Amber Diceless RPG

[Roland St. Jude]

After yet another re-reading of Roger Zelazny's Amber series, I'm considering starting up a new game of Amber Diceless RPG. I'm still weighing the options in my head, like whether to go with just the Corwin Cycle and basic RPG or whether to include the Merlin Cycle and Shadow Knight, and whether to do some kind of Throne War or something more collaborative. I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion with the players about what they want, but I should probably get my preferences straight before I start recruiting. I've run and played this several times before with great success, but that was live, face-to-face, and with people who trusted each other to adjudicate fairly and to play for fun.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there and see what people's experiences with this game were. Anyone with some good stories to share? Any fun ideas for plots or premises? Any suggestions on how to translate the game to a PbP medium? What's a good number of players for such a game?

Have people found similar games (those that are diceless and more inherently collaboratively storytelling) to be successful in a PbP format? Any tips in that regard? (I put this in the general roleplaying rather than in the Older Games section specifically to open it up to this kind of thing, as it might relate to my plans for an Amber game.) I've done many, many PbP games, but the last time I tried this kind of game in an asynchronous fashion was back in the days of play-by-mail.

I have a strong preference for PC collaboration and limiting inter-PC conflict to Legolas-Gimli, Spock-McCoy, or perhaps at the outside, Han Solo-Lando Calrissian style frenemies. So I'm probably thinking non-Throne War game. Ideas about how to encourage that relationship?

[Rakmakallan]

Though I have some really basic contact with Amber, I am in no fitting position to answer questions on it. Instead, I will attempt to address the question in the second part of your post.


Have people found similar games (those that are diceless and more inherently collaboratively storytelling) to be successful in a PbP format?
Let me begin by clarifying that even within the subset of games you are interested in, there are huge distinctions, mainly mechanistic (and in terms of settings en second lieu). The main issue is that the degree of crunchiness, ranging from Amber to rules-light RPGs, such as Archipelago, a relation that is often reflected in conflict and task resolution. Diceless games, usually still retain a random (or semi-random) manner of solving conflict, be it cards, roshambo, bidding pools. A smaller category is characterised as "randomless" games. In both cases, there is quite a heavy focus on mechanics (or simulationism and gamism to put it in GNS terms. Note: the author of this post does not necessarily support the gns theory or the general philosophy of its associated message boards). That said, in recent years there has been an increasing trend of storytelling games, which are in essence diceless and often randomless, but sometimes handle conflict in a completely different way, such as ritual phrase exchange (Polaris, Archipelago) or even do away with other traditional elements, like the existence of a GM. Note however that, vice versa, a story-priented game might include dice (e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard).

Rambling aside, I have found that pbp, while better suited for diceless games, has varying success on a case-specific basis depending on game and medium. Forum pbp is more fitting for traditional diceless games (Amber), whereas IM pbp (skype, irc) is better for narrative games where an instant reaction is needed to influence the story.


Any tips in that regard?
Not many tips, other than the obvious. Since you don't have the luxury of dicerollers or rp tools, there is some minimum degree of trust required among the players to use randomisation mechanics (or some self-made irc script). There should be a turn order established for storytelling, since it is sometimes not unambiguously defined by the game rules, which can lead to an overload if everyone starts posting simultaneously. Other than these, I would suggest to take full advantage of the verbosity permitted by the medium. Be eloquent and descriptive, so as to include what would traditionally be expressed by non-verbal cues.

Scripta manent.

[Kurald Galain]

Having played it a few times, I found the system extremely lacking. Yes, the setting is great; but the system fails to adjudicate major parts of it, such as anything resembling stealth, spy networks, or social finesse. There are many things in the gameworld that simply aren't a direct contest in the only four attributes the system has (or that don't involve the highest ranking character in that attribute) and the system doesn't offer any way to resolve these, other than letting the DM make an arbitrary decision.

That's fine for collaborative storytelling, but it's not an RPG system. Frankly I think I'd prefer having freeform with no rules, than having to deal with the quirks of Amber DRP.

[Roland St. Jude]

Having played it a few times, I found the system extremely lacking. Yes, the setting is great; but the system fails to adjudicate major parts of it, such as anything resembling stealth, spy networks, or social finesse. There are many things in the gameworld that simply aren't a direct contest in the only four attributes the system has (or that don't involve the highest ranking character in that attribute) and the system doesn't offer any way to resolve these, other than letting the DM make an arbitrary decision.

That's fine for collaborative storytelling, but it's not an RPG system. Frankly I think I'd prefer having freeform with no rules, than having to deal with the quirks of Amber DRP.Of course it's an RPG. It's even an RPG system, though the system portion of it quite minimalist. :smallconfused: It doesn't appeal to someone looking for (or needing) a complex or heavily detailed system, but that doesn't mean the rules that do exist can't perform their job in facilitating the game.

But this is my primary concern with a PbP Amber game - that players will be looking for the system to adjudicate everything and that any DM resolution will considered an arbitrary one because it isn't hemmed in tightly by numbers.

This has never been a problem in my past Amber experiences. The existing attributes, character histories, circumstances, and roleplaying pretty much allowed for reasonable adjudication of anything. Whether I was the DM or a player, the DM just ruled on things and the game moved on. Of course, it helps that PCs in Amber can pretty much succeed at whatever they do, up to the point where someone/something of similar or greater power/skill bars their way.

I've played in games that added skills or partial powers to provide some comfort to "system-minded" players or GMs. My sense is that those can help, particularly when trust is lacking between players and the GM or when the players or GM want more fiddly bits to play with, but they're a poor substitute. Particularly for Amberites of vast ability and potential, I find that specifying the ten skills they have "points" in tends to imply that they can't do things not specified.

But in my experience, pretty much anything can be adjudicated by the GM with aid from the system and there's no reason to call those decisions "arbitrary" unless the DM really is capricious or inconsistent. The fact that the rulings aren't guided by numbers or ranks or whatever doesn't make them random or unfair or unrealistic. But that is how even reasonable decisions will be perceived, isn't it? That's kind of what I fear. Partly because of the fact that the participants don't all know each other in real life (although that's true of AmberCon games, but perhaps those people are in special class of fanatic :smallwink:) and partly because most gamers experiences are with games where the system mediates the decisionmaking to a much greater extent.

I could certainly see a free-form Amber game working just fine. But from a recruitment point of view, I think free-form tends to intimidate (or simply not appeal to) people who would sign on for a rules-light, even a diceless, game. But maybe running it freeform would draw in people with the mindset more prepared for GM adjudication without crying "fiat!"

I guess on the flip side, the minimalist system could be a problem for a GM who isn't comfortable making those decisions - one who wants more categories and points and numbers to fall back on. That's not a concern for me, but I can see how it would be of concern to a DM not used to running that kind of game. I have to think that that skill would be as easy to learn as mastering the many mini-games and systems that exist in more complex RPGs.

I can respect that it's not your preference, but I think it's wrong to suggest that it doesn't work or isn't an RPG.

[Kurald Galain]

Of course it's an RPG. It's even an RPG system, though the system portion of it quite minimalist. :smallconfused: It doesn't appeal to someone looking for (or needing) a complex or heavily detailed system, but that doesn't mean the rules that do exist can't perform their job in facilitating the game.

My point is that in my experience, the rules that do exist fail to perform their job in facilitating the game: they basically cover character generation (for which they are rather overly complex) and then don't do anything else. I neither want nor need a complex or heavily detailed system, but I would prefer most other rules-light systems (as well as simply having no rules at all) over this one. YMMV, of course.

[dsmiles]

I own the books (Amber DRPG and Shadow Knight), but have never had the chance to play. The system looks simple enough, just reading through the books, and I love the concept of a diceless game. It would certainly simplify a play-by-post game with no need for a dice rolling thread.
I'd love to get some experience with this game, though I don't think play-by-post would be my first choice for learning to play it.

As far as suggestions, you could do "Bad Guy Corwin," as detailed in John Wick's Play Dirty. It's a fun, and interesting, twist on the traditional Amber mythology. You should take a look at it.

[Daimbert]

A while back, I actually ran one of these on these boards. We started with three players and ended up with two. It seemed to go well; no one was too concerned about GM fiat and I admit that I abused it a little bit in places. Basically, if they needed to win they did, and if they weren't supposed to they didn't unless they came up with something really interesting.

Playing freeform meant that the surprises didn't come from bad or good rolls, but from player actions. In mine, the players ended up on a number of occasions doing something that I didn't expect them to, which forced me to shift things so that they could end up where I needed them to be. A number of characters were introduced just to allow this to work out.

In that game, I basically had them follow the original Amber series as a group of hidden sons getting involved behind the scenes, which worked well except for perhaps one minor clash over my wanting to stick too closely to that script for at least one player's liking. But it still seemed to go over well.

I'd play if you started a game ...

[Siegel]

which forced me to shift things so that they could end up where I needed them to be



WHY? Please tell me why? :smallfrown:

[Chambers]

To Live and Die in Texorami (http://home.comcast.net/~arrefmak/tladit/) seems like it'd be a fun game. Maybe something like that, or have the players be Knights in Avalon (the original, not the one in the Corwin Cycle).

[Democratus]

The best RP experiences of my life have been playing this game, mostly at conventions. I was even fortunate enough to attend AmberCon back in the day and had a game with the Wujcik himself.

With a group of people who trust the moderator and each other, its an experience like no other. I highly suggest leaving the table behind and simply using the whole house/apartment/whatever as your game space. Cabals and secret meetings are commonplace.

It's also very helpful to have an additional 'helper referee' if your group is larger than 5.

Good luck!

[Person_Man]

I've read all of the books (which started out amazing, but seemed to get less interesting with each subsequent sequel), and played the game once at a convention. It's a fabulous setting with infinite potential. The game itself was awesome, and was basically collective story telling.

My take on the game is that you need a good number of players (6-8ish, so that there are plenty of opportunities to make and break alliances) who have deeply developed character back stories.

You should also stress the importance of the Golden Rule (that the DM can change the rules). There are just tons of things not covered in the rules, and the DM basically just needs to make stuff up as he goes along. (Which can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing, depending on the DM)

[Daimbert]

WHY? Please tell me why? :smallfrown:

Um, because there actually was a plot and so I needed them to hit certain plot points to move it along?

Let me give you some examples:

In an early scene, they followed a path given to them by Osric to a specific Shadow. I expected them to poke around and eventually wander into the inn, where the mercenaries would be and where they'd get a hint of where to go next. They decided that based on my description of the tailor shop next to the mercenary hall -- done simply to show how tightly integrated the mercenaries were into the shadow -- that the tailor shop was the place to go, at which point I had to invent a tailor really quickly, and then get him to point out that perhaps the inn was the better place to look for information. He became a critical character later, even though I hadn't even intended for him to exist.

In another case, they decided -- due to distrust -- to ignore the plot hook from Fiona, and so I had to find another way to get them to the next stage in the hunt, as none of them were quite capable of figuring it out themselves.

[Voshkod]

With a group of mature, non-munchkin players more interested in the story then in "winning," Amber works great. The problem with forum play is that you're never really certain what you're getting with your players.

I prefer the "evil Floramel" to the "evil Corwin." No one expects the evil Floramel.

[kugelblitz]

I prefer the "evil Floramel" to the "evil Corwin." No one expects the evil Floramel.

Evil Floramel? Wow. Just. Wow. I actually know a few of the people the original Princes were patterned (heh) after. Evil Corwyn isn't much of reach, actually. Evil Floramel makes me want to run some Amber just to really screw with my players though, and I am not a diceless fan as of this time.

[Voshkod]

Evil Floramel? Wow. Just. Wow. I actually know a few of the people the original Princes were patterned (heh) after. Evil Corwyn isn't much of reach, actually. Evil Floramel makes me want to run some Amber just to really screw with my players though, and I am not a diceless fan as of this time.

In most of my games, the PCs are children of the elders, so I've used evil Floramel in two different ways. Mother bear Floramel will use all of her wiles to advance her children, and destroy anyone who threatens them. Chessmistress Floramel views her children as pawns on the great Amber chessboard, some more valuable than others, but all up for sacrifice.

Either way, there's a reason Floramel ends up on the winning side, every time, and with more friends then she started with. The only Amberite I've had a hard time making evil was Random.