I've posted the Power Nineteen for the Amber manuscript I'm working on.

Here's the link:  http://vaxalon.livejournal.com/2006/08/17/

Or we could discuss it here:

The introductions have been made. I've started gathering information about what people think makes ADRP cool (because I want to preserve as much of that as possible) and what makes it suck.

My primary goal is to get rid of two things; GM fiat and the attribute auction. As far as I know, few if any people use the auction, and the 'judicial' conflict resolution system depends so heavily on the skill and fairness of the gamemaster that it is, in my opinion, a liability.  One of the design philosophies of this game is that 'system does matter'.  You can learn the basics of that philosophy here.  If you don't agree with it, we probably won't have much else to agree on. I've seen it in action and I'm impressed with the results.

One of the tools used to set out design goals and define what a game will look like is the "Power Nineteen."  These are a set of questions designed to make the designer think about important questions.  So here they are:

1.) What is your game about?**

Amber by the Cards is about the conflicts surrounding the most powerful family in the universe.

2.) What do the characters do?**

The characters struggle against each other and against mysterious forces from beyond their understanding, to define themselves, their relationships with each other, and defend those definitions.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

All but one of the players control the actions of one character, and possibly that character's friends and allies.  The remaining player, named "Chaos", presents challenges to those characters, in the form of characters, monsters, organizations, and forces that oppose them.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

It's more that the game reinforces what the setting is about.  This game takes one theme from the Amber novels (there are many) and places it center stage.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

In the process of creating characters, the players earn the right to describe the world that surrounds their characters.  They give them backgrounds, homes, loves and hates.  They define what the character cares about.  The character creation process is both cooperative and competitive, because the players trade resources (in the form of cards out of a standard 54-card pack) with each other in order to create strengths and weaknesses, and to increase the uncertainty that other players have about the character's capabilities.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

The game strongly encourages characters caring about things.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

The more a character cares about a person, place, or shadow, the more powerful it becomes, the more 'real'.  A shadow or person that has only been described in passing can be picked up and remolded again by any player character, whereas those that have a long association with a character are more firmly under its control.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

The right to narrate is distributed to those who have control over a particular shadow, or who is taking action in a conflict, or who wins it.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

Amber by the Cards asks players to create their character's world, at least in the small details.  Where he lives, who he is, what he does, is all under the player's control.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

Each player (except Chaos) has a single deck of cards that represent that character's resources, in terms of attributes (warfare, psyche, endurance, strength) allies (sisters, parentage, etc.) and in terms of powers (pattern, sorcery, artifacts).  In the course of resolving a conflict, they play those cards, in an attempt to force their opponent to choose between spending more resources than they are willing to spend, or admitting the stakes of the conflict.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

Players engage in conflicts in order to defend the people, places and things they care about, to create or acquire more, or to threaten those of others.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Characters advance by seeking out challenges posed by the Chaos player.  When such a challenge is defeated, the character earns another card for his deck.  These challenges can be quick and easy, or they can be long-term and highly rewarding.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Players engage in conflicts in order to defend the people, places and things they care about, to create or acquire more, or to threaten those of others.  (This one's easy, since the advancement mechanic is tied to the conflict mechanic)

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

I want Amber by the Cards to produce powerful statements about the nature of reality, the importance of family,

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

Relationships play a big part of Amber by the Cards.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

It may very well be that this game is ideally suited to LARP play, possibly even a coordinated LARP community.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

Hey, GMless, competitive Amber.  That's untrodden ground.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

My goals are incremental.  First, I wish to distribute the game informally, via PDF.  I hope to get enough attention going to be able to swing a deal with Erick for the rights to publish.

19.) Who is your target audience?

Indie gamers dissatisfied with ADRP, and Amber fans who wish to break out of the GM-moderated mode.

Some of you are going to ask, "What are you asking?"

I'm not really asking much, at all... I'm interested in hearing any comments, but I realize that this by itself may not be enough to inspire them.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but in reference to #18, Guardians of Order just recently finished acquiring the rights to produce Amber roleplaying materials. You'd be depending on either some wierdness in the licensing or GoO screwing things up, unless your thinking very long term.

Whoops- I just checked the GoO website for follow-up info, and it looks like they're going belly up before they even got to release original material. You'll want to discuss licensing and permissions and whatnot with either Mark MacKinnon, the president of GoO (the license may still be active even if the company isn't) or the Zalazny estate. Mr. Wujcik Probably won't be able to help you, since he's no longer involved.

Actually, Jake... I'm aware of the situation.  The rights never left Erick's posession.  There was only ever a preliminary verbal agreement between GoO and Erick, so he's the one who still holds them.

If all that ever happens is that I put out a "variant" PDF alongside the dozens and dozens of other Amber variants that have been put out, I'll be happy.

Every time I think I've got the license figured out it just gets crazier.

I look forward to reading more about this in the future.

This sounds like a very fun game.  I read the Amber books years ago but never got into the Diceless game.

Just reading your brief outlines makes me want to find the books and read the again.

Heya,

I've read over your Power 19, Vaxalon, and I have to say, "Very well done."  At the moment, I just have one question (probably restated several times for clarity).  I get that player-characters are trying to defend people and relationships and what not, but why?  What is their goal?  What are the characters wanting to end up with?

Peace,

-Troy

Thanks Stack, Troy.

You should have seen some of the responses when I posted this on the Amber list!

I'm beginning to rethink my intention of bringing it to Ambercon.

Troy, I'm not sure I understand you.  What do the characters want to "end up" with?  You're assuming they "end up" at all.

That being said, there'll be an option to play towards an ending, where someone ends up as King, or else Amber destroyed.

Vaxalon wrote:
You should have seen some of the responses when I posted this on the Amber list!

I'm beginning to rethink my intention of bringing it to Ambercon.

Heya,

That being said, there'll be an option to play towards an ending, where someone ends up as King, or else Amber destroyed.

Stack:

Heh, you name it.  I won't bother repeating them... it's not what I'm here for.  You can probably imagine.

A common thread is being opposed to the "System Does Matter" philosophy.

Troy:

The creative drive, the creative impulse, is what gets a lot of people jazzed about playing Amber.  They can decide, far more than in any other setting, what their character's surroundings are like.  This game channels that into the character directly, and uses it as the drive to advance.  Authorial power is game power.  I don't think you need to ask an Amberite, "Why did you seek out your own shadow?  Why do you want to be King?  Why do you want to destroy Amber and remake it in your image?"  I think it's a reasonable "first cause" for gaming.

Troy: The "how" will have to wait, but you can read "Nine Princes in Amber" for an example of how it looks in canon.

Heya,

Vaxalon wrote:
Troy: The "how" will have to wait, but you can read "Nine Princes in Amber" for an example of how it looks in canon.

Resolution mechanics with a deck sound pretty nailed in the setting. I would really like to know more details about that.

I have thought previously in similar things and I always get in troubles when mixing cards which represent bare resources (like Fight, Endurance) with unique relationships or connections. They do not represent the same kind of involvement for the player. Thus, using a simple resolution mechanics which means risking and loosing cards, like in classical card games, seems inappropriate even if you give much more importance or resource points to relationships. On the other hand, if you create different resolution mechanics for different types of cards everything may become a mesh very easily. Recovering or changing cards after playing them also creates easily confusing differences.

What are you planning to represent exactly with the cards? Relationships strength?

Arturo

Here's what I am presently thinking:

Number cards (2-10) represent attributes (warfare, strength, psyche, endurance) which are the primary currency for winning conflicts.

Jacks, queens, and kings represent relationships.

Jacks represent relationships with groups of shadowfolk.

Queens represent relationships with NPC peers, such as siblings.

Kings represent relationships with "elders" such as massively older siblings (think Benedict), parents, etc.

Aces represent powers beyond the basic set associated with one's heritage (either basic pattern or basic shapeshift).

WIth jacks, queens, kings, and aces, having the card basically gives the player the right to define the nature of the relationship.  They aren't played in conflicts as much as they permit certain kinds of conflicts to be played in the first place.  For example, in order to get into a battle (say, to invade Amber) one needs to have an army.  That requires either playing a jack, or going out and getting one.

Keep in mind that this design is still in flux.  Don't take this as the only way it can be.

Hi Vaxalon,

It seems to me at this point that you are losing a lot of the strength's in Amber's system to break away from GM fiat. Let me state I'm not against the idea, because I would agree that GM-fiat can be a weakness, however it can also be a strength.

One thing about Amber's GM-fiat that is interesting is that much of the conflict is pre-resolved. You won't beat Benedict at war, or if Gerard can lay a hand on you.... I think this is a strength of the game as it so strongly reflects the books, and I don't see it in your present design. Your design seems to be changing resolution from a static nature to a more randomized/skill based nature. Am I understanding correctly?

Also in Amber, as it is now, you can define your relationships, places, etc. So far I'm not understanding what the gain is? If you are using cards to set character strengths, I'm not sure I would enjoy having random characters. Also I'm curious how you plan on dealing with Trump, Logrus, Pattern, etc?

If you are using cards, and we are imagining anything is possible-- a design that used trump cards of the characters would be really cool. Another idea would be the character sheet would be a trump card of the character with numbers in the corners.

Troy: The Amber series is a pretty easy time investment as the books are like 200 pages or so. Nothing like the monster books that are churned out in today's market. You can usually find them in used bookstores for cheap.

Clyde, I don't believe you're understanding, and I don't think I would expect you to, either.

I'm not changing the resolution from static ton randomized/skill based.  Resolution is based on the choices that the players make, about how much of their power to use and when... I'm putting that resolution system in the hands of the players rather than the GM.

You say "You won't beat Benedict at war..." but Corwin did, didn't he?  And so did Lintra.  "You can't beat Benedict" is an artifact of ADRP, not of Amber Canon, as I see it.

Yes, being able to define your relationships, shadows, etc. is a strength of ADRP, and I intend to preserve that.  In fact, it's so cool that I want to make it a central element of the game.

Hi Vaxalon,

If you don't expect that I can understand, I would guess that would make it hard for me to give you useful feedback wouldn't it? That really sucks, I love Amber, and am interested in a non-gm-fiat game. So can you clarify the type of feedback you would like, since my attempt at charitable reading seems to indicate I've hit a nerve I wasn't intending to.

About the most useful feedback I've had so far are people asking, "How would this design handle <situation>?  That's something really cool about Amber."

Vaxalon wrote:
Stack:

Heh, you name it.  I won't bother repeating them... it's not what I'm here for.  You can probably imagine.

A common thread is being opposed to the "System Does Matter" philosophy.

Vaxalon wrote: For example, in order to get into a battle (say, to invade Amber) one needs to have an army.  That requires either playing a jack, or going out and getting one.

Keep in mind that this design is still in flux.  Don't take this as the only way it can be.

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Heya,

That being said, there'll be an option to play towards an ending, where someone ends up as King, or else Amber destroyed.

-Okay cool, this makes morse sense to me.  In reading your Power 19, I never really got a sense for what motivates the characters to act.  I mean I know they have these relationships they want to protect, and as they protect them they get more powerful.  That's cool.  But for the characters, what is the point of accumulating more power?  What do they plan to eventually do with it?  What is that drives them towards an accomplishment?  It just seemed to me that play was just and endless loop without any specific direction.

-The King thing, I think is way cool.  I'd like to hear more about that.  How do they compete against their fellow players?  How do they achieve that status?

Peace,

-Troy

Darren wrote:
In any case, I think having a moan over here about a discussion you're not enjoying elsewhere on the net is not very professional - but that's the last you'll hear from me on that subject.

Arturo wrote:
You say: "playing a Jack". If playing always means loosing or highly risking the card...

Dotan wrote:
Something that's made clear to me after reading the discussion in the story games forum thread Vaxalon started is that a strong motivation for PCs to accumulate power is to measure themselves against the Elders, i.e, the canon characters. That is, building a relationship with an Elder, gaining their respect, or confronting and being able to match or overcome them are all worthy and emotionaly engaging activities.

http://vaxalon.livejournal.com/4146.html

Micro-playtest of the conflict resolution mechanic.  It went quite well, it did what I wanted it to do.