Attribute ladders: Static versus Dynamic

[Finarvyn]

The traditional method of character creation in ADRP is, of course, the attribute auction. When the auction takes place, the bids form an "attribute ladder" whereby characters can improve in secret (or late adds to the campaign can begin) by working their way up the ladder. Since the players have a hand at building the ladder, I would consider it to be dynamic.

One alternate way of handling character creation could be that of a pre-determined (or static) ladder, much the same way that Shadow, Chaos, and Amber are pre-determined point values. What the GM could do, therefore, is come up various rungs in the ladder to represent the various levels of "Amber Ranked" and players could then choose to pay the pre-determined point values or not in order to define each attribute level.

One potential problem I see with this is the fact that the top would already be established, but many GMs already decree that Gerard is the top in Strength or Benedict is the top in Warfare so perhaps that isn't an issue. The GM would simply have to make sure that the ladder goes high enough that characters won't reach the top.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

[serendipity]

With special relativity, it gets harder and harder to accelerate as your speed nears the speed of light and you can never actually reach the speed of light. Are static character ladders that way? In other words, if Benedict is the top in Warfare, can we presume that PCs simply cannot reach that level, though they might come in a close second place? It would be interesting to have them working harder and harder to close the gap by smaller and smaller increments. Some of my fellow players would hate that.

[Dilvish]

If you set up all of the NPCs at the start, it builds a "ladder" for you already. You can just use that.

[nihilisticmind]

Well, are attribute numbers more important to you or is rank more important? That's the real question when it comes to game balance isn't it?
Considering rank (Gerard has top strength and will always be superior with that attribute) is what matters to the players, not necessarily how they get to said rank (points spent).

Why not let characters surpass the elder amberites?
Wujcik mentions constructs can have much superior psyche than Fiona but that she couldn't be taken down so easily. Don't worry if a character surpasses Gerard at Strength, he's still gonna be more resourceful than a PC... if you need him to, of course

[Finarvyn]

I like numbers better than rank. It seems to me that numbers make for a better balance of points, and that a Rank-1 that cost 50 would be better than a Rank-1 that cost 35.

[thondor]

I had a player at the last game I was running ask if the ranks were more important or the points spent were more important. I equivocated a little.
it seems to me both are important. Particularly when encountering things/foes not in the auction. Even so, I am more likely to consider a fist and 2nd rank very close to each other if the actual points spent are very close.
I should put some more coherent thoughts together on this.

[larsongates]

I use sub-attributes so the actual rating in the sub-attribute counts. The rank determines the "bonus" points a player gets to distribute across the sub-attributes.

[ed]

I like dynamic ladders created during the auction then when handing out xp the new potential first rank is the amount of xp. So whoever is in the first place will need to dump all their xp in the attribute or risk falling to second if second rank dumps everything in plus good stuff and/or takes on bad stuff.

Say Aaron is 1st in Psyche and Bonny is 1.5. If there are 10 points of xp, Bonnie could throw all 10 in hoping Aaron doesn't try to improve. Add a penalty of a few points needed to 'jump' past Aaron, Bonnie could take 1st place for 10xp plus 2 or so points of stuff. If Aaron does increase his Psyche by 10 then Bonnie only pays 10 to stay at 1.5. She can't pass unless Aaron spends points elsewhere.

This leads to a 'golden handcuffs' situation where being the best requires continual investment at the expense of gaining no new powers or improving in other areas.