alternate hero advancement

[joshua neff]

I have a problem with the HeroQuest rules: Hero Points. I'm good with them being used to bump success levels in contests, but I hate that they're used to improve traits. I really, really hate how the rules explain how HPs are awarded. Basically, it's "Narrator whim"—the Narrator decides how many points to give out and how often, with only vague guidelines as to what reasons ("good roleplaying" or "achieving goals") and how often to award them to players. I prefer character improvement tied to the use of the mechanics, free from "whatever and whenever the Narrator feels like."

This morning, I had this flash of inspiration: rip-off Dogs in the Vineyard. Here's my idea:

* Hero Points are still used to bump success levels in contests. That is all they are used for.

* After every contest, the player goes to one of two lists.

* If the player won the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 2.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 1.
3) Take a new ability at 17.
4) Take a new personality trait at 17.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 17.
6) If an item (magical or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at 17 if it hasn't already been rated).
7) Take 1 Hero Point for later use.

* If the player lost the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 3.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Take a new ability at 19.
4) Take a new personality trait at 19.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 19.
6) Take 2 Hero Points for later use.

What do people think about this? Basically, I like the idea that in order to improve your character, you have to push your character into conflicts. And in order to really improve your character, you have to take it on the chin. That being said, my math skills are pretty lousy, so if my lists provide too much or too little in the way of advancement, let me know.

Oh, and extended contests. At this point, I'm thinking that they should be handled like...well, like extended contests. That is, you only get to go to the list at the end of the extended contest, not after each time you roll a die. Does that seem right?

[Vaxalon]

After each CONTEST?

Damn, that's way too much handling time.

[joshua neff]

After each CONTEST?

Damn, that's way too much handling time.

Seriously? How is that too much handling time? You pick one thing from a list of, at most, 7 things and add it to your sheet. And it's only after every contest. I don't know about you, but when I've played HQ, I don't remember having contests every three seconds or anything.

[Mike Holmes]

Fred, I think you could just mark a victory or defeat, and add the abilities later to suit.

But I like what Josh has here. I almost started railing at him when it looked like he was decoupling HP spending from character development because I like the trade-off. But he's still got the trade-off in there, in that you're given an incentive to fail.

It's complex enough that it barely avoids the "incest" rule (I worked it hard to see what would happen). But the cut off point between levels of victory and defeat does seem to produce a break point for decision-making. It could be smoother, in theory. Not a good idea, but you could smooth it out by having different rewards for every level of victory and defeat, for instance.

I'd go to playtest with this immediately as is, Josh. In fact, I'm tempted to try it myself. Still not having found a good cycle either.

Mike

[joshua neff]

This all came to me while I was out on a walk this morning, so if it's a bit rough, it's no surprise to me. I think it definitely need to be playtested. If you get to it before I do, Mike, let me know how it works.

[joshua neff]

On further thought...

It could be smoother, in theory. Not a good idea, but you could smooth it out by having different rewards for every level of victory and defeat, for instance.

Now that, I think, would get into "too much handling time" territory. I'd like to keep it down to no more than two (maybe three) lists.

[Hobbitboy]

...
* If the player won the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 2.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 1.
3) Take a new ability at 17.
4) Take a new personality trait at 17.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 17.
6) If an item (magical or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at 17 if it hasn't already been rated).
7) Take 1 Hero Point for later use.

* If the player lost the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 3.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Take a new ability at 19.
4) Take a new personality trait at 19.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 19.
6) Take 2 Hero Points for later use.

What do people think about this? Basically, I like the idea that in order to improve your character, you have to push your character into conflicts. And in order to really improve your character, you have to take it on the chin. That being said, my math skills are pretty lousy, so if my lists provide too much or too little in the way of advancement, let me know.
...

So you can begin a new trait/ability that was not used in the contest but you can't raise one?

Doesn't this run the risk of encouraging players to engage in (and presumably lose) contests for no other reason than to exercise some trait/ability/etc?

I've never been a great fan of increasing the degree to which game mechanics influence player decsions about their character's actions.

Thanks,

- John

[joshua neff]

So you can begin a new trait/ability that was not used in the contest but you can't raise one?

Well, if it's a new ability, you couldn't have used it in a contest, right?

Doesn't this run the risk of encouraging players to engage in (and presumably lose) contests for no other reason than to exercise some trait/ability/etc?

Absolutely. Or to put it another way, it rewards you for making contests around abilities. Like, if my character has the trait "In Love With Princess Sarma" and it's a trait I really want to focus on. So, I put my character in conflicts centered around his love for Princess Sarma.

I've never been a great fan of increasing the degree to which game mechanics influence player decsions about their character's actions.

*shrug* Okay.

I, however, am a big fan of increasing the degree to which game mechanics reward player decisions about character actions. If you want to raise your "Feckless Charm" ability, it's obviously an ability that's important to you. So, put your character into conflicts in which his "Feckless Charm" is the main ability. Succeed or fail, interesting things will happen and you'll be rewarded with an increase in "Feckless Charm" (or something else, if you choose a different thing on the list).

But, if you prefer the book method of increasing abilities, by all means, pass my proposal by.

[Dirk Ackermann]

Hi Joshua,

I like the idea very much. But why are these numbers that high: 17 an 19 could be more like 13 and 17 ... Please explain it to me.

MfG

Dirk

[CCW]

Joshua, this is a really tempting idea.  I love Dogs' fallout rules.

Have you thought of adding "gain a flaw at (some fairly high rating / an appropriate level)" to your fallout lists, especially the victory list?  This would be a mechanic for doing that "I finally defeated dread lord whosit, but he left me scarred for life" thing, in which a character succeeds, but at some cost.  Now generally I'm happy to give out flaws for free, but players and I often forget and it would be nice to see the option in front of us every time a character takes fallout.

If not being able to raise traits without using them in contests is a big problem for a group, perhaps there could be one more list, similar to Dog's experience fallout, which you'd choose from at the end of each session.

Charles Wotton

[joshua neff]

I like the idea very much. But why are these numbers that high: 17 an 19 could be more like 13 and 17 ... Please explain it to me.

I never have players make characters with abilities that start at 13. I never saw the point of that, and the numbers too low for cool epic heroes. (Heck, I sometimes think 17 is too low to start with.)

[joshua neff]

Have you thought of adding "gain a flaw at (some fairly high rating / an appropriate level)" to your fallout lists, especially the victory list?  This would be a mechanic for doing that "I finally defeated dread lord whosit, but he left me scarred for life" thing, in which a character succeeds, but at some cost.  Now generally I'm happy to give out flaws for free, but players and I often forget and it would be nice to see the option in front of us every time a character takes fallout.

Great idea, Charles! I'll add that to the list. Thanks!

[Vaxalon]

You know... this is growing on me.

I think I may playtest it.

[charles ferguson]

I like Mike's idea a lot: after the contest give the ability a tick or cross, then browse the fallout list later to make the choice at an appopriate time (after play or during a lull, however your normally handle HP expenditure in your game).

So handling time has no real increase at all.

[mneme]

Mnn.  It does look nice, though I'd be very tempted to swap some of the win/loss rewards around, giving people a mechanical incentive to both win and lose conflicts.  Perhaps:

Win:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 3.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 1.
3) Take a new ability at LOW.
4) Take a new personality trait at LOW.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest who isn't the opponent at HIGH.
6) Take a new relationship with an opponent in the contest at LOW.
6) If an item (magical or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at HIGH if it hasn't already been rated).
7) Take 1 Hero Point for later use.

Loss:

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 1.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 2.
3. Raise three traits used to augment the main ability by 1.
4) Take a new ability at HIGH.
5) Take a new personality trait at HIGH.
6) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest who isn't the opponent at LOW.
7) Take a new relationship with an opponent in the contest at HIGH.
8) Take 3 Hero Points for later use.

So if you wanted to improve a single ability, pick up an ally, or grab an item, you'd really want to win contests.

But if you wanted to improve a bunch of abilities, pick up new abilities (including ones framed as flaws), pick up a bunch of hero points, or get a nemesis or converted foe, you'ld really want to lose.

I'll note that if you kept all these options, the handling time does go up -- if you can only boost related abilities, etc, you have to keep track of those until you decide on the boost.

You could get around this, however, by removing a lot of the "related" requirements -- you can still only get the main boost the normal way, but the restriction on other things could just be "not main".