Howdy,

The criterions for handing out Hero Points in Hero Wars/HeroQuest are remarkably overlooked. Yes, the game does suggest minimum and maximum awards, but that's it. This is somewhat odd, considering the importance of Hero Points. So, here are a couple of questions for fellow narrators to consider.


What factors do you consider when deciding how many Hero Points to hand out? Do you hand them out for in game reasons only, or do you consider metagame concerns, or social contract issues as well?

Do you give the same amount to all players, or do you make individual considerations?

Are the players aware of your criterions for Hero Point distribution? Why?



Cheers,

/Peter N

Honestly? I just pick a number out of the air that seems comensurate with the amount of action that's going on. Same amount for everyone, and the players are probably aware (haven't stated it explicitly, but when it comes to it, I just pick a number out of the air. My players are playing just a well as I think they can, so I have no need to try to promote certain sorts of play. Instead, HP become just something to improve the game's feedback as the players consider their use.

This is why I think the lack of rules on distribution is unimportant. They're so powerful on the use end, and the system so good in general at producing play I like that it really doesn't matter how many I hand out (within reason).

That said, I'm thinking about putting an incentive out there for the players to push a little harder for their PCs goals (actually to crystalize them first). This because I've neglected to make this a priority at the outset. That and I'm a hopeless tinkerer.

Mike

I usually give a set number to everyone. I don't like thinking that someone is feeling bad about getting fewer hp because I don't think they roleplay hard enough.

What I usually do though is break it up into generic and specific hero points. So if the PCs just worked with a secret society to stop a minor Orlanthi uprising from turning into full-on rebellion, I might say "You get 5 hero points and an additional 2 that can only go into Relationship with Secret Society, Understand Orlanthi Rebels, or Debate"

I make a distinction between Characetr Points (points that can only be spent on raising abilities) and Hero Points that can be spent for bumps during play, or spent to raise abilities just like Character Points.

I give out from 3 to 5 Character Points per session - usualy 5, and 1 or 2 HPs. The main reason for giving out 5 is that it means it's more likely that less used abilities will get raised. If you only give out 3 pooints per session, it will usualy just get spent on the character's best 3 abilities, whereas the 4th and 5th points are more likely to be spread about on less important abilities.

Per session, I always give out the same general awards to every player. I do occasionaly give out one-off awards to players for particular game contributions (maps, well formatted character sheets in word format, game fiction, etc). Usualy this is just 1 or at most 2 points, and it doesn't happen often.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

I'm a lot like Mike in this regard. Let's see, looking back over play, it was largely a matter of how many emotionally-important conflicts were addressed during the session, and how complex they got. A short or fairly low-conflict session got'em maybe 4 points apiece (and I'd claim that such a session was worth maybe two or three typical RPG sessions based on observing other groups' play of other games). A really hefty session got'em 8 or so apiece.

Part of this involves our local standards for conflict. I tend to present players with very threatening conflicts and no easy answers, which leads to a predictable rate of Hero Point spending for Bumping. I estimate that maybe half of the points I granted were spent this way during play, and sometimes more, rather than on character improvement.

I don't restrict the sphere of spending at all - we just follow the rules about costs of things, relative to their utility in the previous session.

Best,
Ron

Hmmm. I just realized that I'm being too stingy with points. Good point, Simon, on needing to have enough to allow diversification, etc.

Mike

Ron Edwards wrote: I don't restrict the sphere of spending at all - we just follow the rules about costs of things, relative to their utility in the previous session.

dunlaing wrote:
I think my example above was probably a bad one, but I often used it to give characters relationships to communities without their having to use their regular hero points on it, or to cement things that I wanted them to keep. And for goofy abilities that no sane player would ever /pay/ for...

Thank you all for your response. At the risk of becoming persona non grata at Issaries, I'll tell you what made me think about the principles for Hero Point distribution.

I handle Hero Points much the same way that Mike and Ron does, and I never thought much about it until I read the scenarios in HeroQuest. The scenarios suggest appropriate Hero Point rewards. However, it is implied that heroes should receive Hero Points based on whether or not they successfully completes the scenario. Let's call this the Success Principle of Hero Point distribution (1).

This is very different from what any of us have been doing, and I think that the implications in actual play are of great consequence. The Success Principle requires a narrator that prepares missions for the player heroes to complete. These missions must have clear objectives that can be described in terms of victory or failure. This is most certainly not the kind of game I am interested in, nor is it the kind of game described in the rest of the rulebook.

Consider the story of Orpheus.


Orpheus was known as the greatest of all singers. He married Eurydike. When she died, he traveled the underworld himself, where he played and sang for the deities of the underworld until they were so moved that they allowed him to bring back Eurydike to the world of the living. On one condition: That he did not turn around to look at her while leading her back to the light. When Orpheus reached the gates of the underworld, he was overwhelmed by fear and anticipation and turned around to make sure that his beloved wife was with him. She slipped back into the underworld forever.



Now, how many Hero Points would you give Orpheus' player? Half the regular amount for 'failing' his mission?


The story continues: In his grief, Orpheus rejected all women who approached him. A group of Thracian women were so provoked by this that they ripped his body apart. But his head continued to sing. A temple was built around his head, which made many prophesies.



Was this a failure or a success?

I rest my case.

/Peter N

1) For the record: The Success Principle is only implied briefly at the end of the sample scenarios, it is not mentioned in the rules text or anywhere else in the book. The term Success Principle is mine.

Hi Peter,

I think I know where this issue comes from, and why it's so glaringly inconsistent with the rest of the Hero Quest/Wars material. Basically, role-playing writing has no real foundation for Narrativist scenario creation. I've just begun to scratch the surface for this in my Sorcerer books, and a number of other people have scratched it as well in different ways, but by contrast, there are hundreds if not thousands of objective-based scenarios in the published RPG literature.

I've written a scenario for Issaries myself, and I know it was a real challenge to present it in such a way that provides structure and conflict, but does not railroad events and outcomes, and permits the players to generate The Big Point of the resulting story. Sure, you and I do this in actual play, but we have little or no literary precedent to draw upon for how to do it, and with what, for someone else. I can understand how an author would fall back on the existing precedents and assumptions, especially in the heat of "getting it done" as the first priority.l

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

First and foremost, I think HeroQuest is a fantastic game, and I have the greatest respect for everybody involved in its creation. I didn't mean to appear grumpy. And I like the sample scenarios, despite them being objective-based. I will probably run most of them as demo games at some point.

I just think that the principles for Hero Point distribution are a sadly neglected topic. I also believe that it has a larger impact on play than are generally recognized. Different ways of handing out Hero Points promotes different kinds of play. The Success Principle above is just one example.

More examples:


Action Principle: Gain Hero Points based on the number of conflicts adressed in a session, or the general amount of 'action' going on. Promotes narrativist gaming, I think. Or at least it is an incentive for players to get involved in a lot of goings on.

Roleplaying Principle: Gain Hero Points based on the player's ability to 'roleplay' his character well. Promotes exploration of character?

Discipline Principle: Players who show up on time (or who helps cleaning up after a session, or who wears a green tie, or whatever) get more Hero Points. Promotes certain social contract issues.



Does this make any sense to anyone but me?

I have also toyed with the idea to let the players themselves decide how many Hero Points they will receive, but I'm not sure how it should be done--or even why. ;-)


Cheers,

/Peter N

Peter Nordstrand wrote: More examples:

Hi Peter,

You seem a little defensive about your point, for some reason. I think it's an excellent question and issue.

What I'm wondering about, more generally for everyone, is why we need concern ourselves about who gets how many Hero Points. In my games, everyone just gets the same handful at the end of every session. The size of the handful is based on a gestalt of "how much conflict was involved," rated in terms of emotional signficance rather than danger or anything like it, and "how much time we played today." That was it.

Is there any reason at all to make the process more sophisticated? Note, I'm not saying there isn't any possible reason - I'm interested in what reasons people have for doing so.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
...The size of the handful is based on a gestalt of "how much conflict was involved," rated in terms of emotional signficance rather than danger or anything like it, and "how much time we played today." That was it.

Is there any reason at all to make the process more sophisticated? Note, I'm not saying there isn't any possible reason - I'm interested in what reasons people have for doing so.

simon_hibbs wrote: The players might have their own ideas about that.