Amber flowchart

[Norbert G. Matausch]

Almost two years ago, Lorraine outlined another approach:

How to adjudicate Amber Diceless Conflict for Dummies.

1. Determine the field of conflict.
2. Determine the relevant primary attribute.
3. Determine any relevant secondary attributes
4. Determine any relevant pre-existing advantages such as stuff or items.
5. Use your judgment to impartially weigh the above factors and decide who will win and by how much if nothing changes.
6. Allow the players to try to shift that balance through role played actions.
7. Use your judgment to decide how much and in what manner each role played action shifts the balance.
8. Describe consequences along the way such as wounds culminating eventually in an end to the conflict through withdrawal, defeat, or victory.

[Panjumanju]

Almost two years ago, Lorraine outlined another approach:

I find it very interesting that to determine who wins a conflict - at least as a preliminary assessment - precedes the progress of the combat itself, and then supposedly you adjust the decision as things develop.

I can't find this in the rulebook, but given how many people have said this now on this thread it must be a common approach. It's certainly an interesting one.

//Panjumanju

[Norbert G. Matausch]

The structure of the rules, the rules text and the combat examples all point strongly in that direction.

Case in point: In the Combat chapter, first we're given the lowdown on the rules ("Running Combat: The Short Course"). In the last sentence, Erick writes: "Everything else is just a matter of adding details, figuring things out when it's a close call, and making things seem realistic."

In other words:
First, you compare attribute ranks,
second, the character with the larger attribute rank wins,
third, you "add details".

In the subchapter "Using Attributes to resolve conflict", Erick states clearly that "when two or more characters come into direct conflict, duking it out, things are usually resolved by comparing the two attribute ranks. Then, the one with the higher rank usually wins."

In the combat examples, what is presented first? The attribute ranks of the combatants. THEN, the dialog between GM and players follow.

To me, this shows clearly and without a doubt that you first determine who wins, and then you adjust that decision, if necessary.

I don't see any room for interpretation there.

[Panjumanju]

In the subchapter "Using Attributes to resolve conflict", Erick states clearly that "when two or more characters come into direct conflict, duking it out, things are usually resolved by comparing the two attribute ranks. Then, the one with the higher rank usually wins."

Thank you for providing quotes. But, I disagree with your assessment. I don't think the text supports your theory. The space of "then" as outlined, I read, as the progress of the combat or conflict situation, not "the next step is to decide who wins (play out the combat afterwards)".

Certainly you would begin any conflict by comparing Attributes. It does not follow necessarily, as you say is implied, that you must come to some firm (or fairly firm) decision regarding these Attributes before letting the combat play out some.

However, your interpretation is evidently common, and I think it's very interesting.

The next time I'm running Amber I'm going to try and approach it from this direction and see what difference it makes to combat.

It's an exciting twist - almost like every conflict starting out with a 'destiny', and seeing if that destiny can be broken by combat's end.

//Panjumanju

[Norbert G. Matausch]

So, how do you interpret the rules, then?
When do you decide who wins?

[Norbert G. Matausch]

Certainly you would begin any conflict by comparing Attributes. It does not follow necessarily, as you say is implied, that you must come to some firm (or fairly firm) decision regarding these Attributes before letting the combat play out some.

But then again, how could you ever play out what Erick calls "No Detail versions" of a conflict? You compare, higher rank wins.

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation require for the combat to be described in some detail before you make your decision.

[Panjumanju]

So, how do you interpret the rules, then?
When do you decide who wins?

Like Evermasterx described above, I use a process of "successive approximation", funneling cause-effect relationships through interpretation of the Attributes and circumstances until eventually the result is self-evident. Essentially, letting it play out.

I just don't decide who will win beforehand.

//Panjumanju

[Panjumanju]

But then again, how could you ever play out what Erick calls "No Detail versions" of a conflict? You compare, higher rank wins.

That's easy. You go straight to the result.

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation require for the combat to be described in some detail before you make your decision.

Yes, entirely.

I understand how you got to your style of play, given the text. I don't think your approach is *against* the text. And you've converted me, at least so much as I want to give it a try - but that's not how I've done it, and I don't think it's spelled out or even implied in the text, but it seems to be a common extrapolation.

We have a few people on the forum who have played with Erick Wujcik, and I wonder what they would have to say about this. I don't think Erick would have been as hung up on the details as we are, though.

//Panjumanju

[Norbert G. Matausch]

I understand how you got to your style of play, given the text. I don't think your approach is *against* the text. And you've converted me, at least so much as I want to give it a try - but that's not how I've done it, and I don't think it's spelled out or even implied in the text, but it seems to be a common extrapolation.

Yes
You are, in fact, the first Amber GM I know who interprets it differently. Interesting!

We have a few people on the forum who have played with Erick Wujcik, and I wonder what they would have to say about this. I don't think Erick would have been as hung up on the details as we are, though.

I agree.

Just today, I posted two snippets from the Amber rulesbook on my blog... Erick's GM advice:

http://analogkonsole.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/amber-diceless-zwei-ausschnitte-aus-dem-regelbuch-die-mich-pragten/

[finarvyn]

We have a few people on the forum who have played with Erick Wujcik, and I wonder what they would have to say about this. I don't think Erick would have been as hung up on the details as we are, though.

Well, in my experience Erick didn't ever look at a rulebook. Heck, he hardly ever looked at our character sheets.

I think he built a general "character concept" in his head -- this guy is good here but bad there, that kind of thing -- and then just let us play. It seemed like he would simply decide based on if we tried clever things or not when we had the chance to act out our actions. When I talked to him about rules I got the impression that he bent or broke then on a whim if it made the storyline progress better and made the game more fun. He always seemed to put the story above the mechanics.

Jason played with him a lot more than I did. Maybe he has better insight into the mind of Erick than I do.

[finarvyn]

I find it very interesting that to determine who wins a conflict - at least as a preliminary assessment - precedes the progress of the combat itself, and then supposedly you adjust the decision as things develop.

My interpretation of Lorraine's list is that the GM determines a "potential" winner first, then adjusts the decision from there.

In other words, if Bob and Steve are having a swordfight the GM might look at ranks and decide that Bob wins. Unless Steve can play his ass off, come up with a trick, or somehow extend the battle where Endurance kicks in.

I don't think that the intent is "Okay, Bob wins no matter what."

[Norbert G. Matausch]

Well, in my experience Erick didn't ever look at a rulebook. Heck, he hardly ever looked at our character sheets.

I think he built a general "character concept" in his head -- this guy is good here but bad there, that kind of thing -- and then just let us play. It seemed like he would simply decide based on if we tried clever things or not when we had the chance to act out our actions. When I talked to him about rules I got the impression that he bent or broke then on a whim if it made the storyline progress better and made the game more fun. He always seemed to put the story above the mechanics.

So, this would mean we'd basically arrive at the Theatrix flowchart (or my enhanced version of it):
http://analogkonsole.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/expanded_master_flowchart.jpg

[Panjumanju]

Yes
You are, in fact, the first Amber GM I know who interprets it differently. Interesting!

This is why it's good to have forums and post about things like this - it questions the assumptions we all have when someone approaches the same material a different way.

See, world? The Internet isn't entirely babble.

//Panjumanju

[Jason D]

Jason played with him a lot more than I did. Maybe he has better insight into the mind of Erick than I do.

Though I hung out with the man for many hours and corresponded with him regularly, I didn't game with him very often.

[Croaker]

Roughly, I first compare the attributes.

They can give many "nudges" in the right direction, so that, for exemple, each rank of difference is a nudge.
Same thing goes with weapons and armor: a 4-pts weapons is 3 nudges for you, a 2-pts armor is 2 nudges.

Then, I compare secondary attributes and stuff. The better gets one, and only one, nudge.

Dirty trick can make quite a difference, up to, I dunno, up to 3 or 4 nudges, I guess.

If there's few difference (say, under 2 nudges), endurance comes into play. The lower the difference, the more it helps