More Experienced Characters

[Jere]

I'm currently working on a HeroQuest adaptation I'm calling http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=jeregenest&keyword=tantaene+animis+caelestibus+irae&filter=all">tantaene animis caelestibus irae. This will be a game of Fantasy of History and Occult Fantasy that is best described as Promethea by way of Nephilim and GURPS: Cabal run using the HeroQuest engine.

I'm currently mulling over a rather major issue, that of experience levels.

Looking over the sample resistance suggestions for HeroQuest has led me to believe that the characters are going to get rather magic lightweights here, especially given the power level I intended to run this game at.  And I need solutions.

There are two sub problems here. The lower power levels for the metamorphosis and the magic skills. And the need to have skill repetitions from past lives (like say you take oratory three times).

Maybe I just solve this by giving a but load of heropoints, but how many, and I'm not sure this is the best idea.

HeroQuest also has this "improve key word by +1 for each year". Maybe there is some utility here.

I'd appreciate any comments the board can offer.

Jere

[Bankuei]

Hi Jere,

Easy- either start all beginning characters with a few abilities at very high levels, or else rule that magic starts at a higher level.   There is no need or reason to pour out a lot of Hero Points if we're talking about building characters from scratch, and, it might be problematic because the players could pour those points into any ability- so why not just skip all that and rule that magic is at a higher level to start with?

You can also reduce or change a lot of the penalties for certain types of magic(shapeshifting, teleporting, etc.), because they are designed around promoting certain kinds of magic for HQ's setting, Glorantha, not necessarily around "balance".  

Chris

[Brand_Robins]

These days I simply set Keyword levels at what I want them to be for the game and the character. Having all keywords start out at 17 is perfect for a "new boys off the farm start to adventure" type game, but when your running other types of games you may want to adjust.

In my Song of Ice and Fire game the characters started off with Keywords ranging from 17 (for the Lord keyword of a character who barely qualified as a noble) to 20w1 for the Captain with 30 years of experience leading naval combat.  The keywords of all the characters evened out over the course (the Captain had a high profession but a low Allegiance and Homeland, the Lord a low profession but High Allegiance and so on), and let the characters have the rounded but experienced characters they wanted.

When you want characters that have wide-ranging abilities at a commonly high base ability, simply raise the keyword level. When you want a few powerful abilities, raise the number of points you get when making your character. Mix and match the two and you'll get the ability to make characters who have a good varience of broad ability and focused mastery.

[LordSmerf]

Also, Mike Holmes utilizes a method outlined here to generate characters that are fairly competent for his Shadow World games...

Thomas

[Tom B]

I'm also facing this particular challenge, so I thought I'd piggyback on this thread rather than start a new one.

First, some background on the situation.

I'm running a campaign that has been going for several years, intermittantly.  We haven't been particularly happy with the system, and I've dragged my group through several systems trying to find one that worked well.  They've been very patient, and assured me that I have no choice because they like the setting and their characters no matter how I try to sabotage it by my system choices...:)

HeroQuest looks like it might be the system I've been searching for, and the group is willing to give it a try.  They are actually rather enthused after I gave them a rundown on the mechanical details, such as masteries, how contests work, the open nature of the system, etc.

The game has gone for probably 80 sessions or so, and the characters are quite competent.  If we had been using a leveled system, such as Rolemaster, I would probably place them at around 15-20th level or so.

To generate their characters, I've first had them use the standard HeroQuest rules to narratively create their characters as they were at the beginning of the campaign.  (The setting is relatively high-powered, and the original system defaulted to an assumption of fairly butch beginning characters.)  Then I intend to 'boost' them to appropriate current levels.

My first act was to give each of them an additional Occupational Keyword.  This fits well, since they are all doing different things now than they were initially.  It's very appropriate.

I'm giving them an additional Homeland Keyword due to specific events in the campaign.  It's a limited one that would mainly provide skills in an area they are unlikely to venture through again.  Still, it will provide the characters with more depth and reflect an important several episodes in their lives.

Here's where I would appreciate advice.  I'm considering giving them 10 points to add to their 5 Keywords (no more than 4-5 to any one of them).

I'm also considering giving them 5 or so +2 advances for individual skills.

What do you think?  Their characters have gone through about 15 years gametime (about half active and about half in downtime / bluebooked / individual business.  They've been exposted to and accomplished a hell of a lot, and I don't want to penalize their abilities.  But I don't want to overdo it, either.

Tom B.

[Christopher Weeks]

Tom, I'm pretty new to HQ, but it sounds like you're setting them up to be not particularly advanced.  I'd think more like twenty advanced experience given that they have so many keywords.  Or maybe fifteen -- one for each year and way more extra skill points.  I'm thinking like 50.  It'll be interesting to see what more experienced folks say in contrast.

[Mike Holmes]

Chris, you're still short. Thomas, the things that I do for my game still create what I think are "starting characters." My modifications are more for balance and to allow players to be able to have a wider range of character concepts.

Like Brand said, it's much more reasonable to give the characters pretty high levels of keywords. In fact, Tom, I run my game in the old Shadow World setting, so I've looked quite extensively at how to convert from RM to HQ. A 20th level character in RM is usually considered at about the top of his game. He's long since hit the point where his top weapon skill is now only getting him .5% per level purchased, for instance. Which says to me that he should have abilities that hit about 5W3 - a real master's master.

So, I'd say give out about 60 levels of advanced experience, with no more than 30 used on any one keyword (and this includes buying new keywords at 13 and raising them up). And then about 100 HP to spend, no more than 20 on any one ability. Perhaps twice that total if you want charaters with more variability. The minmaxed character using this formula will end up with a keyword at 7W2, and perhaps five abilities related to it at 7W3. If they don't spend any on breadth at all.

That creates about what you're looking for, Tom. Note that this should probably be made to cover magic items, too, but you can probably give some leeway there.

Sound shocking? It's not, really. I'm giving out about 100 HP per phase of play right now, if not more, along with several levels of advanced experience between each phase. I've said this before, and it's just that people just haven't seen these sorts of numbers before. I think in time people will get used to the idea. Make a character with it and see what I mean.

I'm sorta itching to start characters out at really heroic levels of ability like this. But I'm also enjoying watching the very slow climb across years of play. It's like the D&D rate - except the character actually changes every session of play. How cool is that? I absolutely love the really fine grained enumeration system of HQ. But people have got to come to grips with what it means.

Mike

[Tom B]

Like Brand said, it's much more reasonable to give the characters pretty high levels of keywords. In fact, Tom, I run my game in the old Shadow World setting, so I've looked quite extensively at how to convert from RM to HQ. A 20th level character in RM is usually considered at about the top of his game. He's long since hit the point where his top weapon skill is now only getting him .5% per level purchased, for instance. Which says to me that he should have abilities that hit about 5W3 - a real master's master.

Okay.  At least I wasn't being overgenerous...a tendency I try to fight.  This is everyone's first experience with HQ, so I'm being a bit cautious.  Probably aiming more at 15th level than 20th.  I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with them having more than 2 masteries...but they have a broad set of skills, so it may not be an issue.

So, I'd say give out about 60 levels of advanced experience, with no more than 30 used on any one keyword (and this includes buying new keywords at 13 and raising them up). And then about 100 HP to spend, no more than 20 on any one ability. Perhaps twice that total if you want charaters with more variability. The minmaxed character using this formula will end up with a keyword at 7W2, and perhaps five abilities related to it at 7W3. If they don't spend any on breadth at all.

Does it cost any of those HP to purchase a new Keyword?  Or do you just open a new one at 13?  I may turn them loose with 50 levels of advanced XP and 75 HP to spend and see how the characters look.  If they still seem underpowered, I may up the totals.  Does this sound reasonable?

That creates about what you're looking for, Tom. Note that this should probably be made to cover magic items, too, but you can probably give some leeway there.

They don't have a ton of magic items, but each does have one or two high-powered items.  

If you have an artifact-level item, to reflect the power of the item itself would you recommend using an edge?  A higher rating?  What works well?

Thanks for the advice.  I'd hate to have shafted them (too severely...)

Tom B.

[Tom B]

And...wow.  That is a LOT more than the HeroQuest book itself recommends for experienced characters, by about an order of magnitude...

[Mike Holmes]

Well, you've encountered a phenomenon in HQ that's difficult to discuss. There are two scales. Without going into detail, and looking solely at keywords, the question is "can a person ever master an entire field?"

That is, are there master warriors, or are there only master swordsmen?

Looked at from the POV that a master swordsman is a master, then you can reduce keyword levels a lot from my suggested levels. Perhaps expanding somewhat the level of HP that the players can spend. In which case, you'd get something like:

15 AE, no more than 10 to any one keyword, and 300 HP, no more than 40 to any single ability. The peak abilities, you'll note, are at the same level using this system. And the player can have quite a few peak level abilities. But, this is in fact what will happen, likely. Meaning that the keywords will be the level at which they have breadth. You'll have one 7W Keyword, and one 2W keyword. Meaning that for most tasks for the secondary keyword, the base ability for the task will be at barely Journeyman level.

It really depends on how much breadth you think the characters have. My first system is a lot simpler to deal with in many ways, because there are less selections to make. But it has the downside that, for instance, no ability not in a keyword will start at higher than 17W. If you find that the characters tend to have spread out from their "profession" specialties, and have not spent on breadth but only on certain specific abilities, then the other method may be superior.

Interestingly, there are example Gloranthan NPCs that do have keywords in the 2 Mastery range. Now, this is also complicated, by the fact that this was probably done more as a shorthand than anything else. High keyword levels do mean that you can't have relative deficiencies - something that's not really all that important for NPCs. So listing them with high keyword levels may simply be a convenience.

Basically, there's no hard and fast rule. You could even do each character separately with different rules for each. Or be as specific as Brand's suggestion, and just specifiy each keyword level.

But I think that you'll find that if you do give them some options on how to spend points that the resulting characters will be superior to the original RM characters. RM has some really strange forces built into it in terms of supporting or denying certain character concepts. If you let the players rebuild a bit, I think you'll find that the characters become more of what they "should" have been all along, and less what the other system forced them to be.

In any case, if you want to be a tad conservative, your suggestion, or even a bit lower, will still produce very competent characters. People who are that broadly competent are heroic in any case. Here's a more conservative model that's a compromise between the two positions that I showed:

30 AE, no more than 15 to any one keyword, and 200 HP, no more than 20 to any one ability. This maxes out at 12W2, which is much more "fifteenth level." The extra HP will create a breadth of abilities that are above keyword level, and the keyword levels themselves will make the characters very competent, though not expert, in everything related to their chosen fields.

I think the thing that throws most people is that they don't think in terms of humans being on a "percentile" scale. But that's what it is, more or less, with human ability ranging from 6 to 80 and beyond for heroes. So think in terms of 5s and 10s instead of 1s and 2s.

Mike

[CCW]

If you let the players rebuild a bit, I think you'll find that the characters become more of what they "should" have been all along, and less what the other system forced them to be.

I just want to second this idea.  When my campaign switched to Heroquest from d20, we took the d20 character sheets as inspiration but didn't try to exactly duplicate the old characters in the new system.  It was a bit like treating the adventures of the d20 characters as a story which we were now basing our HQ campaign on; what had actually happened in play was more important than what was on the character sheets.  One of my players is a professional translator so we thought of it as a poetic translation rather than a word-for-word one.

As for powerful magic items, I find that the sidekick rules can profitably be extended to include important and powerful possesions.

Charles

[Mike Holmes]

Oooh, yeah, magic items. Like Charles said, the follower rules work well, especially for those RM artifacts that have a bunch of powers. What I find cool about the cross-over between these two systems is that Rolemaster had the idea of "attunement." It was always a bitch in RM to miss an attunement roll, and not to be able to use that staff that you'd found.

In HQ, you can still have contests about this if you want but the important thing is how the artifact is written up. If the character has some influence over the item, but it still basically does what it wants to do, then just use the normal NPC rules. That is, just purchase a relationship to the object, and then rate the objects abilities at whatever seem appropriate. This is great for those stories where the not-so-powerful character has a really powerful object.

Once they spend more points on the object, again perhaps with an accompanying contest, they can move the object to being a follower. Which actually reduces the ability ratings representing growing mastery over the object (as opposed to the relationship where you just hope the object does what you want it to do). So there's this fun progression to objects instead of them just being a static rating.

Also see Earthdawn for interesting ideas on how these attunement rituals might look. That is, in that game you have to learn the story of the object before you can unlock it's various abilities. Basically the object doesn't let on it's abilities, and you have to "research" them by looking up lore on what it's been known to do. And then find the "threads" in the item that make up it's magic.

There are places for "small" magic items, too. But don't let those big magic items become part of the story without some drama, and sense of history of the object.

Mike

[Tom B]

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

I think I'll use the levels I mentioned earlier, with the limits just suggested.  That should give us a good starting point to take stock and see how the characters 'feel'.

The particular sword in question will never be a follower, but is not interested in taking control, either.  It wants to fight...and it's very good at it.  The contest of wills comes into play when the PC wants to use the sword in any way other than combat, and then it's more persuasion than coercion.  The sword is very powerful, but refuses to use any more power than is appropriate for its opponent.  Often it uses no power, because it enjoys watching the PC fight (and it is still an excellent sword, regardless).  There's a lot more to the story, but the sword ('Dreadfire') is definitely an NPC.

To reflect its effectiveness in combat, even when unpowered, I was considering giving it an edge...but I don't have a feel for how powerful edges are.  A giant with a tree trunk is given as an example of a ^3 edge.  Based on that, ^2 or ^1 would seem appropriate...but they feel underpowered.  Are they really that effective?

When the sword is participating in the fight, I figure it will probably provide a passive augment for mid-level fights, an active augment for more powerful fights, and full AP loaning for epic fights (when it would probably also be bringing additional abilities into play).  But is the AP loan worth losing the augments?

These are the mechanical questions that I'm having difficulty sorting out.

Tom B.

[Mike Holmes]

There's a lot more to the story, but the sword ('Dreadfire') is definitely an NPC.

This sounds right, but I think that you're rejecting the follower idea based on a misconception, potentially. That is, "Follower" mechanically simply means that the player has control of the abilities listed, unless they want the "follower" in question to do something that it doesn't think is it's job. Which might actually fit your description.

Basically the difference between a follower and an NPC is that the GM plays the NPC all the time, and only plays the follower if he thinks that the follower might resist being used in a certain way. And, mechanically, of course, NPCs have their full breadth of ability. Actually, the way I play it, followers have their full breadth, as well, but have to be treated like an NPC to get access to any abilities that aren't listed on the player's sheet - usually a roll involved.

To reflect its effectiveness in combat, even when unpowered, I was considering giving it an edge...but I don't have a feel for how powerful edges are.  A giant with a tree trunk is given as an example of a ^3 edge.  Based on that, ^2 or ^1 would seem appropriate...but they feel underpowered.  Are they really that effective?

I'm strongly against Edges for several reasons that I won't get into here. To me it's far less complicated to simply rate the thing, and have it augment. Just rate the thing high enough to make it function about what you think it should.

If you have to use edges, one problem is that there is no valid scale for them, and you're going to have to just guess. That said, there's no reason that an artifact can't have an ability to resolve situations on par with a tree trunk.

When the sword is participating in the fight, I figure it will probably provide a passive augment for mid-level fights, an active augment for more powerful fights, and full AP loaning for epic fights (when it would probably also be bringing additional abilities into play).  But is the AP loan worth losing the augments?

What's an "active augment?" Passive means that it augments. Active means that the ability is being used directly. Which makes sense in a fight should be situational. In most cases, it's the character doing the fighting, so the sword will only augment. But if it's a "dancing sword" or somesuch, or has a spirit that leads the character in the fight, or some such rationale, it could be the primary ability in theory. But here's the key - it can only do this if it's a follower. If its an NPC, then it can't use the primary ability, because then it's the one doing the contest, and NPCs can't do contests.

People miss this all the time, but the rules say that only PCs can have contests. If two NPCs go against each other, the narrator just determines an outcome by fiat. Basically, the action should always be about the PCs, not anyone else.

So to be able to use somebody else's ability at full, that NPC has to be made a follower, so the ability belongs to the PC.

AP lending only applies to extended contests. You aren't falling into the "Combat = Extended Contest" fallacy, are you? The point being that often use of a sword should be part of a simple contest, and AP lending will not be available. Where it is available, then it's up to the player which they want to use, Lending or Augmenting. Truth be told, in most cases, Augmenting is more powerful.

As for rationales for either, is the thing in question at risk? If so, then it should be lending. If not, then it should be Augmenting. Because only Lending NPCs are in the fight enough to have the negative results applied to them. Augmenters are not so involved. So when in an extended contest I have one NPC shouting support, I tend to suggest an augment. When the NPC is actually mixing it up with a blade, then I suggest Lending.

The difficulty of the fight should have nothing to do with it.

Mike

[Tom B]

This sounds right, but I think that you're rejecting the follower idea based on a misconception, potentially. That is, "Follower" mechanically simply means that the player has control of the abilities listed, unless they want the "follower" in question to do something that it doesn't think is it's job. Which might actually fit your description.

Hm.  Actually, I didn't realize there was a difference in the terms.  We've never used 'followers' as such in any of our games.  To me, they're all NPCs.  In this particular case, I usually run Dreadfire.  Whether it's a running, sarcastic commentary, advice or questions.  Or turning into a wiffle bat in the middle of a combat because he's irked at his wielder.  The PC never has direct control over Dreadfire's abilities, but they generally work together during combat so effectively there may not be much difference.  I consider any character I run as GM to be an NPC.

Basically the difference between a follower and an NPC is that the GM plays the NPC all the time, and only plays the follower if he thinks that the follower might resist being used in a certain way. And, mechanically, of course, NPCs have their full breadth of ability. Actually, the way I play it, followers have their full breadth, as well, but have to be treated like an NPC to get access to any abilities that aren't listed on the player's sheet - usually a roll involved.

Yeah.  It goes against my grain to have 'followers' acting as mere walking augments.  They're always NPCs with free will.

I'm strongly against Edges for several reasons that I won't get into here. To me it's far less complicated to simply rate the thing, and have it augment. Just rate the thing high enough to make it function about what you think it should.

I'm curious...but agree that augments are simpler and keep out an additional complication.  Actually doing so explains why the sword usually doesn't exert itself.  It is only as effective in combat as it's wielder plus augments.  The less the sword helps, the better his wielder is forced to become and thus the sword itself improves.

What's an "active augment?" Passive means that it augments. Active means that the ability is being used directly. Which makes sense in a fight should be situational. In most cases, it's the character doing the fighting, so the sword will only augment. But if it's a "dancing sword" or somesuch, or has a spirit that leads the character in the fight, or some such rationale, it could be the primary ability in theory. But here's the key - it can only do this if it's a follower. If its an NPC, then it can't use the primary ability, because then it's the one doing the contest, and NPCs can't do contests.

(Sorry.  I was referring to a variable augment as opposed to a fixed one.)
Good point.  That's where my gap between understanding the mechanics and understanding the system show up.  The sword does have additional abilities that aid during the fight.  Would using these allow a variable augment?  Or still just a fixed one?

So to be able to use somebody else's ability at full, that NPC has to be made a follower, so the ability belongs to the PC.

Obviously I need to go back and re-read the sections dealing with followers vs. NPCs.  When reading the rules, I just mentally substituted 'NPC' whenever I saw 'follower'.

AP lending only applies to extended contests. You aren't falling into the "Combat = Extended Contest" fallacy, are you?

No, not at all.  However, I figured this would only happen for the really important battles, which are likely to be extended contests.

Truth be told, in most cases, Augmenting is more powerful.

I was wondering about that.  Both have their obvious advantages, but I wasn't sure which was more valuable in the long run.

As for rationales for either, is the thing in question at risk? If so, then it should be lending. If not, then it should be Augmenting. Because only Lending NPCs are in the fight enough to have the negative results applied to them. Augmenters are not so involved. So when in an extended contest I have one NPC shouting support, I tend to suggest an augment. When the NPC is actually mixing it up with a blade, then I suggest Lending.

Usually the sword itself is never at risk.  Not against any normal opponents.  There have certainly been dramatic encounters where the sword was at risk.  In HeroQuest terms, I could theoretically be running two extended contests...on of PC vs. NPC, and one of Dreadfire vs. dread evil weapon.  (Recognizing that extended contests are for PCs, though, I wouldn't actually do that.)

I'll likely stick to augments or the exercise of special abilities.  (Hm.  The sword actually absorbs and heals some damage during the course of combat.  I guess an augment is still the best way to show this, although it would also be enhancing his combat skill.  Can it provide multiple augments?  Or is this actually a place where a ^1 edge might be appropriate during extended contests?  Just thinking out loud.)

I imagine the sword will participate in a variety of ways ranging from augments to AP loans to the occasional edge and specific use of special ability.  It's nice to have a flexible system where the swords abilities are not fixed.

The difficulty of the fight should have nothing to do with it.

Only in the sense of 'more difficult' is usually 'more dramatic'.

Tom B.