SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Is Amber really that difficult to play?

Started by SunBoy, December 11, 2006, 11:09:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

SunBoy

December 11, 2006, 11:09:17 PM
Ok, I'll quote myself because I would really like some opinions on this matter.
Here it goes:
Quote from: meGentlemen, I really feel a shower of crap coming my way after I say this, but here it goes... I do not find Amber a difficult game to run or play. Before you start the turd throwing, please read on. I think that, after grasping the initial concept of the whole thing, the difficult part is exactly the same as the difficult part of running anything were you can't just center your game on hack & slash. Elaborating. DMingDude throws a party, and after a few beers the gang begs him to put togheter a few monsters, two or three pit traps, a dozen funny NPCs

Quote from: Ugly Piper...and the occasional boobies...

...thank you, and the occasional boobies, and run two elves, a weezer and a lesbian-chaotic-evil-half-fiend-charisma-22 drow priestess through some good ole wench-killing-orc-raping D&D. Fine. If you've been DMing for as much as a few months, you can do it with your hands closed and your eyes behind your back. Now let's say the party is at GMingBloke's flat, and after three beers and a joint each the gang (including DMingDude, who's visiting), bribes him into running Xaviero, d'Artagnan, Gerry the Strongman, that chap who just doesn't get tired and a few slow siblings through some family slaughterin' crown war. Well, just as easy. Really. The part of Amber that's hard will be hard if you are running Amber, D&D, VtM, WtF (I love the acronym), Over the Edge or even the bloody excellent Risus. The nice plotline, the believable situations and, most important of all, the NPCs.
The system, as always, is a matter of taste.
And, as for playing it... well, I think playing it may be harder than running it, if you are talking about the "traditional" competitive playstyle, and if it's well directed.
What may make Amber seem harder, it's the fact that, let's face it, if you are playing D&D with some at least barely experienced players, and the DM is not a complete retard, it can be fun. Well, now, with Amber, you need the GM to be good for it to be fun. And I'm not talking about him making lightning fast on-the-spot calls in a battle. That you learn. I'm talking of him being able to really make you believe that that redhead bastard is telling you the truth, to get you thinking, "oh, boy, how I'd like to screw Flora", to play a charming Bleys who doesn't stop smiling while making a brochette out of you, to portrait an unreadable yet menacing and deeply human Benedict, and of course, if Corwin is around, to stick without guilt 23 feet of trouble up your proverbial arse. Mate, that Zelazny chap was good.
"Real randomness, I\'ve discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

James McMurray

#1
December 11, 2006, 11:12:24 PM
I think you alos need players whose idea of flavor text isn't "that stuff that keeps me from fighting."

SunBoy

#2
December 11, 2006, 11:14:33 PM
Well, of course, but doesn't any good game needs them?
"Real randomness, I\'ve discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

James McMurray

#3
December 12, 2006, 09:47:33 AM
Depends on your definition of good. Many games can play almost completely in a tactical style where the flavor text is used to set up the next tactical situation. A "typical" dungeon crawl is a good example of this.

JongWK

#4
December 12, 2006, 11:09:40 AM
Amber isn't more difficult to play, but it is harder to run.
"I give the gift of endless imagination."
~~Gary Gygax (1938 - 2008)

JohnB

#5
December 12, 2006, 01:41:53 PM
Quote from: JongWKAmber isn't more difficult to play, but it is harder to run.

Not for me...

I have more difficulty with traditional RPG game prep (statting critters, making sure the challenge is commensurate with character ability, etc.). With Amber, most of what I really need is a notion of who is doing what to whom and what their personality/motivation/ability may be. For me, that is easier.
 

Arref

#6
December 12, 2006, 04:08:43 PM
I believe most folks I've played with consider it easier and more rewarding to be the Player: where you can so concentrate on your character and system is not in your way.

For reasons noted elsewhere, the GMing job is harder because creativity and consistency are very important. The system does not prop up a tired or inexperienced GM.
in the Shadow of Greatness
—sharing on game ideas and Zelazny\'s Amber

finarvyn

#7
December 12, 2006, 05:44:29 PM
Quote from: JongWKAmber isn't more difficult to play, but it is harder to run.
I agree on this, and know I've posted something similar somewhere.

In a "traditional" RPG one can toss in a random encounter to kill time and give the GM time to think and plan out the next part of the adventure. In ADRP every encounter is supposed to advance the storyline and so the GM has to pay attention more.

To me, that can be significant. I can't just B.S. an adventure like I can with D&D.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

SunBoy

#8
December 13, 2006, 11:57:12 AM
Quote from: finarvynTo me, that can be significant. I can't just B.S. an adventure like I can with D&D.

Well, that's almost true. But, if there are rules lawyers, I'm a rules criminal, so what JohnB says it's also true. And you always can have some kind of "social reunion", let's say a dinner at Amber castle with some elders, which doesn't need to advance the storyline but can easily plant seeds for future crap. Zelazny often used that device, with conversations that didn't seem important at the moment...
"Real randomness, I\'ve discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

Otha

#9
December 13, 2006, 12:54:03 PM
Quote from: finarvynIn ADRP every encounter is supposed to advance the storyline...

It is?

Wow.  I must have been doing it wrong.

I just kept a notebook handy, in which (as I was so inspired) I'd jot down "cool stuff that can happen in the game" and just pick and choose from it during play sessions and keep track in the notebook of which I had used and which I hadn't, and the details thereof...  I never had any problem winging it.

Having a "storyline" ahead of time just smacks of railroading to me...
 

SunBoy

#10
December 13, 2006, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: OthaIt is?

Wow.  I must have been doing it wrong.

I just kept a notebook handy, in which (as I was so inspired) I'd jot down "cool stuff that can happen in the game" and just pick and choose from it during play sessions and keep track in the notebook of which I had used and which I hadn't, and the details thereof...  I never had any problem winging it.

Having a "storyline" ahead of time just smacks of railroading to me...

Those are extremes, both of them. Running your game only with "cool stuff that can happen" can be nice, but you have to have some kind of idea of what's happening in the world around your players. That's not railroading. If there's interesting stuff happening, your players may want to interact with the world. If they don't, that's okay, but things should be happening.
"Real randomness, I\'ve discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

James McMurray

#11
December 13, 2006, 02:13:08 PM
I prefer the games where things are happening and the players decide their involvement. I (or the GM) knows what will happen if they don't get involved, and extrapolates what happens when they do. I've ofund they're generally the most flexible and easiest to run.

SunBoy

#12
December 13, 2006, 02:21:03 PM
Wasn't that what I said?
"Real randomness, I\'ve discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

SunBoy

#14
December 13, 2006, 02:35:47 PM
Oh. I thought that maybe my broken english was acting up again.
:p
"Real randomness, I\'ve discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions