That was one of the 3 options.. the 3rd option was to restart the game on RPoL!


They are not at all removed from the Amber Rules. They just break all the powers down into more logical elements, which allows more for character development.
They are not "My House Rules".. I acknowledge all the elements from where they came from, and 3 of the contributors to the rule set ran several major Amber campaigns that lasted between 5 and 10 years through out the late 80s, 90's, and early 2000's.
The whole point with the sub-attibutes is that it's the sub-attribute that counts NOT the attribute. It makes for a significant variation in characters.
If you're not playing a "Throne War" why do you need an Auction? The characters are supposed to be co-operating, not scoring points off one another. Auction's don't work in Co-op scenarios.


Again Not my system. But the choice is yours.


That was the first option.. there were 3.


So you've applied all your pre-conceived ideas as to what an Amber campaign should be about before even playing..


I don't know.. maybe because you'd be interested in a new twist a new perspective?


It's very simple.. if you play with a massive pre-conception as to what the campaign is about then find it isn't about what you thought it was about, then you're likely to just throw your toys out the pram. So if you're not prepared to throw all your pre-conceptions away then I would concede that the campaign wouldn't be for you.


Writing websites and deriving content for them is really time consuming occupation. I update the site when I have time/need.
Those who have played on RPGCrossing will tell you that I respond for the most part on a daily basis.. it was a surprise to a number of the players who'd played in other RPG campaigns where they were lucky if the GM responded once a week. And almost all the player losses have been due to significant changes to their lives over the last 2 years which meant they no longer had time to play.


We'll with no responses it implies no interest ergo no chance of restarting .. sort of chicken and egg situation


I'm quite happy to accept everything you've said in the manner in which you intended it. Text is not always the best medium to convey intent, and can often appear harsher than was intended.

And just to note the reason for posting in Game Proposals was to actually determine if there was any interest for me running anything on RPoL.
This message was last edited by the user at 10:22, Sun 17 Apr 2022.

For both of you not knowing much or anything about Amber is not an issue..
Regular posters are more than welcome..
You don't need the original Phage Press books.. All the rules needed are one the website..

Which campaign would each of you prefer?

I note where your views differ.. I've also responded to Evileyore's post. Hopefully this addresses all the issues.

If all the issues are addressed, which campaign would you be more interested in?

The thing I like the most is the idea of 'growing into the powers'. Going through that experience of discovering the world is different to how you beleive it to be. Very few games do that.

Other than that...  really don't mind. Mark me down as 'comfortable' with whichever. I don't have a preference about a new twist. I like the original setting. I am good with different settings.

@PVP
I know PVP can be a big part of Amber games (which is why  I hardly ever end up playing them). If you are running a game... I don't do pvp. The moment actually pvps me, I leave the game. I don't mind other people PVPing of course, just not against me. If you are planning on a mainly pvp game... lots of people like them and I wish you the best: you've put a lot of effort into that website.

@Your rules
I did look at the rules a little more. Every GM should do their own house rules! The rules should reflect the game the GM wants to run. It's nice that you have written them down.

I see we finally got some traction  -  then slippage, then traction again....  -  over here.

When I first mentioned you try RPol, it was because I *knew* there was an Amber community here.

I also suggested it because I knew that RPol was designed specifically, and effectively, for this style of game, and that I, personally, like it here for that reason.

I echo the preference for creating my own, original character, but you already knew that.  :-)

I'm "Ok" with a housing a few rules.  I assume that if they then seem to not be quite working that you'd be open to rescinding them?

I don't mind "Zero to Hero" character development in Amber once in a while.  In fact, one of my concepts is almost exactly that.

I hope these comments have given you both insight and inspiration and, even including the constructive criticism, some hope.

I'll be continuing to watch the progress here, and keeping an eye on the "New Games."  :-)

You can be as original as you like within the starting constraints for each of the 2 campaigns..
One is more constrained than the other..


As I said these are not my "house rules". They are an modification for the Netbook of Amber, which was a stratification/codification of the original Phage press rules into something more cohesive.
As I also said they formed the basis for a significant number of campaigns, and I believe one shots at various Amber Cons during the late 80's, 90's and early 2000's.
I do adapt or change elements if they don't work or if somebody gives me a good idea, which is why I rewrote the Trump rules for the RPGCrossing campaign because one player came to me with a really good idea as to why diorama/statuette Trumps should be a basic concept. These trumps work slightly differently to "card" trumps but they adhere to the same principle.
It's also why a number of "new" Trump tricks exist.. they simply quantify an ability to use Trump without needing Trump Artistry, and even in the the books not everybody can use Trump to the same degree or at all.
I've also added some new concepts in terms of powers because somebody has wanted to do something not in the original rule set or because it's just not present in the original rule set, although some of these are still work in progress and subject to change.


It's a good twist and in respect of introducing new players to Amber sort of necessary..


Until I have a definitive idea as to which campaign people would prefer, and for complete Newbies to Amber the AiRP campaign is the better option, I can't create a new game.. or are you suggesting I post in "Looking for Players"? I thought this board served sort of the same purpose in determining whether there was enough interest for a game to fly?

 To be clear, in case it wasn't, I'm interested, but haven't listened to everything on the website you've linked to. I have no opinion on the house rules, because I've never encountered the original rules to Amber the game in the first place.

It sounds interesting enough, and if some house rules have to be altered a little during game play, I'm fine with that, because I've played games where that was required.

Someone mentioned player versus player as a possibility. I have some  concerns on how that will play out, but I'm not totally against it either.

Hope this helps some. I'll listen to more later today.

Just looking at the number of different people responding just in this thread would suggest that there might already be enough players interested in a game.

My suggestions?

Use the non-standard ("House") rules, and just make sure it's clear up front.  New players won't care, or know the difference, and everyone else will be aware of them moving forward.

Use your existing notes and world design  - of whichever game *you'd* like to run, and post it here, in Rpol.net, then advertise under "Players Wanted."

Let people create their own characters  -  at whatever power/knowledge level you'd like to begin the game.  As long as it's up front, I don't think anyone will have an issue with it.


I feel like we all may be overthinking this a little.  If you've got a solid concept for your world, and already have the key elements (basic plot, how the Shadows and Powers work in your concept, how the OG books figure into it and whether or not *those* characters are relevant to the game, and how) worked out   -  which it sounds like you do  -  then the rest is just finding the players...which seems to be off to a good start.


If I've made any inaccurate assumptions in here, I apologize....

No, I think you've pretty much nailed it..

I'll post something in "Looking for players" later.. and as we appear to have some complete Amber novices, which from my perspective is really good as it's a game that in the last 15 years has been consistently overlooked, I think I'm going to opt for the Adventures in RolePlay" (AiRP) campaign if if it's more proscribed in terms of character creation.

In reply to Larson Gates (msg # 16):

For what it's worth, this post has me reading Nine Princes in Amber for the first time ;)

Woo!  *Always* a good read!

"Then the fogs were slowly broken, and some of that which is called memory
returned to me. I recalled nights and nurses and needles. Every time things
would begin to clear a bit, someone would come in and jab me with something.
That's how it had been. Yes. Now, though, I was feeling halfway decent. They'd
have to stop.
Wouldn't they?
The thought came to assail me: Maybe not."

Love it!

Look at how old it is. It is absolutely dripping with ideas that were new at the time, and are still relevant.  Zelazny was a great author. Lord of Light is one of my very favourites and NIne princes in amber is good

@ Larson Gates, you never responded to Siran's question here.  Are you envisioning a less "PvP" centric game, or are you embracing the "free-for-all backstabbery" mindset Amber usually endorses.

Note, you can probably have both.  I was just in an Amber game (that died right after Auction so I never got to see how well this would work out), and we had a pair of Players who were leery of the PvP of Amber (in all the games I've been in I've never seen a PC kill another PC despite Amber's PvP rep, so there is that), so we agreed as a group, those who wanted to go all in, 'flagged' themselves PvP.  The PvErs flgged PvE, with the proviso, if they were accidentally stepped on (it can happen) they'd respond first OOCl;y to give the stepping Player the ability to redirect and move away from stepping on their stuff.  The PvErs would also try to stay away from anything labeled "contentious", in that game's case "Throne War" elements and would avoid stomping on other Player's stuff.  They'd also give advanced warning before they decided to go PvP, if they should make that decision.





We'll have to agree to disagree.  Zelazny was an amazing wordsmith, on that I'll agree though.

Yes.  My point was; "You didn't get traction because you made 'play on RPoL' your last option in a 'play elsewhere' forum".  I was just pointing out the reason no may have bothered, a) Offsite forum, b) last option was to remain here, c) [for me anyway] the last option came after a load of "yeah, I'm not seeing a reason to show interest, despite always being interested in Amber".

I mean I can count on one hand the number of Amber campaigns that have cropped up on RPoL that I've avoided and have fingers remaining, and they either had really off-putting setups and onerous expectations, or a GM that I just couldn't find common ground with in a previous game, or the "read these last six years of posts and take over this character".


Sub-attributes and Mundane Skills that have to have points in them.  Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea, and might fix some issues I've had with Amber over the years, but it also plays merry with one of the pillars of Amber, that is, you might not know what skills you've got until you go try.  Sometimes it's fun to decide on the spot if your PC ever learned to lockpick the "mundane way" (or if they've ever encountered modern locks) rather than deciding in advance by spending points on a skill.  It's one of Amber's narrative charms that I appreciate (but yes, it can be abused hence why I sometimes have issues with it).


They are the rules you're using in your 'house', so even if you didn't design them, you chose them.  They're your House Rules.

[SIDERANT] Every GM, no matter how "true to RAW" they hew, has interpretations and rulings they've made that are "unique" to their table, so every GM has House Rules, even if they don't recognize it. [/SIDERANT]  ;)


Then why are we bidding on the Super Attribute?  Should we not be bidding on the Sub-Attributes directly and tossing the Super Attributes aside (no, no I didn't read the rules thoroughly enough to grasp why if that is actually pointed out in there).


And as someone who has run Amber using the GURPS system, I definitely appreciate it, and I almost think the Sub-Attributes might be the perfect way and amount (I'll have to play with them to be sure).


An excellent question that reveals your mindset more fully than you might realize.  Because Amber, at it's core, is about strife.  "Chaos vs Amber†", "A Family Divided", "The Sudden But Inevitable Betrayal", "Power Struggles", etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good team-up, as playing Brand is my brand here, I love the Red-Headed League, I love the "Sibling Team-Up" that I've had in a few games and the "We Hated Each Other But Now We're Besties" I've pulled off in others.

But at the core of the game is the social-political struggle, the borked family, the dysfunctional unit.  The idea of "can you really, really, really trust them?" that goes on, that subtle tension, the notion that your allies have hidden motives and may be moving against you for very good reasons.


† A lot of GMs like to express "Amber=Order", which isn't exactly accurate.  Amber=Patterns, THE Pattern, but also "old people set in their ways maintaining the status quo locked into age old struggles they can completely neither win nor properly stop fighting" and the PCs usually represent "a new way forward".


See above, they can work just fine to put a bit of the "unknown" into the mix.  Also you can end up with separate groups that are tightly knit within their group and loosely allied to the other groups who might also be working at cross purposes.

A lot of Amber players find Amber is that PvP game they love, the edge that hones itself against the other edges, so to speak.  Instead of playing yet another "Five Man Band" co-op game, Amber works "best" with more Players in a looser structure.


Yes.  Your first choice.  As a potential Player that tells me where your preferences lay, and the third option was third for a reason as well.  It's one of the reasons I bounced off the other thread.


Yes, as everyone does.  It's Amber, so I show up with my Amber expectations on, not my "Back to the Dungeon" D&D expectations, or my "007 Action Spy" expectations.


You were saying "Trust me, I know what I'm doing!" right in the middle of a pile of red flags.  All I'm doing here is pointing them out to you.  Don't take my posts here as "you and yer game sux" but as "These are maybe problem spots to hone in on for next time you post cold to a new place".


So are you running an "investigative ancient horror no one gets out alive" game?  Ala, Call of Cthulhu?  See what I'm saying?  You chose Amber, Amber DRPG has some structures and genre "realities" baked into it.  Those can be removed, and are removed in other treatments like "Lords Of Gossamer And Shadow", "Lords of Olympus", and my own LARP treatment using ADRPG, "The Great Game".  But if I'm running those games, which are very much using the Amber DRPG rules, I wouldn't advertise as Amber DRPG.

And you kinda didn't, you advertised† as running your own campaign, but I don't have the time to go figure out what that campaign is and you aren't saying† (you're being coy, which works if you've got street cred with the group you're pitching to, but coy doesn't work when no one knows who you are).


†  You did a fine job int he Wanted Players thread laying out what you're aiming at, I posted there with some direct follow-up questions.


I know, I did it in the way early 00s, before xml was even a thing.  Also why I said, "Your site looks fine".  It works, it's intuitive to use, etc, it's fine.  I geuss maybe say "Hey, I between running a game and life I don;t have time to update this site, sorry", that way people will know you think you could od a better job on the site, and you place running your game over that?  I don't know man, it was my perception that you were busy-busy and thus might be yet one of the many GMs who bow out within a month or two because "busyness" interfered.


Now, that is something you should advertise.  Also your expectations from the Players.  Do you want daily posting?  Do you require daily or at least every other day posting rates?  Or is this going to launch off and we'll need to log in every hour to keep up? (I've been in those, can't do it now unfortunately.)


Something else you should probably advertise, "It was a multi-year game that lost players due to Real Life™ changes" plays really well in this crowd.


This is definitely the right place for it.

In reply to evileeyore (msg # 20):

As an aside, and in what I would consider a viable solution:

Every Amber game I've ever been in where two players came into contested contact  -  the Players worked out most of the engagement via PM prior to writing it up, except for what elements the GM needed to adjudicate.  Not scripting out the entire thing, but taking it step by step, and writing the encounter *together.*

Example:  One interaction one of my characters had involved being surprised -  in a non-combative way  -  by another player.  She was caught off guard, and I PM'd the other player, saying "this is how I envision her reacting, and it's not likely to go well for you.  How would you like to handle this?  What's allowable, what's off the table, and how can we resolve this while both keeping it true to our characters AND crafting an interesting scene to read?"

Result?  I snapped his leg, with his permission, then in guilt took him back to my keep and nursed him back to health.  Many great discussions and more than a few important character secrets where revealed during those few months  -  all because we *managaged* our PVP like adults.

That, given the choice, is the option I would choose.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:12, Mon 18 Apr 2022.

That sounds like a really cool idea, if the GM is on board with it.  It could work in any free form type game.

I'll change my 'I don't do PVP' to 'I don't do non-consenual PVP'.  I don't have a problem with the way Onstaati described it. I hope to minimise it of course...

I'm not envisioning a "Throne War Scenario", but I'm also not prohibiting PvP if people want to engage in it.

There is a chance however, depending on the situation, that one or more of the NPCs may intervene, especially in the early days..
I did have an incident early in the campaign when I ran it as a FtF campaign, where one player tried to use power words on another. It didn't work but the prime NPC did notice, and warned the character in question about doing so. It just added another interesting dynamic to that relationship.

Given that none of the players will know one another, and depending on who their parent(s) are, and what they may or may not know of them and/or other things, trust will be a commodity that the characters will need to earn. So that element of "traditional" Amber will be present to one degree or another, especially early in the game. There are also other circumstances where characters are likely to have significantly differing opinions on things, which they will have to resolve to get things done.

People are just going to have to trust me on a lot of things.. I have lots of things up my sleeves other than Armies..

And I'm all for players working stuff out amongst themselves, either in public or private threads..
Other than creating lots of private threads I do need to work out the equivalent of [secret=character list] some text[/secret]
This message was last edited by the user at 17:27, Mon 18 Apr 2022.

All sounds great. Looking forwards to it

I don't know anything about Amber the RPG, but I read the first five books when they came out in the 1970's and they were awesome.

That was a great decade for fantasy. In addition to Zelazny, you had Piers Anthony, Terry Brooks, Stephen R. Donaldson, Madeleine L'Engle, Fritz Lieber, Michael Moorcock, and countless others producing really great stuff. (Different genre, but you could also add Anne Rice to that list.) And of course you had the birth of D&D as well. What a time to be young!

I'd be tempted to give the game a try but I'm not sure if the old dog can learn new tricks.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:42, Tue 19 Apr 2022.

I suppose I should mention that the UK finally has a legitimate ebook of the first five novels, with the second series coming in August.  Published as The Chronicles of Amber and The Second Chronicles of Amber, respectively under the SF Masterworks label.

You never know until you try..

In reply to Larson Gates (msg # 29):

Hey- I'm willing to give it a try if you don't come up with a full group of experienced players and are willing to take on a newbie. And I'm not afraid of homework, so I'll go ahead and start reading up on the azer website.

As a general rule the Amber community of oldsters is always super welcoming to newbies.  Can't make you ONE OF US if you don't start playing...

With this many posts in the thread, it should be clear by now whether or not there is sufficient interest in this idea to warrant moving on to creating a game based on it.

Please save all further discussion for the game itself, created by Larson Gates, and linked to in the post immediately following this one.

Thank you.