In Amber, the players create a hierarchy for each stat by bidding character points for ranking. Supposedly the amount paid is irrelevant. However, the stats of NPCs with stats higher than Amber level are given in terms of point values rather than ranking. I cannot imagine that anyone would play this game without this coming up and being resolved in short order, so what is the community accepted solution? Is there one?
(My own thoughts:
The most obvious way of handling this is treating the point value of an NPC stat as its bid, and putting it wherever that would place it in the ranking. However, this would have the effect of shortchanging the players if the initial attribute bidding didn't run high, while supposedly there should be no advantage or disadvantage to that. My next thought was to "scale" the point value of the attribute by comparing the points spent on it by the first-ranked person to what you would "expect" to be spent on it -- so if the highest Warfare is 20 but the expected highest Warfare is 30, then all NPC Warfare values should be multiplied by 2/3 before being compared with the PCs. The problem with that is that I lack the play experience to judge what reasonable expected values are.)
Every game I've known that uses the points from the book has compared the raw points bid for the PC's attribute to the NPC's raw point value. "Ranking" rarely comes into use, even between PC's.
What I usually do is have two different "scales" of ranking.
First is the ranks among the player's generation; the PCs and perhaps select (younger) NPCs.
Then the ranks among the Elders.
So there's two different set of ranks.
But the players can be put on either scale. Someone who ranks 1st among the younger generation might only end up being 4th or 5th or 11th among the Elders.
This, incidentally, resolves the problem of "how to figure out advancement costs for a 1st ranked player". The cost for his next rung on the ladder is actually the cost for his rank to advance on the Elder scale.
RPGpundit
I typically give Elders more points to work with, but then compare raw totals without bothering with a ranking. The higher point totals gives Elders an edge, but a determined PC can work his way up the ladder if he so chooses.
One thing I had considered was to enter all of my PCs and major NPCs onto a huge Excel spreadsheet, where I could sort my data. (I figure that there are a somewhat limited number of Elders from Amber and/or the Courts, plus I can always add a few extras.) What I could do, then, is to annouce to players their rank among the entire list instead of just within the party. This may be a dumb idea since characters wouldn't actually know if they were the 37th strongest person in the universe or whatever, but it does eliminate the compare-to-Elders problem.
Just a thought.... :D
As a follow-up, I should mention that the biggest problem I have is when I try to mix Demons (from Shadow Knight) with everyone else.
Looking in SK I see that Demons have their own chart and I could never decide how those points should compare to character points for PC or NPC. I assume that the idea is that there are various ranks in between Chaos and Amber, but I could never quite decide on how to make the numbers work out the best.
That one is a good question, Finarvyn. I know how I did it, but I'd love to hear what Erick has to say about this once he gets on the forum...
RPGPundit
Oh, if there's anything I DON'T want to do is play Amber in a way that makes me need a spreadsheet.
Quote from: OthaOh, if there's anything I DON'T want to do is play Amber in a way that makes me need a spreadsheet.
\
:)
It's not like I would use a spreadsheet during actual play. I was just thinking that it's a great way to organize PC and NPC stats, if you wanted to know how everyone ranks. I often do this for my own use, even if I don't share the data with my players.
I've never used a computer spreadsheet, but I've almost always drawn up a "big table" of all the attribute ranks for the PCs and NPCs to help me keep track. It helps speed things up magnificently in actual play.
RPGPundit
What I like about a computer spreadsheet is that it's easy to sort the list according to a particular number, then make a print-out. I can have one list for Strength, another for Psyche, etc, and if I add an NPC I don't have to re-write the whole thing but can instead just insert, sort, and print again.
Like all handy tools, it has to fit a person's individual style. Some people rely on a GM screen when they run an RPG, others prefer to have a book handy, still others use both. Doesn't make the GM screen any less handy for those who like them.
Believe it or not, considering that my job is essentially over the internet, and the amount of time I spend on here, and all, I'm actually a total luddite. If I can do something with paper and pencil/eraser, I will do it that way rather than on some Microsoft program. The "hassle" of having to erase a few things and fill them in differently with my pencil easily beats the hassle of having to try to figure out how MS Office works.
RPGpundit
Please tell me that was a joke and you're not really so backwards you can't even operate a Word Processor program. I'm not exactly brimming over with respect for the Pundit Persona, but every now and then the person accidentaly pokes through and I've seen a few things worthy of respect. But ignorance and "old man"-edness of this level? All the respect would fade quietly away.
Can I use MS Word? Yes.
But its more of a hassle for what I need than just using wordpad; and using excel or some other spreadsheet program is more of a hassle to me than just keeping track on paper.
RPGPundit
Ok. You're a relic fast approaching dinosaurism, but we knew that already. The tiny shreds of respect I have are still mostly intact. :)
Quote from: RPGPunditBut its more of a hassle for what I need than just using wordpad; and using excel or some other spreadsheet program is more of a hassle to me than just keeping track on paper.
And that's a fine thing, really. My early D&D worlds from the 1970's were all done by hand in little spiral notebooks, and that worked just fine. In fact, I used to keep track of PCs and NPCs on 3x5" notecards and filed them in a little box.
Now I prefer to do my campaigns by computer and that works for me as well, except that now I want to do hex-maps on the computer and can't get them to look the way I want. I just trade one hassle for another, I guess. :cool:
Check out HexMapper (http://home.paonline.com/zaikoski/ak/TOOLS.HTM#hexmapper). It lets you draw your own bitmaps for hexes.
Quote from: finarvynAnd that's a fine thing, really. My early D&D worlds from the 1970's were all done by hand in little spiral notebooks, and that worked just fine. In fact, I used to keep track of PCs and NPCs on 3x5" notecards and filed them in a little box.
Now I prefer to do my campaigns by computer and that works for me as well, except that now I want to do hex-maps on the computer and can't get them to look the way I want. I just trade one hassle for another, I guess. :cool:
Yes, I think it ties into why I like playing RPGs and don't play any Computer games; or why I adore playing backgammon, but don't play computer backgammon; etc etc.
Its because to me the tactile (for lack of a better term) element of these sorts of games is a big draw. I don't want a program to map a dungeon with; I want to make one myself on hex paper with lots of scribbled notes. It feels cooler to me.
RPGPundit
Quote from: James McMurrayCheck out HexMapper (http://home.paonline.com/zaikoski/ak/TOOLS.HTM#hexmapper). It lets you draw your own bitmaps for hexes.
I know that one. It's very good and easy to use.
Quote from: hgjsIn Amber, the players create a hierarchy for each stat by bidding character points for ranking. Supposedly the amount paid is irrelevant. However, the stats of NPCs with stats higher than Amber level are given in terms of point values rather than ranking. I cannot imagine that anyone would play this game without this coming up and being resolved in short order, so what is the community accepted solution? Is there one?
(My own thoughts:
The most obvious way of handling this is treating the point value of an NPC stat as its bid, and putting it wherever that would place it in the ranking. However, this would have the effect of shortchanging the players if the initial attribute bidding didn't run high, while supposedly there should be no advantage or disadvantage to that. My next thought was to "scale" the point value of the attribute by comparing the points spent on it by the first-ranked person to what you would "expect" to be spent on it -- so if the highest Warfare is 20 but the expected highest Warfare is 30, then all NPC Warfare values should be multiplied by 2/3 before being compared with the PCs. The problem with that is that I lack the play experience to judge what reasonable expected values are.)
The community standard seems to be that points are the coin of competency. This allows you to fairly introduce new cousins, old forgotten elders and completely strange menaces.
Ranks are noted for "generational conflicts" and may be useful for cross-generation arbitration of conflict as Pundit suggests.
There are no reasonable expected values across the community.
The only purpose for the rankings is to generate rivalries between PC's, unless the GM gives out special "goodies" for first place.