« FATE Goes OGL | Main | Forge Birthday Thread of the Week: Yo Mama »
April 05, 2005
Guardians of Order Amber Diceless Forum 2005
As last year, Mark MacKinnon of Guardians of Order held an open forum at AmberCon to discuss the developing plans for the ADRP. In the interest of keeping interested parties informed, I kept some notes and pass them on here. This forum was held starting at 9:30 on Sunday, April 3rd, 2005.
Errors in these notes are mine, as are many of the interpretations of general response to ideas. None of this should be taken as anything even slightly like "official announcements" from Guardians of Order. Those will come through more official channels.
Mark McKinnon speaking and moderating discussion. Notes taken by Jack "The Ghoul" Gulick.
Company Information over the last year... US Exchange Rate troubles & overall RPG industry sales slump continue. Staff is now 100% freelance (Guardians of Order itself is now Mark alone). More books than ever in process (20) as of 1994 YE, however. Current focus is getting books out. Early-2005 public campaign was quite successful in generating purchases and support, and has gotten the company stable until the summer con period, which will bring out Game of Thrones and BESM 3rd Edition (Tékumel - Empire of the Petal Throne and Dreaming Cities were both on-hand at the GoO table, along with the BESM Card Game). Much of the future hinges on success of GoT and BESM3 producing good sales to anchor the company and prove that "big releases" are still viable as a business plan. GoO will likely stay a one-person company indefinitely, to keep fixed costs down, however, unless things change very significantly.
All this may all actually help Amber, because its probable sales volume is a perfect fit for a small company needing regular (if low) income working on a fun project; less of a fit for a growing company needing "hit" games. Mark clearly re-affirmed his love and enthusiasm for Amber.
The ADRP deal with Wujick is completed (Amberzine 12 and the "Gott würfelt nicht" t-shirts excepted). AZ12 is HUGE and will be available exclusively from Phage thru May, then GoO & Phage for a while, then eventually all GoO.
Zelazney Estate negotiations still moving slowly. Contact has been made, but no terms discussed. How all of this interacts with the existing license held by Phage being transfered to ADPR is complicated. The same agent is involved as for Game of Thrones, so there is at least a familiarity in contact.
2006 AmberCon is the current target for real progress to be seen, and expect no news at all until the Con season passes.
ADRP will not be as innovative as it once was ever again. Naturally, you can't be the first Diceless game twice. The GoO focus will not be on being revolutionary and new, it will be on quality and Amber-canon-loyalty. Diceless will remain a core. Being too "Alternative" shrinks your market, however. Amber as-is (with small clean-up changes) could be a game for "them" (the newcomer to the scene). A similar game for "us" (those already familiar with ADRP and how to fiddle with it) would need to be new and modified, or better yet modifiable. As was floated in 2004, the rollout plan is for an Initial book for "them" and follow-up companion book for "us".
Diceless & four-stats are the basis of ADRP. "Advanced" game-play is inherent in things, but "Advanced" has moved forward a lot since 1989. Many players are ready for what the original ADRP had to carefully lead them into.
Mark is accepting ADRP sales in the low thousands as his assumed model. Line after the initial two volumes is still in the vaguest of plan stages, but the volume of sales will control this.
Items and Magic rules will likely change, probably loosen. Other Powers and Elders will be "dialed back" to closer to the books. Benedict doesn't randomly parry invisible attackers all the time. The Hulk could beat Gerard. Two people can lift a car (though perhaps with a bit more effort than it takes Corwin and Random); that isn't evidence they are superheroes. All the Advanced Powers and "known secrets" are a problem. How they will be fixed is still open to work.
6-9 month gap for the "companion" book (Amber Companion is working title). Of course, sales of the base volume will affect this some, but that may just be the time needed.
Color first print; B&W reprint possible. HC almost certain. MIGHT be B&W always. A $30-$35 core book, which B&W would allow, might make a bigger sales splash. The target of such a strategy would be to expand market by low buy-in cost.
Lots of variations discussed, as Mark opened up to the floor for comments.
Cover will be critical... No unidentifiable tentacled cyborg thing despite 20k sales of original edition with just that.
Basic book will be "resource book" as well as gaming rules; the Amber background info will be presented in detail.
There will be no d20 / ADRP combined content in one book.
Votes taken on the following matters, at Mark's suggestion... Nothing binding, of course, but a sampling of the wishes of the AmberCon attendees (or the roughly 30 in the forum, at least)
Stats should stay as-is (redescribed and rescaled but no 5th stat, no elimination).
Powers should be mostly as-is (perhaps with partial breakdowns made available, perhaps with advanced powers vagued up a bit)
Items perhaps less mechanical but must be systematic in base; perhaps expanded in the Companion.
Magic perhaps progressive (power words to sorcery to conjuration), a multi-stage sort of basic/advanced power, and perhaps a bit less dry and mechanical (though Mark did point out that the system is just what Merlin tells us magic works like... not that this makes it a good game mechanic).
Elders massive power or closer to starting player level? Playing the Elders, Playing Kids, Playing Alternate Elders or Playing Elder-Level characters as the Base? Crowd was quite split.
Narrative knacks for small cost seem popular. Perhaps as attribute specialties, perhaps as independent "minor powers". Some way to pick locks without being a master swordsman appeals to many.
Multiple write-ups of each Elder probably stays; one-true-rules system, perhaps, but tying dow the Elders is trickier.
Auction vs. Point Buy as "one true system"? Possibly both (an exception to the "one true way" rules idea), as both have advantages.
Mark's objective is for a First Series Vibe. Merlin-esque stuff (wilder powers, talking/singing/dancing Pattern and Logrus, etc.) for the future (Companion or later volumes).
The start of the 11 AM game slot ended further conversation.
Comments
I'm glad you took notes. I intended to come down and do it, but I was just not up to it after Saturday night's game (which was good, but wore me out). The word is about what I expected, though.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Apr 5, 2005 5:28:28 PM
Thanks for taking notes! I have to admit that my interpetation of some of the things said were different but that was basically it.
Stats should stay as-is (redescribed and rescaled but no 5th stat, no elimination).
Actually the vote was whether it should remain with basically four stats, not the stats as-is. He originally said "as-is" and I did not raise my hand, (since I despise Warfare covering Tactics and hand to hand and the Endurance attribute is used so little). He then changed it to say that he was not asking if the stats should be the same stats but if it should stay with basically four stats covering these kinds of things even if they are changes somewhat. To that, I raised my hand.
Posted by: Nuadha at Apr 5, 2005 5:44:33 PM
I regret missing it as well and putting in my two cents in, but you have come through in the clutch, Mr. Gulick. Thank you!
(And thanks for the chat on Sin City and stuff early Friday Morning)
Posted by: Paul at Apr 5, 2005 5:53:22 PM
Nuadha, your memory agrees with mine. The voted issue was specifically limited to changing the number of stats. Changing their meaning was open (in fact, Mark had even said as much was on the table, and added more with the narrative knacks concept a couple minutes later), though I didn't interpret it quite as broadly as you seem to have done.
Posted by: Ghoul at Apr 5, 2005 5:56:26 PM
Thanks for this news. Sounds promising, except for the slowness of the Zelazny Estate negotiations.
Posted by: Arref at Apr 5, 2005 7:00:17 PM
Its so nice to see some movement on the game, even if it is just unofficial news. It'll be interesting to see what finally gets in print. Thanks for taking the notes.
Posted by: Garvey at Apr 5, 2005 10:39:02 PM
I put some of my own notes and recollections up on the Guardians of Order online forum. It is interesting to see where my bias and Jack's disagree, and I completely missed the change to the attributes vote.
http://www.guardiansorder.com/boards/showthread.php?t=4085
Posted by: David Blackwell at Apr 6, 2005 12:10:18 PM
Forwarded this to RPG.net
Thanks for the notes !
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=184033
Posted by: Yoric at Apr 6, 2005 1:43:59 PM
Btw, where can I get these "Gott würfelt nicht" T-Shirts ?
Posted by: Yoric at Apr 6, 2005 1:45:02 PM
Yoric: So far as I know, right now it is not available anywhere. Or, at least, I could not find it on the Phage website.
Posted by: Ghoul at Apr 6, 2005 3:22:57 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure about the value of supplemental material beyond the basic book. Most of the veteran Amber players I know really couldn't care much about new material. They're more than capable of fending for themselves and seem to thrive on it. They might buy the later volume, but as reading material rather than to use in an actual game.
It is good to see that the system will be revamped a bit, and that the basic material will come back into print. I've got to agree that if they keep the 4-stat system, they should change the stats.
Posted by: Lee Short at Apr 8, 2005 8:45:49 AM
I have to say I find it odd that people would even consider dropping the attribute auction. To me it's one of the major features of the game. I think the whole 'interactive' character generation system, including the 20 questions bit, just shows what a fun _group_ activity designing characters can be. I also love the fact that the scheming, competitive theme and mood of the game can be established so seamlessly into the opening stages of a campaign.
I wouldn't like a 'point buy' system because it destroys that initial group dynamic, is unoriginal (just like GURPS) and doesn't really account for the fact that attributes aren't rated on an interval scale in Amber. They are rated on an /ordinal/ scale (i.e they are _ranked_).
I do think that the attributes should be changed a bit however, as the last set did look a bit disjointed together.
If they do a new set they must ensure that the aren't too abstract as they should represent something specific that characters can be ranked in. So maybe the four could be paired as Psyche and Physicality, Strategy and Luck?
Essentially this means squashing Strength and Endurance into 'Physicality', with 'Warfare' becoming 'Strategy' and Good stuff/Bad stuff becoming simply 'Luck'. Mental endurance would also be integrated as part of Psyche's domain. If you get my jist, 'Physicality' kinda equates to the Body, 'Strategy' to the mind, and 'Psyche' to the soul. In a sense you are just cutting back on a stat (endurance).
'Luck' could also be used as an initiative stat as well as replacing Good stuff/Bad stuff but I'd still have it kept on a negative/positive scale to balance out point spending and allow for the easy identification of 'good luck' and 'bad luck'.
Still, they're just my thoughts, and I do like the suggestion of more specific rules for modifiers.
Posted by: TrippyHippy at Apr 8, 2005 6:13:54 PM
Just wanted to thank you for posting this. I haven't played in an Amber game in the better part of a decade, but what GoO are thinking of seems quite interesting and I suspect I will find myself purchasing it.
Thanks again for keeping the Amber Community (inasmuch as I can claim to be part of it) informed about this.
Posted by: Robert at Apr 15, 2005 10:37:42 PM
About the attribute auction -- IME, this is fabulous for larger games, or if most or all of the action in the game pits the PCs against each other or potentially does so. But it often doesn't work so well for smaller games, especially if the game pits the PCs largely against external opposition.
BTW, another one of the key things that the auction does is to establish what the PCs know about each other.
Posted by: Lee Short at Apr 18, 2005 11:03:25 AM
As has been suggested elsewhere: in the same way that three versions of each Elder are presented, it would be wonderful to see three versions of starting a new game/campaign.
Auction would be one method.
Posted by: Arref at May 2, 2005 11:30:58 AM
I wanted to say that, be true to to novels, and everything will fall into place...
Posted by: Paul at Mar 28, 2006 4:23:37 PM
Apologies in advance: a long post, 'cos I included reasoning, not just the system.
The Auction: a new methodology avoiding high-bid auction-wrecking and promoting suitable secrecy. I haven't tried it on a *large* group but the design should work there too. Crtainly was designed to work there, quickly too. I put in a my ability increase rules as the post-auction points increase step obeys those rules.
Bid concepts:
1) Ensure high ranks cost something worth being called "nth rank"
2) Allow for greater secrecy. But make it difficult. Secrecy is always difficult.
3) One player cannot stop the entire bidding process
4) Keep the ranks sufficiently well separated and quantised to avoid silly fragmentation
5) No half ranks in abilities: limits on bidding removes the need for these
6) Nobody really knows their rank. Only the GM does.
Implementation:
Concept 4:
All bids (and future increases through experience) must be in multiples of 5 points.
Concept 1:
There is defined a 'base list' of attribute bids. If nobody bids as high as 20, then so be it: some non-elder NPC 'out there' will be rank 1.
1st = 20; 2nd = 15; 3rd = 10; 4th = 5
Concept 2:
Players give the GM their secret bids for the current attribute: GM determines initial top 4 ranks (including the base values). Who has them is not announced. Thus at his point, nobody knows anything about anyone else, only what the top ranks are.
Note: if you don't limit bids to 5-point multiples, then bidding to equal a base list value will help keep your own bid that much more secret, as nobody knows if that was a list or a player bid.
Depending on how the bidding goes, a secret bid may or may not become evident due to other players' bids on a particular attribute.
Concept 3: the auction
In turn, each player may bid above their current bid or pass. Once the bidding gets back to the start player, the GM announces the current top 4 rank values. The bidding keeps going around in this manner until everyone agrees to stop bidding on this attribute.
Then onto the next attribute.
Alternatives:
Players make their initial secret bids to the GM for *all* attributes before starting any attribute auction.
Randomise the attribute auction order (not necessarily psi - str - end - war)
No attribute order: on each player's bidding turn, they can bid or pass on none/some/all of their attributes. Bidding stops when all players agree to stop all bidding.
Post auction increase bids (Concept 6)
Treat this just like a experience advancement just prior to the game session: i.e. max of +5 points from your auction score, limited to a max increase of 1 rank.
The GM will have to determine ranks once all post-auction attributes are in and accepted.
Post auction selling down:
If you bid zero, you can sell down after the auction to get points for powers, items and 'stuff if you want.
Concept 5: Ability advancement and removing half ranks.
Note: limiting attributes to multiples of 5 points stops the ranking getting very fragmented: this is *very* advisable
The only way to keep another player from equalling your rank through advancement will be to keep getting better yourself.
If rank one, you just add points to your score.
If you are ranked below 1st, then your maximum increase is to the next highest rank
If you are human/chaos, you can increase to the next level by spending the appropriate number of points (if the GM thinks it reasonable).
Once all attribute increases are made, the GM must sort out the new current ranks (which may or may not have changed)
If you still want to use half ranks, treat them as ranks in their own right. i.e. one increase (zero cost) from 3.5 to 3. then another from 3 to 2.5 etc.
Posted by: whitter at Jun 1, 2006 7:27:48 PM
