More Experienced Characters

[Mike Holmes]

Hey Tom, this is getting a bit hard to follow in both fora (Tom and I are also discussing this on HQ-rules). If nobody else responds either here or there, should we move it all over to one or the other? Your call.

Hm.  Actually, I didn't realize there was a difference in the terms.  We've never used 'followers' as such in any of our games.

Players never spend the three points to purchase one, or the one point to have a "retainer?" Just missed that whole rule?

To me, they're all NPCs.  In this particular case, I usually run Dreadfire.  

Well then that should probably just continue.

Yeah.  It goes against my grain to have 'followers' acting as mere walking augments.  They're always NPCs with free will.

I can understand that POV. But the follower rule is actually pretty interesting. That is, it extends the player's control over more than just the PC to certain other characters. As the player thinks would be fun.

Again, it works very well for equipment that works most of the time without complaint. :-)

The sword does have additional abilities that aid during the fight.  Would using these allow a variable augment?  Or still just a fixed one?

The question of whether or not something should be fixed or variable is largely one of taste over how much detail to go into, or how random the outcome of the use seems like it would be. In practice many people don't use variable augments at all any more. But if you think, "Gee, that might help, but it also might hurt" then it's time for a variable augment.

Otherwise, if nobody seems interested, it's an Auto Augment.

AP lending only applies to extended contests. You aren't falling into the "Combat = Extended Contest" fallacy, are you?

No, not at all.  However, I figured this would only happen for the really important battles, which are likely to be extended contests.

You are falling into the fallacy. :-)

I have used extended contests less for combat in my games than for, oh, say, social manipulation. Use AP lending where it seems to give you a feel of what's going on. Consider this, an augment can be done for just one round, and then they can quit. AP lending means that they're in for the long haul. That often gives you an idea of which should be used when.

Meaning you can use AP Lending in every extended contest if it makes sense to. Is there really such a thing as an unimportant battle?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of these rules being for "more important" contests. Even if you mean "more dramatic" it's still not correct. The rules in question should be used when they seem more appropriate to the current situation details.

Truth be told, in most cases, Augmenting is more powerful.

I was wondering about that.  Both have their obvious advantages, but I wasn't sure which was more valuable in the long run.

There are places where it might not be true, but consider:

Two identical characters have sword 17 and a follower with sword 17, and are trying to cut each other down. The character can have a 17 ability rating and 34 AP, or a 19 ability rating and 19 AP. The one going with 34 AP bids 20 AP trying to win in one blow, but loses because he has less than 50% chance to win the roll. So he loses his 20AP and is at only 14. Nest, the one with 19AP bids 14, and wins again, winning the whole contest. Of the possible two roll outcomes, this is the most probably single outcome. With the Lose/Win combo, or the Win/Lose, then he gets another roll which, again is likely to be win.

And this is a marginal case in terms of success rate - it's actually highly variable. But look at when you get to higher levels.

Sword 10W3, and similar follower. This means I can have 140 AP and a 10W3 ability, or 70 AP and 17W3 AP. Now the odds are even more slanted in my favor on each roll. And since the size AP bids is based on proportion, the advantage in AP has remained precisely the same. I can still take the opponent out in two successful rolls (or one very successful roll). And that's actually the worst strategy to take.

I'll likely stick to augments or the exercise of special abilities.

Sounds right to me. Consider that a normal sword is represented as a simple augment (though I could go on about that...).

The sword actually absorbs and heals some damage during the course of combat.  I guess an augment is still the best way to show this, although it would also be enhancing his combat skill.  Can it provide multiple augments?

Of course. It can augment with everything.

What's cool is that, let's say that the opposition uses the old 7 AP for an hurt rule. You can use an "unrelated action" to use the sword's ability to heal the wound.

I imagine the sword will participate in a variety of ways ranging from augments to AP loans to the occasional edge and specific use of special ability.  It's nice to have a flexible system where the swords abilities are not fixed.

Yeah, it's fun stuff. Basically just keep your head up about it, and use whatever seems appropriate at the moment.

Mike

[Tom B]

Hey Tom, this is getting a bit hard to follow in both fora (Tom and I are also discussing this on HQ-rules). If nobody else responds either here or there, should we move it all over to one or the other? Your call.

Yeah.  I was getting little response on RPGnet, so I tossed the question out to the two HeroQuest forums I was familiar with.  You're the kind soul who responded in both places...:)

I actually find reading and responding here much easier than on the mailing list.  I'll try to converge the tangencies...

Hm.  Actually, I didn't realize there was a difference in the terms.  We've never used 'followers' as such in any of our games.

Players never spend the three points to purchase one, or the one point to have a "retainer?" Just missed that whole rule?

Well, we've never played HeroQuest, so it hasn't come up here.  It's never been an option in other systems, and we've never been ones to have our PCs collect followers.

But the follower rule is actually pretty interesting. That is, it extends the player's control over more than just the PC to certain other characters. As the player thinks would be fun.

Again, it works very well for equipment that works most of the time without complaint. :-)

It is interesting.  It's something I'll keep in mind for the future.

AP lending only applies to extended contests. You aren't falling into the "Combat = Extended Contest" fallacy, are you?

No, not at all.  However, I figured this would only happen for the really important battles, which are likely to be extended contests.

You are falling into the fallacy. :-)

No...really I don't think I am.  I'm only addressing the combat aspect because we were discussing a sword NPC...:-)  I'm well aware of the possibilities for social interactions.  As a GM, I don't usually require a lot of rolls.  I prefer descriptions and roleplaying.  If someone is bargaining at the market, I'm not going to use an extended contest.  If they're trying to talk someone into funding a risky venture, then I probably would.

Consider this, an augment can be done for just one round, and then they can quit. AP lending means that they're in for the long haul. That often gives you an idea of which should be used when.

Good point, and something I'll keep in mind.

Meaning you can use AP Lending in every extended contest if it makes sense to. Is there really such a thing as an unimportant battle?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of these rules being for "more important" contests. Even if you mean "more dramatic" it's still not correct. The rules in question should be used when they seem more appropriate to the current situation details.

Unless it's important or dramatic, I'm unlikely to require die rolls at all, or certainly not more than a simple contest.  If the PCs are fighting a running battle, where their goal is to escape or achieve a goal, I'm about as likely to do it as a series of simple contests as an extended contest.  I realize it would work fine, but it just depends on what seems appropriate.

I guess my point is that right now I don't know how often or in what circumstances I'll be using an extended contest.  If the group loves them, then I'll use them a lot more than if they don't.  We've gone entire sessions without rolling dice, though.  So...we'll see.

snip good arguments for augments

That's what I suspected.  It doesn't matter how many AP you have if you lose the individual contests.

Tom B.

[Mike Holmes]

If the group loves them, then I'll use them a lot more than if they don't. We've gone entire sessions without rolling dice, though. So...we'll see.

That's the right criteria. Though, given your description of your group, I'd say you'll be doing extended contests very little.

Basically what'll likely happen is that you'll run some extened contests early on to try them out in likely seeming places. And what you'll find is that they don't seem to be all that more satisfying in most cases to justify the extra handling time. Or maybe you will, who knows. But the key is that you'll start to use them in proportion to the interest that people have in seeing them. Put simply, it'll work itself out over time in play.

For most people that means less and less ECs, until they're saved for only the most thouroghly appropriate situations. Things like playing out a court case montage. Or, yes, fights like you see in kung fu movies. Or the final fight between Robin Hood and Sir Guy (as played by Basil Rathbone). That sort of thing.

Slaughtering an army of faceless Broo? Simple contest.

In any case for most groups I've seen EC are rare enough that the idea of "more important/less important" ECs seems unlikely. They're all "most important" or they wouldn't be ECs. In fact in many cases even some of the "most important" ones are handled as simple contests.

For example, I currently do an EC about once in ten IRC sessions (which are sorta short sessions, but...).

Mike