alternate hero advancement

[joshua neff]

Not to interrupt this discussion, but what exactly is the benefit of the list method here. I mean, why not just say, on a victory you get 1 HP and on a defeat 2 HPs? Without changing HPs otherwise, so they still function the same as before. This also solves the problem with multiple traits, though the differentiation between augmenting abilities and main traits is lost. As I see it, this is the main difference between the lists and the normal way to improve. Am I missing something?

Sebastian.

Here's my rationale for coming up with the list method: I really don't like HP being currency for both "improving" PCs and as currency for bumping in contests. I think it's using too many "dials" for one thing. (It's not unlike 7th Sea, where you used Drama Dice--awarded arbitrarily by the GM--in contests and also as "advancement" points. And in play, I--and others--found it didn't work too well. The creator, John Wick, even admitted that separating the two uses worked better.)

[Vaxalon]

I agree. 

[joshua neff]

And while I'm here and posting, let me say that I'm really pleased that the "list method" is working for your game, Fred. I haven't had a chance to playtest it myself, so it's cool that you have and that people are digging it.

[Vaxalon]

While we're having a lovefest, let me say thanks for sharing it!

One of the best advantages is that someone can drop out of a game (or jump in) at any point with no bookkeeping.  Any HP you're due... you've already got!

There's no more "Oh, hey, I dropped out early last week, did Mike give out the usual 4HP?" or "Hey, before we go, Mike, how many HP this week?"  You get your advancement right there along and everything flows better.

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, I like it for that, and the fact that it's not arbitrary. That is, how many HP do I give this session? Answer: None, they already have them!

To answer the previous question about why the list, I think that, for me, I like it because you can offer some trade-off choices on the list. What it promotes, for instance, is players raising up those seemingly "agument only" abilities, which otherwise tend to languish unraised for no good thematic reason.

Lovefest aside, I see a chink in the armor. Using this system, why ever have more than one HP? If you're using the normal rule that you can only bump once in a contest, and you can always choose to replace the HP after a contest if you decide to bump, why ever keep more than one HP in your HP pool?

OK, the obvious argument is it's because you might want to get a different reward after a contest than taking the HP - you might want to take this rare opportunity to raise your Operatic Voice ability.

But what would be nice would be some condition under which you got no reward. That way you might be able to be caught short more often, and have to consider taking HP more to be sure to have a buffer against bad luck. It becomes much more of a choice this way.

In play, I found myself never taking HP, and my pool slowly dwindling as I spent the ones I started with. There was no decision to be made. Sure, now that I'm getting lower there is some question. But there's a strong compulsion to just go down to one, and then maintain at that level having to give up the rewards on contests in which I decide to bump (or risk not being able to bump).

Not a horrible problem, but hinkey.

Mike

[Doyce]

Lovefest aside, I see a chink in the armor. Using this system, why ever have more than one HP? If you're using the normal rule that you can only bump once in a contest, and you can always choose to replace the HP after a contest if you decide to bump, why ever keep more than one HP in your HP pool?

I guess I'd see players in my games keeping, say, maybe three around for extended contests (where, unless I'm completely wrong, you could easily burn more than one).  In my games, this is more likely, because extended contests are (at least currently) WAY more common than they are in your game, Mike.*

* - That might change, however, as I get a chance to get into the habit of  'smaller, give-able' conflicts with interesting failure stakes that result in another interesting conflict (thanks to Dogs and your own essays on Issaries), but while I've had a chance to try that in general, I haven't had a chance to do that with HQ yet.

[Lxndr]

With this system, multiple-bumps suddenly are viable.  I think combining this system with the ability to bump multiple times, bump other people's rolls, and possibly even using HP to buy traits on other people's sheets (as described in the other ongoing HP thread) might be a way to get everything we might want out of HPs.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm, Doyce brings up somthing that I hadn't thought of...are you rewarded only once for an extended contest? Or once per round? Or...

If it is only once, then he's got a good point. But somehow I get this feeling like if I'm rolling I should be getting rewarded. In fact, this would give players an incentive to extend extended contests rather than closing them out as they often do.

Mike

[Lxndr]

Perhaps all the rewards for an extended contest are chosen at the end?

[Mike Holmes]

Alex, one per round? One per roll? One per contest? Could make extended contests way too rewarding if you do it one per roll. Especially since you only risk penalty at the end.

If the reward is one per contest, then, of course you're forced to wait until the end to give them out.

Mike

[Doyce]

Alex, one per round? One per roll? One per contest? Could make extended contests way too rewarding if you do it one per roll. Especially since you only risk penalty at the end.

If the reward is one per contest, then, of course you're forced to wait until the end to give them out.

Mike

The way I have it written up, it's per conflict, which makes keeping a few extra Hero Points around a viable choice.

[Mike Holmes]

Doyce, I agree.

But...yeah, it really depends on how frequent these are. Rather, who decides if it's an extended contest? I usually ask the players, though by the rules, I believe that it is a narrrator responsibility to make the final call. Here's the thing, I think I'd feel a bit bad about deciding to do an extended contest when a player was low on HP because of this. With the normal system, the player has other incentives to keep his level higher, not knowing how many contests will occur between this one and getting more HP. With this system, the player would be risking the narrator going to an extended contest.

Not really all that different than choosing to do a contest when a player is out of HP...but I have to admit that doing that often makes me feel a bit queasy, too. In any case, with an EC, I'd rather the player choose than force one on him. If the player has an incentive not to participate, then perhaps we'd see no ECs at all. As opposed to the very, very few that we do now.

OTOH, this might all be unneccessary hand-wringing. I'm also definitely motivated by an urge to have more rewards in ECs, because, as I've said, I think that could have beneficial effects all on it's own. If that's the case, then this one reason to save more HP goes away.

Hmmm.

Mike

[Lxndr]

Random idea:

Perhaps, at the end of each extended contest, you get to roll on the table, +1 HP for each roll made in the contest.  This might encourage ECs without mandating them, and not unbalance things as much as "one roll per roll in the EC" while still giving more reward to people who choose to roll the dice more often.

[sebastianz]

Or a new list (or rather two lists) for extended contests.
a. 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 3.
2) Raise up to two different traits used to augment the main ability by 2.
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 1W.
6) If an item (special or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at 1W if it hasn't already been rated).
7) Take a flaw at an appropriate level.
8) Take 2 Hero Points for later use.

b. 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 4. (Or one, if it's a 'power' attribute.)
2) Raise up to three different traits used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Take a new ability at 1W.
4) Take a new personality trait at 1W.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 1W.
6) Take a flaw at an appropriate level.
7) Take 3 Hero Points for later use.

It's a rough shot. So, you only get one reward at the end of a contest, but it is greater compared to a SC. That should at least keep an EC attractive, though it won't do anything for making ECs the least bit longer in duration.

Sebastian.

[Mike Holmes]

Not sure if that's any better, Sebastian, it certainly doesn't address my concerns, at least. That is, it would incentivize doing extended contests a little, but makes one want to close them out fast even more than before so that you use as few HP as possible and gain the largest net profit from the contest.

But it does bring something up. The "main trait" used in an extended contest changes, quite often, in the middle of the contest. By the end of the contest you may have rolled against five "main traits" and augmented with twenty other traits. Or more.

So if one declares that there is a single reward at the end of the contest...does he get to select what was the "main trait?" Does it apply only to the first main trait used?

A while back, I think it was Fred who suggested a system that I've been pondering too that was essentially about using chains of simple contests instead of extended contests. Using that, given that you are potentially penalized fully each "round" I'd expect that you'd get a reward for each "round." Perhaps this reward system would work better with somthing like that?

Mike