Can you die walking the Pattern? I don't have the book here to look it up, but it seems to me that with no die rolls you either give it no requirements or you give it rank/point requirements. Either way it seems no PC would ever risk death while walking the pattern.
Well, I think that the tricky thing here is that technically a character requires about 50 character points in order to gain the pattern, plus additional prerequisites such as having blood of Amber and enough Endurance. This would seem to imply that a player ought to either (1) take Pattern at the onset, or (2) plan on adventuring for a very long time before attempting the Pattern.
My understanding is that the ADRP rules are designed for very slow advancement of characters. Pundit has suggested in another thread that characters be allowed to acquire additional powers along the way (which, I assume could include Pattern) but without a partial powers system I just can't figure out how to make it work.
So ... short answer: Characters can die on the Pattern, which is why Erick suggests that Amber players plan on spending those 50 points at the start.
You can die walking the pattern under two conditions in the normal game:
1. If you try to walk it and do not have at least Amber-level endurance; or you are tired/injured to the point that you are weakened below that level. In my games, I make it very clear that trying to walk the pattern when you're hurt or tired at all is a very bad idea (one that can end in your fiery death if you have bad stuff or are in very bad shape).
2. If you don't already have the pattern, walk it, and don't have at least 50 points to spend... usually I put a 10 point cap on bad stuff, so if they go beyond that, its death for them. Even if you don't put caps on bad stuff, it could be a good rule of thumb to say that in the case of walking the pattern for the first time, being at or going lower than -10 stuff means you die.
As fin pointed out, in my latest game this rule didn't apply; instead, players walking the pattern for the first time just had to have at least AMB End, not too much bad stuff, and be in good health. I made it clear, though, that every time you walked the pattern there was a slight risk of death, implying that I as the GM had thought up some kind of system by which people trying to walk the pattern too many times ran a risk of dying.
Finally, obviously, if you don't have the Blood of Amber, you can't walk the pattern.
RPGPundit
So the first one (and your slternate to #2) basically boil down to whether the GM wants to kill you or not, but the rest are PC choices. Cool.
Thanks!
Quote from: James McMurrayCan you die walking the Pattern?
The quick answer is yes.
Yes, a player character can die walking the Pattern.
Quote from: James McMurray...it seems to me that with no die rolls you either give it no requirements or you give it rank/point requirements.
Of course, as others have pointed out, the requirement is mainly having Pattern.
As to other rank/point requirements, I'd say they were much less important that the situation itself, and the why and wherefore of the player character's actions.
After all, unless the player character is some kind of exalted initiate of the Pattern (in which case this isn't really an issue), the Pattern is very much a thing of mystery. Something that requires investigation and the gathering of information, and ultimately the
It is, in just about every circumstance I can now imagine, the job of the Game Master to make it crystal clear the deadliness of the Pattern (Zelazny is our model here; he made the point clear over and over again, and even sacrificed a horse in the interest of clarity).
On the other hand, there can (and probably should) be situations where player characters see the necessity of taking the risk. In some cases where it is the only noble or righteous thing to do.
So, should the Game Master simply nod and let the player character die?
No.
Because the Pattern is something more than just a random pit trap.
It is, for so many entities (the identity of whom vary from one campaign to the next), something of profound importance. Those who can observe the Pattern will do so, or will at least set their agents to do so.
The exalted initiates described above may, very possibly, be so well attuned, that even by-standers who have yet to touch the Pattern, will sent their minds ringing with warning bells.
Plus, the Pattern itself, whether it be sentient, or the embodiment of another character (Oberon? Dworkin? The Unicorn?), or a pre-programmed clockwork, or the intersections of universes (remember how the Pattern was described in the Jewel of Judgement?), or other eldritch thing, surely has its own agenda, its own wants, and its own influences.
For the thinking Game Master, the interaction of a potential victim with the Pattern should raise all manner of questions. Given time (and I'd definitely suggest suspending the session if there is any doubt) there should be a huge array of opportunities.
Have I ever killed a player character on the Pattern.
Yup.
But only because I had good reasons, and because the episode enriched the campaign.
Quote from: James McMurrayEither way it seems no PC would ever risk death while walking the pattern.
A good Game Master should instill the fear, and give every player pause.
Yet, in a really great Amber campaign, I can see where the risk of death-by-Pattern could be one of the greatest of feats.
Erick
Quote from: RPGPundit...usually I put a 10 point cap on bad stuff...
Interesting!
I've always done the opposite.
In most of my Amber Diceless campaigns I have a 10 point cap on Good Stuff. My reasoning being that anyone with that much Good Stuff will never meet an elder Amberite (or, for that matter, an Amber Player Character).
On the other hand, from my perspective, the sky's the limit for Bad Stuff.
After the very first Attribute Auction I had characters massive Bad Stuff. Morgan, Michael Kucharki's character, being a good example (Mike's the guy who later did all the interior art for Amber Diceless Role-Playing). He's a great player, and having all that Bad Stuff really forced him to reach deeply in role-playing.
Since then I've always been willing to beat up the bids in the Attribute Auction, and see where we could go with massive Bad Stuff.
The first Attribute Auction in Salt Lake City, for example, had three guys fighting it out for Warfare, and they ended up spending an average of 500 points each... which meant I had to get very creative with Bad Stuff. Yet the campaign was tremendous amount of fund, and the other player characters ended up using the Bad Stuff 'monsters' as their most powerful tools.
Erick
I once sat in on an Amber campaign. My character was simple... Pattern, Amber rank across the board and 50 points of good stuff.
The GM went with it and and the game was like an inspector gadget cartoon. As I was just sitting in, I had no idea what was going on but I kept stumbling across clues.
EDIT: 500 points in an auction? fucking hell Erick. I'm guessing it wasn't so much a matter of "campaign logs" as "campaign footrubs" "campaign retarring the GM's roof".
Quote from: Erick Wujciksnip lots of interesting stuff
Thanks! It's great when game designers care enough to respond to queries from gamers. It's one of the reasons I'm such a big Hackmaster fan, they've always treated me and even my most inane questions qith respect.
How much worse is 500 points of bad stuff than 100 points? Than 20? Than 10?
Let's say you've got an auction that went this way:
Warfare:
Allen - 50
Betsy - 45
Endurance:
Allen - 50
Charlie - 45
Strength:
Allen - 50
David - 45
Psyche:
Allen - 50
Edgar - 45
All five players take pattern. Betsy, Charlie, David, and Edgar take a combination of good stuff and 'extras' for the rest of their points. Allen takes 200 points of bad stuff, trump artistry, and 10 points of goodies.
How do you balance 200 points of bad stuff with being first ranked?
In short, is he to be feared or pitied?
More importantly, how is he to know, before the auction starts?
That's the real question in my mind. Does a player who goes into the auction knowing how the GM typically interprets such things as bad stuff at an advantage? That is, should there be an advantage for knowing the GM?
Personally, I think that there should not be an advantage.
Quote from: James McMurraySo the first one (and your alternate to #2) basically boil down to whether the GM wants to kill you or not, but the rest are PC choices. Cool.
Here's where we go back to the matter of trust. You have to trust the fact that the GM does not "want" to kill you. If you do something stupid to the point where the GM has to kill you, that's your fault.
One of the biggest misconceptions about RPGs (in my opinion) is that there is some sort of competition going on between players and GM. That's bull. A competent GM always wins. No challenge, so why bother. A GM gets to decide how many foes, how strong, what they can do, and so on. Killing PCs is easy; giving them a challenge which will almost kill them but most of them survive -- that's a bit harder.
The illusion of competition occurs because players tend to forget that the GM can do whatever he wants in any RPG. The illusion is maintained by the presence of dice, cards, or other randomizers which give players the sense that the GM is not all-powerful and that a good roll in the right situation can "beat" the GM. In Amber this illusion is totally shattered because there are no dice.
Trust your GM. He is trying to run a game for all to enjoy.
Quote from: finarvynTrust your GM. He is trying to run a game for all to enjoy.
This is the fundamental paradox of Amber. When successfully resolved, it is its greatest strength; otherwise its greatest weakness.
On the one hand, there is no choice but to trust the GM, and on the other we must strive and compete with his NPC's.
Quote from: Erick WujcikInteresting!
I've always done the opposite.
In most of my Amber Diceless campaigns I have a 10 point cap on Good Stuff. My reasoning being that anyone with that much Good Stuff will never meet an elder Amberite (or, for that matter, an Amber Player Character).
On the other hand, from my perspective, the sky's the limit for Bad Stuff.
After the very first Attribute Auction I had characters massive Bad Stuff. Morgan, Michael Kucharki's character, being a good example (Mike's the guy who later did all the interior art for Amber Diceless Role-Playing). He's a great player, and having all that Bad Stuff really forced him to reach deeply in role-playing.
Since then I've always been willing to beat up the bids in the Attribute Auction, and see where we could go with massive Bad Stuff.
The first Attribute Auction in Salt Lake City, for example, had three guys fighting it out for Warfare, and they ended up spending an average of 500 points each... which meant I had to get very creative with Bad Stuff. Yet the campaign was tremendous amount of fund, and the other player characters ended up using the Bad Stuff 'monsters' as their most powerful tools.
Erick
I almost always have a cap on bad stuff at least for the character creation process, to prevent people from going hog-wild with the bids; in my last couple of campaigns I've let people go into the negatives after that.
I'd never even thought about doing a cap on good stuff, but I do essentially have a law of diminishing returns for good stuff... the more above 10 it is the less each point will get you as far as luck, eventually it trails off. Whereas with bad stuff, if you have more than 20 bad stuff, you're probably going to be dead very very soon anyways.
RPGPundit
Quote from: OthaThat's the real question in my mind. Does a player who goes into the auction knowing how the GM typically interprets such things as bad stuff at an advantage? That is, should there be an advantage for knowing the GM?
Personally, I think that there should not be an advantage.
No, there really shouldn't be, and a good GM will try his utmost to be fair (and Amber REQUIRES a very good GM), and a good GM will go to great lengths to try to explain his take on these kinds of concepts like how he considers attributes, how he considers stuff, etc.
But in the end, Amber, like life, isn't completely fair. And that's part of the game too.
RPGPundit
So does a good GM convey (in writing or whatever) a treatise on how he interprets things?
* The importance of first rank
* The importance of "stuff"
* How pattern works
* How trump works
* How magic works
...et multiple cetera?
Well, for my part I always have a detailed chat with all my players before the start of the Campaign, making absolutely sure they all get how campaign will work, including pretty well all of those things; Amber is a game where you have to have lots of attention to detail, and make sure everyone is working with the same groundwork as far as knowledge of the campaign is concerned, to make sure that no one is surprised or disappointed later.
Its one of the responsibilities of the GM, IMO.
RPGPundit
Quote from: finarvynHere's where we go back to the matter of trust. You have to trust the fact that the GM does not "want" to kill you. If you do something stupid to the point where the GM has to kill you, that's your fault.
Except that in a game with no dice rolls and no preset conditions that will cause death on the pattern other than points which you can avoid, he is never "forced" to kill you. Which means he has to want it to happen. Whether he wants it because he thinks you "need to be taught a lesson," "it's better for the story" or whatever, he still has to want it to happen.
Yes, but wouldn't it be nice to have an option where you didn't HAVE to do that, if you didn't want to?
I'm not sure I get your meaning. A GM never has to kill a player in any game. Or at least, any game I've ever played, there are probably some out there that don't give the GM absolute power.
Whether he should kill them or not is a different discusion altogether, and not really tied to the pattern. I think I'll start a new thread for that.
Quote from: James McMurrayExcept that in a game with no dice rolls and no preset conditions that will cause death on the pattern other than points which you can avoid, he is never "forced" to kill you. Which means he has to want it to happen. Whether he wants it because he thinks you "need to be taught a lesson," "it's better for the story" or whatever, he still has to want it to happen.
He has to decide it SHOULD happen, which is a little bit different.
RPGPundit
Thank you for that pointless semantic drivel. UIf he doesn't want it to happen, it won't. Isn't that part and parcel of the GM having all the power? If he doesn't want it, he has the power to stop it. Even if he just wants it because he thinks it "should happen" that's still a choice being made.
In one of my campaigns, the characters had spent a lot of time trying to find something called "the pool of death" and were told by several NPCs that to drink these waters meant instant death to anyone. When they found the pool, one of the characters just had to try a sip.
As a GM, I'm in a tough spot. I don't want to kill a character, but I should do so anyway. It's not a semantic nit-pick, it's a direct cause-effect of a character's actions. I suppose I could have ruled that the character spilled the water before she could drink it, or given the hint that other PCs ought to knock the cup from her hand, but I didn't. I also could have invented some lame "well, hee, hee, you're an Amberite so it didn't kill you" thing, but all that would do is remove any fear of character death from all of my players. I don't want them to die; I want them to think that they might die at any moment if they screw up. There's a difference.
The GM has "all the power" as far as the universe goes -- with the exception of player character actions. As soon as the GM gains that power the game is over. Railroading puppet characters into predetermined actions isn't a RPG, it's a novel.
Quote from: James McMurrayThank you for that pointless semantic drivel. UIf he doesn't want it to happen, it won't. Isn't that part and parcel of the GM having all the power? If he doesn't want it, he has the power to stop it. Even if he just wants it because he thinks it "should happen" that's still a choice being made.
You know, you really really need to stop opening every single fucking reply to my posts with an insult. Either that, or you would do well to stop replying to my posts altogether.
If you can't grasp that there's a gap the size of the fucking grand canyon between a GM willy-nilly killing PCs because its his fancy and a GM deciding to kill a PC because that PC SHOULD die in the game, and NOT out of the perceived bias you seem to always assume GMs will have toward the irrational, then that's your fucking problem. And it is a serious problem. You probably won't be capable of playing Amber if that's what you think all GMs are like.
RPGPundit
Quote from: finarvynAs a GM, I'm in a tough spot. I don't want to kill a character, but I should do so anyway. It's not a semantic nit-pick, it's a direct cause-effect of a character's actions.
Right, but as you've got complete power that death had to flow from your desires. In this case it was the desire for a consistency in the game setting, letting them know you weren't messing around, or whatever. But the death was because you wanted something more then you wanted them to live.
QuoteYou know, you really really need to stop opening every single fucking reply to my posts with an insult. Either that, or you would do well to stop replying to my posts altogether.
You're showing your inability to read again. I reply to your posts with insults when your posts come from a standpoint that deserves to be insulted (usually your need to state how superior you are). As such, not every post I reply with has an insult in it.
QuoteIf you can't grasp that there's a gap the size of the fucking grand canyon between a GM willy-nilly killing PCs because its his fancy and a GM deciding to kill a PC because that PC SHOULD die in the game, and NOT out of the perceived bias you seem to always assume GMs will have toward the irrational, then that's your fucking problem. And it is a serious problem. You probably won't be capable of playing Amber if that's what you think all GMs are like.
1) When did I say anything about GMs killing willy-nilly because it's their fancy? I said the GM must want the death to happen, not that every time the GM gets a wild hair people are going to die.
2) When did I say anything about irrational killing? I never said anything about the causes of the deaths. Any motivations you draw for deaths mentioned by me are completely imagined.
3) Can you even read, or does every post you see twist itself into what you think it says rather then what it actually says? When did I ever even give you a hint of what types of GMs I've had, or what I think GMing should be like.
3a) If you could read, and had a memory, then you would know exactly how I GM and how the others in my group GM. You would know that I favor fairness over all things first and foremost. You would know that secondary to that I favor a rational world with traceable cause and effect. The players may not always know exactly why an NPC did something, because they won't have all the information. But I always will.
4) Please stop replying to my posts with rants, especially unfounded ones. I believe if you'll restrict yourself to replying to the things I say instead of the things you wish/think I'd said these exchanges would go much smoother. If you could couple that with refraining from carrying on about how great you are, how great your gaming style is, and how inferior anyone that doesn't agree with it is, we'd probably end up as friends eventually.
Ok, James, you know what? I am going to choose, from this moment onwards, to sincerely believe that you are being honest with me, when you say that your decision to be insulting to me is not meant to be an intentional effort to destabilize this forum, and it really is that you have some kind of bizarre autistic sense of humour, and that you really only hurl these insults at me for your own gratification, and not because you're desperately desperately hoping that everyone else will think you're awfully clever.
Also, I will choose to believe that you're not TRYING to be in a pissing match with me, you just can't help it.
So you know what? I'm going to help you out. I'll be helping you, and the rest of this forum, by making sure that you get to enjoy your little jokes in private and not concern yourself in the least about anyone else being impressed or unimpressed by them; and helping you by making sure that you don't have to worry about "accidentally" trying to get into a dick-waving contest with me.
My advice to you? STOP DOING both of these things. If you really honestly don't know how, then stop replying to any of my posts, period.
RPGPundit
Ummm.... Ok. I didn't realize that pointing out when you're wrong is getting into a dick waving contest. The entire point of my last post was that your statements about my game style, what I've said, and how I post are wrong. There were no insults in them, just me saying that you're wrong, and that you apparently don't read what I post because you misrepresent it in your replies.
Quote from: James McMurrayUmmm.... Ok. I didn't realize that pointing out when you're wrong is getting into a dick waving contest. The entire point of my last post was that your statements about my game style, what I've said, and how I post are wrong. There were no insults in them, just me saying that you're wrong, and that you apparently don't read what I post because you misrepresent it in your replies.
"Thank you for that pointless semantic drivel"
"I reply to your posts with insults when your posts come from a standpoint that deserves to be insulted"
"you'll learn if you're here for a while that RPGPundit..."
" But here in your tiny little kingdom..."
" Again, your persecution complex is flaring up"
And that's just in the last couple of days, AFTER you claimed you would stop.
Obviously, you're having some kind of a "Beta male struggling for Alpha" thing going on here. You really ought to stop, or you might find yourself becoming a pretty, pretty girl.
...Just remember, I gave you a half-dozen warnings and tried to give you as much room as I could.
RPGPundit
I guess we have differing ideas of what an insult is. I don't view a statement of fact as an insult: semantics are pointless in a debate, as they're just a means of deflecting the topic away from the actual subject and into a debate about words. You do act like I tell people you act, unless you're trying to claim that you don't insult people with different views? This forum is a tiny drop in the ocean that is the internet. RPG Forums are a microblip, and this is therefor a microblip of a microblip. That's not an insult, I hope the place will eventually grow much larger, but right now there's a very small number of active members compared to other larger forums. And funally, you do quite frequently claim persecution. There is, in your mind at least, an entire war being waged by people that want to persecute you and your way of gaming.
Are you honestly going to try and claim that any of that was not true?
Would the two of you PLEASE get a room?