Attribute Power Levels?

[RPGPundit]

How powerful do you like your psyche attribute to be in your game?
How about Strength? Warfare? Endurance?

Should the attributes all be equally powerful? Or just equally useable if you play them right?
As written, is there one attribute that beats all others?

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

My take on the whole Attribute thing is that all three of the offensive attributes (Psyche, Strength, Warfare) should be roughly equal in power. I like to imagine that ideally each of the three would be very useful in certain situations and not so great in others, but that overall none would be "better" than the rest.

However ... since Psyche is linked to the major powers (Pattern, Logrus, Trump, Sorcery) it seems to be a bit better.

Also, my game group tends to do a lot of fighting so they value Warfare.

Strength seems to be the most overlooked.

Endurance is actually the best, in my opinion, since it powers the other three. (This idea should probably become its own thread.)

[Otha]

I like to give Strength the advantage that when you get your hands on someone (that is, the conflict has moved to strength) that's it; you can't switch to another until the fight is over unless you have the advantage in strength anyways.

[finarvyn]

Otha, this is actually one of the parts of ADRP that troubles me the most.

Player A: I switch to Strength.
Player B: No, you don't. I keep it at Warfare.
Player A: No ... Strength!
Player B: I chop his head off with my sword.

I've never really been comfortable with how to switch the style of conflict, particularly between Strength and Warfare. The Strength guy wants to get a good grip on the Warfare guy, but the Warfare guy keeps slashing with his blade and keeps it as a Warfare conflict.

Does anyone have a "rule of thumb" as to how they handle this problem? Is there a way you determine who gets the say on which type of conflict occurs? I'd like to hear more on this.

[RPGPundit]

Well, for one thing, I never let my players speak in mechanical terms. Saying "I switch to strength" is going to get you nowhere.

In Amber, its the GM's job to handle pretty well ALL of the mechanics.  The player's job is to be descriptive about his characters actual actions.

Its one of the things that's so cool about Amber combat. Instead of just saying "I roll to hit"; or "I try to disarm" or even "I do a whirlwind attack", you have to visualize the precise moves you're trying to make in the battle, and try to get to where you can make use of your stronger attribute, or your opponent's weaker one.

So in answer to your dilemma, there's literally an infinite number of ways that a character can switch to strength.  Saying "I switch to strength" is not one of them.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

To give you an answer that actually answers your question, Fin:

The person who wants to change the combat type, no matter whether he uses IC or OOC statements to tell you, needs to be willing to accept a wound from the swordfight in order to get in close.  The greater the difference, the more severe the wound, up to the point where it becomes suicide if the difference is too great.

How much of a difference?  The book doesn't tell you.  Personally, I'd make a twenty-point difference enough to be pointless to try to switch; the wound you'd get would take you out of the fight unless you were a shapeshifter.

[Arref]

Note that Endurance has a lot to say about whether the wound taken is a good strategy or not. One of the reasons Endurance gets ignored is the notion that a single manuever can decide an important conflict.

Or switching attributes.

[RPGPundit]

Welcome aboard, Arref!

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

Player A: I switch to Strength.
Player B: No, you don't. I keep it at Warfare.
Player A: No ... Strength!
Player B: I chop his head off with my sword.

I hope everyone realizes that my example is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Players would never say this in this way, but the overall question is still the same.

I like the idea that actions would dictate which way the conflict shifts, but when a player is willing to take a wound to make a shift this gets vague again because ADRP has no "hit point" totals. And since the book doesn't give a clear guideline as to how many points of superiority is needed to gain the advantage, I guess it's still in that vague and murky "GM call" area.

[SunBoy]

I use the following: first, the character with lower warfare says what he wants to do. The character with the higher warfare may then react to this. Then I judge the outcome depending on the description of the actions, the compared values of WF and Str, and, if a wound is likely to be taken, then the End value of the wounded character. Of course, Good and Bad stuff can really easily come into play, as a character trying to switch to strenght could slip and get an uglier wound than the one he would have taken in other case, or the momentum of a Good-stuffed strongman could throw off-balance the lighter Bad-stuffed swordman.

Does any of this make any sense?

[Erick Wujcik]

How powerful do you like your psyche attribute to be in your game?
How about Strength? Warfare? Endurance?

Should the attributes all be equally powerful? Or just equally useable if you play them right?
As written, is there one attribute that beats all others?

RPGPundit

How powerful?

Here is one answer.

It really should depend on how the player's vote. In other words, how many points do they collectively bit in each attribute.

In the very first Amber Attribute Auction, back in 1985, Number one in Psyche went for the insane bid of 92 points. Numbers two and three weren't far behind. Obviously, if the players cared that much about Psyche, and put their points behind their convictions, then the Game Master has a certain obligation to make sure Psyche is powerful.

In that campaign, I made sure that those three maniacs were feared by everyone else, and even the elders kept away from Psychic battles when they were on the scene.

Yes, each attribute is 'the most powerful' - but the players ultimately decide, by their participation, which of the attributes is dominant, and which less effective.

Erick

[scottishstorm]

To give you an answer that actually answers your question, Fin:

The person who wants to change the combat type, no matter whether he uses IC or OOC statements to tell you, needs to be willing to accept a wound from the swordfight in order to get in close.  The greater the difference, the more severe the wound, up to the point where it becomes suicide if the difference is too great.

How much of a difference?  The book doesn't tell you.  Personally, I'd make a twenty-point difference enough to be pointless to try to switch; the wound you'd get would take you out of the fight unless you were a shapeshifter.

Old thread, yes, but I'm new here.   Ignore or read at your whim.

The absolute different in points doesn't sit well with me.  Rather, something more along the lines of a percentage difference seems more viable.  As a ridiculous example, lets assume  one combatant has 100 strength and 100 warfare while the other has 120 warfare and 0 strength.  Warfare guy has some beginning advantage, though, generally, the other with 100 warfare & strength should be able to gain an upper hand with his vastly superior strength in a stand up fight.

Note, this isn't the same if someone, say, has -10  vs 10.  Still only 20 points, but the advantage here is HUGE, relatively speaking.

As for how powerful a given stat may be, I think it's a shared responsibility of the GM and player.  If you big high in strength, then consider what strength does for your character.  How does s/he use it to their advantage and even for regular utility?  Naturally, you're not going to have an answer for ever conceivable situation, but you should have a decent enough idea to help you in the majority of stat-related conflicts.

As a side note, one of the issues I have with stats  is that a generalist tends to come off exceedingly terrible.  I mean, consider mister  S 25 P25 W25 E25 vs Mr S0 P 0 W100 E0:

Generalist: I lock gazes with him and attempt to initiate psyche contact.
Warfare dude: I figured he'd try something like that.  I duck, evade eye contact, roll towards him, and skewer.

Generalist: I realize that I'm not going to match his speed or prowess with the blade, so I dance around a lot, fight defensively, and attempt to wear him down.
Warfare dude: He's on the defense?  Good!  I press the attack, maneuver him  to an area with heavy overhanging objects (ie: the fight is in a shipyard or industrial area).  When the opportunity's right, I push or trigger something that causes death from above!

Generalist: I throw my sword at him; CHARGE and grab!
Warfare dude: Heeheehee.  75 point difference in warfare?  Dodging his pitiful throw is child's play.  I crouch and intercept his charge using the superior reach of my blade.

(Yes, these are silly examples.  And, before someone calls me on it, I realize that the players may not know actual numbers, so therefore "Warfare dude" wouldn't call out "75 points".  But, y'all get the point, eh?)

IMO, the best -and possibly only- way for a generalist to beat a spiked character is through use of power such as Pattern.  Assuming, for instance, Warfare dude is pursuing Generalist through shadow, then Generalist can quite possibly create a sort of gauntlet within his evading hellride where ALL stats will be applicable.  Environmental stuff... baddies coming out of the woodwork and some sort of oppressive & distracting psychic presence or force.  Maybe all of these factor for both characters, but the generalist deals with the collection of obstacles better than Warfare dude, causing the spiked character to eventually give up or be put into a weakened and disadvantage state where Generalist can attack.

[scottishstorm]

Note, the above post assumes a limited ranking system or straight points. Regardless, my semi-rant against "generalists" is held firm.

[Klaus]

Old thread, yes, but I'm new here.   Ignore or read at your whim.

The absolute different in points doesn't sit well with me.  Rather, something more along the lines of a percentage difference seems more viable.  

That has its own problem: W 100 vs W 10 and W 10 vs W 1 are both the same percentage difference, but the person with 100 Warfare will destroy the person with 10 Warfare, while 10 Warfare will take a while to kill 1 Warfare.

Really, part of the problem is that 0 (Amber) is actually a fairly substantial number. If we reset our comparison to -25 would that help?

[scottishstorm]

That has its own problem: W 100 vs W 10 and W 10 vs W 1 are both the same percentage difference, but the person with 100 Warfare will destroy the person with 10 Warfare, while 10 Warfare will take a while to kill 1 Warfare.

Really, part of the problem is that 0 (Amber) is actually a fairly substantial number. If we reset our comparison to -25 would that help?

Good point

When guesstimating percentage differences between stats, just ass +25 to them (ie  1 vs 10 really means 26 vs 35, which would make the one with a stat of 10 roughly 30% better than someone with a stat of 1 if my math holds up.  30% is substantial.  Likewise, the person with 120  (125 vs 145) is a little over 13% better than someone with 100)

Once more, this is excluding an applicable ranking system.