Amber flowchart

[Norbert G. Matausch]

Fellow Amber enthusiasts,

I've been thinking about flowcharts for the Amber rules. I think Theatrix really shines in that regard.

So, the first project I'm starting is a flowchart for Amber hand-to-hand combat. I've whipped up a first draft and uploaded it here.

Please tell me what we can improve. I think it might be a good tool for all of us, especially GMs new to the game.

Best,
Norbert

[Artifacts of Amber]

An interesting idea but I usually don't need a flow chart for rather simple yes/no pathing only when three or more choices come into play with multiple routes that may fold back in.

Now having said that I think it is a useful tool for newer Amber GM's who may not know how exactly stat comparison works. It would help them visualize the process which is sometimes a better learning method than written choices.


Of course I use different stats so that again would make it harder not thatit isn't easily adapted to that.

Just my thoughts

[Panjumanju]

I feel that a flow-chart like this would be a gross oversimplification. It does not properly signify the statistic difference of positions (or their numbers, depending on how you run it.) I think it's a fine idea, just, doesn't quite encompass what it means to get into a fight in Amber - at least to me.

//Panjumanju

[Norbert G. Matausch]

With that said, what would you add? You say it's a "gross oversimplification", so my question is: What's missing?

[Panjumanju]

With that said, what would you add? You say it's a "gross oversimplification", so my question is: What's missing?

It's a gross over-simplification because it's a flow chart. Conflict in the Amber Diceless roleplaying game system, as written, is not a decision tree. To try and simplify it into a decision tree is creating an entirely different system.

For instance, the chart does nothing to address the rule that the farther apart the compared ranks (or statistics) the swifter the resolution, the closer they are the more slowly resolve the situation is. Indeed, from the source material it would often take several "rounds" of exchanges before the combatants knew who held the advantage among them. The players have to find these things out - not weigh their pros and cons of how dirty they are fighting. That becomes a numbers game, which is exactly what Amber Diceless is not.

Erick Wujcik gives us a toolkit for resolving combat - just some of a hundred factors that could come into play. Just looking up to the end of a combat on a flowchart is like skipping right to the end of the sex act - it's robbed of its organic nature, and has little meaning.

What's "missing" is the point.

I don't mean to sound like I'm criticizing - your flow chat is perfectly fine, it's just not the Amber Diceless roleplaying system. You've chopped it down to being something else entirely, which may well be perfectly legitimate - and is at least a nice thought exercise - but it's not Amber.

//Panjumanju

[Norbert G. Matausch]

It's a gross over-simplification because it's a flow chart. Conflict in the Amber Diceless roleplaying game system, as written, is not a decision tree. To try and simplify it into a decision tree is creating an entirely different system.

I disagree. If there's a thought process involved, it can be pictured as a decision tree.

For instance, the chart does nothing to address the rule that the farther apart the compared ranks (or statistics) the swifter the resolution, the closer they are the more slowly resolve the situation is.

Hold on a sec, here. How long it takes to resolve a conflict is not the point right now. The first step is identifying the factors that play into the GM's decision. First the GM has to decide who wins. Then he takes into account how long it will take. But this has nothing to do with the decision itself.

Indeed, from the source material it would often take several "rounds" of exchanges before the combatants knew who held the advantage among them.

Absolutely! But to pull that off, the GM has to know who will win the conflict. Only then he can play the actions of the npcs accordingly, and tell the players what's happening.

The players have to find these things out - not weigh their pros and cons of how dirty they are fighting. That becomes a numbers game, which is exactly what Amber Diceless is not.

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Dirty fighting is about building an advantageous position. It's a common tactic in the books. But taking this into account doesn't turn Amber into a numbers game. NONE of my players has ever known "the numbers" of their character. Not a single one of them.

The flowchart is not a tool for the players. So, how could it possibly turn Amber into a numbers game?

Erick Wujcik gives us a toolkit for resolving combat - just some of a hundred factors that could come into play. Just looking up to the end of a combat on a flowchart is like skipping right to the end of the sex act - it's robbed of its organic nature, and has little meaning.

Dude, you live on a different planet. Again: The flowchart is there to assist new GMs to find out who wins a conlfict. How the conflict plays out is another story. But first you, as the GM, have to know who wins.

[Jason D]

If the chart works for you and your style of play, that's awesome.

My own take on it is that it entirely misses taking Ranks into account.

A conflict between two characters of similar ranks (2nd and 3rd, for example) is vastly different between a conflict where characters are far apart, such as a Human-rank character and one ranked 1st.

Or are you counting each superior Rank as an separate advantage?

(another small quibble... what if both sides use dirty tricks?)

[jibbajibba]

have to say I am with the nay sayers (sorry).

I think as an exercise to do once so you as GM get a feel for how to run combats its useful.

But when I run Amber I run it all by the feel of what works. I never reference the books in play I just have an index card with PC stats unless I know them well enough not to need it and I just run it.

I use the world to inform the players how their PCs rank so the whole thing relies on vivid detailed descriptions not on lookign up tables and stuff.

[Artifacts of Amber]

I think if you revise it to somehow include ranking and separation of ranks that would help. As others have said If I have first rank and spend 40 points and you have second rank at 10 points, Most Amber GM's I have known not only use ranks (As the book says) but point values as well. So in that example the rank two guy has no chance even with dirty tricks or greater, any, secondary stat.

And though they say its not a numbers game to me it is. I mean whether you use ranks or actual points it still uses numbers. Just the numbers are small and easily kept in mind unlike most other games. They have a level of transparency unlike almost any other game. Otherwise adjudicating Amber would be GM fiat completely. (though it really is anyways but we try not to let our players know that ). Fiat does not negate fairness.

I think it could be revised to be a useful tool to help new GM's. I think some of use forget what it was like if you have no Amber experience in an Amber DRP.

Just my thoughts

[Panjumanju]

Dude, you live on a different planet. Again: The flowchart is there to assist new GMs to find out who wins a conlfict. How the conflict plays out is another story. But first you, as the GM, have to know who wins.

I think this may be the sticking point. Where are you getting the presupposition that the GM must first know who will win?

//Panjumanju

[RPGPundit]

Yeah, the Ranks thing is a big deal.

[finarvyn]

It may need a few tweaks, but I like the flowchart concept. After all, these are the things going through my head when I GM an Amber campaign, so why not put it on paper for newbies to look at when they learn the process.

My "flowchart" would be something like this:
(1) Start with Attribute (P, S, or W) and compare ranks
(2) Modify for Stuff, Tricks, etc.
(3) Compare Endurance.

At any step you ask "similar or not similar" with the notion that a not-similar attribute would lead the GM to a resolution but a similar attribute would lead the GM to the next check in the flowchart.

[Evermasterx]

I think this may be the sticking point. Where are you getting the presupposition that the GM must first know who will win?

//Panjumanju

Good question!
I like a dynamic fight and a dynamic verdict: maybe I'm trying not to think too precisely in advance about who's gonna win, in order to be more fair and to enjoy more in the drama, like a spectator...
All I need is a vague idea about the probable winner and the gap with the probable looser, just for a start. Then it's a matter of  "successive approximation" to the resolution, based on the actions of the players.
But I suppose it's a matter of taste, and  if someone like to use a flowchart and to be more deterministic, that's fine.

[Jason D]

My own process goes a little more like this:

1) Compare Ranks - if one Rank is higher than the other, and no one does anything special, higher Ranked character wins.

2) Determine the effects of complications/advantages/conditions, either already in existence or brought forth by roleplaying - are these great enough to skew the outcome from the base Ranks? If not, higher Ranked character wins.

3) Do other Attributes come into play? - with the above from 1 and 2 considered, does the situation change enough that supporting Attributes will affect the primary conflict? If not, higher Ranked character wins.

4) Does the conflict remain the same? - is one character able to switch the nature of the conflict to something else? If the conflict is able to be switched, then begin again at step 1, but keep the effects of the prior conflict in mind as a consideration.

So my flowchart would have "exits" at almost every stage.

[RPGPundit]

Lords of Olympus does have a combat reference sheet, on p.72 if I recall correctly.

Its not quite a flowchart but can easily be used as a kind of GM's checklist for how to run combat.

RPGPundit