Several new posts from Ian over on Facebook. Give him input there rather than here if you can.
Changes for masteries and ranks have flowed through and there is another update here.
Shock news, some tables are back! The use of ranks made it possible to update some of the text on outcomes, particularly in long contests to use them.
Overall the successes model makes this part much easier
As ever, feedback encouraged.
Having said I thought the SRD was done, I have been getting some excellent feedback.
One of those pieces may tie together a simpler form of masteries and our desire to reduce handling time.
A summary would be that a result now produces the following
Failure: no successes
Success: one success
Critical: a success and a bump
A bump can come from a critical, mastery or story point. A bump adds a success
Compare the number of successes, if they are the same high roll wins.
The number of successes can be used as proxy for figuring out quality of victory and consequences benefits
See the PR at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/improved-masteries/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf
Next up, there are a range of other suggestions, some of which I like, others I am not so sure on. Just going to post here for discussion, each in their own thread.
First up, is an issue of "terminology bloat". It might even be "concept bloat".
So when we went through the rules and 'named' the concepts, our concern was that HQ/HQ had been very 'loose' with its terminology. 'Success' both meant your roll, and the outcome of the contest for example.
Now, that tightening of the language was a big improvement, but, there is some concern that we have thus exposed a **lot** of concepts. Now we dropped some, such having both 'harm' and 'benefits and consequences' and we now just treat them as one. And the recent rank change has let us show that **all** long contests are just repeated simple contests with different tracking mechanics.
But a question for folks here is: are there other cases like 'harm' where we double up on a concept and could shrink to one. Or are there other places we could shrink to a single explanation and then mark some use cases?
Second is the 'advantage dice' idea.
Some of you who play PbTA may be familiar with the principle of 'taking +1 forward' where a roll provides a dice modifier to the next roll. It has been pointed out that giving you an advantage dice works better. By an advantage dice we mean, roll an extra dice (in PbTA 3D6 instead of 2D6) and discard the lowest. A lot of 'hacks' and some more modern PbTA offerings use an advantage dice.
So one intriguing suggestion would be to treat augments as an advantage dice instead of a bonus. Roll 2D20, take the best result.
I can also see an argument for treating a stretch the opposite way, as a disadvantage dice (roll 2D20 take the worst result).
Whilst it is a neat option, I worry that this actually falls foul of two issues (1) Concept Bloat: bonuses and penalties == ranks == augment, modifier, consequences and benefits etc. Adding something else is bloat (2) It's not HW/HQ any more if we start using advantage dice over bonus and penalty.
Third, is a TN of 20.
Under the new 'count successes' approach, with no fumbles, an ability of 20 is always a 'success'. You are just rolling for a critical and there is no probability difference to 1M.
Maybe this does not matter. Nothing in the rules gives you a "+1" any more, so it may not show up as an issue in play.
But someone is bound to raise it and say "the designers are dumb because they did not realize that this case existed!' and be dismissive of the whole game. Which could be bad PR. Now we could discuss in the text, and will do if we keep it here.
I don't want to re-introduce a fumble here, which adds math issues of it's own. We could make a 20 'always a fail' even when the ability is 20, but then 19 is better than a 20, because you can critical and you can't critical at 20 any more. None of those options seem to do less harm than good.
I'm also wary of a 'fix' that makes 20 better than 1M.
Any 'inspiration' out there? Otherwise I will just document as a sidebar in the core rules book