Attribute ranks are a flawed concept?

[Drascus]

I think i have 'fixed' the auction for face to face but its too slow for an Email game.
Basically you have a set ante and the most a player can bid at a point is the ante. So Say the ante for Warfare was 10 points. The most you can raise the bid by is 10 points. So .. player 1 bids 10 player 2, 20, player 3 , 27, player 4, 28, player 1 again 38 etc ... Prevents the big jump in.
Also I put the NPCs (of the same generation) in the auction as well. So I can control the auction to some extent.

So you can keep the aution which is great , although you can still move away from ranks.

We talked about doing this, but the other players said they would rather have just had no auction than an auction with fixed bids.  So that's the route we went.  But I considered it.  Ultimately you can still spend 100 points with the fixed bids, it's harder, but you can just keep raising it.  

My player's deal is he didn't care how lopsided his character was, as long as he won the auction he wanted.  It's fine to say that the character would die, or otherwise have serious problems, but then what's the point of the auction?  The results would be terribly skewed by a character that wasn't in the game anymore.

Amber requires a lot of player maturity, and the Auction is just one place where that shows.

[finarvyn]

The problem with points is that it still doesn't stop someone from bidding 90 or 100 points.  I have a player who flat out told me he was going to bid 100 points if anyone contested him on a particular attribute.  It was going to go something like...

Auction Breaking Player:  20 points in Warfare
Some other Player:  21 points!
ABP: 100 points.  Auction over.

Ah, but if everyone gets a secret bid first you can foil much of the fun of the ABP. In other words, if everyone gets to write down one initial bid and then those bids are compared to start off the auction, then there is a start to a ladder already. This is really only messed up if several players all happen to bid the same number.

So, for example suppose the secret bids are 10, 5, 7, 0 for four players. When ABP (who secretly bid 7) bids 20 perhaps the ladder has shifted to 20, 10, 5, 0. SOP (suppose he secretly bid 0) comes back with 21 and the ladder now looks like 21, 20, 10, 5. ABP shouts out 100 and shifts the ladder to 100, 21, 10, 5. Sure that part of the auction is over, but ABP is screwed.

1. He has totally forgotten that there are 4 important attributes, not just one. He has no points left over for powers, items, shadows, allies, other attributes, stuff, or anything else of interest. ABP will spend the entire campaign as somebody else's flunky, unable to walk the pattern, cast spells, or do anything remotely fun. Hopefully he won't be so moronic the second time he gets to play ADRP. And I'd make him play that character for a while so that he can appreciate how bad his decision-making skills are.

2. He has grossly overpaid for 1st rank, paying 79 points more than the next guy. SOP and the other two guys are now laughing at ABP and can bid the other attributes normally and can actually build decent characters.

And you know what, if ABP can't figure out how dumb he is maybe he's not cut out to play a game like ADRP.

[Drascus]

Ah, but if everyone gets a secret bid first you can foil much of the fun of the ABP. In other words, if everyone gets to write down one initial bid and then those bids are compared to start off the auction, then there is a start to a ladder already. This is really only messed up if several players all happen to bid the same number.

So, for example suppose the secret bids are 10, 5, 7, 0 for four players. When ABP (who secretly bid 7) bids 20 perhaps the ladder has shifted to 20, 10, 5, 0. SOP (suppose he secretly bid 0) comes back with 21 and the ladder now looks like 21, 20, 10, 5. ABP shouts out 100 and shifts the ladder to 100, 21, 10, 5. Sure that part of the auction is over, but ABP is screwed.

1. He has totally forgotten that there are 4 important attributes, not just one. He has no points left over for powers, items, shadows, allies, other attributes, stuff, or anything else of interest. ABP will spend the entire campaign as somebody else's flunky, unable to walk the pattern, cast spells, or do anything remotely fun. Hopefully he won't be so moronic the second time he gets to play ADRP. And I'd make him play that character for a while so that he can appreciate how bad his decision-making skills are.

2. He has grossly overpaid for 1st rank, paying 79 points more than the next guy. SOP and the other two guys are now laughing at ABP and can bid the other attributes normally and can actually build decent characters.

And you know what, if ABP can't figure out how dumb he is maybe he's not cut out to play a game like ADRP.

Well sure, we had all of that figured out.  But we run our Amber games for a while, and didn't want to deal with the consequences of the derail to the game.  My point is mostly that building systems to protect you from players who don't care about the quality of the game experience for others is sort of moot.  

The best solution is to either remove the part of the game that's being abused, or not invite the player.  Half-measures just make the game breaking player work harder for the same or close to the same result.

[jibbajibba]

We talked about doing this, but the other players said they would rather have just had no auction than an auction with fixed bids.  So that's the route we went.  But I considered it.  Ultimately you can still spend 100 points with the fixed bids, it's harder, but you can just keep raising it.  

My player's deal is he didn't care how lopsided his character was, as long as he won the auction he wanted.  It's fine to say that the character would die, or otherwise have serious problems, but then what's the point of the auction?  The results would be terribly skewed by a character that wasn't in the game anymore.

Amber requires a lot of player maturity, and the Auction is just one place where that shows.

well you missed my point . Having a player who bids 100 on warfare isn't important if the other players have the characters they want. An ante system is not a set bid its a maximum raise which is different. The point I was trying to make is a 100 point bid can lock out the auction but in the ante model this won't happen as every player gets to bid and no one player can kill the auction.
Having a player who has a broken character is fine. Either it will be a roleplay challenge or they will get killed and having a pc you can kill is great to keep the other PCs in line

[Trevelyan]

I agree with the two good points made above:

1) an ante system limits the potential abuse of the auction; and
2) there is no substitute for having mature, intelligent players.

[RPGPundit]

I don't see how any of the aforementioned "ruins" either the auction or the game itself, assuming you are running the auction correctly (ie. everyone gets the choice of "writing in" an initial bid).

The guy who bid 90 points, if everyone else bid something, will get to be 1st ranked, will make it very difficult for anyone to ever even catch up, much less outrank him in that attribute, but he'll be very limited in every other area. People will KNOW that he's the guy you NEVER want to face with Warfare, but that you can try to take him down with just about everything else. As long as he understands the system, that's his choice.

And if he was the ONLY one who had chosen to make the initial bid, then that's fine too. It means that he's lucky enough, at least, to have a significant advantage in the one thing he's actually good at.

Meanwhile, if the situation is that a guy bid 1 point and won the auction that way (and really, what kind of idiots will see that the top bid is 1 point and let the guy take 1st place with that?), it means that you have one guy, who is better than everyone else in the family, at the start of the game, but that it would be relatively easy to equal and eventually surpass him when advancement takes place. No biggie.

RPGPundit

[Drascus]

Well my group doesn't like that the ranks freeze people's positions.  That someone would be rank 1 and never be able to be caught up to is something we don't like at all.  It seems pretty silly, both from how the books went and how rivalry works in real life.

So we ditched the ranks, and we don't want people screwing up the point based system.  It works fine with reasonable people.

[Croaker]

At first, I didn't understand the use for ranks, found them cumbersome, and used points.
That is, until shadow knight and the Demonic Ranks charts made me understand the thing.
Now, I LOVE ranks and wouldn't go back, although there are some adjustments I do.

Not only does it gives a lot more weight to the auction than points, but there's also the twist that 1 points is all it takes to have 1 rank above a fellow player, which may lead to cunning players taking good rankings, average or not, through clever use of their points, achieving bleys-like ranks through clever bidding, while, in a points-based system, this is only possible through massive points-injection, at least if you want your ranks to matter: If you gets 3rd in 3 attributes for 20 points while the second each time has 60 points doesn't matter in a ranks-based system. You did well and can hope to hold your own, while in a points-based system, the vast difference would mean you're toasted.
If you manage to get first by 1 point to the 2nd and his 50 points, you're first, and clearly better, while in a points-based system, you'd need 75 points to be clearly better.

I dunno if I'm clear, but, IMO, using points encourage brute force in bidding, while ranks also promotes using your brains, seizing opportunities, and pushing other players to bid too much.

i) Player A is first to bid on warfare he bids 90 of his 100 points. This effectively locks out warfare and it does it not only for the aution but in effect for the rest of the game. To be not quite as good as player A you have to spend 90 points. You can do this in the auction but ... and you can do it through experience but ...

I solve this with 2 things:
1) The first round of bidding is secret, and every bid counts, so everyone gets a chance to bid and be ranked. Such a player would only (probably) ensure that no one would out-bid him and "seal" the auction, but other players would be ranked (and could still buy up ranks to match the 2nd)
2) By using ranks instead of points, he is no better if he beats the 2nd by 60 or by 1 point, which discourages this tactic, especially as other players will then be able to easily outbid him in at least 2 other attributes

ii) Experience linking ranks to costed steps means that PCs can not gradually improve they can only improve in jumps relative to others. If the gap between you and the next rank is 12 points you need to earn 12 points of xp and spend it all to be not quite as good. You can't spend 3 points working on your footwork and then next time add another 3 so you have reduced the gap by slowly getting better you have to make the quantum leap.

True, although this never bothered me, and I seldom saw a player trying to increase his ranks. As noted by Trevelyan, this is part of the setting.

iii) Surpassing Rank 1. As I noted elsewhere surpassing rank 1 is very hard even if the inital difference between the two of you is slight. This means a PC that adventures less and achives less can stay rank 1 provided they spend what little xp they earn on their rank 1 stat. A PC that does lots and learns many many things getting lots of XP and works on that attiribute can still not surpass the rank 1.

Not so hard once you're 1,5. If the first wanna stay first, he gotta keep pushing and advancing ranks. The moment he ceases to, you get 1st.

iv) Its hard to assess multiple opponents. Can Rank 1 beat rank 2 and 3 working together in a psychic battle. Most GMs decide this based on points. If rank 1 has 30 points and rank 2 28 and rank 3 25 then generally most GMS say Rank 1 can be defeated but what if Rank 1 had 80 points? In rules terms the situations are identical but ... If you look back to example i above the importance of ranks over points can ease that issue as Amber is just 1 rank below 1st (it still doesn't fix the fact that all other players have identical warfare of course ) .

You can easily solve this by assuming relative strenght to ranks (say, 1st = 2*2nd = 4*3rd = 8*4nd...), especially if (as I do), you use reverse ones, counting up from Amber.

If, for exemple, Amber = 4 points, with each rank above Amber granting 2 points.
If the 1st is 5 ranks above Amber, he'll have 14 points, the second 12, the 3rd 10, 4rd 08
You can say that "help" only counts to 1/2, then 1/3, then 1/4 power (there are limits to pooling strength, and they may get in the way), 2nd + 3rd = 19 points. He probably gets beaten. 3nd + 4rd = 14 points. A tie.
I say probably because he may use the landscape to stop them from fighting as a group.

You don't even need a hard and fast rule and can judge this "by gut", depending on how you want the ranking to matter: Is 1 rank a vast difference or a small one? GM's call, like almost everything in Amber.
This does not, in any way, strike me as a problem, as long as the GM has a clear idea of what he wants (and if he doesn't, systems like the above are an easy answer)

v) its hard to assess the effects of powers against attributes. Can a magic bolt knock over the guy with Rank 1 strength. Does it depend on the Psyche of the caster? On their rank? What if Psyche rank 1 is 70 points and Strength rank 1 is 4? What about if the magic bolt is powered by Pattern? How many points of Shapeshift does it take to increase your power to the point where you can overcome rank 3 in Strength?

If you use ranks, rank 1 psyche = rank 1 strength. Whatever the points. Period.

Powered by pattern? Using points doesn't make things easier here, no more than if you used a double damage sword. GM's call, as always. Me? I'd rule such wounds are "real", and thus harder to heal.

Shapeshift? How does using points help things any more? Anyuway, I'd probably allow tranferal of ranks, like,n you get stronger, but slower.

[Croaker]

The question of multiple opponents becomes very problematic how many Amber ranked guys to beat a rank 1? In fact in the rules a ranked character has more than Amber level so the difference between Amber and rank 1 is far greaterthan Rank 1 to rank 2 - you could of course tweak this.

I am not saying the rank concept is totally flawed I am saying it can be fixed but the easiest way to fix it is just to use raw points.

Using points solve this in NO WAY, as Amber has 0 points. So, even 1 point is infinitely better than amber.

This solves this only because, like with ranks, you make judgments that make it work, such as assuming, consciously or not, that 10 points = 2 Amber ranks, not because it's a better system

[RPGPundit]

Well my group doesn't like that the ranks freeze people's positions.  That someone would be rank 1 and never be able to be caught up to is something we don't like at all.  It seems pretty silly, both from how the books went and how rivalry works in real life.

So we ditched the ranks, and we don't want people screwing up the point based system.  It works fine with reasonable people.

Except that what you described above is NOT how ranks work in Amber. You CAN catch up, and you CAN surpass someone who's first rank.

RPGPundit

[jibbajibba]

I encountered an interesting thing when perusing Shadow Knight over a cup of tea.
I was reading through the Demon creation rules wondering why on earth you would want to introduce a separate ranking system alongside your Amber one in which matching ranks became a complex issue when I noticed something odd. I was readign through the sample demons from the Merlin saga. Erick uses points not ranks. He explicitly states that this demon has x Endurance which is moderate for a demon and relates to a ranked amberites with 40 points. He doesn't say shoudl be equivalent to the 3rd rank he says 40 points. This format is used consistently.

On to Croaker's point re the clever player managing to get 3rd rank in 3 stats for a lower input of points I am a little bemused. Firstly you can replicate this effect with poiints. The guy is still better than all but 2 people in each of those attributes its just that the 1st and second place people are a lot better instead of a little (although the geometric equivilency thing means that in my games in fact he would be closer to the 2nd rank guy unless you actually think that 2 copies of Bleys couldn't beat Corwin in a sword fight or that Bley, Corwin. Eric and Gerard working together couldn't beat Benedict ... dubious I think). Not only that but do you want a system where the relative strength of PCs can be influenced so greatly by player skill? Its a bit like playing a point buy game where everyone starts with a number of points equal to their own IQ
I did like the initial secret bid though that is a good idea.

[gabriel_ss4u]

My dad is stronger than my aunt, but not stronger than my uncle.

I am weaker than my brother, but stronger than my sister.

same ideal for both, but different generation.


It is not to say my sister is weaker than her aunt.

There are various ways GMs do their rankings.
I agree with the pt. value across the board.
"I" use ranks IMC as ways to compare that generation within it's own. For another person of the same generation to advance, they must match the next rung, at whatever point value it is. Then they'll be .5 of that next rank.
Seems easy as pie to me.

I'm not getting involved in the ranks vs. pts. deal again, I just know when you have a wealth of PCs & even more NPCs, the pts. system is quick, easy, and clear-cut, provided you chart it out well... you can - at a glance - size everyone up. (as a GM)

AS SHOWN;

[jibbajibba]

My dad is stronger than my aunt, but not stronger than my uncle.

I am weaker than my brother, but stronger than my sister.

same ideal for both, but different generation.


It is not to say my sister is weaker than her aunt.

There are various ways GMs do their rankings.
I agree with the pt. value across the board.
"I" use ranks IMC as ways to compare that generation within it's own. For another person of the same generation to advance, they must match the next rung, at whatever point value it is. Then they'll be .5 of that next rank.
Seems easy as pie to me.

I'm not getting involved in the ranks vs. pts. deal again, I just know when you have a wealth of PCs & even more NPCs, the pts. system is quick, easy, and clear-cut, provided you chart it out well... you can - at a glance - size everyone up. (as a GM)

AS SHOWN;

Hey Gabe I hope your players don;t view this site and see all their ranks

[gabriel_ss4u]

nope, not that silly am I
besides, i dooooo love dis-information, so ya never really can tell...

but as you can plainly see, the PC's generation is set through ranks, and they can only increase upward to the next rank.
However, the Elder's chart has their own ranks, that are set between them.
The only thing I set is that the 1st place PC cannot exceed the 1st place elder in that attribute..
what ever else is bid... is bid.

they are all compared by points.
I even have a 'experienced' generation between the elder & PC's they have their own chart, and are represented by types like Merlin & Martin, etc.

[boulet]

@gabriel_ss4u: If the spreadsheet is using formulas that self update the colors and ranks I'd be interested by a copy, pretty please.