The Basics
The game is Amber Diceless.  Starting set of players and their characters:
A.  -  playing Sarevok, son of Gerard. 
C.  -  playing Edwin, Knight Protector of Arden
E.  -  playing Constantine, son of Eric
H.  -  playing Drago (the magnificent!), Seneschal of Castle Amber
P.  -  playing Valentine, son of Benedict

We have since been joined by
J.  -  playing Fabrizio, the wanderer

I have played with A., C., and H. extensively, although not for a few years due to geographic difficulties.  I have gamed with E. and P. a couple of times, and know them socially reasonably well.  J. joined the group after I left town, and I don’t know him very well.

This game is the first I’ve run since getting into Forge theory, games and playstyles.  It’s been interesting.

The game is being played on a PHPBB system.  This has had some pros and some cons.
Pros:

• It allows me to keep a great play log.  Want to know exactly what happened in that battle?  Just look back at the thread!
• It also permits extended private conversations without breaking the flow of the game.
• E. and I can game with the other players despite living far away.

Cons:

• It takes much longer to get anything done.  Right now we’re averaging something like one day of time passing in Amber for about a month here on Shadow Earth.  I feel like the tagline for the campaign should be "Story. . . when?"
• It’s difficult to pick up on nonverbal cues, since the only real feedback I get from the players is typed.
• I’m fairly certain that there’s at least one player who is somewhat uncomfortable with the play medium.  Although some of the others have taken to it like fish to water.

Open vs. Private
One thing I’ve been struggling with is to keep the game in the open.  The players like to keep secrets, as is encouraged by the game text.  This is fine with me, the potential for PC vs. PC antagonism is one of the reasons we chose this system.  BUT I’ve been gently trying to encourage more openness about this sort of thing, Author stance, and a willingness to hose ones own character.  We’ll see how this unfolds as the schemes of the player characters begin to come to fruition.

Player Input and Director Stance.
The bulletin board format has necessitated a change in the way dialogue is handled.  A normal conversation between a PC and an NPC is usually short (1 or 2 sentences) bursts of speech back and forth.  Instead, to speed things up, it has been large blocks of text back and forth.
PC:  “A.  B and C.  Also X and Y.”
NPC:  “Response to A.  You are wrong about B.  Response to C and X.  Don’t worry about Y.”
It’s not at all like real speech, but it serves the purpose of communication and helps the game move along a little bit.

Something else that has sprung out of the necessity for speed, and which I have flat out encouraged, is player use of Director Stance.  A couple of quotes from the game:

H. wrote: Hey James, hope you don’t mind me making up and running the head daytime butler for an encounter with Fabrizio.

I responded:

Not at all, my dear boy.  That's perfect.  The way I see it, the castle staff are pretty much your province as much as they are mine.  C. can make up rangers if he wants as well.

H. has since gone on to include several servants directly in his posts, and C. has likewise done the same with his rangers.  The game has just generally involved much more director stance than our face to face games ever did.  Players have gone right ahead and narrated the way NPCs (even important ones) react to their actions, and it is working beautifully!

Player Flags
I started an ongoing commentary/kibitzing thread as an attempt to gauge player reactions to events and get an idea what elements they were and weren’t liking.  This has been somewhat successful, and has produced at least two solid statements that I would consider Flags.  Here they are, with my responses.

H. wrote: Dude, no way I'm going to hose my character by killing anyone. Besides, murder isn't Drago's style. Lucas is still alive.

Man, that just makes me want to see what will drive Drago to murder. Test how deeply his stated 'style' goes.

On the burning of Forest Arden for defensive purposes:

C. wrote: It might be a good idea, but Edwin will never have a part in it.

Oh Man! There's another one! "Please, Mr. Merchant of Dea. . . Uh. . . Gamemaster, I have made a clear statement of my character's priorities. Challenge them!"

Aye, Aye! Loud and clear laddie!

Yarrr!

I mean, C.’s statement might as well be “Belief:  Arden will never burn by my hand.”  I’m going to try asking for a sample cool scene from each player, just to see what they come up with.

System Problems
Too little conflict:
One problem I’ve had is that there’s very little conflict so far.  I’ve used the Karma based resolution system less than five times.  One reason is that there’s no direct involvement of the actual player in an instance of resolution.  I just come up with a decision, and steer the narration toward it.  Another is that players are scheming and not getting directly into tangles.  (there have been some, but not many)  How do I ramp up the amount of conflict in the game?  Is this what bangs are for?  What happens if the player doesn’t bite at the bang?

Characterization

I'm trying to remember to portray everybody as actual characters, and not just cardboard cutouts of NPCs walking around giving exposition. For some reason, this is easier to do around a table.

So far, I think I've got at least three different characters out of the rest of the family. Stern and all-knowing guy, pleasant and flirtatious girl, and Fiona.

For some reason I’m having a terrible time characterizing NPCs.  This isn’t usually a problem for me.  I’m not sure if it’s the remote connection, the game, or if my GM skills are just rusty.

Next Step
Has anyone run into this shortage of conflict in an Amber game?
Anyone have any advice on running long term games like this?
Advice on games played across the web?
Has anyone tried to play in this particular medium before?  Did you encounter the same problems we are?