Major Victory = Major Defeat for the opponent.

Sometimes when a hero gets a victory, I want to give them a bonus, instead of giving the opponent a penalty. For example, let's say that Ragnar manages to make a run from one village to another in short order. He's feeling good about his abilities. Now, I can just say that next time Ragnar runs the course in question, it's resistance will be lowered as appropriate for the loss in question. But that doesn't help Ragnar defeat any other courses. That is, there's no real mechanical way to give him a bonus to all such tasks in the current rules.

Or is there?

What I've taken to doing some lately is that I'll say that, essentially, the whole world has a -2 penalty to their resistances to Ragnar's running, to reflect his current self-confidence in his running abilities. This is sort of a rationalization, but it works from a character-centric POV.

Does this make sense, or seem problematic? Is there another way to accomplish the same effect?

Mike

I think it's a good idea. But may I suggest a bit of flavor-change?

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with HeroQuest, other than to know that it's a fantasy RPG. With that in mind, there are dieties, yes? If so, is there a diety that governs travel? If not, then the rest of what I have to say won't be of any value, but...

Let's assume that the God of Travel has decided that it takes 5 days to travel from the City to the Sea. Ragnar wants to run it in 4 days. Now, instead of Ragnar vs. the World, it's Ragnar vs. God of Travel.

-Eric

Well, I suppose. Actually I think your solution is going to be problematic with HQ, given that it's largely a treatment of how you relate to the gods already (and this doesn't quite fit in). But I get your sentiment.

The point has more to do with the mechanical ramifications than with whether or not we can find a good rationalization for it in-game.

Mike

Actually, HeroQuest in Glorantha-wise, that wouldn't be impossible. It would simply be that your character's epic run gives him a "run from city to city" feat/charm/talent that lets him beat the snot out of any mundane resistance in the future. Someone getting a magical ability because of a famous mortal victory seems very in keeping with the feel of the world.

As for the more general question, I'd say it depends on the situation. (Yes, that's my answer to every damn question.)

If the character's goal was to make the run fast so that he can tell the King that the Lunars have been beaten back and the city is safe the major victory's speed seems to be it's own reward. There isn't any need for bonuses or penalties in the future -- the PC wanted to get there fast, and getting their fast is the reward. (Or dropping over dead and having people run races commemorating their feat for the next 2000 years could be....)

In places where just the success isn’t the only reward you could give the bonus in areas other than the one tested with. If the character has just run farther and faster than anyone else then they may get a reputation bonus – everyone knows that they’re the best runner in town, and treats them as such.

However, I don’t see anything wrong with the general concept of giving the winner a bonus. Really, a bonus to one side is a penalty to the other, and if the PC is against the world in this test and the next, it all works out. It also would have the bonus of letting the PC write something cool down on their sheet rather than the GM having to silently track yet more stats.

Brand_Robins wrote: If the character's goal was to make the run fast so that he can tell the King that the Lunars have been beaten back and the city is safe the major victory's speed seems to be it's own reward. There isn't any need for bonuses or penalties in the future -- the PC wanted to get there fast, and getting their fast is the reward. (Or dropping over dead and having people run races commemorating their feat for the next 2000 years could be....)

In places where just the success isn’t the only reward you could give the bonus in areas other than the one tested with. If the character has just run farther and faster than anyone else then they may get a reputation bonus – everyone knows that they’re the best runner in town, and treats them as such.

However, I don’t see anything wrong with the general concept of giving the winner a bonus. Really, a bonus to one side is a penalty to the other, and if the PC is against the world in this test and the next, it all works out.

It also would have the bonus of letting the PC write something cool down on their sheet rather than the GM having to silently track yet more stats.

Mike Holmes wrote: What I've taken to doing some lately is that I'll say that, essentially, the whole world has a -2 penalty to their resistances to Ragnar's running, to reflect his current self-confidence in his running abilities. This is sort of a rationalization, but it works from a character-centric POV.

That works, yes, but has the same problems of requiring narrator fiat. In fact, I came up with an entire alternate system by which one could win new abilities mechanically ("currency based resolution"). Don't play with it because it's a tad too complex, outside the rules and untested. But it would mechanically accomplish what you're saying.

The problem with the narrator arbitrarily giving out abilities (or even persistent bonuses), is the question of how to decide how much to give. For example, I could give anywhere from a 15 to a 4W, and still have it be a +2 in terms of augmenting. But that's quite a range. Why 17?

More to the point, how often do I want to do this? That is, I can't give them out on every success, or soon the character sheet's will overflow, and the system will collapse under it's own weight. If I only give them for, say, one out of ten contests, then which contests? I'm assuming that the player would have to cement these with a HP - what if I give one player a cool one, and the other player a not so cool one?

Generally I have a problem with arbitrary assignment of bonuses - see my earlier entire thread on this problem.

So, yes, this is an option. But not one I particularly like. I'd prefer to have the system produce some bonus that I'd feel safe handing out as it was produced by the system as an unbiased participant.

Does your suggestion mean that you think that the penalty idea (and the alternate bonus one) is a bad idea? Or was this just an alternative?

Mike

Mike,

It's not a bad idea, it's just not one I like.

Firstly, giving the world a penalty against a specific character only is just the same as giving that character a bonus. Not in the mathematical sense (17+2 vs 14 is different to 17 vs. 14-2), but in the sense that it's an ability of that character only. That means that it's going to need tracking on that character's sheet anyway.

Now, either you want the advantage to be temporary, or permanent. If it's temporary, a Circumstance modifier is appropriate for as long as you consider the character to warrant the benefits. This means that it doesn't (cannot) be cemented, and you can dish as many of these out as you see fit.

Alternatively, it's a permanent ability. In which case, I think that it should be statted up like any other trait, on the sheet. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, it could be a personality trait, a new magical ability, or even a relationship - whatever fits the best.

In these cases, I think that the "coolness" of the award has to relate directly to the "coolness" of the action that earned it.

Of course, all of the above requires an "arbitrary" method for resolving who gets what bonus.

If you want a purely "mechanical" version, then it can be done. I would recommend that:

- The character gets a Circumstance Bonus equal to the normal penalty, as you suggested before
- This bonus is always won, even if the other party also takes damage; this avoids any "arbitrary" decision over whether it's appropriate or not to give a bonus. Success begets success
- The bonus "heals" over time. A (simple) mechanic is needed for this, but I suggest that the bonus "heals" a lot quicker than a corresponding njury would!
- If the character applies a bonus to a contest and loses the contest, he loses the bonus immediately

This might fit your requirements, but I'm not sure that I would be bothered with doing this myself - it seems a lot easier to "wing it" and award new (or increased) traits for notable Deeds performed (and only the notable ones).

hope this helps,

Doug

Doug Ruff wrote: It's not a bad idea, it's just not one I like.

Firstly, giving the world a penalty against a specific character only is just the same as giving that character a bonus. Not in the mathematical sense (17+2 vs 14 is different to 17 vs. 14-2), but in the sense that it's an ability of that character only. That means that it's going to need tracking on that character's sheet anyway.

Now, either you want the advantage to be temporary, or permanent. If it's temporary, a Circumstance modifier is appropriate for as long as you consider the character to warrant the benefits. This means that it doesn't (cannot) be cemented, and you can dish as many of these out as you see fit.

Alternatively, it's a permanent ability. In which case, I think that it should be statted up like any other trait, on the sheet. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, it could be a personality trait, a new magical ability, or even a relationship - whatever fits the best.

In these cases, I think that the "coolness" of the award has to relate directly to the "coolness" of the action that earned it.

Of course, all of the above requires an "arbitrary" method for resolving who gets what bonus.

This might fit your requirements, but I'm not sure that I would be bothered with doing this myself - it seems a lot easier to "wing it" and award new (or increased) traits for notable Deeds performed (and only the notable ones).

Mike,

I'm a process nut too, for what it's worth, which I why I'm enjoying discussing your idea, even if it isn't one I'd use myself. The first half of my post (which you've responded to) is mostly about what I'd do. That's not particularly helpful, so please accept my apologies.

The last part of the post though (which you haven't responded too) is about attempting to deliver your requirements. Please let me know if it's useful, the following may also help.

Re: Circumstance modifiers. I picked these deliberately as they don't appear to cement ever. They seem to represent a temporary advantage, for example, holding the higher ground in combat, or performing a ritual on a High Holy Day. These advantages aren't "portable", so they can't be cemented.

As it seems that you don't want to dish out permanent traits as a matter of course (and I agree with you) then I figured that awarding a Circumstance bonus to reflect the "high spirits" that a victory would give the character was more appropriate.

If you consider that the injury penalties for losing a conflict are, in effect, a specialised sort of Circumstance Penalty, I think this is an appropriate "twist" to the rules.

however, you appear to want this bonus to have some duration, so it can be used in the next scene. Which is why I thought that the bonus could "heal", like an injury.

If this doesn't appeal, perhaps a one-shot "Inspiration Bonus" (as in Capes) could be awarded. The player chooses when to spend this (so it can have duration), but once it is used, it is struck off the sheet.

Any of this helping, or am I drifting away from your vision?

Doug Ruff wrote: I'm a process nut too, for what it's worth, which I why I'm enjoying discussing your idea, even if it isn't one I'd use myself. The first half of my post (which you've responded to) is mostly about what I'd do. That's not particularly helpful, so please accept my apologies.

The last part of the post though (which you haven't responded too) is about attempting to deliver your requirements.

- The character gets a Circumstance Bonus equal to the normal penalty, as you suggested before

- This bonus is always won, even if the other party also takes damage; this avoids any "arbitrary" decision over whether it's appropriate or not to give a bonus. Success begets success

- The bonus "heals" over time. A (simple) mechanic is needed for this, but I suggest that the bonus "heals" a lot quicker than a corresponding njury would!

- If the character applies a bonus to a contest and loses the contest, he loses the bonus immediately

Re: Circumstance modifiers. I picked these deliberately as they don't appear to cement ever. They seem to represent a temporary advantage, for example, holding the higher ground in combat, or performing a ritual on a High Holy Day. These advantages aren't "portable", so they can't be cemented.

As it seems that you don't want to dish out permanent traits as a matter of course (and I agree with you) then I figured that awarding a Circumstance bonus to reflect the "high spirits" that a victory would give the character was more appropriate.

If you consider that the injury penalties for losing a conflict are, in effect, a specialised sort of Circumstance Penalty, I think this is an appropriate "twist" to the rules.

Mike, you could make the temporary bonus an augment based either on the original ability or the original rating used in the contest. (i.e. Running augmented by Running). It'd be an objective rule and broadly graded to the level of the abilities being used. Makes sense to me in rules terms and "realism" terms.
Sam.

Mandacaru wrote: Mike, you could make the temporary bonus an augment based either on the original ability or the original rating used in the contest. (i.e. Running augmented by Running). It'd be an objective rule and broadly graded to the level of the abilities being used. Makes sense to me in rules terms and "realism" terms.
Sam.

I was just making a suggestion. I don't have anything against at all your system. If truth be told, my set of interpretations of the rules or minisystems for bits tends to change all the time as I don't really care. I have enough of that fiddly sort of thing at work. I have at least one player who seems to know the rules. Of course he might be being very sneaky :)

As for longer term outcomes of major contests, I just try to make it fun and to leave it to the players if I can. If there's an imbalance or there are injustices I'm sure they'll even out or be forgotten.

Looking at your first para though, yes of course, why not however many augments from the same skill piling up? So you're on a roll - fine. Sometimes in sport, for example, it's just working well. You do something well, then you do it a little better (soccer here). Starts to become an extended contest but I'm sure they can be distinguished.

And I was sort of assuming multiplications or divisions for levels of success.

Only a half answer to your Q I know, but it's late. That won't have advanced your cause much Mike - sorry :)

Sam.

Mandacaru wrote: I was just making a suggestion.

If truth be told, my set of interpretations of the rules or minisystems for bits tends to change all the time as I don't really care.

As for longer term outcomes of major contests, I just try to make it fun and to leave it to the players if I can. If there's an imbalance or there are injustices I'm sure they'll even out or be forgotten.

Looking at your first para though, yes of course, why not however many augments from the same skill piling up? So you're on a roll - fine. Sometimes in sport, for example, it's just working well.

And I was sort of assuming multiplications or divisions for levels of success.

Only a half answer to your Q I know, but it's late.

Hi Mike:
I think this is being over-thought a bit. I don't really believe that this has to be as complex as it seems we're making it.

If Zippy is using his Run Long Distances 2w to run a 3 mile stretch in 20 minutes, then a number of options are available to us.

1) Zippy could make it in shorter than the determined 20 minutes.
2) Zippy could get a bonus (equal to the penalty that would normally be incurred upon the loser of the contest) to an appropriate ability. This bonus would last for a length of time equal to the duration the penalty would normally have.

A few salient points:

Complete victories (at least in my interpretation of them) would offer a 100% bonus.

A bonus would not necessarily have to be applied to the stat being used. If Zippy loses a fistfight with a Major Defeat, it doesn't necessarily mean that he loses -50% of his Health. He could just as easily have the penalty apply to his "Tough Guy Phisod" ability. Likewise, if Zippy gets a Complete Victory on the Run, he could have his "Fame" ability increased by 100% for a few months or more. He would be known as the guy who "made the Kessel Run in 10 parsecs"...

HeroQuest really needs a good, consistent chart of distances, weights, etc. It doesn't really have one. I pulled one together from Captain Spaulding's (Bruce Ferrie's) HQ conversions. I was going to use it for a (never-to-happen) HeroQuest-Freedom City game. I've found the chart to be very handy for just these types of situations in that it actually gives "stats" to the most overlooked participant in a HeroQuest game (the mundane world).

As for which to apply when, I think the player should have a say in that. It's my opinion that a hard and fast rule to say X success gives X bonus to Y ability is just asking for trouble. I think players could use a rule like this to help advance their stories (i.e. Serama uses her Double-Bladed Staff fighting to slay a group of raiders only to have her attractiveness to members of the Rhiani tribe increase...)

Those are just my thoughts on it, though. I think the solution is fairly simple. IMO, you've already got it.

Scott

P.S. Something that did occur to me, just now actually, is allowing for a split of penalties to occur. Such that Zippy, getting a Complete Victory in his run, could thereby decrease the time it took to run the distance (by 50%) and also increase his Prestige as a runner by 50%. That's assuming, of course, that two levels of the lower penalties equal one of the higher. We could do a different type of split, I suppose.

50% + 1 = 100% ?
10% + 10% = 100% ?
10% + 1 = 50% ?
1 + 1 = 10% ?

I think something like that would be useful, at least for what we're proposing.

Like the rest of you on this thread I have been struggling to find a way to have a nice tidy currency that lets the results of one contest carry over to another.

Despite the title of the thread it seems that the nature of this currency is what you are actually discussing.

The Nature of the bonus

While setting the size of the bonus is problematic, setting the nature of the bonus seems easy. Don’t try to describe it in terms of what it does or what it effects because that forces you to guess what it might effect and perhaps even choose between them. Just describe it in terms of what it is, which means name it after whatever happened.

For example if our runner 'Zippy' carries the news of victory back to the town faster then anyone can imagine, then the new bonus is a temp ability called 'zippy carried the news of victory faster than anyone could imagine'. Leave it at that.

Its only an 'ability' in the sense that it works like one mechanically. It does not belong to Zippy. Instead it goes 'on the table' for anyone to call on as the need arises and stays in play in line with the level of victory.

Now you can apply it as a bonus or penalty whenever it seems relevant, just like you would with any other skill.

Does this seem weird? Well, you are not really limited to using your own skills. If you are trying to scare someone who has the ability 'terrified of chickens' you might well arrange for chickens to figure in your plan and ask for an augment to your chances based on his chicken-phobic skill. Calling on the worlds new temp ability is really no different from this.
* Want to see if Zippy is carried round the town by the joyous crowds and then given the keys to the city? His chances are augmented by the temp ability.
* Want to see if he can travel on to the next town with the news. You may decide that the difficulty of this is augmented by the temp ability to represent his exhaustion. Or you may decide the opposite...

The key thing is - don’t try to double guess anything in advance. Wait until it actually matters. Then improvise and agree between you. That’s the Heroquest way.

The Size of the bonus

This is the tricky bit, and I don’t have a good solid answer either. But I do want to sound a word of caution about using multipliers on skills to give bonuses.

While it is very attractive because its a mirror of the way that impairments work, I really don’t think that is desirable. A +100% bonus can be so substantial that it potentially makes further success near inevitable.

For example our recent contests have been between skills of 10w3 even before we start to augment. A +100% bonus on this is +10w3 and is not something you want to happen on a complete victory except in special, probably rather unusual, circumstances.

There are several issues:

a) Complete victory is not actually particularly unusual.

It would be pretty infrequent except that the rules are designed for the players to have a say over the way the story goes by spending HP. A HP spent by the contestant and a few by the augmenters too, makes a wacking difference to your odds. OK, a complete victory is hardly a done deal, but its often not that difficult for players to 'buy' a really good victory if they want it bad enough.

If you give players the option to 'buy' a bonus early on and then snowball it for the rest of the game they always will. It will be too powerful a tactic. At which point the rules will be determining what the characters do not supporting the players in deciding.

b) Bonuses and penalties don’t have the same effect and they don’t have the same scope.

Bonuses set up positive feedback. Penalties set up negative feedback. They don’t have the same effect.

Positive feedback is risky because it can easily grow out of control.

Example: Scarlet, a Lunar missionary, tries to turn a raging mob back on the Orlanthi rabble rousers who have fired them up. If the players all spend HP and go balls out to get a complete victory on a 10w3 v 10w3 Sway The Masses contest they would be rewarded with a +100% bonus.
They are now effectively 20w6 at Mass Swaying. Complete victory against another 10w3 is now pretty certain. Presumably this gives another substantial bonus. In short order, matters get exponentially out of hand. No Mass can sleep safe in its bed. Ruin and disaster follow.

If instead you give the bonus as a separate ability then effective increase in any ability used in a contest is the augment provided by the new ability, which is only +10% of it. This has a damping effect that limits the danger of the feedback loop.

You could perhaps apply an 'only one bonus can be applied rule'. However my gut feel is that having a 'Scarlet Spoke And The Baying Mob Turned On The Orlanthi Thanes' 10W3 ability floating about is both
less dangerous and more interesting.

I suspect that it would be ok for the players (or NPCs) to use the new temp skill as the main active ability where relevant and augment it with their own skills. This could have a dramatic and interesting outcome. But it still does not have the danger of a positive feedback loop.

The down side of this is that you cant use the new ability to explain the 'death' of whatever it was that suffered the complete defeat. Is it enough just to say that the defeated side suffers a perm loss and that no one can call on the new temp ability to augment in a contest where the perm loss already applies.

Cementing The Skill

Just say that the temp skill justifies the player in increasing any abilities that relate to it by up to 10% of the temp ability (i.e. the amount it would augment them by) OR let them buy points in the new ability.

I would be inclined to try waiving the HP multipliers that are supposed to apply when increasing a skill by more than one point.

The tempting thing to do is set the cost of cementing the new skill using the costs animists must pay to cement a new spirit. However, I play a Theist character. Our skills cost a fortune compared to those pesky bargain basement animists. It makes me beleive something is broken there. I don’t feel I need offer any other explanation for my dislike of that particular way of buying abilities.

Anyway, the important points are:

a) Anyone can call on the temp ability to justify an increase. It’s down to the GM to adjudicate. But this is the simply the same process of deciding relevance that the GM has to apply to every attempt to call on an ability in every contest in the game.

b) It is only now, at the end of the story, that the long term effects of the victory are spelled out in terms of perm abilities. And this is left to the players who, in deciding, are making statements about where they want future episodes of the story to focus.

Cheers,

Nick H, back at last.

Nick:
I really like your ideas here. I'm confused a bit by how you would implement them.

How would you determine the rating of the temporary skill generated by such a contest?

Is it also safe to assume that this applies only to contests where the resistance is supplied by an entity for which "damage" is inappropriate (such as time or distance)? Or are you proposing that the losers in a contest take damage as well as the winners in a contest receiving a "Kicked those losers' butts" ability for a temporary duration?

Great ideas, though. I think it's a good approach to developing currency using the standard HQ system as opposed to something we've tacked on for the time being.

Scott

Just to touch on Penalising The World. I dont think its appropriate to say that the world is in some way injured. Individuals or groups get injured. The world doesn't.

This doesn't alter anything I just posted. I'm just suffering guilt about not addressing the title of the thread.

Scripty:
HeroQuest really needs a good, consistent chart of distances, weights, etc

I am not sure I agree (and am nearish to being sure I disagree).

I find its better to avoid specific references to weight, height, etc, and just describe things relatively. Once you start to talk in terms of kilos people will start to do the mental maths, you will have made a rod for your own back, and everyone will be distracted from the story.

Its easier to think in terms of 'what sort of person could do this'. Is it a task for the strongest man in the clan? Could any strong person do it? Is it beyond normal human ability? Once you decide the answer to this you know the difficulty for the task.

Then describe the difficulty to the players in the same terms: "no man in the whole land could lift this, except perhaps Scurri 'Two Carts' of the Blue badger clan". Establish this frame of reference in the players minds, so they know what terms like 'best in clan', 'best in tribe', 'no man could do it' mean in terms of difficulty. Then no one has to say the numbers out loud. I dont think numbers are any friend to play.

Cheers,

Scripty:

How would you determine the rating of the temporary skill generated by such a contest?

KingOfFarPoint wrote:
I find its better to avoid specific references to weight, height, etc, and just describe things relatively. Once you start to talk in terms of kilos people will start to do the mental maths, you will have made a rod for your own back, and everyone will be distracted from the story.

Its easier to think in terms of 'what sort of person could do this'. Is it a task for the strongest man in the clan? Could any strong person do it? Is it beyond normal human ability? Once you decide the answer to this you know the difficulty for the task.

I have split the issue of sample difficulty charts off to a seperate thread Charting The World

Lots to cover here (I lost track of the thread when an attempt to go to it caused a browser to crash). And a big thanks for considering all this.

Scott,

1. One can say that a Complete Victory is 100% and that seems to be intuitive, and sure would be easy to remeber. The problem is that it doesn't match any other use of Complete Victories. I had this same problem in the "currency system" that I mentioned earlier.

What I've come to the conclusion about this is that instead of a bonus, a Complete Victory alters the world permenantly in some way. That is, Complete Defeat means not that the character targetted has a -100%, but that they're altered so that they can never attempt the contest in question again. If the contest is "staying alive" then they're dead so that they can no longer attempt this contest. If they lose a footrace against somebody, then they'll never again be able to win against that person.

Now, -100% = always failing. So as a penalty that seems to work. But as a bonus, it's not +100%, it's plus infinity. That is, you always win in this case. Or, rather, the opponent always loses. See how that's required to balance out?

Now, I would never penalize "the world" -100%, and say that the character always wins against everyone from that point on. Instead, I'd go with a narrower construction. I gave an example, previously - the player never has to roll to see if he can get from A to B in that short period of time again, as he's "conquered" that course.

Again, giving out bonuses instead of penalties, would always be optional, and a judgement call, to represent the outcome in an interesting (real carefully limited) way. Just as penalties are in the rules as written. So, in the case of "complete victory" the result is always the same, which is the same as -100% for the target (the equivalent of plus infinity).

2. Yes, bonuses are like penalties in that they apply to whatever the narrator rules they work against. Some people misread the rule, but when fighting you don't get a -10% to your fighting roll neccessarily. It all depends on what the narrator decides to describe as the nature of the penalty.

The same would apply for bonuses. The add to anything the narrator deems as appropriate.

3. I agree with Nick (and in fact won't hesitate to say that I completely think this is true) that you never really need precise charts. But then, you knew that. In any case, there are some guidlines in the books. So I'm not sure that there's much to say on this one.

4. The rules say that the only thing that's certain about an outcome is that there will be success or failure of some level of magnitude, based on whether it was marginal, minor, etc. That is, the narrator has to rule on what benefits the success brings in terms of situation.

In addition, the narrator may add penalties. This is not an "either/or" case. There's always the benefits of success (nebulous as those guidelines may be), and, optionally, an additional penalty to the target.

So, while you could "split" a bonus up, you'd be creating a whole new system of results. Might be a better one, but I'd have to think about it a bunch. Basically, you're reducing the benefits of success, and ameliorating the problems of failure. Generally, less impressive results.

5. There's already rules for adding penalties together. I suggest keeping the same rules for bonuses. Now, the parallel falls off here in that the rule is that if a character has less than zero due to penalties that they should fail automatically. Implying that there should be some level of automatic success that one can climb to.

Instead of trying to cobble together what the inverse of the defeat condition here is, I'm more philosophically inclined to say that a -3 is a 17W-1. Then there's no autofail for any pile of penalties, nor any auto-success needed for any acumulation of bonuses - you always just roll if a "complete" has not occured yet. In which case, things have been altered to where you now no longer roll.

Yeah, that's a break from the rules, but there's no way not to break the rules in this regard and still get the effect desired. It's just as "breaky" or more to try to come up with an auto-success inverse.

See the whole hunting thread for further ideas about this.


Nick,
Yes, you're covering some ground that I've already been over. Helpfully, I might add.

1. Yes, this is really what we're talking about, the currency. The thread title is about the way that I've been doing it.

2. I agree with you on the whole "naming the injury" concept, for instance. It's implied by the rules, and people who don't do it, really probably aren't playing by the rules (they still might be if they're refering back to the event, but I think that most people assume it's a -2 to swordplay).

3. What you have here, largely, was one of my early stabs at doing the whole "currency" thing. I had the same problem as you, generally, in setting up the levels of the outcome ability. I'd really like for it to be variable, but 10% of an ability (to say nothing of 1) as you note, aren't really valuable. Anything less than 6 is entirely irrelevant.

My "finished" currency model (see earlier link), solves this problem pretty well, IMO, in a good gambling way. It just seems a tad radical. This all has me thinking about reconsidering it, however. If anyone want's to comment on it, I'd appreciate some more debate about it.

4. Good observation on the "bonus/penalty" thing being irellevant. This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. A bonus for one is a penalty for another, and it all depends on how the "impediment" in question relates. Your viewpoint here is an easier to transmit perspective than my "injure the world" POV.

5. I disagree that a +100% would be problematic, as it happens. In fact, per # 5 to Scott, you can see that I go far beyond +100% to automatic success. The task in question becomes something that the self-respect of the hero makes him immune to failing. Think of it this way - if I'd gotten the Complete Victory against the second target, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Essentially this effect is merely extending out to other things than the primary effect. But only so as you add the abilities together.

In any case, I see no reason not to continue to stack bonuses until they're sky high. Most of these aren't permenant anyhow. In fact, all of them sans a HP (and many even then). And, in my version you can't get the +100%, so...

I'm not seeing the "bonus" method as problematic, despite all of this. I'd prefer a "new ability" method, but only if it doesn't bend the system all out of shape.

6. I agree that the cost of cementing is problematic. See my whole thread in this forum on that subject.


BTW, as it happens, several of these related topics I'm going to be writing up as articles for "Narrator Advice" at: http://www.glorantha.com/support/narrator_advice.html

Mike

Hi Mike. Good points all around. I’m going to try and take a stab at discussing a couple of them. I’ve skipped over the ones I completely agree with and just included the ones I had questions about or wanted to clarify my statements on. It’s not a great way to reply (I know) but I was concerned that if I touched on all the points I would just have a mile-long post that would lead to more confusion.

Mike Holmes wrote: 1. One can say that a Complete Victory is 100% and that seems to be intuitive, and sure would be easy to remeber. The problem is that it doesn't match any other use of Complete Victories. I had this same problem in the "currency system" that I mentioned earlier.

Mike Holmes wrote: What I've come to the conclusion about this is that instead of a bonus, a Complete Victory alters the world permenantly in some way. That is, Complete Defeat means not that the character targetted has a -100%, but that they're altered so that they can never attempt the contest in question again. If the contest is "staying alive" then they're dead so that they can no longer attempt this contest. If they lose a footrace against somebody, then they'll never again be able to win against that person.

Mike Holmes wrote: 3. I agree with Nick (and in fact won't hesitate to say that I completely think this is true) that you never really need precise charts. But then, you knew that. In any case, there are some guidlines in the books. So I'm not sure that there's much to say on this one.

Mike Holmes wrote: ...
So, while you could "split" a bonus up, you'd be creating a whole new system of results. Might be a better one, but I'd have to think about it a bunch. Basically, you're reducing the benefits of success, and ameliorating the problems of failure. Generally, less impressive results.

Mike Holmes wrote: 5. There's already rules for adding penalties together. I suggest keeping the same rules for bonuses.