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...
Blow up?
Tell us how it happened in your game.
In my case, the players had all read the rulebook and saw it coming.
Quote from: OthaBlow 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote from: Uncle Twitchy...I don't think it's fair to the players to have NPCs with point values between what the rank values are)...
Why?
Quote from: Uncle TwitchyQuickest, 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.
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.
Quote from: OthaWhy?
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.
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...
Then how do you handle when the player who is ranked first (or 1.5) in an attribute wants to advance in that attribute?
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.
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.
Quote from: Nihilistic MindI 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.
Quote from: Uncle TwitchySee, 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.
Quote from: jibbajibbaLike 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?
Quote from: ArrefSo 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
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??????
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'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.
Quote from: Uncle TwitchyI'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.
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.
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...
Quote from: TrevelyanOne 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.
Quote from: PantherShadeI 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 .
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...
Quote from: jibbajibbaAs 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.
Quote from: CroakerBut 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.
Quote from: PantherShadeYes, I do believe it's fair that someone could beat Fiona in Strength or Benedict in Psyche.
I do, too ;)
Quote from: CroakerIf 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...
Well no if I spend 5 points I will be 2.5 and worse than the guy playing the wizard who just happened to go second in the attribute auction.
Yes I can buy loads of other stuff but that means I don't up playing the character I wanted to play and surely playing the character you want to play is the strength of a points based character generation system.
Again you are right the giy who blew 70 on warfare might well be disadvantaged in play but that isn't my point. We don't roleplay to min max our charcters and be tougher than the other players. We roleplay to have fun and a bit of escapisim and for me that tends to be playing characters I want to play. My point is that the system can throw these things up and so is flawed. An attribute auction is a unique and fantastic way of assigning stats and a system that has open ended scores on attributes powers and the like is a great system but I just don't ranks are a workable tool and they don't even reflect the books they are trying to replicate.
Quote from: jibbajibbaYes I can buy loads of other stuff but that means I don't up playing the character I wanted to play and surely playing the character you want to play is the strength of a points based character generation system.
???
You wanted mid-ranked. You get mid-ranked.
By the way, I'd add that one of the particularities of the auction is that you don't always get what you wanted, and must be ready to seize on opportunities.
And if the big lump of points really annoys you, you can easily rule against that, while keeping the ranks.
Quote from: jibbajibbaAs 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.
* * *
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 .
This is all true, but applies equally whether you use points or ranks, the only difference being that the margin of difference is significantly reduced when you apply ranks.
In a point based game, the guy who jumps in with a 70 bid not only freezes out the competition, but also makes the difference between himself and the next best guy absolutely vast. At least with ranks you need only worry about the cost to improve.
Quote from: TrevelyanThis is all true, but applies equally whether you use points or ranks, the only difference being that the margin of difference is significantly reduced when you apply ranks.
In a point based game, the guy who jumps in with a 70 bid not only freezes out the competition, but also makes the difference between himself and the next best guy absolutely vast. At least with ranks you need only worry about the cost to improve.
but in a points system I would do away with the rules about how much you can spend (see my anted auction varient above) after the auction finishes and with xp you can just pour points in there with out needing to go in steps
Quote from: jibbajibbabut in a points system I would do away with the rules about how much you can spend (see my anted auction varient above) after the auction finishes and with xp you can just pour points in there with out needing to go in steps
What is there to stop you applying the same rules in a rank system? Once you introduce house rules then they can apply to either attribute system, with point limits applied to rank bids, and additional ex determining current points on which the rank is based (but with no change in ability until you gain a new rank).
Both systems can be improved, but ranks are more robust out of the box.
Quote from: TrevelyanWhat is there to stop you applying the same rules in a rank system? Once you introduce house rules then they can apply to either attribute system, with point limits applied to rank bids, and additional ex determining current points on which the rank is based (but with no change in ability until you gain a new rank).
Both systems can be improved, but ranks are more robust out of the box.
Well in a point system the nearness of the players is determined by the gp in points. So a 70 point gap in psyche means I can dominate your puny mind whilst doing the rubic's cube and trying to balance my cheque book but a gap of 5 means that to dominate you I can do nothing else and the veins on my temples are standing out and all that. A rank in psyche is just the latter I suspect.
Also as I get experience I can reduce the gap between us and maybe give myself an edge.
If you have read the 'Lies of Lock Lamora' (and I heartily recommend it) you will be familar with the concept of 'I don't have to beat you I just need to keep you here long enough for him to arrive' .
It also helps resolve some of those multiple assaults versus the single player issues.
Quote from: jibbajibbaIf you have read the 'Lies of Lock Lamora' (and I heartily recommend it) you will be familar with the concept of 'I don't have to beat you I just need to keep you here long enough for him to arrive' .
by strange coincidence, I finished reading it at the weekend and greatly enjoyed it! Has the sequel been published yet?
Quote from: Trevelyanby strange coincidence, I finished reading it at the weekend and greatly enjoyed it! Has the sequel been published yet?
Book 2 "Red Seas under Red Skies" has been out for a while and whilst not quite as good its well worth the read and has some great moments. The author is a big games player as you can tell from the books.
Quote from: jibbajibbaThe author is a big games player as you can tell from the books.
I got that impression.