The Forge Archives

The discussion on modeling the effects of the dark side of the force (Is 'modeling' a bad word in non-sim games?) has got me thinking about unconcious attributes or attributes that change over time despite the wishes of the character.

How does HQ handle undesirable attributes that increase over time? E.g. insidious curses <Pinocchio's nose>, progressive physical or mental conditions <muscular dystrophy or Alzheimer's disease>, falling under someone's (or something's) influence <Sauron's ring from LotR, the Dark Side of the Force>, etc.

I remember seeing a discussion on character death where the GM warned the player that if their character insisted on actually killing his foe that the character would gain a Psychotic Killer 13 attribute!  Would things like that only increase on the GM's whim or is there some HQ mechanism I've overlooked? (I'm assuming here that the player doesn't even want the condition in question and certainly wouldn't spend hero points to raise it!)

I'm guessing that this issue is just one of a multitude that fall into that category where the GM decides if an increase is warrented and then decides how much.

Thanks,

  HB

So far as I know there's no set way to handle this in HQ. Often it isn't needed, as players who really get into the HQ mindset often screw their own characters harder than even the cruelest GM ever would. So the way I generally handle it is to simply let players raise it, when and as they want, and (usually) without HP cost. If it will enhance their roll to have a bigger, nastier curse, then so be it.

When I, as GM, really think the negative attribute should raise and the PC doesn't raise it on their own, I use three methods for dealing with it. The first is I say, "Hey, maybe you should raise that. It would make for a good story." This works most of the time. When it doesn't I'll get crafty and say, "If you raise it by X amount, you can get X amount of Hero Points to raise other things with." Failing that, I just assume the player really doesn't want it, and let it go.

(Note that this is in direct contrast/violation of the precedent set in the HQ book in the section about killing helpless people. I hate, hate, hate that section of the book.)

I believe that HQ can be used in a sim game too. It has a lot to offer. Universal conflict mechanics etc. All you need to do, is shift your point of view a bit. A social contract that places believability above all else and using the "HQ toolbox" with that in mind is all it takes. But I digress, that's not the point.

[*]The GM can always give directed HP awards if he thinks that the play calls for it.
[*]The players can do it voluntarely. If everyone agrees that sim is the thing, then player should volunteer, because it is logical and consistent with enstablished facts. If nar is the thing, then the players can do it, if they think that it will make an interresting story or if they think that they can address a premise in a meaningful way by doing so.
[*]Those traits can result from contests in special cases if you want, but it may be more prudent to stick to the normal mechanics.
[*]I think that the curses, the conditions and the business with the Ring you mentioned can be handled as a extented contest. It will be much more meaningful and can result in more roleplaying as you interpret the contest along the way. Maybe you could keep the bids smaller and keep on bidding even after the other side has lost without using the coup de gra rules. That's how I would do it. . . Frex., Boromir did some furious bidding when he was talking with Frodo, eve thought the opening bids had already been cast. He lost. Merri and Pippin may have inspired him with their courage or maybe he did a final action. [/list:u]

First, the rules do say that the narrator can give any ability to anyone at any time for any reason, or take them away. It's in the narrator section somewhere, and it's a little clause. I find this less than very useful, because it doesn't say when to do this or why, but if you want to at any time, at least the rules back you up.

Second, flaws are free. Now, it sorta implies that this is part of character generation, but it doesn't specifically prohibit players from adding them at any time. So, again, what Brand is suggesting is probably completely legit in terms of playing by the book. I think that this may even be intentional.

Third, sometimes another stat isn't really needed, because you can use the penalty system instead. That is, the result of any "injury" can be described as anything apropriate. Which limits the applicability of the penalty. I always advocate naming them to remember what they are. So if, as a result of a magic contest, one fails to resist a "curse of impotence" with a minor defeat, then the GM should assign an Impotence -10% impediment (remember that a complete defeat, or penalties that bring someting below zero make use of that ability an automatic failure). This then applies to attempts to make babies, or impress women in bed, etc.

The neat thing about these is that the rule is that they can be removed with an appopriate contest, or that they go away when it's appropriate. So, that curse would probably stay around until dispelled, whereas a case of venerial disease would go away eventually (depending on the type).

Mike

Flaws can sometimes be thought of as NPC traits, as well--this works in a less strained way for certain types, of course.  For instance, being under someone's sway, a la the weight of Sauron's ring.  Keep track of the NPC One Ring's "Corrupting Weight 15W2" (or whatever) trait; have the hero engage in contests against it as dramatically appropriate.  (Large chunks of the slog to Mt Doom could be done purely as an extended contest.)

Success on the hero's part literally damages One Ring's relevant traits, whereas drawing closer to Sauron heals and strengthens them.  Failure could as well, by simply reading a "negative" on the hero's side to a positive to the opposing trait.  (Sort of a currency-exchange, which I thank Ron's Sorcerer for planting in my brain.)

A lot of other flaws can be handled the same, if you can get past some applications being more abstract than others--and I can see some players accepting this approach more readily, too.  Turning infirmity from something irritating to try to minimize and eliminate from My Sheet(tm) into an actual struggle; Hero vs. Death, or Old Age, or whatnot.

QuoteHow does HQ handle undesirable attributes that increase over time?

As a narrator, I usually assign directed increases, based on player actions. (One character has had his Half-Mad and Reputation as Cannibal Berserk increase a few times lately...)

Also, you can do this sort of thing based on the results of contests. Consequences can be long-term, and in some cases, permanent.

Hi David. Welcome over to the Forge. I shant reveal your Secret ID (or did I just), but I think many of us know who you are. Glad to have you aboard.

Anyhow, I completely agree with your comment about making flaws the results of rolls. I really dislike giving these things away without a mechanical indicator saying that it should happen.

That said, the normal thing is to give the "flaw" as the normal result penalty (like I meantioned above). What I've always wanted was some way to skip that step, and mechanically go from contest result to flaw.

At the moment, what I'm thinking of doing is relating the roll to get rid of the penalty to getting flaws. That is, let's say that I'm trying to heal a wound with magic. If I roll a failure, I get a penalty, but to what? To removing the penalty later? I'm thinking that instead, failure will mean some translation into a permenant effect. So, if I fail to throw off that feeling of fear that I have due to the spider in the cave, then maybe that becomes a Fear of Spiders 13. More with a worse failure.

Thoughts? Not a great system, but, again, I'm really looking for something more mechanical that just arbitrarily assigning such ability ratings to characters.

Mike

I like the idea of gradually turning something into a permanent flaw. But should things start at 13? or 6?

It's late, so I'll do this later when I'm awake, but I need to look at the Dark Side of the Force thing as well.  One of my characters is setting himself up with chaos magic in a staff and I want to do something where the BaneStaff either works to control his mind (I was thinking an extended contest with moves everytime he casts a spell using it) or gradually works to give him a chaos taint. But figuring out how to model that is vexing me.

I thought about some kind of roll against the power of the chaos magic used, with failure increasing some kind of "chaos tainted" trait, but I'm not sure about how to go about it.

13, definitely. They already have everything at 6. More to the point, if you're going to increase things that gradually, it'll drag out just too long. Instead of 30 one point moments, shoot for five six point moments. If you get my drift.

Mike

Yeah, Mike, I think you're right about the 13 starting.

Now, my chaos taint problem.

What I'm thinking is that  the way this character is designed, he's supposed to have access to chaotic magics, but risk corruption by them if he uses them.

So I was thinking of some kind of Chaos Taint stat.

One option was that the strength of whatever magic he uses results in a contest with his Chaos Taint stat. If the new magic wins, it increases the Chaos Taint by an appropriate amount (1 pt, 10%, 50%, 100%). If the chaos taint wins nothing happens (no decrease).

The problem with this is that I'm not sure what I would do with the Chaos Taint. Sure you can be detected as Chaos if you have it, but at what point does it manifest as a physical chaos taint? What other effects should it have?

 The other idea I had was to make some kind of extended contest that spans the game. As you use the chaos magic, that results in an attack on the player. When he is driven to 0, he gets a visible chaos taint of some kind.  The question I have here is what to do if the Banestaff (primary source of the chaos magic) is driven to zero?

Any ideas?

It seems strange to have (if I understand you correctly) the chaos magic and the chaos taint opposing each other in a contest.  Don't they both 'want' the same thing: to infect the hero with chaos?  

The idea works fine (a contest when he uses magic, a loss raises his chaos taint) but shouldn't the new magic be opposed by a trait opposed to chaos.  

It occurs to me that a good trait to oppose chaos would be a human relationship, something like Loves Family (or whatever strong human relationship the hero has, it could even be something negative, a hatred, as long as it's identifiably human).  Such a trait would be his anchor to the mundane world of human relationships.

As for the extended contest with the staff, mightn't a complete defeat for the staff destroy it, or at least its usefulness for the hero in question.  Perhaps it would mean the hero had overcome his addiction to the staff's magic.  

Probably the details of such a 'dying' result in this contest is something you'd want to work out with the player.  What would be the hero's goal in such a contest?

I've been worrying about this problem too as magic in my game is mostly a kind of demonic animism which causes some sort of taint.  At least that's where my thinking is now.  Fortunately the players haven't wanted to use magic yet so it's a bit academic.

Charles

QuoteIt seems strange to have (if I understand you correctly) the chaos magic and the chaos taint opposing each other in a contest. Don't they both 'want' the same thing: to infect the hero with chaos?

True. I was going for the "more you are infected, the harder it is to raise" idea, but there's really no need for Chaos to work like that. If anything, it should be the other way around.  So you're right in that something else would have to be opposing it.

I suppose it could run like tapping, with whatever you bid against the attack reduced by any loss.  As you say, some human relationship, which if it loses, is reduced, making you colder and less human.

Generally, I do like the idea of using an ability as it's own difficulty to elevate. That is, for most things the higher you go the harder it is to improve something.

But I agree that with something like chaos that it's actually a slippery slope - the more you have, the easier it is to get more. In fact, I'd have the chaos taint ability itself augment the chaos magic. This is neat, because the more you use, the more the chaos taint ability grows. The only problem with this is that if a player decides to go down the road of chaos, then it quickly spirals out of control.

A long time ago in the Indie Development forum, there was a guy who was trying to do something like chaos magic - actually sounds more like what Charles is going for. Demonic magic would lead to taint. The demonic magic was a definite source of power, but the idea was that players wouldn't want to use it too much because of the negative ramifications. The trouble with this notion is that if somebody uses such magic, they're tacitly agreeing to be on the road to the effects that may occur. That is, they've decided to pay the price already.

So, from a character POV, the slippery slope is actually slippery in terms of power. From a player POV, it's even more slippery, IMO. Because while it could be argued that the effects of chaos on the character are detrimental making him think twice, from the player POV, it's all gravy. Because trouble for the character is interesting to the player. It's my supposition that "deals with the devil," so to speak, are really attractive to players. Because it gives them something really intense to play around with.

Hence the entire appeal of the game Sorcerer. That game is all about exploring the slippery slope to power. But that game has something important as a counterbalance to just sliding down the slope willy-nilly. The rule is that if you go to zero humanity that you lose your character. Basically the character's story has been told - they've gone to the dark side.

So what I suggest is this. As the player loses to the chaos, demons, dark side, whatever, they take on traits that indicate this progression. But if they ever get to Complete Defeat, then they do, in fact, lose the character as if it had died. In fact the character probably doesn't die, but continues to exist as a demon, or insane, or as a tool of chaos.

In fact, in Shadow World (the world that I use for play), the force in question is called the Unlife. Same thing, essentially.

I see two ways to handle this. The first is the extended contest concept. The problem with this method is in setting bids, and determining intermediate outcomes. That is, if you lose a round, you should take on some taint - there should be some representation of the loss of the round. This includes the chaos taint flaw as well. There are some complicated ways to handle this, but I think there's a better way using multiple contests.

Instead use whatever sort of contest seems suitable at the moment - probably mostly simple ones. When the character loses, again, increase the chaos taint by the indicated amount. If the chaos magic ever rolls a complete victory over whatever the target is, then the character succumbs to the chaos. Again, given that the chaos taint ability is augmenting the chaos magic side of things (not only for this purpose, but for effect), eventually it becomes more and more dangerous to roll.

Another way to handle this, possibly simpler, is merely to skip the idea of the taint ability, and just make it a standard penalty. That is, if the chaos wins with, say, a minor victory, the character gets a -10% to their chosen resistance the next time. If the next is also a minor victory for chaos, then that's another 10% penalty to resist. A victory against chaos doesn't "heal" any of these penalties, that requires some separate "healing" contest at the appropriate resistance.

As for the resistance chosen, that too would get the penalty. Here's an example:

Vognar uses the banestaff to create a Banestorm at 5W2 to fend off some attackers. That's resolved separately, and then the player must choose some ability to pit against the chaos magic. Personally I think it can be most anything - the character's humanity is composed of everything on the sheet, IMO. So let's say that he puts Vognar's Running 2W ability up against it. He loses with a major defeat, which gives a -50% result. The narrator decides that this is represented by strange bony growths erupting from his flesh which cover his legs and prevent him from running as fast. This will affect both any use of the Running ability (and maybe combat and other abilities, too), as well as being a reminder of chaos that will impact his next ability to resist it.

Next time out, Vognar uses a much lighter magic touch, afraid that he's about to go over the edge into the madnessof chaos. So he brings up a 5W Baneblast. After that contest, he pits this blast against his relationship with his family at 4W. Unfortunately, this is reduced to a 12 because of the reminder of his legs. Still, with a hero point, he manages to get a Marginal Victory. So the chaos magic doesn't detatch him from his family at all (the penalty that would occur if he'd lost). But he still has the problem with the legs. If he wants to heal them with countermagic or something, then the resistance of the penalty applies (5W, IIRC).


This does leave one problem - what do you do with the penalties generated by winning against chaos magic? Well, this is one time that I'd be tempted to just drop them. If you allow them to be applied to cancel out other penalties, or for healing them, the problem becomes that you incentivize having the player use small doses of chaos magic against their largest abilities in order to produce successes to combat the effects.

It's the old "practice" problem from games where you advance by using abilities in play. Players end up engineering conflicts soley for the purpose of stat management. Which I think is to be avoided here.

Instead have the penalties apply against the chaos magic itself. That way, if you win against chaos in these contests, you actually reduce your ability to use it. What's cool is that you'd roll against the modified result for how well the magic worked, but you'd still roll against the unmodified result to determine if taint had occured. Also neat is that with ties as rare as they are, one would almost always be accumulating progress either for chaos taking over, or for chaos being reduced in potence.

A complete victory could mean that you lose the ability to use it ever again, as you suggest. What this does is to incentivize ensuring that results are at least middle of the road, which is cool. There's incentive to not go too low, and incentive not to go too high from the player POV, always leaving the choice to do either in the hands of the player.

Sound good?

Mike

Yup, it sounds good.

I think I'm going to have to have a talk with my player, and see what his thinking is on his story. Does he want the conflict framed that way? (Consumed by chaos or remove his own power?)  He might, it's an interesting story, and if he goes for it, I would definitely use something like what you've got laid out here.

He actually has 2 sources of chaos going here, though. He's got chaos spells (he's a sorcerer who found the peaceful mageocracy he lived in is maintained by an inner circle of chaotic magic. He was tapped to join, rebelled at the thought, and grabbed the Banestaff and ran). So he has a grimoire of chaotic magic, and he has the Banestaff. I think both can taint him. Using chaotic magic, obviously, and using the Banestaff to augment ANY magic.  I'm still not sure how I'll model the Banestaff proper (I'm currently thinking Fetish, actually, since it seems to match what he wants the best.)

I like your "reduce the Chaos Magic" thing because it can apply to both without a problem, which is nice.

Quote from: lightcastleSo he has a grimoire of chaotic magic, and he has the Banestaff. I think both can taint him. Using chaotic magic, obviously, and using the Banestaff to augment ANY magic.  I'm still not sure how I'll model the Banestaff proper (I'm currently thinking Fetish, actually, since it seems to match what he wants the best.)

Yep, if he uses chaos magic, then use the rating of the magic used. If he uses the banestaff alone, or to augment regular magic, use the Banestaff's rating. If he augments a chaos spell with the staff, use the spell rating augmented by the staff.

Basically, use whatever chaos ratings are employed to come up with the level of the conflict in question.

We need a name for this sort of conflict - Darkness Resistance? Resist Chaos? Something to signify that we're talking about the secondary roll.


Note in all of this that not once since I came up with the whole "spell point" secondary roll for SW magic, have I actually used it. Put another way, I'm not sure if making rules for these things is effective. Basically, if it seems to be an important conflict in play, you'll make it one. If it's not, you won't. Not to rain on the parade, but in some ways, all we're talking about is implementing one potentially interesting sort of conflict. Which in practice might only be so interesting.

Mike