How do you do it? Is it as simple as making sure that every attribute gets used? Do you put in an opponent with rank 2 so that rank 1 gets his chance to shine?
The "opponent with rank 2" should be another PC. And Rank 1 should be untouchable enough that the rank 2 player should NEVER be able to beat the rank 1 in a fair contest.
That's how you make it awesome. Make the other player hate the guy for having Rank 1, make him willing to do anything to get rank 1, and make the guy who's rank 1 work desperately to keep his rank 1.
Meanwhile, this will also mean that your players will have to think like really scheming bastards anytime they face an opponent that they know outranks them.
RPGPundit
The gaming group I have is more into cooperative role-playing rather than competitive, so they don't really have a cut-throat style in Amber. Thus, the first rank distinction isn't that important to them.
What I hope to do when I start my next ADRP campaign is to use Ron Edwards' concept of a "Relationship Map" to build some pre-existing rivalries at the onset of the game. Hopefully, this will generate a bit more competition among my players.
Otherwise, we may play diceless but it won't be Amber. :(
Quote from: finarvynThe gaming group I have is more into cooperative role-playing rather than competitive, so they don't really have a cut-throat style in Amber. Thus, the first rank distinction isn't that important to them.
Yea, see, to me this is a little like playing Paranoia without the competition...
or, say, Cthulhu without any monsters.
You can do it, but what the fuck's the point?
QuoteWhat I hope to do when I start my next ADRP campaign is to use Ron Edwards' concept of a "Relationship Map" to build some pre-existing rivalries at the onset of the game. Hopefully, this will generate a bit more competition among my players.
Otherwise, we may play diceless but it won't be Amber. :(
Dude, you don't need a fucking "relationship map" because if you run the attribute auction right, the competition between the players will start there. That's where you'll start getting grudges between players; a good GM will put those who competed heavily with each other in certain portions of the auction as "pre-existing rivals", its what the auction is meant to generate!
RPGPundit
QuoteAnd Rank 1 should be untouchable enough that the rank 2 player should NEVER be able to beat the rank 1 in a fair contest.
I'm not done reading it yet, but isn't it set up so that rank 3 can never beat rank 2 in a fair contest, rank 18 can never beat 17 in a fair contest, etc.? So haven't you just said "make it awesome by using the rules?" Or alternatively, "make it awesome by making it awesome?"
Forgive this newbie, but those statements don't do me a lot of good.
Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not done reading it yet, but isn't it set up so that rank 3 can never beat rank 2 in a fair contest, rank 18 can never beat 17 in a fair contest, etc.? So haven't you just said "make it awesome by using the rules?" Or alternatively, "make it awesome by making it awesome?"
Forgive this newbie, but those statements don't do me a lot of good.
Well, the point is that whoever gets ranked 1st is the best of his generation (and note: he should be that, at the very least there should be no other Amberite NPC "cousin" of his that would be his equal or better). That gives a kind of security. Yes, if you're 2nd the other guys can't beat you, but the guy who's 1st can.
I mean, optionally, you can make 1st be even better, able to do certain tricks, in other words, CONSIDERABLY better than 2nd (better than the diff between 2nd and 3rd); but really to me its more to do with the GM making sure that the difference
matters.
There's also a social/intimidation aspect. Remember that 1st ranked in something doesn't just mean you're the best, it means
everyone in the family knows you're the best.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditDude, you don't need a fucking "relationship map" because if you run the attribute auction right, the competition between the players will start there. That's where you'll start getting grudges between players; a good GM will put those who competed heavily with each other in certain portions of the auction as "pre-existing rivals", its what the auction is meant to generate!
Ah, but the problem lies in my present gaming group -- which is composed of my wife, two children (teenage), my sister, and a couple of family friends. Getting them to have a friendly grudge is harder than it looks with this particular mix of players, and they really are more interested in everyone having fun rather than dominating each other. That's the "problem" with being a crusty old guy with a family who loves to role play.
Now, if I could turn back the clock to play ADRP with my old high school/college gaming buddies that would be a whole new ballgame. They were mostly sick bastards who would stab each other in the back just for the fun of it, only the ADRP hadn't been invented yet! :mad:
By the way, that's also why my attempts to run SORCERER have been less edgy that I would like. The dynamic of my group doesn't quite mix well with certain styles of play.
Quote from: RPGPunditDude, you don't need a fucking "relationship map" because if you run the attribute auction right, the competition between the players will start there. That's where you'll start getting grudges between players; a good GM will put those who competed heavily with each other in certain portions of the auction as "pre-existing rivals", its what the auction is meant to generate!
When you run the auction, all the players see around the table are their friends (and maybe family). In a healthy group, it's really really hard to generate those rivalries unless they're pre-existing. The attribute auction can fall totally flat if the players sit down and say, "Okay, Ben, which do you want to be first in? Strength? Okay, how much do you want to buy it for? Ten? Ten is good. Ron, what do you want? Warfare? Okay, that's cool. Fifteen points? Good. I'd like first in Psyche, but I also want to get Advanced Pattern, is everyone okay if I just spend twenty on it? Okay..."
And really, if they realize that they CAN do this, and that it'll work, then no matter what goodies you attach to first place, no matter how you browbeat them, they'll just spend their points and that'll be it. No rivalries, no high bids, lots of powers and lots of artifacts, etc.... so no bullshit about "if you run the auction right" because you can't guarantee it, especially with a group like the one we're talking about here.
So if the auction isn't going to work, then you HAVE to go with something more visceral. A relationship map is one way to generate that.
What's a relationship map?
First of all, the "relationship map" is designed for campaigns which are more social and interactive, such as AMBER or SORCERER. Putting one together for a standard D&D game may be interesting, but since most modules are more "us against them" we don't usually need such things for those games.
The basic idea for a "relationship map" is that you write down all of the names of important characters (both PC and NPC) on a piece of paper and draw lines between characters who are connected somehow -- marriage, siblings, same employer, whatever.
Put together as many connections as possible and you build this web of interconnected characters. I required my players to pick at least two connections between themselves and people on my list of PC/NPC choices. I also encouraged them not to select only "good" relationships but to include at least one "bad" relationship. This tends to spark rivalries and such.
What I try to do is to take players who usually team up and make them rivals, while other players who rarely take the same side may get some reason to work together. It tends to shake up the group and force them to care more about the fate of other characters.
It's a nice bookkeeping tool and makes players think more about the history of their characters. Some of my players do this already, others need to have it forced upon them. ;)
Quote from: finarvynAh, but the problem lies in my present gaming group -- which is composed of my wife, two children (teenage), my sister, and a couple of family friends. Getting them to have a friendly grudge is harder than it looks with this particular mix of players, and they really are more interested in everyone having fun rather than dominating each other. That's the "problem" with being a crusty old guy with a family who loves to role play.
Now, if I could turn back the clock to play ADRP with my old high school/college gaming buddies that would be a whole new ballgame. They were mostly sick bastards who would stab each other in the back just for the fun of it, only the ADRP hadn't been invented yet! :mad:
By the way, that's also why my attempts to run SORCERER have been less edgy that I would like. The dynamic of my group doesn't quite mix well with certain styles of play.
Yes, its true, not every group is right for every kind of game. High-competition RPGs might be counterproductive if you're in a certain type of group, especially if its composed of your family, unless you're working through some kind of family therapy issues. Hah!
RPGPundit
So, unfortunately, my choices appear to be:
1. some sort of mutated Amber, modified for my group, or
2. no Amber at all.
Given these choices, I'd prefer #1.
Actually, this could be an area in the rules that would be nice to have addressed for a 2nd Edition (if Edwin Vostkamp gets things going) because at present there really aren't many examples of cooperative Amber in the rules. Consider that at one point Corwin, Random, and Deirdre had some sort of alliance (then D backed out), later Corwin worked with Bleys, and of course there is the Brand-Fiona-Bleys thing, so it's not unheard of for Amberites to work with each other toward a common goal.
Just me thinkin'.
Personally, I think that Amber can be figured around to get rid of the problems you're encountering.
First of all, instead of resisting the cooperation, embrace it. Ditch the auction. Instead, let the players define their characters cooperatively. Maybe you could have each player define one thing about each other player's character, to the tune of ten points or so. After that, the player gets fifty points for pattern (or something else if they don't want to go the Amberite route).
"I'll spend ten points on your warfare."
"I'll give you ten points towards trump."
Neat idea, that of spending points for each other. I'll have to ponder this. (I already ditched the auction and let characters spend their own CP, but you've given me a new wrinkle...)
Yes, its entirely possible, its just contrary to one of the central emulation features of the Amber novels, which is that the Amberites are a great big dysfunctional family: Like any dysfunctional family, they form wierd alliances of convenience and of survival, cabals, and occasionally even all band together when some outside source threatens their chosen status quo, but ultimately the "messed up" ends up being more central than the "love and sharing".
Also, to me at least, its one of the fun features that makes the Amber RPG different than playing, say, high-powered D&D. Its a machiavellian game where your players are not just not expected to be a party, they are expected to often end up being at odds. Playing totally co-operative Amber is a bit like playing totally co-operative Paranoia. It can be done, but it loses a lot of its raison d'etre.
RPGpundit
There's nothing to say that the PC's can't have disfunctional relationships with NPC relatives. We're just talking about the relationships between the PC's. You're making the "cooperative" position broader than intended. It's straw man argument.
Quote from: James McMurrayWhat's a relationship map?
Ron Edwards claims he invented it, but I owned pretty much the same thing in Chicago by Night, ironically a supplement for Vampire the Masquerade which came out years before.
The idea is the web of relationships as described above, in Ron Edwards version you only plot relationships of kin or people who have or are sleeping together. I find that too limiting, so I tend to plot friendships and alliances too, plot too much though and it gets unwieldy.
It is a useful technique, it just predates Ron Edwards by a good few years.
Quote from: OthaThere's nothing to say that the PC's can't have disfunctional relationships with NPC relatives. We're just talking about the relationships between the PC's. You're making the "cooperative" position broader than intended. It's straw man argument.
It wasn't intended as such. But you bring up something that leads to a good solution: really in Amber, we're talking about family, so the way to create co-operation and make it look sincere is to have all the PCs be a single group within the family that are united by something that sets them apart from almost everyone else.
The "Redheads" are the classic example in Amber. They're different than the other kids, they're wierd, they're mostly nerdy (except Bleys), they've got too much magic for the average Amberite to trust them. So of course, the three of them banded together like peas in a pod, at least until Brand betrayed the other two.
So if you want your PCs to be tight, you have to do something to make them so, to explain why they would be when everyone else is double-crossing each other constantly: something that makes them different from everyone else, and makes most of the rest of the family not like or trust them.
RPGpundit
Example of relationship map:
http://files.meetup.com/180731/valley%20of%20the%20mists%20relationship%20bitmap.BMP
Gracias!