I have a den full of RPG systems. Most I have played at least once, some I actually enjoy enough to play again. It's interesting to look at the rulebooks and compare styles. Some are colored, others B&W. Some have lots of detail, some not so much.
I was thinking about the ADRP rulebook and comparing it to others on my shelf, and I had an interesting thought.
Most rulebooks today have a lot of filler. Often they consume a few pages here and there with background stories. Perhaps they spend pages explaining why magic works, how dragons can fly, why dwarves hate elves, or whatever.
The ADRP book really has none of this. When you read the rulebook you will find (1) rules, and (2) examples. Sometimes I find the examples to be a bit long-winded, but each is there to illustrate how a particular facet of the game works. The rules are sometimes vague but that is the nature of Amber, where every campaign has its own style and flavor. It's a somewhat hefty rulebook packed with ideas and not charts or pictures.
Personally, I think this is a strength of the game. It pre-supposes that the reader has some idea what Amber is all about and doesn't spend time rehashing much that information. (There is a glossary of terms, but it's pretty minimalistic and consumes only a couple of pages.) It gives different options as to point values for NPCs, but this just goes to show how each GM can create his own campaign or bring his own interpretation of Amber into the game.
When 2E Amber is eventually done, I hope it maintains a similar flavor and doesn't become just another glossy slick RPG that sits on my shelf. I like the style of the rulebook as written and hope it doesn't change too much.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Quote from: finarvyn...The ADRP book really has none of this. When you read the rulebook you will find (1) rules, and (2) examples...
I'll be interested to see what everyone else has to say on the subject.
From my perspective, I'm hoping that the 2nd edition ADRPG will keep most of the same rules/examples style, adding more of the same and plugging up some of the holes.
Erick
Absolutely. I desperately hope that it will keep the same overall method, while perhaps cleaning up the organization a bit.
Amber is great because everything in it is useful, not filler. Shit, even the game-fiction is both useful and relevant (unlike almost any game fiction), and is actually GOOD, being Zelazny who wrote it (unlike just about every other game's fiction).
RPGPundit
A couple of ideas for a 2E of ADRP:
1. Maintain the style of the 1E rulebooks and keep as much of the original writing as possible, but reorganize. Include material from both the Core Rulebook and the Shadow Knight supplement. People in charge of 2E should be less a "writer" and more an "editor".
2. Divide material into 2-3 rulebooks. One would be a Player's Guide to Amber, which would include all of the things a player needed to know about the basic powers and so on. A second would be A GM's Guide to Amber, which would include Advanced powers, Elders, scenarios, and so on. (A Guide to the Elders of Amber could be a third book, if one wanted to divide GM material from camapign-specific stuff.)
3. I love the idea that each Elder has three write-ups. It encourages GMs to pick and choose and customize Amber into their own. This should be done with other rules options. For example, Character generation. The auction could remain the "official" way to do it, but include discussion on character point building without auction, use of random rolls to generate characters, or whatever. Give options.
4. Somehow include all or parts of the Rebma sourcebook. Either go with Jason Durall's version or (if any notes exist) Erick's version. I don't know what happened behind the scenes to make this project fall apart years ago, but bring it back. Maybe similar material for Tir-na Nog'th.
5. Market some of the extras. Give the game official support.
* Make Kucharski's trumps from the rulebooks into a siimple Trump deck.
* Create "official" maps of the Amber universe. (I know that every Amber is different, but many RPG folks love colored maps and would love something official to work from.)
* Create "official" blueprints of Castle Amber, the Courts, and other interesing places. (Maybe use the three-version model, if one official version is distasteful.)
Just a few thoughts. :D
I think that 2E should include the original mechanic, but there should be "three versions" for all elements.
- Alternatives to the auction.
- Alternatives to the judicial resolution system; ideally at least one that requires no GM input at all if two players want to play out a conflict without the GM.
- Alternatives to Logrus as the basis of Chaosian power, especially for campaigns that focus on Corwin's chronicles.
...among other things.
In addition, I think that 2E ought to hew closer to the canon, as pertains to how the attributes and powers work. For example, psyche battles should require magic or trump to initiate; eye contact or touch should NOT be enough.
I think Amber can benefit a lot from some of the new ideas that have come out in roleplaying games in the thirteen years since Shadow Knight came out, such as GMless roleplaying, drama-based resolution, spendable plot-based resources, et multiple cetera.
Quote from: finarvynA couple of ideas for a 2E of ADRP:
1. Maintain the style of the 1E rulebooks and keep as much of the original writing as possible, but reorganize. Include material from both the Core Rulebook and the Shadow Knight supplement. People in charge of 2E should be less a "writer" and more an "editor".
Agreed, basically.
Quote2. Divide material into 2-3 rulebooks. One would be a Player's Guide to Amber, which would include all of the things a player needed to know about the basic powers and so on. A second would be A GM's Guide to Amber, which would include Advanced powers, Elders, scenarios, and so on. (A Guide to the Elders of Amber could be a third book, if one wanted to divide GM material from camapign-specific stuff.)
Not a bad idea, I'd say 2 books rather than 3; you want the game to be as easily playable from the get-go as possible. The more books you have to buy the less it will interest new people.
Quote3. I love the idea that each Elder has three write-ups. It encourages GMs to pick and choose and customize Amber into their own. This should be done with other rules options. For example, Character generation. The auction could remain the "official" way to do it, but include discussion on character point building without auction, use of random rolls to generate characters, or whatever. Give options.
Yes. This is one of the things that bothered me a lot back when GoO was working on Amber; that it sounded like at every turn the idea was to reduce rather than increase the options. The new edition should have MORE customization options, not less!
Quote4. Somehow include all or parts of the Rebma sourcebook. Either go with Jason Durall's version or (if any notes exist) Erick's version. I don't know what happened behind the scenes to make this project fall apart years ago, but bring it back. Maybe similar material for Tir-na Nog'th.
This could all be for later sourcebooks. What I think ought to appear in the main book(s) should be all kinds of optional stuff that comes from the various stuff on the internet over the years; the partial powers etc.
But I feel that Rebma, the Courts of Chaos, Tir-na Nog'th, and Corwin's Pattern are all areas that deserve their own book.
Quote5. Market some of the extras. Give the game official support.
* Make Kucharski's trumps from the rulebooks into a siimple Trump deck.
Yes.
Quote* Create "official" maps of the Amber universe. (I know that every Amber is different, but many RPG folks love colored maps and would love something official to work from.)
* Create "official" blueprints of Castle Amber, the Courts, and other interesing places. (Maybe use the three-version model, if one official version is distasteful.)
The one thing I really disagree with here is the "Official" part. Make more than one of these maps, and give us lots of juicy stuff like this, but emphasize that these are just OPTIONS, possibilities, and that each version of Amber is up to the individual GM.
RPGPundit
Quote from: OthaIn addition, I think that 2E ought to hew closer to the canon, as pertains to how the attributes and powers work. For example, psyche battles should require magic or trump to initiate; eye contact or touch should NOT be enough.
See.. case in point: What would be gained by giving LESS range to Amber instead of MORE?
QuoteI think Amber can benefit a lot from some of the new ideas that have come out in roleplaying games in the thirteen years since Shadow Knight came out, such as GMless roleplaying, drama-based resolution, spendable plot-based resources, et multiple cetera.
Uhm... no. Not as rules, anyways. Remember that Amber was probably the FIRST RPG ever to suggest, at the end of the book, that you could do away with the GM, or the Rules, or anything else, altogether. But that should never be more than a suggestion.
As for Drama-based resolution or spendable plot-based resources, thank you but NO. We want Amber, not Nobilis or Dogs in the Vinyard, for fuck's sake.
:forge:
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditSee.. case in point: What would be gained by giving LESS range to Amber instead of MORE?
What would be gained by hewing closer to the canon: play would be more like the books. I think Zelazny's vision is superior to Wujcik's. Does that make me a heretic?
Quote from: RPGPunditUhm... no. Not as rules, anyways. ... But that should never be more than a suggestion.
I *DO* think that it t works fine as an alternative rather than a vague suggestion. You can deny that I think it, but it won't make it happen.
Quote from: RPGPunditAs for Drama-based resolution or spendable plot-based resources, thank you but NO. We want Amber, not Nobilis or Dogs in the Vinyard, for fuck's sake.
Who is the "we" you are speaking for?
What I mean by "official" is that it would have some sort of universal "Amber Universe" logo on it, much the same way the ADRP and Shadow Knight books have a Phage Press logo. That makes them "official", even if a particular GM decides not to use them or to modify them in some way.
I don't mean "official" in the way that if you don't use their stuff your campaign is crap.
There are clearly a lot of ideas, maps, trumps, etc., that are not "official". This doesn't make them bad things or poorly done, but it would be nice to see some sort of brand identity bringing all of the products together.
I'd love official maps, trumps, etc. That way I can buy one Amber Gazzetteer (or whatever you want to call it) instead of searching through 30+ websites.
Quote from: OthaWhat would be gained by hewing closer to the canon: play would be more like the books. I think Zelazny's vision is superior to Wujcik's. Does that make me a heretic?
No, but with the current version of the game you can run both kinds of game: a "Wujcik" take on amber, and a "lower powered" take on Amber. Both of these kinds of game have very dedicated fan, plus a large mass of people who's take changes from game to game.
I would be against any move that would cut off either of the two groups of people from being able to run the game the way they want. That would just be foolish.
I mean really, what you're saying amounts to "I would like to ruin Amber for a sizeable percentage of its current fans, just because I prefer this other style of play and think they should too".
That's Swine-think, right there...
RPGPundit
Yea, but there's also something to be said for the massive fan community. I mean think about it: if an "Official map of amber" had been created, we almost certainly wouldn't have dozens of Amber maps to choose from today. We'd be stuck with the one in the book, because the second you define something in the book it gets taken as "canon".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditAs for Drama-based resolution or spendable plot-based resources, thank you but NO. We want Amber, not Nobilis or Dogs in the Vinyard, for fuck's sake.
You know, there must be better examples of what you oppose out there: neither of those games really features Drama-based resolution (assuming you meant it as distinct from Karma or Fortune) or plot-based resources (unless you would also define something like the paycheck earned by a PC as such).
Quote from: RPGPunditAs for Drama-based resolution or spendable plot-based resources, thank you but NO. We want Amber, not Nobilis or Dogs in the Vinyard...
I like ADRP for two main reasons.
1. I'm really a fan of Zelazny's Amber universe.
2. I really like the ADRP rules.
Quote from: OthaWho is the "we" you are speaking for?
I would assume that Pundit's "we" represents the mainstream Amber Diceless community. I mean, I've seen homebrew Amber conversions for
d20,
Unisystem,
GURPS,
Fudge,
Nobilis, and others, so if someone wants to just "play Amber" they can do it in any one of a number of options out there.
I believe that this is the point that Pundit was making.
If a 2E of ADRP is published, I for one don't want to see the core system change. The game is great the way it is – what it needs is editing and some polish. It needs a few tweaks and suggestions for options, not a total re-write of the game mechanic.
Damn right, Fin.
RPGPundit
If you're not going to make changes there's not much point in a new edition.
Can you name any game that went into a second edition without major changes to the system?
Dungeons and Dragons didn't.
Shadowrun didn't.
GURPS didn't.
Vampire didn't.
Traveller didn't.... many times.
There were lots of grognards who opposed the changes that came with new editions to all these games. Lots of them kept playing the old version after the new one came out... and that's a good thing.
It's not like the old version suddenly can't be played anymore after the new one comes out. It remains an option. Sometimes (such as in the case of Traveller) the old version stays popular alongside newer versions.
So why the opposition to changing anything?
Quote from: OthaIf you're not going to make changes there's not much point in a new edition.
Can you name any game that went into a second edition without major changes to the system? Dungeons and Dragons didn't.?
Part of the reason to make a new edition is to blend and reorganize. When Erick wrote ADRP he hadn't put together Shadow Knight yet. Also, Zelazny hadn't written his last 5 short stories. All of this material could be brought into a 2E game.
And a 2E might bring an out of print game back into print!
Actually, D&D is very similar in most of its incarnations -- brown book OD&D, Holmes Basic, Mentzer and Modlvay versions of B/X, 1E AD&D, and 2E AD&D are all quite compatible with one another. Those changes were in terms of orgainzation, addition of material, and other minor things. From 1974 until 1999 the game was essentially the same; it wasn't until the new 3E edition in 2000 that major changes occured to the core mechanic.
Also, Tunnels & Trolls is a game which is in 7th edition, yet the first six editions of T&T were all very much the same. Again, minor tweaks but no complete overhaul.
GURPS underwent several versions and the basic system remained unchanged. Again, I'm not counting little stuff -- only major system overhaul.
So why throw out ADRP and replace it with a new game? If you want to make two games (ADRP Classic and ADRP Nobilis, for example) go for it. Just don't take away what we like.
Quote from: OthaCan you name any game that went into a second edition without major changes to the system?
Call of Cthulhu? Its so-called "new editions" tend to be more like reprints.
People do new editions for various reasons.
In this case, because the gamebook is now out of print, and new material hasn't been released in years, and the old book was a little disorganized, and you could stuff a bunch of new stuff in there now, new cool stuff like optional rules and such.
But the system itself is sound, and it seems stupid to throw away a system that is loved by a huge group of fans, that is tested and true and has worked for 20 years now, in favour of questionable claptrap from whatever idiotic pretentious game is the flavour of the month because either the idiots at rpg.net or Ron "Kool aid" Edwards said so.
RPGPundit
Quote from: OthaShadowrun didn't.
Way to mix apples and oranges.
I really like the concept of the way the PCs deal with problems in the game.
In other games, when your PC comes across a challenge or obstacle, he has very limited options in dealing with it.
In Amber you can really knock yourself out, trying crazy things- there is never really a "no go" situation because of what the PCs are capable of.
Amber really rewards creativity over game stats.
It is the only game, where the players are really "empowered" (forgive the ugly forgesque), without making it some shared-narration thingie.
This is also my greatest gripe with the GM section and examples in the book, since they come across in such a way, that it seems to be the job of the GM to be the antagonist making life as difficult as possible for the players, instead of being (like Pundit said) facilitator, making sure everyone is having fun...also the examples nearly always show the PCs working together and never against each other. Advice how to run rivalries, without the game degenerating in a lot of note-pushing and solo-session play, would be nice.
Quote from: alexandroI really like the concept of the way the PCs deal with problems in the game.
In other games, when your PC comes across a challenge or obstacle, he has very limited options in dealing with it.
In Amber you can really knock yourself out, trying crazy things- there is never really a "no go" situation because of what the PCs are capable of.
Amber really rewards creativity over game stats.
It is the only game, where the players are really "empowered" (forgive the ugly forgesque), without making it some shared-narration thingie.
Very good point!
QuoteThis is also my greatest gripe with the GM section and examples in the book, since they come across in such a way, that it seems to be the job of the GM to be the antagonist making life as difficult as possible for the players, instead of being (like Pundit said) facilitator, making sure everyone is having fun...also the examples nearly always show the PCs working together and never against each other. Advice how to run rivalries, without the game degenerating in a lot of note-pushing and solo-session play, would be nice.
I disagree with you completely about the GM advice; I think its fine, since a GM has to figure out how to run ALL the NPCs in a machiavellian way, and make the PCs go through the kind of hell that only Amberites can give, without just beating up or killing the PCs.
However, I strongly AGREE that more advice about managing rivalries between PCs is a good idea, and something there could be more of.
That said, note pushing and solitary play are two hallmarks of Amber that are a big part of the fun, in my book. The advice should be about how to make these things go smoothly, rather than how to eliminate them.
RPGPundit
Pundit -- so funny to see you disagree with Alexandro, who thought he was trying to agree with you. :pundit:
Drat. I should learn just to shut up. ;)