Stan Shinn

On 11/10/2022 at 3:56 PM, Eff said:

Section 2.7 lays this out in full detail, but there are two rules which this applies to....

Thank you for such a detailed and insightful response! Very helpful! 🙂

Here's a variation on the 'Acting Against Your Flaw' idea in my original post. In  'Acting Against Your Flaw' your roll with your Flaw as your target number, and the GM rolls in opposition as usual. 'Flaw as Story Obstacle' works slightly differently.

• Flaw as Story Obstacle: In this variation, your ‘Insatiable Curiosity’ is the opposition target number. If your ‘Insatiable Curiosity’ is rated 15, the GM would roll dice using ‘Insatiable Curiosity’ as the opposition target number. The player then finds another ability (perhaps their 'Determined to Protect My Friends' ability) and roll that ability and compares it to the GM's result.

Thoughts on 'Flaw as Story Obstacle' (GM rolling the opposition using the Flaw as the target number) vs.  'Acting Against Your Flaw' (where there is no opposition and the player rolls with the Flaw as the target number). I suspect 'Flaw as Story Obstacle' is more in line with the normal QuestWorld core mechanic.

Here's a genre-specific idea for using Flaws. In Superhero games, Flaws could be your power's weakness. 

• Flaw as Power Limit: In games with superheroic powers, the Flaw could be a limit on one of your superpowers. Superman could have the 'Vulnerable to Kryptonite' Flaw. If the hero encounters kryptonite, they'd roll to see if the vulnerability takes effect. Succeeding on the 'Vulnerable to Kryptonite' Flaw roll means the vulnerability takes effect, shutting down your power and weakening you. If you failed the Flaw roll, the Flaw doesn't take effect; you manage to crawl away or put a lead cover over the rocks and escape the effects of the kryptonite.

Thoughts on this usage?

Looking at the SRD for QuestWorlds again, it looks like 'Flaw as an Ability' is disallowed:

Quote

"Your character may have one or more flaws. Unlike an ability, you do not use a flaw to accomplish something; instead the GM uses your flaw to hinder you from accomplishing something, or invokes your flaw to force you to act a certain way. Flaws are used to enrich your character and provide story obstacles to be overcome."

What is not clear to me from the SRD is how mechanically "invokes your flaw to force you to act a certain way" would work. I'm guessing it's something like my 'Acting Against Your Flaw' description above where you roll to see if you can act against a Flaw.

So would succeeding on a Flaw roll mean you have to act according to it, or would that success mean you can act against it? I'm thinking only a Failure would mean you could act against it, since the higher a Flaw is rated means its harder it is to not act in accordance with it.

I’m trying to figure out when you would use your Flaw's rating mechanically. I get the role of using Flaws to provide narrative flavor and make the game story interesting, but when would you actually roll the dice? Here are some ideas on my end — what do you do in your games?

• Flaw as an Ability: You can use your Flaw like any other ability if it makes narrative sense in gameplay. If your flaw is ‘Hideous Visage’ from having terrible scars all over your body, the GM may allow you to use ‘Hideous Visage’ when you’re trying to intimidate someone. 
• Flaw as an Augment: Using the  ‘Hideous Visage’ example above, instead of using the Flaw as an ability, you'd attempt to use it as an augment. You roll your Flaw rating. If you succeed,  ‘Hideous Visage’ is an augment to another ability you then roll when attempting to intimidate someone.
• Acting Against Your Flaw: Perhaps this could work a bit like Pendragon, where you roll to see if you act according to your Flaw, or if you can act in a manner not like your flaw. Let’s say your Flaw is ‘Insatiable Curiosity’. If you find a mysterious device with a big red button, you’d roll your Flaw’s rating. If you succeed then you act according to your Flaw and push the button; if you fail you resist your Flaw and can choose not to push it. Maybe like in the Fate RPG, you can spend a Story Point to resist the Flaw even if the dice tell you otherwise. It would be on the GM Hmmm, not sure about this approach — thoughts?

Any other ideas on how and when you’d actually roll dice and actually use the Flaw’s rating?

I’m creating a Star Trek / Orville / Galaxy Quest style genre pack (but with an original IP) for QuestWorlds and I need some advice on how to handle Human cultures. 

For Alien cultures, I include distinctive features for that species. Using Star Trek as an iconic example, Vulcans might have this Culture:

Vulcan 13  
— Alien Strength +1
— Desert Adapted +1
— Mind Meld +1
— Nerve Pinch +1  

With Flaws like Arrogant and Emotionless.

For humans, I was thinking of taking this approach:

Terran 13
— Versatile +1
Plus 3 more breakouts from  your personal background on Earth such as ‘Animal Handling’ (if you grew up on a ranch) or ‘Alien Cultures’ (if you grew up in a multicultural environment with extraterrestrials).

So I wonder:

(1) Is ‘Versatile’ or ‘Adaptable’ too broad a term for a breakout? What is something else that would pertain to Human Culture that I could include?

(2) Are personal backgrounds like ‘Animal Handling’ and ‘Alien Cultures’ good options, or what sort of things could you list for a human culture in a Sci Fi universe where most other cultures are alien species?
 

I'm working on some form-fillable character sheets. I'll share the final character sheets once I launch my IP-neutral genre packs, but this one plugs in a Star Trek character just for fun. Any feedback on what the track on character sheets is also appreciated 🙂 

22 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Looks good to me!  

Awesome! I appreciate your help on this 🙂

I hope to do a few QuestWorlds genre packs after the core rules hit the market. Loving the game so far!

Thanks for everyone’s feedback! I rebuilt the character based on people’s feedback; hopefully I got it right this time! I used the 13/17 and +1 starting ratings from HeroQuest 2 instead of the 10/15 and +5 QuestWorlds defaults. Below are the rules I used; I’d love any additional feedback!

Character Creation Rules

• Species and Culture Keywords: Assign 17 and 13 in the order you desire to the species keyword (under the Culture category) and to the division keyword (under the Profession category).  The species keyword will be Human, Vulcan, Andorian, or other Star Trek appropriate species. Choose (or invent) four +1 breakouts for the species keyword. The division keyword will be either Command, Conn, Engineering, Medicine, Science, or Security. Choose (or invent) four +1 breakouts for the division keyword. 
• Add Five More Abilities: Choose or invent five division abilities rated 13.
• Improve Characters by 20 Points: You have 20 points to improve your character. It costs 1 point to add an ability rated at 13 to either Culture or Profession, 1 point to raise a single ability by +1, 1 point to add a new breakout (rated at +1), 1 point to increase a breakout by +1, and 2 points to raise a keyword by +1 (a.k.a. an umbrella ability with breakouts below it).
• 5M Maximum Rating: Abilities (including breakouts) can be no higher than 5M during character creation.
• Add 1-3 Flaws: Finally, choose up to three Flaws, the first equal to your highest ability rating (including breakouts), the second equal to your second highest rating, and the third equal to your lowest rating.

Sample Character

Lt. Cmdr. D'Vor

HIGH CONCEPT: Vulcan Chief Engineer

CULTURE

Vulcan 15  
— Alien Strength +1
— Desert Adapted +1
— Mind Meld +4 
— Nerve Pinch +2  

PROFESSION

Engineering 17
— Diagnostics +1
— Energy Weapons +1
— Reverse Engineering +3
— Warp Core Repair +1
Computers 15 
Dodging 13
Electronics 13
— Improvised Devices +4 
Hand-to-hand 13
Piloting 13
Sensors 13
Shooting 16 

FLAWS

Arrogant 16
Lack of Emotion 17
 

7 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I'd expect to see a rating assigned to a Keyword, unless that has changed in the SRD.

Looking over the SRD I realize I'm utterly confused about the relationship between Keywords, Abilities, and Breakouts. Glancing over HeroQuest 2 I think I see examples of characters with Keywords and Abilities (but no breakouts) and Abilities and Breakouts (with no keywords).

So what's a nice simple example of how you would assign a keyword a rating, and then have some abilities below it? Any links to some exams would be great! I think I prefer Heroquest 2's approach even though I'm struggling to understand how to structure keywords and abilities.

Hi all! I am considering QuestWorlds for a game inspired by Star Trek and Orville. Here's how I was thinking about building characters, and I wanted to get your feedback on this approach. I created a Vulcan character since that species is pretty iconic and well known.

There are two keyword packages -- Culture (which is your species and maybe some personal background) and Profession (your Federation military division: Command, Conn, Engineering, Medicine, Science, or Security). I used 15 abilities instead of the standard 13, but otherwise used the standard QuestWorlds rules to build the character. Hopefully I got everything right.

Does this look like a reasonable approach for Star Trek / Orville / Galaxy Quest type characters?

____________________________________________________________

Lt. Cmdr. D'Vor

High Concept: Vulcan Chief Engineer

Culture: Vulcan 
Alien Strength 10
Desert Adapted 10
Mind-Meld 15
— Alien Empathy +5
Nerve Pinch 15

Profession: Engineering
Computers 10
Dodging 12
Electronics 10
— Improvised Devices (distinguishing characteristic) +10
Engineering 5M
— Diagnostics +5
— Energy Weapons +5
— Reverse Engineering +5
— Warp Core Repair +5 
Hand-to-Hand 10
Piloting  10
Sensors 10
Shooting 13

Flaws
Arrogant 15
Lack of Emotion 10M

On 10/21/2022 at 11:31 AM, JonL said:

The move from +/-3 results steps in HQ to +/-5 steps in QW is indeed intended to make results feel significant more quickly. While this is a good change for regular contests, if you're wanting to zoom-in to discrete chained exchanges to stretch out a climactic set-piece notching back to +/-3 steps might make sense.  

This is great advice! Thanks!

On 10/21/2022 at 11:31 AM, JonL said:

You can find a work through I did of the climax of the first Avengers film in HQ2 terms in this post over on rpg.net.

...

This is awesome! Exactly what I was looking for.

I'm wanting to emulate climactic 'boss fight' scenes like you might see in an Avengers movie. When running the Marvel Heroic roleplaying game, you would run such combat in rounds, and then take consequences (a damage die that steps up), often giving the consequence a name like 'Weakened' or 'Out of Energy'.

I'm wondering how to best emulate this in QuestWorlds. I suspect using an extended contest (scored, wagered, or chained sequences, to use QuestWorlds parlance). I'm not sure which of those technique would feel best. I also wonder how quickly I should reach for giving out -5 consequences in QuestWorlds. It seems like with just one or two of those you're quickly ineffective, and I don't want to nerf the big bad evil enemy prematurely.

Anyway, any advice that anyone has on how to approach creating an epic superhero combat is greatly appreciated!

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Mechanical - the Higher natural d20 roll.

Awesome! That makes sense. I believe the SRD is vague on this, so I'll be using this rule to differentiate tie outcomes. Hopefully the final product will make this more clear 🙂

So my remaining question is, how do you determine if it is a ‘victory at a price’ versus a ‘defeat with a boon’? I can figure out how to narrate both outcomes, but is it a GM fiat decision on it being a ‘victory at a price’ versus a ‘defeat with a boon’? Or does something mechanical drive which option to pick, like who had the higher natural d20 roll?

Quote

SRD Rules:

2.3.7.3 Confusing Ties

Your GM will describe most tied outcomes as inconclusive standoffs, in which neither of you gets what you wanted.

In some situations, ties become difficult to visualize. Chief among these are contests with binary outcomes, where only two possible results are conceivable.

Your GM can either change the situation on such a tie, introducing a new element that likely renders the original prize irrelevant to both participants, or they can resolve the ties in your favor as a victory.

2.3.7.4 Victory at a Price

Your GM may treat zero degrees of victory as ‘victory at a price’ and zero degree of defeat as ‘defeat with a boon’. The ‘price’ is a cost that the victor pays for obtaining the prize, a ‘boon’ is something positive the loser takes away. Your GM may ignore this option, and simply award you or deny you the prize, if they cannot think of a dramatically interesting reason to provide a ‘price’ or ‘boon’. Your GM may use consequences to represent a ‘price’ and benefits to represent a ‘boon’, see §2.8. Your GM may also decide that the ‘price’ or ‘boon’ is represented by the narration.

• PC one success vs. Ath’Zul one success, the PC has the higher roll, zero successes difference, and zero degree of victory: Ath’Zul tries to shake the PCs, his hover bike, weaving in and out of traffic, but the PCs are always on his tail, and catch him at the lights on Bradbury Junction, by ramming their pursuit car into Ath’Zul’s bike, damaging both vehicles. The GM may award a consequence (see §2.8) to represent the damage to the PC’s car, injuries from the crash, or displeasure from their commander for damaging more police property.

Above is what the latest SRD says regarding ties. Here's the text I'm thinking of adding to my 'Rules Summary' doc:

Quote

Proposed Rules Summary Text: The GM can describe ties (zero degrees of victory or defeat) as inconclusive standoffs (neither side gets what they want), as a 'victory at a price' (often a consequence) or ‘defeat with a boon’ (often a benefit).

What I'm still not sure I'm getting right is how you differentiate a  ‘victory at a price’ versus a ‘defeat with a boon’.  A tie would seem to me to be both zero degrees of victory and zero degree of defeat, unless there is some other rule like comparing the d20 roll or something. Hmmm. Hopefully the core rules when publish will make this more clear.

2 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

The typical ties are: success vs. success or fail vs. fail.  I don't remember if handling them has changed in the SRD, but in HQG the mechanism to break the tie was high roll wins producing a Marginal Victory for one or the other.  Using this method, ties become fairly rare - and my approach with a true Tie is that no one wins/loses - they can either try the same approach again (perhaps with higher stakes for success or failure) or try an alternate approach.

With the Marginal result, the hero gets either a Marginal Victory (Yes, succeeded, But...) or Marginal Defeat (No, failed, But...).  The question then is what didn't go right.  If they are sneaking into something, yes they got in, but something made a sound and now the guard is investigating...  Or they are trying to impress the Clan Chief but made a gaffe that upset the chief who denied the request, but one of the Thanes was secretly pleased, and is willing to help them....  Etc.

Oooh! I like that approach. I don't recall if that was in the SRD or not but that sounds like a fantastic way to handle it 🙂

On 10/13/2022 at 4:57 PM, Runeblogger said:

Thanks for putting this together.
Now I would like to know how your first game went.  🙂

First game was a lot of fun! The rules were easy to teach and run.

The one thing I need to think through is how to adjudicate ties during a combat-type contest. Ties seemed to come up a lot. I suspect there will be examples and advice in the core rules once they come out to help me with this.

I updated the rules summary to not include the logo (at least until I get a better understanding of the logo use licensing requirements).

Also, I updated the original link to now point to the permanent home which is on the QuestWorlds section of my blog downloads page:

https://dicehaven.com/stan-shinn-rpg-downloads/ (scroll to the 'QuestWorlds' section)

25 minutes ago, JonL said:

Love it!

If you're including the QW logo, you may need to add a second page with the SRD license. If you drop the logo, you'd probably be OK to distribute under the Fan Materials Policy. (Note: I'm just an outside contributor. I don't speak for Chaosium.)

Thanks for pointing this out! I was going off of what this page said -- https://www.chaosium.com/questworlds-system-reference-document/ -- which didn't reference or have a link to the Fan Policy page, so I didn't know about that policy. I'll update my document accordingly and repost the updated version 🙂

I've now added some permanent URLs for the file (since the Google Drive link will expire at some point).

You can get it from my downloads page here (scroll to the bottom): https://dicehaven.com/stan-shinn-rpg-downloads/

Or you can direct link to it here: https://dicehaven.com/?smd_process_download=1&download_id=6260

On 10/7/2022 at 7:45 AM, soltakss said:

Don't you add your Masteries to the number of Successes? So, Player A has 10M and Player B has 18, Player A rolls 11, so scores 0 Successes but add the Mastery to get 1 Success, Player 2 rolls 15 so gets 1 Success, so the result is a tie.

 

I agree that this could have been more clear in the initial 'Core Mechanics' section so I added it there and put that section into a box since that section is so important. New version is now available using the same link as before. If anyone things of other improvements, let me know 🙂

My first game is tomorrow night so I put together a concise, one-page QuestWorlds rules summary based on the latest edition of the SRD (from GitHub). Let me know of any feedback or errors! I appreciate your input.

https://dicehaven.com/stan-shinn-rpg-downloads/ (scroll to the 'QuestWorlds' section)

Also, all the text is written in my own words as my interpretation of the rules. I think, given that, that I have the attribution correct, but if there is some other thing I need to add to note that this refers to the SRD, feel free to point this out and I'll make an update to the document 🙂

Thanks everyone for the fantastic advice!