A silly attribute auction question

[Pete]

So has anyone here done the "Psyche is the most important attribute...Strength is the most important attribute," and so on, trick and NOT have it blow up the entire game?  Eliminating that part was definitely my first house rule...

[Otha]

Blow up?

Tell us how it happened in your game.

In my case, the players had all read the rulebook and saw it coming.

[Pete]

Blow up?

Tell us how it happened in your game.

In my case, the players had all read the rulebook and saw it coming.

Oh its ancient history at this point.  I didn't know anything about the Amber novels but I bought the RPG because Wujcik's name (I was a big Palladium fan at the time) and the marketing blurb on the back cover interested me greatly.  I read through the book and read the first three Amber novels and got ready to run a game.

Nobody in the group had any experience with the game or the novels.  My fix for this was to develop a Mary Sue NPC character who was to be the new Amberites' mentor of sorts -- picture an Amber equivalent of Elminster and you'll get the idea...I got better as I grew older, honest.   I was to run them through the venerable "you all have wake up with no memories" scenario and basically run them through a tutorial of sorts.

We all got to the table, started the auction and I did the "Psyche is the most important etc."  Only one person of the five decided to not blow almost his entire 100 point wad on Psyche; he stopped around 50, the others were in the 90s!  I sighed and pressed forward with a sheepish "Now strength is the most important attribute..." and the game didn't last more than five minutes after that.

[Arref]

You aren't alone in having this happen.

I think what EW was trying to do was generate some emotional foreshadow context to a family that often says one thing and means another. Also EW has a humorous streak and does playful banter throughout the book's examples.

Unfortunately, a GM can read that section of the rules quite literally and make a gaming group revolt. There is nothing less funny or playful than a GM who is apparently lying to the Player group.

I hope this gets addressed in the second edition.

[finarvyn]

Yeah, I think the idea was to emphasize to a reader that all four attributes are very important. Sadly, this seems to have been taken as proof that the GM is supposed to be "out to get" the players.

The GM should encouage players to spend, and should emphasize how important it is to have high attributes, but not actually lie to the players.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Interestingly, every time I run an auction I use the whole such and such is the most important attribute. It gives a chance for new players unfamiliar with the system to realize that attributes are important, and equally so, since each is the most important attribute.

Last time I used that bit was for a quick 4-hour throne war, with two veteran amber players ( who know and expect to hear that bit) and two brand new players who allowed me to explain to them why each attribute was the most important.

It's just a fun part of the auction process, IMO.

[Uncle Twitchy]

In my most recent attribute auction, I had a veteran player who absolutely hates the auction process tell the new players that I was going to do the "...is the most important attribute" bit for each attribute, so I explained that each one is the most important attribute, depending on what was important to you for your character.

"If you want to be really effective with the powers you wield, then Psyche is the most important. If you want to be really physically strong, resilient and be excellent at hand-to-hand combat, then Strength is the most important. If you want to be able to heal from damage quickly, go for days without having to sleep or rest, and be able to outlast your opponents, then Endurance is the most important. If you want to be excellent at melee and ranged combat, be an effective strategist and be able to come up with successful plans and be a strong leader, then Warfare is most important. So prioritize now."

So one person blew out the Psyche battle with an opening bid of 50 points (the others were 12, 6, 5, and two guys at Amber level). So no one bid up, and I now have to rework my NPCs accordingly (I don't think it's fair to the players to have NPCs with point values between what the rank values are).

And the other newbie saw how effective that was and bid 30 points for Strength. The only actual "auction" I got was that one person bid up in Endurance, and another bid one point over them -- and no one wanted to overbid them.

Quickest, most boring Attribute Auction I've ever run.

Getting Rank 2.5 in Psyche and Strength is really, really cheap, though...

[Otha]

...I don't think it's fair to the players to have NPCs with point values between what the rank values are)...

Why?

[Otha]

Quickest, most boring Attribute Auction I've ever run.

That'll happen any time the players truly understand the auction.  That's why the mindgame of "Psyche is the most important..." is necessary.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Here's a variant I would use to keep the auction fresh when saying "[This Attribute] is the most important attribute" for players who are used to the auction system...
Just add "in this campaign..." to those statements and explain why each one is the most important 'in this campaign'.
It might fool some of the players into taking the attribute auction more seriously.

[Uncle Twitchy]

Why?

Because they've spent those points to create that attribute ranking. If you throw NPCs in between them, creating additional steps in the ladder, so to speak, so that when it comes time to spend advancement points, you're doing a disservice to the players' expectations.

They've spent the points to create the steps of the ranking ladder. Those are points in their characters they've invested in. Just as surely as those points are representative of where their interest in the campaign lies, so, too, is it representative of the expectations they have in increasing their characters' abilities.

So, in order to be impartial and objective, the NPCs I create should abide by that ranking system that the players have determined. I've usually run games the other way, by creating additional "ranks" by placing NPCs between the PCs. In hindsight, it created more work for me when player advancement came around.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Why bother 'ranking' NPCs? Wouldn't that be detrimental to the game?
I understand the need to modify stats a bit if first rank in psyche was won with 50 points for example, but I wouldn't necessarily use NPC ranks for Player Character advancement...

[Uncle Twitchy]

Then how do you handle when the player who is ranked first (or 1.5) in an attribute wants to advance in that attribute?

[Nihilistic Mind]

I let them create the next rank based on how much experience they've accumulated...
In my experience, this hasn't happened a lot since players tend to want to improve the attributes in which they are not already ranked first or acquire new powers.

I just find that letting NPCs create future ranks (or 'in-between' ranks) make the ranks too static... I'd much rather let the players set the pace for their own advancement.

[jibbajibba]

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. I can see the justification from the books but the idea that whatever a player did their character could never be as good as the guy that bid top in the auction just feels wrong to me.
I love the auction though. It's the very best original idea that Erick put into the game. I just don't think it needs to be tied to ranks.
In a face to face game I run the auction like a poker game. There is an opening ante. Then the bid goes round the table which each player allowed to bid up in ante sized chunks. If you drop out of the auction you can't join in at a later point. The size of the ante depends on the ammount of points I set for character build (very rarely 100 by the way) so with 200 point characters it's likely to be a 5 point ante with 100 it would be 2 points. We do this for each attribute. At the end of the auction any player can then add upto three times the ante secretly from their remaining pool of points. This has the effect of ensuring an auction occurs and you don't get the single 50 point bid that effectly closes the auction right down and can break the game. It also ensures that the final ranks are a lot more mysterious than in a traditional game and it terms of spending any gained experience points makes attibutes a much more attractive spend.
This came about as the result of an auction where the first round bids went
Warfare - player 1 bids 70 points. No one else bids and so I have ranks of 2nd= Amber , 1st 70 points. No one was ever going to amase enough experience to save up 70 points and if they did why would they spend it on upping warfare from 2nd= to 1.5 at the cost of 70 points which could buy them advanced shapeshift or something.... an anted system just seems to work out better.
eg
Ante set to 5. Bidding for Warfare
P1 - 5
P2 - 10
P3 - 15
P4 - 20
P5 - no bid
P1 - no bid
P2 - 25
P3 - 30
P4 - 35
P2 - 40
P3 - no bid
P4 - 45
P2 no bid
P4 - could continue to bid against themselves but would do so openly thus revealing their final spend, its a tactic...

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.