It was always my impression that the game was designed with large groups in mind. Core mechanics like the auction seem to rely on there being quite a number of participants. Otherwise there's not much bidding and you could wind up with just one or two ranks per attribute. This in turn leaves little space for secret ranks (which I find rather essential with randomness removed), when you obviously either outclass everyone in a given area or compete with just one other player. Makes advancement problematic too.
The sample auction in the book involves eight players, which I would say is a lot. Throughout two decades of gaming I've only played a few sessions with so many participants, and those were exclusively convention one shots. My last game of Amber had five players, and I don't suppose it would work well with less than four. However, in most other systems I limit participation to three or four at most, seeing it as optimum groups size.
Did you try running Amber for groups of three or less players?
If so, how did it go? How did you handle attribute auction? Wasn't the game too predictable with low number of ranks?
The sample auction in the book involves eight players, which I would say is a lot. Throughout two decades of gaming I've only played a few sessions with so many participants, and those were exclusively convention one shots. My last game of Amber had five players, and I don't suppose it would work well with less than four. However, in most other systems I limit participation to three or four at most, seeing it as optimum groups size.
Did you try running Amber for groups of three or less players?
If so, how did it go? How did you handle attribute auction? Wasn't the game too predictable with low number of ranks?
Amber for small groups
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire