The Hero Scale 2 (split)

[Der_Renegat]

Very impressive post mr. Mike Holmes! Enlightening for the understanding of HQ rules and the understanding of the lord of the rings, too - really!
I wonder how you would handle all the magic in LOTR. You speak of boosts
like the rings giving masteries.
As i see it, this is not like a normal augment in HQ, more like a released spirit, that adds its rating to your rating, no?!
Would you change rules for a ME campaign using HQ?!
all the best
Christian

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi,

I think Mike's first post contains a vital bit of logic for people coming over from (what are we going to call them: "classic"; "typical") roleplaying games.  

He notes that certain individuals and races, though rated at one level, have a whole host of mosifiers from augments: anger, certain people or races support or piss them off and so on.

Most games set ratings at a fixed point on a scale: Conan is X strong, for exampe.  But in HeroQuest, ratings are contextual.  Who is Conan fighting?  What at the circumstances?  What's at stake?  Who's at his side?

And these contexts are all, when used correctly, ta-da!, story based.  So, a player puts down attributes, relatioships, personality and more on his character sheet and its in his best interest to have those things involved in the session.  And the Narrator knows the player wants them in the game because they're on the character sheet.

This then runs counter to the standard habit of "setting up a game world," which is designed to run along fine with out without the players.  You could have the GM's story run and slot in almost anybody.  But in HeroQuest, what's on that character sheet is what the session should be about.  And when it is, then the charcters stats are in constant flux as we see the PC affected by all the narrative elements that define him.

Christopher "HeroQuest Just Arrive in my Mailbox Three Days Ago and I'm On a Tear" Kubasik

[Der_Renegat]

This is the big HQ philosophy discussion once again....and kind of a dogma thing-HQ is narrative and all simulation is "evil".

Christopher Kubasik said:
"Most games set ratings at a fixed point on a scale: Conan is X strong, for exampe. But in HeroQuest, ratings are contextual. Who is Conan fighting? What at the circumstances? What's at stake? Who's at his side?"

I disagree, because if Conan is the hero of our story, he is the character. He develops, yes, but he has definite ratings. Sure, his ratings are augmented by his relations, but in a way that is the case in every rpg.

His opponents ratings are assigned as they fit the drama/challenge the narrator wants from the story.

Christopher Kubasik said:
"I think Mike's first post contains a vital bit of logic for people coming over from (what are we going to call them: "classic"; "typical") roleplaying games.
He notes that certain individuals and races, though rated at one level, have a whole host of mosifiers from augments: anger, certain people or races support or piss them off and so on."

If you look at "Anaxials Roster", its the same, you have definite ratings, but only as examples, and to describe a given creature.

Christopher Kubasik said:
"This then runs counter to the standard habit of "setting up a game world," which is designed to run along fine with out without the players."

To me this is really something more inbetween. The world is a story, too- a background story.
The adventure is a story that has the characters as an element, relating to the world.
So i think a game world is designed as a story. You can design creatures and give them a rating, but for every adventure you have to change them according to the drama you want.
Still, ratings and numbers tell a story too, like the ME example showed very impressively for me (but it´s different language so to say).
If there is one dogma in HQ then it is: everything is a story! (Even the numbers)

all the best

Christian

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Christian,

If you want to see the world as a story, a background story, that's great.  People have been playing these game that way for a long time and I'm sure there's a lot of enjoyment in it.

However, it's certainly not how *I* want to play.  (Does that mean I think its evil?  For the record, no.)

I simply prefer games where what is on the character sheet is what matters and that's what the play session is going to be about.  

I've reached a point where what matters is the play session -- not the imaginary world that might or might not get used.  And the play session, for me, is defined by what all the players have agreed to concern themselves with that night -- the Kickers, Passions and so on.  Again, if someone wants to do it a different way, great.  But what I find fascinating is that HeroQuest is primed to do this so well.

Which brings us back to the main thrust of this thread:

The Narrator (or GM or whatever) of any game sets a value for a lion.  That is objective.  But if one player is enraged by lions, and another fearful of lions, they're going to battle it with different values than if they had been battling a rhino and had no attributes reflecting any concern for rhinos.

Now, this may or may not be of interest to you.  But to me the fact that the PCs carry around their own narrative modifiers is really neat.  Because each time these aguments get activated it shines a light on the PC that makes it clear what's happening is significant because its about the PCs.

If Indiana Jones is afraid of snakes (and, of course, he is) every time snakes show up, its a reminder we're watching an Indiana Jones movie.  In HQ terms, his ratings alter (for better or worse) because of this -- because he's this character, and not another character, who could deal with these snakes without any modifiers.

I'm sorry if you took my post as some sort of dogma/evil thing.  It wasn't meant to be -- and it isn't.

It was, however, my thoughts on a very cool, and very diffferent kind of, rules set that puts into motion the kind of game that would have kept me in the hobby seven years ago.  But the truth is, there was no game like this at the time.  It's that different, and I expect to play it differently than I've played other games.

Now, you may not be excited about the things I'm excited about. You may not see the things I'm excited about, but please.  You may see them and wonder why I'm excited.  But please, don't call me a dogmatist because I'm excited.  I'm seeing things you can do with HeroQuest that I couldn't, simply couldn't, do with a lot of other games.  And because these things are new, I want to share them with people.

But there are as many rule books of HeroQuest as there are people who want to play, and I'm sure we'll all manage to play our own way.

Best,
Christopher

[Der_Renegat]

Hey Christopher!

I totally agree with everything you said and i find it very exciting, too, that HQ gives you all these new aspects to roleplaying.
When i said evil i was refferring to some kind of inside joke thing, thats going on the HQ-rules yahoogroup.
Its always simulationist versus narrativist.
Simulation is "evil"and non HQlike, narration is "good"and HQlike.
So what i wanted to say with my post, is that its not always that black or white and what seems to be simulative can be quite narrative, i don´t know if that became clear.

all the best

Christian

[RaconteurX]

The narrative method does not preclude using keywords and, for Middle-earth, keywords are not particularly difficult to render. One can convert the Decipher Lord of the Rings racial details over to HeroQuest with a minimum of muss and fuss, and the added color is worth it. Elves and Dunedain are definitely not cut from the same cloth as Hobbits and Middle Men, nor in my opinion should they be.

The subtle magic of the Elves and Dwarves can be handled like Common Magic, as that most mirrors magic in Middle-earth. Powerful magicians are probably best modeled using Wizardry schools, although much Glorantha-specific rules detail will need be excised. However, since Iluvatar is much like the Invisible God in concept, the Valar can be likened to Saints (that makes sense if you consider that people in Middle-earth invoke the Valar much as real-world people do saints).

Serious magical power in Middle-earth requires a connection to Valinor, however, and only those who have lived there or seen it personally (or are descended from someone who has) have the heritage necessary to wield it. Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel derive as much of their power from their connections to the Blessed Realm as they do from the Three. Those who possess items crafted by those touched by the Light of Valinor wield power, it is true, but they never hold it outright. The Nazgul are perfect examples of this.

"Touched by the Light of Valinor" seems to be an excellent blanket quasi-magical ability to give Noldor, ancient Sindar and individuals of especially pure Dunedain ancestry. It can be used to augment just about anything, as long as the character invokes a specific Vala suitable to the task.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Christian,

I see now what caught me off guard: I've never been to the HQ Yahoo group, so I had no idea there was a mighty battle afoot.

Hi RaconteurX,

Just because I feel like little senetences of mine are being misunderstood left and right here, was your opening sentence about "narrative method does not preclude using keywords" directed at something I said?  Because -- of course not.  Key words help make a character this and not that and so are very usuful for helping everyone at the table know, "I want to be this kind of guy; I'm interested in these kinds of things."

Christopher

[newsalor]

Ian Cooper:

Hopefully you won't be upset if I don't guess the masteries for the characters but AFAIK the proposed mastery scale is something like:

W - journeyman/professional
W2 - among the best in the clan/town/master crafstmen
W3 - among the best in the tribe/city/region
W4 - among the best in the country/reknowned
W5 - among the best in the world/household name

Actually I think that it goes more like:

W - Journeyman/professional, among the best in the village
W2 - master, one of the best in the clan / tribe level
W3 - hero, among the best in the country / region
W4 - superhero among the few in the world (Glorantha) who have achieved this level in any ability

When augments are calculated into the equation we get the numbers you suggested.

If we give Gandalf 10 masteries, then he could have put every single person in the whole of middle earth to sleep of something like that. With four masteris on a combat ability Aragorn could have hacked whole armies into pieces just by himself.

If we consider strength, then we could just crossreference the masses from the Anaxials roster to whatever is suitable. Large 18W7 is several kilometres long and very massive dragon. A part of that could come from the fact that a dragon can use its size well, while for example a solid spaceship can't.

I think that both Legolas and Aragorn have their best abilities in the W3 range, but those abilities are propably something like Destiny and Elven Immortality. Maybe they both had combat abilities that reached the third mastery with augments. . . IMO Aragorn has other cool abilities too. I can think of some abilities right now. Love Arwen 19W, Narsil 2W2, Last Scion 16, Leader of the Rangers of North 18W, Run of Long Distances 2W2, Scouting 16W, Wilderness Survival 11W2, Know Healing Herbs 5W, Ally/Patron: Elrond 16, Ally/Patron: Gandalf 12W, Reputation: Strider (queer folk) 17, Know Paths and Ways 1W, Geography of Arnor (and Surrouding Lands) 15W, History and Legends of the West 14W, Travelled Far and Wide 14W, Brave 12W2, Responsible 18W, Wise 17W, Sword Fighting 15W2, Inspiring Words 3W, Destined to be King 15W3, Isildur's Doom 18 etc.

Consider this, we are give the difficulties of healing in the rulebook. Do you think that Elrond could heal someone who had been hacked into pieces? I think not.

[soru]

It's an unfortunate legacy of the confused early 'hero wars' edition of the rules that some people seem to think that confusion, lack of guidelines and unbalanced rules are associated with narrativist play, and so inherently good.  It's kind of annoying, and probably does more to put people off trying HQ than anything else. A bogus argument is still a bogus argument, no matter how good the thing it argues in favour of.

On the other hand, there is some kind of basis in fact for it though, as the only GMs able to successfully run HW were those who were so good at it they could overcome the confusion without any guidelines, with players so focused on the narrative that they didn't make any attempt to game the rules, or notice a gap between what the GM said was hapenning and what the rules implied. So if a HW game lasted past a few sessions, it would probably be good and may well have been great.

Heroquest resolves most, though not all, of those issues, without making the game any less good for purely narrativist play. Unfortunately some people still talk about it on the net as if it were still a gnostic mystery that only the initiated can understand.

soru

[Ron Edwards]

All of the above posts were split from The Hero Scale ...? from quite a while ago.

Everyone, please follow the guidelines referenced in the Sticky post at the top of the forum. They are the same as posted at the top of the Site Discussion forum, and they include leaving older threads alone. If you want to follow up on an older thread, just start a new thread and provide a link.

Best,
Ron

[RaconteurX]

Was your opening sentence about "narrative method does not preclude using keywords" directed at something I said?

No, I was addressing Ian Rourke's comment in the older thread about wanting to use the narrative method of character creation, but without keywords. Upon re-reading it, however, I think he was stating not that he preferred to dispense with keywords, but that he did not have any written up for the Middle-earth setting.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hey,

Thanks for the clarification.  And that's what I think he meant.

Christopher

[Der_Renegat]

The reason why i´m so persistend in the whole scale and what_mean_masteries_beyond_4 is, that i want to be able to imagine, what happens after the human scale. I want to know, because it will help me designing worlds and adventures.
I know, that you don´t need to know, because HQ is a narrative game and not a simulationist, but as i already said, to me the numbers can tell a story, too!

I wonder what kind of god has M12, is he the creator of the whole universe, like our christian god, or is he more a ruler god like zeus/jupiter?
I want to know, why a Saint has a power of 6M. And what is that power ?
As i understand it, power means highest ability, with augments already included, i guess.
So if Gandalf has a power of M7, that does not mean his ,,Fight With Sword" rating is that high, he may well have just something like 15M to 5M2. But his magical power might be that high.
It´s really ages ago, that i read the ,,Lord Of The Rings", but i saw the movie last week, and there was that scene, where he meets Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas for the first time as Gandalf the White and he defeats them alltogether in ONE single ,,round".
If you look at Legolas, what he is capable with his bow, the accuracy...he ´s a supersharpshooter without the need for a scope.
Part of his power is his long life (practice), another part his elven eyesight, so i guess his power in arrowshooting is about M4, because he´s definiteley superhuman in what he does.
Next question, do skills beyond the superhuman scale get magical?
Maybe not in that technological meaning (whenever a rating reaches X masteries you automatically gain an affinity"bla"), but if you think of magic as being able to extend your will, so what you wish comes true, then yes.
Imagine ,,FastTalk M6+", this is like Obi Wan controlling the stormtrooper in Mos Eisley. One word und you win the contest. Magic? A word of pure power, definitely!

The same with ,,Fighting M8", you are so good - one strike and your (ordinary) opponent is defeated. Thats what i call magic *lol*.

M8 in any ,,Perception" ability-nothing can escape you unnoticed! You are even able to notice the hardly noticable...!

M8 in ,,Tracking" – a footprint gives you in depth information about the person who made it. Again, like in the ,,Two Towers", that scene where Aragorn gets all the information about the disapperance of the hobbits, just by reading a few tracks (no, i´m not saying his power in ,,Tracking" is M8).

So in a way greater skill ratings give you greater insight into the universe. Thats what magic is all about!

I dont think if Elrond had M6 in healing means, that he is able to heal people who are hacked to bits. He is just very effective, he can heal the most dangerous and complicated disease. Being better does not necessarily mean to be able to do impossible things. There are limits what certain things can do, i think, a healing herb is a healing herb, you can make the best out of it, but not more, whatever your rating might be.
For that you need the magic, that we all know from Glorantha, the kind of magic that transcends the mundane.
It´s kind of tricky, to distinguish between superhuman abilities and magic as in spells and feats that supercede the mundane ,,laws".

I hope somebody can relate to my thoughts.

all the best

Christian

[soru]

Part of his power is his long life (practice), another part his elven eyesight, so i guess his power in arrowshooting is about M4, because he´s definiteley superhuman in what he does.
Next question, do skills beyond the superhuman scale get magical?

YMEMV, but I don't see any reason to put Legolas beyond about 10W2 to w3. In general, for physical abilities somewhere around w2 is the maximum for any natural/realistic human physical ability, he's better than that but not totally out of sight of it.

As for magic, glorantha is different from middle earth which is different from the real world. The gloranthan hero scale is based on the fact that gloranthan heros with just a few followers count as frontline military units. In contrast, the judo champion of the USA does not play a significant role in the military planning of the US army. Only Gandalf from the fellowship would count at that level, IMHO.
Whether that difference between worlds  is counted as due to magic or just fudged because you are not that worried by it is pretty much up to you.

Using that argument, a real world version of the hero scale would be something like:

xW:     elite veteran soldier
xW2:   special forces squad
xW3:   tank
xW4:   helicopter gunship squadron
xW5:   regiment
xW6:   carrier battlegroup

soru

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Christian, I could be very wrong, but I am perceiving you to draw a distinction between:

a) Narratistist: talking + no numbers

and

b) Simulationist: numbers + rolls

This is a false distinction, in terms of the role-playing model that uses the terms "Narrativist" and "Simulationist." Is my perception correct, that you and perhaps others on the HQ mailing list are thinking in this way?

Because my experience with the game and with many others is that Narrativist goals are best met with game mechanics that include quantitative and randomized features. "Just talking" turns out to be a relatively poor methodology.

You might be interested in the distinction between modes (Gamism, Narrativism, Simulationism) and techniques (when to roll, how numbers are used, etc). They are very different things.

Best,
Ron