Feedback: Working on QuestWorlds, the new version of Hero Wars/HeroQuest

#21

@Rickard BTW, using an advantage dice over a bonus for an augment does have some attraction, but I am not sure that it would not end up just too different, as you say it moves it toward a dice pool.

1 Like
#22

For those keeping track, we have also switched ranks to 5/10/15/M/M2. We have changed base ability to 10 and better to 15 (from 13 and 17) and default resistance to 10.

An AnyDice page with the new mechanics is here: https://anydice.com/program/1f3e2

2 Likes
#23

I don’t think the AnyDice calculation is correct. The curve doesn’t feel right.

How I interpret the system.

  • You have a starting mastery (0+).
  • Roll against a target number. This will modify your mastery with -1 (fumble), ±0 (fail), +1 (success), +2 (crit).
    • Crit happens if the roll is equal to the target number.
    • Fumble occurs on a roll of 20.
    • If the target number is equal to 20 (fumble), rolling 20 will be considered a crit.
  • Compare masteries - PC vs Resistance - after both sides rolled dice.
  • If masteries are equal, compare die rolls.

Anydice (Wow, this forum destroys AnyDice links)

Do check against 1M1 and 20M0. The possibilities looks probable in the calculations above—with just a small percentage in advantage for 1M1—in comparison to your link.

1 Like
#24

So, where are we now.

So the change to contest resolution (count successes - mastery, story point, and big success are an additional success; compare; degree of victory from difference) has flowed through the text.

I opted for big success to replace critical. It fits better with it not being the outcome or tying the GM’s hands in narration. I looked at double, but it was confusing in long contests.
Ranks became degrees. Now we have an easy calculation of difference between results built into the resolution - without table lookup - we have an easy way to have degree of victory. Because they are not named the avoid the trap of marginal, minor etc of implying a given narration of the outcome.

And frankly, zero degrees of victory as ‘victory at a price’ sings nicely for me.

I opted to have degrees 0 based, as it only makes long contest outcomes a little harder, and they are fine with a table to help, as you are going full task system at that point.

I dropped the term ‘score’. I think it was partially responsible for bloat, as really there are ability ratings and target numbers (which is what you get once you add bonuses and penalties).

Modifiers are now explicitly stretches or situational modifiers, as every application of bonus and penalty (augments, hindrances, consequences and benefits) is a ‘modifier’ of some form.
I cleaned up the text to make bonus and penalty more explicitly the common idea flowing through these.

Some tweaks fell out of this work as well, as I was reviewing the text again, but mostly its just clarifying the text at points.

Going to pause and back on to other work in the Core Rules book, which is close to done. I’m not expecting the mechanics section to be ‘stamped’ but we need to probably call it to write examples soon.

Grateful for any read throughs. As always with an edit like this there are trailing remains of prior versions that need to die. As I am going to stop editing for a bit, your rule references should be correct. Raise an issue on GitHub if you can, or come over the forum on FB as I am only intermittently here.

I added a link to Ludovic Chabant’s hack of AnyDice on the README.md in the project, to make it easy to find.

1 Like
#25

My first reading was too fast : I had missed the Otherkind in graduated goals, for instance, or the Burning wheel in some contest loops.
After a second reading, the flow is better, specially in Long contests. I still think Scored and Extended could be collapsed into one thing with only a slight portion modulated (a match in 3 (X, really) rounds, or first to 5 (Y, really), or first to deplete a contestant’s pool (and here’s how you would calculate a pool : (bla) ).

choice of words
“consequence” and “price” are neutral, but it really measures “harm” or “wear”, which are clearly negative
“disposable wealth or something more symbolic.” just “wealth”, as “disp. wealth” is "money and money is symbolic.

typos
" In a romance, it may strain credibility of the wonderful date night,does not improve your chances of taking your relationship to the next level." if ? no coma ?
the GM ? “you may require genre-specific expertise”
elastic definition of stretch : ^^
“2.7.1 Hindrance if you describe a tactic for a contest” capital to “If” and tactic -bolded- is always for a contest

1 Like
#26

Thanks for this @DeReel. It’s better for all the feedback here, which I really value. I’ll ponder on consequence and price for sure, that is good observation. I suspect it might originally have been consequence to match benefit, so I guess we need an opposite for harm…

I hear you on the other points and I’ll fix those

Thanks!!

#27

PS I’ll look at the long contest collapse. I had noted that now its more explicitly rounds of simple contests with different resource pool tracking that might be possible.

1 Like
#28

Just to make sure : except for 3 typos, there’s nothing to fix, really, more like preferences. I give feedback according to my subjectivity, but being vocal or persistent on a forum doesn’t make me an expert.

1 Like
#29

Thanks @DeReel understood. I take most of this as ‘possible’, try it, see if it makes things better.

#30

Apologies if this topic is unduly stale – or unduly undead, indeed. I was just taking a look through the SRD and had some thoughts on it. I can forward under separate cover if discussion here is better left dormant.