Alternate Humanity check rule idea

[Bailywolf]

I didn't want to start a new thread for this little thing I was considering, so I'll drop it here.

I like how Unknown Armies maps a character becoming more jaded as he looses sanity notches, becoming inured to horror and tragedy.  Something I was considering to model this was to roll current humanity vs starting humanity rather than current vs current.  The more you loose to normal sorts of bad stuff, the harder it gets to loose more.  

I don't know if I'll even bother with this, but it was something I'd toyed with and thought I'd share.

Later

-Ben

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ben,

I decided to split it off anyway, as it's one of the notions I toyed with during initial playtesting. The concept of what "opposes" Humanity loss struck me as something that needed to be considered at the metagame/rules level first, and in-game second.

I wanted to avoid two things I'd noted when playing Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands, and Unknown Armies: (1) character behavior was constrained and limited by textual guidelines according to current Humanity (Sanity, etc) score; (2) the lower the score, the easier it became to lose another point.

We've talked a lot about #1 in this forum so I figure we can move on to #2, which is relevant to your idea.

Let's see if I have this right: my character starts with Humanity 4, perhaps, and say he loses a point in his initial Binding roll (pre-play), for a Humanity of 3. OK, so during that first session, he does something that runs counter to Humanity in this game, so he has to roll three dice vs. four dice (not three, as in the extant rules). Say he loses, so now he has Humanity 2. Next time he does something in-Human he'll have to roll two dice vs. four for his Humanity check.

I confess I don't understand this sentence at all:
"The more you loose to normal sorts of bad stuff, the harder it gets to loose more."

That confuses me because the system you propose makes it easier to lose Humanity, not harder. Again, this idea goes against my design specs as I watched different Humanity rules concepts work themselves out in play. My final decision was to have Humanity checks for non-sorcerous bad stuff to be 50% rolls, i.e., Humanity's current value against itself.

Therefore, in Sorcerer, whether a character becomes more jaded or inured to whatever-it-is as he or she loses Humanity is largely up to the player. I can see lots of character concepts for which that makes sense, and lots of them for which it doesn't.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I suspect he meant that if your current Humanity beat your initial humanity that you'd lose a point...if your current Humanity lost, it means you're so far removed from things that whatever horror you just committed seems normal to you and doesn't drive you further down.

I suspect that would be appropriate for certain definitions of Humanity (particularly personal sanity ones) but not for others (where Humanity is an absolute, rather than perception based).

It does lead me to a tangental question, however...one I meant to ask you at Game Day.  Why the 50%?

[Bailywolf]

Valamir got it.  If your current humanity beats your starting humanity, then you're out another point.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Oh, I get it. In other words, no matter what your Humanity drops to, your original Humanity is on "your side."

Problem: what about if your Humanity increases past your starting point? High Lore characters, for instance, often start with Humanity of 3 and possibly drop to 2 before play starts. What then?

The in-game reason for the unilateral 50% goes something like this, in the crudest terms possible: "The universe has a uniform chance of 'caring' when you do something heinous, no matter who you are."

The out-of-game reason is implied across the previous post and this one - (a) I didn't want a "spiral downwards" effect, and (b) I didn't want any particular starting Humanity to be more advantageous than another, aside from a wider buffer zone (which is fine).

Best,
Ron

[Bailywolf]

The greater-than-start humanity may or may not be a problem, depending on your preference.  On one hand, it inplies people have a certain "moral tipping point" for lack of a better term... certain people are only ever so good.  If they rise above this base state, then they will find it more difficult to maintain than someone who's human nature is more robust.  On the other hand, it does bone the guy who starts with 3 humanity.  

It just rings somewhat false that the jaded and corrupt Humanity 2 character is just as likely as the nigh-enlightened Humanity 7 character to loose a point when comiting the same 'evil' act.  Its not whether the universe cares about what you do, but whether you care about what you do.

One solution is some kind of heirarchy of sins (no!  please god no!)... or a kludge for the above...

OK... how about this...

The check is made as so:  

X vs Y + Z

X = Current humanity
Y = Starting humanity
Z = total lost humainty, reduced by gained humanity  

The more you loose, the harder it gets to loose more... and the harder it gets to gain more as well.  

Sirus Bane is a bad bad man (S2 unnatural/W3 mesmeric/L5 Demonic Bloodline/ H3).  In his binding roll against Refesh his demon steed, he looses a point of Humanity.  Now his humanity rolls are made 2 vs 4 dice.  If he looses another, they are made 1 vs 5... If he gains back a point, he makes his checks at the 2 vs 4 level.  Gains another, at the 3 vs 3 level.  If he gains yet another, he makes it at the 4 vs 3 level.  

Gains and losses from Sorcery work as normal.

[Fabrice G.]

Hi Ben,

I like you idea but maybe not what it implie.

On one hand, it inplies people have a certain "moral tipping point" for lack of a better term... certain people are only ever so good.
[snip]
It just rings somewhat false that the jaded and corrupt Humanity 2 character is just as likely as the nigh-enlightened Humanity 7 character to loose a point when comiting the same 'evil' act.

IMO, Humanity at the beginning of play isn't automatically the "level of morality" of the character. My view in this matter is closely tied to the notion that Humanity is first a meta-game indicator of how much risk a character take in choosing a morally questionable choice (and how much "protection" he has in this regard).

The way you propose to run it would change the nature of Humanity to reflect the "level of morality" of the character. It will thus become something akine to the same named stat in V:tM.

Well, for me actual Humanity is a great strengh of the game, because 1) the morality of the character isn't reduced to a stat and 2) you have a great indicator of tension in the story of each character.

Fabrice.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ben,

Fabrice pretty much nailed my outlook on the matter.

Your statement about how a Humanity 2 character is somehow more "at risk" than a Humanity 7 character, in terms of "the next point," simply doesn't correspond to how the score is intended to work.

... with the proviso, "by me," which is not always the same as what would be best for someone else. As ever, I'm more than willing to see how a particular tweak works out in play, and if the tweak matches well with a particular setting or sorcery-concept, then that's mini-supplement time.

What concerns me a bit about your statement,
"It just rings somewhat false that the jaded and corrupt Humanity 2 character is just as likely as the nigh-enlightened Humanity 7 character to loose a point when comiting the same 'evil' act."

... is that it's based on some sort of gut feeling which has little to do with actual play. And that indicates habit to me, rather than thought and experiment.

Best,
Ron