Rating versus Scale

[Der_Renegat]

Coming from this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21031.0, there are some interesting points concerning ratings and scale.

On the one hand we have a scale (masteries), which in the rulesbook is explained via professions.
The sample resistances are somehwhat shaped by this scale as well.
Here the scale helps you understanding what the numbers mean and some kind of cosmology is created. From the mundane to the godlike.

On the other hand it seems some abilities are not directly related to this scale. I think this is because they mean in-game something different as ,,intensity" or ,,mastery". A relationship is not measured as: ,,how strong ?", but: ,,how much can i get out of it ?"
This is good because its correct in terms of experience and character creation at start.

Then we have the in-game perspective, its not the rating that is the most important thing, its the resistance and the narration.
So here a scale is unimportant, its all about the drama.
The rule: ,,the story dictates what the rating is" applies.

It seems its a case by case thing, which is a bit confusing.
I wonder, if there will ever be a HQ companion or a second edition, how will all this be made clear ? And should HQ be renamed in EsotericRulesQuest ? ;-)

[Mike Holmes]

Thing is that I find in play that it just doesn't come up, any of this. That is, the process is clear:

1. Determine that there's a contest.
2. Select goals.
3. Determine primary ability used. Add augments to get TN.
4. Determine resistance TN.
5. Roll, determine result.
6. Narrate a result that fits.

At which point in the process are you, or anybody else, having trouble? I haven't had a problem once in hundreds of resolutions.

I mean, I can see how it might feel like an aesthetic problem looking at it hypothetically. And it's odd, I guess, but the best suggestion I can give about it, is to try not to think about it too hard. :-)

Mike

[Lamorak33]

I mean, I can see how it might feel like an aesthetic problem looking at it hypothetically. And it's odd, I guess, but the best suggestion I can give about it, is to try not to think about it too hard. :-)

Mike

Ahhh. The Zen of Heroquest! I think, like I said before, there is not a problem with the rules as they are, there is just a problem with that table.

And it just never seems to be an issue in play, as Mike says. But then we only roll a few times in my Heroquest games. So maybe its a question of style. And we hardly ever resort to the rulebook. I find its such an intuitive system when you 'get it'. The trouble may be that it can take a while to 'get it', which was the problem in my case. Thanks to Mike and the Forge for sorting that out for me!


Regards
Rob

[Der_Renegat]

Rob said:

there is just a problem with that table

could you be more specific ?!
What is the problem with the table ??
Do you think there would be less confusion without the table ?

[Mike Holmes]

Well when we play, we roll quite a lot, I think. I'm always looking for chances to make things into contests. Fred's implementation of Josh's list system makes them frighteningly frequent.

Christian, the problem with the table is that you think, "Aha, there is a single in-game scale to which everything can be applied simply." And then you start trying to rate relationships on that scale. And it tends to fall apart.

Note that I'm the first guy to actually go geekily running for that chart. I even made a much more refined version myself at the bottom of this page: http://random.average-bear.com/Heroquest/WhatSkillRatingsMean

I like the notion that the scale extends to anything in the universe potentially.

But mostly I only use it to establish relative power levels. This character is a journeyman, and he's facing a master? OK, then I'll rate the master at X. Note that I'd never say, "Hmm, this guy is at a journeyman level of familiarity with his lover." In fact, I wouldn't say anything at all besides, "Roll your Love's Griselda 17 vs his 5W2 resistance to allow you to marry her - you are an unknown foreigner, you know."

This is one of the better examples, BTW. Reistance is not neccessarily set to an opponent's ability. The chart states that it's a 5W2 resistance to get somebody to do something that they're vehemently opposed to, for instance. It says nothing about who that person is, or what abilities they might be resisting with? It's just a hard thing for anyone to do, and so it gets a high resistance.

But for player heroes going up against each other, I often will ask them to use some relevant relationship. Note that this ususally is far, far weaker a resistance than if I gave them a 5W2 as resistance. If some player wanted to take that resistance, I'd let them. In fact, if a player says that they don't want to lose such a contest, I don't have anyone roll. The character simply resists. I only have the contest if losing is something that the player on the recieving end would enjoy happening (I've been known to make mistakes here, actually, but this is the policy). As such, it's more interesting to show where the character's resistance is coming from in terms of their abilities instead of having them be represented by a flat resistance off of the chart. So that's what we do.

You see here how there's no link at all between the magnitude of the abilites, and the propensity for the system to represent it? The contest exists merely to display the character, and to randomize the results of the outcome in interesting fashion. Yeah, we all root for our own character (not the same thing as not being accepting of failure), and so the system works because we get bonuses in the form of augments for figuring out how well our character fits the conflict at hand. But in no way are the results supposed to be consistent with some comparative ratings of the abilites.

Consider that a character with Weak 10W armwrestling a character with Strong 10W2 has a TN of 6-3 = 3. He rolls a 1, the strong guy rolls an 11. That's a marginal victory for the weak guy. The weak guy in this case, extremely weak, has just beaten an extremely strong man by any measurement of the scale. Well, maybe he's not so weak? Or, if the goal was simply to win the contest, maybe the weak guy wins by distracting his opponent and slamming his hand down while he's unprepared. Cheating? Well, if there are scorpions beneath their hands, then cheating isn't really relevant...

This is an extreme example (so extreme that the automatic success rules might be invoked), and even then the weaker guy has a not insubstantial 3% chance to win. With anything closer, HQ makes most contests a toss up, largely.

The point is that the system doesn't exist to simulate a likelihood of X powerful ability being victorious over Y powerful ability. It just gives the players an incentive to augment, to display the character, and then randomizes things dramatically.

So demanding that the scale be some absolute rating system is simply not neccessary. The ratings do not really describe the characters so much as say, "This is how much I want my character to win in the sorts of situations where this ability would come up." At which point the rating does fine all by itself without associating some in-game value with said rating.

That's just fun to do after the fact if and where it won't confuse anyone. If it starts to do so, just skip it. Hasn't been a problem for me so far, as I've said.

Mike