One thing you will see much of if you are cruising the web for the recent news about GoO taking on the publish of Amber v2 :
Endurance is too weak.
Strength is unuseable.
Psyche makes puppets of your fellow Players.
Warfare does everything too well.
Stuff is dumb and shouldn’t affect PC interpretation by others.
IMC, we’ve never had such problems—for in fact—the Attributes do not suck. Attributes are glorious and yet sublime. Any simple system can be abused if you don’t give a damn about the consequences to narrative.
When the game of Amber is run as a ‘zero-sum’ exercise, and the GM cannot tell stories about anything but Warfare, then Attributes except Warfare suck.
I almost think it is that simple. Can you weave in an Endurance theme to your campaign? Can your narrative show the awesome power of Strength? Is the only kind of Psyche story about puppeting characters?
Because as I said once on the AmberMailingList:
“Attributes empower the PC’s ideas and allow realization of plans. Each Attribute has cunning, dexterity, speed, and a plethora of uses both subtle and brash. While the Psyche monster can set out to threaten other characters, so can the Warfare monster or the Strength monster. Even Ms. Endurance monster can get away with this if that is the nature of the narrative—though imagination is stretched to make this use of the most internal Attribute of all.”
I always imagine the five Attributes (including Stuff) to be the axis of conflict for the narrative. Dramatic conflict.
In many game systems, warfare is the only conflict and all other things revolve around it. So these are the stories easily told.
The hard part is balancing the stories between the five so that they seem to have meaning that relates. So that the Strength narrative isn’t constantly ignored in favor of the Warfare narrative.