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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After each CONTEST?

Damn, that's way too much handling time.

Vaxalon wrote:
After each CONTEST?

Damn, that's way too much handling time.

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

On further thought...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Joshua,

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

MfG

Dirk

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

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

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

Charles Wotton

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

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

You know... this is growing on me.

I think I may playtest it.

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

So handling time has no real increase at all.

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

Win:

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

Loss:

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

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

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

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

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

Several unrelated comments:

Starting Level
So, Josh, you're saying that the ability levels at which you add abilities are simply at what you start abilities off at in character generation? Correct? That is, if you started off higher, that you'd go even higher with new abilities? Meaning that for a game where abilities start at 13 right now, that it would make sense to start new ones at 13?

I'm very ambivalent on that one. That is, I agree with you that character abilities should be higher, generally (rather that we should not always play newbs), but I also like the simmy notion of abilities starting from newb level when they're new. I think this is what the rules intend, even with advanced experience in play. That said, I'd also like a way for them to go up faster, so...

I think what you have should work well, in any case. The question of starting level is really another discussion entirely.

Flaws
Funny, I thought that was on the list. No, really, I didn't read the lists closely enough, and assumed that you could take a flaw at any level you like. In any case, I really like this as a mechanical way to monitor the addition of flaws (which I've been considering charging for, for a while now). Which makes me think about...

Rapidity of Development - "Augment Only" Abilities
I think that players will focus on their main abilities here, since the return is higher, and that will create a pretty high rate of advancement. That's a good effect, I think.

I do worry, however, that "augment only" abilities will tend to get ignored because of this. It's a double whammy, really, because players already tend to ignore raising up abilities that tend to be only used for augmenting, understanding that they're getting only one tenth the benefit (roughly) if they do so.

So what I'm thinking for victory is:

2) Raise three traits used to augment the main ability by 1.

And for defeat:

2) Raise two traits used to augment the main ability by 2.

If the player augmented with fewer than this many abilities, then he is limited to raising only the number used. What this does is to make the main trait about spiking effectiveness, and the augmenting option about breadth.

Playtesting
I like it too, Fred, so what's say we try it out in the IRC game?

Tickmarking
What I'd do is to make this optional. That is, a player can choose to do either in play, his choice. I don't really think that the handling time is too great, so I don't mind if the player raises the abilities up in play. But I also don't mind if they defer. So I'll leave it up to them.

Ability Costs
It looks to me like this rule ignores the idea of some abilities costing more than others. Specifically magic abilities, and the cost of being unconcentrated. I don't have a problem with this, I'm using a house rule for concentration anyhow (it's just a flaw that augments all magic use in the particular area). But I thought it should be mentioned for people who still assume that the costs are based on the charts.

Another way to go, for people who want to keep the original costs would be to convert the benefits to "Spend for development only" HP.

The Big Question
I don't agree with how John stated his objection, but I think he may be sensing a problem. What if the behavior the system produces is bad? I'll play devil's advocate here: Why isn't this system just as problematic as BRP development?

I've often railed against BRP development because it means that players often have their characters go off and "practice." That is, they say, "I want a contest with my sword skill representing getting better by practicing?" Or they say, "I'll pick this lock twenty times" expecting a benefit each time.

Accusations of assholism notwithstanding, I think it's pretty reasonable for a player to say this if the system incentivizes it - min-maxing is not an anti-social behavior, but what's expected from a player presented with system X (so sayth Von Neumann). Further, call me a simmie, but I like the idea of practice contests.

So is this going to become problematic? One solution that leaps out is the BRP solution of only allowing one skill check per ability per session (or adventure). But this then leads to the "I have to use my battle axe skill, too" syndrome where the character uses a different weapon each conflict so as to increase in ability in all of them. That's an odd behavior we don't want to see.

So let's not do that. The usual solution that follows, then, is to say, "You only get benefits when in a field situation." No practice contests allowed. But this denies that, in fact, most actual training benefits occur from practice, and not field use (field use reinforces what's already learned). So what this really comes down to is, "You only get benefits when it's dramatically interesting." I mean, we want there to be real risk in these situations, right? Would you give these benefits for an automatic success? So I declare that I'm running across the road to the temple, and I get a bonus to my running ability? No way, right?

This might be the key, however. If the practice can be said to have a potential downside, risking injury, say, then is it viable? I think that's a start. But I still see far too much gamism potential here. The player has a direct rout to powering up his character, and he can keep pumping away at it. This usually leads with such systems to ensuring that the risk level is high enough. That is, that the downsides outweigh the upsides. The rule would be something like, "You only get the benefit if the resistance TN is higher than your TN." But then aren't we simply saying that simple practice shouldn't be allowed at all?

When it comes down to this, the problem is that it becomes a narrator choice about when it's dramatic. And I, for one, don't want to have to discern when players are playing gamism, and when not. I'd prefer that the system simply reinforce narrativism.

So, having exhausted all of the usual methods for rectifying the system, are there any that I'm not seeing? Will the problem never occur, because the rest of the system is so narrativism supporting that players won't slip into this sort of gamism? Or is there some mechanical way to force contests mechanically to be narrativism, even if the reward system remains as above?

I'm still willing to playtest it to find out. :-)

Mike

This system could indeed have some of those BRP (Basic RolePlaying?) problems, but only if we insist a player only raise the traits that were used in the contest.

Now, I like Josh's point that...

joshua wrote:
If you want to raise your "Feckless Charm" ability, it's obviously an ability that's important to you. So, put your character into conflicts in which his "Feckless Charm" is the main ability. Succeed or fail, interesting things will happen and you'll be rewarded with an increase in "Feckless Charm" (or something else, if you choose a different thing on the list).

I'm not sure, Charles, that I see the connection between opening up what you can buy to avoiding the problem. You're saying that because it works in Dogs, that it'll work here? Or do I miss the point?

Mike

Mike,

Most likely opening up what you can buy would only solve the, as you put it, '"I have to use my battle axe skill, too" syndrome'.  People would still try to get in as many contests as possible, but they might be less strange.  As many contests as possible isn't necessarily bad or good.

I only mentioned the way this works in Dogs because Dogs' fallout inspired this one and it might be worth considering.  Certainly what works in what system doesn't automatically (or even probably) work in another.

Charles

Mike, you're giving things to think about. Which is not a bad thing.

Mike wrote:
Starting Level
So, Josh, you're saying that the ability levels at which you add abilities are simply at what you start abilities off at in character generation? Correct? That is, if you started off higher, that you'd go even higher with new abilities? Meaning that for a game where abilities start at 13 right now, that it would make sense to start new ones at 13?

Mike wrote:
Rapidity of Development - "Augment Only" Abilities
I think that players will focus on their main abilities here, since the return is higher, and that will create a pretty high rate of advancement. That's a good effect, I think.

I do worry, however, that "augment only" abilities will tend to get ignored because of this. It's a double whammy, really, because players already tend to ignore raising up abilities that tend to be only used for augmenting, understanding that they're getting only one tenth the benefit (roughly) if they do so.

So what I'm thinking for victory is:

2) Raise three traits used to augment the main ability by 1.

And for defeat:

2) Raise two traits used to augment the main ability by 2.

If the player augmented with fewer than this many abilities, then he is limited to raising only the number used. What this does is to make the main trait about spiking effectiveness, and the augmenting option about breadth.

Mike wrote:
Tickmarking
What I'd do is to make this optional. That is, a player can choose to do either in play, his choice. I don't really think that the handling time is too great, so I don't mind if the player raises the abilities up in play. But I also don't mind if they defer. So I'll leave it up to them.

Mike wrote:
Ability Costs
It looks to me like this rule ignores the idea of some abilities costing more than others. Specifically magic abilities, and the cost of being unconcentrated. I don't have a problem with this, I'm using a house rule for concentration anyhow (it's just a flaw that augments all magic use in the particular area). But I thought it should be mentioned for people who still assume that the costs are based on the charts.

Mike wrote:
The Big Question
I don't agree with how John stated his objection, but I think he may be sensing a problem. What if the behavior the system produces is bad? I'll play devil's advocate here: Why isn't this system just as problematic as BRP development?

I've often railed against BRP development because it means that players often have their characters go off and "practice." That is, they say, "I want a contest with my sword skill representing getting better by practicing?" Or they say, "I'll pick this lock twenty times" expecting a benefit each time.

Accusations of assholism notwithstanding, I think it's pretty reasonable for a player to say this if the system incentivizes it - min-maxing is not an anti-social behavior, but what's expected from a player presented with system X (so sayth Von Neumann). Further, call me a simmie, but I like the idea of practice contests.

So is this going to become problematic? One solution that leaps out is the BRP solution of only allowing one skill check per ability per session (or adventure). But this then leads to the "I have to use my battle axe skill, too" syndrome where the character uses a different weapon each conflict so as to increase in ability in all of them. That's an odd behavior we don't want to see.

So let's not do that. The usual solution that follows, then, is to say, "You only get benefits when in a field situation." No practice contests allowed. But this denies that, in fact, most actual training benefits occur from practice, and not field use (field use reinforces what's already learned). So what this really comes down to is, "You only get benefits when it's dramatically interesting." I mean, we want there to be real risk in these situations, right? Would you give these benefits for an automatic success? So I declare that I'm running across the road to the temple, and I get a bonus to my running ability? No way, right?

This might be the key, however. If the practice can be said to have a potential downside, risking injury, say, then is it viable? I think that's a start. But I still see far too much gamism potential here. The player has a direct rout to powering up his character, and he can keep pumping away at it. This usually leads with such systems to ensuring that the risk level is high enough. That is, that the downsides outweigh the upsides. The rule would be something like, "You only get the benefit if the resistance TN is higher than your TN." But then aren't we simply saying that simple practice shouldn't be allowed at all?

When it comes down to this, the problem is that it becomes a narrator choice about when it's dramatic. And I, for one, don't want to have to discern when players are playing gamism, and when not. I'd prefer that the system simply reinforce narrativism.

So, having exhausted all of the usual methods for rectifying the system, are there any that I'm not seeing? Will the problem never occur, because the rest of the system is so narrativism supporting that players won't slip into this sort of gamism? Or is there some mechanical way to force contests mechanically to be narrativism, even if the reward system remains as above?

joshua wrote:
Okay, I'll admit, you kind of lost me here. Is the point "this might encourage bad behavior among players"? I don't think it would encourage bad behavior on my part, and since I don't want to play with anyone who has worse behavior than myself, I'm not sure I see what the problem would be.

Just to let folks know, I'll be running the third episode of my Firefly game (http://random.average-bear.com/HQFirefly/HomePage), using a modded version of Mark Humphreys's HQ/Star Wars conversion and, as of this session, a conglomerate version of these alternate hero advancement rules.

My version, below:

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

2. After every contest that has some kind of dramatic importance*, the player goes to one of two lists.

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

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 2.
2) Raise up to three different traits used to augment the main ability by 1.
3) Take a new ability at 13.
4) Take a new personality trait at 13.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 17.
6) If an item (special or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at 17 if it hasn't already been rated).
7) Take a flaw at an appropriate level.
8) Take 1 Hero Point for later use.

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

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 3. (Or one, if it's a 'power' attribute.)
2) Raise up to two different traits used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Take a new ability at 17.
4) Take a new personality trait at 17.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 17.
6) Take a flaw at an appropriate level.
7) Take 2 Hero Points for later use.

This does a couple things, but the main one is that character change is entirely tied to seeking out interesting scenes for the character. You want to be safe and sit on your tukas? Fine, but the character's never going to get any better. Also, if a particular attribute/skill is important to you, it's in your best interest to look for conflicts that INVOLVE that trait.

* - "I pick the lock 20 times, for practice, while we're sitting around," is -- generally -- not interesting or dramatically important, and wouldn't earn the character a selection from the list, let alone 20.

Please do report back.

What Fred said. (Right said Fred!) I'm very interested to hear how my rambling thoughts actually work in actual play.

Alrighty. Game's tonight. News to follow this weekend sometime. :)

Doyce, why does your version have winners get 17's for relationships and items, but 13's for the other types of traits?

And given that the game was three days ago... report?

OOOH!

I just had an idea.

What if you could flip from the winner side to the loser side (not giving up the win in the contest, but rather grabbing a better advancement for it) by accepting a dramatically important "wound"?  A wound, of course, could be any number of different types of sacrifices.

Hmm, concession mechanic. I assume it's something like Narrator proposes such (being potentially influenced by player suggestion, of course) and player decides whether or not to accept?

Getting pretty close to how FATE is working these days with temporary aspects.

Mike

Vaxalon wrote:
Doyce, why does your version have winners get 17's for relationships and items, but 13's for the other types of traits?

And given that the game was three days ago... report?

Mike:
1> PC wins contest
2> GM proposes possible "wound" - anything from an actual wound to a metaphorical one, like damage to one's reputation
3> player chooses whether to accept wound
4> If player accepts, PC advances by the "loser" list, if he declines the PC advances by the "winner" list.

Doyce: I've adapted the advancement rules we've been talking about here:

http://www.thesmerf.com/vaxalon/RegainTheStars.html#Advancement

A very interesting system.
I'm tempted to use it for my newly started game.

We have used this system now for two sessions, which in IRC don't involve TOO many conflicts, maybe ten all together.

It looks like it's working well, people are taking to it quickly.  Deciding what to boost after a conflict is not turning out to be difficult most of the time, from my POV.

An interesting question has popped up in my mind...

Should NPC's get the same advancement when they win and lose conflicts?

Oh, and another question...

What happens when several characters are cooperating, but only one of them has a primary attribute in the conflict?

Here's my first-blush answer: Don't.  Give each character their own conflict, which (if they win) adds an augment to the final resolution, which belongs to the primary PC.  That way everyone gets an equal chance to get bennies out of the overall conflict.

Vaxalon wrote:
What happens when several characters are cooperating, but only one of them has a primary attribute in the conflict?

Vaxalon wrote:
An interesting question has popped up in my mind...

Should NPC's get the same advancement when they win and lose conflicts?

Vaxalon wrote:
Oh, and another question...

What happens when several characters are cooperating, but only one of them has a primary attribute in the conflict?

If lending augments works like community support, so that assistants suffer a similar penalty for a loss, then they should share in the gain.

So far, this hasn't been a problem in the current game, but here's a proposal:

If you lend more than one augment to a conflict, then if your side wins, you may add 1 to one of the attributes.  If you lose, you may add 2 to one of the attributes, and you suffer a penalty for losing similar to the main character's penalty.

I think this is good in principle, but why, if the negative stakes are equal to full participation, shouldn't the positive stakes be the same? That is, why not get the normal choice for participating? The only difference is that you're hitching your wagon to the other player's fortune and potential HP expenditure. Which is interesting in and of itself.

That said, I could see an argument where you said that it's because you don't want to distract from the main character's spotlight. So I think that it's sensible as you have it that it's possible to contribute and not get rewards. But would it work to simply make it player choice on both ends? That is, the player augmenting, regardless of number of augments, gets to ask to be "staked"? And the primary player then gets to accept or reject the offer?

What might be interesting is to allow the offering player to base his offer on acceptance as having a stake. That is, he can say, "If you want my augments, you have to let me in on the stakes." Or he can choose to offer augments without stakes. Or let the primary player decide.

Lots of potential options here. Interesting stuff.

Yes, if you don't have multiple augments, then you have the problem that the augment reward isn't fully available. But that's something I've been meaning to ask for a while now about single characters, too. If I only augment with two abilities, then can I select bumping the augmenting abilities? If so, do I simply lose the point for the third ability?

In any case, if you allow an augmenter the full range of rewards, he can always choose a new ability or something.

Hmm. Something occurs to me, we assume he can't raise up the ability level of a primary ability, because, of course, he's not contributing one. But there are several options with regards to this. For one, you could have the player declare one augment "primary" for this purpose. This is cool because you can accellerate the rate at which an ability - which may be one of those that tends to always be used to augment - can be raised.

Or you could also say that if the player has a similar ability to the primary one that he can raise it as though it were primary, based on learning from the events happening to the character with the Primary ability.

I'm sure there are other permutations as well.

BTW, this has gotten me thinking about some things regarding HP and bumping that I'm going to bring up in another thread.

Mike

If a participant wants to participate "fully" then he can initiate a whole new conflict to attempt to resolve a part of the greater conflict, like in Brand's houserule.

Well, you can always run simultaneous contests. That's not even a house rule. But that's somewhat what I fear...that players, if they're going to go in on a contest in any case, will always ask for their own contest, and never augment each other. Why should I accept the lower reward if I'm risking the same amount, and there's another rout that gets me the higher reward?

In fact, I think people should be rewarded for taking a back seat when appropriate, and having their character help out instead of grabbing the limelight.

Mike

Hm.  Indeed.

"Share in the risk, share in the reward" seems to be the best rule there, and the share of reward should be comparable to the share in the risk.

Not to interrupt this discussion, but what exactly is the benefit of the list method here. I mean, why not just say, on a victory you get 1 HP and on a defeat 2 HPs? Without changing HPs otherwise, so they still function the same as before. This also solves the problem with multiple traits, though the differentiation between augmenting abilities and main traits is lost. As I see it, this is the main difference between the lists and the normal way to improve. Am I missing something?

Sebastian.

Well, mechanically, if you lose, your main attribute could be raised by 2.  Getting 2 HP you can then use to raise attributes wouldn't net you the same thing, simply because of the limitations on how many times (or how much, efficiently) you can raise an attribute in a session.

Well, of course. The lists get rid of this rule, limiting number of increases based on the number of contests. And I don't use it in my group, either.
The numbers I used are arbitrary anyway. I just took them from the lists. You could also say, a victory is its own reward and on a failure you receive one HP. Or 2 and 3. After all, on a defeat new abilities start on a higher level. Not to forget the ratio between bumping and advancing. On a success it's 2:1 (or 3:1 considering augment abilities) as you can choose between a +2 increase to the main ability or 1 HP, on a defeat 3:2 (or 4:2) respectively. So the lists put a higher emphasis on character development than the normal dual use rules. This is probably another advantage of the lists albeit a small one. So I see two so far.

1) Better differentiation between traits. Not only between main ability and augmenting traits but also stressing the importance of certain kinds of traits, like relationships.
2) Levelling of differences between using a HP for bumping and advancement.
But perhaps I ask the wrong thing. The question cannot be, which method is better. It can only be, which method is better suited for achieving a certain goal. So, what kind of play is promoted by the lists which cannot be as easily achieved by just giving out a different number of HPs.

Both methods differentiate between victory and defeat and give a higher mechanical reward for failure. The lists also change the relation between bumping and advancement. Just giving out HP cannot accomplish this. Also deep and broad development are possible alternatively for the same cost with the lists. With HPs one would have to keep the limit on increases per adventure to incentivize a broadening of abilities.
Are there more things I missed?
So, in the end, the main feature of the lists is not simply to make failure more attractive, but to make small adjustments to other parts of the mechanics as well, right? Of course, having a list to choose from could be a reward of its own.

Sebastian.

sebastianz wrote:
Not to interrupt this discussion, but what exactly is the benefit of the list method here. I mean, why not just say, on a victory you get 1 HP and on a defeat 2 HPs? Without changing HPs otherwise, so they still function the same as before. This also solves the problem with multiple traits, though the differentiation between augmenting abilities and main traits is lost. As I see it, this is the main difference between the lists and the normal way to improve. Am I missing something?

Sebastian.

I agree. 

And while I'm here and posting, let me say that I'm really pleased that the "list method" is working for your game, Fred. I haven't had a chance to playtest it myself, so it's cool that you have and that people are digging it.

While we're having a lovefest, let me say thanks for sharing it!

One of the best advantages is that someone can drop out of a game (or jump in) at any point with no bookkeeping.  Any HP you're due... you've already got!

There's no more "Oh, hey, I dropped out early last week, did Mike give out the usual 4HP?" or "Hey, before we go, Mike, how many HP this week?"  You get your advancement right there along and everything flows better.

Yeah, I like it for that, and the fact that it's not arbitrary. That is, how many HP do I give this session? Answer: None, they already have them!

To answer the previous question about why the list, I think that, for me, I like it because you can offer some trade-off choices on the list. What it promotes, for instance, is players raising up those seemingly "agument only" abilities, which otherwise tend to languish unraised for no good thematic reason.

Lovefest aside, I see a chink in the armor. Using this system, why ever have more than one HP? If you're using the normal rule that you can only bump once in a contest, and you can always choose to replace the HP after a contest if you decide to bump, why ever keep more than one HP in your HP pool?

OK, the obvious argument is it's because you might want to get a different reward after a contest than taking the HP - you might want to take this rare opportunity to raise your Operatic Voice ability.

But what would be nice would be some condition under which you got no reward. That way you might be able to be caught short more often, and have to consider taking HP more to be sure to have a buffer against bad luck. It becomes much more of a choice this way.

In play, I found myself never taking HP, and my pool slowly dwindling as I spent the ones I started with. There was no decision to be made. Sure, now that I'm getting lower there is some question. But there's a strong compulsion to just go down to one, and then maintain at that level having to give up the rewards on contests in which I decide to bump (or risk not being able to bump).

Not a horrible problem, but hinkey.

Mike

Mike wrote:
Lovefest aside, I see a chink in the armor. Using this system, why ever have more than one HP? If you're using the normal rule that you can only bump once in a contest, and you can always choose to replace the HP after a contest if you decide to bump, why ever keep more than one HP in your HP pool?

With this system, multiple-bumps suddenly are viable.  I think combining this system with the ability to bump multiple times, bump other people's rolls, and possibly even using HP to buy traits on other people's sheets (as described in the other ongoing HP thread) might be a way to get everything we might want out of HPs.

Hmm, Doyce brings up somthing that I hadn't thought of...are you rewarded only once for an extended contest? Or once per round? Or...

If it is only once, then he's got a good point. But somehow I get this feeling like if I'm rolling I should be getting rewarded. In fact, this would give players an incentive to extend extended contests rather than closing them out as they often do.

Mike

Perhaps all the rewards for an extended contest are chosen at the end?

Alex, one per round? One per roll? One per contest? Could make extended contests way too rewarding if you do it one per roll. Especially since you only risk penalty at the end.

If the reward is one per contest, then, of course you're forced to wait until the end to give them out.

Mike

Mike wrote:
Alex, one per round? One per roll? One per contest? Could make extended contests way too rewarding if you do it one per roll. Especially since you only risk penalty at the end.

If the reward is one per contest, then, of course you're forced to wait until the end to give them out.

Mike

Doyce, I agree.

But...yeah, it really depends on how frequent these are. Rather, who decides if it's an extended contest? I usually ask the players, though by the rules, I believe that it is a narrrator responsibility to make the final call. Here's the thing, I think I'd feel a bit bad about deciding to do an extended contest when a player was low on HP because of this. With the normal system, the player has other incentives to keep his level higher, not knowing how many contests will occur between this one and getting more HP. With this system, the player would be risking the narrator going to an extended contest.

Not really all that different than choosing to do a contest when a player is out of HP...but I have to admit that doing that often makes me feel a bit queasy, too. In any case, with an EC, I'd rather the player choose than force one on him. If the player has an incentive not to participate, then perhaps we'd see no ECs at all. As opposed to the very, very few that we do now.

OTOH, this might all be unneccessary hand-wringing. I'm also definitely motivated by an urge to have more rewards in ECs, because, as I've said, I think that could have beneficial effects all on it's own. If that's the case, then this one reason to save more HP goes away.

Hmmm.

Mike

Random idea:

Perhaps, at the end of each extended contest, you get to roll on the table, +1 HP for each roll made in the contest.  This might encourage ECs without mandating them, and not unbalance things as much as "one roll per roll in the EC" while still giving more reward to people who choose to roll the dice more often.

Or a new list (or rather two lists) for extended contests.
a. If the player won the contest, s/he can choose one thing from this list:

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

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

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 4. (Or one, if it's a 'power' attribute.)
2) Raise up to three different traits used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Take a new ability at 1W.
4) Take a new personality trait at 1W.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 1W.
6) Take a flaw at an appropriate level.
7) Take 3 Hero Points for later use.

It's a rough shot. So, you only get one reward at the end of a contest, but it is greater compared to a SC. That should at least keep an EC attractive, though it won't do anything for making ECs the least bit longer in duration.

Sebastian.

Not sure if that's any better, Sebastian, it certainly doesn't address my concerns, at least. That is, it would incentivize doing extended contests a little, but makes one want to close them out fast even more than before so that you use as few HP as possible and gain the largest net profit from the contest.

But it does bring something up. The "main trait" used in an extended contest changes, quite often, in the middle of the contest. By the end of the contest you may have rolled against five "main traits" and augmented with twenty other traits. Or more.

So if one declares that there is a single reward at the end of the contest...does he get to select what was the "main trait?" Does it apply only to the first main trait used?

A while back, I think it was Fred who suggested a system that I've been pondering too that was essentially about using chains of simple contests instead of extended contests. Using that, given that you are potentially penalized fully each "round" I'd expect that you'd get a reward for each "round." Perhaps this reward system would work better with somthing like that?

Mike

That's how I planned to deal with the extended contest "problem".

Actually, it probably creates more problems than it would solve. While it would make an EC more attractive compared to the normal rules, players would get an incentive to opt for an EC all the time. The function of an EC is to zoom in on the action were it is dramatically appropriate. Giving a higher reward could be misunderstood. Players might want to get this higher reward even though the story does not demand an EC. Potentially, the GM than has a problem to justify his decision for a SC. Also, the round to round of an EC resembles the traditional breakdown of action in rounds.

If you replace an EC with a chain of SCs, than I honestly see no difference to giving a reward each round of an EC. That is, loosing one of the SCs doesn't mean failure on the whole, but provides only a penalty to further "actions", right? While mechanically different, in essence it remains an EC. So, if this is an acceptable way to go, than providing a reward for each round of an EC (or each time you roll?) seems fine to me.

It also adds a further note to the drama of the conflict. Do I finish this moron opposing me or do I tread careful to get a higher reward?
Still, an EC will be more attractive than a SC. So it must be made clear that the sole basis for using an EC is the drama of the story. Or the problem of hunting experience will remain.

Sebastian.

You've deduced my chain of logic, Sebastian. Or close enough.

I came across a gap in this system, which lead me to more. I'm working off of Fred's list, or what's not on it, which can be found under Advancement here: http://www.thesmerf.com/vaxalon/RegainTheStars.html#HouseRules

First, it occured to me that there's nothing in the list about buying off flaws. This would be a cool addition, I think. Though there is the school of thought (mentioned in the book) that taking an offsetting ability is a better way to go. Otherwise, the rule would be that you can reduce a flaw by one for a victory, I think? Somehow reducing it by two for a defeat seems incorrect. No?

Thoughts?

Anyhow, looking at the list of things one can purchase, Fred and I had already come across an addition. When you join a cult, you get a little "package deal" in terms of how many HP you spend to get the little bunch of abilities. Two thoughts here. Either this can be an option on the list available only with the right sort of contest, or you could just eliminate this exception, and say that there are several tests to get into a cult, each with it's own reward (which is to buy the new appropriate ability, given the contest).

I'm a bit torn on that one. It might be good to get rid of the extra cruft here. BTW, this also pertains to things like joining Hero Bands.

What about fetishes, however? And charms? The system already assumes that we're making all magic into just "abilities" that can be raised and lowered as normal, so as not to have a conversion rate (see earlier in the thread). But what about charms and fetishes? Should the relationship to a spirit be the only thing that matters? Is the level of spirit ability irrellevant?

We can assume that with a normal relationship purchase, that a player can take that buy as a retainer (same cost, after all). But what about converting a retainer to a sidekick? Takes two HP normally. Can this be done with just one contest? Can you make a sidekick from nothing with just one contest?

It would be odd if you could only create a sidekick on a failure. But it would match cost-wise. If I can get one with a victory, can I get two with a defeat? Nevermind.

I prefer to ignore "Bonuses" and cementing them myself. But if one is going to have them in play (and Fred is, I found out), then cementing a bonus item or something should be an option on the list. So, my character does a contest to purchase a sword worth a +3 bonus...if he wins, then I can put the bonus on the sheet. Right? As an option, or in addition to the rule for point 2.a.v. where you can get an item with a rating?

I also still think that "refactoring" an ability should be an option. That's something I mentioned earlier. That is, instead of increasing an ability, a contest could be transformative and change one ability into another (this covers the rule about changing relationships, and Fred's rule about goals all in one fell swoop).

There are probably a few other uses for HP that aren't here.

Mike

Wow, that’s a lot of questions you ask. I’ll give my best to answer them, though, and hope others will do the same.
First, keep in mind that you could just give out HP as stated earlier and stay out of the trouble.
Now to your questions.

Flaws:
As soon as you put something on the list, you invalidate possible alternatives. Take flaws for example. One way of “getting rid” of a flaw is to develop a positive trait. You mentioned that. Another option is to let the player put his character into appropriate situations, which let him deal with the flaw in play. And then lower the rating of the flaw or remove it altogether. This is also mentioned by the rules (p. 59).  Third, put it on the lists. It’s a clear way of giving the player the responsibility to mechanically erase the flaw. But in that case, the other options get invalidated. Why go to all the trouble if you can just use a simple reward for it?
Concerns aside, I see no reason to limit flaw removal to victory. Can’t you learn from a defeat? For example, a character can’t back down from a duel because of his pride. The duel gets lost, the character humiliated. Perhaps he will learn to be a bit more humble in the future. And I believe this to be more plausible than on a victory.

Also, why only reduce the rating of a flaw by one?
If we assume the pyramidal cost for multiple raises of a trait (p. 59), #1 on the list for victory gives you a reward of 3 HP. #2 allows an increase of +1 to three traits, so is worth 3 HP as well. On a defeat you get an increase of +3 equalling 6 HP. Or an increase of +2 to two traits. Also worth 6 HP. If we take this as a basis, you are better off in overcoming a flaw if you just raise a positive rating than to reduce the flaw. So just allow a reduction of 2 points on both lists. That still keeps it attractive to just increase the positive trait on a failure.

Package deals:
Again we should take a look at the costs. Avoiding an exchange rate is nice, but this only applies to play, not constructing the lists. Joining a cult, becoming an initiate, or a practitioner costs 3 HP. You have to win a contest usually and pay the HP in exchange for the benefits. This conveniently fits the reward for victory, see above. So, winning the contest means getting the benefits. You pay by not being able to choose a different reward. Loosing remains unchanged. You have learned a lesson, but can’t pick up the package.

Sidekicks:
Now we come to a little problem of the lists. Purchasing a new ability costs 1 HP. But the lists give it the same weight as they do for the increases to existing abilities. Suddenly 1 HP equals 3 HP or perhaps even 6 HP. But this comparison only gets us this far. It’s of no help in answering your question. So I say, with the lists you can only get a sidekick if you already have a retainer. Put a new option on the lists, something like:
Change the status of a retainer, that played a part in the contest, to sidekick.
Without followers you need at least two contests to get a sidekick.

Fetishes:
One solution would be to just think of a fetish or a charm as a special item. That’s on the list for victory. The problem then is, that all ratings “cost” the same. The table on p. 141 differentiates between the level of a rating and whether it’s a fetish or a charm. Therefore just add a new option to the lists. Instead of a certain reward you can opt for a contest to create a charm. If you already have a charm, you can upgrade to a fetish. Alternatively, a practitioner may choose freely what to create. The contest to befriend the spirit is then modified in relation to the desired rating of the charm or fetish.

Refactoring:
Well, just include it as an option, probably on both lists. I see no problem here.

That's my attempt to be of help. Of course, one could just abandon all ties to the original costs and just do something different.

Sebastian.

I'll chime in to mention that I picked up this system for the game I've started. One session so far, with the next one taking place today. As far as we can tell, the method works just fine. One of the players got a minor defeat on one contest and chose to increase his main ability. He did remark the oddity that this completely offset the penalty of defeat, but on the other hand I forgot that this penalty can apply to all related contests. So it evens out.

As for the ongoing discussion; Regarding Sidekicks, I was thinking along the same lines as you, Sebastian. Two contests will be required to create a sidekick. Or, as you propose, that a Sidekick first has to be a retainer. Sounds good to me.

Lukirawa (Mike's character in my game) has lost conflicts in profusion.  He's now lying near paralyzed in the hands of his enemy.

sebastianz wrote:
First, keep in mind that you could just give out HP as stated earlier and stay out of the trouble.

As soon as you put something on the list, you invalidate possible alternatives.

Concerns aside, I see no reason to limit flaw removal to victory. Can’t you learn from a defeat? For example, a character can’t back down from a duel because of his pride. The duel gets lost, the character humiliated. Perhaps he will learn to be a bit more humble in the future. And I believe this to be more plausible than on a victory.

Also, why only reduce the rating of a flaw by one?

So just allow a reduction of 2 points on both lists. That still keeps it attractive to just increase the positive trait on a failure.

So, winning the contest means getting the benefits. You pay by not being able to choose a different reward. Loosing remains unchanged. You have learned a lesson, but can’t pick up the package.

Without followers you need at least two contests to get a sidekick.

The contest to befriend the spirit is then modified in relation to the desired rating of the charm or fetish.

Winner pick: Add a retainer whose keyword is at 13
Winner pick: Upgrade a retainer to a sidekick, and give him three traits at 13
Loser pick: Increase a sidekick's retainer's keyword by 1

I really like that for the Followers/Sidekicks.

I've added it to the houserules for my game.

Keywords "advancing" is a big modification of the rules. Yes, I use it in my game, but it has all sorts of consequences. If you limit it to this case...might not be a big deal. But just so it's clear, it's not something you can do under the normal rules.

In any case, for the losing case, why not allow it for sidekicks, too? Why only retainers?

Why not an option to raise sidekick abilities (which is allowed under the rules)? Or is that assumed under the normal rules for raising abilities?

Mike

I've been cooling towards HeroQuest recently. This thread completely changed my mind, though. With this system, the game becomes awesome once again.

Yoinking ideas from just about everyone, this is the system I'm going to use for my game:

Chose from the appropriate list below after ever contest, with extended contests counting as one contest.

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

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 2.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 1.
3) Take a new ability at 17.
4) Take a new personality trait at 17.
5) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 17.
6) Remove one flaw directly related to the conflict.
7) If an item (magical or not) was involved in the contest, take ownership of the item at whatever rating the Narrator already assigned it (or at 17 if it hasn’t already been rated).
8) Gain a retainer with a keyword at 13 and a relationship to him/her at 17.
9) Upgrade one retainer to a follower and give him/her three abilities at their keyword rank, plus [standard number of points].
10) Take 1 Hero Point for later use.

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

1) Raise the main trait used in the contest by 3.
2) Raise one trait used to augment the main ability by 2.
3) Raise two traits used to augment the main ability by 1 each.
4) Take a new ability at 19.
5) Take a new personality trait at 19.
6) Take a new relationship with someone involved in the contest at 19.
7) Gain one flaw directly related to the conflict at an appropriate level.
8) Gain a retainer with a keyword at 13 and a relationship to him/her at 19.
9) Upgrade one retainer to a follower and give him/her three abilities at their keyword rank, plus [standard number of points].
10) Take 2 Hero Points for later use.

My books are packed up in a box, so in option 8, the number is whatever is says in the rules.

I'm my game, I'm replacing all the magical sub-rules with standard keywords and abilities. So you have the Dark Wizard keyword with the abilities of summon Demon, Destroy Soul and Speak to the Darkness (plus anything else that makes sense) under that keyword. That solves the problem of how to increase magical abilities with this system, as well as makes it more flexible.

The lists are kind of long, but I think that will just make for a steeper learning curve. Once we're past that, I don't think the number of options will be a problem.

Does that read well? And am I missing anything important from the list?

Oh, and a huge thanks to joshua neff and Vaxalon, because most of this stuff is yoinked from you guys.

--Victor

Other ideas bouncing around my head:

Should their be a penalty if the new ability you take is not related to the contest? This would be similar to the double HP cost for increasing or adding non-related abilities. The penalty could be the new ability starts at half of what it would normally, or it could a standard -5 for any non-related ability.

Or you could say that the new ability must be related to the contest. Both this and the method above would make very stream lined characters. It makes it more difficult for a fighter to learn the skills he needs to become a diplomat, which is good or bad depending on how you want your game to play out.

Also, the idea of giving greater rewards if someone received a complete victory or complete defeat. Possibly pick twice if that happens. I like this because it represents learning more through harder work. On the other hand, I don't know how it would effect the system. There is also the problem of someone trying to get a complete defeat just to get the added bonus. A player might realize he is about to receive a major defeat and try to push it to a complete for more goodies.

--Victor

Victor,

My books are packed up in a box, so in option 8, the number is whatever is says in the rules.

Changed the first two items on the list:

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

1) Raise any of the main or augmenting abilities by 3 points total, with no more then 2 going to one ability.
2) Raise an ability unused in the contest by 1.

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

1) Raise any of the main or augmenting abilities by 5 points total, with no more then 3 going to one ability.
2) Raise an ability unused in the contest by 2.

Maybe everything should start at 13 or keyword level, depending on the ability. Or keyword level + 1, because I think that's how it works, by the book. Gaining an ability from your keyword is more like adding 1 point to a ability that is there, it's just not written down.

--Victor

Yes, the rationale with keyword abilities is not that they're new, but that they were always there at keyword level. You could have used them at that level without ever buying them. So, yeah, if you spend HP on it, it goes up from that pre-existing keyword level.

From a metagame perspective, "discovering" a new ability in the keyword could be worth paying for, however. So, while it's a change from the rules, I think it's not a terrible one. There's only one potential problem with this. If you go this way, and players are creating their own keywords instead of using a fleshed out sample, there has to be some cut off point at which you say, "No more free abilities, now you have to start to pay." So that requires some additional rules on such limits.

Now on to another point. Last night I thought that I'd discovered another entry for the winner category - eliminate a penalty. Healing, basically. My rationale was that healing occurs mechanically, so why not streamline the rule by saying that it's a potential buy on a win.

But, and I think Fred figured this out instinctively, you always get your goal in a contest win, in addition to the reward. So now I'm starting to think that it's not such a good idea. It means one less reward for winning than you normally get.

Thoughts?

Mike

You're right on the money, Mike.

It's interesting that I'm starting to get an instinct for these things...

Well, what it really begs for, Fred, is something like Mark's "ability-based" injuries (which is like my old "Currency-based Resolution" too). Basically instead of the results of a contest being a penalty, the losing character gets an ability instead. This has lots of ramifications, but it's a good idea largely because it means one less system to deal with. The problem with such systems is determining what level to set the abilities at (do you set a major defeat to a 15W ability - like the TN for healing it - which has only a -4 penalty associated, or do you set it at a level where it can have much more of an effect like the -50% rule currently does?)

Even then, however, these effects are always in addition to the normal effect of resolution. This is a sort of paradox in HQ, that the list system is sorta addressing. That winning you get nothing mechanically, just narration of success, and that the loser at the same time gets a mechanical penalty. In the Currency-based Resolution system I addressed this by saying that, in fact, victory can give you a mechanical bonus instead of giving your opponent a penalty. So, for instance, you're building a house. What would you penalize if you win? The general resistance to house-building gets a penalty to resisting next time? Eh, see my whole thing on Penalizing the World. With the currency system, instead of giving the opponent a flaw, you can give yourself a positive ability.

Even this, however, isn't entirely satisfactory, because it's fun to ponder situations where you get your goal, and the loser is penalized both. The odd thing is that, look at the classic example, combat. In that case, doesn't success mean injuring the target (or putting it to dying)? That is what does one get out of a fight that's not represented by the mechnical penalty that you give the opponent?

So I'm pretty ambivalent on this whole subject. That is, I think that this reward system goes half way to solveing some of these problems, but in doing so they still remain, albeit altered. They're not horrible problems, but I can't help but think that as long as somebody is coming up with a new system like this, that they ought to solve that problem.

Mike