Martial Arts

[Nihilistic Mind]

So, Benedict's Warfare versus Gerard's strength until grappling (then all strength conflict is entered I assume)?
Some people would call that fair, but what about if they pick up swords? Could Gerard's strength be used in that case?

I would be worried about the whole Warfare supremacy again, you know what I mean?

I know the discussion is about Martial Arts specifically, but it's an interesting thought so I wanted to ask about the details a bit further...

[James McMurray]

No Strength for swords.

I'm not too worried about Warfare being supreme. Which stats are better for the campaign is determined during the auction. If everyone goes after Warfare it should be supreme. If they all go for Strength, Warfare won't be as important. If there's a mix, it comes down to strategy and tactics.

[Trevelyan]

I've been in games where Warfare determines quickness and sequence for every use of Attribute expertise. In those games, you cannot have Brand paralyze Benedict because Brand doesn't even have the "quickness" to challenge based on Warfare.

The problem there is that ADRPG makes it clear that mental assaults are inhernetly quicker than physical attacks, and that a spell released without any lynchpins will go off quicker than a swordsman can react.

Besides which, Brand was comfortably outside Benedict's reach when he paralysed him.

Trust me, once the GM declares that Warfare determines if a spell hits or a grapple succeeds, you don't have Attribute parity.

I would never suggest such a thing. For a start, spells seem to target more on intent than anything else. A fireball or similar with a physical componant might be dodgable, but anything that simply causes an effect shouldn't be.

Likewise, grapples can be avoided by a superior warfare if all things are equal. Part of that equality includes a mutual desire to avoid getting hit. As soon as one party is willing to take a blow or two to get in close even Benedict would have problems avoiding a grapple. This too is covered quite clearly in the ADRPG rules.

[Arref]

The problem there is that ADRPG makes it clear that mental assaults are inhernetly quicker than physical attacks, and that a spell released without any lynchpins will go off quicker than a swordsman can react.

Besides which, Brand was comfortably outside Benedict's reach when he paralysed him.

I wasn't responding to a single poster or situation. I was trying to establish the rules as they get bent by interpretation of a single scene from the books.

For instance, the rules also say that Strength is 'inherently quicker' than Warfare attacks. But there are GMs that do not like this rule.

Likewise, grapples can be avoided by a superior warfare if all things are equal. Part of that equality includes a mutual desire to avoid getting hit. As soon as one party is willing to take a blow or two to get in close even Benedict would have problems avoiding a grapple. This too is covered quite clearly in the ADRPG rules.

While it is hard to parse your first sentence I think we are agreeing.

In specific, when it comes to playing out a high Strength PC versus a high Warfare PC, according to the rules there is no doubt that Corwin is going to lose bare-handed to Gerard. Gerard would have to 'give over' or make mistakes in order to lose the fight. Zelazny says this through Gerard. Corwin knows it but tries to win anyhow, as any PC would. Certainly Corwin is going to land blows against Gerard.

Zelazny describes few 'one shot' engagements in the action scenes unless the skill levels are very far apart.

GMs should be wary of allowing a single blow or trick or surprise to change the outcome of Attribute points spent.

[Trevelyan]

For instance, the rules also say that Strength is 'inherently quicker' than Warfare attacks. But there are GMs that do not like this rule.

Personally I like it, but with the caveat that actually getting hold of someone requires warfare first. Strength is quicker once you have hold of someone - i.e. you can apply pressure to a joint or restrict an arm once held faster than that person can draw a weapon. If you don't have hold of someone already then it should be a warfare contest to see if you can grab before they can draw.

While it is hard to parse your first sentence I think we are agreeing.

It wasn't as clear as it could be. For clarification, my point is that in a situation where A is trying to grapple B and B has the higher warfare then A cannot suceed if A and B are equal in all respects, one of which being an unwillingness to take damage. If A is willing to take a hit from B in order to get close then A should be able to start a grapple unless B is significantly superior in warfare.

[Croaker]

The problem there is that ADRPG makes it clear that mental assaults are inhernetly quicker than physical attacks

Just as it states than Strength is Martial Arts

Likewise, grapples can be avoided by a superior warfare if all things are equal.

Of course.
Just as a superior strength gives you and edge in swordplay, all things being equal.

For clarification, my point is that in a situation where A is trying to grapple B and B has the higher warfare then A cannot suceed if A and B are equal in all respects, one of which being an unwillingness to take damage. If A is willing to take a hit from B in order to get close then A should be able to start a grapple unless B is significantly superior in warfare.

Yup, going from swordplay to grapple, totally agreed

[Nihilistic Mind]

No Strength for swords.

I'm not too worried about Warfare being supreme. Which stats are better for the campaign is determined during the auction. If everyone goes after Warfare it should be supreme. If they all go for Strength, Warfare won't be as important. If there's a mix, it comes down to strategy and tactics.

So what happens when the points spent in character creation determine that Strength has supremacy? Would you modify armed combat to incorporate this fact?

Who cares about Strength if Warfare can still be used in unarmed combat and as a strategist/weapon master end all/be all attribute?

I like to think that the attributes should be balanced so that character creation offers variety to the game. With the way warfare rules combat, players would be too likely to follow the path of the warrior. I think that unbalancing the attributes would effectively influence the way the players spend points...

What do you think?

As a GM you're more than free to 'unbalance' the attributes so that players focus on that attribute during the auction/character creation process.
I could see that as a GM tool to make sure the PCs can handle the campaign you have in mind, etc...
I sometimes give discounts to Powers to influence the player's spending, or I'll give them Pattern for free, in certain campaigns/scenarios.

[Trevelyan]

Who cares about Strength if Warfare can still be used in unarmed combat and as a strategist/weapon master end all/be all attribute?

I don't think anyone has suggested that Strength should be meaningless in unarmed combat, merely that warfare has a role to play.

I like to think that the attributes should be balanced so that character creation offers variety to the game. With the way warfare rules combat, players would be too likely to follow the path of the warrior.

Emphasis mine.

I think the clue really is in the name. Warfare should rule combat. That's sort of what warfare is all about. Nothing implicit in the idea of Strength directly suggests that it grants combat skill.

Strength determines how hard you can hit something not how well, and once you've already got hold of someone Strength plays a greater role. But why, other than for game balance, should strength determine unarmed accuracy, when Warfare determines armed accuracy, reflexes and so on?

If you want to boost the appeal of strength, point out its role as a measure of damage resistance and damage dealing.

[James McMurray]

So what happens when the points spent in character creation determine that Strength has supremacy? Would you modify armed combat to incorporate this fact?

Probably. But without seeing the auction happen and knowing who bid what I couldn't tell you how much I'd change it.

Who cares about Strength if Warfare can still be used in unarmed combat and as a strategist/weapon master end all/be all attribute?

People who want to be strong?

I think the clue really is in the name. Warfare should rule combat. That's sort of what warfare is all about. Nothing implicit in the idea of Strength directly suggests that it grants combat skill.

Strength determines how hard you can hit something not how well, and once you've already got hold of someone Strength plays a greater role. But why, other than for game balance, should strength determine unarmed accuracy, when Warfare determines armed accuracy, reflexes and so on?

That's my question as well. Why should being super strong make it easy for me to punch someone in the gut, but the moment I put on a punch dagger or pick up a knife my low Warfare means I can never hurt anyone?

[Arref]

Strength determines how hard you can hit something not how well, and once you've already got hold of someone Strength plays a greater role. But why, other than for game balance, should strength determine unarmed accuracy, when Warfare determines armed accuracy, reflexes and so on?

The why:

Attributes are measures of competency that suppose conflict mastery of the Attribute.

And yet, we balance against other assumptions in how far to take this:
1.  we mortals do not understand the competence of Strength, Warfare, Psyche and Endurance that is 5 to 25 times grander than our normal experience.
2.  we do not want to rob an Attribute of its implications by grounding it in mortality or ignoring the game design.
3.  we understand the game design is telling us 'who wins' an attribute conflict. The game design does not resolve the finer details of how (accuracy, intuition, speed, smarts, planning) as that detail is for the Players and GM to resolve. The systems tells us who wins, the gamers describe the result and try to tweak the consequence if possible (ah, I am defeated but I had an escape planned!)


Because of 1, we do not really understand how dramatic Fiona's intuition or Gerard's speed is.
Because of 2, we do not really want to subtract intuition from Warfare, even though the rules say that Psyche is intuition (and warnings of danger.)
Because of 3, being strong includes competency and mastery of winning martial arts.

How does this apply to the question you ask?

Answers to attributes that discuss "my ten years of study in karate" violate 1 above. Answers to attributes that posit that high Strength doesn't make you good at karate violate 3 above.

If a high Strength PC picks up a dagger, he still wins based on martial arts, not the dagger. The details are for the gamers to decide.

[jibbajibba]

The why:

Attributes are measures of competency that suppose conflict mastery of the Attribute.

And yet, we balance against other assumptions in how far to take this:
1.  we mortals do not understand the competence of Strength, Warfare, Psyche and Endurance that is 5 to 25 times grander than our normal experience.
2.  we do not want to rob an Attribute of its implications by grounding it in mortality or ignoring the game design.
3.  we understand the game design is telling us 'who wins' an attribute conflict. The game design does not resolve the finer details of how (accuracy, intuition, speed, smarts, planning) as that detail is for the Players and GM to resolve. The systems tells us who wins, the gamers describe the result and try to tweak the consequence if possible (ah, I am defeated but I had an escape planned!)


Because of 1, we do not really understand how dramatic Fiona's intuition or Gerard's speed is.
Because of 2, we do not really want to subtract intuition from Warfare, even though the rules say that Psyche is intuition (and warnings of danger.)
Because of 3, being strong includes competency and mastery of winning martial arts.

How does this apply to the question you ask?

Answers to attributes that discuss "my ten years of study in karate" violate 1 above. Answers to attributes that posit that high Strength doesn't make you good at karate violate 3 above.

If a high Strength PC picks up a dagger, he still wins based on martial arts, not the dagger. The details are for the gamers to decide.

From a Rules perspective this is a good answer. You have set out some points that give a rationale to using the rules as they stand but a lot of your argument stems from the idea that the rules as written were right in the first place. All the arguments from real life experience, from the ability to role play atypical Amberites and even from common sense are still valid and are difficult to counter.
You laid out a valid point that we were discussing how the 'rules' tackle this issue and not how we would choose to rewrite the rules to tackle this issue.
However, I feel the weight of opinion falls on 'The rules are not entirely satisfactory on this' side of the fence.
In the rule Strength and martial arts are one stat and the highest Strength will win in an unarmed conflict of any type but again there are any number of situations where this doesn't feel right and where GM arbitration becomes a tad too important when resolving an issue. Ranging from can Benedict use a rope (shoelace? electric lamp flex?) as a weapon and thus win in a grapple because his Warfare is far too superior to his oponents strength to if strength is always faster than warfare then why would Gerrard carry a blade.

So I guess we have 2 schools
i - the rules are gospel
ii - go ahead and make a decision so long as your players and you know up front how it works there is no problem.

I doubt there is going to be any revelationary insight from either perspective that resolves this position.

[Croaker]

Well, for some weapons, it all depends on how you're using it.

For me, a sword is, well, always a sword, and thus fall on warfare.

But a dagger? You can use it for a knife fight, where you would keep some distance to your opponent, maneuver a lot... which would fall upon warfare, or you can use it much more closely, at fist-lenght, to gut your ennemy, and, this way, it would be a strength-enhancing weapon.
Just as a garotte would, IMO, fall under strength-enhancing weapons, at it enhances your grapple ability, or a cestus enhance your strength-HtH ability, not your warfare.

So, IMHO, the fact that benny is a master of warfare doesn't means he comes from "weak with his hand" (as if he was... ) to "invincible with brass knuckles". Both would fall under Strength.
Same thing if he used a dagger in close combat. But the moment a dagger fight takes some distance, becoming a "dance of blades", his warfare "fencing" ability comes to the forefront.

I think that a lot of problem comes from the formulation of the abilities. It it were "Armed Fighting Skill" vs "Unharmed Fighting Skill", as in some RPGs, no one would question it. But the word "strength" causes some difficulties to some people.

[jibbajibba]

Its because Strength also defines another 3 or 4 abilities that in another game woudl be separately handled in the rules. It means in effect Unarmed combat guys can only every look like Gerrard and not look like Jet Li.

[Croaker]

Why not?

If a player comes first in strength, i see no reason at all to force him to be big and muscular. If he wanna look like jet li, fine by me!

[jibbajibba]

Fair point I was being simplistic . My point is you can't be weak and good at martial arts, or fragile and good at martial arts, you can only be strong, able to take and receive a lot of damage and good at martial arts. Most systems would separate these out.