This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Julia  (Read 8334 times)

Croaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 616
Julia
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2009, 11:53:57 AM »
Quote from: SunBoy;309233
Uhhh... nope.

Aaargh!!!

Game over, try again.

Ok.
Typical Amber campain.
I'll have these charts for psyche, for exemple:
1st (61 pts): Bob
2nd (60 pts): Bill
3nd (45 pts): Bart
4nd (10 pts): Kurt
5nd (05 pts): Kevin
6nd (01pt):  Kull
Amber

Knowing that I insert 1 artificial "rank" each time there are, say, more than 10 points between 2 players, I'll have these:
Amber
Amber + 1 rank: Kull, 6th ranked
Amber + 2 ranks: Kevin, 5th ranked
Amber + 3 ranks: Kurt, 4th ranked
Amber + 4 ranks: No one. This is a false rank, you can't buy it, although a NPC or someone of another generation might be there, between Kurt and Bart. Note that this is just to give some importance to points, this is not in the ranks spirit, and you could drop this rule.
Amber + 5 ranks: No one
Amber + 6 ranks: Bart, 3rd ranked
Amber + 7 ranks: Bill
Amber + 8 ranks: Bob

I had a separate ladder for PCs, demons and elders, each ring having different point value for each generation, but "amber + 4" being equal for both generations

For scratch NPCs, I didn't bother (and I could have done just as well with demons and elders), they'd just be, for exemple, Amber + 4 ranks. Points values were totally unnecessary, they were only usefull to PCs when trying to go up one rank.
 

jibbajibba

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9098
Julia
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2009, 01:19:43 PM »
Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309271
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.


but .... whilst the kids in 6th grade are all weaker than the 30 year olds this can be achieved by them having less points.....
comparing 18 year olds and 30 year olds there is not much in in so they all have the same points . there you go compared em all:-)

The only time you need to worry about ranks is when you are bringing players in from other games. Since the point system is open ended and players , in my games at least, spend points to be the best or at least high in an ability the ranks here are important beacue a player who spend 'to be the best' in one game might have been in a game where competition for that rank was vaery different from another game. Since that ranking may be key to their character concept "Tulkas the Strong" if you migrate to another set of PCs the rank needs to be born in mind.
This is kind of a corner case. Another is when the GM wants to set up a creature/event/thing thatcan only be beaten by ranks 2 or higher and for a reason i can't quite think of right now doesn't want to just assign x many points to it on the fly as it sencountered. In thsi case rank might be important.
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%


GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Julia
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2009, 01:20:47 PM »
Aha. Now I get it. Still strikes me as unnecessarily complicated, but that's an opinion.
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

gabriel_ss4u

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
Julia
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2009, 01:27:39 PM »
If it works for ya...
it is confusing though.
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.
(The age comparison is to give an idea that there are 3 separate "rank groupings", not to actually compare kids to adults.)
Try this;

Bill Bob Tom Joe Jen
we'll do Psyche.

Bill 73
Bob 70
Tom 35
Joe 35
Jen Amber

obviously, Bill is 1st rank in his generation in Psyche. once the GM lets him buy up, he should have to either match the next highest level of NPC, (which should be out of his generation, as he is 1st in his), or create his own rung.
I tend to go with the latter.
Jen, she has a long way to go to buy up a rung, but if she wants up 1 rung, it may only be 5 pts., as an NPC may have 5 that is in her 'generation ranking'.

Being a player they are in my 'youngest generation' along with the NPC's that are similarly point valued.
Next generation that has to compete with their slots, are the experienced ones, to say they are like an experienced Amberite or experienced Chaos Lord.
Next Corwin & his ilk. They have their own rungs they must compete and match to ascend.
(look at the chart on the previous page and tell me if you can tell that pleez.)

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.) BUT, if you use it for only the PC's and elders, then perhaps it would work.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2009, 01:49:16 PM by gabriel_ss4u »
Gabriel_ss4u
From the Halls of Amber to the Courts of Chaos - and beyond.
Champions since 1982
ADRPG since 1992
Supers & Sci-Fant since fa-eva.
http://gabriel-ss4u.deviantart.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1198352862

jibbajibba

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9098
Julia
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2009, 01:39:25 PM »
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. They could both wipe the floor with Tom though.

There is an NPC called Dave who has 50 points in Psyche he is better than Tom but not as good as bill and bob... see easy :-)

Now witht eh numbe rof players you have it looks liek you have run several set of Pcs throught ehsame campaign in this case as i noted above ranks might be more important.

You should play in a game that uses the numbers and see how it works out. Hey my PBeM will be ideal :)
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%


GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

gabriel_ss4u

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
Julia
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2009, 01:56:23 PM »
Quote from: Schattensturm;309256
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.



You can just as easily call it "Rung" instead of "Rank".
Gabriel_ss4u
From the Halls of Amber to the Courts of Chaos - and beyond.
Champions since 1982
ADRPG since 1992
Supers & Sci-Fant since fa-eva.
http://gabriel-ss4u.deviantart.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1198352862

Croaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 616
Julia
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2009, 03:15:46 AM »
Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309367
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?
Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309367
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.
Quote from: jibbajibba;309371
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 ;)
 

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Julia
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2009, 03:21:00 AM »
Edited to clarify: This was typed at the same time as Croaker's post, so it was a re to Gabe upthread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Except it isn't about names, it is about ease of comparison. "Ranks" are OK among a closed group, but let's not forget why they exist in the first place: players are supposed to know each other, so they roughly know who's better than whom at stuff. That's the most important side-effect of the auction: you have a rough idea of everybody's capabilities. When resolving a conflict among a player and some NPC, it (the NPC) is an unknown quantity, so you can just assign a point value based on your idea for the character and run with that. Same with elders. It is extremely unlikely that any PC will be psyche-y-er than Fiona, but what is to say he couldn't psyche Gerard silly? Surely not the novels. This of course ties with another issue, for which I'll open a new thread, but I find this way much easier.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2009, 03:24:57 AM by SunBoy »
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

Croaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 616
Julia
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2009, 03:45:03 PM »
I must say that, with the emphasis Amber has on using ranks and dismissing points, I'm really surprised so much people here compare points instead: I'd have thought that most people here would just use ranks, and that creating artificial ranks when there was too big a gap in points would have put me in the minority of "points lovers"
 

Schattensturm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Julia
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2009, 05:52:51 PM »
Ranks are good for one thing: Auctions. You can heat up auctions a lot better with ranks than with points, but once the game has started, points beat ranks - in my eyes.
egsode eorle  syððan aérest wearð
féasceaft funden  hé þæs frófre gebád·
wéox under wolcnum·  weorðmyndum þáh
oð þæt him aéghwylc  þára ymbsittendra

gabriel_ss4u

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
Julia
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2009, 10:45:40 PM »
ranks are good for comparing who's better.
I use #'s to judge evrything, except when it comes to advancement.
Then they have to match the next Rung/rank in their generation.

My chart may seem complicated to some, but it is essential when you have a campaign with many Chaos Houses, and each house has members, and they all have attribute values.

I suppose some GMs just make it up on the spot and don't keep track.
I do make many up on the spot, but they get added to the list and I have a record of their attributes & powers.
If an elder wants to go up in an attribute, they have to match the next highest score in their generation.
If a youngster Amberite wanted the same, they have to go up matching the next rung... in their generation.
I suppose many GMs do not compare the PC generation with the young generation of Chaos... I do.
That way when they do go up, they may not be as high as they think, there are more to compete with on the scale.
Gabriel_ss4u
From the Halls of Amber to the Courts of Chaos - and beyond.
Champions since 1982
ADRPG since 1992
Supers & Sci-Fant since fa-eva.
http://gabriel-ss4u.deviantart.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1198352862

Croaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 616
Julia
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2009, 02:37:43 AM »
Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309563
ranks are good for comparing who's better.
I use #'s to judge evrything, except when it comes to advancement.
Then they have to match the next Rung/rank in their generation.

This is very strange, by reading your comments, I was under the complete impression you compared points values, both into a generation and when doing cross-generation comparison.


Quote from: gabriel_ss4u;309563
If an elder wants to go up in an attribute, they have to match the next highest score in their generation.
If a youngster Amberite wanted the same, they have to go up matching the next rung... in their generation.
I suppose many GMs do not compare the PC generation with the young generation of Chaos... I do.
That way when they do go up, they may not be as high as they think, there are more to compete with on the scale.

Well, for the progression, same as me :lol:

So I guess this breaks down when comparing across generations, when you just compare points?
If not, and the same "power level" can correspond to different points values for each generation (For exemple, 2nd PC rank in psyche, with 46 points, is as powerfull as rank 14 for elders, with 37 points), then our differences are purely cosmetic.
 

gabriel_ss4u

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
Julia
« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2009, 12:22:25 AM »
There can be a NPC from each of the 3 generation groups with the same # value for an attribute, say 60.
They are all evenly matched, but have different rankings within their group.
I may give it to the elder, but it's not automatic, it's just initial instinct, stuff, actions, and secondary attributes may make the difference.

sorry you may have thought I didn't go by # values to compare, if I didn't need ranks, I wouldn't use 'em, but they are handy for comparing those within their generation. It's nothing for me to update my chart.. it's on excel. (and I'm anal as well as OCD) LOL
Gabriel_ss4u
From the Halls of Amber to the Courts of Chaos - and beyond.
Champions since 1982
ADRPG since 1992
Supers & Sci-Fant since fa-eva.
http://gabriel-ss4u.deviantart.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1198352862

Croaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 616
Julia
« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2009, 06:59:27 AM »
So, there's no practical difference for you in using ranks or not, since a 61-points attribute is always better than a 60-points one? I'm not sure its more convenient to track both points and ranks within your generation, while you could just track points (or, as I do, reverse ranks), but if it works for you ;)

In my game, more points is better, in your group, but that's all: 3 characters with 60 points may have different rankings in their generation, and may be of different strength/skill, just as, in canon ADRPG, a demon with 29 points in Strength will be as strong as an amberite with 50 points in it.
In fact, I barely see the point of not using points if you don't do this kind of thing: Else, comparing points is, IMO, a lot easier.
 

gabriel_ss4u

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
Julia
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2009, 04:59:54 PM »
I don't keep demon ranking/values on the same chart.
Ranks/rungs are expressly for advancement, as they have to match the next rung in their generation. that is the practical difference in using ranks.

Also, say there are 2 NPCs with a value of 60.
1 is from generation elder.
the other is from generation youngling.
The elder may have to go up 20 points to match the next rank/rung in his generation,
whereas the youngling may only have to go up 5 pts. to meet the next pt. value in his.
anybody out there get it?

I'm kinda done with this though.
Gabriel_ss4u
From the Halls of Amber to the Courts of Chaos - and beyond.
Champions since 1982
ADRPG since 1992
Supers & Sci-Fant since fa-eva.
http://gabriel-ss4u.deviantart.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1198352862