In my campaign, "stuff" was always sort of a good luck v. bad luck thing.
So, a character with 10 points in Stuff was more lucky than someone with 5 points. My GM usually capped Stuff at 10 points max, and when I ran games I do the same.
This means you can't really try to outdo the other characters much, since if everyone puts 10 points into Stuff it's as if no one put any points into Stuff. Except that everyone just wasted the points.
And I don't recall players ever trying to "use stuff" to do anything. This was always a GM fudge factor in our games, and players never quite know what it is that they have bought or how it affects outcomes.
KELT-SET Bishop of Blackmoor --------------------- "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." -- Gary Gygax ---------------------
It seems to me like the Jewel isn't really cursed, but that it has the habit of draining energy from its wielder (sort of like Stormbringer in Moorthingy's Elric books).
Hah! I just caught that the board censor doesn't like the last name of Elric's author.
KELT-SET Bishop of Blackmoor --------------------- "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." -- Gary Gygax ---------------------
Re: Magic system idea « Result #3 on Nov 25, 2009, 10:33pm »
So, Dilvish. Did you ever give this system a try? How did it work out? (The whole "rock-paper-scissors" thing seems a tad strange to me, but who knows....)
KELT-SET Bishop of Blackmoor --------------------- "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." -- Gary Gygax ---------------------
Would spending stuff be a way of increasing reality for player or gm chosen shadow dwellers?
An interesting notion. I always assumed that things become more "real" when exposed to Amberites.
Explain more what you are thinking about when you say that "spending stuff" might increae reality. Do characters "spend" stuff in your campaign, and if so what do they get in return?
The ADRP system is somewhat unique in that it can be as simple or as complex as desired. I really think that Erick's entire diceless concept is one of the rare innovations in RPGs, and probably the most significant since Dave Arneson's "let's go into a dungeon" concept.
Perhaps some rules expanding the types of challenges sorcerous battles produce, like Psyche versus Psyche/Strength/Endurance/or Warfare, examples of the well run game are always welcome.
I certainly agree here. I think that any time a character wants to "switch" stats, or any time you pit one stat against a different stat, the rules are somewhat vague. Additonal examples would be welcome.
Re: Boards a little dead recently « Result #7 on Nov 25, 2009, 10:17pm »
Once again, I'm a slacker. Time passes and no Amber activity on my part.
Somewhere I have a list of topics to toss in as thread-starters, but I fear that there aren't enough posters to sustain discussion. Sort of like being short of "critical mass."
Re: Let's "fix" Sorcery « Result #8 on Nov 12, 2009, 11:45pm »
Perhaps some rules expanding the types of challenges sorcerous battles produce, like Psyche versus Psyche/Strength/Endurance/or Warfare, examples of the well run game are always welcome. Fitting with Ericks' approach in the first edition. Otherwise, no one I play with considers it broken. In fact we all enjoy the responsibility of producing fun and playable episodes.
This is a hot topic of conjecture with my group as well. Whole character creation strategies have evolved around out stuffing somebody. The players have, for instance, attempted to equalize challenges with goodstuff, Amber ranked versus A+ and I'm not sure how far that was intended to go. Any insights?