That means Benedict is, as you said, Amber +10 ranks or whatever, instead of just saying; 1st rank.
it kinda imposes a preset benchmark on ranks or rank rungs
Franckly, it makes no difference at all.
And don't take it badly, but after reading your chart? I find it very funny you'd strike my system as "unescessary complicated"
How having benny be 1st, Bleys 2nd is different or less preset than having Benedict be +20 and bleys + 18? Especially as it more easily assumes benedict can get better than he currently is: In a typical amber game, if you're 1st and another player 1,5, when you advance, what does he become? Do you reset all the other gamers ranks reach time he advances?
With points, if mixing different ranks, you can't have a player 1st in psyche from one game be about as strong as another player with 40 points. And, to me, Elders are exactly like "players from another game".
You also can't have Demonic ranks (as per shadow knight p201) or things like this: How can a demon with 29 points in strength be as strong as an amberite with 50 points? Or a demon with 50 points in warfare be only equal to an amberite with 10 points?
on my system chart, I can adapt your +1 idea, as the 1st 7 ranks are color highlighted.
So Amber +7 would be no problem, (except there are too many NPCs, it would really be Amber +207, or something such in mine... which if you have alot of NPCs the PC's have to share&match rungs with <in their generation>, the 'Amber +' system would seem silly.)
This is only because you make the game like this. You're complicating your own task.
Take your players and their ladder. If a new player begins, he'll have to align on it, right? Same thing here if a second player begins. And a third. And same thing for the 1560° player. So, this limits the number of ranks in each generation.
I doing something like you, I'd simply have about 4 columns, with at max 20 ranks. One for Elders, one for Demons, one for players, and one for Elves, with every PC and NPC being somewhere there.
So your 207 NPCs? There'd just be a lot of people at each ladder. Say 70 persons are Elders on 20 ranks, this'd make about 5 person/rank at the lower ones, less at the highests. This doesn't strikes me more than two players being 2,5
Amber +207 is no different from being 207°: Useless IMO, and needlessly complicated.
How about Bill has 73 points is is better than everyone else . Bob is nearly as good as Bill and a conflict between the two of them woudl be a close run thing and might come down to endurance or at leasrt be influenced by it.
I may be wrong, but, in a "true" amber game as presented by Erick Wujcik, once the game began, you'd just look at Bill being 1st and Bob being 2nd, whatever their difference in points.
Just look at the psyche rankings: Willy is 1st, kevin is 2nd, beth is 3rd. Yet, willy only spent 1 more point than kevin, who spent 28 more points than Beth.
This is why this is called Bidding, and not Gurps: Whatever they spend, once the game begins, they are 1st, 2nd and 3rd, in no way different than if they had spent more or less points in a different manner.
BTW, I began Amber by using points instead of ranks, too