You probably don’t want it to be guaranteed, as this undermines the suspense and narrative uncertainty we get from use of the dice. But over time it should be happen way more often than not.

This deserves reiteration because, IMHO, there is no faster way to derail the fun of an iconic PC's player than have him do His Schtick and fail. The failure of an iconic ethos should be a significant moment in a character's story, but the dice can have an annoying habit of popping these up at an inopportune moment.

Generically speaking, I would think that the chance to success when using an iconic ethos should start at 1 (narratively, success almost always comes early, unless your talking about The Big Clusterfuck that starts a story) and then slowly drop as the PC calls upon his ethos more and more frequently.

(Reply) (Thread)

This deserves reiteration because, IMHO, there is no faster way to derail the fun of an iconic PC's player than have him do His Schtick and fail. The failure of an iconic ethos should be a significant moment in a character's story, but the dice can have an annoying habit of popping these up at an inopportune moment.


Seconded. (Or is that thirded?) One of the things I like in HQ is that it lends itself to avoiding this problem, wherehas even the best builds in many systems allow for it to not work.

Of course, when a schtick fails, many a player I know will roll with it. (This seemed easier in older-school D&D than modern, where so much of the build interlocks.)

I saw a Paladin question his faith after a Holy Smite failed (with a 1). Great fun.

On your second point, I'm not sure about it starts at 1 and drops. That seems counter to most narrative structure. If anything I could see it be more of a U. Certainly by the end it has risen in effectiveness again assuming the character has overcome their doubts and such?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Now I'm imagining an ethos bar, like the "energy" in games like Rockband, that fills up when you play to your type and eventually hits a "use me or lose me" threshold of iconic Potential. Ethos points?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

In one sense, there really isn't any reason NOT to have one, especially if it is genre important.

If we have a Madness Meter, there isn't any reason not to have an Ethos Bar.

Hell, call it "Conviction".

Sorcerer had its Humanity score, and that could be adapted if you were playing that.

In HQ I can see just tracking it as a stat. In fact, naming a stat directly as the ethos works quite straightforwardly in it. You can even apply lingering benefits and penalties to it if it comes into play, which might map the up and down of conviction quite well.

I think The Riddle of Steel had something that worked like this.

But I'd LOVE to see an actual "Ethos Bar" in a computer RPG. It would be an interesting way to make a philosophy/ethic mechanically interesting in a given game.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Seconded. (Or is that thirded?) One of the things I like in HQ is that it lends itself to avoiding this problem, wherehas even the best builds in many systems allow for it to not work.

I think something like this works best in a system that resolves conflicts primarily at the dramatic, zero-sum level. This allows the ethos to both help the character success and avoid the consequences of failure - in keeping with how an ethos can be as much about how the world interacts with the hero than how the hero interacts with the world.

While a good player can, and should, roll with the dice when they don't go his way, it seems to me that someone who wants to play an iconic (as opposed to dramatic) character is that he's playing primarily for the enjoyment of things going his way, as opposed to organically discovering/changing a dramatic character.

When an iconic character fails with regard to his ethos, there would seem to be two (well, more like one-and-a-half) explanaions. The first is that his understanding of the ethos is incomplete, the second is that his understanding is sound but his manifestation of it ist still imperfect. Either way the answer is more personal growth and "attunement" with the ethos.

Repeated failure, however, makes this a much harder road to walk. This is why I suggest that the chance of success starts at 1 - in the establishing scenes of most movies with iconic protagonists, it's almost always demonstrations of competance and/or harmony with the ethos. As time goes on, the possibility starts to creep up that either a tactical or strategic failure will occur. The former is something you just roll with over the course of a scene; the latter make shape a PC's future choices.

What happens after the failure, is what defines an iconic character in that his ethos' ability rapidly returns to 1 (for GM-mediated forms of 'rapid'). He takes his licks, redoubles his efforts, and gets back on the horse. The dramatic character may do soul-searching of a fundamentally different nature.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think something like this works best in a system that resolves conflicts primarily at the dramatic, zero-sum level. This allows the ethos to both help the character success and avoid the consequences of failure - in keeping with how an ethos can be as much about how the world interacts with the hero than how the hero interacts with the world.

I think you said this far better than I. :)

When an iconic character fails with regard to his ethos, there would seem to be two (well, more like one-and-a-half) explanaions. The first is that his understanding of the ethos is incomplete, the second is that his understanding is sound but his manifestation of it ist still imperfect. Either way the answer is more personal growth and "attunement" with the ethos.

I agree. In narrative, it almost always leads to some sort of re-evaluation and attunement, to use your word.

What happens after the failure, is what defines an iconic character in that his ethos' ability rapidly returns to 1 (for GM-mediated forms of 'rapid'). He takes his licks, redoubles his efforts, and gets back on the horse. The dramatic character may do soul-searching of a fundamentally different nature.

I think I agree with this.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I remember (vaguely) the Buffy the Vampire Slayer version of the Unisystem rules having something like this. You got points for accepting being knocked out when it was dramatically important. Also for the crisis of faith and helping the Slayer get out of it.

I can't remember all of it, but there were definite rewards for genre-appropriate play.

In HQ1 and 2 you could probably allow the iconic belief to be an ability and augment with it directly. That might make it a shade too common for what you are talking about though. (With HQ2's more limited augmenting rules, it would probably work out and you could even just hand wave a maximum augment for a truly iconic scene.)

(Reply) (Thread)

In Savage Worlds, portraying an iconic moment could earn the character a Bennie, particularly when the action will have some negative consequences (i.e. an ass-chewing).

(Reply) (Thread)

We had a discussion recently on "trait-bombing", aka setting the scene so that you can use all your abilities.

In most games I've played, PCs abilities tend to focus around their iconic nature, so there's no need for a special bonus when a PC recapitulats his ethos; he is already adequately rewarded by being able to use all his abilities, which gives him a great chance of success.

(Reply) (Thread)

That makes sense, too. If the system allows for that, it becomes pretty seamless.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

In a similar vein, in our Star Wars: Saga Edition campaign, our GM narrated the results of Destiny Point usage as being somehow thematically related to our characters' Destinies whenever possible.

For example, my character's Destiny was "Redemption." On one memorable occasion, I spent a Destiny point to avoid taking damage from a big attack, and he narrated it as an NPC who had betrayed us (but for what he thought were noble reasons that had gone all wrong) jumping in front of the attack and sacrificing himself to save my character. Powerful stuff! Much better than just saying "he missed." He also was a little more liberal in what Destiny points could be used for, provided they were in line with one's Destiny.

Anyway, it definitely gave me an appreciation for defining some sort of overarching theme for one's character, and for tying in-game currency to that theme.

(Reply) (Thread)