You have to be careful with switching from a numeric system to a percentage based system. HQ is NOT a linear progression and combining a non-linear progression with percentages can be harsh. A -20 (1 mastery) at any level is harsh. Plus you have to bear in mind what you are rolling against, which is a comparative thing... because my players fight around 60-70, that is the level of the mobs also. If you applied -40% at level 80, thats -32. 80vs80 is 50% chance, -20 and it drops dramatically, -32 and its almost beyond reach.
You should simply be saying - "It is not appropriate, next...".
> I don't think its a function of power level so much as length of
> campaign (of course, the two are correlated). In long campaigns, the
gap
> between best abilities and typical abilities widens; that is the
> fundamental problem.
>
> ...
> > Do the players enjoy the improv rule? Or do other players get
> > miffed?
>
> We used to enjoy them. Easy to use. But then problems became
apparent.
>
> > Can you give an example how improvs have caused a major problem in
a
> > game?
>
> I think I said it all, if tersely, here:
> http://www.badamson.nildram.co.uk/Glorantha/HQ/broad_abilities.
html#authors_notes
>
> Have you ever imposed a -20 improv. penalty on a player? Or had one
> imposed on you? Was everyone happy in the situation? Now imagine the
> players angling for uses of abilities that deserve a penalty of -20
or
> worse several times in one game session. Fun? Not at all. And as a
> campaign develops, it gets worse.
>
Much as I hate to say it, this sounds like a GM problem also. I have the same problems though, so you are not alone. I have players who wish to do EVERYTHING, be EVERYTHING, roll on EVERY roll... Make a stand and ignore them. Roleplaying is essentially a co-operative effort (or even a calaborative one), particularly HQ which has a steep learning curve (it does too!).
I agree totally that in "later game" players have left their menagerie of starting skills behind and generally have only driven 2 or 3 of them to the top level. I aksed about this before and the general reply was "play your game differently". Well if I am going to play my game differently why the hell am I playing HQ? I may as well play a different game. I dont want to play Mike's game (well actually I do, I would love to play in other peoples games so I could experience them and show them how I play... it would be educational!!), I want to play my game with HQ.
Anyway, I have modified my GMing a bit, but that doesnt change my players. The only thing that changes them is a big stick with a pointy end. The best rule I have seen so far to handle this is to increase the cost of improving a skill as it progresses (similar to the fetish table). My suggestion is the mastery level, so upto 39 would cost 1 HP each, 40-59 would cost 2 etc.
Of course this may well result in the players driving ONE skill up, rather than 2 or 3... yeah I can see that happening actually. So maybe this isnt an answer either.
Perhaps you need to talk to your players and simply ASK them to stop. Tell them they HAVE to spend points on low skills or you will take your bat and ball and go home (hey wait, this is home, get out of here you mongrels!).
Or you can be unilateral - "No skill is to go above 40 till I say so! Spend your points elsewhere till I am ready for it". Hmm that sounds good actually.
Powered by hypermail