RPG Spoddery - Amber weirdness

[mrph]

Well, another week gone and another Monday night spent running Amber. The system weirdness is starting to show, but not at all in the way that I'd imagined.



I'm having to play fair. I'm not used to this, and it's going to make GMing interesting. I was expecting problems with the dicelessness, with rules-lawyers and Pattern, with the shakier aspects of the XP system.

But no, the first big shock is one that affects me, and the way that the GM has to behave. I'm can't justify cheating any more.

That's not cheating in an evil, nasty, anti-player sense, you understand. But I'm used to running with minimal stats for my NPCs, glossing over the numbers until I need them, then allocating whatever they need to fulfil their role in the story. In Deadlands crowd scenes, where goons have been perhaps a little too competent, I've backpedalled and decided that the late arrivals aren't quite as good as the first few who attacked our heroes.

More importantly, I do much the same with major NPCs. I don't want my darling villains killed too easily, and I don't want them slaughtering all the heroes, either. So if only three of the characters make it to the final confrontation, the villain might get discreetly weakened. Conversely, if they bring a stolen panzer tank and 300 mercenaries along, the villain's sleeve may suddenly be full of tricks. Dramatic necessity takes precedence. And the occasional "fuzzy" dice roll doesn't do any harm, either. :)

Now, back to Amber. It has an attribute ladder for stat rankings above 0 ("Amber rank" - stats below 0, "Chaos" and "Human" rank, are too low to really be of consequence...). All of the player characters are on it, as are all of the NPCs.

So if, for example, my NPC Malachi is stronger than drivenapart's character Xavier, then that's how it stands. Even if the two have never met - as long as he's clashed with another character, he'll be part of the mental pecking order the players are building up, and I can't change him without explanation. I can't play as fast-and-loose with such things as I used to.

Which means if PCs, or NPCs, get backed into corners, someone is likely to die - or, at least, to get seriously maimed. Hmm. This has implications.

Comments

I must say...

[drivenapart.livejournal.com]

...for that reason I'm particularly glad. At least we know (roughly) what we're coming up against, and know that what we've seen is pretty much what we get. From a PC point of view, although we can establish weaknesses/strengths etc, it does mean a lot more gameplaying as we've to work out methods of attack, rather than all out assault (which is what usually happens, when you're not sure what the enemy has....annihilation is more effective than trying to outthink an NPC that you don't know). From my POV, I prefer this system. Although the game is not easy to follow in terms of rules, it is easy to play, and therefore really enjoyable. More play acting needed, and therefore is V. good! Hell, I'm enjoying it!

Re: I must say...

[mrph.livejournal.com]

What you see is what you get? In Amber..? :)

Seriously, I agree. It seems to encourage much more interesting fights. I think the other factor is that there are only so many "notable" characters, so some of them will recur a lot - not much point knowing that you're better in a swordfight than, say, howling mad Doctor O'Roarke, if you only discover this by decapitating him.

You're not too likely to have a rematch - well, probably not one where that information will be useful, anyway...

And I think you're right in saying that full-on carnage (backed up by fate points and good dice rolls) is the typical response in many systems when faced by an unknown protagonist. Amber... discourages... this.

Sometimes to the point where infamous and near-unstoppable assassins decide that their most sensible course of action is in fact to duck behind a small hillock and then hope nobody notices them. :)

Re: I must say...

[drivenapart.livejournal.com]

Yep, that Lucien thing...a title for that episode from Lucien's POV:

"We came, we saw, we shit our pants and hid."

Harsh but fair.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, the GM's write-up of that session was subtitled "Cowardice as a lifestyle choice". :)