Ranks necessary?

[Schattensturm]

In my campaign I didn't use a rank system, I just assumed that more points were better.
To me ranks are just an unnecessary add-on, they don't provide any extra mechanical benefit beyond that of the points alone. This is although I see the technical value of telling people after an auction who's best, etc.
What intrigues me is the question to those of you who use ranks as for why? Which extra benefit do you see in it?
I remain waiting for input

[Xenon]

I think ranks are very important. they help make ADRPG what it is. if you go by points, it is too easy to have several princes with the same points in an attribute. Ranks can be cheap or they can be expensive.

why have points at all? points are an abstract. they show us 'balance', and the relative worth of powers. but once the game has begun, what good are they? the points exist for ease of booking, and to allow us the auction.

when we value ranks, the amount of points between ranks doesn't matter. if we value the points however, its too easy to look at a 1st rank with twice the points of 2nd rank, and reach a different conclusion about the difference between 1st and 2nd ranks than if we ignored points. in the end, the question is how do we want to play the game?

[moritheil]

I'm with Xenon - the ranks are an enormous innovation.  Systems like D&D scale more or less linearly: an 18 charisma isn't really far off from a 20 charisma; the corresponding difference of 1 point in bonus is just a difference of 5% or maybe less depending on how high level the campaign is.  

On the other hand, AMBER is far more decisive.  This clarity is necessary for the extended plotting that goes on.  Brand knows Benedict will destroy anyone who goes up against him with a blade, unless there is tomfoolery afoot.  Can you imagine two high-level D&D swordsmen similarly knowing with certainty who will win? That situation would never arise: it's a toss-up, and one that has only gotten even more muddled with 4e, which causes both "easy" and "insanely challenging" fights to eat up fractions of the day's resources.

In other words, where dice-rolling games are increasingly built to reward risk-taking, getting lucky, and irrational choice, AMBER is built to reward clarity, shrewd thinking, and logical decisions.  It's an entirely different beast, and the near-absoluteness of the ranking system is central to that.

[Croaker]

Yup.

To me, if a character is willing to spend that little point to be first, even if it means going from 50 to 51, then 52, 53... he deserves to be the best, and to have as clear a difference with the second (barely 1 point below) than the guy who is first with 40 points and a second at 20 points.

However, I usually mitigate this: At the start, I drew a rank ladder, and insert invisible ranks every 10 or 15 points, to reward nonetheless massive investment: I am disturbed by a character putting 70 points in an attrribute being only 1 rank above the second at 25 points.
So, for exemple, we could have:
1st: 61 points
2nd: 55 points
invisible rank at 50 points
3rd: 40 points
4rd: 31 points

So, the 4rd is "like" 3 ranks above the 5nd... but the 1st is still 1 rank above the 2nd, despite the 1 points difference.
The exact same differences between players could be achieved if, for exemple, we had:
1st: 44 points
2nd: 43 points
invisible rank at 42 points
3rd: 32 points
4rd: 31 points

[gabriel_ss4u]

I think ranks are very important. they help make ADRPG what it is. if you go by points, it is too easy to have several princes with the same points in an attribute. Ranks can be cheap or they can be expensive.

why have points at all? points are an abstract. they show us 'balance', and the relative worth of powers. but once the game has begun, what good are they? the points exist for ease of booking, and to allow us the auction.

when we value ranks, the amount of points between ranks doesn't matter. if we value the points however, its too easy to look at a 1st rank with twice the points of 2nd rank, and reach a different conclusion about the difference between 1st and 2nd ranks than if we ignored points. in the end, the question is how do we want to play the game?

I agree, except... the points between ranks DO matter, in all except ranking.
To jump up a rank, those points must be matched, so they DO matter.

IMC, I have 3 levels of Rankings; Elders, Experienced, and Neonates.
All my Chaosians are on a chart (excel) and they fall into one of these 3 categories. The Elders are set to be in the ranking structure of their generation. This keeps any pc or npc from from jumping rungs in their perspective generation.
IE;
A PC may be 1st rank in psyche at 40 pts. and 2nd place is 30pts.
The 2nd place person cannot surpass the 1st rank, without sufficient stalling on the 1st ranks side and pushing on 2nd's. But, those 10 pts are needed to know how many points in advancement the PC must raise to match. Also, IMC, those point values compare across the board for ALL PCs & NPCs.
A 3rd rank Psyche Amberite of 20 pts. is comparable to a 4th rank Chaosian with 20 pts. in Psyche.
IMC, it is the points that count when comparing across the board, it is the Ranks which count when comparing across the generation.

The only ones I give extra consideration to is if they are 1st place in their generation, stating basically that they are pushing the edge for their generation, which says something to me as a storywriter/GM.
However, a 1st ranked warfare Amberite of 40 pts. in his (neonate) generation is no match to a 4th rank Chaosian of the elder generation having about 80 pts.
(hell, even if the Chaosian had only 41 pts., 1 pt more is 1 pt. more. Only the fact the Amberite was 1st ranked would give me some juice for the tension of the fight... if all other things were being considered equal)

I find this has an easy pattern to follow, numerical values, at an easy glance, you can tell who out ranks who when they are NOT from the same generation.

[Schattensturm]

Sorry Xenon, but your example does not make much sense to me.
Although you insist on the importance of ranks, you basically say that you judge skill by points. Within your levels a lead in points of course equals a lead in ranks. So whether it is points or ranks, it makes no difference within your levels. Now if we come back to your example of the PC ranked first in psyche at 40 pts, being no match to a 4th ranked elder generation character because that character has 41 points, you are arguing with points. If the 5th ranked elder were to have 39 pts your PC with 40 points would be better, so it is a pure point judgement. Ranks is just nomenclature.
So is the only thing ranks are good for asking players to invest X points to raise that attribute, whereas X is the next better character's points in the attribute - their own character's points, or is there more to it?
Auctions work whether it is points or ranks.
Equal point ratings are no problem either. They can be either solved by Stuff, Endurance, equipment, or strategy.
I still do not get the advantage of using ranks at all. But that's probably just me.

[gabriel_ss4u]

You do understand that ranks are a Generational thing, right?
A way of saying; 'these characters are forever tied to each other.'
they are the only ones the ranks apply to.
the 40 pt. example was mine though,
you state;
If the 5th ranked elder were to have 39 pts your PC with 40 points would be better, so it is a pure point judgement. Ranks is just nomenclature.
yes... I go by point value across the board.
IF you are NOT in the same generation, your rank has no bearing, it is a point value system that must be used to determine attribute.
The Ranks exist to have the PCs work within a framework of their generation and where they are placed within it. The next higher ranks must be matched or overcome with equal or greater points to go up, according to each GM.

[Croaker]

When comparing across generations, I take the ranks in reverse.

Say, in the PCs generation, the 1st has spent 30 points, and is 5 ranks above amber level. He'll be, to me, as good as an elder than, with 25 points, was 5 ranks above amber, or a demon that, with 60 points, was also 5 ranks above amber.
However, an elder 6 ranks above Amber, with 26 points will beat him, just as a demon 6 ranks above Amber, with 68 points.

This, IMO, is the lesson of the Demons Charts in Shadow Knight: In a given group, you can spend more or less points and still achieve the same "rank"

[jibbajibba]

I'm with Shattensturm. Don't use ranks.
My motivation is maybe a little different.
I hate the static nature of the ranking structure I hate that the best guy knows they are the best guy. One of the nice things about the open ended nature of attributes in Amber is that no one really knows how many points people have in skills. In my games everyone is always looking over their shoulder they are always tresting themselves without exposing their full capabilities.
I also , as I have stated previously don't use the elders. Why woudl i want 16 uber powerful NPCs in my campaign that can kick the players arses. Therefore i don;t get the generation problem. If i did use elders I would never say that a 3rd generation couldn't be higher ranked compared to a 2nd.
Its not like other games becuase stats are open ended. I can spend 14 on Strength or 80. I rarely get dead heats in stats and when i do they are at the bottom end where a player chucks a single point in a stat just to differentiate fromt eh Amber ranks and since you have Amber ranks you always have a load of ties in every stat.
I tend to run my auctions blind in 3 rounds after rounds 1 and 2 i announce the highest total in that stat and a players rank. So after round 1 a player might have bid S-2, P-23, E - A, W -2. They get the response back you are ranked 3rd in Str the highest bid was 12, 2nd in Psyche the highest bid was 41, 4th in Endurance the highest bid was 8, 8th in warefare the highest bid was 38. On round 3 you get no information and after round 3 you can't spend any more on your stats. This creates an interesting dynamic where players are always looking over their shoulders and trying to gague their worth. The names of the top bidders aren't mentioned but may be revealled depending on player choices and background.
After the auction i don't use ranks just the points spent.

Look at the books.
Corwin reckons he is 3rd rank in warefare. This is the whole root of the ranking system in ADRPG. We know Benedict is the best. But in actual fact Corwin beats Eric and so is probably 2nd rank, but then Corwin watches Bleys ascend the stairs of Kolvir and sees the greatest display of swordsmanship since Benedict against the moonriders out of Ghenesh. Now that sounds to me like Bleys can be considered up ther vying for 2nd rank. So my point is that Eric, Corwin and Bleys are all in the mix for 2nd rank and that its much more fluid that the game allows.
Then you have Dalt. Dalt is a son of Oberon and therefore 2nd generation but Merlin's chronicles are very much 3rd generation and Luke is a match for Dalt. The generation gap breaks down here.

Then you have the problem of how to make the top guy keep on improving. in the auction system I use the guy who is top in round 2 thinks they are the best but they aren't sure they have to spend in round 3 becuse they know that everyone else in the auction knows the top bid and so can outbid it. Then with experience they know there might be folks near to them and so they have to keep on spending points to stay the best. I have had rank 1 warfare guys who are a country mile ahed of everyone else like 20 - 30 points but they still spend all their xp on Warefare because they are convinced that another player is on their shirt-tails and catching up. To maintain that edge of being the best they have to keep working and practising and pushing themselves at the expense of other stuff. This I think is one of the best reasons for not using ranks as it gives the top folks a real focus. They keep on working to stay the best.

[Xenon]

well, there are ranks, and then there are ranks. Just because you know someone has 3rd rank, that dosent exclude them actually having 2.5 or 1.5 rank.

I see rank as being important, but not 100% of a conflict. you have to consider a lot of other factors as well- for warfare, this means weapons, armor, stance, the battlefield itself, and good/bad stuff. The higher rank will have better information, but that dosent prevent them from doing something stupid, like running headlong into a trap. And despite Corwin having a high warfare, he still gets beaten down when outnumbered by nameless mooks.

In a one-on-one duel, with roughly equal conditions, the higher rank will win. but when you allow for the wide variety of options that exist, sometimes even Benedict can lose an arm or step on vampiric grass.

[Schattensturm]

Thanks jibbajibba, that was a very interesting read.

[Croaker]

Exactly.

When doing the auction in PBEM, I let the players make 1 turn of secret auctions, in order to let everyone have a chance to bid.
Then, I announced each rank, like "first rank is bob with 41 points, second is bill with 35, third is bart with 33"...
I had players bid separately then, so that if someone bids 42, the others didn't know who it was. I then announced "first is 42 points".

In the End, I announced who was first, but nothing else.
That way, the players have a chance to see where they belong in the ladder at first, like corwin beleiving him to be third rank, but after that, nothing is certain, save the 1st rank.

And yes, I let players become better than 1st afterwards.

[moritheil]

Look at the books.
Corwin reckons he is 3rd rank in warefare. This is the whole root of the ranking system in ADRPG. We know Benedict is the best. But in actual fact Corwin beats Eric and so is probably 2nd rank, but then Corwin watches Bleys ascend the stairs of Kolvir and sees the greatest display of swordsmanship since Benedict against the moonriders out of Ghenesh. Now that sounds to me like Bleys can be considered up ther vying for 2nd rank. So my point is that Eric, Corwin and Bleys are all in the mix for 2nd rank and that its much more fluid that the game allows.

I see this as Corwin starting at rank 3, and then buying up to 1.5.

I read Bleys's spectacle to be partly due to the fact that, well, how often do you see a bunch of mortals lining up to be slain one by one by a prince of Amber?  Even though it's magnificent, it doesn't mean that he's actually better than Corwin or Eric. He could simply be very close - say, 4th ranked.

[SunBoy]

I see this as Corwin starting at rank 3, and then buying up to 1.5.

I read Bleys's spectacle to be partly due to the fact that, well, how often do you see a bunch of mortals lining up to be slain one by one by a prince of Amber?  Even though it's magnificent, it doesn't mean that he's actually better than Corwin or Eric. He could simply be very close - say, 4th ranked.

My thoughts exactly.