TheRPGSite

Has anyone ever made a character sheet of her?  I'm curious.  I've seen depictions of Merlin ranging from 200-300 points, but it seems that Julia can be accurately rendered in under 100 points.  Despite that, she manages to keep an impressive hand in things.

Here's a quick guess on how I'd model her:

Warfare: Human
Strength: Human
Endurance: Human
Psyche: Chaos (extraordinarily high aptitude for Sorcery, for a human.)

Broken Pattern Adept
Sorcery
Chaos Friend

This works out to be equivalent to -43 points (if she were given 100 points like a normal starting PC, she'd have 143 points of Good Stuff.)  

I can maybe see an argument for Chaos endurance.  She did walk the Broken Pattern and survive.

Please tell me what you'd do differently and why.

Have you seen her in Shadow Knight?

I'd be planning on making her goals obtaining Chaos rank for End in her future wishlist, but I like the way you set her. By game standards she won't last long without good stuff or Chaos warfare the way she goes out on vendettas.

Or not.

More than anything, at amber's core lies cleverness and schrewdedness, not attributes or raw power. So, she could survive and prosper.

Quote from: Croaker;307908Or not.

More than anything, at amber's core lies cleverness and schrewdedness, not attributes or raw power. So, she could survive and prosper.

Which is part of the problem. Cleverness and shrewdness are governed by Warfare and Psyche. Of course the player can be more stupid/intelligent than his character, but essentially a character's attributes reflect her/his abilities.

i disagree. a human can outsmart an amberite, IF the amberite is not paying attention. If i tell you its an alarm clock (and not a bomb), and you dont check for yourself, then it doesnt matter how high your warfare is at 8am.

attributes are not the be-all end-all that some people seem to think they are. even Benedict can lose a fight (and an arm) when the enemy cheats to win. attributes are how well you do something, but they dont tell you what to do.

that said, whatever her attributes were before, Julia will be more powerful now that she has assayed the broken pattern and commanded the power of the Font. even mere empowerment can do a lot for 'human' stats in the short run.

Quote from: Schattensturm;308092Cleverness and shrewdness are governed by Warfare and Psyche. Of course the player can be more stupid/intelligent than his character, but essentially a character's attributes reflect her/his abilities.

No. Definitely no. Mentally, warfare governs perception, and psyche, willpower (plus the more tangible aspects of both). But your character's cleverness, wits, creativity and savoir-faire, just like his charisma and charm are yours. All the way. Just think about it. In Amber, you can't roll for "Sense Motive", "Diplomacy", "Intelligence" or "Smarts" anymore than you can roll to hit. With Warfare, you can know if a bloke looks aggressive or afraid, or nervous, but you can't know why. Is he afraid of you, or of his boss? And you can't bail out of a situation by telling the GM "I roll for Intelligence to see if I can come up with something". Actually, that's pretty near the top of my list of reasons for liking Amber so much. Your character can have the power of a god, but if you're a meathead, you'll go down.
Exempli gratia: Bill Roth. A human. Old guy, probably out of shape (before coming to Amber), couldn't give any amberite a decent thirty-seconds workout -that is, his warfare blows. But he acts as advisor to the king, and is praised (by Random!!!) as a shrew legal mind. Even though he can be psyched silly by any half-retarded chaos demon, because his psyche is also not worth a toss.

Quote from: Schattensturm;308092Which is part of the problem. Cleverness and shrewdness are governed by Warfare and Psyche.

If that were the case, Corwin would have lost against both Benedict and Borel ;)

Great bill roth example, too.

Quote from: Croaker;308187If that were the case, Corwin would have lost against both Benedict and Borel ;)

Great bill roth example, too.

It's a matter of logic. The ADRPG rules are by no way perfect. Four attributes may work well for supermen like Corwin, etc, but not for normal human beings. I, e.g., deem myself rather good at chess, but I'm a lousy fencer and wouldn't know how to muster soldiers, even if you gave me a handbook "Mustering for Dummies". The simplicity of the system has its advantages AND its flaws.
Corwin, btw, won against Benedict, because he had crucial information Benedict did not have; and probably he was better than Borel or almost as good, but decided not to play fair. Thus Borel refrained from using his full potential by displaying chivalry.
Bill Roth has special talents, which are definitely part of Warfare - court and law strategies fit into this category. You could call this a skill or specialization - only that the system does not know these things.

Corwin wins because he doesn't play fair. That's cheating, being schrewd and all. How could julia not do this, despite her human warfare?

And the special talents? Ok, let's admit that for a second.

What would bill roth be? The best lawyer /advisor on earth? He is good, but not that good. But let's say he is. That Chaos rank. Let's even say he's truly exceptionnal, and reaches Amber rank. Certainly nothing to impress Random.

Even then, by creating this  special category, you're defeating your own argument that julia won't be able to be schrewd enough because she's lousy at warfare.

Note also the example of Gerard, which has a good enough warfare and psyche, but still is easily mislead.
And there are the young generation, certainly very close to us "normal humans", all because they don't have the centuries of experience their elders have.

Quote from: Croaker;308215Even then, by creating this  special category, you're defeating your own argument that julia won't be able to be schrewd enough because she's lousy at warfare.

In fact, I am not. Just read ADRPG, p. 22, first stanza of "The Potential of Warfare."

But the circumstance that someone with obviously lower Warfare can still trick someone with higher warfare sometimes, is the reason why I am using skills in my game. Whereas a point in a skill equals three points in the corresponding attribute. The skills are specializations of the attributes and the effective value of the skill is skill + attribute. Thus noone needs to take skills, a generalist is better off only investing in attributes. Still it allows a human character to beat Amberites in some aspects, without being of equal overall power in an attribute (Shadowdwellers pay double for attributes above Amber rank in my game). But that's again just another house rule.

Apart from that I give boni for creative player ideas on the attribute/skill - whereas I am with you. Of course good roleplay and creativity has to be regarded. If just to keep up the motivation. Still a good idea often only helps for a few moments until the better (N)PC (in skill/attribute) adapts to the tactics. E.g., if Benedict had somehow avoided Corwin's plan to be pushed back into the vampiric grass, he would, over a short period of time, have noticed, that there must be something fishy about that patch of grass as Corwin tries to press on into that direction. He then would have had the chance - as the better swordsfigher - to use Corwin's tactic against Corwin himself.

Nonetheless my opinion is that Erick created a game with two main concern in mind: simplicity and playability. He did a fantastic job at that. Roger Zelazny wrote hos books not thinking about how Erick's rules would explain what happens, he wrote to tell a story the way he thought it was meant to be told. I love diceless, heck, I adore the beauty of it, but some of the things that happen in the books would be best explained by randomness, which is not part of diceless. Does that make diceless inferior? No, it doesn't, it creates a different world, tho.

Quote from: Schattensturm;308375In fact, I am not. Just read ADRPG, p. 22, first stanza of "The Potential of Warfare."

But the circumstance that someone with obviously lower Warfare can still trick someone with higher warfare sometimes, is the reason why I am using skills in my game. Whereas a point in a skill equals three points in the corresponding attribute. The skills are specializations of the attributes and the effective value of the skill is skill + attribute. Thus noone needs to take skills, a generalist is better off only investing in attributes. Still it allows a human character to beat Amberites in some aspects, without being of equal overall power in an attribute (Shadowdwellers pay double for attributes above Amber rank in my game). But that's again just another house rule


.

I dislike the ADRGP concept that shrewdness, cunning and the like all come frm warfare. The idea that Benedict would be the best Amberite as solving a ridlde, opening a lock, doing the Times Crossword becuase he has the best Warfare is simply daft. Benedict has the best Warfare therefore he is hte best at ..warfare :-)
I use a skill system as well. There is a caveat in that you can't have a skill that is directly equal to an attribute. No knife throwing, hypnosis or long distance running. However, I do allow things like play chess or interrogation (play chess is actually a skill score you add to your warfare other wise how could Jopin ever be a challenge for Corwin or how come Kasperov can't beat Mike Tyson over 5 rounds....)

Quote from: Schattensturm;308375In fact, I am not. Just read ADRPG, p. 22, first stanza of "The Potential of Warfare."

And? This doesn't make the Warfare master more clever or schrewd, just more paranoid.

You'll note that, a few moments later, erick writes that not every character will want to devellop these abilities, because not every character will want to live as if perpetually under attack.
This may sometimes protect a warfare master from dirty tricks à la corwin but, even then, this doesn't work sometimes, as proved by the black grass episode.

Avoing direct conflict, overpowering your foes with massive power (like the Fount), using allies... are all options for a julia that as proven to be remarquably effective so far.

It makes him clever and shrewed enough to react appropriatley to cleverness and shrewdness. Paranoia alone doesn't provide intellectual skills, just the fear of being surrounded by enemies. I can see your point, and I positively believe that it is an appropriate interpretation of the original rules to keep characters like Julia and Bill Roth playable. On the other hand, I always felt that Human, Chaos, and Amber rank are not useful categories to handle humans. The gaps are too great. I prefer a linear system with 0 points as Human rank, Chaos rank around 15/20, Amber rank at about 30 and from then on the point/rank race.
Again, I firmly believe that Erick's basic idea of diceless roleplaying is outstanding, his play examples are even better, but the rule details are far from perfect. That's my interpretation.
I even had a short email discussion with Erick on that matter - that is the discussion on Human, Chaos, and Amber rank, we didn't write about skills - a few years ago and he agreed that he would've done some things differently in retrospective. But it was clearly a minor issue to him, writing that the way the GM handled it was more important than the question of rules itself. At least that's how I recall it. Unfortunately I changed my PC a few times since then and my older emails didn't survive the process.
It was a short discussion we had after I mailed him a new webdesign for the phage press web site. Unfortunately he only adapted the menu with the Unicorn, and skipped the rest. So the result didn't really look much better than the site had looked before. :(

Quote from: Schattensturm;308593On the other hand, I always felt that Human, Chaos, and Amber rank are not useful categories to handle humans. The gaps are too great. I prefer a linear system with 0 points as Human rank, Chaos rank around 15/20, Amber rank at about 30 and from then on the point/rank race.

On this, we agree :)

You should maybe look at the demonic scales for inspiration. It worked well for me, aside from being a great help understanding ranks and their working (and the idea behind it)

So our new edition of Amber Still Diceless Roleplaying needs an option of starting Humans at zero and then placing Amberites on a starting value of 25 - 30 points and Chaosites at 15 - 20.
Oh and an optional Skill sytem. I will publish mine someplace. It works in its aim which is to establish rivalries between PCs in everything from Driving cars to painting but its cumbersome to design a character (and Pundit will hate the poiints buy).
In Erick's defence I think he was imagining a system where Amber is the default and Humans aren't worth worrying about. It would be like D&D having 3-18 for Humans but then a decimal range of values from 0.00-2.00 for household pets and squirrels :)
Needless to say there are more humans in Amber than you find squirrels in a typical dungeon delve.

Quote from: jibbajibba;308626So our new edition of Amber Still Diceless Roleplaying needs an option of starting Humans at zero and then placing Amberites on a starting value of 25 - 30 points and Chaosites at 15 - 20.

Maybe too easy, and it has the disadvantage of somewhat doing away with ranks by concentrating on points.

Chaosian is supposed to be about the top of human ability, also.

I'd say maybe something like this:
- Have 3 catégories: Amberite, Chaosite, and Human, maybe more (demons sure would warrant one, but theorically speaking, we could also have one for each "special" group out there, like Shroudlings, Dragons...).
- Each category starts at 0, and can downgrade his attributes to Feeble (old chaosian) and Miserable (Old Human).

You'll have ranks like this: 1st ranked Human Strength, 3rd ranked Chaosian Psyche, Basic Amber Warfare, Feeble Demon Strength.

Of course, just as demons, you'll need a way to compare to other categories. An easy one could be to compare these to Amber, giving ranks bonuses/maluses.
Like, humans could be - 10 ranks to all, chaosites might be - 3 ranks, Demons might have -3 psyche + 3 strength...

This gives something like Wujcik's chart comparing Demon Caracteristics to Amberite ones: A Feeble Demon Strength will be equivalent to a very low ranked Amber Strength, or a High ranked Human Strength.

Problem: Just as wujcik's Demon charts, this increases complexity a lot, straying away from the simplicity of basic ADRPG.
Solution: create another system altogether. But I'd like to keep the ranks, and any other system I can think of will be points based.

lets add a new rank to the discussion here. Human, Chaos, Amber, Elder.
Elder is a floating value, defined as 1st rank +some points (say 10?). a clear define between you and the next generation. if we need another set of ranks past this, we could call them Primal. PEACH ranks, if we follow that logic.

Quote from: Croaker;308723Maybe too easy, and it has the disadvantage of somewhat doing away with ranks by concentrating on points.

Chaosian is supposed to be about the top of human ability, also.

I'd say maybe something like this:
- Have 3 catégories: Amberite, Chaosite, and Human, maybe more (demons sure would warrant one, but theorically speaking, we could also have one for each "special" group out there, like Shroudlings, Dragons...).
- Each category starts at 0, and can downgrade his attributes to Feeble (old chaosian) and Miserable (Old Human).

You'll have ranks like this: 1st ranked Human Strength, 3rd ranked Chaosian Psyche, Basic Amber Warfare, Feeble Demon Strength.

Of course, just as demons, you'll need a way to compare to other categories. An easy one could be to compare these to Amber, giving ranks bonuses/maluses.
Like, humans could be - 10 ranks to all, chaosites might be - 3 ranks, Demons might have -3 psyche + 3 strength...

This gives something like Wujcik's chart comparing Demon Caracteristics to Amberite ones: A Feeble Demon Strength will be equivalent to a very low ranked Amber Strength, or a High ranked Human Strength.

Problem: Just as wujcik's Demon charts, this increases complexity a lot, straying away from the simplicity of basic ADRPG.
Solution: create another system altogether. But I'd like to keep the ranks, and any other system I can think of will be points based.

Me I am kind of meh on the whole rnak thing so a simple points scale works for me.
If I did use ranks I would avoid the complexity of different structures for different categories of creature. The key in the majority of games sdown to 'Is this shroudling stronger or weaker than the PC'or 'does this mage have higher or lower endurance' or whatever. Keep everyone on a single scale and have a note ... Typically this type of demon will have rank 3= Strength (of course this hits loads of the issues that annoy me about ranks but I will keep my own counsel on the issue).

There is another system option taken from that most elegant of games ...Bunnies and Burrows.

Quote from: Xenon;308778lets add a new rank to the discussion here. Human, Chaos, Amber, Elder.
Elder is a floating value, defined as 1st rank +some points (say 10?). a clear define between you and the next generation. if we need another set of ranks past this, we could call them Primal. PEACH ranks, if we follow that logic.

I personally don't like it. I don't see why a 1st or 2nd ranked PC shouldn't be able to beat a low ranked Elder. This becomes virtually impossible with this system.

Quote from: jibbajibba;308817Me I am kind of meh on the whole rnak thing so a simple points scale works for me.
If I did use ranks I would avoid the complexity of different structures for different categories of creature. The key in the majority of games sdown to 'Is this shroudling stronger or weaker than the PC'or 'does this mage have higher or lower endurance' or whatever. Keep everyone on a single scale and have a note.

I agree with jibbajibba. Different categories are just confusing. If all climb the same ladder, it is far more easy to compare them. And - as stated before - I prefer points over ranks. If you have points for all, ranks are obvious.
If one uses a points (in contrast to ranks) based system, it should be made clear that a character with 160 points is not twice as strong as a character with 80 points. This is not a linear progression, but a reversed logarythmic one. I.e., the more points a character already has, the less do additional points in the attribute increase actual strength. One has to invest more effort to max. out than to show first progressions. Gérard wouldn't be ten times as strong as a character with about Amber rank - he is only maybe three or four times as strong (my interpretation), even tho his Strength attribute might be ten times as high; but he is definitely and doubtlessly strong enough to wipe the floor with any PC easily - after all they need the POINTS to catch up on him. Other systems afford more experience to raise a score from 4 to 5 than from 2 to 3. In my understanding of my point based ADPRG houserules progression it's just the other way round: The rating progresses linear, but the resulting benefit is not.

Quote from: Schattensturm;308869I personally don't like it. I don't see why a 1st or 2nd ranked PC shouldn't be able to beat a low ranked Elder.(...) In my understanding of my point based ADPRG houserules progression it's just the other way round: The rating progresses linear, but the resulting benefit is not.

I agree with both points, and with the conclusion, too.

My problem with all this discussion is:
a- yes, obviously the ADRPG system isn't great to handle human characters.

b- why should it be? I find the system itself draws on the nature of amberites as stated in the novels. Yeah, some humans or other shadow critters may be different from one another, and yeah, some of them might present some problem to the amberites, but in the end what's really important is whether or not you are stronger or faster than your siblings/cousins, not some shadow guy. And I don't mean to oversimplify, I just see it as a great example of system bending to setting. That said, a simple point ladder is then much more manageable than a rank system. In my opinion, the only "rank" that counts (or is even clear) in the books is first place. We don't know if Corwin was a better swordman than Eric or Bleys, or if Flora is stronger than Fiona. We only know for certain that Gerard is the strongest and Benedict the best fighter.

Quote from: Schattensturm;308869I personally don't like it. I don't see why a 1st or 2nd ranked PC shouldn't be able to beat a low ranked Elder. This becomes virtually impossible with this system.

I agree with jibbajibba. Different categories are just confusing. If all climb the same ladder, it is far more easy to compare them.  

I agree. IMC I had an excel spreadsheet for GM quick reference, I had everyone broken into 3 groups (the fourth group were uniques, like the Unicorn, etc.)
Elders
Experienced
Young

Color coded & rankings were within one of those 3 groups. 3 1st place in Psyche, etc.
Here's an example of it, it's not in completion, but you get the idea.
Sorry if it's big, I can't see it til it gets posted.

(http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii188/gabriel_ss4u/AmberStatExample.jpg)

Quote from: SunBoy;308907I agree with both points, and with the conclusion, too.

My problem with all this discussion is:
a- yes, obviously the ADRPG system isn't great to handle human characters.

b- why should it be? I find the system itself draws on the nature of amberites as stated in the novels. Yeah, some humans or other shadow critters may be different from one another, and yeah, some of them might present some problem to the amberites, but in the end what's really important is whether or not you are stronger or faster than your siblings/cousins, not some shadow guy. And I don't mean to oversimplify, I just see it as a great example of system bending to setting. That said, a simple point ladder is then much more manageable than a rank system. In my opinion, the only "rank" that counts (or is even clear) in the books is first place. We don't know if Corwin was a better swordman than Eric or Bleys, or if Flora is stronger than Fiona. We only know for certain that Gerard is the strongest and Benedict the best fighter.

Well, technically we only know that Corwin thought Benedict was the best swordsman and Oberon (as Genelon) whipped Gerard's arse (and no one batted an eyelid :) ) so even Gerard's credentials are suspect ... :)

Well, alright, conceded on Oberon. But Benedict seems to be considered the best all around the place (the Hendrake worship him, Borel knew of him, etc.). And I always think of Oberon as out of contest. The guy can pull anything out of his arse.

Well, I had something similar, but simpler than your chart, Gabriel.

As stated before, I considered the ranks as going away from Amber: You were 4 ranks above Amber, not second.

Thus, I had something like this (purely arbitrary and nonsensical ranking):

20 ranks aways     Benedict (200 points)
19 ranks away      
18 ranks away      Eric (185 points)
17 ranks away      Corwin and Bleys (181 points)
(...)
7 ranks away        Jasra (44 points)             /   1st ranked player (45 points)
6 ranks away        Llewella (41 points)          /  
5 ranks away        Luke (40 points)              /    2nd ranked player (30 points)
4 ranks away                                           /    3rd ranked player (24 points)
3 ranks away        Merlin (25 points)            /    4nd ranked player (14 points)
2 ranks away        Jurt   (14 points)            /     5nd ranked player  (05 points)
1 rank away                                             /    6nd ranked player (01 point)

Add to that, of course, the Demon ranks.
Thus, I could easily compare PCs and NPCs between them, and using ranks, not points, which produced very different results.

Quote from: Croaker;309037: You were 4 ranks above Amber, not second.

Ya lost me...
who's 4 ranks above, not second?
2nd rank? place?
???

In mine the everyone simply gets a pt. value that can be compared across the board.
If anyone wants to increase rank, they must match the next rung in their age bracket. (distinguished by one of the 3 colors IMC
light blue  = Elder
peach = experienced youth
pale yellow = PC's usual starting levels up to an experienced youth.

I have 7 rankings color coded by their # value within each attribute.
(anything after 7th doesn't deserve a color to me)

This ONLY shows up to the middle of "C", I have approx. 350-400 NPCs I've charted to fit in this system, and it works.

Like I said, it's a quick reference chart for me as GM. it goes further to the right and shows colors, symbol, parentage, and devotees for each NPC. (& char.)
being that it's on excel, I've set other tabs & set them all by factions, House, rank level/(those 3 color-groups I mentioned).
But this thread was about Julia...
so IMC, I had Julia kinda like 'Spiral' from Marvel comic, 6 armed cybernetic sorceress...
I liked it so much, I am determined to try to play her ('Spiral'), in some other campaign as my character, though not the PBeM one.
She eventually rivaled Mandor IMC

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309085...I have approx. 350-400 NPCs I've charted...

:jaw-dropping:

Dude, I can barely remember the names of my NPCs... (well, not really, but come on...)

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309085Ya lost me...
who's 4 ranks above, not second?
2nd rank? place?
???

Sorry, I was unclear.

In a typical amber game, a given player might be 2nd, another player 4th, and an elder just have more points.
In my game, he'll be, for exemple, 4 ranks above amber, while another player will be Amber +2, and a given elder Amber +5 (based on his generation's rankings). Is this clearer?

On a side note, if you just compare points, why do you bother at all with ranks?
It always seemed to me that, either you forsake ranks and just compared points, or you forsake points after creation and concentrated on ranks.

Quote from: Croaker;309121Is this clearer?

Uhhh... nope.

Quote from: CroakerOn a side note, if you just compare points, why do you bother at all with ranks?
It always seemed to me that, either you forsake ranks and just compared points, or you forsake points after creation and concentrated on ranks.

Now we're talking.

Quote from: SunBoy;309233Now we're talking.

Agreed, but as it is not possible to fully forsake points - after all you need to know how many XP to spend to reach the next higher rank - I say stick to the points and forsake the ranks.

OK,
when you have a bunch of Chaos Houses, Amberites, Amberite kids, heros of Legend (or primal beings, NPCs), they have to get a pt. value so you can compare them attribute wise with each other, as there are only 4 attributes, it's easily enough managed.
I have a very detailed campaign. about 2/3rds of them all are Chaos.

NOW, for the ranks.
Imagine kids in 6th grade rating each other.
then 18 years olds,
then 30 yr olds.
3 groups of ranks.

similar to my system.
in my system, everyone has a # value, and it is RANKED with those in their group.
(the 3 groups there mentioned, for ADRPG)
say Bozo has 30 warfare >6th rank
Kilroy has 34 warfare. > 5th rank
they are in the same group (not neccessarily PCs, could be PC or NPC)
they cannot pass the next rank without working at it.
Or if they go up, they must match the next # in their class, which could be 70 people, so it is easy enough to go up 1 rung at a time.

Wish list says; Up in 'this attribute'
I check on my list who's next in their group, subtract value, that's the price in pts. to be .5 of the next rung up.
in the above example it would cost 4 pts. to be 5.5 in warfare for Bozo.
(of course, IMC there may be a few multiple .5's on the scale. I just have to remember who's the whole number rank. which I would make on my anal obsessive compulsively grafted chart.)

It's much easier than it sounds.

Quote from: SunBoy;309233Uhhh... nope.

Aaargh!!!

Game over, try again.

Ok.
Typical Amber campain.
I'll have these charts for psyche, for exemple:
1st (61 pts): Bob
2nd (60 pts): Bill
3nd (45 pts): Bart
4nd (10 pts): Kurt
5nd (05 pts): Kevin
6nd (01pt):  Kull
Amber

Knowing that I insert 1 artificial "rank" each time there are, say, more than 10 points between 2 players, I'll have these:
Amber
Amber + 1 rank: Kull, 6th ranked
Amber + 2 ranks: Kevin, 5th ranked
Amber + 3 ranks: Kurt, 4th ranked
Amber + 4 ranks: No one. This is a false rank, you can't buy it, although a NPC or someone of another generation might be there, between Kurt and Bart. Note that this is just to give some importance to points, this is not in the ranks spirit, and you could drop this rule.
Amber + 5 ranks: No one
Amber + 6 ranks: Bart, 3rd ranked
Amber + 7 ranks: Bill
Amber + 8 ranks: Bob

I had a separate ladder for PCs, demons and elders, each ring having different point value for each generation, but "amber + 4" being equal for both generations

For scratch NPCs, I didn't bother (and I could have done just as well with demons and elders), they'd just be, for exemple, Amber + 4 ranks. Points values were totally unnecessary, they were only usefull to PCs when trying to go up one rank.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309271OK,
when you have a bunch of Chaos Houses, Amberites, Amberite kids, heros of Legend (or primal beings, NPCs), they have to get a pt. value so you can compare them attribute wise with each other, as there are only 4 attributes, it's easily enough managed.
I have a very detailed campaign. about 2/3rds of them all are Chaos.

NOW, for the ranks.
Imagine kids in 6th grade rating each other.
then 18 years olds,
then 30 yr olds.
3 groups of ranks.

similar to my system.
in my system, everyone has a # value, and it is RANKED with those in their group.
(the 3 groups there mentioned, for ADRPG)
say Bozo has 30 warfare >6th rank
Kilroy has 34 warfare. > 5th rank
they are in the same group (not neccessarily PCs, could be PC or NPC)
they cannot pass the next rank without working at it.
Or if they go up, they must match the next # in their class, which could be 70 people, so it is easy enough to go up 1 rung at a time.

Wish list says; Up in 'this attribute'
I check on my list who's next in their group, subtract value, that's the price in pts. to be .5 of the next rung up.
in the above example it would cost 4 pts. to be 5.5 in warfare for Bozo.
(of course, IMC there may be a few multiple .5's on the scale. I just have to remember who's the whole number rank. which I would make on my anal obsessive compulsively grafted chart.)

It's much easier than it sounds.

but .... whilst the kids in 6th grade are all weaker than the 30 year olds this can be achieved by them having less points.....
comparing 18 year olds and 30 year olds there is not much in in so they all have the same points . there you go compared em all:-)

The only time you need to worry about ranks is when you are bringing players in from other games. Since the point system is open ended and players , in my games at least, spend points to be the best or at least high in an ability the ranks here are important beacue a player who spend 'to be the best' in one game might have been in a game where competition for that rank was vaery different from another game. Since that ranking may be key to their character concept "Tulkas the Strong" if you migrate to another set of PCs the rank needs to be born in mind.
This is kind of a corner case. Another is when the GM wants to set up a creature/event/thing thatcan only be beaten by ranks 2 or higher and for a reason i can't quite think of right now doesn't want to just assign x many points to it on the fly as it sencountered. In thsi case rank might be important.

Aha. Now I get it. Still strikes me as unnecessarily complicated, but that's an opinion.

If it works for ya...
it is confusing though.
That means Benedict is, as you said, Amber +10 ranks or whatever, instead of just saying; 1st rank.
it kinda imposes a preset benchmark on ranks or rank rungs.
(The age comparison is to give an idea that there are 3 separate "rank groupings", not to actually compare kids to adults.)
Try this;

Bill Bob Tom Joe Jen
we'll do Psyche.

Bill 73
Bob 70
Tom 35
Joe 35
Jen Amber

obviously, Bill is 1st rank in his generation in Psyche. once the GM lets him buy up, he should have to either match the next highest level of NPC, (which should be out of his generation, as he is 1st in his), or create his own rung.
I tend to go with the latter.
Jen, she has a long way to go to buy up a rung, but if she wants up 1 rung, it may only be 5 pts., as an NPC may have 5 that is in her 'generation ranking'.

Being a player they are in my 'youngest generation' along with the NPC's that are similarly point valued.
Next generation that has to compete with their slots, are the experienced ones, to say they are like an experienced Amberite or experienced Chaos Lord.
Next Corwin & his ilk. They have their own rungs they must compete and match to ascend.
(look at the chart on the previous page and tell me if you can tell that pleez.)

on my system chart, I can adapt your +1 idea, as the 1st 7 ranks are color highlighted.
So Amber +7 would be no problem, (except there are too many NPCs, it would really be Amber +207, or something such in mine... which if you have alot of NPCs the PC's have to share&match rungs with <in their generation>, the 'Amber +' system would seem silly.) BUT, if you use it for only the PC's and elders, then perhaps it would work.

How about Bill has 73 points is is better than everyone else . Bob is nearly as good as Bill and a conflict between the two of them woudl be a close run thing and might come down to endurance or at leasrt be influenced by it. They could both wipe the floor with Tom though.

There is an NPC called Dave who has 50 points in Psyche he is better than Tom but not as good as bill and bob... see easy :-)

Now witht eh numbe rof players you have it looks liek you have run several set of Pcs throught ehsame campaign in this case as i noted above ranks might be more important.

You should play in a game that uses the numbers and see how it works out. Hey my PBeM will be ideal :)

Quote from: Schattensturm;309256Agreed, but as it is not possible to fully forsake points - after all you need to know how many XP to spend to reach the next higher rank - I say stick to the points and forsake the ranks.

You can just as easily call it "Rung" instead of "Rank".

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309367That means Benedict is, as you said, Amber +10 ranks or whatever, instead of just saying; 1st rank.
it kinda imposes a preset benchmark on ranks or rank rungs

Franckly, it makes no difference at all.
And don't take it badly, but after reading your chart? I find it very funny you'd strike my system as "unescessary complicated" ;)

How having benny be 1st, Bleys 2nd is different or less preset than having Benedict be +20 and bleys + 18? Especially as it more easily assumes benedict can get better than he currently is: In a typical amber game, if you're 1st and another player 1,5, when you advance, what does he become? Do you reset all the other gamers ranks reach time he advances?

With points, if mixing different ranks, you can't have a player 1st in psyche from one game be about as strong as another player with 40 points. And, to me, Elders are exactly like "players from another game".
You also can't have Demonic ranks (as per shadow knight p201) or things like this: How can a demon with 29 points in strength be as strong as an amberite with 50 points? Or a demon with 50 points in warfare be only equal to an amberite with 10 points?

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309367on my system chart, I can adapt your +1 idea, as the 1st 7 ranks are color highlighted.
So Amber +7 would be no problem, (except there are too many NPCs, it would really be Amber +207, or something such in mine... which if you have alot of NPCs the PC's have to share&match rungs with <in their generation>, the 'Amber +' system would seem silly.)

This is only because you make the game like this. You're complicating your own task.

Take your players and their ladder. If a new player begins, he'll have to align on it, right? Same thing here if a second player begins. And a third. And same thing for the 1560° player. So, this limits the number of ranks in each generation.

I doing something like you, I'd simply have about 4 columns, with at max 20 ranks. One for Elders, one for Demons, one for players, and one for Elves, with every PC and NPC being somewhere there.

So your 207 NPCs? There'd just be a lot of people at each ladder. Say 70 persons are Elders on 20 ranks, this'd make about 5 person/rank at the lower ones, less at the highests. This doesn't strikes me more than two players being 2,5
Amber +207 is no different from being 207°: Useless IMO, and needlessly complicated.

Quote from: jibbajibba;309371How about Bill has 73 points is is better than everyone else . Bob is nearly as good as Bill and a conflict between the two of them woudl be a close run thing and might come down to endurance or at leasrt be influenced by it.

I may be wrong, but, in a "true" amber game as presented by Erick Wujcik, once the game began, you'd just look at Bill being 1st and Bob being 2nd, whatever their difference in points.

Just look at the psyche rankings: Willy is 1st, kevin is 2nd, beth is 3rd. Yet, willy only spent 1 more point than kevin, who spent 28 more points than Beth.
This is why this is called Bidding, and not Gurps: Whatever they spend, once the game begins, they are 1st, 2nd and 3rd, in no way different than if they had spent more or less points in a different manner.

BTW, I began Amber by using points instead of ranks, too ;)

Edited to clarify: This was typed at the same time as Croaker's post, so it was a re to Gabe upthread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Except it isn't about names, it is about ease of comparison. "Ranks" are OK among a closed group, but let's not forget why they exist in the first place: players are supposed to know each other, so they roughly know who's better than whom at stuff. That's the most important side-effect of the auction: you have a rough idea of everybody's capabilities. When resolving a conflict among a player and some NPC, it (the NPC) is an unknown quantity, so you can just assign a point value based on your idea for the character and run with that. Same with elders. It is extremely unlikely that any PC will be psyche-y-er than Fiona, but what is to say he couldn't psyche Gerard silly? Surely not the novels. This of course ties with another issue, for which I'll open a new thread, but I find this way much easier.

I must say that, with the emphasis Amber has on using ranks and dismissing points, I'm really surprised so much people here compare points instead: I'd have thought that most people here would just use ranks, and that creating artificial ranks when there was too big a gap in points would have put me in the minority of "points lovers"

Ranks are good for one thing: Auctions. You can heat up auctions a lot better with ranks than with points, but once the game has started, points beat ranks - in my eyes.

ranks are good for comparing who's better.
I use #'s to judge evrything, except when it comes to advancement.
Then they have to match the next Rung/rank in their generation.

My chart may seem complicated to some, but it is essential when you have a campaign with many Chaos Houses, and each house has members, and they all have attribute values.

I suppose some GMs just make it up on the spot and don't keep track.
I do make many up on the spot, but they get added to the list and I have a record of their attributes & powers.
If an elder wants to go up in an attribute, they have to match the next highest score in their generation.
If a youngster Amberite wanted the same, they have to go up matching the next rung... in their generation.
I suppose many GMs do not compare the PC generation with the young generation of Chaos... I do.
That way when they do go up, they may not be as high as they think, there are more to compete with on the scale.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309563ranks are good for comparing who's better.
I use #'s to judge evrything, except when it comes to advancement.
Then they have to match the next Rung/rank in their generation.

This is very strange, by reading your comments, I was under the complete impression you compared points values, both into a generation and when doing cross-generation comparison.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309563If an elder wants to go up in an attribute, they have to match the next highest score in their generation.
If a youngster Amberite wanted the same, they have to go up matching the next rung... in their generation.
I suppose many GMs do not compare the PC generation with the young generation of Chaos... I do.
That way when they do go up, they may not be as high as they think, there are more to compete with on the scale.

Well, for the progression, same as me :lol:

So I guess this breaks down when comparing across generations, when you just compare points?
If not, and the same "power level" can correspond to different points values for each generation (For exemple, 2nd PC rank in psyche, with 46 points, is as powerfull as rank 14 for elders, with 37 points), then our differences are purely cosmetic.

There can be a NPC from each of the 3 generation groups with the same # value for an attribute, say 60.
They are all evenly matched, but have different rankings within their group.
I may give it to the elder, but it's not automatic, it's just initial instinct, stuff, actions, and secondary attributes may make the difference.

sorry you may have thought I didn't go by # values to compare, if I didn't need ranks, I wouldn't use 'em, but they are handy for comparing those within their generation. It's nothing for me to update my chart.. it's on excel. (and I'm anal as well as OCD) LOL

So, there's no practical difference for you in using ranks or not, since a 61-points attribute is always better than a 60-points one? I'm not sure its more convenient to track both points and ranks within your generation, while you could just track points (or, as I do, reverse ranks), but if it works for you ;)

In my game, more points is better, in your group, but that's all: 3 characters with 60 points may have different rankings in their generation, and may be of different strength/skill, just as, in canon ADRPG, a demon with 29 points in Strength will be as strong as an amberite with 50 points in it.
In fact, I barely see the point of not using points if you don't do this kind of thing: Else, comparing points is, IMO, a lot easier.

I don't keep demon ranking/values on the same chart.
Ranks/rungs are expressly for advancement, as they have to match the next rung in their generation. that is the practical difference in using ranks.

Also, say there are 2 NPCs with a value of 60.
1 is from generation elder.
the other is from generation youngling.
The elder may have to go up 20 points to match the next rank/rung in his generation,
whereas the youngling may only have to go up 5 pts. to meet the next pt. value in his.
anybody out there get it?

I'm kinda done with this though.

Well, I get it, and I can see the practical value of your system as a reference, but I'm not so sure about how I like it. In your example above, when the youngling achieves the next rung, then he is effectively better at whatever attribute it is than the elder, right? Why should it be easier for him to grow? Alright, young things learn faster than old things, but I don't really see it working... that generation will be the elder one one day. And what if it is the other way around? What if the elder is 5 points away from the next rung, and the youngling 25? Then the elder is able to progress faster... I don't know, I think I prefer one ladder for Amber, one for Chaos and that's it.

...sigggh
OK, one last time.
No, it is not easier for the younger.
It may only be easier if there are smaller gaps in the rungs/ranks.

Eric has a 60 Psyche       4th rank/rung
George has a 75 Psyche    3rd rank/rung
they are both elder generation (to say they are in the 300+ generation - if that is easier) (large gap between ranks)

Dan has 60 Psyche  4th rank/rung
Bill has 65 psyche   3rd rank/rung
they are both in the younger generation (to say they are 100 to 200 pts. generation) (small gap between ranks)

for Dan to move up 1 rung/rank, he spends 5 points, as the next rung is only 5 above him.

for Eric to move up, he has to spend 15 pts. as the next rung in his generation is 15 above him.

As I stated, the rungs are for determining how many points to increase in their generation to go up.

(A GM can determine to just let the player spend x amount and set the character at the nearest rung to correspond to the points spent, but that is another way instead of matching 1 rung at a time.)

Quote from: SunBoy;309824Well, I get it, and I can see the practical value of your system as a reference, but I'm not so sure about how I like it. In your example above, when the youngling achieves the next rung, then he is effectively better at whatever attribute it is than the elder, right? Why should it be easier for him to grow? Alright, young things learn faster than old things, but I don't really see it working... that generation will be the elder one one day. And what if it is the other way around? What if the elder is 5 points away from the next rung, and the youngling 25? Then the elder is able to progress faster... I don't know, I think I prefer one ladder for Amber, one for Chaos and that's it.

You forgot one think: Compétition.

Even in the original ADRPG, which compared ranks, not points, 1st players being able to set their next rank cost was a very real option.

Sure, if you set little steps, you progress faster. If you set bigger ranks, you make it harder for your siblings to progress: Only the truly dedicated will be able to. Thus, you more easily ensure your supremacy.
Say, you have this in psyche:
5 points - 4nd
6 points - 3rd
7 points - 2nd
8 points - 1st

You can be sure that everyone will buy a first rank in psyche. If the 1st progress to a rank at 9 points, everyone will follow him as well. If he set the rings at, say, 15 points, there will already be more hesitation. And if there is a 20-points gap? Who will follow him?

Also, I'd like to remind you this: Points invested in an attribute give an idea of this attribute's importance to the players. In the above exemple, they clearly don't care much about psyche, or the biddings would have been a lot fiercer. So you won't present them psyche challenges, but, say, strength challenges if they invested massively in strength: Psyche will be unimportant and seldom usefull.

Then again, look at the demon charts: Their Strength progression may be faster than amberites, but they'll be slower in psyche. This works exactly the same way in game, and I see nothing wrong with this, because I look at ranks, not points ;) Points are evil!!! Points are math and accounting!! Points kill roleplay!!! Points eat children and spoil your food!!! ;)

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309836...sigggh
OK, one last time.
No, it is not easier for the younger.
It may only be easier if there are smaller gaps in the rungs/ranks.

...sigggh

...and if you had read my whole post, you could have noticed I had already understood that, and I'm merely disagreeing. Please don't talk down like that. It's rude.
In any case, the difficulties will be different, given that they are on different ladders. WHY?

@Croaker: We disagree here, too, I see. I actually find that having to compare two, three or more sets of ranks kills roleplaying more. And I do know that sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. I just think having one point ladder for each "side", (and making demons on the fly), is way more easy and in tone with the setting. And for the record, this whole discussion is merely academic. I'm not trying to say my way of "pretending to be a gay-ass elf is better" than anyone else's.

Oh, perfectly understood.

In fact, I began with points, then dropped it for ranks and a universal ladder for elders and PCs, and then, when Erick introduced the Demon Charts and variation between ladders, went with this. So I can perfectly understand what you like in either of these ;)

Croaker;
touchy touchy!
Intellectual slapstick I thought. Not thin-skinned gaming.
You may have mis-read me.
Your 1st sentence stated 'not practical use in using ranks'
that was what I was addressing, there IS a practical use, as I stated.
And I did read your post. Silly of you to assume I didn't read it all.
but I forgive you.
;)

Euh... I'm lost. To which of my posts are you reffering to???

Ah, found it. I feel like we aren't understanding each other :( (Like, I don't understand what you mean by your first 2 sentences)

What I meant by practical difference is that (at least if I understand correctly), using ranks may be more faster for you than remembering points, but in the end, this changes nothing from just comparing points, since:
- In a given groups, ranks are based on points (normal, IMO)
- When comparing across generations, you compare points, not ranks

Am I clearer?

Alright, alright. Maybe it was my mistake. I don't know, and if you don't care, then I don't either. I really don't want to have petty flaming wars in this forum, because I like it here. Sorry if it came across like that.
As an apology, and maybe this should be on the Trumps thread, maybe you'll like to take a look at these:

Some art by Rebecca Guay (http://www.rebeccaguay.com/portfolio.html)(scroll down, the B&W in the bottom are great).

Tony Di Terlizzi (http://www.diterlizzi.com/), in my opinion, one of the best fantasy artists around.

ETA: Croaker, I think he was replying to me.

Oh!

I didn't mean it to sound like flaming.
I certainly didn't take anyone's words like that, and see absolutely no reason why anyone should apologize to anyone.
I'm still not sure if any people there understood others, or understood to whom each person was answering what to :lol:

Anyway, thanks for the art :)

Dangit, I had a post, it didn't get uploaded I guess... it was good too.
Yes, apologies abound. I too am sorry, my statment was actually mixed, for both Croaker and Sunboy, but I didn't explain.
Be aware, I like pretty much everyone on here.
I only like to have at Otha once in a while, nothing personal there either.

Craoker; you stated:
What I meant by practical difference is that (at least if I understand correctly), using ranks may be more faster for you than remembering points, but in the end, this changes nothing from just comparing points, since:
- In a given groups, ranks are based on points (normal, IMO)
- When comparing across generations, you compare points, not ranks


You are pretty much right though,
Ranks are actually harder for me as there are so many, I only use 'em for advancement rungs, not really comparison, I use pts. for comparrisons.

One thing I know, we each have a system that works for us, and that is one of the beauties of Amber DRPG, it's a bit more loose than other games as it encourages the GM to personalize it.
now.... lemme look at the art! Thanks, I like links like this.

Alright, my turn to clarify, then:

Quote from: Yours truly;310268Alright, alright. Maybe it was my mistake. I don't know, and if you don't care, then I don't either. I really don't want to have petty flaming wars in this forum, because I like it here. Sorry if it came across like that.
As an apology, and maybe this should be on the Trumps thread, maybe you'll like to take a look at these:

Some art by Rebecca Guay (http://www.rebeccaguay.com/portfolio.html)(scroll down, the B&W in the bottom are great).

Tony Di Terlizzi (http://www.diterlizzi.com/), in my opinion, one of the best fantasy artists around.

THIS part up here was intended as a re: to Gabriel. (Not that the link couldn't be followed by whomever wants to, it's good art)

Quote from: Me againETA: Croaker, I think he was replying to me.

This is pretty self explanatory, but the "he" in question was Gabe again.

So we're a happy family again. That's great :D . I don't want to jinx this place, but I'll say it anyway, this is one of the very few forums where one can expect to be mostly troll-free.

No longer!!!

(http://media.larlet.fr/david/conferences/django/img/MountainTroll.jpg)

:D

That fellow needs to work on his posture.

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

Quote from: RPGPundit;310769Point 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

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?

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.
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.

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.

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

Quote from: jibbajibba;310784So 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteIn 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

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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;310769Point 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.

Quote from: moritheil;3122812.  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 :)

Quote from: moritheil;312281Gabriel, 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.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312494Thanks.


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.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312494Think 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.

Quote from: Croaker;312542I 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.

Quote from: Croaker;312542I 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)

Quote from: jibbajibba;312552There 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 ;)

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312575This 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.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312575If 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)?

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312575You 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.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312575To 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

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. :D

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.

Quote from: Croaker;312592They 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.

Quote from: Croaker;312592Sorry, 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.

Quote from: Croaker;312592If, 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.

Quote from: Croaker;312592And 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.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644If "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

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)

EDIT: when reading this, I fear that, at times, I may sound agressive. This is not my intent, and pardon me if it seems so.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644I DON'T see how a 1st ranked 15 pt. warfare youngster can compete with a 1st ranked 120 pt. elder in the same attribute

Where did I wrote something like this?

It just seems to me that you still don't understand how this works :(

Note that, even if it were the case, I don't see why a GM wanting his PCs to be about as powerfull as the elders would have it wrong. Hey, a "lost child of oberon" can have a lot more centuries of knowledge than corwin, for exemple.
This is the beauty of the ranks system: You can set up you 1st demonic rank to be equal to any PC rank, and this PC rank to any Elder rank, without having to worry or feel constrained by points.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644I 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.

Still... Read Amber DRPG on these. Eric doesn't ask the player how much points he spend, nor how many points his character was build upon. He asks the rank, and if the PC took any progression.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644otherwise 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.

Yet in reality, they did. Why? Because they were competiting with each others.
Amber is all about competiting with your siblings, not the elders and NPCs, especially as a GM can always make his NPCs as strong as he wants them.
And if they are? You, as the GM, create the NPCs, make them as strong as you want, so this is a moot tactic ;)

Also, then again, I NEVER said that 1st PC = 1st elder, as you keep beleiving. Although, still, this wound't be wrong, just a different view. You have to be fair to players, and between them. That's all.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644I 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.

Read again.
Technically, this is organised as if there were bids, there are whole paragraphs on the different type of bids we see there.

Note also that, if you do demons according to the chart, then you have demons who may have a point value in an attribute (since you use points) that's greater or lower than the points spent. There's no difference between this and a ranks only system.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644I ABSOLUTELY disagree.

No problem here, your choice and style of play.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644when 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.

How often do one of your players know the points value of an NPC? It never happened in my game.

When I create a NPC, I decide what powers I want him to have, and were I want him to be ranked (Say, he's got Flora-level psyche, bleys-level Endurance...), and that's all. If this is too much points for what I had in mind (say, if a NPC younger that the youngest PC happens to have 100 more points than him ;)), I may lessen him, but that's all. What is important to me are his strength and weaknesses, and how an interesting and good opponent he's to the PCs. Certainly not his points value.
If I used points instead of ranks, I'd just give, say, 50 points to warfare, without bothering about the NPCs total points.

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;312644If "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????

At least in AMber DRPG, what questions did eric ask for cross-campain?
- What were your powers?
- What were your artifacts?
- What were your ranks, and did you get better

Certainly NOT what was your point total, nor "how many points did you have in warfare", especially as, in his exemple, the player did get better in an attribute without knowing how many points he spend, just that he took one rank.

I understand this could piss you off, but well, this is why amber uses bids and ranks instead of fixed GURPS-like attributes. Also, don't forget that (again, like the demons!!!) this works both ways: you can spend more for warfare, less for psyche.

So, fer power differences, IMO, you got 3 solutions:
- Don't change anything. This may work out well, giving you one family who's better at swordplay, one that is stronger (in that they'll have spend less points for the same result)... and, on the average, this may be roughly equal. Even if it isn't, this still can be interesting
- Give more points to the weaker players, at start or when advancing (IMO better than at start).
- Discuss with the more powerfull players how to lessen their characters.
Note that this may happen whether you use ranks or not: If players from one campain are young upstarts with 100 points, while others were created with 300 points, you'll face the same problem.

Thank you, I do believe we both like the way we do our thing.
No problems there.
There is an understanding between us Croaker, I feel we both love Amber, and try to enjoy it as best we can, and have some cool ideas.
I am a bit anal when it comes to visually representing things so I cvan get the feel for them at a second's glance. I do so without charts, pictures, and writeup's as well, but it's easier for me twith them.
I see where you are going with your method, perhaps I'll not be able to appreciate it unless I converted. but then I do so like my method.
What, I wonder, would Julia say of all this?

"Hey, find your own thread to work this stuff out on!"
LOL

Let's let her have her peace, and we'll have repartte' in other rooms for fun, but let's stay on topic, shall we?
I do look forward to your opinions on here.

Gabriel

Well, here's a theory, assuming Julia begins as a basic human and not something else, like a blood-creature of merlin.

Reality comes with power and potential for more. Thus, by being close to merlin and luke, julia became a little more real. She was already exceptionnal to begin with, note.

Then, exposure to broken pattern let her become yet more real and powerfull, as did the Fount. By the time Merlin confronts her, she's no longer a normal shadow human, just like Bill Roth was changed by his exposure to Amber, but has become a lot more real, which allow her to transcend the limits of her origin and frail shadow form.
So, to me, she could conceivably have any attribute to Chaos rank, and maybe one or two at Amber rank. In time, she'll continue to amass power, though at a slower rate than a Chaos or Amber lord, unless she manages to find yet another shortcut to power.

Good view Croaker.

I wonder...
we know being around an Amberite for some time lends shadow more substance.
Just how much more substantial would one get if they were intimate?
I would assume much more, as there is an actual interaction on a sub-moleculare level, not to mention the possibility of leaving some 'substance' behind after sex, LOL. As well as being on a reality-weaver's mind obsessively in thought.
It's more than some Trumps get.

My thought, exactly ;) I was just more... silent about it :lol:

Whereas I opted for the double-entente.
(Thoughts are best silent, least they take form and become thoughts no longer.)

This could lead to an entire sorceress legion of jilted lovers from the Amberite family.

Hey! Fun idea!

The Legion of Oberon's Ex-wives :lol:

Quote from: Croaker;314339Hey! Fun idea!

The Legion of Oberon's Ex-wives :lol:

Damn there goes the plot for my PBEM ... pesky kids ...

Quote from: jibbajibba;314343Damn there goes the plot for my PBEM ... pesky kids ...

If you think Oberon's Ex-wives would be bad ... just imagine legions of Dworkin's ex-girlfriends and casual acquaintances.
After all Dworkin's the crazy old coot ... imagine if his ideas of reality rub off on the women (or miscellaneous other creatures) with whom he spends his time. :devil:

somehow I see Charlie Sheen in this...

ex-wife subplot, set the kids up with a 'nice' girl (mom's opinion of nice, which may mean chaos). a Hendrake lass can make for a serious plot twist. the ex-wife legion wants grandkids!

Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;314552somehow I see Charlie Sheen in this...

Funny. I was thinking about Danny de Vito. He'd be great as Dworkin.

Quote from: Xenon;314581ex-wife subplot, set the kids up with a 'nice' girl (mom's opinion of nice, which may mean chaos). a Hendrake lass can make for a serious plot twist. the ex-wife legion wants grandkids!

I have enough with a Hendrake ex-wife IRL.
LOL

QuoteElder is a floating value, defined as 1st rank +some points (say 10?). a clear define between you and the next generation.

My recent thinking on this is before the games begins the GM doesn't stat points for the elders but ranks them all against each other, so in War it could be Benedict, Bleys, Corwin, Julian, Random, Gerard, etc. for each attribute. Then decide how powerful the 1st place PC will be in the ranking ladder, say top warfare PC will be 3rd overall, then mix the PCs and elders in as you wish. This way the GM can set the power level of the PCs however they want against a sliding scale of NPCs and can also be tuned to how quickly the GM wants the PCs to advance in the attribut ladder.