The wonderful thing about tiggers
Is tiggers are wonderful things!
I have been in games where conjurers strained the very fabric of genre. IMHO, this does not happen in a game with all rules respected equally.
As a ‘flag example’, as soon as a PC takes sorcery or conjuring, they intrinsically have less chance of beating their cousins at anything including Psyche battles. Do you see this concept respected in games?
It makes sense by canon.
The big questions in trying to do Amber as an rpg.
Can you emulate the dramatic conflicts of the novels?
Will your game’s attribute conflicts reinforce the canon?
Will your conflicts follow what Zelazny says is important in this universe?
Amber Diceless as designed provides four parallel lines for attribute conflicts. As we’ve discussed here a few times, in actual play it seems that this usually comes out as one attribute (Warfare) for conflict and two for ‘also rans’ and Endurance being a sometimes tie-breaker (but mostly not in actual play.)
…anecdotes being the usual analysis.
Brannan.JP : Blog Archive : Pondering Infinite Amber system revisions
Well, timely is JP pondering how he wants the attributes to play out in his Amber game. Good time to write down some thoughts about attributes.
So in the ‘Stairway Perilous’ 17 canon attribute playtest, I rolled out the ‘legend calling’ idea in lieu of auction. Players state OOC which other PC they either ‘envy’ or ‘fear’ and name the quality involved.
Thoughts acquired by running my ‘revised ADRPG’ at the con:
- it seemed to work as well as the base version
- it seemed the Players understood the attributes (the questions were the expected, mirror, binding, secrets, discovery and other.)
- it seemed the PCs tried new competent acts based on the attributes
- The last being perhaps the most significant. If Players have a gut reaction to advantage and use, then I’ve done the right thing.
Here’s the card the ‘Stairway Perilous!’ game used:
The canon elder pictured on the front of each card had ‘five legend words’ and a picture. I noticed that after 15 to 30 minutes of play, no one really had to consult their character card.
The GM had a master sheet of values and I needed to check it several times during events. This all worked well for me.
I broke up the first card design based on visual cues, trying to highlight the ‘new’ stuff. I also wanted to put attributes that would usually be blank on the right side of the card where they were visually out of the way. Jewel attunement doesn’t come up often. Logrus is rare in most games, etc.
In reference to my previous ideas about Amber v2, I’ve recently read the persuasive comments about flaws in the original Amber Diceless by Mike Sullivan.
He’s right on target.
One thing that jumped out at me about Mike’s comments (and he just sticks to the original elements and doesn’t propose new elements as I’ve done) is that Warfare takes up a huge amount of the book narrative in all ten books, while the game choices for Warfare PCs are spare compared to arcane powers.
Mike recommends ‘specialization’ and I’ve added some of those options in convention games, such as a PC is allowed to buy a point or more of expertise to up-rank themselves (“I’m the best with ‘fast draw’.”) But in the new expansion I’m thinking of, I haven’t noted expertise rules.
So here are those ideas expanded now.