How does everyone handle the usage of hero points in their games for ability development?

My main question is that it seems that most of the examples in the book seem to rely on characters developing or improving their abilities based on in-game events related to some sort of situation where they get an oppurtunity to train or build relationships.

I have been allowing characters to improve their abilities or cement new ones at the reduced cost for things that simply happen in play. For example, one PC was involved in a pretty extensive political contest so he uses his hero points (at the reduced cost) to improve his politics score or someone gets in a fight so they improve their swordfighting skill at the reduced cost.


Is this the "proper" way to handle it or am I misunderstanding it?

It sounds like you have things down fairly well... the basic rule is that any improvements which are unrelated to actual play cost double.

So improving abilities has nothing to do with training or learning through play?

Just use through play?

Hi Jesse,

Exactly. The process in HeroQuest is much like seeing cool stuff and schticks in movies or across stories about a character, and not very much like modelling learning in a representational way in-game.

The more you see a character in a story do X, the more you expect and anticipate seeing him do more of X, and seeing X becoming more important in the story later. That's what character improvement in HeroQuest is all about.

Yes, if you wanted, you could "back that up" by including plausible explanations or scenes during play, showing the character training or whatever, but all of that is "backup" and not at all the subject matter itself. It should be saved for stuff in which the ordeal of improvement is itself the conflict that we're juiced about.

Think of Legolas taking down the Mumak (monster elephant) in The Return of the King. Did he get better at archery in the sense of training and learning, across the three movies? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't; it's flatly irrelevant. What does matter and does make sense is that the more we saw Legolas do cool elf-shit with his bow, the more we liked and looked forward to (even if we didn't think about it) a really blow-out bow-bit in the big battle.

So yeah, in HeroQuest terms, his "elf bow" ability went up like gangbusters during the course of the three movies. And again, whether that meant that Legolas "really" got better with the bow as he went along is ... utterly irrelevant, to the point of idiocy. Because there wasn't any conflict about that.

The more you think of Hero Points as being Author and Director responsibilities and opportunities, and the less you think of them as "in-game physics and cognition," the easier it all gets.

Best,
Ron

Ron's response reads a little strong to me. That is I agree in principle, but would note that for some players that "Backup" stuff is part of the point of play. And the fact that Hero Qest allows it, but doesn't require it, is, IMO, very cool. Because this way it means that you'll tend to get as much of this "backup" as the players like. No more, no less.

The mechanical question is another matter. There is that "unrelated to play" double cost (which is a rule in HQ). Essentially, if Legolas hasn't used his bow, then we're not sure it's cool at all. Hence, IMO, the double cost represents the fact that you're trying to build up part of the character that hasn't proved interesting of late. It doesn't say you can't do it, just that you have to think a little more about it. What constitutes "unrelated to play" is left pretty ambiguous, and I think this is also intentional.

Mike

If a hero, in the course of a play-session, has opportunity to train with or learn from someone and you as narrator permit it, that hero could spend Hero Points at the reduced rate. You need not play it out, necessarily, but can just inform your players that their heroes can purchase certain ability increases at a lower cost. This allows you to subtly encourage players to create more balanced heroes, rather than focussing on "one-hit wonders" who are exceptional at one thing to the exclusion of all else.

I usually offer this sort of "blue-light special" every session or two, partly to strengthen the heroes for future campaign events and partly to reward my players for providing me with so much delight and amusement. Thank your players for playing with you. 'Tis a pity that much of the material on directed improvement was excised from HeroQuest, as that formed yet another way for narrators to encourage players to develop characters with which they can play for the long-term.

Another LoTR example: Gandalf's player decides he needs to build up his 'lore of rings of power' skill, so gallops off to see Saruman.

soru

The oft-reviled Wealth rules also apply to this discussion, or rather, the Treasure "rules" do. If you find a bunch of treasure during an adventure, you can use the treasure itself as the "in-game" justification for a whole range of hero point expenditures -- you use the treasure to buy training, research something at a Lhankor Mhy library, buy a new sword, or what have you.

HeroQuest's intent is that the in-game justification rule be flexible and, as much as is fair, as geared towards player input as possible.

buserian wrote: HeroQuest's intent is that the in-game justification rule be flexible and, as much as is fair, as geared towards player input as possible.