Julia

[Croaker]

So our new edition of Amber Still Diceless Roleplaying needs an option of starting Humans at zero and then placing Amberites on a starting value of 25 - 30 points and Chaosites at 15 - 20.

Maybe too easy, and it has the disadvantage of somewhat doing away with ranks by concentrating on points.

Chaosian is supposed to be about the top of human ability, also.

I'd say maybe something like this:
- Have 3 catégories: Amberite, Chaosite, and Human, maybe more (demons sure would warrant one, but theorically speaking, we could also have one for each "special" group out there, like Shroudlings, Dragons...).
- Each category starts at 0, and can downgrade his attributes to Feeble (old chaosian) and Miserable (Old Human).

You'll have ranks like this: 1st ranked Human Strength, 3rd ranked Chaosian Psyche, Basic Amber Warfare, Feeble Demon Strength.

Of course, just as demons, you'll need a way to compare to other categories. An easy one could be to compare these to Amber, giving ranks bonuses/maluses.
Like, humans could be - 10 ranks to all, chaosites might be - 3 ranks, Demons might have -3 psyche + 3 strength...

This gives something like Wujcik's chart comparing Demon Caracteristics to Amberite ones: A Feeble Demon Strength will be equivalent to a very low ranked Amber Strength, or a High ranked Human Strength.

Problem: Just as wujcik's Demon charts, this increases complexity a lot, straying away from the simplicity of basic ADRPG.
Solution: create another system altogether. But I'd like to keep the ranks, and any other system I can think of will be points based.

[Xenon]

lets add a new rank to the discussion here. Human, Chaos, Amber, Elder.
Elder is a floating value, defined as 1st rank +some points (say 10?). a clear define between you and the next generation. if we need another set of ranks past this, we could call them Primal. PEACH ranks, if we follow that logic.

[jibbajibba]

Maybe too easy, and it has the disadvantage of somewhat doing away with ranks by concentrating on points.

Chaosian is supposed to be about the top of human ability, also.

I'd say maybe something like this:
- Have 3 catégories: Amberite, Chaosite, and Human, maybe more (demons sure would warrant one, but theorically speaking, we could also have one for each "special" group out there, like Shroudlings, Dragons...).
- Each category starts at 0, and can downgrade his attributes to Feeble (old chaosian) and Miserable (Old Human).

You'll have ranks like this: 1st ranked Human Strength, 3rd ranked Chaosian Psyche, Basic Amber Warfare, Feeble Demon Strength.

Of course, just as demons, you'll need a way to compare to other categories. An easy one could be to compare these to Amber, giving ranks bonuses/maluses.
Like, humans could be - 10 ranks to all, chaosites might be - 3 ranks, Demons might have -3 psyche + 3 strength...

This gives something like Wujcik's chart comparing Demon Caracteristics to Amberite ones: A Feeble Demon Strength will be equivalent to a very low ranked Amber Strength, or a High ranked Human Strength.

Problem: Just as wujcik's Demon charts, this increases complexity a lot, straying away from the simplicity of basic ADRPG.
Solution: create another system altogether. But I'd like to keep the ranks, and any other system I can think of will be points based.

Me I am kind of meh on the whole rnak thing so a simple points scale works for me.
If I did use ranks I would avoid the complexity of different structures for different categories of creature. The key in the majority of games sdown to 'Is this shroudling stronger or weaker than the PC'or 'does this mage have higher or lower endurance' or whatever. Keep everyone on a single scale and have a note ... Typically this type of demon will have rank 3= Strength (of course this hits loads of the issues that annoy me about ranks but I will keep my own counsel on the issue).

There is another system option taken from that most elegant of games ...Bunnies and Burrows.

[Schattensturm]

lets add a new rank to the discussion here. Human, Chaos, Amber, Elder.
Elder is a floating value, defined as 1st rank +some points (say 10?). a clear define between you and the next generation. if we need another set of ranks past this, we could call them Primal. PEACH ranks, if we follow that logic.

I personally don't like it. I don't see why a 1st or 2nd ranked PC shouldn't be able to beat a low ranked Elder. This becomes virtually impossible with this system.

Me I am kind of meh on the whole rnak thing so a simple points scale works for me.
If I did use ranks I would avoid the complexity of different structures for different categories of creature. The key in the majority of games sdown to 'Is this shroudling stronger or weaker than the PC'or 'does this mage have higher or lower endurance' or whatever. Keep everyone on a single scale and have a note.

I agree with jibbajibba. Different categories are just confusing. If all climb the same ladder, it is far more easy to compare them. And - as stated before - I prefer points over ranks. If you have points for all, ranks are obvious.
If one uses a points (in contrast to ranks) based system, it should be made clear that a character with 160 points is not twice as strong as a character with 80 points. This is not a linear progression, but a reversed logarythmic one. I.e., the more points a character already has, the less do additional points in the attribute increase actual strength. One has to invest more effort to max. out than to show first progressions. Gérard wouldn't be ten times as strong as a character with about Amber rank - he is only maybe three or four times as strong (my interpretation), even tho his Strength attribute might be ten times as high; but he is definitely and doubtlessly strong enough to wipe the floor with any PC easily - after all they need the POINTS to catch up on him. Other systems afford more experience to raise a score from 4 to 5 than from 2 to 3. In my understanding of my point based ADPRG houserules progression it's just the other way round: The rating progresses linear, but the resulting benefit is not.

[SunBoy]

I personally don't like it. I don't see why a 1st or 2nd ranked PC shouldn't be able to beat a low ranked Elder.(...) In my understanding of my point based ADPRG houserules progression it's just the other way round: The rating progresses linear, but the resulting benefit is not.

I agree with both points, and with the conclusion, too.

My problem with all this discussion is:
a- yes, obviously the ADRPG system isn't great to handle human characters.

b- why should it be? I find the system itself draws on the nature of amberites as stated in the novels. Yeah, some humans or other shadow critters may be different from one another, and yeah, some of them might present some problem to the amberites, but in the end what's really important is whether or not you are stronger or faster than your siblings/cousins, not some shadow guy. And I don't mean to oversimplify, I just see it as a great example of system bending to setting. That said, a simple point ladder is then much more manageable than a rank system. In my opinion, the only "rank" that counts (or is even clear) in the books is first place. We don't know if Corwin was a better swordman than Eric or Bleys, or if Flora is stronger than Fiona. We only know for certain that Gerard is the strongest and Benedict the best fighter.

[gabriel_ss4u]

I personally don't like it. I don't see why a 1st or 2nd ranked PC shouldn't be able to beat a low ranked Elder. This becomes virtually impossible with this system.

I agree with jibbajibba. Different categories are just confusing. If all climb the same ladder, it is far more easy to compare them.  

I agree. IMC I had an excel spreadsheet for GM quick reference, I had everyone broken into 3 groups (the fourth group were uniques, like the Unicorn, etc.)
Elders
Experienced
Young

Color coded & rankings were within one of those 3 groups. 3 1st place in Psyche, etc.
Here's an example of it, it's not in completion, but you get the idea.
Sorry if it's big, I can't see it til it gets posted.

[jibbajibba]

I agree with both points, and with the conclusion, too.

My problem with all this discussion is:
a- yes, obviously the ADRPG system isn't great to handle human characters.

b- why should it be? I find the system itself draws on the nature of amberites as stated in the novels. Yeah, some humans or other shadow critters may be different from one another, and yeah, some of them might present some problem to the amberites, but in the end what's really important is whether or not you are stronger or faster than your siblings/cousins, not some shadow guy. And I don't mean to oversimplify, I just see it as a great example of system bending to setting. That said, a simple point ladder is then much more manageable than a rank system. In my opinion, the only "rank" that counts (or is even clear) in the books is first place. We don't know if Corwin was a better swordman than Eric or Bleys, or if Flora is stronger than Fiona. We only know for certain that Gerard is the strongest and Benedict the best fighter.

Well, technically we only know that Corwin thought Benedict was the best swordsman and Oberon (as Genelon) whipped Gerard's arse (and no one batted an eyelid ) so even Gerard's credentials are suspect ...

[SunBoy]

Well, alright, conceded on Oberon. But Benedict seems to be considered the best all around the place (the Hendrake worship him, Borel knew of him, etc.). And I always think of Oberon as out of contest. The guy can pull anything out of his arse.

[Croaker]

Well, I had something similar, but simpler than your chart, Gabriel.

As stated before, I considered the ranks as going away from Amber: You were 4 ranks above Amber, not second.

Thus, I had something like this (purely arbitrary and nonsensical ranking):

20 ranks aways     Benedict (200 points)
19 ranks away      
18 ranks away      Eric (185 points)
17 ranks away      Corwin and Bleys (181 points)
(...)
7 ranks away        Jasra (44 points)             /   1st ranked player (45 points)
6 ranks away        Llewella (41 points)          /  
5 ranks away        Luke (40 points)              /    2nd ranked player (30 points)
4 ranks away                                           /    3rd ranked player (24 points)
3 ranks away        Merlin (25 points)            /    4nd ranked player (14 points)
2 ranks away        Jurt   (14 points)            /     5nd ranked player  (05 points)
1 rank away                                             /    6nd ranked player (01 point)

Add to that, of course, the Demon ranks.
Thus, I could easily compare PCs and NPCs between them, and using ranks, not points, which produced very different results.

[gabriel_ss4u]

: You were 4 ranks above Amber, not second.

Ya lost me...
who's 4 ranks above, not second?
2nd rank? place?


In mine the everyone simply gets a pt. value that can be compared across the board.
If anyone wants to increase rank, they must match the next rung in their age bracket. (distinguished by one of the 3 colors IMC
light blue  = Elder
peach = experienced youth
pale yellow = PC's usual starting levels up to an experienced youth.

I have 7 rankings color coded by their # value within each attribute.
(anything after 7th doesn't deserve a color to me)

This ONLY shows up to the middle of "C", I have approx. 350-400 NPCs I've charted to fit in this system, and it works.

Like I said, it's a quick reference chart for me as GM. it goes further to the right and shows colors, symbol, parentage, and devotees for each NPC. (& char.)
being that it's on excel, I've set other tabs & set them all by factions, House, rank level/(those 3 color-groups I mentioned).
But this thread was about Julia...
so IMC, I had Julia kinda like 'Spiral' from Marvel comic, 6 armed cybernetic sorceress...
I liked it so much, I am determined to try to play her ('Spiral'), in some other campaign as my character, though not the PBeM one.
She eventually rivaled Mandor IMC

[SunBoy]

...I have approx. 350-400 NPCs I've charted...

:jaw-dropping:

Dude, I can barely remember the names of my NPCs... (well, not really, but come on...)

[Croaker]

Ya lost me...
who's 4 ranks above, not second?
2nd rank? place?

Sorry, I was unclear.

In a typical amber game, a given player might be 2nd, another player 4th, and an elder just have more points.
In my game, he'll be, for exemple, 4 ranks above amber, while another player will be Amber +2, and a given elder Amber +5 (based on his generation's rankings). Is this clearer?

On a side note, if you just compare points, why do you bother at all with ranks?
It always seemed to me that, either you forsake ranks and just compared points, or you forsake points after creation and concentrated on ranks.

[SunBoy]

Is this clearer?

Uhhh... nope.

On a side note, if you just compare points, why do you bother at all with ranks?
It always seemed to me that, either you forsake ranks and just compared points, or you forsake points after creation and concentrated on ranks.

Now we're talking.

[Schattensturm]

Now we're talking.

Agreed, but as it is not possible to fully forsake points - after all you need to know how many XP to spend to reach the next higher rank - I say stick to the points and forsake the ranks.

[gabriel_ss4u]

OK,
when you have a bunch of Chaos Houses, Amberites, Amberite kids, heros of Legend (or primal beings, NPCs), they have to get a pt. value so you can compare them attribute wise with each other, as there are only 4 attributes, it's easily enough managed.
I have a very detailed campaign. about 2/3rds of them all are Chaos.

NOW, for the ranks.
Imagine kids in 6th grade rating each other.
then 18 years olds,
then 30 yr olds.
3 groups of ranks.

similar to my system.
in my system, everyone has a # value, and it is RANKED with those in their group.
(the 3 groups there mentioned, for ADRPG)
say Bozo has 30 warfare >6th rank
Kilroy has 34 warfare. > 5th rank
they are in the same group (not neccessarily PCs, could be PC or NPC)
they cannot pass the next rank without working at it.
Or if they go up, they must match the next # in their class, which could be 70 people, so it is easy enough to go up 1 rung at a time.

Wish list says; Up in 'this attribute'
I check on my list who's next in their group, subtract value, that's the price in pts. to be .5 of the next rung up.
in the above example it would cost 4 pts. to be 5.5 in warfare for Bozo.
(of course, IMC there may be a few multiple .5's on the scale. I just have to remember who's the whole number rank. which I would make on my anal obsessive compulsively grafted chart.)

It's much easier than it sounds.