Talk:Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution section

Suggest removing the link to Dogs in the Vineyard in the Conflict section. ADRP conflict resolution is really not much like DITV conflict resolution.

Vaxalon 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche as presented in the game vs Zelazny canon

Kudos for all the work here Percy.

I think the "all of his" confrontations direction that you are taking the entry is a popular misconception about the rules of the game that is sadly propagated throughout the web (and a lot of Players.)

Such "Psyche victories" are a two-step process: establish Psyche contact (magic, Trump, eyes, whatever), and then initiate the conflict. You can't get both without giving another character a chance to respond. This allows a Strength or Warfare response to the Psyche assault and pretty much negates a "instant win" as you portray here.

Switching conflict to an attribute you are stronger in is a legitimate strategy in the game. Anyone within striking distance of Brand would have this option.

And Trump defense being rather automatically win to the defender handles the "Brand Trumps you and beats the snot out of your brain" arguments.

Just sayin'.

As I understand it, it's the combination of DRPG-psyche and "living trump" that's the problem; As presented, Brand could choose to trump anyone bar Fiona and mindrape them to death, all from the safety of his armchair. I haven't seen or have overlooked the part where defenders automatically win during trump contacts. I'll update the page to better represent my position. Percy Snoodle 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of Brand's "living trump" powers and his high Psyche (as presented in the roleplaying game) would guarantee him victory over Corwin. Shadow Knight does address this inconsistency somewhat, by presenting the "living trump" abilities as somewhat limited. This sets forth and then takes away in awkward fashion: either the complete rules address the issue of "guaranteed victory" or they don't. IMHO, they do even without the second volume, Shadow Knight. I think that you lose NPOV by offering up an expert assessment of flaws in how the game must play out. The matter will be different for every set of gamers, especially since the rules are prone to misinterpretation by "power gamers" who are looking for X-men or anime stories. --Arref 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that the main rulebook's psyche powers are inconsistent with the books, with them Brand would have won easily; and that the optional rules from shadow knight try to fix that. I agree that each set of gamers puts their own spin on it, but either they follow the rulebook, the books or neither. There's no way to do both, unless you assume that Brand chose to lose. Actually on consideration that's not an unheard-of plot twist, but it's not the one that most go with. Percy Snoodle 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You are doing a critique of the game based on your opinion of Zelazny's canon. I think your 'canon observation' should be appended as opinion rather than incorporated without NPOV. It should be labeled as opinion, or linked back to essays or other evidence that the rules lead to problems compared to the books. That would make the observation more authoritative. You see? I have reorganized the text to provide a section that debates the "inconsistent" elements.--Arref 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair of you to blame it on Zelazny. DRPG Psyche is Wujcik's invention. Discussion of the attributes belongs under attributes. I do accept that it could do with some more references, though. Percy Snoodle 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. It would really help if you referenced your specific claims. My understanding of wiki entries here is that one-sided critcial opinion is frowned upon. Wujcik also elaborates (invents) for each of the Attributes he has designed into the game more than what is found in the books. Nowhere in the books does an amberite "toss a small automobile" but the rules allow it. Nowhere does an amberite fight "invisible characters" but the rules allow it. Wujcik does this to provide dramatic choices. If you want to critique Wujcik's choices, you should do so for each Attribute. This is another reason to put 'critical analysis of the game in a separate section'. The entry is not supposed to be a review of the game. Since you discard compromise and the notion of [Neutral Point Of View] towards the game as it stands, I leave the field to you, Percy. --Arref 13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs references. However, I think you're trying to promote your view as neutral, when in fact you're at an extreme: You changed the text from "it isn't clear that Zelazny intended..." to "it is clear that Zelazny intended..."; From my POV, it's clear he didn't, but that's just my POV; since there's disagreement, "it isn't clear" is both the neutral POV and a compromise. Please don't make statements like "since you discard compromise and the notion of Neutral Point Of View"; that is a personal attack, and you shouldn't make them. Percy Snoodle 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw any suggestion of a personal attack and apologize.--Arref 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Percy Snoodle 08:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]