"equipment" and ratings

[Bryan_T]

I've gone a few pages back in the archives without finding a discussion of this, but I admit I did not dig back beyond last Spring, so please excuse me if I'm bringing up an already discussed issue.

First a quick anecdote:

I was filling in an html character sheet for a PByahoo HQ game.  Due to the wonders of cut and paste, when I was all done I found that my hero's possesions included:

seeds 13
colony of alynx 13
farm tools 13

Now none of these were supposed to have ability scores.  "Seeds" was specified in my 100 words, while the latter two came from the possesions of the farmer key word (the alynx replacing a donkey in terms of domestic animals).

But looking at them with scores against them suddenly seemed to make them more meaningful.  Farm tools 13 would imply something different from farm tools 5w, wouldn't it?  If my hero made a point of bringing in an excellent hunting alynx, might she help improve that colony of alynx to a 14 or 15?  

I erased the scores from the character sheet, but couldn't erase the questions from my mind.

So now to my question, or questions, or vaguely interrogative meanderings.

Everything else in heroquest gets a rating.  Why should possesions not get a rating?  Or to put it differently, why do you bother specifying possesions if they do not have a potentially dramatic roll?  (and without a rating, they really can't "play" under the rules).  

Granted, certain equipment makes certain abilities usable, so in one way it seems it should be listed, but on the other hand I believe the default is to assume that if you have your tools of the trade, both for keyword and and reasonable gear for other abilities.  

The one glaring exception that I can see is armor--it is useful, but not a property of any particular ability, nor totally tied to certain keywords (my farmer may have chainmail in his description, my merchant may aquire and cement some in play).

Anyway, what I'm getting at is: is there use to putting ratings on equipment?  Would you do it for all equipment?  Or only under certain circumstances?  Or not at all?  If it is conditional, under what circumstances?

Regards;

-Bryan --who would hasten to point out that "farm tools" and "colony of alynx" would both properly be at 17, coming from the relevant keyword, if they did have an ability rating :)

[Mandacaru]

I'm with you on this, Bryan, giving an object any number only if it will be of narrative importance. A greatsword being universally +5 for close combat is a little bizarre. An ability rating would allow it to be used as a negative augment where applicable, and with more ease I think.

Armour too would sometimes augment positively, sometimes negatively (e.g. swimming). With straight plusses or minuses, it becomes a hassle to remember who has what, somehow. Of course, the book probably only suggests them as augments, but lazy folk like me just chuck 'em in as plusses.

So, ripping up and starting again, I'd most certainly only include any equipment with a rating like that, perhaps setting some with higher ratings to start (e.g. plate mail is 20W from the outset, so always + or - 4, more even). I would also set some relationships much higher (love brother frex). Wealth would go in there too - not on the sheet unless specified. It'd be easy to agree this between player and narrator, I imagine.

All this then makes it easier to give ratings to other 'special' equipment, like seeds, for example, which are not for hitting things. That said, doing it in mid-game takes some thought...

Sam.

[Bryan_T]

Hmmm, setting equipment as appropriate augments, I can see the value.  

I think the corrolary you'd have to put around that was that equipment defaults to augment only, unless it has somehow been made active.  Otherwise the typical sword has to have a rating of at least 5W, greatswords 5W2, which would typically be the highest number on the sheet of many starting heroes.....the temptation to find SOME way to use that big number would be awfully tough.  But if like having a "look into the sun 10W2" charm it is clear that it is only an augment ability, then you don't tempt players into munchkin mode :)

Therefore "named" equipment would still have its normal "active" ability, as well as its equipment nature augment only ability.

Three-fish shield
- shield 10 (augment only)
- swim 13

Or something like that.

Not positive that this is a good thing, but it is certainly a thing....

--Bryan

[Mark Galeotti]

I agree with the view that for mundane kit, a simple augment rating suffices (which also avoids that "my sword is the strongest thing about me" pitfall), but that special or named items get a rating (although I'd say a single rating except perhaps for the most powerful or weird items: Three-Fish Shield 13 which can both block a blow and also help the user swim at 13 seems fine to me.

FWIW, here is the relevant section from the Mythic Russia draft:

Tools, Weapons and Armour

The world of Mythic Russia is shaped by the heroism, good luck, skill and dedication of its protagonists. Even so, it makes a difference if you have the right tools for the job, whether shoeing a horse, bribing a chamberlain or killing your foe. The equipment a hero carries relating to each task simply provides a bonus (or in some cases penalty) to his overall ability rating.

Basic or Light Equipment: +1
Nothing special, just the essentials, such as light or short ropes for climbing, a cheap gift when trying to curry favour, a crowbar, light or makeshift armour (such as hardened leather, tough skin or fur) and weapons (a cudgel, knife, dart, rock or short bow).

Average Equipment: +3
A proper professional's outfit, whatever the job, such as fine robes to impress at court, a standard one-handed weapon (sword, mace, spear, axe, etc) or military ranged weapon (crossbow, javelin, longbow), medium armour (chainmail, lamellar, scale armour), a fully-equipped smithy to forge a weapon.

Heavy or Excellent Equipment: +5
This could be an especially extensive or top-quality outfit or equipment, such as an extraordinary gift, metal cable, a locksman's kit imported from Italy, or heavy armour (European knightly plate, or chainmail made by a true master armourer) and weapons (greatsword or greataxe, lance, berdysh, metal crossbow).

A single modifier will generally apply for a hero's complete outfit, but in some cases they may add. The classic example is a shield, which adds a +1 in appropriate contests.

Higher and lower quality weapons and tools can alter the bonus, so that a poorly forged sword might only give a +2 bonus.

Special or named items will have a numerical rating (such as My Mother's Wedding Dress 13M or the Axe of St Nikita 1M). Their rating can, of course, be used as an active ability, but otherwise they add the usual bonus, as above, and an additional one based on the auto-augment value of the rating (ie, the rating divided by 10, rounding 0.5 up), so that in combat, the Axe of St Nikita would be worth the standard +3 and an extra +2 from its own rating for a total +5, while in the right situation, the dress would get +3 over and above the appropriate rating from the dress.

However, what can provide a bonus in some circumstances might incur penalties in others. Thus, a man in heavy armour is harder to hurt in battle... but will sink and drown all the more quickly when he falls through the ice (just ask the Teutonic Knights – see page xx). Likewise, the fine robes and exotic imported scent the hero donned to further his chances wooing the princess might make him rather less imposing when he tried to intimidate his way past the drunken vagabonds who waylay him on the street outside. In such cases, the hero suffers a penalty equal to the usual bonus, or even a multiple of the modifier. (This penalty usually does not take into account any extra bonuses an item may have for being magical or otherwise have a rating of its own.)

Optional Rule: It's the Man, not the Tools
Some narrators and groups may wish to ignore the equipment bonuses in most situations, both to streamline play and also to emphasise the primacy of the heroes rather than their kit. This is fine, especially as 'normal' kit on each side cancels out in any case, but the narrator in this case should then feel free to introduce occasional bonuses and penalties for especially appropriate or effective tools. It is also recommended that the separate bonuses for named and special items still apply: My Mother's Wedding Dress ought always to make a difference!

All the best

Mark

[Eero Tuovinen]

My take on this is simple: you don't give the hero all possible traits at 6, but instead only mark down the ones that differ from the norm. So why should you do it with equipment? I give scores only to equipment that somehow deviates from the norm.

If the lack of equipment then becomes an issue (like two fighters squaring off with and without armor), the perfect tool are improvisation bonuses: just throw in a plus or two for the side having better equipment, or better tactics, or better position... it's all the same. Unless the armor does have a score, in which case that score can be used to augment normally.

The main principle here is that only things that have importance to the player get scores. When you do something active to improve your alynx colony for the first time, a score can be figured out ("hmm... it goes under the farmer keyword, so let's say that it's 17"), and subsequently raised ("hmm... a price alynx improves the stock to 18, I guess"). But until then there's no need to even mention the colony in the character sheet, just as it's not necessary to mention that your character has boots or trousers.

[soru]

There's another point to be made on equipment, which becomes significant mostly in modern or sci-fi games.

If you, not unreasonably, decide that a nuclear weapon should very have a rating of something like 10W4 to 10W6 (face it, a nuke going off is almost always a significant plot point, if nothing else), then if the pcs come across and use a nuke in play, it has a rating like that, as you would expect.

The follow-on is that, unless the pcs have an ability 'personal arsenal' or 'weapons license' that is that high, then they don't get to own or keep a nuclear weapon for their own personal use. At best, they might have 'captain of nuclear armed ship' or something, which would still imply a conflict or contest before they get to use the nuke.

In straight HQ, I do think this variant works rather better than the default 'iron weapon' rules. Rather than declaring a weapon to be iron, and getting a free extra bonus (and so ending up with combat abilities higher than any other), simply rule a weapon is not iron unless it has a rating sufficiently high.

soru

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with pretty much everyone here. A couple of points.

I came to this conclusion here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8220

It's part of some larger considerations of what the overall rules mean. But here's what I come up with:

[*]Like Soru says, equipment is temporary unless cemented. Now, whether or not you want to let a PC cement the ability to have a nuclear weapon or not for 1 HP is another issue, one that I've tried to deal with on a number of occasions. But the basic principle is sound.

What this means, to me, is that you can use anything you find, but that it will, at the soonest dramatic convenience, find a way to leave the character. The Nuke will be appropriated by the authorities. The magic sword given to the clan chieftain. Etc. Unless you cement the ability with HP, at which it becomes a permenant part of the character. Meaning that, yes, if you lose your magic sword you get it back, or find a new one. Or, alternately, losing an item can be an opportunity to "redeem" the HP invested (which means it could be instantly spent on something else, too, thus you can "trade" abilities).  

[*]Also, like Soru says, and in clear violation of the rules, I advocate dropping the idea of bonuses for at least equipment if not everything else as well. All modifiers are assumed to have a "background ability" that's pushing them. Which, as pointed out by Eero, means that you only list things that are outside the norm.

[*]If you want a rationalization that makes rating anything not go against any rule, then consider that in Glorantha, everything is magical. So, of course you rate your farm tools with a 13 or whatever. Just like all other magic items.

[*]Armor is no different than anything else. It's a tool that helps you accomplish a goal. Given that the normal method for armor is to give you a bonus just like a weapon does, why should it not have an ability rating if special? Does this mean that armor has no effect if not rated? No, it means that, just like an unrated sword, it's situational. In HW, these things gave "edges" that tended to cancel out. Well, that's how I see it here. If I'm going up against you, and you have chainmail, and a sword, and I have a stick and no armor, the situation warrants a modifier, yes. But if we're both about equally armed and armored, then neither of us has an advantage over the other, and should get no bonus. Only if one of us has a superior sword or armor should there be a difference (which would be represented by a rating like "Sharp 17").

[*]If one needs a guideline as to the level of the modifiers in question, simply use the bonuses from the book. IOW, use the bonuses precisely as before, except have them cancel each other out before applying them.  This then makes any rating that equipment has stand out more. Because, you could simply use the normal bonus system, and just say that a sword was "Sharp 17" as it is. The problem is that the +2 pales somewhat in comparison to the +5 that all swords get. And the alternative, for consistency with the rating system would be to give out a Sword 10W2 for free to every character who would normally get a sword. This is the basic unbalance that I was trying to avoid when I first came up with this.

[*]Does this make combat abilities different than any others? In fact, the opposite. Only combat abilities had bonuses for equipment previously. Now we can say that if you don't have your forge tools, that using the forge is -10, just like fighting with a stick against someone in full kit. And if you have good forge tools, you not only do not get the -10, you get an augment based on the ratings of the tools. [/list:u]

Mike

[NickHollingsworth]

Soru:

If you, not unreasonably, decide that a nuclear weapon should very have a rating of something like 10W4 to 10W6 ...

The follow-on is that, unless the pcs have an ability 'personal arsenal' or 'weapons license' that is that high, then they don't get to own or keep a nuclear weapon for their own personal use. At best, they might have 'captain of nuclear armed ship' or something, which would still imply a conflict or contest before they get to use the nuke.

This is similar to the way npcs are handled.  Very broadly speaking, you can 'control' an npc who has significantly worse ratings than you by making it a sidekick or retainer, but you can only 'interact' with an npc who has better ratings even if you make it an ally or similar. These rules about degree of control over npcs are explicitly explained and provide the idea of a rated relationship to provide some balance against PCs accumulating hods of abilities on the cheap.

Powerful kit can and perhaps should be treated as an npc.

But that aside, it would be nice to have a clearer statement of ways of cementing powerful kit in a manner that shares control between the player and the GM and makes explicit the degree of control the player has in the way that the relationship rules do for npcs.

[Mike Holmes]

OK, now we're getting into really deep theory territory here.

The simplest thing to do, Nick, is to simply generificate (if you will) the relationship outcome results, and apply them to absolutely everything the Player owns as if it were all followers. That is, the relationship rule for a follower says that it will tend to do what it does without a roll, but when asked to do something tangential to it's purpose, that's when you roll.

So, for instance, if you have Chainmail 15W, and you have an Owner of Chainmail 17 relationship with it, then generally it'll give you that +4 augment in fights. But let's say that you try to use it to tie somebody up. Then you have to roll that 17 gainst some resistance set by the narrator to indicate just how far from the normal use for the item this is. If it works, then you get to apply the chainmail rating to the contest, perhaps with an improv penalty. If you try to fly with the chainmail, the narrator points out that this is impossible and disallows it (based on the improv mod rules).

This works particularly well for magic items. Instead of saying that the character is just learning to use the item, and not knowing how powerful it might be, all magic items would have an ability rating, and then the character would purchase a relationship to it representing how well they know how to use it, or are "attuned" to it.

This all said, the primary problem remains, and that's in determining the "value" of the object related to. I mean, is it the same value to have a relationship at 17 to something with a rating of 13, as it is to have the relationship at 17 to something at 10W8? The leverage on the latter one seems much larger than the leverage on the first.

In fact, if I could find a way to balance this stuff, then I'd actually have players rate their swords at 10W2. It's only getting this sort of stuff for free or without qualification that I object to.

One way to do this is to say that you have to roll your relationship to use something against the ability rating of the ability being used. Similar to how you have to roll against a spirit's rating to bind it in a fetish. That's balancing in theory because the higher the ability rating one has, the less often they can use it. But it means that a character with a Sword 10W2 and a relationship to it at 17 wouldn't be able to get it to work very often. I could handle this dramatically (doesn't mean he's not using the sword, just that it isn't adding to his chances of success this roll), but I think it would be a tad odd for most folks.

In any case, if you're going the strict drama rout, the easiest thing is just to take the ability at whatever level sans a relationbship, and, again, say that the character just only gets so much advantage from it. This is certainly the simplest way to go.

The other way to have balance is to make it possible to gain any ability, but make it a contest to do so. This is, essentially, what I tried to do in my "Currency Based Resolution System."

It all comes back to the same question about how to decide what can be cemented all at once.

Mike