Post originally by Jack Fortune at 2004-06-23 19:34:05
Converted from Phorums BB System

I thought this review was pretty good. It was balanced and pointed out some flaws that I had noticed in the game as well. I've had some of my best role-playing experiences with this game and some of my worst (not the actual game's fault), so it was nice to see that this game is still alive.

As to your comment PaulK, on the GMing advice, I couldn't agree with you more. This was my biggest complaint about the game when I read through it, even more than some of the ambiguous rules. Some of the advice was kind of obnoxious and bossy, but not as bad as in Shadow Knight. Of course, one can discard such advice.

On the positive side, I think that Amber really excels at forcing everyone to ROLE-PLAY their characters. That makes the game more intense and enjoyable. Players have to think their way out of situations rather than throw dice at them.

Now, here's a question for the forum. One time when I ran a game, a debate came up about what stat unarmed combat should fall under. A majority of the players wanted it to come under the Warfare stat. They cited the fight Corwin had with Gerard. Corwin struck Gerard many times, so they concluded that Corwin was a better fighter. Gerard just won because he managed to get a hold of Corwin and use his strength. I stuck with the book and kept unarmed combat in Strength. First, the auction had already took place and we had a couple of game sessions under our belt. I thought it would be unfair to the player who bid tops for Strength. Also, I explained that perhaps Gerard's fighting style was more of a rope-a-dope and grapple method, as opposed to Corwin's boxing. Neither explanation seemed to satisfy them, but since I was GM, I declared the matter settled. So, was I right in the situation or just the epitome of a bad GM? What do you folks think?