Ranking NPCs

[Uncle Twitchy]

In the same spirit, I use 2 rankings. One for the PCs, one for the NPCs, based on their values. I could use more (1 for PCs, one for Elder Amberites, one for chaosites), but I am lazy, and find it unnecessary.

I'm even lazier and just use the one scale.

[gabriel_ss4u]

No, I don't take the demon rules into account on my scale, to me they are seperete, as items are, ie: Amber level vitality, etc.

no, I'm talking about NPCs.
Say you run a chaos campaign, you have all set with PCs and ranks are set.
what about all the other chaosians?
they are all arbitrarily Chaos level?
nope, not for me.
I have the point system to Include any NPCs that have over Amber level str.
(Shadow earth's strongest) Of which there are plenty, yes, even the cross shadow variety.

Demons are IMO totally different. that's the way the system made them.
Croaker says:
"So, if a PC is 4 ranks above amber with 40 points, he'll be as strong as a NOC which is 4 ranks above amber with 30 points, and just as strong as a demon which is 4 ranks above amber, with 50 points."

Nahhh, not to me, the NPC is along the same scale for simplicity.
Everyone is on the 1-200 (or however high the elders attain) scale IMC be they PC or NPC.
The ranks ONLY set them in a structure within their generation.

IMC there are 3 set rank systems, Elder Amberites = 1 ranking group.
Younger Amberites are another ranking group. (still using the same # values to dictate the end result.)
and Chaosians (yeah, ALL of them,) are yet another ranking system.
(I don't differenciate between elder Chaosians and younger chaosians for ranking, they are all in the same boat, since most of the youngers are at lower power levels anywho.)

So, IMC, 1 of each could have a warfare of 65.
The Eldar Amberite, Chaosian, and younger Amberite all have 65 WARFARE let's say.
They are all equally matched, though thier ranks have NOTHING to do with it since they are on different rank charts.
(obviously there are extenuating circumstances and it would most likely go to the elder Amberite as that's the name of the game, but NOT NECCESSARILY.)

It works well, and once you, (like I), have amassed over 110 Chaosians within 25 or so family houses, this makes it easy, (once it's done).

I have copies if it'll help.
Easy made Chaosians for you.

check out the houses I listed in the Chaos house thread.

[Croaker]

Well, we do things similarly, although I consider ranks, you consider points. There's nothing intrinsikely right or wrong about either approach, these are just 2 different takes on the system.

You talked about your Elder Groups, where you have elders at 65 points and all.
To me, such an elder will be, for exemple, 10 ranks above Amber. And I will compare this, not to the point value of a PC, but to how far above Amber a PC is.

For your 110 chaosians, I wouldn't have them have 110 different attribute values on, say, warfare. This is unnescessary to me, especially as a PC is unlikely to face them all.
I'd have, for exemple, 20 ranks, with every one of them ssomewhere on this scale, in a pyramidal fashion.

And you should re-read the section about demonic ranks, because IIRC, wujcik explains that points vs ranks and how 2 characters can be as strong while having invested different point values very well: The demons from shadow knight are not intended to be C&A, but "real" NPCs, just as Elder Amberites or such, but on a different scale. Maybe this'll help you understand my point of view.
In fact, I didn't quite grasped the difference between points and ranks (and why the corebook said the first "shouldn't" matter once you've got the second) until I read this.

[gabriel_ss4u]

I've read the Demons rules/creation...
I don't use them as much as I'd like, need more experience with them.

Let me revise my statement on the Chaosian Ranks.
I have them separated into 3 ranks structures, not 1... my bad.
Elders, middle-weights, and youngest generation.
Each of these have their own ranks within their groups.

Still I go by the point system. This keeps thing even enough across the board.
I actually have younger generation people that may compete with an elder if they have higher pts. then the elder in an attribute.
That's the way I do it.
The elders have tricks aplenty from ages of experience, so they younglings may be able to with Psyche (or which ever att.), out do the elder, but it ain't as easy as all that.

[Croaker]

Then, I don't understand.

Why do you class them in ranks, moreso separate ones, when all you do is compare points? If you use points, you don't need ranks, IMO.
Could you please expand on this?

What you say about elders vs youngsters (and the competition being possible, though difficult) might be represented IMS by an elder being "4 ranks above Amber" with less points than a PC.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Because the ranks keep them from surpassing anyone else in their rank set; (elder/middle/young), without some real effort.
In other words.
Random, Corwin, & Benedict are set within their ranks (let's use warfare).
so are (let's say), Felina, Caspien, and Gabriel, of the younger gen. (IMC)

Eventually, Gabriel, 1st in Warfare in HIS gen. could compete w/Random were his # value comparable. Theoretically, he could (IMC) rival elders in an attribute if the point value were the same.
However, Because of the ranking structure, Though Caspien may compare to Random if the pt. value were same, he could not surpass the #1 in HIS generation, Gabriel.

I know some campaigns use the - "ALL elders are better than ANY younger in any ranked attribute" choice.
Which is fine by me.

But when I have 100's of NPC, this makes it easier for me when Cross-Generational competition comes into play.

To me, the pt. values have very signifigent meaning.

In cross-game campaign, it would be a better way to judge skill too as it would be of more equal standing.

If 1 player got Psyche 1st place rank for 10 pts. in one campaign...
and another palyer got 1st place Psyche for 50 pts. in a different campaign,
were they to cross compare or cross-adventure, it would be easier and more fair to understand 1 player's rank is 10% his character pts. - while the other spent 50% his points.
This, to me, is the basis of cross Generational comparrison within my campaign.
Between the Chaosians, Amberites, and the levels of rank classes within them.
(Elder & younger Amberites) & (Elder, middle, & younger Chaosians)

Does this help?

I agree that the Demons should be more NPC like, but to me, there are so many, only the major ones attain this honor. I'd fit them in my other category - Neutrals - where I have NO set ranking structure besides point value, and anyone on this chart can move up or past another by simply putting points into advancement. (All by GM work if they get better in story-line), that does not get affected by the ranking system.

[jibbajibba]

I can see no benefit of having multiple ranking structures to be honest. The additional complexity adds nothing to game play. In a particular conflict situation the only real issue is who is better in this stat (aside from role play skill etc) it doesn't matter if Eric is an elder, Gabriel is a younger and Araroth is a demon. Now comparing stats is much easier is everyone is ranked on the same scale.
This is one of the reasons I tend to use points and ignore ranks.
With pure points you can compare away to your hearts desire.
I can create a 0 point Amberite General 10 points of Warfare, Amber Strength, 2 Endurance, Chaos Psyche and 2 points of bad stuff. He is directly comparable to everyone else in my game. I can set a statard starting point for demons of different tiers run some as -40 point characters so I can set up a species with War - H, End - H, Str - C , Psy - 20 . If I want I can put levels inside the Human and Chaos ranks so C5 (Chaos +5 or 5 points below Amber).
The massive advantage is what ever I do the points are directly comparable. I don't need to worry about which rank strucutre these guys come off as its all there in black and white.  
If I am running a Random with 55 Warfare and one of my players sticks 60 in warfare , then he is better than Random, not complicated.

There is a problem with this. just one and I will quote Gabriel to highlight it

In cross-game campaign, it would be a better way to judge skill too as it would be of more equal standing.

If 1 player got Psyche 1st place rank for 10 pts. in one campaign...
and another palyer got 1st place Psyche for 50 pts. in a different campaign,
were they to cross compare or cross-adventure, it would be easier and more fair to understand 1 player's rank is 10% his character pts. - while the other spent 50% his points.
This, to me, is the basis of cross Generational comparrison within my campaign.
Between the Chaosians, Amberites, and the levels of rank classes within them.
(Elder & younger Amberites) & (Elder, middle, & younger Chaosians)

If you compare cross game campaigns then it might not be fair to look at just points. If a player has spent the points in their campaign to get rank 1 then they have done all they can do to be the best. They might only spend 10 points and they are the best, if you compare them to a character in another campaign wher the best spent 50 well the first guy might have spent 50 if he had had the chance but he didn't he only spent 10.
This is a bit gabbled sorry .... basically what I am saying is that people will spend in an auction what they need to if you tell them that they are rank 1 after spending 10 then they won't spend 50 even though they would have done had they needed to. If your charcter concept is 'No one is stronger than Phil' then its not your fault you only had to spend 3 points on Strength..

[Nihilistic Mind]

If you compare cross game campaigns then it might not be fair to look at just points. If a player has spent the points in their campaign to get rank 1 then they have done all they can do to be the best. They might only spend 10 points and they are the best, if you compare them to a character in another campaign wher the best spent 50 well the first guy might have spent 50 if he had had the chance but he didn't he only spent 10.
This is a bit gabbled sorry .... basically what I am saying is that people will spend in an auction what they need to if you tell them that they are rank 1 after spending 10 then they won't spend 50 even though they would have done had they needed to. If your charcter concept is 'No one is stronger than Phil' then its not your fault you only had to spend 3 points on Strength..

I agree with you, it can definitely mess up someone's character concept. Which is where ranks come in handy (or so you would think). You could say for example that with two characters with first rank in their respective campaign/universe spent 10 pts and 50 points, their Psyche stat can be 'comparable'. You could give the first rank to the 50pt pc and 1.5 rank to the 10 point pc.

But then again, this raises all kinds of problems when other PCs have 1.5 rank already etc... What a mess ranks can be, huh?

The better solution, depending on what the 'cross-over' is explained as, could be to take the points to re-rank the PCs. This way, 10pt PC is still 1st rank in Psyche if he returns to his universe, etc... Cross-over characters from campaigns ran by different GMs can prove to be quite unfair, since I for example, once had a GM who started us at 300 pts...

There's probably a better way to handle something like that, but I've never had the chance to run a cross-over campaign so I haven't given it much thought until today.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Ya missed my point I think...
I agree, I use the 1-250 pt scale for everyone
they compare across the board

The benefit is in understanding the ranking structure within that generation.

EXCEPT if they are in the same generation, they are compared more within the ranking structure they are in.
that is to say, the 2nd rank cannot surpass the 1st rank w/out difficulty.

I also allow players to buy up pts. in attributes, not necessarily having to stick to rank-climbing.
So if a rank 1 is 50pts. and rank2 is 25 pts., it is possible for a PC to put "10pts. into that attribute" on their wish-list, this will get them higher in the stat/attribute, but still far from 1st place.

This way also, the players may not know what other players are currently at as the pt. values may change rank structure at any advancement (wish-list) time.
(except 1st, I stick with that concept, that 1st is HARD to surpass), plus, the PC of 1st rank has the option of just throwing a few pts in that 1st place attribute and making the gap larger...
It is all to be a mystery for #'s and ranks IMC for the players.

I guess you'd have to see my excel spreadsheet on PCs & NPCs.
It does make it simpler.

On my spreadsheet, I have 3 color-coded generations, it helps me at the drop of a dime understand the basic level of any of the NPCs; Elder, middle, or younger. And who to choose from on my list of needed baddies in a pinch.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Damn... That's dedication to gaming right there

I had a folder I used for years for random NPCs, chaos houses etc... Haven't used it in a while. I used no ranks for that, just point-based NPCs... There were too many to rank.

[jibbajibba]

Little box of index cards all the NPCs but just numbers.

I don't agree with the whole 1st rank is hard to get either. Its only hard if the top rank guy spends a lot more points than everyone else.
Can I imagine an Amber where the main protagonists were very close in all stats? Yeah of course I can. Can I imagine an Amber where a pair of twins struggle for dominance in Warfare (or Psyche) with each twin getting upper hand in turn? Yeah of course I can.
Top rank in something is only a lot better than second rank if they spend a lot more points. That is all there is to it :-)

[Nihilistic Mind]

Little box of index cards all the NPCs but just numbers.

Neat!

Top rank in something is only a lot better than second rank if they spend a lot more points. That is all there is to it :-)

I believe that is also what Erick recommends. Rank is rank, but points should give the GM an idea of how ranks figure next to one another...

The ranking system can be quite contradictory at times. I personally tend to use it along with the auction. If there isn't gonna be an auction (and the need to drive PC to PC competition up), or if there is a limited number of players (2 for example), rank becomes something much more abstract that does not necessarily need to be applied. It becomes more like a trophy if you will ("...Oh yeah? Well, I've got first rank in Psyche! So eat this!!!")

Ahem. In any case, ranks and auctions are still great when it comes to Throne Wars. In my experience, it's always made the games very dynamic right off the bat! And it helps Players plan better since they have an idea as to where they stand on the ranking list (unless someone bids up afterwards, which offers some surprises).

[gabriel_ss4u]

I believe that is also what Erick recommends. Rank is rank, but points should give the GM an idea of how ranks figure next to one another...

YES!


this is also one of the main importances of pts. within the rank structure.

If ya like, I can e-mail you the excel sheet, to give you an idea.... but this is alot of info.

[Nihilistic Mind]

YES!


this is also one of the main importances of pts. within the rank structure.

If ya like, I can e-mail you the excel sheet, to give you an idea.... but this is alot of info.

Go ahead, I think my hard drive can handle it Hopefully I'll have the time to read through it.