Conflict versus multiple foes

[finarvyn]

I saw this on another thread, and it got me thinking....

I ran an Amber game once where I explicitly told people that I was going to hold to the hard-line of the rules, and further that I was going to disallow switching to different attribute-arenas ... that if you have higher warfare you will always win a warfare fight, no matter how hard someone tries to influence the environment or to change the nature of the conflict.

But I don't think that's what the rule says. The higher attribute always wins, except...  And it's the "except" that makes ADRP conflict interesting.

The other thread was up to ten pages (much of it arguing points other than Tony's post, which is why I started a new thread) and nobody even mentioned Endurance. If attributes and other factors are close to one another, then Endurance should be the tie-breaker. Endurance gets overlooked all of the time, but in my game it's the most important attribute (aren't they all) because it can affect Warfare, Strength, or Psyche conflicts.

Our first conflict was two on one, with the two people each being half a rank below the one.  I said that the one person with the higher warfare was going to win the fight ... and that person immediately demanded that he be able to chop the legs off his opponents on the first sword-stroke.

This is where I really want to focus the discussion. How do you handle multiple foes in combat?

Saying that the higher attribute always wins won't work because it doesn't account for the multiple attacks of the opponents. The first rank guy can beat the 1.5 rank guy, but can he beat two of them? Three? A hundred? At what point does this concept break down?

Adding the attribute scores of the opponents won't work because the scale goes into the negative. Suppose the first rank guy is determined to be equal to two of rank 1.5, so does he have a better chance of winning when the two guys are joined by ten more of Chaos rank?

I had considered a system of adding 30 to everybody's attributes so that Shadow (human) rank is at 5, Chaos at 20, Amber at 30, and so on. This would at least get rid of the negative number problem. Then I divided the numbers by 5 to keep it more simple and give a "game value" of 1 to Shadow rank, 4 to Chaos rank, and 5 to Amber rank. This seems to work a lot better.

Another idea I had was to add up the totals for multiple attackers, but to progressively assume that each had less of an effect to the total. The best one gets full points, the second best half points, the third best one-third points, and so on. So, if a 50 Warfare character was fighting six 20 Warfare characters, rather than compare 50 to 20 or 50 to 120 I could compare 50 to 49 (20 + 20/2 + 20/3 + 20/4 +20/5 +20/6) and I find the battle is really close. Endurance time!

Clearly, I prefer the use of points to ranks. Using ranks would require some adjustment to my numbers.

Any other thoughts on this?

[Croaker]

I tried a similar thing.

I assumed human rank to be worth 1 point, chaos 2, amber 4.

And then, it depended on the superiority I wanted to give ranked characters vs amber-level ones.
If I wanted little difference, I had something like ranked points = 4 + 1 per rank above Amber.
If I wanted a lot of differences, I had something like ranked points = 4 + 4 per rank above amber.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Here's an interesting question about endurance:

What if Bleys (let's say an 80 point warfare version of Bleys) went up the steps of Kolvir, fighting his way through the common amber soldier (some would say amber-ranked in warfare, while others would disagree- for this example, let's assume amber rank). He has clear advantages but there are so damn many of them... How do you figure endurance affects him? After how many would he in fact fall, or at least falter using this system?

I'm sure I can program my calculator to do the math for me, but there might be an easier way to interpret the raw value of one individual versus many...


As a GM, I wonder, how many human ranked individuals does it take to take down so-and-so (be it with Warfare or whatever)... Just about the time I formulate a system that seems to please me, I realize that the math involved brings the game to something much too abstract for my taste.

[jibbajibba]

Finarvyn,

If you go back to that original thread and get to the bottom of page 8 I outlined a very similar argument and tried to canvass opinion about mulitple oponents. The discussion is useful I think.
The conclusion I came to was one Arref offered based on the Powers of 5 that seem to come out of the rate of healing between Amberites, ranked PCs and Humans from the original rules.
As a rule of thumb its worked quite well for me since.
5 humans = 1 Chaosite
5 Chaosites = 1 Amberite
5 Amberites = high ranked Amberite

Corwin can take 5 palace guards, a palace guard could take 5 demons, a demon could take 5 humans. Although roleplay, tactics etc would have to play a part as well of course.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Could 10 palace guards take 250 human warriors? Or would they be 'evenly matched', however that would play out depending on endurance?

Damn, those are tough calls to make. It sure simplifies things a bit though, I like that...

[finarvyn]

If you go back to that original thread and get to the bottom of page 8 I outlined a very similar argument and tried to canvass opinion about mulitple oponents. The discussion is useful I think.

I did actually see some of that discussion, but I was afraid that it was going to get lost in the middle of a 10-page thread. I should have done some quoting of that as well, so thanks for pointing it out.

Arref's "rule of 5's" seems like it has some potential. Also, if one looks at Arref's website he has a neat section of "How many Amberites can scheme on the head of a pin" (or something like that) where he assigns a "story value" to various levels of attributes.

I was just fishing for additonal ideas.

[Arref]

How many Amberites...

The progression of fives is suggested in the original rules (not me.)
Note the link above tempers that scale to my own home rules for Amber.

2 humans = 1 Chaosite
2 Chaosites = 1 Amberite
2 Amberites = mid rank Amberite
2 mid rank Amberites = high rank Amberite

...with steps in between.

[Nihilistic Mind]

How many Amberites...

The progression of fives is suggested in the original rules (not me.)
Note the link above tempers that scale to my own home rules for Amber.

2 humans = 1 Chaosite
2 Chaosites = 1 Amberite
2 Amberites = mid rank Amberite
2 mid rank Amberites = high rank Amberite

...with steps in between.

I will say quite truthfully that I'm very impressed. That article is great!
*goes on to read more of Arref's work*

[Crimson]

I tend to find that in cases like this the story/rp comes first. I would cater the situation to do what was best for the plot. Of course the PC would win... but he may come away with a new scar or something. I understand that the Amberites are the epsilon of reality but I, personally, find it hard to imagine that even an Amberite could face off against multiple opponents and not come away unscathed.

[Nihilistic Mind]

I understand that the Amberites are the epsilon of reality but I, personally, find it hard to imagine that even an Amberite could face off against multiple opponents and not come away unscathed.

I second that. A fight - any fight - is likely to cause damage to the characters involved. The situation will determine how much damage/how severe etc...

[finarvyn]

*goes on to read more of Arref's work*

Do this. A lot. Arref's site is probalby the best Amber site I have encountered, and it is just full of interesting ideas for rules and campaigns. Visit it often.

Arref, update it often...

[Uncle Twitchy]

I'll second that emotion. Arref's site has given me a lot of great ideas for my new campaign.