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
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
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
With that said, what would you add? You say it's a "gross oversimplification", so my question is: What's missing?
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;681742With 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
Quote from: Panjumanju;681915It'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.
QuoteFor 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.
QuoteIndeed, 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.
QuoteThe 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?
QuoteErick 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.
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?)
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.
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
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;681976Dude, 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
Yeah, the Ranks thing is a big deal.
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.
Quote from: Panjumanju;682082I 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.
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.
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
Almost two years ago, Lorraine outlined another approach (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=496719&postcount=37):
QuoteHow 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.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;684770Almost two years ago, Lorraine outlined another approach (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=496719&postcount=37):
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
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.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;684813In 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
So, how do you interpret the rules, then?
When do you decide who wins?
Quote from: Panjumanju;684817Certainly 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.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;684819So, 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
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;684824But 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.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;684824If 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
Quote from: Panjumanju;684828I 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!
QuoteWe 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.
:D
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/
Quote from: Panjumanju;684828We 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.
Quote from: Panjumanju;684806I 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."
Quote from: finarvyn;685088Well, 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 (http://analogkonsole.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/expanded_master_flowchart.jpg)
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;684852Yes ;)
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
Quote from: finarvyn;685088Jason 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.
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
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;681518Please tell me what we can improve. I think it might be a good tool for all of us, especially GMs new to the game.
Flow chart guides for a new GM are a worthy idea. This thread has interesting features to it.
My idea of improving this flow chart goes along with what many have mentioned.... and concerns value of primary attributes.
In your flow chart as is, you have basically equated advantages with attributes without any qualifier. By this I mean, higher strength = 1 advantage. I think this is logical, but not accurate to novels or game system --- because it raises a single advantage to equal with the legend of your points spent in bid on a primary attribute.
So for example, Corwin's advantages against Benedict in combat at the Black Road offsetting Benedict's primary attribute...
Ben is furious
Ben is unaware of the power of the black grass
Ben has to cut through saplings to get at Corwin
My point is that three advantages give Corwin a chance to 'even up'.
This goes along with Wujcik commentary in the rules. (Not specifically, but generally.)
So if your flow chart had a footnote that differences in ranks change the advantage of the primary by some multiple, then it would better model the rules choices.
Amber standard skill versus Gerard's Strength might require 8 advantages....etc, etc. YMMV
The next thing about the chart that I would note is that you tell a better story if you have a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Thus I suggest you only know who wins if you run the flow chart three times.
So again, Corwin vs Benedict. You get a progression to that combat story.
First pass, Ben is furious, and Corwin retreats as quickly as he can.
Who is winning? Benedict.
Second pass, Ben is furious, and Corwin puts saplings between them, lines up on the black grass, gets ready to jump backwards, tries some tricky cuts at Ben.
Who is winning? draw, though it appears to be Benedict, Corwin gets injured.
Third pass, Ben is furious, Corwin springs his grass trap.
Who is winning? Corwin.
Overall, did Corwin win this fight? No. He ran away. The advantages he played out worked with his strategy of getting the hell away from Ben.
For a trivial fight, a single run of the chart is fine. For a serious confrontation, I'd always run three passes. This also allows the "losing PC" to describe advantages that may allow them accumulate a reason to escape or lessen the loss.
Quote from: Arref;695432Flow chart guides for a new GM are a worthy idea. This thread has interesting features to it.
My idea of improving this flow chart goes along with what many have mentioned.... and concerns value of primary attributes.
In your flow chart as is, you have basically equated advantages with attributes without any qualifier. By this I mean, higher strength = 1 advantage. I think this is logical, but not accurate to novels or game system --- because it raises a single advantage to equal with the legend of your points spent in bid on a primary attribute.
So for example, Corwin's advantages against Benedict in combat at the Black Road offsetting Benedict's primary attribute...
Ben is furious
Ben is unaware of the power of the black grass
Ben has to cut through saplings to get at Corwin
My point is that three advantages give Corwin a chance to 'even up'.
This goes along with Wujcik commentary in the rules. (Not specifically, but generally.)
So if your flow chart had a footnote that differences in ranks change the advantage of the primary by some multiple, then it would better model the rules choices.
Amber standard skill versus Gerard's Strength might require 8 advantages....etc, etc. YMMV
The next thing about the chart that I would note is that you tell a better story if you have a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Thus I suggest you only know who wins if you run the flow chart three times.
So again, Corwin vs Benedict. You get a progression to that combat story.
First pass, Ben is furious, and Corwin retreats as quickly as he can.
Who is winning? Benedict.
Second pass, Ben is furious, and Corwin puts saplings between them, lines up on the black grass, gets ready to jump backwards, tries some tricky cuts at Ben.
Who is winning? draw, though it appears to be Benedict, Corwin gets injured.
Third pass, Ben is furious, Corwin springs his grass trap.
Who is winning? Corwin.
Overall, did Corwin win this fight? No. He ran away. The advantages he played out worked with his strategy of getting the hell away from Ben.
For a trivial fight, a single run of the chart is fine. For a serious confrontation, I'd always run three passes. This also allows the "losing PC" to describe advantages that may allow them accumulate a reason to escape or lessen the loss.
That's some good analysis there!
Yes, I like it too, and will try to make use of it