Resolving conflict in Amber without GM favouritism

[Erick Wujcik]

Yeah, y'know, Erick I've got almost twenty years of Amber experience under my belt, and I can barely see the contours of the mechanics underlying that example.

This exchange is teaching me something. Namely that there are two layers involved.

Yes, the 2nd, deeper layer, comprising the actual mechanics of decision making is hard to discern.

However, there is another layer, an upper layer, that is much clearer. That's the layer in which both the role-players and the Game Master exchange the information necessary to feed both the decision-making (on the player side) and the mechanics (on the Game Master's side).

In Simone's example, line by line, we see how both role-player and Game Master are exchanging information, detailed information about the setting, positioning, goals and objectives of the various participants in the battle.

All of which are vital to using the mechanics to resolve the combat.

Erick

[PGiverty]

You are confusing style with substance.

As for the mechanics, it's clear that you aren't paying very much attention. Please read Simone's posting again. And again.

There are mechanics there, writ clear and plain.

I'll be back.

Erick

I promise you I read it thoroughly a couple of times, and I'm not being obtuse, or trying to provoke. I think I must be missing something fundamental. I know how to handle conflicts with unequal rankings. I am looking for mechanical guidelines as to how much what people say can make a difference to that. Of course I can make it up as I go along, using my judgement. It may that such as advice is simply not possible. Maybe it's always GM judgement. I'll away your further posting before responding any further.

Edit: Before RPGPundit kicks off, I'd like to apologize for using the terms "GM Fiat" and "improv". Having done some research, I can see why they might irritate you. I don't think that there is anything wrong with GM fiat or improv in the right context, so I hope you can see I didn't mean an insult.

[Otha]

In Simone's example, line by line, we see how both role-player and Game Master are exchanging information, detailed information about the setting, positioning, goals and objectives of the various participants in the battle.

I think it would be useful if you were to lay that all out explicitly, because not only do I not see your second level, I don't think I see your first level... or if I do, I'm not recognizing it for what it is.

[jibbajibba]

Okay I am no expert but I can see Mechanics at work here. I have summarised the example into a mechanical/desicion point breakdown in order to ease discussion . I actually think this opens up some really interesting questions and feeds back into the original purpose of this thread, but as I say I am no expert.
Mechanics

i) Trump contact only works between conscious parties who both need to be concentrating. Perhaps if Helan had advanced trump (a mechanic) she could have maintained an open connection to observe the events unfold.
ii) Increased Psyche seems enough to open the conenction to Benedict who is alive, consious but very weak and preoccupied (so the mechanic is increased Psyche, caused by many opperating together, are able to make links stronger, interesting as though very much 'genre' in an Amber sense there are no discussions of this int he rule book and its the very mechanical issue we are discussing in this thread)
iii) Combat with Julian. Helena is using all out attack little finese. (mechanic Helena is higher ranked that Julian, who is also injured and exhausted.Therfore her attack succeeds easily and he is unable to block parry or counter)
iv) Julian fres the blade. He might be on his last legs and no match in combat but his endurance keeps him going (Mechanic Julian has high endurance and this means the little bugger just won't die.)
v) Decision point. Helean can finish Julian, rescue Benedict or face the Hounds. She chooses to finish Julian.
vi) Helena chooses to use her hand to finish him (mechanic Helena moves the combat to Strength becuase str combat is faster more immediate and you can do less about it. She has Superior Strength to Julian)
vii) Decision point, the GM gives Helena once last chance to face the hounds and mount a defense, to her Roleplay credit she chooses not to take it.
viii) The Hellhounds hit they are mean and do some real damage. Helean adopts a defensive posture (mechanic even though she has adopted a defensive posture the damage thes hounds are doing is still sufficient to do real damage unless she can pull somethign off fast it won't be enough)
ix) Helena tries to take a dog with her and does so before loosing consiousness (mechanic, again an interesting one, on their own the Hell hounds are no match for Helena she kills one easy when the combat is moved to strength, hower a mass of Hell hounds is too much for her to handle. Therefore we have to assume that say 6 Amber ranked hellhounds -not more surely ? they sound like big beasts - is enough to take down a warrior who was sufficiently highly ranked in Warfare to take Julian - if they offer only token defence. )

The really interesting bit is that we see 2 examples where combining attributes make them stronger. This is surely an antitheses of the rank arguements we have heard. Thats if I understand the mechanics of course.

[jibbajibba]

Sorry about all the typos in my last thread always happens when i get carried away with a topic.

I want to throw some other examples of many versus one or many to many encounters from the books and see how the resolution in the books would work in mechanical terms (I am doing this from memory so excuse any slight mistakes on my part)
i) Random runs from the 6 spurred hand guys. Random a low ranked warfare guy can't face all 6. In the subsequent combat we would guess they are maybe Chaos ranked. Surely he could just have faced them down.
ii) Benedict looses an arm in combat with the denizens of the black road. This is Benedict... Surely he could have taken them down, blindfolded ... with a butter knife.
iii) The family pool their resources to rescue Brand (I have mentioned this one already). Fiona actively tries to hinder them but they still get through. Fiona has a ranked Psyche at least as good as Brand's after all who locked him up in the first place. Surely with pure ranks she could defeat any number of siblings.
 That will do for now. All we need is a mechanic that tackles these examples and the example that Erick himself sites as an excellent example of combat.

[Sol]

I'm with Erick on this.  I mean, I don't think you can figure out absolute ranks from what is posted there, but it is pretty clear that the core combat here is a classic battle where each participant is superior in one attribute and both attributes are in play.  Just take a look at what succeeds and what fails for each of them in the combat and it is clear.  (BTW, I think jibbajibba's analysis is a decent start, but is a bit off.)

It does seem to me there may have been a bit of confusion on whether or not Julian's neck was still armored -- I get the impression Simone thought it was not, while the GM thought it was.

[Otha]

JJ's description is interesting but do you see how there are leaps that he has to make to connect the mechanics to the text?  That the GM has to make decisions about what matters and how much, that the text doesn't guide?

[jibbajibba]

Guys i think you have to be more specific if a commentary of the mechanics is going to prove useful. If there is something where I thought it was mechanic a and you thought it was mechanic b then be explicit and expalin how you think it works. Only by discussion different approaches to the mechanics are we going to get any ideas about how they can be used to help resolve conflict issues.

And again if you think there were leaps give an example.

I am in no way devoted to my breakdown it is a straw man nothing more. I was hoping to use it as a starting point to see how people interpret the situations.

I think we have to agree with Erick though there are clear applications of the Amber mechanics. My own pet bugbear is the resolution of one to many conflicts, not handled in the core rule book at all

[Sol]

Okay, let me be clear about what I think are the five clear conflicts we see in the combat between Helena and Julian:

1) Helena grabs the sword.

2) Helena executes a successful attack on Julian's groin, not doing any harm (he's magically armored) but knocking him down.

3) Helena stabs Julian in the eye.

4) Helena tries to use the sword in the eye socket as a pry bar, but Julian is able to bash the sword out of the way.

5) Helena goes for a choke hold on Julian's throat, but fails to do any harm.

Cases #2 and #3 are classic warfare conflicts; Helena wins fairly spectacularly.  Case #4 is a classic strength conflict; Julian wins despite being in a drastically worse position.

For #1, I'm not sure what the GM's reasoning is, there's not enough information.  Has Julian let go of the sword?  That would make it a pure warfare contest, I would say, no surprise that Helena wins.  If Julian were holding tightly to the sword, it would be a pure strength contest, and I don't see how Helena would have won, so I presume that is not how the GM saw things.  Somewhere in between?

For #5, it's either a strength contest which Helena loses, or it is just the effect of Julian's armor.  Not sure how to read it, but either way it makes sense.

Obviously, all of these things can be modified by extenuating circumstances, so it's hard to know exactly what was on the GM's mind!  This is a pretty straightforward reconstruction.

And woah, the more I look at the example, the more I want to praise it.  JJ's so right about the GM offering Simone two chances to shift from attacking Julian to defending herself against the hellhounds, and her choosing to try to take Julian down instead of defending herself -- that's great stuff.

[Otha]

One question that comes to mind is why Julian doesn't do something to slow the fight until the hellhounds get there.  He seems to be taking it on the chin needlessly.  Wouldn't a "total defense" stance protect him at least somewhat, especially given the fact that his armor gives him few vulnerable spots?

[Malleus Arianorum]

Julian is charbroiled, missing bits of his super-armor and slumps to his knees from exhaustion BEFORE the new fight even begins. Obviously if he's unable to stand up, his Total Defense is going to be a joke. If Julian was my character in that situation, the best I could hope for would be to spam some power words until the dogs show up. (Hellena has only a "little bitty amount" of Psyche.) But I would also go along with a GM who says that I can't do anymore than slump to my knees and twitch -- at least a better than average outcome for stabbing Benedict.

[jibbajibba]

Remember we are discussing the mechanics not the actions of each character. I actually think that there are a number of descriptive bits that aren't great. I thought the sword was sticking in Benedict and no one was holding it someone else things Julian is holding it , so description could be clearer. Likewise with the neck armour. Also there is no finese to the attack. If one of my top ranked warfare guys said 'I stab him in the eye' and then tried to lever the sword in the eye socket I would hope them to be filled with shame. You don't know what type of blade (every tried stabbing someone in teh eye with a copesh)...

[Malleus Arianorum]

But the mechanics ARE the player choices. Choosing "total defense" is a mechanic.  Choosing "attack whoever is standing over Benedict without hesitation" is a mechanic. Choosing "stab him in the eye without even saying hello" is a mechanic. Choosing "Strangle strangle strangle! Ignore the hellhounds!" is a mechanic.

She's consistantly choosing to gain speed and ruthlessness at the expense of awareness and information. Obviously it costs her dearly 'cause the hellhounds catch her with her guard down, but even more importantly she's oblivious to all the clues and details. That's a HUGE disadvantage since information is power and all that.

Edit: Who's sword is it anyway? That's why I'm worried for her. Benedict might have died PROTECTING Julian. They were both scorched but neither of them has flame powerz so far as I know.

[Otha]

But the mechanics ARE the player choices.

I disagree.

The mechanics are the GM's reactions to the player's choices and responses.  Every game has player choices; the mechanics of the game are how the game tells you what those choices do.

[Erick Wujcik]

I disagree.

The mechanics are the GM's reactions to the player's choices and responses.  Every game has player choices; the mechanics of the game are how the game tells you what those choices do.

Yes, the mechanics of a game determine the results of a character's (or characters') actions.

Yet the mechanics require the input of the player or players.

When, in a game where the mechanics use dice to resolve combat, it is very important that the player rolls the correct dice. Rolling 3D6, or 1D20, or 3D100, are each components of different 'mechanics' -- and the Game Master can't operate the mechanics without the correct input from the players.

If the player has a deck of cards and the Game Master is  expecting a result of 'heads' or 'tails,' it's clear that the mechanics (whatever the game may be) are not functioning properly.

Therefore, just as requiring players to use particular dice, or asking whether one is going to 'Dodge' or 'Parry' (as one might in a Palladium-based game), or listening to the descriptions of a player's actions in Amber Diceless, is an essential part of the game mechanics.

Since I'm currently working on the game mechanics for a proposed Nintendo Wii game, this is particularly interesting. Any movement of the Wii controller (the 'Wiimote') has to be interpreted, and the game mechanics are part of a vast array of communication between the console and a moving person (or moving persons, in a multiplayer game). To think about mechanics as if they were only confined to the CPU, or to the brain of the Game Master, seems so very limited.

Erick