Player Contributions

[Croaker]

Contributions, in general, were a diminishing return the longer the game ran the less that initial point is worth. If you got ten points and played 10 sessions doing 10 diaries then they are a point a piece if you play 50 sessions then the value diminishes over time. So I prefer to give out points as they are done.

Yes, this is a real problem.

So what I did was consider the contributions as a % increase.

So I had 3 numbers: a tally of each player XP, a version modified by contributions, and a total of their points, to .

For exemple, if giving 3, 5, 4 and 6 XP to someone with a diary, that would go like this:
Sessions 1: 103 / 113.3 w diary / handed 113
Sessions 2: 108 / 118.8 w diary / handed 119
Sessions 3: 112 / 123.2 w diary / handed 123
Sessions 4: 118 / 129.8 w diary / handed 130

After 5 sessions, the character had 130 points instead of 128. Small, yet this can allow for a C&A, or some Karma.

[Panjumanju]

After 5 sessions, the character had 130 points instead of 128. Small, yet this can allow for a C&A, or some Karma.

That is a LOT of points.

Over my dead, cold and rigid body would one of my Amber players ever get that many points over 5 sessions.

//Panjumanju

[Croaker]

It is an example And it includes a diary. Although I tended to give a lot of points, it went a little slower than that.

Still, I gave at least 1 point per session for attending, with 1 point if the roleplay was enjoyable, and 1+ points if the character learned something important or made a step toward his objectives. Yes, it enabled the characters to progress quickly. I did the reverse, too, but I prefer when players can progress a little, a have a chance to buy important things. And I gave them a LOT of things to spend points on

This didn't stop one guy from taking more and more bad karma, until the point where he literally burned through Shadow, as he had become a blight over creation.

[Tolknor]

i tended to give out points in chunks.  I didn't want players doing things in games just to get points.  Part of the D&D paradigm i was trying to get away from.

I generally gave a chunk after a situation was managed and the player had made in character arrangements to justify advances.  I discussed what their point goals were and made sure i had the right npcs for them to convince to help them advance.

[Artifacts of Amber]

I usually plan to give a point to two per session but since I am running only 2-3 hr sessions I have learned that faster advancement is a must regardless of the game I am running.

A good session does not mean the players have to do things to get points, excellent roleplay and excellent stroy advancement are not always the same thing but I try to reward both equally. I want to encourage the players having fun so whatever that may mean is what I reward with Points.

[Tolknor]

Between the two campaigns i ran i had very different methods of play.

In the first game I was working at a game store in Arcadia and my players could drop by, hang out for an hour or two and do one on one stuff, then we arranged group games as the events suggested them.  A lot of 1on1 stuff happened at our regular weekly game for either Warlock or Role-master.  So during this i could recognize player actions and contributions more often.  Because of the individual nature of the game, i had a very large player group.  Something like 15 or 16 players, with 6 being very active and the others just occasional players.

The second campaign started as an in person thing with groups of  2 or 3 and a much smaller number of players.  It then changed into a thing run online in a chat format.  This led to several sessions happening for a character to conclude some series of activities and get points.  In this one of the more clever player contributions i got was an "As I see it" log.  A player keeping a log of the things he heard others in the game were doing, sometimes accurate, sometimes not.  Its a pity i hadn't had that going in the first game.

[Panjumanju]

Frankly I dislike the idea of rewarding anything a player does with points.

Then players start working for points - or worse yet, trying to appeal to the GM's sensibilities to mine points. When that happens the GM is ultimately in control of the character, not the player. (And fuels the myth of "GM faint" in Amber Diceless.)

I would rather issue points at milestones in the campaign, or during in-game events where it makes the most sense, like, "now that you've all decided to go off into shadow to do your own things, the next session will be 10 years later. Let me know what you want to do during that time. There will be points." But never, never, ever shall I say how many points there are.

It's a struggle, but I think it's really important to keep the point-mechanic of character advancement from being rewarding. In Amber players tend to feel the most rewarded by their character experiences. "Numbers" as rewards drag them back into other gaming sensibilities, which don't bring out the best play experience in this system.

//Panjumanju

[Artifacts of Amber]

I guess it just depends, as most things do, on your GM style and your players. I have had groups I wold seldom, if ever, need to give points to for them to enjoy the game, and there are others who need the points to feel the time the invested in the game is rewarded.

You have to find the happy medium of what makes the players happy and what makes you happy.

I see what Panjumanju is saying in a way. My group right now is worried/concenred about advancement but they are new to Amber and my play style while running. I think this focus on advancement will fade as they become more fully engaged with the game itself. The mechanics are still a factor to them.

[Tolknor]

I agree that i don't want players doing anything with an expectation of getting points.  Diaries, trumps and such are just things for getting the players wrapped around RP rather then EXP.  I tried to award players for completing issues, managing crises.  

Some of the best games we ever had the players got no points at the time but were perfectly happy about seeing something happen.  Seeing Jurt have to close his nightclub and move it out of the city.  Seeing Chaos forced to recall Maylon Hendrake to Chaos and sending Despil as the new Ambassador.   Sure there were points awarded at some point but they didn't wait with baited breath, on the edge of their seats, letting their beer get cold, for me to tell them- "10 pips"    No, it was to see me frown and shrug, and do what they had been hoping to make happen.  Best games.

[Croaker]

Frankly I dislike the idea of rewarding anything a player does with points.
(...)
But never, never, ever shall I say how many points there are.

Who's to say I told to the players that they got points, how, or how many? I think you may be reading things that just aren't there.

I gave points per session, but told nothing about it, nor how they were gained. The guidelines above were for me, not for the players.
And I didn't do advancement each season either

At some moment in time, I would tell "Ok, it's advancement time, write your list", absolutely not "Ok, you've got xx points which you gained by doing A and B, what do you want to do with it?"

As an aside, I remember Wujcik saying you don't have to be afraid to give power to the players. To me, this goes for points too (and one can argue that points somewhat = power), especially as (at least with the players I've had) people often reach for more than what they can afford, like assaying the Pattern.

[Tolknor]

At some moment in time, I would tell "Ok, it's advancement time, write your list", absolutely not "Ok, you've got xx points which you gained by doing A and B, what do you want to do with it?"

As an aside, I remember Wujcik saying you don't have to be afraid to give power to the players. To me, this goes for points too (and one can argue that points somewhat = power), especially as (at least with the players I've had) people often reach for more than what they can afford, like assaying the Pattern.

I never had the players give me a list like that.  I never said 'Advancement time!"  I had a list the players gave me that told me what their ideas for advancement were, goals, and i told them, individually, if anything advanced.   So if they told me-trump art, Advance pattern, a cool new swords, and get Bubbu, Chewwie, and Felix up to Amber strength, and then during game play they never touched a trump, spent time doing metal work, and lifting with chewwie and felix, while arranging the abdication of the King of the realm of Dreana, i said-" advance Chewwie and felix, give them the 2 pip swords.  Spend some time in the pattern room if you want to advance Pattern.  I got grumpy players but they knew i was right.

[Panjumanju]

Who's to say I told to the players that they got points, how, or how many? I think you may be reading things that just aren't there.

Who's to say I was talking about you?

I was just expressing some potential pitfalls in gameplay.

//Panjumanju

[Tolknor]

Who's to say I was talking about you?

I was just expressing some potential pitfalls in gameplay.

//Panjumanju

The worst pitfalls in my games have been pitfalls.  Deep ones.  With Tigers, rabid tigers at that.  Once rabid Tigers and Ninjas.

Though its funny.   This did make me think about something that had occurred in my games.  One of the hardest things i had to deal with was getting the players in my games, all experienced gamers, to think along RP lines rather then along the lines they were used to in other games.  The terminology of other games was comfortable for explaining abilities.

"pitfalls" struck a cord with me because of this.

I had players asking about non-power based skills, how they acquired them and how they played them.     It came down to a character wanting to gain skills like a thief from another game system ;pickpocket, spider climb, pick locks, etc.  In a general way i said that with effort and time spent in the right environment they could reach a certain 'level' worth of skills.

 After that, a sort of informal skill system developed and i let people put a few points into them.  I was generally unhappy about it but it was a compromise.  I made sure they understood that almost all of thesed they could  gain just by spending time in the right world and setting themselves up to learn them in the right environment.  But someone who spends a year working as a locksmith is going to be good at picking locks but he won't be a Houdini.

One of the skill groups that developed was thiefly tricks and prestidigitation.   Sleight of hand, misdirection, etc.  For no points, just study and practice, a player could gain skill similar to a skilled amateur magician.    For a point they could do magic similar to talented magician-a Junior Member of the Magic Castle.    For 2 points they could do stage magic and hand magic and parlor magic similar to a professional magician.    3 points made you equal to someone headlining a Vegas style stage act.   4 pips was a famous and well known magician like Penn&Teller or David Copperfield.    5 pips was the max and it was implied that only one person would have this.   In play no one ever bought up to 5 in any skill.  They also had to arrange a way to justify their study in the art they put points in.  The guy who put 4 pips into Thiefly arts had to spend time as a spy and it was a big part of his character.  The 4 pip stage magician was often a headliner of a huge Vegas style strip show and a frequent guest on Letterman and Leno.

Another way this was used was in the study of shadow magic.  Magic systems particular to various shadows that might or might not be trans-shadow in usage.  So a person could put a point into, for example, AD&D magic and get to use spells like a 4th leveler.  2 pips gave them 8th level, on up to 5 pips letting them throw magic like a 20th leveler.  The systems varied and there was a lot of over lap and such but it meant a person could spend time and effort in a world and gain a few tricks in it, or they could dedicate themselves for a time to get skilled at things.  

I was never really happy with the system and i made sure that they understood that it was not a hard system to be lawyered about but was just a framework for explaining what they were able to do in game play.

This did lead to a general acquisition, by players and NPCs alike, of a form of 1 pip sorcery that was similar to cantrips.  Not powerful enough to be a power word, nor anything that is going to cause much damage, but a few tricks.

[Croaker]

For shadow magic, I had a simple system: For 1 point, you know the magic of one shadow.

[Darran]

2. Drawing trumps.

What is a 'trump'?