[Amber] Attribute Relativism

[Panjumanju]

It's come up quite a bit on this board that one of the most common homerule modifications of Amber is to add some kind of adjunct intrinsic value to an attribute, like Strength 10 = lift a car, Strength 70 = Hulk smash. I don't know if anyone has drafted charts to this effect, but many Amber GMs have told me they end up doing this if only subconsciously.

This runs contrary to Erick Wujick's intentions - to the point where he backed out of a publisher, apparently. The Attributes are meant to have a relationship value, at least as far as we can interpret his intent.

So, what do you think? Is Attribute relativism too esoteric a concept for practical implication? Do you find yourself constructing tiers in your head instead? Or, once you free yourself from dependency on numbers having hard definition do you finally find freedom of will in roleplaying?

//Panjumanju

[RTrimmer]

A tier based on ranks is still a tier. First Ranked can do A, high ranked can do B, mid ranked C, etc. Unless what you can do changes depending on who is in the scene with you.

The difference is whether or not players bidding on Attributes have a decent idea on what that stat means vs. the rest of the universe. Can I kick down a heavy door? Take down 5 Amber-ranked folk with little risk? Heal a serious wound overnight? Automatically notice a subtle spell operating near me?

[finarvyn]

I think somewhere you must have a point of reference, whether it be an official chart or a "gut feel" for what the numbers mean. I suspect that part of why Erick left it vague was so that folks couldn't min/max the system by finding ways to get extra value out of certain levels of an attribute.

Of course, much of this is also determined by the players during the auction. What I find interesting is that some folks operate on the idea that if no one bids high then everyone will be good at something, whereas Erick probably had this notion that nobody would be good at it if they didn't spend points. How good is good? It all comes down to how many points were spent compared to the NPC elders.

[Artifacts of Amber]

I tend to keep it relative and use the ranks only as comparison values.

Having said that yes I do set benchmarks but those may change from game to game depending on the group and my inclinations for the campaign. How heroic or super heroic I want it to be.

With as malleable a universe as Amber both for the players and the GM the harder it is to set hard definitive numbers to things. I usually go with an idea or general feeling of what the limits are. Though Amberites, to me, seem superhuman only compared to humans and not each other. Gerard's Strength and Benedict's reaction speed is considerable compared to lesser ranked folk bu seldom is it Super human compared to other Amberites.

I admit strength may be one I over power in that regard as seeming scary powerful. The things I have Gerard do with his Strength may be a little over the top but people tend to underestimate strength and I like to drive it home a little.

But in the end it is more important to me to use it as a comparison and any questions about what a character can or cannot do are usually easy for me to answer. Though I admit it does take a little work to communicate this to the players.

[Panjumanju]

Though Amberites, to me, seem superhuman only compared to humans and not each other.

This is where it gets really interesting to me, and also something of a challenge. To not say "5 Strength flips a car" and instead have relative comparisons frees you up for circumstantial reference like your example. Corwin may be superhumanly fast, but if Eric is just as superhumanly fast, they both work at the same operational speed - the ranks of 1st, 2nd, 3rd can accommodate that versatility in a way that "5 Strength flips a car" cannot.

But I find it can be hard to get my player's heads around this sometimes.

//Panjumanju

[Doughdee222]

As I've stated in past threads, I would prefer that the Amber game had some sort of chart describing what is plausible for various attribute numbers. Since there are three versions of each character, maybe have three versions of each chart.

But perhaps such a chart would have to be different for each campaign. In one game a 10 Strength can flip a car, in another 50 or 100 is required. In one game a 25 Warfare means you can easily defeat a dozen normal human swordsmen. In another campaign even with a 40 Warfare you might have trouble fighting six.

What's really important is: as a player I want to know where the line between "doable" and "foolish/stupid" is. If a bull is charging my 25 Strength guy and I decide to stand my ground and punch him in the face I don't want the GM to say "That was stupid! He ignores your punch, gores you severely and throws you 15 feet into the air. You're gonna be in the hospital for a week." If there are 20 ninjas climbing over a wall I'd like to know if my 30 Warfare can handle them. If I have a 50 Psyche can I perform a Vulcan Mind Meld or am I just molesting a guy's face? And at what Psyche score can I sense how many beasts are behind a door? When do I equal a Jedi dammit?! As long as the players and the GM are on the same page, have the same understanding and expectations of the numbers, that's important.

See, for me the game should be more than just Player vs. Player or even Player vs. Family comparisons. As an old school gamer I'm more into Player vs. Environment style. So I want to know how I compare to that environment more than how I compare to fellow generation members. I can wrestle and pin cousin Beatrice? Great. But does that mean I can lift a motorcycle above my head? My Psyche is greater than brother Sam's but can I survive a mental blast from a Nutcracker demon? Only one way to find out...

[Artifacts of Amber]

Doughdee222

I know that a concrete list would be useful but my main problem with it is quantifying things in a meaningful way for things like Warfare or Psyche. Strength is easy, hence why I think we use it as an example.

I also think as soon as a list was made every GM would want it to be a little different somehow to fit each ones vision/taste of Amber. I doubt two Gm's would agree on scale of the list.

I could see a GM having one for their own use and sharing with players so they would be on the same page but a universal one for the game wouldn't work I think.

I usually just do simple math and make each point (I keep points important as well as ranks) worth what it is in the real world. Human rank is human average so what could a human do with that. Amber rank is like 25 average humans doing it. This is not a definitive scale but keeps me in the ball park. So an Amber strength person may be able to flip over a car but not throw it or clean jerk it. This is also balanced against even focusing that much strength in one place is not as useful as being able to have 25 separate people lift something. So an Amber strength punch would really hurt a human but to another  amberite is no big deal.


Just how I weight things out. And by far, like most games, is not an exact science. Sometimes it is more about the feel of things than about the physics or exactness.

[daniel_ream]

This runs contrary to Erick Wujick's intentions - to the point where he backed out of a publisher, apparently.

The original book's quite clear on this: against another Scion of Amber or Lord of Chaos, or similar Important Antagonist, compare ranks.  Against anything else, Scions of Amber pretty much just always succeed at anything they try.

Amber is about powerful people in personal conflict with each other.  Trying to stretch it to a generic adventuring game where the protagonists struggle against their environment isn't supported by the system.

[finarvyn]

How important is it for a game world to be internally consistent?

For example, if superman can move a planet in one comic and barely lift a battleship in another, is this a problem? I don't really have "the answer" to this situation and I suppose each GM has to decide how much it matters to them. If you demand exactness and accuracy then a specific scale seems appropriate, but if you prefer to "wing it" and let the storyline help dictate outcomes perhaps you don't need such a thing.

I'm not sure that Zelazny was consistent when he wrote the Amber books so it's a challenge to "get it right" in a game system. However, Erick did give us a scale -- even if it was a brief one -- when he broke attributes into tiers of human, Chaos, and Amber. We already know approximately what a human can do, so it's just a matter of deciding approximately what Chaos and Amber levels can do and there are some examples for us to use as a guide. In the case of Strength, we know that an Amberite can roughly lift half a car but it is really stretching the limits of what he can do. For Endurance I seem to recall Corwin having a swordfight for several days before he quit to go on a date. For Warfare we could look at the number of bad guys fought at a time to get a sense for what Amberites can do. And so on.

[RTrimmer]

As a player it's important to me to have a good idea of what my character can do. What's a reasonable fall distance? How fast does he heal? How many mortal, elite attackers before he's in real danger? Does he have to worry about non-family, non-Chaosites bespelling his mind? Exact scales are not necessary but I want a good ballpark idea of what can be done reliably.

Reading a story is different from playing a game. A reader's choices consist only of continuing to read or not, and praising it or dissing it.

[RPGPundit]

I think Erick's problem with the deal he backed out of was the idea of having concrete benchmarks RELATED TO POINTS.  He was always very adamant with me that points should not be confused with ranks (which if you think about it would be like confusing 'experience points' with hit points or armor class).

Anyways, I think that without going hog-wild, Lords of Olympus gives a little bit more structure about where the power levels are.

RPGPundit

[RTrimmer]

Yep, I like your 'Low, Mid, High, First Plus X Ranks' arrangement for statting NPCs.
OTOH I also like having a point budget in mind for NPCs.

[Arref]

As a player it's important to me to have a good idea of what my character can do. What's a reasonable fall distance? How fast does he heal? How many mortal, elite attackers before he's in real danger? Does he have to worry about non-family, non-Chaosites bespelling his mind? Exact scales are not necessary but I want a good ballpark idea of what can be done reliably.

I don't know that the ADRP requires the practical scale of attributes, but I can tell you that it plays better if you have it. I have to agree strongly with Randy, and it goes beyond being a practical game aspect straight into the very premise of the genre and emulation of the books.

Confidence.
Trickery.
Mad Skillz.

To play with the immersive panache of a scion of Amber, you really need to make quick and potent decisions. If you withhold or 'muddy' up the practical aspects of Attributes, you slow down the game and have less than good communication with all others in the game.

[RPGPundit]

Yep, I like your 'Low, Mid, High, First Plus X Ranks' arrangement for statting NPCs.
OTOH I also like having a point budget in mind for NPCs.

Again, points don't really matter in the Diceless game.

RPGPundit

[Artifacts of Amber]

see points do matter in my games. Maybe as a crutch for me but I use them to handle all sorts of things rank doesn't do (at least for me)

If someone paid 50 points for 1st rank Psyche and someone else paid 10 points for second rank then in my games the chances of second ever competing with first are extremely thin.  Everything else is balanced to an even point cost powers all cost the same and items have a definitive cost etc. Meaning one point is worth one point. Throwing that away with attributes just doesn't work for me.

Now to be honest that is all on the Gm's side. I tell players were they are ranked and let them find out how large  that gap may be if they do not have a reason to already know.

I need points to regulate my advancement. If I tend to give away too much too fast it can ruin a game. But like I said its my crutch.

Just my thoughts