Julia

[gabriel_ss4u]

I'm w/ jibba, the book goes by points in the various examples for the NPCs.
And I'm sure it is not what Erick intended to state no player can bid higher than the lowest Amberite stat in an Attribute.
I see your point Pundit about the elders being a 'higher rung' of Amberite, but that is translated out by me as their own ranking in their generation.
Perhaps if the 1st rank PC wanted to go up, he would have to match the next highest elder NPC in that attribute. is that what you mean?
That's not a bad idea, but it would suck to go from 1st rank to last.

[RPGPundit]

That's exactly what I mean. And the player in question would still be 1st ranked, among his generation. He'd be, simultaneously, 8th ranked (or whatever) among the elders.

RPGpundit

[RPGPundit]

So are you saying a younger generation can't be higher ranked than an elder generation? So Merlin can't have higher psyche than Benedict and Luke can't have higher strength than Flora?

No, I'm not saying that. If Benedict is 1st ranked Elder Warfare with 200 points; if someone from the younger generation got up to there, they could tie him for first (1.5) and then try to pass him.

And of course you can play without ranks maybe not as written int eh rule book but you can play it and very little changes. You might even argue that as the Character templates in the book are given as points and not in ranks (the description of Flora doesn't say Flora should be 8th ot 9th rank in endurance it says she x points in endurance) that ranks are really only of use in the auction or for experience.

The reason why it doesn't show ranks, and only points, is because there are three different versions of each NPC given. The GM must pick his version for his campaign, and build the scale (and thus determine the ranks) from there. That's what the worksheet on p.144 of the main book is for.

In fact I think It would be easy to give a play example and you wouldn't be able to tell if the game was using ranks or points.

Yes, that's probably true. There are probably many occasions of play where one could not easily tell the difference. But there are also other occasions where the difference would be noticeable.

RPGPundit

[moritheil]

Gabriel, that's a very impressive chart!  I do begin to wonder if it unintentionally shows off a weakness of the simple ADRPG system, which is to say, scalability.  Such a simplified system works well because the Amberites are so rare; once you want to keep track of 50+ Chaosites and Amberites combined, mere ranks might be a little too simplistic.

Point the first: Julia is statted, in Shadow Knight.

Point the second: In my games, at least, you do NOT compare straight points with the elders.  You end up having a rank; and the next rank up to bit for a 1st ranked younger generation amberite would be the next rung on the ladder of the Elders.
It is a minor distinction, but still a very significant one.  To me, when you are running Amber correctly, you should never be just "comparing points". The points should always be used to place one on a rank.

RPGPundit

1.  Yes, thanks for pointing out I had overlooked that, as gabriel did before you.  Nevertheless I think there may be some merit in considering whether one's reading of the Zelazny books leads one to the conclusions Wujick drew - in some cases, as with Bleys's Warfare stat, I find myself drawn to different conclusions.  In that case, ultimately one may wish to make one's own sheets as a way of sounding out the system and its agreement with the stories.

2.  I find myself in agreement with you here - the sheer beauty of the ranking system is that the points ultimately don't matter.  You CAN vastly overbid and waste points.  That acts as a way to curb the usefulness of monomanically bidding 75 or 100 points on one stat.  On the other hand, a middling bid of, say, 15, could wind up being 4th ranked, with a 3rd rank at 17 - that means that the bidder did no better than he would have if he were to bid 5.  This punishes the extremes of timidity and zealousness and adds nuance to the auction.

[Croaker]

2.  I find myself in agreement with you here - the sheer beauty of the ranking system is that the points ultimately don't matter.  You CAN vastly overbid and waste points.  That acts as a way to curb the usefulness of monomanically bidding 75 or 100 points on one stat.  On the other hand, a middling bid of, say, 15, could wind up being 4th ranked, with a 3rd rank at 17 - that means that the bidder did no better than he would have if he were to bid 5.  This punishes the extremes of timidity and zealousness and adds nuance to the auction.

Exactly

[gabriel_ss4u]

Gabriel, that's a very impressive chart!  

Thanks.

Think of this.
If a PC plays a Chaosian among Amberites, and he bids to be ranked...
how does that compare to his family of Chaosians?
I'm sure we don't make them all 'Chaos' ranked. That is the 'average' level of those of Chaos.
It is by the #, not the rank. There must be a comparative way across the board, unless a GM just sees all Chaosians as inferior.
I don't.
When an NPC tussles w/ a PC, the GM may play it as they wish, but to me the pt. system helps even the GM understand peoples placement across the board; from Chaos to Amber to Abyss to 'Immortal primal being' or whatever.
Therefore, a player IMC may get 1st ranked warfare for 15 pts., but I would not suggest that PC go off to fight a champion of Hendrake thinking that 15 pts. will save his arse. The elders spent alot more, and if a player is far below an elders points, I play it that way.
IMC there are enough NPCs that it behooves players to bid up a bit.
This may suck a bit from a player's or GM's POV that expects the players to be king of the hill. To me they are the main character, but not necessarily the best character, there is room to grow.

[jibbajibba]

Thanks.


When an NPC tussles w/ a PC, the GM may play it as they wish, but to me the pt. system helps even the GM understand peoples placement across the board; from Chaos to Amber to Abyss to 'Immortal primal being' or whatever.
Therefore, a player IMC may get 1st ranked warfare for 15 pts., but I would not suggest that PC go off to fight a champion of Hendrake thinking that 15 pts. will save his arse. The elders spent alot more, and if a player is far below an elders points, I play it that way.
IMC there are enough NPCs that it behooves players to bid up a bit.
This may suck a bit from a player's or GM's POV that expects the players to be king of the hill. To me they are the main character, but not necessarily the best character, there is room to grow.

This is on reason why I include some NPC players siblings in the auction process so as to set expectations across the game world. If I know that Borrel has 65 Warfare I will have my midranked warfare NPC bid 30 - 40 if that means they end up top warfare dog then that just menas the PCs don;t want to play warfare guys which is fine. But havign a game where someone steals 1st rank for a pitence can be avoided.

[Croaker]

Think of this.
If a PC plays a Chaosian among Amberites, and he bids to be ranked...
how does that compare to his family of Chaosians?

I don't work this way.

Elders are elders, be they from Chaos or Amber.
PCs and their kind are the next generation, whatever their origin.
Demons are yet another group.
Characters from another reality would be another.

And why would a PC taking 1st rank for 15 points be such a shame? In a competitive system, he managed to seize this advantage, this is great!! To have NPC siblings "force" the auction is depriving him of his victory.
Sure, there's the question of him being the equal of a NPC who is 8th of his group, with 60 points spent. And? All it means is that the PC is a gifted, a genius (and the player was, to manage this ). Conversely, in another attribute, the reverse might be true.

[jibbajibba]

I don't work this way.

Elders are elders, be they from Chaos or Amber.
PCs and their kind are the next generation, whatever their origin.
Demons are yet another group.
Characters from another reality would be another.

And why would a PC taking 1st rank for 15 points be such a shame? In a competitive system, he managed to seize this advantage, this is great!! To have NPC siblings "force" the auction is depriving him of his victory.
Sure, there's the question of him being the equal of a NPC who is 8th of his group, with 60 points spent. And? All it means is that the PC is a gifted, a genius (and the player was, to manage this ). Conversely, in another attribute, the reverse might be true.

There is a certain logic to this but I don't like to split elders from anyone else. I can't really see the Amber logic to it. Yes in 9 princes Martin specifically is weaker than the main characters but so is Flora (from what we see). Do we think that 2nd series Merlin is far weaker than the elders?
When you combine the ages and timeline options in Amber with the experience system quoted in the RPG, that you get experience for overcoming challenges not just for practice, I can see no reason why a child of Benedict wouldn't be a match for Random, not only might he be older in real years but given  a dad that wanted to give him challenges but he might have a lot more experience as well.
The generation thing is a game mechanic, nothing more. It allows the GM to keep the popular characters from the books in play and set up PCs in the tradditional RPG starting option of being low level and getting tougher as you progress.
As previously noted I think part of the fun of Amber is tha the charcters are all vieing (is that the correct spelling?) for power and competing to be the best, if they are only competing in their own little circle it removes some of the universal expansiveness of the whole thing. Ican play Magnus the Strang, but in reality I will never be as strong as uncle Gerrard, and actually when you look at ranks I am not quite as strong as Uncles, Caine, Corwin, Dalt, Eric, Benedict, Bleys or Auntie Dierdre. Seems to be to bit a bit of a shame. I don't like running games with a host of NPCs that are way more powerful than teh PCs and keep interfering. I don't mind one or two and a few peers is good as they are a suitable challenge/support but 16 assorted super uncles and aunts seems a bit too much to me.

[gabriel_ss4u]

I don't work this way.

Elders are elders, be they from Chaos or Amber.
PCs and their kind are the next generation, whatever their origin.
Demons are yet another group.
Characters from another reality would be another.

And why would a PC taking 1st rank for 15 points be such a shame? In a competitive system, he managed to seize this advantage, this is great!! To have NPC siblings "force" the auction is depriving him of his victory.
Sure, there's the question of him being the equal of a NPC who is 8th of his group, with 60 points spent. And? All it means is that the PC is a gifted, a genius (and the player was, to manage this ). Conversely, in another attribute, the reverse might be true.

So do you have Merlin or Martin or any of the other NPC Amberite/Chaosians in your ranking?
This may be good for the players at winning a 1st place spot for 15 pts. or whatever low #, but without a group of NPCs to compete with, they are also IMO in their own bubble and have little else to do but compete with each other.
As jibba points out, some of the elders have LOW pts. in an attribute, what of them?
You state that the different groups are in different groups, so how do you compare them if they conflict? <> (and I'm not talking of Demons) What if they run into a Chaosian from their generation or slightly higher? Would you just make up who wins? or do you have a pt. value to compare them with a PC? If you are ranked 1st in Str. with 25pts. and there is an elder with 20 Str. ranked low on the elder chart, do you win? who does? this conflicts with your method, or at least isn't covered by it.
You may see low pt. spending as great for the player so they can afford more powers, I see it as handicapping them possibly due to the fact there ARE others out there besides Amberites, and I DON'T scale them all down to be slapped about by a 15 pt. warfare. I WILL tailor a player @ 1st rank with a 15 pt. warfare to have more competitive Chaosians in their generation, but they still have a looooooong way to go to compete in that attribute to the elder Chaosians or what have you.

To me it would be like having a monster manual with no stats, just a statement on each that says; "you decide if it's better or not than the PC on hand."   Though this may be fun for spur of the moment decision making, IMO having a scale/chart/speadsheet/whatever helps to understand those rankings/comparative stats & keeps it all on the 'up & up'.
(which may be important to those who think GMs in this game have too much power)

[Croaker]

There is a certain logic to this but I don't like to split elders from anyone else. I can't really see the Amber logic to it. Yes in 9 princes Martin specifically is weaker than the main characters but so is Flora (from what we see). Do we think that 2nd series Merlin is far weaker than the elders?

Having different set of scales doesn't mean weaker.
It means different.

Then again, look at the demon ranks in shadow knight. For the same number of points, they'll sometimes be weaker than amberites, sometimes stronger.
It works the same way if you separate elders from PCs.

Re-read my exemple: I talked of 2 possible PCs:
- One with 15 points, first in his attribute, being as strong as a NPC with 60 points
- One with 60 points, first in his attribute, being as strong as a NPC with 15 points
While you saw the second, you forgot the first

This may be good for the players at winning a 1st place spot for 15 pts. or whatever low #, but without a group of NPCs to compete with, they are also IMO in their own bubble and have little else to do but compete with each other.

They can compete with elders. But the competition is based on ranks, not points, a lot like if they were PCs from different campains.

Low-RANKED elders can be beaten by PCs, of course.

This is strange, you seem to have a lot of difficulty to apprehend this notion

As said before, I compare by ranks, away from Amber, and whatever the points.
So, a given PC might be 4 ranks above amber (with 15 points), stronger than, say, Flora, 3 ranks above Amber (with 20 points).

I could have done a chart similar to the Demon ranks, where 1st PC with XX points in strength was equal to nth ranked Elder with YY points. Counting away from amber was just more convenient, and produce the same results.

If you are ranked 1st in Str. with 25pts. and there is an elder with 20 Str. ranked low on the elder chart, do you win? who does? this conflicts with your method, or at least isn't covered by it.

If the PC is farther from Amber rank than the NPC, he wins. Whatever the points.
This is perfectly covered, and doesn't conflict.

A question: If you use Shadow Knight, how do you do with demons? You just record their equivalent Amber points aside their real points spend? Like 40 in warfare (75 points spend)?

You may see low pt. spending as great for the player so they can afford more powers, I see it as handicapping them possibly due to the fact there ARE others out there besides Amberites, and I DON'T scale them all down to be slapped about by a 15 pt. warfare.

Sorry, I just don't understand what you meant.

If, say, the first-ranked PC is as strong as the 7th ranked elder, this is what is important, not the points spend.

To me it would be like having a monster manual with no stats, just a statement on each that says; "you decide if it's better or not than the PC on hand."

And with points.

Who gives points to an NPC? you. Who, thus, decides on hand of a NPCs stats? You. What's the difference?

Or did I miss what you meant?

I HAD a chart. But it didn't listed points. It listed RANKS, and equivalence between them.
Like, for a blind exemple:
1st warfare demon = 4th warfare PC = 12th warfare elder.
2nd warfare demon = 6th warfare PC = 17th warfare elder.
3nd warfare demon = Amber rank

[Stormwind]

I don't see a 'real' difference between points and ranks - both are simply slightly different ways to 'grade' skills. To elaborate with a real world example, I see them both as slightly different formats of the same thing, and very much akin to comparing a .txt file and a .rtf file.
(Yes I am aware that there are differences between the two systems, but they can be ignored due to triviality)

Thus, what this discussion seems to boil down to is different people having a preference for one or the other system. I don't believe that anyone is going to come up with any argument that is so stupendous that it will convince anyone to change their preference. And to be honest, it doesn't really matter as long as we all can enjoy the game itself.

That all said, I personally have a slight preference for the point system as I find it more mathematically elegant than the ranking system.

Aside: You can actually replicate the ranking system with the point system over the real numbers. However you cannot do the reverse and replicate the point system with the ranking system. The mathematical proof of this is trivial.

[gabriel_ss4u]

They can compete with elders. But the competition is based on ranks, not points, a lot like if they were PCs from different campains.

Ummm, yeah, you do that 'above Amber' thing.
To me this is just off the mark, but if it weorks for you.
I DON'T see how a 1st ranked 15 pt. warfare youngster can compete with a 1st ranked 120 pt. elder in the same attribute.
This is soooo unfair to the points being spent.
However, I don't expect you to change your way, just let it be, and I do get it, I get that it isn't any method I would ever use.

I understand it works better if there are cross-game PCs, but that is the only way i would do such.   ... no, wait, even this would be unfair as it lends more pts. to the low spenders for powers, and the other players used those points in their upscaled bids. not fair at all.

otherwise your system makes it so NO ONE would ever bid high on an attribute. why? it thumbs it's nose at those who did, like a min-max way of competing with elders.

I do demons according to the demon chart. but I don't even want to bring demon into this, demons don't bid. they don't even spend point for pt. in attributes like all others do, including Chaos & Amber NPCs.

Sorry, I just don't understand what you meant.

and you said "I" can't follow your concept, this is pretty straight forward... IF you don't use your own method of 'above Amber' ranking.
don't get defensive, it is what it is.

If, say, the first-ranked PC is as strong as the 7th ranked elder, this is what is important, not the points spend..

I ABSOLUTELY disagree.

And with points.
Who gives points to an NPC? you. Who, thus, decides on hand of a NPCs stats? You. What's the difference?
Or did I miss what you meant?

Yes, I CREATE the NPC and stat them according to the same POINTS all must spend to get what they get.
the difference is that there is a SET COST for things, not a equalizer chart that reworks pt. values to mean same things for different groups.
I just could never go along with that.
when there is a 200 pt. NPC and a 200 pt PC, the player knows that his points cost him as much as the NPC's and there is no cheat... EITHER WAY, to equal them out.  
If "I" were the player from a different campaign and I spent 50 pts. on 1st place warfare, (losing out on extras I could afford had I spent 10 pts. to get it like some other campaign,) & to compared to a player in another campaign that spend 10 pts. to get 1st place in warfare, to make us equal would piss me off, do I get a free power too since they had more pts. to spend on powers?
I don't know how large your group is or if there is any actual cross-campaign work going, but I would not play like that.

[jibbajibba]

If "I" were the player from a different campaign and I spent 50 pts. on 1st place warfare, (losing out on extras I could afford had I spent 10 pts. to get it like some other campaign,) & to compared to a player in another campaign that spend 10 pts. to get 1st place in warfare, to make us equal would piss me off, do I get a free power too since they had more pts. to spend on powers?
I don't know how large your group is or if there is any actual cross-campaign work going, but I would not play like that.

This woudl be where I disagree aplayer from a second campaign has to be compared by ranks (to me this is the only time i woudl actualy use them ) because their character concept relies on being best in warfare its not their fault that in their game world they only bid 15. Now a player from another one of my games wouldn't have that issue as I would use npcs to normalise the relative scores to a degree. But in an 'alternate universe' game where 2 palyer groups from different games meet then ranks matter

[gabriel_ss4u]

yes jibba, it does, I agree, rank thusly matters, as I started to say but recanted due to the fact if you actually compared them, the one that spent far lower to get the 1st rank has extra points for powers and extras that the higher-spent 1st rank doesn't. I suppose if you throw points to the other to even out that overal pooint value, then there would be a more even comparison,
points.... it comes down to points.
Theory on evening that one out?

"well, since this player had 40 extra points to spend that was not used within ranks, I'll just give everyone from this game an extra 40 points."
then you'll have to compare each point spent and extras, and.... uurrrg!

I knew a GM back in Germany that could take any character from any campaign or even any game system and jive them into his story without any re-writes to character or points. It was all in his head.
But that was a 1 time event. I can not do this. I need to see the points.
I DO agree that there needs to be a system for equalizing ranks within a players generation if there is a cross-generational game. Croaker's method is a good one for this, but I just foresee the problem of one set of players being far more powerful if they have more points to spend on powers & extras due to such low bid winnings.
But as I said, I see the merit inn it for that.
Craoker... any idea on evening out that power difference?
(just give extra points I suppose)