Re: Saga system

From: Nick Hollingsworth <nick.hollingsworth_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:21:09 -0000

• In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Jane Williams" <janewilliams20_at_y...> wrote:
  > > What have you settled on so far from the deluge of advice offered?
  > > Do you feel you have something you can work with?
  >
  > Yes, I think I've got all I need (and far, far, more!)
  >
  > I'll be trying to divide the time between "now" and 1620 into about 50
  > HP-awarding points, some of which may well be Saga System keyword
  > raises. That was the real break-through for me - they only raise by 1
  > point a go, so IF they stick to one "best skill" throughout, that's all
  > I need to know.
  >
  > Any new relationships (and maybe other stuff) gets added by me as new
  > skills, and not necessarily at 13. I won't even bother calling it a
  > directed HP.
  >
  >
  

I am with Mike in the 'Its hard to predict so improvisation makes sense' camp.

Its not as clear cut as you are making out.

Players that always spend one of their small number of HP on their best skill will risk a skewed character. If only a small number of abilities really exist for the character (ie are ones the players is interested in and hence plays out and would like to increase) then the character runs the risk of being dull and more to the point the GMs job is much harder. This is because an larger number of relationships and traits etc lead to a larger number of interesting possibilities in play; and they are possibilities the player is bought into.

Players that spend on a wide range of abilities will feel a niggling suspicion that they are support characters because they dont have the big numbers that the single minded players have achieved.

The temptation is (and I currently think its correct) to give out a larger number of HP relative to the number of times they get to spend it. This is what we do in giving out 3 per evening but only letting them spend it every two or three on average.

However the 'problem' is that the single minded player can choose to blow extra HP to buy +2 or even +3 in an ability. Over time they will have significantly higher skills than you expected.

But there is a much bigger problem. Not all skills are purchased off the same price list at the same exchange rate.

Characters can heroquest and get huge skills compared to normal play. And some characters like shamen are effectively outside the lovingly costed abilities for HP system and rely on GM fait.

This all makes it harder to pre-manage.

Heres my suggestion for your problem.

1. Do the maths the way you have already outlined. Decide how much you will give per session but err on the side of caution. Tell the players beforehand that you intend to review the rate of progress and recalibrate the HOP rate up or down to get the pace of increase right. Tell them the skill levels you want to get to and the timescale you are thinking of.
2. Do what you said. From time to time review progress and reset the per session amount. No one will care. This will let you alter the pace of improvement. It also allows for you to change the length of the campaign. Telling people in advance means they are expecting it. You can include them in the decisions. Its perhaps easier to increase the amount rather than decrease which is why you want to err or the side of caution to start with.
3. You can give out extra HP for special events or the end of year if you want to tweak things.
4. Let the PCs jump the abilities queue by heroquesting. This is what Gloranthans do anyway so it has the benefiot of being correct.
5. Relax. This is HQ. You dont need to plan it in advance to the same decree. If it was C&S then you would need a set of charts, sliderule, degree in quantum theory and a set of support staff. But its not. This is HQ. We live at a different pace now. Our eyes have been opened to the truth of simulationist yoke we were under.

Of these 5 is the most important. Seriously. No, deep down I *really* am serious even though it looks like it should be a joke. Ask Guy what he thinks. I set off running HQ wanting to work out the truth behind the plots and get the npc stats ready and etc etc. And actually I am a fairly improvisational GM anyway, but I felt I owed it to everyone to have at least some stuff 'properly' worked out. But Guy kept telling me to relax and just let things unfold and see what happened. That and playing using The Pool have been a revelation. *

Not only is this easier on you but it gives good results. You have no agenda. So you can go where the players want to go. And they cant know where they want to go next till they are part way down the road.

During the course of the campaign you will find lots of ways to manage the course advancement. If you are open with the players and let then decide on solutions too it will be a non issue. Unless your players are all disfunctional. Which is unlikely. And if they are you are screwed anyway.

And remember: if you and the players are all enjoying the game no one will care about the other issues.

Nick

ps you have as much experience as the rest of us dont you? Have these issues not cropped up before?

• the danger to very low prep play is passive players. It works if players improvise too. If they expect everything laid out and just to make tactical choices then it wont work. But that style of play is a waste of HQs potential IMNSHO.