit of the game.

This is poor editing, not an incomplete ruleset.

It's whether you can BS the GM.  [...] People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.

You've certainly been playing for longer than I have, and I respect that. I've been giving a lot of thought to your statement about good verbal skills winning the game, but ultimately I do not think it holds water.

This is not a personal attack on you, but I think that point has less to do with Amber and more to do with GMing.

If a player can charm a GM and get away with whatever they want, it can happen in any system. For the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that Amber DRPG is more susceptible in this regard than most systems. Why? If you've been relying on "The rules say no" to stop player BS instead of just, "No", then I can see it being a problem. If you have especially self-entitled players who insist that they must get their way because there are no rules to say otherwise, then again - I can see BS as King being an issue.

The only other way I can think of your statement about smooth talk = victory (I paraphrase) having relevance to the system is if it were capable of swaying the numbers so drastically as to make them almost arbitrary. I do not believe this is the case, but the most pronounced example is the previously mentioned encounter with Benedict and Corwin in the forest.

But even looking at all the examples brought up in the earlier post, it depended less on Corwin's advantageous factors and more on Benedict's limiting factors. If it were the other way around, I could see more a case for Corwin's player having BS'd the GM, so to speak.

I think most people see it as a weakness that the system does not clearly outline "If Stat >= X away from opposing Stat THEN:", because it would give GMs a welcome wall to fall back on in narrative uncertainty. I have been frustrated with this, too. However, not putting too strict of a definition on it (just as Eric Wujcik refused to say exactly how many new points players should be getting and when) allows the GM a narrative freedom to analyse the situation critically, knowing the full-bodied context of the game, and come to the solution that makes the most sense for the game, rather than having outcome dictated by some Outcome Table. I think this is a strength of the system, even though it puts considerably strain on the GM to perform.

In short, under confident direction of the GM, I don't think the advantage of BS is mighty enough in the Amber DRPG to shift the entire challenge rating, so to speak, of the game system.

//Panjumanju

[Norbert G. Matausch]

I've been running ADRPG since the book came out, and the number one issue that's always come up is that at the end of the day, it's not what your character is or even what his ranks are.  It's whether you can BS the GM.  

I, too, have been GMing ADRPG since it came out, and we've never had this issue. Really, never. I'd say, and this is only my personal opinion, of course, that this problem is not a problem of the system, but of your GMing style.

That absolutely killed immersion for most of my players, because conflicts weren't resolved by anything to do with the characters, they were resolved by the persuasion abilities of the players.  

Absolutely alien thinking to me. ADRPG is the one and only game that has provided consistent deep immersion again and again and again. No other game had such a depth as ADRPG.

People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.

Sorry, but this is your fault as a GM. We have a couple of very quiet players in our group who *dread* speaking in front of more than two persons, but their characters are as good as their ranks are, period.

[RPGPundit]

The thing is, Amber is a pretty complete system.  The real problem here doesn't come out of the rules being incomplete, but of a great number of people failing to actually read the rules and understand them properly.  This is because a lot of the way the rules of Amber were written was in a somewhat unorthodox style for an RPG book, much of the rules were written up in what seem at first glance to be descriptive material and examples of play.  This is the kind of stuff that many gamers skip over when they're reading a rulebook.

The truth is that the whole "Amber is just higher rank wins and then trying to convince the GM otherwise" is utter bullshit. There is much more structure to it than that, but the critics (and some of the fans as well) have failed to apply that structure.

That's not really Amber's fault, except maybe in the sense that Erick could have written the rules to the game in a more traditional structure; the error, if it exists at all, is not of mechanics but of the rulebook's format.

RPGPundit