A silly attribute auction question

[Uncle Twitchy]

I let them create the next rank based on how much experience they've accumulated...

See, I have a lot of guys who like to compete for Rank 1, and they inevitably place that thing as the first item on their lists.

So if I've just run a really long story, with a huge threat, and I hand out, oh, arbitrarily, 40 XP, you're saying that I should now make the leap between the old Rank 1 and the new Rank 1 equal 40 points?

I don't like that one bit.

[Nihilistic Mind]

See, I have a lot of guys who like to compete for Rank 1, and they inevitably place that thing as the first item on their lists.

So if I've just run a really long story, with a huge threat, and I hand out, oh, arbitrarily, 40 XP, you're saying that I should now make the leap between the old Rank 1 and the new Rank 1 equal 40 points?

I don't like that one bit.

Lol, I can certainly see your point, but I never hand out that many points. Otherwise, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. To each his own.

[Arref]

Like Otha I dumped ranks. I don't like them and I don't think they add much to the game they just confuse experience.

Then after the auction
P1 - 5 and spends no more = 5
P2 - spend 40 but added an additonal 15 = 55
P3 - spent 30 but added an additional 11 = 41
P4 - spent 45 added nothing extra = 45
P5 - spent 0 but added 6 more =6

This means that from an Amber family history perspective P2, P3 and P4 were always seen as the warriors and when the family was young P4 was the best, but no one is now sure of the ranking. P2 knows he spent as much extra as he could but he can't know if P4 is still better or not until they cross swords. P3 thinks he might have suppassed P2. P4 might think they were safe on the top and P1 thinks he is better than P5 but would be suprised in a fight.

To me this gives a much more rewarding final outcome than the rule book method.

So after the auction is held, despite someone dropping out, you can add enough points to top the best? In your example, P5 could add 70?

[jibbajibba]

So after the auction is held, despite someone dropping out, you can add enough points to top the best? In your example, P5 could add 70?

No you can only add up to 3 times the ante so 5 who doesn't vote could spend a maximum of 15  in this example. You can of course tweak the numbers depending really on the number of players but n-2 is a good guideline

[gabriel_ss4u]

Great points guys.

I KEEP ranks, I down play them unless it is important.
Lots of my NPCs have middle ranks... or else there are only so many slots for those dozens of Chaosians and other power-houses out there to fit into...
"OH, you have a 69 Psyche, ME TOO!..."
"Me too!"
"... and ME TOO!"

No.. the ranks are there for the players to see the goals... next rank is 20 pts? wow... do I really want that?
That's one thing that IF IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE GM AND THE PLAYERS it CAN work well with the system... the bidding may get overboard... but that is up to the GM to advise... or players to read.

My 1st Amber was similar... except "I" was the only one of the 5 that didn't read at least the 1st series, (The other guy that didn't was a speedy reader and finished the 1st 5 novels the week before the game)
 Sp I read the RULEBOOK.
It healped me.

Yeah! If you tell new unadvised players that the 1st thing they spend their pts. on it all important.... they will react so.

MY  GM had let us look over the rule book at least... we were aware of the HYPE that may ensue... and thankfully, Erick had some GREAT ADVISE in those pages... Really, if someone (let alone a whole group of people) don't really understand this groundbreaking gaming system... there are bound to be problems.
Hell, there are problems when they do, but that's what makes this a great game...
so many people love it, that we have 200 solutions for these minor glitches.

(Yeah, I called them minor glitches.... well, except sorcery, that should have been written a bit better...)
But STILL the #1 game to me!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, best to PLAY a game.... before you GM it...
right???

[PantherShade]

I think that the entire concepts of the Attribute Auction and ranking is silly.  Yeah, I said it.

I remember my introduction to Amber, before I read anything.  Two guys bid Strength up to 60 from 25.  One of them, the winner, dropped out after the second session.  The other one only lasted one more session.  :mad:

So, when I started running Amber, I took a different approach....

I have my players simply build with points.  However, unlike with an auction, they never get to know what the other players are spending.  Since the NPCs are created similarly (made in advance), the players have to decide for themselves how far they're willing to go.

I encourage them to spend points on Attributes by simply highlighting their immediate use.  Advanced Pattern is great, if you have the time to use it.  Someone with a good Warfare just won't give you the chance.  Plus, they recognize that they're also spending versus the NPCs. so it's not as relevant how low the other PCs make things.

I've found that this method works much better.  Everything is fair and balanced; the PCs have the same opportunities to spend what they want, just like the NPCs.  If someone wants to be the highest, then they better spend high.  Since they don't know what the others are spending, you get interesting notions of how much people value each attribute.

As far as ranking goes, it's all about the points spent.  You're better if you spent more points.  If you spent the same amount of points, then you're equally good.  Why is Benedict 1st in Warfare?  Because he spent more points than anyone else.

[Uncle Twitchy]

I've toyed with the idea of doing that sometime -- throwing out the Attribute Auction entirely and going with letting people spend their points as they will and then announcing who's rank 1 in each stat. Hmm.

[Nihilistic Mind]

I've toyed with the idea of doing that sometime -- throwing out the Attribute Auction entirely and going with letting people spend their points as they will and then announcing who's rank 1 in each stat. Hmm.

I think it would be a good way to allow players to create characters that are balanced to their liking.

[Uncle Twitchy]

And would give a GM a true idea of how important each stat is to them. It's kind of like those guys who bid nothing on any stat during the auction and then just buy half-ranks.

Of course, if two people spend the same number of points, it's exactly as though two people made the same opening bid and then neither bought up...

Interesting.

[Trevelyan]

I generally prefer point based creation to ranks, it just seems tidier and it allows people to balance their attributes as they envisage, but I still like the auction and the way that it can distort the original intentions of players when the competitive urge takes control.

Jibbajibba mentioned upthread the problem of someone leaping into an auction with a huge bid to freeze out other players. One beauties of the rank system is that it renders this tactic unviable. If points are only an abstract, and rank is what really matters, then a 1st place rank bought with 70 points is no more valuable than a 1st place rank bought with 5 points. Under a ranking system, it makes far more sense to make cautious opening bids and try to conserve points.

On the original topic, I've had interesting times using the whole "...is the most important attribute" bit, but varying the order of the auctions. Endurance, Strength, Psyche, Warefare produces some interesting results...

[Croaker]

One beauties of the rank system is that it renders this tactic unviable. If points are only an abstract, and rank is what really matters, then a 1st place rank bought with 70 points is no more valuable than a 1st place rank bought with 5 points.

Exactly, and I love this.
Btw, this is also why demon ranks are different.

[jibbajibba]

I think that the entire concepts of the Attribute Auction and ranking is silly.  Yeah, I said it.

I remember my introduction to Amber, before I read anything.  Two guys bid Strength up to 60 from 25.  One of them, the winner, dropped out after the second session.  The other one only lasted one more session.  :mad:

So, when I started running Amber, I took a different approach....

I have my players simply build with points.  However, unlike with an auction, they never get to know what the other players are spending.  Since the NPCs are created similarly (made in advance), the players have to decide for themselves how far they're willing to go.

I encourage them to spend points on Attributes by simply highlighting their immediate use.  Advanced Pattern is great, if you have the time to use it.  Someone with a good Warfare just won't give you the chance.  Plus, they recognize that they're also spending versus the NPCs. so it's not as relevant how low the other PCs make things.

I've found that this method works much better.  Everything is fair and balanced; the PCs have the same opportunities to spend what they want, just like the NPCs.  If someone wants to be the highest, then they better spend high.  Since they don't know what the others are spending, you get interesting notions of how much people value each attribute.

As far as ranking goes, it's all about the points spent.  You're better if you spent more points.  If you spent the same amount of points, then you're equally good.  Why is Benedict 1st in Warfare?  Because he spent more points than anyone else.

I use this method when I do PBEM. Except that there is a slight flaw in it. If you want your guy to be the best at Psyche you have no feel for the ammount of points that are about.
What I do therefore is a hybrid. A 3 round blind auction and then you can add additional points. After each round a player gets told just the rank they have in each stat. At the end they can add as much extra as they like. I use the NPCs in the auction to set the level. (when i say ranks I merely mean your position int eh auction becuase as you say at the end of the day its the points that we play with)
The only real difference with a straight points bid is that you get a feel for where you are ranked and so you can adjust your spend. Yes a player might come in at the end and spend hugely more on a stat than you did and you will still be weaker but you are unlikely to end up the weakest guy at psyche.
So if you spend nothing in round 1 and the GM informs you after round 1 you are ranked 12th of the 20 bidders you get a sense of how many people are bidding in psyche. If you then bid 35 in round 2 and end up 4th again you get a feel for it and can adjust your spend accordingly.

As for the point that a single bid locks out a stat being a + for the ranking system this is not true. Yes a rank is just a rank and a 3 point gap and a 45 point gap shoud be equivalent but in the ranking system a high bid that locks out an attribute has the effect of making all other players the same rank.
So if we have 6 players and the first guy bids 70 on warfare and no one else wants to spend that much then all the other players are the same rank which makes a nonsense of the system. It means that if I came to the table with a character concept 'Jovis the dashing bucaneer, mid raked warfare and high endurance' I can no longer play that character because some other guy big too high on a stat. Any mechanic that stops people roleplaying the way they want is a bad mechanic. Imagine D&D if when you were making your character  the DM told you you couldn't assign that 14 you rolled to Dexterity because some other guy already rolled a 17 and so all the other players had to have 11 .

[Croaker]

If the bids on warfare are 1, 5, 70 and you want to play a mid-ranked warfare guy, you just gotta spend 5 points. And you're second.
Other players may want to do this, too, but, then, there's an universe out there.

Anyway, if this bothers you, an easy way to limit this is to forbid players bidding higher than, say, 20 points at a time.

But if a guy spends 70 points in warfare to make sure HE is the best and will stay it... he should benefit from it, shouldn't he? At least, until someone else invest enough effort to best him. But this means warfare is everything for him.
Anyway, he'll probably be easily bested by all those 2-ranked warfare guys who, aside from being also higher in strength and endurance, have powers and artifacts...

[Uncle Twitchy]

As for the point that a single bid locks out a stat being a + for the ranking system this is not true. Yes a rank is just a rank and a 3 point gap and a 45 point gap shoud be equivalent but in the ranking system a high bid that locks out an attribute has the effect of making all other players the same rank.
So if we have 6 players and the first guy bids 70 on warfare and no one else wants to spend that much then all the other players are the same rank which makes a nonsense of the system.

I had that very situation with my Attribute Auction two weeks ago -- someone did that on the first Attribute, and that sent a ripple effect through the other three. The first

The next week, when I explained to the players why bidding 50 points for Psyche when the next highest bid was 12 points, they voted to redo the auction. And everyone ended up spending roughly the same number of points as they had before and I got a much, much more reasonable rank ladder.

[PantherShade]

But if a guy spends 70 points in warfare to make sure HE is the best and will stay it... he should benefit from it, shouldn't he? At least, until someone else invest enough effort to best him. But this means warfare is everything for him.

Actually, in the game I just started, spending 70 points would have guaranteed him as 1st among all the other PCs and most of the NPCs.  However, a ranking system fails when more than one person wants to be the best.  Being 2nd is bad enough, but spending lots of points to get there, and only just be better than 3rd, really stinks.
Additionally, I could easily compare him against the 'older generation'.  Yes, I do believe it's fair that someone could beat Fiona in Strength or Benedict in Psyche.