Advice on handling combat

[mAcular Chaotic]

Hi everyone, I've been interested in GMing a game of Amber for a while. However, reading over the rules, there are a few vague areas that confuse me.

1) How do you decide what attribute a certain action falls under?

For instance, suppose player A decides to use magic to throw a fireball or some sort of projectile at player B? How is this handled? Is it just a question of player A's Warfare, or would player B get a chance to respond?

2) How do you decide when a player can change the attribute being contested?

For instance, suppose player A and player B are in a sword fight, contesting their warfare. But player A wants to engage player B in a psyche battle. Would this require something similar to a grapple, similar to how you would try to change it to a contest of strength? Or would player A simply be allowed to change the playing field without player B having a say in it?

Overall I understand the general idea of the GM making judgment calls, but I'm wondering what kind of guidelines I'm supposed to use. Because things can get competitive between players, I don't want players to feel like they lost a fight for no good reason.

I also see various offensive and defensive maneuvers listed for warfare. Am I supposed to take the player's actions and fit them to those options, or is there anything else I should be using?

[RTrimmer]

This isn't a direct answer, but Mike gms the best Amber combat I've come across.


Running Combat in Amber
Michael Sullivan
sent to the Amber Mailing List,  12/31/2012

I got a couple of requests at ACNW to explain my techniques for
running combat, which I kind of uncomfortably demurred from doing
because I don't really think of myself as having techniques per se.
Nothing I'm terribly good at putting into words, at least. *But it's
4:30 on New Year's Eve, I'm not going to do work, and this seems like
a reasonable way to kill some time. *So here's my best shot at it:

1. *DON'T ARBITRARILY USE "ROUNDS"

Most of us have some D&D or other RPG experience in which there is a
strict approach to battle: the GM goes around the table (or in some
particular order) and asks everyone what their next action will be.
That action is resolved, and the NPCs take one action, and then what's
your next action?

One of the ways that battles in Amber can feel more exciting and,
whatever, visceral and cool is that you can forsake this approach.
Don't ask for player input until the players have meaningful input to
give. *Like, if the player says, "I want to attack Julian," then you
can go ahead and just describe what happens until something materially
changes in the fight. *Don't just say, "Okay, you attack for a while
and he parries and ripostes and it goes on for a few seconds, now
what?" *Keep going until there's some reason to expect that the player
might change his chosen action. *Like:

a. *You've badly wounded Julian and now he's trying to retreat.
b. *Julian has badly wounded you and maybe you want to reconsider this
plan of action.
c. *Morgenstern is getting in on this action.
d. *The player has some kind of choice to make that will affect his
success or failure.

You do NOT have to go around the table. *Even in a large battle, it's
okay to do some short "player A," "NPC B," "player A," "NPC B"
back-and-forths. *You should eventually give people the opportunity to
switch targets and whatnot, but it doesn't have to go around the
table, and you can generally build a better tempo if you don't
restrict yourself to such an arbitrary flow.

2. *DON'T SHY AWAY FROM DESCRIBING THE PC'S ACTION

A big component of my style of running combat is that a player might
say something like, "Okay, I'll try to kill him with my sword," and
I'll transcribe that intent into a more specific action, like, "You
throw yourself into a low thrust for the guy's thigh; he jerks his leg
to the side and hammers the haft of his sword down on your back. *You
twist and take the blow on your shoulder, then flip your sword around
in a backhand cut."

If the player wants to get descriptive himself, that's cool too, but
if he doesn't, I just take over the description for him. *I feel like
this adds immediacy to the combat.

3. *AMBERITES ARE COOL

I try to put everything in the frame of, "You're a bad-ass." *Whether
the PC is being successful or not, what they're doing should
demonstrate their skill, experience, and raw physical ability. *If the
PC is failing to do what they want, it's not because they just
straight up fail, or because they prat-fall or something, it's because
they try something awesome cool, and their opponent does something
even awesomely cooler.

So, putting points #1 and #2 together, you may be taking the narrative
reins for a while, describing how the combat goes (both people's part
in the combat) until such time as the circumstances change enough to
warrant more player input. *That means you have some significant time
to pound home the badassitude of the player.

4. *HAVE AN AESTHETIC

I like the fact that Amberites are superhumanly strong. *My aesthetic
comes probably considerably more from superhero comic books,
Matrix-and-later-era sci-fi movies, and an ad from the Shield (TV
series) in which Michael Chiklis dives through a fence to tackle some
dude, than it does from Zelazny. *But whatever your aesthetic is, have
one.

Like, I think melee fights LOOK COOL. *I spend a not inconsiderable
amount of time imagining fights that would LOOK COOL just for my own
enjoyment, because I am apparently a nine year old boy. *I sometimes
make sound effects. *Seriously. *Feel free to point and laugh.

I think that having these kind of imaginary fights gives me a lot of
ability to describe combats that are in my own dialect of iconography,
and that comes through and makes my fights more vivid.

5. *FIGHTS ARE BETTER WHEN THERE ARE OTHER GOALS

The most boring, least interesting fight you can have is one in which
both parties just want to kill each other. *All of the best fights
I've run have had other goals. *Like, the parties just want thing A.
Party B is trying to escape, not win the fight. *Party A is trying to
keep Party B out of a particular space, or away from a particular
person. *The fight is a delaying action. *The fight is a running
battle. *The fight is part of some kind of mass combat, like a war.
The players are protecting refugees. *A player jumps between two NPCs,
trying keep them from killing each other. *Somebody is trying to raise
the alarm, someone else is preventing it.

Having something like this really opens up the options for both
players and antagonists. *Look at it this way: as soon as there's
another goal besides just party A wants to kill party B, then at the
very, very, very least, you can ask the following question: *"You can
prevent your opponent from doing thing X, but at risk of injury or
death to yourself. *What do you want to do?" *That (and its
subvariants) are inherently more interesting questions than, "Your
opponent is trying to kill you. *Do you want to stop him"?

6. *CONSIDER THE TERRAIN

The most boring, least interesting fights are those in wide open
spaces on flat ground. *Put people in constrained environments
(whether they're constrained because there are walls around them or
constrained because there are spaces to fall into or constrained
because there are trees everywhere or whatever it may be).

And then USE that terrain. *Don't just offer it as a resource and see
if the players take it, force it on them. *Push them up against the
walls, have then smash through doors, fall out windows.

7. *BLOOD IS COMPULSORY

Amberites heal fast. *This is license to wound the shit out of them.
Nothing communicates, "You need to take this shit seriously" better
than a vividly described wound. *Not, like, "He scratches you on the
arm." *Go with, "He plunges his sword between the two bones of your
lower arm, and out the other side. *Arterial bleeding, and -- yeah,
you just heard the crack of your tibia. *Or radial or something, your
anatomy textbooks seem a little vague right now for some reason."

8. *OFFER THE PLAYER IMMEDIATE OPTIONS

So, okay, you've been doing the other stuff so far. *And this is where
I fall down in offering a real "technique," because I don't know quite
how to make this happen -- it just does, for me. *But the point is,
you've got this vividly described scene involving this badass fighting
these other badasses. *In an interesting location. *With, hopefully,
something at stake besides just a general interest in murdering each
other. *The player starts you off with, "I'm gonna attack so-and-so."

You take off and running, leading up to the next time you'll take
player input, and that input ends up looking something like, "So there
you are, *you're both filthy at the bottom of the stream bed, you're
jamming his face into the mud, feeling increasingly rare bubbles of
breath filter through your fingers out of the shallow water, and he's
got the point of his dagger jammed into the bone of your right thigh
-- he's digging like he's gonna find gold in there. *The situation is,
you're pretty sure that you can just keep this up and you'll kill him.
*What you're not sure of is whether he'll have killed you in the same
time. *Do you want to stay the course and give him what time he can to
saw off your right leg, or do you want to let him up, but also get his
dagger out of your flesh?"

Or similar. *The point is, you give the player some options, some
suggested courses of actions (it's also fine if they think up some
options on their own), and those actions are non-abstract. *Real.
Grounded. *It's not, like, "Do you go 60% offensive and 40%
defensive?" *The player understands starkly what is at stake for this
decision.

And something about the previous 7 points helps me personally get to
this point #8, which I guess is the really important part. *And I
think that this is, again, that I'm a nine year old boy and I think
about totally kewl fights and jump around the house and make sound
effects -- like, putting the fight into the reference of this kind of
thing that I can vividly imagine helps me see how to set up a player
choice where the player has a meaningful, immediate, important
decision to make where the consequences are easily understood. *But
I'm not sure that it would help other people set up the same kind of
choices.

Which is, to get back to the starting point, why I kind of mumble and
beg off when people ask me how to run combat. *I'm not trying to be
modest: I'm as arrogant as it comes. *But there's some kind of
internal alchemy where this kind of fight description leads to me
being able to come up with good player choices, and that alchemy feels
personal and non-repeatable.



So, finally, what I'm saying is that if you want your players to
remember their combats, lead them through a vivid scene to a decision
with real consequences. *Make them understand how they came here and
what's at stake. *And then make them choose. *This is how I get to
that point, but however you get to that point, I think your players
will be happy when you arrive.

Happy New Year,

Mike

[jibbajibba]

Hi everyone, I've been interested in GMing a game of Amber for a while. However, reading over the rules, there are a few vague areas that confuse me.

1) How do you decide what attribute a certain action falls under?

For instance, suppose player A decides to use magic to throw a fireball or some sort of projectile at player B? How is this handled? Is it just a question of player A's Warfare, or would player B get a chance to respond?

2) How do you decide when a player can change the attribute being contested?

For instance, suppose player A and player B are in a sword fight, contesting their warfare. But player A wants to engage player B in a psyche battle. Would this require something similar to a grapple, similar to how you would try to change it to a contest of strength? Or would player A simply be allowed to change the playing field without player B having a say in it?

Overall I understand the general idea of the GM making judgment calls, but I'm wondering what kind of guidelines I'm supposed to use. Because things can get competitive between players, I don't want players to feel like they lost a fight for no good reason.

I also see various offensive and defensive maneuvers listed for warfare. Am I supposed to take the player's actions and fit them to those options, or is there anything else I should be using?

1) Usually the attribute is fairly clear. If you start to mix magic and combat and stuff it gets more confused.

I usually have spells specify exactly how they work when they are designed.

So in my games if a player builds a fireball spell - now they probably won't cos fireball is pretty cheesy and not very Amberish - they woudl write it up like this -

Fireball - This spell generates a ball of fire about the size of a baseball that the PC can throw at a target. As it is thrown it expands to about 2 meters across.
The sucess of the the throw is determined by the Warfare of the caster and the damage it deals scales with the caster's psyche.A PC with Chaos Psyche could easily destroy a heavy wooden door or similar, a character with Amber ranked psyche could blast through a stone wall etc.
The spell has 2 lynchpins - magic of Shadow and target.
Variations - additional lynchpins can be added to enhance the range of the spell, delay the effects or to create multiple smaller fireballs (total damage remains constant) but must of course be included in the spell as it is cast and hung.
 
This means that there is no confusion in play due to the spell or its effects.

If we use it in an example -

Rand has been cornered by his cousin Kista who is looking for revenge on him due to his attack on her twin.
Rand (W - 3rd, S - 4th, E - A, P - A ; Pattern; Shapeshift) Krista (W - A, S - A, E - 2nd, P - 3rd ; Sorcery, Pattern, Power words; ring - rank and Use named and Numbered spells)

GM : Okay Krista you are riding hard and can see Rand's grey stallion up ahead.
Krista: Am I in range for a spell?
GM : not yet.Rand you are continuing to Hellride?
Rand: yeah I don't want to kill her.
Krista: As if! Okay I try to extend my mind into my horse and use the link to push the beast beyond its usual effort.
GM: Okay but you know that could be dangerous right.
Krista: It is but a beast of shadow I can find another.
GM: Okay you extend your mind into the creature's and fill it with a renewed furvour. It seems to be working as the beast acellerates but you can feel its heart and muscles tearing and straining. (GM allows Krista to use Psyche to invade the mind of another creature)
Krista: Just get me close enough.
GM: Rand what are you doing?
Rand: Well she is committed I have to give her that. I am going to add a feature, a Tor to my left covered in a small copse of trees. Then I steer my horse up to the top amongst the trees.
GM: okay the Tor appears through the mist and you cut up its slope riding hard. (GM allows Rand to use Pattern to add a feature to the shadow - effectively moving to a new shadow)
Krista: Okay I push the beast harder and keep on going. Can I also reach out to my ring to grab a spell?
GM: Yeah that seems okay the ring can rack and use (GM allows Krista to separate her psyche into 2 effects at once controlling he beast is fairly easy as Krista has 3rd rank in Psyche and as she has 2nd rank in endurance the additional effort won't stop her grabbing a spell from her ring)
Krista: okay I summon the simplest of my fireball spells and throw it at Rand before he gets to the trees.
GM: You ready the spell and a ball of fire appears in your hand, you pitch your arm back at hurl the thing at Rand's disappearing form
Rand: I am going to be trying to evade as I ride using whatever cover is available.
GM: Krista your fire arcs ars out toward Rand but lands a few meters short there is a burst of flame and a bush catches ablaze. (GM Rand's evasive actions are easily enough to prevent his cousin's fireball from hitting as he is 3rd rank in Warfare)
etc

2 - Changing the attribute.
This really is a test of a good GM. you have to be fair above all because a player who thinks they have been unfairly treated really has no recourse as the rules are deliberately vague.
Generally I allow the players to make their own mistakes. I will encourage them to enage in conversation or in tricks that tigger keywords. My NPCs will do this all the time. A conversation in the middle of a fencing duel will lead to a usful tidbit of information which in turn leads the PC to ask for more details which in turn lets the NPC fix their gaze or some thing.
In addition think about speed. Strength is quicker than warfare which is quicker than psyche whcih is quicker than mist powers, power words are the exception.

So back to the example.
Rand has dismissed his steed and taken up a defensive position in the rocks of the Tor. Krista has dismounted and is moving through the woods towards him.

GM: the forest is pretty thin but the light is getting dark and a slight mist rises slowly amongst the branches.
Krista: I move quietly up the slope. I have my blade out and I am reaying a spell from my ring. Remember I was a ranger in Arden for years so I can move through the woods silently.
GM : Okay you move slowly up the hill. Rand?
Rand: I am a bit cheesed off with her being so unreasonable so I am going to teach her a lesson. I am going to hide , wait til she gets close then well...she'll see. I was a ranger in Arden as well remember
GM: (Rand's warefare is more critical here than anything else so he can take a position from where he can launch a suprise attack) Krista you edge up the slope and think you can make out a shape just up ahead in the shadows.
Krista: ha I prepare another fireball.
GM: Okay
Krista; I thow it at the shadow
GM: Okay the fireball hits with a huge explosion. Rand Krista just blew up that tree stump that you spotted and now she is within a sword blow of your position
Rand: Excellent. I leap forward and exercise a beat on her blade trying to knock the sword away.
GM: From out of the shadows Rand rises and executes a perfect beat attack. Krista your blade is wretched from your hand and it feels like your arm just just got twacked with a baseball bat (GM allowed Rand to use strength in this attack and his 4th rank Strength and superior warfare allow him to reasily disarm Krista).
Rand: Hehehe now let's play. I am going to make a low cut down on her thigh somethign to slow her down a bit.
GM: Okay. Krista Rand's blade cuts through your thigh. A long cut but not so deep. You can feel the blood pumping and welling out of the wound.
Krista: Shit he is going to cut me up isn't he. I drop to my knees and raise my arms. You got me, you got me.
Rand: tsk, giving up so soon, at least your sister made sport of it.
Krista: She always was the stubborn one. What can we do here to call a truce?
Rand: Well you did try to roast me with a fireball, twice, so I am not entirely ready to give it up yet.
Krista: Yeah I should probably apologise for that ...  (note Amberites never actually apologise )
Rand: Well....
Krista : I hit him with Power Word - Stun
GM: OOhhh... fiesty. Rand you take a blast of energy. It leaves you momentarily confused and your ears are ringing (The break in combat allows Krista to use a Power Word)
Krista: I am going to leap to my feet, my endurance should cover the pain in my leg I hope, and get my hands to his face and lock eyes with him I want to try for a Psychic attack.
GM: Okay Rand as your head clears you see Krista's green eyes staring at you trying to reach inside your head. (GM Krista has used a power word to get to an oportunity to make the combat a psychic battle. It might work or maybe Rand will be able to switch the combat back to Strength and grapple as he has advantage).

Now in that example Rand gets tagged because he gets cocky and he takes half measures. He could tried to knock Krista out, or go for a lethal blow but he is over confident and doesn't press his advantage. The sword beat is nice but in reality Krista's sword was never a very major threat.

[Panjumanju]

This is all good advice posted above. However, I think the OP needs to get the basics straight first. I suggest you read the rule book. Once you understand the core rulebook you can then deal with fancy fight-running techniques. Then, look up examples of combat to try and flesh out your understanding.

After that, there's nothing really but to just do it.

//Panjumanju

[mAcular Chaotic]

Thanks for the advice so far.

This really is a test of a good GM. you have to be fair above all because a player who thinks they have been unfairly treated really has no recourse as the rules are deliberately vague.

This is exactly why I was asking for help. Since I'll be mediating between two players, I don't want to feel like they only lost unfairly. I could just make up my own rules, but I want to see what guidance Amber has.

And I did read the rulebook (although I should read it again) but it's still vague on the particulars. I just want help with the judgment calls that I'm expected to make since I want to be fair to the players.

For instance, if someone is trying to do an ambush: do I give the victim a chance to react to the ambush, or do I just size up the ambusher's Warfare against the ambushee's? Basically I am wondering how to decide who to give priority to during an exchange. It's hard to get out of the "turn based" mentality. If something like this is mentioned in the book then feel free to point it out.

Actually I might as well throw in one more question. This isn't about combat, but about attribute auctions. I was describing it to a friend of mine earlier, and he pointed out that it wasn't that different than just statting up your character by yourself, except now you lose the mystery of what everybody else's strengths are. After all, even if there was no auction and everybody made their characters in private, they would be ranked against each other. The only difference would be that they wouldn't know what everybody else's ranks are, which would be more immersive. Is there something else that makes the auction worth doing?

[Panjumanju]

Actually I might as well throw in one more question. This isn't about combat, but about attribute auctions. I was describing it to a friend of mine earlier, and he pointed out that it wasn't that different than just statting up your character by yourself, except now you lose the mystery of what everybody else's strengths are. After all, even if there was no auction and everybody made their characters in private, they would be ranked against each other. The only difference would be that they wouldn't know what everybody else's ranks are, which would be more immersive. Is there something else that makes the auction worth doing?

Absolutely! Your friend really missed the point of the auction. In the Auction you can:
* End up spending more than you wanted on something.
* End up getting something amazing for cheaper than you anticipated.

And you always:
* Develop that attitude and personality of your character by the process of the auction, and;
* Generate rivalries and potential alliances through the process of bidding.

The auction isn't just character creation, it;s the first step of playing.

//Panjumanju

[mAcular Chaotic]

Yeah, that's what I like about it. The problem is I want two contradictory things: I want the sense of rivalry the auction fosters, but I also want the players to have the fun and mystery of feeling each other's strengths out. Except that the auction by definition will make it all public.

Have you ever played an Amber game where the player ranks were hidden or there wasn't an auction? A comparison could be useful.

[RTrimmer]

Sure. Auctions make some sense when the characters have a history to explain he rivalry, but strangers? Why would they know jack about each others' strengths?

[Panjumanju]

Yeah, that's what I like about it. The problem is I want two contradictory things: I want the sense of rivalry the auction fosters, but I also want the players to have the fun and mystery of feeling each other's strengths out. Except that the auction by definition will make it all public.

Have you ever played an Amber game where the player ranks were hidden or there wasn't an auction? A comparison could be useful.

You don't come out of an auction knowing other PCs Attributes - far from it.

You know each of the 1st place Attributes, and that's all you can be sure about. Players often choose not to bid, or not to bid in all the auctions, then buy their way up the Attribute ladder in silence. Even if you remembered everyone's ranking at the end of the auction, that could change before play starts.

So, when you begin a game the best you can say is you *think* you *might* know *roughly* where people are at the end of the auction...at at least you know the four 1st, the PCs who are famous for it, and that's it.

Paranoia blossoms in such mystery.

//Panjumanju

[Artifacts of Amber]

This is how I handle such things. I'll address the last question first as for me it is simpler.

I do a Blind auction. everyone submits bids and then I give them feedback based on that. I also have more youngers than just the characters. So the players are also bidding against these NPC's. So I give them a general ranking after they bid and they can then bid more or not.

Twothings that make this work for me is Because I have a 5th stat. (Split warfare into warfare and dexterity.) I also give more points 150. So bidding up the stats has a little more variety that way.

The second is points continue to matter so 1st compares to second normally as in 1st always wins unless the character creates an exception but by keeping track that 1st went for 40 points and second went for 10, I now know that second place would have to seriously change up the situation to have a chance to compete. And for me as a GM and player I feel those 40 points are worth the same amount post char creation as during. I mean Pattern cost 50 pre or post. (though some people go for rankings in powers which works as well)

Doing it this way also helps in adjudicating combat.

I can more easily see as a GM how one compares to the other. I mean what does 1st place psyche compare to 1st place warfare. If One cost 40 points and the other ten then the 40 point one is going to help me govern if the 10 pointer can change the fight.

For example. A fight starts between 1st place Dexterity at 25 points and 2nd place psyche at 5 points. If one has a knife and the other is trying to make eye contact for a mental take down then It becomes obvious to me the 25pt knife beats the 5 pt mental Staredown. Even if they had 1st place Psyche at 12 pts it is obvious who wins.

I admit the Points are in some way a crutch but I see them as a tool. Also things to note.

Once char creation is over. Players never know their scores again and very, very seldom look at a character sheet.

I review stuff pre-game. Seldom if ever do I need to look at a character sheet or notes to run the combat. 9 out of 10 times I know what the stats are and how they compare without doing this.

These are the tools I use to adjudicate combat. The rest is as people have said learning to be descriptive and controlling the flow of the combat.
(Two things I still need work on  )

Hope this helps

[Panjumanju]

I think it's important that when someone is learning Amber Diceless, we stick to the rules. This person is asking a question about the game, not your own hack of the game. Skipping straight to house rules makes things ten times more confusing.

I have my own houserules, too, but I'm not about to proffer them as advice when someone's just asking how the rules work.

//Panjumanju

[mAcular Chaotic]

I don't mind. I thirst for knowledge in all its forms. If someone has experience that let them figure out a better way to do something, I'll just as easily take from their knowledge than re-invent the wheel myself.

[Artifacts of Amber]

My apologies if the concept of retaining the numbers bid to help run combat was confusing.

I find it a useful tool.

As I said. Hope it helps.

[mAcular Chaotic]

It's not confusing, but doesn't that defeat the point of rankings?

Like if 1st place is 50, 2nd place is 49, 3rd place is 48, and 4th is 47, normally there is no way 4th could do anything to the guy in 1st. But here they're only separated by a few points which means they should be very close.

[Panjumanju]

It's not confusing, but doesn't that defeat the point of rankings?

Like if 1st place is 50, 2nd place is 49, 3rd place is 48, and 4th is 47, normally there is no way 4th could do anything to the guy in 1st. But here they're only separated by a few points which means they should be very close.

You are correct. Not everybody likes the ranking systems of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on very much, and prefer to treat the numbers as intrinsic values. This is not the rules as written, but it's how some people apply them.

//Panjumanju