Musings on Warfare

[Malleus Aforethought]

I know that threads have thrashed away at the various Attributes, but something occurred to me the other day and I wanted see what perspective others out there had. So, I was having dinner with a couple of my players, both of whom are new to Amber DRPG, one them being the player of the  "first-ranked" Strength character. We were discussing the concept of how a character who is inferior in one Attribute can "change the playing field" to shift the balance of power in a conflict. At one point I started to say "Attributes aren't skills" to try and clarify something for the guy. That's when I realized that this isn't the case, as Warfare, while encompassing a number of natural talents and instincts, relies very heavily on "attributes" that are normally trained skills (military intelligence, logistics, psych ops, weapons skills, etc.). While the other three Attributes might have a little bleed-over, it is far easier to explain Strength, Endurance, or Psyche in terms of natural aptitude than Warfare.  So I wonder if this isn't a source of some of the frustration that can arise in campaign where one Attribute (while sometimes Psyche, but most often Warfare) seems to dominate the play.

{edit} I should add that I'm thinking about this from a pure mechanics point point of view, not because I have any particular problem with the alignment of the Attributes as they stand. The four Attributes map well enough to the stories as far as I'm concerned. {edit}

I don't have any particular axe to grind, but I'm wondering if any one else has any thoughts about how Warfare might be tuned to be more in line with the other Attributes or, alternatively, if it might be possible to expose the underlying "natural" ability which informs Warfare.

[warp9]

I know that threads have thrashed away at the various Attributes, but something occurred to me the other day and I wanted see what perspective others out there had. So, I was having dinner with a couple of my players, both of whom are new to Amber DRPG, one them being the player of the  "first-ranked" Strength character. We were discussing the concept of how a character who is inferior in one Attribute can "change the playing field" to shift the balance of power in a conflict. At one point I started to say "Attributes aren't skills" to try and clarify something for the guy. That's when I realized that this isn't the case, as Warfare, while encompassing a number of natural talents and instincts, relies very heavily on "attributes" that are normally trained skills (military intelligence, logistics, psych ops, weapons skills, etc.). While the other three Attributes might have a little bleed-over, it is far easier to explain Strength, Endurance, or Psyche in terms of natural aptitude than Warfare.  So I wonder if this isn't a source of some of the frustration that can arise in campaign where one Attribute (while sometimes Psyche, but most often Warfare) seems to dominate the play.

That is sort of what I was getting at with this post here below :

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).

{edit} I should add that I'm thinking about this from a pure mechanics point point of view, not because I have any particular problem with the alignment of the Attributes as they stand. The four Attributes map well enough to the stories as far as I'm concerned. {edit}

If I wanted to simply parrot Zelazny's stories, there would be no problem; however, I want to tell my own stories using Zelazny's universe as a starting point. Just because Zelazny decided to combine mastery of sword-play and mastery of strategy in the character Benedict, doesn't mean I need to do the same thing with my own characters.

Nor do I think that the idea of having characters where these things are separate factors, violates the primal nature of the Amber Universe.

I'm not all that concerned about whether the rules mirror the exact Amber stories as written down in the books (as long as they don't actually contradict the books).  I would rather focus on having a set up that allows me to have the most flexibility to tell my own Amber-based stories.

[jibbajibba]

If I wanted to simply parrot Zelazny's stories, there would be no problem; however, I want to tell my own stories using Zelazny's universe as a starting point. Just because Zelazny decided to combine mastery of sword-play and mastery of strategy in the character Benedict, doesn't mean I need to do the same thing with my own characters.

Nor do I think that the idea of having characters where these things are separate factors, violates the primal nature of the Amber Universe.

I'm not all that concerned about whether the rules mirror the exact Amber stories as written down in the books (as long as they don't actually contradict the books).  I would rather focus on having a set up that allows me to have the most flexibility to tell my own Amber-based stories.

I have argued the exact same point many times. The fact that Benedict is both a great swordsman and a great military commander is a coincidence that shouldn't be hard coded into the rules.

Now I use a skill system but I would still probabaly never take Warfare out of the auction although I might well decide to split it into Strategy / Combat (I already treat Strength as more about hitpoints and raw muscle and not about unarmed martial arts becuase that is another system flaw if you choose to look closely.

The problem you have is that skills in amber must be easy to grasp. An Amberite can litterally jump off to a fast shadow and learn how to play the guitar in a day of game time. So if you treat combat like skills its very hard to keep the feeling.

I think the best option might well be to strip the attributes down to talents. Talents were used in the old FGU games as a parallel to attributes. In real life terms if you have every trained anyone in anything its very easy to see if someone has a natural talent/aptitude for something and that totally controls how easily they can learn.
So perhaps rather than bidding for the core attributes you bid for a bunch of talents. Belicosity/Warfare being one. then the rank you get in that talent will determine the cost of skills in that category.

So 2 examp,es one real world one Amber.

Benedict is rank 1 in Warfare talent. so he can buy skills in the combat pool at 1 point per point (the skill system would need work and need some sort of reference table but you get the idea). Basically he can quickly master any weapon style or new tactical nuance. However when he first encounters a new weapon or tactic (say Zero G combat) then an expert would be better than him. Now in game this would allow a lower ranked Warfare guy to be a specialist at something so Caine coudl spend a lot of points on Knife fighting so in that one area he might rival Benedict. Of Course Benedict could quickly surpass Caine if he spent the time to master that weapon just because for him the points are far chaeper.

In real life David Beckham was never a very talented football player. However, he trained and trained and trained and he mastered 2 techniquies, the free kick and the long pass/cross. At those things he was world class maybe int eh best half dozen in the world. George Best was possibly the most naturally talented football player of all time. He could tackle, use both feet, shoot, dribble past anyone. Rather than train hard he drank a lot and shagged anythign that moved. He didn't need to train he was a natural (needless to say he is now dead).

So a system based on this principle where you bid on talents (Warfare, Strategy, Psyche, Stamina, Aesthetics, Science, Mechanics, etc etc ... ) and then use the rank in those to get a cost per point on skills might work out.
It would be slow though and get very complex on the number crunching.

[Croaker]

I like it a lot, but, well, there's the number crunching

Another possibility is to treat your attribute as something akin to your maximum potential.

So, if you're 1st in warfare, you have the potential to be the best fencer alive. If you know squat about swords, you're toast, though.
Say you spend a few years in a fast-time shadow, learning fencing. You GM might decide you got to about rank 3rd in fencing.
Spend some decennies training, and he'll give you that 1st rank.

At chargen, a player could have a list of skills into wich choose their proficiencies for each attribute (say, 10 skills at rank), their deficiencies (say, 10 skills you're Human rank in which), with the rest being assumed to be at Rank -3 (minimum rank: Chaos) because they haven't studied them much (So the 1st in warfare would be akin to rank 4 in these)

Still some bookeeping, but maybe less so, as some could be handwaved: If a player says he dedicates himself to skill xxx, he'll master it, it's just a question of time.

[warp9]

I have argued the exact same point many times. The fact that Benedict is both a great swordsman and a great military commander is a coincidence that shouldn't be hard coded into the rules.

Agreed.

Now I use a skill system but I would still probabaly never take Warfare out of the auction although I might well decide to split it into Strategy / Combat (I already treat Strength as more about hitpoints and raw muscle and not about unarmed martial arts becuase that is another system flaw if you choose to look closely.

The problem you have is that skills in amber must be easy to grasp. An Amberite can litterally jump off to a fast shadow and learn how to play the guitar in a day of game time. So if you treat combat like skills its very hard to keep the feeling.

I'm not really sure I see the problem here.

Just getting the basics of a skill (even combat skills) should be pretty easy for an Amberite. Getting to the level of skill of somebody like Corwin is a whole different matter.

If you allow Amberites quite a few skill points, and then have a set up with diminishing returns (where it costs more and more to increase your skill level as you get better and better), then it could become a simple matter for characters to have a wide range of skills, without automatically making it easy for everyone to become Benedict.

I think the best option might well be to strip the attributes down to talents. Talents were used in the old FGU games as a parallel to attributes. In real life terms if you have every trained anyone in anything its very easy to see if someone has a natural talent/aptitude for something and that totally controls how easily they can learn.
So perhaps rather than bidding for the core attributes you bid for a bunch of talents. Belicosity/Warfare being one. then the rank you get in that talent will determine the cost of skills in that category.

So 2 examp,es one real world one Amber.

Benedict is rank 1 in Warfare talent. so he can buy skills in the combat pool at 1 point per point (the skill system would need work and need some sort of reference table but you get the idea). Basically he can quickly master any weapon style or new tactical nuance. However when he first encounters a new weapon or tactic (say Zero G combat) then an expert would be better than him. Now in game this would allow a lower ranked Warfare guy to be a specialist at something so Caine coudl spend a lot of points on Knife fighting so in that one area he might rival Benedict. Of Course Benedict could quickly surpass Caine if he spent the time to master that weapon just because for him the points are far chaeper.

In real life David Beckham was never a very talented football player. However, he trained and trained and trained and he mastered 2 techniquies, the free kick and the long pass/cross. At those things he was world class maybe int eh best half dozen in the world. George Best was possibly the most naturally talented football player of all time. He could tackle, use both feet, shoot, dribble past anyone. Rather than train hard he drank a lot and shagged anythign that moved. He didn't need to train he was a natural (needless to say he is now dead).

So a system based on this principle where you bid on talents (Warfare, Strategy, Psyche, Stamina, Aesthetics, Science, Mechanics, etc etc ... ) and then use the rank in those to get a cost per point on skills might work out.
It would be slow though and get very complex on the number crunching.

In many ways, your statements about David Beckham VS George Best would compare to a GURPS character with a large amount of points invested in a particular skill, VS a character with a very high DEX attribute.

In GURPS, having a very high DEX means even your un-trained (default) skill level is pretty good when it comes to many physical activities. And with even a little bit of training, it is possible to surpass the abilities of lower dexterity experts. It is possible for a low-DEX character to have a greater level of skill than the high DEX character, but that means investing a lot of points in that particular skill.

Basically I agree with what you've said above, although, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "strip the attributes down to talents." I'd say GURPS attributes function as you've indicated, but I wouldn't necessarily say they'd been "stripped down."

[jibbajibba]

Basically I agree with what you've said above, although, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "strip the attributes down to talents." I'd say GURPS attributes function as you've indicated, but I wouldn't necessarily say they'd been "stripped down."

Well I guess I am coming from an education perspective where the raw talent is actually different to a physical ability. Its hard to explain but there is a quality (or talent) that is not defined by a simple stat like Dex. If we call it Belicosity (for want of a catchier term) some people will have low dex but High Belicosity and they will learn a different technique for fighting that someone with high dex.... I know its not as clear as I woudl liek

I agree a system in which your eventual skill with a weapon = Stat+Skill points means those with high stats can get very good much quicker is a way to get a similar effect. Generally where stat = 1/3 of the total score or more then skill points become secondary to stats.

I am not keen on Dex because it's a bit of a catch all.

[warp9]

I am not keen on Dex because it's a bit of a catch all.

It does seem that concepts like "dexterity" or "intelligence" can be pretty broad. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that a cat is more dexterous than a turtle, and a dolphin is more intelligent than a grasshopper.

Are you suggesting that Dex-like stats have no place in a game?

Or are you suggesting that Dex should be broken down into more specific elements (such as: quickness, reflexes, balance, etc) ?

[jibbajibba]

It does seem that concepts like "dexterity" or "intelligence" can be pretty broad. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that a cat is more dexterous than a turtle, and a dolphin is more intelligent than a grasshopper.

Are you suggesting that Dex-like stats have no place in a game?

Or are you suggesting that Dex should be broken down into more specific elements (such as: quickness, reflexes, balance, etc) ?

I don't know to be honest. I probably think agility and coordination are sufficiently different. My my point really is that the physical stats are different to the raw talent.

[warp9]

I don't know to be honest. I probably think agility and coordination are sufficiently different.

Hmmm. I'm not 100% sure whether we are on the same page here, or not. . . .

I would tend to say that "quickness/speed" is different than "control/responsiveness." Which may come out to the same thing as what you are saying above. But to be a bit more specific on my views:

To me Quickness is based on the ability of your muscles to drive your body-mass.

Force = Mass * Acceleration

And thus. . . .

Acceleration = Force / Mass

Which is a STR vs Mass ratio.

Whereas, Control is more of a function of the nervous-system.

And I tend to think of Agility as the blend of a character's quickness, and that character's capability for physical control.

My my point really is that the physical stats are different to the raw talent.

I understood that your point was about the "talent thing."

However, before talking about whether or not physical stats are different from raw talent, I was hoping to have an understanding about what we are talking about in terms of "physical stats."

Still, it seems to me that, if a character has super-human agility and coordination (to use your terms), this level of ability should be reflected in most contests of skill with normal human characters.

If we assume that the character's degree of skill in the specific area is also a factor, then that is probably going to lead to a stat+skill type situation, and I'm not sure that we really need some third factor (such as "Belicosity")

[jibbajibba]

Hmmm. I'm not 100% sure whether we are on the same page here, or not. . . .

I would tend to say that "quickness/speed" is different than "control/responsiveness." Which may come out to the same thing as what you are saying above. But to be a bit more specific on my views:

To me Quickness is based on the ability of your muscles to drive your body-mass.

Force = Mass * Acceleration

And thus. . . .

Acceleration = Force / Mass

Which is a STR vs Mass ratio.

Whereas, Control is more of a function of the nervous-system.

And I tend to think of Agility as the blend of a character's quickness, and that character's capability for physical control.



I understood that your point was about the "talent thing."

However, before talking about whether or not physical stats are different from raw talent, I was hoping to have an understanding about what we are talking about in terms of "physical stats."

Still, it seems to me that, if a character has super-human agility and coordination (to use your terms), this level of ability should be reflected in most contests of skill with normal human characters.

If we assume that the character's degree of skill in the specific area is also a factor, then that is probably going to lead to a stat+skill type situation, and I'm not sure that we really need some third factor (such as "Belicosity")

Yeah I think you are probabaly right. However, a bit of me knows from experience that some people are just 'scrappier' than other people...

[warp9]

Yeah I think you are probabaly right. However, a bit of me knows from experience that some people are just 'scrappier' than other people...

Again, perhaps I'm not quite getting where you are coming from. . . .

But it sort of seems like that kind of tendency might be represented by the fact that the 'scrappier' characters invest more points into combat skills.

[jibbajibba]

Again, perhaps I'm not quite getting where you are coming from. . . .

But it sort of seems like that kind of tendency might be represented by the fact that the 'scrappier' characters invest more points into combat skills.

No it is true I explinign this very badly.

Its just if you take 2 guys and give them both a weapon they have never seen before and stick them in the arena it's not the most agile or the strongest that wins its the one that is 'scrapiest'

[Malleus Aforethought]

No it is true I explinign this very badly.

Its just if you take 2 guys and give them both a weapon they have never seen before and stick them in the arena it's not the most agile or the strongest that wins its the one that is 'scrapiest'

Well that sounds like Warfare.

[Malleus Aforethought]

I think JibbaJibba's skill system is interesting, but I'm not sure I'm willing to invest that much work. Alas. So, I'm thinking that I might just try something I'm going to call "combat advantages." Along the lines of being able to purchase an ally, a player could purchase a bonus to warfare in a narrow category. So, Caine, for example, could purchase an advantage with knives/knife fighting. Could also explain Corwin's fencing trick he used on Eric. Of the two, Corwin's trick would be cheaper, since it's of limited utility. He shouldn't have been able to get away with it twice against an opponent of Eric's caliber, except he psyched Eric out. On the other hand, Caine is considered to be a expert knife fighter by Corwin (and by Merlin?), so this would be an more expensive, "always on," advantage, but should still be cheaper than advancing Warfare, especially since you can never out rank the one who won the rank to begin with. Stays pretty canon, without any major revisions to Warfare as it stands.

I suppose you could make a "I'm bad-ass at everything" advantage which could be bid on as a one-time award. Could explain Benedict without veering too far off canon.

[warp9]

No it is true I explinign this very badly.

Its just if you take 2 guys and give them both a weapon they have never seen before and stick them in the arena it's not the most agile or the strongest that wins its the one that is 'scrapiest'

I'm still unclear about what you mean by "scrappy" in this context.