Variable Augments - Used?

[Mike Holmes]

I think this has been covered before (if not here, then on the rules group). How often are variable augments used in your game?

I have a feeling that they're not much used. Because it seems to me that they usually represent a level of complexity that just doesn't seem neccessary. Also, I don't think that there's any mechanical advantage to using them at all (in fact I think that they may actually be disincentivized, mechanically). So if the expected value result is about the same, why should I gamble?

Or do you have some gambler players who you find like to go for the variable augments? Given the vagaries of the expected value outcome, I wouldn't be surprised if players don't realize that it's not a winning proposition. The proof is in the pudding, really, and how often players really do use it.

Also, how often do you as Narrator mandate variable augments? Examples would be cool.

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

Not used at all. Then again, I'm playing a pretty stripped down version of the game, escheving reams of simulatory stuff starting with equipment bonuses and ending with almost all special magic ability structures. Forgequest, as it's starting to get called ;) Something like variable augments drop by the wayside really fast, as they have no use at all apart from anal retentive fiddling.

Really, when the augment values are as small as they usually are, why bother? If we want more detail in resolution, we can use the complex conflict rules.

[Brand_Robins]

I have only had someone use a variable augment in an HQ game I ran in one contest (a playtest of a HQ Conan scenario I've been working on between projects): but it was only because of some particular circumstances: one, the character had a fairly large number of -extremely- high rated attributes to use in the contest (at least one 20m4, a 15m3, and several in the mastery 2 range) and figured that the benifits on taking the risk are worth it*, two, the player had a lot of HP to burn on the contest and wanted to make more rolls in order to have a chance to stack HP onto the simle contest (she wanted it simple, I'd wanted extended, she told me she was just going to blow all her AP in one bid, so I bowed down), and three, the player was willing to gamble because it was a big final showdown with her ultimate nemisis character and if it ended well or badly, she was sure it would rock.

In the end she burned like 7 HP, and came off with something like 3/4ths again the augment she would have had if she'd taken it at auto-levels, and got to build an interesting "the hero prepairs" scene where she got to make rolls and narration on each other's heals without the back and forth of an extended contest.

She lost the final contest anyway, but it was one fuck of a blowup.

Anyway, other than that one specific time, I've never even had anyone show interest in the variable augment rules.

*When you're at low levels, variable augments are often not worth the risk. If you've got an ability at 20 you can get a +2 automatically, or go for a +4 with the odds being that you get an average of nothing (+4 on good successes, +2 on marginal, nothing on a tie, and penalties on any failure). It isn't even a very interesting gamble most of the time. OTOH, if you're dealing with high level abilities, 20m4, for example, you can risk a +20 instead of a +10 with even odds, or even do it more safely and go for a +15 and have a 75% chance of getting the extra 5 points.

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

The only time I could see someone using them is IF the Narrator drops some bonus modifiers depending on the trait doing the Augmenting.  For example- "Loves Mom 17" is a reasonable trait, but if Mom is about to be eaten by a troll, I could see a Narrator dropping a 10 or more point bonus for the variable augment roll.

The rules don't give an example of using modifers on a variable augment roll, but they don't rule against it either...

But then it still requires a secondary roll and handling time from both the player and the Narrator.  It's probably just easier to pour those kinds of modifiers directly into the conflict roll itself, but it IS an option for Narrators who want to give smaller bonuses.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Something like variable augments drop by the wayside really fast, as they have no use at all apart from anal retentive fiddling.

Well maybe it's my simmy side, but I do like the concept of variable augments in some ways. That is, I can't agree that it's just "anal retentive fiddling." Consider - if the player actually discovered a reall sub-conflict inside of the larger conflict, then doesn't rolling for it with the variable augment make sense?

Or would you make this another conflict entirely, possibly using the impediment rules to make the effect roll over appropriately? I've seen players do that.

If we want more detail in resolution, we can use the complex conflict rules.

This is a strong argument, OTOH (how often do you use extended contests?). But what about variable augments as a compromise? We really only have two rolls that look interesting to make?

Brand, yep, it seems to me that with larger augmenting abilities you see it more. When it's +5 or +10 (like I see Fred rolling for his character Okhfels' strength occassionally), then I think you'll see it a lot more often. And, yeah, a HP dump to get a great result at this level is where I think you'll see it most often. That's been my experience too.

but if Mom is about to be eaten by a troll, I could see a Narrator dropping a 10 or more point bonus for the variable augment roll.

But couldn't the player simply take that and convert it to an automatic +1, too? Or are you just agreeing wth Brand that it's only higher level abilities that tend to see augmenting?

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

Something like variable augments drop by the wayside really fast, as they have no use at all apart from anal retentive fiddling.

Well maybe it's my simmy side, but I do like the concept of variable augments in some ways. That is, I can't agree that it's just "anal retentive fiddling." Consider - if the player actually discovered a reall sub-conflict inside of the larger conflict, then doesn't rolling for it with the variable augment make sense?

Or would you make this another conflict entirely, possibly using the impediment rules to make the effect roll over appropriately? I've seen players do that.

Well, that subconflict thing kinda assumes that there just happens to be a suitable ability available to resolve that subconflict with. Also, by the rules that subconflict should then be resolved by the normal augment as well. So yeah, I'd take another conflict roll for it, your suggested option is too "untidy" for me to like it.

If we want more detail in resolution, we can use the complex conflict rules.

This is a strong argument, OTOH (how often do you use extended contests?). But what about variable augments as a compromise? We really only have two rolls that look interesting to make?

I could imagine it as a compromise solution, but much more likely would be handling the two conflicts separately, with the first giving a bonus to the second if appropriate. As I said above, using variable augments for conflict resolution feels untidy and illogical to me.

But certainly I have nothing particular against variable augments. It's an interesting fiddly bit, although I've not found any use for it myself. Who knows, I might stumble on a conflict at one point and go "Hey, this is a perfect place for a variable augment!" The same holds true for a horrible amount of rules. This probably has something to do with me not playing in Glorantha, and not having the book in this town, so I'm just playing the game as simply as possible. Could be that, or I'm spoiled by the abstract nature of many other games.

[Mike Holmes]

could imagine it as a compromise solution, but much more likely would be handling the two conflicts separately, with the first giving a bonus to the second if appropriate.

You mean penalties, right? There is no rule for creating a bonus. Or would you just call it a situational bonus? Or is this another hack?

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

A penalty it is. Although I wouldn't find the rules to suffer horribly if I instituted carry-over bonuses, as well, when they make sense. With the game already accepting situational bonuses it's not a particularly radical change.

I really should get my brother to mail me the rulebook for a refreshment read. I'm getting a feeling that I'm missing out something terribly important with my HQ-lite play. Then again, I've been reading lots of Hero Wars stuff lately (got the books for a couple of bucks a shot at a con some six weeks ago), and that's shaped my thinking, too. The designers of the game are amazingly old-moded compared to Forgequest, those books (Thunder Rebels, Cults of Sartar) are chock-full of all kinds of rules I couldn't imagine using. So in that sense I guess that I'll just have to accept that playing the game with all it's rules wouldn't be very fun for me.

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

Let's say you got "Loves Mom 17" and trying to squeeze a +5 bonus out of it (5W resistance).   Now, the Narrator decides that the situation earns a 10 point modifier, which either results in rolling a Variable Augment contest of:

A) Loves Mom 17 vs. 15 resistance (25-10)
B) Loves Mom 7W vs. 5W (17+10)

So in this way, the gamble isn't as crappy as the normal variable augment, which usually makes things a crap shoot.  If you, as a player, know the Narrator is going to give bonuses like this, it can often be worthwhile to try and squeeze out a few extra points here or there.  This pretty much follows in line with the rules to a T, but of course, it's not shown in examples.

Although- the real easy and (more) logical answer would be just to have the Narrator give a straight bonus to the contest itself without making a variable augment contest...

But yeah- without any modifier- variable augments are pretty pointless except as a "wahoo! Random effects!" mechanic.

Chris

[Christopher Weeks]

As a result of this thread, I made up an Excel sheet that explores the simple cases of variable augments.  It looks at every possible case when skill level is 1-20 and you're seeking augment bonuses of +1 through +4.  I didn't want to bother with the 'wrap-arounds' caused by mastery-level numbers and I think that what I have can extrapolate out.  Can anyone tell me if that's right?  And if so, how?  E.g., what can we conclude about the odds for someone with an ability at 10W2 seeking a +8 from the table that I generated (if anything)?

Chris

[nellist]

When I was running a FTF game the house rule was we *only* used variable augments, only the best augment was actually used in the conflict resolution, and the resistance rate was lower (using D10, it was 2resistance per point). And for simple contests you could roll after the resolution roll.

The logic behind this was that, for simple contests, the players would be saying "just roll, even before they'd checked which ability they were to use.

But that was another country.

Keith Nellist

[Mike Holmes]

A penalty it is. Although I wouldn't find the rules to suffer horribly if I instituted carry-over bonuses, as well, when they make sense. With the game already accepting situational bonuses it's not a particularly radical change.

Well, and it's something that I've proposed as well in other threads. But check those threads out to see that it's not as mechanically simple as it sounds. Unless you just want to be arbitrary with it. (In which case you're just using the rules as written to mechanically reinforce).

But to get back on topic, what it seems that you're saying is that the rollover bonus rules that are provided by the variable augment rule, are somehow inferior to simply using the normal system and then coming up with a bonus from that. I really don't see how these are different. In both cases, you have an ability and a resistance, and you roll and you get a bonus number to the next roll. What's the difference?

I really should get my brother to mail me the rulebook for a refreshment read. I'm getting a feeling that I'm missing out something terribly important with my HQ-lite play. Then again, I've been reading lots of Hero Wars stuff lately (got the books for a couple of bucks a shot at a con some six weeks ago), and that's shaped my thinking, too. The designers of the game are amazingly old-moded compared to Forgequest, those books (Thunder Rebels, Cults of Sartar) are chock-full of all kinds of rules I couldn't imagine using. So in that sense I guess that I'll just have to accept that playing the game with all it's rules wouldn't be very fun for me.

Wow, that's pretty judgemental. It might interest you to note that many people would say that Hero Wars is actually a lot more "Forgey" than Hero Quest. There are actually less "fiddly" rules in Hero Wars than in HQ. In any case, playing with the rules has, for me, ended up being a very narrativism producing experience, and all excellent. I find it strange that I wrote Universalis, and can have fun with HQ, but you play games like Universalis, and cannot somehow enjoy HQ as written. I also find it telling that it would appear that you haven't even tried to do so.


Chris, I must be writing like an idiot lately, because people are treating me that way. Yeah, I understand the math of what you were proposing. And I agree that it's all kosher with the rules. I've done precisely what you're saying, actually, in play. But that doesn't make your point any more valid. I don't see how a modified 7W vs 5W is any different from a naturally occuring 7W vs 5W? I mean, if you promise the player that you'll only give bonuses like this if they take the variable augment, then yeah, that's an incentive. But my assumption was that the player would also have the option to take a +3 instead of a +2 auto agument. I mean, why would the bonus apply only to the variable augment situation and not the auto augment.

To be clear, it's also just as kosher in the rules to add a modifier to an ability before you auto-augment. So your  17 becomes 7W, and the auto augument goes from +2 to +3. The player, then knowing this, has the option of whether to push it with a variable augment.

To only provide modifiers to players who variably augment is to just incentivize the use of that mechanism - you might as well give them a free HP, or just a free +1 to the result. You're just making the results of Variable Augmenting have a better expected value. Yeah, that'll work, but it's quite arbitrary. At that point, players will be all over VAs, and you won't have anything but that.

In any case, if you want to increase the expected value of Variable Augments, that's done easily enough by futzing with the chart that exists.

If you're saying that you might give modifiers to variable augments, but won't ever do it to auto augments, then I think that it'll be a question of how loose you are with the modifiers in play that will determine if players will use them. Basically it becomes a double gamble for them, however, and if you hose a player even once, I think they'll never come back to it.

In any case, I disagree with the idea that Variable Augments are pointless randomization, as I've argued with Eero. That is, I think this is an assumption that you're making about their use. I think that they theoretically can be used in a way that has meaning.


Chris, when I fire up that sheet, there's nothing on it. But when I did this exercise last time, basically the best expected value you could get at any level of ability was far below the auto-augment value.


Keith, that's a lot of modification. Can you tell us how it played? Do you think the modifications were good?

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

But to get back on topic, what it seems that you're saying is that the rollover bonus rules that are provided by the variable augment rule, are somehow inferior to simply using the normal system and then coming up with a bonus from that. I really don't see how these are different. In both cases, you have an ability and a resistance, and you roll and you get a bonus number to the next roll. What's the difference?

Didn't I list these already? My problem is mainly that if there is such a subconflict to resolve, then the player should have right to resolve it whether he has a suitable ability to variably augment with or not. You can set up a normal conflict in any case, but variably augmenting requires you to have something to augment with.

Furthermore, it seems illogical to me that a subconflict could be resolved with a variable augment, but not with a normal augment. The latter would of course be pretty pointless (karma resolution!), but still it bugs me.

So, my objection is mainly aesthetic. Using variable augments to resolve actual conflicts (conflicts are important!) seems unintuitive to me. In the worst case it could even become deprotagonizing, if an actually important conflict would accidentally get resolved with a variable augment rule to the detriment of a player. Just seems strange to add a third method of conflict resolution, especially when the rules seem pretty clear on the augments being just color and preparation, with no plot consequences. Or that's how I've understood it, that you have to run a conflict if you want to actually mess with somebody, not just claim that a given augmenting decision caused that effect.

I have no objection to the normal use of variable augments, I just think that they're pretty pointless in actual play. Perhaps a variable augment could be used to add color to the augmenting process, but... well, I've never done so. Does that prove anything? Probably not.

Wow, that's pretty judgemental. It might interest you to note that many people would say that Hero Wars is actually a lot more "Forgey" than Hero Quest. There are actually less "fiddly" rules in Hero Wars than in HQ.

Could be, I've not read the Hero Wars main book. It's just that the contrast between the game's official material (HW or HQ) and the way we play it seems sometimes so astounding... do you know, the Thunder Rebels book has pages upon pages of statted punishment daemons that are connected with different cults and whose sole purpose seems to be to keep players toeing the line of their cult? The Orlanthi pantheon seems to rule with fear and an iron fist. Just weird. But that's a topic for another thread.

In any case, playing with the rules has, for me, ended up being a very narrativism producing experience, and all excellent. I find it strange that I wrote Universalis, and can have fun with HQ, but you play games like Universalis, and cannot somehow enjoy HQ as written. I also find it telling that it would appear that you haven't even tried to do so.

I'm sure you don't mean that in a bad way. Yeah, I've not tried to play by the rules, but there's good reasons for it:
1) no rulebook to search for fiddly bits
2) not playing in Glorantha, so most of the book wouldn't apply
3) a new group, so it was better to institute the game in a form I was comfortable with and which I understood perfectly

Contrariwise, I'm sure that I'd have played it much closer to the rules if I happened to have them with me here. The thing I find interesting is that the process of reading a game closely and studying it, then letting it lie for half a year, and then playing it from memory seems to really necessitate a critical outlook. I've effectively scrapped everything in the rules for which I couldn't find a solid reason to be there, and thus far it's worked just fine.

For the record, one of my "want to play so much my heart hurts" list games right now is HQ in Glorantha, with somebody else GMing so I get to play. So I have nothing against playing the game by the rules, I just haven't got the chance yet.

But this isn't at all about variable augments, is it?

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

Sorry, I usually feel like I'm the one who's writing like an idiot, because I've run into a spat of misunderstandings elsewhere (online), so I've been trying to write as simple as possible to make sure I'm clear.  I apologize if I came across condescending- I was just trying to make sure I communicated clearly.

My point being that with appropriate modifiers to variable augment rolls it becomes easier for a person to gamble to get a higher augment than they would by auto augmenting with good odds of it happening(also assuming that, for some reason, the GM doesn't feel like tacking a bonus straight on to the contest itself, why?  I don't know).  

The only reason I mention it is because I know you enjoy comparing things that are "strictly according to the rules", and that's simply one way of doing things- and honestly HQ's system is effectively the Perl programming of game systems- it's flexible enough that you can do things 1001 ways and still be using it "correctly".

The only other reason I could really see using variable augments would be to look at them as the equivalent of Dogs in the Vineyard's Raises- a bit of neat randomness to kick off some narration to the larger conflict...  So perhaps playing out "Loves Mom" and rolling horribly might mean either that the character doesn't love mom as much as he thought, or perhaps his feelings just aren't enough to really help here...  Which is a fairly common sort of thing in literature and movies.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, somebody smart once said that random resolution in narrativism driven games is simply a "springboard" for creativity. You just take the random results and react to them.

So, yeah, when you're love for your mom doesn't pay off, then maybe your character figures out that it's time to go see mom. You don't get results like that with automatic augments.

Good thoughts everyone.

Mike