HQ for Cyberpunk and strength ratings of cyborgs

[soru]

That PC's pretty strong, but I think he'd have a tough time against a Giant... We'll make the Giant Strong 12W.

That 'whooshing' sound you hear is my suspension of disbelief leaving the room. Unless you mean a very very small giant or something, I just cant get my head around the idea of the local strongman, without any magic or heroquested abilities, beating a 3 meter tall, 1 ton giant at arm wrestling or weight lifting about a third of the time.

How would you narrate something like that in your game, if the dice rolled that way (e.g. 5 and 15)? As a fluke chance (a passing bird distracts the giant), as the player actually proving stronger, by simply flat out disallowing it, or something else?

soru

[Scripty]

Mkay. So, I'm to take it that you can't see a preternatually strong 6' tall human taking on a 9' tall giant of average strength.

I'm thinking that your "suspension of disbelief" is rather finicky.

For examples of how even a normal man could take on a 9' tall giant, please reference:

David and Goliath
Conan (can't remember the story, but the picture's on the front of the book)
Sinbad
Theseus and the Minotaur
etc.
etc.

It seems to me that you're just being facetious here. It's obvious, to me, that you have some unfounded problems with the HeroQuest system. I'm not interested in making converts of disbelievers. Make up your own mind about the game.

I have given a fairly common sense and rational answer to your objection. It's at least on par with Elves in LotR's not aging and Superman flying in the air. If you don't buy it, that's fine but it is still a valid response and one that works for me and a number of other people.

If you don't think that a human with 1w strength should be able to take on a Giant of 12w strength, that's fine. You can run it that way in your setting. I have, however, seen 8 year old boys pull down 30 year old men in Aikido and have, myself, been thrown around by little old men who I could swear that I'd be able to kick their tails. My suspension of disbelief is a bit less stringent than yours, I suppose. GURPS may offer the level of "realism" that you seek. Personally, I prefer setting consistency over a subjective "realism". We are after all dealing with all sorts of fancies of the imagination...

[soru]

It's obvious, to me, that you have some unfounded problems with the HeroQuest system.

HQ is by far my favorite game system. But I don't think I would like it the way you apparently run it.

It it one of the strengths of the HQ rules that they are flexible enough that they can be used to run any kind of game, including ones where david beats goliath not by using a sling, or by being destined to rule, but by proving to be stronger to than him, where theseus doesn't beat the minotaur by out-fighting it, or by being the son of Poseidon, but by showing himself to be more bull-headed than it (without in some way magically having the head of a bull).

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to forget that the HQ rules can also be used to create stories that do have, say, as much plausibilty and coherency as an average hollywood movie.

Your opinion may, of course, vary.  But please try to avoid giving the impression that your way is the only way to run HQ, or that there is some vast weight of narrativist theory backing up your ruling that giants aren't really all that strong.

soru

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, dude (Soru), you attacked his methodology, and he just defended it. He never once said that his method was superior to yours, nor that you had to accept it. He just said, well, what you're saying in the last post. That you can do it either way effectively.

Read it again.

Mike

[Scripty]

HQ is by far my favorite game system. But I don't think I would like it the way you apparently run it.

...

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to forget that the HQ rules can also be used to create stories that do have, say, as much plausibilty and coherency as an average hollywood movie.

Your opinion may, of course, vary.  But please try to avoid giving the impression that your way is the only way to run HQ, or that there is some vast weight of narrativist theory backing up your ruling that giants aren't really all that strong.

soru

My way isn't the only way to play HeroQuest. I never presented it as such. I merely stated that this is a means that I use in order to not have to have a big chart of target numbers for everything from a Rhino to a tank. It requires that I know the character's capabilities and that I understand how much of a challenge a given situation or opponent ought to be, based on my knowledge of their character. Thus, a character with 8w2 strength will have very little problem lifting a mailbox and chucking it at an opponent. Assuming that what I was saying was that I would scale the mailbox to a 3w2 weight is a willful misreading of everything I have said thus far.

I was presenting this as an alternative to having a big list of resistances and modifiers, which seems to be what you and DerRenegat are fishing for. If you are familiar with the ratings listed in the book itself, I personally don't see a need for an expanded "Book of Resistances". You might. That's fine. Make one.

Otherwise, my approach is working quite well. Thanks for attacking my game. I'll try not to take it personally, but I do think you'd be just fine in one of my games. They have a good deal of internal consistency and my methodology allows me to improvise on the fly with minimal "Uh...umm" moments. Hence, where many GMs require a big list of adversaries and opponents and often have those "fish out of water" moments when players diverge from their planned entertainment, I don't. I have some things listed, but keeping in mind what I have said before I have been able to scale/improvise most everything.

This is not the only way to do this and I have never presented it as such. It works for me, however, and I have offered it to you as both an option and another way to approach internal consistency in your game. Primarily, it's pointing out that you can make your game consistent via the characters and not have to create a large simulation, which may or may not seem consistent to the players. I have had experiences in the past where large exploratory simulative scenarios have backfired in just this manner.

I don't appreciate the change of tone that you are initiating here. I was just trying to help.

[soru]

Apologies for a bit of overuse of sarcasm and rhetoric.

I do think you'd be just fine in one of my games

I'm going to try to explain why I think I would have some degree of problem with playing in one of your games (though if you provided nice dips or something, no doubt I would probably still play). I think my perspective is quite a mainstream one, so this may or may not be of interest to you, depending on whether you want to support mainstream players in your games.

Getting inside the head of a fictional character, you definitely know how strong you yourself are, you will have some kind of idea (based on background knowledge, common sense and looking at them) how strong a particular opponent is, and will have a great deal of uncertainty over whether you can beat them or not.

Playing in one of your games (at least once you have figured out whats going on, which might take a few sessions), you would have no idea how strong you yourself were, no idea how strong your opponent was, but nevertheless you could confidently be certain that you could beat them (at least if the GM was giving off 'this is a challenge' vibes, as opposed to 'this is a plot device').

That's such a radical disconnect from the normal experience of playing a RPG, reading a book or watching a film that it seems like it is almost a deliberate attempt to alienate the player (I almost wrote Brechtian there, but decided better of it). I guess i could get into it as an academic exercise, but it doesn't sound like much fun.

That doesn't seem to be your intention, you just want to save a few seconds. But I think if you spent a few minutes establishing a campaign-specific scale in your head, you would be able to think 'I need something a bit bigger and scarier than the PCs - ok dark troll 12 W' as quickly as any other method.

Numbers first, then description - it's the HQ way. You don't say 'I have instant kill-all death magic, what rating is that?', you say 'I have instant kill-all death magic 13, maybe I should change the name of the ability'.

soru

[Der_Renegat]

I was presenting this as an alternative to having a big list of resistances and modifiers, which seems to be what you and DerRenegat are fishing for. If you are familiar with the ratings listed in the book itself, I personally don't see a need for an expanded "Book of Resistances". You might. That's fine. Make one.

It seems i have big problems making myself clear. Maybe its the foreign language, or maybe i actually dont know myself what i really want.
Im not fishing for a big list of resistances, because i think like soru, you can assign any resistance on the fly if you understand the differences in ratingnumbers and what chances of success result from it.
My problem is really how to imagine things that are out of my everyday experience.
In the manga Eden there is a big combatrobot, with a weapon in his arm. A kind of hydraulic ram, he uses to crash armor of enemyrobots/androids. One use and an armored head is smashed into pieces.
So, how strong is that? I have no idea.
Maybe its true, maybe i dont need to have an idea, all i need is calculating the difference in numbers i need for him, to beat any opponent i want him to beat, that is in my relevant story.
Maybe my mistakes comes from the idea to design characters for a world and not for a story.
Maybe i still cant get used to the idea, that designing worlds for HQ works different than in other rpg´s.
all the best
Christian

[Mike Holmes]

Soru,

I think my perspective is quite a mainstream one, so this may or may not be of interest to you, depending on whether you want to support mainstream players in your games.

This sounds a tad judgemental. There's a subtext of "crazy oddball narrativist" behind it. If you could refrain from making this a political thing it might make the discourse easier.

OTOH, Scripty saying that you wouldn't mind his game might be read as him saying that your rejection is non-sensical. So he might consider dropping that line of reasoning as well.

Still this comment:

Playing in one of your games (at least once you have figured out whats going on, which might take a few sessions), you would have no idea how strong you yourself were, no idea how strong your opponent was, but nevertheless you could confidently be certain that you could beat them (at least if the GM was giving off 'this is a challenge' vibes, as opposed to 'this is a plot device').

This is an innaccurate description of Scripty's process. I'm not saying that you'd like his method, but let me explain why I think that players who play this way don't always feel the way that you do.

Nobody thinks that internal consistency should be thrown out. Nobody thinks that all conflicts should be built based solely on drama. You overstate the case when you imply these things about Scripty's methods.

When modeling something there are several axes and dials that one can choose from amongst. One of which is the Absolute/Relative axis. The Absolute method involves saying that all things have ratings that all relate to some basic background principle such that they can be compared on that scale. Which works just fine. The relative method says that it's sufficient to model off the basis of one of the factors being tested, and base the other factor off of that.

So, in the Abosolute model, we say that Character X has 5w Str, the giant has 10w2 (or whatever the setting and desciption says they should have), and then we compare the two. The idea being that this will produce reliable and internally consistent results.

The relative model says that as long as the results are reliable and internally consistent, we can skip measuring one of the things in question. So, instead of figuring out the strength of the giant, the GM considers the likely probablility of success, and then assigns the giant's strength based on that.

Note that given the same inputs, setting, plausibility, etc, both methods should produce the exact same results for the strength of the giant. We've just gotten to the end via a different manner. In each case we've taken what was known about the world in general and from that we've decided on what the plausible Ability should be. The Absolute method says that the Giant is A, and the relative method says that the giant is Character Ability + Difference in Ability = Giant's Ability A. Same result.

Now, does it always work that way in practice? No, in practice there are advantages and disadvantages to each method. The Absolute method has the advantage that, once you've established a scale you can always refer to it in the future to determine a new Ability. There's less potential "error" due to judgement.

The Relative method has the advantage that you never have to check on a scale. You can say that if a Giant would have about a mastery (or two, or whatever) advantage over an opponent, that this is indeed how he is rated. In fact I'd argue that this is how the scales for the Absolute methods get created in the first place there not being objective scales for comparison - we don't know how much a Strong 17 can lift, for example. In point of fact, I think that you both are doing very similar things, just emphasizing different parts of the process.

I'd argue that what people don't like about the relative method is the potential appearance of subjectivity on the GM's part. And for some people this can be a breaker. But I think it comes down to trust quite a bit. That is, even using the Absolute method, you can tinker with ratings all you like.

Player: The giant is only a 10W, that's easy!
GM: Well, he's only about 8 feet tall, and kinda scrawny looking.

Doesn't matter which method you use, either way the GM can retroactively explain away any Ability that he creates. So establishing a feeling of objectivity in the world is a matter of either being objective, or making it look like you are. When using the relative method, if the GM doesn't say stuff like:

GM: Gee, I want to make this a tough encounter, I'll make the Giant a 4W2.

As long as the GM just says:

GM: The giant is a 4w2 Strong.

The players will not know the difference.

Now, to come clean as a potentially pervy narrativist, I'll admit that for some players dramatic assignment isn't problematic. I'm not going to speculate on how many, or if this is mainstream. But when it's done above board, IME, it's not an issue often. In any case, it's definitely a tool for GMs whose players don't mind.

But for those who like more objectivity - and truth be told, I'm actually in that group most of the time myself - either method still works if employed correctly.

My suggestion is to have your plausible scale ready for use. If you don't think that Hero Quest has one, make one up yourself. I think it's really not too difficult (and I think that for a world of fantasy, myth and adventure that the HQ scales work fairly well in any case). Anyhow, use that when it's easy to make comparisons to your scale. But, when you don't have it handy, or the ability in question doesn't apply easily to some scale, then just wing it. As long as you confidently state the number, then the player's perceptions will adjust to the number in question.

Because you're right, Soru, it is a Numbers first game. That means that you can just shout out a number, and assign a plausible description to it afterwards. Hell, on rare occasions I just let the numbers speak for themselves.

GM: Dudes, this guy pushes on the wall with a Strong 10w3.
Players: Holy Humakt's Underwear that's strong!

Anyhow, the use of these things is all about preference, and nobody is going to convince anyone else that their preference is messed up. But if both sides would take a moment, step back and consider the other side's positions, I think that one can see that these are all very good ways to play. And that we can all benefit from at least understanding the techniques of others, whether or not we decide to employ them in play.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

In the manga Eden there is a big combatrobot, with a weapon in his arm. A kind of hydraulic ram, he uses to crash armor of enemyrobots/androids. One use and an armored head is smashed into pieces.
So, how strong is that? I have no idea.
Maybe its true, maybe i dont need to have an idea, all i need is calculating the difference in numbers i need for him, to beat any opponent i want him to beat, that is in my relevant story.
Maybe my mistakes comes from the idea to design characters for a world and not for a story.
Maybe i still cant get used to the idea, that designing worlds for HQ works different than in other rpg´s

You can get to that objective answer if you really want to. It's a matter of working up from principles. It's not easy, but here's how it goes.

An average joe is Strong 6 (he's also Weak 6, interestingly). Now, obviously that's not enough to smash an armored head. Well, a man with a 15 Strength is very strong. How do I get that? Well, a Troll is Large 15. So you'd have to be pretty strong to have an even chance of defeating it's size with your strength , oh, say, by knocking it over. Given the Large ratings, I'd say that your strongest realistic human would be about a 1w1 or so (yes, on the Gloranthan scale a human "master" of strength, 1w2, would be way stonger than any real human, something like the show Xena - if you don't like that, then make all the Large ratings much higher, say double at least.) Let's suppose that the armored head in question was pretty well armored, such that the guy with that strength would have only a very small chance of affecting it. Let's call that 1w3 Armor, then.

Now, how easily should the ram be able to crush the Armored head (we're assuming that the head is on an Average Joe not able to augment with anything, particularly, like Hard Headed). If we want it to be fairly certain, but with a tiny chance of success, then we go up another two masteries. So that would put the ram's helmet crushing at 1w5. Very impressive, as good as a minor Gloranthan Demigod.

This is the sort of thing that you have to do to develop your scale. Like I pointed out in the above post, creating the scale is a matter of figuring the odds and setting the marks relative to each other. Once you have that scale, however, then objective comparisons become more possible.

Anyhow, just work out a bunch of calculations like this, and eventually you'll have a chart of examples from which to rate things.

Mike

[Valamir]

Is there a quick and dirty way to assess the probabilities so that it becomes easy to say

"Your rating is X, I should have a tiny but non 0 chance of beating you, therefor my rating should be 1/n  of X"

"Your rating is X, I should have a better than 50/50 but not automatic chance of beating you, therefor my rating should be N times X"

"Your rating is X, I should have a better than 50/50 but not automatic chance of beating you after I account for Y worth of augments therefor my base rating should be N times X less some function of Y"

I have a feeling there should be an easy rule of thumb along these lines, because HQ probabilities aren't really all that complicated, but the way masteries cancel and bump and so forth might make this harder.

[Mike Holmes]

It's pretty complicated becuse of the masteries. In general I tend to think in terms of increments of difference:

Difference of X has how much impact on the higher side winning?
5: significant, but not very
10: pretty significant
15: Higher side will win most of the time.
20: Higher side will predominate
30: Higher side is almost assured of winning
40 (w2): Lower side barely has a chance to win in some circumstances
60 (w3): Low side has a 1:400 to tie, but can't win.
80 (w4): high side wins, period

Hero Points are, of course, not being considered here.

Mike

[Scripty]

Thanks for your help clarifying some of my points in earlier posts, Mike. My statement that Soru would have no problem in my games wasn't meant to be a prod. It was just a statement that I think he and I would get along/function just fine in each other's games. It seems Soru is taking more of a partisan position in this discussion. That's fine. But I'm often finding myself having to defend (or retract) statements or points that I didn't make (and wouldn't make for that matter).

The crux of this issue can be traced back to my response to the following statement:

I like to understand the numbers so I can pick a number as required without having to look it up in the book.

My response presented a "Relative" scale as an alternative for looking up every single contest rating during gameplay. No where did I say throw charts to the wind. In fact, a thorough familiarity with the charts on 274-5 (which I have referenced before in this discussion) is REQUIRED in order for this approach to work. In order to have consistency, it is imperative that a GM understand how this system scales. This is so that you won't have squirrels with Bite Opponent at 5w2. Just like in D&D you don't have a DC 30 to climb a flight of stairs UNLESS THERE IS A REALLY GOOD REASON RELATED TO THE STORY AT HAND.

I am under the impression that Soru doesn't understand what I am saying and how it works within a game context. It is evident to me that he, and even Mike, are leapfrogging this first step in my "Relative" scaling. I am seeing a discussion of Use Charts vs. Not Use Charts. Actually, the discussion should be framed as "Use Charts Exclusively" vs. "Get Familiar With Charts, Never Have to Look at Them Again" (unless you're completely stuck). I put forth that my suggestion to Donald receives far more widespread use than this thread would have people believe. I use it incessantly, though not exclusively. It works for me and it works for every group I have ever run since I first discovered WEG d6 Star Wars in 1990. So-called "Relative" scaling is highly functional, IME.

Because it is rather transparent in play. Simply put, players never "catch on". As long as you are consistent (and the tables in HeroQuest give you a basis for that consistency. Beyond that Bruce Ferrie's Supers tables give a further basis for consistency.) there's nothing for them to catch on to.

HeroQuest tells you that a Weaponthane's fighting skill is between 17 and 19. That's exactly where they'll be using this ability. Now, if a player comes across a Wugglemudget and wants to kill it, what rating do we give the Wugglemudget? Well, if the Wugglemudget is approximately as tough as a Weaponthane, then give it an 18. If a Weaponthane can drop it in a heartbeat, give it a 6. End of story. No need to stat out a Wugglemudget, whatever that is.

And I think Mike is correct in his assertion that this is the exact method by which such scales are built in many RPGs. It's only here I posit that some comparisons can be done on the fly, whereas others seem to strongly support that all such comparisons must be done in advance, which I recognize as a valid approach although it is not the one I would choose exclusively.

This "relative" approach has its drawbacks as Mike aptly points out. Mike also did a fair assessment of its strengths. But what he did not point out were the drawbacks of the "list" method in HeroQuest.

First, HeroQuest abilities are dynamic. A Kobold may only fight at 13. But a Kobold fighting in defense of its family or tribe may fight at 15 or even 18. Fluctuations in ability rating are a feature of HeroQuest. Scaling on the fly *can* take that into account to a degree, as long as you remain true to the charts listed in HeroQuest, such that a Kobold never gets a 5w2 Sword Fighting (without of course a very good and mythic reason). Using a list exclusively would not necessarily hinder this process, but a list causes two situations to occur which might detract from it. For one, a GM becomes dependent upon the list. Augments or other bonuses might not occur to them. For two, the group becomes dependent upon the list. Knowing that there is a list, and most likely viewing it, a group, IME, would be more likely to ask why this rock face is a 10W climb and why the last one was an 18. From this we advance to rules-lawyering. Big lists promote, if not enforce, homogeneity of resistances. This could be a boon for some groups and a bane for others. If a big list were produced, I would likely read it, make note of its results, but never reference it in play. I have yet to have a player complain and I have been doing this, as I said, since 1990 with a variety of different games.

Second, lists never cover everything, especially in HeroQuest-style games. Say my sidekick is a Wugglemudget. Well, what's his stats? How can you stat any new aspect of the setting without a direct basis for comparison? Lists cover lots of ground. But they also leave holes. Sometimes BIG ones. When running HeroQuest, I have yet to run even a single scene where I was able to take all the players' decisions and actions into account beforehand. Lists wouldn't either. To propose so is pretty tragic. Another factor is that often contests come up that, invariably, never arise again. For contests that will become staples of the setting, like a Villain's henchmen, I would make a judgment call on the ability and jot it down. It's there (for reference) for the sake of consistency. But for a contest involving a Butter Drinking tournament, do you really NEED a list of all the other contestants' skills? Wouldn't it suffice to say that a PC's Half-Orc's Iron Stomach ability at 2W is at least 5 points better than any human contestant, except the Mountain Dwarf with a similar rating at 19? Why do you need to have lists for spontaneous developments? It seems to me that lists, would work in this fashion to counteract creativity. How can you run a scene for which you have no numbers? Could a scene even be conceived spontaneously by this approach?

Where lists fail, there is always my approach and Soru is free to make use of it or toss it out as he sees fit. I think Soru is taking his case to an extreme here when he exaggerates the flaw of the "Relative" method because, from the beginning my two points of reference have always been THE CHARACTER'S ABILITIES and THE CHARTS IN HEROQUEST. These two points of reference have allowed me to easily triangulate any challenge or unknown rating even for settings as wide and varied as Cthulhupunk and Hyborea. Any failure in the system, as I see it, would require me to completely ignore one of the points of this triangle in a manner that I'm just not interested in doing. Trust isn't much of an issue (and this isn't a very trusting bunch that I run for). There is actually less debates on the numbers of the games than in other approaches that I have tried in the past. I think it's based on the approach. As Narrator, I'm there to make the players cool. From that standpoint, the players actually encounter FEWER impossible situations than if I was Simming them through an impartial gameworld. I suppose this "relative" approach could be turned on its head by a GM with a chip on his shoulder. But I don't play in those kinds of games. Nor do I run games in this fashion. It seems that Soru is convinced that I do, though I (for the life of me) can't point out exactly where he came away with that impression from what I have said thus far.

Valamir is correct that it is relatively simple, IME, to estimate values for HeroQuest. It's at least as easy as D&D3e and more consistent, IMO. As outlined in the Hero's Book, if an opponent has one mastery over you, he will win 75% of the time. If he has 2 masteries, he will win 95% of the time. Everything else fits rather neatly in between and outside of those values.

Mark Galeotti gave these guidelines, it appears, so that people COULD scale challenges for their heroes. I don't know why my suggestion is turning me into a pariah here. I don't see what I'm doing as all that aberrant, although it certainly would be to the group I played "Aftermath" with in California. Of course, we had to have scientific calculators for mass combat...

Thankfully, those days are behind me now.

(?)

[soru]

I am seeing a discussion of Use Charts vs. Not Use Charts. Actually, the discussion should be framed as "Use Charts Exclusively" vs. "Get Familiar With Charts, Never Have to Look at Them Again" (unless you're completely stuck).

It seems at least one of us, and probably both of us, is misunderstanding the others positions. I would certainly never look any numbers up in a book during play.

for the record, here are some things that WOULDN'T bother me:

page 342 of AR Vol 3 says giants have a strength of 10W2.

4 weeks ago we met an ogre and his strength was higher than this giant.

a year ago we met a giant with a strength of only 10W, and now this other one is 18w2.

the tribal champion, Volgarth the strong, is pretty much as strong as a giant once he gets worked up.

I challenged a giant to a fight and beat him.

I challenged a giant to a tug of war. I rolled a 1, he rolled a 20, the giant tripped and I won.

To repeat, none of the above would bother me in the slightest.

The thing that throws me is not some detail of the world background, theoretical argument, or long-term consistency issue. Its a straightforward, in your face, on-screen, here and now thing.

I'm pretty strong, but not superhuman. I just beat a giant straight up in a tug of war, on a not especially good set of rolls, without even spending a hero point.

The numbers just said that hapenned, and I simply can't visualise it, so I can't narrate it. System breakdown.

Can you agree that this is some kind of problem, or are my concerns completely alien to you?

I've got a feeling there are two different coherent ways to plan things in HQ:

1. at this point, the player will be challenged to a tug of war by a giant with strength 5W3 (or whatever fixed number).

2. at this point, the player will be challenged to a tug of war by an opponent somewhat stronger than them.

If my grasp of you position is right (and this is based from some of your posts to other threads, so could be way out or obselete), you would write down in your notes:

3. at this point, the player will be challenged to a tug of war by a giant somewhat stronger than them.

I think that approach is incoherent, because it selects a description (giant) before you know the number (10W). Exactly the same issue as saying 'I chop his head off, and bid 5AP'.

soru

[Scripty]

It seems at least one of us, and probably both of us, is misunderstanding the others positions. I would certainly never look any numbers up in a book during play.

I can agree that we are both misunderstanding each other here, especially if my last post was not an accurate representation of your position.

I'm pretty strong, but not superhuman. I just beat a giant straight up in a tug of war, on a not especially good set of rolls, without even spending a hero point.

I'm not reading you here. A sentence ago you said that you rolled a 1, the giant rolled a 20. That's a pretty good roll in my book. You don't really give clear numbers from what I can tell but, if I assume the giant is 10w2 and that you are a human with above average strength (13), I'm seeing you having a crit and the giant having a success. Either way, I don't see, based on your explanation, how you're arriving at your conclusion that this is a broken resolution mechanic.

The numbers just said that hapenned, and I simply can't visualise it, so I can't narrate it. System breakdown.

Can you agree that this is some kind of problem, or are my concerns completely alien to you?

Although I can't see what you're saying from the example given (based on numbers alone), I do understand your point. Please reference the Giant Tick thread on this forum. I do understand the mental cogs being thrown out of whack by a crazy or unexpected result. My advice, for what its worth, would be to take a step back and look at the contest and what is trying to be accomplished. In the result you narrate above, if you did achieve a Complete Victory over the Giant, the narration you provide is more than sufficient. The Giant slipped/tripped and fell on his face. It happens to the best of us (and me too). As a result, the Giant has to leave the community. He is humiliated, and most likely you've gained a significant adversary for the humiliation you've caused him. If the numbers reflect my own, given above, then it's very unlikely you beat him outright. The result dictates that the Giant would get a -10% result that would last about a week. This could mean that the Giant won the actual tug of war, but he had such a hard time with you that you bruised his confidence, or have caused those in the community to doubt him. If you're looking for a wound out of it, perhaps the giant sprained his back (and lost) or aggravated a hernia. To me, all of these would be satisfactory explanations of the situation which you describe. You might not agree. That's okay. I do understand what you're talking about when the candle of inspiration is briefly snuffed by a "difficult" die result, but I'm not so sure it's as much a problem with the resolution mechanics as it is my own attachment to the outcome of my choice. I know that sounds all Zen Buddhist, but that the best explanation for how I like to handle these situations. I certainly don't see this as a problem with resistances or how they are determined.

If my grasp of you position is right (and this is based from some of your posts to other threads, so could be way out or obselete), you would write down in your notes:

3. at this point, the player will be challenged to a tug of war by a giant somewhat stronger than them.

Not really. I generally have certain things written down. Major NPCs, some minor NPCs, traps, events. I especially find it helpful to have abstract adversaries like natural hazards or fear-inducing atmospheres somewhere handy.

What I use my "relative" scaling for is when a player creates an instance in a story where a "spontaneous" contest is called. Last game, we had our hacker try to hack into the security of the Mordredonix Corporation. I had not foreseen that. Judging by the size of the corporation (medium-sized) and gauging it against the ability of the hacker (a really good hacker with a 4w in the skill before augments), I judged that it should be a fairly easy hack, but not a cakewalk. I gave it a 1w. Because the system was also being stressed by other concerns (and hackers) at the time, I gave it a further negative modifier that dropped it to 19.

Later in the adventure, another player ran across a Sep'teth demon infiltrator from the Cabal (yes, the GURPS book). I had her completely statted. But, had the player tried something unanticipated on the demon, like trying to con it or gamble with it, I would've resorted to my "relative" method to gauge how easy or difficult the mark would be based upon the character's ability measured against the scaling of the setting/system.

I think that approach is incoherent, because it selects a description (giant) before you know the number (10W). Exactly the same issue as saying 'I chop his head off, and bid 5AP'.

soru

You're welcome to your opinion. I don't agree, however. I find this method infinitely flexible. I can address any number of player interests, decisions or intentions in nano-seconds. I don't have to second guess myself. The pace of the game remains steady and the players actually do appreciate the consistency that results. The goal, BTW, is maintaining some kind of consistency, not to create some arbitrary means of conjuring resistances. This is not the only way to play HeroQuest. Certainly, there are drawbacks, especially in the wrong hands. You point many of them out. It works for me, though, in the way I use it. I have known others who use similar techniques and it has worked for them too. So, I'm not crazy. I'm not a god of GMing either. But I've felt more during our conversation that I was trying to convince you I wasn't cheating my players or completely off my rocker than I've felt that I've been self-aggrandizing.

And, regarding the 'I chop his head off, and bid 5AP' analogy, I'm kind of lost on that one too, honestly. Our group always states their intentions and then we determine the AP bids. A bid of 5 AP might chop the head off a wounded trollkin mook, but it would be insufficient for more skilled opponents. But, of course, our group would automatically recognize such a paltry bid as insufficient and disallow it. Again, I think your interest in criticizing my approach has assumed a lack of common sense or knowledge of the rules on my part. I assure you there is no such lack in either category and further ponder why I am held to defend myself in this manner.

Last I checked, HeroQuest says that you're supposed to state intentions and then negotiate a bid. Isn't this how this works? How does that equate to what you said before it? I can see how your statement about the giant could be incoherent in the wrong hands, but I don't see how it relates to what I'm talking about.

Am I not being clear?

[soru]

I'm not reading you here. A sentence ago you said that you rolled a 1, the giant rolled a 20. That's a pretty good roll in my book. You don't really give clear numbers from what I can tell but

The numbers were posted upthread, a starting pc with a high strength and a giant with less than a mastery advantage over them.

Thers a table somewhere on the hw-rules list that gives exact percentage chances, but I think those numbers give the giant something less than a 65% chance of winning, given that a full mastery is a 75% chance of a win.

So the human wins on a completely unexceptional roll, not an outrageous fluke.

soru