Amber Heartbreaker

[jibbajibba]

This one os more contentious.

Warfare is too broad. The only reason Warfare is broad is because of Benedict. He is both the master tactician and the great warrior. History and most other works of fiction devide these categories. So Napoleon doesn't need to be great with a blade and D'Artangan doesn't need to be great at orgainising supply chains.

As Warfare tends to Dominate Amber as the top dog stat (although Psyche as written comes close and can also be tweaked down) spliting it into Combat and Tactics makes some sense. It means those like Benedict that want to dominate both areas will need to expend more resources much like a Psyche guy needs Psyche and Powers and it means there is a wider wealth of character options available.

[Evermasterx]

I'd like to see a second edition with:
1) partial powers
2) clearer rules for Conjuration
3) more Power Words
4) more Spells
5) color pictures
and then, books about The Courts of Chaos, Rebma, ecc. and decks of Trumps.
But it's only a dream, I know.

[finarvyn]

Warfare is too broad. The only reason Warfare is broad is because of Benedict. He is both the master tactician and the great warrior. History and most other works of fiction devide these categories. So Napoleon doesn't need to be great with a blade and D'Artangan doesn't need to be great at orgainising supply chains.

I think that to a certain degree you are applying 20th & 21st century ideas to an older historical concept.

Historically, gentlemen were trained in the art of warfare, including fencing, tactics, how to act like an officer, and similar skills. Commoners might be able to pick up an axe and thunk someone with it, but were never trained to the degree that the nobility were. Think of RPGs like Space 1880 and the like.

In that way, Napoleon may not have been the best with the blade, but it's certain that he was trained how to use it. D'Artangan may not have been an expert tactician, but part of the Musketeer training certainly involved leadership skills and other officer abilities. Officers in war go to places like West Point and learn all sorts of skills that pertain to warfare in general, and each one is likely to have strengths and weaknesses compared to each other officer.

That's what ADRP is trying to simulate.

Like anything else, Warfare should be treated as a part of the background. If a player states that his character is a doctor, we assume the character can do basic doctor-stuff. In the same way, a character with high Warfare ought to give some details as to what part of Warfare is his strength and what part is his weakness. You can make a rule (or sub-stat) for it, or just build it into the character creation process.

In Benedict's case, his Warfare is supposed to be so amazing that he has mastered all facets of the art. Characters in general would not be assumed to have equal levels of mastery in everything.

The same can be said for Strength. Muscle and martial arts are both listed as potential abilities gained for high Strength, but it would be absurd to assume that any bodybuilder is also a black belt in Karate. You can either write a rule for it with sub-stats or simply have players explain what their Strength does for their individual character.

If you've ever seen Ron Edwards' Sorcerer he does something like this. Once a character has his attributes, the player must select a phrase that explains how he got that way. "Enhanced by Sterroids" or "Working in the Fields" could each explain a high Strength, but the image of the two characters would be totally different.

Bottom line is that I like ADRP without all of the extra rules and would rather encourage description and character background rather than create sub-stats that may or may not make the game mechanic run any better.

Just something to think about. Just my two cents.

[jibbajibba]

I think that to a certain degree you are applying 20th & 21st century ideas to an older historical concept.

Historically, gentlemen were trained in the art of warfare, including fencing, tactics, how to act like an officer, and similar skills. Commoners might be able to pick up an axe and thunk someone with it, but were never trained to the degree that the nobility were. Think of RPGs like Space 1880 and the like.

In that way, Napoleon may not have been the best with the blade, but it's certain that he was trained how to use it. D'Artangan may not have been an expert tactician, but part of the Musketeer training certainly involved leadership skills and other officer abilities. Officers in war go to places like West Point and learn all sorts of skills that pertain to warfare in general, and each one is likely to have strengths and weaknesses compared to each other officer.

That's what ADRP is trying to simulate.

Like anything else, Warfare should be treated as a part of the background. If a player states that his character is a doctor, we assume the character can do basic doctor-stuff. In the same way, a character with high Warfare ought to give some details as to what part of Warfare is his strength and what part is his weakness. You can make a rule (or sub-stat) for it, or just build it into the character creation process.

In Benedict's case, his Warfare is supposed to be so amazing that he has mastered all facets of the art. Characters in general would not be assumed to have equal levels of mastery in everything.

The same can be said for Strength. Muscle and martial arts are both listed as potential abilities gained for high Strength, but it would be absurd to assume that any bodybuilder is also a black belt in Karate. You can either write a rule for it with sub-stats or simply have players explain what their Strength does for their individual character.

If you've ever seen Ron Edwards' Sorcerer he does something like this. Once a character has his attributes, the player must select a phrase that explains how he got that way. "Enhanced by Sterroids" or "Working in the Fields" could each explain a high Strength, but the image of the two characters would be totally different.

Bottom line is that I like ADRP without all of the extra rules and would rather encourage description and character background rather than create sub-stats that may or may not make the game mechanic run any better.

Just something to think about. Just my two cents.

Youy ever seen an Amber character who was ranked 1st in Warfare say 'I am going to be great at Strategy and tactics but only mediocre witht eh blade ..... I see myself more like Caesar than Conan.

[warp9]

Youy ever seen an Amber character who was ranked 1st in Warfare say 'I am going to be great at Strategy and tactics but only mediocre witht eh blade ..... I see myself more like Caesar than Conan.

The question I'd have is: where would this 1st Ranked Warfare character (who is more like Caesar than Conan) fit within the ranking of blade usage?

What if the number 5 warfare guy was more of the "Conan type" ? Would he be better than the 1st ranked guy when it came to armed combat?

[finarvyn]

The question I'd have is: where would this 1st Ranked Warfare character (who is more like Caesar than Conan) fit within the ranking of blade usage?

What if the number 5 warfare guy was more of the "Conan type" ? Would he be better than the 1st ranked guy when it came to armed combat?

And this is exactly where the art of being a GM comes into play. The ADRP game system provides a general guideline but stays away from being too specific on this point, so the GM would have to make some choices.

I think it would come down to a couple of factors:

1. How strongly did each player stress the stereotype. If the Caesar type wants to be a tactical genius he's probably more average with a blade. If the Conan type doesn't care about tactics at all, he would be above average. All other things being equal, the Conan type probably wins in a swordfight.

2. How close were the points? I know that ADRP says that Rank rules all, but I still like to go back to points for these kinds of decisions. If Caesar spent 25 points and Conan 20, that makes them pretty close to one another. If Caesar spent 65 and Conan 15 then Caesar is clearly superior in Warfare. In that case I might rule that they were both pretty equal with the blade and maybe let Endurance tip the scales.

That's the thing that is so cool and yet annoying about ADRP. It's such a simple game on the surface, but if you want an exact answer, Erick won't give one. Remember the fundamental rule that you compare attributes and the high number wins. Except...

...it's the "except" part that makes the game fun. If we don't know for sure, neither do the players. This way they have to actually play it out to see what happens.

[jibbajibba]

And this is exactly where the art of being a GM comes into play. The ADRP game system provides a general guideline but stays away from being too specific on this point, so the GM would have to make some choices.

I think it would come down to a couple of factors:

1. How strongly did each player stress the stereotype. If the Caesar type wants to be a tactical genius he's probably more average with a blade. If the Conan type doesn't care about tactics at all, he would be above average. All other things being equal, the Conan type probably wins in a swordfight.

2. How close were the points? I know that ADRP says that Rank rules all, but I still like to go back to points for these kinds of decisions. If Caesar spent 25 points and Conan 20, that makes them pretty close to one another. If Caesar spent 65 and Conan 15 then Caesar is clearly superior in Warfare. In that case I might rule that they were both pretty equal with the blade and maybe let Endurance tip the scales.

That's the thing that is so cool and yet annoying about ADRP. It's such a simple game on the surface, but if you want an exact answer, Erick won't give one. Remember the fundamental rule that you compare attributes and the high number wins. Except...

...it's the "except" part that makes the game fun. If we don't know for sure, neither do the players. This way they have to actually play it out to see what happens.

Okay i was kidding it was ironic, and they say irony is lost on Americans

No player who is first in warfare will ever say they are not best at everything why not they paid the points and as written they get to be Conan and Caesar wrapped up in a dollop of Aragorn. Sure they may not be a dick but according to the rules they are the best at everything from picking a lock to playing poker to pistol shooting

[weilide]

Okay i was kidding it was ironic, and they say irony is lost on Americans

It's true, we only ever speak with the utmost earnestness.

[Sidrick]

Youy ever seen an Amber character who was ranked 1st in Warfare say 'I am going to be great at Strategy and tactics but only mediocre witht eh blade ..... I see myself more like Caesar than Conan.

It's happened in a few of my games over the years.  But I've also used a 'specialization' house rule too.  Seems like it is fairly similar to the Sorcerer idea, except that it wasn't required.  In one particular game, that rank 1 Warfare stressed that he was a fantastic strategist, very good at tactics but in comparison, pretty poor in personal combat.  He became Amber's second best general, and at one point managed to hold off Benedict and his army for the months he needed to keep Ben from reducing the city to rubble.  On the other hand he was routinely beat on by the rank 4 Warfare holder when they practiced with blades.

[warp9]

In the same way, a character with high Warfare ought to give some details as to what part of Warfare is his strength and what part is his weakness. You can make a rule (or sub-stat) for it, or just build it into the character creation process.

What if I do want my character to be the master strategist and the awesome swordsman combined?

The rules as written make that automatic. And if we divide the stat up, it would be possible (at least in theory) to win both auctions---if the Player really wanted to be the master of general warfare.

But if you force everybody to specialize, then it doesn't seem like it is possible to achieve dominance in both areas.

[jibbajibba]

What if I do want my character to be the master strategist and the awesome swordsman combined?

The rules as written make that automatic. And if we divide the stat up, it would be possible (at least in theory) to win both auctions---if the Player really wanted to be the master of general warfare.

But if you force everybody to specialize, then it doesn't seem like it is possible to achieve dominance in both areas.

Totally agree.

I think the comments here support rather than counter the argument for spliting combat from tactics....

Next ... Psyche....

I would
i) Trim down the mind control / dominant aspects
ii) Insist that any effect that hopes to gain mental dominace requires some sort of opening trigger, either spell, trump or possible touch (ala the Vulcan mind meld)
iii) stress that in a battle of wills a defensive position is very difficult to breach even with a vastly superior Psyche

This should encourage the psyche guys to pick up "powers" as well as Psyche works best when running these.

[finarvyn]

I think the comments here support rather than counter the argument for spliting combat from tactics....

I think it comes down to the complexity you wish to create in the game. Part of what is so neat about Amber (to me) is that it is very flexible. There aren't that many hard-and-fast rules, so players can come up with a concept and then play that character. The more you split up the attiributes, the more you restrict those options.

Suppose you determine that each of Erick's stats could best represent three things. Suddenly those four stats become 12:

For example:
Psyche = mental attack, mental defense, perceptions
Strength = athletics, muscle, martial arts
Endurance = health, stamina, resistance to disease
Warfare = combat, tactics, leadership

And we haven't set up a sub-stat for dexterity, charisma, educational background, sanity, or any number of other things that a character might want to be good at. Is 12 the "optimal" number? Maybe 18 or 24? Where does it end? And is this new game actually "better" than the original one?

My entire point is that you come up with strengths and weaknesses through background and role-playing, not by creating more stats to auction. Sorry if you interpreted my points in the opposite way intended.

[warp9]

I think it comes down to the complexity you wish to create in the game. Part of what is so neat about Amber (to me) is that it is very flexible. There aren't that many hard-and-fast rules, so players can come up with a concept and then play that character. The more you split up the attiributes, the more you restrict those options.

I don't agree.

Having specific attributes allows me, as a player, to bid on exactly what I want to get. And if my character is 1st ranked in combat, and 3rd ranked in tactics, I know where my character stands.

With the descriptive modifier deal, it leaves things totally up to the individual GM's interpretation (which is out of my control). The GM's idea of how a warfare with a specialization described as "Ninja Master" may be very different from my own.

[finarvyn]

Okay, suppose for a moment that I subscribe to the "more is better" style of ADRP design. How many attributes is the "right" number?

At what point do we dust off a copy of RuneQuest, list off all of the skills in the book, and call each its own attribute. Or take AD&D and let each class represent an attribute -- fighting, magic use, cleric/healing, nature/druid, monk/martial arts, thief/sneaking, assassin/poisons, and so on.

I'm not just trying to be a pain here. I'm curious as to what is the optimal number.

[warp9]

Okay, suppose for a moment that I subscribe to the "more is better" style of ADRP design. How many attributes is the "right" number?

I wouldn't have any problem with going pretty far. Although I'd add that many of the things Amber puts into attributes, I'd put into skills instead.

IMO things such as Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, and Will Power, are attributes.

Whereas Karate, Judo, Sword-fighting, tactics, and leadership are skills, which would be based on various attributes (for example, sword-fighting skill is enhanced by having a high dexterity).