AN AMBER CONFLICT SYSTEMBy Iain Walker, in His Own Words, Used With Permission I don't think you need hard and fast rules for conflicts. I have some general guidelines which I try and adhere to, and where combats go awry in my games, it's usually because I'm not adhering to it properly. And when I don't adhere to it, I generally end up favouring the PCs unduly rather than their opponents. But that's just because I'm sentimental that way. It seems to work quite well, on the whole. I've divided it into the following sections:
Click on the section headings to return to the top of the page. KEEPING TRACK OF THINGSThis system does require a certain amount of record keeping. My list of characters includes not just their statistics but also their rankings in The Overall Ranking Scheme (henceforth the ORS), which includes both PCs and NPCs. There are no separate schemes for PCs and NPCs. So a character would be written as:
where the number in brackets is the rank. Obviously, when statistics change, you have to note the changed ranks, but if you let people double (or sometimes triple) up at a rank without affecting the ranks below, then you don't have to change anybody else's at the same time. I treat all ranks as being 'real' independent slots, regardless of whether anyone currently has a statistic of that value. This helps simplify subsequent changes. Obviously it's not always practical to have every possible NPC listed in the ORS. However, if you need to give a particular non-detailed NPC statistics, just assign them a rank mentally and note it down later. I tend to find this doesn't happen very often. Half of the Courts of Chaos in some of my games are outside the ORS, and I only had to add one or two in the course of the game. Regarding the point differences between ranks, I tend to have a large gap between the 1st rank and the 2nd, and then a couple of moderate gaps, and then small gaps. For instance, top rank in Warfare might be Benedict with 120. Next might be Bleys, Finndo or someone with 100. Then 90, 80, 75, 70, 65, etc. PCs with non-multiple of 5 statistics get to define additional ranks in between the GM-defined ones, so if a PC has a Psyche of 32, then the ranks would go 40, 35, 32, 30, 25. GM-created ranks don't have to be multiples of 5 of course, but it helps keep things simple. At the bottom end of the scale, I give Amber Rank a 2 rank advantage over Chaos, and Chaos a 3 rank advantage over Human. You could also do it 3, then 2, but the idea is to give Amber a 5 rank advantage over Human, with Chaos somewhere in between. The reason for this will be clear presently. I also tend to make the first rank Rank 0, rather than Rank 1, so the top person effectively gets an extra rank's advantage over everyone else. But that's by the by. Anyway, that's the record keeping bit. COMPARING RANKS (THEORY)I tend to compare ranks rather than numerical values, because I find it easier in practice. In my first Amber game I ignored ranks and concentrated on numerical differences, which led to decisions that people grumbled about. There's a problem with comparing numerical values: for instance, if you use ratios, then 100 v 10 is an identical advantage to 10 v 1, which I think is silly. Someone with Warfare 1 is not as good as someone with Warfare 10, but someone with Warfare 10 is way outclassed by a Warfare of 100. And Amber and Chaos ranks don't fit into such a system. On the other hand, if you compare numbers by simple difference, you get similar odd effects. For instance, 120 v 60 is the same as 60 v Amber Rank. But while 60 should be able to do gratuitous damage to Amber without too much difficulty (it's Damien versus an ordinary Amber Castle guard, basically), 60 should be able to hold off 120 at least for a while (before the same thing ultimately happens to them, of course). Which is why I use ranks, because it allows you to weight things, to avoid such oddities, and in effect give the PCs who have invested in a particular statistic more value for money, because there will tend to be a greater spread of ranks below them (meaning they are much better than lowly Amber ranks), but less of a spread above them, so they aren't automatically dead meat when they come up against one of the real masters/mistresses. It also provides a simpler means of comparison. COMPARING RANKS (PRACTICE)Now for the real meat. Having set up the ORS, I can now use Rank differentials to determine the outcome of any statistic based competition. I'm using Warfare in these examples, but the same general principles apply to Psyche, Strength and Endurance. IMPORTANT NOTE ON STRENGTH IN COMBATAs a general rule of thumb, I tend to say that if a character is being outfought, but has a Strength advantage in terms of ranks with is greater than their disadvantage in Warfare, than they can realistically hope to switch the combat to Strength. This is largely a measure of their ability to take damage (if any) while getting in close, and still be strong enough to overcome the other once they get their hands on them. Note below that there is a point beyond which this ceases to apply. If they have a lesser advantage in Strength, then they need to bring other factors into play to get hold of their opponent, and even then it's going to be a struggle. A similar consideration applies (albeit secondarily) to Endurance, but only as long as the Strength differentials are less significant than the Warfare ones - you can still hope to wear your opponent down, by fighting defensively, even if they are faster than you. However, this stops applying fairly quickly, sooner than the Strength thing. But anyway - I tend to break things down into a series of degrees of advantage/disadvantage depending on the difference in ranks for the relevant statistic. Note also that the following categories are just a useful frame of reference plonked on top of what is in reality a continuous scale. An advantage at the upper end of the suggested range is always better than one at the lower end.
One can quibble with the span of each category, but the whole thing is meant to be a general set of guidelines. The general principle is the same. Two characters are fighting: ask yourself, what is the difference in ranks? That much. You then have a rough idea how long you would expect the fight to last, and just how much weight to put on the various other factors involved. Then sit back, see what the player(s) involved do, and react accordingly. It's not hard and fast - for me, it's just a way of codifying and making consistent my instincts on the matter. If your instincts differ, adjust the spread of the various categories, and put different emphases on the other factors involved. It shouldn't be too difficult to amend the above for Psyche or strength purposes. A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
AN EXAMPLELet's put this to the test. Let's say Damien has a Warfare of 60 (I'd hope it was higher by now, but ...), and Hania about 80 odd. Call this a 4-5 rank difference. Err on Hania's side - a Significant Advantage to him (if only just). Further more we'll give Hania a Strength of 50 against Damien's ... I suspect it's between 5 and 10, but we'll call it 10. This is probably over 8 ranks, so call it a Major Advantage. Damien's Psyche should be between 12 and 15. Call it 15 and give Hania a Psyche of 40. Another Significant Advantage, say. Now let's rerun the fight ... Damien starts aggressively, and uses Tactics(TM) to force Hania momentarily onto the defensive despite Hania's advantage in Warfare. Cautiously (for him), he presses the attack. Hania, whilst holding Damien off, starts to utter a power word. Damien dislikes this new development, and starts to go rather more defensive. Hania's Significant Psyche Advantage drives hot needles into Damien's nerves. Let's say this cripples Damien's Warfare by a similar amount (5-8 ranks), possibly more - briefly, Damien has a Major Disadvantage in Warfare. Damien tries to twist away from the coming blow, but can't. So he takes a serious wound. Two ribs smashed and a punctured lung. Damien, injured, tries to back off. Hania, now on the offensive, presses the attack. Damien is now fighting wholly defensively while his blood clouds the water and he breathes sea water through both ends of his pulmonary system. But Hania has a Major Strength Advantage and over the next minute or two batters him down. Occasionally Damien's blood clouds the water between them, slightly spoiling Hania's aim, but that's about all the respite Damien gets from his Good Stuff. Damien weakens. Damien gets brutally kicked about. Damien gets his arm broken as Hania tries to disarm him. Then reinforcements arrive, and Hania starts getting Trumped, just as Damien is collapsing. Damien mutters something along the lines of "Take over here for a minute will you?" and passes out. All right, there's a piss-taking element in there, but while the differences from the way it actually happened are mainly the time involved, this is probably closer to the way I would have expected it to turn out. It doesn't minimise Hania's superior strengths, but it doesn't devalue Damien's either, even if his abilities are directed towards keeping Hania occupied at first, and keeping himself alive subsequently. Damien, because of his Significant Disadvantage in Warfare, can hope to hold Hania off for a while. But Hania also has a Significant Psyche Advantage, which is enough to use a power word to then land an early and unpleasant wound on Damien. His superior strength also means that a weakened Damien cannot hold him off for as long as he might otherwise have done. Same result, different route to it. It's just one way of balancing the forces in the fight, and I think it's the sort of approach that's easier to do consistently. I don't know how much use all of this is - it's vague, but then I've never needed it to be anything more than vague. The trick, I have found, is to set up your own guidelines with which you feel comfortable, and which reflect your thinking to a degree that you don't really have to remember them in any detail. Decide what you think is fair, what seems realistic in terms of the game world, what makes a good dramatic fight. Codify said considerations. The above is what I came up with when I did. Let me know what you think, and if this helps at all. COMBINING THINGSA Tony Jones Addition It is entirely possible for people to combine their efforts towards a common end. The most likely example of this a group Trumping of someone, using many minds to overcome distance, or barriers, or resistance. There are two ways minds can be combined, simply adding of brute force effort (e.g. when Brand was freed from the tower) or if two or more wholly trusting minds come together in a Metaconcert, linking at a much deeper and more significant level. In these cases, the effects of group effort are as follows:
The ranks difference is the difference between the Psyche (or whatever) of the most powerful person contributing and the other person contributing. The other two columns give the effective boost in ranks caused by the help of the other person in either a simple group effort, or in Metaconcert. This can raise the effective rank above first, to zero or even 'negative's ranks for the purposes of whatever is being done. These additions are cumulative, so the more people one has contributing the more effective raise in overall rank one gets. However, this will reach a point of diminishing returns, as things are added to the effective overall rank rather than the unmodified top rank.
One can combine Metaconcerted with un-Metaconcerted people when doing this. It is possible for someone to be in the group effort but actually be attempting to disrupt it, as Fiona was during the freeing of Brand. In this case the individual Psyche of those involved are used in determining whether someone notices this or not (which is why Fiona was able to get away with it!); the only exception to this is if there are people in Metaconcert involved in which case their collective Psyche is used. It is possible these same guidelines could be applied to joint Warfare-based attacks and so on too. AN EXAMPLEAs an example of this, consider about the only place in the books where anyone combines their efforts - when Corwin got everyone to join together to Trump (and free) Brand. Most of the family was there, and unbeknownst to them Fiona was working against them to prevent Brand being rescued; this was never detected. How this would work under this system would be as follows:
|
