Bidding on Everything?

[Croaker]

On the mater of XP the base (english rules ) I thought it said that Rank 1 guys can increase their skill by spending xp creating new ranks. I didn't recall it saying that the GM needed to set the gaps for those steps (aside from layering in NPCS from that players generation) rather that the PC set their own ranks. Now in practice this means if i put 1 xp into that attribute I will always outpace the person behind as I am setting the steps and you can only gain 1 rank at a time. So the only time rank 1.5 could surpass rank 1 would be if rank 1 spent nothing and so rank 1.5 then set a new limit for rank 1. By spending just a single point rank 1 then sets a new limit which the rank 1.5 guy has to buy upto before then can , next time, try to buy above it.

Of course.
But this is actually the option, the default being that the DM sets the rank.

IIRC, there's even talk of the player accepting bad karma and ending up with a shitload of it because the next rank was 40 points higher.

Oh, and while I'm at it: Spending 85 points in an attribute is not a very wise move, since you'll probably be outclassed in every other attribute, and will also lack powers.
That's also what's fun with ranks: with a points-based system, he's far, far, faaaar above the 2nd, and can trounce him surely. With ranks, he's better, sure, but not that much, and the 2nd will very probably be stronger and tougher, not only able to use these to beat him at warfare, but also to shift the fight.

So, this is great for being the best there is at what I do, but, IMO, a beginner's error.

[Croaker]

On the topic of partial powers ... if you don't use them then what do you do when someone with the 6 point Amber devotee and 3 points of bad stuff walks the pattern? Give them 50 more points of bad stuff and full access to all the power of the pattern? Kill them? How would you diferentiate between 30 points of bad stuff and 50 points in the same game you are trying to differentiate between 0 and -1.

Okay, I use partial powers.

But what I'd do?
What I did, in fact, since one of my players attained such an extreme level of bad karma?
I took a lesson from dice games.
Treat every random occurence as a critical failure on his part.
Treat non-random things like a failure.
As a shorthand, I considered his attributes to be one rank lower for every 10 bad karma points for the purpose of success. Just because everything always went wrong (bad die roll).

When his sword breaks at the first lucky parry of his human-ranked opponent. When he slips and impale himself on said opponent's sword, despite his ranked warfare. When his wound infects itself. Then, he regrets that bad karma.

[jibbajibba]

Of course.
But this is actually the option, the default being that the DM sets the rank.

IIRC, there's even talk of the player accepting bad karma and ending up with a shitload of it because the next rank was 40 points higher.

Oh, and while I'm at it: Spending 85 points in an attribute is not a very wise move, since you'll probably be outclassed in every other attribute, and will also lack powers.
That's also what's fun with ranks: with a points-based system, he's far, far, faaaar above the 2nd, and can trounce him surely. With ranks, he's better, sure, but not that much, and the 2nd will very probably be stronger and tougher, not only able to use these to beat him at warfare, but also to shift the fight.

So, this is great for being the best there is at what I do, but, IMO, a beginner's error.

But you are looking at the wrong side of it. The 1st rank guy may have made a beginers error , although one that the ruels allow nay encourage him to do. The point it that the rank 2 guy in the RAW has no option to progress. The other players error has also impacted everyone else.

In a straight point buy system I can spend all my points on one stat.Fine I gimped my character however the other 3 PCs can all play what they wanted to play and get progression and develop etc In Amber one player can remove those options for everyone.
Now its easy to fix and it doesn't change how the game plays at all beyond removing that risk.
For xp let the players spend what they like. New ranks are created based on what they spend. The player that does most and gets most xp can improve the most. The old first rank guy has to get out there and work at it to keep their edge. Chances are if they devote themselves to their 'art' they will stay ahead but the PC that doesn't achieve as much doesn't get as much xp and fritters it on a magic sword or whatever will be surpassed by the PC that focuses and pushes forward.  Surely that is the most Amberite of approaches?

[Evermasterx]

On the topic of partial powers ... if you don't use them then what do you do when someone with the 6 point Amber devotee and 3 points of bad stuff walks the pattern? Give them 50 more points of bad stuff and full access to all the power of the pattern? Kill them? How would you diferentiate between 30 points of bad stuff and 50 points in the same game you are trying to differentiate between 0 and -1.

I love ADRPG but it does at times feel to me like a 1e game that is just begging for a 2e treatment.

This is just what is going to happen to a couple of my players who didn't buy the advanced broken pattern and now are to walk the pattern without points (-20 BS). I think a lot about it and considered even the partial powers.
On the Pattern you will die because you are not in amber form in endurance and because you don't have the royal blood.
Otherwise you can succeed. But the players who spent the points wisely must be protected.
So you will be imprinted, but absolutely inept at using that power, so the bad stuff you are taking if you want to walk the pattern (your choice) will reflect in failure (and roleplaying occasions) every time you're gonna use it. And the walk will drain your mind/body so much that some time had to be spent to recover your full capacity.
Some advices are however welcome!

[Xanador]

Well I can say you're the first person I've seen who holds that first rank is in play in the RAW, obviously we've spent time with different circles(and different language versions). I think at this point we may need to agree to disagree on the RAW.


Yes with a pure point system some are still better than others. The point system that has been used in several games I've played involved keeping those points a secret. So while some are better than others you never know who's better until you come into conflict, the main difference as I see it from a ranked system. Who's better changes as time goes by and points are spent thus continuing the fog of war effect.


The difference in how we interpret the rules regarding first rank also affects how you view my pure point system. If you play with first rank being changeable then yeah, there's not much effective difference between what I described and your ranked system. Just less paper work since you have no "rungs" to keep track of.

[AshenHaze]

But you are looking at the wrong side of it. The 1st rank guy may have made a beginers error , although one that the ruels allow nay encourage him to do. The point it that the rank 2 guy in the RAW has no option to progress. The other players error has also impacted everyone else.

I have a player who routinely threatens to drive auctions up, in the first game he played in he bid 100 on psyche.  A solution that I have mentioned (but not had to implement) was that if ranks are significantly higher, IE fist place 80 points, 2nd place 30 that I would reduce the gap and those would just be wasted points.  They would have earned first place, but I've played in games where out of control bidding has really limited players options and this seems to be a solution.

[Croaker]

The point it that the rank 2 guy in the RAW has no option to progress. The other players error has also impacted everyone else.

The rank 2 guy can store points.
Just as the rank 1 guy will have to if he wants to progress and, say, buy the Pattern. In fact, their situations are roughly similar: The 2nd character can very well store, say, 30 points as good Karma (which will surely help him trounce the 1st: He's close in Warfare, probably better in Strength and/or Endurance, and is very, very lucky!)

This ain't easy, sure. But this can be done. He HAS the option.

This is, of course, mostly for pure, core ADRPG. In a Partial Powers system, the 1st guy has it a lot easier than the 2nd

For xp let the players spend what they like. New ranks are created based on what they spend. The player that does most and gets most xp can improve the most. The old first rank guy has to get out there and work at it to keep their edge. Chances are if they devote themselves to their 'art' they will stay ahead but the PC that doesn't achieve as much doesn't get as much xp and fritters it on a magic sword or whatever will be surpassed by the PC that focuses and pushes forward.  Surely that is the most Amberite of approaches?

Ok, I'll repeat myself, but this special rule could just as well be done with ranks, and one player being 1,5st to the other being 1st.
So, if one spends 4 points, and the other 10, they'd "fix" the new ranks at 1st+4 and 1st+10.
I don't like this much (I prefer for the GM to set the ladders), but, well, what's the difference?

[jibbajibba]

The rank 2 guy can store points.
Just as the rank 1 guy will have to if he wants to progress and, say, buy the Pattern. In fact, their situations are roughly similar: The 2nd character can very well store, say, 30 points as good Karma (which will surely help him trounce the 1st: He's close in Warfare, probably better in Strength and/or Endurance, and is very, very lucky!)

This ain't easy, sure. But this can be done. He HAS the option.

This is, of course, mostly for pure, core ADRPG. In a Partial Powers system, the 1st guy has it a lot easier than the 2nd

Ok, I'll repeat myself, but this special rule could just as well be done with ranks, and one player being 1,5st to the other being 1st.
So, if one spends 4 points, and the other 10, they'd "fix" the new ranks at 1st+4 and 1st+10.
I don't like this much (I prefer for the GM to set the ladders), but, well, what's the difference?

I don't think the xp is example very believable. Also you are setting the PCs in competition constantly. Your argument seems to be that the rank 2 guy can beat the rank 1 guy by the time he has maanged to store 30 points of good stuff... what is they are mates? partners?
Also by the RAW the rank 1 guy will have sorcery with only 15 points and he will use teleport to get everywhere and won;t need Pattern
Lastly is my Warfarte guy does what he says and sits in Amber then you can't use most basic pattern skills anyway

Your later point is correct you could indeed set the ranks and 1st + 4 and 1st+10. However why do that. My solutiuon is simple and obvious.
Rank 1 has 35 Endurance, Rank 2 has 30.  Both PCs get 10 xp. Rank 1 spends 3 but Rank 2 spends all 10. Now one guy has 38 but the other guy now has 40 so he is rank 1. Simple no need to have any complications.

A workable alternate in the high bid option is just to let the players spend their xp to improve. Why does xp have to jump in ranks? Rank 1 has 85 rank 2 has 10 let rank 2 spend 10 points so they are now rank 2 on 20. The only reason the rules don't allow this is that they are saying a gap of 75 points is the same as a gap of 65 points or 30 points so spending points closing the gap is a waste as you gain nothing until you reach that quantum jump. Better off storing it in good stuff  until you have enough to jump all at once.

That isn't terribly playable or terribly realistic. What actually happens is you get better, you improve and slowly you realise that your old teacher isn't as good as you originally thought and one day you beat him ...

[Croaker]

I don't think the xp is example very believable. Also you are setting the PCs in competition constantly. Your argument seems to be that the rank 2 guy can beat the rank 1 guy by the time he has maanged to store 30 points of good stuff... what is they are mates? partners?
Also by the RAW the rank 1 guy will have sorcery with only 15 points and he will use teleport to get everywhere and won;t need Pattern
Lastly is my Warfarte guy does what he says and sits in Amber then you can't use most basic pattern skills anyway

Shoulda coulda woulda.
And only if you allow sorcery to bring you to unknown places, otherwise, he's limited.
I'm comparing 2 characters having different beginnings, but ending up sufficiently similar to be compareable.

Thing is, you misunderstood the 30 points. He stores them from the beginning.

Say, 1st used 85 points, second used 05 points.
The second can store 30 points as good karma, and, for exemple, still use 50 points on both strenght and endurance auctions (probably less, he just needs to be better than warfare guy), and end up with as many points as your warfare guys for powers and all.

So, magic wands aside, he's well suited to win any physical conflict with the other guy: Stronger, tougher, with an awful lot of luck, and just one rank below in warfare.
Have your warfare guy sit in Amber all that he wants. He'll probably be defeated nonetheless.

Your later point is correct you could indeed set the ranks and 1st + 4 and 1st+10. However why do that. My solutiuon is simple and obvious.
Rank 1 has 35 Endurance, Rank 2 has 30.  Both PCs get 10 xp. Rank 1 spends 3 but Rank 2 spends all 10. Now one guy has 38 but the other guy now has 40 so he is rank 1. Simple no need to have any complications.

Another misunderstanding, from both of us: We thought we talked about the same thing, while I was talking about Rank 1 and 1,5, and you rank 1 and 2.

A question, then: If you simply allow rank 2 later to cram all his points in one go to become better than rank 1 guy, why bother with ranks at all?

In the end, I guess it all comes down to game philosophy:
In your system, winning the auction is at best a temporary and symbolic headstart, since, next session, rank 4 guy can spend an insane amount of points in one go and become better than you.
In "normal" ADRPG, rank 1 (and, to a lesser extend, the other ranks) are special, in that, a guy who's above you is better, more gifted. You can surpass him, but only if he relax somewhat and stops improving: The headstart has a more important value.

A workable alternate in the high bid option is just to let the players spend their xp to improve. Why does xp have to jump in ranks? Rank 1 has 85 rank 2 has 10 let rank 2 spend 10 points so they are now rank 2 on 20. The only reason the rules don't allow this is that they are saying a gap of 75 points is the same as a gap of 65 points or 30 points so spending points closing the gap is a waste as you gain nothing until you reach that quantum jump. Better off storing it in good stuff  until you have enough to jump all at once.

This has only an interest if you compare points.

In such a system, the 2nd is far beyond the 1st.
In normal ADRPG, he isn't, whatever the points. So your solution is totally uninteresting to him, he's way better storing Karma

Me, in such a case, I had a compromise: If there was a huge difference, I created articicial ranks every 10-15 points, something like that.
So, if 85 is 1st, (2nd) would be 70, (3rd) would be 55... With the guy who spend 05 points actually being 7th.
But it's not classic ADRPG, and, like your system, is just a matter of preference. I don't see this as better of worse, just different.

[jibbajibba]

Shoulda coulda woulda.
And only if you allow sorcery to bring you to unknown places, otherwise, he's limited.
I'm comparing 2 characters having different beginnings, but ending up sufficiently similar to be compareable.

Thing is, you misunderstood the 30 points. He stores them from the beginning.

Say, 1st used 85 points, second used 05 points.
The second can store 30 points as good karma, and, for exemple, still use 50 points on both strenght and endurance auctions (probably less, he just needs to be better than warfare guy), and end up with as many points as your warfare guys for powers and all.

So, magic wands aside, he's well suited to win any physical conflict with the other guy: Stronger, tougher, with an awful lot of luck, and just one rank below in warfare.
Have your warfare guy sit in Amber all that he wants. He'll probably be defeated nonetheless.

Another misunderstanding, from both of us: We thought we talked about the same thing, while I was talking about Rank 1 and 1,5, and you rank 1 and 2.

A question, then: If you simply allow rank 2 later to cram all his points in one go to become better than rank 1 guy, why bother with ranks at all?

In the end, I guess it all comes down to game philosophy:
In your system, winning the auction is at best a temporary and symbolic headstart, since, next session, rank 4 guy can spend an insane amount of points in one go and become better than you.
In "normal" ADRPG, rank 1 (and, to a lesser extend, the other ranks) are special, in that, a guy who's above you is better, more gifted. You can surpass him, but only if he relax somewhat and stops improving: The headstart has a more important value.

This has only an interest if you compare points.

In such a system, the 2nd is far beyond the 1st.
In normal ADRPG, he isn't, whatever the points. So your solution is totally uninteresting to him, he's way better storing Karma

Me, in such a case, I had a compromise: If there was a huge difference, I created articicial ranks every 10-15 points, something like that.
So, if 85 is 1st, (2nd) would be 70, (3rd) would be 55... With the guy who spend 05 points actually being 7th.
But it's not classic ADRPG, and, like your system, is just a matter of preference. I don't see this as better of worse, just different.

I think we basically agree on the rules and we both agree on the fact that its all a matter os taste

In my game you can't keep more than ten points of good stuff so storing 30 isn't an option and I agree that in a rank game the guy may as well just pool their points in stuff. However, that is a bit gamist. I want my game to in some way reflect reality. So its the same reason I don't want people to be able to trip gelatinous cubes

I agree that in my games being rank 1 is temporary. To stay there you have to go out do stuff and get xp and focus on keeping your edge. In my games, where by the way I don't disclose points spent or even confirm those ranks until PCs are in contest, that is just how I like it. It means the guy that set themselves up to be rank 1 in warfare becomes fixated on staying ahead and pushing themselves to stay out front. that is just how I like it.

[warp9]

In my games, where by the way I don't disclose points spent or even confirm those ranks until PCs are in contest, that is just how I like it. It means the guy that set themselves up to be rank 1 in warfare becomes fixated on staying ahead and pushing themselves to stay out front. that is just how I like it.

Yeah, in terms of having things be unknown and secret, that seems very Amberish.

[Croaker]

I agree that in my games being rank 1 is temporary. To stay there you have to go out do stuff and get xp and focus on keeping your edge. In my games, where by the way I don't disclose points spent or even confirm those ranks until PCs are in contest, that is just how I like it. It means the guy that set themselves up to be rank 1 in warfare becomes fixated on staying ahead and pushing themselves to stay out front. that is just how I like it.

T-T

Considering the game starts with one player being 1st and another being 1.5, and that the second players keeps pushing
- With you: The 1st stays 1st so long as he put at least as many points in its attribute than the other guy
- With ADRPG: The 1st stays first so longs as he manages to get one rank whenever the other player gets one. Which in the long run implies devoting at least similar amount of points in the attribute. The moment he doesn't take a rank while his opponent takes one, he's toast

What I've been trying to tell you is that becoming better that the 1st is not only in your game. This is also in basic, normal, ADRPG.
It's just a lot more fluid with you, which is where those philosophical differences get in too (the other point being the "ranks vs points" PoW on combat)
Mostly, though, the difference between your system and basic ADRPG don't come from "advancing before 1st". It comes from the "rank vs points" option: You compare money ("I've got more money to spend than you"), while ADRPG compares good bought buy money ("I bought the better car and you had to settle for the next best, whatever the money we both spend")