I've been wondering about the species keywords and their ungainly list of separate ability scores. Would there be any obstacle to having them act like all other keywords, ie at a standard level for all abilities comprised in them? Is there some other way to make them function more elegantly?

Would you want the "Giant" keyword and the "Troll" keyword to both have the same value for "Large"?

And do you want ducks to have the same score for 'Swim' and 'Small'? Yeah, I know. But I don't like the way it does work very much.

Let's put it another way. If both the giant's and the troll's 'Large' are really about dramatic impact, not simulating a reality, maybe it doesn't matter if their scores are the same.

If it doesn't matter that they're the same, why does it matter if they're different?

Balance?

No, I guess I just feel that the way it works is inelegant. What if I want a troll with 'Troll 2W'?

I treat species keywords just like any other keyword in my Star Wars HQ game and it's always worked fine. It's certainly a lot more elegant, and it lets you set the overall rating to match other keywords (for example, in a 'start all keywords off at 5m' sort of game). The balance thing is also relevant, but that's possibly a discussion for a different thread.

I also think that abilities in HQ are about characterisation rather than measurement, so I don't see any reason to worry about 'what rating would be realistic' in terms of creature size or the like. If a player wants to emphasise the dramatic impact of his Large ability he can always select it as his best ability or spend HP to raise it, and the narrator should also make judicious use of improv mods in a fight between a troll and a giant (or whatever).

Personally when I design a species keyword I sometimes include additional abilites or flaws to emphasise its size - so as well as Large, a giant might also have Intimidating Physique, Towering Height, Immense Stride, or Slow And Lumbering, depending on what you wanted to highlight. These abilities can be used to augment when necessary (thus having much the same effect as a higher rating) but are more colourful and allow a bit more flexibility as they can be used in their own right. I guess if the Giant's size was important enough you could even make it an affinity or a keyword in its own right! 

Mark

I really like Mark's approach. (Not that I've played HQ yet, but the text always truck me as schizoid in this area: it's not trying to simulate physics, yet you have the worry about the Giant's Large score needing to be higher than the Troll's, etc.).

Yeah, I like that approach much better. Might need to tweak the current keywords a bit.

So my HQ drifts slightly further from sim.

I had come close to posting before, but I'm glad I let it go on a little.

I agree with Mark's assessment in general. Note that I handle equipment similarly, not having standard bonuses, but instead having situational bonuses apply if, well, the situation seems to demand. So just as a big sword is no more effective automatically than a small sword, so, too, with the size of large humanoids.

But, then, why do I have detailed species keywords? Well, because I'm not so concerned with elegance or balance. I kind like added complexity. And I think it works fine with ability ratings, as opposed to with item bonuses (for esoteric reasons I won't go into here). The Shadow World source material makes a lot of how large one creature is with respect to the next. What's funny is that, in Rolemaster, that all ends up being color (and the system really fails to support it well there). With HQ, I've been able to make a lot out of size that's been, I think, dramatically interesting.

So, what I'm saying is that I think either rout is valid, depending largely on what sort of things you want to focus on in play. Interestingly (though maybe not surprisingly), the designers take a somewhat middle of the road approach. That is, it's been argued that, if 20W3 is human maximum scale (or something liie that), that an 8 foot troll should be larger than Large 20W3. Consider the ramifications of that for a bit. Consider that you can never, ever, compare Large vs Strong for a contest of lifting. That is Large can't be the base resistance, if you're thinking of in-game simulation against which Strong goes to figure out if you can carry somebody. Just as Tall isn't the resistance against which Jump goes - see the resistance chart, the resistance to leap over somebody your own height is something like 10W2.

From one reading, you never put up one ability against another. No, really, read the rules closely, and you'll see what I mean.

So these things are not really comparative in any way.

Now, that said, I love to make all sorts of simmy assumptions for comparison sake. I'm the guy who took the mastery scale descriptions and expanded on them, and likes to think about what the resolution curve says about what mastery means. Am I schitzophrenic? No, I simply realize that you an sorta do both at the same time. Rather, as long as you don't try to force the system to be one or the other perfectly, it serves both very interestingly. Or, at least it works like that for me. And I don't get any complaints about it.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I broadly agree that such things are not mapped perfectly in HQ as the name of the ability used is often of more import than its actual ability level, but...

Mike wrote:
From one reading, you never put up one ability against another.

This might be getting OT, but to clarify, I'm saying that Resistance can be set to ability level, but is not ability. Note that only the opposition is a resistance, and the character uses an ability. If the intent were for the NPCs to have a full treatment, then why not merely say that you compare ability vs ability instead of introducing the term resistance at all?

This statement might be more accurate: From one reading, resistance is set by narrator whim, and not by simply comparing ability levels.

What I'm getting at is that there's an assumption that NPCs get full "rights" with regards to contests, and that this means that they all have ability ratings, and that you always calculate a resistance based on these. I think this is a lot of work for little benefit, and that the rules allow you to make the resistance whatever you want it to be.

Take for example the sample resistance table. People have trouble with that all the time with regards to the "Best Combat Ability" section, asking "Does this represent the ability level of the target character augmented or unaugmented." Either answer is somewhat problematic. The best answer I have is that it's a resistance based on how well they fight. Whether or not it represents an ability is simply not important. All that matters is that the TN makes sense for the conflict at hand.

If I recall correctly, I don't think it says in the resistance section that NPCs get to augment abilities, does it? In my opinion it's largely a mistake to work out augments for NPCs. Augmenting is about focusing in on the character to find out what's interesting about them.

Now, some caveats. To be sure, I think that the intent of the designers was to use abilities as the resistance in most cases. Note, however, that as in the case of jumping over somebody, you don't use their "Tall" ability - that's simply not right. Says so in the sample resistances that you use a resitance based on relative height, which would not be equal to a character's "Tall" ability. So there are definitely cases where you use the "natural force" clause to set it at whatever is appropriate, even from the reading that probably more closely follows the intent of the designers.

Further, even though I often set resistances on the fly without giving an ability to an opponent, just as often I do rationalize resistances as being based on assumed abilities. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to use abilities, simply that it's not at all neccessary, and that the game works fine as written if you simply set the resistance TN to whatever seems appropriate. So in play the question of how I set a TN is based on my (also potentially contentious) reading of the rules that says that there is no case in which some augment must automatically apply in a situation, nor even where one ability must be used over another in a particular contest. I note that augmenting is not a challenge in terms of a player being able to win a contest - any fool can simply crawl his list of abilities and try to come up with a rationalization for each. Augmenting, to me, is about showing how your character "plugs in" to the contest interestingly. What about the character is pertinent to the contest at hand? The point being that, unless I've established something about an NPC, I don't look for abilities to augment with (which is easier for me, since I never stat out an NPC unless I do actually rationalize an ability level for them at some point). Put another way, if we wouldn't see it in a movie version of the action as audience, then I won't mention it.

Now that also doesn't mean that I won't make a villain powerful enough to make for a dramatic resistance. I may put his TN up way high to make him seem formidable. I simply don't require myself to say that it's based on ability A, plus augments X, Y, and Z. Because nobody cares about how the villain is that tough. Unless, of course, this villain has been exposed thouroughly in play, and has become, essentially, my PC in play as narrator. Then I might flesh him out a little more. But really it hasn't happened to date at all that I've given any NPC more than about 4 abilities. And, again, I don't restrict myself from setting a TN higher than this.

If all that doesn't seem kosher, note that I could actually create the ability levels on the spot, and augments, and then either give him a bonus or improv mod penalty or something to get the TN to what I want it to be anyhow. Even on subsequent contests, we're all talented enough Narrators to make whatever dramatic TN we select seem to have come from the situation and stats. I simply read the rules such that I can go around this whenever I feel the need and just get straight to the resistance TN.

Also note that I'm a big fan of the HQ scale as a simulative thing. Meaning that I do, in fact, tend to set resistances based less on whim, and more on what I think is a believable talent level for the character in question. I can do this in HQ, in part, because I don't have to worry about failure being a problem. In a game like D&D, I can only present ogres and such to fourth level characters - they'll die if I present giants. In HQ, I don't have to worry about what I present, or if it's relatively powerful, because I know that the results of any particular contest are going to be fun no matter what the results.

So I'm not trying to rationalize the rules simply to allow me to "fudge." I'm simply saying that it's largely extra work and uninteresting, or even inappropriate in some cases, to set a resistance TN by using an ability, and that, in fact, I think best practice is to save this for rare circumstances. Oh, to be sure, what's "appropriate" is probably based on the scale in some way. You just don't have to worry about precision here, just accuracy (if you're not aware of the distinction, look em up, everybody should know them).

To get back on topic, what this means is that narrators shouldn't get stuck in the mindset where:
1. All NPCs have a full set of abilities (even if not enumerated).
2. When having a contest against an NPC, you select the apropriate ability to base resistance on.

If you need this process for a particular case, and it seems like it'll work, then fine, go with it. But in many cases, you should simply ignore that process and get directly to an appropriate TN for the contest in question. In doing so you can avoid the supposed problems with things like Species Keywords. Sure, compare Strong vs Strong if they have an arm-wrestling contest. But don't compare Strong vs Large, or Jump vs Tall. In the first case you can think of this less as comparing abilities, as creating a contest with a resistance that people are interested in - which just happens to be the ability level in this case.

See the difference? Mostly a psychological difference I know, but I find that until you make that mental shift, that people get strongly attached to the idea of finding the "opposing ability" in every case, when, in fact, that's simply not where you should start from. And don't fall into the temptation of saying "Oh, I made the Resistance 5W, so he must have a 5W ability." Because then you'll start asking yourself if there were aguments in the contest, and in trying to back-calculate...well down that road lies madness.

Simply don't put yourself through that sort of ringer. You'll enjoy the game more, I suspect, if you don't.

Mike

OK, I know where your coming from.

I rarely if ever stat-out NPCs either, except maybe as a guide in extended contests.But I believe you make less use of these than I do anyway.

But, I saw this whole thread upside-down thinking it was about non human PCs.

You are taking an extreme case of 'the narrator selects the resistance' and using the ambiguity of non-mapping scales as your reason. That's cool, its just you seemed to be saying something else about the rules as written and I wasn't sure what.

I have to say that the freedom to create resistance on the fly is not something that every narrator is comfortable with. But, conversely the players rarely care if everything is presented in a logical rationalised way.

This is actually a problem I first experienced in Runequest where in theory it shouldn't occur. I always felt that I had to stat everything (that's how it worked), but then had to throw the stats away or scribble all over them to make the game work. It really bugged me, but I didn't realise I was just a frustrated Narratavist without the techniques.

In Runequest this kind of thing was actually illusionist and I don't think I could go back to that ruleset as a GM and do the job right. It felt like cheating because it was.

In HQ I can be more open about things and not have to cheat, as long as we agree on goals and stakes and the resistances feel applicable things are OK.

Web_Weaver wrote:

I have to say that the freedom to create resistance on the fly is not something that every narrator is comfortable with. But, conversely the players rarely care if everything is presented in a logical rationalised way.

Mike, do you think it would be fruitful to start a new thread on your techniques for setting resistances?

Your post has raised some questions, but we're offtopic for this thread.

To bring this back on topic, and weave in the slight tangent while I checked understanding, there is a potential problem with the species keywords idea, but I don't think its about the individual skills.

If, you use a species keyword like Great Troll, you run the risk of making it weird. Lets examine the innate skills.

Great Troll
darksense
eat anything
endure cold
hungry
large
move silently
resist poison
strong
stupid
tough

If we give it a value of 5W to reflect its strong and large its suddenly very good at all the other things.

It seems at odds with standard resistance (not a new thing as discussed) and if you use NPCs as GM characters the augmentations can get skewed in cases where multiple relevent skills can give +3.

If like Mike (and me in simple contests), you don't worry about augments, that solves one thing. And to logically solve the other you can give negatives for skills that don't seem right, but that is very similar to the current situation.

I guess the issue is, is there any point having a Gloranthan game if you don't at least nod towards simulating the world. I have mentioned this tension in the Creative Agenda of HQ before. I think the rules tread a delicate middle ground between worrying about these issues and not, so if you disturb the balance at least be aware of how that will change the nature of play.

i.e. Species keywords is tending towards less simulation of species skills.

If this is OK with you and the players, and you bring out the background in other ways or adjust resistances by your own rules of thumb then its not a problem.

If a great troll; who has a better move silently or darksense than would be expected; or becomes a combat monster too readily when augments are thrown around; is a jar to your groups expectations of the background then it may work against you.

One of the reasons I began examining this issue was: when I was making the keywords for my Dark Ages conversion, I wanted to give Saxons a Large ability in their cultural keyword. Then I thought, wait up, that means a Saxon is as big as a troll (Large 17). Maybe I should give this one ability a different rating from the rest of the keyword. Then I thought, hang about, there are no Uz in historical Earth. Then I thought, what the fuck does it matter? It's a +2 augment, when all's said and done, and it gets across the idea that Saxons are larger than other people.

You give the great troll Large 5W and he gets a +3 augment. So it's a pretty fine line of simulation. Is it worth it for the extra kludginess? That's not a rhetorical question. I keep on wavering myself. Maybe one has to take Mike's position and play it by ear.

There is nothing wrong with the Saxon in your game getting the same bonus as a troll, as discussed earlier it does not mean he is the same size, simply how he uses his size. But, be aware that multiple bonuses may ensue from a keyword, providing 3 or 4 seperate bonuses in certain situations.

This is what I am referring to by "becomes a combat monster too readily".

Some of the HQ support material falls into the habit of using keywords like this for homelands or professions. Leading to examples such as Warrior 2W. If you take that as a guide to resistances then that seems fine, but if you use the NPC as if it were a GM PC and apply all the augments you can find within the keyword, odd results emerge from such well rounded NPCs. I don't think this is the intent of such material.

I have often pondered the wisdom of simply banning augments from within the same keyword as the primary skill, but so far haven't needed to worry about it. I also wonder if specified skill levels within PC keywords is really worth the effort.

It all comes down to that balance thing again, to simulate a world or to abstract for simplicity and fun. My instinct says both are required in the kind of game I enjoy and my players respond to.

Seperate point / new post

I wonder if such things as physical attributes should be made purely into bonuses. HQ seems to be a game focused on skills and effects, not attributes. The resistance lists are more problematic when it comes to attributes.  Armour is expressed purely as a bonus, why not others.

Looking at the Troll example we can separate out definite attributes ignoring the Gray areas:

strong
large
stupid
tough

And, all of a sudden the others seem a better balance (no masteries in the basic list of skills).

Yes, this would limit primary skills, but they seem well suited as augments to me, and forcing a skill selection rather than an attribute seems more in line with selecting a wider goal before rolling dice.

I'm a little puzzled by the idea of a PC or NPC having a keyword of "Troll 2W" while another has "Troll 17". This is about species, not culture. Either you are a troll, or you aren't. You can be atypical for your species (in either direction), but to be "more troll"? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'd say treating the "species" as a keyword at all may be a mistake: it isn't, it's a set of abilities that have different default values from those of the default species (human).

Jane wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by the idea of a PC or NPC having a keyword of "Troll 2W" while another has "Troll 17". This is about species, not culture.

I'd say treating the "species" as a keyword at all may be a mistake: it isn't, it's a set of abilities that have different default values from those of the default species (human).

You either have the Troll keyword, or you don't. At whatever level that comes at 

either all keywords will be at 17, and thus Trolls rated the same as Saxons

But he was using "Saxon" as a cultural keyword, not a species one, which quite rightly has a variable rating. To what extent is the character aware of Saxon culture, where "17" equates to "brought up as one"? "Large" is not a cultural thing.

Or the duck becomes better at using its Small-ness to heroic effect, in keeping with its hero's increase in stature. That makes sense in story-terms, if not in terms of physics.

And I personally love the idea of variable ratings in species and culture keywords. Of course one person can be "more English" or "more Saxon" or "more Trollish" than another. I'd argue that a Mumakil from Tolkein's Lord of the Rings definitely deserves a higher score in "Elephant" than your garden-variety African elephant, let alone your Indian and North African varieties.

Nor do I think the "four legs" problem really applies: Presumably having a "four legs" ability at all means you're a quadruped, and higher ratings in "four legs" simply mean your quadrupedality (?) is more impressive in terms of ability to keep your balance, trample things, keep going after one leg is injured, and so on. It's much more useful to think of traits in terms of function rather than form.

and higher ratings in "four legs" simply mean your quadrupedality (?) is more impressive in terms of ability to keep your balance,

Jane wrote:
But he was using "Saxon" as a cultural keyword, not a species one, which quite rightly has a variable rating. To what extent is the character aware of Saxon culture, where "17" equates to "brought up as one"? "Large" is not a cultural thing.

Yes, it looks like a good solution, and as you say, careful use of words makes it clear what can be increased during play and what can't (without magic). "Fat" can, "tall" can't, "impressively large" can.

I'm not convinced that expressing the attribute purely as a bonus is a good idea - there are times when you do want to use your strength against the elephant's weight, and while one can convert rating to bonus, the reverse is harder. Being forced to use another skill as the lead in a contest is making life harder, not easier. Hmm, on a slight tangent, a look at the "+5" sword gifts granted to Humakti and similar cults could be an interesting point of comparison.

Mind you, when one looks at how the species keyword is used, I wonder if another method entirely might be easier, more like the old RQ way. Give both attributes and skills as the "norm" plus ranges. When you generate that NPC, pick the norms if you want a generic NPC in a hurry, pick from between the range if you want something individualised. The "keyword" never increases anyway, but after generation, individual abilities can (unless obviously silly), and a look back at the original range gives some idea if increasing your horse's "fast" produces a competent courier's steed or something to rival a Goldeneye.

Jane wrote: careful use of words makes it clear what can be increased during play and what can't (without magic). "Fat" can, "tall" can't, "impressively large" can.

Jane wrote:
there are times when you do want to use your strength against the elephant's weight, and while one can convert rating to bonus, the reverse is harder. Being forced to use another skill as the lead in a contest is making life harder, not easier.

Mind you, when one looks at how the species keyword is used, I wonder if another method entirely might be easier, more like the old RQ way. Give both attributes and skills as the "norm" plus ranges. When you generate that NPC, pick the norms if you want a generic NPC in a hurry, pick from between the range if you want something individualised. The "keyword" never increases anyway, but after generation, individual abilities can (unless obviously silly), and a look back at the original range gives some idea if increasing your horse's "fast" produces a competent courier's steed or something to rival a Goldeneye.

Sydney wrote:

Uh, why can't a character's "tall" score increase during play? Yeah, maybe my guy's scalp is exactly the same number of inches above the ground as it was when his saga began, but in the meantime he's gone from

"Oh yeah, that guy John, he's kinda tall for one of that tribe, isn't he? Maybe we should take him a little more seriously."

to

"Look at that man standing head and shoulders above the rest of them! It must be John the Tall!"