From this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8180

An adventure centering around dealing with Bob killing Joe's family will give a sizable boost to "Hate Bob" for duration of that adventure; if the player's really into that, he can simply a single Hero Point and cement that change permanently.

The key, in my experience, is to award directed improvements for things which are very appropriate to the story, the hero, or the style of play you want to encourage. A player new to HeroQuest may not understand how interrelated all abilities can be, with the augmentation mechanics, so giving him a brief reminder reinforced with a directed improvement often will be worth a narrator's while.

Remember that the cementing rule is one Hero Point for things which do not otherwise have a greater cost associated with them. Your "+20 item" could be handled like an Animist charm or fetish, in terms of HP cost to cement, which does not cause balance issues. You could also simply rule that the heroes' community confiscates an item that powerful... but that they might loan it to the heroes if the situation warrants. I did, of course, make a case for the "1 HP gets you anything" approach on the HW-Rules list once, the text of which I'll provide below so no one has to fish for it. :)

I am a firm believer in permitting heroes to cement items, even those of immense power, for a mere one Hero Point; however, any major item in Glorantha is apt to have a history and unfortunate plot complications. Stormbringer brings with it the horrid prospect of the hero losing loved ones to its unholy thirst; Excalibur (provided you go with the "Excalibur-as-Sword-in-the-Stone" variant of the legend) brings the heavy task of kingship, for which the hero may not be even the slightest bit prepared (Patrons like Merlin come in handy in such situations).

This gives the heroes plenty of incentive to hand such powerful items off to their community leaders. The community retains the item and may even allow the hero to use it in the future, on occasion. The community leaders might dodge the bullet themselves, and assign the hero to be the bearer of an item. More likely the item's past and magic are painstakingly researched and studied by the community loremaster before decisions are made. In other words, Narrators can introduce an item for future use by the heroes, a la Chekov's gun.

For those of you unfamiliar with dramatic theory, and narrative theory in general, "Chekov's gun" refers to Anton Chekov's rule (which I loosely paraphrase) that, if you introduce a gun in the first act of your play, one of the characters had damn well better use it by act three or four. In roleplaying terms, if you introduce an item of power it had better have a specific future role in your campaign. I feel that an item's TN reflects the hero's ability to invoke said item's powers, not the item's actual power, just like a Follower's TN reflects when said Follower is available to assist the hero.

In the presence of Imperial minions, whose blood stains its rune-carved blade, Mooncleaver rumbles softly like distant thunder. Its breath is potent and almost tangible.

The issue of balance is a curious one.

I think that directed heropoints and heropoints given at the beginning of the game are a good way to influence the story. The book tells you to give 1-5 HP's to each character. I think that if I want this particular game to center on one character, I give him more heropoints, but balance the points in the long run. Directed experience is also good, but I like to keep that uncommon. I feel that directed experience can heighten the joy of succeeding. You know, in the sense that, wow, we really impressed the tribal council, or something. . . If given too often, the players might feel that I am restricting their options and trying to railroad the plot.

Items above the heroes league can bring trouble. If you are concerned about the balance of the game, then you can arrange the the heroes enemies try to take the item. The enemies might be out of their league too, hence they have to use heropoints to beat them. On the other hand, this can only add to the imbalance as one players character is once again set in the spotlight. . . You could give the hero less experience because he is relying on a external force to complete his trials - perhaps explaining that the item has become some sort of an crutch. The proble could be done "covertly" by making the next few character driven episodes about the other heroes.

The key here is to decide on a policy and then stick to it. Determine the reasons you are handing heropoints to the heroes and then make up your guidelines. I think I'll award extra heropoints for keeping the story flowing, coming up with cool ideas and character immersion.

Mike Holmes wrote: The one thing that can throw this off rapidly, however, are boosts like the one described above. If I throw a +20 item into the fray, and someone cements it with one HP, they've just accumulated way more power than normally would be available for that one HP, and at a much faster rate than normally possible.

All of you made the same mistake in reading my post. I said that the +20 item was an exageration made to make a point. One which obviously was lost on the readers (I apollogize if I wrote the post badly or something). I am very familiar with ways to balance things out in terms of not using the system. I don't need suggestions that I take the item away or have repercussions for it's use. I'm well aware of that option.

From these responses, I can only garner that it must be your opinion that mechanical balance isn't intended at all, and that all balance must come from the GM alone. That would be a valid argument, and one that I might have to agree with. But I'd consider it unfortunate.

That is, you didn't consider the comments that followed the extreme example where I talked about the currency imbalances. The issue is whether or not the reward system has a built in balance of any sort or not. And whether or not that's a problem or not.


Simon, that does help me that you posted that I can't cement an augment like I suggested. But that has some ramifications that perhaps you can help me sort out. That is, if I want to model an item that gives a +5 augment to a character, that would make sense for that character to be able to cement, then I'd have to create it as a 5w2 item, essentially? But then say that it's the sort of thing like a charm or weapon that doesn't allow you to use the base rating? I mean, is that possible? What's the difference? Much worse than giving out a +5 augmenting item in terms of power would be to allow that item to be used as an actual 5w2 item, it seems to me (that's much the same as giving a starting character a +20 item).

So what do I do? Lower the item to 5w? Making it an auto +3? The problem I have with that, is that makes it no more powerful than normal weapons, with the exception that I can theoretically find a use for the base ability instead of using it as an augment for, say, combat.

Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?

I think that I may have the rules badly mangled at this point. I had trouble with the rationales for how this all is supposed to work in HW, and HQ seems not to have fixed the problems in my understanding (I do need to read it again). I'm fully prepared to accept (and again I hope that's the case) that this all might work out if I understood the rules correctly. OTOH, something still seems off to me. I'm just hoping that you good people can help me out with this.

What exactly can be cemented with a HP?

Mike

Here's my thoughts on the matter.

Any benefit to your character can be cemented via HP. The Game Aids pdf tells us "If your hero wins some advantage and you want to ensure that this benefit continues, you must spend hero points to cement it and write it on your character sheet. If the benefit gained is a standard one (such as a sidekick), the normal hero point cost applies. If the ability is not standard, such as a magical item, the cost to cement it is 1 hero point."

It seems clear that they mean any advantage you come upon. So if you got a +20 to your Hate Bob in one adventure, you could certainly cement it. + to a relationship is a standard benefit, though. It costs 1. Presumably the multiplier for improving by 20 at a time would follow the progression given, for a multiplier of 210. So for a mere 210 hero points, you can cement the +20 to Hate Bob. (I'd let the player cement just part of it if he wants, but that's just me).

It seems balanced to me as long as you use the normal hero point cost for "standard" benefits. What is imbalanced is cementing things like magical weapons, but that's something the Narrator has to control in game.

Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?

Hi there,

Is "balance" in the sense of character-effectiveness parity necessarily an important priority?

The nice thing is that HeroQuest doesn't demand a consistent answer across groups.

If that is a priority, certainly if one player-character cements a +20 bonus, then the Narrator can take that into account and provide potential bonuses for other players to cement if they'd like, in upcoming sessions.

If it's not, then no big deal.

Best,
Ron

Ok, appologies for getting the wrong end of the stick somewhat.

Mike Holmes wrote: Simon, that does help me that you posted that I can't cement an augment like I suggested. But that has some ramifications that perhaps you can help me sort out. That is, if I want to model an item that gives a +5 augment to a character, that would make sense for that character to be able to cement, then I'd have to create it as a 5w2 item, essentially? But then say that it's the sort of thing like a charm or weapon that doesn't allow you to use the base rating? I mean, is that possible? What's the difference? Much worse than giving out a +5 augmenting item in terms of power would be to allow that item to be used as an actual 5w2 item, it seems to me (that's much the same as giving a starting character a +20 item).

simon_hibbs wrote: If you didn't have to do any work, and got the magic Mcguffin easily or with little effort then there could be a problem, but how many Narrators are realy that generous? At the end of the day, if the narrator wants to hand out powerful freebies, there's not much any game system can do to stop them.

If you look at the weapons and armor chart again, you'll see that it's actually a tools chart. They don't mean that a set of lockpicks functions as a +5 weapon. They give you +5 to picking locks. Likewise you could get tools for pretty much any physical activity (would cologne work for a social activity, candles for magic?). You don't need to spend hero points to cement normal mundane lockpicks. The Lockpick of Doom on the other hand...

Mike Holmes wrote:

Dunlaing wrote: If you look at the weapons and armor chart again, you'll see that it's actually a tools chart. They don't mean that a set of lockpicks functions as a +5 weapon. They give you +5 to picking locks. Likewise you could get tools for pretty much any physical activity (would cologne work for a social activity, candles for magic?). You don't need to spend hero points to cement normal mundane lockpicks. The Lockpick of Doom on the other hand...

I can't see what you're getting at. Yes, they can be anything, I didn't mean to imply that they could only be weapons. But there's mechanically no difference between a +3 normal sword and a +5 magic sword, or a +7 Hate.

Mike Holmes wrote: The only difference possible is if the Hate can be used as a normal Ability, which the normal sword can't. Sans that, there's no difference between a sword and a hate, other than the extent to which they are ephemeral relative to each other.

Mike Holmes wrote: That's how the rules seem to model things to me in general terms. Doesn't this follow? I mean, I could just have a Smite Thing Viciously charm of the same bonus, right? Again, that implies an Ability rating at an appropriate level, but one that I can't really use. Mostly important for determining the cost of increasing the potency of the charm.

This is all focussing on an area of concern I have with the HeroQuest system, and I kind of want to clarify something.

(Mike if this constitutes thread drift, holler and I'll split off).

The thing that strikes me as very powerful and cool about HeroQuest is the equivalence of abilities. For example, Fast Talk 18 is equivalent to Sword 18. There's a strong mechanical underpinning for considering them to be equivalent. And to my mind, this really helps the 'nane your own abilities' stuff to work - because whatever you create will have value depending on the score associated with it.

But that doesn't seem to work because Sword 18 is more like Sword 1W, because of the innate Sword bonus. Now, I know it doesn't work exactly like that, because of APs and so on. But it seems to me, statistically, that Sword 18 will beat Fast Talk 18 in a contest most of the time, given that item bonus.

(and it doesn't really matter that we're talking combat vs non-combat here; we're really talking ability uses items which can have bonuses vs abilities that don't use items)

Now, if you could have on your 'equipment' list Hate Bob +3 as well as Sword +3 - by cementing rather than buying stuff with Wealth - this would go some way to correcting the disparity.

My point of clarification would be: is this a misrepresentation of the rules. And, assuming the last paragraph would need to be a house rule, does it strike anyone as a glaring mismatch with how other parts of the rules work?

dunlaing wrote: Clearly there is a mechanical difference between a +3 normal sword and a +7 Hate. One is a bonus that you get when you use a tool. The other is a bonus you get always.

You don't have to pay for normal tools.

You asked "Why is it free (in terms of HP) to get armor and weapons with auto-augments, but I can't create other items that do the same thing and allow these to be cemented with HP?"

The answer is that you CAN have other items that do the same thing. And you don't even need to spend HP.

Ian Charvill wrote:
But that doesn't seem to work because Sword 18 is more like Sword 1W, because of the innate Sword bonus. Now, I know it doesn't work exactly like that, because of APs and so on. But it seems to me, statistically, that Sword 18 will beat Fast Talk 18 in a contest most of the time, given that item bonus.

I can see your point, Ian.

I'd fix it by taking away the tool bonus actually. It's much cleaner.*

I liked it better before though, where a 17 swordfighting was a 17 swordfighting.*

___________________
*They seem to have made the change (from tools granting edges to tools granting bonuses) for simplicity's sake (they remove edges from the minds of the players--although edges do creep back in in the narrator's section).

** I don't care if you use a rapier or a two-handed sword. For those who do, bringing edges back might not be too bad. Or have the bonus of the weapon act as a discount on the cost of applying a hurt. So with a dagger (+1) you need to spend 6 AP to cause a hurt. With a halberd (+5) you only need to spend 2 AP to cause a hurt.

Ian Charvill wrote: (and it doesn't really matter that we're talking combat vs non-combat here; we're really talking ability uses items which can have bonuses vs abilities that don't use items)

Mike Holmes wrote: Unless they're special. We're not disagreeing. The question is, given the metagame use of HP, why are some things "normal" and other things "special" such that they cost, when the metagame effect is precisely the same. It's only the in-game effects that are different.

Mike

Ian, you are more or less on the same track as I am. I'm not sure if it's legal or not (I'm still a bit confused on that), but that's exactly what was proposed. The opposite solution is to say that there are no bonuses for eqipment, and to handle all issues like "normal" weapons and armor like situational adjustments (like in HW when the edges cancelled). In that case, if you want a hate, or a special item, then you have to have it as an Ability with an appropriate rating.

Seeing as a Hate is very much a relationship, and that starting magic items are still Abilities, there seems to be some strong arguments in that direction.

From that POV, even a "normal" sword could have an ability rating. That is, I see a sword as an ability with a maximum for a standard issue article of about 5w (enough to get the auto +3 augment). A magic sword would simply have a larger "maximum". Note that these wouldn't be hard maxima, but the player would have to give an explanation as to why his Ability with the item increased beyond a certain level. For example, he could explain that through the dramatic combats that he's been through with it, that it had become magical. Or it could be reforged by a better smith, etc.

If the character got a better sword, he'd be able to just drop the original one, transfer his score to the new one, and then the new sword just becomes an excuse for higher levels of Abilities, and whole new Abilities related to the object.

I note that this all answers Scripty's last post. Cool.

Mike

dunlaing wrote: I'd fix it by taking away the tool bonus actually. It's much cleaner.

Or just broaden the use of improvisational penalties.

E.g. Dagger vs Sword gives an improvisational penalty to the dagger wielder - daggers being shorter than swords.

Further Fast Talk might not have such a penalty - talking fast is pretty much what you'd need to do - but using Seduction would.

Couple of counter-points, I think the augmenting argument runs into a wall when you consider, sure, Fast Talk but not Sword could be augmented with Seduction but conversely Sword but not fast Talk could be augmented with Spot Opponent's Weakness.

And while you could have item bonuses for anything, I think that runs to levels of bookkeeping that goes somewhat against the cleanness of the system as I see it.

Ian Charvill wrote: Couple of counter-points, I think the augmenting argument runs into a wall when you consider, sure, Fast Talk but not Sword could be augmented with Seduction but conversely Sword but not fast Talk could be augmented with Spot Opponent's Weakness.

Some quick points:

As relates to the 1 HP to cement an item regardless of rating, I am reminded me of our biggest problem in play with animists in HW. In HW an animist could cement any spirit that he defeated (at one point for in and two points for out of play) - the level of victory against the spirit's might indicated the number of uses per day. With luck, support, and hero points an animist could acquire some significant abilities outright for a low HP expenditure. Our Kolating in particular bound an Oakfed spirit that considerably increased his 'wieght' within the group by giving him an additional, and high rated ability. HQ is aware of this issue and makes animist pay a sliding HP scale for spriits (p.141). Over on the Tekumel discussion I suggested pressing that into play to create a slight more reasonable 'charge' in Hero Points for powerful items.

As relates to mundane equipment and the 'free augment' it provides:
- You can just ingore equipment bonuses altogether, some of the guys running our game do this, I don't but each to their own. It is simpler, and does balance equipment and named items.
- Remember equipment penalizes as well as aids. Warriors run slower in armor etc. I know that personsality traits are also potentially flaws in this context as well though, so its not a unique reason to make it cheaper, I raise it more as a reminder. And yes, fine clothes are as much an augment to the right skill as a spear.
- Finally remember that HQ does not have RPG economics - a chainmail suit is provided by the story and the character's role in it rather than by loot dragged up from the dungeon - it can be removed by story as quickly as added. Conan's equipment and armor are a function of his estate in the story, not part of defining who Conan is. However if a player has paid HP for it, I would think twice about taking it away at whim. IMO if it is paid for then it is a part of the player's character conception and has a permanence which requires a decision on the players part to permanently remove. In LOTR Frodo's mithril coat, Narsil, these are cementable in that they add to the character by carrying a past with them - Boromir's sword much less so.

Ian Charvill wrote:
Couple of counter-points, I think the augmenting argument runs into a wall when you consider, sure, Fast Talk but not Sword could be augmented with Seduction but conversely Sword but not fast Talk could be augmented with Spot Opponent's Weakness.

Mike Holmes wrote:
In any case, I was thinking about it, and I see a neat angle on the whole use of the bonuses. Sorta following on what's being said here by Simon and the others, the "extra" reward of such an item's "discount" (to use Simon's term) should be used as an incentive to promote chasing these things.

From that POV, even a "normal" sword could have an ability rating. That is, I see a sword as an ability with a maximum for a standard issue article of about 5w (enough to get the auto +3 augment).

Ian Cooper wrote: HQ is aware of this issue and makes animist pay a sliding HP scale for spriits (p.141).

- You can just ingore equipment bonuses altogether, some of the guys running our game do this, I don't but each to their own. It is simpler, and does balance equipment and named items.

- Remember equipment penalizes as well as aids. Warriors run slower in armor etc. I know that personsality traits are also potentially flaws in this context as well though, so its not a unique reason to make it cheaper, I raise it more as a reminder. And yes, fine clothes are as much an augment to the right skill as a spear.

- Finally remember that HQ does not have RPG economics - a chainmail suit is provided by the story and the character's role in it rather than by loot dragged up from the dungeon - it can be removed by story as quickly as added.

Mike Holmes wrote: Basically I think that's a good thing in terms of relative power. But it does it by making an exception to the rules about whether some things are bonuses or augments. I would have prefered one system that balanced for all uses.

Simon,
Is that in the book? That an item resists damage to itself (breaking a sword would work this way, too, outside of combat)? If so, how do you determine the ability rating of the object? Lowest available that still gives an auto-augment of the appropriate level? Or is this just something that you're exptrapolating?

I mean, I like the rule, but it kinda begs the question why not just make these items Abilities outright? I mean, what is it that I could do with an item as an Abiltiy that I can't do with the rules as you describe? It seems to me that all this is saying is that items tend to have limited usagaes. Which, as I said, I think applies rather obviously to all Abilities.

Now, one can argue that the bonus for a sword applies less often than that for a Hate; the item limitation. But one can't argue that the bonus for a regular sword applies less often than a magic sword, can one? What is it that I can do with the magic sword that I can't do with the regular one that merits the brice break? I guess the one HP is for the higher than normal rating?

Again and again, it just seems like we have two rules that do the same thing. Bonuses, and augments. It all could be handled by just making everything an Ability. I mean, if an Ability has to be "lost" if not cemented, why not any old object? Seeing as they all have the same properties anyhow. That is, Ian suggests that you can take away an item not cemented. I suggest that for balance, that this should be mandatory.

Simon Hibbs wrote: As to everything being an ability, what ability would you give a sword, and how should it be used in the game? Can I use it's ability instead of my Close Combat ability, or even augment the weapon ability with my Close Combat? Personaly I think that would be daft.

Ian,

I'm afraid the idea of a game in which very often people use abilities from equipment in preference to abilities of their own doesn't appeal to me, for example:

"I use the spade's Dig ability to dig a trench, augmenting with my Strength."
"I use my rope's Swing ability to get across the ravine."
"My Masonry skill is only 12, so I'll use my chissel's Carve Stone ability to make a statue, augmented by my Masonry."

I'm afraid all of those strike me as being absolutely horrific. The equipment usage roleplaying game, where characters are merely the meaty bits on the end of a tool.

Just because you could do it this way doesn't necesserily make it a good idea.


Simon Hibbs

Simon

I absolutely agree with you that taken to an extreme, this would be pretty uninspiring.

My position isn't every piece of equipment gets a score. Ordinary equipment - weapon or otherwise - would have no score - with game effects would be limited to improvisation penalties. Pieces of equipment that are important to the character would be given scores. This might be because of magic, or quality, or simply by being a signature item. As an example of the latter, think of Indy's whip.

I think handled in that way, the danger of characters being made dull by their equipment is about as high as that of their being made dull by their followers.

I mean compare:

"My Masonry skill is only 12, so I'll use my chissel's Carve Stone ability to make a statue, augmented by my Masonry."

&

"My Masonry skill is only 12, so I'll use my follower's Carve Stone ability to make a statue, augmented by my Masonry."

I agree with Simon in that, I too wouldn't allow players to use Abilites in the way he intimates. And, in that case, what is the Ability score good for? For that matter what's it good for on Common Magic (other than the potential for specializing in it, which my current character is thinking about), or on magic items that should be of the Augment-only sort? They won't get raised, and augmenting them for augmenting something else is inefficient if not illegal.

Rethinking the Resistance thing, I think that any Ability is potentially subject to loss (cut off legs to remove Run Fast Ability). And that the resistances aren't neccessarily based on the maginitude of the item's potence - certainly not in the case of theft. There are probably other things like Resistance to removal that one can attribute to Abilities, but again, this doesn't constitue a primary use for the item.

So I guess that these are all just different rules to simulate different things in different ways, having little to do with balance.

The differing costs simply represent different means of accumulating Abilities and Bonuses. That is, Abilties can be introduced or increased by the incremental HP method, and anything can be introduced or increased by the "get it in play and cement it" method. That's balanced at least in terms of applicability and leaves the GM in control.

So I'm satisfied with that conclusion. Thanks for participating.
Mike

RaconteurX wrote: here are a few of us who clamored for this in the original playtests and offered a situational bonus instead for people who demanded greater RQ-level "detail". The bonus worked out as follows:


• hero has superior tools = +1;
• hero has superior position = +1;
• hero has vastly superior tools = +2;
• hero has vastly superior position = +2.


Thus, the greatest situational bonus possible is normally +4... which makes the math easier to recall on the fly.

Michael Bowman wrote: I'll try it in my new HeroQuest game starting up on Saturday.