TheRPGSite

I never reallly thought that Amber could be done using the d20 system. Too mathematical, not loose enough for my liking.

Then I bought a copy of Monte Cook's World of Darkness, which takes the familiar lines of Vampire/Werewolf/Mage and puts them together in a 3.5E format. I'm not a fan of 3E but really like the way this book reads so far, in terms of the way the levels are charted out (the classes essentially become "Vampire" or "Werewolf" or whatever) and the magic system is nice because it allows for custom spells (ala SAGA system) and exhaustion rather than a pre-determined number of spells per day. There are special feats for each class/race, as well as general feats for all characters. It just seems to be well written overall.

So why post this on an ADRP forum?

Well, we've had a few discussion threads about using different systems to run Amber campaigns, and the first two settings that immediately popped into my brain were Amber and Harry Dresden. I have no plans to run WOD in the actual WOD universe, but now I think that it would be possible to create a d20 Amber rulebook in a way that could actually be fun to play. I'll bet that feats could be generated for each major power (pattern, logrus, etc) and the powers could correspond to classes.

Just thought I would share.

I'd love to see a full review on Monte Cook's WoD.  I mostly just want it for the mechanics, but if it's a cool thing, I'll get it.  I just want a review :(

I'd be very curious to see someone try to make a set of rules for Amberites in D20 that didn't utterly break that game.

RPGPundit

For me, it's funny that I even like the book. I'm not a huge Monty Cook fan and I don't enjoy most of the WOD stuff that I've bought. Somehow the combination hit the right note for me.

Aaaargh!!!!

Really sorry on this one, I really despise the whole level and hit points thing, and this.... *shudder*

More seriously... I see already a problem, that even appeared in the Black Compagny Sourcebook (I actually bought this as a kind of encyclopedia. BtW, the magic system is nice, although not without his flaws), where some humans can wisthand ballista bolts, even with the massive damage rules. You'd have the same thing here. Fiona, 500HPs... ... ...

So, even with an unarmed PC with human warfare (in amber system), benedict would still take ages to kill you because of the 300 HPs granted you by your level 30 PatternMaster Class. I don't know if i'm clear on this one, but this seems like pure nonsense to me...

Grevious wounds and quick death are all part of the amber setting, but are tied to skill rather than randomness or just lack of overall experience (low levels and HPs).

In fact, the WoD system would IMO do a much better Amber than the D20.

Quote from: CroakerReally sorry on this one, I really despise the whole level and hit points thing, and this.... *shudder*.

Why do people hate levels? All a "level system" represents is a simple template where characters can be set up without the need of identifying every nit-picking skill and such. If I did an Amber game with levels, I would simply set up each "class" as a power and decide which abilities would be gained at each level. Somehow, this bothers people.

As far as disliking hit points go, I wonder if this is based on a faulty understanding of the "hit point" and what it's supposed to mean. Going back to some of the Gygax editorials from 1974, one finds that a hit point is an abstracted way to represent the skill of a character to avoid taking damage; in other words if a 1st level character gets hit by a spear he might die but a 6th level character would be more likely to get a "flesh wound" instead of a solid hit. At no point were hit points ever really designed so represent a character taking a bazooka to the chest and shrugging it off. (Of course, back then the game wasn't strangled by rules, so a character intentionally taking a bazooka to the chest would have just died without the DM bothering to roll, so maybe OD&D and ADRP aren't that different after all.)

The problem happens as characters gain higher and higher levels and therefore gain more hit points. The orignal game was designed so that "hero" characters were level 4 and "superhero" characters level 8. Hit points could get big, sure, but not so gigantic as to upset the entire game system. As newer editions came out, the "hit point" became a coin of the realm and having them made you invincible. This philosophical change is when many of us began to dislike what Dungeons & Dragons was becoming. As level inflation went wild, they had to come up with artificial rules to account for massive damage and so on. (yawn)

In my campaign, if the top characters hit levels in the 8-10 range then some of the Elders could be around 12th. Nowhere near 500 hit points, at least the way I see the game being played.

So ... my plan iwould be to take the MCWOD rules and go back in time to the earlier versions of D&D that I love to play. The fact that I will need to tweak the rules to make them fit my campaign doesn't take away from the fact that the book is well done IMO.

Just my opinion.

Quote from: CroakerGrevious wounds and quick death are all part of the amber setting, but are tied to skill rather than randomness or just lack of overall experience (low levels and HPs).

Grievous wounds?  Unquestionably.

Quick death?

I mean, I know I'm a bit limited, because of not having ever really grooved on the Merlin books (I'm a Corwin man at heart ... and I don't even have the decency to be ashamed of it), but ... I don't recall any incidences of quick death.

Eric is described as dying after many, many, many wounds in a grimly lop-sided battle ... and Fiona takes care to point out that the wounds themselves were not even what killed him.

Even Brand taking an arrow in the throat and falling into the very universal embodiment of nothingness ... does anyone actually believe that zeroed out his HPs?

I'm not so sure that I buy that quick death is a common trope in the books.

Yeah, if ANY setting actually makes the D20 level system make sense it's Amber.

OTOH I don't like prescriptive rule systems, that is, systems that say, "WIth this power, you can do this, this, and this... and nothing else."  It slows down creative play.

Quote from: finarvyn(Of course, back then the game wasn't strangled by rules, so a character intentionally taking a bazooka to the chest would have just died without the DM bothering to roll, so maybe OD&D and ADRP aren't that different after all.)

Thats an excellent point. Entirely correct IMHO, which is why if I was running an Amber game with a system other than DRPG I'd do it on OD&D, or at most BX.

QuoteSo ... my plan iwould be to take the MCWOD rules and go back in time to the earlier versions of D&D that I love to play. The fact that I will need to tweak the rules to make them fit my campaign doesn't take away from the fact that the book is well done IMO.

Something like old fashioned classic D&D up to, say, name level, with the addition of weapon mastery rules from the RC or Masters set... Faff about with magic a bit to get the flavour right for Amber, and it would work a treat.

Quote from: finarvynSo ... my plan iwould be to take the MCWOD rules and go back in time to the earlier versions of D&D that I love to play. The fact that I will need to tweak the rules to make them fit my campaign doesn't take away from the fact that the book is well done IMO.

That's why I want a review.  Maybe I can use some of the monsters and stuff in C&C.

OD&D was just as prescriptive as modern versions, it just prescribed fewer things.

I'd use another descriptive system on the same order as ADRP.

Quote from: OthaOD&D was just as prescriptive as modern versions, it just prescribed fewer things.

And because it prescribes less things, its less prescriptive.

QuoteI'd use another descriptive system on the same order as ADRP.

To be honest I think you could use any fairly rules light fantasy came if you chose to do so. Tunnels and Trolls, if you fiddled with spells rather, would be as good as any.

Why I dislike levels in general?
You can't pick any new knowledge until you've gained one (the broken progression thing).
It gets harder and harder to learn anything, even if it is the basics of the skill. While I completely agree that improving a high skill should be difficult, I can't see why a 1-st level wizard of 20 years could learn equitation rather easily (few XP => level 2) while a 10-level wizard of 30 would have to toil and cry for it (lots of XP => level 11).
This makes more and more static characters.
OTOH, in the aforementionned WoD universe, you may have 5 points in all your skills and attributes save equitation, it won't get any harder to learn than if you were a beginning character.

Quote from: finarvyna hit point is an abstracted way to represent the skill of a character to avoid taking damage; in other words if a 1st level character gets hit by a spear he might die but a 6th level character would be more likely to get a "flesh wound" instead of a solid hit.

I know this one, I've read both basic D&D (when you were limited to level 3) and 3.0 ;)
This always struck me a a valiant and doomed try to rationnalize a thing that, in some settings, is utterly ludicrous.
"Too bad I just dodged 2 ballista shots 30 minutes ago, I'm now too tired to dodge a sword blow", or "lucky me, i just dodged this artillery shot that fell right on me" :roofle:
The rationnalisation of the system doesn't change the way things work. This may be great fun, but isn't appropriate to every game and style of play.

Btw, in a swordfight between 2 high-level characters, one warfare-based, the other psyche-based, the first would still do his basic sword damage, and need to cut his way through his opponent's HPs, even if, in the Amber Game, he would have died instantly due to his Human Warfare.

I also hate the fact that, against similar opponents, at low levels, you're saved by your armor and AC, while at high levels, it's more your HPs that do the trick. And the whole "all or nothing" of armor... I really dislike the fact that, if you're hit, your armor will never make a single difference. On this point, GURPS had it right to me: Armor both deflected blows (passive resistance) and lessened them (damage resistance).

Don't bother, though, this is just personnal taste, I can very well understand why people would like this ;)

Quote from: TonyLBQuick death?

I mean, I know I'm a bit limited, because of not having ever really grooved on the Merlin books (I'm a Corwin man at heart ... and I don't even have the decency to be ashamed of it), but ... I don't recall any incidences of quick death.

Because you're considering ranked opponents, with differences between mostly differences in ranks.
In amber, an unharmed human-warfare-ranked character with very high psyche going up against an harmed ranked character spells instant decapitation. In a d20-based system, it would take some good sword bashes before he dies.
In amber, you can always die quickly if you're outclassed and fight nonetheless. As levels get higher and higher, this is less and less the case.

As per the wound of Brand, ok, maybe he was still alive. But he was mostly out of the fight. After one single arrow. Not after 24. This is mythic stamina, not "You need a volley of ballista shots to stop me in one strike".

And while we're talking about amberites. If someone points a gun at corwin, or a PC for that matter, he will take the man seriously, even if if's only a shadow human, because a single bullet can kill him. With a d20 amber, this would just be "no problem, a handgun does 1D8, I have over 150HPs, I fear nothing".

Sure, this changes somewhat if you keep levels down. But then, aside from the fact that I doubt most people would limit themselves in the same way, you have a skill problem, in that you characters will not be the founts of knowledge amberites are. Hell, even a beginning PC can have enough skill to make any 20th-level character jealous.
12-th level amberites? Sure. Problem is, after a month of play by the rules, we were already level 9... Sure, it was tough, and we had to be clever bastards. But we did it (and the game was great fun, too). The elders sure wouldn't have lookek so tough.

I saw it before, you can adapt d20 to anything, sure, just as you can adapt any system to anything. But if you want to really fit the setting, this often requires massive changes that make it's no longer D20, which is probably the reason I've never seen it really done. If you don't do these changes, the system usually doesn't fit. The most daring attempt I've seen was the BC sourcebook (free magic rules, massive damage, no races templates...), and it was broken :(

If you decides that the gunshot, or the ballista for that matter, kills corwin or your PC, you're already way past usual D20 and into the realm of descriptive narating, amber-drpg style.

Quote from: CroakerWhy I dislike levels in general?
You can't pick any new knowledge until you've gained one (the broken progression thing).
It gets harder and harder to learn anything, even if it is the basics of the skill. While I completely agree that improving a high skill should be difficult, I can't see why a 1-st level wizard of 20 years could learn equitation rather easily (few XP => level 2) while a 10-level wizard of 30 would have to toil and cry for it (lots of XP => level 11).
This makes more and more static characters.

In classic D&D, a 10th level magic user learning a new first level spell can do so very easily. And a 1st level magic user learning a new spell can do so very easily. A 10th level magic user learning a 2nd level spell can do so easily, but the 1st level one can't do so at all.

Bear in mind that level progression doesn't always get slower because the numbers are bigger; generally, risks faced are more serious so the rewards are greater, and the rate of progression remains similar. This means that your tenth level wizar isn't toiling and crying any more than the 1st level wizard.

I see what you're saying, but I think its down to a misinterpretation of what a level based system does. And I therefore see no obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible to use such a system for Amber.

QuoteI know this one, I've read both basic D&D (when you were limited to level 3) and 3.0 ;)
This always struck me a a valiant and doomed try to rationnalize a thing that, in some settings, is utterly ludicrous.
"Too bad I just dodged 2 ballista shots 30 minutes ago, I'm now too tired to dodge a sword blow", or "lucky me, i just dodged this artillery shot that fell right on me" :roofle:
The rationnalisation of the system doesn't change the way things work. This may be great fun, but isn't appropriate to every game and style of play.

I don't see hit points as being like that. I think that there are two ways that make sense.

Firstly, treat them like Amber 'stuff'. Hit points define finite 'good stuff'. When you run out of it, you're likely to suffer wounds.

Secondly, treat them like a sort of karma; the more 'important' you are in the world, the more powerful you have become, the more the story shines on you, the more knocks you'll take before you die. Doesn't mean you can step in front of a ballista (the DM should just say that you die!), but it does mean that you'll survive more things. Plot immunity, in other words, which is part of why hit point based systems lend themselves to 'fantasy' games.

Would it work for Amber? I dunno. I'd have to think about it.

QuoteBtw, in a swordfight between 2 high-level characters, one warfare-based, the other psyche-based, the first would still do his basic sword damage, and need to cut his way through his opponent's HPs, even if, in the Amber Game, he would have died instantly due to his Human Warfare.

If I were to adapt D&D for amber, I'd incorporate the weapon mastery system from the Masters set and RC. High warfare characters would have high weapon mastery in a number of weapons, and they'd cut low warfare characters (without mastery or with low mastery) to ribbons very, very quickly.

QuoteI also hate the fact that, against similar opponents, at low levels, you're saved by your armor and AC, while at high levels, it's more your HPs that do the trick. And the whole "all or nothing" of armor... I really dislike the fact that, if you're hit, your armor will never make a single difference. On this point, GURPS had it right to me: Armor both deflected blows (passive resistance) and lessened them (damage resistance).

True, its a limitation of the D&D systems, but then again you should remember that D&D has never been a swing-per-roll system, its not a recreationist game, the hit rolls represent a number of attempts to hit. The all or nothing armour makes more sense in that context. But you're right, if you're after a more dramatic system then you could go for damage reduction instead/aswell.

Your other ponints about skills and adaptation from d20 I agree with. I wouldn't use d20 for amber for those reasons. I'd use classic D&D, and I'd modify it a little. Although I'm also of the opinion that Tunnels and Trolls would be a great way of doing it.

I think the attraction of the "early" systems like TnT and OD&D stems from the fact that when player actions strayed outside the rules, Gamemasters would improvise, intuit, deduce and fiat their way through the issue... just like in Amber, difference being that they have dice around to bolster their authority.

Quote from: OthaI think the attraction of the "early" systems like TnT and OD&D stems from the fact that when player actions strayed outside the rules, Gamemasters would improvise, intuit, deduce and fiat their way through the issue... just like in Amber, difference being that they have dice around to bolster their authority.

To an extent I think you're right there, although I don't think that dice bolster the GMs authority.

I think that the enormous potential of an Amberite rather requires that a GM view the printed rules as a set of guidelines rather than as the way things must be done, and thats an ethos you get from rules light systems (which in D&D terms tends to be older ones).

I hadn't really considered this before, but I'm quite up for the idea of running an Amber campaign with D&D or T&T now :)

Quote from: CabTo an extent I think you're right there, although I don't think that dice bolster the GMs authority.

In some groups, there's a kind of "cult of the dice".  They're given almost religious significance.  Just watch someone roll their d20 a dozen times until a "natural" 1 shows up, so that it (by some mechanism) would NOT come up in play.

Quote from: CabI think that the enormous potential of an Amberite rather requires that a GM view the printed rules as a set of guidelines rather than as the way things must be done, and thats an ethos you get from rules light systems (which in D&D terms tends to be older ones).

Well, there are games that are actually DESIGNED that way, such as Amber and its ilk, which function better than ones where you're just falling back on it because the system doesn't give you what you need.

Quote from: OthaIn some groups, there's a kind of "cult of the dice".  They're given almost religious significance.  Just watch someone roll their d20 a dozen times until a "natural" 1 shows up, so that it (by some mechanism) would NOT come up in play.

Yeah, there are some idiots around who don't get basic probability, and they're not likely to be attracted to playing Amber :haw:  I haven't met many of them, but you do see members of any gaming group swear occasionally after a short run of bad luck.

QuoteWell, there are games that are actually DESIGNED that way, such as Amber and its ilk, which function better than ones where you're just falling back on it because the system doesn't give you what you need.

In fairness to those other games (and Amber is a tremendous game, which is why I'm posting here in the first place), its a bad GM who relies on dice or even the game system in that way; blame the idiot, not the system ;)

System is a necessity if players are to have a solid idea of what to expect when they try things out.  The GM *must* rely on it (whatever system is being used) or he risks alienating his players.

If a player puts together a character based around book-style sorcery and conjuration, and the GM runs sorcery differently every time it comes up, that player is likely to feel cheated.

If a player works with the GM to build a construct using the SK rules, and pays the points to make sure that it stays under his control, and then it goes out of his control, he's likely to feel cheated.

The same thing happens when a GM ignores die rolls, whether for good or for ill, though in a smaller way.

So yes... system is necessary, and GM's need to rely on it.

Quote from: OthaSystem is a necessity if players are to have a solid idea of what to expect when they try things out.  The GM *must* rely on it (whatever system is being used) or he risks alienating his players.

Kind of, I mean, you should at least be consistent. To a point. But a good GM keeps the trust of the players through being fair; if sheer dumb bad luck is going to ruin everyones fun (which'll happen, especially in a game where dice rolls matter) then he has to know how to turn that around and keep the game flowing. Its a craft that has to be learned, and I'd argue that you have to go through that before you can appreciate the beauty and complexity of a game like Amber, and you need to understand how a game like Amber works before you can really get the context right in games with more randomness.

Just to butt in here a bit, I view my games and the ADRP as being like Amber and Corwin's Pattern, same idea, but there are differences.  Most of my players have never played straight ADRP, and wouldn't want to.  The rest have been told "hey, this is a different universe".  Actually one of my players pointed out it not just about the rules, but figuring out what the rules are.  

I do have to agree, you must be consistent.  I've taken to recording my games in order to ensure I know what I said at a session, so I can write it down later.  It sure saves my sanity, and makes it interesting to compare with  the diaries I receive.

You'll bet!!!

I remember times when I had forgotten why I had introduced something, and had to work it out in the game so that it seemed coherent after all, be it even only to me :lol:

What about making hit dice beyond the first a factor of your Endurance? A couple of ideas spring to mind:

1) Each rank beyond Human for Endurance is worth XdY hit points.

2) Anyone with human rank endurance gets their base hit die and constituation. Someone with Chaos Rank gets to gain their constitution modifier every level (or maybe Con + 1d4). Amber ranked individuals get Con + d8 per level, or maybe Con + 4 + d4 if you want to highlight the difference between the ranks more).

What the ranks are is fluid. Perhaps feats can increase your ranks. Or they might be gained by templates.

Or maybe templates grant you access to the appropriate "Rank" feats. For instance, an Amberite gets access to all the Rank feats, but a Chaosite only gets access to Chaos Rank feats. The Amber template would also give you 4 bonus feats that can be spent on Ranks, while Chaosite gives you only 2. Perhaps the Amberite Ancestor feat, takable only at first level, gives you access to higher ranks but no bonus feats to buy them with.

I think a bigger concern is levels for Amberites. It doesn't make a lot of senes to me that an Amberite/Prince of Chaos, even a relative neophyte like Merlin, is going to be a first level dude with a +1 BAB, +2 saves, and 1d8+3 hit points.

Maybe PCs should be built more like Supers are built in Silver Age Sentinels. In SAS, each character has a certain number of build points to spend on super powers (i.e. Pattern, Artifacts, and Personal Shadows). That's also where you buy your stats. Finally, you can also buy levels with them, up to a max set by the GM when he chose the power level the game was meant to represent. The GM also recommends what level each character should, at a minimum, buy.

--

Another thing is hit points. Amberites don't die, or at least not easily. Loss of hit points should almost certainly not equate to death. Perhaps give Amberites negative hit points equal to twice their Con, and slow or remove the bleeding to death rates? That means that if someone really wants you dead they can do it, but makes it really hard for you to die to a lucky hit.

Just had another odd, then I'll shut up: maybe the Ranks are the classes. For instance, your burly war master might be Endurance 3 / War 4 / Strength 3. Ranks / Levels in Strength would grant large bonuses to strength, strength based powers like Throw Large Furniture, etc. Endurance would be a d12 hit die and increase your rate of natural regeneration. War would be the fighter class, with high BAB and lots of fighter feats.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd be very curious to see someone try to make a set of rules for Amberites in D20 that didn't utterly break that game.

RPGPundit

You know, in fact I think you could do this almost without changing the system at all.  The players generate their characters as normal.  Then, based on their stats and descriptions, the GM secretly makes character sheets for all of them.  (Followers, artifacts, and sorcery would require some custom work.)  Then, the players play the game as normal, and behind the scenes the GM rolls the dice -- with the caveat that he can add appropriate modifiers to any roll as he sees fit -- and tells the players what happened.  The only big difference would be use of HP instead of scratched / wounded / etc., and that people don't fight worse if they're hurt or tired (although that's easily houseruled in as a modifier).

So yeah, you could do it that way, but I'm unconvinced it would add any real benefit.

Now, d20 Amber where the players use their sheets themselves would require re-writing the auction system, but I think it might work if the GM makes every dice roll in secret and can give situational modifiers to any roll.

hgjs, I think you misunderstood the proposition.

Well, in this case, the D20 would just be a facade for playing "real amber", wound't it?

Exactly.  So you wouldn't really be playing a D20 Amber, this would just be an unusual way of getting your Amber stats set up.

Quote from: finarvynI never reallly thought that Amber could be done using the d20 system. Too mathematical, not loose enough for my liking.

I'm not a fan of 3E but ... (major snip) It just seems to be well written overall.

So why post this on an ADRP forum?

...now I think that it would be possible to create a d20 Amber rulebook in a way that could actually be fun to play.

So, I take it that nobody here has actually seen Monte Cook's World of Darkness? I get the impression that the d20 Amber debate is the same old tired and generic discussion that I've seen before both here and on other boards, and not influenced one whit by the content of my original post.

I mean, I started off by saying I wasn't a big fan of d20 in general and the overall shouting of the boards seens to echo that sentiment. Makes sense; that's why you're here instead of ENWorld.

My whole point was that it seemed like if MCWOD could handle the WOD setting perhaps it could also excel at handling Amber, but no one has commented on this at all. Everyone seems to focus on generic d20 arguments, which I agreed wouldn't be a good fit. :confused:

In other words, you've already made up your mind and the fact that a new product might be better than the old one doesn't matter because you already know that it's impossible for your old ideas to be incorrect. It's almost like people don't really read posts, but instead look for key words so they can comment on them. :raise:

Am I just overly sensitive here?

If it helps any, you're not reacting to me at all, much less overreacting. :)

I've not read MCWOD, nor have I already decided that d20 can't handle Amber.

Quote from: finarvynAm I just overly sensitive here?

Yes, a little. My own input here was about whether or not you'd err towards a simpler system than d20 to best get the feel of Amber; I haven't criticised d20 here, I've merely put forward some alternative game ideas that would fit well for Amber.

It's not really that the comments are good or bad, only that they don't really pertain to the discussion of this thread. Basically, my whole complaint is that we're up to 4 pages of discussion about a system that apparently no one but me has even seen.

How well has MCWoD sold? It seems to me that people who play WoD will play WoD, and people who play d20 will already have a ton of different games available to them. I can see how the Monte Cooke name can bring in some buyers, but that alone hasn't been enough for our group (we fall in the "already play WoD" category).

Quote from: joewolzI'd love to see a full review on Monte Cook's WoD.  I mostly just want it for the mechanics, but if it's a cool thing, I'll get it.  I just want a review :(

Just a few comments, some of which partially duplicate my original post.

If you totally hate 3E, don't bother. My own plan would be to take the rules and import certain parts into my OD&D game. I would likely take the magic system along with some sort of limited feats. Many other parts of the rules would probably not find their way into my own campaign.

The MCWOD system is set up so that different types of creatures represent the various classes. In other words a player could play the role of a Vampire (or Demon, or Werewolf, or Mage) and start as a weak one, then progress to eventuallly become a strong one. It looks like a 1st level Vampire (or whatever) is similar to a 3rd or 4th level character in traditional 3E.

Skills and feats look to be tradtional 3E (which is unfortunate) although each class has a special list of feats specific to that class. In other words, any special powers or abilities of that class seem to be handled as feats.

Parts of the book on equipment, combat, seeing in low light (and so on) appear to be pretty much straight out of the SRD and aren't terribly interesting or innovative.

The magic system is really neat. There are 5 different "paths" (Enchanter, Warlock, Shaman, Theugust, --?--) and each has a spell list particular to that branch of magic, plus mages can construct spells "on the fly" as needed. Each mage gets a certain number of magic points per day and has to keep track of current exhaustion level. Casting a spell isn't automatic, but is based on a die roll modified by character level, spell point cost, and current exhaustion of the mage. Each time you cast, your exhaustion goes up and it gets harder to cast the next time unless you rest. That's how they avoid the "number of spells per level" issue. I'm not sure if you need the magic points per day because exhaustion appears to be a nice limit, but I haven't had a chance to run the numbers yet to see if it's needed or not to preserve some sort of game balance.

From an Amber perspective, I can see each major power to represent a class. Therefore, a player might be a "3rd level Pattern Walker" or some such. I would likely assign certain level numbers to "regular", "advanced", "exalted" or other levels of ADRP powers and then come up with a list of abilities for each level (or a list of feats if a person likes that concept better). The class levels which match ADRP power levels would likely compare somehow to ADRP point values, so that a "level" of power words wouldn't be the same as a "level" of Logrus Mastery.

From an attribute standpoint, supernaturals in WOD are better than regular humans and substance characters in ADRP are better than shadow humans, so the MCWOD scale would probably correspond fairly welll. I know that the whole "how good is Amber compared to Chaos" argument is hot on various message boards, but I would be inclined to add a simple plus to Chaos level attributes and a slightly higher plus for Amber level. I haven't worked out a chart yet.

Again, I'm not suggesting that MCWOD would be an improvement over ADRP, but it certainly could provide an interesting version of Amber which is more number-crunchy for those who are concerned with GM fiat.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow well has MCWoD sold?

Honestly, I don't know. The first I ever heard of the MCWOD version was when I happened to see a copy in a bookstore. I can see where WOD players won't want to convert and d20 players won't want to associate with WOD. I think it's a new product, and may not have sold many copies yet. If you're right in your assessment of the gamer demographic, it's possible that it won't sell well. (Sort of like d20 Call of Cthulhu, which wasn't well liked by either the d20 or CoC crowds.)

What I found most interesting was the fact that supernaturals might be handled side-by-side with normals, in much the same way that Amberites might be side-by-side with shadow folk.

I don't know how well McWoD has sold so far, but Finarvyn is right that it's a very new game (only released at Gencon) so it may take a while before we know.

I have a copy myself, but it only arrived on Monday and I've not had a chance to read it yet.

New around here, I saw finarvyn's post on DF.
So, regarding MCWOD...I bought the book since I liked d20 Call of Cthulhu (one of the few, apparently!) although I utterly despise d20fantasy. Well, I liked some of the ideas to make classes out of the "core" WoD characters, but I did not like the magic system nor feats. Nevertheless, I think it could work, if properly "trimmed", as a system for an Amber setting.
The trimming should reduce the amount of crunch, which in MCWOD is really, really massive (from feats, to combat, to the skill mechanics etc.)
But as has already been said, OD&D might perhaps be an even better fit.
The various Ranks could be assimilated to levels (human rank would be 0 to 3rd level characters). And the various Strength, Warfare etc. might be translated into classes with particular special skills. An Amberite could easily be an OD&D character of 4th level or more (from "hero" level onward), and hit points would describe well their "resilience" (be it due to physque, skill, luck, power etc.)
Such a system would be the "bare bones" as in MCWOD, but without the needless and cumbersome mechanics.

Cheers,
Antonio