Sci-fi heroes

[Mike Holmes]

As to player advancement.  I tend to agree with both the idea of re-defining the scale, and with the idea of scaling-up advancement costs.  Especially in a hard-tech SF game, I think there has to be a level of diminishing returns to many abilities.  At a certain point you just need to spend a lot more time to become a better physicist, when you are already a great physicist.

Yes, but "time" and Hero Points are not equivalent. That is, the HQ system was not designed to measure the "realities" of the game world, but rather the dramatic model by which one would tell stories about the world. This is not just my opinion, but the book says the same thing, and the authors have in other places as well. Robin Laws said so very explicitly in the Hero Quest rules news group, for instance.

So, yes, if you want to model the in-game reality with HP, you'll have to change the rules. But if you want to model the storytelling style of even the hardest of sci-fi, then you can use the HQ system without modification. It's only when players think that the system is intending to model the in-game reality or that their goal is to create the most powerful  character, that problems occur.

I can't emphasize this enough. The HQ system works fine for what it's designed for - you only have to alter it if you intend to play differently than the authors intend. Which is one's prerogative, but again begs the question that I've asked before.

Put another way, if your players have taken to HQ more than GURPS, consider the possibility that they'd prefer the game as the author's wrote it.

Mike

[lightcastle]

I also think it is important to bear in mind that much of player rewards and advancement in SF games takes the form of better stuff instead of higher skills. This was particularly true of classic traveller, of course, but I think it fits well with the genre. Rewards in this sort of game will often be the cool new weapon, or the newer ship, or whatever... This is going to mean a much more detailed wealth system than in HQ. Conan didn't keep track of small change, but then Conan didn't have to worry about ticket prices, docking fees, engine upgrades, or ammo.

I'm not convinced you need a vast change in the Wealth system. If new equipment is the thing, and you are doing equipment as special items with their own ability scores and things, then wouldn't spending HP in the equipment reflect the upgrade?

If I have Laser blaster 19 (which is my Blaster, not my skill in shooting things) then when I buy it up to Lase Blaster 2W, it means I've bought the new Mark V, right?

[NickHollingsworth]

If new equipment is the thing, and you are doing equipment as special items with their own ability scores and things, then wouldn't spending HP in the equipment reflect the upgrade?

Exactly what I was going to say.

All interesting items in HQ are either treated as abilities of the character or as followers. You pay HP to get these and to improve them. I dont think you need to change anything at all.

You might feel the need to limit how much players can increase the abilities of, say, a plasma gun. But you will find life simpler if you adjust your mindset and just let them get on with it.  Remember that the ability ratings, as is being said a lot at the moment, rate how often and how conclusively that ability resolves problems in scenes in the story and is not necessarily a literal objective classification of its strength.

HQ works better when you just play and find out what happens, rather than attempting to construct a complex theoretical system to direct play. In other words, describe the world and the things that happen during play in terms that are consistent with your hard SF vision instead of trying to design complex rules to model it all before hand. Share your vision with the players and get them to describe their actions in ways that are consistent with this shared reality.

As GM you retain a lot of power to steer things in line with your vision of the physics of the world by handing out positive and negative modifiers in a clear and consistent manner, discussing with the players what they are spending HQ points on, etc.

So I really recommend that  (1) You defer as much as possible until later and (2) Keep it very simple. Dont create rules until you have actually seen a problem, never create rules just because you think there could be a problem.  When you have actually seen a problem try to resolve it by simply agreeing something simple with your players in preference to constructing any rules to simulate it.

Am I labouring this? Its because I suspect a hard SF setting invokes the pavlovian response 'must model the physics into the rules'. Resist. HQ is a fairly narrative rules set. Treat the physics as part of the setting. Do all the preparation for play that you normally do for a narrative game, for example locations, relationship map, bangs, etc and add to the list "a clear understanding of any of the physics of the setting that are important to the story." Then make them clear to the players in the same way that you would make the rest of the setting clear - just tell them.

Then play.

Cheers,
Nick

[soru]

I have Laser blaster 19 (which is my Blaster, not my skill in shooting things) then when I buy it up to Lase Blaster 2W, it means I've bought the new Mark V, right?

That works fine for signature gear you directly own and almost always carry.

For example, there is a 'Locked Alien Door 5W', then a simple contest between the blaster and the door to see if you can cut through it with the blaster works fine, just like a scientist might have used his 'Alien Tech' skill to work out the opening mechanism or a Wookie-type tried to use his great strength to bash down the door.

The tricky bit is if a starship captain uses his wrist com to say 'I need a door opened at these coordinates, send me some cutting tools'.

I think that's more like the magic rules than the normal simple contest rules, if you get the gear it is usually a matter of rolling the operator's skill against a resistance of 10 (replacing the 14 for magic as a flavour thing to make technology feel more reliable).

Unless, of course, the alien door is some kind of nano-technological self-repairing device, in which case you are back to rolling in the same way as using magic against an active opponent.

The question is more 'do you have that kind of gear lieing around on the ship' and/or 'are you authorised to request it'? Those should be contests in themselves, so you can get to all the interesting complications that can happen if you fail the roll:

'We don't have any cutting gear on the ship. The nearest place we can buy them is 3 days travel away. Do you want us to leave you on the surface while we go fetch it?'

soru

[lightcastle]

Share your vision with the players and get them to describe their actions in ways that are consistent with this shared reality.

OK, right there is probably the single best piece of advice, period. Can't stress it enough.

I also like your idea that you should make sure the problem exists before coming up with a patch for it. I think most narrators have a bad habit of jumping the gun on that. (We just want to be perfect, is all.)

[NickHollingsworth]

The question is more 'do you have that kind of gear lieing around on the ship' and/or 'are you authorised to request it'? Those should be contests in themselves, so you can get to all the interesting complications that can happen if you fail the roll

And also 'is this the sort of action that heros might fail at' and 'is it interesting if they fail'.

If the answer to either question is 'no', then when they describe a way of opening the door that is reasonable just have it work, dont roll. "You ask for cutting gear to be transported down?. A few minutes later it appears. And half an hour later you are looking through a hole in the door when suddenly..."

If you are making rolls for things just because they are problem the characters must overcome you are drifting back to sim. Only make rolls for things that are points in the story where failure is also valid, interesting and does not imply the characters are useless.

Not rolling for something is not the same as skipping past something. If its narratively interesting to everyone then describe the door barring the way. Let the players decide what to do. Just dont bother rolling for it once they do.

[grbosch]

Thanks for the thoughts.

I think I have been falling into the trap of trying to over-model because of the background.

I agree with the comments made about equipment.  I'm not necessarily saying I think there needs to be a huge change.  Rather, I'm thinking that almost all equipment will be given an ability rating (or even more than one) rather than a simple +3 (or whatever).

My thinking about wealth ratings has been influenced by the recent discussions on HQ-rules about increases in wealth levels and how to handle them.  I'm just thinking that this will probably be a bigger part of this game than my regular Glorantha campaign where we don't tend to worry too much about buying stuff, because the characters simply don't buy that much (instead they get support from the clan, the temple, the family, etc...)  I think that in this SF setting, buying and selling are just going to be bigger parts of the character's lives.

Still and all, there is much wisdom in the suggestion made in an earlier post to just deal with this as it comes up.

Gerald