Members
Review of Everway


Goto [ Index ]
[This game was originally written by Jonathan Tweet in 1995 for Wizards of the Coast. Wizards then sold the rights to the game to Rubicon. Rubicon went belly-up, and the rights eventually were transferred to Gaslight Press. According to the Gaslight Press website, they are working on a new version of Everway.]

I just bought Everway yesterday, and the more I read of the setting, the more interested I am in running it.

Everway is sort of like Amber, but without the built in intrigue and politics. It's diceless, but with a random component, the Fortune Deck. The Fortune Deck being 36 Tarot-like cards that are interpreted to resolve actions. It's Amber Lite, or perhaps Amber for those that don't care about the entire Amber mythos. It's Amber, yet is definitely isn't Amber. (It turns out there are a few "Amberway" sites on the internet, a melding of Amber the setting with Everway the mechanics.) Heck, some might explain it as a medieval fantasy mythic Stargate.

Each character has four stats (i.e. Elements): Earth, Air, Water, and Fire. Any character with an Element that is higher than another character's is automatically better in those areas governed by that Element. For example, a character with Fire 4 will always win footraces against a character with Fire 3.

One of the most interesting aspects of the game is character creation, at least how Mr. Tweet explains it. Basically all the players (and the GM) get together to create their characters. Basic concepts are developed and the players explain them to each other. Then follows a Q&A period where players ask questions of other players, and in the answers character personalities and backgrounds are further refined, changed, and developed. The GM gets further involved as players design powers and magic systems for their characters, point costs being defined for them. Yes, it is a point-based system. Points being divvied between the four Elements, Powers (optional), and Magic (optional). Powers and Magic are player defined, within the bounds of reason as defined by the other players and the GM.

(Mr. Tweet supplies a number of examples of both Powers and Magic systems, to aid players and GMs in understanding how they should (or might) work and aiding them in coming up with their own ideas.)

It's this character creation process that most interests me, since it works towards developing fully fleshed-out 3-D characters, rather than the 2-D templates that tend to be found in the more number-crunch-based systems.

Character's are further defined via the Fortune Deck, by associating them with a Virtue, a Flaw, and a Fate. Virtue and Flaws most affect action resolution outcomes, though they do also have story element ramifications. The Fate association is interesting, since this is a goal (in a manner of speaking) that each character wishes to resolve. Since the Fate itself is very open-ended, it is never clear from the outset how this might resolve itself in the course of a campaign.

There's a further aspect to character creation using a 90-card deck of Visual Cards. It struck me that these are mainly a tool for the beginning player and GM, thus I probably won't make much use of them. Thus I won't cover them here. Suffice to say, Mr. Tweet recommends their use as a tool for creating characters (for the players) and quests (for the GMs).

Game play is simple and the action resolution system is easy to understand and simple to implement.

Actions are resolved by using one or more of the three laws. The three laws being the Law of Karma, the Law of Drama, and the Law of Fortune.

The Law of Karma revolves around two aspects: the mundane and the cosmic. The mundane is based upon the character's Elements as a guiding force in action resolution. The cosmic is based upon the principle: "What goes around comes around". Thus if the character decides to knock a frail old lady on her behind, perhaps for no other reason to get to the front of a line, then it is likely that some negative event will revisit the character at a later date due to this action.

The Law of Drama revolves around the question: "What is best for the narrative at this given point in the story?" What outcome would further the story, add excitement, intrigue, and/or interest? What need does the plot have to make the story more engaging and enjoyable? The Law of Drama, though, still relies on the possible and the probable. The Law of Drama still needs to create events that are believable, else the players will find them less satisfying.

The third law consists of the random aspect of the game. Yes, this game is diceless, but that does not mean that Mr. Tweet has thrown chance out the window.

The Law of Fortune revolves around the 36 card Fortune Deck. Each card has two aspects -- Normal and Reversed -- which make for 72 possibilities. These possibilities are further extended due to the interpretive nature of the cards. Any single card could be interpreted in a number of different ways. The GM may decide that the picture on the card (and whether it is inverted or not) has more meaning than the traditional naming of the card itself. The GM may lend more meaning to the aspects of the card (all card have aspects aligned to different elements, planets, and the zodiac). There is no right or wrong way to interpet the cards, but their should be some rational explanation to the interpretation (though you won't always show these cards to the players, a good GM will know when to show for effect and when to hide for mystery).

The GM can use any of the Laws to resolve actions, or can use a combination. For instance, in the footrace example above, the GM might use the Law of Karma and the Law of Fortune. The Law of Karma dictates that the person with the better Fire Element will win the footrace, but I might choose to use the Law of Fortune as well, drawing a card. Perhaps I draw The Satyr (Indulgence). I might interpret this to mean that the character, so focused on the race, not only wins but wins by a huge margin. The character has won the race (as dictated by the Law of Karma), but doesn't engender the love or admiration of the crowd, due to the fact that he makes his opponent look foolish and incompetent (as dictated by the Law of Fortune). If I'd instead drawn the Satyr Reversed (Moderation), I might interpret this to mean that the character ensures a close race so that his opponent can walk way from it with pride. The excitement of the race would engender admiration for both participants. The Law of Karma says that the character will always win the race, but the Law of Fortune says that there'll be some random positive or negative outcome to the event.

(Of course, if the player had stated before the race, and before a Fortune Card had been drawn, that they were going to ensure it was a close race, so as to not embarass their opponent, then the Satyr card would require a different interpretation; Fortune cannot override the "karmic" decisions of the players.)

The GM might not use either the Law of Karma or the Law of Fortune to determine the outcome of the race. He might decide to solely use the Law of Drama, deciding at that moment what was more important to the story. She might determine that for the narrative's sake, it was more important that the character lose this particular race (perhaps stumbling near the finish line), building up a potential rivalry between the two opponents. Perhaps building up towards a possible rematch.

I mentioned Amber, didn't I? Well, the setting of Everway revolves around the idea of an infinite multiverses, all connected via portals. The central point in this series of multiverses is the City of Everway, which happens to have an unusually high concentration of portals (70+). Most spheres have but two portals. The characters are what are known as Spherewalkers, people who can cross the portals into other Spheres (multiverses). Spheres can consist of anything you can dream up, and Mr. Tweet gives a wide array of examples from his own campaigns, from a land of Tiger-People to a Sphere that consists of a Floating Mountain.

Everway is a very imagination intensive game and puts a premium on ideas and concepts and quests. The game tends to favour problem-solving over combat as the method of solving a dilemna.

The rulebooks are very easy to read, sometimes too easy to read, since Mr. Tweet writes from the basis that people completely new to roleplaying are his audience. But it's never in a tone that talks down to you. And he still supplies lots of meaty information for the experienced roleplayer -- lots of ideas and concepts here.

For those of you who have always wanted to try a diceless game, but didn't know which of the few available to try, then Everway is definitely worth seeking. (Everway is certainly a good stepping stone towards Amber, if that is your bent).

Everway is difficult to find (some hidden shelf, perhaps, gathering dust at your FLGS?), but definitely worth the effort. It'll put your imagination to very good use. It's a shame this game was so overlooked.

Recent Forum Posts
Post TitleAuthorDate
RE: Because it had to be said again...RPGnet ReviewsDecember 3, 2003 [ 11:15 am ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsSeptember 6, 2003 [ 03:31 pm ]
de Lint, Newford, and EverwayRPGnet ReviewsJuly 24, 2003 [ 10:21 am ]
RE: Collectible Visual CardsRPGnet ReviewsJuly 24, 2003 [ 09:43 am ]
RE: Collectible Visual CardsRPGnet ReviewsJuly 14, 2003 [ 09:57 am ]
Incorporating Resource Allocation?RPGnet ReviewsJuly 10, 2003 [ 07:30 am ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 03:34 pm ]
RE: example of task res (and discussion)RPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 09:29 am ]
RE: Collectible Visual CardsRPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 08:38 am ]
example of task res (and discussion)RPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 08:26 am ]
RE: ConfusionRPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 07:52 am ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 07:41 am ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 02:34 am ]
RE: Collectible Visual CardsRPGnet ReviewsJuly 9, 2003 [ 12:17 am ]
RE: Collectible Visual CardsRPGnet ReviewsJuly 8, 2003 [ 02:10 pm ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsJuly 8, 2003 [ 01:45 pm ]
RE: eBayRPGnet ReviewsJuly 8, 2003 [ 12:50 pm ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsJuly 8, 2003 [ 11:51 am ]
RE: Boooooooooo!RPGnet ReviewsJuly 8, 2003 [ 10:40 am ]

Copyright © 1996-2013 Skotos Tech, Inc. & individual authors, All Rights Reserved
Compilation copyright © 1996-2013 Skotos Tech, Inc.
RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech, Inc., all rights reserved.