Amber Beyond Amber

[Evermasterx]

The thing is, Amber is a pretty complete system.  The real problem here doesn't come out of the rules being incomplete, but of a great number of people failing to actually read the rules and understand them properly.  This is because a lot of the way the rules of Amber were written was in a somewhat unorthodox style for an RPG book, much of the rules were written up in what seem at first glance to be descriptive material and examples of play.  This is the kind of stuff that many gamers skip over when they're reading a rulebook.

The truth is that the whole "Amber is just higher rank wins and then trying to convince the GM otherwise" is utter bullshit. There is much more structure to it than that, but the critics (and some of the fans as well) have failed to apply that structure.

That's not really Amber's fault, except maybe in the sense that Erick could have written the rules to the game in a more traditional structure; the error, if it exists at all, is not of mechanics but of the rulebook's format.

RPGPundit

This unorthodox style is one of the things that made the book so interesting for me. Instead the traditional structure is so boring... particularly when coupled with traditional ideas...

[daniel_ream]

In short, under confident direction of the GM, I don't think the advantage of BS is mighty enough in the Amber DRPG to shift the entire challenge rating, so to speak, of the game system.

All you're doing here is replacing "BSing the GM" with "following along in the GM's personal epic".  I don't think "Higher rank wins, unless the GM arbitrarily decides otherwise" is any better.

For an example of what I mean about BSing the GM, someone with a better knowledge of fencing, or riddles, or anatomy, or whatever, is going to have more to work with than someone who doesn't.  If Bob describes his character as attacking with a two-handed overhead slash, and Roy points out that this leaves Bob's centreline open for a quick stop thrust that should be crippling if not fatal, what happens?  The guy with the higher Rank wins?  Sure, but what about Corwin vs. Benedict?  Do we penalize Bob for not knowing very much about swordfighting and hand the win to Roy?  Do we assume Bob's higher Warfare means he gets the slash off before Roy's stop thrust?  If not, how does the GM make that call?

(For anyone inclined to argue that you're not supposed to describe conflicts blow-by-blow that way, I put to you the following question: how else are you supposed to feint/trick/dupe your opponent in a way that gives the GM something to work with?  What, exactly, is the difference between "quick as lightning, I spit out the correct answer" and "I see through his clumsy attempt at a feint and skewer him like a pheasant" ?)

[Lorrraine]

Seriously Daniel, go back and reread the ADRPG rules. You appear to have missed a lot.

BSing the Gm can happen in any game if the Gm lets it happen. Dice don't change that.

You seem overly focused on tricks. Tricks can make a small difference, but they only serve as one small part of a good Amber player's arsenal. A player can do lots of things to shift the odds in her favor that don't involve tricking anyone.

If the opponent doesn't have much endurance wear them out. Make them chase you, deal with hazards, fight lesser foes and generally do anything that will use up that endurance.

If the opponent favors a big nasty weapon, use a small one and fight them in close quarters where they don't have room to swing.

If you have a strength advantage club your opponent with large objects. Bringing a sword to fight someone wielding a solid hardwood table may prove less than useful.

Make your opponent aware of something awful that will happen very soon if they don't stop it so they rush the fight and take chances you can exploit.

Have an ally distract your opponent with a Trump call at a crucial moment.

The ADRPG centers on shifting the odds, not BSing the GM.

A GM needs to impartially adjudicate the things that PCs and NPCs do to improve their odds of winning and not just let anyone with the gift of gab get something for nothing. I consider that a general rule of GMing, but it proves especially important for ADRPG.

[RPGPundit]

Well put, Lorraine.

[alcmarauder]

I have really enjoyed reading about Amber DRPG and hope that I get a copy for Christmas like I asked.  While I have 0 experience in ADRPG I have done other GMing.  (Most if it in Star Wars RPG.)  And I am a huge fan of the Amber series (and I am reading it again now).  I have a huge difference in ability to BS in my group of players.  For me the key to preventing the BS from overwhelming me as GM is that I have to keep the plot in mind.  If the plot that I have in mind needs something to happen, then it will happen no matter what the players do or try (unless they find that I left a plot hole you could drive a star destroyer though, in which case shame on me and I have to think very fast on my feet).  But if the proposed things can head towards my plot ends I just work them in, often with complications thrown in.  The difference between a good and an excellent GM is whether the players notice this.  If they feel led by the nose there will be resentment (Notice Merlin's attitude at times), but in my games they have so much lattitude they generally accept that some things 'must' happen for the story to go forward.  I only use mechanics and dice rolling for determining random things that, in my experince, role playing just doesn't do well.  Combat being the big one.  But I digress a bit.  

Back to Zelazny's approach.  Benedict (NPC) is tearing after Corwin.  Corwin the player tries to lose him, but never convinces Zelazny the GM that what he tries will work.  But Zelazny needs Corwin, he still has more story to tell.  So Zelazny allows the player Corwin to try to trick Benedict by the flimsy trick of using the Black Road to tie him up.  (Maybe even tosses Ganeleon/Oberon at Benedict to give the player more time to think of a solution?) But notice that Corwin had to risk death a couple of times to set it up.  It wasn't easy to get Benedict to the right position.  Zelazny didn't make it seem easy to BS the GM, Corwin the player had to work at it and take risks to achieve his ends.  This would be magnificient GMing and I aspire to reach this level.

(Just on a side note, Benedict's cutting of trees does seem a bit too much but still plausable.  3 inch hickory/oak - no way unless it's a lightsaber he is wielding or the vorpal sword from Luke's Looking Glass Bar.  3 inch willow/balsa or a spongier wood than we have on our earth - sure that I can belive. Especially from someone from a family that can lift cars and with that much experience with blades.)

{Ok did some digging and here is an interesting website on the whole cutting power of swords.  After reading it I think he could do it:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/38819521501/p/1

It is an internet site and you have to decide if you believe the writers or not.  Up to you, but I think several make good enough points that it is possible.  In particular: "I know how well I can cut. I know how well I have been able to cut, and I know how well I do now at the age of 66 (at the time of this writing of this chapter). The best cut I ever made with a sword was with a Japanese-style blade I was testing to destruction. I sheared a 3 1/8th inch sapling in half, and length of the cut was 6 1/2 inches along the diagonal. I have seen a better cut made by Jim Fikes, a blacksmith friend of mine in Alabama. But I have no illusions as to how this compares with a 10th century warrior who had grown up using a sword."  }

[alcmarauder]

I have not played Amber DRPG yet.  (Hoping for a copy of the main rule book for X-Mass) but I have GMed a free style of Star Wars RPG and have players of very different levels of BSing ability.  The key for me not to be influenced by BS is to keep the plot of the adventure in mind.  If I can work what the player wants to do into the plot then it works, if it doesn't then it won't work.  I probably have to think fast about why it didn't work out the way the player planned but that is part of the fun of being a GM.  But to show what my thoughts are through a classic Amber scene think about this:

Benedict (NPC) is storming after player Corwin.  Corwin tries to elude pursuit by distance and time.  Zelazny the GM doesn't think he has made it far enough so here comes Benedict.  Ganelelon (NPC?) spots him and the race is on.  Corwin knows he can't beat him in Warfare so he tries to elude him in other ways.  Zelazny doesn't think that his tricks are good enough so on comes Benedict.  Player Corwin picks a spot knowing a conflict is upon him (making the most of limited choices).  Benedict makes mincemeat of his attempt at using a woods to slow him down (defeating his attempt to change the use of Warfare/reduce his effectiveness at it?)

{as a side note here is an interesting discussion on the cutting power of swords against wood.  http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/38819521501/p/1  , I think Benedict could do it if it was a reasonably soft wood such as pine or poplar and not something like oak or hickory.}  

But Zelazny needs Corwin to survive, he has more story to tell.  He tosses Ganeleon at Benedict to slow him down just a bit and give player Corwin a bit more time to come up with something good.  So when player Corwin attempts to trick Benedict with the admittedly weak trick of the Black Road he allows it, but makes it very dangerous.  Corwin almost gets killed, and is injured getting Benedict into position.  The ruse then succeeds and Corwin manages to get away.  Corwin the player didn't BS Zelazny into success, he had to work for it.  I aspire to be this good of a GM.

Does this sound like a session of Amber?  I only know what I have been reading on the site so far so feel free to correct me if I am off.

When I read in the Shadow Knight sourcebook that Zelazny would have made an awesome GM, I immediately started re-reading the series.  So many things take a new light if you read with that kind of idea in mind.

[alcmarauder]

Just realised that this is a moderated post.  Apologies on the double post.  Feel free to delete the weaker of the two posts.

[finarvyn]

I'm going to point out again that it's not that the characters are demigods...

Thanks for pointing this out again for those who might have skimmed the thread and not caught the other times you pointed it out.

Whether Amberites are demigods or not really does not matter. Each game master will have to make this decision for his or her own campaign. The key is that folk of Amber tend to be a lot better than average at doing things, which was the heart of my suggestion that cinematic role playing works best with ADRP. Jack Sparrow isn't a demigod but he would work well under ADRP because things he attempts just seem to go right and he doesn't need to roll dice a lot. If characters are average then the randomness of dice becomes a more useful tool to determine success.

I don't know how you define a demigod.

• Merlin and Luke were able to run at near-olympic speeds. That's pretty darned cool. On the other hand, I don't think that Zelazny ever tried to compare Merlin's sprinting to The Flash.
• Corwin and Random together could lift a car. I suppose the fact that it was a smaller car makes it slightly less impressive than if they had lifted up an all-steel Buick, but I know I couldn't do that. Zelazny never compared Amberites to Superman, but I think he would win becasue he can move planets.

Others have cited additional examples of how Amberites are better than an average human. Just how much better is where the debate begins and my interest diminishes. The beauty of the ADRP rules system is that each GM gets to make "the call" on this. All we know is that ranked is better than "Joe Average Amber" which is better than Chaos which is better than Shadow.

...it's that the characters primarily care about their relationships with each other that drives emotional investment.

This isn't a specific trait unique to ADRP, but certainly character diaries and the like encourage players to care more about their characters. I'm not sure that it's the one factor that really defines ADRP, but maybe I don't understand the intent of your post.

I've been running ADRPG since the book came out, and the number one issue that's always come up is that at the end of the day, it's not what your character is or even what his ranks are.  It's whether you can BS the GM.  That absolutely killed immersion for most of my players, because conflicts weren't resolved by anything to do with the characters, they were resolved by the persuasion abilities of the players.  People with good social skills or good verbal skills were going to win conflicts more often than people without.

This sounds like a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules. I can't believe that you've been running ADRP since 1991 and missed the way conflct resolution works. The top option in conflict resolution is supposed to be the comparrison of attributes. The extras are small modifiers designed to allow the scales to tip one way or the other for close calls.

I have this same problem with the "Endurance is worthless" posters. If you look at the rules it's pretty clear that when conflict attributes are similar, the contest defaults to Endurance and who can keep going the longest. That makes Endurance potentially the best of the four attributes, not the worst, since it has the possiblilty of influencing warfare conflicts, strength conflicts, and psyche conflicts.

The rules are simple, yes, but they really are designed to handle almost any situation. And very little of it is "BS-ing the GM."

Just my two cents.

[daniel_ream]

I'm not sure that it's the one factor that really defines ADRP, but maybe I don't understand the intent of your post.

Clearly.

You split the sentence in two, which might be why you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

The Amber Chronicles are fundamentally about self-discovery by the protagonist.  Since that doesn't work very well as a group RPG, the ADRPG chooses to fall back on the complex love/hate relationships between all the major characters.  In the Chronicles, the characters don't really care about anything other than their relationships with each other because one of the setting's defining aspects is that nothing else does matter.  Amber is the only real world, and everything else is Shadow, therefore the only thing to care about is Amber (well, specifically, the Amber royal family).

It's not an accident that for a single point you can have a whole universe to yourself and define it however you want, and there are no mechanics for that except when other people might choose to mess with your Shadow.  Every part of character creation is designed to create the love/hate relationships between the players.  There simply are no rules for anything else, including power politics, ruling a kingdom, exploring Shadow, researching new spells, etc, because none of those have to do with the central conceit of the game: Make It Personal.

This sounds like a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules. I can't believe that you've been running ADRP since 1991 and missed the way conflct resolution works. The top option in conflict resolution is supposed to be the comparrison of attributes. The extras are small modifiers designed to allow the scales to tip one way or the other for close calls.

Everyone on this thread wants to keep telling me I don't understand the rules or don't understand how conflict resolution works or generally keep flapping their big Amber penises in the wind and yet not one single person has addressed the central point of contention:  Amber conflicts between PCs are either foregone conclusions or are determined by whomever can better BS the GM that their trick/defense beats the other guy.

Here's a nice, simple hypothetical:  Gerard with a claymore is fighting Benedict with a cavalry saber.  Gerard is first Rank in Strength and Benedict is First Rank in Warfare.  Clearly the only way Gerard can "win" this fight is to shift the terms of the battle from Warfare to Strength.

Keeping in mind that Warfare as written includes the ability to spot such stratagems, how would you adjudicate an attempt by Gerard's player to shift the terms of the conflict from Warfare to Strength?

[Lorrraine]

RTFM. Seriously Daniel, RTFM.

I have begun to believe that if the Archangel Corwin descended from the heavens, resurrected the Wuj and the two of them together sat you down and walked you through a platonic ideal of Amber Diceless combat that you would complain that they BS-ed you.

How to adjudicate Amber Diceless Conflict for Dummies.

1. Determine the field of conflict.
2. Determine the relevant primary attribute.
3. Determine any relevant secondary attributes
4. Determine any relevant pre-existing advantages such as stuff or items.
5. Use your judgment to impartially weigh the above factors and decide who will win and by how much if nothing changes.
6. Allow the players to try to shift that balance through role played actions.
7. Use your judgment to decide how much and in what manner each role played action shifts the balance.
8. Describe consequences along the way such as wounds culminating eventually in an end to the conflict through withdrawal, defeat, or victory.

You seem to have a problem with the idea that a GM can exercise judgment without giving in to BS. This personal issue combined with an unwillingness to RTFM suggests that you may find games other than ADRPG more appealing. It does not make ADRPG in any way a flawed system.

In the conflict between Gerard and Benedict you have picked a simple but ultimately useless example. Benedict has a tremendous advantage in Warfare and you have chosen a warfare contest. Gerard has chosen poorly. Consider the difference between them as something on the order of 6 to 8 ranks. Most actions will shift the balance by some fraction of a rank and Benedict has as many opportunities to shift things in his favor as Gerard. Gerard loses. Gerard loses as badly as Benedict wants him to unless Benedict has a complete idiot playing him. Gerard still loses because Gerard has a complete idiot playing him in the first place to have his character challenge Gerard to a swordfight.

BTW the ADRPG rules specifically use Gerard and Benedict in a swordfight as an example of a fight which Gerard cannot win. You might notice this if you went and RTFM instead of getting snarky with people who have in fact RTFM.

In order to have any hope of defeating Benedict Gerard needs to change the contest away from Swordfighting. I personally recommend a contest of who gets up first with fewest wounds after Gerard smashes the building supports and drop the building on both their heads as a contest that favors Gerard over Benedict.

As to how to adjudicate a less unbalanced contest. Use your judgment. The ADRPG does not provide specific benchmarks for how much any one thing will shift a contest. The Wuj trusted ADRPG GMs to make these determinations.

In my experience every RPG has GMs use their judgment in some situations. The ADRPG extends that to all situations.

Some actions, including most tricks, will only have a tiny effect.

Some actions, such as recruiting a competent ally or arranging a major distraction will have a significant effect.

Some actions such as knocking down the building on top of the combatants will change the playing field and force the GM to calculate for a new contest.

Benedict's Warfare will make it blatantly obvious that Gerard wants to shift the Contest to who gets up first after the building falls. That doesn't make that a fight he can win easily. Benedict can withdraw and yield the building to Gerard. He can rush the fight and put himself at greater risk in order to try to win the fight before the building collapses. He can position himself to minimize damage to himself from the collapse. He can wound Gerard in hopes of having an advantage post collapse. He can try something creative.

Withdrawal works. Gerard can't stop him. Smart PCs and NPCs will run away to fight another day.

Rushing the fight has serious risks. Benedict will certainly inflict grievous damage on Gerard that way, but a lucky/unlucky break might let Gerard hit Benedict in return. Gerard hits amazingly hard.

Wounding Gerard will work, but may not shift the eventual contest enough.

Positioning himself will work, but gives Gerard the option to take a wound in order to share that position. Getting stuck in a collapsed pocket within a building gives Gerard a serious advantage in subsequent contests. Positioning himself by a window gives Gerard an easy option to withdraw from the fight.

Something creative may or may not work.

[daniel_ream]

RTFM. Seriously Daniel, RTFM.

I have begun to believe that if the Archangel Corwin descended from the heavens, resurrected the Wuj and the two of them together sat you down and walked you through a platonic ideal of Amber Diceless combat that you would complain that they BS-ed you.

No, I would complain that like your lengthy post, the mechanics of ADRPG conflict as written are no more than the GM arbitrarily deciding who wins.  Go re-read post #31 on this thread again, since you're such a huge advocate of people re-reading things.  

As to how to adjudicate a less unbalanced contest. Use your judgment. The ADRPG does not provide specific benchmarks for how much any one thing will shift a contest. The Wuj trusted ADRPG GMs to make these determinations.

The problem with that is he gave absolutely no guidance whatsoever on how to do that.  Even his examples consist mostly of "here's people saying stuff about their characters!" with no indication of how or why the GM made the decisions they did about the outcome.  Take Godfrey's fight with the "tavern maid":

Notice how any wounds are based on whether or not tiny deceptions work or fail.

Bullshit.  There's no description given of how the GM in that passage is deciding whether the deceptions "work or fail".  It's clear from the description that the tavern maid beats Godfrey in both Strength and Warfare, yet at the end he still gets in a hit, despite being outmatched in two relevant Attributes and being wounded, and he didn't use any "deception" to do so.  How did that happen?  Did the NPC decide to take the wound to end the fight amicably? Who the hell knows?  "The Wuj"[1] doesn't say, in that example or anywhere else for that matter.

The ADRPG deliberately sets up all conflict in the game as between blooded major characters, preferably PCs, and then fizzles out when it comes to giving any real advice on how to adjudicate that in a way that isn't the GM just arbitrarily deciding the outcome.

You don't like Benedict vs. Gerard?  Fine.  Explain to me how Corwin, the third or fourth best swordsman in Amber by his own reckoning, fools all-there-is-of-military-science-thunders-though-his-head-First-Rank Benedict into backing onto dangerous terrain, a trick even novice fencers were taught to watch out for. (cf. "The Hun in the Sun").



[1] Seriously, what the fuck.

[Lorrraine]

No, I would complain that like your lengthy post, the mechanics of ADRPG conflict as written are no more than the GM arbitrarily deciding who wins.  Go re-read post #31 on this thread again, since you're such a huge advocate of people re-reading things.  

I responded to post #31 with post #32 above. I would suggest that you reread it, but...

If you can't see the difference between a GM impartially adjudicating a conflict and a GM arbitrarily deciding who will win then you will never understand the ADRPG system.

Objecting to the lack of guidance in the ADRPG system I can accept as a legitimate criticism. Erick could have provided more and clearer examples.

I will need to dig out my Amber novels and reread the Benedict vs Corwin duel before I can use that as an example. The difference between Benedict (Warfare Rank 1) and Corwin (Warfare Rank 2.1 bought up to just behind Eric) makes the fight much more even than Benedict fighting Gerard (Warfare Rank 7 or worse).

[Lorrraine]

Found it.

You don't like Benedict vs. Gerard? Fine. Explain to me how Corwin, the third or fourth best swordsman in Amber by his own reckoning, fools all-there-is-of-military-science-thunders-though-his-head-First-Rank Benedict into backing onto dangerous terrain, a trick even novice fencers were taught to watch out for. (cf. "The Hun in the Sun").

"I knew he would come in the same as before, and my right leg was across and back behind my left, then straightening, as he did. I gave his blade but the barest beat to the side as I sprang backward onto the black road immediately extending my arm full length to discourage a balaestra.

Then he did what I had hoped. He beat at my blade and advanced normally when I dropped it into quarte..."

Benedict did not back onto dangerous terrain. He followed Corwin onto dangerous terrain. He took a risk because if he stayed off the dangerous terrain then Corwin might escape across it. Benedict's rage would not allow him to let Corwin escape without trying to follow. That action seems perfectly in character for Benedict.

[finarvyn]

Everyone on this thread wants to keep telling me I don't understand the rules or don't understand how conflict resolution works...

I'm trying to come up with a diplomatic way to say this so I don't spark off another wave of hissy-fit. I suspect I can't do it, and anything I say will be quoted along with your next attack.

Bottom line is this:
1. If you have one opinion and every one else has another, you might stop to reconsider your position.
2. If you don't like ADRP as written, don't play it.
3. If you don't like ADRP, don't go to an ADRP board and tell others that the game is broken or that they are idiots. That's called "trolling" and is just designed to start fights.

Seriously, when I first read ADRP I didn't "get it" either, but then I played in a game where Erick was the GM and it really opened my eyes to the whole thing. You have to start with a GM who is fair and players who want to enjoy a game of words instead of a game of dice. Erick did this stuff so naturally. If the GM doesn't "get it" then the campaign is doomed and players end up trying to push the GM around.