Advancement Revisited

[soviet]

After reading the recent(ish) thread on HP reward systems I've been thinking a lot about advancement in HQ.

In general I like the system presented in the book. Many players seem to like the granularity of the system in fine-tuning their ability ratings, and there is a nice tension between spending hero points on bumps or saving them to buy / improve your abilities. All that works great.

Where I think the system falls down is in the way it handles larger-scale changes to a character, such as finding Stormbringer, spending five years in a war off-camera, or renouncing your former life as an intergalactic assassin to become a zen buddhist. Generally these sorts of things just end up having lots of hero points thrown at them in some way, which I don't think is very satisfying.

So, here are a couple of ideas I've been toying with:

1) Dramatic Uplifts

When dramatically appropriate (after the conclusion of a big fight or story arc, for example) the narrator steps outside the normal advancement rules and lets everyone choose a new ability at 5m, or a new keyword, or whatever, to reflect the impact of these events on the character. For example:

- After the battle Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas all take the ability 'Hero of Helm's Deep' at 5m.
- At the end of Episode V Luke Skywalker gains the Jedi Knight keyword.
- As the Shadow War escalates Sheridan gains command of the White Star fleet.

These bonus abilities should be left for the players to define rather than being imposed from above by the narrator. They should be given to all players equally and should probably be pretty rare.

2) Transforming Abilities

Instead of buying a new ability from scratch you can spend 1 HP to transform an exisiting ability into something else (with the same rating). This should generally reflect dramatic changes in a character's personality or relationships with others but just about anything can be transformed given the right set of circumstances. Charging a token HP stops characters being in a constant state of flux and reinforces the gravity of such a change. Some examples:

- When Saruman falls he transforms his 'White Wizard' keyword into 'Saruman of Many Colours'.
- During Episode V Leia's 'Annoyed by that Scruffy-Looking Mercenary' becomes 'Love Han Solo'. 
- Susan Ivanova swaps 'Loved By Marcus Cole' for 'Tormented By Guilt' after his final sacrifice.


So... any thoughts?

soviet

[Vaxalon]

We change the name of relationship scores all the time.

[Mike Holmes]

In fact, in the section on relationships the rules say that this is kosher - in fact I don't think there's any HP cost at all.

Further, there's another clause in the rules that permits all of this, though I find it a bit problematic. That is, somewhere in the narrating section it suggests that the narrator has some sort of broad power in play such that it includes being able to simply award any ability at any time to any player. So if you consider this a rule, then everything above is simply a good method by which to alter characters that sticks to this rule.

I like this sort of thing myself. I don't like that the rulebook leaves it as vague as it does. But if you've come up with some system that you'll use yourself for this, I think it's a good idea. What I object to is the narrator just doing this sort of thing on whim...it makes the HP system of advancement seem redundant. In fact, what some people do these days is simply ignore HP for advancement entirely, and just advance abilities based on general consensus.

I prefer the balance mentioned, however, between spending and bumping. So I like to have rigorous systems for things like this. Here's my system:

• During normal play, the normal HP system applies. I also have some house rules about costs for certain things, but that's really ancillary to the discussion here. I think of this as dramatic development. Which is not to say that it can't be representative of things that are happening in the sessions - they can, and usually are. But simply that I find it fine for players to add to any ability at any time for any reason using HP. If they want to say something about how their character has been practicing, or long ago learned something, that's fine, but I don't require any explanation at all.
• During "down times," where a character would have time to grow in ability, I use something like the "saga system" from the rules meaning that I tend to give out a few points to add to keyword levels based on what has happened in play. That is, if the downtime has been sitting around peacefully farming for years, I'll probably give few, while being in a war for a couple months may give more. I also give out a few HP so that the player can tinker with a few abilities if they like. I think of this as less dramatic, and more "refactoring" the character so that they're appropriate to their background. Really no different than what you'd do if you created the character from scratch at that moment. You're just making the character appropriate to their current situation.
• As for "Transforming" as I've said, this is per the rules for relationships, but I extrapolate this to say that if it makes sense for other abilities, then it makes sense to do that for them too. So, basically it's like you've got it, I allow any transformation that makes sense (though I don't advertise this a lot, or do it often). This may be against a narrow construction view of the rules, but, if so, I think it's a good modification.

So the only real difference in my play from what you have is that I wouldn't give such a bonus at the end of Helm's Deep - though if that was followed by significant downtime, they might be able to get the ability, or they might be able to get it from HP that I gave as the result of the battle. So, really, very little difference here, other than the fact that I don't often give out bonus HP, and do downtime only rarely.

In other words, I think what you have will work pretty well. Instead of giving a new ability at 5W, I'd suggest giving out the 13 HP that this represents, and letting players do with it what they will. While the book does suggest that something like HW's "Directed HP" expenditures may be merited, I have no problem with players squirreling HP away if they really want to. The expenditures later can be thought of as "lessons learned from Helm's Deep."

Just a thought.

BTW, I've considered adding the rule to have a one HP surcharge on changes, and I think it's a good one. That is, I prefer that the player do the considering than to have the question of when it can change be based on narrator fiat. I think I'll probably institute that myself. The real benefit, as I see it, is that it's a mechanical cue to the fact that it can be done. That is, if you charge for it, it gains a percieved value, and I think players will do it more often (right now my players don't do it a ton).

Mike

[lightcastle]

In fact, in the section on relationships the rules say that this is kosher - in fact I don't think there's any HP cost at all.

I would probably stick the "pay 1 HP" thing just as it fits the whole idea of allowing the player to indicate this is dramatically important by how they spend their points.

But in reality, I am completely in favour of doing that kind of thing, especially for relationships.

I like this sort of thing myself. I don't like that the rulebook leaves it as vague as it does.
But if you've come up with some system that you'll use yourself for this, I think it's a good idea. What I object to is the narrator just doing this sort of thing on whim...it makes the HP system of advancement seem redundant. In fact, what some people do these days is simply ignore HP for advancement entirely, and just advance abilities based on general consensus.

Which is what I do (although I basically make people pay 1 point for the privilege) but I don't really like it because, as you say, it makes it redundant. I happen to like the idea of having the whole trade off and choice about bumping vs advancement and what have you. But I've never quite been satisfied with finding a way to do it that seems to work well.

I prefer the balance mentioned, however, between spending and bumping. So I like to have rigorous systems for things like this. Here's my system:
During normal play, the normal HP system applies. I also have some house rules about costs for certain things, but that's really ancillary to the discussion here. I think of this as dramatic development. Which is not to say that it can't be representative of things that are happening in the sessions - they can, and usually are. But simply that I find it fine for players to add to any ability at any time for any reason using HP. If they want to say something about how their character has been practicing, or long ago learned something, that's fine, but I don't require any explanation at all.

OK, I can see that. Do you include the "part of play, not in play" costs or are you saying here you really just don't bother with that?

During "down times," where a character would have time to grow in ability, I use something like the "saga system" from the rules meaning that I tend to give out a few points to add to keyword levels based on what has happened in play. That is, if the downtime has been sitting around peacefully farming for years, I'll probably give few, while being in a war for a couple months may give more. I also give out a few HP so that the player can tinker with a few abilities if they like. I think of this as less dramatic, and more "refactoring" the character so that they're appropriate to their background. Really no different than what you'd do if you created the character from scratch at that moment. You're just making the character appropriate to their current situation.
As for "Transforming" as I've said, this is per the rules for relationships, but I extrapolate this to say that if it makes sense for other abilities, then it makes sense to do that for them too. So, basically it's like you've got it, I allow any transformation that makes sense (though I don't advertise this a lot, or do it often). This may be against a narrow construction view of the rules, but, if so, I think it's a good modification.

I would certainly agree with allowing any transformation that made sense, not just relationships. It is usually harder to see/explain those transformations in other types of traits (except possibly personality ones, although I usually prefer to let the player take a new, conflicting one, and then let them war with each other.)

In other words, I think what you have will work pretty well. Instead of giving a new ability at 5W, I'd suggest giving out the 13 HP that this represents, and letting players do with it what they will. While the book does suggest that something like HW's "Directed HP" expenditures may be merited, I have no problem with players squirreling HP away if they really want to. The expenditures later can be thought of as "lessons learned from Helm's Deep."

Interesting. I think I'm slowly leaning more towards adopting something like this, just to put some rigour back into the advancement.

BTW, I've considered adding the rule to have a one HP surcharge on changes, and I think it's a good one. That is, I prefer that the player do the considering than to have the question of when it can change be based on narrator fiat. I think I'll probably institute that myself. The real benefit, as I see it, is that it's a mechanical cue to the fact that it can be done. That is, if you charge for it, it gains a percieved value, and I think players will do it more often (right now my players don't do it a ton).

That's how I have found it works in my game. By knowing they can pay for the transformation, they consider it. It's weird, but probably just human nature. :-)

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I would probably stick the "pay 1 HP" thing just as it fits the whole idea of allowing the player to indicate this is dramatically important by how they spend their points.

I agree. If the player feels that it's important then I want them to pay the point to say so. Further, this allows a player to do this mid-contest, without any guilt:

Me as Narrator: OK, I think that "Loves Wilma" is going to work against you here for -2.
Player: My character has had enough of Wilma, I'm paying a HP to change that to "Hates Wilma".
Me: Cool, OK, then, +2.

Sans payment, players might feel tempted to adjust every ability name on every contest to take advantage. I want them to be able to make such a change, I just want them to understand that there's a cost to doing so and so only to do so when it's dramatic to do so.

All this in addition to the benefits of cuing that we discussed.

In fact, what some people do these days is simply ignore HP for advancement entirely, and just advance abilities based on general consensus.

Which is what I do (although I basically make people pay 1 point for the privilege) but I don't really like it because, as you say, it makes it redundant. I happen to like the idea of having the whole trade off and choice about bumping vs advancement and what have you. But I've never quite been satisfied with finding a way to do it that seems to work well.

Yeah, this has been a long time problem for me, too. I want ability ratings to change more dramatically, but I don't want to upset the balance. I've been considering moving to a "Change ability and/or rating to anything for one HP" for a while. I probably should playtest it at some point.

OK, I can see that. Do you include the "part of play, not in play" costs or are you saying here you really just don't bother with that?

Practically speaking, I don't include this rule. Theoretically my interpretation is simply that if a player thinks it's important, then it's "related to play." Put another way, if I thought that a player was putting in an ability for really no good reason, I would charge them double. But I very simply have never seen it happen. The only way for this to happen, really, is if you think in sim terms of whether or not the player took time in play to say that their character was practicing or something. Basically I allow "explanations" that are so weak as to how the ability relates to something in play, that they don't even have to be spoken.

:-)

I mean, I'm such a geek when players spend HP. "Ooooh, that's so cooool that you bought up your Rapier ability, I can just see her practicing in her spare time."

I have sorta done away with the extra costs for stacking purchases. The rule is hard to administer anyhow, and assumes HP are spent on raising things only between sessions, more or less. I have players raising things up all the time in play (in PBEM, there are no sessions, so...). I think that the rule is meant to prevent players from "stacking," meaning spending all of their HP on one thing, and rapid bumps in ability. First, I haven't seen that behavior (though I've heard it reported from groups that I think have a more gamism bent), and second, I want abilities to go up rapidly. So I really shouldn't apply the rule at all. That said, I haven't removed it officially from my IRC play, I don't think.

It is usually harder to see/explain those transformations in other types of traits (except possibly personality ones, although I usually prefer to let the player take a new, conflicting one, and then let them war with each other.)

I think that's just what we're used to. I mean, let's say that a player wants to change his Strong Like a Bull to Pushed Stone Wheel for Two Years. Who am I to say that this transformation isn't appropriate? If it's appropriate. That is, I'd still use Narrator fiat to make for a community consensus on what makes for an appropriate change (just like you create the consensus on how far you can stretch abilities with Improv Mods). But the point is that I think that it only seems less likely because we're used to abilities not changing. With practice, I think that players could be constantly redacting all sorts of parts of their characters.

Mike