Hi all,

I ran HeroQuest for the first time last night (of which more later) and one specific problem arose, one I very much doubt is unique.

The characters started with 3 hero points apiece and were given a further three each at the start of the adventure. But, neither player was willing to spend them since in doing so they would lose them for later character development.

I could give more, but my fear is that they still wouldn't spend them but just build up better characters faster.

What I considered was a house rule saying that an HP was only available for spending on improvement once it had been used for bumping a roll in play. Two uses for each hp, which may overbalance things, but encouragement to use them.

The difficulty is without them beginning characters are a bit wussy. The players saw their guys as competent individuals but with most abilities below a single mastery (defined as journeyman skill in the game) they're actually not that able.

Thoughts?

I've heavily considered doing something similar. After all, using a HP to bump a skill means that you're doing (or desperatly trying to do) something uber cool with it, which is a good reason in a narrative driven game for the skill to get better. When we see a character do something cool, we want/expect to see them do it again and possibly better -- so HP bumping giving raises may work.

The one thing I'd be a bit wary of is -only- allowing HP to be spent through bumps, as that will cut off alternate possibilities for advancement and character change.

I'd also give fewer HPs (may 5 per session rather than 3 to 5 before and 3 to 5 after), to balance for the fact that each HP can now do double duty.

I also know that a few others have just given each HP a "double tally" -- you can use a HP in game for a bump and then use it again after game for a raise. Until you bump, however, you can't raise. The difference being the bump and raise aren't automatically connected.

I may have mispoken, the idea would be that once used in a bump in play the hp would then be spendable on any improvement in the normal way, not just in improving the thing bumped.

So, spend an hp to bump a trait and afterwards spend it on that trait, on cementing a relationship, on acquiring a retainer, whatever. The idea is more to encourage free use of hp in play.

Brand_Robins wrote: I also know that a few others have just given each HP a "double tally" -- you can use a HP in game for a bump and then use it again after game for a raise.

Hello,

This older thread Handing out Hero Points may be of interest.

Best,
Ron

That's helpful, yes. Thanks Ron.

I see the logic of your approach as outlined in that thread but am not persuaded it would work with my particular players. Simon Hibbs method of having separate pools is interesting, but necessitates additional bookwork. Much to think about there.

On a related point, I couldn't care less whether they successfully complete the scenario or not. The very idea of a scenario having a successful or unsuccessful outcome offends my simulationist heart :-)

[Edit: This by the way, posted by Ron, is precisely how I allot them: "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."]

Hmmm. It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. I've been saying for a while that starting characters per the rules are, in fact a little wussy. This is intentional, I think. That is, they're not incompetent, but they're not leaders in anything either. So, they need the HP to make them stand out. The idea is that, in this mode of play, the characters are newbies, really, and they should have moments of big success, and big defeats. The HP allow the player to meter the character's progress, and what he looks like in play. The player can either have a character who loses a lot but is learning fast, or who wins through luck a lot but isn't getting anywhere in terms of ability. It's cool that the player has this choice.

Now, it may be that you wanted the characters to be more experienced, so that the choice is between being really good now, or becoming really good over time. That's another cool mode of play. If that's what you're looking for, see the section on Advanced Experience. If the players are driving that strongly on advancement that they're not willing to spend their points to win now, then maybe they're saying that they wanted to play more competent characters than newbies.

IOW, I'm not seeing the problem with the system here, but more with what characters you started out with. If you're worried about the characters looking more competent more often, then start them more experienced.

OTOH, if what you really want is for the characters to be newbies, to seem to win by luck a lot, and to develop big abilities quickly, then you should allow the double use that you're proposing (sounds a bit like 7th Sea Drama Dice).

I think the trade-off is cool, however. Have you considered that you might not be threatening things that are important enough to the characters (players, really)? That is, if it's death on the line, I'll bet they spend the HP to prevent even the possibility. Make the choice not to spend HP a real statement. If they still don't spend, then it just makes the statement all the more powerful.

Mike

I can see players, especially beginning players, wanting to hold back their hero points for improvements, but giving each hero point double duty seems (to me) to unbalance the game. It also restricts the players, who MUST use hero points to bump rolls before they can improve.

What about some sort of compromise? With hero points, heroes have two choices:

1. Save the hero point to use for improvements later, on any ability.

2. Use the hero point to bump a roll. They then can use the hero point again to improve an ability, but only on one of the abilities they used during the contest.

Players will probably still hold back some hero points, since they may want to improve specific abilities that they haven't used (I see this as especially true for magical abilities), but they also get some double use out of them, encouraging them to use hero points to modify the outcome of the game with at least some frequency.

Just my two cents' worth.

buserian

buserian,

That's a very nice compromise actually, I really like that. Consider it nabbed and thanks for the help.

Balbinus wrote: That's helpful, yes. Thanks Ron.

I see the logic of your approach as outlined in that thread but am not persuaded it would work with my particular players. Simon Hibbs method of having separate pools is interesting, but necessitates additional bookwork. Much to think about there.

simon_hibbs wrote: Dividing HPs into character points for advancement and HPs for bumps didn't seem to impose a noticeable ammount of extra work. In fact by simplifying the decisions players have to make it could be argued that it makes points management easier.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Neat. What I really like is that it keeps players thinking about development in the middle of play. That way they're considering at that moment whether or not relationships presented should get cemented, etc, etc.

One or two extra bumps per session? That's definitely a preference thing. I wouldn't sweat it at all. If anything I'd just have them make more rolls. :-)

But that's just me.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: One or two extra bumps per session? That's definitely a preference thing. I wouldn't sweat it at all. If anything I'd just have them make more rolls. :-)

Hello,

Simon and Mike, aren't all of those claims and implications a function of how much adversity the characters face?

When character-improvement must be traded off with metagame-mechanic resource (very common in RPGs, including HeroQuest) ...

... then the rate of improvement is limited by the desperate adversity that the characters encounter, defined as "potentially enough to force a bump."

So it seems to me as if finding a given group's sweet spot for (a) how many Hero Points to receive per session, (b) how many to spend on bumping during a typical session, (c) and how fast abilities' values get increased ...

... is something that a given group is going to arrive at for themselves.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Simon and Mike, aren't all of those claims and implications a function of how much adversity the characters face?

So it seems to me as if finding a given group's sweet spot for (a) how many Hero Points to receive per session, (b) how many to spend on bumping during a typical session, (c) and how fast abilities' values get increased ...

... is something that a given group is going to arrive at for themselves.

I think he's talking about the number of HP distributed vs. the number of times that you roll for things, Simon. That is, if you formerly gave out ^ HP per character per session, then giving out 3 HP with the new system will result in the same number of overall Bumps and Improvements. At most. The point being that, in practice, the number of HP given, despite the system will tend to become "correct"

Or, rather, you say that you now give out X HP, and that if you continued to do so that you'd get too many Bumps. My guess is that you'd just then give out fewer HP to compensate.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
Or, rather, you say that you now give out X HP, and that if you continued to do so that you'd get too many Bumps. My guess is that you'd just then give out fewer HP to compensate.

Hello,

Simon, either you're not seeing my point, or you don't like it anyway, so feel free to ignore it. We're not talking about the One True Way to play the game.

Best,
Ron

Just curious, but what do you think of something like the way the Buffy game handles their Drama points? You only gain experience, not Drama points, but you can spend XP to buy Drama points between adventures.

It's still a trade off, but it seems to feel different because the player is making the choice at a different time.

lightcastle wrote: Just curious, but what do you think of something like the way the Buffy game handles their Drama points? You only gain experience, not Drama points, but you can spend XP to buy Drama points between adventures.

It's still a trade off, but it seems to feel different because the player is making the choice at a different time.

buserian wrote: I think, however, that the key to the way HQ does it is that players do have the choice when they use HP of having to give up future advancements by using the point now.

Yeah, I can't get past how key that is in actual play. It means that every HP spent has a meaning in terms of passed up opprotunities, and each not spent is the player allowing themselves to get hosed.

If losing were a problem in HQ, I'd have a different opinion. But since losing in HQ is so much fun, it's all copacetic.