Hi all

Caveat: I use terms here from the glossary. Reading the three articles relating to aspects of Creative Agenda would also be advisable. (Regulars tell me if this assumption is a given)

I have been trying to think of a very good reason why magic should be so expensive in Heroquest after GM'ing for sometime and seeing how my players have developed their characters. I suggest that non concentrated magic skills cost 2 points to increase and concentrated only 1. Of course, there is a setting requirement for concentration (although that also could be ditched IMHO together with that alien world penalty but thats a whole 'nother thread!!).

My reasoning is founded in the thought that the cost system for experience is a simulationist/ gamist hang up and to redress it somewhat would reduce drift (Changing from one Creative Agenda to another).

Example: For newbies I ask them to spend points during character creation on a 1 for 1 basis. This has yet to be abused as the signal they get is that each skill has the same general utility and they do not therefore minimax (as if I would be bothered anyhow)

Generally the point buying system is fading into just guff in my mind to be dispensed.

Thoughts/shoot me down in flames

Regards
Rob

Hi,

I agree strenuously. I vastly prefer the Hero Wars system in which a point was a point and an ability was an ability, with none of the Currency mod that was encrusted onto HeroQuest.

Best,
Ron

Sorry Rob, I wish I could disagree but I can't, so no lively debate from me either.

I also find it, when I am a player, annoying that I have to fiddle around with these different costs when what I just want to do is do cool stuff. Odd isn't it? In Wushu (if I'm not mistaken), the more cool stuff you do the more likely it is to succeed. In HQ, for magic (kinda, in that 3 points on an affinity may increase five skills), the incentive is rather the other way there.

I don't much like unconcentrated magic costing more either - for me, a concentrated hero can still use the other stuff, just with consequences. I also made relationships cost half as an incentive.

Sam.

I agree.

I used to make characters that bought everything at 1 to 1 in C-Gen. Then the eratta came out saying that some things were more expensive, even in C-Gen. I ignored it.

A player pointed out that this made buying magic cheep in C Gen very attractive. I agreed, and so cut the increased cost for buying stats of any kind. A point is a point is a point.

Having GM'd and played HeroQuest, I am also in complete agreement. My feelings as a player are like Sam's--I want to do cool things, but magic is so expensive (and the conditions for how players are given Hero Points so nebulous--basically, GM whim) compared to any other abilities that I rarely beefed magic up. As a GM, I always have players spend points 1 for 1 for any and all abilities. If there's anything in the rules that says to do otherwise, I've ignored it.

I also think, after playing HQ scads, that "concentration of magic" is all kinds of dumb.

What about the point-cost differential between retainers and sidekicks? Is that still a useful distinction?

droog wrote:
What about the point-cost differential between retainers and sidekicks? Is that still a useful distinction?

Brand_Robins wrote:
I'd forgotten there was such a thing. I don't know, maybe others find it useful.

droog wrote:
It's just that, as written, sidekicks are more useful than retainers (in that they have more abilities).

Brand_Robins wrote:

droog wrote:
It's just that, as written, sidekicks are more useful than retainers (in that they have more abilities).

::shrugs:: Could be worth differentiating -- but in play I rarely find it worth it.

As it stands, you can buy one Sidekick with three abilities or three followers with one ability each for the same cost. There are ways in which having the sidekick is nice and feels cool, but when they get removed from play (injured, left behind, etc) all three abilities go away at once.

Brand_Robins wrote:

The more important point is that buying a Sidekick or Follower isn't usually a matter of getting lots of abilities or game effect in the actual play of my groups. It has much more to do with the interest and intimacy level of the character and the PC and to story above anything else. I've been playing for a bit now and had people take followers rather than sidekicks repeatedly despite both costing the same.

I have a point to make below, but first to Brand:

Brand_Robins wrote:
As it stands, you can buy one Sidekick with three abilities or three followers with one ability each for the same cost....The more important point is that buying a Sidekick or Follower isn't usually a matter of getting lots of abilities or game effect in the actual play of my groups. It has much more to do with the interest and intimacy level of the character and the PC and to story above anything else...

I wanted to let everyone else post first, but I have some comments (I'll be playing Devil's Advocate a bit here):

High Cost of Magic
There is a theoretical prescedent for having magic cost more, and that is the rule that says that magic used against a "passive" resistance, only goes against a 14 TN instead of a normal resistance. Of course, as Ron has pointed out, using conflict resolution there really isn't anything like "Passive Resistance." Worse, even if you're playing as some sort of task resolution, what constitutes passive, and what active. It's not at all clear from the text. So I think that this rule gets chucked in practice as well.

So, yeah, an ability is an ability, and it should cost one HP.

That said, what about groups of abilities?

Affinities
Given that an affinity probably contains 5 feats, or is at least a pretty broad ability, doesn't the triple cost make sense? This is a classic mechanical trade-off invented for the Champions game system way back. Is there a problem with this that I'm not seeing? I'd agree that it's probably not all that important to have in the game system, but I don't really see it as damaging. In any case is the replacement just getting rid of it, or some other associated cost. Note that Hero Wars also had this cost in it (IIRC).

Grimores are pretty much the same case. Note that there are some nuances here, but that they don't seem to affect the value much, and you can play without them quite easily. Like the limitation of not being able to augment more than once from an affinity. Not really an important rule, but doesn't affect the value tremendously, either.

Fetishes and Tradition Charms
These are an odd exception in that they're heavily discounted and you can jump into high level abilities, effectively, but that the ability levels can't be increased. I don't think the rules are too problematic, but I also think that eliminating them as an exception doesn't do much harm to the rules, either. Increasing ability with a fetish ability can be explained not as the spirit getting better, but the character employing the ability better or something (Ron would say it's just metagame anyhow). Much as one can get better with a magic object.

Sidekicks/Retainers
This is really complex. That said, I'm not seeing the objection to the difference in costs between Sidekicks and retainers. I'd agree that you could probably get rid of one or the other without much missing. But you get more than enough "bonus abilities" with the sidekick to make the cost worthwhile. So I'm not seeing the trouble there.

There is a question as to how the general rule works, however. That is, is that keyword that the follower gets a "real" keyword. Do they theoretically get all of the keyword abilities? Can they augment with them all, for instance, if appropriate? Can you use a sidekick's extra points for raising abilities to add to keyword abilities? Or just to the three additional abilities?

If these are meant to be actual keywords, and not just broad abilities, then they're a collossal bargain. 1HP gets you one ability at 13 normally, but with a follower it gets you a whole keyword full of abilities at starting keyword level of 17? The notion is that it's worth a discount because the follower might not be willing or available to do what they do. But that's also Champions thinking, and really not very HQ. That is, if the roll to see if a follower does what he does only comes up when asked to do something against it's nature, how often will that actually happen? Will it actually be more often than the restrictions on when any other ability is useful? I mean, you can only use Strong in certain circumstances - are these any more common, really, than using your porter's Strong ability? I mean, sure he might be out to lunch...

What seems to be implied is that the GM should feel free to muck with the availability. But not for items? It just doesn't wash.

Don't get me started on the problem with the free Species Keyword. That said, I havn't seen anyone try to take a Dragon retainer yet...

Supporting Characters
This is even worse in some ways. Do NPCs have abilities? Abilities that they can use in the stead of the PC? Let's say I have "Friend of Aggar the Strong" can I have Aggar stand in for me for a contest where his tremendous strength would apply? Seems reasonable, though if you read the rules closely, it says that only PCs have contests. So does this mean that in such a case that I just adjudicate success as narrator? Doesn't that void the tension of the contest in question? Or is a player asking to have an NPC do something asking not to have a contest (other than possibly to get them to do it)?

Basically if I take "Friend of Harrek the Berzerk" does that give me some control over an NPC with lots of four mastery abilities or worse? I'm less concerned about this in terms of abuse than in what players are doing in terms of purchasing. That is, if they percieve an NPC to be more powerful than buying a follower would allow, then they're purchasing them as just a relationship to a supporting character, and trusting that I'll stat the thing appropriately. Should this be disallowed? Should I tell them that the level of ability listed for their Harrek sidekick is just metagame? If you catch my drift?

On the other hand, if this can be done without problem, then perhaps all NPC troubles aren't problematic. The way that I've rationalized all this in the past is that any decentralization of ability out from the character should be really cheap because it's taking the focus off of the character, and just giving the player more power. I dunno, though... The best argument for how the rules are designed is that from what I can see, despite these concerns, somehow they work...

Flaws
This seques nicely into flaws, which have much the same problem. That is, for 1 HP I can buy an ability at 13 that can be used for or against my character as situation dictates, or for free I can get an ability at any level I can con the narrator into allowing that can be used for or against my character as situation dictates. Put more simply, there is no mechanical line between what constitutes a flaw, and what constitutes an ability, it's just whether or not the narrator buys the ability as a flaw. In practice I find flaws getting used as bonuses at least as often as they get used as penalties, and other abilities are actually similar. Basically you're being given an incentive to make the character more interesting, but I think that given how they work mechanically, that players would still buy them if they had the normal cost.

Concentration
I've written a lot on this already. But I'll summarize it here again. If, in fact, Concentration represents some sort of trade-off, then I think that an argument can be made for it. That is, if you're really giving up the ability to do magic of other types by concentrating, then somebody might consider not concentrating. But there's only one odd avoidable circumstance in which it might be a trade-off, from what I can tell. That being that the player insists on taking common magic of the "wrong" type, and then has to consider concentration. All the player has to do is not take that sort of common magic, however, and there's absolutely no downside to concentrating.

In practice the only time I've seen people not concentrate (like myself) was when they didn't understand that there was no downside. So I just assume that everyone concentrates these days, which puts us back at the 1HP per ability level for magic. Which kills two birds with one stone, really.

Now, that said, if we posit a universe in which its not next to impossible for characters to pick up specialized magic of more than one otherworldm, then I think it has some legs. The only problem at that point, and this is a problem with the "rapid development" costs, is that "doubling," while the lowest integer increase in cost you can have without going to fractional costs, represents a huge increase in cost. A prohibitive one, really. So the cost increase should be less, or, even better, another way to represent this should be found.

and I think, seeing what other people say, that there is a way to redesign the system (not that I've been appointed the task :) .

Mike wrote: As it happens, I have been assigned this task, at least with respect to being a soldier on the team putting together Quest Worlds.

I'm not heading the team up, note. Though very good people are.

I think it'll live up to expectations.

But...thoughts on costs? :-)

Mike

Mike wrote:
I wanted to let everyone else post first, but I have some comments (I'll be playing Devil's Advocate a bit here):

Sidekicks/Retainers

Don't get me started on the problem with the free Species Keyword. That said, I havn't seen anyone try to take a Dragon retainer yet...

Supporting Characters

Flaws

Mike wrote:

But...thoughts on costs? :-)

I'd been thinking about this issue for a while when this thread started, so it's been wildly useful to me.  Thanks all.  There are a number of things bout HQ that I don't grok and I think they stem from making the rules fit Glorantha -- largely magic system(s) issues.

Why not, as a generalization, if there really needs to be a more complicated system than one HP per trait, have say three levels of trait-breadth and charge one, two or three HP per trait based on that breadth.  Optionally, you can set stuff like discounts for grouping traits together (grimoires, etc.) and restrictions on the breadth of kinds of traits (like forcing magic to any one of the breadths for the flavor of the particular game).  I may not have covered all the options needed, but I think a few underlying rule-options can create fairly diverse and complex systems while retaining the one-system across games.  Does this make sense?

Christopher wrote:
Why not, as a generalization, if there really needs to be a more complicated system than one HP per trait, have say three levels of trait-breadth and charge one, two or three HP per trait based on that breadth.  Optionally, you can set stuff like discounts for grouping traits together (grimoires, etc.) and restrictions on the breadth of kinds of traits (like forcing magic to any one of the breadths for the flavor of the particular game).  I may not have covered all the options needed, but I think a few underlying rule-options can create fairly diverse and complex systems while retaining the one-system across games.  Does this make sense?

Wow, thanks Sam.  I've read some staggering number of posts from that thread at this point and I guess I think the breadth idea is a bad one -- causing more problems than it tries to fix.  But, linking abilities in groups (like Grimoires do) with some limitations and some algorithm for discount might still work and allow everyone to customize their games.

Ma wrote:
Some discussion here: http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/heroquest-rules/2001.06/9774.html

Thanks for those threads, Janus and Mandacaru. V interesting. It drew me out of my self-imposed lurking... ;)

As far as point cost, I'm an advocate of 1-point-for-1-point but I'm familiar with some of the wigginess this can cause in the HQ core rules. Fortunately, I rarely play HQ in Glorantha so this isn't an issue for games in which I run/play. Bryan_T's idea of having fetishes always have a personality trait is a gem, though. Nice touch.

The threads above cover what I would consider the most common answers to our dilemma:

• Adjusting point costs according to a specified price list based on type (i.e. Sidekicks cost 6 HP, Affinities cost 3 HP, Skills cost 1 HP) as exists in HQ now

• Adjusting value per point cost upfront based on effectiveness/applicability in play (i.e. 1 HP gets you a keyword at 6, a normal ability at 13, a narrow ability at 17 or a really-specialized-uber-narrow ability at 2w)

• Adjusting value per point cost during advancment based on effectiveness/applicability in play (i.e. where 1 HP of advancement would get you 5 points in your dragon-slayer sword or 3 HP would boost your Hunter 1w "keyword" by one)

My personal preference is assigning costs based on the anticipated effectiveness of an ability to the campaign in questions. A bastardized version of #2. I'm fast and loose with the ratings, though, so I don't have anything I can say about what determines the starting rating. PM me an ability and I can PM a rating. :)

My rationalization for this approach is that my "Dragon Slayer Sword" shouldn't cost me 2HP per point in a campaign where I'm only going to run into a dragon once for every six months of play. So players pay for it up front and then advance it like any other ability.

Admittedly, this has raised some questions about keyword/ability advancement in tandem. But, again, it's just an approach, not a bona fide solution. Kind of a "rules-by-my-gut" thing that always frustrates me as a player. And, yes, I do feel like a hypocrite when I subject players to it.

Although #3 adds a layer of complexity, I'm grooving with it at the moment. It appears to be a synthesis of 1 and 2, while I think it could be grafted onto the existing rules-set fairly easily (even in Glorantha) and has the added benefit of being something I'd never thought of, so my brain thinks it's all new and shiny.

But then there's that extra layer of how-do-we-define-the-cost...

Brain's back to square one now. Poor brain.

Scott

P.S.  About the mundane rating of 14... In the past, I've ruled that magical abilities can only be resisted by other magical abilities, relationships or personality traits. That defined what was and what wasn't "magical". So when a player with "Undead 5w4" was filled full of lead by a SWAT team, he was supposed to roll against a 14 plus the community support bonus of so many SWAT members firing at him at once. I made it an auto-success and allowed him to narrate it. Nasty stuff.

Of course, then we were in the position of figuring out when a relationship or personality trait came into play. But that was more fun than trying to figure out what's mundane or not. And, as GM, I found it beneficial to assume a mundane resistance unless the players were dealing with a well-defined NPC.

Then again, for Freedom City-HQ, my plan was to ditch the 14 default resistance altogether and run off a chart of benchmarked difficulties (ala Bruce Ferrie's Supers-HQ). This gave the added bennie of players having insanely high-rated superpowers (10w8, 15w3, etc.). But, in that game, everything had a resistance. Deep down, I liked the consistency of that idea better but have gone with either approach in play. High ratings make players' eyes light up, though. I don't think that was ever a big mystery.

Donald wrote:
Surely this is covered by the follower reluctance table on pg. 271. Retainers particularly are semi-independent of the PC and will only use their skills to the extent it's part of their job. So the porter will use his strong ability to carry stuff but probably not to wrestle a bear.

I'm not sure about the points costs but then the whole system is so complex that I can't visualise the mathmatical model involved. It wouldn't surprise me that no one has done so, in which case it relies on playtesting to determine balance.

My first thought about the distinction between sidekicks and retainers was that it's unnecessary until I worked out a character who had both. The sidekick should be essential to the PC as an individual and have a personality. Retainers are closer to mere employees hired to do a job and if they're rather two dimensional it doesn't matter.

A retainer with most stats several masteries above the PC? I'd make the PC the Dragon's retainer. Alternatively it has the keyword Dragon at 17 which makes it more of a liability than an asset.

I suspect narrators and players tend to see this instinctively about relationships so the problem of abuse becomes theoretical.

You're right there's an element of uncertainty here but it follows from the assumption that all abilities are equal. Clearly they aren't, yet which are the more valuable depends on the particular game.

The assumption implied by the rules is that flaws will never help the PC so should be free. Once players start using flaws to help themselves and the narrator uses abilities against the players that assumption falls apart.

Experienced players will realise this can be done but new players won't and will refuse to take flaws if they cost.

Had to cut off with only replies to Donald yesterday. On to other posts since then (but don't miss the one above).

Bryan_T wrote:
- Even in a game like heroquest, mechanical (or gameist, I suppose?) choices are still good.  They make it that you can decide certain things about your hero that make a real impact on who they are.

- Having different costs is a valid variation between abilities.  Not to say that this particular variation has to be used, but it is one way to make something 'different.'

- Affinities are unique compared to most abilities in that they are very broad.  "Combat," "movement," and "knowledge" are FAR broader than any mundane ability.  They should not be costed the same without some other limitation.  The fact that most people cannot use them actively might be a reasonable balance for their breadth--but then there is the case of devotees.

- For devotees and adepts, affinities and grimoires work rather like key words, but ones which can be raised with HP.  This is almost the only place in the game where mini-maxing options exist.  This does not mean that this is a bad thing, just noting.

- The overwhelming opinion on the HQ-rules list seems to be that it is very difficult to use the "mundane objects have a 14 resistance to magic" rule.  It sounds like most people discard it most of the time, which somewhat weakens magic, probably meaning some of the other limitations on it are not necessary.

- Under current costing rules, and current definition of HQ benefits (where you get a new ability, not an added onto your own ability, if I read them right), starting per the default levels means it is extremely unlikely for theists to learn their cult secrets--something on the order of 200 HP if I recall the calculation properly.  Given how cool secrets are, making them more accesible would be a good thing.

- I like the tension between varied common magic and specialization.  Do you invest in an ability that will help you right now, or do you only invest for the long term?  Look at the society common magic in the Esrolia homeland in the HQ rules, how great are some of they?  but so mixed in type....nice choices to make.

- I think spirit fetishes would be more interesting if they almost always had one ability that was something more like a personality trait.  This would help balance them off, aside from cost--so you might get a great 'run fast' and 'agility' abilities from a strong spirit, but you'd also get its 'nervous' trait "boosting" you. (this would also give a reason to sometimes choose just a charm).

- In general having inherent balance in things other than basic abilities is probably more useful than just having them balanced by cost.  The point cost matters, but to me the fact that devotees have to put 60% time and resources into their devotion is more of a barrier than the cost of being a devotee.  On the one hand these things lend balance, on the other they create new tensions that can lead to interesting play.  Part of why I like spirit allies, the 10% time commitment--think about what sort of activity this implies!  "Oh, there is Bob, off playing fetch with his stick again."

Hi Mike:

Good to hear from you.

The wigginess I'm talking about with 1:1 cost in HQ is what you're talking about with Affinities and keywords (extrapolated out to Sidekicks and such). If everything costs 1 HP, then the whole keyword-package thing gets kinda hairy. You point that out and I agree that the best approach for that problem is the "just" abilities approach. No new ground there. I'd be surprised if you didn't already know that's how I felt. ;)

Regarding Option #2 (or 3 or whatnot)...

I think our approaches differ with neither being necessarily better or worse. Your approach as I understand it is to put an equal emphasis on the players' important skills through story and contests geared towards those skills. I veer in that direction when I run too but I also tend to think that certain skills just aren't naturally going to come up in a given campaign all that often. Most likely, in my games, a fair amount of combat skills will come up. Map-reading not so much. But when it does...

I think both our positions are based on good and well-earned experience, so I don't know if there's much wiggle room there for either of us.

In my experience, I could have one player with "Sword and Shield Fighting 2w". A pretty general all-around combat skill. And I could have another player with a relatively non-combat character using "Eclipse Bezerk 2w" as his primary combat skill. The fiat would be that "Eclipse Bezerk" is a frenzied magical attack form that can only be activated during an eclipse.

In the interest of not downplaying the other player's "Sword and Shield Fighting" while also not playing up the "Eclipse Bezerk" to an implausible level of one eclipse or multiple eclipses per session, my gut instinct is to let the "Eclipse Bezerk" start at a higher rating so that the player will get some serious mileage out of it when it does come into play. So I'd likely let him buy it as per normal but, where most broadly applicable abilities would start at 13 or 17, I'd let his "Eclipse Bezerk" start at 17 or 2w. Even higher if it was only going to come into play with rarer frequency.

That's generally how I approach it. That's not to say that I've adequately represented/advocated your approach here. I wasn't trying to. I also can't make a value judgement that your/my way is better.

My intent is to give an example of how/why I would do it.

Granted there's a LOT of GM fiat going on. And you surely know by now how much GM fiat makes me cringe. But it's a fairly simple approach that's worked for me in the past. I wasn't advocating it as a codified solution. It obviously isn't. And (to reiterate) I do cringe every time I use it, as should any other card-carrying member of the Anti-Fiat Coalition.

There are things I'd definitely like to see adopted regarding these matters. Even things I'd like to see explored on the forum. But I'm trying to avoid anything that's hush-hush under the QuestWorlds NDA. For that reason, my post was mainly a summary of what I'd read here and a recount of how I had done things in the past.

My intent was to summarize what I saw as the common approaches in those threads and for others to see what worked for me, gauge it for themselves and then use/abuse/discard as they see fit. I was actually stuck on which way was the "best". Still am. I'm not really convinced that anything proposed thus far is much better than anything else (except 1-for-1 sans keywords). I really feel that whichever solution a given person or group adopts should fit their individual style of play. I'm not convinced that this is a one-size-fits-all scenario.

In summary, I'm not covering any new ground (for me) or making groundbreaking 180 degree spins in what I like or how I play. But I am admitting to having used some serious GM fiat in Cthulhupunk-HQ and in Conan-HQ to a lesser degree. Like a junkie, I would probably crawl back to it if I GM'd HQ again. (Be warned!)

Which makes me a hypocrite and quite likely a heathen.

:)

Scott

Mike wrote:
If you want to consider the math analysis, in Hero System, followers are purchased at a 5:1 savings. HQ seems more like about 10:1 depending on the keyword. Worse, however, part of the follower thing is that if it dies, it's not replaced. HQ states that they are. So that's makes it only about 3:1 in HS. Now, I'm comparing apples and oranges, I understand (the games have very different agendas). But the point is that there is such an analysis that can be done.

I'm thinking lately that the incentive may simply be to counter the fact that it's sometimes a lot of work to track your own NPCs, even if they're somewhat interesting to have as part of the character. Perhaps?

My first thought about the distinction between sidekicks and retainers was that it's unnecessary until I worked out a character who had both. The sidekick should be essential to the PC as an individual and have a personality. Retainers are closer to mere employees hired to do a job and if they're rather two dimensional it doesn't matter.

I'll take that on face value, but why doesn't it matter?

I see, ignore the rules, and the narrator will fix everything. Sorry, wrong answer in terms of system. Same thing with your answer about Harrek. You're trying to balance having Harrek out by making him more interesting (the supposed "costs" of ownership). The "downsides" of having a dragon or Harrek as an NPC are actually attractive to players. Unless your playing gamism with HQ, which I don't get.

See, you're not getting even what the problem is. It's not one of "abuse" at all. Nobody is buying dragons, despite it being available. What's going on, however, is that players are noting that they could buy a dragon, and are wondering how that makes any sense.

See, same problem again. You simply can't decide that something is more valueable than something else based on the "it's more likely to come up" argument. The likelihood of something coming up is 100% if the narrator decides that it is. There's no random element in how often an ability can be used. So you can't base cost on suspected percentages.

They would if we just didn't call them flaws and make the implication you note. We'd just have "abilities" and say "consider taking abilities that have potential downsides - it's fun!"

Secrets are decisively unbalanced foer several reasons. Basically you get them for free if you buy up other abilities at normal cost. Then they allow you to do special things at what is essentially a reduced cost.

Mike,

In actual play how often do you find that the "mundane resistance vs magic is 14" issue comes up?

I ask because I have recently realized that it almost never comes up in my games. I play, though I didn't have the language for it all the time, a very strict "people/furniture" divide when I do HQ -- especially with regards to conflict resolution. Under that paradigm most of the time most things that magic abilities would face a 14 resistance against are not important enough to be rolling against in the first place. If it's a character it will have resistance, if its furniture, I'm not rolling against it anyway – either way, the special resistance rule for magic comes in fairly rarely.

Is your experience different?

Brand_Robins wrote:
Mike,

In actual play how often do you find that the "mundane resistance vs magic is 14" issue comes up?

I ask because I have recently realized that it almost never comes up in my games. I play, though I didn't have the language for it all the time, a very strict "people/furniture" divide when I do HQ -- especially with regards to conflict resolution. Under that paradigm most of the time most things that magic abilities would face a 14 resistance against are not important enough to be rolling against in the first place. If it's a character it will have resistance, if its furniture, I'm not rolling against it anyway – either way, the special resistance rule for magic comes in fairly rarely.

Is your experience different?

So perhaps the question should be "Is the HQ system so unbalanced that it is detering narativist play?" rather than "Is it unbalanced?"

Bryan_T wrote:

*shrug* anyone else would come up with their own list.  However if you are working on a team deciding these things, it seems to me that deciding what the specifications for the design are should help you decide on what the right solutions are.  Yes this could be seen as being anal, but my experience in (non-game) design suggests that you can probably coordinate better and decide when you are 'done' more easily if you do have clear specifications.

--Bryan

I sketched out some of the implicit currency in the HQ system.

This is the first time I noticed that the general "try something impossible" penalty could be overcome with the expenditure of a hero point, in that burning a hero point during a conflict raises one's results to the same leve that an increase of 1 Mastery in the relevant attribute would do.

I then tried to work out a currency system predicated on the general character improvement rule of 1 hero point = a permanent 1 point increase in an attribute.  To do so I had to ignore the special conditions that make certain kinds of hero points more equal than others (i.e., a concentrated magic user's advantages, a "misapplied" worshipper's disadvantages, etc.).

Note, there is only one tweak to the character improvement rules that I would retain : spending hero points on improvements related to play is significantly more profitable.  When a hero point is spent outside of conflict resolution to create a permanent improvement, it is only one half as profitable.

Instead of having character improvement become cluttered up by a number of special cases, making play-related improvements more effective than unrelated improvements persuades players to seek those situations that will lead to the character improvements they would like to see and to tie character improvement to the development of thematically rich play.  In this way, character improvement becomes a series of out-of-play decisions that further enrich the thematic and narrative web being develped by a play group.

1 Hero Point = +1 to Attribute = new possession = 1 Mastery = improvement of result by one step = 20 TN = +2 TN bonus (lendable or applicable to another Attribute) = 20 AP for extended contest (also lendable) = "Impossible Thing" (beginner using magic feat like a god's devotee, using common magic directly, using a tap dance to win a theological debate, leaping over a mountain, etc.)

Lamorak33 wrote:
Have you read 'System Does Matter' and 'The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast'?

Bryan_T wrote:
Or maybe I did a poor job of expressing my point.  I have a bad habit of posting quickly, [snip]

Mandacaru wrote:

Bryan_T wrote:
Or maybe I did a poor job of expressing my point.  I have a bad habit of posting quickly, [snip]

Can I, as a user of this forum, just make a request that this sort of thing not become inhibiting to people with good ideas like Bryan? .......[snip]

Just a note as Bryan's tone got me worried...
Sam.

Lamorak33 wrote:

I agree Sam. Bryan, easy tiger! :^D - no offence intended!

Bryan_T wrote:

What I was trying to say in this last post was.....well let me use an analogy.  Let us say you joined a game expecting to play in narrative mode, and the group was deep in sim mode, complete with references to historical analog groups, findings from re-enactement groups, and so on. 

Well I understood what you were getting at Bryan. Which is why I didn't bother with a follow up but I think there must be a difference in mindset in the approach to writing rules.

For convenience I'll use the words scientific and artistic to describe them.

The scientific mindset starts by defining what they are trying to achieve and then writing rules to reflect that. As more is written the rules are checked against the objective and modified as required to meet the criteria. Playtesting then becomes a matter of spotting loopholes and finding things which weren't covered because the writer didn't think of them.

The artistic mindset starts with an idea and writes a rule which they think will achieve the objective. They then go straight to playtesting and modify as a result of the playtest. In this situation extensive playtesting with many different players is crucial.

In practice I doubt many writers adopt one or other approach exclusively but most show a strong bias one way or the other. There are disadvantages with both - the scientific tends to produce gamist and simulationist games with elaborate rules covering every possibility. The artistic tends to produce a more narrativist result but at the expense of relying on the GM to provide balance and fix loopholes caused by situations unforseen by the writer.

Now when you've an existing system which you are not sure what needs fixing the scientific approach is quicker because it is less likely to break a part that's already working. It does appear to take longer because you only move onto the playtesting stage when you've understood what you are trying to fix and have a reasonable expectation that the modification will do so.

Donald wrote:

The artistic tends to produce a more narrativist result but at the expense of relying on the GM to provide balance and fix loopholes caused by situations unforeseen by the writer.

I'm wondering if we aren't drifting a bit from the original topic.

But...

I'm not so sure that the whole narrativist-loophole theory really holds in this instance. One of the things that drove me to "narrativist" games is that the rules were more concrete and defined than other RPGs. There are a ton more loopholes in D&D 3rd edition than in Sorcerer, My Life with Master or the Pool.

I think DM's in D&D have to do a LOT more tap-dancing than a GM in Sorcerer. I think the same holds true in HeroQuest, once a group gets used to conflict-based resolution (which admittedly can be a difficult hurdle because most traditional RPGs and ALL computer-based rpgs are task-based).

One of the "problems" (as I see it, which means next to not much at all) with HQ is that we have a wonderfully conflict-based system ("narrativist" to some lines of thought) which the authors try to reconcile against traditional Sim or task-based play. Hence, we get the advancement points issue we've been discussing as well as "balancing" of various abilities against each other. And some examples in the book that read remarkably task-based.

The way I look at HeroQuest is that "play" happens in two major steps that exist independently of each other: "getting the numbers" (or chargen, points buy, etc.) and "doing stuff with the numbers" (or Simple/Extended Contests, Augmenting, Lending AP, etc.).

I think there are lots of ways to approach "getting the numbers". A traditional set of skills (ala d20 or WEG d6) with X number of points the player can plug in would work. So would a FATE-like skill pyramid. Or just a narrative method ala the Pool.

I created a d20 to HeroQuest conversion that, while horribly complex thanks to all the fiddly bits in d20, did a fine job of "getting me the numbers" to run a conflict-based D&D game with the HeroQuest system. Sure, the characters weren't as colorful as regular HQ characters (part of the charm, no doubt) but they were entirely functional.

Which leads me to the main point: what we "do with the numbers" works just as well no matter where the numbers come from.

On a meta-level, I see us trying to define the most elegant way to get our numbers so we can do stuff with them. The dichotomy isn't some artistic/scientific distinction but rather a question of whether it's best to workaround the Sim/Balance oriented elements of getting our numbers or to chuck them entirely for something else.

Again, the *game* (or what we do with the numbers) isn't affected either way. There aren't any loopholes there to exploit. And, if there are, they exist independently of the topic at hand.

We're discussing the loopholes introduced by the need to balance Sidekicks against other abilities or keywords and whether equipment should cost more, etc. And the loopholes introduced by the desire to Sim out magic, so that a Devotee can't use Grimoires as well as Adepts can because they presumably spend more time doing other things.

I think the approach we're looking at now is how to workaround these issues to "get numbers" in a way we like better. The three main approaches from the referenced threads are summarized in my earlier post, each with their own merits and flaws.

But we haven't put much thought towards the other side of the coin. What if we chucked HeroQuest chargen and came up with something else? What would that be? How would it work? Would it be better?

Scott

Scripty wrote:

But we haven't put much thought towards the other side of the coin. What if we chucked HeroQuest chargen and came up with something else? What would that be? How would it work? Would it be better?

Scott

Read the article before. Thanks.

The points in System Matters are directly applicable to this discussion and my post above. I see us bumping up against elements of the HQ character gen/advancement system that don't necessarily support a Narr style of play.

My suggestion in the previous post is that, rather than try and amend a chargen/advancement system that tries to balance elements out in a style common to games that are traditionally associated with Sim or Gam play, why couldn't we come up with a means of chargen/advancement that facilitates exactly what we want?

Rather than amend something broken, why not create something new? It seems we can't make any headway on a means to "fix" hero point expenditure in vanilla HQ, though most of us agree on what's "broken". Everyone seems to either disagree on what the best "fix" is, with every suggestion followed by a counter. This is clouded by contributors who appear to have their favorite fix and will therefore counter pretty well everything that isn't of that ilk.

Leading us nowhere.

Maybe we would have more luck wrapping our heads around a new approach. Less of a "HQ Home Improvement" and more of a "Build a Char-Gen/Advancement System of Your Dreams". I for one am eager to hear what we could put together, if we worked toward a common end.

I think it's possible for us to make the System Matter in terms of facilitating a Narr CA in a manner allowing players to Step on Up while taking into account the variance in SC that is to be expected with any group.

;)

S.

I wasn't talking exclusively about RPGs when I described the mindsets. Indeed the classic example of the scientific approach are the hex board games published by Avalon Hill and in the Strategy & Tactics Magazine.

D&D is an example of the artistic approach - the first version is unplayable as written relying on assumptions by the authors. Later versions fixed some problems but introduced more. Maybe someone at some stage did a proper analysis of the mechanics but I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised to find that all RPGs have been designed this way.

In any case HQ isn't a purely narrativist game system, I'm sure there are simulationist groups who use the rules and maybe even gamist ones. Unless you intend to produce a purely narrativist set of rules a balanced CharGen and advancement system is needed.

Scripty wrote:
I think the approach we're looking at now is how to workaround these issues to "get numbers" in a way we like better.

The points in System Matters are directly applicable to this discussion and my post above. I see us bumping up against elements of the HQ character gen/advancement system that don't necessarily support a Narr style of play.

Maybe we would have more luck wrapping our heads around a new approach. Less of a "HQ Home Improvement" and more of a "Build a Char-Gen/Advancement System of Your Dreams". I for one am eager to hear what we could put together, if we worked toward a common end.

This is not a response to the most recent posts, but rather a small idea that I think fits into the general thread topic.

The rules as they stand have a system of increasing costs for each level of ability increase beyond the first in one round of improvement (i.e. if +1 costs 1, +2 costs 1+2=3, +3 costs 1+2+3=6, etc). This serves a purpose in some ways (stops people from shooting up one skill to sky high levels quickly, helps model a 'realistic' rate of learning), however it makes it difficult to handle dramatic character changes. 

Certainly if you feel a character is due for a major change you can often do it by mapping over existing personality traits and relationships, but that won't always be enough.  For example take a Heortling farmer who is just trying to get by, in the face of increasing challenges.  Finally some event triggers him to decide that the source of most of his problems is the lunar empire, and that the presence of the lunars is a threat to everything he holds dear.  Now maybe he already has some rating in 'hates lunars,' and maybe some of his other traits can be changed a bit...but his relationships to family and community have not essentially changed, nor have his basic personality traits.  So he buys "wants to drive out lunars: 13."

Now, you can argue that he may feel passionately about the subject, but he just can't channel that passion in a useful way yet.  But still, for a major change in attitude that seems.....underwhelming.

As a player, I often know that my character is building up to some major change, without knowing just exactly what the change will be, what will trigger it, or when it will happen.  This is where it seems to me that buying up an "undefined" passion (or relationship, or ability) might make sense.  The idea is a bit like having undefine abilities off of a starting list of ten, or have vague references in a 100 word narrative.  Basically extend this idea to things bought in play, and allow the undefined thing to be bought up at the normal rate.

That way, if you feel a change coming on, after a few sessions of play you can translate that undefined thing into a named ability, with a rating high enough to matter a little bit more (just three sessions will at least give you a 15, for a +2 augment).

So then that notional farmer builds up tension, until finally he channels it into wanting to drive out the lunars, and starts that ability at a more substantial level.

Yes, I realize that this is an option that might take more words to describe than it is worth :)  All I can say in its defense is that as a player if I saw this option formally offered to me a rule book, I would be very excited by it.

--Bryan

First an admin notice...for some strange reason I'm not getting email announcements on this thread. I'll have to see if I can fix that. But if it seems like I'm not responding, it's because I'm not hearing that there's been any activity on the thread. If I didn't check this forum regularly, I'd miss a lot more, apparently.

Scripty wrote:
Granted there's a LOT of GM fiat going on. And you surely know by now how much GM fiat makes me cringe. But it's a fairly simple approach that's worked for me in the past. I wasn't advocating it as a codified solution. It obviously isn't. And (to reiterate) I do cringe every time I use it, as should any other card-carrying member of the Anti-Fiat Coalition.

I really feel that whichever solution a given person or group adopts should fit their individual style of play. I'm not convinced that this is a one-size-fits-all scenario.

Donald wrote:
I wasn't thinking of the maths analysis of just that one issue but of the game as a whole. Even the progression of one HP increasing an ability by 1 is of different value depending on the the current value of the ability and the augments generally used with it. I tried to get my head round the model for that was but eventually realised it was degree level pure maths. I think most people who recognise that lack of balance switch off at that point and subsequent complications are ignored unless they appear badly askew. Which is why the misapplied worship penalty gets so much attention.

Certainly you can compare the relative costs and benefits with other games but that's only of use if you understand the complete model behind both games and they are sufficently similar for it to have meaning.

I'm thinking lately that the incentive may simply be to counter the fact that it's sometimes a lot of work to track your own NPCs, even if they're somewhat interesting to have as part of the character. Perhaps?

Could be, or even simpler that players don't use followers unless the concept of the character requires them.

In the same way that in a film the characters of a politican's bodyguards aren't usually defined. They appear in the background, rarely have any lines and are replaced when they get shot. The sidekick is a talking part with an important role.

The very concept of balance is a gamist one, if the players are motivated by which is the best deal for their HPs they are taking the decision on gamist principles. If they are motivated by what makes the most interesting story they are acting on narrativist principles. Now in practice few games are entirely one form or the other and a grossly unbalanced system will upset players who find their narrativist choices put them at a disadvantage in the game that's being played.

So perhaps the question should be "Is the HQ system so unbalanced that it is detering narativist play?" rather than "Is it unbalanced?"

See, you're not getting even what the problem is. It's not one of "abuse" at all. Nobody is buying dragons, despite it being available. What's going on, however, is that players are noting that they could buy a dragon, and are wondering how that makes any sense.

It makes sense if you apply the rule for followers of one keyword at 17. You get a dragon with attributes at the level of 17 - that would be the size of a pony.

See, same problem again. You simply can't decide that something is more valueable than something else based on the "it's more likely to come up" argument. The likelihood of something coming up is 100% if the narrator decides that it is. There's no random element in how often an ability can be used. So you can't base cost on suspected percentages.

Yet players are making that decision all the time based on what they perceive the game is about. If they see the game as political they'll choose characters with high political skills, if combat they'll choose good fighting skills. If there isn't a shared view about the game there's a good chance some players will be at a disadvantage in contests or the narrator will have to struggle to achieve a balance.

I don't think we've any disagreement that a 1:1 cost for abilities is the only practical way to do it. But it is inherently unbalanced particularly if a character will be played with different narrators.

I suppose another way of looking at it would be to regard HP allocation as nothing more than a player's indication of how they want the game to develop and the sort of challanges they expect to face. If so the whole issue of balance becomes moot but this needs spelling out.

Secrets are decisively unbalanced foer several reasons. Basically you get them for free if you buy up other abilities at normal cost. Then they allow you to do special things at what is essentially a reduced cost.

How do PCs get secrets for free? Page 120 of HQ says they cost 3 HP to learn the secret at 13 plus 1 HP per improvement after the character has met all the other requirements. This is the same as an affinity.

Brand_Robins wrote:
Is your experience different?

Bryan_T wrote:
- the most effective way to meet in-story goals should not work at cross-purposes to player goals.  So a powerful patron should not be the answer to all of your problems, for example.  However having in-story options for faustian bargains and the like are obviously good things.

- Characters should be able to reflect dramatic in game experiences in an appropriate way.  For an extreme example, handling a 'road to Damascus' type revelatory change.  However numbers should not be seen as the only measure of intensity.

Mike wrote: There is another way to do this, however. That's to make all 1:1 as Scotty likes, and then say that breadth, depth and even effectiveness is not at all controlled by anything other than player desire. That is, your 17 Strong might actually indicate a higher strength than another player's 5W Strong. If you decouple from the in-game scale, then ability rating is completely a player indicator of importance and nothing else.

This fixes Bryan's problem. A 13 is no less potent than a 17. But I've argued this method before, and people just don't seem to get it.

Hi Mike:
Glad to see you're back. I'm in agreement with Janus. I don't understand what you mean by Strong 5w being less broad/effective/etc. than a Strong 17, especially as regards making this happen without falling back on a Narrator just willing it so.

Good point about the "single solution that best fits most people" in your last post. But a lot of what I've seen in this thread qualifies as the changing rules that don't fit a particular person's style of play. Hence, my appeal for us to take a fresh approach at the whole matter. While I agree that a game system could/should offer the single solution you speak of, it appears that participants on this thread have been addressing what's in HQ as that single solution and re-swizzeling what's there to suit their preferences.

That led me to my statement that I didn't think we *could* come up with a single solution, at least not with any of the approaches I had seen up to that point.

Scott

P.S. Please refrain from calling me "Scotty". I have deep-seated issues from grade-school around that moniker. It rhymes with too many things that 5 year-olds get far too much glee out of blurting out at random.

Like snotty.

Or potty.

Crap. There goes all that therapy...

;)

Mike wrote:
Bryan, the other method you mention...it more or less already exists as the As You Go method. Well, OK, no, you can't increase these abilities, but I think that it's actually much less interesting to be pushing up numbers of things that I can't see than just bumping them up to where they need to be when the time comes for it. BTW, FATE has something like this already, "Potential Aspects." I kinda like the idea, too, it's just I can't see people spending points on them. Hmmm.

Mike wrote:
The last couple of sentences I quoted, I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the costing is unblanced? Or hat the value of a point at any point is different than the value of any other point?

So perhaps the question should be "Is the HQ system so unbalanced that it is detering narativist play?" rather than "Is it unbalanced?"

I sorta agree. First, there are a lot of definitions of balance. What I'm talking about here is what I call "selection balance." Basically I don't want to see players taking any particular thing more often than any other particular thing based on some imbalance (what Bryan's first rule is all about).

But, I agree that if there appears to be a gamism imbalance, that sometimes players will read this as something to exploit - leading to gamism. So that is something to be avoided.

That said, often I find the best way to do this is to simply make gamism imbalance ridiculously easy. Such that the player is informed that the play can't be about gaming the system. For instance, if I said you could take an ability at any level for one HP, what does that tell you? That you should take it high to win? Where's the "Step On Up" there? Any idiot can make that decision. No, it must be that it's not about addressing challenge with this, but instead about setting the level by some other criteria like "what I think is most cool."

Well, I'd go for that. But it's not what the current rule says. The current rule says that you get one keyword at 17, and then a species keyword if it's not human with whatever the species keyword normally has in it. Which for Dragons includes things like Large 10W4, etc, etc. Actually, again, it's not even so much the power level that worries me. It's that dragons are coooool. All those extra abilities to play with, etc.

This is especially true for a dragon retainer. Sidekick, well, you did pay 3 HP for it...

I suppose another way of looking at it would be to regard HP allocation as nothing more than a player's indication of how they want the game to develop and the sort of challanges they expect to face. If so the whole issue of balance becomes moot but this needs spelling out.

Yes, you're correct. If that's the case, then the game should really make it explicit at some point.

Not an easy thing to get everyone to buy into however. And I'm not even completely convinced myself. :-)

I should have said without surcharge for the extra effect. Basically the abilities built up to be allowed to take the secret are reward themselves (when creating "starting characters" as Shamans and allowing them to bump up just these abilities, they stick out like a sore thumb - I'm now heavily advising against that).

Donald, Jane Williams suggested to me that her group plays sans HP for advancement and that it works fine. I'm almost OK with that - I certainly don't think that people would "abuse" it. The problem is that I like HP to be a dichotomy between being spent on bumping and somthing else.

Scripty wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by Strong 5w being less broad/effective/etc. than a Strong 17, especially as regards making this happen without falling back on a Narrator just willing it so.

Thanks for explaining that, John.

My first problem with that approach is that I think it could easily lead to confusion among the players and between the players and Narrator about what player #2's "Strong 7w" represents. Picture this scenario...

Player #1 says he's strong as an ox and buys up the "Strong" ability to the level of 2w3. Player #2 wants to be strong too but spends loads of points on other things and can only buy up "Strong" to 7w. During play they have the obligatory contest of strength to see who's stronger. Player #1 is strong as an ox, as he said. But Player #2 comes back with the caveat that he's strong as a whole team of oxen, negating all of Player #1's focus on that ability.

Granted, a Narrator should have enough sense to step in and call BS here. But circumventing the scale of HQ (one of my favorite aspects of it, btw) undermines the whole ability ranking system. The only way "Strong 7w" will ever be more effective than "Strong 2w3" is if the GM gives the "weaker" player lower resistances. Which leads to all sorts of interesting table discussions of why Player #1 has to beat a 7w3 and why player #2 has to beat a 2w to accomplish the same task.

Sure, we already do that for magical abilities and the default resistance of 14. But when and how the default resistance is applied is already a sticking point on the forums here. Imagine if we applied it to every ability based, not on some setting info or arbitrary rule, but based on what the player defines that ability to mean.

This confusion could be alleviated somewhat by having the players write "Strong as an Ox 2w3" or "Strong as a Team of Oxen 7w" on their character sheets. But what if I write "Stronger than Krishna 13" on my character sheet. Does that mean picking up a mountain is an auto success?

As a follow up to that last statement, a second problem that I see is that this approach undermines the idea that players spend HP on what they want to be important to their character. Why should I pay to build up my "Strong" ability if I can make it even more effective by refining what that ability means?

So if I say my character is "Stronger than Krishna 13" and I go to lift a mountain off the ground and the GM says "Okay, roll against 10w8". Unhappy with the Narrator's response, I clarify that Krishna picked up a mountain and moved it just to impress a couple of girls when he was a teenager.

So the GM gives me a difficulty of 6. Or auto successes it. Right there I've increased the effectiveness of my ability through definition without needing to spend a single Hero Point. Sure, it's a rather extreme example. But can't you see the underlying principles applied to just about any fairly ambiguous ability?

This takes the "Sunset Leap" issue and puts it front and center. I could actually have my character's effectiveness magnified by making his abilities more obscure. In fact, defining my abilities would limit my character's power. So "Strong" is always better than "Strong as 15 men" and "Atomic Fire Force" is always better than, well, anything.

Thanks again for that example, John. I'm not going after you as an advocate of this approach. I honestly don't know if you like or dislike it. These are just some thoughts that occured to me after reading the post and thinking about it for a while. They're directed more at the ether than anyone in particular.

Personally, I don't see how this would be any easier to codify than my off-the-cuff "here's your default rating" approach. Instead, it seems that GM fiat would actually be the engine that fuels it. Can't say that I'm a fan at this point. I'd rather keep the mastery system intact and my resistances consistent for all players.

I've had a hard enough time in the past with default resistance to magic. So much so that I ditched it completely in Freedom City HQ. Besides, if a player wants to be as Strong as Krishna, he/she should put HP into it. It makes it a defining element of that character, rather than some uber-annoying side trait that overpowers everything else.

Scott

Scripty wrote:

So if I say my character is "Stronger than Krishna 13" and I go to lift a mountain off the ground and the GM says "Okay, roll against 10w8". Unhappy with the Narrator's response, I clarify that Krishna picked up a mountain and moved it just to impress a couple of girls when he was a teenager.

Scott

Lamorak33 wrote:
The Heroquest are quite specific on this point. You, as a player, can call your 'strong' ability whatever you like, but your ability will be at whatever level it actually is. Thus say lift mountain is more like 10w15 or 10w20 (depending on the mountain of course). Therefore you will have to have a strength ability in this range. You don't? Then you have somewhere to spend your points then don't you!

Mike wrote:
There is another way to do this, however. That's to make all 1:1 as Scotty likes, and then say that breadth, depth and even effectiveness is not at all controlled by anything other than player desire. That is, your 17 Strong might actually indicate a higher strength than another player's 5W Strong. If you decouple from the in-game scale, then ability rating is completely a player indicator of importance and nothing else.

Sorry for the line by line...lots of people to respond to.

Scripty wrote:
Glad to see you're back. I'm in agreement with Janus. I don't understand what you mean by Strong 5w being less broad/effective/etc. than a Strong 17, especially as regards making this happen without falling back on a Narrator just willing it so.

While I agree that a game system could/should offer the single solution you speak of, it appears that participants on this thread have been addressing what's in HQ as that single solution and re-swizzeling what's there to suit their preferences.

P.S. Please refrain from calling me "Scotty".

What complicates and hides the calculation is that augments vary from contest to contest and can't be predicted.

So you need to write the rule to reflect this. Yes, you can have any level of that ability you like but you have to reflect it in your description of the character and know that the contests you'll face it is as likely to be a hinderance as a help.

It actually gives the hero the option of a keyword in addition to the species keyword which is inconsistent with most of the rules where such things are at the narrators discretion.

I suspect the authors didn't really think of dragons as followers as in the context of Glorantha it would be as reasonable as having a God as one of your followers.

I'd regard this as a rules error which needs fixing somehow by restricting the level of followers.

I don't think HQ can afford to become an exclusively narrativist game so any rules have got to work for gamists and simulationists as well.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you.

But should that "something else" be character advancement? In a narrativist game bumping is a plot control element "I want the contest to go this way." not "I want to win". So the alternative should be another form of plot control

Scripty wrote:

In my experience, I could have one player with "Sword and Shield Fighting 2w". A pretty general all-around combat skill. And I could have another player with a relatively non-combat character using "Eclipse Bezerk 2w" as his primary combat skill. The fiat would be that "Eclipse Bezerk" is a frenzied magical attack form that can only be activated during an eclipse.

In the interest of not downplaying the other player's "Sword and Shield Fighting" while also not playing up the "Eclipse Bezerk" to an implausible level of one eclipse or multiple eclipses per session, my gut instinct is to let the "Eclipse Bezerk" start at a higher rating so that the player will get some serious mileage out of it when it does come into play. So I'd likely let him buy it as per normal but, where most broadly applicable abilities would start at 13 or 17, I'd let his "Eclipse Bezerk" start at 17 or 2w. Even higher if it was only going to come into play with rarer frequency.

I handle these things pretty much like Soru does. I'm actually probably stingy on bonuses, but I'm open to use of abilities is a wide variety of situations. For example, Eclipse Berzerk I'd allow a player to use without an eclipse going on at a penalty. Heck, you could explain that the character merely remembered what it was like to be berzerk last time the eclipse happened, and tried to emulate that non-magically. Or any other explanation people would like to proffer.

Basically in my game, any ability can be used at any time in any conflict limited only to the imagination of the player. The only limits on the breadth of any ability is if the player is willing to put in the energy to make an explanation that everyone can enjoy. Yes that includes plausibility, but not the "this ability is limited to use in X circumstances" plausibility, but "OK, that's an interesting way to look at the ability" plausiblity.

To whit, Origami has been one of the most used abilities in my IRC game, because Thomas Robertson goes out of his way to ensure that it comes into play as often as possible.

The fact that the ability is penalized actually favors that ability, IMO. That is, as we've been saying, actual ability level isn't really important. In coming up with the explanation for it's use, and getting the narrator to apply an improv mod, this acutally makes the ability more interesting than less. My players have taken to taking oddly named abilities just to see how often they can get them into play as a result. Take Charles who took "Fond of My Body" recently when his character had, as the result of some "switch soul" spells and his original body being killed, and then having a ritual in which his soul was reattached to his body, had become very attached to his original body. He used it in the very next scene when under attack my zombie-creating demons arguing that now that he was back in his body, there was no way that he was going to let come demon make him a zombie. He'd come too far for that.

So...
A. Giving a higher level doesn't seem to do anything to counteract any potential discrepancy between usablility. And
B. Usability is a non-issue, because the extent to which something is hard to use merely makes it an interesting challenge to use. In fact, the odd abilities are what's incentivized under this model.

Now, I realize that not everyone plays this way. But I think in terms of a coherent rule set, it's a good way to play.

Mike

Mike wrote:
Now, I realize that not everyone plays this way. But I think in terms of a coherent rule set, it's a good way to play.

Mike