Spending or saving Hero Points

[Balbinus]

Hi all,

I ran HeroQuest for the first time last night (of which more later) and one specific problem arose, one I very much doubt is unique.

The characters started with 3 hero points apiece and were given a further three each at the start of the adventure.  But, neither player was willing to spend them since in doing so they would lose them for later character development.

I could give more, but my fear is that they still wouldn't spend them but just build up better characters faster.

What I considered was a house rule saying that an HP was only available for spending on improvement once it had been used for bumping a roll in play.  Two uses for each hp, which may overbalance things, but encouragement to use them.

The difficulty is without them beginning characters are a bit wussy.  The players saw their guys as competent individuals but with most abilities below a single mastery (defined as journeyman skill in the game) they're actually not that able.

Thoughts?

[Brand_Robins]

I've heavily considered doing something similar. After all, using a HP to bump a skill means that you're doing (or desperatly trying to do) something uber cool with it, which is a good reason in a narrative driven game for the skill to get better. When we see a character do something cool, we want/expect to see them do it again and possibly better -- so HP bumping giving raises may work.

The one thing I'd be a bit wary of is -only- allowing HP to be spent through bumps, as that will cut off alternate possibilities for advancement and character change.

I'd also give fewer HPs (may 5 per session rather than 3 to 5 before and 3 to 5 after), to balance for the fact that each HP can now do double duty.

I also know that a few others have just given each HP a "double tally" -- you can use a HP in game for a bump and then use it again after game for a raise. Until you bump, however, you can't raise. The difference being the bump and raise aren't automatically connected.

[Balbinus]

I may have mispoken, the idea would be that once used in a bump in play the hp would then be spendable on any improvement in the normal way, not just in improving the thing bumped.

So, spend an hp to bump a trait and afterwards spend it on that trait, on cementing a relationship, on acquiring a retainer, whatever.  The idea is more to encourage free use of hp in play.

[Nick Brooke]

I also know that a few others have just given each HP a "double tally" -- you can use a HP in game for a bump and then use it again after game for a raise.

We did that in Hero Wars, and it worked well. The tension the written rules created (in forcing a decision between 'temporary/dramatic' bumping or 'permanent/gradual' ability improvement) didn't do anything for our game.

Improvement wasn't linked to bumping in any way. Each HP could be used once to bump AND once for improvement. Separate tallies.

Cheers, Nick

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This older thread Handing out Hero Points may be of interest.

Best,
Ron

[Balbinus]

That's helpful, yes.  Thanks Ron.

I see the logic of your approach as outlined in that thread but am not persuaded it would work with my particular players.  Simon Hibbs method of having separate pools is interesting, but necessitates additional bookwork.  Much to think about there.

On a related point, I couldn't care less whether they successfully complete the scenario or not.  The very idea of a scenario having a successful or unsuccessful outcome offends my simulationist heart :-)

[Edit:  This by the way, posted by Ron, is precisely how I allot them:  "What I'm wondering about, more generally for everyone, is why we need concern ourselves about who gets how many Hero Points. In my games, everyone just gets the same handful at the end of every session. The size of the handful is based on a gestalt of "how much conflict was involved," rated in terms of emotional signficance rather than danger or anything like it, and "how much time we played today." That was it."]

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. I've been saying for a while that starting characters per the rules are, in fact a little wussy. This is intentional, I think. That is, they're not incompetent, but they're not leaders in anything either. So, they need the HP to make them stand out. The idea is that, in this mode of play, the characters are newbies, really, and they should have moments of big success, and big defeats. The HP allow the player to meter the character's progress, and what he looks like in play. The player can either have a character who loses a lot but is learning fast, or who wins through luck a lot but isn't getting anywhere in terms of ability. It's cool that the player has this choice.

Now, it may be that you wanted the characters to be more experienced, so that the choice is between being really good now, or becoming really good over time. That's another cool mode of play. If that's what you're looking for, see the section on Advanced Experience. If the players are driving that strongly on advancement that they're not willing to spend their points to win now, then maybe they're saying that they wanted to play more competent characters than newbies.

IOW, I'm not seeing the problem with the system here, but more with what characters you started out with. If you're worried about the characters looking more competent more often, then start them more experienced.

OTOH, if what you really want is for the characters to be newbies, to seem to win by luck a lot, and to develop big abilities quickly, then you should allow the double use that you're proposing (sounds a bit like 7th Sea Drama Dice).

I think the trade-off is cool, however. Have you considered that you might not be threatening things that are important enough to the characters (players, really)? That is, if it's death on the line, I'll bet they spend the HP to prevent even the possibility. Make the choice not to spend HP a real statement. If they still don't spend, then it just makes the statement all the more powerful.

Mike

[buserian]

I can see players, especially beginning players, wanting to hold back their hero points for improvements, but giving each hero point double duty seems (to me) to unbalance the game. It also restricts the players, who MUST use hero points to bump rolls before they can improve.

What about some sort of compromise? With hero points, heroes have two choices:

1. Save the hero point to use for improvements later, on any ability.

2. Use the hero point to bump a roll. They then can use the hero point again to improve an ability, but only on one of the abilities they used during the contest.

Players will probably still hold back some hero points, since they may want to improve specific abilities that they haven't used (I see this as especially true for magical abilities), but they also get some double use out of them, encouraging them to use hero points to modify the outcome of the game with at least some frequency.

Just my two cents' worth.

buserian

[Balbinus]

buserian,

That's a very nice compromise actually, I really like that.  Consider it nabbed and thanks for the help.

[simon_hibbs]

That's helpful, yes.  Thanks Ron.

I see the logic of your approach as outlined in that thread but am not persuaded it would work with my particular players.  Simon Hibbs method of having separate pools is interesting, but necessitates additional bookwork.  Much to think about there.

It's just a compromise that I worked out with my players.

I sort-of like the idea that when you bump, you spend the HP on increasing the bumped ability. Thus all that bumping with a HP does is prevent you spending it on increasing another ability. The problem here is that then there's no reason for not always using your HPs for bumps, so the average number of bumps per game will go way up - I'd expect it to at least double and possible trebble. That's a significant effect, and could be a problem.

Dividing HPs into character points for advancement and HPs for bumps didn't seem to impose a noticeable ammount of extra work. In fact by simplifying the decisions players have to make it could be argued that it makes points management easier.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Dividing HPs into character points for advancement and HPs for bumps didn't seem to impose a noticeable ammount of extra work. In fact by simplifying the decisions players have to make it could be argued that it makes points management easier.

Less work, yes, but less interesting. I like that players have to consider the exchange for several reasons. That said, I like Buserian's (who let the god in?) solution, as it accomplishes Max's goal, but still makes the decision to use them in this way thoughtful. Sure you get double use, but was that really what you wanted to spend the point on?

Neat. What I really like is that it keeps players thinking about development in the middle of play. That way they're considering at that moment whether or not relationships presented should get cemented, etc, etc.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Neat. What I really like is that it keeps players thinking about development in the middle of play. That way they're considering at that moment whether or not relationships presented should get cemented, etc, etc.

I can see the attraction, but I am concerned about the escalation in the increase in the number of bumps you'll see players using per session. When I allocated character points and HPs I gave them as many CPs as I'd normaly give HPs in vanila HQ, but only 1 or 2 HPs for bumps each session on the basis that in vanilla HQ most players probably spend about 1/3 of their HPs on bumps. With this system they will want to spend 100% of their HPs on bumps.

One solution might be to award 2 or 3 HPs at the beginning of a session that can be used for bumps+advancement during play, then another 2 or three at the end that can only be used immediately for character development. This is a hybrid of the two methods, but at least you don't have two types of points to keep track of.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

One or two extra bumps per session? That's definitely a preference thing. I wouldn't sweat it at all. If anything I'd just have them make more rolls. :-)

But that's just me.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

One or two extra bumps per session? That's definitely a preference thing. I wouldn't sweat it at all. If anything I'd just have them make more rolls. :-)

It's more like 2 or 3 extra bumps, and it's per player per session, not just per session.

Suppose I'm stingy and only give 3 HPs for each of my four players in a session. Previously on average I'd expect roughly 1/3rd to be used for bumps, for 4 bumps that game session. With this rule I'd expect to see 12bumps that game session. It's enough that in many game sessions, bumping rolls becomes the norm rather than the exception. Bear in mind that I usualy award 5 HPs per session, and it gets even worse.

Let's assume that there's usualy one extended contest per session. In the past, players could save up HPs from session to session to have enough for 3 or 4 bumps in an important contest. Now they can do that every single session, so that extended contests will routinely start with every player character bumping their first 2 to 4 rolls.

This is a massive change.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Simon and Mike, aren't all of those claims and implications a function of how much adversity the characters face?

When character-improvement must be traded off with metagame-mechanic resource (very common in RPGs, including HeroQuest) ...

... then the rate of improvement is limited by the desperate adversity that the characters encounter, defined as "potentially enough to force a bump."

So it seems to me as if finding a given group's sweet spot for (a) how many Hero Points to receive per session, (b) how many to spend on bumping during a typical session, (c) and how fast abilities' values get increased ...

... is something that a given group is going to arrive at for themselves.

Best,
Ron