Level of Opposition

[dunlaing]

If a party of starting level characters (17 to 5W in the appropriate abilities) are all going to have to perform a contest against one opposition, how high should the opposition be? Is there a rule of thumb, like one level of mastery above or 15 points above or something?

thanks

[epweissengruber]

I don't know if any statistical analysis has been done on this questions; however, the consensus of the playtesters (and my own experiments as well) is that having a superiority of only one mastery allows an actor to take on five inferior pponents.  It's a toss up between the superior individual and the inferior group.

Note that these odds differ from contest to contest.  Masteries really help you cinch an Extended Contest.  Simple Contests are not so forgiving.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Also bear in mind the power of Hero Points, which can be considerable, and the role of Action Point donations at crucial moments. I typically don't construct NPCs with Hero Points except in very, very isolated cases, and even then, not more than one or two points.

I have generally found that matching "sides" pretty evenly plays out well and provides plenty of excellent scope for mini-victories and mini-defeats within the larger context and outcome of an Extended Conflict. It's good to remember that being defeated in the overall conflict is not the kill-the-session, stop-story-in-tracks disaster in Hero Wars that it is in many other games.

One more point: I do not pre-decide whether a given conflict is going to be Simple or Extended, prior to play. This is strictly a matter of the group's degree of emotional investment in the conflict during play itself, which I decide on the fly.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I'm missing your point, Ron. Let's say I have five PCs with pertinent Abilities of around 10W, and the opposition is one opponent. What level would you place that opponent at for his most important Ability?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Oops, missed the "one opposition" aspect of the question.

I'd take into account the following:

1. Action Points ought to be somewhere in the same ballpark. The single opposition might not have a single ability that itself carries the full value of all the characters' Action Points based on their single highest abilities, but he (she, or it) might have an equal value of Action Points based on highest ability + Followers + specific augments.

2. Ability maxima might be considered in terms of almost full Mastery level in superiority. So if the characters' individually highest abilities are 5w each with a couple 1w's too, I'd put the foe at 20w or something similar for his highest, with one at 14w or 15w as well, and maybe a couple at the 1-5w level.

This is a very vague rule of thumb, and subject to a lot of customizing based on Hero Points and perhaps the in-game effects involved (e.g. fundamentally opposed affinities in action will often lead to extreme effects in play, especially in critical-success meets critical-success situations).

Best,
Ron

[epweissengruber]

Let's say I have five PCs with pertinent Abilities of around 10W, and the opposition is one opponent. What level would you place that opponent at for his most important Ability?

PCs will of course have Hero Points.  But running actors without hero points or complicated augmentations for relationships or allied spirits (i.e. in a very simplified, non-normal situation), I found that a simple difference of one mastery will allow the superior actor to finish off 5 opponents about half of the time.  So I would give my baddie only 10W2 and be fairly certian that he could pull it off.

Large AP superiority does not really help victory for a group that is inferior in quality.  Constant bumping allows a superior individual who makes a few bold AP bids to clean up most of the time.

But, Ron has more experience in running real play situations than I do, so his rule of thumb might be good.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Large AP superiority does not really help victory for a group that is inferior in quality. Constant bumping allows a superior individual who makes a few bold AP bids to clean up most of the time.

I completely agree on this score, but there's another wrinkle to it as well. A larger number of individuals does make a difference - remember, allies effectively share APs as one big pool, and so you can consider the "party" to be an individual with re-rolls drawing on that one big pool. Even if the solo-opposition has a higher ability, the re-roll capacity (so to speak) of the team-opposition should be considered in statistical terms when comparing them.

Our estimates seem like they're the same, anyway. You suggest 10w2, which is about what I'd say: one full mastery above, approximately. My estimates in the above post were assuming 5w for highest ability on the group's side.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Good to know, actually, as I'm just now off to run some HW in which the PCs are about to have to deal with a lovely ten-headed demon. :-)

Mike

[MrWrong]

Our estimates seem like they're the same, anyway. You suggest 10w2, which is about what I'd say: one full mastery above, approximately. My estimates in the above post were assuming 5w for highest ability on the group's side.

Best,
Ron

I endorse this, based on experience from play.

[epweissengruber]

Be sure to tell us how it went.

You might want to describe it in the actual play forum, because a lot of people are intereseted in HeroWars mechanics, even if they are not interested in that game or in Glorantha.

But you can post the nitty gritty stats for the demon here.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I never did have to stat him out much as it turns out.

This is my MO, BTW, I only put stats to something at the moment I need to do so. That way I can tailor the level of suspense to what's happening.

But in this case, one player tried to sneak away. Now, how good a "Detect Sneaking" Ability would you think that a ten-headed demon would have? I really kinda wanted the character to stay, but wanted to give him a chance as well. So I went with a full mastery above, or 1w2 (Josh's character had a 1w1). I figured that was a good level for the perception of such a creature.

Demon rolls a crit fail, and Josh gets away. Classic. Turned out fine as far as that goes.

But that left Julie's character all alone with everyone else (lesse, six cultists, one willing sacrifice, one dead priestess being put into the body of willing sacrifice, one necromancer priest performing ritual, and one ten-headed demon). Instead of trying to convert anyone to her cause, to get rid of the demon or anything, she decides to weasel her way back into the cult. And does so with flying colors. So there was no need to stat the demon for purposes of conflict there. He was sent away after his part in the ritual.

Just for kicks I gave it a "Hamhand Grasp 5w3" as one of it's main Abilities for fighting, which it used to easily grab two unwilling sacrifices (including the priestesses daughter who was mentally unstable) and eat them alive. Basically I wanted to display a level of ability for future encounters. Since they weren't going to take it on directly, I thought I'd make it out of their range of potential direct conflict. Already Josh had his character scheming with other Guild members as to how they could get the demon to work for them. That seemed long term enough that I wanted to make sure that he'd really have to work for it.

As it turned out, he returned to the scene of the crime to investigate the summoning site to get augments from determining how they'd summoned such a powerful beastie. He got himself caught, and will now be a featured guest in next week's death cult ceremony to welcome back Julie's character.

That's the short version, anyhow, and everything that pertains to this thread.


Mike

[epweissengruber]

Your experiences confirm what I have independently discovered in my own experiments.

Now, how good a "Detect Sneaking" Ability would you think that a ten-headed demon would have? I really kinda wanted the character to stay, but wanted to give him a chance as well. So I went with a full mastery above, or 1w2 (Josh's character had a 1w1). I figured that was a good level for the perception of such a creature.

Demon rolls a crit fail, and Josh gets away. Classic. Turned out fine as far as that goes.

Yep.  A character with 1 mastery superiority can always get those amusing crits and blow the whole thing.  Two masteries eliminates this completely, so unless you really want someone to fail, don't put them up against a 2 mastery baddie.

But that left Julie's character all alone with everyone else ... she decides to weasel her way back into the cult. And does so with flying colors. So there was no need to stat the demon for purposes of conflict there.

I like the quick stat system because it is conducive to protagonization.  If I spend half and hour figuring out my mega demon's abilities, the odds are that I will find any way I can to put them into play.  As a "player" I want my hard work to pay off.  In this system, if the Player comes up with a left-field solution, I can roll with it.

Just for kicks I gave it a "Hamhand Grasp 5w3" as one of it's main Abilities for fighting, which it used to easily grab two unwilling sacrifices (including the priestesses daughter who was mentally unstable) and eat them alive.

Good way to demonstrate the mechanics and give some example of the demon's power w.o. deprotagonizing the PCs.  
I find that in any game, some events have to be dropped in for didactic purposes -- such as, o.k., here is how we run a psionic duel with this system.  Like any didactic or rhetorical moment in art or in writing, there is a chance of boring the audience.  But handled deftly, they are a part of gameplay.

As it turned out, he returned to the scene of the crime to investigate the summoning site to get augments from determining how they'd summoned such a powerful beastie. He got himself caught, and will now be a featured guest in next week's death cult ceremony to welcome back Julie's character.

Now they are participating in the game world and finding great ways to accomplish their goals, while you keep coming up with complications.

You have a very good GM style.

How are your players reacting to your "make up characteristics on the spot" style.  Do you maintain the Illusion of pre-planned characters, or are you more open?

[Mike Holmes]

Your experiences confirm what I have independently discovered in my own experiments.

Excellent.

Good way to demonstrate the mechanics and give some example of the demon's power w.o. deprotagonizing the PCs.  
I find that in any game, some events have to be dropped in for didactic purposes -- such as, o.k., here is how we run a psionic duel with this system.  Like any didactic or rhetorical moment in art or in writing, there is a chance of boring the audience.  But handled deftly, they are a part of gameplay.

Well, I've got players who understand the system pretty well, but yeah, this was for display in terms of setting up a long term target. It was over very quickly (as you point out with more than a two mastery bump they had no chance and I only rolled the dice to ignore them so as to punctuate that point).

The players actually suggested the narration for how the whole sacrifice munching scene could be portrayed. Just as he was about to chow down on the screaming victimm we cut away to Josh's character at the top of the stairs hearing the pitteous cries. Cool. Gory but yet not overly tasteless. :-)

Now they are participating in the game world and finding great ways to accomplish their goals, while you keep coming up with complications.

You have a very good GM style.

Thanks. That's always nice to hear.

That's the idea. Throw interesting stuff out there, and see what makes them jump. :-)

How are your players reacting to your "make up characteristics on the spot" style.  Do you maintain the Illusion of pre-planned characters, or are you more open?

Well, Josh is a veteran of discussions here. He's totally familiar with the idea of the world being nebulous until encountered (what one Forge member calls "No Myth" play). So these players have no problem with playing "more open". Basically, with other players, ones who demand a more solid seeming universe, I'd just hide the fact by looking at my page of notes before announcing Abilities.

Illusionism has been my default mode of play since about 1990 or so. "No Myth" simply allows the players to see behind the curtain. As long as the players aren't concerned with feeling like they're in an objectively real universe, there's really no reason to hide the fact of it's subjectivity from them.

The other player type that might have a problem with this would be your Gamist player who, burned before, might see this as "cheating". But as long as it's kept impartial, it's not even problematic for that type. I mean, you make up the creatures and abilities at some point, right? It seems odd that players find it more objectively real that the creatures were statted pre-play as opposed to in-play. I use the same criteria in either case. That said, it can be a traumatic change, and some players need to be eased into it, or will never make the transformation in viewpoint. Which is fine, I can do Illusionism just as well.

It's just that statting in-play has a ton of advantages. The first being that it means that I don't have to stat everything out before hand. I find this tedious, and worse, in play you only use a fraction of the abilities that you stat out anyhow. So a lot of effort is wasted. And secondly, as mentioned, if you do it on the spot, you can tailor it to the drama of the situation. Sure, I also make it sensible, but given the narration that's occured, you often have a lot of wiggle room.

In the case of the demon, as it became apparent that they players weren't going to fight it, I described it as huge. It started out as just a "ten-headed demon", and then became "huge, heads having to duck to miss the arched ceiling." I really hadn't considered just how large it was until that point. So it wasn't a big deal that I later described it as having such a high strength.

In fact, Shadow World has an interesting classification system for demons, and I hadn't decided on what sort it was until Josh's character decided to research it. At that point, wanting it to be a large and nasty challenge, I decided that it was a minor example of what's called a Doombringer (which will only mean something to those who know Shadow World, I'm afraid). Basically the technique involves only adding as few details as you need to make the situation interesting, and then adding detail as it becomes neccessary.

This sort of play allows you to be flexible and go with the flow of events, highlighting those things that seem to be fun for the players, and downplaying those things that are not.

Anyhow, sorry to go off on this tangent. But it does speak to one effective way to play in terms of statting things.

Mike