HQ for Cyberpunk and strength ratings of cyborgs

[Scripty]

The numbers were posted upthread, a starting pc with a high strength and a giant with less than a mastery advantage over them.

Thers a table somewhere on the hw-rules list that gives exact percentage chances, but I think those numbers give the giant something less than a 65% chance of winning, given that a full mastery is a 75% chance of a win.

So the human wins on a completely unexceptional roll, not an outrageous fluke.

soru

I think we're bogging down in the details here. Yes, I saw your list of numbers prior to your example, but you did not specify in the example which numbers you were using. Was it the 10w2 Giant vs. the 13 Human or the 10w Giant against the 5w2 Human? I don't know. You didn't tell me. And in the example you stated, you said you rolled a 1 and the Giant rolled a 20. That's not an unexceptional roll. It's just not. I can't in good conscience agree with that example as an example of you beating a Giant with an unexceptional roll. Even in the most lenient of models (in the Giant's favor), it's still a really good roll. I'm sure you can come up with a better example, because I don't completely disagree with you (on aspects of this point). Besides, I gave a number of ways that the situation could be competently narrated to maintain a variety of consistencies within the given campaign. Not a single one required a normal human to flat-out beat a Giant in Tug-of-War. Please, work with me here. I'm trying to get an understanding of your point, but you keep pulling this back into an argument.

I tried to work with what you wrote and I think I was pretty flexible in drawing a correlation between your point and my own experience (i.e. the Giant Tick). Hence, I think I understand what you're talking about. But I still don't see it as a problem with the rules for contest resolution, nor do I see it as a problem with "relative" vs. "absolute" scaling. I see it as more of a disconnect with the role of narration. Sorry. Perhaps you have more experience in running/playing this game and have encountered situations that I have yet to come across, but what you are describing as a broken system has yet to break for my group (at least to the point you describe). And I have some pretty capable system monkeys and rules lawyers in my group.

And the caption regarding a mastery giving a 75% chance to win (at least in the Hero's Book) makes no specification that the mastery advantage has to be a "full" mastery. IME, the HeroQuest system does not function like a linear scale. For instance, the difference between a 5w and a 15 is greater than the difference between a 5 and a 15. Even though, mathwise, they are similar, they do not function the same in terms of game mechanics, IME. It's played out among my group that the character at 15 going against an opponent with a 5w is at a greater disadvantage. YMMV, but that's how my experience holds up.

[Mike Holmes]

Your math is right, Scripty, but the 75% statement is a generalization, not a specific figure.

What you're not getting is that Soru made two statements. He gave the example of the one and twenty result as one that he would accept in terms of beating a giant. Then, separately (and I had to read it twice to understand, too), he's saying that the examples above where the player has around a 25% chance to win or so, breaks his SOD.

So basically what we have here is Soru disagreeing with your choice of differentiation of power.

That is, in creating the contest, you did say that it would only be stronger, but not overwhelmingly so. Whereas he expects a giant to be overwhelmingly strong. His assumption (incorrect) is that you choose that level because you don't care about the strength of the giant, and only care to set up a 25% chance to win.

Which isn't true. Scripty just has his own view of what makes for the difference. It's just a matter of opinion. To an extent it has to do with how much "outside influence" you think the dice represent in the modeling. If everything was all "outside influence" you could just flip a coin. If there was no "outside influence" then you'd just say the giant wins because he has the higher score. The HQ scale is somewhere in between.

Now, we could set that arbtrarily except that the rules do show some actual values in ralation to each other. If we want to be consistent with those at all, then we have to make the differences similar.

So, a difference of 15 points in one conflict has to be equal to the relative odds shift of the difference of 15 points in another conflict. Still, that leaves a lot of wiggle room. Enough wiggle room that, occasionally, a GM is going to make a choice that seems odd to some player. And that's all I think has happened here. Scripty has leaned a little farther into the "outside influences" than Soru finds comfortable.

No harm, no foul.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

I don't think I can realy get my head round the difference between determining ability (or resistance) ratings from a universal scale, and determining it relative to a known value. Surely they're the same thing?

For example, hwo do you detemine a reference numeric scale, such as a strength scale? You do it by looking at the different things in the game that have strength scores (men, horses, elephants, giants, etc). You start with one of them (say a man) and assign it a numeric score, Then you take another (say a horse) and assign it a numeric core based on how you'd expect them to fare against each other. Then choose another and repeat the process. This is exactly the same process that is being proposed for the relativist method, it's just done in advance. Ultimately they're the same thing.

As for a character beating a giant in a tug of war, we just don't have enough context to know whether this is sensible or not. If you have been raising the character's strength every session for the last 20 sessions and he's now got a score of 5w2, then presumably he's already been tearing doors off walls and crushing golf balls with his bare hands anyway. Him beating a giant shouldn't be that much of a surprise - maybe unlikely but you know the guy's much stronger than the average joe. It's not out of the blue. Anyway maybe the giant was clumsy and just got caught off ballance.

I can see the text that tells me you guys are disagreeing, but I just can't see what the real root cause of the disagreement is yet.


Simon Hibbs

[Scripty]

What you're not getting is that Soru made two statements. He gave the example of the one and twenty result as one that he would accept in terms of beating a giant. Then, separately (and I had to read it twice to understand, too), he's saying that the examples above where the player has around a 25% chance to win or so, breaks his SOD.

So basically what we have here is Soru disagreeing with your choice of differentiation of power.

That is, in creating the contest, you did say that it would only be stronger, but not overwhelmingly so. Whereas he expects a giant to be overwhelmingly strong. His assumption (incorrect) is that you choose that level because you don't care about the strength of the giant, and only care to set up a 25% chance to win.

...

No harm, no foul.

Mike

Thanks for stepping in again, Mike. I don't think you've summarized my position as well as before, however. I read soru's example again and it makes more sense accompanied with your explanation. But his example comes with no numbers at all. So what is our basis for comparison here? Again (for the third time) what's the rating of the human and giant in this phantom contest? How do we know the giant has only a 25% chance of winning? And who really cares at this point? What started as a position of me not understanding soru's example and trying my hardest to work the numbers to achieve his results has turned into an argument where I'm working the numbers harder than soru would like. Does anyone else find it ironic that I was initially working the numbers for soru's example in order to give him the benefit of the doubt? How does a 13 Strength human beat a 10w2 Giant? I'm not seeing it as a possibility unless the human rolls a 1 and the Giant rolls a 20, and, even then, it's not a victory on par with soru's example. Now, if the Giant was of the 10w Strength variety, that's a different story, but that would also be a different Giant, wouldn't it? I think soru is taking an abstract concept of what he feels a Giant should be and isn't applying the numbers effectively to meet his expectations. A 10w Strength giant would only be as strong as an Olympic weight-lifter, IMO. I think soru is expecting it to be much stronger. So, why doesn't he use a 10w2 strength Giant to more accurately meet his expectations? I don't know and he doesn't provide much to help me meet him halfway.

I don't think I can realy get my head round the difference between determining ability (or resistance) ratings from a universal scale, and determining it relative to a known value. Surely they're the same thing?

Thank you, Simon, for stating something that I have been hovering around since Post #2, or 3, maybe. What I do on the fly is what most (heck, EVERY) game designer does? These abstract values only have meaning in context. Where I am applying the context on the fly using my working knowledge of the charts in the book, soru is advocating that this approach is unfair.

I don't understand what's at issue here. Who hasn't, as DM/GM/Narrator, conjured up a DC, Resistance, or Difficulty on the fly? What I have given is an effective means where you can do that and make it consistent with both the game's setting AND your player's capabilities. What's the harm in that? Why am I defending myself for:

A) doing something that 99.9% of anyone who has ever GM'd has done
B) answering a guy's question with a method that works and that allows (A) to occur, as I've stated before, in a manner that is consistent with both the game's setting AND takes your player's capabilities into consideration
C) trying to work my head around a poorly worded example
D) giving another forum user the benefit of the doubt in trying to understand his position when it is so obvious that he is only interested in turning this into an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. Please reference (A) yet again at this time to uncover why I would find this frustrating.

If you're a GM and YOU'VE NEVER COME UP WITH A DIFFICULTY ON THE FLY, more power to you. You're infinitely more prepared than I am. I prostrate myself at the feet of your GM-worthiness. But if you are one of the unwashed masses of GMs, such as myself, who are consistently surprised by your player's decisions and the directions players want to take a game session, then consider what I have posted. It works, in practice. That's it. That's all. I don't see why I should continue to have to defend myself against an unrelenting and unreasonable line of attacks.

It is only because of my past experience with the healthy discussion and debate on this forum that I even attempted to understand opposed positions or clarify my own. I find such attempts exercises in futility on rpg.net. Unfortunately, I find it no different on this particular thread.

I stand by what I have said because I feel it is a reasonable position. Prove to me it is unreasonable and I will retract it. I am done with defending myself.

[Mike Holmes]

Get off it Scripty. Soru's said repeatedly that he does do things on the fly. The difference between you two is minimal, and has to do with the fact that he wants more "proof" of the validity of the result than you seem to need.

Scripty: I don't want to always have to refer to a chart. So I make stuff up on the fly.

Soru: I don't want my suspension of disbelief ruined, so I make sure that the results are reasonable.

Note how neither of you are actually attacking anything that the other person is saying. You're both attacking what you see as implications - but which aren't there. It's getting old. We all get what each of you are saying.

Mike

[Scripty]

Get off it Scripty.

...

Note how neither of you are actually attacking anything that the other person is saying. You're both attacking what you see as implications - but which aren't there. It's getting old. We all get what each of you are saying.

Mike

I agree it is getting old. But I don't get the "Get off it Scripty" comment. I am not attacking Soru AT ALL. I am trying to understand his point and make my own clearer because I feel that Soru is misunderstanding me. For my troubles, I am constantly being put on the defensive. Your post brings this to light yet again.

I take your inability to see this as a fatigue on your part with this thread as a whole. I share that fatigue. But, because I do care about the tone of our correspondence. I am replying now. I look up to your work on Universalis and you have been instrumental in helping me understand HeroQuest. Thanks. Now, I don't think I'm being treated fairly here.

Please go back through the thread. Read it and show me where I'm off my rocker.

Donald asked for a way to come up with things on the fly in HeroQuest. I provided it.

Soru called my approach "backwards" and misrepresented my point.

I attempted to clarify, taking some offense to his tone and stated that a prerequisite for the approach to break down was a "complete lack of common sense."

Ron intervened and told us to chill.

Soru came back with sarcasm ("big whooshing sound") and the giant thing came up. Again, Soru is asking me to defend my position.

I once again attempt to clarify/defend my position and give him several literary examples that he could refer to. In response to his sarcasm, I comment that his suspension of disbelief seems rather finicky because, to me, it did. A world where there are talking/walking Howard the Ducks but a hero can't whoop a 9' tall giant??? I tried to tone it down as per Ron's request, but it was admittedly difficult in the face of such obstinance and sarcasm. I point out that I felt Soru was trying to be facetious. I also point out that it appeared to me that Soru's problem was not with my approach but, rather with the HeroQuest's resolution mechanics.

Soru then replied with his most civil post, to me, yet, even though he still managed to throw in that he didn't approve of how I ran HeroQuest (How could he possibly KNOW how I run HeroQuest?). He pointed out that mine was not the only way to do things. He and I both agree there.

You intervened to point out that I had never made the assertion that mine was the one true way. Nor would I.

Prior to reading your post, I responded to Soru. I tried, yet again, to maintain a civil tone, even though I was admittedly hot under the collar from Soru's couched insult to me. I addressed the change in tone that Soru was initiating and further pressing towards.

Soru then apologizes for his sarcasm and proceeds to point out explicitly why I'm running HeroQuest incorrectly. Even going so far as to define "the HQ way," which he falsely admonished me for earlier in the thread. He also charactizes my manner of improvising as a "radical disconnect from the normal experience of playing a RPG".

Thankfully, Mike, you got to this post before I did.

I came back again to further clarify my position. From statements on this thread, I was (and still am) convinced that Soru doesn't know what the heck I'm talking about.

And then comes the giant...

It wasn't a great example. The core substance of the entire example was as follows:

"I'm pretty strong, but not superhuman. I just beat a giant straight up in a tug of war, on a not especially good set of rolls, without even spending a hero point."

Following, Soru accuses HeroQuest of "System breakdown", affirming my statement earlier that his problems weren't with me or my methodology but with the game itself.

Soru then defines 2 "coherent" ways of planning for an HQ game. Again defining things in "right or wrong" terms for which he initially admonished me.

At this point, I'm just confused. My post reflects that as it is primarily a plea on my part to understand Soru's position. I include a brief synopsis of the only way I can figure that Soru's example above met his synopsis. I may have been wrong. But Soru has not given any numbers or further specifics on the example to clarify the matter. He mentions in a later post that the numbers were in the thread. Those were the numbers from which I attempted to reverse engineer his example, unsuccessfully it would seem, as I have gotten nothing but grief since attempting to understand his position.

Realizing it's a silly psuedo-debate, I try to get around the giant example. To me, it wasn't as important as understanding what Soru's point was. Which I thought I did, but he informed me I didn't.

Following, you intervene again. That's fine, except you attributed my problem to the amount of "outside influence" I'm willing to accept. What does that mean??? I have said repeatedly that my guestimations are based on a solid knowledge of the charts in the HeroQuest book. Where (and what) is this "outside influence?" ...and please excuse me if I feel further misunderstood. What you summarized and what I have said repeatedly on this thread are not one and the same. Sorry. I can attribute it, as I said, to thread fatigue. But you must somehow understand my frustration here.

Simon drops by to inform us all that this is a non-disagreement. Bravo! I 100% agree! Yet I am here trying to convince Soru and you that I'm not some alien. Thus far I have been:

a) had my approach called backwards
b) had it implied that I was a sucky GM
c) had it outright stated that my approach was not normal
d) had my approach flat-out called incoherent

All the while trying desperately to understand an opinion that conflicted with my own.

Finally, I give up in my last post. This is fruitless and pointless. It is obvious to me that Soru just wants to argue with me and is not interested in understanding my position in order to do so.

And you, Mike, come back with "Get off it Scripty."

I don't understand this at all. After trying to maintain a civil tone, trying to be helpful and understand someone who obviously does not share my opinion, I'm told to "Get off it"?

Granted my reaction might have been different had you said, "Let it go." Or come in with one of Ron's patented pleas for civility and sanity.

But where exactly did you come up with that tone? Do you honestly feel that I've been the one throwing insults and bashing people's styles of play here?

Mike,

I

really

don't

get it.

[Mike Holmes]

You didn't attack Soru, you mischaracterized his argument badly. You were saying that he had implied that you should always look things up in charts. When he distinctly said that he doesn't always do that, nor is that what he's advocating. You say it's using a civil tone, but it sure seems to come off to me as having exactly the same tone that Soru used previously that annoyed you so much. You're both overstating the other guy's case to have something to attack.

I'm not going to go line by line - that's bad form. But you aren't being attacked any more so, if I were you, I'd quit acting like you are. Now, I've probably overstepped my authority with these suggestions, so I'm getting out of this debate now.

If you still have questions as to what I mean by "outside influcences" (and I meant influences in-game that weren't directly involved in the conflict, not metagame influences), please contact me about it in PM. I'll be glad to go on there. But not here.

Mike

[Scripty]

In the interest of killing this dead horse, I have PM'd you, Mike. I'm still at a loss. But see no further use in going on with this on the forum.

[soru]

Just for the record, Mike's pretty much on the ball about my position.

To answer scripty's question:

Again (for the third time) what's the rating of the human and giant in this phantom contest?

I quote him:

By applying my suggestion, you're not going to be making Kobolds at Strong 10W to challenge a player with Strong 7W. That would be silly. No, but if you had a Giant NPC and (here's the important part) KNEW YOUR CHARACTERS' CAPABILITIES, then you could say...

hmmm.... That PC's pretty strong, but I think he'd have a tough time against a Giant... We'll make the Giant Strong 12W.

I was under the impression you were defending the figures you yourself posted (i.e. starting pc 7W, giant 12W). If you agree with me that they are not the best ones to use, then can we end this discussion?

soru

[Scripty]

By applying my suggestion, you're not going to be making Kobolds at Strong 10W to challenge a player with Strong 7W. That would be silly. No, but if you had a Giant NPC and (here's the important part) KNEW YOUR CHARACTERS' CAPABILITIES, then you could say...

hmmm.... That PC's pretty strong, but I think he'd have a tough time against a Giant... We'll make the Giant Strong 12W.

I was under the impression you were defending the figures you yourself posted (i.e. starting pc 7W, giant 12W). If you agree with me that they are not the best ones to use, then can we end this discussion?

soru

Ah, now I understand. Sorry for the mix up. From that position, those certainly are not be the best numbers to use. If the game is one where giants are more like Andre the Giant than D&D style Giants (like Hyborea), those numbers might be more bearable. Based on the numbers I've seen in HeroQuest thus far (i.e. using the Size chart to determine how much a Giant could lift), I felt 12w was not too far out of the ballpark for a giant of the former nature. I was off by a wide margin. I don't have Anaxial's Roster, so I cannot comment on its contents.

From what you have said about the expectations of your setting, I will agree that those numbers would not be suitable. Compared to the giant listed in Anaxial's Roster, those numbers would also be absurdly low. If I had the benefit of a giant's stats, I would not have proposed those numbers in the first place. My guess would have been more in the arena of the stats to which I was familiar.

Thanks for clarifying your point. I did not see where you were drawing those stats from. I do now. My bad. I also apologize for my part in this discussion. I lost my cool. Mike was correct that my tone was a part of the problem.

Sorry about that.

I do consider this discussion over and have for a while now. If there is any room between our positions to disagree, I hope we can agree to throw it under the bridge and leave it. I would much rather focus on points where we agree such as your suggestions regarding the wounding mechanics on the Yahoo! boards (which Mike and I have been eagerly discussing and to which both Mike and myself have already replied) than nitpick over this issue any further.

Thanks again for clarifying your example. It's all I could have asked for, and I certainly concede your point. It was a bad example of my "method" on my part. Please substitute any other stat such as "Pick Locks 7w" against a "Lock of 12w" to get a closer understanding of how this has been (or could be) used. I really was only giving Donald a suggestion. You definitely pointed out the flaws in that suggestion. I thank you for that.

Sorry to waste so much of your time, and I'm sorry that I have not kept this discussion up to the standards of my other discussions on this forum. I could give a number of reasons why, but those would just be rationalizations. I truly am sorry.

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, Christian, if you're still reading, did we answer your question in there somewhere?

Mike

[Der_Renegat]

Hey Mike !

hehe :-D

there is always so much more to learn...*smile*
and i did!

all the best
yours
Christian

[Der_Renegat]

Let me give a little more detailed answer.
I got into HW about summer 2001 when i heard of the german edition.
I m dedicating a lot of time understanding this game and i very often experience difficulties, still after all this time owning it, thinking about it, writing adventures or reading dicussions at forums like this or the yahoo group.
Part of the difficulties come from my roleplaying background, with games that worked totally different than HQ.
Another part is that even with the new HQ edition some topics are still hard to understand.
And another problem i must admit i have, is understanding other people in all these forums, for me its about understanding a game and getting inspired and not so much about my ego or my personal view on a ,,world". So sometimes i find it really tiring that 90% of a discussion is just rubbish. I m about information and if i read a thread thats 90% about personal debates i m often disappointed. But i guess thats what its like. I just try to ignore everything thats too personal.
So i opened three new threads, all related for me in certain questions and as a summary i got some very good new insights, yes!
About my initial question that made me create this thread: well, it did not turn up the way i expected, but in the end all my questions were answered (i guess...).
I guess my biggest misunderstanding was the whole rating and mastery thing. I m always looking for a deeper meaning, like five masteries make a demigod, but this is not really a rule but more of an aid, i think. The numbers are actually very relative, i guess ,depending on the story.
Another problem is probably how you imagine your gameworld. Everybody has another cyberpunk world, what you like and what you dislike. Also i dont think everybody has read the manga books im getting inspired from.
,,Eden" is very much in the near future and ,,Ghost in the shell" even a bit further in the future, technologically speaking.
,,Blame!" is my overmanga, it blasts me everytime. But its really posthuman, technologically speaking.
,,Battle Angel Alita" is a mixture of both, more comic-like, with all those cyborgfreaks.
Most people will perhaps know the cyberpunk genre from rpg´s like ,,Shadowrun" or ,,Cyberpunk".
So in the end you have to design your world all by yourself (or use a published one).
I guess you dont have to be able to imagine everything or look for hidden powerlevels in the masteries, because all that you need to understand is how the numbers relate to each other and thus create powerlevels for your adventure. I knew that before, but also i forget about it a lot, maybe because other rpg´s worked differently.
all the best
Christian