Removing attributes from HQ

[Web_Weaver]

I am moving this more general idea from out of the Species keywords--a kludge? thread, to avoid hijacking the keyword debate.

I have discussed there, that it may be an idea to get rid of the problematic issue of attributes in HQ by purely defining them as bonuses. The issue most clearly arises with Monsters, Exotic NPCs and other "big things". But is an issue that arises in normal play also.

To recite my example in the forementioned thread:

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

So, to clarify, I suggest that any aspects of a player or NPC strongly associated with attributes, such as Large, Strong, Tall, Intelligent, Dexterous, Tough etc. should be classified in the same way as armor, and just presented as a bonus.

If a player wishes to emphasise an attribute, then they should do so with a more narrowly defined skill, such as Muscular, or Acrobatic.

An issue that has arisen is the question of straight attribute v attribute tests. I would argue that such tests are not ideally suited for HQ, as it's rules mechanics are better suited to the why than the how.

So, again taking an example from the other thread:

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 of stating "I want to pitch my strength against its weight", 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".

[Vaxalon]

That could work.

It would bear playtesting, though, I think.

[sebastianz]

I see no problem with this method in general. On the other hand, is it necessary? Why not keep it flexible and just make it an improv bonus or penalty, if you don't like attributes? But if I understand you correctly, you have nothing against attributes as traits, but just want them more specific. Like 'towering presence'. Next to these traits, there still is the attribute expressed as a bonus. I submit that your idea is already in the rules. Let me clarify. The rules offer many ways to deal with broad abilities (p. 19 of the rulebook). One is taking the ability as an extra keyword. And keywords cannot be raised (not counting advanced experience). But the traits included by a keyword can. These traits are necessarily more specific than the keyword. Also, if you haven't identified a special trait, but the keyword fits, than you can simply augment with the keyword rating. One ability will be under it, though it can't be named, yet. This is exactly like your bonus for the attribute. So I think, your idea is already covered by the rules.

On the other hand, if you don't like additional keywords, go with the bonus. It'll definitely work.

Sebastian.

[Vaxalon]

Hm, what would a "strong" keyword look like?

Lift heavy objects, Deliver powerful blows, Perform impressive feats...  what else?

[sebastianz]

Shatter door (or other object), impressive handshake, carry the lady's bag.

Also, not every attribute keyword needs to be the same. So 'strong' could be different than 'strong', according to player emphasis. As an example, one may have Build like a bodybuilder while another just is strong, but does not look like it.

Sebastian.

[Vaxalon]

I put "perform impressive feats" in there to cover the handshakes, but your point is well taken.

Then again, aren't keywords supposed to cover a wide variety?

[Web_Weaver]

I submit that your idea is already in the rules.

Yes, it is handled in the rules very well, but neglects to emphasise attributes as examples of Broadly Defined Abilities.
My point is purely that attributes are Broadly Defined Abilities and should be handled as such, not treated as skill in and of themselves.

But, if they are required (ie out of the usual PCs or NPCs) they can be expressed as augments.

As far as the suggested solutions in the rules:
I don't like to over-use keywords as too many of them can detract from their elegance as a mechanic. You may find this satisfactory however.
I think always applying situational modifiers is going to get very irritating for the narrator focused on other things.
I prefer the first option in this section, a more specific ability name.

Where the problem really hits home is in the Creatures section of the book, which is basically a conversion of some material from the Anaxil's Roster HW book. This is just one of the many examples of the agenda of HQ being muddied by committee. In this section we have creatures with attributes listed as main skills, which encourages narrators to apply those attributes in contests, and gives a bad example.

If you wish emphasise conflict resolution in HQ, then worrying about things like Strength v Size will detract from this. You tend to focus on individual actions instead of what the goals and consequences are.

The other issue is from the Sample Resistances, as Mike Holmes pointed out in the parent thread attributes don't map onto this list. So we have the example of Jump own Height 10W2. It is not likely that an attribute v attribute test will conform to the samples given, and if you don't have attributes as skills this becomes a mute point.

[Mandrake]

I have an issue with both this and the thread that spawned it, in that Large, as a rating, is essentially a guide to comparative sizes, or put simply, how big something is (taking Humans as the norm).

That aside, a bonus based attribute system fits quite well with something I have been mulling over the last week or so, which is in itself a plagarism of one of Ian Thompson's house rules.

Under the rules I am currently considering, characters would have a limit of 2 or 3 "attributes" that would be capped, requiring magic to raise them higher (either temporarily or permenantly)
which would include things like strong, clever, dexterous etc.

Whether these would need to come from the 100words/list or would be freebies I haven't yet decided, using a bonus method rather than a rating method requires a slightly approach. Perhaps an attribute pool that characters allocate at startup (5 points?), with a limit of +2 or +3 (for large, or something used as large, +2 would be the limit, roughly equivalent to troll sized). I would say that some of these skills could be trained to a maximum of +3, others would be untrainable, and any further increases would require some kind of magical intervention.

Whilst a diversion from the standard HQ rules (not the only one I am considering) it does serve to make Heroes and NPCs a little different from the standard human (or elder race)template, something that they just are, rather than something learned (skills) or formed (relationships and personalities)

Where I believe it breaks down is for some creatures. Whereas a (N)PC can be generally be defined by his skills, a creature may be defined purely by the fact that it is big & strong & tough. If all those become bonuses, what to they become bonuses too?

[Vaxalon]

...Large, as a rating, is essentially a guide to comparative sizes, or put simply, how big something is (taking Humans as the norm).

Why does that have to be?

[Der_Renegat]

Two points:

1. The rating of any NPC in gameplay is dictated by the needs of the story !

2. This rules doesnt apply to PC´s who can spend HP´s on their character any way they like. The rating of an ability means how useful it is in a contest. So a human could have Large 10M3 and still be humansized.

I think you cancel a great feature of HQ if you really want to apply a scale to certain abilities, like tall.....

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, man, this has gotten all messed up.

While I don't think that Strong should be used against Large to determine if you can lift an opponent, I do think that Large and Strong can be used in a contest to, say, push each other back. Just as I wouldn't allow run to be used vs fly to see who can get to the top of a cliff first, but I would allow them to be tested against each other to see who completed a race first. It's not a question of the abilities in question being special...there are cases where all abilities can't go up against others in specific circumstances. The question is only whether or not the contest makes sense given the in-game circumstances.

So if any of this is leaning on anything I've said, it doesn't have my support.

There is no "attribute" problem. Not that I can see. And "fixing" said problem by making more standard bonuses is, to me, the complete opposite of what should be done. That is, I don't like standard modifiers at all, I'd rather just use the regular system. That is, I'd prefer if players had "Sword 5W" rather than +3 for a sword. Why? Because it makes you take each ability into account on each contest. Having any ability that you can just say, "I get a +3"...that's not a detail I want in my game.

And how is two rating systems easier to grasp than one? Because it's like D&D?

I don't see how this is more "specific" or varied between players...you seem to be allowing precisely the same descriptions for abilities. Large is not a broad ability - it's actually useful in rather few situations. Tall is actually a very narrow ability.

As for Intelligent, quick, etc. yes, these are broad. I'm not sure what the problem with the normal rule for broad abilities is, and I'm not sure how a variation to the broad ability rule is supposed to be more like the broad ability rule than...well, the broad ability rule.In any case, I usually just ask the player to narrow. In which case we have the same solution. Allowing them to keep some broad bonus doesn't seem to help the situation that I can see.

As far as it being "an easier flag to deal with for narrators," well, I dunno, it might stand out this way, but then you're de-emphasizing all of the cool little abilities that don't get such treatment. I don't see how a normal ability is at all a difficult flag to deal with to start.


Ask Fred how many times in 60 sessions of play he got to use his character's "Strong 10W2" ability. Sure, looks like it's out of hand on paper, but in play, I actually used it against him once (making small shell necklace). The issue of how often abilities come up in play, and the "problem" of broad abilities when they do get into play are overstated.

I'm not seeing any problem here, and I'm seeing a solution that would produce lots of problems, IMO, as well.

Mike

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Mike,

Your reaction seems to be based on a presumption that I have somehow misunderstood something that you have said or attempted to patch a problem that you have hinted at. Let me reassure you this is not the case. I only mentioned you to refer to the mismatch of resistances issue. I am well aware you are happy with said mismatch.

I come to this issue from a perspective of someone who does perceive a problem with attributes. If you don't that is fine.

I have been dissatisfied with large creatures using their "large skill" to resist just about everything for years. I believe that the creatures section of the rules runs against the general feeling of HQ, and subverts what I see as a clear agenda elsewhere in the rules.

let me start form my feelings in general. This is not new stuff, just the ground work.

At the heart of HQ is the Simple Contest, it IS the core mechanic for all intensive purposes. By focusing on "what your hero is trying to do", the system encourages active, dynamic play based on aims and goals. It de-emphasises the "I hit it with my sword" style of play.

I am all for this goals then abilities style of play. So much so, that in my game I seek to streamline the way the game works to always emphasise this element, and if a rule works against this agenda I am dissatisfied with it. This includes large creatures, I am bored with using attributes to resist or oppose characters, it doesent say anything about the resistance, and makes every large creature very similar. It also works against my agenda by giving a bad example:

GM: "A dinosaur comes stomping out of the bushes and charges you"
Player: "I hit it with my sword"
GM: "Could you state your aim first to give us something to narrate?"
Player: "OK, I aim to decapacitate it quickly by jumping to one side and slashing at its leg as it goes past me"
GM "That's better, so... It resists with it's Tough augmented with its skin armour"

This kind of exchange is common in HQ in my experience. At its heart is the fact that the Simple Contest Sequence only asks the narrator to select a resistance. The goals and aims are all one way, there is no example of the principle being demonstrated by the narrator. I would rather see the GM responding thus:

GM: "That's better, so... It was charging, so its aim is to gore you, its resistance is its charge skill augmented with its Tough instead of its Size."

He is still selecting the resistance but in a manner more similar to the player's choice of ability.

I am happy to see creatures use skills like charge but find it very frustrating when they are encouraged by their stats to use their size, tough or even strength as their primary ability. If I was pushing an elephant up the stairs I could be opposed with its size, but I would be happier if the elephant was resisting with something more narrative focused like stubborn with a large augment of size. It is only a slight difference, it is still resisting with its size just not using it as its primary narrative stance.

The best way I can see to de-emphasize the attributes and emphasise the goals then skills agenda is to demonstrate this as the GM and only use attributes as augments.

[Mandrake]

Ask Fred how many times in 60 sessions of play he got to use his character's "Strong 10W2" ability. Sure, looks like it's out of hand on paper, but in play, I actually used it against him once (making small shell necklace). The issue of how often abilities come up in play, and the "problem" of broad abilities when they do get into play are overstated.

[Mandrake]

Ask Fred how many times in 60 sessions of play he got to use his character's "Strong 10W2" ability. Sure, looks like it's out of hand on paper, but in play, I actually used it against him once (making small shell necklace). The issue of how often abilities come up in play, and the "problem" of broad abilities when they do get into play are overstated.

Oops, that didn't work too well.

Players in our campaigns (I play with Jamie) would use that Strong rating as an augment in almost all combat situations. The same for a say a Large of the same rating. The impression I'm getting from some of the discussions is that some problems are particular to some groups

[Web_Weaver]

Welcome Mandrake,
Good to see someone form our group chipping in here.

My response to the over use of augments regardless of situation is pretty much contained in my post on your edges thread. But, I also think this kind of play is best alleviated by the "Failure Means Conflict" examples found expoused here strongly by Mike and others, as some players automatically throw in augments in a desire to win every contest.

But this is a tangential point to the attribute issue. My main concern would be the use of Strength as a primary skill, I believe there are more dynamic and goal oriented skills that could be applied in every situation where such a skill could be used. And, using Strength in this manner can lead to a slip back into rolling for actions rather than goals. As I have stated, it describes How one is acting without reference to Why one is acting in the first place.

A wider goal with clear objectives leads to a more descriptive narrative outcome once the dice have landed. A wider goal with specific reasons outside of the ability used provides a broader canvas for the narrator and players to describe the action.