Boosts and Permenance

[Mike Holmes]

From this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8180

An adventure centering around dealing with Bob killing Joe's family will give a sizable boost to "Hate Bob" for duration of that adventure; if the player's really into that, he can simply a single Hero Point and cement that change permanently.

I like this idea, and others from that thread regarding how Abilities can be altered radically in short order to simulate changes in a character. I also see something that may be problematic.

One of the things about HQ is that I think it deals neatly with questions of Balance. That is, characters all seem to get similar amounts of HP that they then use to alter the character making them more powerful, more interesting, whathaveyou. Balance is maintained quite easily, IMO.

The one thing that can throw this off rapidly, however, are boosts like the one described above. If I throw a +20 item into the fray, and someone cements it with one HP, they've just accumulated way more power than normally would be available for that one HP, and at a much faster rate than normally possible.

Now, +20 is an exaggeration I use to make a point. Even a +2 boost cemented for 1 HP would cost 3HP or more if purchased all at once. At least 2HP if purchased over time. The only boosts that balance with the normal currency system are ones that are only +1.

Now, there is variability in HP distribution, and GMs are told that they can give directed HP that must be used to raise certain Abilities. But is any of this problematic? Is this part of a reward system (sure seems to be)? If so, what does a boost reward? What should it be given for? Whatever makes "sense" in-game? Drama?

I apollogize if this has been dealt with in HQ and I just haven't read the salient parts (please just refer me if that's the case - which I hope it is). But it seems that hanlding everything with the same system, starting at 13, and having to move on up, is more balancing. OTOH, that would limit "mobility" of Ability levels, which I wouldn't want to see.

So is there a problem here? If so, is there a solution? One that keeps balance and mobility?

Mike

[RaconteurX]

The key, in my experience, is to award directed improvements for things which are very appropriate to the story, the hero, or the style of play you want to encourage. A player new to HeroQuest may not understand how interrelated all abilities can be, with the augmentation mechanics, so giving him a brief reminder reinforced with a directed improvement often will be worth a narrator's while.

Remember that the cementing rule is one Hero Point for things which do not otherwise have a greater cost associated with them. Your "+20 item" could be handled like an Animist charm or fetish, in terms of HP cost to cement, which does not cause balance issues. You could also simply rule that the heroes' community confiscates an item that powerful... but that they might loan it to the heroes if the situation warrants. I did, of course, make a case for the "1 HP gets you anything" approach on the HW-Rules list once, the text of which I'll provide below so no one has to fish for it. :)

I am a firm believer in permitting heroes to cement items, even those of immense power, for a mere one Hero Point; however, any major item in Glorantha is apt to have a history and unfortunate plot complications. Stormbringer brings with it the horrid prospect of the hero losing loved ones to its unholy thirst; Excalibur (provided you go with the "Excalibur-as-Sword-in-the-Stone" variant of the legend) brings the heavy task of kingship, for which the hero may not be even the slightest bit prepared (Patrons like Merlin come in handy in such situations).

This gives the heroes plenty of incentive to hand such powerful items off  to their community leaders. The community retains the item and may even allow the hero to use it in the future, on occasion. The community leaders might dodge the bullet themselves, and assign the hero to be the bearer of an item. More likely the item's past and magic are painstakingly researched and studied by the community loremaster before decisions are made. In other words, Narrators can introduce an item for future use by the heroes, a la Chekov's gun.

For those of you unfamiliar with dramatic theory, and narrative theory in general, "Chekov's gun" refers to Anton Chekov's rule (which I loosely paraphrase) that, if you introduce a gun in the first act of your play, one of the characters had damn well better use it by act three or four. In roleplaying terms, if you introduce an item of power it had better have a specific future role in your campaign. I feel that an item's TN reflects the hero's ability to invoke said item's powers, not the item's actual power, just like a Follower's TN reflects when said Follower is available to assist the hero.

I try to reward my players for exemplary play, and for fleshing out their heroes in greater and appropriate depth. I also allow all sorts of oddness in my games, of course such as requiring 25-word narratives for items of power, sidekicks, allies and other important supporting cast. Here is the 25-word narrative one of my players wrote for his hero's magic sword, as an example:

In the presence of Imperial minions, whose blood stains its rune-carved blade, Mooncleaver rumbles softly like distant thunder. Its breath is potent and almost tangible.

Based on this and the 25-word description of the hero's late father (who bequeathed the hero Mooncleaver), I assigned it the following abilities, which some may note are very guardian-like (very intentionally!):

[*]Sense Imperial Minions (reflects the hero's ability to "hear" the magical rumblings of Mooncleaver);
[*]Stormy Past (reflects the hero's familiarity with Mooncleaver's rather tempestuous history);
[*]Potent Breath (reflects the hero's ability to invoke the innate magic of Mooncleaver, and the ease with which Mooncleaver's magic can itself be detected).
[/list:u]


Rambling now... will post (after several minor edits). :)

[newsalor]

The issue of balance is a curious one.

I think that directed heropoints and heropoints given at the beginning of the game are a good way to influence the story. The book tells you to give 1-5 HP's to each character. I think that if I want this particular game to center on one character, I give him more heropoints, but balance the points in the long run. Directed experience is also good, but I like to keep that uncommon. I feel that directed experience can heighten the joy of succeeding. You know, in the sense that, wow, we really impressed the tribal council, or something. . . If given too often, the players might feel that I am restricting their options and trying to railroad the plot.

Items above the heroes league can bring trouble. If you are concerned about the balance of the game, then you can arrange the the heroes enemies try to take the item. The enemies might be out of their league too, hence they have to use heropoints to beat them. On the other hand, this can only add to the imbalance as one players character is once again set in the spotlight. . . You could give the hero less experience because he is relying on a external force to complete his trials - perhaps explaining that the item has become some sort of an crutch. The proble could be done "covertly" by making the next few character driven episodes about the other heroes.

The key here is to decide on a policy and then stick to it. Determine the reasons you are handing heropoints to the heroes and then make up your guidelines. I think I'll award extra heropoints for keeping the story flowing,  coming up with cool ideas and character immersion.

[simon_hibbs]

The one thing that can throw this off rapidly, however, are boosts like the one described above. If I throw a +20 item into the fray, and someone cements it with one HP, they've just accumulated way more power than normally would be available for that one HP, and at a much faster rate than normally possible.

In which case, don't hand out such enormously powerful artifacts in the first place, or at least do so with strings attached.

Characters can't just cement any old thing to their character at will. The thing has to realisticaly belong to them. For example if a character is asked by his tribe to carry the sacred Mcguffin to the Overhill tribe, he can't just cement ownership of it. I would rule that if posession or ownership of the item is in dispute, you can't cement it. You can steal it and keep posession, but it's fair and reasonable for the referee to have NPCs try to take it off you. I'm not sure exactly how this is handled in the rules, but I'm sure this is the intent. I think Hero Wars even said the referee could 'un-cement' items form characters so it's fair game to pinch of them, but the character gets the cementing points back.

As for cementing augments, this is not an official rule so it can work how you like. I think you'd have to have a strong case for the augment to be continuous and 'Bob killed my parents' would be a good case. It's hard to see how non-relationship and passion abilities could be raised permanently in this way. The nearest I can come to is the bit in Zorro where Anthony Hopkins' character trains his protege in the ways of the master fencer. This isn't the sort of thing I'd allow as a right, it's something I might offer to characters as a special (with strings attached).


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

All of you made the same mistake in reading my post. I said that the +20 item was an exageration made to make a point. One which obviously was lost on the readers (I apollogize if I wrote the post badly or something). I am very familiar with ways to balance things out in terms of not using the system. I don't need suggestions that I take the item away or have repercussions for it's use. I'm well aware of that option.

From these responses, I can only garner that it must be your opinion that mechanical balance isn't intended at all, and that all balance must come from the GM alone. That would be a valid argument, and one that I might have to agree with. But I'd consider it unfortunate.

That is, you didn't consider the comments that followed the extreme example where I talked about the currency imbalances. The issue is whether or not the reward system has a built in balance of any sort or not. And whether or not that's a problem or not.


Simon, that does help me that you posted that I can't cement an augment like I suggested. But that has some ramifications that perhaps you can help me sort out. That is, if I want to model an item that gives a +5 augment to a character, that would make sense for that character to be able to cement, then I'd have to create it as a 5w2 item, essentially? But then say that it's the sort of thing like a charm or weapon that doesn't allow you to use the base rating? I mean, is that possible? What's the difference? Much worse than giving out a +5 augmenting item in terms of power would be to allow that item to be used as an actual 5w2 item, it seems to me (that's much the same as giving a starting character a +20 item).

So what do I do? Lower the item to 5w? Making it an auto +3? The problem I have with that, is that makes it no more powerful than normal weapons, with the exception that I can theoretically find a use for the base ability instead of using it as an augment for, say, combat.

Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?

I think that I may have the rules badly mangled at this point. I had trouble with the rationales for how this all is supposed to work in HW, and HQ seems not to have fixed the problems in my understanding (I do need to read it again). I'm fully prepared to accept (and again I hope that's the case) that this all might work out if I understood the rules correctly. OTOH, something still seems off to me. I'm just hoping that you good people can help me out with this.

What exactly can be cemented with a HP?

Mike

[dunlaing]

Here's my thoughts on the matter.

Any benefit to your character can be cemented via HP. The Game Aids pdf tells us "If your hero wins some advantage and you want to ensure that this benefit continues, you must spend hero points to cement it and write it on your character sheet. If the benefit gained is a standard one (such as a sidekick), the normal hero point cost applies. If the ability is not standard, such as a magical item, the cost to cement it is 1 hero point."

It seems clear that they mean any advantage you come upon. So if you got a +20 to your Hate Bob in one adventure, you could certainly cement it. + to a relationship is a standard benefit, though. It costs 1. Presumably the multiplier for improving by 20 at a time would follow the progression given, for a multiplier of 210. So for a mere 210 hero points, you can cement the +20 to Hate Bob. (I'd let the player cement just part of it if he wants, but that's just me).

It seems balanced to me as long as you use the normal hero point cost for "standard" benefits. What is imbalanced is cementing things like magical weapons, but that's something the Narrator has to control in game.

Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?

If you look at the weapons and armor chart again, you'll see that it's actually a tools chart. They don't mean that a set of lockpicks functions as a +5 weapon. They give you +5 to picking locks. Likewise you could get tools for pretty much any physical activity (would cologne work for a social activity, candles for magic?). You don't need to spend hero points to cement normal mundane lockpicks. The Lockpick of Doom on the other hand...

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Is "balance" in the sense of character-effectiveness parity necessarily an important priority?

The nice thing is that HeroQuest doesn't demand a consistent answer across groups.

If that is a priority, certainly if one player-character cements a +20 bonus, then the Narrator can take that into account and provide potential bonuses for other players to cement if they'd like, in upcoming sessions.

If it's not, then no big deal.

Best,
Ron

[simon_hibbs]

Ok, appologies for getting the wrong end of the stick somewhat.

Simon, that does help me that you posted that I can't cement an augment like I suggested. But that has some ramifications that perhaps you can help me sort out. That is, if I want to model an item that gives a +5 augment to a character, that would make sense for that character to be able to cement, then I'd have to create it as a 5w2 item, essentially? But then say that it's the sort of thing like a charm or weapon that doesn't allow you to use the base rating? I mean, is that possible? What's the difference? Much worse than giving out a +5 augmenting item in terms of power would be to allow that item to be used as an actual 5w2 item, it seems to me (that's much the same as giving a starting character a +20 item).

One problem is that HeroQuest doesn't have rules for creating enchantments, so it's not clear how this is intended to work at the moment. HeroWars did have functional rules which I used in my game, and which worked well and the players liked but it didn't realy adress this precise problem.

AT this point, all I can say is that if you want to give out an item that just gives a +5 augment, there's nothing to stop you. Ok there aren't any rules for creating such an item, but ther aren't any HQ rules for creating magic items other than foci, charms,  fetishes etc anyway so we're in the situation of either using the HW rules for now, or winging it anyway.

I do hope the final enchantment rules do allow the creation of items that give augments only, and if they don't I think it's likely that a common house rule will emerge that does allow it.

As for the points ballance thing, I think the justification is that to get and keep a decent magic item should realy take some in-game effort. Either it's a reward from an NPC for services rendered, or the ancient artifact recovered Indiana Jones like from the ancient temple, or whatever. It wasn't free, you had to do a lot of work to get it in the game. The 1 HP cost to cement is at a discount due to all the work you had to do in the scenario.

If you didn't have to do any work, and got the magic Mcguffin easily or with little effort then there could be a problem, but how many Narrators are realy that generous? At the end of the day, if the narrator wants to hand out powerful freebies, there's not much any game system can do to stop them.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

If you didn't have to do any work, and got the magic Mcguffin easily or with little effort then there could be a problem, but how many Narrators are realy that generous? At the end of the day, if the narrator wants to hand out powerful freebies, there's not much any game system can do to stop them.

Sure there is.

You could say, for instance, that all new Abilites, including powerful magic items, all started at 13, and could only be increased by spending points in the normal fashion. Call this the Champions method. The cementing rules are a compromise, it seems to me. That is, characters can take any Ability on, or bonus to an ability, as long as they pay the minimal cost (instead of the full cost).

The rules for starting magic items don't seem to have changed, and basically use the "pay from scratch" model. Any increase in a new item, or in one developed from Chargen, has to be explained by some in-game rationale. If we have the cementing cost in play, then it seems that there's no reason not to allow the "building up to full power" rationale. So that's one potential "fix", albeit the one that throws out the flexibility to have larger bonuses come into play.

That could be mitigated possibly. It seems to me that if you give out huge piles of HP - like 10-20 per session or more, you can make players pay full cost. That has the advantage that if the player doesn't really want the powerful item, he doesn't lose anything in terms of reward. I'd probably also drop the multipliers for quick development. That seems to be a "realism" rule that's not really realistic. I mean, what if the time between play sessions represents years of in-game time? And if it's OK for a character to rapidly adopt bonuses, then why not allow it with a straightforward mechanic?

Also, getting rid of the multipliers would make it so that you could more easily set up exchanges between Abilities as has been proposed. Just a thought.

Anyhow, this is all pretty radical. But I'm just thinking out loud about options.

Dunlaing:

If you look at the weapons and armor chart again, you'll see that it's actually a tools chart. They don't mean that a set of lockpicks functions as a +5 weapon. They give you +5 to picking locks. Likewise you could get tools for pretty much any physical activity (would cologne work for a social activity, candles for magic?). You don't need to spend hero points to cement normal mundane lockpicks. The Lockpick of Doom on the other hand...

I can't see what you're getting at. Yes, they can be anything, I didn't mean to imply that they could only be weapons. But there's mechanically no difference between a +3 normal sword and a +5 magic sword, or a +7 Hate. The only difference possible is if the Hate can be used as a normal Ability, which the normal sword can't. Sans that, there's no difference between a sword and a hate, other than the extent to which they are ephemeral relative to each other.

That's how the rules seem to model things to me in general terms. Doesn't this follow? I mean, I could just have a Smite Thing Viciously charm of the same bonus, right? Again, that implies an Ability rating at an appropriate level, but one that I can't really use. Mostly important for determining the cost of increasing the potency of the charm.


Ron, your answer boils down to the system providing no firm balance, and the GM having to provide it if he wants it. And, again, that's fine if that's the answer. I was hoping that I was missing something, but I don't think I am after all.

In any case, I was thinking about it, and I see a neat angle on the whole use of the bonuses. Sorta following on what's being said here by Simon and the others, the "extra" reward of such an item's "discount" (to use Simon's term) should be used as an incentive to promote chasing these things. That is, to get places faster, a player can have his character look for these sorts of bonuses. He can try to get the character into a situation where he really hates someone, or falls in love. Or he can search for the magic sword.

So, the point break is a reward for the player persuing the thing diligently? Which provides for the action of the game? I can see that as a tool, not neccessarily for balance, but to drive action.

Mike

[dunlaing]

If you look at the weapons and armor chart again, you'll see that it's actually a tools chart. They don't mean that a set of lockpicks functions as a +5 weapon. They give you +5 to picking locks. Likewise you could get tools for pretty much any physical activity (would cologne work for a social activity, candles for magic?). You don't need to spend hero points to cement normal mundane lockpicks. The Lockpick of Doom on the other hand...

I can't see what you're getting at. Yes, they can be anything, I didn't mean to imply that they could only be weapons. But there's mechanically no difference between a +3 normal sword and a +5 magic sword, or a +7 Hate.

Clearly there is a mechanical difference between a +3 normal sword and a +7 Hate. One is a bonus that you get when you use a tool. The other is a bonus you get always.

There is a setting difference between a +3 normal sword and a +5 magic sword. One can be found in almost any civilized area and the other has to be specially crafted or found on a heroquest or something.

You don't have to pay for normal tools.

The only difference possible is if the Hate can be used as a normal Ability, which the normal sword can't. Sans that, there's no difference between a sword and a hate, other than the extent to which they are ephemeral relative to each other.

Obviously I disagree. See above.

That's how the rules seem to model things to me in general terms. Doesn't this follow? I mean, I could just have a Smite Thing Viciously charm of the same bonus, right? Again, that implies an Ability rating at an appropriate level, but one that I can't really use. Mostly important for determining the cost of increasing the potency of the charm.

You asked "Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?"

The answer is that you CAN have other items that do the same thing. And you don't even need to spend HP.

That's all I'm answering in the above quote.

I see a clear mechanical and setting difference between a bonus to a skill given for using an appropriate tool and a bonus to a skill given for magic or character development. If you don't see a difference that's fine, but I'll bet that that difference is why you can get a free bonus with tools.

[Ian Charvill]

This is all focussing on an area of concern I have with the HeroQuest system, and I kind of want to clarify something.

(Mike if this constitutes thread drift, holler and I'll split off).

The thing that strikes me as very powerful and cool about HeroQuest is the equivalence of abilities.  For example, Fast Talk 18 is equivalent to Sword 18.  There's a strong mechanical underpinning for considering them to be equivalent.  And to my mind, this really helps the 'nane your own abilities' stuff to work - because whatever you create will have value depending on the score associated with it.

But that doesn't seem to work because Sword 18 is more like Sword 1W, because of the innate Sword bonus.  Now, I know it doesn't work exactly like that, because of APs and so on.   But it seems to me, statistically, that Sword 18 will beat Fast Talk 18 in a contest most of the time, given that item bonus.

(and it doesn't really matter that we're talking combat vs non-combat here; we're really talking ability uses items which can have bonuses vs abilities that don't use items)

Now, if you could have on your 'equipment' list Hate Bob +3 as well as Sword +3 - by cementing rather than buying stuff with Wealth - this would go some way to correcting the disparity.

My point of clarification would be: is this a misrepresentation of the rules.  And, assuming the last paragraph would need to be a house rule, does it strike anyone as a glaring mismatch with how other parts of the rules work?

[Mike Holmes]

Clearly there is a mechanical difference between a +3 normal sword and a +7 Hate. One is a bonus that you get when you use a tool. The other is a bonus you get always.

I get to use my Hate when attacking Kittens?!?! No, all Abilities are the same. They all are limited to being used "when appropriate". For a sword, that's when you're holding it, and attacking someone or somesuch. For a Hate, that's when you're attacking the person you Hate, or trying to mess his car up. Other than the in-game rationales, there's no difference in the mechanical effect.

You don't have to pay for normal tools.

Yes, I know. There's some limit at which the bonus item is considered so irrelevant to the plot, or so easy to obtain that they don't charge you. But that's just another discount. The charge for the special items is because, well, they're special somehow. Apparently that's worth points.

You asked "Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?"

The answer is that you CAN have other items that do the same thing. And you don't even need to spend HP.

Unless they're special. We're not disagreeing. The question is, given the metagame use of HP, why are some things "normal" and other things "special" such that they cost, when the metagame effect is precisely the same. It's only the in-game effects that are different.

Mike

[Scripty]

But that doesn't seem to work because Sword 18 is more like Sword 1W, because of the innate Sword bonus.  Now, I know it doesn't work exactly like that, because of APs and so on.   But it seems to me, statistically, that Sword 18 will beat Fast Talk 18 in a contest most of the time, given that item bonus.

I'm not an expert on HeroQuest, but it seems to me that Fast Talk would be eligible for automatic augments from abilities that Sword would not/could not be privy to. As for tools that might augment Fast Talk, they could be anything from Fancy Robes at +3 or "A great set of false teeth" at +3. But Fast Talk, it would seem again to me (and I could be wrong), could be augmented by a number of things that Sword Fighting could not such as:

Wealth
"Wealthy people are more convincing"
vs.
"I'll pay you to fall on my sword."

Seduction
"Sexy people are even more convincing than wealthy people"
vs.
"I'll sleep with you if you hurl yourself on my blade."

and

Good Looks
"Good Looking people are always given a free ride in matters of trust"
vs.
"My winning smile hypnotizes him as I run him through"

Although a bit farcical in tone, and certainly meaning no offense, I don't see the problem between skills that use tools and skills that don't. Pretty much, I see almost any skill as capable of using a tool. I see more of a disparity between skills that would get augments from a more limited number of other abilities (like Bungee Jumping) against those (like Fast Talk) that could be open to a wide range of augments.

Again, I could be way out in left field.

[dunlaing]

I can see your point, Ian.

I'd fix it by taking away the tool bonus actually. It's much cleaner.*

I liked it better before though, where a 17 swordfighting was a 17 swordfighting.*

___________________
*They seem to have made the change (from tools granting edges to tools granting bonuses) for simplicity's sake (they remove edges from the minds of the players--although edges do creep back in in the narrator's section).

** I don't care if you use a rapier or a two-handed sword. For those who do, bringing edges back might not be too bad. Or have the bonus of the weapon act as a discount on the cost of applying a hurt. So with a dagger (+1) you need to spend 6 AP to cause a hurt. With a halberd (+5) you only need to spend 2 AP to cause a hurt.

[dunlaing]

(and it doesn't really matter that we're talking combat vs non-combat here; we're really talking ability uses items which can have bonuses vs abilities that don't use items)

Maybe there are no "abilities that don't use items"

Maybe for Fast Talk, you might let a person use their Rabbit's Foot to get a +1 tool bonus or Nice Clothes to get a +3.

Maybe for Hate Bob, you mgiht let a person use their picture of their dead parents for a +5, or even a Broken Toy for +3.