Larson Gates:
That was one of the 3 options.. the 3rd option was to restart the game on RPoL!
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".
quote:
They are not at all removed from the Amber Rules.
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).
quote:
They are not "My House Rules"..
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] ;)
quote:
The whole point with the sub-attibutes is that it's the sub-attribute that counts NOT the attribute.
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).
quote:
It makes for a significant variation in characters.
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).
quote:
If you're not playing a "Throne War" why do you need an Auction?
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".
quote:
The characters are supposed to be co-operating, not scoring points off one another. Auction's don't work in Co-op scenarios.
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.
quote:
That was the first option.. there were 3.
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.
quote:
So you've applied all your pre-conceived ideas as to what an Amber campaign should be about before even playing.
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.
quote:
I don't know.. maybe because you'd be interested in a new twist a new perspective?
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".
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Writing websites and deriving content for them is really time consuming occupation.
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.
quote:
Those who have played on RPGCrossing will tell you that I respond for the most part on a daily basis...
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.)
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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 is definitely the right place for it.