Heroquest house rules rule!

[Vaxalon]

Okay, so in my tuesday night IRC Heroquest game, I'm using two house rules:

Goals -- http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20179
Dogs-like Advancement -- http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19969.0

Based on just a single session of play, I have to say that this technique is really rocking.  The players are actively seeking out conflict, drama, and opposition, and gleefully taking it on the chin when they lose. 

When Mike posts the logs for the most recent session (3) they'll be appearing here: http://random.average-bear.com/RegainTheStars/GameLogs  They won't include the OOC channel where conflicts are resolved, but I think you'll be able to see where it all falls out.

On a couple of occasions, I "said yes" rather than "roll dice" and I sensed a small amount of disappointment with that, but at the same time I could usually recover with an alternate conflict that was just as juicy, or moreso.  I think one of the lessons here is that the "roll dice" choice between the two doesn't have to be "roll dice on the player's terms."

[Joel P. Shempert]

Based on just a single session of play, I have to say that this technique is really rocking.  The players are actively seeking out conflict, drama, and opposition, and gleefully taking it on the chin when they lose.

Boy, was I ever! It was awesome. I had been feeling that I hadn't had enough conflict in the previous session, so I was really driving for it this time. I got the feeling that Fred was casting a pretty skeptical eye on my character's actions; an unreasonable demand here, a farfetched lie there. . .but we took it to the dice and some worked, and some didn't, and it was all interesting. It was totally cool. The bit that stands out to me is my first contest to solicit Limga's help. . .I had a minor failure with the option to bump to marginal. I considered it, and declined to bump, not because I was saving my resources or anything, but because "failure with minor fallout" was infinitely more interesting to me than "failure with no fallout." Now, on the other hand, if it'd been a choice between minor and major, I'd've definitely bumped to minor, because more than that would be too much too soon in the development of this relationship, and of Scrofa-s self-worth issues in general. I LOVE having that input into how things turn out--being able to make a decision, within the context of the overall Fortune resolution about what happens in the story. Too cool.

Also, on reflection, I think it would have been disappointing to me to succeed in this contest, though I certainly wasn't thinking along those lines at the time. I was just engaging in elementary problem-solving: Scrofa's out of his depth, has a specific problem, let's ask Limga to help. But once Fred laid out the outrageousness of Scrofa's request, and the consequences of different degrees of failure WRT his relationship with Limga, the contest became about something. And ultimately, failure with fallout was the best result for Scrofa's developing "arc": he's not going to go anywhere if everyone keeps on pitying and coddling the poor little self-denigrating Boar-boy. (and I did have a successful contest last session to get Limga's help in the first place, on pretty much the same grounds.) It was good for someone to call his bullshit and give him the slap in the face he needs to get his act together. Plus, with that failed contest and the next two successful ones, I felt a nice progression was produced, where he does indeed start to gain some confidence and step up to do his thing. I don't know if the others from last night got that same impression, but I was certainly pleased with it.

I think one of the lessons here is that the "roll dice" choice between the two doesn't have to be "roll dice on the player's terms."

Nice insight. I've certainly found that in our sessions so far you don't always play things out the way I'm expecting, but the twists and complications, as I'm learning to roll with them, keep me on my toes without taking away my ability to have meaningful input.

Awesome game!

Peace,
-Joel

[sebastianz]

Hi.

Sounds like the playtest of this experience system is quite successful. I wonder, though, how contest consequences work together with the new reward for loosing contests. That is, you can increase the main trait used by +3. That is about 10% of your average starting ability between 13 an 10W. If you loose a contest, a penalty to related future contests is advised, depending on degree of failure. Now, the +3 to the main trait equal roughly the 10% penalty of a minor defeat. So in effect, you don't get penalised. Joel states, he'd have bumped on a major defeat. So the question is, does the new reward system offset the consequences for failure? Or is the mere statement, 'you are now at -10% until "healed"', enough of a reminder that the character failed?

Just curious

Sebastian.

[Vaxalon]

No, because people don't always take traits that bump their ability to win that particular contest.

[Vaxalon]

Remember also that the 10% penalty is for any related conflict, not just one trait... so as your augments go up, they get penalized too.

So far it has been quite fair.

[Joel P. Shempert]

So, everything Fred just said, plus. . .

remember that even IF you advance the main trait used in the conflict, and even IF you only take a 10% penalty, as opposed to a major or complete victory, you're still penalized in that the 10% offsets the increase. You just advanced the trait, but until "healing" you're stuck at the same level you were. Whereas if you had a victory, you'd be +2 instead of +/- 0. And of course if your trait has advance to say, a mastery or two, even that 10% is going to be greater than the +3 advance.

Also, the way I see it, the MAIN consequences of failure are just that--failure. You do not accomplish your objective. the numerical penalty is an extra consequence, and can be important, but you still failed, and cool as it is to, as Fred put it, "gleefully take it in the chin" because failure doesn't kill the fun, That doesn't mean I WANT to fail per se, any more than I WANT my basketball opponent to score on me or to get owned in Halo.

Anyway, I wonder if you're misinterpreting my statement about bumping. I wouldn't have bumped a Major because the Minor penalty is offset and therefore negligible. . .nor would I ever choose to bump for that reason. I would have bumped because a Major defeat in this circumstance would have been too much fallout (for my personal taste) this early in Scrofa's and Limga's relationship. Purely pacing and story consideration. Now, if I suffered a Complete defeat, I could live with bumping to Major, major would just not be my preferred result. Incidentally, it just hit me that with Hero points you never have to have your character Completely defeated unless you want it.

Peace,
-Joel

[sebastianz]

Thanks for your replies. I am well aware of the points you mention. It's just that under the normal rules you get penalized mechanically for loosing a contest. The dog-like system gives a mechanical reward. Of course, you still get the -1 or -10% penalty and it is a hindrance compared to a success. On a major or complete defeat it simply doesn't matter at all. But the penalty is in effect less than before. So I just wondered if both mechanisms could function together without friction.

Sebastian

[Joel P. Shempert]

I guess in the case of our game, my answer would be "yes." I honestly hadn't even thought of it. I failed the contest, raise my traits, and took the 10%, without ever feeling like one or the other consequence was slighted.