Boosts and Permenance

[Scripty]

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

My question would be, rather, given the use of HP, why would you allow players to carry over "normal" items without having them cement them? For me, the answer to your question is simple: if player A wants to keep the Chain Mail he bought in the Big City after this adventure is over, he needs to pay a hero point to cement it. The same holds true for his magic helmet that he pulled out of the Haunted Ruins.

It could be in the rules that "normal" items do not need to be cemented, but that would seem inconsistent with the rest of the rules regarding hero improvement (which, knowing my luck, is most likely your point).

I love it when I come full circle like this...

[Mike Holmes]

Ian, you are more or less on the same track as I am. I'm not sure if it's legal or not (I'm still a bit confused on that), but that's exactly what was proposed. The opposite solution is to say that there are no bonuses for eqipment, and to handle all issues like "normal" weapons and armor like situational adjustments (like in HW when the edges cancelled). In that case, if you want a hate, or a special item, then you have to have it as an Ability with an appropriate rating.

Seeing as a Hate is very much a relationship, and that starting magic items are still Abilities, there seems to be some strong arguments in that direction.

From that POV, even a "normal" sword could have an ability rating. That is, I see a sword as an ability with a maximum for a standard issue article of about 5w (enough to get the auto +3 augment). A magic sword would simply have a larger "maximum". Note that these wouldn't be hard maxima, but the player would have to give an explanation as to why his Ability with the item increased beyond a certain level. For example, he could explain that through the dramatic combats that he's been through with it, that it had become magical. Or it could be reforged by a better smith, etc.

If the character got a better sword, he'd be able to just drop the original one, transfer his score to the new one, and then the new sword just becomes an excuse for higher levels of Abilities, and whole new Abilities related to the object.

I note that this all answers Scripty's last post. Cool.

Mike

[RaconteurX]

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

There are a few of us who clamored for this in the original playtests and offered a situational bonus instead for people who demanded greater RQ-level "detail". The bonus worked out as follows:

[*]hero has superior tools = +1;
[*]hero has superior position = +1;
[*]hero has vastly superior tools = +2;
[*]hero has vastly superior position = +2.
[/list:u]
Thus, the greatest situational bonus possible is normally +4... which makes the math easier to recall on the fly.

[Ian Charvill]

Or just broaden the use of improvisational penalties.

E.g. Dagger vs Sword gives an improvisational penalty to the dagger wielder - daggers being shorter than swords.

Further Fast Talk might not have such a penalty - talking fast is pretty much what you'd need to do - but using Seduction would.

Couple of counter-points, I think the augmenting argument runs into a wall when you consider, sure, Fast Talk but not Sword could be augmented with Seduction but conversely Sword but not fast Talk could be augmented with Spot Opponent's Weakness.

And while you could have item bonuses for anything, I think that runs to levels of bookkeeping that goes somewhat against the cleanness of the system as I see it.

[Scripty]

Couple of counter-points, I think the augmenting argument runs into a wall when you consider, sure, Fast Talk but not Sword could be augmented with Seduction but conversely Sword but not fast Talk could be augmented with Spot Opponent's Weakness.

I understand the point that you are making here but, from a purely semantical approach, why couldn't "Spot Opponent's Weakness" be used to augment "Fast Talk" or even "Seduction"? In that specific case, I think it would be a matter of how "Spot Opponent's Weakness" has been used by the player in the past and what the concept for the character is. Again, it's purely a semantics issue, but I see no reason why "Spot Opponent's Weakness" couldn't be an augment for a social skill, if that, of course, was the intent of the player when he/she took it.

But, surely, this is more a matter dealing with the example given and not a reflection on the point that you made, which is, IMO, a valid one, despite the example.

[Ian Cooper]

Some quick points:

As relates to the 1 HP to cement an item regardless of rating, I am reminded me of our biggest problem in play with animists in HW. In HW an animist could cement any spirit that he defeated (at one point for in and  two points for out of play) - the level of victory against the spirit's might indicated the number of uses per day. With luck, support, and hero points an animist could acquire some significant abilities outright for a low HP expenditure. Our Kolating in particular bound an Oakfed spirit that considerably increased his 'wieght' within the group by giving him an additional, and high rated ability. HQ is aware of this issue and makes animist pay a sliding HP scale for spriits (p.141). Over on the Tekumel discussion I suggested pressing that into play to create a slight more reasonable 'charge' in Hero Points for powerful items.

As relates to mundane equipment and the 'free augment' it provides:
- You can just ingore equipment bonuses altogether, some of the guys running our game do this, I don't but each to their own. It is simpler, and does balance equipment and named items.
- Remember equipment penalizes as well as aids. Warriors run slower in armor etc. I know that personsality traits are also potentially flaws in this context as well though, so its not  a unique reason to make it cheaper, I raise it more as a reminder. And yes, fine clothes are as much an augment to the right skill as a spear.
- Finally remember that HQ does not have RPG economics - a chainmail suit is provided by the story and the character's role in it rather than by loot dragged up from the dungeon - it can be removed by story as quickly as added. Conan's equipment and armor are a function of his estate in the story, not part of defining who Conan is. However if a player has paid HP for it, I would think twice about taking it away at whim. IMO if it is paid for then it is a part of the player's character conception and has a permanence which requires a decision on the players part to permanently remove. In LOTR Frodo's mithril coat, Narsil, these are cementable in that they add to the character by carrying a past with them - Boromir's sword much less so.

[contracycle]

Couple of counter-points, I think the augmenting argument runs into a wall when you consider, sure, Fast Talk but not Sword could be augmented with Seduction but conversely Sword but not fast Talk could be augmented with Spot Opponent's Weakness.

Ah, a challenge.

Ahem... "I taunt my opponent and suggest that I have seduced his paramour or intend to do so.  Given my familiarity with the arts of seduction, exhibited through word choicer and innnuendo, this paints a plausible picture.  My opponent is therefore that little bit less rational and cautious."

Additionally, I see no reason tha spot opponents weakness should not be used to assist Fast Talk.  I would suggest this military virtue would apply to the realm of strategy and tactics as well, hence becoming a mental skill rather than a purely observational one.  Therefore, I can spot my opponents weakness in argument too.

Thangyouverymuch.

[simon_hibbs]

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.

Yep, that's exactly how I see it.

In a later post:

From that POV, even a "normal" sword could have an ability rating. That is, I see a sword as an ability with a maximum for a standard issue article of about 5w (enough to get the auto +3 augment).

Just a  note on this, I think you are correct and that the ability is not directly accessible by the wielder/wearer. In the case of armour, the ability rating is for the armour itself to resist damage. It can augment it's wearer to resist damage, but can't actualy make the wearer as hard to damage as plates of metal (or whatever). If you were trying to destroy the armour itself, it would resist with it's full ability rating.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

HQ is aware of this issue and makes animist pay a sliding HP scale for spriits (p.141).

Yeah, I noted the special chart for it. Why is it important to balance this out, in terms of HP, and not gaining any other large bonuses? This seems to be a large inconsistency. OTOH, one could just use the animist ability chart for big things. Argues for more HP again, IMO.

- You can just ingore equipment bonuses altogether, some of the guys running our game do this, I don't but each to their own. It is simpler, and does balance equipment and named items.

This does have some ramifications considered in concert with Mike's post, and/or the idea of a bonus for the advantage. That is, it means that a +5 bonus sword would be +7 against an unarmed man. Or that, rather than you're opponent having a +3 and you a +5 that you just have the +5.

Basically I think that's a good thing in terms of relative power. But it does it by making an exception to the rules about whether some things are bonuses or augments. I would have prefered one system that balanced for all uses.

- Remember equipment penalizes as well as aids. Warriors run slower in armor etc. I know that personsality traits are also potentially flaws in this context as well though, so its not  a unique reason to make it cheaper, I raise it more as a reminder. And yes, fine clothes are as much an augment to the right skill as a spear.

We've been toying around in play with how much you can boost your appearance by using things like clothes and grooming (and charms in my character's case). It's very fun exploration of system, IMO.

- Finally remember that HQ does not have RPG economics - a chainmail suit is provided by the story and the character's role in it rather than by loot dragged up from the dungeon - it can be removed by story as quickly as added.

Interesting observation...

Simon,
Is that in the book? That an item resists damage to itself (breaking a sword would work this way, too, outside of combat)? If so, how do you determine the ability rating of the object? Lowest available that still gives an auto-augment of the appropriate level? Or is this just something that you're exptrapolating? I mean, I like the rule, but it kinda begs the question why not just make these items Abilities outright? I mean, what is it that I could do with an item as an Abiltiy that I can't do with the rules as you describe? It seems to me that all this is saying is that items tend to have limited usagaes. Which, as I said, I think applies rather obviously to all Abilities.

Now, one can argue that the bonus for a sword applies less often than that for a Hate; the item limitation. But one can't argue that the bonus for a regular sword applies less often than a magic sword, can one? What is it that I can do with the magic sword that I can't do with the regular one that merits the brice break? I guess the one HP is for the higher than normal rating?

Again and again, it just seems like we have two rules that do the same thing. Bonuses, and augments. It all could be handled by just making everything an Ability. I mean, if an Ability has to be "lost" if not cemented, why not any old object? Seeing as they all have the same properties anyhow. That is, Ian suggests that you can take away an item not cemented. I suggest that for balance, that this should be mandatory.

The problem with the tactical modifiers is that they should only be free if temporary. That is, sure, if I'm uphill from my opponent, then I have an advantage that will go away by the end of combatt if not before. So no need to cement (or even worry too much about what the underlying Ability to the bonus is). But a sword that I carry from one battle to the next? How is that temporary? Why should it not cost anything just because it has a less exciting description? It still gives me a +2 to cancel my opponent's +2 for his sword. Mechanically almost identical.

Anyhow, I think we all did this same argument, really, about four months before HQ came out. I had hoped that these currency issues would work out, and waited for the rules. Well, they've arrived, and lo and behold, same problems that I predicted.

Please, somebody tell me I'm making a mistake somewhere. I don't want to be right. :-)

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Basically I think that's a good thing in terms of relative power. But it does it by making an exception to the rules about whether some things are bonuses or augments. I would have prefered one system that balanced for all uses.

I think you're trying to stretch the HeroQuest rules paradigm too far. Sometimes the most internaly consistent game mechanical solution to a problem is actualy worse than a quick fix.

Simon,
Is that in the book? That an item resists damage to itself (breaking a sword would work this way, too, outside of combat)? If so, how do you determine the ability rating of the object? Lowest available that still gives an auto-augment of the appropriate level? Or is this just something that you're exptrapolating?

No, it's extrapolation (hence "I think...blah...blah"). I wouldn't bother determining the ability rating, because I don't think it's important. It's just one way of thinking about why equipment gives bonuses.

Actualy using the ability the bonus is based off would lead to bizzare situations. Am I better off using my Close Combat ability, or just using the 'Well Balanced Blade' ability of my sword but with big appropriateness penalties? It's just silly.

I mean, I like the rule, but it kinda begs the question why not just make these items Abilities outright? I mean, what is it that I could do with an item as an Abiltiy that I can't do with the rules as you describe? It seems to me that all this is saying is that items tend to have limited usagaes. Which, as I said, I think applies rather obviously to all Abilities.

Yes, which means that in some cases there's just no point worrying what the ability is, since the bonus (augment if you will) is all that is ever going to matter in the game.

Now, one can argue that the bonus for a sword applies less often than that for a Hate; the item limitation. But one can't argue that the bonus for a regular sword applies less often than a magic sword, can one? What is it that I can do with the magic sword that I can't do with the regular one that merits the brice break? I guess the one HP is for the higher than normal rating?

Magic weapons can have abilities you can use directly, like most magic items.  They can also have ratings much higher than mundane items can.

Again and again, it just seems like we have two rules that do the same thing. Bonuses, and augments. It all could be handled by just making everything an Ability. I mean, if an Ability has to be "lost" if not cemented, why not any old object? Seeing as they all have the same properties anyhow. That is, Ian suggests that you can take away an item not cemented. I suggest that for balance, that this should be mandatory.

I'm positive that is the intent - all significant items must be cemented to become permanent posessions, whether they are magical or not. If that's not how the rules state it I'm sure it's a mistake, because it ought to be.

As to everything being an ability, what ability would you give a sword, and how should it be used in the game? Can I use it's ability instead of my Close Combat ability, or even augment the weapon ability with my Close Combat? Personaly I think that would be daft.


Simon Hibbs

[Ian Charvill]

As to everything being an ability, what ability would you give a sword, and how should it be used in the game? Can I use it's ability instead of my Close Combat ability, or even augment the weapon ability with my Close Combat? Personaly I think that would be daft.

Well, arguably, a Sword ability could be used outside of combat for: threatening people, wedging a door shut, cutting through undergrowth, digging a post hole, etc.

I'm pretty much in favour of broad interpretations of HQ abilties - although I'm not sure they should be as broad as some posters seem to be suggesting as  I could see that making for a long session of Fast Talk the GM.  I'm pretty confident that the name of the ability along with precedents of usage would keep things under control, though.

This may be a YMMV issue, but I can't think of any item of equipment one might want to track with a bonus, that one couldn't also have as ability.

[simon_hibbs]

Ian,

I'm afraid the idea of a game in which very often people use abilities from equipment in preference to abilities of their own doesn't appeal to me, for example:

"I use the spade's Dig ability to dig a trench, augmenting with my Strength."
"I use my rope's Swing ability to get across the ravine."
"My Masonry skill is only 12, so I'll use my chissel's Carve Stone ability to make a statue, augmented by my Masonry."

I'm afraid all of those strike me as being absolutely horrific. The equipment usage roleplaying game, where characters are merely the meaty bits on the end of a tool.

Just because you could do it this way doesn't necesserily make it a good idea.


Simon Hibbs

[Ian Charvill]

Simon

I absolutely agree with you that taken to an extreme, this would be pretty uninspiring.

My position isn't every piece of equipment gets a score.  Ordinary equipment - weapon or otherwise - would have no score - with game effects would be limited to improvisation penalties.  Pieces of equipment that are important to the character would be given scores.  This might be because of magic, or quality, or simply by being a signature item.  As an example of the latter, think of Indy's whip.

I think handled in that way, the danger of characters being made dull by their equipment is about as high as that of their being made dull by their followers.

I mean compare:

"My Masonry skill is only 12, so I'll use my chissel's Carve Stone ability to make a statue, augmented by my Masonry."

&

"My Masonry skill is only 12, so I'll use my follower's Carve Stone ability to make a statue, augmented by my Masonry."

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with Simon in that, I too wouldn't allow players to use Abilites in the way he intimates. And, in that case, what is the Ability score good for? For that matter what's it good for on Common Magic (other than the potential for specializing in it, which my current character is thinking about), or on magic items that should be of the Augment-only sort? They won't get raised, and augmenting them for augmenting something else is inefficient if not illegal.

Rethinking the Resistance thing, I think that any Ability is potentially subject to loss (cut off legs to remove Run Fast Ability). And that the resistances aren't neccessarily based on the maginitude of the item's potence - certainly not in the case of theft. There are probably other things like Resistance to removal that one can attribute to Abilities, but again, this doesn't constitue a primary use for the item.

So I guess that these are all just different rules to simulate different things in different ways, having little to do with balance.  

The differing costs simply represent different means of accumulating Abilities and Bonuses. That is, Abilties can be introduced or increased by the incremental HP method, and anything can be introduced or increased by the "get it in play and cement it" method. That's balanced at least in terms of applicability and leaves the GM in control.

So I'm satisfied with that conclusion. Thanks for participating.
Mike

[Michael Bowman]

here are a few of us who clamored for this in the original playtests and offered a situational bonus instead for people who demanded greater RQ-level "detail". The bonus worked out as follows:

[*]hero has superior tools = +1;
[*]hero has superior position = +1;
[*]hero has vastly superior tools = +2;
[*]hero has vastly superior position = +2.
[/list:u]
Thus, the greatest situational bonus possible is normally +4... which makes the math easier to recall on the fly.

This is a great idea. I think I'll try it in my new HeroQuest game starting up on Saturday.

Michael