Species keywords--a kludge?

[droog]

One of the reasons I began examining this issue was: when I was making the keywords for my Dark Ages conversion, I wanted to give Saxons a Large ability in their cultural keyword. Then I thought, wait up, that means a Saxon is as big as a troll (Large 17). Maybe I should give this one ability a different rating from the rest of the keyword. Then I thought, hang about, there are no Uz in historical Earth. Then I thought, what the fuck does it matter? It's a +2 augment, when all's said and done, and it gets across the idea that Saxons are larger than other people.

You give the great troll Large 5W and he gets a +3 augment. So it's a pretty fine line of simulation. Is it worth it for the extra kludginess? That's not a rhetorical question. I keep on wavering myself. Maybe one has to take Mike's position and play it by ear.

[Web_Weaver]

There is nothing wrong with the Saxon in your game getting the same bonus as a troll, as discussed earlier it does not mean he is the same size, simply how he uses his size. But, be aware that multiple bonuses may ensue from a keyword, providing 3 or 4 seperate bonuses in certain situations.

This is what I am referring to by "becomes a combat monster too readily".

Some of the HQ support material falls into the habit of using keywords like this for homelands or professions. Leading to examples such as Warrior 2W. If you take that as a guide to resistances then that seems fine, but if you use the NPC as if it were a GM PC and apply all the augments you can find within the keyword, odd results emerge from such well rounded NPCs. I don't think this is the intent of such material.

I have often pondered the wisdom of simply banning augments from within the same keyword as the primary skill, but so far haven't needed to worry about it. I also wonder if specified skill levels within PC keywords is really worth the effort.

It all comes down to that balance thing again, to simulate a world or to abstract for simplicity and fun. My instinct says both are required in the kind of game I enjoy and my players respond to.

[Web_Weaver]

Seperate point / new post

I wonder if such things as physical attributes should be made purely into bonuses. HQ seems to be a game focused on skills and effects, not attributes. The resistance lists are more problematic when it comes to attributes.  Armour is expressed purely as a bonus, why not others.

Looking at the Troll example we can separate out definite attributes ignoring the Gray areas:

strong
large
stupid
tough

And, all of a sudden the others seem a better balance (no masteries in the basic list of skills).

Yes, this would limit primary skills, but they seem well suited as augments to me, and forcing a skill selection rather than an attribute seems more in line with selecting a wider goal before rolling dice.

[Jane]

I'm a little puzzled by the idea of a PC or NPC having a keyword of "Troll 2W" while another has "Troll 17". This is about species, not culture. Either you are a troll, or you aren't. You can be atypical for your species (in either direction), but to be "more troll"? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'd say treating the "species" as a keyword at all may be a mistake: it isn't, it's a set of abilities that have different default values from those of the default species (human).

[Mike Holmes]

I'm a little puzzled by the idea of a PC or NPC having a keyword of "Troll 2W" while another has "Troll 17". This is about species, not culture.

So a person can be more English than another?

A higher keyword level in this case simply doesn't mean that you are "more" a Troll or whatever. In fact, for the most part I think people here are suggesting it as a binary. You either have the Troll keyword, or you don't. At whatever level that comes at. People have mostly been worrying that either all keywords will be at 17, and thus Trolls rated the same as Saxons, or that they'll be variable, and that Trolls will all be as good at seeing in the dark as they are at being large.

I'd say treating the "species" as a keyword at all may be a mistake: it isn't, it's a set of abilities that have different default values from those of the default species (human).

Funny, but "Set of abilities that have different default values from those of the default" character is pretty much what I was using as my definition for keyword.

As I've said above, from the same logic, one could argue that it's absurd to assume that somebody from England has the same Speak English ability as their England Geography ability (if, in fact, there was a demonstrable difference). But we accept the simplification because it's simply not very important to delineate these things in more detail. To some of us, at least, there's not enough difference between species and culture to make it important to have it work different mechanically.

Obviously some people will feel differently, but, then, that's how the normal rules already work so they don't need any help.

Mike

[Jane]

You either have the Troll keyword, or you don't. At whatever level that comes at 

It doesn't come at a "level", that's the point. Keywords do, being a troll doesn't, and shouldn't.

either all keywords will be at 17, and thus Trolls rated the same as Saxons

But he was using "Saxon" as a cultural keyword, not a species one, which quite rightly has a variable rating. To what extent is the character aware of Saxon culture, where "17" equates to "brought up as one"? "Large" is not a cultural thing.

If the species in question is "elephant", then one ability that differs from humans is "has a trunk". Also "four legs". All these things get listed for the benefit of people not familar with elephants. "Large" would get a rating, "four legs" might not. Some things hat define your species are variable, some are binary. But unless you're doing some weird SF cross-breeding thing, you don't become "more elephant", as a whole. Bigger, yes, longer trunk, maybe, but more legs???

Do you remember the Incredible Shrinking Duck of HW fame? Followers had their abilities set by those of the PC's top ability. So a Follower Duck, as the PC's abilities rose, found that his "Small" rose.... not a problem with the mechanism of defining a follower, one of treating variation with species as if it was a variable keyword.

[droog]

But he was using "Saxon" as a cultural keyword, not a species one, which quite rightly has a variable rating. To what extent is the character aware of Saxon culture, where "17" equates to "brought up as one"? "Large" is not a cultural thing.

Perhaps you've put your finger on a flaw in my keywords, but I think it's arguable. From the point of view of romantic archetypes, Saxons are 'larger than other men'. From the point of view of cultural anthropology, people's size may indeed be affected by cultural factors, eg how much meat they consume.

Once again, HQ sort of straddles the line. The shrinking duck's size obviously can't be literal--using the 'dramatic logic' argument, the Small ability just becomes more prominent in the duck's story.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Or the duck becomes better at using its Small-ness to heroic effect, in keeping with its hero's increase in stature. That makes sense in story-terms, if not in terms of physics.

And I personally love the idea of variable ratings in species and culture keywords. Of course one person can be "more English" or "more Saxon" or "more Trollish" than another. I'd argue that a Mumakil from Tolkein's Lord of the Rings definitely deserves a higher score in "Elephant" than your garden-variety African elephant, let alone your Indian and North African varieties.

Nor do I think the "four legs" problem really applies: Presumably having a "four legs" ability at all means you're a quadruped, and higher ratings in "four legs" simply mean your quadrupedality (?) is more impressive in terms of ability to keep your balance, trample things, keep going after one leg is injured, and so on. It's much more useful to think of traits in terms of function rather than form.

[Jane]

and higher ratings in "four legs" simply mean your quadrupedality (?) is more impressive in terms of ability to keep your balance,

I am reminded that there exists a lead miniature of a tap-dancing elephant :)

[Web_Weaver]

But he was using "Saxon" as a cultural keyword, not a species one, which quite rightly has a variable rating. To what extent is the character aware of Saxon culture, where "17" equates to "brought up as one"? "Large" is not a cultural thing.

But the issue is can we extend the usage of keywords for creatures, or, how to elegantly deal with non-human NPCs without the need to stat them out in detail.
You actually highlight the same problem as me in the end, physical attributes are awkward as part of keywords in general.

Pendragon often differentiated between races by having pluses for attributes, and at first sight adding large to a skill list seems to be the HQ method of doing the same thing. It is certainly how the creatures appear to have been created, think of the obvious skills and attributes and give each a value.

Giving a creature an inherent keyword seems elegant and flexible but the attributes seem to get in the way of this, so a duck with swim and hold breath and other inherent skills all at the same level works fine, as long as you don't throw in small.

To reiterate my solution, maybe we should separate out attributes generally in HQ. Nearly all traditional RPGs have a separation between skills and attributes, so we are not in unfamiliar territory. If we express all attributes as purely bonuses we sidestep the whole issue, allowing differentiation between races or animals while still retaining the elegant mechanic of keywords.

The obvious objection would be "I want to increase my attribute", but, careful usage of skill names would get around this, so a Saxon could have a +2 augment for  size but also develop a basic skill of physical presence or brawny or any number of specific skills.

Another objection would be "I want to pitch my strength against its weight", but, as Mike has already touched on, in a different context, this is not necessarily the way that HQ works best. It is better to decide on your goal and the skill that is appropriate, than to get down to the grit of attribute v attribute. So, instead you might say "I use my show-off skill augmented with my +2 strength to lift the rock in an attempt to impress the ladies of the court".

So my solution changes the HQ rule-set in general in order to make a small part more elegant, but, I think it has other benefits as well.

[Jane]

Yes, it looks like a good solution, and as you say, careful use of words makes it clear what can be increased during play and what can't (without magic). "Fat" can, "tall" can't, "impressively large" can.

I'm not convinced that expressing the attribute purely as a bonus is a good idea - there are times when you do want to use your strength against the elephant's weight, and while one can convert rating to bonus, the reverse is harder. Being forced to use another skill as the lead in a contest is making life harder, not easier. Hmm, on a slight tangent, a look at the "+5" sword gifts granted to Humakti and similar cults could be an interesting point of comparison.

Mind you, when one looks at how the species keyword is used, I wonder if another method entirely might be easier, more like the old RQ way. Give both attributes and skills as the "norm" plus ranges. When you generate that NPC, pick the norms if you want a generic NPC in a hurry, pick from between the range if you want something individualised. The "keyword" never increases anyway, but after generation, individual abilities can (unless obviously silly), and a look back at the original range gives some idea if increasing your horse's "fast" produces a competent courier's steed or something to rival a Goldeneye.

[Sydney Freedberg]

careful use of words makes it clear what can be increased during play and what can't (without magic). "Fat" can, "tall" can't, "impressively large" can.

Uh, why can't a character's "tall" score increase during play? Yeah, maybe my guy's scalp is exactly the same number of inches above the ground as it was when his saga began, but in the meantime he's gone from

"Oh yeah, that guy John, he's kinda tall for one of that tribe, isn't he? Maybe we should take him a little more seriously."

to

"Look at that man standing head and shoulders above the rest of them! It must be John the Tall!"

This is only a problem if you insist on having scores that measure causes instead of effects. Maybe John's Tall score grows because he's gotten physically taller, so he's more able to reach high things, smack people on the top of the head, overawe his adversaries, so on; or maybe John's Tall score grows because he's gotten more practiced and proficient at using his natural height to reach up, smack down, and overawe. The process may be different but the outcome is the same

If it's really important to you to explore how different processes arrive at identical outcomes, you should be playing GURPS. The HeroQuest rules really strike me as blithely unconcerned about the details of processes and passionately focused on their outcomes -- how your hero changes the world.

[Web_Weaver]

there are times when you do want to use your strength against the elephant's weight, and while one can convert rating to bonus, the reverse is harder. Being forced to use another skill as the lead in a contest is making life harder, not easier.

This is entirely down to style and agenda issues, I would perfer a game where you can't mechanically have a strength v weight roll. For me HQ is the game that allows me to cut to the "why" not the "how". If I wanted to have these rolls I would play RQ. Which leads to your: 

Mind you, when one looks at how the species keyword is used, I wonder if another method entirely might be easier, more like the old RQ way. Give both attributes and skills as the "norm" plus ranges. When you generate that NPC, pick the norms if you want a generic NPC in a hurry, pick from between the range if you want something individualised. The "keyword" never increases anyway, but after generation, individual abilities can (unless obviously silly), and a look back at the original range gives some idea if increasing your horse's "fast" produces a competent courier's steed or something to rival a Goldeneye.

This is the other method possible, and actually very similar to my suggestion, but it takes a bit more work. You effectively have to stat things out to a greater degree. For my suggestion you list example skills in a keyword without magnitudes specified and then list important attribute bonuses seperately with specific values. Also, you need not list the skills at all, as we know what a swan is.

If I read you correctly you would have to list a range or a modified bonus for all of the skills that any creature could have which is not unlike the current situation.

Also, the elegance of using keywords is that the rules already exist for their usage.

Example: I need a swan for my game on the fly, all I need is it's species keyword Swan notes on any attributes possibly small +1 (which is large -1) and an idea of its standard resistances lets say Swan 19.

Now I can run it as an NPC and any resistances that require a swan like activity (fly, bottom feeding, waterproof, swim, see underwater) can be used with ease.

[Web_Weaver]

Uh, why can't a character's "tall" score increase during play? Yeah, maybe my guy's scalp is exactly the same number of inches above the ground as it was when his saga began, but in the meantime he's gone from

"Oh yeah, that guy John, he's kinda tall for one of that tribe, isn't he? Maybe we should take him a little more seriously."

to

"Look at that man standing head and shoulders above the rest of them! It must be John the Tall!"

I am not sure, but you may have missed the point. I am suggesting that Tall should be an attribute and as such only expressed as a bonus. But, I am not suggesting that tallness cant be raised, just that it should be expressed more specifically by the player if he wants it as a raisable skill.

i.e. John has Tall +2 and Towering Presence 2W. Its more specific, potentially more varied between players, more in line with the rules on Broadly Defined Abilities, an easier flag to deal with for narrators, and an easier handle for players to grasp.

I am beginning to worry that I am hijacking this thread tangentally so will start an new - Removing attributes from HQ thread.