Enamoured with Amber Diceless, I've looked into every other diceless (specifically randomless) roleplaying game I could find, and they seem, on the whole - directionless, muddled, and too light to carry the weight of their own subject matter. I find nothing of the substance in them that I find in Amber.
I understand why Amber Diceless itself seems like all of these things on the outside to someone who has not played it, or to someone who has had a poor GMing experience, and that some people who love Amber still find it in some ways lacking.
To me Amber is more than adequately substantial. If your experiences are in any way the same - what is the difference?
What is the thing that separates Amber (and its relatives) from the rest of diceless drudgery? I think Lords of Gossamer & Shadow and Lords of Olympus well establish that it is not Zelazny that makes all the difference. Or has your experience been something entirely apart from this?
Thoughts?
//Panjumanju
I only played ADRPG and LoO.
LoO is good, but I remember that reading ADRPG was like been struck by a lightning bolt! I had to play it. Innovative. Stimulating. In a word genius.
I read Theatrix, but I found it boring and didn't played.
Instead Nobilis was for me very interesting, but lengthy and burdened by too much artistic presunption. Maybe one day I'll study it seriously.
I bought LoGaS but didn't read it seriously still, altough it looks good too and will be my next game to play.
A borderline game that can be diceless if you don't use the Law of Fortune, (as allowed by the rules) that in my opinion is very good is Everway, and I played it a lot.
Most of the diceless games out there seem to (1) lack the interesting setting, and (2) add in layers of mechanics that seem overly complex. I read Theatrix, Everway, Nobilis and maybe some others, and they just don't seem that interesting to me. I think they try too hard to be "cosmically cool" and they come off as confusing in terms of terminology and verbiage.
Amber Diceless (and by extension LoGas and LoO) is different in that it's simple and flows well. There can be layers of details if you like, or the game can be stripped away to its base concepts and it still plays well. The base setting for Amber is easy to remember -- a simple Pattern versus Chaos struggle. LoO is the same, with the standard Olympian cosmology that many folks are familiar with already.
Amber is both simple, huge, and epic.
Simple: The game flows smoothly, is easy to understand and play. You can take a bunch of players and game almost instantly
Huge: The universe is vast, and leads itself to almost any kind of story, character or setting
Epic: You play characters that are basically demigods, that can ignore almost nothing short of one of their peers. And when something is a menace, it not the earth that may be destroyed, or the universe, but the multiverse.
Few gales can beat this.
Have you ever checked out Solipsist? http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/
It's not diceless in the way that Amber & its derivatives are, with Ranks. Rather, it uses a resource economy. You might need to spend points to achieve a result, but sometimes in pushing past limits you gain more points. This is, in turn, balanced by the danger of gaining a 'tear' in reality. Gain one too many of those, and your character 'ascends'; the equivalent of losing it.
I think it's pretty elegant.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;818123Have you ever checked out Solipsist? http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/
That sounds interesting, I'll check it out.
//Panjumanju
Oh? I'll look into it, thanks! :)
Site was down, and still is :(
I think there's a yahoo group. I'll look for it later. I know they sell the game at OBS, but I'll see if Lulu has it,or the vendor still sells direct.
http://theunstore.com/index.php/unstore/game/20
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/solipsist/info
I really don't think any other diceless game did it right besides the Amber system games.
Everway wasn't technically "diceless" but it actually came closest to doing a good job.
Quote from: RPGPundit;819190Everway wasn't technically "diceless" but it actually came closest to doing a good job.
Does "diceless" mean something more than, well, dice-less?
Quote from: TristramEvans;819218Does "diceless" mean something more than, well, dice-less?
In the terms of Erick Wujcik, 'diceless' also means 'randomless'; without any mechanic for generating random results such as dice, cards, sticks, runes, et al.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;819224In the terms of Erick Wujcik, 'diceless' also means 'randomless'; without any mechanic for generating random results such as dice, cards, sticks, runes, et al.
//Panjumanju
Then Everyway is truly "Diceless". Cards are used, but dont form any sort of resolution mechanic in the same way as Saga.
Everway offers three ethods of resolution, that basically amount to 3 forms of GM fiat: The GM decies what happens/the GM looks at the PC's ability scores nd decides what happens/the Gm draws a (tarot-like) picture card and interprets it as they see fit to decide what happens.
Its actually one of the problems I have with the game.
Quote from: Panjumanju;819224In the terms of Erick Wujcik, 'diceless' also means 'randomless'; without any mechanic for generating random results such as dice, cards, sticks, runes, et al.
//Panjumanju
Then Everyway is truly "Diceless". Cards are used, but dont form any sort of resolution mechanic in the same way as Saga.
Everway offers three methods of resolution, that basically amount to 3 forms of GM fiat: The GM decides what happens/the GM looks at the PC's ability scores and decides what happens/the Gm draws a (tarot-like) picture card and interprets it as they see fit to decide what happens.
Its actually one of the problems I have with the game.
Quote from: Panjumanju;819224In the terms of Erick Wujcik, 'diceless' also means 'randomless'; without any mechanic for generating random results such as dice, cards, sticks, runes, et al.
//Panjumanju
This. The card element of Everway makes it technically not quite non-random; but it's still pretty damn close.
The game I mentioned, Solipsist, is very much non random, as is Mortal Coil, and I think one of the old Marvel games. However, unlike Amber, they have a resource management thing going.
I have not checked out Nobilis yet, but I hear that one is completely non random as well.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;819380I think one of the old Marvel games. However, unlike Amber, they have a resource management thing going.
I have not checked out Nobilis yet, but I hear that one is completely non random as well.
Yup and Yup.
Also, Alienoids, an old french RPG whose author wrote of Wujcik as being "The Messiah" for bringing us Amber, can be played with or without dices (in which case it works not unlike Amber)
I was always intrigued by Theatrix, but never managed to get a hold of a copy. I just had one of the supplements (lol, wrote a review of it like a decade or so ago back on rpgnet)
I've never liked resource-management diceless games. They felt like beancounting to me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;820192I've never liked resource-management diceless games. They felt like beancounting to me.
You say that like beancounting is automatically and obviously a bad thing rather than just something you don't happen to enjoy.
Quote from: Bren;820239You say that like beancounting is automatically and obviously a bad thing rather than just something you don't happen to enjoy.
Well, I can imagine some people can find that interested, but I think its just too predictable, ironically.
And too administrative. One of the things I love about the Amber-based games is that players literally don't have to think about stats at all once they know what their PC relatively has. They don't have to fiddle with points or attributes, but rather can think of everything in terms of what their character knows they can do, in game.
I think it depends on how it's handled.
I really hated the ressource managment in gumshoe (I felt a pressure to hoard on your ressources and thus do as little as possible), while I loved it in the Marvel RPG (which felt more like you where encouraged to try and do things). But then, I read the later before the former, so maybe it'd felt the same way today.
Resource management on any level always pulls me out of the game. It feels like it exists on some macro-level beyond the scope of the character itself, reminding me not to feel invested because this is definitely just a game. Any time I have to plan the resources I have left versus possible tasks it's been the death of verisimilitude. There must be an immersive way to conduct resource management...but I haven't found it.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;820835Resource management on any level always pulls me out of the game. It feels like it exists on some macro-level beyond the scope of the character itself, reminding me not to feel invested because this is definitely just a game. Any time I have to plan the resources I have left versus possible tasks it's been the death of verisimilitude. There must be an immersive way to conduct resource management...but I haven't found it.
//Panjumanju
Make the resource itself part of the fiction, instead of leaving it abstract, is my guess.
I don't mind stepping out of the character to use resource management as a resolution mechanic. IN that regard, it doesn't feel any different than stepping out for a moment to roll a d20.
That's the thing there is no stepping out to roll in dice less.
I like Amber cause the character sheet does go away. Only thing that usually remains are note books for player notes, cause they forget what the characters know. That's about it.
I think Amber is the only game I know that got diceless right as a system. The genre needs tweaking but I think any works based on fiction have to be reshaped some to make it a "Game" instead of "Fiction".
Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;820901That's the thing there is no stepping out to roll in dice less.
I like Amber cause the character sheet does go away. Only thing that usually remains are note books for player notes, cause they forget what the characters know. That's about it.
I think Amber is the only game I know that got diceless right as a system. The genre needs tweaking but I think any works based on fiction have to be reshaped some to make it a "Game" instead of "Fiction".
that's a good point. It's a trade off, though. The thing that I like about resource managing mechanics that are open is that they feel 'fair'. If something doesn't go your way you have no GM to 'blame'.
I'm not talking about distrust in the GM, but I know there will be some calls that I would not agree with. No such thing with resource mechanics since they're so deterministic.
There is ressource management in Amber. The only difference is that most of the management comes down on the GM's shoulders.
- Do I try to end this fight quickly, putting all my strength into it? Or to I play defensively?
- Oh, I am tired, do I really want to traverse the pattern now?
- I can try to fight all these guys now, which may leave me too tired afterwards, or flee and try to find another way, which may mean I'm too late for stopping my enemy's plans.
Where, in a resource game, a player might have a fatigue pool to spend from, in Amber, she gets clues that his endurance reaches its limits, or not. But the decisions she makes are similar
For example, your warfare might be ranked from 1 to 20+. Fighting consumes 1 endurance point per turn. You may spend extra points to increase your warfare for one round.
In amber, this'll be "I give it all I have, without regards from my safety", or something like that.
I don't put any great value on "fair". I know that as a GM I'm good enough that I don't need mechanics to hold me back.
That's what I like about the Amber Diceless-system. It's for grownups.
Quote from: RPGPundit;821922I don't put any great value on "fair". I know that as a GM I'm good enough that I don't need mechanics to hold me back.
That's what I like about the Amber Diceless-system. It's for grownups.
I think a fair statement is that this is the sort of self-congratulatory codswallop that only people who aren't grownup are wont to say.
Quote from: Bren;822024I think a fair statement is that this is the sort of self-congratulatory codswallop that only people who aren't grownup are wont to say.
You can think what you like; Amber's system trains people to be top-quality GMs by throwing them head-first into a game that demands this of them.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822373Amber's system trains people to be top-quality GMs by throwing them head-first into a game that demands this of them.
That may or may not be the case. Playing make believe without dice doesn't automatically make the play more grown up. After all, we all played games of pretend without dice when our ages were in the single digits. That didn't turn us into grownups.
I know you like Amber. You've said so many times. It certainly fits your preference for player skill over character skill in negotiations in RPGs. And your experience may well show a correlation between playing Amber and you or other people you know becoming more mature. But since maturity correlates with aging, maturity correlates with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with causing or enabling maturity.
Wanting to GM an RPG without mechanics isn't a sign of maturity. It's just a different preference about how to play an RPG. Thinking that it is a more mature style of play is utter codswallup.
Quote from: Bren;822397Playing make believe without dice doesn't automatically make the play more grown up.
I agree that we cannot assert Amber players are more mature, but it does demand a lot of its GM - as the sole arbitrator of rules - and demands a strong sense of trust between the players and their GM. This is probably what is at the heart of Pundit's assertion.
It's certainly not for everyone.
However, I will criticise your misunderstanding that Amber Diceless is some kind of a magical tea party. It's not even "rules light". Just, none of those rules require dice. I can understand the criticism that the game is "inaccessible" or even alienating, because the rules are not written for easy comprehension and even then often ambiguous. In some instances this was intentional, in other cases it was poor writing. But there are certainly rules - strong rules, and I would take offence at any suggestion that this somehow isn't a roleplaying game because it does not please everyone.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;822446I agree that we cannot assert Amber players are more mature, but it does demand a lot of its GM - as the sole arbitrator of rules
All traditional games place the GM in the role of the sole arbitrator of the rules. There is nothing exceptional about Amber in that regard.
Quote- and demands a strong sense of trust between the players and their GM. This is probably what is at the heart of Pundit's assertion.
Possibly. Linking mutual trust and maturity is another undemonstrated, self-congratulatory claim.
QuoteIt's certainly not for everyone.
No RPG is.
QuoteHowever, I will criticise your misunderstanding that Amber Diceless is some kind of a magical tea party. It's not even "rules light". Just, none of those rules require dice.
I don't think I do misunderstand Amber Diceless, nor did I say it was a magical tea party.
The game does not have a mechanical way of resolving who wins in a fight, say an unarmed combat between Corwin and Gerard. Gerard is the strongest so he should win, but Corwin may use some sort of trickery or situational advantage to get the edge. Whether the trick succeeds or not is much more up to the players ability to persuade the GM than it is based on any mechanics. I recall the rules used that exact example confrontation from the books.
QuoteI can understand the criticism that the game is "inaccessible" or even alienating, because the rules are not written for easy comprehension and even then often ambiguous. In some instances this was intentional, in other cases it was poor writing. But there are certainly rules - strong rules, and I would take offence at any suggestion that this somehow isn't a roleplaying game because it does not please everyone.
I didn't claim that game was inaccessible or alienating. From what I recall from reading the rules the game isn't particularly inaccessible - other than the fact that it requires more than one or two players for the stat auction mechanic to work in any meaningful way.
It's a niche game that didn't particularly appeal to me since it eliminates the uncertainty resulting from rolling dice which is one of the major appeals of an an RPG to me when I GM. I would say Amber is similar (though orthogonal) to Pendragon, in the sense that it is of limited appeal and unsuitable to what actually interests many players. Claiming, as Pundit did, that it magically makes one a better or more mature GM is as silly as claiming that playing Pendragon makes one a better or more mature player. Both claims are unsupported (and most likely unsupportable,) self-congratulatory codswallup.
Quote from: Bren;822462All traditional games place the GM in the role of the sole arbitrator of the rules. There is nothing exceptional about Amber in that regard.
I'm sorry, but there is - players have no mechanical control during play. All the rules are run through the filter of the GM. There is no self-regulating understanding of turn order or actions within a turn or other common ground of understanding. In nearly all other games there is a framework of understanding between the player and the GM.
For instance, when I'm running Dungeons & Dragons I don't have to know all of the special abilities of different character classes people are playing - when they come up, players can tell me what they do and if it doesn't sound right we can all look it up. Part of the responsibility of the rules can be with the players.
Amber renegotiates that dynamic to say to the player: "Just focus on your character, not the mechanics." This puts the onus of the rules in the hands of the GM, which is an unusual circumstance when the rules of most other roleplaying games are formed to govern potential points of contention such as turn order, or actions within a turn.
Some people see this as a weakness in the system.
Quote from: Bren;822462Linking mutual trust and maturity is another undemonstrated, self-congratulatory claim.
I said only that Amber requires mutual trust. Only Pundit claims that necessarily leads to maturity. Of course I agree with you that it's not something that could ever be substantiated. However, in Amber a mature approach to the game is *required* or there's *no game at all* - it would fall apart horribly and lead to people misunderstanding the structure, because it has no framework against immaturity.
Many people also see this as a flaw in the system - the requirement of maturity, rather than allowing different levels of play.
Quote from: Bren;822462I didn't claim that game was inaccessible or alienating.
No, I did. It is a frequent criticism of the game, and I feel the criticism has merit. I was trying to contextualise my defence of Amber Diceless, because the game is not without flaws.
Quote from: Bren;822462I don't think I do misunderstand Amber Diceless, nor did I say it was a magical tea party.
"Magical tea party" by implication; you said you were unconvinced it had rules, rather than guidelines, and equated the system to a game of 'make-believe'.
Quote from: Bren;822462The game does not have a mechanical way of resolving who wins in a fight,
This is a frequent criticism of Amber Diceless from people who have not read or not properly applied the rules, usually from a bad GMing experience. The idea that the substance of conflict is one's ability to dazzle the GM is a false impression. There is a thicket of threads in this very forum defending that this is not the case.
This is not a flaw of the system, although many people who have received a poor impression of the system claim that it is the case.
By another example - if your first impression of Dungeons & Dragons was poor, (as is the case for many of us when first running or playing D&D) you're still going to experience D&D later under a better GM (or improve your own GMing skills) so long as you continue to participate in the hobby at all. Bad experiences with Amber Diceless are more permanent, because the system is not well explained, making it too easy to misunderstand its structure (like imagining that conflict is all faint slinging) and the game is too niche to draw you back in by virtue of just sticking to the hobby.
In summation, Amber has rules. It is a roleplaying game.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;822484I'm sorry, but there is - players have no mechanical control during play.
Then what do you mean by the game having rules that govern conflict? If there are no mechanics to the conflict, then what rules are you talking about? If there are mechanics governing conflict than the game isn't run by GM fiat.
I've run quite many games where the players had little to no knowledge of the rules. All their actions were filtered through my knowledge of the rules. But the rules actually existed. And we could, should we choose, walk through those rules. Does Amber have such mechanics or not? My impression is that other than comparing ranks in abilities it does not have such rules. Now it is quite possible I am mistaken since it has been many years since I looked at Amber, but if so it should be pretty easy to dispel my impression that the GM decides combat based on (1) relative ranks in applicable abilities which is a straightforward mechanistic comparison where A > B > C and (2) any subjective situational modifiers that the GM allows based on what the player describes their character doing.
QuoteSome people see this as a weakness in the system.
I see the lack of unexpected outcomes for the GM as a weakness of the system for my interests.
I'm not particularly interested in having an argument about the meaning of "game," "roleplaying," or the meaning of the concatenation, "roleplaying game." All of those discussions seem as unproductive as arguing with a story gamer about the meaning of "story."
QuoteI said only that Amber requires mutual trust. Only Pundit claims that necessarily leads to maturity. Of course I agree with you that it's not something that could ever be substantiated. However, in Amber a mature approach to the game is *required* or there's *no game at all* - it would fall apart horribly and lead to people misunderstanding the structure, because it has no framework against immaturity.
Many people also see this as a flaw in the system - the requirement of maturity, rather than allowing different levels of play.
A claim that Amber requires maturity amongst the participants to function is nearly as impossible to prove than any of Pundits claims. Pundit's comments on this topic (and others) displays what is sometimes a profound lack of maturity, so you will perhaps forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical of your claim that maturity (in contrast to trust in the GM) is a requirement for Amber to function for roleplaying.
Quote"Magical tea party" by implication; you said you were unconvinced it had rules, rather than guidelines, and equated the system to a game of 'make-believe'.
I haven't seen any examples of what I would describe as rules governing play. I have read examples of guidelines for play. If you want to provide some examples of rules or link to some existing thread that provides examples, I am happy to reconsider my opinion.
QuoteThis is a frequent criticism of Amber Diceless from people who have not read or not properly applied the rules, usually from a bad GMing experience. The idea that the substance of conflict is one's ability to dazzle the GM is a false impression. There is a thicket of threads in this very forum defending that this is not the case.
Citations of rules, examples of play, or links to threads would be nice.
I was actually talking about maturity as a GM. Though in fact, the Amber-system games require maturity in general, too.
Quote from: Bren;822509Citations of rules, examples of play, or links to threads would be nice.
You seem to be misreading a lot of what I've spent not a small amount of time writing, and seem stringent in holding to misinformation about Amber Diceless.
This is a forum dedicated to the game, and the burden of proof is not on me. Although it seems that you have come into the Amber Dicless forum just to decry it, if you do want to try it someday there is a wealth of information here.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;822862You seem to be misreading a lot of what I've spent not a small amount of time writing, and seem stringent in holding to misinformation about Amber Diceless.
This is a forum dedicated to the game, and the burden of proof is not on me. Although it seems that you have come into the Amber Dicless forum just to decry it, if you do want to try it someday there is a wealth of information here.
//Panjumanju
My comment was directed at Pundit's unsupported claim that Amber is a training ground for better GMs and a game that requires maturity. You seem intent on turning my statement about his comment into an attack on Amber as an RPG and equally intent on attributing to me whatever mean things about Amber people have said to you in the past. It makes attempting real communication difficult and tiresome.
Setting Pundits' statement on the amazing, possibly magical, powers of personal development provided by GMing Amber, as I have said a couple of times now, the diceless nature of Amber removes one of the key aspects of RPGs that I find interesting - the uncertainty and unexpected results that rolling dice provides to the players, and more specifically to the GM. Therefore I don't have a lot of interest in playing Amber and far less interest in GMing Amber.
My lack of interest in Amber should not be taken as an attack on anyone else's liking for the game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822756I was actually talking about maturity as a GM. Though in fact, the Amber-system games require maturity in general, too.
I think you have mistaken correlation with causation. You are more mature as a GM than you were before you ran Amber, because you became an older, somewhat more mature person for a host of reasons, mostly unrelated to Amber and all of those reasons correlating to your increase in age and experience.
So first, I'm a bit confused what you're doing here, in this sub-forum, if you have no interest in Amber (or I would presume in the Amber-derived games)?
And no, I directly became a better GM BECAUSE of Amber. Because the Amber rulebooks written by Erick Wujcik contain some of the best GMing advice ever written, and because for the Amber game to end up being really great it demands that the GM step up his game and develop a bunch of skills that in other games are potentially less developed by reliance on more structured rules or randomness.
Amber is obviously not the ONLY game that makes you a better GM for successfully running it. But I've never experienced any other game that makes you a better GM overall the way Amber does.
I suspect the term "better GM" is the sticking point. Running ADRP doesn't make me a better D&D GM, but it does teach me certain skills that I wouldn't have acquired as a D&D GM. For example, in D&D I can have an "off day" and run my players through a few random encounters to kill time and they probably won't notice the difference. In ADRP the GM has to be "on" the whole time becasue every action and/or encounter has purpose. I can't just stall for time without the storyline stalling as well. That makes being an ADRP GM a very demanding and draining experience.
Quote from: finarvyn;823234I suspect the term "better GM" is the sticking point.
You are correct.
Quote from: finarvyn;823234I suspect the term "better GM" is the sticking point. Running ADRP doesn't make me a better D&D GM, but it does teach me certain skills that I wouldn't have acquired as a D&D GM. For example, in D&D I can have an "off day" and run my players through a few random encounters to kill time and they probably won't notice the difference. In ADRP the GM has to be "on" the whole time becasue every action and/or encounter has purpose. I can't just stall for time without the storyline stalling as well. That makes being an ADRP GM a very demanding and draining experience.
Thank you for expressing that better than I did.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: RPGPundit;823182But I've never experienced any other game that makes you a better GM overall the way Amber does.
I would love for you and other Amber GMs to elaborate on this in its own thread. The diceless thing is very alien to me, but improving my GM skills is always a high interest.
Any examples of Erick Wujick's GM advice you could share?
Most of it is right there in the Amber and Shadow Knight books. Spectacular GMing advice is probably the majority of the content of both of those, either directly or through the description of how to manage the rules.
I agree that Wujcik's GM advices are very, very good. I usually skip these parts in RPGs, whereas I've read those multiple times.
Still, they're very good for amber. They are good, just not as good, for other games.
Quote from: RPGPundit;824218Most of it is right there in the Amber and Shadow Knight books. Spectacular GMing advice is probably the majority of the content of both of those, either directly or through the description of how to manage the rules.
Before I hunt down rare books, let's hear some of the spectacular GM advice!
And I met Erick at the Palladium Open House years ago and got to hear him speak about his origins in RPGs with Kevin Siembeida , so I have no doubt the Wuj had some great advice!
Quote from: Spinachcat;824763Before I hunt down rare books,
If you're interested but don't want to hunt down a physical copy, you can get a pdf copy on drivethrurpg for $12 right now. http://drivethrurpg.com/product/1447/Amber?it=1
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Croaker;824246I agree that Wujcik's GM advices are very, very good. I usually skip these parts in RPGs, whereas I've read those multiple times.
Still, they're very good for amber. They are good, just not as good, for other games.
I almost always skip the GM-advice sections (or did, before I started doing reviews). That's because 99% of the time they're unbelievably boring filler. They're all exactly the same as each other; you've read one, you've read them all, it's always the same stupid stuff that anyone who isn't a total novice will already get.
The GM advice in Amber and Shadow Knight are nothing like that. It's part of an exclusive club of very very few RPG books where the GM-advice section is worth reading.
As to how it applies to other games, it's directly proportional to just how similar those games are in style-of-play to Amber. For example, you can always tell the difference between WoD games being run by someone who's also read Amber and those who haven't.