HP Reward Systems Revisited

[Mike Holmes]

Yah, I've been through this before, dontchano. Time to look at it again. For brainstorming purposes, if people want to propose outlandish stuff, go ahead. But I've got some specific goals:

1. I want a non-arbitrary means of HP distribution. Right now I just throw out a pile of HP at the end of each session and hope it's about right.
2. I'd like it to reward something positive, of course. Something that doesn't already happen, that is. Otherwise I don't really need it.
3. If possible it should address what I'm going to call the IRC rate of play (ROP) problem.

I'll give what I'm currently thinking, and why I think it's right.

I had proposed an idea like Fan Mail in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17538.new;topicseen#new

Basically I'm thinking that each player gets 2 HP at the beginning of each session, including the GM. These are not for their own use, so let's call them what they are, Fan Mail points. Once you give fan mail to another player, however, these become Hero Points. That is you can't use them yourself, they soley exist to give to other players to indicate what you like to see in play. No other criteria on what to reward, give them out for anything that pleases you from another player's play.

Now, this addresses point one, in that no longer is HP distribution arbitrary, it comes from player decisions about what they want to see. As for point two, it's positive reinforcement, and while that happens now in play, I think that some mechanical reinforcement would be nice.

As for point three, it would be very bad - acutally less than the standard I give out now, which is about 4 HP. Before I get into potential solutions, let me lay out the ROP problem in more detail. Essentially given IRC play, there are few contests. Actually that might be a cop out, I find that I don't have enough contests even in FTF play, to keep up with the rate of HP distribution that I like to see. That is, HP distribution has to be proportional to two different things:

- The rate of contests - if you have far more contests than HP, then players have a "why not?" attitude towards bumping on occasion. Depends on how they spend, too, of course. But generally if you have a large pool, and you know you'll get more before you have to spend, there's little disincentive to bump. I'd prefer if HP were scarce enough that there was a disincentive to bump not only based on spending, but based on worries of running out of HP.
- The rate of development - you want HP distribution to be such that players are satisfied with their rate of development.

Interstingly I think that the one for one that HQ has set up right now may simply be wrong for the style of play I'd like to see where characters change dramatically. That is, I find downward pressure on HP from contest rates, but I find upward pressure from development rate needs. I have three potential solutions for this:

A. The players haven't complained about the rate of development, so just give them less. In fact, I worry that they're encountering the GURPS/Hero System phenomenon of having more points than they know what to do with for development purposes. This could be ameliorated, however, I think, by taking away the rule that says that it costs increasingly more to increase abilities in the same shot (double for second point, tripple for third, etc). I think that informs players that development should be realistic or spread out, and often they don't know what to increase as a result. So I get players with big piles of unspent HP. Barring doing this, however, option A, reducing HP might be the right thing to do. It's just that given the scale of HQ, I personally would like to avoid this one.

B. Reduce costs for development. I'm thinking right now of making everything cost one third of what it cost, or even one fifth. That way I can have few HP, but they can go a long way. And spending each is that much more of a consideration. I like that. But it assumes that the players have a desire to see their characters change as much as I do. How odd is that? The GM wants the players to go up faster, and the players want slower? Go figure.

C. Go with low amounts of HP, but have them be about changing characteristics, not about buying specific amounts of them. That is, instead of one HP making something go up one, it can either be renamed, or it can go up (or down) as far as you like. This could be applied to flaws, too, making them more viable in many ways.

Thoughs?

Mike

[Vaxalon]

Hm.

You're proposing changing the (total) HP awarded from 4P (four times the number of players) to 2P+2 (two per player plus two for yourself).

I can tell you right now that under that scheme... I would certainly bump less often... and at this point I've bumped, what, twice in the whole campaign?
As for costs of development, I would need to see an actual proposed system before I could rate it.

[Janus]

C. Go with low amounts of HP, but have them be about changing characteristics, not about buying specific amounts of them. That is, instead of one HP making something go up one, it can either be renamed, or it can go up (or down) as far as you like. This could be applied to flaws, too, making them more viable in many ways.

I like this and might use it for my game (I was planning to to use the regular HQ development system anyway). The only thing I am worried about this option is that people stop bumping completely to save HPs to buy stuff, which would suck; or maybe it will only make them bump when it's really really important for their character, which would be good. I will have to see how it goes in actual play.

[Vaxalon]

Here's one of the problems I've had with the HQ system so far.

One of Okhfels goals is to obtain a tethium sword.  Under the existing system, it would cost LOADS of points, as I understand it.

So how would that change under the new system?

[Mike Holmes]

Here's one of the problems I've had with the HQ system so far.

One of Okhfels goals is to obtain a tethium sword.  Under the existing system, it would cost LOADS of points, as I understand it.

Well, first, it wouldn't cost loads of points to get such a sword, but it would cost a lot to get it as written up in the section on materials. That is, you could buy it as "Tethium Sword 13" for one HP and it would mechanically function per the ability level. Why doesn't it have all the other abilities? Well, it does, just at 13. If that doesn't work for you, you could purchase it as a follower, though some might say this is an abuse of the rules. Also there's the idea of simply having it as an NPC, which is even more problematic.

There's also the idea that it could be given as is, and cemented for one HP. This has huge problems with the current system as written. Further, by one reading of the rules I could just give it to you for no HP.

Yes, the cost structures of HQ are a shambles. Basically the same thing can be anywhere from extremely expensive to free. That's something that I've struggled against since day one.

So how would that change under the new system?

A. Things would get worse. You'd have even less points to get such a thing.
B. About half as many HP floating around (somewhat more with mine), but things cost only a third or a fifth. Meannig that, overall, it's easier to "legitimately" buy up the abilities in question. At 1:5, the overall cost would be about one third what it is now.
C. The sword would cost one per ability you wanted to include, independent of the level. So if it had 4 abilities, 4 HP.

So largely these rules are about trying to empower you to do the sorts of things you've wanted to do. I don't think you'd bump less with B or especially C, because you'd be developing faster overall.

There's an elegance to option C, but the problem is in setting levels for things. Sometimes its easier if you actually have mechanical guidance limiting you. If you can raise something up a whole lot, what level makes sense? I'm sure that some players will have an easier time with this than others. Also there's some part of me that still loves the idea of incrementalism (D&D Levels are addicting for life, apparently).

Mike

[Christopher Weeks]

I'd like to add an option D Stored HP Taxation.  At the beginning of each session, yank 1/3 of all stored HPs.  In some ways it changes the least while incenting the behavior you want, I think.

After last week's discussion, I was thinking that everyone earns two HP and gives two others away is a pretty good compromise between either extreme.

I want to go on record as not being in the "have more HPs than I know what to do with" camp.  Not by a long, long stretch.  I've been thinking seriously of retiring Egani but I keep coming back to the fact that I've spent so many HPs on development and I'm still so, so far from my goals, that I want neither of: wasting the accrued "experience" represented by that development, quitting before reaching any goals at all.  I feel like HPs are really scarce as is -- and I understand that you're awarding them at a fantastic rate compared to what my reading of the rules suggests is normal.

As for the Tethium Sword, I don't know what it's supposed to do, but why not buy it at 1:1 -- 1 HP for "Tethium Sword 13" (or 15 with a bargain) but have it provide situational modifiers as appropriate?  I've been assuming (perhaps quite wrongly) that that's how the "Sword of the Planes" that Egani stole would work if and when it were used that way.

If you went with option B would one HP be divided among raising three or five abilities one point, or would it raise one ability three or five points or would it just be a value multiplier but the extra-point-in-the-same-ability surcharge would still exist?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Seems to me that incremental change is your problem. Throw that overboard and you'll have lots of different options on how to go about it. I'll outline one:

Instead of spending points on incremental improvement, have abilities improve based on instructive challenges. Whenever a character faces an instructive challenge of level at least equal to the level of the ability to be improved, improve the ability rating based on the degree of success: +1 for a minimal success, immediate raise to the challenge's level +5 on a perfect success. Something like that. As for what is an instructive challenge: whatever the player wants to be one. You could have setting such a challenge cost a HP, if you want to stick with resource limitations. Or all challenges could be such (but then you'll probably want some permanent dangers, too). Instructive challenges can happen during play, but the player can set them freely between sessions, when the characters go on all kinds of out-of-play quests and stuff.

The above has several benefits: characters change interestingly and dramatically, but the players still retain ultimate control. HP spending for ability improvement is handled by the bumbing mechanic (because bumbing in an instructive challenge will give you a larger increase). Character change is fully integrated in play, and the players will have to invent situations for their characters to faice superior challenges. The trainwreck that is the HQ experience system is fixed, because something like getting a magical sword is handled exactly like anything else, with no room for "cementing" or other foolishness.

How I did it in my game: Well, I used the "used HP are XP" mod, for starters. But I also had a fractional surcharge: whenever HP were awarded, players removed one fifth of their HP. Kept the massive stocks under control.

[Lamorak33]

Hi

In my game I have at time loaded the characters with HP. For example, I gave 50 Hp each in one hit when they defeated the Crimson Bat, and 20 hp at the end of the cradle scenario. I have a rule that you cannot spend more than 3 hp a session. This is to make sure folks always have some to spend on experience.

I don't like the 'fan mail' system for HQ. Maybe for a convention game, but not for general play. I feel that it could lead to gamist play and/or dysfunction. That maybe because I am a Brit and thats how my mind works, and we are playing a hybrid sim/narratavist experiment.

I think 'fan mail' would work best in a mature, almost exclusively narratavist game. I think it is also less suitable to games engaged in traditional party play.

Just my two pence (cents) worth.

Regards
Rob

[CCW]

My first reaction is that option C is the one that excites me.  Option A wouldn't bother me, but I also don't usually feel as if I have too many hero points, just that sometimes there doesn't seem much point in adding just one point to an ability that will only be used as an augment, so they occasionally build up for lack of something significant to do with them.  Option B would address that problem, but feels like a half-way measure towards giving players full control of their character concepts.

Option C, on the other hand goes all the way, gives the players a lot of responsibility, but feels freeing.  I might well have used it just last week, for example: Chris' character, Egani, spent the whole session patching up my character's, Archelaus', body, then returning his soul to it, but I only raised Archelaus' relationship with Egani by three points, seemingly a lot, but in practice not enough to raise that augment by even +1.

Exciting as option C is though, there are some possible problems with it.  Janus mention one, but there might also be an issue with not wanting to raise an ability a small amount, feeling under pressure to make big dramatic changes every time, just because you could.  I almost think I'd want to get as many hero points under option C, as we do now, just to tinker with abilities and change their names from time to time (I do the latter for free now, though, admittedly, sometimes only for humourous effect).

I also suspect that option C would work best in a face to face game where players spend hero points in public while everyone's there.  This would control the possible problem of people making dramatic changes to their characters that seem wrong to the other players.  Okhfels, for example, started with a special ability of Strength 5W2 (or something like that), if I suddenly raised one of Archelaus' abilities to that level, it could reduce Okhfels' specialness.

As for fan mail, I like the idea, although it has had mixed success in my FtF game, mainly because people forget about it in the heat of play.  I also think that a hybrid between fan mail and a base award (of say 2 hp) would be more to my liking.  Some people are simply better at playing for the Ooohs and Aaahs and sometimes even they are tired or distracted.  I'd like to think, if only for selfish reasons, that the less stellar players should be given something to develop their characters with.

I'd suggest playing for a couple of weeks using a fan mail system in which each player still gets, potentially, on average, 4 HP per session and see how that goes, before introducing another change, i.e. option A, B, C or ZZ.

Charles Wotton

[Janus]

I also suspect that option C would work best in a face to face game where players spend hero points in public while everyone's there.  This would control the possible problem of people making dramatic changes to their characters that seem wrong to the other players.  Okhfels, for example, started with a special ability of Strength 5W2 (or something like that), if I suddenly raised one of Archelaus' abilities to that level, it could reduce Okhfels' specialness.

That sounds great, I will try it that way.

I really like Mike's C option. This would be icing on the cake :)

[CCW]

I think everbody gets this but, just to be sure, I meant that reducing Okhfels' specialness would be a bad thing.

Charles

[Kintara]

Why not make bumping and advancing the same thing?  In other words, if you bump a roll during a conflict, you are increasing it by one permanently as well.  Clearly, this makes bumping extremely common, and it might make sense to lower the bonus a little or lower the rate of acquisition (or both).  As for how HP are acquired in the first place, I'm not sure I care overly much.  I suppose that it could work like the fan mail model.  You get a set number of HP per session, and you spend them on OTHER characters' actions.  I suppose this goes into push/pull territory that's the big craze on the big blogs right now.

[Kintara]

Perhaps fan mail HP in the push/pull system are generated by losing conflicts.

Or perhaps it's a closed economy.  If you spend an HP on someone, it gets put into your personal HP pool for next session.  That makes courting HP from the other players especially desirable as not only do you get the bump and the advancement, you also get to spend that point of HP on their characters next session.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, if I already hadn't mentioned this, I don't like the general idea here, because I like a tension between bumping and spending on abilities. So as to incentivize not bumping as a viable option.

Given that, does your second post still make sense? I'm not sure I get it.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

I like Kintara's idea a lot.

Let me see if I understand it right.

I've got (let's say) four tokens in front of me.

Thomas does something I like.

I hand him one of my tokens.  I have one less.

He gets a bump on the conflict where he's doing something cool.

He gets a +1 he can throw on his character.

He adds the token to his pool.

Have I got it right?