Ken's House Rules

2020-10-24

Partial/interim ruling on the questions I posed re: classes and Quirks & Flaws:

  1. Everyone (who replied) was in favor of (or at least not against) C. allowing characters to gain additional classes after initial creation, so we will adopt that, but the process for gaining an additional class will remain TBD - rather than try to envision all situations, it will be decided on an ad-hoc basis.
    • We will retain the published dual-class option for humans (allowing for characters that are legal under the rules as written (RAW), but not open it up to demi-humans (i.e. not adopting B).
  2. We will allow humans to multi-class (into classes that they otherwise qualify for)
  3. We will allow multi-class characters to declare that they are focusing on a single class, and if they go through an entire session using only abilities of that class, can apply all XP earned during that session to just that class (per Daniel's suggestion)
  4. The number of BPs provided by Quirks & Flaws will be as-published (i.e. rescinding my previous house rule reducing the the number for problematic ones)
  5. Instead, we will adopt daniel's suggestion to "make an agreement that
    1. we'll be responsible adults and make a good-faith effort to only take quirks and flaws that we can and will roleplay without being overly disruptive and
    2. the GM has the absolute right to veto a character with too many quirks and flaws or overly disruptive quirks.
      • If another player finds a quirk or flaw is likely to be disruptive, they may so advise the GM, who will decide whether to veto it
  • We will retain the house rule " Characters can stop rolling flaws at any time; they do not have to roll a pre-selected number.",
    • but if the player already made the roll and got a result they don't want (e.g. "roll twice"), they have to keep it unless they immediately spend a BP to reroll it;
      • that BP may instead be used to un-roll it, i.e. it never happened (rather than having to roll it again)
  • We will not provide full BPs for cherry-picked Quirks & Flaws; while I am in favor of rewarding coherent/interesting character concepts / backgrounds with appropriate Quirks & Flaws, several of the Quirks & Flaws clearly yield more BP than it costs to compensate for them (e.g. Single or Double Leg Amputee)
    • I may consider awarding more BP than the 2 or 4 gained by cherry-picking for Quirks & Flaws that I judge fit the concept well or are likely to improve friendly, fun & cooperative play.

2009-05-27 Ken's HackMaster House Rules

an html version of the msdoc I saw in 2009 is at: kens_hackmaster_house_rules_2009-05-27

Latent Talents 2020-10-29

In my mind the problem is that the published rules do not enable you to build a character whose concept includes multiple, high BP cost Talents, without also acquiring a collection of Quirks & Flaws that are either crippling or disruptive.

To be clear, I believe a character with multiple, high BP cost Talents is likely out of balance with other starting characters, but might not be once they have advanced to a moderate level.

Also, some character concepts might inherently have talents which develop over time, or after some dramatic event.

So I am in favor of the latent talents in principle.

But it should not be a version of the “grade inflation” of the multitude of “splat book” supplements, i.e. it should not be a way for players to gain an advantage over characters created by more orthodox methods. It should be a way to describe a character which cannot otherwise be built.

Mechanically. I envision that a latent talent would be “bought” at character creation for a reduced cost in BP. It would not come into play until it was “activated” by spending a number of XP (experience points).

That leaves the amount of the discount for a latent talent, and the amount of XP to activate it.

My immediate reaction is to make the cost of a latent talent half of the full BP cost – this seems like a good compromise, allowing a character to get a couple major talents, but making them too expensive for a player to get many.

My initial suggested cost to activate a latent is 1,000 XP per full BP. I chose this to make it take a sizable sacrifice in game cost; roughly equal to gaining a level at around 5th level for most classes (where the improvements due to leveling up tend to slow down), to activate a major (e.g. 10 BP) talent. This seems a good compromise; the player has the option of forgoing several level increases to activate the talent ASAP, or by waiting until ~5th level, it will only deleay his advancement by ~1 level.

I think these values (50% discount, 1,000 XP/BP) are roughly correct, and will use them for the immediate future, but I’d like other opinions, particularly from Kate and/or Daniel (who have also GM’d HM).

In particular, the 50% discount would round against players picking 5 BP talents, many of which are typically not worth 5 BP, so 40% or 60% may be a better choice.

Also, there is a question whether activating a talent applies retroactively; e.g. if you get Hit Point Bonus as a latent talent, then activate it at 5th level, does it apply to all 5 levels you already got, or just subsequent levels? (in which case, players are unlikely to pick it for a latent talent, but on the other hand, it seems like that talent would be overt from initial creation, i.e. not latent). Currently, I’m leaning towards it not being retroactively, to avoid more complicated situations I’ve not yet considered.

When in doubt, I tend to apply the “conservative response rule”, which says when in doubt, choose the option which is less likely to create problems. So what I've proposed may be unlikely to appeal to most players, but is unlikely to create new problems.

← Analysis LevelingZasz of the Bells →