Various points?

[Croaker]

Well, springing from a discussion on another forum, here's a question for you:

Would you, or have you, given more points to one player than to the others? If so, how many, and why? Would you, or have you, talked about this with other players beforehand, or are you the sole decidor in these matters?

[scottishstorm]

Just curious, Croaker.  Are you talking about advancement points, initial points, or both?

[gabriel_ss4u]

advancement points; yes, there are various deciding factors.

beginning points, no, unless it was for bonus points for char. contributions.
The only time i gave a player more points was when I started a players background 3 months before the auction, and we roleplayed a few sessions, so he could come up to speed with the system, I gave him 5 pts. for that time and it pretty much went to the allies he created through it.
otherwise, everyone gets the same base points from me.

[scottishstorm]

I've played in games where advancement isn't necessarily even, though I think (ultimately) things more or less evened-out.  Such games might give bonuses for particularly dramatic or entertaining role-play, or meeting important objectives (not necessarily objectives shared by everyone).

Would I, as a GM, give more points to X-player than Y-player?  Quite possibly.  Hypothetically, Y-player is doing significantly less in the game (or significantly more to derail it).  

However, I think it's important not to stress less points as some sort of punishment (just as it's important not to equate more points as a sort of favoritism).  Likewise, extra points shouldn't be hugely significant in number.  if a given player consistently gets extra points, then soon their character could be 30-50 points higher than everyone else's.  this sort of thing can breed ill favour in the game, IMO.  it's a bit of a balancing act, too.  IE: allowing for other players to get the bonus while X-player doesn't makes it seem a little more fair.

As an aside, though, when role-playing bonuses have been implemented in my past games, there was little or none player upset.  Everyone had fun and I believe everyone was happy with X-player getting maybe another 2 points for highlighting everyone's night with a bit of stellar play.

[Sidrick]

I have.  I ran a multi-generational game at one point, and characters of an age with Merlin/Rinaldo and company started with more points than characters from the next generational cohort.

Also run games where the points players got were directly proportional to their experience with the game.  Proving that the points don't matter nearly as much as the planning.

When I 'hand out' exp it's always different per pc, not that the players ever get told how much they have.  The more a pc works to advance plot (mine, theirs, anothers, doesn't matter) the more xp they'll get.  I also have players vote in secret ballot after every game session for who they thought did the best role-playing and who they thought most advanced the plot both of which will also get rolled into xp awards.

[Croaker]

Just curious, Croaker.  Are you talking about advancement points, initial points, or both?

Initial points.

I'm not talking of some players advancing faster because they're more active and all, or of introducing new players to a game in which there are already experienced, established characters, but, at character generation, to give more points to some characters than to others.

I have.  I ran a multi-generational game at one point, and characters of an age with Merlin/Rinaldo and company started with more points than characters from the next generational cohort.

But then, how was it decided?

Did you told some players they'd play "elders" while others would play "youngsters"? Was it a group decision? Or did you decide they'd have the choice of their generation (and thus, initial points)?

[scottishstorm]

Initial points.

I'm not talking of some players advancing faster because they're more active and all, or of introducing new players to a game in which there are already experienced, established characters, but, at character generation, to give more points to some characters than to others.

But then, how was it decided?

Did you told some players they'd play "elders" while others would play "youngsters"? Was it a group decision? Or did you decide they'd have the choice of their generation (and thus, initial points)?

In no way am I attempting to answer for Sidrick here.  Just, the idea of alternative point totals to start got me thinking.

Years ago, a friend was developing an RPG that had three "classes" of characters (something like Neophyte, Veteran and Legend: the archtypes he used to use as example would be Luke Skywalker, Hans Solo, and Obi-wan) and were powered accordingly.  This game used a variant of plot points, which were rewarded in reverse order of character power (ie: Neophytes got by far the most).  Granted XP was also given in reverse order of character power.  These and other systems were designed to give the weight if importance and story relevance in reverse order of character power.

I'm wondering if something with a similar feel/theme could be applicable to Amber.  If so, the  power level of "real" elders like Benedict, Corwin, et all is most likely exempt.  

Off the top of my head, I could see something like this:

Youngling:
100 points to start
+5 Advancement points each reward period
"free" Amber or Chaos devotee

Experienced Shadowrat
150 points to start
no modifiers for advancement
One significant enemy and/or moderate enemies at at GM's discretion (out to hamper or embarrass)
"reverse Family Friend" (Like a 1-point Royal Ally in reverse.  This person actively dislikes you)
Minor duty to GM

Lord/Lady of Chaos (or Prince/Princess of Amber)
200 points to start
significantly slowed or stymied advancement
Notable enemies at GM's discretion (will kill you if they can)
"reverse devotee" (someone like Benedict, Caine, Bances, etc. hates you utterly)
Secret duty to GM (*)

(* by secret duty, I mean you may be responsible for a Youngling's safety, being unable to refuse their help or to hurt them in any way.  Alternatively, there may be some other condition or task that you must work towards in-game.  Minor duties are comparable to the above, but hold less restrictions or require less devotion)

Advancement.  Hypothetically, the first "chapter" is done and advancement points are given.  It's a base of 5 points.  Scaled, these are:

Youngling: 10 points
Experienced Shadowrat: 5 points
Lord/Prince: 2 points (half base rounded down)

With these numbers, after 10 "chapters": the Youngling and Shadowrat are exactly even, points-wise, and pretty close to the Lord (200, 200, 220).  After 15 "chapters", the Youngling is ahead and Shadowrat & Lord are almost even (250, 225, 230)

Naturally, "chapters" are not game sessions.  They are advancement periods that could be represented by several weeks, even months, of play each.

[scottishstorm]

In relation to my last post, here are a few examples of "favour to GM" in respect to the Shadowrat and Lord starting levels.

Protector/teacher:  The more experienced character is charged with protecting one or more 'Youngling' (ir could be two or three, especially if all were children of the same elder, for example) and/or guiding them though some power training (Pattern, Logrus, Trump, etc.)

• Minor: The Shadowrat is helping out the "newbie" as a favour to another elder and is under no special compulsion to carry through.  However, it will likely be a favour remembered if he does well (or an insult not forgotten if he shrugs it off).
  
  
• Major: The Lord may be charged with protecting X-elder's entire family.  There may be some sort of magical geas or other compulsion involved.  The Lord has to help.  Nor can he act in any way to put the Youngling in serious jeopardy.
  

Keeper of Secrets or Pursuer of Hidden Truths: The more experienced character is on a mission; one that may very well take centauries to accomplish or even the rest of her life.

• Minor: The Shadowrat is motivated towards the mission, but not necessarily with  a sense of urgency.  It is important to her.  However, other things may be of equal or even greater importance.  She cannot simply give up or casually betray the mission, though.
  
  
• Major: For the Lord, this mission is among the most important things in her life, if not THE most important.  She obsesses towards the mission.  Nothing would motivate her to betray it.
  

[Sidrick]

Did you told some players they'd play "elders" while others would play "youngsters"? Was it a group decision? Or did you decide they'd have the choice of their generation (and thus, initial points)?

I made all the choices.  I knew that it was going to be a particularly cut-throat game and that about half my players were far less experienced with our particular style of play in Amber.  So I gave the people with less 'real world' experience more points, to help keep the playing field as level as I could.

[RPGPundit]

In about half my campaigns, I give the same points all around.
In the other half, obviously, I give variable points to the different players, as has been the case in this current campaign I'm running. I think that both sides arguably have their rationale.

RPGPundit

[charis]

There's always the consideration that one or two of the players will always do character journals or something similar, in which case they will through the whole campaign be getting more points than the other players, who either don't want too or just don't care enough to do journals or whatever.

I feel that you should give those players who are putting extra effort into the game the extra points they deserve, even though it will stack up over time, well, they worked for all of those points!