Partial Attributes

[finarvyn]

I know that there have been a few discussion on these boards about partial powers and their advantages or disadvantages, but I wonder if anyone has used "partial attributes" in a campaign?

The ADRP rulebook seems to give possible breakdowns. While each attribute gets a "the potential of" section in the rules, both Strength and Warfare have specific breakdowns numbered and set apart. Here is what the list could look like:
1. Psyche
2. Hand-to-Hand Skill (Strength)
3. Exertion (Strength)
4. Resistance (Strength)
5. Endurance
6. Tactical Vision (Warfare)
7. Leadership (Warfare)
8. Weapon Skills (Warfare)
9. Reaction Time (Warfare)
10. Strategy (Warfare)

I suppose that in order to make this system work, these ten attributes could be auctioned individually. One advantage might be that some players would be allowed to customize characters more, perhaps having a leader who was not skilled with a blade. An obvious disadvantage would be loss of simplicity of the system and more book-keeping. Clearly, total points given to players would have to be increased to account for the increase in attributes.

I'm not saying that this is a good idea, I just wondered if anyone has tried something similar.

[RPGPundit]

I had seen these sorts of ideas, and frankly always ended up discarding them because they were excessively (needlessly) complex.

Its slightly easier to stick with 4 attributes but then have a number of "specialties" and have each character pick a particular specialty that they are better at than anything else in that attribute; but even this I dismissed as un-necessary.  The stats in Amber are kept simple because the rest is meant to be handled in play.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

I don't think more attributes work in an auction without more players, but I've never tried it.

[JongWK]

Finarvyn, if you really want to go that way, you'd need specialties for Endurance and Psyche. Say, Stamina & Healing instead of the former.

[Malleus Arianorum]

The conclusion that I came to when I tried it was that the option for sub-attributes already exists in the form of items and powers. Take warfare for example:

6. Tactical Vision (Warfare)
You could purchase items that help you manage tactics effectively. For example a named and numbered set of elite warriors, or Trump coms could give your boys a hand in the Tactics division.

7. Leadership (Warfare)
Good stuff already lets you be loved by the masses, and paradoxically you can be a good stuff guy even while using Darth Vader motivation techniques. You could also buy a shadow filled with people inclined to love you, what with the centuries of obeying you firmly embedded in their adoring minds.

8. Weapon Skills (Warfare)
A 4 point armor and a 4 point weapon can really swing things your way. So long as you keep your gear on hand, you have a gigantic advantage in a "fair fight".

9. Reaction Time (Warfare)
For reflexes, you can buy a danger sense item to keep you safe from ambushes and some expendable friends to blaze a safe path through mine fields.

10. Strategy (Warfare)
Danger sense items and named and numbered generals can help with strategy. For logistics, which is supposedly more important, you can buy an advanced power to zip through shadow. Also Shadow of the Realm to help with actions near Amber or the Courts by keeping your supply lines short, and  your stronghold nearby.

So yeah, you could do it, but the option already exists.

When I want to call more attention to sub-attributes, I make up custom rules for building armies just because it's not always clear how magical items as armies interact using the rules as written.

[olivier legrand]

I had seen these sorts of ideas, and frankly always ended up discarding them because they were excessively (needlessly) complex.

Its slightly easier to stick with 4 attributes but then have a number of "specialties" and have each character pick a particular specialty that they are better at than anything else in that attribute; but even this I dismissed as un-necessary.  The stats in Amber are kept simple because the rest is meant to be handled in play.

RPGPundit

In effect, I've never found sub-attributes to be really needed... but one possibility that works well in play (in terms of flavor more than on a strictly-mechanical level) is to use "descriptors" for the attributes ie if your character has more than Amber rank in an attribute, simply describe in a few words what this actually represents (ie "master swordsman", "years of soldiering", "schooled in the psychic arts by Fiona" etc). If you use a variant system where ties are possible (like I do), this can be a nice tie-breaker... but even with the standard system, it adds a bit of color and life to the character. Note that the idea here is not to be limitative : our "master swordsman", for instance, will obviously be very good in all other aspects of Warfare but swordsmanship is supposed to be his forte - or simply the overall "why" of his high Warfare abilities : master swordsmen are not "just" good with swords - they also acquire tactical vision, reflexes, self-discipline etc etc.

[Croaker]

Necrothread!!!

Its slightly easier to stick with 4 attributes but then have a number of "specialties" and have each character pick a particular specialty that they are better at than anything else in that attribute

Yes.

Something that I allowed is to let players pay 05 points to be better at a sub-attribute (such as sworplay, bows, tactics, hand to hand), essentially giving them one more rank on this, and then another 05 points to have a further specialty in a given item (such as a favorite sword, an ancestral lance, strategy with a specific army or on a given terrain...).

So, for exemple, a given PC might be 3rd in warfare, but might be 2.5 in strategy, equal to 1.5 with his Fallen Horde.

Another would follow the same pattern, but be 1.5 when facing armies in marshes.

His friend could be 4rd in warfare, 3.5 with maces, 2.5 with his BoneCrusher mace.

Yet another PC might be 5th in Strenght, ranked 4.5 in Hand to Hand, ranked 3.5 in Karate.

It kept players on edge (you might beat that guy once, but maybe he weren't at his best), and they liked the extra specialty.

[Panjumanju]

The most popular subdivisions, I think, are 'Muscle' and 'Martial Arts' for Strength, and 'Weapons' and 'Leadership & Tactics' for Warfare. (Or similar terms.)

One of the more common complaints against the system is that Strength represents all unarmed combat. I would not want to break up the 4 stats, but if I did, drawing martial arts out of Strength would be my first choice.

As exemplified by this thread, splitting the statistics can get needlessly complex. If you want to split them then they should be split into no more than two each - and perhaps then only Strength and Warfare. Otherwise it becomes very difficult for the GM to keep track, on the fly, of who is best at what.

//Panjumanju

[Artifacts of Amber]

Admittedly I cheated and run a system with 5 attributes splitting warfare off into warfare and dexterity. Allowed me to define my elders, mechanically a little better.

Considered several times doing sub stats but I do think it is needlessly complicated. I have players list skills of interest/study that allows them some specialization and also helps tell us more about the character.

I could see in a bigger group having more sub attributes as a means of further differentiating between characters but I don't see much else gained in making the system more complex. I do that enough on my own

[Tolknor]

In my Jeweled Amber game i ran the 4 stats as listed, however, in conversation with each player we discussed what emphasis they wanted for the stat and to what degree.

For example I had a character with a high warfare who had wanted it to refer more to tactical and strategic thinking and less to actual blade work.  Now this player was still a dangerous person with a blade but he was a bit better at running an army.  He also wanted the strategic angle to work in his skills at training armies.  So rather then complicating the system we worked out the characters motivations.

[RPGPundit]

I always found that ultimately, sticking to the 4-stats as-is worked fine. And fidgeting with them tended to sometimes create more problems than it solved.

RPGPundit

[Tolknor]

I always found that ultimately, sticking to the 4-stats as-is worked fine. And fidgeting with them tended to sometimes create more problems than it solved.

RPGPundit

I certainly agree.  More details, more charts, more numbers, was what i was trying to get away from!