Sub-Attributes?

[Finarvyn]

Personally, I like the 4-attribute system because it lends a certain simplicity to ADRP, but I am aware that many campaigns take each of the "big four" and break them up into smaller attributes.

For example Warfare could be divided up into Weapons and Tactics, and each would have a number of points assigned to it.

Have you done it, and how has it worked for you?

[stormraven]

Yes, I've done it. It wasn't my most successful campaign, but I would still do it again. Even if only with Warfare... More than one person I've met doesn't like how much space Warfare gets.

I think a valid spread would look something like this, IMO:

Combat - Melee, Ranged and Unarmed
Stamina - The physical part of Endurance
Psyche - Psychic combat
Willpower - Psychic Strength
Fortitude - Resistance to damage and Healing
Strength - As it says.

[Finarvyn]

I had thought about breaking each attribute into two, something like this:

Psyche
* Mental Attack
* Mental Defense

Strength
* Muscle (moving and lifting)
* Martial Arts

Endurance
* Healing
* Stamina

Warfare
* Combat
* Leadership/Tactics

[stormraven]

I've done that. It was basically just that, too. Except that Strength was divided into Muscle and Resistance I believe.

[tarondor]

I don't think the symmetry of dividing each attribute in two is useful, because the attributes themselves are not equally powerful. I say divide Warfare into two halves and be done with it.

[keltset]

What about Strength? Strength is "general athletics" if I read the rules right, so being able to lift things or climb or do Martial Arts are all under the same attribute.

[tarondor]

In most ADRP games, Psyche and Warfare command high bids in the auctions. Endurance commands less and Strength the least.

The utility of the thing isn't my point. It's value is. I'd also divide Psyche if I didn't think five stats was plenty.

Anyway, I think Warfare is far and away the most useful and sought-after attribute in ADRP. It should be broken up, especially if the campaign does not use an auction (and mine never do).

[Dilvish]

I wonder if there is a way to balance the attributes a bit more. If Warfare commands such a high price, maybe there should be additional uses for Strength (for example) to try to run up its price as well.

I wish I understood the "switching from Warfare to Strength and back" rules in ADRP better. If I'm better in one stat, I simply want to switch to that stat somehow so that I have a better shot at winning. I have a hard time trying to decide how one player can switch and the other player try to stop the switch. :-(

[xenon]

i think we see warfare go high in auctions because a lot of people want to have a warfare character. strength is cheaper because fewer people want high-strength characters. Its really an emergent property of the group, as to which attributes are expensive or cheap with the auction model. its not about which attribute is 'better'.

with psyche, i would break it down between psychic combat, and using the powers. both of these sub-attributes have their own merit, and you could make arguments to have one, both, or neither for certain characters.

[keltset]

If an attribute goes for a lot, it just means that the GM should emphasize that attribute in the campaign.

Nothing wrong with having the entire PC generation dominated by Elders becasue no one was willing to spend some points in a particular attribute, heh, heh! :-)

[Dilvish]

Aug 27, 2009 22:19:51 GMT -5 keltset said:

If an attribute goes for a lot, it just means that the GM should emphasize that attribute in the campaign.

Or de-emphasize it so that players wish they had whatever went cheapest.

That way, next time they might bid a different attribute higher in the next game.

[larsongates]

I always use sub-attributes.. the original set were derived from the Net Book of Amber, now long deceased. It lots of ways it make life more interesting especially with and auction, because just because you're number 1 in warfare or psyche doesn't mean you're the best at everything.. you can be the most empathic but not have the strongest will, the best memory but be the least intuitive.. the best with a sword, but rubbish when fighting without one..
I have an almost fully integrated ruleset, derived from various works, mostly now lost, with a few additions of my own on my website, www.azer.co.uk/amber/amber.html

[Finarvyn]

Nice website, by the way. I'm going to put it into your signature so that every post advertises it.

[ed]

While I like the idea of splitting up the attributes to generate a more detailed character I have also found that it limits the auction. With the same 100 points there will be more players skipping certain auctions and the ones that do get bid on there will be less of a bidding war and then less of a rivalry afterwards.

This might be okay since I have found that players seem less interested in throne war type games or strong rivalry campaigns. They really aren't following the spirit of Amber! This makes the auction process irrelevant.

The idea of an auction with ranks also assumes the PCs have grown up together and have an idea of each other's abilities but most players seem to want their characters to grow up and live somewhere away from Amber and as a result, don't meet each other until the game begins so how would they know about the rankings? When I'm a surly GM I say something about how powered characters creates 'echoes' through Shadow and that's how they all have determined the rankings. But then those who didn't purchase Pattern or Logrus say that they shouldn't have had that effect on Shadow. Then I mumble something about having the blood of Amber and move on.