Resolving conflict in Amber without GM favouritism

[Otha]

Well, certainly, you can't have the mechanics do anything without player input, that's clear, and certainly you can't talk about mechanics without also talking about the player input.

My disagreement was with the statement that the input (and maybe the output) WAS the mechanics.

The bit of actual play that was posted was input and output; there's nothing there about the mechanics.  The mechanics can be implied from the input and output but they cannot be determined from them.

[jibbajibba]

Sorry I wasn't clear in my earlier post. The mechanic is not whether Julian chooses to fight defensively or not the mechanic is the effect of him fighting defensively has on the combat. The choice to adopt a defensive stance is a really a roleplaying decision that affects combat.
I agree that the tactics chosen by Helena in the example are all about speed and agression over a balanced approach, but what irks me is the quality of the player description (and the GM reaction).
The following is a typical example of combat from my games.
Jerome (Player): I draw my blade.
GM: what stance are you adopting tell me about how you are using the furniture in the room, give me some detail.
Jerome: okay I keep the dinner table between us and circle clockwise slowly.
GM: Rhys unsheaths his blade, its a long rapier in the intaliante style with a fancy basket hilt. The blade is obviously well used and old but seems in suprising good condition. He holds the blade across his body in an odd tierce en-garde position. it looks like it should be awkard and ungainly but Rhys looks supremely confortable.
Jerome: I pick up one of the heavy wooden dinner chairs with my off hand and heft it for weight.
GM: Yeah its about 80 pounds or so these Kafkans sure like to use a lot of oak in their furniture
Jerome: Okay is it too heavy to use as a parry weapon?
Gm: You can do the weight, hey you can lift a 500 lb boulder, but you would tire quickly and its ungainly. By the way Rhys springs onto the table. ' Some wine brother' he kicks a goblet towards your head. The point of his blade doesn't waver.
Jerome: I swing the chair acroos my body to block the goblet and then let it fly towards Rhys's legs.
 GM: You swat away the goblet, though that burgundy leaves a nasty stain on your shirt. The chair sails towards Rhys but at the last minute he leaps again and if flies into the drinks cabinet at the far side of the room. He lands like a cat then executes an Arab spring off the table and lands about 4 feet in front of you. All the time his blade never wavers. He smilles that infuriating crooked smile at you. 'Come brother you can do better than that surely. Have those days in court dulled your reflexes'
Jerome: Okay I am going to move forward rapidly. I'll feint a thrust to his head , but at the same time I am drawing my dagger with my off hand. I plan to run past as he sidesteps but then twist and push the dagger into his guts.
GM: He does indeed sidestep and you get in a dagger blow but his blade is there and blocks it. All this leaves you terribly off balance and exposed and Jerome throws a mean left at your exposed head. It feels like you have been hit with a baseball bat and you think your nose is broken. You almost loose your footing but just manage to stay upright as you colide against the far wall.
Etc etc...
So with the example I would expect a little style that is all. A top ranked warrior has to the talk the talk.. (I am showing the terrible nature of my own GM bias here thus no doubt eroding by own position irrecoverably) and it's fairly obvious that none of us here are actually sure about some pretty important details regarding the sword was it Julian's. Is he holding it ? is it just sticking in Benedict? what sort of blade? you can't trust well with a sabre or slash with an epee so that effects what the characters can do with the weapon. All that sort of stuff is a bit weak.
But anyway my point was that whether or not Julian adopts a defensive stance is a roleplay thing not a mechanic thing. The mechanic bit is that there is an option in the rules to cover a defensive stance. Now in Amber that rule might be a little too vague for some whilst in another game the GM might say i give you +1 AC or get +20% on parry attempts or.. what ever. So here Julian not adopting a defensive stance is a GM roleplaying Julian thing (I think its probably a mistake on the GM's part but I can't really judge as I don't have all the background, how badly injured is he, is he being controlled by an electronic implant placed in his frontal lobe by aliens controlled by Brand?) .
 I still need to know probably from Erick, or the GM in this example, how the one on many conflict is resolved. ie Helena versus the hellhounds. This for me is at the route of the confict resolution issue 'cos if you can resolve that then its a small step to a rank 1 versus a rank 2 and 3 and from there to a rank 1.5 with some clever tricks versus a rank 1.

[Malleus Arianorum]

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.

(I'm adapting the bolded part as the definition of mechanic.)

Perhaps I run a more player driven game, but in my experience it is the players who set what their choices do in game and therefore they are the mechanics by your definition. Hellena for example makes the choice to trumping in and attacking as quickly as possible. And she also defines what her choice will do in game (what you call the mechanic) -- it will make her savagely quick but also oblivious to her surroundings.

In a sense she's tied the GM's hands. What if the GM wanted to impart some vital clue? What if the real culprit is darting into the shadows? What if Julian is stabbing at some nasty paracite? What if the scorch marks reveal on closer inspection, that Julian and Benedict were wounded by a third party? The GM can't talk about any of that because she's already ruled the mechanics for her action is "I don't notice."

[jibbajibba]

(I'm adapting the bolded part as the definition of mechanic.)

Perhaps I run a more player driven game, but in my experience it is the players who set what their choices do in game and therefore they are the mechanics by your definition. Hellena for example makes the choice to trumping in and attacking as quickly as possible. And she also defines what her choice will do in game (what you call the mechanic) -- it will make her savagely quick but also oblivious to her surroundings.
...The GM can't talk about any of that because she's already ruled the mechanics for her action is "I don't notice."

Not sure I can agree with that. The player choice, all out attack is a choice a roleplay decision. The mechanic is 'what is the effect of an all out attack in combat terms?' Does it double your warfare, increase your damage, half your warfare? Its like with a car the choice is do I press on the accellerator the mechanic is 'this makes the car go faster by injecting more fuel into the cylinder etc etc ..'

I guess the driver for this whole thread was originally where are the mechanics that tell us what happens if you all out attack, adopt a defensive stance, act inept in order to draw out your opponent, feint a slash in quarte to allow you to hack at Eric's exposed wrist. Are these down to GM fiat?
If you allow players to dictate the effect of their actions in mechanical terms then the players will be saying, ' I throw sand in their face. That will blind them and give me a free shot at their exposed groin.' As opposed to 'I throw sand in their face. What do they do?'

[Otha]

...where are the mechanics that tell us what happens if...

Exactly.

[Arref]

I guess the driver for this whole thread was originally where are the mechanics that tell us what happens if you all out attack, adopt a defensive stance, act inept in order to draw out your opponent, feint a slash in quarte to allow you to hack at Eric's exposed wrist. Are these down to GM fiat?

Exactly.

I read much sincerity in this series of questions but I have to wonder if you folks aren't asking Amber Diceless to be some other great game you are imagining it should be.

A lot of this thread is obfuscation of what is already in the rules. Keep in mind how many times the questions have crossed the line into roleplay. This is a feature, not a bug.

When you "all out attack" you get your maximum Attribute on attack. When you hold back, you get balanced defense and attack. If you are twice as good as the gal you are fighting, your balanced defense means her "all out attack" still doesn't do more than 'pink' you. If you act inept, the GM has to play the NPC per already established personality to decide if they believe the fake, and you might gain advantage through this. Yes, NPCs will make mistakes.

Your PC might know about 'black grass' or a 'hidden mirror' ready to redirect the sun into your opponent's eyes or allies about to arrive. It could be that a single advantage will allow you to escape a fight you can't win or it might be that a single advantage will only minimize your damage in losing.  Several (environ, secret, planned, trap, dirty trick) advantages might even step you up a rank (based on how your GM ranks in your game) and give you a tie so Endurance determines the winner. One advantage will not do so. You can't beat Bleys by throwing sand in his eyes. You can't beat Eric by surprising him with a crossbow in a dark room.

The rules don't mandate 'fencing terminology wins' or 'best description wins' or 'loudest voice wins' but some GMs play that way. The diceless mechanics are incredibly simple: highest attribute wins. No single mistake or advantage changes this-- if for no other reason than Endurance takes a long time to run out. These PCs can bleed a while. They can get the 'short end of the stick' multiple times and still come back at you.

It is up to the GM to decide how (and how many) advantages might "soften the blow" or allow escape or even in !extreme! cases give a surprise victory. You might even find hints in the rules as I have.

In the last, it is logical roleplay of the conflict situation that determines this based on the bare bones of best attribute wins.

Would anyone like to chat how they play the rules we already have?

[TonyLB]

Would anyone like to chat how they play the rules we already have?

I generally take a look at the difference in ranks, and then I use that as a rough guideline to how "difficult" a task the superior person can take on, and still win out.  Sort of like judging what the right handicap would be, in order to make it a fight that could go either way.

So with a four rank difference, maybe the guy can fight one-handed while quaffing wine from a flagon, and that makes it a fair fight that could go either way.  With a two rank difference, trying something like that means a fight where you're going to get your drunken ass handed to you.

If you take on a task less difficult than your handicap then you'll win out.  If you take on a task more difficult than your handicap then you'll eventually fail.  When the players notice that they're failing I get to say coyly "Well maybe if you put down the fuckin' wine then the fight would go a bit more your way," and they get to choose how important their boozing is to them

Roleplaying?  Strategy?  Other advantages?  All gets figured into the difficulty.  If the other guy is beautifully describing a wonderful strategy and you're just saying "Uh, yeah ... and what I do is stab the motherfucker" then you're trying to beat that strategy (and to some extent the beautiful description) with raw skill, and that's harder than it would be if you tried to beat it with equal strategy and beauty.

But I don't factor those real heavily.  I figure (particularly for warfare) that players should be encouraged to do strategy that they find fun, but you can't entirely make up for having a stupid character by being a smart player.  So beautiful strategery is no match for (say) being the only guy with an off-hand weapon.

I'll admit that I find some of the guidelines in the book to be much more absolute than I'd like.  First Rank warfare can dodge any amount of incoming ranged weapons fire?  That's much less useful to me (for my personal style) than would be something like "Four ranks of warfare difference is enough to negate the disadvantage of having only a melee weapon while your opponents stand off with ranged weaponry and try to pin-cushion you."  But like you said, Arref, when I get into that I start down the road of asking Amber to be a different game that gives me different support.  It'd be nice if they house-ruled it like I house-rule it, but they don't and that's cool.

[Malleus Arianorum]

Not sure I can agree with that. The player choice, all out attack is a choice a roleplay decision. The mechanic is 'what is the effect of an all out attack in combat terms?' Does it double your warfare, increase your damage, half your warfare? Its like with a car the choice is do I press on the accellerator the mechanic is 'this makes the car go faster by injecting more fuel into the cylinder etc etc ..'

No, your character's warfare doesn't change -- it's not like you get more character points or anything. All you're doing is changing your focus. As stated in the rule book, all attack means no defense. It's a great option if you're somewhere inert, but it can be a fatal mistake if other characters can blunder in on you.

Likewise, the mechanics of driving a car should be common knowledge, but even so a GM might ask if they want to leave skid marks on the way to the batcave -or- travel at a slower speed. A GM might ask if they want to try to sneak up on the criminals, or turn on the sirens and let the engine roar. A good Amber game (IMHO) is filled with those kind of questions. Just like the library battle between Eric and Corwin is ultimately decided on Corwins estimation of the strength of the door v.s. the strength of the guards. Neither of which is represented by Warfare.

I guess the driver for this whole thread was originally where are the mechanics that tell us what happens if you all out attack, adopt a defensive stance, act inept in order to draw out your opponent, feint a slash in quarte to allow you to hack at Eric's exposed wrist. Are these down to GM fiat?
If you allow players to dictate the effect of their actions in mechanical terms then the players will be saying, ' I throw sand in their face. That will blind them and give me a free shot at their exposed groin.' As opposed to 'I throw sand in their face. What do they do?'

It's not fiat. Eric's wrist becomes exposed when he acts too agressively or gets sloppy from earlier wounds, fatigue or multitasking. In the Library fight, he wedges himself into a corner and exposes nothing, Corwin doesn't want to call that bluff, even when he's the only guy with a sword.

In my campaign, the sand in the face trick would be ok but I would not allow the players to expose each other's groins. Groin exposing would be the result of the sand recipient choosing a sloppy defense, such as all out attack, bidding low in the Warfare auction etc....

Here's a non Amber session where a player defines mechanics....
OotS: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html

[Otha]

When you "all out attack" you get your maximum Attribute on attack. When you hold back, you get balanced defense and attack. If you are twice as good as the gal you are fighting, your balanced defense means her "all out attack" still doesn't do more than 'pink' you.

Where do you see this in the rules?  This is, like all the rest, a house rule.

I think many of us are mistaking our own personal interpretations of the book as "the way it's written".

[Arref]

When you "all out attack" you get your maximum Attribute on attack. When you hold back, you get balanced defense and attack. If you are twice as good as the gal you are fighting, your balanced defense means her "all out attack" still doesn't do more than 'pink' you.

Where do you see this in the rules?  This is, like all the rest, a house rule.

I think many of us are mistaking our own personal interpretations of the book as "the way it's written".

What exactly are you saying is my 'house rule'? The gist? The exact wording?

step 1: compare attributes
step 2: character with the larger Attribute Rank wins

Elsewhere in this thread, I pointed out the mechanic distance between ranks as suggested in the rules. Your GM may do it differently.

judging combat

1: Player is far superior to the opposition - GM asks Player how they would like to have combat result
2: Player is clearly better than opposition - GM informs Player how long victory takes, PC may get scratched, wounded if opposition is careful or PC is too aggressive
3: Player is very close to opposition's rank - GM must judge a finer set of variables
   a: Player just a bit better
   b: Player equal
   c: Player just a bit worse
...and talks about specific timing cycle of wounds appearing after long give and take, until final result becomes more obvious after slow accumulation of little advantages.

Just these sections (and there are plenty of actual examples, some with Attribute stats) are informative to the framework I describe above.

I can't divorce myself from personal interpretation of the words.

The rules make major point that each rank is superior to the rank below. Even the rule about "buying up" to same rank value highlights that you are still not as good (the "point 5" rule) as the guy with the higher rank.

The rules make very clear that better rank means you win.

The rules lay out conditions that might be advantage (dirty tricks, environ, blackmail, surprise) and even give a ladder of how many of these layered advantages might be needed to get the better of a rank above you.

The rules lay out three layers of advantages accumulating, four in the first layer, two in the second layer, four in the third... all of these suggestions. And ultimately advises you may still lose.

advantages
"Depends. Frankly, if you're a total novice... even all these advantages may not assure you of victory."

"...if you're a master rank player yourself, you ought to be able to take him out."

"...the second ranked player in the world, you should have no problem."

What that suggests to me is that advantages are scaled by the rules and distance between ranks. That advantages mean more to the second rank against the first, than they do to the third or fourth rank against the first. That advantages will not help you much if you are 'Amber default' against the First Rank. They would not help at all if you were not at least Amber rank.

Now when I read the rules, I see the "distance between ranks" becoming more clear as the examples continue. I see these examples and hints, plus the storytelling in combat section (pg. 81) filling out the bare framework. I see how Benedict could lose to Corwin, or Corwin to Gerard, or Corwin to Brand, or Brand to Benedict, as they do in canon. I see how to make it logical to my players.

Now if you want to disagree---and propose the rules don't say those things, I ask you to be more specific about what is missing for you. Otherwise, all this effort to dig out the books is wasted and we aren't really trying to learn anything.

By the way, the section on 'Moves and Choices', pg. 90, is slanted to Warfare but seems to apply to any conflict with a bit of imagination. The parameters of "all out attack" and such are sketched there. The strategy behind many moves, and the disadvantages are pretty clear.

Again, for what you can read into it yourself.

[Otha]

I can't divorce myself from personal interpretation of the words.

That's right, and neither can anyone else.

In this post you quote words like "far superior" or "clearly better"... how much is "far superior"?  Well, that's probably more than one rank, but what if rank 1 bid 50 points and rank 2 bid 5?  Is that "far superior", "clearly better" or "very close"?

As we've already discussed in this thread, deciding success and failure is only the beginning of adjudicating a conflict or a particular action in a given conflict.  What did the victory cost, in terms of time, blood, and collateral damage?  

You make mention that a lower-ranked character will need advantages to win.  Who decides whether a particular condition is an advantage at all?   If a player says, "I'm at a higher elevation than he is, and also behind battlements, so I also have cover."  is that two advantages, or can the GM say "That's only one advantage, for an advantageous position" or even "That's no advantage at all because you have to come out from behind cover to shoot and your opponnent also has a rifle."?  I don't see how he can't... and so the whole "counting advantages" mechanic still boils down to the GM's judgement.

My point is while the rulebook is informative of the judgement process, it is not prescriptive.   It gives hints and suggestions and examples, but its guidelines are hazy and occasionally disruptive of play (the whole parrying invisible oponnents deal).

I think Amber might be a better game without attribute ranks at all.  Each character would have a list of traits that could be brought into conflicts, such as "Strongest man in all creation" or "Consummate master of the sword" or "Sorceress supreme" because the whole ranks and bids thing just seems to complicate matters.  That's how we're running things in Phases of Tir-na Nog'th.  We'll see how it works out once the rubber really hits the road.

[TonyLB]

I don't see how he can't... and so the whole "counting advantages" mechanic still boils down to the GM's judgement.

Correct.  It's not a system to replace GM judgment.  It is a structure meant to help the GM in applying judgment impartially.

I think Amber might be a better game without attribute ranks at all.

Yeah, and a car might be a better vehicle if it had two wheels and no cabin.  But it might also be more accurately described (at that point) as a motorcycle.  The question of "How much can you drift something before it's something entirely different?" can be a difficult one, but in this case you're talking about removing the entire ADRPG ruleset and replacing it from whole cloth.  That's not a grey area.  That ain't ADRPG any more, it's a different game in the same setting.

[Arref]

That's right, and neither can anyone else.

And your point is? RPGs should run on math instead of words? You should say so.

I get the impression here (forgive reading into this) that you are saying that the premise of adjudicating these situations out is inherently flawed since they require judgment. Or perhaps GM judgment is inherently flawed. This brings us back to what Tony has said above and what others have pointed out to you repeatedly here: your opinion of how 'unworkable' the Amber Diceless rules are seems more curmudgeon than supported.

In this post you quote words like "far superior" or "clearly better"... how much is "far superior"?  Well, that's probably more than one rank, but what if rank 1 bid 50 points and rank 2 bid 5?  Is that "far superior", "clearly better" or "very close"?

You are introducing a flaw that isn't in the rules. What is bid for rank standing does not matter to conflict judgment. Bidding matters to family dynamic and relationships. Conflict is judged by ranks not points.

My point is while the rulebook is informative of the judgement process, it is not prescriptive.   It gives hints and suggestions and examples, but its guidelines are hazy and occasionally disruptive of play (the whole parrying invisible oponnents deal).

Setting aside flawed examples...

There isn't an rpg I know that doesn't call for good judgment from the GM and players. Many rpgs are more prescriptive, but few games are as informative to the thought process and logic of play. The rules give a lot of hints, suggestions and examples; most of them are logical and workable. A group of players that trusted each other and their GM would have no trouble making sense of the intent. The game works. People do play it as written.

A second edition could clean up the 'hazy' and tighten examples.

Earlier in this thread some were saying the rules gave no guides for judgment. I cited them. Now lately some were saying, "where does it say that?" with the implied subtext that the clarity was "house rules". That's dismissive, non-productive and untrue.

I like house rules and use them. 'House rules' tie closer to social contracts and trust between Players and GM. They reinforce genre and fine tune sensibility of results. But all that is another thread.

I'm sorry if this takes us further off-track of the thread.

[jibbajibba]

Okay we seem to have 2 positions here.
i) the game is broken as stands because there are no concrete mechanics that deal with specific actions and reactions in conflicts
ii) the game is fine and the fact that GM judgements are the final arbitor is not an issue because the GM can be far more flexible and precise in a given situation that any number of tables of combat, psyche or strength modifers.

I can't see the parties coming to agreement over this.

I can see both sides. I would like to look at a specific example though and take a positon from each school of thought.
In Erick's example Helena gets attacked and beaten by a pack of Hellhounds.
If we say Helena is ranked 3rd in her game for Warfare and 2nd for Strength. How many Hellhounds with Amber rank strength and endurance does it take to take her out in each of these situations
i) Helena acts as she does in the example and offers no defense until the hounds are on top of her.
ii) Helena stands her ground and faces them with a blade.
iii) Helena manages to retreat into some sort of narrow cave entrance where the hounds can only come at her one at a time.

I would really appreciate comments from both schools of thought with rational and clear explanations as I feel the philosophical discussion has gone about as far as its likely to.
[Oh and off topic Ortha I was looking at your Tir stuff and reading the background very nice. Have you read "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell" it has some fantastic ideas about faey folk and I heartily recommend it.]

[TonyLB]

ii) the game is fine and the fact that GM judgements are the final arbitor is not an issue because the GM can be far more flexible and precise in a given situation that any number of tables of combat, psyche or strength modifers.

Uh ... I'm pretty sure I have a third position:
iii) the game is what it is.  It relies on GM judgments, and that has plusses and minusses.  It may not be the right game for a particular person, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean it's broken, it means that the same exact game can be perfect for Bob and terrible for Kevin because Bob and Kevin are looking for different things in a game.  There clearly are people for whom Amber is the perfect game, and that's totally cool ... lucky them, frankly!