We're changing phases in the IRC game, and this is where I prefer to get in rule changes as they tend to stick best if implemented during the transition. So, with that in mind.

Often in play I get questions that seem quite reasonable, for which my answer is only that the rules do not allow a specific sort of action. I'd like to examine these. They are:

1. Can I bump more than once?
2. Can I bump for another player? What about if I'm augmenting him?
3. Can I give another player HP?

The rules are that HP are not transferable, and that a player can bump only once per contest.

What would be the ramifications of changing some of these?

1. Allowing multiple bumping.
If you allow players to bump more than once, the problem is that they often have big piles of HP, and that they can then pretty much tailor the level of victory. I think that, insamuch as it's worth having fortune in play at all, it's important not to let the game become just a question of how much resources does each victory cost (See Pace, IIRC). I think that would damage HQ a lot.

But, that said, I think there may be places where it's not so bad. For one, I'm going to assume that players can have contests with other players (though by one reading of the rules this can't happen). If/when this happens, often players bump and then counter-bump. Which seems a waste, but which can serve to emphasize how important something is to the player (and the negotiation of whether or not to do this can often be interesting leading to one player bumping and the other not).

But, since player can counter, this is often where people ask if they can bump again. I think that allowing bumping after a counter doesn't have quite the affect that unlimited bumping does - you're still constrained by the original fortune just as with any other contest.

What it does mean, however, is that the player with the most HP may be able to force a win by running the other player out of HP. I'm not sure that's a good thing. It might lead to hoarding to protect yourself from other PCs. Thoughts?

Also, I find that players tend never to bump failures unless they can make them victories by doing so - you don't see much bumping from Major Defeat to Minor Defeat, for instance, because the Major Defeat is more interesting, really, and you can save the HP for revenge later! :-)

Again, while I don't like the idea of allowing players to always purchase victory at whatever level, if you allowed them to buy only up to marginal, where they have to take whatever consequences that go with the marginal? Maybe not so bad. Using Josh's advancement system like Fred does, the counterincentive of the higher rewards from failure might balance with the extra cost to make it rare enough to make it an interesting option. You can have a major failure, with a big reward, or spend three HP to get a marginal victory and a small reward? See how balanced that sounds?

There may be other cases where multiple bumping could be allowed.

In any case, importantly, if you do implement a rule like this you have to consider one of two versions, one which keeps the "Critical Success" cap, and another which allows you to plow through it. That is, with the Critical Success cap, you can only bump up to three times and that's only if you've rolled a Crit Failure first. This has the advantage that it somewhat puts the fortune limit back in, and in an interestingly variable way. It has the disadvantage that it won't come into play as much.

If you allow fully unfettered bumping, you get the ability to swing things wildly at any time, but, again, lose the fortune limit. Which seems better? Conbined with which of the above options?

2. Bumping for another player
At first glance, this one seems like a no-brainer. If a player wants to do so, why not allow him? Well, my first concern is that players may prefer a failure. A simple rule is to allow the receiving player to reject the offer of a HP for bumping. But even that's somewhat problematic. The normal incentive not to bump is that you can save the point for advancement or later bump. In this case there's no downside. So I think that there might be a tendency for players to ignore their dramatic instincts and just accept the offer.

On the other hand, we have a strong statement from the other player that he'd like to see an improved performance from the character in question, so maybe there's judgement going on already about this, and it's OK if the player accepts. If he has right of refusal?

Any downsides I'm missing? I'm strongly inclined to allow it with this caveat.

3. Allow players to give each other HP
Why would players give each other HP? Well as a metagame currency, it makes sense to allow metagame trades and such. You can ask that a player not do X, if he accepts a bribe of so many HP, for instance. Further, some players might just choose to give HP to each other as a feedback reward (like Fan Mail to an extent).

Like 2 above, my only real concern is whether or not this will unduly affect player actions. For instance, if somebody gives you a HP to do with as you wish in the middle of a contest, I get the feeling that people would bump with it (exacerbated if you allow multiple bumping), and not even consider keeping them. A consideration here is whether you're allowing players to bump for each other as well - that is, can HP be given with conditions on them like that they be used to bump?

As you can see the potential combinations get a bit complicated. Does anybody see a superior set of options emerging? Or am I tinkering with something I should leave alone?

Mike

I like the idea of HP as metagame currency.  HQ NEEDS currency like that.

Personally, I would use them as fanmail, probably only for the best of the best performances, after the fact.

What I'd REALLY like to use them for, though, is to pay a HP to add a trait to someone else's sheet.

The other options aren't so interesting to me.

For giving other characters traits, would you allow the receiving player to refuse? Or just everyone has to take what the other players give them? If they can refuse, then this sets up a situation where negotiation is likely to occur.

"I want to give you a Goofy personality trait."
"How about Ideosyncratic instead?"

In any case, what you're saying is that, like fanmail, they can be given without strings attached, but you'd also allow them to be passed with the caveat that a player use them only to raise ability X? Essentially? What about other caveats?

Put it this way, though you might not be so interested in the other options, do you see them as harmful? Or just things you're not likely to use?

As I've said before, sans a mechanical trigger to do this sort of HP trading, it might end up getting used rarely. I don't have a problem with that in principle, except that if players really forget about it, they might feel bad if they realize that they've missed an opportunity to use such a rule. "Oh, damn, I forgot that I could have bumped your character up! That sucks!"

Mike

The opportunity to hand out fanmail is something that will increase with time and use.  Every time someone remembers it, it will increase the possibility that someone else will remember it again later.

The trait that's added to the character sheet can be negotiated or vetoed, I think, but traits are most REAL when they are used, so a trait could languish unused on a character sheet and be mostly harmless.

I wouldn't allow a trait to be placed on someone's sheet with caveats.  Once it's there, it's there, the player can do what he likes with it.

The bumping mechanic seems good to me, I see no reason to change it.  It works.  Don't fix it.

Vaxalon wrote:
The opportunity to hand out fanmail is something that will increase with time and use.  Every time someone remembers it, it will increase the possibility that someone else will remember it again later.

The trait that's added to the character sheet can be negotiated or vetoed, I think, but traits are most REAL when they are used, so a trait could languish unused on a character sheet and be mostly harmless.

I wouldn't allow a trait to be placed on someone's sheet with caveats.  Once it's there, it's there, the player can do what he likes with it.

The bumping mechanic seems good to me, I see no reason to change it.  It works.  Don't fix it.

I'm going to hold off on answering for a bit, see what other people say.  I don't want to dominate this conversation.

Your questions have initiated some thoughts, but I want to let them percolate.

1. Can I bump more than once?
I say definitely NO. The rest of the system would wash away under HP hoarding.

Can I bump for another player? What about if I'm augmenting him?
Yeah. But as you say, with right of refusal.

Can I give another player HP?
I don’t think so. For the bumping reasons that you state. I think a player may be allowed to bump another player, as aforementioned, but the HP is spent instantly, no transferring.

That’s my two cents.

ad 1. One way to limit HP spending in a player on player contest, is to limit the number of additional bumps to the HP pool of the player with the lowest number. So if A has 3 HP and B 17 HP, they both could spend only 3. If A has 0 and B 17, he should still be able to spend at least 1 HP, though.

ad 2. Well, you can already augment other characters or lend AP during extended contests. This works without a right of refusal. Therefore I see no need to change this if HP are used to bump. Another question is whether one should allow direct bumping at all. You could stick with augmenting and AP lending. The player can opt for a variable augment and AP lending requires a contest already. The HP can be used for this. The sole reason I see to allow a direct bump of another player's roll is to enhance player to player interaction. This ties in with point three.

ad 3. I think that this bargaining for HP would work quite well. My group used a similar system for awarding HP. First, each player received 2 HP at the beginning of a session (3 players by the way). Second, each player could earn two points by framing a scene furthering his character's goal. And third, each player had a pool of two points. Also, there was a pool of three more points to refill spent points. These points could be given to other players. To do this, every player set a goal for the other players. If met, a point was awarded. This goal could be everything but should be achievable by both of the other players. Example goals were to play up loyalty or put a strong emphasis on religion. We only played three times, so it is still a bit rough.
In a way, though, this comes close to a sort of trading. One problem in play was to remember the goal set. Now, if a player would just say, 'do this in this scene, you get 1 HP', I think this would work quite well. The question then is if the player should be able to dictate the action or if he can just give an abstract idea, but leaves the realization to the other player. Probably something to see in playtest.

Sebastian.

Sebastian,

1. So you're saying that you'd allow multiple bumping? Or just that, if you did, you'd limit player bumping this way?

I can see your point on this. But I think that if a player is down to zero that he's given himself over to fortune. That is, in this case, I'd say that neither side can bump. If you don't like that, don't let yourself get down to zero HP.

But what the limit would mean is that the lower of the two HP totals would present a limit on how far players could manipulate contests between each other. Occasionally I'll see players bump against each other now for emphasis, too. But it's rare, and I think that doing so with lots of HP would be even rarer.

2. There's a difference in these cases, a player can to some extent refuse augmentation and lending. That is, there's no specific rule that says this, but one can only lend or augment if it's plausible given the in-game situati0on. So if a player says to me something like "My character X is refusing to let character Y help him" I think that in most cases I'd say that the augment becomes impossible. Oh, maybe in a fight, where it would be hard to stop somebody helping you because you're too busy, sure. But if we're putting up a house, and your character wants to help and mine doesn't want help, then we actually have another contest or your character doesn't get to help.

And this is all in-game. Metagame is different, too. So I don't think we can use augmenting and lending as a precedent. I think that in allowing refusal, that this opens up more chances for negotiation between players on this, and I'd rather have players talk about such things than mess with each other's characters on a metagame level without understanding each other.

But I'm willing to hear more arguments about it.

3. Thanks for the example, and how this might work to do the sorts of things you're talking about.

As for enforcement, I have a preference for making such things generally unenforceable. That is, you give the player one HP, and say, "Please do X." The player may or may not do X, and the extent to which he does or does not, the extent to which you are a satisfied customer, will determine how often you come back to this player's store to purchase more stuff with your HP.

I think this adds a nifty dynamic to play. But, again, I'd be willing to hear otherwise. If I went this way, I'd probably apply it to everything. No, you can't bump other players (the normal rule stays in effect). But you can give a player a HP asking them to use it to bump. If the player does not...well, you can always just not give him a HP when he's desperately asking for one later. :-)

I think this is the way that I'm leaning right now. Players can give HP for whatever reason, and ask for whatever they like, but it's all unenforceable. That's simple, and I think will be effective.

As for multiple bumping, right now I'm thinking that allowing a player to bump up to a critical victory is still limited by fortune somewhat (you can still even get a marginal defeat), but allows a player greater control. Combined with the alternate development rule that Fred is using (which I'm thinking of using, too), I think that there's still strong impetus to allow failures, so I don't think that players will always purchase victory either.

Still, I'm a tad tentative with this one.

Mike

Mike wrote:
Sebastian,

1. So you're saying that you'd allow multiple bumping? Or just that, if you did, you'd limit player bumping this way?

I can see your point on this. But I think that if a player is down to zero that he's given himself over to fortune. That is, in this case, I'd say that neither side can bump. If you don't like that, don't let yourself get down to zero HP.

2. There's a difference in these cases, a player can to some extent refuse augmentation and lending. That is, there's no specific rule that says this, but one can only lend or augment if it's plausible given the in-game situati0on. So if a player says to me something like "My character X is refusing to let character Y help him" I think that in most cases I'd say that the augment becomes impossible. Oh, maybe in a fight, where it would be hard to stop somebody helping you because you're too busy, sure. But if we're putting up a house, and your character wants to help and mine doesn't want help, then we actually have another contest or your character doesn't get to help.

And this is all in-game. Metagame is different, too. So I don't think we can use augmenting and lending as a precedent. I think that in allowing refusal, that this opens up more chances for negotiation between players on this, and I'd rather have players talk about such things than mess with each other's characters on a metagame level without understanding each other.

As for enforcement, I have a preference for making such things generally unenforceable. That is, you give the player one HP, and say, "Please do X." The player may or may not do X, and the extent to which he does or does not, the extent to which you are a satisfied customer, will determine how often you come back to this player's store to purchase more stuff with your HP.

I think this adds a nifty dynamic to play. But, again, I'd be willing to hear otherwise. If I went this way, I'd probably apply it to everything. No, you can't bump other players (the normal rule stays in effect). But you can give a player a HP asking them to use it to bump. If the player does not...well, you can always just not give him a HP when he's desperately asking for one later. :-)

sebastianz wrote:
Now, perhaps my example wasn't clear. If A has 0 HP he can't bump. But B with lots of HP still can make the usual 1HP bump. Not sure if this came across.

Mike wrote:
1. Allowing multiple bumping.
If you allow players to bump more than once, the problem is that they often have big piles of HP, and that they can then pretty much tailor the level of victory. I think that, insamuch as it's worth having fortune in play at all, it's important not to let the game become just a question of how much resources does each victory cost (See Pace, IIRC). I think that would damage HQ a lot.

One the things I disagree with is, particualarly now that left over masteries bump the opponent down, is the fact that you can't bump a rolled crit. I'm tempted to ignore that rule when ir's my turn to narrate next

Something I'm considering introducing is a HP pool similar to Shadowrun's team karma. Perhaps restricted to hero bands.

I've seen many occasions where a story related roll falls to one player and I think that allowing those rolls to be bumped by points from a pool would at least be within the spirit of the game if not the actual rules. Of course, failiure is an option, but if the whole party wants the roll to succeed, and infact the the other players may feel more strongly about it than the player making the roll, then I think a pool system would work well

I'm somewhat ambivalent about allowing bumping down with a HP. Actually I've proposed something like this before, as it makes the "math" easier. Basically instead of using the chart you can do like this:

Roll....Success Level
1.......3
2-TN....2
TN+1 - 19....1
20.....0

Add masteries, and then the player can choose to add one with a HP.

Opponent does the same, and then you subtract the lower from the higher, giving the following success level to the player with the higher success level:

0 Low roller gets Marginal Victory
1 Minor Victory
2 Major Victory
3+ Complete Victory

It's exactly the same system, except it allows in your exception, and it's easier to remember than the chart. In fact, it's largely what I do in my head when playing (except I have to remember that when a player rolls a crit, that he can't bump).

The Hero Band HP sharing is an interesting idea. Gives a further incentive to be in Hero Bands with other players. I think that might be a good limit on sharing. Hmm. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Generally, on the subject of rolls that nobody wants to see failure on...don't roll. If it's "something no self-respecting hero would fail at" or otherwise follows the dramatic conventions set out in the contest section, then you shouldn't be rolling for it. The rules are actually quite clear about this (I re-read them last night). You're to use dramatic convention to decide when to roll, and that means that the players have to agree that it's a good idea to roll. Narrator has final call on this per the rules, but there's no good reason to ignore player input (or even not to seek it) when making such a decision.

If failure would not be interesting to contemplate, don't roll.

Interestingly, then you might ask, "what are HP for? Why would you spend HP on a contest, if you can void the chance of failure on a contest before even rolling?" Well, first, the narrator can decide that for the good of the group that, in fact most of them do want to see a roll - it's not just up to the "target" player. Second, HP can adjust victory or defeat levels. That is, when you automatically succeed, there's no fun mechanical effects that come out of it. You may want that, and you may want to tailor the result with a HP. Third, allowing a roll, failing, and then saying, I want to win anyhow, is punctuation. Really not much different than raising an ability which says, "This is important to me!"

Not precisely sure what this all says about whether or not to allow other players to bump.

Mike

If I understood the numeric result level system correctly, it would need to be modified for extended contests, I'll certainly give it some thought though.

On the failure thing, the sort of rolls I was talking about are ones where failiure would lead to more (or different) conflict rather than outright failiure but the group as a whole want a better outcome than the one rolled. Several of the contests in Chasing Kites spring to mind.

Mandrake wrote:
If I understood the numeric result level system correctly, it would need to be modified for extended contests, I'll certainly give it some thought though.

I'm running a playtest of a possible convention scenario, I'll try some of this out then, see what happens

"This" in this case meaning allowing bumping down of the opponent when you roll a crit? Or the extended contest table I posted? Or other stuff earlier in the thread? :-)

Mike

bumping crits and numerical success levels. I think there is a way of using numeric success and the full extended table, might take me a few mins with a spreddie though

I'm not particularly keen on Multiple HP spend, although it's not a major problem - It does potentially mean a player can "force" a result without really trying, just by throwing HP at the dice roll until it becomes a success.  Also even when failure might be interesting the competitive element will often mean the player "wants to win" - and while they will accept the dice dictating otherwise, given the opportunity not to lose may choose to take it anyway.

Players spending HP to Bump other players does sound mostly reasonable, though you may want to require them to be participating in the contest to start with (possibly by augmenting, or by loaning AP, or because it is some sort of group contest anyway) rather than just popping up to affect the result out of nowhere.  You might also want them to narrate something to explain the way that fortune smiles on their chosen party. (In some cases the player may be chosing to spend HP to bump another player down...)

Concerning a player not wanting to have their result bumped - either always allow a player to refuse to accept the bump (cancelling the bump to avoid penalisng the "bumping" player) or allow them to spend their own HP to cancel the bump (this depends on whether you consider the "active" player should have primacy over the group in deciding the issue or not) - You may wantr to allow a player to spend multiple HP's in this case, to prevent player A failing a roll, Player B bumping him to a success, Player A bumping down then Player C bumping back up (is the rule 1HP per player, or on HP per side?)

I'd sooner not have trading of HP's, it's all a bit "Meta-game-y". 

Well HP are a metagame currency. Or, at least that's how I view them. So, from that POV, it really doesn't matter if a player has a character involved either (even from an in-game view, I could argue that it's fate or something). So, for my purposes at least, that drops out of the equation.

I like the counterbumping idea you have. In fact, it brings something up. Can a player bump down? Let's say that they decide that they want their character to fail. Should we stop them from bumping down?

This gets quite messy in terms of what the player is an advocate for. That is, from one POV, contests in HQ occur when a player wants X to happen, but it might be dramatic if Y happens. Put another way, to date if a player has said that he wants his character to fail, then his character fails. There's no drama in the contest, and nobody is going to be satisfied with a win, so why roll?

But allowing bumping down would alter that slightly saying that the player was an advocate for drama alone, not just the character's well-being. Might have far-reaching effects on other parts of the game.

Mike

Mike wrote: . For one, I'm going to assume that players can have contests with other players (though by one reading of the rules this can't happen).

We refer to that as "Blood Opera."

Most of my play resembles this in that we have tons of contests between the player heroes. Here's the thing. Yeah, most of the time nobody bumps, because of the potential to be countered. But sometimes what happens is that a player will say to the other that he will not counter bump if the other does bump. Because sometimes it's just more fun for your character to lose, or you don't want to win at as high a level, or whatever. Basically such contests are even more fun, IMO, because together the players have even more control jointly of how the contest may turn out.

Three options: Neither bumps (or both do for emphasis), Side A bumps uncountered, or Side B bumps uncountered. That's one more option that the pair of players have than if they were alone in the contest.

Mike