TheRPGSite

This is in reply to PGiverty's request on the litmus test thread on how to settle close contests in Amber in a non-arbitary fashion.

The game can be interpreted in 2 ways. The rigid model says if I have a higher attribute that you I win that contest. You can't have draws becuase the auction model forbids it. The only draw can be against npc/environment and the GM has to make that an identical score so, why would they do that.

The less rigid model says okay I am a rank lower in Warfare but in advance I deliberately made sure the sun was high in the sky and behind me and I am using an enchanted blade that has mobility and ranked combat and I slipped a thumb tack into your boot before combat started. Or more simply the guy with first rank warfare isn't as articulate as the guy with second rank.

So in most games the more articulate player can mount enough small arguments that they can sway the GM. I have a player just like that since we were kids his was always the guy that covered an eye in the tavern so that when the party went into the dark ally outside he hadn't lost his night sight.

So the question is what needs to be done to resolve these issues if anything. Does the game need a tool that goes beyond players discuss GM decides.

I for my part will all defer to roleplay. I don't want players that get into fights and say. I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. I want players that say "I start with a guard in tierce then watch what he does with his feet. If it look like he can deal with my Italiate stlye I will switch to a Savat stance and feint with the blade and try and land a kick on his leading knee". To which my players would expect me to reply "he looks baffled by your stance and tries to adjust his position. You see an oportunity and land a solid kick on his knee, there is a loud crack followed by a howling shriek as his leg gives way and he falls to the ground in agony" or "He smiles and shakes his head slightly then beats your blade so hard you almost loose your grip. He pushes forwards striking at your head and trunk it is al you can do to parry the blows and retreat.. etc'

So I guess I am saying you don't need a mechanism. Let the story lead. A good GM has to encourage the shyer less forceful player to live the fight and colourful descriptions and NPCs doing smart clever stuff is always the best way to do that. If players see that making a fight interesting profits them they wll do it.

Outside combat this is more dicfficult. I had a situation once where a player had fallen into an obvious trap. They had taken a mysterious trump and studied it a little too closely, ending up being pulled in. The trap was laid with the pysche of the trump artist which was more than a match for the character in question. They found themself on a wind swept beach. Now this wasn't a shdow it was a trump constuct , a living painting if you will and the only route out was sourcerous or to remove the outgoing trump block though Advanced trump artistry. The character, who had advanced pattern and mid ranked psyche, was trying to use Ad pattern to change the shadow properties, was trying to do all sorts of stuff but had no access to sorcery and no way out. Now I was using this as a plot hook to link the trapped character to a subplot involving his tormentor's daughter and hoped they would follow a Corwin type path and wait in the pleasant beach house and drink a little wine til morning. However they grew insensed and ended up burning the place down and insisting I was "cheating" cos Advanced pattern should get him out of this.
Now here you have a comparison between 2 differnt advanced powers. Ad Pattern costs moe than Ad Trump so under Amber rules would the pattern have been sufficient to get him out? In retrospect I think I should have let the pattern give him more information about where he was and perhaps described the nature of his prison to him but his reaction did not engender him to me and so I didn't. A mistake on my part I think.
I think these types of conflict are the hardest to resolve more so than a head to head compare of attributes.

There's nothing really to add here, except that there is a precedent in the rulebook for looking for other attributes e.g. strength which might swing the contest in a well-described situation.

Thanks for starting the thread.

In disclosure - I understand and enjoy the role of GM as arbiter, and I am not advocating any change to this in Amber. I'm also perfectly capable of deciding which player is making a better argument about what their character is up to in a conflict, although I do get a little irritated at the weaseling that goes on - it's a kind "mother may-I" thing.

"Use your judgement as a GM" is not the answer I'm looking for. I can do that already, and do it well.

I can and do play "GM decides", but I was just wandering, are there any guidelines here? Ideally, I mean mechanical guidelines, such as, "the third ranking character will almost never beat the first ranking one", or "environmental factors can adjust an ability in a range of X." These are examples, not suggestions.

I don't actually use ranks. I rank the players but I use numbers for arbitration. So I use absolute difference rather than relative. So if my rank 1 and rank 4 were 5 points appart and rank 5 was 20 points behind rank 5 would be an awful lot worse and a fight between ranks 1 and 4 would be much closer than ranks 4 and 5.
This allows me to assign a number value to a tactic or a move and I can adjust , I tend to do this without reference to players though  If you issued a list of strategems/environmental factors the players woudl just manipulate it outrageously

Keeping the exact details of such a mechanic hidden sounds reasonable.

Does anyone know of any detailed actual play conflicts descriptions with environmental factors in? I'd love to see how other GMs deal with this.

FWIW, 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.

Then I had to deal with the questions of "How fast?  How bad?" ... which turned out to be equally challenging.  More challenging, in fact, because the person with the higher warfare felt entitled to any outcome they could ask for.

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.

Sadly, things went downhill from there.

This is hard territory.  I'll be very interested to hear what people make of it.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe game can be interpreted in 2 ways.

The rigid model says if I have a higher attribute that you I win that contest. You can't have draws becuase the auction model forbids it.

The less rigid model says, okay I am a rank lower in Warfare but in advance I deliberately made sure the sun was high in the sky and behind me and I am using an enchanted blade that has mobility and ranked combat and I slipped a thumb tack into your boot before combat started. Or more simply the guy with first rank warfare isn't as articulate as the guy with second rank.

There is a third way to read the rules that is not as biased for 'articulate players' altering Attribute Conflict.

GM informs Players of environ
what are Player conflict choices?
which conflict resolves first?
what are Player attempts (roleplay) to modify consequence of result?
result modified for Stuff?
GM reports result

In my experience (and as I read the rules as written) there is nothing in the rules that says the Players can keep the GM indefinitely engaged in the roleplay step like an infinite "redo" loop. Each Player gets his "say" and then a ruling is made. The roleplay is a modifier of an outcome determined by the previous steps.

Another way of saying this is: Your choices will influence how your win or loss is described, your planning may alter the environ in your favor.

The value of ranking attributes is that you can put judgment to the steps between PCs.

In answering this thread, I'd like to focus first on the following post:

Quote from: TonyLB...Our first conflict was two on one, with the two people each being half a rank below the one... and that person immediately demanded that he be able to chop the legs off his opponents on the first sword-stroke.

The problem is, you are ignoring one of the most important rules of combat. How time is used in combat.

You'll excuse me as I go ahead and quote myself from Amber Diceless:

page 95, from Time and Combat:

Combat is resolved fastest when the characters are mismatched.

For example, a character ranked very high in Warfare need take only a single stroke to dispose of someone ranked Human. Against one of Chaos rank the first stroke would only be a serious wound. If the enemy were Amber rank, then even the first wound would be slow in coming.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, when two characters are equal in rank, then Combat can take as long as it takes for one of the characters to be exhausted.[/b]

Yes, if your numero uno in Warfare were facing a couple of Human Rank characters, he could certainly specify leg lopping in the first stroke.

That's nowhere near the situation you had. Facing against two Warfare Gods (half a rank below first would qualify as deific in most all my campaigns), would come awfully close to "as long as it takes for one of the characters to be exhausted," which could be hours, or even days, depending on the Endurance involved.

As a Game Master running combat you have several objectives, not least the obligation to entertain:
 
page 80, from Combat: Following Zelazny's Example:

   Present your players that is always exciting. Not boring with details, no matter how "accurate" or "true to life" that may be. You want them always to experience Combat as something tense, challenging and exhilarating.

Look at the combat between Corwin and Eric, in the Library of Castle Amber. Here was a match between just two, and two who might have been full ranks apart, yet the fight was from from swift, and there were many decisions that had to be made... decisions that made the whole thing a piece of entertainment, rather than simply a judgment call.

If you really want to follow in Roger Zelazny's footsteps, you need to constantly obfuscate and confuse. Yes, the #1 Warfare guy should believe that he can absolutely win against any of the player characters.

But...

Is he really facing the player characters? Might one of them be wearing the guise of someone else altogether (bear in mind it's possible to run things so even the player doesn't know he's 'running' a substitute)? Could it be that one or both opponents is getting offstage help? Or that our Warfare guy is being secretly crippled? Or that it just happens to be Opposite-Day for a visiting sorcerer from the Courts of Chaos (tip of the had to Calvin Ball)? Or maybe you lied, and one of those also-ran characters really did find a way to overbid the number one?

I'm not saying that any of these things were happening, just that you always need to create enough tension so the players are guessing.

From my perspective this combat would have to take, at the very least, an hour to resolve. In that time there should be many stories, and the opportunity to answer many, many questions.

I'll come back to the original question (from Jib) in a day or two.

Thanks!

Erick

Quote from: ArrefThere is a third way to read the rules that is not as biased for 'articulate players' altering Attribute Conflict.

Code Select Expand

GM informs Players of environ
what are Player conflict choices?
which conflict resolves first?
what are Player attempts (roleplay) to modify consequence of result?
result modified for Stuff?
GM reports result

In my experience (and as I read the rules as written) there is nothing in the rules that says the Players can keep the GM indefinitely engaged in the roleplay step like an infinite "redo" loop. Each Player gets his "say" and then a ruling is made. The roleplay is a modifier of an outcome determined by the previous steps.

Thanks, Arref! That's pretty much what I was going to say.

It's the responsibility of the Game Master to break every combat (and sometimes every conflict) down to the decision points.

Again, I'm hoping that I'll be able to post a more thorough reply later this week.

Erick

Quote from: Erick WujcikThe problem is, you are ignoring one of the most important rules of combat. How time is used in combat.

I totally agree.  I mean, I wasn't ignoring it ... the question of "How long?  How bad?" (as I said) was the very next step after I compared the stats.  But the player who jumped to the leg-chopping was clearly not expecting that next step to be part of the equation ... and he wanted to kvetch and complain about it in order to try to socially achieve the result he wanted.

My point was that removing the ability for the players to roleplay for advantage in the end result didn't in any way slow down their desire to jockey for favor, it just shifted it down to the next arena I had to judge on (How long?  How bad?)

Now if I wanted to have objective standards for that too then I could write up some formulae about how many ranks, what type of endurance, how long they fight and how slowly the damage accumulates.  I could modify that by combat stances and all of that.  But that's an awful lot of house-ruling.  As it was, I just said "Guys, I'm usin' my judgment here, let's move on."  It didn't work too well, but that's down (mostly) to the people involved.

I do think that the first step of saying "I'm not going to use my GM judgment in this way" undermined my ability to later say "But I am going to use my GM jugment in this different way."  People heard me as having promised different degrees of objectivity, and having divested myself of different amounts of authority.

That can get tricky to communicate.  Very tricky indeed!

Why the hell shouldn't the game include GM judgement??! Every other roleplaying game ever designed uses it!! Hell, as far as I'm concerned its one of the landmarks of an RPG, any thing that doesn't have a GM or doesn't let the GM arbitrate isn't a real RPG.

Meanwhile, as to the situation: first of all, obviously switching from one attribute to another is a key area. As is stuff. As is description of what's actually happening "on the board".

And a fair GM will not let the more bossy or forceful players always get their way because the Shy players won't be descriptive. They'll try to encourage the Shy players, and ask them for specific descriptions of what their character is doing, step by step.  Now of course, the more inventive more intelligent players should always end up winning against the players who are just less intelligent. But it shouldn't be about who's louder.

I think part of Erick's point is also that the CLOSER you are in ranking (and one 1st ranked guy against two 1.5th ranked guys is REALLY REALLY close), the longer the battle should go, the more description should be needed.  So the closer you are, the more your actual moves and choices will make all the difference.

The 1st-ranked guy in that example is not "always going to win" (unless you're intentionally crippling the system and making it broken the way Tony was; a way that has FUCK ALL to do with how Amber is really played). In fact, a GM running the combat correctly will make the contest close enough the battle will last a long time. If either of the other two guy's Endurance is superior, they'll probably win. If either of the two guys can switch to another superiro attribute (possibly while the other keeps 1st-rank-guy busy), they'll probably win.

The example is PROOF that the old criticism people try to make up for amber is just plain false.  Unless the two players running the 1.5s are utter retards, or the guy running the 1st rank guy is really brilliant, 1st ranked guy is in a LOT of trouble in that scenario.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhy the hell shouldn't the game include GM judgement??!

I'm pretty sure people aren't saying that it should.  They're examining the various ways that the system and its structures can aid GM judgment.

I've given the most extreme example here, and even I'm not saying that it's Ye Olde Right Way to Play.  It's a way I tried running the system.  It's not one I'd recommend.  Lots of other ways of running the system (many of which I've also done) work much better.

I'd be interested to hear how you run it.  You seem to be saying that the ranks should only make a difference when either (a) both players are equally matched on their personal strategic ability or (b) one character is so far and away superior by the numbers that the opposing player never gets a chance to strut his strategic chops.

That sounds like an interesting way to run it.  Can you tell us something about the types of results you get?  Are less strategically minded players motivated to improve their skills, or do they just resign themselves to constant defeat?  Do you have any techniques to recommend on how to not merely be an objective GM, but to keep the players convinced that you are an objective GM ... especially when you have to make a hard call that really goes against one player in a close judgment?

I don't pretend to be objective. I look at the stats, compare them, and then hear what the players have suggested, and then decide. That's it.

Anyways, your assessment:

QuoteYou seem to be saying that the ranks should only make a difference when either (a) both players are equally matched on their personal strategic ability or (b) one character is so far and away superior by the numbers that the opposing player never gets a chance to strut his strategic chops.

doesn't sound to me like what I said or what I do. To me, ranks make a difference all the time, but the closer two ranks are to each other, the more important strategic contribution from the player is.

Tiger Woods playing golf against Joe Ninehole can afford to be sloppy and not think too hard. Whereas against a serious professional-level opponent he has to be more thoughtful, even if he's of superior rank.

Batman fighting a goon will just plain take him out. Batman fighting Karate Kid has to be more careful and work things out.

And yes, obviously the underdog always has to work harder. If you have one guy ranked 2nd in warfare, and the other ranked 5th, that 5th ranked guy is going to have to do a hell of a brilliant job to be able to figure out how to overwhelm rank 2 guy.  If rank 2 guy just tells me "I keep striking at him, trying to kill him", then that's all he needs to win. If rank 5 guy says "I keep striking at him, trying to kill him", then he's bound to lose. Get the diff? The times when a player has to be extra-descriptive is when he's facing a closer opponent; and if he's the underdog he has to try all the harder.

RPGPundit

Oh, oh ... I see where I misread.  The more intelligent, more strategic thinker is going to win every time all other things being equal.  Sorry, yeah, that makes much more sense.  Thanks for bearing with me.

I think what folks are looking for (or at least what I'm thinking about) is whether there's any sense to adopting or creating some guidelines for a rough sense of "How much cooler do you need to be?"  

Like what you said about the 2nd vs. 5th rank.  One could (hypothetically) say "Man, there's a three rank difference there, so I will want to see them exceed their opponent in three categories ... the guy excelled in strategy and taking advantage of the environment, but his better opponent beat him out in pulling in other strong traits, so that's just a net of one.  That's a pretty decisive loss for him."

I'm not saying that one must do that, or should do that, but one could do that and it would help to give a structure that would make it easier to make decisions consistently.

Yup, you got it now.

RPGPundit

I am not sure sure about the ranking thing. In one of my games as I say I dont use ranks I just use the score. You have 56 warfare he has 38 you will probably win. If I have 2 players with 38 warfare versus one with 56 even if teh 56 is the highest score in thegame he is proabably going to loose. Anyone that doesn't think this is correct might understand Amber but they have never been in a sword fight.
For me the stength of the Amber novels isn't that the characters are so superhuman its because they are so human. If Bleys and Corwin cornered Eric they would win, in fact any 2 out of 3 of these would beat the other 1. I think in the first 5 books Eric and Corwin would take Benedict. In the second 5 books Benedict , along with a few other characters have lost something of their humanity and become a lot more mythical (the pattern ghost Benedict versus the Logrus ghost Borrel for example).
Imagine in the real world. Tyson when he was at his prime was untouchable Rank 1 he could take big powerful fighters down in 2 3 rounds but you have to say you put tyson in with 2 of them at the same time he will loose. If Amber looses that edge of reality it looses what makes it special. Then they are all just supermen.
So I would tend to just add up the total points on each side and use that as a guide for resolving 2:1 or many on many situations. If 3 characters combine their Psyches it seems that they can break through a psychic barrier sure if one of them is really trying to slow them down and isn;t adverse to slipping a dagger in when she gets the chance all the better. And there is always a way to make sure you only need to fight on opponent at a time just fight on the stairs on Kolvir or use that power word for something useful for a change.

If one of your charcters wants to be sure of being able to take the 2 closed to them in any attribute then they had better bid bloody big.

You can do the exact same thing with the ranks; I had pretty much said so in my post, that a single 1st ranked guy against two high-ranked opponents is in a very tough situation.

RPGPundit

Guidelines or quick 'logic examples' of stretching out combat would be a good thing for the second edition. Existing ADRPG is often cited by game designers for the clarity and examples used in the rules.

Creating those examples, as Tony says, is hard work.

Because every conflict changes/mutates constantly. Attribute conflict is a problem with several axis of intersection; with several possible directions for twisting into a new shape. Few Players might expect a 90 pt Warfare guy to lose to five 20 pt cousins in one campaign, yet at least one poster has suggested that the numbers could be read that way. Zelazny sets limits such that Bleys does not win against a thousand swordsman even with the 'position' odds in his favor on the stair, but if they were 1 pt soldiers, would your GM rule they lose to Bleys or win?

Position matters. Endurance matters. Stuff matters.
Seven different powers that could alter a fight, across four main attributes and Stuff. And that doesn't even touch the genre/social conflict of killing a relative and earning their death curse!

If you are adept at juggling/judging such a model with so many vectors of complexity and solution, and your players buy into it, you've earned that esteem.

I find the complexity much more rewarding than typical conflict systems in other rpgs. I find that Players are much more riveted/anchored to their PCs actions in this complexity. In Amber DRPG, I'm never sure of the outcome even though it is often Very Clear who is advantaged by Attribute and environ.

PCs in this game, even if they are poorly Attributed for the conflict they are caught in, are legends. They do not easily fall--- even wounded or beset by terrible consequence.

So a PC who thinks he can 'single stroke' a cousin isn't quite in-genre in their expectations. As EW points out above, each face off is a drawn out business very likely to be interrupted by Family or something/someone rather than settled as suddenly as knocking aside a mortal.

Good points but 1,000 men can't fight 1 the most you can manage is about 6 at a time then it comes down to endurance.

I have always had issues with the finality of the ranks and their relative nature. as I say if my top player have 56 warfare and my second has 50 that is a mucher closer fight for me than 3rd on 34 and 4th on 3. I also dont; liek the guy who is top knowing it and only fearing GM driven combatants. For that reason I do the auction blind in 2 rounds and the final ranks and scores are not reveled to other players. The only way to find out if you are better than brother Lucian is to challenge him (this then led us to a skill system as no one would be willing to challenge a player outright in an important stat but challenging them to write the best poem or paint a perfect portrait of Lady Risa was far safer, but that is for another thread) .

There are clear examples in the books where players combine stats, that was what I was aluding to when I noted the combined psyche idea above. When Brand is rescuded by the combined will of his siblings and breaks the barrier set by Fiona (and Bleys?) even though she is actively increasing the resistance you have a clear example of many lower ranks defeating a higher rank. I think this sets a precedent.

Quote from: jibbajibbaGood points but 1,000 men can't fight 1 the most you can manage is about 6 at a time then it comes down to endurance.

I agree with the premise if you use it as a general rule. Of course, in infinite shadow those soldiers might be 12 inches tall and have crossbows or be red furry guys and have automatic projectile weapons. Suddenly you can be attacked by twelve to a hundred guys.

Strength and Warfare benefit from this 'position' notion. Psyche does not, even by canon.

Yes, combining attributes is another area that could use better examples. It is easy to imagine seven relatives (avg 15 psyche) pushing past Fiona's block on a trump (avg 90? psyche). But then there are also 'negative' attributes to consider. Should Fiona enlist a Chaosi helper, do her efforts 'decrease'? Pure numbers get very mixed results in conflicts.

Another subject you've left out so far are subconscious biases.  Of course it is always good to play with your friends, but some people are better friends than others, and some characters' stories are better stories than others, and the GM in his heart of hearts can cheer for one character over another for any number of reasons.  GM's can even "fall in love" with their NPC's and their NPC's stories.

Imagine the frustration you feel as a GM when, in the midst of a diced game, the dice fall against you, along with a sharp strategy and good teamwork on the part of the PC's, short-circuiting a huge amount of work in preparation.  Yes, as a mature GM the thing to do is to put the invalidated material aside and find a place to re-tool and re-use it later... but haven't we all been tempted to fudge things so that our hard work isn't discarded?  Don't tell me the temptation isn't there when running Amber games.

This kind of bias is impossible to rule out!  Even in supposedly "fair" diced games, everyone has seen this kind of favoritism.  In a game with a judicial conflict resolution system, I can't see it being any less of a problem.

Yes, there's little to do about it without getting rid of the judicial conflict resolution system.  

One possible change is to put the job of arguing for the success of an NPC in different hands than the GM.  If someone at the table is the official NPC's advocate, then the players can see more of the process and it's more likely to be fair.  

Another possible change is to allow the disputants in a conflict to decide between themselves who wins and how, and only have the GM step in to alter the result when there is something entering the consideration that the PC's are unaware of.  

Finally, it can pay off for the GM to lay his logic out for the players.  It's dirty pool, in my opinion, to have some unknown influence changing the outcome of a battle without giving the PC some clue as to what might be changing things, and what steps might be taken to deal with it.

I realize that some of these ideas diminish the "power" of the gamemaster's role in the game, especially the heretical notion that two players can decide for themselves who wins a fight and how... but then I'm already branded a heretic anyways, so why fight it?

Quote from: TonyLBI totally agree.  I mean, I wasn't ignoring it ... the question of "How long?  How bad?" (as I said) was the very next step after I compared the stats.  But the player who jumped to the leg-chopping was clearly not expecting that next step to be part of the equation ... and he wanted to kvetch and complain about it in order to try to socially achieve the result he wanted.

My point was that removing the ability for the players to roleplay for advantage in the end result didn't in any way slow down their desire to jockey for favor, it just shifted it down to the next arena I had to judge on (How long?  How bad?)

Now if I wanted to have objective standards for that too then I could write up some formulae about how many ranks, what type of endurance, how long they fight and how slowly the damage accumulates.  I could modify that by combat stances and all of that.  But that's an awful lot of house-ruling.  As it was, I just said "Guys, I'm usin' my judgment here, let's move on."  It didn't work too well, but that's down (mostly) to the people involved.

I do think that the first step of saying "I'm not going to use my GM judgment in this way" undermined my ability to later say "But I am going to use my GM jugment in this different way."  People heard me as having promised different degrees of objectivity, and having divested myself of different amounts of authority.

That can get tricky to communicate.  Very tricky indeed!

I agree that this is a tough problem.  I personally tend to take the easy way out:  don't play with people who will kvetch and complain like that.  Or, rather, don't play with them a second time.  

The obvious answers are:  come up with some rules that encode this for you, and/or talk about it with the play group before the game.  But those aren't really useful solutions, because you can never hope to cover all the items of contention that might come up.  I think the best you can do is to cover the high value targets.  And be upfront with your players about what kind of behavior you will and will not tolerate.

Thanks so far for the answers. I absolutely do not want this thread to drift to alternative GM power distribution models, nor am I suggesting at all the the GM is not the final arbiter. As I said, I know how to make a judgement as a GM, but I am looking for mechanical guidelines to help me interpret the victor in a close conflict between players.

Quote from: OthaAnother subject you've left out so far are subconscious biases.  Of course it is always good to play with your friends, but some people are better friends than others, and some characters' stories are better stories than others, and the GM in his heart of hearts can cheer for one character over another for any number of reasons.  GM's can even "fall in love" with their NPC's and their NPC's stories.

Imagine the frustration you feel as a GM when, in the midst of a diced game, the dice fall against you, along with a sharp strategy and good teamwork on the part of the PC's, short-circuiting a huge amount of work in preparation.  Yes, as a mature GM the thing to do is to put the invalidated material aside and find a place to re-tool and re-use it later... but haven't we all been tempted to fudge things so that our hard work isn't discarded?  Don't tell me the temptation isn't there when running Amber games.

This kind of bias is impossible to rule out!  Even in supposedly "fair" diced games, everyone has seen this kind of favoritism.  In a game with a judicial conflict resolution system, I can't see it being any less of a problem.

Yes, there's little to do about it without getting rid of the judicial conflict resolution system.  

One possible change is to put the job of arguing for the success of an NPC in different hands than the GM.  If someone at the table is the official NPC's advocate, then the players can see more of the process and it's more likely to be fair.  

Another possible change is to allow the disputants in a conflict to decide between themselves who wins and how, and only have the GM step in to alter the result when there is something entering the consideration that the PC's are unaware of.  

Finally, it can pay off for the GM to lay his logic out for the players.  It's dirty pool, in my opinion, to have some unknown influence changing the outcome of a battle without giving the PC some clue as to what might be changing things, and what steps might be taken to deal with it.

I realize that some of these ideas diminish the "power" of the gamemaster's role in the game, especially the heretical notion that two players can decide for themselves who wins a fight and how... but then I'm already branded a heretic anyways, so why fight it?

Your ideas are asinine. The only "solution" needed is to have a mature GM. Amber isn't for emotionally or intellectually immature people to run.

If you can't trust that your GM will be fair, you have NO FUCKING BUSINESS playing in an Amber campaign with him.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYour ideas are asinine. The only "solution" needed is to have a mature GM. Amber isn't for emotionally or intellectually immature people to run.

So the world is divided into (1) mature people, who will never have a problem running Amber and (2) people who have encountered problems running Amber, and who can therefore be shown conclusively to be immature.  Did I read that right?

Quote from: TonyLBSo the world is divided into (1) mature people, who will never have a problem running Amber and (2) people who have encountered problems running Amber, and who can therefore be shown conclusively to be immature.  Did I read that right?

look at the post I was responding to: that poster was suggesting that GM bias is a major problem in Amber, and the "problems" he was describing had nothing to do with the system, they all had to do with hypothetical scenarios of GMs abusing their power to help their friends, their pet NPCs, or the plot.  His suggested solutions had nothing to do with developing a better understanding of the system as it is, they had everything to do with REVISING the system to take away power from the GM.

In light of that, I'd that whatever you read had fuck all to do with what I was saying, or what the original poster had said.

RPGPundit

Avoiding bias (and even the appearance of bias) is a worthy goal if you intend to sit in judgment on your fellows even in this small way.  Paying attention to the matter doesn't mean that you think you'd otherwise be corrupt and abusive ... just that you want all the help you can get in being as fair and objective as possible.

How is that the sign of an immature person?

Quote from: TonyLBAvoiding bias (and even the appearance of bias) is a worthy goal if you intend to sit in judgment on your fellows even in this small way.  Paying attention to the matter doesn't mean that you think you'd otherwise be corrupt and abusive ... just that you want all the help you can get in being as fair and objective as possible.

How is that the sign of an immature person?

If you can't take the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen.  Power-devolution schemes, besides being a blatant bit of ideological nonsense from the GM-disempowerment fanatics, is just hanging over your power to a half-dozen biased people, and a recipe to create even more conflicts and struggles in your group.

If you're the GM, you need to get over your biases through discipline, not try to run an RPG through fucking committee.

RPGPundit

So your answer to, "What do you do about subconscious bias that you may not even be fully aware of" is "Don't do it"?

Quote from: OthaSo your answer to, "What do you do about subconscious bias that you may not even be fully aware of" is "Don't do it"?

No, you can acknowledge that you might have some bias you aren't even consciously aware of, without knowing exactly how those biases pan out.  And while I always advocate psychological self-inquiry to discover these things about yourselves, as far as we're concerned you don't really NEED to know what said biases are. You just have to know that they exist, and make an extra effort to be fair.

Hell, playing Amber might, if you're observant, work as a way to let you find out what those biases are.

Anyways, the answer is certainly not to voluntarily castrate yourself and let your players take over the game, so that now you have five or six guys with hidden biases instead of just one.

All REAL RPGs need a strong GM. But no game moreso than Amber.  Amber needs a strong GM more than any other RPG out there, because there is no other advocate in the game beside the GM, and practically no limit to what players can do aside from the GM's judgment and ability to moderate situations.  Any suggestion to disempower the GM is not just ridiculous but based on a clear desire to destroy the game.

RPGPundit

There is a small but definite possibility that Erick might post a more detailed response here. I am very excited by this possibilty. However, this thread, like many of this forum is in danger of being derailed. I've asked everyone to keep off the topic of distributed GM power models, so please, I ask again, can you stop thread crapping FOR or AGAINST these models and stick to the topic or don't post. If you want to have a go at me, or continue this debate, please please, start a new thread.

This, and this only is the subject for the thread:

Within the existing Amber RPG system, what mechanical guidelines can you suggest to adjudicate combat and similar conflicts, assuming a competent GM capable of making a judgement?

I think the problem is that the question is inherently flawed.

There are no mechanical guidelines for adjudicating combat within the existing Amber system.  It says "take these things into account" but never really says how.

So I can't suggest any.  The only way to suggest guidelines would be to extend the system.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question?

As best I recall (don't have the book here)... EW does include some hints about the mechanical values of ranks that might improve GM judgments.

If you take EW's comments about Endurance logic and apply that across other attributes (to be simulationist about it), you would have a range of character performance to support judgment.

mortal: never regenerate
chaos: heal 100 yrs
amber: heal 20 yrs
ranked: heal 10 yrs
Corwin: heals complex eyes, 4 yrs.

What you'll notice here is that across the range of bottom to top is a factor of five for each step. Mortal healing so poor they don't live long enough to replace severed bits. Amber rank 5 times better than Chaos, Corwin five times better than Amber rank.

So a specific rulings might be:
The first rank Warfare can beat second rank and third rank together because first rank is better than twice second rank.

The first rank Pscyhe can beat five Amber rank minds, but not six; or beat 20 Chaos ranked minds, but not 15 Chaos ranked minds teamed with 3 Amber ranked minds.

I think that's about as mechanical as the rules get.

Quote from: OthaI think the problem is that the question is inherently flawed.

There are no mechanical guidelines for adjudicating combat within the existing Amber system.  It says "take these things into account" but never really says how.

So I can't suggest any.  The only way to suggest guidelines would be to extend the system.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question?

Arref has made exactly the kind of suggestion I'm looking for - extrapolating guidelines from the rules without changing the power dynamic or the basic system premise.

Edit: Snark removed.

Quote from: ArrefI think that's about as mechanical as the rules get.

That's correct; they don't offer any guidance on handling the non-ranking considerations; things like tactical positioning, dirty tricks, and preparation.  The book says that they can be a factor, but gives no guidance on how MUCH of a factor they should be.  For me, this lack is the most telling, because they are always present.

Quote from: OthaThat's correct; they don't offer any guidance on handling the non-ranking considerations; things like tactical positioning, dirty tricks, and preparation.  The book says that they can be a factor, but gives no guidance on how MUCH of a factor they should be.  For me, this lack is the most telling, because they are always present.

This thread is not for critiques of the Amber rule set! If you can't or won't address the question or don't understand it, or think it's stupid question, please start your own thread on your own topic.

Quote from: PGivertyThis, and this only is the subject for the thread:

Within the existing Amber RPG system, what mechanical guidelines can you suggest to adjudicate combat and similar conflicts, assuming a competent GM capable of making a judgement?

I suggest holding secret talks with the players to let them negotiate their own victory conditions. The highest ranked player gets what they asked for and the lower ranked players get sloppy seconds.

From actual play, a thronewar where there was a battle for the castle and everyone was invited. I had some house rules in effect where players could have a few elite champions, hordes of disloyal irregulars or something in between. There were no NPCs of note.

At first everyone wanted Total Victory(tm) including insta-leg chopping. Here's what the players chose (ranked by warfare) after some negotiation

1 Bill: I order my elite bodyguards to withdraw into the keep and take as few casualties as possible.
2 Andy: I order my elites to kill Bill at any cost.
3 Nathan: I order my army to trap Bill and his elites in the keep so that I can rule the surrounding countryside.
4 Lisa: I order my horde to sieze and fortify the dungeons.
5 Brian: I sail my Navy into the city and set myself up as a champion of the people. When Nathan tries to take over, I secretly offer my alliegence to him while publicly supporting Bill.
6 Susan: After my first army is slain in a failed pre-emptive strike through Arden, I return from shadow by sea with a last minute horde army. Since it's a last miniute affair the warchiefs don't take orders from me exactly, but I can kill them and order their followers on a chief by chief basis. After a sea voyage and plenty of slaying, the plan is to never ever harm citizens of Amber and if possible help Bill at the Castle.

So the results were, 1 Bill withdraws to the keep and takes few casualties. 2 Andy throws away all of his elites in a failed attempt to break in. 3 Nathan overcomitts himself and exposes his baggage train to Susan's horde.

Lisa was unopposed, and quite happy to win the dungeons and the Pattern room.

Brian's Navy forced Susan's horde to shipwreck several miles south of the city an then tricked them into attacking the city.

Susan led most of her horde out of Brian's death trap with promises of easier plunder. She happened across Nathan's baggage train, destroyed it, and then trapped him and his army between the keep and the walls of the city. Susan personaly cracked open the gates of the castle and Nathan beat a quick retreat to the city.

Later...

Bill's colors always flew alongside those of the now vanished King Oberon. Bill rulled in his place, ever hopeful for his return.

Andy's elites were completely destroyed and he was exiled from the Amber.

Nathan's Army was in tatters but the survivors escaped via Brian's Navy. Nathan was exiled but could blackmail Brian for his aid.

Lisa's Horde grew restless and dispersed ('cause that's what hordes do in my houserules) although the new fortifications and a few stragglers remained in Amber's dungeons. Eventualy she replaced them with regular troops. She publicly acknowledged Bill regent but retained control of the dungeons.

Brian was a public hero even though he secretly incited the attack he publicly repelled. Bill kept him on as a Mayor as a reward for sinking Nathan's army even though Bill suspected that Brian secretly shipped Nathan and his army to safety. (He had!)

Susan was a secret ally with Bill, although he chose to keep distance from her publicly because of her confusing role in saving the city from her own horde.

Anyway, that's what I was able to get with secret talks and some negotiation. There were some other things going on with Psyche and Strength but that's how Warfare played out. Endurance didn't see much use because players wanted quick results for the most part.

Quote from: Erick WujcikI'll come back to the original question (from Jib) in a day or two.

That day or two is stretching into a week or two, but I'm still working on finding the time. This morning I took my copy of Amber Diceless with me to breakfast, and tagged a couple of relevant passages.

I'm also trying to figure how to respond without coming across as rude or insensitive...

...in the meantime, Simone Cooper, the brilliant 'Goddess of Gaming' responsible for creating both Ambercon U.K. and Ambercon Northwest (see Ambercons (http://www.ambercons.com)) recently posted a wonderful description of an Amber Diceless combat online. Visceral, gritty, and with nary a mention of Ranks:

Helena vs. Hellhounds (http://simonepdx.livejournal.com/24480.html#cutid1)

Erick

Quote from: PGivertyThis thread is not for critiques of the Amber rule set! If you can't or won't address the question or don't understand it, or think it's stupid question, please start your own thread on your own topic.

I have done so, but I don't think "I don't understand the question" is an impertinent answer.

Quote from: Erick WujcikHelena vs. Hellhounds (http://simonepdx.livejournal.com/24480.html#cutid1)

QuoteHelena: I try.
GM: How much effort?
Helena: A lot of my little bitty amount ;-)
GM: risking fatigue and injury, or just pushing?
Helena: I don't know what that means; I just try hard, and if it's not working, I say I need more power. And try a lot harder.

Hmm. Doesn't that sound like the sort of a situation in which not only the GM but also the player might benefit from more substantial guidelines for the effects of her efforts? That is, precisely what does "effort" mean in terms of the mechanics?

Quote from: GrimGentHmm. Doesn't that sound like the sort of a situation in which not only the GM but also the player might benefit from more substantial guidelines for the effects of her efforts? That is, precisely what does "effort" mean in terms of the mechanics?

Exactly.

Quote from: Erick WujcikThat day or two is stretching into a week or two, but I'm still working on finding the time. This morning I took my copy of Amber Diceless with me to breakfast, and tagged a couple of relevant passages.

I'm also trying to figure how to respond without coming across as rude or insensitive...

If you are concerned in any way about offending me, please don't be, unless you bring my mother into it!

Incidentally, the example you post is basically improv combined with GM fiat. It looks like fun but I can do that stuff already without the need for the Amber rule set. What I want to know is how to the mechanics intersect with play in this example. Or do they not? Is there only GM fiat and improv outside of the basic rankings?

Quote from: PGivertyIncidentally, the example your post is basically improv combined with GM fiat. It looks like fun but I can do that stuff already without the need for the Amber rule set. What I want to know is how to the mechanics intersect with play in this example. Or do they not? Is there only GM fiat and improv outside of the basic rankings?

You are confusing style with substance.

The style of Amber Diceless requires that the Game Master disguise the mechanics in order to preserve the feel of the environment. The inherently secretive world of Amber, where manipulation, intrigue and deception have to have room to play.

Of course the Game Master doesn't say things like "oh, he's two ranks higher than you, or that groom is clearly human ranked," because such things should never cross the character's mind... and the player needed be concerned with such things.

The mechanics should take place entirely in the head of the Game Master. Which doesn't make it, in any way shape or form, 'GM fiat.'

As for 'Improv' - the RPGpundit speaks of his bat, while being a Detroit boy, I instinctively reach under my seat for my trusty tire iron - are you trying to provoke me? Of course role-playing, any good role-playing, any decent role-playing, any role-playing that dreams of being something more than shoving pretty, pretty, painted miniatures around a rubber hex mat, requires that the players slip into their roles, requires that the Game Master weave a picture with words, and that we jointly work without scripts, and that, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, we do, in fact, commit the unthinkable process of improvisation.

When Corwin strikes, in the first conbat scene enacted in Nine Princes in Amber, going for a 'below the belt' knock-out, he is committing 'Improv,' and hopefully anyone who aspires to fun role-playing is doing the same. Constantly, continuously, effortlessly, and shamelessly.

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

Quote from: Erick WujcikAs 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.

If they were there, writ clear and plain, then PG and I would be able to see them.

We're not idiots.

We're not ignorant.

We're also not telepathic.

Quote from: Erick WujcikThere are mechanics there, writ clear and plain.

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.

There is one (1) example of the GM asking the player to make a choice, and that one founders immediately over the fact that the question is asked in a way that doesn't convey any meaning to the player.

There are a few examples of what I'd call "implicit questions" ... when you hear the baying of Hellhounds coming closer, do you keep fighting or do you cut and run?  But I can see those as choice-points only because I am so familiar with thinking about combat in this way.

There is no reference to explicit reference to relative strengths, no explicit reference to aggressive/defensive/opportunistic stances, no explicit reference to changing the arena of combat.  All those things happen, but I can only see them because I know precisely where to look for them.

Overall, I can see the position of both sides.  Erick, I agree that the combat is influenced by the mindset of the Amber mechanics, and the GM may even be comparing statistics in her head and doing all the calculations behind the curtain (though, not being a mind-reader, I can't be sure of that).  Dave et al., I agree that there is virtually nothing mechanical being described out in the open, and that only an Amber expert would be able to decipher the slightest bit of what the hidden process here is likely to be.

Can we agree that while this is indeed an example of Amber combat mechanics in action, it is sufficiently sub rosa that it is not an example that a person would (for instance) use to illustrate those rules in order to teach them to someone unfamiliar with them?

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, 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

Quote from: Erick WujcikYou 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.

Quote from: Erick WujcikIn 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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. ;)

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)...

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.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumBut 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.

Quote from: OthaI 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

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.

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.

Quote from: OthaI 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."

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum(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?'

Quote from: jibbajibba...where are the mechanics that tell us what happens if...

Exactly.

Quote from: Otha

Quote from: jibbajibbaI 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?

Quote from: ArrefWould 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 :D

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.

Quote from: jibbajibbaNot 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.

QuoteI 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 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html)

Quote from: ArrefWhen 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".

Quote from: Otha

Quote from: ArrefWhen 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?

Quote from: Amber Diceless, pg. 80step 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.

Quote from: Amber Diceless, pg. 84judging 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.

Quote from: Amber Diceless, pg. 81advantages
"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.

Quote from: ArrefI 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.

Quote from: OthaI 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.

Quote from: OthaI 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.

Quote from: OthaThat'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.

Quote from: OthaIn 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.

Quote from: OthaMy 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.

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.]

Quote from: jibbajibbaii) 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!

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... 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!

Yes but that isn't a position...
What you are effectively saying is that you either like it or don't well yeah but why?
In any case I am not looking to split yet more hairs what I want is some practical solutions to real game dilemas. How do people actually tackle these questions when they arise?

I'd really like to get this back on track if possible. That's not to say there haven't been useful suggestions. If you want theory discussions about what Amber is or isn't, want to suggest non-standard ways of distributing the GMs power, or anything else, take it to another thread.

1. All games require GM judgement. This isn't about that.
2. Within the current rules, the GM must use judgement to determine the outcome of contests.
3. The rules as they stand offer system methods for dealing with conflicts.
4. There is no dichotomy between describing conflict in words and having and underlying maths-based system which, when combined with GM judgement, determines the outcome of conflicts.
4. This thread is about **mechanical guidelines** in addition to those in the rules, but within their spirit showing how the mechanics can be applied to conflicts. This can be through a mechanical breakdown of an example (such as the one Erick pointed at), or other suggestions. In particular, to what extent can environmental factors affect the outcome of a conflict, independent of raknings?

If you don't think any such guidelines can exist, keep off the thread (unless you are Erick!)

Quote from: jibbajibbaHow 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.

OK, here goes. Please ask questions or point out my errors.



Assumptions: ranks range from Amber 1x to 5x better for First Rank
Helena is 3rd rank Warfare, 2nd rank Strength.

Quotei) Helena offers no defense until the hounds are on top of her.

GM: OK, you hear the hellhounds running up behind. Break from Julian to deal with them? Or something else?
H: No, finish Julian.
GM: OK, you're hit from behind. Hard and knocked flat to ground. Shapes everywhere around you. No chance for a weapon. Your gear and clothes don't stop the razor steel teeth. At least two of the hounds grab you, one at each arm. Pain, wounds. Your turn.
H: Can I tell how many?
GM: Yes, you see six. A pack, not a full cohort.
H: What's the chances here without a weapon, warfare judgment?
GM: Grim. With your strength you might hold them off, but they'll keep hurting you. You guess you could handle three, but they won't stop—once you start killing them they'll frenzy. That's how you've heard Julian trains them.
H: OK, I'll use my strength and protect my most vulnerable parts. Anything that would take real time to heal. Fetal position, guts toward the ground. Maybe a handler will call them off if I can last.
GM: OK, you'll be hammered and chewed for a long time. Blood and pain. You don't black out. The hounds clamp on you a few times and shake you. You think they are trying to get some reaction. Do you do any defensive strikes? Or stick with your plan?
H: I'm dead if I fight them. I'll try to stay alive until help comes or the sitch changes.
GM: OK, you'll nearly pass out from blood loss. An hour of this, a ranger shows up and calls them to heel. You'll stay conscious as they get you some first aid. You'll live.

Notes: GM reacts to Helena's warfare as 3x and her strength as 4x. Helena gives environ advantage to the hounds. She could have injured/killed a couple hounds here with strength, but wisely chose to 'play dead'. Helena's endurance is not known, but even if she had killed two hounds, her injuries would have accumulated very fast. The hounds represent about 6 times 1x of damage and they can all hurt her almost every round.

Quoteii) Helena stands her ground and faces them with a blade.

GM: OK, you hear the hellhounds running up behind. Break from Julian to deal with them? Or something else?
H: Damn, leap up with the long knife and face them. How many?
GM: Six, a pack, not a full cohort. How do you want to defend?
H: I’m guessing all six can coordinate attacks on me at once?
GM: That's right. You could try to use the trees nearby.
H: Can I do that now? Get to the trees?
GM: If you run or leap for the trees, you think they'd be on your back.
H: OK, I know they are tough, can I kill one as soon as they get to me? Head shot?
GM: if you get the knife into an eye, yes. I don't think you want to try stabbing past the teeth. These dogs might be able to snap your blade off.
H: Good point. OK, that's my plan. Kill one of the six, avoid damage as I can. Maybe I can judo push a dog off with my left hand.
GM: OK, they roll at you in a wave of razor teeth. They'll go for your limbs, but you anticipate that. You nail your select hound right through the eye. You dodge several snaps at your limbs as hounds jump at you, you twist and spin. Two miss completely. One you shove off-track with your left hand. Two hounds hit you at running speed knocking you off your feet. One of those snaps teeth on your calf and holds. The second hound to hit you doesn't get a grip and falls differently than you and the gripping hound.

Your move?
H: I’m so screwed. Warfare judgment now. How long can I last if I kill one on every pass?
GM: Good question. You think the leg wound and the gripping hound are going to slow your dodges now. But if you could kill one every turn, you might live through it. If they wound you every turn, you could die.
H: I don't like those odds. If I stop fighting now, will they stand down?
GM: No. You've killed one. They'll be in frenzy now.
H: *&%*&^%$!!! OK. I have to kill the gripping hound. Since that hound is a fixed target, I have advantage. Can I kill it and defend with the blade against the others? I want to switch to opportunity fighting. They will come to me.
GM: You think that's a decent plan.
H: OK. Best I can do now. I stab the gripping hound through the eye.
GM: It dies nicely. You also slash at several leaping dogs scoring on their tough hides. No serious damage to them. Four remaining hounds, two miss you leaping and snapping. One gets you a minor gash on the dagger arm. The last tries for your other leg and nails it with a snap. It holds on.
H: I'm so screwed. I'm still on the ground aren't I? Trees too far away?
GM: Yes, knocked down first turn. You'll never make the trees without getting hit from behind. The dogs move faster across ground than you do.
H: Wait! What if I switch to strength? Can I kill two a turn? There are four left. I could take damage for two turns, yes?
GM: getting rid of them faster would definitely shift things to your favor. And they are right on top of you, aggressively, which gives you great chance to grab them each turn.
H: I can't believe I didn't do this first! OK, throw the dagger at one of them, but I'm switching to strength. I'll grab two necks and slam their heads together.
GM: hard as you can? Are you trying to kill or stun?
H: Kill! Kill!
GM: OK. The dagger throw hits, but only gashes an incoming dog. Two hounds end up in your hands. You crush their heads together, they go limp. You're not sure they are dead but they are out of the fight right now. The dog gripping your right leg still digs teeth deeper and snaps its head back and forth. You hear your leg fracture. The last dog gets a glancing hit on your arm, no dodge because of the hounds in your hands.
H: I threw them away from me quickly as soon as they were out.
GM: True, but all these attacks come within seconds of each other. You've taken a minor wound to your sword arm.
H: But I'm alive and they are toast now! OK, break the neck of the dog on my leg. And push off the other one if it jumps me.
GM: Two handed attack on the gripping hound? Or keep a hand free for the leaping dog?
H: I can snap a neck with one hand. If I can't, it'll still be without air once I get my hand on it. Second hand free for defense.
GM: Right. This works well. You do snap the hound's neck with one hand. You also slap aside the leaping hound before it gets a hit on you.
H: YES! I pivot on my hip, not trying to get up. I kill the last dog as it comes for me.
GM: You do. Well done.

Notes: GM reacts to Helena's warfare as 3x and her strength as 4x. Helena gets environ advantage on the hounds by readying for them. She could have been hit six times with no defense. She reacts to six simultaneous attacks. She gets hit once. But she loses position because a dagger against the mass of attacks doesn't continue to give her command of the space around her. An important point is ability to wound: the hounds can each wound at Amber rank, while Helena can wound them at 3xAmber expertise. This is why she can kill in a single hit given a good chance. When she doesn't have such good opportunity, the fight stretches longer and the wounds are less telling.

Killing the dog first turn, changes the attack instructions of the hounds to "all out attack" which gives Helena advantage. The dogs are not dodging or defending.

The dogs are Amber ranked and do not pose a serious threat to Helena in strength or warfare, but there are six of them trained to coordinate. It is ironic here that six Amber men attacking would not do as well, being neither as trained nor as courageous as the hellhounds.

The battle really changes when Helena switches to strength. She's higher ranked and she can kill with either hand. The hounds are down to 4x when she does this, and she also has a 4x ranking in strength. She wins.

Quoteiii) Helena retreats into narrow cave entrance.

Helena wins. She cannot be attacked by more than two or three hounds at once. Either strength or warfare will allow her to kill/defend against the hounds.

First: Thank you for this detailed response.  This is a MUCH better example of play than the previous one.  It actually shows some of the mechanics.

Just a quick question on this:

Given that a hellhound, canonically, can rip the bumper off a car, why isn't she more badly injured when a hellhound grabs her?  Is it tougher to rip a limb off an Amberite than it is to rip a bumper off a car?

Excellent.

So stripping off the eloquent in-game examples.

i) No defense - Helena will go down to 6 dogs. If she defends and plays dead they might loose interest if she takes one down with Strength chances are they will frenzy and won't stop until she is literally dog meat.
ii) Against 6 dogs toe to toe Helena is likely to take a wound a round and end up pretty mauled but will probably survive. I would assume if there were more dogs to take the place of those she kills that she would go down after taking 5 or 6 of them dependant on her tactics.
iii) if she can prevent all but 1 or 2 dogs attacking her she will eventuall win and is unlikely to suffer much more than minor wounds

So from that we can deduce some possible mechanics.

Against 6 Amber ranked oponents a high ranked player will win but take wounds if they fight tactically, loose if they offer no defense and win if they can can limit the enemies to 1 or 2 at a time (endurance might come in here but versus 6 its unlikely).

Now Arref you were using a mechanism here the 1x Amber damamge or 3x etc as a way of saying how many ranks above Amber. So the 1st ranked out of 5 would have 5 x amber ability and 5 amber ranks would be equal to them ? So does this mean in a game with 12 ranks between top and Amber the top rank is 12 times tougher than Amber rank?Doesn;t that make creatures like Hell hounds relatively less tough in games with a lot of players? is that logical?
Does this simplify to 3 hounds (helena 3rd rank is 3 ranks above Amber) equal Helean toe to toe. When she switches to Strength at 2nd rank she can take 4 dogs?

If we extrapolate that .... if the top rank warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and 2 hounds (1 + 1 ) would they be equal? would we expect a result equal to (ii) in the example where the 1st rank proably takes Helena as quickly as possible (she would no doubt go all out defense) whilst the dogs chew him a bit, or dispatch the dogs quickly to face Helena head to head, risking an attack from Helena in the interim? What if the top ranked warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and the second rank warfare (4) would they loose unless they could take an oponent out very fast ?

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

Does anyone agree with this mechanism? Disagree with it? There have been posts that suggested 1st rank versus 2 1.5 ranked would beat them. This ruling would appear to disagree with that assumption.

Anyone got any other breakdowns? I assume Arref is from the "roleplay it out and the numbers will take care of themselves side of the fence" though he does underpin his decisions with logical rules that are maintained reasonably consistantly (I am not sure you can break a dogs neck with one hand, no leverage. You might be able to crush a vertebra or a windpipe but a 200 lb mastiff in a frenzy is not an easy beast to grab and its not about strength so much as the size of your hands). There must be an alternate view from the 'Newtonian' school ie every combat action has an equal and oposite reation. 50 warfare + defensive fighting = 75 warfare or something ... anyone anyone?

Quote from: OthaFirst: Thank you for this detailed response.  This is a MUCH better example of play than the previous one.  It actually shows some of the mechanics.

Just a quick question on this:

Given that a hellhound, canonically, can rip the bumper off a car, why isn't she more badly injured when a hellhound grabs her?  Is it tougher to rip a limb off an Amberite than it is to rip a bumper off a car?

Hmm. There are a lot of ways I could answer that. I'll try to stick to rules as presented and not wander.

A car is not very real, has no defense and is of mortal construction. If we continue the implied rank factors from the rules, a Chaos ranked auto would be built to .2x reality. Any Amber rank strength (1x) could tear pieces of it off. Breaking a mortal car (.04x) would be easy.

I prefer to look at this in a metaphysical way, rather than actually try to sell to the Players that shadow is 'cardboard'. It is tougher to rip a limb off an Amberite. Many times tougher not even accounting for Stuff. The universe does not imagine Amberite Endurance in any way similar to a nameless car from shadow.

Amberites are not made of steel. Physics is not the explanation.

Quote from: jibbajibbaExcellent.

So stripping off the eloquent in-game examples.

i) No defense - Helena will go down to 6 dogs. If she defends and plays dead they might loose interest if she takes one down with Strength chances are they will frenzy and won't stop until she is literally dog meat.
ii) Against 6 dogs toe to toe Helena is likely to take a wound a round and end up pretty mauled but will probably survive. I would assume if there were more dogs to take the place of those she kills that she would go down after taking 5 or 6 of them dependant on her tactics.
iii) if she can prevent all but 1 or 2 dogs attacking her she will eventuall win and is unlikely to suffer much more than minor wounds

You got the gist of it. Your assumptions about Helena's Endurance are unsupported because we didn't build that into the example. We know she is tough, but not how tough.

In theory, six hellhounds are tougher than Helena in warfare and strength. I picked six to demonstrate that even a coordinated, trained attack of 6x could be broken down and dealt with by a 4x rank Strength.

You've got a lot of questions here... and I'm not sure I'll get to all of them. Remember this is just one GM's opinion.

Quote from: jibbajibbaSo from that we can deduce some possible mechanics.

Against 6 Amber ranked oponents a high ranked player will win but take wounds if they fight tactically, loose if they offer no defense and win if they can can limit the enemies to 1 or 2 at a time (endurance might come in here but versus 6 its unlikely).

Now Arref you were using a mechanism here the 1x Amber damamge or 3x etc as a way of saying how many ranks above Amber. So the 1st ranked out of 5 would have 5 x amber ability and 5 amber ranks would be equal to them ? So does this mean in a game with 12 ranks between top and Amber the top rank is 12 times tougher than Amber rank?

No, this is tangential reasoning not supported by the rules. First ranked extends to 5x in the text examples. You might take it a step further if you think you can support that Benedict or Fiona or Brand are 6x examples for their Attributes. Endurance and Corwin are the "mechanic range" I cited for ranks. If you feel Corwin's Endurance is less impressive than Brand's Psyche, you could have a 6x.

Quote from: jibbajibbaDoesn;t that make creatures like Hell hounds relatively less tough in games with a lot of players? is that logical?

In games with a lot of players, PCs will be closer together within the 5x range. The range does not get larger. You do not get PCs with 12x ability.

Quote from: jibbajibbaDoes this simplify to 3 hounds (helena 3rd rank is 3 ranks above Amber) equal Helean toe to toe. When she switches to Strength at 2nd rank she can take 4 dogs?

Very roughly, yes. Because we set the hellhounds at Amber rank. But look at the example again. Threats built up from numbers to equal a ranked character are not as tough or dangerous as the ranked character. Helena deals with 6x in the example. And notice how important tactics, choices and advantages might be in the three examples. In the first examples she's terribly injured. In the second, badly injured. In the third, hardly injured at all.

Quote from: jibbajibbaIf we extrapolate that .... if the top rank warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and 2 hounds (1 + 1 ) would they be equal? would we expect a result equal to (ii) in the example where the 1st rank proably takes Helena as quickly as possible (she would no doubt go all out defense) whilst the dogs chew him a bit, or dispatch the dogs quickly to face Helena head to head, risking an attack from Helena in the interim? What if the top ranked warfare (5) were fighting Helena (3) and the second rank warfare (4) would they loose unless they could take an oponent out very fast ?

Coordinating attacks is very difficult in the fury of battle. Without talking through every example you ask above, I want to get across the idea that Helena and four hounds might not take First Rank (5x). Why? Because the clever First Rank will make sure that the force against is whittled down fast. It really depends on play choices. Most advantages would go to the First Rank. I would often expect First Rank to win.

Quote from: jibbajibbaWe can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

I really don't know that you understand the examples I gave. 3rd ranked warfare should kick the snot out of two Amber ranked opponents. Again, I would expect 4th ranked (2x) to win against two Amber ranked opponents with less damage than (ii) example. Unless bad choices or bad stuff got in the way.

Quote from: jibbajibbaAnyone got any other breakdowns? I assume Arref is from the "roleplay it out and the numbers will take care of themselves side of the fence" though he does underpin his decisions with logical rules that are maintained reasonably consistantly (I am not sure you can break a dogs neck with one hand, no leverage. You might be able to crush a vertebra or a windpipe but a 200 lb mastiff in a frenzy is not an easy beast to grab and its not about strength so much as the size of your hands).

Once again, I want to be clear about the rules' conflict logic involved being tied to ranks and NOT physics.

When you suggest, "not about strength so much as the size of your hands" you are veering off into putting 'shadow science' constraints on a conflict system that is simply beyond it.

Think cinematically. Think about the PCs as protagonists in a novel.

Or, if you will, think about the notion that Strength ranked PCs have innate understanding of physics, weight, mass and velocity such that the sudden neck grip works with the dog's own momentum and direction to introduce a sudden grip, shift, change of vector that the dog's neck-discs cannot handle. The dog's own velocity mass plus expert wrench from Helena's hand snaps the neck.

Don't get so bogged down in details. You'll end up arguing physics with your players instead of having fun.

yup this was a typo by me

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

Should have said will win (was typing fast in between an application deployment) mea culpa.

The note about breaking a dog's neck with one hand was throw away and cinematically you wouldn't be able to do it no. You could kick a dog 50 feet into the air, grab a dog and hit the other dogs with it, snap a dog's neck with  a well placed karate chop (though unlikely). Normally they would do some funny twisted head lock and then untwist ... but we digress...

Okay you seem to saying that you have this number system were top rank is 5ish and Amber is 1 and we descend in 5 mulitples down to Chaos and Human. Given that exceptional top rankers Gerard, Benedict ext might push this to 6 or even 7. Okay that seems like a reasonable set of numbers.

You didn't answer the toughie though 2 rank 1.5 versus the rank 1. How do you resolve this?
I have to think under your rule of thumb 2 bright erudite rank 1.5 (or even rank 2s ) should take your rank 1. Good tactics , a plan to take him down...

The physics arguments make no sense. If you take and army from shadow and bring it to Amber they don't have rubber swords and card armour. The reason why Amberites use swords is because its one of the few laws of physics that applies shadow wide, I stick you with a big bit of steel and you bleed a lot. Cinematically of course the Hellhound would not rip of a leg. When was the last time Mel Gibson lost a limb or even failed to get up after a 50 feet fall to concrete. My PCs rarely get killed unless it advances the plot in someway. That is what NPCs are for (look if you fight Ortha he will slice you in half with that axe see what happened to Areff...).

Overall though you have really helped. I would never reveal any of the mechanics to a player by the way so have no fear there. I make it all seem as seemless as possible. My GM problem isn't conflict resolution per se its being fair in conflict resolution. If I have 5 dogs attacking someone with 50 warfare my problem is making the result different enough from 5 dogs attacking someone with 10 warfare who uses the same tactics and has a prettier turn of phrase. I will work with a 25:5:1 ratio now and I think that will be a good template which I can chose to ignore if I want to. Interestingly you say you can extrapolte these from the rules? How so? Chaos is 10 points behind Amber and 15 points above Human I make that more of a 5:2:1 ratio or a 25:10:1 but anyway I think yours looks better.

Quote from: jibbajibbayup this was a typo by me

We can see that versus 2 Amber ranked opponents the 3rd ranked warfare will not win, but what if it were the 4th ranked (2) versus 2 amber ranked a partial victory like (ii) again?

Should have said will win (was typing fast in between an application deployment) mea culpa.

OK, that's cool.

Quote from: jibbajibbaOkay you seem to saying that you have this number system were top rank is 5ish and Amber is 1 and we descend in 5 mulitples down to Chaos and Human. Given that exceptional top rankers Gerard, Benedict ext might push this to 6 or even 7. Okay that seems like a reasonable set of numbers.

The rank range I cite is based entirely on pg. 20 of the rules, The Potential of Endurance. There's nothing written that suggests this data applies to all Attributes but in talking mechanic guides, it is telling. The notes are not prescriptive but much more detailed than anything else in the rules.

Quote from: jibbajibbaYou didn't answer the toughie though 2 rank 1.5 versus the rank 1. How do you resolve this? I have to think under your rule of thumb 2 bright erudite rank 1.5 (or even rank 2s ) should take your rank 1. Good tactics , a plan to take him down...

As a dry response looking at the numbers with no roleplaying, First Rank would have a mythic fight against two 1.5 ranks. The fight would last a long time. First Rank would have to exploit every slight error made by her opponents to win this fight. The conflict suggests First Rank would lose. But read the rules again... in a fight like this, EW would easily rule that First Rank escapes to fight another day.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe physics arguments make no sense. If you take and army from shadow and bring it to Amber they don't have rubber swords and card armour. The reason why Amberites use swords is because its one of the few laws of physics that applies shadow wide, I stick you with a big bit of steel and you bleed a lot. Cinematically of course the Hellhound would not rip of a leg. When was the last time Mel Gibson lost a limb or even failed to get up after a 50 feet fall to concrete. My PCs rarely get killed unless it advances the plot in someway. That is what NPCs are for (look if you fight Ortha he will slice you in half with that axe see what happened to Areff...).

Think about the dichotomy of what you just wrote. You're agreeing with me that physics has 'shallow' bearing on the combat. As Otha points out, canon says the hellhounds can rip a steel fender off a moving car. As we understand danger and wounds, that suggests any hit by a hellhound might tear off a limb or chunk of flesh the size of a melon.

I think Helena should have more narrative power than that, as I understand what Zelazny shows me.

Quote from: jibbajibbaOverall though you have really helped. I would never reveal any of the mechanics to a player by the way so have no fear there. I make it all seem as seemless as possible. My GM problem isn't conflict resolution per se its being fair in conflict resolution. If I have 5 dogs attacking someone with 50 warfare my problem is making the result different enough from 5 dogs attacking someone with 10 warfare who uses the same tactics and has a prettier turn of phrase. I will work with a 25:5:1 ratio now and I think that will be a good template which I can chose to ignore if I want to. Interestingly you say you can extrapolte these from the rules? How so? Chaos is 10 points behind Amber and 15 points above Human I make that more of a 5:2:1 ratio or a 25:10:1 but anyway I think yours looks better.

Points and ranks are not the same and not intended to equate. Points are for building your character. Ranks are for playing your character. Merge them and you mess up the system.

Truth is, I do not use this rank range (25:5:1) myself. My 'house rules' are here (http://home.comcast.net/~arrefmak/a-stats.htm) and suggest a different range, since I like my amberites to be closer to Chaos and mortal caliber. That's how I read the canon material.

But to each his own.
I'm glad I helped.

Here's something else that might help you be more fair: "prettier turns of phrase" nudge the conflict like advantages might favor it, they do not make up for ranks unless the advantage is piled ten deep.

Quote from: ArrefPoints and ranks are not the same and not intended to equate. Points are for building your character. Ranks are for playing your character. Merge them and you mess up the system.
QUOTE]

To be honest I don't use ranks at all I use bare points but assign them through an auction. Heretic!!! but each to their own ....

I know what you mean about the disparities between Amberites and Humans I am of the same base school myself.

I agree that Helena has more narrative power it's the pseudo explanation about physics that is 'dubious' and in no way mirrors the books.

Quote from: OthaI think the problem is that the question is inherently flawed.

There are no mechanical guidelines for adjudicating combat within the existing Amber system.  It says "take these things into account" but never really says how.

So I can't suggest any.  The only way to suggest guidelines would be to extend the system.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question?

I haven't finished the whole thread yet, but wow, Otha.... you really were stirring up some shit here. :stirthepot:

How-oh-how are you going to be conscious of sub-conscious actions?????
Some of the things you suggest are pretty goofy. I'm not trying to pick on you... but wow.... what horse-shit.

The players settle contests on their own?
why not just have no secrets in a secrets-based game?
If 1 player is better than the other at explaining things, so what. that is their skill in communications and knowledge. The one who lacks at it, will have to learn through experience.
And if their experience happens to include some biased GM and some lawyer-type argumentative players, then most likely their gaming experience is gonna suck!
I think it's the goofiest idea to try to make this game GM-less,
who will keep track of secrets?
who will arbitrate good or bad stuff????
who will describe the scene and the enviornment?
the players????
oh, You'd probably use some pre-formulated rolling dice-chart... right?
well, that will take a long time... but who will decide battle outcomes?
I only play with really good players, so I may be spoiled and not used to so many people being unhappy or difficult with such an awesome game.
I'd love to have a gaming session with Jibbajibba, RGPundit, Wujcik, Arref, and a few others on here.
But Otha, I believe I would not enjoy gaming with you.
When your arguments would surface, I'd probably use some of that GM bias you're so afraid of....
oh.....
now it makes sense, this unnatural fear you have of it....
Well, you'd better have alota good stuff.  :wink:

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uHow-oh-how are you going to be conscious of sub-conscious actions?????

Exactly.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uThe players settle contests on their own?

Yep.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uwhy not just have no secrets in a secrets-based game?

Because then it wouldn't be Amber.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uIf 1 player is better than the other at explaining things, so what. that is their skill in communications and knowledge. The one who lacks at it, will have to learn through experience.

I'd rather not have that be a factor.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uAnd if their experience happens to include some biased GM and some lawyer-type argumentative players, then most likely their gaming experience is gonna suck!

I'd rather not have that happen.  Given that every GM is biased (due to the inability to filter out subconscious bias, as you mention earlier) it's universal.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uI think it's the goofiest idea to try to make this game GM-less,
who will keep track of secrets?

This idea doesn't make the game GM-less.  It just takes the GM out of the adjudication process.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uwho will arbitrate good or bad stuff????

No need for it.  Act like a sonofabitch and people will treat you like one.  Stuff comes around.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uwho will describe the scene and the enviornment?

The GM, or the players.  

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uthe players????

Sure.  After all, if a shadow was found by a player character, then it's the player's job to describe it.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uoh, You'd probably use some pre-formulated rolling dice-chart... right?

Nope.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uwell, that will take a long time... but who will decide battle outcomes?

The players.  I thought that was clear.

no, you're not clear on it.
well, I guess you are, but it still doesn't make gaming-sense.
Look, Otha, I agree that players can run most everything in an Amber game.... from description of shadow to creating plot devices.... I mean, they are advancers of the story-line.
HOWEVER, the idea on keeping Stuff (G/B/&Z) I like.
It adds a character to this game that is like no other... it shouldn't be taken away.
Also
if I... as a player, have a secret... and have done something behind the scenes that I want no-one to know, my trap is set for the other player....
THEN WHAT?
If there is no GM, who will monitor secrets of the players, and implement secrets of the elders?????????????
So some other player would have to arbitrate it?
What if i don't want any other player knowing what my PC has done?
Can I count on some other player to act within the perimeters that my 'brain re-arranging' has done?
The job of a GM is to be impartial.
If you have trouble with impartial GMs, you should realllly look for a good one... then find matching good players, and I'm sure you will have a much better time without trying to re-work all the rules.
See, I don't think you really truly have the grasp of what it is like to have a GM that has enough experience and love for the game, that they CAN be unbiased.
'I' have that experience.
My GM is like that, and has thusly taught me to be like that. (Though I admit, I'm not as good as he in total unattachment, but I'm faaaaarrr better than I was years ago.)

I believe that if you had the right group, w/  the right GM,.... you'd be singing the praises of it thereafter.
I believe if you gamed w/my group.... you'd maybe see something you're not used to....
I have been to groups with bad players and bad GMs, but I don't stay w/ those groups.
aaaaaand, I don't try to re-work core rules to exclude integral parts of the game, and I don't care what you think.... the GM IS an integral part of this system.:crazy:

And Merry Christmas everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!

Merry christmas, gabriel :)

Btw, you both have good points, and they are far from incompatible: A GM can let a lot of latitude to his players (in fact, some GM-power could even be an integral part of exalted powers), but is really important for all those things one wish to be secret and for surprising the players.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uAlso
if I... as a player, have a secret... and have done something behind the scenes that I want no-one to know, my trap is set for the other player....
THEN WHAT?

If NOONE knows, then it's really rather moot.  It isn't really a part of play until someone else knows, even if it's only the GM.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uIf there is no GM, who will monitor secrets of the players, and implement secrets of the elders?????????????

Good question.  Given that abolishing the GM is one of the things Erick suggested, it's a valid one.

It's a bit of a straw man in this particular instance.

Let's say a player sets up a trap.  The GM hears the trap, and says, "Hm, that's pretty sneaky.  I'll rate that an eight."  He hands the player a card or something worth eight points.

Then, when the player is in a conflict and that trap goes off, he uses up that secret and gains the numeric advantage of it in the conflict.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uSo some other player would have to arbitrate it?

No.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uWhat if i don't want any other player knowing what my PC has done?

Then you'll never be able to use it, because in order to use it you have to let the other PC know about it.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uCan I count on some other player to act within the perimeters that my 'brain re-arranging' has done?

Good question.  I suppose it depends on the player.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uThe job of a GM is to be impartial.

It's the ideal of a GM to be impartial.  I've already established that it's not perfectly attainable.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uIf you have trouble with impartial GMs, you should realllly look for a good one... then find matching good players, and I'm sure you will have a much better time without trying to re-work all the rules.

Even a GM who tries his hardest to be completely impartial will fail.  There is no such thing.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uSee, I don't think you really truly have the grasp of what it is like to have a GM that has enough experience and love for the game, that they CAN be unbiased.

That's a point on which we will have to agree to disagree.  I agree that it is a laudable goal; I disagree that it is perfectly attainable.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u'I' have that experience.
My GM is like that, and has thusly taught me to be like that. (Though I admit, I'm not as good as he in total unattachment, but I'm faaaaarrr better than I was years ago.)

So you have achieved GM nirvana, and even your subconscious mind is now perfectly rational as to its judgements?  Congratulations.  When is your flight to Tibet?

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uI believe that if you had the right group, w/  the right GM,.... you'd be singing the praises of it thereafter.

I have played under some wonderful GM's, and had wonderful games.  I have run Amber games that the players have sung praises over.  That is the foundation I am working on, not the wall I am battering down.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uI believe if you gamed w/my group.... you'd maybe see something you're not used to....

Indeed.  

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u...
aaaaaand, I don't try to re-work core rules to exclude integral parts of the game, and I don't care what you think.... the GM IS an integral part of this system.:crazy:

You are either not reading, or being deliberately ignorant in order to erect straw men.

Quote from: OthaIf NOONE knows, then it's really rather moot.  It isn't really a part of play until someone else knows, even if it's only the GM.

Quote from: OthaIt has to do with the NPCs and they affect the PCs directly.... follow me now...
I do something secret with an NPC that affects him going after or dealing with another PC.
WHO will get this stuff across if not the GM?
some other player I don't want knowing??? If the 'otha PC can't get the info out of the NPC, I'm not in the habit of giving free information away, like RZ's Amberites.
hmmmmm, no thanks. The secret remains.

Quote from: OthaGood question.  Given that abolishing the GM is one of the
things Erick suggested, it's a valid one.

It's a bit of a straw man in this particular instance.

Let's say a player sets up a trap.  The GM hears the trap, and says, "Hm, that's pretty sneaky.  I'll rate that an eight."  He hands the player a card or something worth eight points.

Then, when the player is in a conflict and that trap goes off, he uses up that secret and gains the numeric advantage of it in the conflict.

the GM hears the trap???
thought there was no GM to your point????
my point FOR a GM, Secrets are one of my reasonings. If this is your point CON... I don't get it.

Quote from: OthaThen you'll never be able to use it, because in order to use it you have to let the other PC know about it.

DUH!!!:duh:
YES the other player would know about it, but not necessarily from ME.
The GM let's the PC know about it, while I, the implementor of said secret, sit on the sidelines, letting the other PC wonder who was responsible....
does this make sense??

Quote from: OthaIt's the ideal of a GM to be impartial.  I've already established that it's not perfectly attainable.

No duh, it's impossible for anyone, we're human.
I believe you would be looking for that 'ideal' best impartial percentile mixed with the abilities any great GM should have.
I don't even know why you argue this point.
NO ONE LOOKS FOR A PERFECT GM, 'cause they don't exist.
BUT there are a lot of great ones, you should try mine out.

Quote from: OthaEven a GM who tries his hardest to be completely impartial will fail.  There is no such thing.

Is THAT in the rules?
should I have a Lecter session w/you?
did your old GM... touch you?
The crying of the 'picked on by too-partial GMs'?
Or more to the point, a GM can't fit into a rules set, category, or chart, so they don't fit in your games.
warm?

Quote from: OthaThat's a point on which we will have to agree to disagree.  I agree that it is a laudable goal; I disagree that it is perfectly attainable.

Easy for you to, you haven't gamed with him.

Quote from: OthaSo you have achieved GM nirvana, and even your subconscious mind is now perfectly rational as to its judgements?  Congratulations.  When is your flight to Tibet?

I don't go to that shadow, you'll have to have tea with Aunt Sand & I sometime.

Quote from: OthaI have played under some wonderful GM's, and had wonderful games.  I have run Amber games that the players have sung praises over.  That is the foundation I am working on, not the wall I am battering down.

This helps me see your POV a bit, and I can only say, you ever gamed with our group, you'd understand.

Sorry I got away abit there.... I did think you were 'biased' on this GM issue.
I truly don't agree w/most of your points, but then, I'm not much for LARPin' either.
I like full contact LARP (LOL)

GM's RULE!!!

(Is it LARP you are talking about all the time?) / (please, if we continue this out-drawn point, lets do it on chat or mail)

In my experience, the games and LARPS that had weak, ineffective GMs or no GMs whatsoever turned into excessive PC role playing masturbation that were really, really lame. I'll take a game with a strong GM any day of the week.

Let me be clear, because I think the point has been lost.

The only thing I'm doing here, is removing the GM from the "conflict resolution" loop.  He still runs the NPC's, he still sets up NPC-based plots, he can still be "strong".

Once the GM has put together his NPC's, he can engage the PC's in the conflict resolution system as well.  He can even use his resources to put together NPC's that are unbeatable except by groups of PC's in cooperation.

None of anything else that GM's do is really affected very much by this idea.

Quote from: Uncle TwitchyIn my experience, the games and LARPS that had weak, ineffective GMs or no GMs whatsoever turned into excessive PC role playing masturbation that were really, really lame. I'll take a game with a strong GM any day of the week.

That's my uncle!
(I think, damn inbred gods...)

Otha, I see your point, but I'm neither looking for a GM to be 'strong' or 'weak', I need them to be effective.
And a good GM is effective at conflict resolution.
They can add those fun 'non-biased' (as much as is possible for the individual), twists and descriptions, bringing in possible "behind the scenes" manipulations by elders or what have you.
Say player1 & player 2 have the conflict, what player1 doesn't know is that player3 is in the wings with the trap/arrow/spell/whatever, and they are hidden, and don't want player1 to know his effects in the battle, as he is allied w/ player2.
OH, guess that has to be known for the conflict to be resolved in your system...
is this correct?
(I agree it can be done, but it will lack so much dimension)

I may be wrong, but I think Otha may want something like this:

Player 1 is ranked for 10 points, and has superior weaponry (+2), total 12 points
Player 2 is ranked for 5 points, but has very superior armor (+4), a clever trap prepared ahead (+4), total 13 points.
With precise criterias on what constitutes superior, very superior or owerwhelming weaponry/armor advantage... Something like the Alienoid, new Marvel rpg... system.

=>Player 2 should win by a narrow margin, but good/bad description of the fight by either of them may modify the counts by +/-4, allowing either palyer 1 to win, or player 2 to win more easily.

This reposes mostly upon defined criterias and charts, thus minimizing the "subconscious bias of the GM" otha talks about.

=> He still wants a GM, but he wants him to have less judgments to make about the outcome of a conflict.
=> You should be able to find a common ground.

his sounds like a good way for a GM to playtest NPCs.
But a good way to play a campaign? Nahhh
Otha, is there a way to perform the situation I mentioned without a GM?
and if so, by whom? a random non-involved in the plot player?
See, the secrets make it impossible to impliment thm without the GM, unless you want everyone, or someone, knowing who did what.
Secrets DO NOT have to be divulged to be enacted. They simply have to be implemented by a player to the GM.
(NON-LARP)

In a LARP, you would want the GM to be aware of a PC's secret ( well, in any game, really :) ). Especially if that secret involves another PC.
I imagine that the GM would then 'want' to be present to resolve 'that' paritcular conflict.
But let's say there's one GM to 12 players, normal conflict resolution could still be achieved without the GM making a call so that several conflicts can be resolved simultaneously to keep people playing rather than waiting for the GM.

Yup, LARPs usually depends on players being fair and not cheating to determine the outcome of fights.

Otha isn't saying do away with GMs he is saying use a more structured framework for conflict resolution that removes the GMs need to determine each conflict situation in a one off and possibly arbitary way.

You can't just make a list of combat modifiers because conflict in Amber can take on a load of forms.

Most games say conflict is resolved by taking your stats and my stats comparing them and then adding in a random die roll. In essence my stats come to 5 yours come to 6 I rolled 3 for a total of 8 you rolled 3 for a total of nine you win.

In Amber we have no dice, obvioulsy, so the core rules say if my stats are 5 and yours are 6 you win. But that would be pretty dull so description and roleplay take the place of dice but the GM needs to interpret the 'value' of this new variable and its in the nature of people that some of their 'dice' will be 'loaded'.

I think, and I may well be putting words into Otha's mouth in absentia, that Otha is looking for more detail on the extra bits. That is all. He isn't looking to get rid of GMs, so secret stuff isn't an issue he isn't looking to move to GMless games. He just wants some more formal rules on now to negotiate this stuff.

I think its nigh on impossible because of ranks. If the game were to use raw points in place of ranks it would be easier because then you could have numerical values (probably for levels of clever tricks as opposed to actual specific ones) for stuff and it would be easier. With ranks it becomes so much harder. A difference of 3 ranks in my game where I have 4 players is very different to one in your game where you have 10 players.

Did I start to rant there and go off topic .... hmmm.. maybe

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uSecrets DO NOT have to be divulged to be enacted. They simply have to be implemented by a player to the GM.

This is self-contradictory.  A secret must be divulged to the GM to be enacted.

Furthermore, a secret that is held by the player and known to the GM but never used in a conflict is pointless.  

If the GM then says, "Okay, that's worth four points under such-and-such circumstances" and hands a note (or whatever) to the player, then that player doesn't need the GM around to use the secret.  The player can then just use the note in a conflict to get the extra points.  The GM's job is done.

Allowing secrets to be used once before they're gone is quite canon given that each of Corwin's dirty tricks gets used precisely once.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI think its nigh on impossible because of ranks.

I *am* doing away with ranks.  

As for the opportunities for roleplaying and handling combat "round by round" as it were, the system has that too, though I'm not talking about that here.   You're right, it's a bit offtopic.

I don't think Gabriel is talking about stuff like Corwin's dirty tricks. (Hey  I am trying to explain what i think somebody else thinks again...)
I think Gabriel, and correct me if I am wrong , is talking about specific things in character background.

I have an example. I have a character called Hugo. Hugo has mid ranked warfare, however he also has an intelligent blade. This blade as well as being able to speak and sing and rack and use named spells can also manipulate shadow reality and has Low ranked Amber warfare.
In a combat situation if Hugo does not think he can win quickly he always swtiches to a defensive stance and tries to stop himself getting killed. Meanwhile his sword, and its called Severitus, is looking for options. The sword will try to manipulate the current shadow to give Hugo an advantage, a rug might become gathered up such that a retreating foot could get caught on it, a candle might gut out leaving the room in darkness to allow Hugo's escape. In desperate circumstances Servitus is like to use one of its racked spells to either teleport Hugo to another location, Increase his strength immnesely or do any one of the dozen or so tricks it has been prepped with.
These things are perhaps more akin to the secrets that Gabriel is refering to.
In a fight with a guy ranked above him. I as a player do not want to have to declare that my enchanted blade manipulated reality I just want my opponent to trip over, I don't want to let my opponent know that when I disappeared in a puff of green smoke it was my sword. Let them think that I have strong allies, or can cast magic with no lynchpins whilst in conflict.

In addition to this Hugo , in a fit of Pique, once seeded the Tarot case in Amber's Library with a number of unusual trumps. Most of these were trump traps set there for no other reason than to spread confusion and distraction whilst he worked towards darker aims. When another player took one of this trumps and fell into a trump trap I didn't want Hugo to have to reveal it was his trump or that it was constructed with x much psyche that was enough to overcome that character and suck them in. Without a GM this would simply be impossible. The GM knows the strength of the trap and its effect. The trap at no point is revealed to the other players and even its victim is unaware of its origin. You would be unable to resolve this conflict without GM intervention. You could of course assign it some sort of 'value' which added to Hugo's psyche would determine its effect and this value should be set and perhaps derived from some 'official' source (where we can accept the rule book as official).

Does that make any sense at all to anyone appart from me?

Quote from: jibbajibbaHugo has mid ranked warfare, however he also has an intelligent blade. This blade as well as being able to speak and sing and rack and use named spells can also manipulate shadow reality and has Low ranked Amber warfare.

In my system, Hugo's blade would be a stat of its own that could be invoked in the conflict system.  The rules under which it could be invoked would depend on the item in question, but items, shadows, and other such tricks (and they're all tricks) are always less available than pure attributes.

For example, Hugo's sword wouldn't be able to help him as much in Amber, because it can't alter shadow there.

After an enemy learns about it, he'd be able to take steps to make it less useful.  Confront Hugo in Amber; throw a bunch of earth elementals at him first to eat up spells; what have you.

Hugo's blade is no different from Corwin's Black Grass.  It's a trick he's got up his sleeve.  The only difference is that Hugo's blade is useful in a more diverse set of circumstances.  

Now you may be saying that you don't like this system because it makes your Hugo's sword less powerful than attributes.  I call that a feature, not a bug.  There's no way, in my system, to create an item (or trick) that's unbeatable.  Amber has plenty of "cheats" in the Item rules (and other stuff) that have to be beaten down with GM fiat in order to keep the game balanced.

Quote from: jibbajibbaIn addition to this Hugo , in a fit of Pique, once seeded the Tarot case in Amber's Library with a number of unusual trumps... Most of these were trump traps set there for no other reason than to spread confusion and distraction whilst he worked towards darker aims. When another player took one of this trumps and fell into a trump trap I didn't want Hugo to have to reveal it was his trump or that it was constructed with x much psyche that was enough to overcome that character and suck them in. Without a GM this would simply be impossible. The GM knows the strength of the trap and its effect. The trap at no point is revealed to the other players and even its victim is unaware of its origin. You would be unable to resolve this conflict without GM intervention. You could of course assign it some sort of 'value' which added to Hugo's psyche would determine its effect and this value should be set and perhaps derived from some 'official' source (where we can accept the rule book as official).

You know, I hadn't thought of general dickery as an option.  Usually, when someone is laying a trap, he's laying it for a specific person or group of people.  

Do you play the style where the player can know nothing that the character doesn't know?  It sounds like it.

Joe walks up to three other players.  All of them have characters in Castle Amber.  "Livingston is laying a trap in Amber, but he doesn't really care who falls into it.  He's just being a dick.  Which of you would like to be the one to have a go at it?"

Kathy says, "Oh, I'll have Aimee be the one.  She needs a good reason to be mad at someone.  Will she know who it is?"

Joe: "Well, it's a trump trap.  Aimee doesn't know Livingston has Trump, does she?"

Kathy: "No, but it'll give her a good reason to investigate.  Sure.  So how does it go down?"

blah blah blah...

Quote from: OthaYou know, I hadn't thought of general dickery as an option.  Usually, when someone is laying a trap, he's laying it for a specific person or group of people.  

Do you play the style where the player can know nothing that the character doesn't know?  It sounds like it.

Joe walks up to three other players.  All of them have characters in Castle Amber.  "Livingston is laying a trap in Amber, but he doesn't really care who falls into it.  He's just being a dick.  Which of you would like to be the one to have a go at it?"

Kathy says, "Oh, I'll have Aimee be the one.  She needs a good reason to be mad at someone.  Will she know who it is?"

Joe: "Well, it's a trump trap.  Aimee doesn't know Livingston has Trump, does she?"

Kathy: "No, but it'll give her a good reason to investigate.  Sure.  So how does it go down?"

blah blah blah...

You are right players only know what their characters know and the above conversation would simply never happen in any of my games. For starters in conversation everyone uses first person. Never been discussed its just how we do it. And the whole nature of that conversation is simply ... well not Amber old boy.
And yes Hugo is a bit of a dick but he is a Clever Dick. Suffice it to say the trump traps furthered his schemes in a very useful sense.
I don't agree at all that a trap is usually aimed at a specific person. Its usually used to protect a particular thing from any person that turns up and not knowing who the bad guy is who you can trust and who is just screwing with you is simply how Amber needs to be played.

Quote from: OthaIn my system, Hugo's blade would be a stat of its own that could be invoked in the conflict system.  The rules under which it could be invoked would depend on the item in question, but items, shadows, and other such tricks (and they're all tricks) are always less available than pure attributes.

For example, Hugo's sword wouldn't be able to help him as much in Amber, because it can't alter shadow there.

After an enemy learns about it, he'd be able to take steps to make it less useful.  Confront Hugo in Amber; throw a bunch of earth elementals at him first to eat up spells; what have you.

Hugo's blade is no different from Corwin's Black Grass.  It's a trick he's got up his sleeve.  The only difference is that Hugo's blade is useful in a more diverse set of circumstances.  

Now you may be saying that you don't like this system because it makes your Hugo's sword less powerful than attributes.  I call that a feature, not a bug.  There's no way, in my system, to create an item (or trick) that's unbeatable.  Amber has plenty of "cheats" in the Item rules (and other stuff) that have to be beaten down with GM fiat in order to keep the game balanced.

No I totally agree that stats should be tougher than powers which should be tougher than items which should be tougher than allies... which should be tougher than summon creatures etc etc ... from the charcter outwards. So saying Hugo's sword is not as tough as a stat is a given.
However Hugo's sword is nothing like the black grass. Number of reasons for that.
i) The black grass when used is obvious. The grass grabs your feet. Maybe Corwin can command nature but since he hasn't used this before and it only works on black grass its probably the grass (point of order Benedict had been fighting creatures from the black circle for years ... surely he must have encoutered the grass before ... Zelazny thinking inside the box again). The sword affects combat in a hidden way. Only someone with High Pattern would know that shadow had been manipulted. A good GM would present the minor edge it gives Hugo as luck, fortune, maybe good stuff ... This means that it can be reused multiple times on the same opponent.
ii) The sword presents any number of effects. Like shadow its infinite. Black grass just grabs your feet.
iii) From a game balance perspective , much as you argue stats are worth more than tricks, a paid for item has cost points (severitus could have been summoned in which case its an expenditure of time and this point has less merit). Something that cost a player points should have the edge over a random environmental variable.

The whole point of the sword and really of Hugo is that he is subtle. A sword that does pattern damage would be cheaper than severitus but far less fun. Hugo's whole drive is to be the trusted friend/brother that betrays you in the final act and you find out has been screwing with you all along. If you are going play that role you need to keep your cards close to your chest. The sword is a representation of that a mix of flexibility and secrecy,

Reducing the sword to a 'this gives you +10 Warfare in situations where you can invoke it' I think takes away a lot of the fun of it. Its a bit like the move from a roleplaying game to a MMORGP where all spells, items etc effectivley just give you a combat bonus and casting enlarge on your opponents armour thus rendering them incapacitated is just not an option.

Quote from: OthaThis is self-contradictory.  A secret must be divulged to the GM to be enacted.

Furthermore, a secret that is held by the player and known to the GM but never used in a conflict is pointless.  

If the GM then says, "Okay, that's worth four points under such-and-such circumstances" and hands a note (or whatever) to the player, then that player doesn't need the GM around to use the secret.  The player can then just use the note in a conflict to get the extra points.  The GM's job is done.

Allowing secrets to be used once before they're gone is quite canon given that each of Corwin's dirty tricks gets used precisely once.

OK, I guess you missed the obvious on that, but it was easy to do.
no
What sounded contradictory was just quickly stated; you don't divulge the secret to the 'players', only to the GM, until such time that it IS effected in the story and whichever players become privy to the info, then so-be-it.
But this secrets = points?
I dunno, This sounds too LARPy fer me.

And those dirty tricks being used once.... it might become boring in the storyline for your main character to keep using the same tricks. That's just writer's purgative.
It doesn't make sense to keep the Trumps in the Library, but in the story it was much simpler in the story for them to be there.
They aren't there in MY campaign. Are they in yours?

What do the trumps in the library have to do with it?

Otha;
What do trumps in the library have to do with it???

OK, I think most people of like-mindedness, would agree that trumps, these powerful items, should not simply be placed in a locked case in a sometimes locked library.
This is one of the writing choices RZ used in his story that I consider was only to advance the story, IMC they are not simply easily available, (and to an Amberite, THIS is easily available.) So, common sense! that's what trumps in the library have to do with this.
Often, I and my Amber friends laugh or roll our eyes at the 'trumps in the library' thing.

I think jibbajibba was on it pretty much.
A secret that everyone knows is not a secret.
Otha, You complain and rave about GM's not being fair, or being too biased, but you expect players to receive 'player knowledge' and NOT be swayed by it?
I think most players have less control when it comes to being able to keep player knowledge from messing with character knowledge.
(example; My  character Roman was in a plot; the #1 in warfare slighted me in front of everyone, and I was no-where near his prowess.
I got the #2 in warfare to duel him, as they dueled, I had my 'item of power' which had alternate shape, "me", sit in with all the other players and watch, while 'I' was away in a tent, and waited to trump the #1 who had it comin'.
In this the #2 was aware of my plan, but no one else was.
(EXCEPT THE GM, who played it well according to MY preset hand-signals to him for commencement of the prearranged Trump-attack.)
As it was, it would have been successful, EXCEPT one of the PLAYERS yelled out, OUT OF CHARACTER, with player knowledge of what was going on, , She yells; "Drop your sword!" giving another player the chance to save his pride/life/circumstance/ whatever.
But this was a case of Players doing this... NOT GM
(and yes, the GM allowed it, yes, I disagreed, but couldn't speak, as I was mum on the matter and feigning ignorance like the others, but I had to roll with it.
So I understand that GMs can make a game difficult Otha, But I think it is far more difficult without them. EVERYONE has biased actions in gameplay now and again.

CASE 2;
I, in the same campaign, was given a few trumps of the newer generation. We ALL received them from Dworkin, we suspected. Found them lying on our beds upon returning to our rooms.
I brought this to the GM on the side, stating I thought it was unfair to make my player so useless as to my main power (TRUMP), he was giving away the thing I could bargain for. His answer was... do something about it.
So I did.
I created Trump cases, named & #ed, and gained access to their rooms, and left it on their beds - the cases. These other trusting Amberites used the cases, placed their trumps within, and I transported them to me as they were in were my items, with a spell, and NO-ONE knew who did it, but me and the GM.
That is a secret that would have to be divulged in your game, right Otha?

I like playing with like-minded players that don't try to fit everything into a structured framework for the uninitiated. I do lots of framework in Amber, but mostly for source material, not for game mechanics.

The idea to break down every power to purchasing individual talents of the power, or the idea of getting rid of a GM, are both insane to me.
I understand the GM is not needed for everything, Sometimes when I GM'd I DID have a co-GM. (who was also a player)
someone that could run side-stuff when I was busy with others.
Granted, this is rare to find people that mesh like that.
But it ain't impossible.

Otha, you asked Jibbajibba;
Do you play the style where the player can know nothing that the character doesn't know? It sounds like it.
I believe we play the style where we can speak in 1st person or 3rd person should we choose. I tend to do more characterization and use 1st person conversation, or the easy I say: "....."
Players can know what the character doesn't, but this creates the same problem you don't like.
this creates biased choices.
And I would be more worried about 7 biased players choices rather than 1 possibly biased GM.
We all learn from our mistakes.
Some of us even live past them.

I was hoping you might reply, but I'll take that as you agree....

If not, please at least refer to my point, I am actually open to hearing your reply, (I'll even read it all the way... LOL)

Anyone else see it my way or close?

Nah, I'm pretty much done.  My ADD kicked in and now I'm bored with this.

Fair enough....

but turnabout is fairplay.

;)