TheRPGSite

Unarmed Martial Arts, one of the few real stumbling points in the Amber mechanics.  Is it Strength, or is it Warfare?

RPGPundit

I find there are already a lot of things tied to warfare, so I decided to make martial arts tied to strength purely for play balance purposes.

In the last game I played in, we were using home rules and it was the average of strength and warfare. It worked pretty well.

I still have my book in storage, but I remember the rule was for martial arts, swordfighting, boxing, etc -- anything where there is some space between opponents -- is Warfare's realm.  The moment someone grabs another, Warfare gets thrown out the window and the combat is in Strength's domain.

I'm not particularly keen on this method, but I don't have any strong complaints other than a general "it kind of bothers me" sort of way.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me: someone like benedict shouldn't be a freaking ninja with a paperclip in his hand and switch to being a total gimp the second his hands are empty.  He should be able to use his hands as weapon, too, and that's what many martial arts are about.  

But martial arts that are about locks, grappling, wrestling, etc, could be based on strength, as would brute bashing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut martial arts that are about locks, grappling, wrestling, etc, could be based on strength...

Doubtful. This type of fighting actually requires intense practice and (practical, if not medical) knowledge of anatomy.

Quote from: RPGPunditUnarmed Martial Arts, one of the few real stumbling points in the Amber mechanics.  Is it Strength, or is it Warfare?

Strength.

No real debate here, in my opinion, because it's directly mentioned in the ADRP rulebook on page 18 in the section "The Potential of Strength".

Quote1. HAND-TO-HAND SKILL. Aside from sheer physical brawn, Gerard is trained in a wide range of hand-to-hand combat skills.

* It is possible that a single obscure move, from specialized form like Akido or Atemi, might catch him unprepared. However, this willl be a one-time advantage, as Gerard will learn it and compensate for it in all future conflicts.

Erick is directly telling us that martial arts are a function of strength.

Quote from: YamoDoubtful. This type of fighting actually requires intense practice and (practical, if not medical) knowledge of anatomy.

Are you saying strong people can't be smart? And for that matter, how much of it is really "anatomy" and not just learning how to fight? I mean, the average high school wrestler doesn't have much knowledge of anatomy.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd for that matter, how much of it is really "anatomy" and not just learning how to fight? I mean, the average high school wrestler doesn't have much knowledge of anatomy.

RPGpundit

We are not comparing the "average high-school wrestler" to the skills and expertise of the blood of Amber are we? At the levels of skill for wrestling in Amber, I can easily understand why anatomy is a knowledge area tied to Strength skills.

Of course, there would be a few such anatomy skills tied to Warfare as well. And Psyche. And Endurance.

The rules are clear: all martial arts are Strength based.

Ok, but Arref, Fin, you guys personally, if you were running an Amber game, and had a confrontation between Benedict and a midlevel player who's obviously got much worse warfare, but much higher strength than Benedict, are you saying that as long as benedict was unarmed and unable to arm himself, he'd be mincemeat?

Does it make sense that the guy who's essentially focused himself on becoming the greatest warrior in the universe would suddenly be completely incompetent with his bare hands, but you give the guy a pencil or a gumball or a flower or an incense stick to wield, and suddenly he's an unstoppable killing machine?

I'd love to hear Erick's perspective on this, hopefully he'll pop by sometime soon.

RPGPundit

A solid point, Pundit, and one which I will try to address in a "devil's advocate" role without 100% agreement with myself (if that makes any sense.)

Clearly the problem is that the ADRP rules system has been simplified to make play run smoothly. With only 4 key attributes to play with, there are potential flaws which can be exploited if one thinks about it hard enough. Warfare, for example, is a combination of leadership and tactical vision as well as actual weapon skill -- would this imply that a great planner is automatically great with a weapon? The rules suggest this, only the assumption here is probably that each person builds strengths and weaknesses into the character background.

Quote from: RPGPunditif you were running an Amber game, and had a confrontation between Benedict and a midlevel player who's obviously got much worse warfare, but much higher strength than Benedict, are you saying that as long as benedict was unarmed and unable to arm himself, he'd be mincemeat?

Can Benedict make use of an improvised weapon? A candlestick holder, a letter opener, a shoelace? If Benedict was in a situation where he had absolutly no access to a weapon, he should worry if the midlevel character can get his hands on Benedict. Any chance that Benedict's Warfare might have allowed him to plan ahead and hide a dagger on his person?

By the way, "I" am not suggesting this at all -- the ADRP rulebook suggests this. If Benedict wanted to do martial arts, he should have put more points into strength. :)

Quote from: RPGPunditDoes it make sense that the guy who's essentially focused himself on becoming the greatest warrior in the universe would suddenly be completely incompetent with his bare hands, but you give the guy a pencil or a gumball or a flower or an incense stick to wield, and suddenly he's an unstoppable killing machine?

No, but I think from a game balance perspective it might be the best way to interpret the rule. (I particularly like the mental image of Benedict attacking someone with a gumball.) :D

"Martial Arts" should be warfare, but once someone has a grip on you, it's strength.

Finn's answer covers my response pretty well.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, but Arref, Fin, you guys personally, if you were running an Amber game, and had a confrontation between Benedict and a midlevel player who's obviously got much worse warfare, but much higher strength than Benedict, are you saying that as long as benedict was unarmed and unable to arm himself, he'd be mincemeat?

Does it make sense that the guy who's essentially focused himself on becoming the greatest warrior in the universe would suddenly be completely incompetent with his bare hands, but you give the guy a pencil or a gumball or a flower or an incense stick to wield, and suddenly he's an unstoppable killing machine?

RPGPundit

To respond as simply as you pose the question: yes. That's exactly correct. PC with higher Strength wins over Benedict.

To respond with "real game experience": it is Extremely Unlikely that Benedict will ever be in a situation where there is not a weapon within reach, even if he is naked.

If Benedict thinks he can win a fight bare-handed with a mid-level PC, I bet it turns out he is right, or the fight will be so close and costly to both folks that everyone will talk about it for years. I see nothing out-of-canon with Benedict losing a barehanded contest. Zelazny shows him losing a sword fight.

I could go on about how Very Cool such a confrontation could be for Player and lurkers but I'll stick to topic.

Ok, so here's a question: If benedict rips out one of his eyelashes, suddenly he's armed, and will go from being an invalid to being an unstoppable killing machine, right? Even though the "weapon" he's using was once part of his body.  I mean, fuck, what's seriously being suggested here is that if Benedict is fighting barehanded he will have less of a chance of winning than if he somehow managed to bite off his own hand and then use that severed hand as a weapon.

RPGPundit

edit to add: Of course, he wouldn't be able to bite off his own hand, because his strength sucks ass.

Random's "ass-sucking" strenght is enough to lift half a car, so I would assume Benedict can without major problems chop off any part of his anatomy. But, back to the disscussion, the part about "being momentarily surprised by some weird Aikido maneuver" clearly shows that Warfare have some say in unarmed conflicts, too. The "Warfare until grappled" way is a good way to go, I think. In the "Showdown between amberites" section, Erick says that Benedict would beat Gerard because "his greater Warfare would make it impossible to the stronger Gerry to put his hands on him", so there's some function of Warfare, too.
But I would say that Warfare, Strenght and Endurance all should have to be taken in account. The average makes good sense, too, but I think it should be a little more "complicated" that simple maths. Every case is different, IMO, and if at any given time someone gets to start a grapple, then it would come down to pure Strenght.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, fuck, what's seriously being suggested here is that if Benedict is fighting barehanded he will have less of a chance of winning than if he somehow managed to bite off his own hand and then use that severed hand as a weapon.

LOL

Um, yes, that is what you are suggesting is Benedict's imaginative response in your campaign.

IMC, I was suggesting that Benedict would almost always have a weapon and the young Strength-master would have to get past that weapon (and pay that price) to get a Strength conflict to happen. And then Benedict would lose to superior Strength for his error.
If he made such an error.
No amberite is infallible.
Not even Oberon.

This is an awesome thread....

I love the points made by most people here...
Check this out...

I believe warfare is weapons/strategy
Strength is physical ability/HTH fighting prowess.

Benedict is not just a great weapons master.... he's the best.
(Ok, there may be others in your campaign... but you know what I'm saying)
Martial arts comes to the physical contact, (strikes, blows), not necessarily grappling contact.
Say Benedict is able to strategically use foot-work, movement, timing, and speed to strike an opponent (HTH) more times than the Strength master due to his strategic mastery of overall combat. It would come to that physical blow by the martial artist having his superior damage effect. His Str. may absorb some of Benedict's blows, enough for him to land that K.O. If Benedict had a weapon, vs. Gerard... say, I would give Gerard an ample chance due to circumstance and action-description to even out the playing field, since part of Martial arts is the ability to disarm foes too, I don't want to say it would come down to 1 player describing better than the other player, his moves, but it certainly has something to do with it.
Either way, either one is looking at serious injury, perhaps both.
Say, Benedict had any weapon, smarts would say use it as a projectile, (but there goes your weapon), if he chooses to keep it in hand, and Gerard could close enough to get in a blow... it's up in the air I would think.
The Martial Artist could use his pressure point, lethal strike, what have you, and it may be more damaging (like a weapon) than an actual weapon in the martial artist's hand.

Warfare having strategy on it's side surely tips the scales in the warfare master's court... so it may come down to those 2ndary Attributes...
Endurance & how close or far is each other's Str/Warfare, from the other...

I think it balances the competition between player, otherwise it would be a serious struggle in bids for only Psyche or Warfare, Strength would be comparably lowered to Endurance in my opinion then, and I think it should be more comparable to the other 2, Psyche & Warfare.

No doubt it takes a good group/GM to emphasize this in game play, otherwise 1st ranked in warfare would not really ever worry about 1st rank in Strength.

Here's the explanation of strength vs. warfare I'm using in the LARP-y rules:

"Warfare" is at arm's length; close enough to touch but not close enough to hug.  

"Strength" is when you're close enough to hug, whether you're actually grappling or not.  

I extended psyche to cover long-distance confrontations: mind assaults through trump, missile weapons (which is why Brand chose a crossbow for his ambush of Corwin), and magical attacks.

so then I suppose kicks, a mainstay weapon tactic for a MA, is then useless?

doesn't make sense.
(personally I've been in martial arts for over 20 yrs, and I can bring some understanding to the combat, as stated, strikes would fall under strength, HTH strikes), and you can strike with your foot, which is far outside of "hug range".

But  obviously, do what feels best for your game.
sooo... did you have a comment on what I wrote Otha... or just restating your idea from earlier?
or am I confused.... are you speaking of your LARP Amber game? or the drpg Phage version?

Quote from: RPGPunditUnarmed Martial Arts, one of the few real stumbling points in the Amber mechanics.  Is it Strength, or is it Warfare?

Lots of interesting discussion here, but I'd recommend going back and reading the source of it all, the fight between Corwin and Gerard, depicted in Sign of the Unicorn, pages 296 to 299 (pages refer to the Great Book of Amber edition).

As Gerard says, "It has been a long time, and you might have forgotten."

What we see, there and elsewhere, is that those of Amber are well versed in Martial Arts, unarmed and otherwise.

Erick

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uso then I suppose kicks, a mainstay weapon tactic for a MA, is then useless?

doesn't make sense.
(personally I've been in martial arts for over 20 yrs, and I can bring some understanding to the combat, as stated, strikes would fall under strength, HTH strikes), and you can strike with your foot, which is far outside of "hug range".

I'm not really interested so much in realism as I am in making a clear distinction that players can figure out without having to call in a gamemaster.  A kick or a punch would be warfare.  A judo throw would be strength.  Is that reasonable?  Probably not, but my game can't afford to slow things down with that kind of nitpicking.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uBut  obviously, do what feels best for your game.
sooo... did you have a comment on what I wrote Otha... or just restating your idea from earlier?
or am I confused.... are you speaking of your LARP Amber game? or the drpg Phage version?

I'm kind of talking about both.  I'm talking about finding a way to play Amber (by the Phage rules or by my own) that is as transparent as possible to the players.  I don't want to be keeping secrets from them about how I figure out who wins a conflict.

Most games have a very straightforward, mechanical means by which winners and losers are chosen.  Amber is rather unique in that it doesn't.

I found this ideal very difficult to realize given the standard rules, which is one of the reasons I put together my LARP-y version.

Well, I've simply mixed things.

Combat with ranged weapons is pure warfare conflict.
Combat with hand to hand weapons is warfare with some strength, as the martial arts prowess and physical power of strength helps a little.
Combat without weapons is Strength with some warfare, as the speed and reflexes from Warfare helps.
Grappling is pure Strength.

Quote from: Erick WujcikLots of interesting discussion here, but I'd recommend going back and reading the source of it all, the fight between Corwin and Gerard, depicted in Sign of the Unicorn, pages 296 to 299 (pages refer to the Great Book of Amber edition).

As Gerard says, "It has been a long time, and you might have forgotten."

More to the point, Gerard comments that Corwin is only safe until Gerard can lay his hands on him.

The example fight between PCs in the ADRPG, where two female characters are laying into one another, one with the assistance of some strange energy source, also demonstrates the same philosophy, and seeing as Erick wrote it this seems a good guide to the canon approach.

In that fight, one character has superior Warfare, the other (with magical assistance) has Greater strength. At the start of the fight, the Warfare character maintains distance and uses her Warfare to land some solid hits without being caught. She clearly has the upper hand. But this advantage only holds good until the Strength charcter is able to get within arm's reach (using the magical support to absorb the blows and keep going) and turn a Warfare contest into a direct Strength wrestling contest.

I'd agree with Pundit that Warefare covers the ability to land a punch or kick, but Strength applies once you get into wrestling, sumo and other, similar styles.

Of course, from a practical point of view, Strength, Endurance and Warfare all play a role.

Haven't any of you guys ever been in a fight ?

I was at a judo club once and I was drawn against this big bugger, must have been 17 stone compared to my 12. I had seen him fight and the guy just picked up a bloke that was 14 stone (oh a stone is 14 pounds or about 6 kilos for you non-Brits) and threw him to the ground. Not a lot of technique but an awful lot of brawn. So for our 3 minute fight I never let him get his hand on me. I parried his blows and danced away like a girl. The bout was draw, but had I been allowed to kick or punch him he would have gone down.
I am no Benedict...

Anyone that doubts this needs to watch one of those 8 stone Chi Na guys knock out a 15 stone kick boxer by tapping him on the side of the head.

With the limited stats at our disposal... (Napoleon great strategist, crap in a knife fight) we have to say that once a combat moved to a grapple the Strength man holds sway but other than that its Warfare all the way.

And rightly noted this is the most troublesome thing in the game and only really exists because Zelazny explicitly says Gerard was the strongest thus defining strength as a stat that Erick in turn has to rank in his auction and then from a gameplay perspective has to expand to make it not suck too badly.. and it still sucks pretty badly.

Quote from: OthaI'm not really interested so much in realism as I am in making a clear distinction that players can figure out without having to call in a gamemaster.  A kick or a punch would be warfare.  A judo throw would be strength.  Is that reasonable?  Probably not, but my game can't afford to slow things down with that kind of nitpicking.

I agree than kicks & punches fall under warfare for execution; (speed, timing, accuracy) but there has to be some consideration given to the blow itself.
A #1 ranked strength can be very formidable without actually 'grabbing' someone. The strike itself, provided it lands, can do massive damage.
Martial Arts is the subject, and a martial strike is a deadly offense to such a highly ranked individual.

Otha, you may not be interested in realism, but it is a factor in this.
Why did RZ write the fencing duels in such detailed realism? because it lends to the fabric of flavor for the story, just as any GM should have at least a basic working knowledge of many faucets of combat for their campaign.

A game does not have to be slowed down if 'realism' is included, what slows a game down more likely is if these things aren't hashed out before hand... which again is up to individual GM's for their campaign.
GM's
...not players.

So ultimately it benefits a game if the players understand that contention w/ the GM for game mechanics should be at a minimum unless it really matters, 'cause it will break the flow of the story/game.

And this is DEFINITELY a subject worth discussing, and should, for every GM, be figured out before hand.
I think we are in agreement there.

You see, that's the point.  For a LARP, where the presence of a GM can't be guaranteed, the players MUST have a way of resolving contests between themselves that doesn't need a GM's intervention.

The players can be as florid, realistic, or whatever in their descriptions as they like; when it comes to figuring out "who wins" they need a method with no ambiguities.

Quote from: jibbajibbaAnd rightly noted this is the most troublesome thing in the game and only really exists because Zelazny explicitly says Gerard was the strongest thus defining strength as a stat that Erick in turn has to rank in his auction and then from a gameplay perspective has to expand to make it not suck too badly.. and it still sucks pretty badly.

I suggest that this view of Strength caters to the Warfare bias which causes the problems with running Strength in the game.

Zelazny does more than 'tell' the importance of Strength. He shows.

Gerard reminds Corwin of how he has dealt with his older brother before. Corwin, one of the best blades in Amber, is wary of the Strength guy. And... we get an entire scene where Gerard kicks Corwin's ass.

Any idea that you need Warfare to make Psyche or Strength work (when accuracy, speed, etc depend on Warfare) undercuts the balance of Attributes. Strength doesn't suck until GMs insist on Warfare bias. Strength must include all expertise to make Strength an important Attribute.

Imagine the example:

Fiona misses you with the spell because her Warfare is less than yours.

This approach cripples the game.

Good point Arref

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uGood point Arref

No its a daft point. You are saying that unless you make martial arts based on strength then strength is a weak stat...  Well if its a weak stat then its a weak stat. Logically tinkering with what falls under each stat to balance out the game is the wrong way to do things.
Imagine we added the Stat Dexterity and decided that accuracy with missile weapons and the like would fall under dexterity woudl that mean we needed to add more to Warfare as it has lost some of its potency?

One of the issues and the joys of Amber its is bizaare choice of stats. Warfare in most games would include about 3 stats and a dozen or more skills. In Amber we just have Warfare. Apparently someone ranked 1 in warfare can not even be shot by a hidden assasin with a high powered rifle, becuase they would never put themselves in a position where a sniper woudl be able to pick them off... apparently.

I do think that wounds from a high strength guy hurt more than wounds from a low strength guy, but the weakest guy in Amber can heft 400 pounds so he is probably able to hit a fair bit harder than Arnie in the Conan movies... You could use strength as a way to bypass armour I guess that would make sense. I like the idea that strength also relates to how much damage you take from blows and I think its here that you can sell it as a stat.

I think it s probably worth re-reading that fight between Gerard and Corwin as well. I for one get the idea that if Corwin had wanted to kill Gerard he probably could have. But he doesn't want to hurt him therefore he is forced into the situation where he lets the big lug get the better of him.

I agree with Arref. If one stat becomes too powerful, then the players are more likely to bid in it, and they all start to look a little more the same.

I like the rock-paper-scissors aspect.

I've seen all too many Attribute Auctions swing towards Psyche and Warfare, with Strength and Endurance going for a pittance of points.

Then again, I've also seen Strength go for as many points as Warfare, too. So it just depends on the players and their playing styles, I suppose.

Quote from: jibbajibbaNo its a daft point. You are saying that unless you make martial arts based on strength then strength is a weak stat...  Well if its a weak stat then its a weak stat. Logically tinkering with what falls under each stat to balance out the game is the wrong way to do things.

Ahem.
The game as written puts martial arts under Strength. I'm not tinkering with that.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI think it s probably worth re-reading that fight between Gerard and Corwin as well. I for one get the idea that if Corwin had wanted to kill Gerard he probably could have. But he doesn't want to hurt him therefore he is forced into the situation where he lets the big lug get the better of him.

That's all well and good, but I'm trying to answer the question about martial arts in the game. You're trying to read Corwin's mind in the canon.

You might want to read through this thread:

http://bb.bbboy.net/shadowsofamber-viewthread?forum=2&thread=31&postnum=0

I say 1st place has an auspicious quality that lends to epic tales... and that is the flavor of the Amber series, (to paraphrase my GM).
There fore the rational is to be expected that the 1st place strength can do some legendary type shit.
It's said Amber level is like Shadow Earth's best...
So 100 pts. in Str. is god-awful (relatively of course)
Amber ranked martial arts? Bruce Lee? Steven Segal? Tony Jaa? Jet Li?
If a character IMC obtained 1st place Str. by spending a majority of his pts. on it. / defined his fighting as "Martial Arts/gymnastics/esoteric pressure points / Pluckin' eyes out and all....  I would give him his well deserved/bid for spot.
I see Strength as a rivalry for Warfare... It can lend to 'EPIC" storyline feats and should be given it's due.
Martial Arts makes ya think twice.
And that's what ya should do.

Quote from: ArrefAhem.
The game as written puts martial arts under Strength. I'm not tinkering with that.


That's all well and good, but I'm trying to answer the question about martial arts in the game. You're trying to read Corwin's mind in the canon.

You might want to read through this thread:

http://bb.bbboy.net/shadowsofamber-viewthread?forum=2&thread=31&postnum=0

Good quote. I like the logic in that but there is a flaw. Benedict is not a featherweight he still has the strength of a top heavy weight boxer or even three of four top heavy weight boxers depending on your interpretation of the Amberverse. We could say becuase its relative strengths it evens out but I am not convinced. We are also saying that Benedict will fight like a boxer and not an Aikido or Chi Na practicioner and that is really where my gripe lies. Benedict has spent centuries studying all forms of combat but for some reason he never thought to look at unarmed combat?

As for the comment on the rules say that martial arts is strength , I know that but it doesn't make it right. The rules say a lot of stuff I don't agree with. The tinkering I refered to was Erick's tinkering in the base game design when he looked to make strength a key stat and toughen it up a bit.
What Erick does is makes a game system that fits the characters in the books. All very valid. In the books Gerard is the strongest guy in Amber (well second strongest after Oberon) he also happens to be an expert at hand to hand combat. There is actually no need to conflate the two things they could be totoally separate. What if there was a character called Sarina who was an expert at martial arts but realtively weak compared to her brothers. supposing there was a scene in which she fought Gerard and paraysed him with a nerve strike...
With 4 stats Amber is easy to handle and quick but it lacks depth and so a character who is crap at fighting but a tactical and strategic genius can not exist, a character who is the greatest unarmed martial artist that ever lived, but is a 7 stone chinese girl unable to bench press more than 100 pounds ... can not exist.
It works becuase we are in an Amber universe and the archetypes are pretty much set, White, european men rule, women are sneaky or pretty and can't men down face to face. But hery it was written in the '70s ...
Personally I think Amber would be better with 6 or 7 stats separating out strength from martial arts and tactics from warfare and lots of other stuff, but it would loose the flavour so I play as is written (well mostly) but tweak circumstances where certain stats are used.

Argeed, we could give the "but what if's" all day,
It really comes down to those case by case scenarios...
BUT, I would allow, Chun-Li, but I would explain to her that strength is the attribute she would want to focus on, with a heavy dose of warfare if that were the character she/he wanted to play.

Each GM has to tailor the system for themselves and their game.
So understanding what the character wants to be is important to help them fit it into the campaign.
Strength as martial arts works for me, relative to the bidding of course.

Pressure points would work on Benedict, provided the rest of the details fit,
ie:  comparative warfare to get-in on said weapons master, and the 'strength' to make the blow count, (being pressure point or not).
These are MYTHIC characters after all....
and no... Benedict is NOT a light weight in HtH, I agree totally.
Someone would have to bid over his  # in Strength, then be highly ranked (with a high # to help) in Warfare, then perhaps they can get in and do something with their martial HtH prowess, but there is those centuries of knowledge and experience Benedict has as well, so whatever a PC tries, may be doomed to premature failure.... it's all up to your story.
Then it comes to how you treat generations and ranks within them...

Regardless of said category MA falls into, I still think most of you guys would be awesome to game with...
:hatsoff:

Quote from: jibbajibbaIt works becuase we are in an Amber universe and the archetypes are pretty much set, White, european men rule

IIRC, Zelazny never described the skin color of at least most amberites.

For all we know, oberon could have been anything but white. And even if he was, I can't see the man as limiting himself to white women.
So, for all we know, gerard could very well be asian, caine arabic, and benedict a black man.

Just to add my grain of salt ;)

Quote from: jibbajibbaWith 4 stats Amber is easy to handle and quick but it lacks depth and so a character who is crap at fighting but a tactical and strategic genius can not exist, a character who is the greatest unarmed martial artist that ever lived, but is a 7 stone chinese girl unable to bench press more than 100 pounds ... can not exist.
It works becuase we are in an Amber universe and the archetypes are pretty much set, White, european men rule, women are sneaky or pretty and can't men down face to face. But hery it was written in the '70s ...
Personally I think Amber would be better with 6 or 7 stats separating out strength from martial arts and tactics from warfare and lots of other stuff, but it would loose the flavour so I play as is written (well mostly) but tweak circumstances where certain stats are used.

How about this...

Let the players decide what the most important stats are going to be.  That allows the Gamemaster to tailor the game to feature the kind of action the PC's want.  Make a shopping list, with attributes and powers on the list alongside everything else.

If it turns out that people want to "bid" it Pattern then that becomes a stat, otherwise you just have basic pattern and noone gets any advanced stuff.  Likewise trump, shapeshift, sorcery, and anything else you want to throw in.

Quote from: CroakerIIRC, Zelazny never described the skin color of at least most amberites.

For all we know, oberon could have been anything but white. And even if he was, I can't see the man as limiting himself to white women.
So, for all we know, gerard could very well be asian, caine arabic, and benedict a black man.

Just to add my grain of salt ;)

Actually, after I wrote that I had exactly the same idea myself :-) Of course where they had the same mother you would expect them to be the same race.. so Gerard and Cain as full siblings could both be Arabic or both be Asian ( vague term of course as Arabic people can be Asian ) but couldn't be one of each.

Quote from: OthaHow about this...

Let the players decide what the most important stats are going to be.  That allows the Gamemaster to tailor the game to feature the kind of action the PC's want.  Make a shopping list, with attributes and powers on the list alongside everything else.

If it turns out that people want to "bid" it Pattern then that becomes a stat, otherwise you just have basic pattern and noone gets any advanced stuff.  Likewise trump, shapeshift, sorcery, and anything else you want to throw in.

I think this is an excellent idea. Give the players some idea of the sort of stuff they could use as stats and then ask them to divide some key game play mechanics into the selected stats and have an auction.

In my last game I added Political Influence and Sucession as Stats which was very interesting. In fact the highest spend in any stat ended up being in Politics.

I bet strength would still come up as a stat but I bet very few people would stick hand to hand combat in there. In fact I bet they would ask to have that as a skill....

But if they choose it as a skill, then how will HtH competition be judged?

3rd base!

Quote from: gabriel_ss4uBut if they choose it as a skill, then how will HtH competition be judged?

3rd base!

No all the players need to decide that its a skill then they can spend points in it. Auction if that fits the game or just a straight spend with some idea of what is high mid low. Then the standard Amber mechanics kick in.

So long as everyone agrees as to how to resolve issues then it would work.

I quite like making the powers auctionable too...

Quote from: OthaHow about this...
Let the players decide what the most important stats are going to be.  That allows the Gamemaster to tailor the game to feature the kind of action the PC's want.

Exactly what I've been doing from the beginning. I've been an active fullcontact martial artist for 20+ years (including no-holds-barred fighting), and all I do is, I ask my players to visualize their character fighting. Is he a brawler? A boxer? A grappler? Or does he mix styles? After they have a clear picture, I ask them if it's Warfare or Strength. Works wonderfully.

Something just occured to me.

Some people seem disturbed by the possibility of hand to hand being dependant on strength.
I just wanted to point out that there are an awful lot of RPGs out there where one can be supremely skilled at a weapon, and utterly useless in a HtH fighting, without this disturbing us. Why would this be so different in Amber?

Good point.

Monk vs. Fighter, for Roger's sake.

I followed Wujcik's referral to re-read the chapter of the HtH between Gerard & Corwin.

Within this, I noticed that the game description of HtH (having to do w/speed, & strategy) was definately on the side of Corwin (with his superior Warfare), but the punch absorbing, grappling, (hands on), and knock-out blow went to Gerard w/superior Str.

I totally understand the way it is used in the game, and even agree with it's usage.
But IMC I like the balancing of major attack powers within the Attributes.
When I place Martial Arts in Str. it makes the warfare master more wary, and I like it that way. But, the old adage of bringing a knife to a gun fight isn't lost on it either.
It is all dependent on case by case situation in all campaigns.
Because the comparative level between the 2 combatants will always vary within their multiple levels of attributes, and 4 attributes is enough to make it diverse for all players.

When you come right down to it, there really are NINE stats in the basic game.

You have your four attributes, plus Pattern, Shapeshift/Logrus, Trump, Sorcery/Conjuration/PowerWords, and "Other goodies" which includes items, creatures, and shadows.  The only difference with the non-attribute stats, is that the "ladder" is already established.

I am not looking for word quibbles...
but.....
wouldn't a stat be something that everyone has.... and those are not something everyone would have.. that's why they are called powers and items, right Otha?

Is this just another attempt to classify & categorize everything?

I agree that these are things that help make the characters more diverse, (if that's what you were getting at), but not everything has to be so defined... have you ever heard of the principle of 'the uncarved block'?

In a way, Otha is right. I think that both the Stats and the Powers/items have to be looked at as "playing pieces".
Each have different moves you can do, and work in different ways to counteract stuff the other person can do.

Amber run rightly is like a very free flowing game of chess, with much more room for creative maneuvering.

RPGPundit

Personally, I've always hated the idea that martial arts knowledge and skill are affected by Strength.  Your chance to strike someone, with a fist, a spoon, a sword, or a revolver, is all governed by Warfare.

Gerard doesn't suddenly become faster or more tactical than Benedict when fisticuffs come into play.  Instead, Gerard can take more blows and dish out way more damage if a punch connects.  But it doesn't make him any more likely to hit.

At least that's how I've always played.

Quote from: CroakerSomething just occured to me.

Some people seem disturbed by the possibility of hand to hand being dependant on strength.
I just wanted to point out that there are an awful lot of RPGs out there where one can be supremely skilled at a weapon, and utterly useless in a HtH fighting, without this disturbing us. Why would this be so different in Amber?

Because in Amber there is no choice. As written you can not be an expert at Martial arts unless you are also very strong. I can not, of the top of my head, think of a single other role playing game where this is the case. The same is true of the combination of combat skill and military tactics.

In one of the David Gemmel series (they all merge into one so identifying the actual series evades me) there is a general. He has conquered the known world with his army and vastly superior knowledge of tactics and strategy. He also has absolutely no knowledge of combat, wears armour only because of the psychological effect it has on his men and in a sword fight would be beaten by an agressive 4 year old. Great character. Could not exist in the Amberverse as defined in the core rules.

Any rule which limits the role play opportunities of a game is a bad rule. Imagine a superhero game in which any character with super strength had to be covered in orange rocks, or any character with invisibility power had to wear a lycra body suit and look like Jessica Alba (lets just think about that for a moment longer ...) . You just wouldn't do it.
The only reason this rule exists is because in the Amber novels the local expert in hand to hand combat just happens to be the strongest guy around as well.
It does make Strength a more desired stat and helps to balance out the dominance of Warfare and Psyche but there are better ways of doing this even if they do add to the game's complexity.
I still think Ortha's idea of letting the players determine which stats they want to bid for is excellent. I probably would not allow them to throw the powers in there as well but I can see that that woudl be an option for some GMs.

Sure, but then, I fail to see why some people seem to be so bothered by the grouping of martial arts and physical prowess while the grouping of both ranged and close weapons, leadership and tactics under a single attribute doesn't bother them.
Both are "illogical", but if one finds this grouping OK for warfare, I don't think he should be bothered by a similar grouping for Strength. Suspension of disbelief and all that ;)

Both good points....

I don't 'rearrange' the strength system myself unless I have a player that is fighting for #1 Str. and defines his PC as a martial artist type.
Then I fit it in or start to tayloring.

Whatever works for your campaign, ya know.
But i don't think anyone is 'scared' to re-work the attributes definition some.
But i do think some people may consider it sacrilege.

I don't mess with it unless it is important in my campaign.

Quote from: CroakerSure, but then, I fail to see why some people seem to be so bothered by the grouping of martial arts and physical prowess while the grouping of both ranged and close weapons, leadership and tactics under a single attribute doesn't bother them.
Both are "illogical", but if one finds this grouping OK for warfare, I don't think he should be bothered by a similar grouping for Strength. Suspension of disbelief and all that ;)

That bothers me as much if not more to be honest... but was not a topic in this thread :-) The idea of Napoeon beating Athos in a sword fight is even worse than Arnie beating up Bruce Lee in the ring.

Politics (includes your political influence in Amber or Chaos and Leadership)
Tactics/Strategy (lets call it Warfare)
Melee Combat (armed and unarmed)
Ranged Combat (we want to stop it getting too specific so will include ancient and modern lets cal it Accuracy)
Strength (will include the ability to take hits and dish em out)
Psyche
Endurance

In my last Campaign I added Political influence as a stat it worked very well.

With these 6 stats you immediately remove the risk of the combat master that bids high in once stat and gets all the wonders of Warfare. Therefore you are balancing the weakness of strength compared to warfare by making warfare more diverse.
The risk is Psyche stands out as a very strong stat so you might need to weaken it by removing some of its innate strengths that to be honest I don't think anyone is too keen on (such as the ability to control lower ranked Psyches by direct mind control etc) . That way Psyche is only innately strong as a defense and needs a power to become offensive. A power costs points so there is a game balance being struck.

And before someone says but it would take so long to get the characters created.. these are Amber characters I expect people to spend at least a week on character generation so a couple of additional auctions is neither here nor there.

QuotePolitics
Warfare
Melee
Accuracy
Strength
Psyche
Endurance

So would these attributes allow a high Politics PC to arrange for it to be social suicide for a Melee PC to attack them?

Would a high Warfare PC be able to plan around being engaged by a Psyche PC attack?

Would a high Accuracy PC be able to sniper the Strength PC?

Does Endurance break ties between two Accuracy PCs in a close battle?

Quote from: ArrefSo would these attributes allow a high Politics PC to arrange for it to be social suicide for a Melee PC to attack them?

Would a high Warfare PC be able to plan around being engaged by a Psyche PC attack?

Would a high Accuracy PC be able to sniper the Strength PC?

Does Endurance break ties between two Accuracy PCs in a close battle?

:-)

Yes - but you woudl need to role play it.
Tricky - definitely need to roleplay that one and it would depend on their knowledge of the psychic arts.
Yes
Well maybe you have seen Enemy at the Gates right. Endurance will certainly determine how long you can sit in that tree for until the mark turns up.

:-)

Okay, I've read through the discussion, and can see value in the different arguments.  However, I noticed that one thing is lacking.

According to the normal rules, I'd resolve an unarmed physical combat using Strength, and I'd resolve an armed physical combat using Warfare.  However, what do you do when one of the combatants is armed and the other is unarmed?

Warfare vs Strength?
Warfare vs Average (Warfare+Strength)?
Warfare vs Warfare anyway?

I'd like to point out that martial artists routinely train to deal with an armed attacker and prevail.  (Imagine an unarmed Bruce Lee squaring off against an armed Sun Tsu.)


As an example, let's say that an unarmed Corwin has a face-off against a knife-wielding Caine.  Having a weapon, Caine is obviously using his Warfare. Because he's unarmed, does Corwin use his Strength (normal rules) against Caine's Warfare?  Or, does this type of martial arts prowess fall between the categories, making Corwin average them?  Or, is Corwin's martial arts ability solely represented by an extension of his Warfare?  Or, does Corwin get to choose his attribute?

If Corwin uses only his Strength to represent a prowess with martial arts, then does that mean Gerard might be able to beat Benedict as long as he drops his own sword?

If Corwin uses an average of his Warfare plus his Strength, then wouldn't Gerard be better off leaving his sword at home, since his Strength is so much higher than his Warfare?

If Corwin only his Warfare to represent a prowess with martial arts, then would Benedict beat Gerard while both were unarmed?

If Corwin gets to choose, then could Benedict use his Warfare (martial arts) to fight Gerard's Strength (wrestling) in an unarmed combat?


I'm inclined to stick with the rules as written, but I have to account for when a switch from Warfare to Strength might occur (if it does).

If Gerard can switch to Strength whenever he likes, then why would he ever carry a sword?  If he was close enough to use a sword, then he'd be better off using his Strength instead of Warfare.  Then, it would be a battle between Benedict's Warfare and Gerard's Strength.  (Although interesting, it begs the question of why Gerard bothers with a sword at all.)

If Gerard can't switch to Strength, then how would Gerard ever be able to grab Benedict?  If he can never grab Benedict, then Warfare always beats Strength, which will throw off the balance of Attributes.

If Gerard can switch to Strength, but has to do switch the entire fight to Strength, then under what circumstances would he be able to do so?  What type of thing can Gerard do to get a hold on Benedict and trandform the fight from Warfare to Strength?


I have no intention of adding new attributes.  My players have enough things on which to spend points already, and I think the balance between Attributes and Powers works out well enough now.  However, the ability to switch a fight to play to your strengths makes a lot of sense.  I'm hopig for a little guidance on this particular situation, since I know that it'll be the most prevalent.

Thanks!  :hehe:

Quote from: PantherShadeit begs the question of why Gerard bothers with a sword at all

Erick said something about swords in the Amber DRPG.
It keeps things at bay.
Against an Alien, even if you're strong enough to punch through him, you'd get burned by its acid blood. Not with a sword.

Moreso, a sword cuts things, which your fits don't. It also lets you do more damage just by swinging. Against a rock-hard opponent, gerard and his sword might do enough damage to win, while gerard and his fists wouldn't.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Gerard can switch to Strength, but has to do switch the entire fight to Strength, then under what circumstances would he be able to do so?  What type of thing can Gerard do to get a hold on Benedict and trandform the fight from Warfare to Strength?

I'd say Gerard would have to take a hit from Benedict's sword... He might not want to do that as it would prove deadly, but if he was desperate enough, Gerard would probably take a near mortal wound and try to snap Benedict's neck before he himself died...

That's what I usually do when someone wants to switch to strength: if the PC is at a disadvantage with warfare, I let the PC choose whether or not they take a hit. The severity of the hit will depend on the rank of the PC in comparison to his opponent. Once the PC has taken the hit, I let them have the lead in the subsequent strength-based assault, until the wound overcomes the PCs endurance or the opponent gets a hold of the situation (assuming they also have a superior rank in Strength).

So, yeah, for the purposes of unarmed combat, I use Strength. I think the problem we have with strength is its name. Warfare seems to include so much while Strength sounds like simply raw physical power. Strength should technically encompass more than physical, well, strength! Change your understanding of the word and what it means in the game mechanics and you're nearly there...

I really understand RPGPundit's point though. Would Benedict be unstoppable if he cut out his own arm and used it as a weapon, but not if he kept fighting with his fisticuffs intact?

I dunno... maybe that's how he lost his arm in the first place during Corwin's series ;) Not unlike Alita (or Gally or Yoko) in Battle Angel Alita (GUNNM) who used to let her opponents cut her limbs so that she could use them as weapons. :D  I could see Benedict do that if he were desperate enough.

Play-wise, I don't think it's as simple as considering a penny or his own eyelash an efficient weapon...

As usual, the rules leave the interpretation to the GM (thanks Erick ;)  ) and for my part I use strength for unarmed combat, warfare for armed combat, and I've never encountered a situation where that hasn't worked or seemed unfair so far...

Hi Panther,

Glad you got the link and welcome to the board.

I think your points are totally valid.
I don't think it really works to just say Strength isn't just muscle it's also a&b&c and should be called SHAZAM. The problem is it is also strength and this limits the character options. Your examples are excellent and throw the issue into a clear light.

For all my carping I would usually play martial arts ability to strike as warfare and switch to strength if an opponent managed to get a grip on their opponent. So for me boxing, savate or karate are warfare but wrestling and judo are strength. I knows that leaves holes, normally chin na and aikido sized ones but it plays well to the books.

If Gerard attacked Benedict in my world he would loose. His only chance would be to trick Benedict into a situation where he has a grip on him already. I might decide that if Benedict was not armed his blows would not be hard enough to hurt Gerard overly and the big man could close in but I don't think Strength will protect your eyes, ears or soft dangly bits. I would do warfare to warfare until the guy gets a grip and then str to str.
Yes this makes strength the weakest attribute. It is no arguing you look at the last 10 games that you were involved in and the numbers that came out of the auction. Strength is always the lowest spend.
If you stick to traditional ranks (like Otha I have dropped these in favour of points)  then this actually compensates Strength as you might be 1st rank in Strength for 20 points where as 1st rank in Warfare would be 50 and in Amber terms rank 1 in something equates to rank 1 in something else ... kind of.
I think to sell Strength you need to focus less on the unanrmed combat and think more about how to use Strength in other places. For example I base how much damage you can take on Strength. If you translate Strength to Hit points it gets more attraction from most bidders. Also in combat I would allow the strong guy to play to that. Chuck out the Rapier I'll have a Claymore please or a Broad Axe. When a slight advantage in combat can take off your oponents hand rather than cutting their wrist Strength starts to claw back some of that lost appeal.

Quote from: PantherShadeOkay, I've read through the discussion, and can see value in the different arguments.  However, I noticed that one thing is lacking.

According to the normal rules, I'd resolve an unarmed physical combat using Strength, and I'd resolve an armed physical combat using Warfare.  However, what do you do when one of the combatants is armed and the other is unarmed?

Warfare vs Strength?
Warfare vs Average (Warfare+Strength)?
Warfare vs Warfare anyway?

I'd like to point out that martial artists routinely train to deal with an armed attacker and prevail.  (Imagine an unarmed Bruce Lee squaring off against an armed Sun Tsu.)

-snip-

I have no intention of adding new attributes.  My players have enough things on which to spend points already, and I think the balance between Attributes and Powers works out well enough now.  However, the ability to switch a fight to play to your strengths makes a lot of sense.  I'm hopig for a little guidance on this particular situation, since I know that it'll be the most prevalent.

From the above I think you are asking for how the rules do it. No new interpretations. No house rules.

Check page 95 in the rules. The section on 'Opportunity' will answer most of your questions. There is a sequence of speed between the Attributes which should be respected in order to answer your examples.

Quote from: PantherShadeAs an example, let's say that an unarmed Corwin has a face-off against a knife-wielding Caine.  Having a weapon, Caine is obviously using his Warfare. Because he's unarmed, does Corwin use his Strength (normal rules) against Caine's Warfare?  Or, does this type of martial arts prowess fall between the categories, making Corwin average them?  Or, is Corwin's martial arts ability solely represented by an extension of his Warfare?  Or, does Corwin get to choose his attribute?

PCs always get to choose their Attribute. But choosing Warfare when unarmed is a poor choice. Yes, when Corwin fights unarmed against Caine's knife, he pits Strength against Warfare. Note page 95, Strength is faster than Warfare and resolves first. So as long as Corwin's Strength is greater than Caine's Warfare, he may win this fight. Corwin may take a lot of damage to do so.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Corwin uses only his Strength to represent a prowess with martial arts, then does that mean Gerard might be able to beat Benedict as long as he drops his own sword?

That is how Amber plays. Gerard must find a way to get Strength in play if he plans to beat Benedict. Gerard would have to stack the contest indeed to beat Benedict at a Warfare conflict.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Corwin uses an average of his Warfare plus his Strength, then wouldn't Gerard be better off leaving his sword at home, since his Strength is so much higher than his Warfare?

The rules do not average Attributes.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Corwin only his Warfare to represent a prowess with martial arts, then would Benedict beat Gerard while both were unarmed?

No. Gerard would win. The rules insist that Strength is martial arts.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Corwin gets to choose, then could Benedict use his Warfare (martial arts) to fight Gerard's Strength (wrestling) in an unarmed combat?

See above.

Quote from: PantherShadeI'm inclined to stick with the rules as written, but I have to account for when a switch from Warfare to Strength might occur (if it does).

If Gerard can switch to Strength whenever he likes, then why would he ever carry a sword?  If he was close enough to use a sword, then he'd be better off using his Strength instead of Warfare.  Then, it would be a battle between Benedict's Warfare and Gerard's Strength.  (Although interesting, it begs the question of why Gerard bothers with a sword at all.)

I think there are a thousand reasons why a sword might be a better tool than your fist. That doesn't change the fact that Amber PCs know when to use their best Attribute in the best way.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Gerard can't switch to Strength, then how would Gerard ever be able to grab Benedict?  If he can never grab Benedict, then Warfare always beats Strength, which will throw off the balance of Attributes.

Switching Attributes is always permitted. Even when it is a poor choice. You are correct, if Gerard can grab Benedict despite a Warfare consequence, then Gerard will probably triumph.

Quote from: PantherShadeIf Gerard can switch to Strength, but has to do switch the entire fight to Strength, then under what circumstances would he be able to do so?  What type of thing can Gerard do to get a hold on Benedict and transform the fight from Warfare to Strength?

There are so many examples and possibilities. Many would depend on why they are fighting (what goals) and where they are fighting (what environ) and who started the fight (what opportunity.)

However, just to suggest one easy example.

A quarrel starts in the castle library between Gerard and Corwin. Benedict separates them with his drawn blade. Gerard is angry that Benedict appears to be taking Corwin's side by preventing Gerard from thrashing Corwin.

So Gerard whirls, grabs a maple table covered with books and papers, and tosses the table at Benedict.

Now Benedict has to make an Attribute choice: use Strength to shove the table aside or Warfare to dodge. Benedict (with 100 Warfare knows Gerard very well) knows that he cannot dodge the table hurled with Gerard's 100 Strength. Likewise a sword is no counter to a table.

Are there ways that Benedict can respond? Of course.
But Gerard has forced a Strength contest.

Actually, I think the point of Strength resolving before Warfare solve the problem nicely.  (It's just not presented very well or easy to find.)

If Gerard is close enough to grab Benedict, then he simply does.  Benedict, knowing his own weakness, tries to not be there in the first place.  So, if Gerard flipped out, and Benedict happened to be near, then Gerard can toss Benedict around (Strength vs Strength).

If Benedict isn't right there, then Gerard is going to have to sacrifice a few hits to get close enough.  How many strikes is up to how it's played out, which could determine who wins.  If it's a longer range battle, Gerard would be down before he gets close enough.

So, Gerard would carry a sword for those times he's not close enough. With a sword, he can stave off a hit or two, which could be the matter of winning or losing.

Yeah, that timing resolution works for me.  I hope they make it more prominent if they even come up with that new edition.  Thanks.  :)

Quote from: PantherShadeActually, I think the point of Strength resolving before Warfare solve the problem nicely.  (It's just not presented very well or easy to find.)

If Gerard is close enough to grab Benedict, then he simply does.  Benedict, knowing his own weakness, tries to not be there in the first place.  So, if Gerard flipped out, and Benedict happened to be near, then Gerard can toss Benedict around (Strength vs Strength).

If Benedict isn't right there, then Gerard is going to have to sacrifice a few hits to get close enough.  How many strikes is up to how it's played out, which could determine who wins.  If it's a longer range battle, Gerard would be down before he gets close enough.

So, Gerard would carry a sword for those times he's not close enough. With a sword, he can stave off a hit or two, which could be the matter of winning or losing.

Yeah, that timing resolution works for me.  I hope they make it more prominent if they even come up with that new edition.  Thanks.  :)

Glad you got an answer , not sure I agree with it mind :-)
There is a tendancy to think the game is perfect and you need to play the rules as written, This is not the case. Your rules are like to be just as valid as those in the book. Rember the rules say unarmed combat not just grappling so according to the book Gerrard would beat Benedict if they were punching and kicking just as easily as if they were greco-roman wrestling.
There is a tendancy as well here to think of Gerrad as exisitng inside the ADRPG as a character as opposed to thinking of the ADRPG as a shell that had been built round Gerrard, Corwin et al in an attempt to describe them.
Fact of the matter is Gerrard carries a big sword because if he gets into a fight when people are trying to kill him with swords he can use it to stop them. He might be as strong as an elephant but blocking a sabre with your arm is going to hurt.

Yup.

Even if you're trained to disarm opponents, this is always tricky, especially if the opponent is skilled. So, going barehand against a competent guy may be very dangerous, while a sword lets you close in (and then disarm him) more easily sometimes.

Anyone in Chicago going to Amber con???????
(besides me?..... I hope!!!!)

Warfare has to play a role if we follow Zelazny.

Look again at the fight between Gerard and Corwin. Corwin starts of doing pretty well for himself, he manages to get a few blows in and avoids getting hit in return. This is entirely inconsistent with the notion that Strength alone decides unarmed combat.

Take a step back from the fight itself and look at the preamble. Gerard's own words "...if I can get my hands on you but once" indicate that Gerard himself knows that he only has the advantage when he literally has Corwin in his grasp, and that "if" suggests it's far from a sure thing.

But Gerard cheats in that fight, he sets things up so that he has the advantage. Corwin notes that the fight takes place in a bowl shaped depression, selected by Gerard because Corwin stands a chance if he can keep moving back and avoiding his brother while getting a series of weaker blows in. Gerard's tactic is the opposite, to take a few weak hits from Corwin and, aided by the terrain, get in close enough to grapple. And this is exactly what he does.

That one fight demonstrates how Amber combat works on so many levels. It shows the interaction between Warfare and Strength, it shows one participant using circumstances to alter the odds in his own avour. More significantly it shows that an quick and agile fighter (warfare) has the advantage on unarmed combat over a slow but strong fighter if he can avoid a grapple.

As an aside, when unarmed strength is pretty much the sole damage decider. While skill might allow Benedict to cause nasty wounds with a blade, once unarmed there is very little a brother can do that actually hurts Gerard. Although warfare is useful, it would take a truely insurmountable Warfare rank to avoid a grapple in a confined space if the grappler was willing to take a hit.

ADRPG appears to break with Zelazny in proclaiming Strength the arbiter of unarmed combat. However both the warfare entry and later combat examples show warfare as dictating whether blows hit.

Those are some very good points, Trevelyan. I'm gonna have to re-read that fight more thoroughly.

Quote from: TrevelyanMore significantly it shows that an quick and agile fighter (warfare) has the advantage on unarmed combat over a slow but strong fighter if he can avoid a grapple.

Well, IIRC, warfare in ADRPG is general reflexes and quickness.

This doesn't contradict with strength being martial arts.
If you want, gerard may have a lot more know knowledge of karate, judo, blablabla, but still be slower than corwin, who'll use his speed to stay away of gerard instead of fighting him.

Thus, corwin will use his warfare, saying something like "I try to stay away from gerard by using my superior speed, with some quick blows when he comes closes" instead of "Ok, kung-fu time": It looks like corwin uses martial arts, when in fact he just use warfare tactics. If he had tried to fight a regular karate fight, he's had been defeated. Instead, he flees.

Am i too unclear here?

Quote from: TrevelyanWarfare has to play a role if we follow Zelazny.

That one fight demonstrates how Amber combat works on so many levels. It shows the interaction between Warfare and Strength, it shows one participant using circumstances to alter the odds in his own avour. More significantly it shows that an quick and agile fighter (warfare) has the advantage on unarmed combat over a slow but strong fighter if he can avoid a grapple.

ADRPG appears to break with Zelazny in proclaiming Strength the arbiter of unarmed combat. However both the warfare entry and later combat examples show warfare as dictating whether blows hit.

All the attributes play a role if we follow Zelazny.

I've been in games where Warfare determines quickness and sequence for every use of Attribute expertise. In those games, you cannot have Brand paralyze Benedict because Brand doesn't even have the "quickness" to challenge based on Warfare.

Trust me, once the GM declares that Warfare determines if a spell hits or a grapple succeeds, you don't have Attribute parity. If Gerard, Brand or Random are no longer dangerous because they don't have the Warfare cred, you don't have the Zelazny dynamic anymore.

You are all getting caught up on the idea that Corwin Gerrard fight takes place with in the confines of ADRG. The oposite should be the case. The rules are meant to enable us to replicate events like that fight. If we look as written they don't. The point has been made that Corwin gets a few blows in before Gerrard grabs him. If you think about context its not enough to say these blows are not strong enough to hurt Gerrard the fact is Corwin doesn't want to hurt Gerrard. Corwin enters the fight already handicapped because he isn't prepared to hurt Gerrard.
The rules have been presented to make the attributes more even. Thus Strength is beefed up. This is not representative of the books it is a game mechanic to make the stats more even. In that sense it works. However, its my opinion that that is a clumsy way of doing it and a better approach would have been to add more attriubtes and use them to weaken the dominance of warfare. Now just 4 attributes makes for faster character generation an I can conceed that more stats would slow it down. Now for me that isn't important. The first session of a game should be making up characters and I think we have time for 2 more attributes... Now if you are running a game at a convention in a 4 hour slot there might not be enough time but that is not a justification for this sort of compromise.

Quote from: jibbajibbathe fact is Corwin doesn't want to hurt Gerard. Corwin enters the fight already handicapped because he isn't prepared to hurt Gerrard.

IIRC, there's a moment were corwin has an opportunity to strike a low blow to gerard.
And he refrains, not because he doesn't want to hurt him, but because if he did, gerard's reflexes would have him break corwin's arm, or something like that.
Which would imply that gerard is holding back a lot more...

Quote from: CroakerIIRC, there's a moment were corwin has an opportunity to strike a low blow to gerard.
And he refrains, not because he doesn't want to hurt him, but because if he did, gerard's reflexes would have him break corwin's arm, or something like that.
Which would imply that gerard is holding back a lot more...

Yup that is true too. Gerrard is certainly not using his full power but he is using his whole skilll which is really the difference between Warfare and strength.

How do you know?

Say corwin is more skilled.
He uses his superior skill to strike gerard at the groin. Whatever their relative strength, if gerard's reflexes are to break corwin's arm, he need to be skilled enough to hit/seize him.

Let's face the facts. This is amber. One can always argue any way ;) But this is cool, this is a strength

Quote from: jibbajibbaYou are all getting caught up on the idea that Corwin Gerrard fight takes place with in the confines of ADRG.

Well, I went back and checked the thread question. I think we were supposed to talk about Amber Diceless system and Strength.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe rules are meant to enable us to replicate events like that fight. The rules have been presented to make the attributes more even. Thus Strength is beefed up. This is not representative of the books it is a game mechanic to make the stats more even. In that sense it works.

OK. So some of us think it represents the book well and some of us don't. It doesn't look like either side is convincing in its logic. So here we are.

Quote from: jibbajibbaHowever, its my opinion that that is a clumsy way of doing it and a better approach would have been to add more attriubtes and use them to weaken the dominance of warfare. Now just 4 attributes makes for faster character generation an I can conceed that more stats would slow it down. Now for me that isn't important. The first session of a game should be making up characters and I think we have time for 2 more attributes... Now if you are running a game at a convention in a 4 hour slot there might not be enough time but that is not a justification for this sort of compromise.

So do we need threads to clearly address Amber Diceless rules versus re-writing the rules to suit personal tastes? Do we label such threads? Because we seem to be spending a fair amount of bytes talking about something nebulous that isn't Amber Diceless.

Generally I don't mind the tangent-chat, but I also don't find the rules 'clumsy'. How do others wish to handle this?

I'm jumping into this late, and it's probably already been said, but why not let the guy choose? If he wants to strike and use Warfare, cool. If he goes for the grapple and uses Strength, that's cool too.

[grappling]
Inigo Montoya: You are wonderful.
Man in Black: Thank you; I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo Montoya: I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in Black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo Montoya: Because I know something you don't know.
Man in Black: And what is that?
Inigo Montoya: I... grappling is not my strong suit.
[Switches to striking and gains an advantage]
Man in Black: You are amazing.
Inigo Montoya: I ought to be, after 20 years.
Man in Black: Oh, there's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo Montoya: Tell me.
Man in Black: I'm not much for wrestling either.
[Tosses out a kick and regains his advantage]

We were discussing whether martial arts should be strength (as written in its ADRPG depiction) or warfare.

I guess you're from the second school of thought ;)

Close. I'm from the "it should be either, depending on the wishes of the character" school of thought. :)

So, Benedict's Warfare versus Gerard's strength until grappling (then all strength conflict is entered I assume)?
Some people would call that fair, but what about if they pick up swords? Could Gerard's strength be used in that case?

I would be worried about the whole Warfare supremacy again, you know what I mean?

I know the discussion is about Martial Arts specifically, but it's an interesting thought so I wanted to ask about the details a bit further... :)

No Strength for swords.

I'm not too worried about Warfare being supreme. Which stats are better for the campaign is determined during the auction. If everyone goes after Warfare it should be supreme. If they all go for Strength, Warfare won't be as important. If there's a mix, it comes down to strategy and tactics.

Quote from: ArrefI've been in games where Warfare determines quickness and sequence for every use of Attribute expertise. In those games, you cannot have Brand paralyze Benedict because Brand doesn't even have the "quickness" to challenge based on Warfare.

The problem there is that ADRPG makes it clear that mental assaults are inhernetly quicker than physical attacks, and that a spell released without any lynchpins will go off quicker than a swordsman can react.

Besides which, Brand was comfortably outside Benedict's reach when he paralysed him.

QuoteTrust me, once the GM declares that Warfare determines if a spell hits or a grapple succeeds, you don't have Attribute parity.

I would never suggest such a thing. For a start, spells seem to target more on intent than anything else. A fireball or similar with a physical componant might be dodgable, but anything that simply causes an effect shouldn't be.

Likewise, grapples can be avoided by a superior warfare if all things are equal. Part of that equality includes a mutual desire to avoid getting hit. As soon as one party is willing to take a blow or two to get in close even Benedict would have problems avoiding a grapple. This too is covered quite clearly in the ADRPG rules.

Quote from: TrevelyanThe problem there is that ADRPG makes it clear that mental assaults are inhernetly quicker than physical attacks, and that a spell released without any lynchpins will go off quicker than a swordsman can react.

Besides which, Brand was comfortably outside Benedict's reach when he paralysed him.

I wasn't responding to a single poster or situation. I was trying to establish the rules as they get bent by interpretation of a single scene from the books.

For instance, the rules also say that Strength is 'inherently quicker' than Warfare attacks. But there are GMs that do not like this rule.

Quote from: TrevelyanLikewise, grapples can be avoided by a superior warfare if all things are equal. Part of that equality includes a mutual desire to avoid getting hit. As soon as one party is willing to take a blow or two to get in close even Benedict would have problems avoiding a grapple. This too is covered quite clearly in the ADRPG rules.

While it is hard to parse your first sentence I think we are agreeing.

In specific, when it comes to playing out a high Strength PC versus a high Warfare PC, according to the rules there is no doubt that Corwin is going to lose bare-handed to Gerard. Gerard would have to 'give over' or make mistakes in order to lose the fight. Zelazny says this through Gerard. Corwin knows it but tries to win anyhow, as any PC would. Certainly Corwin is going to land blows against Gerard.

Zelazny describes few 'one shot' engagements in the action scenes unless the skill levels are very far apart.

GMs should be wary of allowing a single blow or trick or surprise to change the outcome of Attribute points spent.

Quote from: ArrefFor instance, the rules also say that Strength is 'inherently quicker' than Warfare attacks. But there are GMs that do not like this rule.

Personally I like it, but with the caveat that actually getting hold of someone requires warfare first. Strength is quicker once you have hold of someone - i.e. you can apply pressure to a joint or restrict an arm once held faster than that person can draw a weapon. If you don't have hold of someone already then it should be a warfare contest to see if you can grab before they can draw.

QuoteWhile it is hard to parse your first sentence I think we are agreeing.

It wasn't as clear as it could be. For clarification, my point is that in a situation where A is trying to grapple B and B has the higher warfare then A cannot suceed if A and B are equal in all respects, one of which being an unwillingness to take damage. If A is willing to take a hit from B in order to get close then A should be able to start a grapple unless B is significantly superior in warfare.

Quote from: TrevelyanThe problem there is that ADRPG makes it clear that mental assaults are inhernetly quicker than physical attacks

Just as it states than Strength is Martial Arts ;)

Quote from: TrevelyanLikewise, grapples can be avoided by a superior warfare if all things are equal.

Of course.
Just as a superior strength gives you and edge in swordplay, all things being equal.

Quote from: TrevelyanFor clarification, my point is that in a situation where A is trying to grapple B and B has the higher warfare then A cannot suceed if A and B are equal in all respects, one of which being an unwillingness to take damage. If A is willing to take a hit from B in order to get close then A should be able to start a grapple unless B is significantly superior in warfare.

Yup, going from swordplay to grapple, totally agreed

Quote from: James McMurrayNo Strength for swords.

I'm not too worried about Warfare being supreme. Which stats are better for the campaign is determined during the auction. If everyone goes after Warfare it should be supreme. If they all go for Strength, Warfare won't be as important. If there's a mix, it comes down to strategy and tactics.

So what happens when the points spent in character creation determine that Strength has supremacy? Would you modify armed combat to incorporate this fact?

Who cares about Strength if Warfare can still be used in unarmed combat and as a strategist/weapon master end all/be all attribute?

I like to think that the attributes should be balanced so that character creation offers variety to the game. With the way warfare rules combat, players would be too likely to follow the path of the warrior. I think that unbalancing the attributes would effectively influence the way the players spend points...

What do you think?

As a GM you're more than free to 'unbalance' the attributes so that players focus on that attribute during the auction/character creation process.
I could see that as a GM tool to make sure the PCs can handle the campaign you have in mind, etc...
I sometimes give discounts to Powers to influence the player's spending, or I'll give them Pattern for free, in certain campaigns/scenarios.

Quote from: Nihilistic MindWho cares about Strength if Warfare can still be used in unarmed combat and as a strategist/weapon master end all/be all attribute?

I don't think anyone has suggested that Strength should be meaningless in unarmed combat, merely that warfare has a role to play.

QuoteI like to think that the attributes should be balanced so that character creation offers variety to the game. With the way warfare rules combat, players would be too likely to follow the path of the warrior.

Emphasis mine.

I think the clue really is in the name. Warfare should rule combat. That's sort of what warfare is all about. Nothing implicit in the idea of Strength directly suggests that it grants combat skill.

Strength determines how hard you can hit something not how well, and once you've already got hold of someone Strength plays a greater role. But why, other than for game balance, should strength determine unarmed accuracy, when Warfare determines armed accuracy, reflexes and so on?

If you want to boost the appeal of strength, point out its role as a measure of damage resistance and damage dealing.

Quote from: Nihilistic MindSo what happens when the points spent in character creation determine that Strength has supremacy? Would you modify armed combat to incorporate this fact?

Probably. But without seeing the auction happen and knowing who bid what I couldn't tell you how much I'd change it.

QuoteWho cares about Strength if Warfare can still be used in unarmed combat and as a strategist/weapon master end all/be all attribute?

People who want to be strong?

Quote from: TrevelyanI think the clue really is in the name. Warfare should rule combat. That's sort of what warfare is all about. Nothing implicit in the idea of Strength directly suggests that it grants combat skill.

Strength determines how hard you can hit something not how well, and once you've already got hold of someone Strength plays a greater role. But why, other than for game balance, should strength determine unarmed accuracy, when Warfare determines armed accuracy, reflexes and so on?

That's my question as well. Why should being super strong make it easy for me to punch someone in the gut, but the moment I put on a punch dagger or pick up a knife my low Warfare means I can never hurt anyone?

Quote from: TrevelyanStrength determines how hard you can hit something not how well, and once you've already got hold of someone Strength plays a greater role. But why, other than for game balance, should strength determine unarmed accuracy, when Warfare determines armed accuracy, reflexes and so on?

The why:

Attributes are measures of competency that suppose conflict mastery of the Attribute.

And yet, we balance against other assumptions in how far to take this:
1.  we mortals do not understand the competence of Strength, Warfare, Psyche and Endurance that is 5 to 25 times grander than our normal experience.
2.  we do not want to rob an Attribute of its implications by grounding it in mortality or ignoring the game design.
3.  we understand the game design is telling us 'who wins' an attribute conflict. The game design does not resolve the finer details of how (accuracy, intuition, speed, smarts, planning) as that detail is for the Players and GM to resolve. The systems tells us who wins, the gamers describe the result and try to tweak the consequence if possible (ah, I am defeated but I had an escape planned!)


Because of 1, we do not really understand how dramatic Fiona's intuition or Gerard's speed is.
Because of 2, we do not really want to subtract intuition from Warfare, even though the rules say that Psyche is intuition (and warnings of danger.)
Because of 3, being strong includes competency and mastery of winning martial arts.

How does this apply to the question you ask?

Answers to attributes that discuss "my ten years of study in karate" violate 1 above. Answers to attributes that posit that high Strength doesn't make you good at karate violate 3 above.

If a high Strength PC picks up a dagger, he still wins based on martial arts, not the dagger. The details are for the gamers to decide.

Quote from: ArrefThe why:

Attributes are measures of competency that suppose conflict mastery of the Attribute.

And yet, we balance against other assumptions in how far to take this:
1.  we mortals do not understand the competence of Strength, Warfare, Psyche and Endurance that is 5 to 25 times grander than our normal experience.
2.  we do not want to rob an Attribute of its implications by grounding it in mortality or ignoring the game design.
3.  we understand the game design is telling us 'who wins' an attribute conflict. The game design does not resolve the finer details of how (accuracy, intuition, speed, smarts, planning) as that detail is for the Players and GM to resolve. The systems tells us who wins, the gamers describe the result and try to tweak the consequence if possible (ah, I am defeated but I had an escape planned!)


Because of 1, we do not really understand how dramatic Fiona's intuition or Gerard's speed is.
Because of 2, we do not really want to subtract intuition from Warfare, even though the rules say that Psyche is intuition (and warnings of danger.)
Because of 3, being strong includes competency and mastery of winning martial arts.

How does this apply to the question you ask?

Answers to attributes that discuss "my ten years of study in karate" violate 1 above. Answers to attributes that posit that high Strength doesn't make you good at karate violate 3 above.

If a high Strength PC picks up a dagger, he still wins based on martial arts, not the dagger. The details are for the gamers to decide.

From a Rules perspective this is a good answer. You have set out some points that give a rationale to using the rules as they stand but a lot of your argument stems from the idea that the rules as written were right in the first place. All the arguments from real life experience, from the ability to role play atypical Amberites and even from common sense are still valid and are difficult to counter.
You laid out a valid point that we were discussing how the 'rules' tackle this issue and not how we would choose to rewrite the rules to tackle this issue.
However, I feel the weight of opinion falls on 'The rules are not entirely satisfactory on this' side of the fence.
In the rule Strength and martial arts are one stat and the highest Strength will win in an unarmed conflict of any type but again there are any number of situations where this doesn't feel right and where GM arbitration becomes a tad too important when resolving an issue. Ranging from can Benedict use a rope (shoelace? electric lamp flex?) as a weapon and thus win in a grapple because his Warfare is far too superior to his oponents strength to if strength is always faster than warfare then why would Gerrard carry a blade.

So I guess we have 2 schools
i - the rules are gospel
ii - go ahead and make a decision so long as your players and you know up front how it works there is no problem.

I doubt there is going to be any revelationary insight from either perspective that resolves this position.

Well, for some weapons, it all depends on how you're using it.

For me, a sword is, well, always a sword, and thus fall on warfare.

But a dagger? You can use it for a knife fight, where you would keep some distance to your opponent, maneuver a lot... which would fall upon warfare, or you can use it much more closely, at fist-lenght, to gut your ennemy, and, this way, it would be a strength-enhancing weapon.
Just as a garotte would, IMO, fall under strength-enhancing weapons, at it enhances your grapple ability, or a cestus enhance your strength-HtH ability, not your warfare.

So, IMHO, the fact that benny is a master of warfare doesn't means he comes from "weak with his hand" (as if he was... ;)) to "invincible with brass knuckles". Both would fall under Strength.
Same thing if he used a dagger in close combat. But the moment a dagger fight takes some distance, becoming a "dance of blades", his warfare "fencing" ability comes to the forefront.

I think that a lot of problem comes from the formulation of the abilities. It it were "Armed Fighting Skill" vs "Unharmed Fighting Skill", as in some RPGs, no one would question it. But the word "strength" causes some difficulties to some people.

Its because Strength also defines another 3 or 4 abilities that in another game woudl be separately handled in the rules. It means in effect Unarmed combat guys can only every look like Gerrard and not look like Jet Li.

Why not?

If a player comes first in strength, i see no reason at all to force him to be big and muscular. If he wanna look like jet li, fine by me!

Fair point I was being simplistic . My point is you can't be weak and good at martial arts, or fragile and good at martial arts, you can only be strong, able to take and receive a lot of damage and good at martial arts. Most systems would separate these out.

Quote from: Arref1.  we mortals do not understand the competence of Strength, Warfare, Psyche and Endurance that is 5 to 25 times grander than our normal experience.
2.  we do not want to rob an Attribute of its implications by grounding it in mortality or ignoring the game design.
3.  we understand the game design is telling us 'who wins' an attribute conflict. The game design does not resolve the finer details of how (accuracy, intuition, speed, smarts, planning) as that detail is for the Players and GM to resolve. The systems tells us who wins, the gamers describe the result and try to tweak the consequence if possible (ah, I am defeated but I had an escape planned!)


Because of 1, we do not really understand how dramatic Fiona's intuition or Gerard's speed is.
Because of 2, we do not really want to subtract intuition from Warfare, even though the rules say that Psyche is intuition (and warnings of danger.)
Because of 3, being strong includes competency and mastery of winning martial arts.

I would marginally contest #1 above, ADRPG clearly overstates the ability of Amberites in comparison with Zelazny to the extent that I believe we can have a reasonable understanding of the competence of an Amberite in all areas save Psyche (where we have no base understanding on which to build).

I would more strongly contest your unstated assumption in #2, that unarmed accuracy is a component of Strength (see below).

#3 as stated in no way speaks to whether martial arts skill is necessarily a part of Strength. If we attribute accuracy to Warfare then #3 serves to reinforce that interpretation instead. Moreover, the system most certainly does rely on more than a single attribute to resolve conflicts, and player tactics play a role in determining which combination of Warfare, Endurance, Strength or even Psyche is used to achieve victory. For a simple conflict the value is key, but adjustments to relative ranks are made in respect of the tactics described and the potential interaction of other attributes.

Your argument hinges primarily on the comment in the attribute section attributing martial arts ability to strength, and proceeds from there in terms of abstract mechanics. The problem with reference to the book is that, for all that the attribute section ascribes knowledge of martial arts to Strength, the combat section attributes the ability to land blows, even if unarmed, to Warfare. Either interpretation remains valid per ADRPG.

Quote from: jibbajibbaFair point I was being simplistic . My point is you can't be weak and good at martial arts, or fragile and good at martial arts, you can only be strong, able to take and receive a lot of damage and good at martial arts. Most systems would separate these out.

Just as you can't be a swordmaster and be weak with guns, tactics and strategy, games, leadership... Am I forgeting something?

What seems the more ludicrous? The Strong Guy who can't help being good at hand to hand fighting, or the swordsman who can't help being a master general?

Quote from: Trevelyanthe combat section attributes the ability to land blows, even if unarmed, to Warfare.

Oh? Are you sure? o_O
Can you give me a page, please?
This would be a poor mistake from erick :(

Quote from: CroakerJust as you can't be a swordmaster and be weak with guns, tactics and strategy, games, leadership... Am I forgeting something?

What seems the more ludicrous? The Strong Guy who can't help being good at hand to hand fighting, or the swordsman who can't help being a master general?

Agreed equally stupid but not the subject of this post ....

Athos faced Napoleon across the dining table. The musketeer armed with his Toledo steel blade laughed at the short Corsican who's only weapon was a butter knife. It was a moment of frivolity he would live to regret, albeit not for very long.

Quote from: TrevelyanI would marginally contest #1 above, ADRPG clearly overstates the ability of Amberites in comparison with Zelazny to the extent that I believe we can have a reasonable understanding of the competence of an Amberite in all areas save Psyche (where we have no base understanding on which to build).

That's a point which has been made here and elsewhere and I won't debate.  EW makes some emphasis for Attributes that I don't find supported by the canon, but that's the system at play and why I gave a range of 5 to 25.

I stand by the notion that I answered your 'why'.

Quote from: TrevelyanI would more strongly contest your unstated assumption in #2, that unarmed accuracy is a component of Strength (see below).

#3 as stated in no way speaks to whether martial arts skill is necessarily a part of Strength. If we attribute accuracy to Warfare then #3 serves to reinforce that interpretation instead. Moreover, the system most certainly does rely on more than a single attribute to resolve conflicts, and player tactics play a role in determining which combination of Warfare, Endurance, Strength or even Psyche is used to achieve victory. For a simple conflict the value is key, but adjustments to relative ranks are made in respect of the tactics described and the potential interaction of other attributes.

I'm not sure at what point the concept of skill and mastery is divorced from Attribute discussion or how it adds value to the game to think it is.

The genre and rules are clear that Players can define any skill that suits the background on the PC as designed. Skill is trivial compared to Attribute power. To make the case that accuracy is only Warfare rubs against the implications of high rank in Psyche or Strength having mastery. Elsewhere on this board I mention in a detailed response what the rules actually say about tactical Player direction on the outcome of attribute conflict. The shifts for tactics are minor and must be layered before they alter against attribute rank advantages. This supports the notion that SKILL is inherent to high rank.

It is rather pointless to assign martial arts to Strength and then say that skill in Warfare determines if you can use your Strength to hit something. I doubt this is EW's intention and wait for the clarity of your citation.

Quote from: TrevelyanYour argument hinges primarily on the comment in the attribute section attributing martial arts ability to strength, and proceeds from there in terms of abstract mechanics. The problem with reference to the book is that, for all that the attribute section ascribes knowledge of martial arts to Strength, the combat section attributes the ability to land blows, even if unarmed, to Warfare. Either interpretation remains valid per ADRPG.

I recall some wording describing Warfare and accuracy but would like to see your citation.

I would say my point hinges primarily on the notion of competence in points allocated to be awesome at something.  I never want to tell a Player that their points spent on Psyche depend on Warfare or their points spent on Endurance depend on Warfare or their points spent on Strength depend on Warfare.

Endurance is specifically called out in the rules as the tie-breaker and has a special function in support of the other Attributes. Otherwise, the conflict areas are clearly defined and introducing Warfare as a control on Strength is unjustified.

Quote from: jibbajibbaAthos faced Napoleon across the dining table. The musketeer armed with his Toledo steel blade laughed at the short Corsican who's only weapon was a butter knife. It was a moment of frivolity he would live to regret, albeit not for very long.

looooooooool
Good one ;)

Quote from: CroakerOh? Are you sure? o_O
Can you give me a page, please?
This would be a poor mistake from erick :(

I don't have the book to hand, but IIRC it's in the example combat showing how to handle a conflict between two PCs.

That example pits a Warfare expert (2nd rank, with 45 points spent) with Amber Strength against a high Strength, low Warfare character (the exact ranks escape me). Eric specifically comments that the higher warfare allows the first character to land punches and kicks on the second character without getting hit in return. In that fight, it is only when the Warfare character runs out of room to manoeuvre that the Strength character has the chance to grab her and start using that Strength.

Quote from: ArrefI'm not sure at what point the concept of skill and mastery is divorced from Attribute discussion or how it adds value to the game to think it is.

I think that in general I agree with your underlying point as regards the rules. My objection is that ADRPG is not consistent in it's treatment of unarmed combat, attributing it to Strength alone or a mix of Strength and Warfare in different passages. Of the two, the mixed approach makes more sense, to me at least.

I actually think that the attribute system blurs the distinction between skill and aptitude. Martial arts are not something that most people would assume it is possible to know intuitively, yet ADRPG in one instance assigns martial arts skill to the attribute that determines physical strength. Likewise, the system assumes that a high Warfare denotes extreme martial skill. Personally I tend to allow character to use only those skills which their backgrounds suggest that should have regardless of underlying attributes, but that's neither here nor there.

QuoteThe genre and rules are clear that Players can define any skill that suits the background on the PC as designed. Skill is trivial compared to Attribute power.

Skill is only trivial in some cases. While it is quite common to assume that  a high warfare rank allows you to defeat Athos in a duel the first time you pick up a sword, there are many skills without so obvious a link that necessarily become harder to learn. What attribute governs medical training, for example? Why make swordsmanship or martial arts training something that comes from an attribute ranking alone, and yet require specific training for other skills? Of course that's not directly relevent to the question at hand.

QuoteTo make the case that accuracy is only Warfare rubs against the implications of high rank in Psyche or Strength having mastery.

Really? I don't think I agree.

Psyche has mastery whenever minds are in contact or direct application of will is an issue. Strength has mastery whenever pure physical might is a concern and also determines physical resilience. Warfare covers combat, reflexes and tactics, initially a more diverse portfolio, but one which can be abstracted to physical/spacial awareness and positioning (either of the self or of others, treating an army as a body of men and combat as the interplay between two bodies - perhaps a bit of a stretch). It could be argued that to suggest a master of Warfare looses all sense of coordination and reflexes when unarmed is to allow Strength to impinge on the value of Warfare.

QuoteIt is rather pointless to assign martial arts to Strength and then say that skill in Warfare determines if you can use your Strength to hit something. I doubt this is EW's intention and wait for the clarity of your citation.

For reasons given above I believe it is rather strange to assign detailed knowledge of obscure combat styles to someone on the basis that they can lift a heavier load than someone else. :D

I hope my response to Croaker suffices for a citation, I'll check the book tonight if not.

Laying aside the system for a moment, do you agree with the principle that if you have two people, one significantly stronger and the other sufficiantly quicker and more agile, the quicker guy is likely to be able to land blows on the stronger guy than vice cersa, all things being equal?

Quote from: TrevelyanMy objection is that ADRPG is not consistent in it's treatment of unarmed combat, attributing it to Strength alone or a mix of Strength and Warfare in different passages. Of the two, the mixed approach makes more sense, to me at least.

That makes sense. I'm unhappy that the rules text muddies the distinction.

Quote from: TrevelyanLaying aside the system for a moment, do you agree with the principle that if you have two people, one significantly stronger and the other sufficiantly quicker and more agile, the quicker guy is likely to be able to land blows on the stronger guy than vice cersa, all things being equal?

Being unclear as to whether you are asking about 'real life' or two royals inside the rpg environ... I'll answer both ways.

From what I know, the quicker guy should be able to hit the stronger guy more often and to less effect.

From the way I read the rules, the quicker guy can demonstrate any amount of hitting the stronger guy and lose.
 
From the canon, Corwin can hit Gerard any number of times and still lose.
Having the high Warfare makes you look good in a Strength contest, but you still lose.

Quote from: ArrefBeing unclear as to whether you are asking about 'real life' or two royals inside the rpg environ... I'll answer both ways.

I was going for real life, but as a prelude to turning the answer back towards the game so you've saved me a post... :D

QuoteFrom what I know, the quicker guy should be able to hit the stronger guy more often and to less effect.

I entirely agree. It's this approach that I think the rules in ADRPG are trying to get at (per the mixed applicability of Warfare and Strength).

QuoteFrom the way I read the rules, the quicker guy can demonstrate any amount of hitting the stronger guy and lose.

I think I see where you're coming from now. Are you basically saying that the ability of a higher Warfare to land more blows on a lower Warfare is irrelevent if Strength is the ultimate determiner of unarmed combat, and that the narrative development of the fight might take a flurry of weaker blows into account but they will ultimately fail to overcome the higher Strength?
 

QuoteFrom the canon, Corwin can hit Gerard any number of times and still lose.

But from the canon, Corwin only lost because Gerard had preselected an enclosed arena where Corwin was unable to fully utilise his Warfare advantage. He ran out of space to avoid Gerard and it was only then that Gerard was able to turn the fight his way. Corwin even remarks on this exact feature of the landscape before the fight.

Quote from: ArrefFrom the way I read the rules, the quicker guy can demonstrate any amount of hitting the stronger guy and lose.

Quote from: TrevelyanI think I see where you're coming from now. Are you basically saying that the ability of a higher Warfare to land more blows on a lower Warfare is irrelevent if Strength is the ultimate determiner of unarmed combat, and that the narrative development of the fight might take a flurry of weaker blows into account but they will ultimately fail to overcome the higher Strength?

In a nutshell.

The better part of Warfare is either not getting into the contest (you see it coming) or escaping the contest. Once in the conflict with a higher Strength, you've lost and it is all about the moderation of coming out second.

Quote from: TrevelyanBut from the canon, Corwin only lost because Gerard had preselected an enclosed arena where Corwin was unable to fully utilise his Warfare advantage. He ran out of space to avoid Gerard and it was only then that Gerard was able to turn the fight his way. Corwin even remarks on this exact feature of the landscape before the fight.

But the way I play the game (and GM), Gerard picking the location/environ is skill associated with Strength. It's inherent to Gerard's high attribute. It is not "only then" as you suggest but precedes and causes the victory. Corwin has no chance because of the planned action of the Strength master.

"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth!"

Now the fun part of rp to determine is just as with any other attribute conflict: how do I keep my attribute advantaged?

Hi guys, coming at this from a real world perspective rather than an RPG one, wrestling and judo are NOT strength-based arts.  You can win the world's strongest man competition 10 times in a row, but without proper training, a skilled wrestler or judoka will still toss you on your ass.  The argument becomes even more problematic if you factor in martial arts like Brazilian Jiu-jutsu.  This is a martial art originally derived from the Japanese.  The Brazilians, particularly the Gracie-Barra school, specifically trained so that a smaller, lighter guy could beat a bigger guy in streetfighting--not just on a mat where there are rules.  But if you look at the early UFC matches, you have Royce Gracie at 170 pounds DOMINATING huge guys that outweighed him by twice as much or more.  He did it with pure skill at grappling, moving his body to get joint locks and chokes, all the while avoiding getting pounded by his bigger and stronger opponents--and they were grappling the whole time, so clearly strength was not an issue.  His brother Rixon (pronounced Hixon) was even better than him and is a pit-fighting legend who went 200-0 in bare-knuckle fights, all using Gracie jiu-jutsu.  Look up Rixon on Youtube and you'll see some amazing fights against larger opponents.  

Now, here's the thing, although wrestling, judo, and jiu-jutsu are not strength-based, all else being equal (as in, two people who have the same level of skill), strength DOES become a deciding factor.  There's an old saying:  "A good big man will beat a good little man" and that's pretty much true in any combat sport.  A bigger stronger opponent with the same level of skill will be able to wear down the smaller weaker opponent more often than not.  

But I see a lot of people saying wrestling is all about strength so I just wanted to add my 2.  

That was from a real world perspective.  From a game perspective, I can't say.  Ideally it would make sense to use Warfare or Strength, depending on the player's vision of the art, but as others have pointed out, this may devalue one or the other (particularly strength).  

Pete

Expanding on the real world element you have Chiyonofuji Mitsugu aka the wolf who is argueably the greatest ever Sumo champion dispite being 1/2 the size of the other guys.

Hum...
If you go that way, one could argue that wrestling and grappling is warfare... And everyone would laugh at gerard.

What is so difficult to believe in the idea that someone may have honed his body for HtH combat (be it karate, judo, wrestling...), which encompass the skill, the resilience and the potency usefull for such battles? Because this is exactly what strength it.
I'd also add that strength and bodily mass do not nescessarily go by pair, and that, for the "jet li" type, the "potency" aspect of the Strength attribute may very well be explained through full exploitation of one's movements and the ennemy's weakness.

I think wrestling and grappling is Strength no doubt.  But there might be other kinds of hand-to-hand that might be based on warfare rather than strength; stuff that focuses on critical hits on vital areas, nerve pinches, etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think wrestling and grappling is Strength no doubt.  But there might be other kinds of hand-to-hand that might be based on warfare rather than strength; stuff that focuses on critical hits on vital areas, nerve pinches, etc.

RPGPundit

I'm not sure why Strength couldn't encompass those specifics as well if the GM decides that it is so, and I think GMs need to make that really clear to players at the beginning of the game: which stats do what in unarmed combat.
Besides, when detecting vital areas and nervous sytem, etc, why not use Psyche?
Warfare might determine 'when' the best time to hit those vital spots are... :P

At this point, if a GM has an open mind about unarmed combat rules, the player could determine which stat to use based on their descriptions.

Quote from: jibbajibbaExpanding on the real world element you have Chiyonofuji Mitsugu aka the wolf who is argueably the greatest ever Sumo champion dispite being 1/2 the size of the other guys.

Not to mention O-Sensei: Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, sumo champ at 90 lbs. or so.

I've always held the stats to do the following

Strength - brawn, resilience, brawling/grappling
Warfare - Weapons, trained fighting, tactics
Psyche - Magic, social manipulation, intellect
Endurance - healing, willpower, stamina

with the following addendum (which I nicked from Wushu) if a player wants to take Strength to a Warfare fight then as long as they explain how/roleplay it, I let it fly.

I did it myself with a top ranked Strength character who had a sword but didn't bother with fencing and fancy moves, just slashed and hacked at everything in his path until it fell down.  

Or for another example; Brand vs Benedict.  (Psyche vs Warfare) Brand tells Benedict exactly what he knows will thoroughly demoralise him during the fight.  Brand wins.

my 2p.