[Amber] Attribute Auction

[Panjumanju]

I was in an auction recently where the GM had a very different idea of one particular auction rule than I did, and I wanted to gage the consensus among the Amber community.

The rulebook states on page 13: "5. The winner of an Attribute Auction is unbeatable. [...] Anyone, after the Auction, can buy up, even spending as many points as the first place winner, but they can never beat, or equal whoever gets first place."

Okay, so players can continue contributing points to their attributes on the rungs of the attribute ladders after the auction and before play starts, so long as they don't pass 1st. Check.

But what about the player who got 1st? My assumption was always that a 1st place winner can do what everyone else can do, and advance the attribute higher before play begins, essentially establishing new rungs on the ladder of attributes.

The other GM we were playing with interpreted this a very different way, saying the 1st place winner must stay where they are at auction end until character advancement is allowed in-game. This seems like a severe handicap on someone who is supposed to be best at something.

What matters, obviously, is the rank - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., but it seems beguiling to me that the 1st place winner of an auction would be given a restriction no one else has.

I've scoured the rules and the quote above is the only thing I can find that is pertinent. I can't even find the part where you could contribute to points after the auction in 'Lords of Gossamer and Shadow', and I don't have a copy of 'Lords of Olympus'.

What say we all?

//Panjumanju

[Evermasterx]

As a first impression I would say that after the auction, no new rung is created. So the best character can't go further, but the others can use the existing rungs, and only one rung at a time, if I remember well.

For the best character to go further, a NEW rung must be created, and that is a different thing and only during advancement stage is allowed.

[Artifacts of Amber]

Unfortunately I don't use ranks in the same way the game does. Points spent always matter to me just not First or Second Rank. Ranks are descriptors for me. First Rank means your the best and second rank means your second best but if First rank went for 45 points and second for 10. First rank completely kicks second ranks ass, not just I'm better. Second rank would have to change the battle field / contest extremely drastically to win in a contest.

I do a silent/blind bid auction anyway which keeps the tension and keeps the secrets as well. You only know kind of where you rank even someone within a few points may be Ranked the same, until you actually go full out against each other you won't know who is better. An Amber ranked person will know that some one is a lot better usually just by some information/rumor being shared.

You can secretly advance and sneak up on someone as well this way.

I might lean on points a good bit in my games but mostly as a control mechanism for me and to prevent me from letting go of too much power and having the campaign get out of control. I know what power levels I am comfortable running. I also want to make sure I stay Impartial as well.  So the Point system is a Tool for me to regulate my campaign and I ignore it as I need but that is a conscious choice. I don't let it tie my hands either, I am not a slave too that tool, but I know I am a better GM with it.

So now that I have defended myself despite no one attacking me . You know my thoughts.

[finarvyn]

I'll have to look around for a reference on this but I'm pretty sure that "first rank is unbeatable" is really what Erick had in mind, but with a couple of disclaimers.

(1) The first assumption is that the attribute scale is for a particular generation of characters and doesn't include other generations. (e.g. having 1st rank Warfare doesn't put you on par with Benedict.)

(2) Also, it's mentioned somewhere that a person could theoretically advance to pass the 1st Rank person, but Erick said that it was a very slow process. If a person only earns a couple of XP per adventure it could take a long time to equal enough points to beat 1st Rank, and just having enough points isn't enough. You would have to keep concentrating on making that one attribute better and then maybe Erick would allow you to surpass 1st Rank. (The idea was to keep the possibility there but make it very remote.)

I should think that the relative point totals spent might also be important. For example, if a person won an auction by spending 5 points it would be easier to surpass that person than if he won the auction by spending 50 points.

[RPGPundit]

In Lords of Olympus, if you win First Class in an auction, you don't get to put extra points on top after the fact in character generation (I've never in 22 years of running Amber seen a situation where someone wanted to, anyways).

In Advancement, someone who is first class can of course invest in trying to raise their level; however, one of the major differences from the Amber game is that doing so moves you into the ladder of the Olympian gods; so you would gain "Above First Class" standing (ie. "1st class + 1", "1st Class + 2", etc).  This removes the quandry of having two separate ladders for PCs and NPCs, which was never a real distinction in the first place anyways, it existed only in theory.  Now instead, there's one ladder, and its viewed from the perspective of PCs, and yet can still account for those Gods who are vastly better than the PCs at something.

[Panjumanju]

(I've never in 22 years of running Amber seen a situation where someone wanted to, anyways).

You would want to because then it throws the other players off whatever your attribute is. For instance the other players know by auction close that 1st rank Strength is at 35, but meanwhile the winner has moved it up to 40. Mechanically there's no real change, but it means the players, knowing this possibility, have a range in mind for the 1st position and are not so hung up on the numbers. "Oh, he's first...he's really far away from me."

The answer is - heightened tension, uncertainty, and paranoia, of course.

//Panjumanju

[finarvyn]

You would want to because then it throws the other players off whatever your attribute is. For instance the other players know by auction close that 1st rank Strength is at 35, but meanwhile the winner has moved it up to 40. Mechanically there's no real change, but it means the players, knowing this possibility, have a range in mind for the 1st position and are not so hung up on the numbers. "Oh, he's first...he's really far away from me."

The answer is - heightened tension, uncertainty, and paranoia, of course.

//Panjumanju

Agreed, so what would happen is the 2nd Rank puts some points into the attribute and thinks he can take on 1st Rank, only to be surprised to find that 1st Rank is still better. Ha!

[RPGPundit]

I'd have to give this some serious thought.  Because a first-rank person putting more points into that attribute right after the auction could be handled in two ways: make a new higher 1st rank (which would effectively shoot everyone else down a rank) or make 1st rank cost more on the ladder.  I'm not sure I'd be pleased with either; I think its fair to say that just like if you didn't choose to outbid the 1st rank guy during the auction you can't change your mind about it after, if you chose your bid for first rank during the auction, you probably can't change it after.

Once advancement hits, then sure, anything goes.

[Evermasterx]

I'd have to give this some serious thought.  Because a first-rank person putting more points into that attribute right after the auction could be handled in two ways: make a new higher 1st rank (which would effectively shoot everyone else down a rank) or make 1st rank cost more on the ladder.  I'm not sure I'd be pleased with either; I think its fair to say that just like if you didn't choose to outbid the 1st rank guy during the auction you can't change your mind about it after, if you chose your bid for first rank during the auction, you probably can't change it after.

Once advancement hits, then sure, anything goes.

I respect those who want to change this rule. As for me I don't feel the need to do anything about it.
Sure the loosers of the auction could progress in secret and the winner would be the only one to stay where he is, but that's why Erick stated that the first rank is unbeatable by the other bidders.

[Panjumanju]

I think the consensus is that I read the rules differently, and I am in the wrong.

However, I keep going over the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, and I'm not seeing the flaw in it. I see no disadvantage to the game mechanics, for players or the GM, to have an 'empty rung' on the ladder.

I see a lot of disadvantage to the 1st rank player that they are not afford the same ability to continue to contribute as everyone else. A player can scheme their points away to buy 1.5 ranks, but the 1st rank cannot cushion the distance.

I also see the added advantage that - no player should be exactly certain what any of the numbers are. They could have changed; they don't know. The ranks of 1st, 2nd, 3rd take on more influence and it acts as one more barrier to it being a numbers game when the players don't know that 1st place is only 10 points away, for instance.

//Panjumanju

[RPGPundit]

Ah but that's the thing: I think that there is a definitive advantage in the guy who's first rank knowing that there could possibly be someone RIGHT ON HIS TAIL, and not to be able to give himself an extra cushion so he can be totally sure of his absolute unbeatability.

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

If one does allow 1st Rank to push the scale higher, one has to be careful how this is done.

For example, suppose that 1st Rank is 35 in some attribute. If that player puts one point into it now, then another two points later, the GM shouldn't create new rungs at 36 and 38. That would be absurd. On the other hand, keeping a rung at 35 and creating a second one at the current value for 1st Rank (so rungs at 35 and 38 in my example) would be okay in my book.

Then, if the 1st Rank player puts another point into the attribute later the value of the rungs would change (to 35 and 39 in my example) rather than adding a new rung.

What that would also mean is that the second player to put 35 into that Attribute would not actually be x.5 but would actually step into that full rank. (What to call this could be problematic because 38 is not "1st Rank" and 35 is now "2nd Rank" so you would have to actually rename all of the ranks again.)

A bit of a pain, but it works.

[Doughdee222]

There's nothing particularly wrong with doing this, but the benefit doesn't really seem worth it.

I'd much rather spend the points on shiny new armor or a fast, strong mount, or another patron in Amber or a Trump to an Olive Garden restaurant.

[Panjumanju]

Then, if the 1st Rank player puts another point into the attribute later the value of the rungs would change (to 35 and 39 in my example) rather than adding a new rung.

That's how I do it.

There's nothing particularly wrong with doing this, but the benefit doesn't really seem worth it.

I find there is value to it - it *terrifies* the players. To qualify; my games are not big player vs. player grudge matches, but the *possibility* of having to take on family should it come up, drives the Attributes into their own little arms races of paranoia.

What if the first place player is higher than I thought?
What if someone has passed me in place, and I don't actually know where I am?
WHAT IF I'M FALLING BEHIND?

They panic. They spend more than they should. Bad stuff happens. Adventure ensues.

//Panjumanju

[finarvyn]

They panic. They spend more than they should. Bad stuff happens. Adventure ensues.

This is the secret to a good Amber campaign!