alternate hero advancement

[Vaxalon]

That's how I planned to deal with the extended contest "problem".

[sebastianz]

Actually, it probably creates more problems than it would solve. While it would make an EC more attractive compared to the normal rules, players would get an incentive to opt for an EC all the time. The function of an EC is to zoom in on the action were it is dramatically appropriate. Giving a higher reward could be misunderstood. Players might want to get this higher reward even though the story does not demand an EC. Potentially, the GM than has a problem to justify his decision for a SC. Also, the round to round of an EC resembles the traditional breakdown of action in rounds.

If you replace an EC with a chain of SCs, than I honestly see no difference to giving a reward each round of an EC. That is, loosing one of the SCs doesn't mean failure on the whole, but provides only a penalty to further "actions", right? While mechanically different, in essence it remains an EC. So, if this is an acceptable way to go, than providing a reward for each round of an EC (or each time you roll?) seems fine to me.

It also adds a further note to the drama of the conflict. Do I finish this moron opposing me or do I tread careful to get a higher reward?
Still, an EC will be more attractive than a SC. So it must be made clear that the sole basis for using an EC is the drama of the story. Or the problem of hunting experience will remain.

Sebastian.

[Mike Holmes]

You've deduced my chain of logic, Sebastian. Or close enough.


I came across a gap in this system, which lead me to more. I'm working off of Fred's list, or what's not on it, which can be found under Advancement here: http://www.thesmerf.com/vaxalon/RegainTheStars.html#HouseRules

First, it occured to me that there's nothing in the list about buying off flaws. This would be a cool addition, I think. Though there is the school of thought (mentioned in the book) that taking an offsetting ability is a better way to go. Otherwise, the rule would be that you can reduce a flaw by one for a victory, I think? Somehow reducing it by two for a defeat seems incorrect. No?

Thoughts?

Anyhow, looking at the list of things one can purchase, Fred and I had already come across an addition. When you join a cult, you get a little "package deal" in terms of how many HP you spend to get the little bunch of abilities. Two thoughts here. Either this can be an option on the list available only with the right sort of contest, or you could just eliminate this exception, and say that there are several tests to get into a cult, each with it's own reward (which is to buy the new appropriate ability, given the contest).

I'm a bit torn on that one. It might be good to get rid of the extra cruft here. BTW, this also pertains to things like joining Hero Bands.

What about fetishes, however? And charms? The system already assumes that we're making all magic into just "abilities" that can be raised and lowered as normal, so as not to have a conversion rate (see earlier in the thread). But what about charms and fetishes? Should the relationship to a spirit be the only thing that matters? Is the level of spirit ability irrellevant?

We can assume that with a normal relationship purchase, that a player can take that buy as a retainer (same cost, after all). But what about converting a retainer to a sidekick? Takes two HP normally. Can this be done with just one contest? Can you make a sidekick from nothing with just one contest?

It would be odd if you could only create a sidekick on a failure. But it would match cost-wise. If I can get one with a victory, can I get two with a defeat? Nevermind.

I prefer to ignore "Bonuses" and cementing them myself. But if one is going to have them in play (and Fred is, I found out), then cementing a bonus item or something should be an option on the list. So, my character does a contest to purchase a sword worth a +3 bonus...if he wins, then I can put the bonus on the sheet. Right? As an option, or in addition to the rule for point 2.a.v. where you can get an item with a rating?

I also still think that "refactoring" an ability should be an option. That's something I mentioned earlier. That is, instead of increasing an ability, a contest could be transformative and change one ability into another (this covers the rule about changing relationships, and Fred's rule about goals all in one fell swoop).

There are probably a few other uses for HP that aren't here.

Mike

[sebastianz]

Wow, that's a lot of questions you ask. I'll give my best to answer them, though, and hope others will do the same.
First, keep in mind that you could just give out HP as stated earlier and stay out of the trouble.
Now to your questions.

Flaws:
As soon as you put something on the list, you invalidate possible alternatives. Take flaws for example. One way of "getting rid" of a flaw is to develop a positive trait. You mentioned that. Another option is to let the player put his character into appropriate situations, which let him deal with the flaw in play. And then lower the rating of the flaw or remove it altogether. This is also mentioned by the rules (p. 59).  Third, put it on the lists. It's a clear way of giving the player the responsibility to mechanically erase the flaw. But in that case, the other options get invalidated. Why go to all the trouble if you can just use a simple reward for it?
Concerns aside, I see no reason to limit flaw removal to victory. Can't you learn from a defeat? For example, a character can't back down from a duel because of his pride. The duel gets lost, the character humiliated. Perhaps he will learn to be a bit more humble in the future. And I believe this to be more plausible than on a victory.

Also, why only reduce the rating of a flaw by one?
If we assume the pyramidal cost for multiple raises of a trait (p. 59), #1 on the list for victory gives you a reward of 3 HP. #2 allows an increase of +1 to three traits, so is worth 3 HP as well. On a defeat you get an increase of +3 equalling 6 HP. Or an increase of +2 to two traits. Also worth 6 HP. If we take this as a basis, you are better off in overcoming a flaw if you just raise a positive rating than to reduce the flaw. So just allow a reduction of 2 points on both lists. That still keeps it attractive to just increase the positive trait on a failure.

Package deals:
Again we should take a look at the costs. Avoiding an exchange rate is nice, but this only applies to play, not constructing the lists. Joining a cult, becoming an initiate, or a practitioner costs 3 HP. You have to win a contest usually and pay the HP in exchange for the benefits. This conveniently fits the reward for victory, see above. So, winning the contest means getting the benefits. You pay by not being able to choose a different reward. Loosing remains unchanged. You have learned a lesson, but can't pick up the package.

Sidekicks:
Now we come to a little problem of the lists. Purchasing a new ability costs 1 HP. But the lists give it the same weight as they do for the increases to existing abilities. Suddenly 1 HP equals 3 HP or perhaps even 6 HP. But this comparison only gets us this far. It's of no help in answering your question. So I say, with the lists you can only get a sidekick if you already have a retainer. Put a new option on the lists, something like:
   Change the status of a retainer, that played a part in the contest, to sidekick.
Without followers you need at least two contests to get a sidekick.

Fetishes:
One solution would be to just think of a fetish or a charm as a special item. That's on the list for victory. The problem then is, that all ratings "cost" the same. The table on p. 141 differentiates between the level of a rating and whether it's a fetish or a charm. Therefore just add a new option to the lists. Instead of a certain reward you can opt for a contest to create a charm. If you already have a charm, you can upgrade to a fetish. Alternatively, a practitioner may choose freely what to create. The contest to befriend the spirit is then modified in relation to the desired rating of the charm or fetish.

Refactoring:
Well, just include it as an option, probably on both lists. I see no problem here.

That's my attempt to be of help. Of course, one could just abandon all ties to the original costs and just do something different.

Sebastian.

[Fredrik S]

I'll chime in to mention that I picked up this system for the game I've started. One session so far, with the next one taking place today. As far as we can tell, the method works just fine. One of the players got a minor defeat on one contest and chose to increase his main ability. He did remark the oddity that this completely offset the penalty of defeat, but on the other hand I forgot that this penalty can apply to all related contests. So it evens out.

As for the ongoing discussion; Regarding Sidekicks, I was thinking along the same lines as you, Sebastian. Two contests will be required to create a sidekick. Or, as you propose, that a Sidekick first has to be a retainer. Sounds good to me.

[Vaxalon]

Lukirawa (Mike's character in my game) has lost conflicts in profusion.  He's now lying near paralyzed in the hands of his enemy.

[Mike Holmes]

First, keep in mind that you could just give out HP as stated earlier and stay out of the trouble.

That occured to me as I was writing this all, yes. And I'm not sure that I buy the dissociation that's supposedly going on between using HP for two things - it seems that the difference is merely that you're forced to choose up front (with the potential attendant problem that I mention above about levels of HP retained).

But what I do like about the system is that it creates change as you go along in play, and it allows for options not currently allowed by HP expenditure (though one could come up with HP costs for them).

As soon as you put something on the list, you invalidate possible alternatives.

Yes, quite. Again, I prefer not having to make a judgement as narrator as to when to remove a flaw or something like that. I'd prefer that the system limit this mechanically. I think that some of the vague rules about "when appropriate" that are in the book open up the game to the notion that there is a general "GM Fiat" rule in play. I very much prefer not to play this way, and like to eliminate every instance of that sort of thing that I encounter. I don't believe you need to give the Narrator "Fudge Power" to make a system like this work well.

Concerns aside, I see no reason to limit flaw removal to victory. Can't you learn from a defeat? For example, a character can't back down from a duel because of his pride. The duel gets lost, the character humiliated. Perhaps he will learn to be a bit more humble in the future. And I believe this to be more plausible than on a victory.

Well said. I think all I needed was a good example. I retract my objection.

Also, why only reduce the rating of a flaw by one?

Simply because that's how it works with HP. Though, since flaws can be gained suddenly, I suppose one could argue that symmetry would demand that they be possible to remove as easily. But I think that the idea is generally that it's a slippery slope downhill, and hard to climb back up.

So just allow a reduction of 2 points on both lists. That still keeps it attractive to just increase the positive trait on a failure.

That'd work.

So, winning the contest means getting the benefits. You pay by not being able to choose a different reward. Loosing remains unchanged. You have learned a lesson, but can't pick up the package.

Yep, that works, I think.

Without followers you need at least two contests to get a sidekick.

As a fan of incrementalism, I'm leaning this way, too.

The contest to befriend the spirit is then modified in relation to the desired rating of the charm or fetish.

That's actually already the case. Not a bad idea.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

Winner pick: Add a retainer whose keyword is at 13
Winner pick: Upgrade a retainer to a sidekick, and give him three traits at 13
Loser pick: Increase a sidekick's retainer's keyword by 1

[Doyce]

I really like that for the Followers/Sidekicks.

[Vaxalon]

I've added it to the houserules for my game.

[Mike Holmes]

Keywords "advancing" is a big modification of the rules. Yes, I use it in my game, but it has all sorts of consequences. If you limit it to this case...might not be a big deal. But just so it's clear, it's not something you can do under the normal rules.

In any case, for the losing case, why not allow it for sidekicks, too? Why only retainers?

Why not an option to raise sidekick abilities (which is allowed under the rules)? Or is that assumed under the normal rules for raising abilities?

Mike

[TheLHF]

I've been cooling towards HeroQuest recently. This thread completely changed my mind, though. With this system, the game becomes awesome once again.

Yoinking ideas from just about everyone, this is the system I'm going to use for my game:

Chose from the appropriate list below after ever contest, with extended contests counting as one contest.

- If the player won the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 2.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 1.
3) Take a new ability at 17.
4) Take a new personality trait at 17.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 17.
6) Remove one flaw directly related to the conflict.
7) If an item (magical or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at 17 if it hasn't already been rated).
8) Gain a retainer with a keyword at 13 and a relationship to him/her at 17.
9) Upgrade one retainer to a follower and give him/her three abilities at their keyword rank, plus [standard number of points].
10) Take 1 Hero Point for later use.

- If the player lost the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 3.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Raise two traits used to augment the main ability by 1 each.
4) Take a new ability at 19.
5) Take a new personality trait at 19.
6) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 19.
7) Gain one flaw directly related to the conflict at an appropriate level.
8) Gain a retainer with a keyword at 13 and a relationship to him/her at 19.
9) Upgrade one retainer to a follower and give him/her three abilities at their keyword rank, plus [standard number of points].
10) Take 2 Hero Points for later use.

My books are packed up in a box, so in option 8, the number is whatever is says in the rules.

I'm my game, I'm replacing all the magical sub-rules with standard keywords and abilities. So you have the Dark Wizard keyword with the abilities of summon Demon, Destroy Soul and Speak to the Darkness (plus anything else that makes sense) under that keyword. That solves the problem of how to increase magical abilities with this system, as well as makes it more flexible.

The lists are kind of long, but I think that will just make for a steeper learning curve. Once we're past that, I don't think the number of options will be a problem.

Does that read well? And am I missing anything important from the list?

Oh, and a huge thanks to joshua neff and Vaxalon, because most of this stuff is yoinked from you guys.

--Victor

[TheLHF]

Other ideas bouncing around my head:

Should their be a penalty if the new ability you take is not related to the contest? This would be similar to the double HP cost for increasing or adding non-related abilities. The penalty could be the new ability starts at half of what it would normally, or it could a standard -5 for any non-related ability.

Or you could say that the new ability must be related to the contest. Both this and the method above would make very stream lined characters. It makes it more difficult for a fighter to learn the skills he needs to become a diplomat, which is good or bad depending on how you want your game to play out.

Also, the idea of giving greater rewards if someone received a complete victory or complete defeat. Possibly pick twice if that happens. I like this because it represents learning more through harder work. On the other hand, I don't know how it would effect the system. There is also the problem of someone trying to get a complete defeat just to get the added bonus. A player might realize he is about to receive a major defeat and try to push it to a complete for more goodies.

--Victor

[Mike Holmes]

Victor,

My books are packed up in a box, so in option 8, the number is whatever is says in the rules.

Actually this brings up an interesting point. The relationship for a follower, at least, starts at keyword level if the character can said to have been known from that keyword.

Generally this is the case for any ability...if it can be said to have been in the keyword "all along" then it starts going up from keyword level. The way some people are writing their lists of rewards, the abilities start at around keyword level, but aren't distinctly linked to it. Others are starting at the default 13. What about "always was there" abilities? One could rule that these abilities come free out of the keyword, and then you add to them as if they're normal abilities used in the contest. But this voids the specialness of abilities used in the contest. OTOH, if you only bump by one...

How's that for a new option?

Win:
Raise an ability unused in the contest by one.
Lose:
Raise an ability unused in the contest by two.

In terms of HP, this is, in fact, half the benefit on a win. So that seems fine to me. So, for a follower, who is a new ability for the relationship, the relationship itself starts at 13 or keyword level, whichever is more appropriate. Make sense?

Mike

[TheLHF]

Changed the first two items on the list:

- If the player won the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise any of the main or augmenting abilities by 3 points total, with no more then 2 going to one ability.
2) Raise an ability unused in the contest by 1.

- If the player lost the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise any of the main or augmenting abilities by 5 points total, with no more then 3 going to one ability.
2) Raise an ability unused in the contest by 2.

Maybe everything should start at 13 or keyword level, depending on the ability. Or keyword level + 1, because I think that's how it works, by the book. Gaining an ability from your keyword is more like adding 1 point to a ability that is there, it's just not written down.

--Victor