Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Zepher]

That kind of takes away the whole point of not being KO'd. I've done it ONCE, at the end of the Wren cycle, because that was a two tiered battle and was meant to wipe out the whole party. But really I don't think it makes much sense, or else being KO'd is the same as not being KO'd.

[Scubacarrot]

I agree with Zepher. The only instance I would see it as a positive change is when a low level player fights amongst higher level players. And that is an undesirable situation to begin with.

[Chromeknight]

I agree with Zepher. The only instance I would see it as a positive change is when a low level player fights amongst higher level players. And that is an undesirable situation to begin with.

So if KO'd player is 15 levels below lowest standing player?

I get that it sucks for purplejellyblob, cryos and nstickney. On the other hand, Darkdragon, MDM and I chose to not resurrect them this round. Perhaps it should be on our heads.

[Scubacarrot]

I'm not reading the other Baltarok quests so I don't know what's going on, exactly, but no, I think the rule is fine as it stands. It's actually more interesting if there's something to lose and gain for experience. It also means there are reasons you have to keep in good standing with (some) party members and can't be completely selfish and never revive or heal anyone.

I meant, for example, for the fields, to help level up low level players so they can play with the general population, maybe it'd be something to consider. Don't know, there are not too many new players coming in so it's hard for those that do.

I think generally if there's a battle with low and high level players it's up to the QM to make it balanced for both sides, and have it make sense to have a need to resurrect lower level players. That's difficult, but yeah.

[Waterbrick Down]

A few points:

First, from a logical standpoint, why does gaining experience depend on if the player is still standing at the end of a battle? They might have contributed to the success of the entire fight, but if they are struck down in the final round they get nothing. Another player may just as easily sit in the back row and do nothing as an action and not contribute to a battle, but because they survive they gain experience. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Secondly, I understand the reasoning behind KO'd players not gaining experience, i.e. it creates a decision in other players minds whether it is worth risking a consumable to allow another player to gain experience. The motivation the majority of time is based on being "nice", because the only thing at stake is the "experience". In rare occasions the motivation behind a revival is because a player is needed to ensure victory, but this is generally only the case in some boss battles if at all. This mainly stems from the fact that KO'd heroes never die. In the majority of RPG's if your character is KO'd, there is a chance that they will die, thus it is pertinent that either a Cleric, or someone with reviving powers tends to them at once. Heroica RPG has no such mechanism, so players do not have to worry about losing their character and thus some of the tension is relieved when it comes to using Phoenix Essences. Because experience is the only thing on the line and most players know that others probably won't revive them based on that motivation alone, most of us tend to use more defensive strategies, i.e. investing in a lot of SP, or generally working from the back row.

With an RPG, I can only theorize 3 mechanics with which to encourage the using of Phoenix Essences:

1. A player's character does not gain experience

2. A player's character dies

3. A player's character is more use upright and fighting than KO'd

Of these three, number 2 is off the table (and is a subject for another discussion) but does provide an opportunity for an interesting decision based on character RP alone, number 1 also provides opportunity for interesting decision making but it is based on a disconnected meta-mechanic (i.e. are you and I as characters on good enough terms that I will provide you the player with a mechanical benefit), number 3 provides opportunity for an interesting decision based on in-character reasoning, i.e. we need this other character otherwise we will lose this battle.

Motivations 1 and 2 are based on rule mechanics, motivation 3 is dependent on QM's. So if we won't change motivation 1, I'd suggest we as QM's as per Scuba's suggestion aim to make motivation 1 non-existent.

[Darkdragon]

No offense meant to the fallen, but it doesn't make any sense to use 3 expensive consumables at the start of something that could very well destroy the 11 hero party later on. The chance that they would get knocked out again before the end of the battle was too high compared to the need for them to help in the fight. We don't know if there will be another chance to purchase more later on, so the logical thing to do was hold off on it at this time.

If the QM wanted to give exp for the battle and for other things leading up to it, that could be done I think, but reviving the 3 at the time did not seem like the best way to go.

Having parties with levels spread so widely is very difficult and our decision (or mine at least) was to do what we think is best for the party in the long run.

[JimBee]

There's still the fact that having less characters standing in your party makes the battle inherently harder for everyone else, and the quest harder to succeed with. I don't see a problem with the way the KO system is now.

[Scubacarrot]

I'm not sure I understand what you would change what to, WBD. I think is fine as it is. Sure you could at a 1-2-3 in 20 diceroll of being dead, but what if you do roll that 1? In this game, that means your years of progress are gone, and it is not like a normal RPG, where you roll up a new character and get to play with the same people in the same campaign again. If that happens in Heroica, you actively got to start from the beginning again, play in beginner's quests. That's pretty harsh in this game.

Do you want to change it so that a person has to be standing more than being Ko'd in a battle to receive Experience? You will retain the problem you described of people getting experience for doing nothing.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Scubacarrot

[Waterbrick Down]

No offense meant to the fallen, but it doesn't make any sense to use 3 expensive consumables at the start of something that could very well destroy the 11 hero party later on. The chance that they would get knocked out again before the end of the battle was too high compared to the need for them to help in the fight. We don't know if there will be another chance to purchase more later on, so the logical thing to do was hold off on it at this time.

If the QM wanted to give exp for the battle and for other things leading up to it, that could be done I think, but reviving the 3 at the time did not seem like the best way to go.

Having parties with levels spread so widely is very difficult and our decision (or mine at least) was to do what we think is best for the party in the long run.

I'm not meaning to fault you in any way. Your decision was entirely rational and I probably would have done the same thing. Currently it's up to us QM's to ensure that players are revived based on necessity and not pity. I think letting KO'd heroes not gain any experience however reinforces the issue of the power gap. Just theorizing, but what would happen if we let KO'd heroes gain experience? How would this change peoples strategies, approaches?

[Scubacarrot]

I think it would lay off a lot of pressure, and you'd see more battles fought by just a few people. (because the others ones took a risk and died and the standing players have no need/pressure to revive them) Not a good thing in my opinion.

[Darkdragon]

If KO'd heroes got full experience, people would probably be more brazen with actions and not run off and hide. It could be beneficial or detrimental all depending on the team, like it is now. What might be nice is if a KO'd hero could get 1/2 exp from a battle they fought in. That seems fair to me.

[Flipz]

I, personally, would always give the lion's share of the loot to Heroes who get knocked out, especially if my party had somewhere close to 6 Phoenix Incenses that could have been thrown as a conditional action after the next-to-last enemy was down.

[Waterbrick Down]

I think it would lay off a lot of pressure, and you'd see more battles fought by just a few people. (because the others ones took a risk and died and the standing players have no need/pressure to revive them) Not a good thing in my opinion.

This is assuming the battle is winnable by those remaining standing. If the battles were designed such that it was more beneficial to have more heroes, it would behoove players to raise their fellow team-mates. To me it's an arbitrary rule designed to keep players from wanting to be KO'd (as opposed to the much more frightening prospect of possibly dying), however the consequence of being KO'd tends to be not dire enough to usually warrant remedy. Thus the power gap seen between heroes is defined not by in-character choices and in-game logic, but by matter of convenience and out-of-character reasoning.

[Sandy]

Thanks for voicing out your thoughts, WBD, but the "no experience if you're killed in battle" is a very common RPG trope, and for a good reason: it raises the stakes and encourages strategic thinking. Sure, it might enforce the power gap in unbalanced parties, but that's really a minor issue in comparison to the alternative.

If getting knocked out would have no consequences (apart from failing the quest if everyone is KO'd), then what would be the point of battles in the first place?

[Waterbrick Down]

Thanks for voicing out your thoughts, WBD, but the "no experience if you're killed in battle" is a very common RPG trope, and for a good reason: it raises the stakes and encourages strategic thinking. Sure, it might enforce the power gap in unbalanced parties, but that's really a minor issue in comparison to the alternative.

If getting knocked out would have no consequences (apart from failing the quest if everyone is KO'd), then what would be the point of battles in the first place?

Thanks for listening, I'm not lobbying for a change at the moment, the most recent battle in Quest 88 just got me thinking. I would say the consequence of being KO'd is your party should have a more difficult time achieving victory. Again this goes back to battle design though. My point is that the consequence of being KO'd is more often than not a problem for the individual player and not a problem for the party both mechanically and role-playing wise. Aside from reviving someone to help win a battle (again only usually happens in boss battles), there's little RP incentive to revive someone.

[Sandy]

I would say the consequence of being KO'd is your party should have a more difficult time achieving victory.

That's true, but if the party would gain experience no matter how poorly they did in the battle - just as long as one of them survives - there would really be no incentive to strategize. Victory would lose it's meaning, because it would be pretty much guaranteed unless the QM wants to make every single battle a matter of life or death.

Just think about it from the QM's point-of-view: you pour a massive time into planning a quest, taking pictures, planning enemies and spinning an interesting plot. If individual players wouldn't care if they lived or died in a battle, the chances of the whole party losing the battle would grow, and all your hard work would go down the drain that much easier. The alternative would be that all battles save the boss battle would have to be a walk in the park, and wouldn't that suck all the fun from the battles?

Trust me, the current way is the right way. To give another example, have you played some of those modern video games where if you fall down into a pit, you're magically transported to the edge of the cliff you dropped off of with no consequences? That's just lame, unchallenging game design in my opinion. If there's no challenge, there's no "game".

[Waterbrick Down]

That's true, but if the party would gain experience no matter how poorly they did in the battle - just as long as one of them survives - there would really be no incentive to strategize. Victory would lose it's meaning, because it would be pretty much guaranteed unless the QM wants to make every single battle a matter of life or death.

I don't think any party wants to forgo strategizing, otherwise they run the chance of failing all together. Thus they will strategize, they will win, and victory will keep it's meaning. Also what is wrong with battles being matters of life or death? All battles should be failable if things go horribly wrong, not that they will be probable but they should be possible.

Just think about it from the QM's point-of-view: you pour a massive time into planning a quest, taking pictures, planning enemies and spinning an interesting plot. If individual players wouldn't care if they lived or died in a battle, the chances of the whole party losing the battle would grow, and all your hard work would go down the drain that much easier. The alternative would be that all battles save the boss battle would have to be a walk in the park, and wouldn't that suck all the fun from the battles?

Characters should care if they live or die, because it should make a difference on the outcome of the battle. Just because you're getting experience even if you are KO'd doesn't mean you'll make stupid decisions, because those stupid decisions may mean the whole party isn't going to make it to the end of the battle. Also if we hold onto our battles, planning quests, taking pictures, and spinning an interesting plot so much that we are willing to do anything to ensure that our hard work is recognized, sooner or later it results in fudging, plot twists, deus ex machina, and the players actions no longer have any real impact because "the story must go on". If players fail that should have an impact on the game/story and we as QM's should be accepting of that.

Trust me, the current way is the right way. To give another example, have you played some of those modern video games where if you fall down into a pit, you're magically transported to the edge of the cliff you dropped off of with no consequences? That's just lame, unchallenging game design in my opinion. If there's no challenge, there's no "game".

I'm not sure that's the best analogy. Have you ever watched a sports game where the losing team gained nothing from the experience of actually playing the game? The clearest solution might be to have failure (KO'd) lead to death eventually, otherwise you might as well be deducting gold from a character as much as experience, however I doubt that idea will ever catch on as suggest by Scuba. I guess what I'm more mulling over is the consequence doesn't match the crime.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Waterbrick Down

[Scubacarrot]

One possible solution for a problem I don't think exists, if a player is KO'ed at the end of the battle, they get injured, and get a status effect that can't be cured by remedies, overwrites artifacts and will only go away after the quest.

For example, when player is KO'ed at the end of the Quest, roll a die.

1: Cracked Head: The hero is permanently sealed. Overwrites Artifacts

2: Crushed Leg: The hero is slowed and immune to hastened, overwrites Artifacts.

3: Bruised Arm: The hero is weakened and immune to encouraged, overwrites Artifacts.

4: Smashed Pride: The hero is jinxed and immune to lucky, overwrites Artifacts.

etc.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Scubacarrot

[Waterbrick Down]

One possible solution for a problem I don't think exists, if a player is KO'ed at the end of the battle, they get injured, and get a status effect that can't be cured by remedies, overwrites artifacts and will only go away after the quest.

For example, when player is KO'ed at the end of the Quest, roll a die.

1: Cracked Head: The hero is permanently sealed. Overwrites Artifacts

2: Crushed Leg: The hero is slowed and immune to hastened, overwrites Artifacts.

3: Bruised Arm: The hero is weakened and immune to encouraged, overwrites Artifacts.

4: Smashed Pride: The hero is jinxed and immune to lucky, overwrites Artifacts.

etc.

Interesting idea, it gives people more of an immediate incentive to raising their allies as opposed to just dealing with them being 1/2 level lower than them due to a lack of experience.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Waterbrick Down

[Kintobor]

One possible solution for a problem I don't think exists, if a player is KO'ed at the end of the battle, they get injured, and get a status effect that can't be cured by remedies, overwrites artifacts and will only go away after the quest.

For example, when player is KO'ed at the end of the Quest, roll a die.

1: Cracked Head: The hero is permanently sealed. Overwrites Artifacts

2: Crushed Leg: The hero is slowed and immune to hastened, overwrites Artifacts.

3: Bruised Arm: The hero is weakened and immune to encouraged, overwrites Artifacts.

4: Smashed Pride: The hero is jinxed and immune to lucky, overwrites Artifacts.

etc.

If we're trying to close the gap between low and high level players, then why would this help close the gap? Imagine a party of level ones. They're new, inexperienced, and are going to screw up. One of the members gets knocked out, and being level ones, have no way to revive him. The hero is then jinxed until the quest ends. Permanently. How is the rest of the party supposed to function with a jinxed hero? You might as well call it there, since there's no way they're going to be able to go on with a jinxed hero. It may work for higher levels, and I'm really stretching the may, but I really disagree with this idea.

[Waterbrick Down]

If we're trying to close the gap between low and high level players, then why would this help close the gap? Imagine a party of level ones. They're new, inexperienced, and are going to screw up. One of the members gets knocked out, and being level ones, have no way to revive him. The hero is then jinxed until the quest ends. Permanently. How is the rest of the party supposed to function with a jinxed hero? You might as well call it there, since there's no way they're going to be able to go on with a jinxed hero. It may work for higher levels, and I'm really stretching the may, but I really disagree with this idea.

The gap exists because low level heroes don't gain experience because they are considered low priority on the revival spectrum. If a party member is going to be injured (I'd suggest every other round) as opposed to only a level of experience lower than you, you are much more likely to revive them. I wouldn't say the problem is the gap, there's always going to be a gap, the issue is revivals don't happen because the consequence of being KO'd is too mild and doesn't really affect the party as a whole.

[Kintobor]

The gap exists because low level heroes don't gain experience because they are considered low priority on the revival spectrum. If a party member is going to be injured (I'd suggest every other round) as opposed to only a level of experience lower than you, you are much more likely to revive them. I wouldn't say the problem is the gap, there's always going to be a gap, the issue is revivals don't happen because the consequence of being KO'd is too mild and doesn't really affect the party as a whole.

I just don't see the logic in penalizing lower players in this fashion if Scuba's suggestion was used. (which I know it won't, but who doesn't love a good debate! ) Lower level players would still be low priority. If you have a level 18 berserker and a level 3 mage knocked out at the end of a fight, and could only revive one, who would you, as a player, revive? Mistakes happen. A character gets knocked out just before the party defeats the enemy. Well, looks like he's got a broken arm, tough luck.

I wish we'd see more level neutral quests. As much as I hate to toot my own horn, Four's Company was rather level neutral. It had one battle, and the rest of experience was the reward. As much as I gripe about The Marketplace Mystery, it was level neutral. I honestly just can't get behind an idea that penalizes players for a roll of the die, particularly newer players.

[Waterbrick Down]

I just don't see the logic in penalizing lower players in this fashion if Scuba's suggestion was used. (which I know it won't, but who doesn't love a good debate! ) Lower level players would still be low priority. If you have a level 18 berserker and a level 3 mage knocked out at the end of a fight, and could only revive one, who would you, as a player, revive? Mistakes happen. A character gets knocked out just before the party defeats the enemy. Well, looks like he's got a broken arm, tough luck.

I wish we'd see more level neutral quests. As much as I hate to toot my own horn, Four's Company was rather level neutral. It had one battle, and the rest of experience was the reward. As much as I gripe about The Marketplace Mystery, it was level neutral. I honestly just can't get behind an idea that penalizes players for a roll of the die, particularly newer players.

I wouldn't lobby for a straight implementation of the rules, I'd suggest either make the effects ever other round, or at least permanent for the next battle. My main thing is the consequence of lost experience rarely motivates people to either avoid being KO'd or to revive someone, thus the consequence isn't fulfilling its purpose. Thus we should just allow everyone to gain XP (which helps with the gap) and come up with a more suitable consequence for being KO'd, like Scuba's suggestion.

[Zepher]

An easier solution would be to keep the levels of heroes on a quest about the same, or carefully design quests that are meant for mismatched parties.

I have to agree 100% with Sandy here, this is a convention (in pretty much EVERY RPG I've ever heard of) and therefore must be there for a reason.

[Flipz]

Alternatively, we could create consumables similar to Trial Brew that grant bonus experience if the user fulfills specific conditions, and have them be level-locked so that they're used only on lower-level Heroes (i.e. "only works on Heroes under Level 15").