Thinking of Amber

[benlehman]

I was thinking about Erick this afternoon and thus, to avoid getting mired in sadness, I started to think about Amber and TMNT, those places that I can still communicate with him.

I really loved running Amber in HS. My games had an intense, focused, hard-core adolescent energy that I haven't been able to recapture since (using Amber or anything else). Ultimately, this comes down to the fact that I'm not 15 anymore, and my friends aren't 15 anymore either. It's a good thing.

But I'm thinking about ways to approach Amber as an adult, particularly an adult who really doesn't have the physical or mental fortitude to GM like that anymore (High School, I had the luxury of drifting through. Grad School not so much.)

But I also don't particularly care to "do Amber" with a different system. Amber is Amber. Please don't turn the comment thread in recommendations for such.

So here's my thought: One of the big stresses of the Amber GM is figuring out how each attribute works, and how each power works, and what beats what else. Here's my idea: what if the highest character in each attribute gets to adjudicate how that attribute works in contests?

So, for instance, if the character with 1st in Strength decides that Strength is all about being a big, huge dude, successful strength contests are going to be about throwing boulders at each other (correspondingly, if he had a different approach, it might be about grappling and pressure points.) If the guy who's big into warfare thinks that a single good solider is all it takes, you're going to have a lot champion challenges (whereas if he pursues a different approach, you'll have bold champions getting punked by a couple of archers). Etc, etc.

Not only is this a cool reward for taking the high spot in the bidding, it also takes a huge load off the GM.

If you use Yi-mei's husband's "bid for powers" rules, you could also have Pattern, Trump, and Chaos work this way.

Thoughts?

P.S. Yes, yes, Corwin beat Benedict in a duel. But, seriously, there's totally room in this for a top-ranked player to say to a cleverer opponent "Heck. You beat me on my own terms. Good show."

P.P.S. This also gives an informational advantage. Which is awesome.

Comments

[evilmagnus]

If you use Yi-mei's "bid for powers" rules, you could also have Pattern, Trump, and Chaos work this way.

Hey. ;)

Anyway. User-arbitrated Attributes sounds interesting - you'd have to have them nail down what they meant (write it down, basically) whenever they added more detail to their particular interpretation.

But isn't this mucking with 'Amber is Amber'? Where do you draw the line - re-defining Attributes, introducing new bidding rounds or rules, re-defining powers... heck, the thing that made Amber awesome for me, when I was in high school, was the novelty of diceless combined with the fact that the PCs were powerful - truly powerful - right out the gate. It's hard to re-capture that particular high now, although Dogs came pretty close, with SotC snapping at it's heels.

So, if Amber is Amber, what is it that makes it Amber? My list would look something like this:
- The setting (and character concepts that entails)
- The adversarial (and fragmented) parties
- Bidding during chargen
- Diceless. Or at least using something other than 'roll d20 to hit'.
- Weird concepts for games. I'm thinking of stuff you get at the various AmberCons here. Heck, cochese runs one set in the 100 Acre Wood.

My advice would be to draw up your own list of what Amber is to you, then put everything else on the table. The end result will probably be pretty close to your high school escapades. :)

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Oh, was that your hack? Well, you're credited for it in the comments, at least :D

I'm not sure whether you'd need things in writing or not. It would interesting if it was a thing that other people had to explore. Of course, they could learn by watching how the prime attribute people did things. This does rely on the prime attribute people being honest, but, eh. I'm generally in a habit of playing with people I consider honestly.

As for "what is Amber, really?" I mostly just like the whole book itself, and don't want to replace it with something else. Generally, I'm thinking that I'd want a few ways to take stress off the GM, in terms of running the game.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. Really, I just didn't want "oh, here's my hack for using Dogs to run Amber!" I don't give a fuck about your (the general you, here, not you specifically) hack for using Dogs to run Amber. I really, really don't. Were I to want another game system to use for the setting, I imagine I would be more than capable of producing it on my own (cf Polaris).

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

There. You're credited. Happy now?

[evilmagnus]

I am never happy. I was Emo before the letter 'e' was invented.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

imo, then?

[tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com]

Interesting... so, essentially, the high-bidder in each attribute or power becomes the "GM" for that arena of conflict? I like it, although it ups the already precarious everything-rides-on-social-contract nature of ADRPG to a new order of magnitude. Ideally, you'd bid for *everything* under a system like that - affiliations, power sources, maybe even pre-defined cabals - and have truly GM-ful ADRPG. Could be neat!

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Well, no, because the GM still has to handle the intersections of what-trumps-what when and also have a situation and antagonists and so on and so forth. More like the GM gets 4 (or 7, if you include the Powers) assistants for different arenas of conflict.

[tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com]

True, but it *would* infuse a lot more distribution of authority. I've actually known a few ADRPG GMs who did something similar, although they kept the player/GM line inviolate: having assistant GMs to handle particular kinds of adjudication that they either didn't enjoy or didn't feel confident with.

I don't see ADRPG as workable at the far end of the GM-less spectrum, but co-GM-ing could be taken a lot further than it usually is.

[buddha-davis.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea! Is there any prize for being 2nd and 3rd ranked? or are you thinking it's purely a top dog thing? Anyway, I've got a few thoughts:

1) How will this affect Endurance? If I remember correctly, Endurance was the tie-breaker stat. If Endurance is defined differently, it may not work the same way as tie-breaker (which is totally cool, just thinking out loud). Basically, any Stat might be usable to change the tide of a conflict... like, If you've got a slight edge in Warfare over me, and we're locked corps-a-corps, I can say, "I'm locking you in place with my steely gaze and crushing your will to fight with my Psyche". Provided I beat your Psyche and the Psyche high bidder has allowed this kind of thing, I could win or at least gain an edge in the fight.

2) Following on from that thought, what do you do when someone brings in an idea that might fall under a Stat, but the high bidder hasn't said that is covered? Like if Strength is all about being huge, how do we resolve a grappling and pressure points guy?

3) Would there be any way to bride the high bidder? Like if I'm in a conflict with another player, and we're both using our Warfare, which has been defined as "One Man Army Corps", but I've got 30 guys on my side, and the high bidder isn't involved, could I slip them a few points and say, "But when you're severely outnumbered, even one man can only do so much... Right?", and they would say Yea (and take my points) or Nay (and refuse them), or only in this one case (and let me bargain a bit)... But it goes down on the tracking sheet as part of the high bidder's definition?

Anyway, just some thoughts!

[buddha-davis.livejournal.com]

Ahem... I meant bribe the high bidder... not marry them. Oy.