Points buying system

[epweissengruber]

I sketched out some of the implicit currency in the HQ system.

This is the first time I noticed that the general "try something impossible" penalty could be overcome with the expenditure of a hero point, in that burning a hero point during a conflict raises one's results to the same leve that an increase of 1 Mastery in the relevant attribute would do.

I then tried to work out a currency system predicated on the general character improvement rule of 1 hero point = a permanent 1 point increase in an attribute.  To do so I had to ignore the special conditions that make certain kinds of hero points more equal than others (i.e., a concentrated magic user's advantages, a "misapplied" worshipper's disadvantages, etc.).

Note, there is only one tweak to the character improvement rules that I would retain : spending hero points on improvements related to play is significantly more profitable.  When a hero point is spent outside of conflict resolution to create a permanent improvement, it is only one half as profitable.

Instead of having character improvement become cluttered up by a number of special cases, making play-related improvements more effective than unrelated improvements persuades players to seek those situations that will lead to the character improvements they would like to see and to tie character improvement to the development of thematically rich play.  In this way, character improvement becomes a series of out-of-play decisions that further enrich the thematic and narrative web being develped by a play group.


1 Hero Point = +1 to Attribute = new possession = 1 Mastery = improvement of result by one step = 20 TN = +2 TN bonus (lendable or applicable to another Attribute) = 20 AP for extended contest (also lendable) = "Impossible Thing" (beginner using magic feat like a god's devotee, using common magic directly, using a tap dance to win a theological debate, leaping over a mountain, etc.)

[Bryan_T]

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

Yes. 

*shrug* I'm not quite clear what your point is in this regard, however.  Maybe we are agreeing in part that if you don't have clear criteria, you tend to get a muddle?

Or maybe I did a poor job of expressing my point.  I have a bad habit of posting quickly, with the intent of trying to focus thoughts on some point--call it coffee-shop brainstorming.  Not that this is bad in and of itself, I think, but on a board that seems to prefer a style more akin to academic debate, it seems at best unproductive.  I need to work on keeping my fingers off my keyboard unless I have a developed point of my own to make, and even then only if I make the time to work out what I'm trying to say in a more structured carefully argued form. 

This is not meant as a criticism of Forge style discussion, rather I'm trying to wrap my head around just how different the Forge is.  I suspect that this difference is over-all a good thing, and part of the reason that the Forge develops different ideas. And to some extent, I guess I've just indulged in another coffee-shop type musing.

-Bryan, who is now taking his coffee and stepping away from the keyboard :)

[Mandacaru]

Or maybe I did a poor job of expressing my point.  I have a bad habit of posting quickly, [snip]

Can I, as a user of this forum, just make a request that this sort of thing not become inhibiting to people with good ideas like Bryan? To me, the greatest value of this forum is that academic stuff, as Bryan describes it, being translated - i.e. 'extension' in agricultural terms, to users...so if people like Bryan start to feel inhibited (not that that was the intention of course), then things need reconsidering perhaps?
Just a note as Bryan's tone got me worried...
Sam.

[Lamorak33]

Or maybe I did a poor job of expressing my point.  I have a bad habit of posting quickly, [snip]

Can I, as a user of this forum, just make a request that this sort of thing not become inhibiting to people with good ideas like Bryan? .......[snip]

Just a note as Bryan's tone got me worried...
Sam.

I agree Sam. Bryan, easy tiger! :^D - no offence intended!

I merely asked if you had read those articles as I feel they have a bearing on your post about system and scenario design. I was hoping rather that you might explain in more detail your suggestions with reference to those articles. I thought I sensed a strong component of Simulationism Creative Agenda in your post and I wondered if you could confirm this, and explore your ideas more deeply.

All the best
Rob

[Bryan_T]

I agree Sam. Bryan, easy tiger! :^D - no offence intended!

No offense taken, sorry if I gave that impression.  When I have time to write up what I was trying to say in my original post in more detail I'll give it a go, but it might be some time.

What I was trying to say in this last post was.....well let me use an analogy.  Let us say you joined a game expecting to play in narrative mode, and the group was deep in sim mode, complete with references to historical analog groups, findings from re-enactement groups, and so on.  They aren't doing a bad thing, and you might even enjoy getting into that space....but if you tried to jump in with narrative style points you wouldn't get very far.  At some point maybe you'd realize the mode mis-match and go "A-ha, that is what is going on!" and you might even be tempted to try to explain to them your epiphany.  Well, that was more or less what just happened to me.  I was trying to have one sort of discussion, in a place where most people are trying to have a different sort of discussion.  I think both types are useful, but _in_this_place_ it makes more sense to try to work with the most common mode.  So what I was expressing was my realization that before I spout off in my normal style, I should sit back and try to develop my thoughts in a way that are more apt to further the discussions here.

So no hard feelings!

--Bryan

[Lamorak33]

What I was trying to say in this last post was.....well let me use an analogy.  Let us say you joined a game expecting to play in narrative mode, and the group was deep in sim mode, complete with references to historical analog groups, findings from re-enactement groups, and so on. 

I have had a similar experience recently, and you are spot on.  Your lucky if you know what your looking at so that you can adjust. What tends to happen is that people end up bugging each other by playing with differing Creative Agendas. I suggest that one of the roles of the GM is to moderate this, and one of the ways he can do this is by presenting a clear Creative Agenda. This is where a coherent game design that is in sync with what the GM is trying to achieve will be a boon.

Its also worth noting that any Creative Agenda can be presented by the GM, whatever the system. Thus you can have narratavist play using AD&D, because Creative Agenda is about people.

Regards
Rob

[Donald]

Well I understood what you were getting at Bryan. Which is why I didn't bother with a follow up but I think there must be a difference in mindset in the approach to writing rules.

For convenience I'll use the words scientific and artistic to describe them.

The scientific mindset starts by defining what they are trying to achieve and then writing rules to reflect that. As more is written the rules are checked against the objective and modified as required to meet the criteria. Playtesting then becomes a matter of spotting loopholes and finding things which weren't covered because the writer didn't think of them.

The artistic mindset starts with an idea and writes a rule which they think will achieve the objective. They then go straight to playtesting and modify as a result of the playtest. In this situation extensive playtesting with many different players is crucial.

In practice I doubt many writers adopt one or other approach exclusively but most show a strong bias one way or the other. There are disadvantages with both - the scientific tends to produce gamist and simulationist games with elaborate rules covering every possibility. The artistic tends to produce a more narrativist result but at the expense of relying on the GM to provide balance and fix loopholes caused by situations unforseen by the writer.

Now when you've an existing system which you are not sure what needs fixing the scientific approach is quicker because it is less likely to break a part that's already working. It does appear to take longer because you only move onto the playtesting stage when you've understood what you are trying to fix and have a reasonable expectation that the modification will do so.

[Lamorak33]

The artistic tends to produce a more narrativist result but at the expense of relying on the GM to provide balance and fix loopholes caused by situations unforeseen by the writer.

Hi Donald

I don't feel that the GM has to fix loopholes as you describe them in a narrative system, because decisions are brought within the social contract to a certain degree, and to quantitative human judgement  and instinct, which with practice I think is a much more fluid and intuitive system, and obviates the appearance of the 'games lawyer' IMO.

The more complex or scientific the rules it seems the more the players switch onto rule manipulation as an end of itself.

Regards
Rob

[Scripty]

I'm wondering if we aren't drifting a bit from the original topic.

But...

I'm not so sure that the whole narrativist-loophole theory really holds in this instance. One of the things that drove me to "narrativist" games is that the rules were more concrete and defined than other RPGs. There are a ton more loopholes in D&D 3rd edition than in Sorcerer, My Life with Master or the Pool.

I think DM's in D&D have to do a LOT more tap-dancing than a GM in Sorcerer. I think the same holds true in HeroQuest, once a group gets used to conflict-based resolution (which admittedly can be a difficult hurdle because most traditional RPGs and ALL computer-based rpgs are task-based).

One of the "problems" (as I see it, which means next to not much at all) with HQ is that we have a wonderfully conflict-based system ("narrativist" to some lines of thought) which the authors try to reconcile against traditional Sim or task-based play. Hence, we get the advancement points issue we've been discussing as well as "balancing" of various abilities against each other. And some examples in the book that read remarkably task-based.

The way I look at HeroQuest is that "play" happens in two major steps that exist independently of each other: "getting the numbers" (or chargen, points buy, etc.) and "doing stuff with the numbers" (or Simple/Extended Contests, Augmenting, Lending AP, etc.).

I think there are lots of ways to approach "getting the numbers". A traditional set of skills (ala d20 or WEG d6) with X number of points the player can plug in would work. So would a FATE-like skill pyramid. Or just a narrative method ala the Pool.

I created a d20 to HeroQuest conversion that, while horribly complex thanks to all the fiddly bits in d20, did a fine job of "getting me the numbers" to run a conflict-based D&D game with the HeroQuest system. Sure, the characters weren't as colorful as regular HQ characters (part of the charm, no doubt) but they were entirely functional.

Which leads me to the main point: what we "do with the numbers" works just as well no matter where the numbers come from.

On a meta-level, I see us trying to define the most elegant way to get our numbers so we can do stuff with them. The dichotomy isn't some artistic/scientific distinction but rather a question of whether it's best to workaround the Sim/Balance oriented elements of getting our numbers or to chuck them entirely for something else.

Again, the *game* (or what we do with the numbers) isn't affected either way. There aren't any loopholes there to exploit. And, if there are, they exist independently of the topic at hand.

We're discussing the loopholes introduced by the need to balance Sidekicks against other abilities or keywords and whether equipment should cost more, etc. And the loopholes introduced by the desire to Sim out magic, so that a Devotee can't use Grimoires as well as Adepts can because they presumably spend more time doing other things.

I think the approach we're looking at now is how to workaround these issues to "get numbers" in a way we like better. The three main approaches from the referenced threads are summarized in my earlier post, each with their own merits and flaws.

But we haven't put much thought towards the other side of the coin. What if we chucked HeroQuest chargen and came up with something else? What would that be? How would it work? Would it be better?

Scott

[Lamorak33]

But we haven't put much thought towards the other side of the coin. What if we chucked HeroQuest chargen and came up with something else? What would that be? How would it work? Would it be better?

Scott

Hi Scott

It would be different, and that is all. You have hit the nail on the head, because of course the Creative Agenda's model player behaviour, not system dynamics. What does hold though is 'System Does Matter'. See the artilce for details.

Regards
Rob

[Scripty]

Read the article before. Thanks.

The points in System Matters are directly applicable to this discussion and my post above. I see us bumping up against elements of the HQ character gen/advancement system that don't necessarily support a Narr style of play.

My suggestion in the previous post is that, rather than try and amend a chargen/advancement system that tries to balance elements out in a style common to games that are traditionally associated with Sim or Gam play, why couldn't we come up with a means of chargen/advancement that facilitates exactly what we want?

Rather than amend something broken, why not create something new? It seems we can't make any headway on a means to "fix" hero point expenditure in vanilla HQ, though most of us agree on what's "broken". Everyone seems to either disagree on what the best "fix" is, with every suggestion followed by a counter. This is clouded by contributors who appear to have their favorite fix and will therefore counter pretty well everything that isn't of that ilk.

Leading us nowhere.

Maybe we would have more luck wrapping our heads around a new approach. Less of a "HQ Home Improvement" and more of a "Build a Char-Gen/Advancement System of Your Dreams". I for one am eager to hear what we could put together, if we worked toward a common end.

I think it's possible for us to make the System Matter in terms of facilitating a Narr CA in a manner allowing players to Step on Up while taking into account the variance in SC that is to be expected with any group.

;)

S.

[Donald]

I wasn't talking exclusively about RPGs when I described the mindsets. Indeed the classic example of the scientific approach are the hex board games published by Avalon Hill and in the Strategy & Tactics Magazine.

D&D is an example of the artistic approach - the first version is unplayable as written relying on assumptions by the authors. Later versions fixed some problems but introduced more. Maybe someone at some stage did a proper analysis of the mechanics but I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised to find that all RPGs have been designed this way.

In any case HQ isn't a purely narrativist game system, I'm sure there are simulationist groups who use the rules and maybe even gamist ones. Unless you intend to produce a purely narrativist set of rules a balanced CharGen and advancement system is needed.

I think the approach we're looking at now is how to workaround these issues to "get numbers" in a way we like better.

That's exactly what I mean by the artistic approach. "We don't like the results of these particular rules so lets fiddle with them and find something we like better". Some people will think it's better, some worse and the chances are the problem if it actually exists will move to some related area. The scientific approach analyses the whole mechanics of the game, finds the basic anomalies and fixes them. The less central bits then either turn out to be right or obviously wrong. Maybe a sidekick should cost four points rather than three but currently there's no objective way of telling because we don't know what a point is worth.

Let me make it clear, I'm not making out either approach is right or wrong. Just a case of using the best tools for the job. It may be that it is impossible to analyse the model in use in HQ because it's too complex in which case I suggest it be simplified until we can.

The points in System Matters are directly applicable to this discussion and my post above. I see us bumping up against elements of the HQ character gen/advancement system that don't necessarily support a Narr style of play.

Since HQ isn't a specifically narrativist game system this would hardly be surprising. However I'm not sure what you think the narrativist style of play needs in the way of support from the game system.

Maybe we would have more luck wrapping our heads around a new approach. Less of a "HQ Home Improvement" and more of a "Build a Char-Gen/Advancement System of Your Dreams". I for one am eager to hear what we could put together, if we worked toward a common end.

OK, lets drop the points system entirely.

A player describes their character and the narrator and other players decide what value to give their abilities based on that description and the scale that already exists in the rulebook. Advancement and disabilities are based entirely on what happens in play with the narrator allocating ability improvements which can only be used on skills or relationships that happened in play. If someone wants to spend time studying something unrelated to their character's actions in the game they get an equivelent penalty (probably to relationships) because they're obviously ignoring something to do that. Again narrator and other players decide what suffers and how much.

[Bryan_T]

This is not a response to the most recent posts, but rather a small idea that I think fits into the general thread topic.

The rules as they stand have a system of increasing costs for each level of ability increase beyond the first in one round of improvement (i.e. if +1 costs 1, +2 costs 1+2=3, +3 costs 1+2+3=6, etc). This serves a purpose in some ways (stops people from shooting up one skill to sky high levels quickly, helps model a 'realistic' rate of learning), however it makes it difficult to handle dramatic character changes. 

Certainly if you feel a character is due for a major change you can often do it by mapping over existing personality traits and relationships, but that won't always be enough.  For example take a Heortling farmer who is just trying to get by, in the face of increasing challenges.  Finally some event triggers him to decide that the source of most of his problems is the lunar empire, and that the presence of the lunars is a threat to everything he holds dear.  Now maybe he already has some rating in 'hates lunars,' and maybe some of his other traits can be changed a bit...but his relationships to family and community have not essentially changed, nor have his basic personality traits.  So he buys "wants to drive out lunars: 13."

Now, you can argue that he may feel passionately about the subject, but he just can't channel that passion in a useful way yet.  But still, for a major change in attitude that seems.....underwhelming.

As a player, I often know that my character is building up to some major change, without knowing just exactly what the change will be, what will trigger it, or when it will happen.  This is where it seems to me that buying up an "undefined" passion (or relationship, or ability) might make sense.  The idea is a bit like having undefine abilities off of a starting list of ten, or have vague references in a 100 word narrative.  Basically extend this idea to things bought in play, and allow the undefined thing to be bought up at the normal rate.

That way, if you feel a change coming on, after a few sessions of play you can translate that undefined thing into a named ability, with a rating high enough to matter a little bit more (just three sessions will at least give you a 15, for a +2 augment).

So then that notional farmer builds up tension, until finally he channels it into wanting to drive out the lunars, and starts that ability at a more substantial level.

Yes, I realize that this is an option that might take more words to describe than it is worth :)  All I can say in its defense is that as a player if I saw this option formally offered to me a rule book, I would be very excited by it.

--Bryan

[Mike Holmes]

First an admin notice...for some strange reason I'm not getting email announcements on this thread. I'll have to see if I can fix that. But if it seems like I'm not responding, it's because I'm not hearing that there's been any activity on the thread. If I didn't check this forum regularly, I'd miss a lot more, apparently.

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.

Then there's got to be a better way. To me players will buy abilities that they think will make their character interesting as a whole. So I have no problem in just trusting to the whole thing to "self-balance." That is, sure, the berzerk power won't come up as often, but it's cooler for that when it does. Without having to be higher in points. I'm not sure that having a higher rating does anything to particularly empower a player, truth be told.

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.

I disagree there. That is, I think for HQ as an overall system there's going to be a single solution that best fits most people who play. For those who it does not fit, as always in RPGs, they'll either change the rules anyhow (we don't have to tell them they can), or they'll play something else. Put another way, you don't satisfy more groups by saying "do it however you like" or we'd all be playing GURPS, and nobody would ever play Sorcerer.

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.

I said specifically that the idea was not to compare games, but to use the same sort of anylysis in HQ. That is, precisely, to use math to look at it for the game as a whole.

The last couple of sentences I quoted, I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the costing is unblanced? Or hat the value of a point at any point is different than the value of any other point? In actual fact, since you don't know what the resistance is that you're going up against, you can never predict the value of a particular point (though I suppose you could come up with a composite for all resistances possible - still you'll never end up going against all of those). The point being that up is always better with HQ (always, there's no such thing as "typical augments", IME), which is about all the decision making criteria that one needs. In fact, as I've said, in some ways, the level of an ability isn't really all that pertinent to it's level of interest, and as such, the elevation is really more of a value as a pointer to the narrator about what you think is interesting to have come into play. "Narrator, look! I spent a point on this relationship! I'd like it to come into play more!"

In fact, devaluing the level of the ability is pretty important, I've found, in discerning the play value of an expenditure. This leads to some interesting Limit Theorem and asymtotic sorts of results to the analyses.

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.

Right. That is, the fact that you get a lot for nothing doesn't seem to be as important as the character concept. This is a similar thought to the one above. That even number of abilities doesn't seem to matter much. For instance, there's no attempt made to balance the "narrative method" of chargen in terms of total abilities generated. It would be a simple thing, for instance, to say, "Underline keywords and ten other words in the narrative." But it specifically does not do that.

If you take this math to the logical extent, however, then there's no value to any ability a priori. At which point I point to the "pointer" function of HP that I mentioned as the possible reason to have them. In which case, then whole keywords costing one HP once again make sense. It's still only a one HP pointer made.

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.

Yep, I think I agree. That is, the extra HP are really all about indicating this more than the abilities obtained. "Look, I spent 3HP! Really important!"

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?"

I sorta agree. First, there are a lot of definitions of balance. What I'm talking about here is what I call "selection balance." Basically I don't want to see players taking any particular thing more often than any other particular thing based on some imbalance (what Bryan's first rule is all about).

But, I agree that if there appears to be a gamism imbalance, that sometimes players will read this as something to exploit - leading to gamism. So that is something to be avoided.

That said, often I find the best way to do this is to simply make gamism imbalance ridiculously easy. Such that the player is informed that the play can't be about gaming the system. For instance, if I said you could take an ability at any level for one HP, what does that tell you? That you should take it high to win? Where's the "Step On Up" there? Any idiot can make that decision. No, it must be that it's not about addressing challenge with this, but instead about setting the level by some other criteria like "what I think is most cool."

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.

Well, I'd go for that. But it's not what the current rule says. The current rule says that you get one keyword at 17, and then a species keyword if it's not human with whatever the species keyword normally has in it. Which for Dragons includes things like Large 10W4, etc, etc. Actually, again, it's not even so much the power level that worries me. It's that dragons are coooool. All those extra abilities to play with, etc.

This is especially true for a dragon retainer. Sidekick, well, you did pay 3 HP for it...

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.

To the extent that players can tell what's going to come up in play, as I said above, it'll balance by itself. That is, players pretty much take care of making sure that the character is cool. Then it's up to the GM to play to that to some extent.

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 advocate against that strongly. For just these reasons.

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.

Yes, you're correct. If that's the case, then the game should really make it explicit at some point.

Not an easy thing to get everyone to buy into however. And I'm not even completely convinced myself. :-)

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.

I should have said without surcharge for the extra effect. Basically the abilities built up to be allowed to take the secret are reward themselves (when creating "starting characters" as Shamans and allowing them to bump up just these abilities, they stick out like a sore thumb - I'm now heavily advising against that).

Is your experience different?

No, and that's precisely the problem. The theory is that magic has an advantage because it occasionally gets to roll against a 14. Hence it being worth more points. Turns out you never roll against 14 (or we don't at least), so it's no different in value from that POV than any other power. In fact, even if it did roll against a 14 occasionally - I think I have used that TN on occasion - I still don't think that would merit magic costing any more than normal.

- 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.

I agreed with your point one. This one, not so sure. Rather, I don't think that a powerful patron ends up being at cross goals with the player. There might be a point where the dragon becomes more interesting than the PC to play - being a dragon at all - however. Hmmm.

- 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.

This has long been a problem with the system - the glacial rate of number change. After all, if level of ability is not so important, then perhaps one HP should give as many points change as needed? See where I'm headed?

This is precisely the sort of list that I do work off of Bryan, and my list of concerns about goals is not far off from what you have.

Everyone agrees that System Does Matter, as far as I can see, so let's get off that. And the whole Scientific/Artistic thing isn't really all that productive, either. It should suffice to say that we all agree on having goals, and that sometimes hard mechanics are good, and other times the solution is to leave something to narrator authority, etc. Let's just go case by case.


Donald, Jane Williams suggested to me that her group plays sans HP for advancement and that it works fine. I'm almost OK with that - I certainly don't think that people would "abuse" it. The problem is that I like HP to be a dichotomy between being spent on bumping and somthing else. That is, I want there to be some incentive to not bump other than "You might need it later." An excuse, almost. That is, I want players to understand that it's OK to let your character fail, even good play in many cases. To that extent, there has to be a use for HP that is a drain for when they pile up. Otherwise there becomes this sorta "why not bump?" attitude that comes out. Seen it in play, even with the option to advance opposing it. I want there to be a "So I can spend them on this other thing" answer. That's what makes HQ's HP system really cool. IMO.

So at the moment I'm thinking that instead of balanced advancement in terms of points, HP are spent to "change" the character. You spend a HP, and get to alter something. Raise an ability. Lower an ability. Change the name of an ability from Loves Constantine to Hates Constantine. Cement that magic sword at Slay Dragons 10W4 (instead of the "learning to attune to it" crock).

There is another way to do this, however. That's to make all 1:1 as Scotty likes, and then say that breadth, depth and even effectiveness is not at all controlled by anything other than player desire. That is, your 17 Strong might actually indicate a higher strength than another player's 5W Strong. If you decouple from the in-game scale, then ability rating is completely a player indicator of importance and nothing else.

This fixes Bryan's problem. A 13 is no less potent than a 17. But I've argued this method before, and people just don't seem to get it. Rather they'd rather cut off their own arms than play a game like this (or so I've been told).

Bryan, the other method you mention...it more or less already exists as the As You Go method. Well, OK, no, you can't increase these abilities, but I think that it's actually much less interesting to be pushing up numbers of things that I can't see than just bumping them up to where they need to be when the time comes for it. BTW, FATE has something like this already, "Potential Aspects." I kinda like the idea, too, it's just I can't see people spending points on them. Hmmm.

Mike

[Janus]

There is another way to do this, however. That's to make all 1:1 as Scotty likes, and then say that breadth, depth and even effectiveness is not at all controlled by anything other than player desire. That is, your 17 Strong might actually indicate a higher strength than another player's 5W Strong. If you decouple from the in-game scale, then ability rating is completely a player indicator of importance and nothing else.

This fixes Bryan's problem. A 13 is no less potent than a 17. But I've argued this method before, and people just don't seem to get it.

Could you elaborate (or give me pointers to threads you explained this before)? because I don't understand but it seems interesting.

Thanks in advance,

Janus