News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Points buying system

Started by Lamorak33, October 19, 2005, 05:30:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Donald

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 25, 2005, 05:57:25 PM
I wanted to let everyone else post first, but I have some comments (I'll be playing Devil's Advocate a bit here):

Sidekicks/Retainers

Surely this is covered by the follower reluctance table on pg. 271. Retainers particularly are semi-independent of the PC and will only use their skills to the extent it's part of their job. So the porter will use his strong ability to carry stuff but probably not to wrestle a bear.

I'm not sure about the points costs but then the whole system is so complex that I can't visualise the mathmatical model involved. It wouldn't surprise me that no one has done so, in which case it relies on playtesting to determine balance.

My first thought about the distinction between sidekicks and retainers was that it's unnecessary until I worked out a character who had both. The sidekick should be essential to the PC as an individual and have a personality. Retainers are closer to mere employees hired to do a job and if they're rather two dimensional it doesn't matter.

Quote
Don't get me started on the problem with the free Species Keyword. That said, I havn't seen anyone try to take a Dragon retainer yet...

A retainer with most stats several masteries above the PC? I'd make the PC the Dragon's retainer. Alternatively it has the keyword Dragon at 17 which makes it more of a liability than an asset.

Quote
Supporting Characters

I don't see why this is a problem, if a player has a relationship with someone they could ask them to stand in for him but there's a price to pay. Either a favour, a gift or maybe even a fee. In the extreme example of the PC having a relationship with Harrak the Berserk if they call on it for help there's going to be a high price to pay. So a PC gets him to trash a Lunar outpost and free his friends. If Harrek doesn't ask the PCs for something which gets them into more and probably worse trouble the narrator isn't trying.

I suspect narrators and players tend to see this instinctively about relationships so the problem of abuse becomes theoretical.

Clearly the contest to persuade the NPC to act is the more important but the player still has an interest in the outcome of the main contest so I think that justifies some screen time.

Quote
Flaws

You're right there's an element of uncertainty here but it follows from the assumption that all abilities are equal. Clearly they aren't, yet which are the more valuable depends on the particular game. The assumption implied by the rules is that flaws will never help the PC so should be free. Once players start using flaws to help themselves and the narrator uses abilities against the players that assumption falls apart. Experienced players will realise this can be done but new players won't and will refuse to take flaws if they cost.

Bryan_T

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 26, 2005, 03:00:06 PM

But...thoughts on costs? :-)

A few not fully formed thoughts:

- Even in a game like heroquest, mechanical (or gameist, I suppose?) choices are still good.  They make it that you can decide certain things about your hero that make a real impact on who they are.

- Having different costs is a valid variation between abilities.  Not to say that this particular variation has to be used, but it is one way to make something 'different.'

- Affinities are unique compared to most abilities in that they are very broad.  "Combat," "movement," and "knowledge" are FAR broader than any mundane ability.  They should not be costed the same without some other limitation.  The fact that most people cannot use them actively might be a reasonable balance for their breadth--but then there is the case of devotees.

- For devotees and adepts, affinities and grimoires work rather like key words, but ones which can be raised with HP.  This is almost the only place in the game where mini-maxing options exist.  This does not mean that this is a bad thing, just noting.

- The overwhelming opinion on the HQ-rules list seems to be that it is very difficult to use the "mundane objects have a 14 resistance to magic" rule.  It sounds like most people discard it most of the time, which somewhat weakens magic, probably meaning some of the other limitations on it are not necessary.

- Under current costing rules, and current definition of HQ benefits (where you get a new ability, not an added onto your own ability, if I read them right), starting per the default levels means it is extremely unlikely for theists to learn their cult secrets--something on the order of 200 HP if I recall the calculation properly.  Given how cool secrets are, making them more accesible would be a good thing.

- I like the tension between varied common magic and specialization.  Do you invest in an ability that will help you right now, or do you only invest for the long term?  Look at the society common magic in the Esrolia homeland in the HQ rules, how great are some of they?  but so mixed in type....nice choices to make.

- I think spirit fetishes would be more interesting if they almost always had one ability that was something more like a personality trait.  This would help balance them off, aside from cost--so you might get a great 'run fast' and 'agility' abilities from a strong spirit, but you'd also get its 'nervous' trait "boosting" you. (this would also give a reason to sometimes choose just a charm).

- In general having inherent balance in things other than basic abilities is probably more useful than just having them balanced by cost.  The point cost matters, but to me the fact that devotees have to put 60% time and resources into their devotion is more of a barrier than the cost of being a devotee.  On the one hand these things lend balance, on the other they create new tensions that can lead to interesting play.  Part of why I like spirit allies, the 10% time commitment--think about what sort of activity this implies!  "Oh, there is Bob, off playing fetch with his stick again."

--Bryan

Christopher Weeks

I'd been thinking about this issue for a while when this thread started, so it's been wildly useful to me.  Thanks all.  There are a number of things bout HQ that I don't grok and I think they stem from making the rules fit Glorantha -- largely magic system(s) issues.

Why not, as a generalization, if there really needs to be a more complicated system than one HP per trait, have say three levels of trait-breadth and charge one, two or three HP per trait based on that breadth.  Optionally, you can set stuff like discounts for grouping traits together (grimoires, etc.) and restrictions on the breadth of kinds of traits (like forcing magic to any one of the breadths for the flavor of the particular game).  I may not have covered all the options needed, but I think a few underlying rule-options can create fairly diverse and complex systems while retaining the one-system across games.  Does this make sense?

Mandacaru

Quote from: Christopher Weeks on October 29, 2005, 09:43:18 AM
Why not, as a generalization, if there really needs to be a more complicated system than one HP per trait, have say three levels of trait-breadth and charge one, two or three HP per trait based on that breadth.  Optionally, you can set stuff like discounts for grouping traits together (grimoires, etc.) and restrictions on the breadth of kinds of traits (like forcing magic to any one of the breadths for the flavor of the particular game).  I may not have covered all the options needed, but I think a few underlying rule-options can create fairly diverse and complex systems while retaining the one-system across games.  Does this make sense?

It makes sense yes, and Benedict Adamson had this worked out and posted on his website until changing IP policy led him to take it down. If you can track him down, he might email you it.

Some discussion here: http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/heroquest-rules/2001.06/9774.html

Sam.

Christopher Weeks

Wow, thanks Sam.  I've read some staggering number of posts from that thread at this point and I guess I think the breadth idea is a bad one -- causing more problems than it tries to fix.  But, linking abilities in groups (like Grimoires do) with some limitations and some algorithm for discount might still work and allow everyone to customize their games.

Janus

Quote from: Mandacaru
Some discussion here: http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/heroquest-rules/2001.06/9774.html
Also:
http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/hw-rules/2001.06/9532.html
http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/heroquest-rules/2002.04/12928.html

As for point buying systems, Big Eyes Small Mouth makes an interesting point when they price skills according to the type of campaign, since obviously a sword skill is more useful in a schwashbuckling campaign than in romantic comedy one. Alternatively to make sure each player get their HP investment worth of fun you could direct the story according to how they spend HPs.


Scripty

Thanks for those threads, Janus and Mandacaru. V interesting. It drew me out of my self-imposed lurking... ;)

As far as point cost, I'm an advocate of 1-point-for-1-point but I'm familiar with some of the wigginess this can cause in the HQ core rules. Fortunately, I rarely play HQ in Glorantha so this isn't an issue for games in which I run/play. Bryan_T's idea of having fetishes always have a personality trait is a gem, though. Nice touch.

The threads above cover what I would consider the most common answers to our dilemma:


  • Adjusting point costs according to a specified price list based on type (i.e. Sidekicks cost 6 HP, Affinities cost 3 HP, Skills cost 1 HP) as exists in HQ now

  • Adjusting value per point cost upfront based on effectiveness/applicability in play (i.e. 1 HP gets you a keyword at 6, a normal ability at 13, a narrow ability at 17 or a really-specialized-uber-narrow ability at 2w)

  • Adjusting value per point cost during advancment based on effectiveness/applicability in play (i.e. where 1 HP of advancement would get you 5 points in your dragon-slayer sword or 3 HP would boost your Hunter 1w "keyword" by one)

My personal preference is assigning costs based on the anticipated effectiveness of an ability to the campaign in questions. A bastardized version of #2. I'm fast and loose with the ratings, though, so I don't have anything I can say about what determines the starting rating. PM me an ability and I can PM a rating. :)

My rationalization for this approach is that my "Dragon Slayer Sword" shouldn't cost me 2HP per point in a campaign where I'm only going to run into a dragon once for every six months of play. So players pay for it up front and then advance it like any other ability.

Admittedly, this has raised some questions about keyword/ability advancement in tandem. But, again, it's just an approach, not a bona fide solution. Kind of a "rules-by-my-gut" thing that always frustrates me as a player. And, yes, I do feel like a hypocrite when I subject players to it.

Although #3 adds a layer of complexity, I'm grooving with it at the moment. It appears to be a synthesis of 1 and 2, while I think it could be grafted onto the existing rules-set fairly easily (even in Glorantha) and has the added benefit of being something I'd never thought of, so my brain thinks it's all new and shiny.

But then there's that extra layer of how-do-we-define-the-cost...

Brain's back to square one now. Poor brain.

Scott

P.S.  About the mundane rating of 14... In the past, I've ruled that magical abilities can only be resisted by other magical abilities, relationships or personality traits. That defined what was and what wasn't "magical". So when a player with "Undead 5w4" was filled full of lead by a SWAT team, he was supposed to roll against a 14 plus the community support bonus of so many SWAT members firing at him at once. I made it an auto-success and allowed him to narrate it. Nasty stuff.

Of course, then we were in the position of figuring out when a relationship or personality trait came into play. But that was more fun than trying to figure out what's mundane or not. And, as GM, I found it beneficial to assume a mundane resistance unless the players were dealing with a well-defined NPC.

Then again, for Freedom City-HQ, my plan was to ditch the 14 default resistance altogether and run off a chart of benchmarked difficulties (ala Bruce Ferrie's Supers-HQ). This gave the added bennie of players having insanely high-rated superpowers (10w8, 15w3, etc.). But, in that game, everything had a resistance. Deep down, I liked the consistency of that idea better but have gone with either approach in play. High ratings make players' eyes light up, though. I don't think that was ever a big mystery.

Mike Holmes

Quote from: Donald on October 26, 2005, 04:42:03 PM
Surely this is covered by the follower reluctance table on pg. 271. Retainers particularly are semi-independent of the PC and will only use their skills to the extent it's part of their job. So the porter will use his strong ability to carry stuff but probably not to wrestle a bear.
But, again Donald, you're ignoring my point on the other side. That is, if I take the ability "Strong" it won't be much use in a debate. "Orate" won't be much good against the bear. All abilities are limited in use to what they're appropriate to. Yes, in theory a porter's strong has less use than having it in my character. But in practice I haven't noticed a difference in play between the availability of abilities in followers and those attached to the character directly.

It's like the problem with breadth, the applicability all depends always on what stuff the narrator throws out there. So I think you have to simply consider all abilities equal. Now, that said, if you had to roll every single time to get the porter to use his ability, even when it's his job, that would be different. Pretty sure that's a bad idea, too, however.

QuoteI'm not sure about the points costs but then the whole system is so complex that I can't visualise the mathmatical model involved. It wouldn't surprise me that no one has done so, in which case it relies on playtesting to determine balance.
Well I've done both the math and the playtesting. And I'm here to tell you that it doesn't balance.

Now, the interesting thing is that nobody has figured that out yet. So it doesn't seem to matter. That is either it's complicated enough that players haven't figured out the advantages, or the playstyle that the game encourages makes it somewhat a non-factor. But if it's the latter, then I'm not sure why not to work the balance out. Put another way, why in HQ play does (or should) a keyword wrapped up in an NPC equal a single ability in the character?

If you want to consider the math analysis, in Hero System, followers are purchased at a 5:1 savings. HQ seems more like about 10:1 depending on the keyword. Worse, however, part of the follower thing is that if it dies, it's not replaced. HQ states that they are. So that's makes it only about 3:1 in HS. Now, I'm comparing apples and oranges, I understand (the games have very different agendas). But the point is that there is such an analysis that can be done.

I'm thinking lately that the incentive may simply be to counter the fact that it's sometimes a lot of work to track your own NPCs, even if they're somewhat interesting to have as part of the character. Perhaps?

QuoteMy first thought about the distinction between sidekicks and retainers was that it's unnecessary until I worked out a character who had both. The sidekick should be essential to the PC as an individual and have a personality. Retainers are closer to mere employees hired to do a job and if they're rather two dimensional it doesn't matter.
I'll take that on face value, but why doesn't it matter? In any case, the differentiation between retainers and sidekicks are actually pretty closely balanced. So I don't have any real problem with those.


QuoteA retainer with most stats several masteries above the PC? I'd make the PC the Dragon's retainer. Alternatively it has the keyword Dragon at 17 which makes it more of a liability than an asset.
I see, ignore the rules, and the narrator will fix everything. Sorry, wrong answer in terms of system. Same thing with your answer about Harrek. You're trying to balance having Harrek out by making him more interesting (the supposed "costs" of ownership). The "downsides" of having a dragon or Harrek as an NPC are actually attractive to players. Unless your playing gamism with HQ, which I don't get.

QuoteI suspect narrators and players tend to see this instinctively about relationships so the problem of abuse becomes theoretical.
See, you're not getting even what the problem is. It's not one of "abuse" at all. Nobody is buying dragons, despite it being available. What's going on, however, is that players are noting that they could buy a dragon, and are wondering how that makes any sense.

QuoteYou're right there's an element of uncertainty here but it follows from the assumption that all abilities are equal. Clearly they aren't, yet which are the more valuable depends on the particular game.
See, same problem again. You simply can't decide that something is more valueable than something else based on the "it's more likely to come up" argument. The likelihood of something coming up is 100% if the narrator decides that it is. There's no random element in how often an ability can be used. So you can't base cost on suspected percentages.

QuoteThe assumption implied by the rules is that flaws will never help the PC so should be free. Once players start using flaws to help themselves and the narrator uses abilities against the players that assumption falls apart.
Well, the other option is to say that flaws can't ever be used positively. It would interest me to see if people took them at that point. That said, I like using "flaws" positively.

QuoteExperienced players will realise this can be done but new players won't and will refuse to take flaws if they cost.
They would if we just didn't call them flaws and make the implication you note. We'd just have "abilities" and say "consider taking abilities that have potential downsides - it's fun!"

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

Mike Holmes

Had to cut off with only replies to Donald yesterday. On to other posts since then (but don't miss the one above).

Quote from: Bryan_T on October 27, 2005, 06:43:51 PM
- Even in a game like heroquest, mechanical (or gameist, I suppose?) choices are still good.  They make it that you can decide certain things about your hero that make a real impact on who they are.
Sounds like "System Does Matter" to me. So I agree, but it seems like a truism.

Quote- Having different costs is a valid variation between abilities.  Not to say that this particular variation has to be used, but it is one way to make something 'different.'
Quite, but "different" is not enough. Points are the metagame, so we have to have some reason for them other than to differentiate the landscape. Actually in some games, they are not metagame - for example Experience Points are supposed to represent something in-game. But for HQ purposes I'm going to assume that this is not the case. Despite occasional evidence that this may have been some part of the intent.

Quote- Affinities are unique compared to most abilities in that they are very broad.  "Combat," "movement," and "knowledge" are FAR broader than any mundane ability.  They should not be costed the same without some other limitation.  The fact that most people cannot use them actively might be a reasonable balance for their breadth--but then there is the case of devotees.
Well, in theory there is a downside to being a devotee - no worshipping any other cults. But I'd agree that in practice this doesn't constitue a balance to the breadth of affinities.

Quote- For devotees and adepts, affinities and grimoires work rather like key words, but ones which can be raised with HP.  This is almost the only place in the game where mini-maxing options exist.  This does not mean that this is a bad thing, just noting.
"Min-Maxing" Sorry, pet peeve. Refers to the primary work on Game Theory by Von Neumann. Not seeing the min-maxing here, however. That is, there is a balance to buying affinities and grimoires, that being the lost opportunity costs of buying individually. That is, let's say I have 2 HP. I can buy up two abilities right now, or I can wait until I have three and buy up 5 abilities all at once. If I wait, it's the time sans those abilities that balances out the benefit of waiting for the cheaper cost. That and the fact that I can't "stack" abilities. That is, with 3 HP, I can add 3 to one ability (over three buying periods), or I can buy 5 abilities up 1. It can be argued that the one ability up 3 is actually more valueable insome cases.

This is balanced. Generally it's been established that packages are balanced since early Champions.

Quote- The overwhelming opinion on the HQ-rules list seems to be that it is very difficult to use the "mundane objects have a 14 resistance to magic" rule.  It sounds like most people discard it most of the time, which somewhat weakens magic, probably meaning some of the other limitations on it are not necessary.
That's my position. That said, concentrated, most abilities only cost the same as other abilities. It's only the groups that cost extra, and that makes them a bargain.

Quote- Under current costing rules, and current definition of HQ benefits (where you get a new ability, not an added onto your own ability, if I read them right), starting per the default levels means it is extremely unlikely for theists to learn their cult secrets--something on the order of 200 HP if I recall the calculation properly.  Given how cool secrets are, making them more accesible would be a good thing.
Secrets are decisively unbalanced foer several reasons. Basically you get them for free if you buy up other abilities at normal cost. Then they allow you to do special things at what is essentially a reduced cost.

That all said, 200 HP isn't as much as it sounds like if you just give out scads. Rather, it's somewhat unclear what the rate of HP distribution is (though it may seem straightforward). Also while 200 HP sounds like a lot, it's not very much at all. That is, after spending HP on that order, characters tend not to be recognizably more powerful than before spending them. Strangely enough.

Quote- I like the tension between varied common magic and specialization.  Do you invest in an ability that will help you right now, or do you only invest for the long term?  Look at the society common magic in the Esrolia homeland in the HQ rules, how great are some of they?  but so mixed in type....nice choices to make.
Except that the "trade-off" here is illusory. That is you can have your cake and eat it too. That is, let's say that you want a particular common magic ability, Start Fire, but it's a CM spell, and your character is specialized as a theist. Well, you just take the Start Fire Feat instead. Doesn't seem to be listed anywhere? You make it up per the rules describing Common Magic generally. Basically you never have to give up any common magic.

Now, I could force players to take X common magic of a type that's against their specialization. But that seems as artificial as what's going on above, and doesn't really create the stress sought unless they're all the wrong sort. I do have to admit that this is the first time that it's occured to me to do this, however.

This all said, a recent conversation has me starting to believe that inter-otherworld cult accretion is more of a possibility than I'd previously thought. As such, the bite of concentration, at least, may be back in.

Quote- I think spirit fetishes would be more interesting if they almost always had one ability that was something more like a personality trait.  This would help balance them off, aside from cost--so you might get a great 'run fast' and 'agility' abilities from a strong spirit, but you'd also get its 'nervous' trait "boosting" you. (this would also give a reason to sometimes choose just a charm).
You're talking about balancing the uber-power of having them augment with their full ratings? Yeah, I think that just needs to go is all. The theoretical "limitation" on it (spirit leaves for a while) just doesn't balance at all. Much easier than your personality trait idea. Which I have other problems with that I won't get into.

Quote- In general having inherent balance in things other than basic abilities is probably more useful than just having them balanced by cost.  The point cost matters, but to me the fact that devotees have to put 60% time and resources into their devotion is more of a barrier than the cost of being a devotee.  On the one hand these things lend balance, on the other they create new tensions that can lead to interesting play.  Part of why I like spirit allies, the 10% time commitment--think about what sort of activity this implies!  "Oh, there is Bob, off playing fetch with his stick again."
Right, balance should be about in-game matters for things outside abilities. Abilities should balance against themselves.


Sam, Chris, Janus, I cringed when I read BESM and the idea of balancing costs based on frequency. As I've said, above, breadth and frequency are not random things, and have to be discarded in terms of costing abilities out. That is abilities should be about the same in breadth, and they should all cost the same under the assumption that, yes, the player is asking for you as narrator to make the abilties they take for their character interesting in play. And even if you play more simmy, predicting usefulness is tantamount to gamism support.


Scott, don't know about any "wigginess" but generally I'm all for the 1:1 ability cost. For abilities. Affinities or keywords that you can purchase, since they are packages of abilities that all have mechanical ramifications and interest, should cost more. Rather, I'm for a 1:1 cost for abilities if there are only abilities (which is one potential option).

If you were to charge 1:1 for packages of any sort, - kewords, affinities, whatever - then players will probably buy nothing but packages. Interesting idea in some ways, however...

Option #2, or your version of it specifically, I'm against as you can see from the above (the original #2 seems to have balance problems in terms of advancement, too). If you have a dragon-slaying sword, and you aren't encountering dragons a lot, the GM is doing something wrong, IMO. Rather, it should cost precisely as much as your strong, and be used about roughly the same amount.

And there's no way I can advocate a system that uses GM fiat to set costs on a point by point basis. Just too much work.

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

Scripty

Hi Mike:

Good to hear from you.

The wigginess I'm talking about with 1:1 cost in HQ is what you're talking about with Affinities and keywords (extrapolated out to Sidekicks and such). If everything costs 1 HP, then the whole keyword-package thing gets kinda hairy. You point that out and I agree that the best approach for that problem is the "just" abilities approach. No new ground there. I'd be surprised if you didn't already know that's how I felt. ;)

Regarding Option #2 (or 3 or whatnot)...

I think our approaches differ with neither being necessarily better or worse. Your approach as I understand it is to put an equal emphasis on the players' important skills through story and contests geared towards those skills. I veer in that direction when I run too but I also tend to think that certain skills just aren't naturally going to come up in a given campaign all that often. Most likely, in my games, a fair amount of combat skills will come up. Map-reading not so much. But when it does...

I think both our positions are based on good and well-earned experience, so I don't know if there's much wiggle room there for either of us.

In my experience, I could have one player with "Sword and Shield Fighting 2w". A pretty general all-around combat skill. And I could have another player with a relatively non-combat character using "Eclipse Bezerk 2w" as his primary combat skill. The fiat would be that "Eclipse Bezerk" is a frenzied magical attack form that can only be activated during an eclipse.

In the interest of not downplaying the other player's "Sword and Shield Fighting" while also not playing up the "Eclipse Bezerk" to an implausible level of one eclipse or multiple eclipses per session, my gut instinct is to let the "Eclipse Bezerk" start at a higher rating so that the player will get some serious mileage out of it when it does come into play. So I'd likely let him buy it as per normal but, where most broadly applicable abilities would start at 13 or 17, I'd let his "Eclipse Bezerk" start at 17 or 2w. Even higher if it was only going to come into play with rarer frequency.

That's generally how I approach it. That's not to say that I've adequately represented/advocated your approach here. I wasn't trying to. I also can't make a value judgement that your/my way is better.

My intent is to give an example of how/why I would do it.

Granted there's a LOT of GM fiat going on. And you surely know by now how much GM fiat makes me cringe. But it's a fairly simple approach that's worked for me in the past. I wasn't advocating it as a codified solution. It obviously isn't. And (to reiterate) I do cringe every time I use it, as should any other card-carrying member of the Anti-Fiat Coalition.

There are things I'd definitely like to see adopted regarding these matters. Even things I'd like to see explored on the forum. But I'm trying to avoid anything that's hush-hush under the QuestWorlds NDA. For that reason, my post was mainly a summary of what I'd read here and a recount of how I had done things in the past.

My intent was to summarize what I saw as the common approaches in those threads and for others to see what worked for me, gauge it for themselves and then use/abuse/discard as they see fit. I was actually stuck on which way was the "best". Still am. I'm not really convinced that anything proposed thus far is much better than anything else (except 1-for-1 sans keywords). I really feel that whichever solution a given person or group adopts should fit their individual style of play. I'm not convinced that this is a one-size-fits-all scenario.

In summary, I'm not covering any new ground (for me) or making groundbreaking 180 degree spins in what I like or how I play. But I am admitting to having used some serious GM fiat in Cthulhupunk-HQ and in Conan-HQ to a lesser degree. Like a junkie, I would probably crawl back to it if I GM'd HQ again. (Be warned!)

Which makes me a hypocrite and quite likely a heathen.

:)

Scott

Donald

Quote from: Mike Holmes on November 01, 2005, 06:05:51 PM
If you want to consider the math analysis, in Hero System, followers are purchased at a 5:1 savings. HQ seems more like about 10:1 depending on the keyword. Worse, however, part of the follower thing is that if it dies, it's not replaced. HQ states that they are. So that's makes it only about 3:1 in HS. Now, I'm comparing apples and oranges, I understand (the games have very different agendas). But the point is that there is such an analysis that can be done.

I wasn't thinking of the maths analysis of just that one issue but of the game as a whole. Even the progression of one HP increasing an ability by 1 is of different value depending on the the current value of the ability and the augments generally used with it. I tried to get my head round the model for that was but eventually realised it was degree level pure maths. I think most people who recognise that lack of balance switch off at that point and subsequent complications are ignored unless they appear badly askew. Which is why the misapplied worship penalty gets so much attention.

Certainly you can compare the relative costs and benefits with other games but that's only of use if you understand the complete model behind both games and they are sufficently similar for it to have meaning.

Quote
I'm thinking lately that the incentive may simply be to counter the fact that it's sometimes a lot of work to track your own NPCs, even if they're somewhat interesting to have as part of the character. Perhaps?

Could be, or even simpler that players don't use followers unless the concept of the character requires them.

Quote
QuoteMy first thought about the distinction between sidekicks and retainers was that it's unnecessary until I worked out a character who had both. The sidekick should be essential to the PC as an individual and have a personality. Retainers are closer to mere employees hired to do a job and if they're rather two dimensional it doesn't matter.
I'll take that on face value, but why doesn't it matter?

In the same way that in a film the characters of a politican's bodyguards aren't usually defined. They appear in the background, rarely have any lines and are replaced when they get shot. The sidekick is a talking part with an important role.

Quote
I see, ignore the rules, and the narrator will fix everything. Sorry, wrong answer in terms of system. Same thing with your answer about Harrek. You're trying to balance having Harrek out by making him more interesting (the supposed "costs" of ownership). The "downsides" of having a dragon or Harrek as an NPC are actually attractive to players. Unless your playing gamism with HQ, which I don't get.

The very concept of balance is a gamist one, if the players are motivated by which is the best deal for their HPs they are taking the decision on gamist principles. If they are motivated by what makes the most interesting story they are acting on narrativist principles. Now in practice few games are entirely one form or the other and a grossly unbalanced system will upset players who find their narrativist choices put them at a disadvantage in the game that's being played.

So perhaps the question should be "Is the HQ system so unbalanced that it is detering narativist play?" rather than "Is it unbalanced?"

Quote
See, you're not getting even what the problem is. It's not one of "abuse" at all. Nobody is buying dragons, despite it being available. What's going on, however, is that players are noting that they could buy a dragon, and are wondering how that makes any sense.
It makes sense if you apply the rule for followers of one keyword at 17. You get a dragon with attributes at the level of 17 - that would be the size of a pony. Not what is usually meant by dragon in Glorantha but it's within the rules. Remember this is CharGen, in time the dragon could have HPs spent on it to increase its abilities and if the player is spending HPs on followers to that scale there must be a reason.
Quote
See, same problem again. You simply can't decide that something is more valueable than something else based on the "it's more likely to come up" argument. The likelihood of something coming up is 100% if the narrator decides that it is. There's no random element in how often an ability can be used. So you can't base cost on suspected percentages.

Yet players are making that decision all the time based on what they perceive the game is about. If they see the game as political they'll choose characters with high political skills, if combat they'll choose good fighting skills. If there isn't a shared view about the game there's a good chance some players will be at a disadvantage in contests or the narrator will have to struggle to achieve a balance.

I don't think we've any disagreement that a 1:1 cost for abilities is the only practical way to do it. But it is inherently unbalanced particularly if a character will be played with different narrators.

I suppose another way of looking at it would be to regard HP allocation as nothing more than a player's indication of how they want the game to develop and the sort of challanges they expect to face. If so the whole issue of balance becomes moot but this needs spelling out.

Quote
They would if we just didn't call them flaws and make the implication you note. We'd just have "abilities" and say "consider taking abilities that have potential downsides - it's fun!"

I agree.

From the following post:
Quote
Secrets are decisively unbalanced foer several reasons. Basically you get them for free if you buy up other abilities at normal cost. Then they allow you to do special things at what is essentially a reduced cost.

How do PCs get secrets for free? Page 120 of HQ says they cost 3 HP to learn the secret at 13 plus 1 HP per improvement after the character has met all the other requirements. This is the same as an affinity.

Brand_Robins

Mike,

In actual play how often do you find that the "mundane resistance vs magic is 14" issue comes up?

I ask because I have recently realized that it almost never comes up in my games. I play, though I didn't have the language for it all the time, a very strict "people/furniture" divide when I do HQ -- especially with regards to conflict resolution. Under that paradigm most of the time most things that magic abilities would face a 14 resistance against are not important enough to be rolling against in the first place. If it's a character it will have resistance, if its furniture, I'm not rolling against it anyway – either way, the special resistance rule for magic comes in fairly rarely.

Is your experience different?
- Brand Robins

Lamorak33

Quote from: Brand_Robins on November 03, 2005, 01:16:01 PM
Mike,

In actual play how often do you find that the "mundane resistance vs magic is 14" issue comes up?

I ask because I have recently realized that it almost never comes up in my games. I play, though I didn't have the language for it all the time, a very strict "people/furniture" divide when I do HQ -- especially with regards to conflict resolution. Under that paradigm most of the time most things that magic abilities would face a 14 resistance against are not important enough to be rolling against in the first place. If it's a character it will have resistance, if its furniture, I'm not rolling against it anyway – either way, the special resistance rule for magic comes in fairly rarely.

Is your experience different?


Hi Brand

It omes up in our game a fair bit, we play a broadly Heortling culture based game. Thus for some 'Run Over Mud' is against 14, similarly run up cliffs, and a we have a guy who has a stealth affinity. The player enjoys the fact that his magic gives him an edge, which I am more than happy with. The Animist Practitioner is in a bit of soup though, as she generally only invokes her magic against stuff that generally has a resistance, most not always.

Regards
Rob


Bryan_T

QuoteSo perhaps the question should be "Is the HQ system so unbalanced that it is detering narativist play?" rather than "Is it unbalanced?"

Oooooh, thank you for phrasing the question that way!  To me that sums up the issue nicely.  I'd been feeling a bit at sea for a long time in this general discussion, feeling that sometimes we were seeking some platonic ideal.  To me "is it so unbalanced that it is deterring narativist play" seems like a more more functional requirement to aim towards than "perfect balance."

Putting on my engineering hat, after you have determined the requirements, you need to develop the specifications that you will work with to meet that requirement.  A lot of them are probably self-evident, and are things that most succesful designers probably consider automatically.  However sometimes by clearly stating the specifications, and the bounds on the specifications, it can help bring some clarity.

Off the top of my head, I see some of the specifications as being:

- no one style of character improvement should be consistently better than another.  That is to say, a broad array of types of characters, and routes of development, should be able to play together without one overshadowing another.  (They don't have to be exactly equal, mind).  So Jedi Knights shouldn't be better at everything, for example.  All characters do not have to be equally effective for a given number of hero points spent.

- the most effective way to meet in-story goals should not work at cross-purposes to player goals.  So a powerful patron should not be the answer to all of your problems, for example.  However having in-story options for faustian bargains and the like are obviously good things.

- Characters should be able to reflect dramatic in game experiences in an appropriate way.  For an extreme example, handling a 'road to Damascus' type revelatory change.  However numbers should not be seen as the only measure of intensity.

*shrug* anyone else would come up with their own list.  However if you are working on a team deciding these things, it seems to me that deciding what the specifications for the design are should help you decide on what the right solutions are.  Yes this could be seen as being anal, but my experience in (non-game) design suggests that you can probably coordinate better and decide when you are 'done' more easily if you do have clear specifications.

--Bryan


Lamorak33

Quote from: Bryan_T on November 03, 2005, 05:22:20 PM

*shrug* anyone else would come up with their own list.  However if you are working on a team deciding these things, it seems to me that deciding what the specifications for the design are should help you decide on what the right solutions are.  Yes this could be seen as being anal, but my experience in (non-game) design suggests that you can probably coordinate better and decide when you are 'done' more easily if you do have clear specifications.

--Bryan



Hi Bryan

Have you read 'System Does Matter' and 'The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast'?

Regards

Rob