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.
I think you alos need players whose idea of flavor text isn't "that stuff that keeps me from fighting."
Well, of course, but doesn't any good game needs them?
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.
Amber isn't more difficult to play, but it is harder to run.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Wasn't that what I said?
Yeah. :)
Oh. I thought that maybe my broken english was acting up again.
:p
No. It was my need to restate things to make sure I'm on the same page as someone else. Tu inglés es muy bueno. :)
If that's broken spanish I apologize. I'm from Texas. :)
Quote from: James McMurrayNo. It was my need to restate things to make sure I'm on the same page as someone else. Tu inglés es muy bueno. :)
If that's broken spanish I apologize. I'm from Texas. :)
Not at all, that's perfect spanish. And thanks.
Quote from: SunBoyRunning 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.
Oh, of course. I put stuff into the notebook with an eye to what the players had done in the last session, and I only pulled stuff out when it was appropriate to the play as it was happening. That's hardly a 'storyline' though.
I think, however, that in a game like Amber, you need a storyline. And that's hardly the same as railroading ;) .
My amber games have the least plotline of any campaign I ever run. They just have a bunch of NPCs running around doing stuff with different motives, and a bunch of PCs doing the same.
RPGPundit
Quote from: SunBoyI think, however, that in a game like Amber, you need a storyline. And that's hardly the same as railroading ;) .
Okay. Definition, please?
Quote from: RPGPunditMy amber games have the least plotline of any campaign I ever run. They just have a bunch of NPCs running around doing stuff with different motives, and a bunch of PCs doing the same.
This is the best way, IMHO.
"A bunch of NPCs doing stuff with different motives" is a kind of a storyline. Storyline: Things happening in the world not directely caused by the PCs. They have a start, a development and an end, any of which can vary if some or many PCs get involved. That's about it, simply put.
It's not a storyline. It's a story structure, into which storylines can be laid.
I believe that most players want to have some sort of story unfold during the course of an adventure, and like to believe that there is a single mastermind directing that story. Some sort of behind-the-scenes action (which is probably hidden to the players) allows for players to experience surprise as events unfold, which is harder to achive when everyone decides together.
Well, I'm not most players.
I believe that there is a significant number (perhaps a minority, perhaps not, I can't say) of players who want to feel that they have an impact on events, that what they do matters. They want to feel that the conflicts they're in really CAN go either way, most of the time.
I agree that there are players out there who insist on "winning" most of the time, who find winning more desirable than losing, and only accept losses when they can expect a bigger win later. I don't like playing with those players.
I like playing with people who can find losing just as interesting as winning, who want their characters' actions to decide the fate of things rather than a GM's pre-plotted story, and who can bring just as much creative energy to the table as me.
But that's just me.
Quote from: OthaWell, I'm not most players.
I believe that there is a significant number (perhaps a minority, perhaps not, I can't say) of players who want to feel that they have an impact on events, that what they do matters. They want to feel that the conflicts they're in really CAN go either way, most of the time.
I guess I don't see why this can't work with a pre-determined storyline. When I script a plotline, I don't think to myself "Okay, so Otha is going to win a duel with Bleys and then Otha will decide to attack Amber..."
My players always have an impact on events, and what they do does matter. The difference is that as an active GM I have a general plan of what others (NPCs) are doing at the same time. If a bunch of players put together a story without GM guidance, no one is really organizing the actions of NPCs.
A GM-run story to me is not the same as reading a novel -- none of us know the ending yet. (I'm not running a linear module, but giving my players a situation in which they can interact and determine what happens next.) In fact, as much as I plot and plan I can never quite anticipate the actions of my players, so often I'm as surprised as they are as to how the story turns out. My players will come up with some sort of unexpected idea or way to shift the story, and their conflicts can go either way depending upon how they play the scene.
Whenever I run a game there's always a "storyline." The players may never even come across it or they may the its primary authors, but I always know what's going on in the world, and what will occur if the PCs don't do anything to change it.
Quote from: finarvynIf a bunch of players put together a story without GM guidance, no one is really organizing the actions of NPCs.
Well, of course...
But you're assuming that the actions of NPC's have to be important. If the GM is taking a hands-off attitude towards the flow of play, or if there's no true GM at all, then the actions of the PC's are the only ones that drive things forward.
Oh, yeah, here's your sign for you:
:forge:
Now if you've got players who aren't willing to drive things forward, then you'll have a problem with this mode of play. Given that thirty years of RPG's have been teaching us that it's the GM's job to drive things forward, this is not uncommon to encounter... but it's not the only way to play.
Quote from: OthaOh, yeah, here's your sign for you:
:forge:
Actually, I've never quite understood what they are talking about at the Forge. I get the gist of Narration vs Simulation and a few of their general terms, but then they start spewing terminology to the point where my brain refuses to grasp it. It's like I'm a creature of Law and they are creatures of Chaos (or the other way around). :ponder:
Anyway ... it could be that I am too indoctrinated into the "old school" mentality of RPGs such that the DM sets up a situation and the players follow along. I always thought of myself as being pretty progressive since I rarely run "modules" but instead generate lists of hooks and then let the players decide which ones to follow, but again I'm setting up the situation even if my players have more options than usual.
I guess I need to experience a GM-less game once or twice to get the proper feel for how it works. The fact that I can't imagine it working well probably just shows my lack of imagination rather than a flaw in that style of gaming -- the fact that you can pull it off is proof of that!
Quote from: OthaIf there's no true GM at all, then the actions of the PC's are the only ones that drive things forward.
So ... if the players don't drive the game forward but instead wallow around in confusion, what happens next?
Quote from: finarvynSo ... if the players don't drive the game forward but instead wallow around in confusion, what happens next?
You figure that sort of game isn't right for your group, pick a GM, and start having fun again? :)
Quote from: James McMurrayYou figure that sort of game isn't right for your group, pick a GM, and start having fun again? :)
:)
Except that Otha has posed an interesting scenario and I'd like to know how it works out. Sure, I can revert back to my comfort zone, but if he can pull off a non-GM style adventure I'd like to know more.
You already know how it works: the players drive the action. If the players don't drive the action, it just doesn't work.
The right game can give incentives for players taking the reigns, but that's about it. There's no way that I know of to make a GM-less game work if the player base won't work at it. More likely I think is that the guy that generally GMs will step forward as a lead player and you end up with a pseudo-GM.
Quote from: James McMurrayYou already know how it works: the players drive the action. If the players don't drive the action, it just doesn't work.
I look at it this way ... if it works for Otha's group it's worth me at least hearing about to see if I can use it for my group. I'm not sure my group will go for it, but I'd at least like to understand what he's talking about.
I'm starting my next game sometime in the february/march timeframe. I'm hoping to record major portions of it for people to download.