Exactly two sub-attributes

[finarvyn]

The other thread got me thinking about sub-attribues.

I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to break up the "big four"ADRP attributes into sub-values, but I thought it would make good discussion and there are enough people who use them that I thought I'd split off from the other thread and devote one to this topic only.

Some thoughts:
1. I think that the intent of ADRP is that each of the attribues should be equal to each other. (I don;t think this is just the Auctioneer trying to "sell" stats to his players; I believe that this is an integral part of the ADRP design.) As such, I propose that this discussion keep the same number of sub-stats for each main attribute.
2. If four is too few, I would argue that 12 or 16 is too many. I propose that we go for 8 sub-attributes, or exactly two per main attribute.

So ... how would you break them down?

Here's a quick thought of how they might be done:
* Mental Attack (Psyche)
* Mental Defense (Psyche)

* Athletics (Strength)
* Fisticuffs/Martial Arts (Strength)

* Stamina (Endurance)
* Taking Damage (Endurance)

* Weapons Combat (Warfare)
* Tactics/Leadership (Warfare)

What do you think? What would you use?

[jibbajibba]

The fundamental issue with the attributes in amber is that they cross traditional RPG attributes and what in other games would be skills or levels.

So Warfare under most systems woudl be a class or level or set of skills, whereas Strength is a typcial RPG stat but here includes skill type stuff.

Now I wouldn;t propose changing that but its worth bearing in mind.

Personally the only stat I would touch is Warfare which is just too big in the games as written.  
Spliting martial arts from weapon combat makes no sense. The basics of the two are the same, stance, movement, awaeness, speed, etc etc martial arts learn weapons and weapon masters are usually very adept without weapons.

So I woudl split warfare into tactics and combat. Put all the combat stuff in the one place. Make Strength , your raw power but also your damage buffer. Endurance becomes the engine that drives stuff and your resistance to cold, heat, poison and all that. Psyche does what it says on the tin but needs to be trimmed down to represent more what is in the novels and less Jedi Mind tricks.

[warp9]

I agree with many of jibbajibba's points, and I'd go even further to the point where I'd throw out the Amber attributes in favor of something more like GURPS (but I'll get to next post). In terms of response to the OP. . . .

1. I think that the intent of ADRP is that each of the attribues should be equal to each other. (I don;t think this is just the Auctioneer trying to "sell" stats to his players; I believe that this is an integral part of the ADRP design.)

My problem with this perspective is that IMO the attributes are not currently equal. In my experience Psyche and Warfare are more useful than Strength, and, to some extent, that is true of Endurance as well.

(part of my personal problem with Endurance is that it is pretty easy to get an item, or implant, which will confer "tireless supernatural stamina." Tireless Supernatural Stamina is better than a high bid on Endurance, because even Corwin got tired eventually, especially if you combine TSS with conferred Regeneration, then you be better then Corwin at healing too).

So ... how would you break them down?

Here's a quick thought of how they might be done:
* Mental Attack (Psyche)
* Mental Defense (Psyche)

* Athletics (Strength)
* Fisticuffs/Martial Arts (Strength)

* Stamina (Endurance)
* Taking Damage (Endurance)

* Weapons Combat (Warfare)
* Tactics/Leadership (Warfare)

I still don't like the "Strength = Martial Arts" concept, so I'd move striking related Martial Arts, like Karate, into Warfare, but probably keep wrestling/grappling/Judo under Strength. But I'd only probably split Psyche and Warfare.

I'd go along with your take on the split of Warfare.

But my split on Psyche would probably be    * Raw Psychic Power (meaning Psychic Strength)
* Psychic Sensitivity along with Psychic Finesse (meaning Psychic Dexterity)

[finarvyn]

I still don't like the "Strength = Martial Arts" concept, so I'd move striking related Martial Arts, like Karate, into Warfare, but probably keep wrestling/grappling/Judo under Strength.

Interesting. Page 18 of the ADRP rulebook lists three things under "The Potential of Strength":
1. Hand-to-hand skill (this sounds a lot like Martial Arts to me)
2. Exertion ("pure muscle")
3. Resistance (absorb damage)

So, while I might concede that Strength is better than Endurance for hit points, Strength still seems to be the #1 choice for Martial Arts. Part of what makes me think this is that Warfare tends to deal with actual weapons whereas Strength is non-weapons. Once you include Martial Arts in with Warfare it seems like Warfare gets to be too powerful. (Of course, you want to split Warfare, so....)

[warp9]

The fundamental issue with the attributes in amber is that they cross traditional RPG attributes and what in other games would be skills or levels.

So Warfare under most systems woudl be a class or level or set of skills, whereas Strength is a typcial RPG stat but here includes skill type stuff.

Now I wouldn;t propose changing that but its worth bearing in mind.

On the other hand, I would propose changing that.

It's not just that the attributes in Amber don't fit with traditional RPG attributes. It's that the traditional RPG manner of doing things makes more sense to me.

[warp9]

Interesting. Page 18 of the ADRP rulebook lists three things under "The Potential of Strength":
1. Hand-to-hand skill (this sounds a lot like Martial Arts to me)
2. Exertion ("pure muscle")
3. Resistance (absorb damage)

So, while I might concede that Strength is better than Endurance for hit points, Strength still seems to be the #1 choice for Martial Arts. Part of what makes me think this is that Warfare tends to deal with actual weapons whereas Strength is non-weapons. Once you include Martial Arts in with Warfare it seems like Warfare gets to be too powerful. (Of course, you want to split Warfare, so....)

I'd say that many of the same things which make you good at hitting with a knife or sword also make you good at hitting with a fist or a kick.

And many of the same things that make you good at dodging/parrying a punch or a kick make you good at dodging/parrying a knife or a sword.

I'm not saying that these are exactly the same things, but they are clearly similar skills.

[jibbajibba]

Interesting. Page 18 of the ADRP rulebook lists three things under "The Potential of Strength":
1. Hand-to-hand skill (this sounds a lot like Martial Arts to me)
2. Exertion ("pure muscle")
3. Resistance (absorb damage)

So, while I might concede that Strength is better than Endurance for hit points, Strength still seems to be the #1 choice for Martial Arts. Part of what makes me think this is that Warfare tends to deal with actual weapons whereas Strength is non-weapons. Once you include Martial Arts in with Warfare it seems like Warfare gets to be too powerful. (Of course, you want to split Warfare, so....)

It's good as a balancer to make strength more equal, but its crap as simulation/immersive rule. Who is better at Martial Arts Bruce Lee or Arnie?
Damage is a much better choice.
Spliting Tactics from combat weakens warfare and so Strength no longer looks like the poor cousin.
Warfare as written is already too powerful. Not only does it cover combat but it covers any situation where strategy or a battle of wirs may occur. The rules use it for everything from playing chess or poker to picking a lock or disarming a trap. It seems to be the go to attribute if nothing else fits.

[finarvyn]

Who is better at Martial Arts Bruce Lee or Arnie?

Well, I would say that it could be an epic battle. You figure that Bruce would have quickness and precise attacks while Arnie would be slower but pack a bigger punch if he hits. There's no reason why they couldn't have different styles but still have similar Strength values.

I guess that's the key for me -- I don't really need to have a stat to tell me what a character can and can't do, providing that each player gives me background and some measure of character concept. This stuff gets worked out by role playing. The stat is more of a guide for the GM, and not a limit to creativity.

It's easy to make a game more complex by adding rules, but I'm still not sure that it's better.

[RPGPundit]

I know that if I were to re-write a set of Amber rules, I would not actually use sub-attributes. I don't think that kind of complexity is really needed.

RPGPundit

[Evermasterx]

I know that if I were to re-write a set of Amber rules, I would not actually use sub-attributes. I don't think that kind of complexity is really needed.

RPGPundit

me too.

[jibbajibba]

Well, I would say that it could be an epic battle. You figure that Bruce would have quickness and precise attacks while Arnie would be slower but pack a bigger punch if he hits. There's no reason why they couldn't have different styles but still have similar Strength values.

I guess that's the key for me -- I don't really need to have a stat to tell me what a character can and can't do, providing that each player gives me background and some measure of character concept. This stuff gets worked out by role playing. The stat is more of a guide for the GM, and not a limit to creativity.

It's easy to make a game more complex by adding rules, but I'm still not sure that it's better.

You are conflating things here. Damage and resistance to damage are strength so long as you have warfare as a separate stat there will always be overlap in combat between the 2. That is in someways a strength of Amber in that a singel stat will not always domiate. You can imagine Gerard in a fight with Benedict thinking I can risk closing and taking his best shot to get close enough to grapple.

It sounds to me like you want to move more to a Tristat kind of model that removes the overlap. move to Physical , Mental, Social . Then combats can run off Physical and a high physical could be a big strong Arnie guy or a lithe quick Bruce guy and they can describe how that works in game. If you stick to the amber stats then because they don't have that neatness you get issues.

And I am not advocating a lot of complexity here just trying to level set the attributes and sort some anomolies.

[finarvyn]

I know that if I were to re-write a set of Amber rules, I would not actually use sub-attributes. I don't think that kind of complexity is really needed.

Agreed, but there seem to be enough posters who like sub-attributes that I thought it would make for good discussion. Also, if they suggest good enough choices, maybe they can change my mind.

[warp9]

I guess that's the key for me -- I don't really need to have a stat to tell me what a character can and can't do, providing that each player gives me background and some measure of character concept. This stuff gets worked out by role playing. The stat is more of a guide for the GM, and not a limit to creativity.

It's easy to make a game more complex by adding rules, but I'm still not sure that it's better.

You don't actually need any rules at all. You could just describe your character and have the GM figure out what he can or can't do.

That situation works fine, as long as everybody can agree on things. The problem is that people don't always agree. I've seen enough arguments of the "Samurai vs European Fencer" type to convince me that people don't see eye-to-eye about a lot of stuff.

But having specific rules, and well defined stats, means that things are spelled out in a way that everybody can agree with ahead of time. It doesn't matter if the Samurai would beat the fencer or not, all that matters is that the rules say character A beats character B.



And looking at this part of the quote specifically. . . .

The stat is more of a guide for the GM, and not a limit to creativity.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "limiting creativity." Maybe you could give some specific examples?

[jibbajibba]

You don't actually need any rules at all. You could just describe your character and have the GM figure out what he can or can't do.

That situation works fine, as long as everybody can agree on things. The problem is that people don't always agree. I've seen enough arguments of the "Samurai vs European Fencer" type to convince me that people don't see eye-to-eye about a lot of stuff.

But having specific rules, and well defined stats, means that things are spelled out in a way that everybody can agree with ahead of time. It doesn't matter if the Samurai would beat the fencer or not, all that matters is that the rules say character A beats character B.



And looking at this part of the quote specifically. . . .

I'm not sure what you mean here by "limiting creativity." Maybe you could give some specific examples?

I can agree with this. You have two characters they both lay claim to being great artists and so they have a competition to see who can produce the greatest piece, kind of like a paint off. Who wins the laurel ?

[charis]

Okay, so four stats, broken into eight. Has anyone considered the opposite? Instead of trying to balance warfare out with strength, combine them into a single stat. Something like:

Battle (Warfare)
Psyche
Endurance

I know what you're thinking, what do we do with people who want strong characters? Well, you can either make battle strength as well, or you can change strength into something similar too a power. It costs X points to have more strength than an average human. Say abnormal strength for X points, just like you were buying pattern. There can even be higher levels of it. This way, it eliminates the problem of constantly dumping stats into strength, since it's capped as a minor power.

This means that someone with high Battle (warfare) against another person who -also- has strength, will be in trouble if the strength powered person gets their hands on them.

Thoughts?