House-rule "RPGsite Amber 2E" ideas

[finarvyn]

I know that there is an offical movement to create a 2nd edition of ADRP, and my intent with this thread is not to circumvent or somehow derail any of those efforts. In another thread I mentioned the idea (and others have had it as well; I don't claim that it's mine alone) of having multiple options for the way rules could be run.

Here are the rules I propose for this thread:
1. The intent is not to get rid of any rules in the ADRP. The "official" rules would be in place as default options.
2. Posts here should suggest one or more options to a present rule rather than bashing an existing rule in the ADRP rulebook. It might be nice to note whether you have actually tried the rule as suggested, or if it just sounds neat.
3. Let's be positive and constructive in this thread, rather than making a bunch of "that'll never work" posts. As in any brainstorm session, more ideas have to better than fewer ideas.

I'm thinking that these ideas don't need to be earth-shattering, but it would be nice to put a bunch of options/suggestions in one place.

[finarvyn]

I'll start.

On another thread I used character generation as an example, so I think that would be a nice place to begin the thread.

ACTUAL RULE:
A number of points are given to players. Character attributes are generated by auction. Powers and such are purchased thereafter.

OPTION #1:
A point-based system. This would be easy, since all of the powers, allies, etc already have a pre-determined costs. What the GM would need is a pre-determined ladder for ranks, or if players build characters independently the ladder would be created for the GM. A system to resolve ties might be needed, on the off chance that two players happened to spend the same points in a given attribute.

OPTION #2:
A random system. A GM could set up a chart such that players would roll to determine attributes, and be given a pre-determined number of points for Powers, etc.

For example, roll 2d6. 2=shadow rank, 3-4= Chaos rank, 5-7=Amber rank. Higher ranks would be such that 8=A+1, 9=A+2 and so on until 12=A+5. Then everyone gets 60 points for non-attributes.

So ... what we would have would be a general rule plus a couple different ways a GM could decide to handle that facet of the ADRP system.

Any others?

[finarvyn]

Skills

ACTUAL RULE:
Players list off background information; skills are done by GM-player collaboration based on what sorts of skills fit a particular background.

OPTION #1:
Players could replace the general background information with a short story. Rather than telling about having a particular skill, the player can show it in action. (The GM would still collaborate to make sure that the skill was appropriate.)

OPTION #2:
There could be a master skill list, similar to what can be found in more traditional RPGs. Players would spend character points on skills in the same way that they buy items or shadows.

A possible scale could be
1= some familiarity (or high school equiv.)
2 = adept at general skill (more like college)
4 = outstanding at general skill (advanced college degree)
8 = world class with general skill (Nobel Prize caliber)

[Volkazz]

For example, roll 2d6. 2=shadow rank, 3-4= Chaos rank, 5-7=Amber rank. Higher ranks would be such that 8=A+1, 9=A+2 and so on until 12=A+5. Then everyone gets 60 points for non-attributes.
QUOTE]

Not to indicate any form of approval for the suggestion,  I'd suggest more points and allow them to be spent on attributes as well.  Maybe roll other/bigger dice to get more spread so that points spent do not swamp the dice (which would give option 1) and you do not need to have x points buys +1 on the dice...

At least 80 points, for Shapeshift + Logrus...

V.

[finarvyn]

Oh, and I violated my own suggestion. I forgot to mention that my option #2 for Attributes was an idea not playtested.  Volkazz suggested different points and different dice and he might be closer to the mark than I was.

My intent was to list a neat idea, and I thought the concept of a standard table for random attribute generation was a neat alternative. The exact details would have to be worked out better, as Volkazz points out.

[RPGPundit]

I like the idea of a card-based character gen system that was suggested here.  I'd say that a good way of doing a semi-random auction-like game with cards would be to have all the players draw a number of cards at random (with different suits implying different attributes, and different numbers implying different ranks/points), then have several rounds of players passing cards to each other (or some other kind of pass/keep system), which would adequately allow the players to gamble to balance out their point values and get the attributes they'd like, while trying to screw over the other players.

That said, I'm not convinced that this or any other random generation system should be included in Amber 2nd, even as an optional rule, it kind of counteracts the point of the whole "diceless" thing, that was a very major element of the original game that Erick went to great lengths to emphasize.

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

That said, I'm not convinced that this or any other random generation system should be included in Amber 2nd, even as an optional rule, it kind of counteracts the point of the whole "diceless" thing, that was a very major element of the original game that Erick went to great lengths to emphasize.

I'm not convinced, either, but I thought it would be worthwhile putting lots of ideas on the table whether I personally wanted to use them or not. I guess a big question to ask is what would be the intent of a 2E of ADRP:
1. To get the game back into print.
2. To tidy up the rulebooks organization, essentially changing nothing.
3. To add options and variants to the pre-existing rules mechanic.
4. To add options and variants to replace the pre-existing rules mechanic.
5. To overhaul the rules into something very different.

These are organized from the least to the most radical, and I would prefer something in the 1-2-3 end of the spectrum although I know that some other posters are more on the 3-4-5 end.

ADRP has been out there for around 20 years (Erick quotes 1986 as its genesis) and I think it would be absurd to assume that no one found a way to improve on a good thing in two decades. I like ADRP as it is, and would find additional options worthwhile to read and consider, but I can see where an editor for 2E would decide to eliminate all references to randomizers in the rules.

Just me talking to myself again. :hmm:

[Otha]

I think it would be absurd to assume that no one found a way to improve on a good thing in two decades.

And yet, that's what we're told.

[RPGPundit]

There are lots of additions you can tack on to the core rules that would be an "improvement" in the sense of giving additional choices.  That's the key; Amber is a toolkit game; giving more tools is always good (so long as the tools are actually usable).

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Additions, but not replacements?

[olivier legrand]

Personally, I think an "ideal" second edition of the game should include the following alterations / additions / features :

1) An alternate, non-auction character creation system - not in replacement of the auction system but in addition to; in fact, I think that offering several character creation methods would be very much in keeping with the original "toolkit" spirit of the game : the GM would simply choose the method that best suits the campaign he intends to run. I think there could be room for three methods : "competitive" (the auction system), "individual" (a system allowing each player to build his character on his own, making it easier to run solo campaigns or to integrate new players in an already running campaign) and "collective" (a system focusing on the creation of a coherent or complementary group - such as a group of siblings with a common legacy etc - and why not ? I know it's quite far-off the "rat bastard" mentality of what some persons consider to be "pure Amber" but such things could also worrk within this setting : one of the things I've learned in 5+ years of campaigning is that the Amber universe is probably one of the most flexible RPG settings one can imagine - so why not reflect it in the game ?). The "competitive" approach would still be the "standard Amber style" but including other approaches would only make the game system more flexible - or rather, as flexible as the setting is.

2) A clearer definition of Stuff (or something else to replace it), taking into account the commonly-voiced problems about these mechanics (qv the Amberzine n°7 article).

3) A simpler approach to damage & wounds - once again, not as a replacement but as an option. It's something we already found in a latent form in the game, but I think the system would only benefit from a more modular approach - just as the book gives three different versions of each NPC, I think the rules could give, say, three different character creation methods (see above), three different ways to resolve combat and handle wounds (from "basic" to "extremely detailed"). Once again, the idea here is not "let's change everything" or "let's add entirely new mechanics" but rather "let's develop the possibilities already offered by the game", making some of them more clearly-defined for the aspiring GM.

Note that the same "modular" approach could also be applied to other topics, such as character advancement etc... but if this approach was to be chosen, great care should also be taken to preserve the flexibility of the whole system (and I think it's completely feasible) - the game would remain a toolbox, but with a few more identifiable tools for aspiring GMs. I think that many readers / potential GMs have been put off by the "freeform" aspect of the Amber rules, because their overall presentation may leave some readers the impression that the game is "formless" rather than "freeform" (uh, sorry, I'm trying to make myself as clear as possible, but I'm not sure I am - please tell me you see what I mean ).

As an aside, a few thoughts about cards. Someone here mentioned using cards - I have tried using cards for action resolution (replacing Stuff by a hand of cards distributed at the start of each scenario) but it really did not work in the game - or, more properly, it did not produce the expected result and did not really add anything to the game (but I wanted to try it anyway)... but I remain convinced that cards could find an interesting (optional) place somewhere in the game, if only because some aspects of the Amberverse is very reminiscent of what we might call the "playing cards paradigm" (you know : trumps, titles like "knight of chaos", and many card-based metaphors to illustrate conflicts, action opportunities etc). Perhaps cards could be used as an option in character creation or to handle character advancement...

There is one particular Amber/card parallel that I find fascinating : the four attributes are perfectly matched by the four tarot suits/minor arcana :

Strength = clubs/staves

Endurance = cups (Endurance as a "pool", fountain of vitality etc)

Warfare = swords

Psyche = pentagrams (OK they are also known as coins/denarii in some decks but pentagrams or pentacles are so much more Psyche-relevant)

I had once thought about using this parallel to rank attributes, using the values of cards as measurements and perhaps leaving the "face cards" (jack, knight, queen, king) and the aces to the NPC elder Amberites (thus, Benedict could be described as "the ace of swords" etc)... it was quite esthetic but also caused a few problems (like male characters being identified as "queens" or female ones as "kings" - but that was not completely unsolvable) and, to be honest, did not seem to bring anything beyond esthetics. That being said, using these cards in character creation could be a way to ensure that nobody would have the same card/value in the same attribute, if the same single deck was used for all player-characters.

[Otha]

It works even better when you use the suits from a playing card deck rather than tarot:

Endurance=hearts
Strength=clubs
Warfare=spades
Psyche=diamonds

[olivier legrand]

It works even better when you use the suits from a playing card deck rather than tarot:

Endurance=hearts
Strength=clubs
Warfare=spades
Psyche=diamonds

It works too - since tarot suits and standard suits were originally similar. But I find tarot a bit more "Amberite" (because of trumps and terms like swords etc).

[RPGPundit]

Personally, I think an "ideal" second edition of the game should include the following alterations / additions / features :

1) An alternate, non-auction character creation system - not in replacement of the auction system but in addition to; in fact, I think that offering several character creation methods would be very much in keeping with the original "toolkit" spirit of the game : the GM would simply choose the method that best suits the campaign he intends to run. I think there could be room for three methods : "competitive" (the auction system), "individual" (a system allowing each player to build his character on his own, making it easier to run solo campaigns or to integrate new players in an already running campaign) and "collective" (a system focusing on the creation of a coherent or complementary group - such as a group of siblings with a common legacy etc - and why not ? I know it's quite far-off the "rat bastard" mentality of what some persons consider to be "pure Amber" but such things could also worrk within this setting : one of the things I've learned in 5+ years of campaigning is that the Amber universe is probably one of the most flexible RPG settings one can imagine - so why not reflect it in the game ?). The "competitive" approach would still be the "standard Amber style" but including other approaches would only make the game system more flexible - or rather, as flexible as the setting is.

I agree. As long as the auction system is kept, and kept as the principle system, I don't see any reason why there couldn't be alternate character creation systems offered.

2) A clearer definition of Stuff (or something else to replace it), taking into account the commonly-voiced problems about these mechanics (qv the Amberzine n°7 article).

I only agree in the sense that stuff has to be separated from alignment.  Other than that, I like stuff as it is.

3) A simpler approach to damage & wounds - once again, not as a replacement but as an option. It's something we already found in a latent form in the game, but I think the system would only benefit from a more modular approach - just as the book gives three different versions of each NPC, I think the rules could give, say, three different character creation methods (see above), three different ways to resolve combat and handle wounds (from "basic" to "extremely detailed"). Once again, the idea here is not "let's change everything" or "let's add entirely new mechanics" but rather "let's develop the possibilities already offered by the game", making some of them more clearly-defined for the aspiring GM.

Now this one is tricky.  The problem is that if you set up a "hit point" system of any kind (be it a ladder, a scale, whatever the fuck you want), then it will be too easy for that to come to be seen as the official method instead of the other, highly interpretive system. I'm definitely not sure that there is a need for that, because you end up getting into beancounting and playing with mechanics then... if your character has "a nasty head wound", the player will be thinking one way, but if your character has "three boxes of damage, and four boxes left, with a penalty for being moderately wounded", he'll be thinking in a very different way.  By making it more specific, what you're actually doing is making it less about roleplaying and more about keeping track of your mechanics.  "Can I survive this fight? Hmm, well, I still have three wound levels I could take before going down". Fuck that.

Note that the same "modular" approach could also be applied to other topics, such as character advancement etc... but if this approach was to be chosen, great care should also be taken to preserve the flexibility of the whole system (and I think it's completely feasible) - the game would remain a toolbox, but with a few more identifiable tools for aspiring GMs. I think that many readers / potential GMs have been put off by the "freeform" aspect of the Amber rules, because their overall presentation may leave some readers the impression that the game is "formless" rather than "freeform" (uh, sorry, I'm trying to make myself as clear as possible, but I'm not sure I am - please tell me you see what I mean ).

Well, I would rather that more effort was put into explaining how there is FORM within the "freeform" system, rather than just ditching the whole thing out of a fear that certain people won't get it; and ending up with a more mechanical beancounter game.

RPGPundit

[olivier legrand]

Now this one is tricky.  The problem is that if you set up a "hit point" system of any kind (be it a ladder, a scale, whatever the fuck you want), then it will be too easy for that to come to be seen as the official method instead of the other, highly interpretive system. I'm definitely not sure that there is a need for that, because you end up getting into beancounting and playing with mechanics then... if your character has "a nasty head wound", the player will be thinking one way, but if your character has "three boxes of damage, and four boxes left, with a penalty for being moderately wounded", he'll be thinking in a very different way.  By making it more specific, what you're actually doing is making it less about roleplaying and more about keeping track of your mechanics.  "Can I survive this fight? Hmm, well, I still have three wound levels I could take before going down". Fuck that.

I agree (almost) completely with you. I was not suggesting a hit points system or similar approach, but perhaps a way to allow players to assess their character's "chances of survival" (and I use the term very loosely) according to their character's attributes (most notably Endurance), perhaps some kind of flexible fatigue system that would allow a player to know when it's time to stop fighting (and whisk into shadow or via trump, for instance) before getting killed or maimed... these were just ideas, anyway. In my own campaign (and using my oh-so-popular alternate rules - sorry, wrong thread ), I use a purely descriptive / interpretative system and it works fine - better, in fact, than my previous attempts to use an Endurance-based hit points score (well, that was not exactly what I tried but it more or less amounted to that idea)... but in the context of a possible second edition, I think this topic could be handled in a more "novice GM-friendly" manner.  

Well, I would rather that more effort was put into explaining how there is FORM within the "freeform" system, rather than just ditching the whole thing out of a fear that certain people won't get it; and ending up with a more mechanical beancounter game.

I agree (even though we apparently do not have the same conception of the game - but perhaps this IS an illustration of how flexible Amber actually is).

When I first read the Amber rulesbook, years before running my campaign, my first impression was very negative : to sum up, I thought the "diceless" thing was just a pretentious way of concealing a "systemless" game - or even a "gameless game" if I may say so. But I re-read the book some time later and got to change my mind - because (among other things) my own other games had become more and more diceless and, well, opinions and tastes change with time... still, I was not entirely sure of the whole thing before actually launching my first campaign. And now I'm sure of one thing : the Amber game, as a whole (system and setting) is one of the more "solid" RPGs that exist (and it's perhaps why it's still alive after all those years, with only one supplement, while whole game universes with tons of splatbooks have just come and gone...)  - of course, you can still do complete crap with it, but that's true of any game. What makes Amber unique IMO is the way the game adapts itself to almost any variant, twist or new ideas the GM (and the players) may have... but hell, I'm going a bit off topic here, I'm afraid. To get back on the track, I'd say that the freedom offered by the original game is one of its very pilars and that it would be a very bad idea to try to horseshoe this freedom into something more "practical" or "classical".

So all this leads us to the seminal question : does the game really NEED a second edition ?

I don't think it really NEEDS one - but it could be a very good thing, provided this second edition tries to develop and expand the game (within its original framework of freeform adaptability) instead of "revising" it or trying to offer "something completely different".

Finally, perhaps I could explain what I actually mean by "freeform". I was not using this term to say that players (or GMs) can do "pretty much what they like" around the table as if the game had no system to speak of - I was thinking more about the creative process : setting up a campaign, creating characters, making them evolve over time, taking decisions that will have major repercussions on the flow of the campaign etc. When you read Amberzines or talk with other Amber GMs, you see that every campaign is unique, with its own version/vision of the Amberverse and (often) with its own version/interpretation/variant of the Amber game system - but they (or let's say most of them) can still be identified as Amber games. For me "freeform" did not mean "free of form" but flexible, adaptable... shapeshifting perhaps ?