TheRPGSite

How does anyone handle this?

If you have a bunch of shadow red-shirts fighting against an Amberite, it's easy. What if you have several significant individuals fighting at the same time?

Erick says it's all about resolving conflicts one at a time, but I'm not so sure I see quite how this can work.

EXAMPLE: Person A has Warfare of 30 and is fighting Person B (W=20) and Person C (W=15). Who would win? (Assume identical Psyche, Strength, and Endurance, just for the sake of argument.)
* I assume it's not as simple as adding 30 < 20+15, so 30 loses.
* I also assume it's not really one-on-one: 30 > 20 and 30 > 15, so 30 wins.

Well, this is one of those cases where multiple attributes become significant.  If the lone character is superior to both of the others in both Warfare and Endurance, he should be able to take both of them on.

If not, however, the lone character will need to drop one of his two opponents very fast in order to not get quickly exhausted by the effort of fighting both at once; and to do so he might have to make risky maneuvres that could lead to one of his two opponents putting Strength into play, which might also change everything.

And this is all without considering whether one side or the other makes use of dirty tricks.

RPGpundit

You've pointed out another one of the 'holes' in the rules; it really doesn't tell you.

The GM just needs to pick a way to handle it and stick with it.

Quote from: OthaYou've pointed out another one of the 'holes' in the rules; it really doesn't tell you.

The GM just needs to pick a way to handle it and stick with it.

Its one of the things that makes Amber such a great game.

RPGPundit

Wow, you'd get villified at dumpshock for saying something like that. :)

I tend to take an average actually.  The idea being that while fighting on the side of someone really good will help to make you more effective, chances are you'll also get in his way quite a bit.

So the PC's 30 would beat the 20 and the 15 because they average out as 17.5, which is quite a gap.

Don't forget that based on Zelazny's choices in genre, trust, planning and commitment are involved in really combining efforts. For this reason, I've normally held a standard of combat cooperation based on two thresholds:

1. Have the characters practiced such trust in combat?

2. What is the warfare of the leader?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo the PC's 30 would beat the 20 and the 15 because they average out as 17.5, which is quite a gap.

Do you let the higher guy decide not to average by deciding not to help the weaker one? Alternatively, do you let unallied third parties force an average by gettign in the way as if they were an ally?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI tend to take an average actually.  The idea being that while fighting on the side of someone really good will help to make you more effective, chances are you'll also get in his way quite a bit.

So the PC's 30 would beat the 20 and the 15 because they average out as 17.5, which is quite a gap.

I liked that idea at first, but the problem would be that the average can be messed up sometimes.

1. What do you do with negative numbers? A character of W=20 fights an amberite of W=10 and a chaosite W=-10, so they average out to ... zero? The W=10 guy should kill his partner and improve his lot in life signifcantly. (I like the idea that Shadow is 5, Chaos 20, and Amber 30. Ranked would be x+30. Arref has a chart on his webpage where he assigns a "story value" to each attribute level, which has a similar effect.)

2. What about the effect of quantity on the average? So ... Mister W=20 fights another W=20 guy and 50 shadow creatures (who bring down the average). Agian, it would be better to kill the redshirts who are trying to help out.

I know that those are picky math details, but I think that way and need to consider potential situations where the math goes crazy.

I'm not trying to be a pain ... honest! :cool:

I think it will eventually come down to tactics. The game is very rich in tactical maneouver description, and each holds advantages and disadvantages of its own. That´s another thing I love about Amber, there is no "Intelligence" or "IQ" or "Reasoning" value, so tactical thinking will fall onto the player. I know that actually the "tactical" part is covered by the warfare attribute, but in the given example, we can assume that being outnumbered by characters with high warfare themselves, the advantage of Mr. W=30 can be considered nulified to the point were what can save him is a good idea. Remember how Corwin beats Benedict, he is inferior, he knows it, and his rival knows it too, as a tactician as well as a swordman, but he manages to bring him down with a good idea. So, let's assume Mr. and Ms. Dummie frontally and directly attack Mr. Big Dude. Well, IMO he wouldn't have problems in the medium-to-long range to chop them down. But maybe Mr. and Ms. Dummie go for a flanking maneouver, or one goes all-out and the other only tries to disturb Mr. Big Dude, or their geographical position is superior (aka they've got higher ground), or they manage to take him to a terrain that's favorable for them... then Mr. Big Dude may be in trouble. In the other hand, Mr. Big Dude could try to concentrate the attack in the one he judges weaker to kill him fast, or could run for the hills in the hopes that if they follow him one's faster than the other so he can take on them one at a time, or, an all-time favourite, role-play his way out of the pinch.
And, if anybody followed my broken english all the way here, I'll just say I think it is a matter of common sense. And of course, the most important rule of it all: setting dirty corwinesque tricks aside, First Place wins. He may just tie against two one point fivers, but that's about it.


My hands hurt.

Quote from: SunBoyanother thing I love about Amber, there is no "Intelligence" or "IQ" or "Reasoning" value, so tactical thinking will fall onto the player.

I agree with you, and your above statement really explains why ADRP is superior to most RPGs out there. Most games can be manipulated by a clever numbers-guy who can find ways to "play the system" rather than play a character. Amber isn't like that. Everyone gets the same number of points to build a character, so everyone gets powers and attributes that balance somewhat. The difference becomes how the PLAYER chooses to run the character -- the choices, actions, strategies. There isn't a "roll to see if you figure out the puzzle" thing, although I'm sure that Erick has mentioned using attributes in a "my character figures out the solution" situation.

Quote from: SunBoy...setting dirty corwinesque tricks aside, First Place wins..

The thing is, there are ALWAYS dirty tricks or other situational modifiers to consider, and the book gives you no guidance as to HOW to consider them.  Multiple combatants on one side is only one of those modifiers.

Quote from: OthaThe thing is, there are ALWAYS dirty tricks or other situational modifiers to consider, and the book gives you no guidance as to HOW to consider them.  

That's the GM's job, not the system's.

RPGPundit

You mean it's not a rules system's jobs to have rules?

Actually, in what you could call a "rules-light" sytem, no, it is not. The system's job is to provide the GM with methods and gudelines on how to deal with different situation. Do you now by heart how much 167+24 equals to? Figures. But I think it would be safe to assume that you could find it out using a simple method.

Quote from: OthaThe thing is, there are ALWAYS dirty tricks or other situational modifiers to consider, and the book gives you no guidance as to HOW to consider them. Multiple combatants on one side is only one of those modifiers.

See above. The real question here is that you find that "rules void" a flaw, while I find it an advantage. Consider the hundreds of books, movies and comics where bad guys ambush good guys: two out of three times, good guys escape, and even win the day. Now consider what happens when the good guys are the ambushers. Four out of five times they suceed, and the conditions are not necessarily different. Amber is a highly evocative game, were WHAT happens is much more important than HOW it happened mechanically.

I dislike the d20 RPG, but one thing it has going for it is the notion that all types of conflicts are resolved the same. One key rule runs everything (roll a die, add modifiers, check against standard Target Numbers).

ADRP is kind of like that, but both the modifiers and TN's are improvised. I like a freestyle system such as this, but sometimes it would be nice to have a rule of thumb or two to go by. Not enough to encourage min/max gamers to work the system, but enough for a GM to have a better guide (particulary for a novice GM!).

Quote from: SunBoyActually, in what you could call a "rules-light" sytem, no, it is not. The system's job is to provide the GM with methods and gudelines on how to deal with different situation. Do you now by heart how much 167+24 equals to? Figures. But I think it would be safe to assume that you could find it out using a simple method.

See above. The real question here is that you find that "rules void" a flaw, while I find it an advantage. Consider the hundreds of books, movies and comics where bad guys ambush good guys: two out of three times, good guys escape, and even win the day. Now consider what happens when the good guys are the ambushers. Four out of five times they suceed, and the conditions are not necessarily different. Amber is a highly evocative game, were WHAT happens is much more important than HOW it happened mechanically.

Please go here (http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=15486&st=375&#entry480909). I've been saying that for several pages in a thread, although I think amber may go too far. I can't tell for sure though until I get a chance to read it, which probably won't be until after X-mas.

WOW!! And here I was, blissfully ignorant, thinking OUR theory and design forums were nerdy!!!
Mate, I won't even start laughing at the geekness of the a+b+j*e+%H+%·&/($%&=FUN!!! one of them (I just KNOW somehow he'll read this and want to beat the crap out of me) posted. It not because the formula its completely screwed (wich it is), it's just the whole... nerdiness of the thing. Thanks, Jimmy, you made my night. And yes, by the way, I see your point more clearly now. I really hope you like the system in the end, if only because more people playing it means more reason to republish it. And, as someone (I think it was Finarvyn, but I'm to lazy to look it up now) pointed out, once you play it, the whole idea seems much clearer. I actually love the freedom it gives, but I can definitely see how it can be difficult to grasp.

I'll read the game over the Christmas break. Then I'll send an email to the group describing it. Whether their responses are mostly laughs at the diceless nature or not will tell me whether I'll play it or not.

But even if I don't play it with them, if I really like the game I'll run it over at rpol (http://www.rpol.net).

Good luck, then.

Quote from: SunBoyI think it will eventually come down to tactics. The game is very rich in tactical maneouver description, and each holds advantages and disadvantages of its own...

I think that's actually the point... they DON"T hold advantages and disadvantages of their own.  They have no inherent advantages or disadvantages besides what the GM actually gives them, no intrinsic mechanical weight.  What this thread was originally about, is how people assign that weight to multiple foes.  It's clear that different GM's assign it differently; some even make it so that it's a PENALTY rather than a bonus to have people help you.

It's a fairly commonly held belief amongst martial artists that in melee combat having more than 4 people attacking someone is detrimental as you start to get in each others' way. Some folks may change that number, but pretty much everyone agrees that there's a practical limit to where you start to lose effectiveness with multiple combatants.

Likewise having multiple people attacking who don't know what they're doing can be detrimental, as they'll also get in each others' way. Perhaps a general guideline of what skill levels you need to actually contribute would help. I'd definitely say that if you're too far below your opponent you can't help fight him, as he'll practically ignore everything you do.

It would have to be a general guideline of course, as many other things would come into play as well, such as terrain. Four people in a field will fight better than 4 people in a hallway.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's a fairly commonly held belief amongst martial artists that in melee combat having more than 4 people attacking someone is detrimental as you start to get in each others' way. Some folks may change that number, but pretty much everyone agrees that there's a practical limit to where you start to lose effectiveness with multiple combatants.

Longspears, bows, crossbows... heck, ROCKS.

The more people you have, the more options you have.  "Okay, you four hold him there.  You eight, you jump in if one of them falls.  The rest of you, pick up anything you can throw.  If those twelve don't take him down, start throwing."

Quote from: James McMurray...Perhaps a general guideline of what skill levels you need to actually contribute would help. I'd definitely say that if you're too far below your opponent you can't help fight him, as he'll practically ignore everything you do.

"Too far" is... how much?  Ten points?  One ladder rung?  Two?

Quote from: James McMurrayIt would have to be a general guideline of course, as many other things would come into play as well, such as terrain. Four people in a field will fight better than 4 people in a hallway.

Right, and how many could fight in an open plain?  Six?  Eight?  What if they had spears?

Here's the root of my point...

How much knowledge of martial arts, tactics, etc. does a GM need to be able to adjudicate a fight?  How much does a player need, to emulate someone with first rank in warfare?

The answer OUGHT to be, "none" shouldn't it?

But you seem to be giving a different answer.

I don't think "GM's knowledge of martial arts" should be the defining quality here.  The defining quality ought to be the player's ability to effectively communicate and convince the GM of his actions in a way that the GM finds it plausible that they succeed.  If your rank is higher than an opponent's, the default is that they will, barring the unexpected, so you don't have to work very hard.  If your rank is lower, then the default is that they will not succeed, so you have to work that much harder.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't think "GM's knowledge of martial arts" should be the defining quality here.  The defining quality ought to be the player's ability to effectively communicate and convince the GM of his actions in a way that the GM finds it plausible that they succeed.

Essentially, I believe we agree on this point. The one caution I would mention is that just because a player is good at something should not indicate that their character is good as well.

In other words, if two characters are having a martial arts contest I would want to be certain that a lesser character being run by a more knowledgable player doesn't get some sort of unfair advantage. I have a friend with a lot of martial arts training, and I woudn't want him to skimp on Strenght points because he knows he can "fake it" with terminology better than his peers and win anyway

I like Erick's example of chess in the ADRP rulebook, where a player without chess understanding can still win by detailing vague and general statements of tactics (start aggressively but protect my king, that kind of thing).

Quote from: Otha"Too far" is... how much?  Ten points?  One ladder rung?  Two?

I have no idea, and would love a guideline.

QuoteRight, and how many could fight in an open plain?  Six?  Eight?  What if they had spears?

I don't know, and would love a guideline.

QuoteThe answer OUGHT to be, "none" shouldn't it?

But you seem to be giving a different answer.

Not at all. I agree. I was just tossing out a few idea that might be useful since there isn't a guideline.

Quote from: finarvynEssentially, I believe we agree on this point. The one caution I would mention is that just because a player is good at something should not indicate that their character is good as well.

In other words, if two characters are having a martial arts contest I would want to be certain that a lesser character being run by a more knowledgable player doesn't get some sort of unfair advantage. I have a friend with a lot of martial arts training, and I woudn't want him to skimp on Strenght points because he knows he can "fake it" with terminology better than his peers and win anyway

I like Erick's example of chess in the ADRP rulebook, where a player without chess understanding can still win by detailing vague and general statements of tactics (start aggressively but protect my king, that kind of thing).

Yup, but in my experiences I have found that generally the player who is a self-styled "expert" in this sort of thing will not be the most convincing (at least not DUE to that), if anything he will be the one who will complain that something the other guy said that sounds really cool and plausible is "Impossible" because of some reason he has fathomed in his would-be-bruce-lee mind.

Again, like most RPGs, you don't actually need to be well-versed in a subject, you just have to be good at imagining and describing.

Arguing based on what's "realistic" is usually a sign that you're not doing well.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, like most RPGs, you don't actually need to be well-versed in a subject, you just have to be good at imagining and describing.
RPGPundit

So the better you are at convincing the GM you're right, the more your character will succeed.

The standard method of doing that is improvising (AKA pulling stuff out of your ass) and being eloquent about it.

That's what it all boils down to, isn't it?

Quote from: OthaSo the better you are at convincing the GM you're right, the more your character will succeed.

The standard method of doing that is improvising (AKA pulling stuff out of your ass) and being eloquent about it.

That's what it all boils down to, isn't it?

Not quite. Keep in mind that if two characters aren't similar in attributes, then the weaker one really has no chance for success. What we're talking about would be two similar combatants, and the rules are vague as to what constitutes "similar".

Once the GM determines that the two characters are close enough together, then there are several factors which can come into play. If one of them has devised in advance a clever strategy or trick that would give him the edge, that might tip the balance. If one of them has a greater Endurance and it is a long-lasting contest, that might tip the balance. And, yes, if one of them has an eloguent way of presenting his actions, that might tip the balance.

Not the only factor, but certainly one of the many which the GM will take under advisement as he determines how the storyline unfolds. The BS-er may get an edge in some cases, but the better attribute wins most often.

Quote from: finarvynNot quite. Keep in mind that if two characters aren't similar in attributes, then the weaker one really has no chance for success. What we're talking about would be two similar combatants, and the rules are vague as to what constitutes "similar".

And the GM determines what similar is.  If the player can convince the GM that the attributes are similar enough, then he has made up for the lack of points with his persuasive ability.  Hence, he succeeds more as a result.

Quote from: finarvynOnce the GM determines that the two characters are close enough together, then there are several factors which can come into play. If one of them has devised in advance a clever strategy or trick that would give him the edge, that might tip the balance. If one of them has a greater Endurance and it is a long-lasting contest, that might tip the balance. And, yes, if one of them has an eloguent way of presenting his actions, that might tip the balance.

Whether or not a strategy is clever enough, is up to the GM.

Whether a trick is dirty enough is up to the GM.

Whether or not Endurance figures into the conflict is up to the GM.

Both of these can also devolve on player eloquence.  Perhaps not always... but often enough that it makes a difference.

Quote from: finarvynNot the only factor, but certainly one of the many which the GM will take under advisement as he determines how the storyline unfolds. The BS-er may get an edge in some cases, but the better attribute wins most often.

My point is that anything except the points on the sheet (and not always then) devolves on convincing the GM that you've met the requirements for winning.  Eloquence and creativity.

And you know, not even the creativity needs to be there.  Someone with the time to read through the volumes of play descriptions online can probably amass a considerable library of dirty tricks and clever strategies to pull out when he needs one.

Perhaps this is why Amber seems to work best in PBEM, when the players have the time to be at their most eloquent.

Quote from: OthaSo the better you are at convincing the GM you're right, the more your character will succeed.

You say this like its a bad thing.  I think its brilliant.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou say this like its a bad thing.  I think its brilliant.

And I think it's not.  My modifications to the Amber system are based around removing that element.

Quote from: OthaAnd I think it's not.  My modifications to the Amber system are based around removing that element.

How unfortunate for you.

RPGPundit

Not if his group prefers it that way.

Otha, are these changes codified somewhere or uploadable? I'd be interested in seeing them.

I agree. I'd like to see how you've modified the system to handle these issues. :)

As a GM, I came up with a simple mechanical solution.

With more than one person cooperating, I take the highest attribute on a side and add half of the second highest contributor's score. So in the example, player A with a 30 score still wins, because he is facing 20 + (15 X .5). So it is 30 vs 27.5.

With each additional contributor, I half it again. Say the 30 warfare person was fighting a 20, a 15 and a 12. Now the 30 *barely* loses since he is facing 20 +7.5 + 3= 30.5.

Of course it can get complicated when the players change from a warfare contest to another attribute mid-fight. But that's part of the fun.

Do you have a minimum amount that each person adds (for instance if there's 25 people the ones on the tail end would rapidly be contributing nothing, even if they're on the outskirts with pistols).

John -- I like your idea, at least in concept and in first glance. I'll have to think it through and maybe try a few more examples just to get a feel for the balance, but it has some definite merit. :)

Thanks for sharing!

Quote from: JohnBAs a GM, I came up with a simple mechanical solution.

Do the players know this?  Can they calculate out what it takes to beat someone?

Quote from: OthaDo the players know this?  Can they calculate out what it takes to beat someone?

And what do you do with negative numbers? Do a hundred men have a chance of dragging Corwin down as they do in the books?

Quote from: OthaDo the players know this?  Can they calculate out what it takes to beat someone?

The players generally don't know or reveal each other's stats, so generally it is guesswork on their part.

Quote from: James McMurrayDo you have a minimum amount that each person adds (for instance if there's 25 people the ones on the tail end would rapidly be contributing nothing, even if they're on the outskirts with pistols).

I didn't, figuring after a point more people just get in the way, but there is no reason you couldn't add a minimum if you thought it would be desireable.

Quote from: ArrefAnd what do you do with negative numbers? Do a hundred men have a chance of dragging Corwin down as they do in the books?

A very good question.

I treated negative numbers as zero, which would *not* emulate the guys doing that in the books. On the other hand, in every game I've run, those palace guards were not negative or even zero...I usually statted them out at a few points warfare thinking Amber would recruit the best of the best throughout their shadows for their guard.

If you wanted to make it possible for someone to get swarmed by "mooks", I would suggest giving them a minimum "1" value each or some such modification. It never came up in my games though to be honest. I would have likely just said "The mass of men finally overpowers and pins you" without bothering to calculate it out.

Quote from: JohnBThe players generally don't know or reveal each other's stats, so generally it is guesswork on their part.

So you don't run an auction?

Mostly I did use the auction, but I used secret bidding so only the first rank value was known to all. Who had what rank was kept secret. This led to some amusing situations when players had mistaken assumptions about who was what rank and acted on those mistaken assumptions.

In my last game I just had people assign points and dispensed with the auction altogether.

Quote from: OthaSo you don't run an auction?

To reinforce what JohnB said, if you look in the rulebook it details a simple process for attribute creation.

1. Players begin the auction by submitting a secret bid so that no one can shout a high bid really fast and screw the rest.

2. The auction begins with the highest of the secret bids and goes as high as the players allow. Each point bid is spent and establishes a "ladder" or price guide for the ranks. This represents the last time that anyone knows for certain anyone else's attributes.

3. Players have the opportunity to improve in secret again, but paying for a particular rank puts them just below that rank. At this point players know their own attributes, but no longer know anyone else's.

4. Players make "wish lists" of what they want to improve with experience. This list may include powers, items, allies, and even attributes. The GM awards experience points in secret so from this point on, if the player includes attributes on the wish list, the player no longer even knows his own attributes.

This makes it hard to calculate. Aside from this, no one but the GM knows the attributes for NPCs so it becomes even harder....

It hasn't been hard to calculate in any game I've seen.

The ladder-points are public knowledge, as are the number of points left for any player to spend after the auction is over.  Whether or not someone has pattern, etc. is usually evident after the first session or so and so you can easily put an upper bound on their score, and a lower bound.  Yes, there's a LITTLE uncertainty, but if the players have made bids the way the game wants them to (that is, high) it's usually not much.

*Some* of the rungs are public knowledge, at least at the beginning. However, in a secret bid there could be multiple rungs between each round of the auction that are *not* visible to everyone.

For example on the third to last round, the high bid was 15. The GM announces the new high bid of 15 and asks for new sealed bids. Player A (with 15) decides to stay pat at 15. Player B decides he wants to up the ante and bids 40, Player C also decides to up the ante and bids 32, and finally player D bids 25. The new high bid is announced at 40 and new bids are collected. Nobody can beat 40, so the final bids stand as they were until the last secret buy up. Now each player knows his own bid, the high bid of 40, and what each previous high bid was (15) for rungs. That is all they know, or can figure out for sure unless they save points to buy up a rung in secret at the end (which nets them knowledge of at most one more rung). Note that between 40 and 15 there are two rungs that are not public knowledge. Multiply this over four attributes, and the uncertainty is enough to make it difficult to pin pown where the points are and who has what. The players gather intel on each other during the game (part of the fun), but each new spend can add even more uncertainty to the scores.

Quote from: JohnB*Some* of the rungs are public knowledge, at least at the beginning. However, in a secret bid there could be multiple rungs between each round of the auction that are *not* visible to everyone.

Secret bids aren't part of the game as written.  All bids become public, and you can only buy to an existing rung.

Quote from: JohnBFor example on the third to last round, the high bid was 15. The GM announces the new high bid of 15 and asks for new sealed bids....

Sealed bids are not part of the game as written.  Of COURSE if you use secret bidding, the players will have more uncertainty about where the other players stand.

"Secret bids aren't part of the game as written. All bids become public, and you can only buy to an existing rung."

I guess that is probably true. But even using the rules as written,  points can "disappear" into allies, items, powerwords, etc, that can make it more difficult to accurately know who has what for sure, assuming bidders take advantage of the after auction buy-up. Powers and allies are *not* public, at least not until they are revealed in play.

Truthfully after a decade and a half of playing in Amber campaigns, I don't know anyone who uses the rules as written anymore. Most of the people I've been playing with have drifted a great deal, using various "partial power" systems that have cropped up on the net and often revamping sorcery entirely. Or they use an entirely different system like Everway. They still use the book rules at cons, but that is about the only time. I personally don't bother with the auction at all now, just having the players assign their points in secret.

I still pretty well use the rules by the book.  That is, I don't use anything that contradicts the rules as written.  So using partial-powers, which I occasionally do, isn't something that contradicts the rules.

I think most Amber fans still use pretty much the rules as written.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think most Amber fans still use pretty much the rules as written.

I think that there are two basic styles of RPG rules:
1. Systems which are designed to be flexible and house-ruled.
2. Systems which are designed to be firm and unbending.

Many of the early RPG systems, such as brown book OD&D, Tunnels & Trolls, and the like, seem to fit more into the first category. The designers had the idea that the rules create a structure and the GM can and should change them as they see fit to make the game work for them. They tend to be rules-light and are low on details of bookkeeping.

Other RPG systems such as d20 appear to be more rules-driven and rules-heavy. The letter of the rule often seems to be more important than the spirit of the rule, and bookkeeping and "working the system" becomes more significant. (I don't mean to imply that this is a bad thing, but it is a different style of rules design.) The GM is encouraged to "play by the rules" and standardization of the rules is important.

I believe that ADRP was designed in the spirit of #1 above. As such, I would guess that most campaigns are run along rules consistent with most of the rulebook, but that most campaigns also have house-rule tweaks and modifications to fit the style of play of the game group. Loot at the number of ADRP campaign web pages out there and find a large number of variants of the same basic rules system: sometimes a tweak in which attributes, how many attributes, which powers, partial powers, new powers, canon NPC elders, and so on.

So ... I agree with the spirit of what you have said, that the game they play is still essentially that outlined in the rulebook, but I might disagree somewhat because of the house-rule natue of the game.

Am I just nit-picking? I don't mean to... :cool:

Quote from: RPGPunditI think most Amber fans still use pretty much the rules as written.
RPGPundit

Never seen it.  Every campaign I've played in, run, or seen posted online has had house rules, extensions, modifications and/or complete rewrites.

My point was that it seems John B was arguing that the fact that a lot of house rules are used (and he did also exaggerate on it a bit) suggests that somehow either Amber's rules are a failure, or that we need to make radical changes to said rules in the next edition.

Amber SHOULD be a toolkit, and sure, everyone probably uses a few house rules here and there, and optional rules that have become popular via internet or other sources in the years since Amber was first published.  Some of those house rules and options should probably be included, AS OPTIONS, in the new edition.

But to suggest that this is all somehow a weakness of Amber and not a strength is ludicrous.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMy point was that it seems John B was arguing that the fact that a lot of house rules are used (and he did also exaggerate on it a bit) suggests that somehow either Amber's rules are a failure, or that we need to make radical changes to said rules in the next edition.

Amber SHOULD be a toolkit, and sure, everyone probably uses a few house rules here and there, and optional rules that have become popular via internet or other sources in the years since Amber was first published.  Some of those house rules and options should probably be included, AS OPTIONS, in the new edition.

But to suggest that this is all somehow a weakness of Amber and not a strength is ludicrous.

RPGPundit

Let me make clear a couple of points.

Firstly, it is in no way my intention to denigrate the original rules. They work just fine as written- else the game would not have a strong following (myself included). The published rules make a great baseline for people from different parts of the country to play a common, familiar game at cons.

Secondly, in my experience I was not exaggerating at all. *Everyone* I personally know playing the game (about 20 individuals over the last few years alone) has modified it with house rules not found in the book. Some have made drastic changes. As you say, the published rules are a marvelous toolkit and people find it easy to tweak to their taste, so they do. The only reason I brought it up at all was to clarify *why* the system I use for multiple opponents is not easy for players to have calculated out (i.e. secret bids). It had nothing to do with an oblique attack on the Amber game itself. The new edition could be pretty much the same as the old edition as far as I am concerned- no drastic changes are required IMO.

Hmm. Ok.

Let me just say that after my experiences in the GoO Amber fora, I'm a vicious paranoid attack dog when it comes to defending the Amber rules for proposed 2nd edition...

RPGPundit

That's why I would suggest that a 2E of ADRP be essentially the same as 1E but with extra options included. Instead of having rule X which "everyone must use" but is house-ruled a lot anyway, present rule X as a "standard" model but with a couple of optional ways to do it instead.

We all know that Erick did this with the various versions of the Elders in the rulebook. Extend it to other rules as well.

The example of the auction vs. point-build is obvious and often cited, and is clearly an example of how many people prefer to alter the core system. Thus, include auction, point-build, and maybe random die roll (blasphemy!) as a series of options for the GM to consider when designing the campaign.

So ... nothing radical gets changed, nothing major gets axed out of the rules, but a 2E expands and suggests alternatives to enhance the present system.

Quote from: finarvynSo ... nothing radical gets changed, nothing major gets axed out of the rules, but a 2E expands and suggests alternatives to enhance the present system.

Hear, hear.

There might even be a simple shorthand that people could use for which of the options they're using in a proposed Amber game.