Re: RE: [HoE] Junkman Cometh/Huckster ?

[Steve Wallace <ceesrw@cee.hw.ac.uk>]

> Then what's the balance to the disadvantages provided?  Again, you're 
> talking "real-world" (well, real HOE world) logic, rather than "game logic." 
>   Why is a HoE Huckster paying the same three points for the AB that a 
> Deadlands Huckster is?

Because it's still an Arcane Background, presumably.  TJC 
makes it pretty clear that huckstering is a losing 
proposition in HoE.  If a player doesn't want that, they 
shouldn't take the AB; if they want to play a huckster 
regardless of the drawbacks, they can.  
Hucksters are unreliable at best, but they're as mean 
in HoE as they are in Deadlands.  With improved tech like 
SMGs and assault rifles, Soul Blast isn't as effective as 
it was - the guns hurt more and more reliably than hexes.  
Hexes have the edge on guns in hurting supernatural 
critters and are more useful all around than the HoE arcane 
backgrounds, which are more combat oriented.  

> If game balance is no longer an issue, and we don't care 
if Hucksters are 
> balanced (or even playable), then great.

I'd argue hucksters are still playable - backlash is just a 
more risky outcome than before.


> The minimum effect is still "no effect."  The current system just increases 
> the chances of "no effect" coming up.

No, the hex is more likely to fail; the huckster can't beat 
the manitou in game terms.  The minimum effect of a HoE 
Soul Blast is 1d6 damage.  The minimum effect of a Dl Soul 
blast is 1d4 wind.
The HoE hex's improved damage is a result of the higher 
hand.

> >The manitou he has to challenge is more powerful than the
> >one that fuels an Ace hex in DL - they don't seem to exist
> >anymore.  If his hex works, it has to work on a Pair, which
> >is more powerful than an Ace.
> >Hands haven't become more powerful than before.
> >
> 
> Well, that's not quite right.  There are plenty of Hexes that have higher 
> minimums than an Ace, so I don't think _all_ of those have ceased to exist

No manitou exists in HoE that will give a hex effect of the 
Ace poker hand.  The lowest hand needed for a hex to take 
effect in HoE is a Pair.  This hand may be higher depending 
on the individual hex.
The fact remains that no hex is effective on an Ace - no 
manitou that weak exists.


> But my point of "logic" (real-world or game) is that if 
the manitous 
> becoming them are more powerful, the hands generated from them should become 
> more powerful.  No, the current system does not make that true.  Yes, I 
> could rationalize it that way.  No, my rationale may not be as good as 
> someone else's.  May not be as bad, either.

Hucksters wrestle power from manitou to fuel hexes.

The power of the manitou and thus of the hex is 
represented by the hucksters poker hand.

In HoE, all manitou have become stronger.  Hucksters need a 
higher hand to cast a hex successfully because they have no 
choice but to fight strong manitou.

In HoE, hucksters have not become stronger.  It is not 
easier for a huckster to beat a strong manitou.  In game 
terms, a hucksters poker hand in HoE is the same as it was 
in Deadlands; he has beaten a manitou with the same amount 
of power regardless of setting.

If a huckster pulls a Straight in HoE, he has beaten a 
manitou with the same amount of power as he would have if 
he pulled that Straight in Deadlands.  The huckster is no 
stronger in HoE.  The manitou's power is the same, the hex 
effect is the same.

The manitou that could be beaten with a Straight in 
Deadlands has to be beaten with a Flush in HoE, however - 
it has become stronger since Judgement Day.  Does that make 
a difference in game terms?  Not really.  Exactly which 
manitou a huckster challenges has never mattered.  what 
does matter is the number of manitou with a given amount of 
power.  In HoE, all manitou are stronger - it is not 
possible for a huckster to find and defeat a manitou with a 
poker hand value of Ace.

> 
> Well, your method of calculating "averages" strikes me as either flawed, or 
> meaningless.  You're increasing the chances that Hexes have no effect (by, 
> for Ace-minimum hands, saying Aces are now "no effect" rather than 1 wound, 
> 3 Bullets, whatever).  "No effect" is an effect you have to take into 
> account when calculating successful hexes and their effects as well if you 
> want any meaningful "average," IMO.

You increase the chance of a hex not working at all, rather 
than working and having no effect.
Average success rate for attempting to cast a hex goes down 
- more failures because of the higher hands needed.
Average effect of successful hexes goes up - more effective 
because of higher hands needed.

> As a matter of game logic (purely subjective and IMO), 
they should be better 
> because while a manitou is more dangerous, you should get a greater benefit 
> from drawing on his (increased) power.  No such benefit currently exists, 
> unless you ignore "no effect" benefits of successful hexes and use the 
> somewhat distorted averages system you seem to apply above.

I'd disagree on the game logic.  The manitou are stronger 
than before, but the hucksters strength hasn't changed - 
they use the same paradigm for beating the manitou, and the 
same formulae for channelling power as before.  The manitou 
are better, the hucksters are constant.
The hand pulled by the huckster doesn't get him more power 
in HoE - a Pair is equal to a Deadlands Pair.  There are 
just more of the stronger manitou kicking around.


> As a matter of rules logic, they should not be "better", but they should be 
> balanced.  Since the hexes are harder to cast, the place to balance it is in 
> the effect generated.  No such balancing occurs.

If game balance is the aim - game balance in HoE seems 
iffy, though. Sykers have few restrictions and only suffer 
if they go bust Blastin' - and most Sykers will take 
Blastin' at 5d(their best dice).  Result: no brain burn.  
Doomsayers tend to the same - huge Faith score, no busts, 
no extra mutations.
Hucksters get it from the other end - hard hexes and harsh 
backlash.  The thing is, it's all consistent in-game.
Manitou are more powerful, hucksters use centurys-old 
methods - they're going to come off second best.

> A huckster gains no benefit that I can see or that you've mentioned for a 
> "stronger minimum effect."  Why is it beneficial to a Huckster to have a 
> Pair as the minimum effect for Bodyguard, rather than a Ace?

It isn't particularly beneficial.  It's harder to do.

> It does not "work better than before".  A Pair is a Pair - the effect is the 
> same.  All I've lost is the benefit (however minimal) of an Ace.

The benefits of getting an Ace are negligible:-

Dead Man's Card = Ace 1d4 damage
Cut And Run = +2 to an aptitude used in a test of wills

for example.  Hardly a major loss.

The probability of pulling an Ace on five cards is 15.9%.  
Probability of getting worse than an Ace is 25.29%.  
Probability of a Pair is 34.73%.

Those figures don't count jokers (with jokers the 
probabilities are 15.9%, 25.29% and 45.47% respectively).

Not much point in these except to show that Ace is a rarer 
hand than a Pair - losing it doesn't matter too much.

> And again, what is the "benefit" of a higher minimum effect?  If I'm reading 
> the above, you're even saying it's not a "real benefit" because the hand 
> needed is higher.

True, it's not a real benefit.  The only consolation is the 
knowledge that if a hex works it will have some effect.  in 
Deadlands you could cast your hex, have it work and see it 
do pretty much nothing...

> You would be correct, which is exactly my point.  As a matter of game logic, 
> it doesn't make much sense (although you can rationalize it, I suppose - who 
> can't?).  As a matter of rules balance, it is unbalanced to the point of 
> unviability.

It would be if jokers came up regularly, but they don't.  
Even if they did, the huckster would still have a chance to 
ride the backlash and get his hex off with possible 
benefits (a joker turning a Pair into Three of a Kind, say).

> My arguement is that Hexes _should_ be more powerful in a meaningful sense 
> (not just "raising the minimum effect", which seems to provide "no real 
> benefit").  Manitous are more powerful.  If you take the penalties for a 
> more powerful Manitou, there should be some benefit.  Or you have imbalance. 
>   Imbalance means unviability.  Unviability means nobody plays the character 
> class.

The manitou is more powerful - it's more dangerous for the 
huckster.  I don't think it should make the hex more 
powerful - it doesn't make sense, because the huckster 
beats a manitou with the same amount of power in HoE as he 
does in Deadlands to get the same poker hand.
A Pair is a Pair is a Pair - in Deadlands or HoE, it has 
the same effect.
If hucksters had become more powerful too, showing a 
general excalation in arcane power, then I could see the 
rationale of increasing the effect of a hex, but nothing in 
TJC indicates this - hucksters still use Hoyles teachings, 
which come from a time with much weaker manitou.  Unless 
hucksters evolve too, they're going to continue getting the 
shaft.

> >That does show manitou getting meaner.
> >It has the side effect that on average, successful hexes in
> >HoE are more powerful than successful hexes in DL.
> 
> Umm,m no.  Successful hexes can still have a "no effect."  By raising 
> minimum hand size, you've increased the number of "no effects" generated.  
> Calculate your averages from that.

If a hex does not meet the minimum hand, it fails.  No hex 
is cast and has no effect - something always happens.  It 
may have no effect in game terms - a Soul blast might miss 
or fail to cause noticable damage - but it still worked.

Number of successful hexes goes down, general effect of 
successful hexes goes up.

> I don't think you can ignore "no effects" and still cite 
a meaningful "on 
> average" something is or isn't more powerful.

Hucksters are less powerful.  Have I said they're better?  
I've said when hexes work in HoE on average they have more 
effect - that's a result of the hand ranks, though.  If 
hand ranks were incresed in Deadlands, the average effect 
of a successful hex would go up.

> Even if true, what benefit accrues from the "average HoE hex is more 
> powerful in effect"?  See my list of averages I cited, where in 15 hexes you 
> went from five Ace-minimum successes to five no-effect successes (which I 
> incorreclty listed as Failures).  The average there actually seems to be 
> _dropping_.

The average number of hexes successful drops, not the 
average effect.

> Ummm, isn't that the point of playing a Huckster?  And how the system is 
> currently built to let you play a Huckster?  Perhaps the revised system will 
> change that, but currently the fact you have to build up each Hex's Level 
> means it almost has to dominate your character.

Not really - a lot of hexes just enhance existing abilities 
- Silver Tongued Devil, Tall Tales, Tweaks, Kentucky 
Windage, Bullseye, Shadow Man, etc.

A huckster with no skills and a huge list of hexes is no 
use.  A huckster with plenty of skills and a few hexes to 
play on those skills is a different story.

To my knowledge, the new system reduces the number of 
aptitude points needed to hex effectively by only using one 
skill - Hexslingin' - rather than treating each hex as a 
seperate skill.  That shifts the focus away from all hexes, 
no skills to skills backed up by hexes.  

There's no real need to increase a hucksters skill with a 
hex above level 3 - he's ignoring backlash, and the extra 
dice don't make much difference when it comes to the number 
of cards you draw.  In a skill/hex character, that's hardly 
dominant.  In a hex/skill character, that is going to 
dominate since you want all of your hexes to be higher than 
level 3, since you have nothing to base the hex effects on. 
If you can't shoot to save yourself, a Full House on 
Kentucky Windage isn't going to do you much good.  If you 
have a reasonable Shootin' skill, say 3 or 4, a Pair will 
do nicely.
 
> To some degree Hucksters and "backup physical stuff" characters are two 
> separate entities, since they rely almost entirely on two different sets of 
> attributes.  To make a Huckster who relies equally on Soul Blast and a rifle 
> is to make, IMO, an unviable character.

Here's some numbers from the huckster I play at the moment 
in DL:-

Shootin' 3
Persuasion 2
Bluff 2
Tale Tellin 2

Silver Tongued Devil 2
Tall Tales 3

He doesn't rely on combat hexes - a pistol works every time,
does 3d6 damage, and costs about $10.
Soul Blast costs 4 or 5 aptitude points to have a chance of 
working with a degree of success and risks backlash.

As it is, if his hexes work to boost his Persuasion or Tale 
Tellin', that's a bonus.  If they don't, that's fine too - 
he's competent without them.
 
> (And I'm leery either of citing the new system to come, or of anyone who 
> does...).

I'm not saying anything in favour of or against the new 
system until I see it, just about my understanding of how 
it will work.

> 
> Basically, the new TJC rules changes Hucksters as we know them, into (at 
> best) a lesser creature that _whenever_ they want to cast Hexes suffer a 
> good chance of dying/blowing up comrades/whatever.  This won't encourage 
> players to build characters of a class that is popular and (until now) 
> enjoyable:  it will simply have them create non-Hucksters who focus on the 
> non-Huckster stuff they would have given their Hucksters.

Hucksters chances of blowing up in an entertaining manner 
are only really affected by that +4 to backlash rolls - and 
backlash doesn't have an out-and-out "You Pop" result.  It 
can hurt lots or generally disable the character, but 
that's something players should know about hucksters - they 
can do neat stuff, and they can get shafted if it goes 
wrong.
 
> (And just as a note, even assuming that the Huckster player is feeling 
> doom-ish, why would a Posse want him around, giving the penchant of backlash 
> to hit comrades as well?  Don't know about you, but most Posses I've seen 
> just barely tolerate a Huckster's backlashes:  I can't imagine a HoE group 
> would be any more forgiving of the increased chance of one of them getting 
> nailed.)

Why would a Posse hang around with a Doomsayer?  Sure, they 
can hurt people real well, but they think norms are doomed. 
If they heal you, you mutate - that's not something most 
folk want.
Templars are just as bad.  If they don't think someone's 
worth saving, they're off without a look back.  Hardly the 
kind of person you want to trust with your life, is it?  
What if they figure you're not worth saving and leave you 
to your fate?
Law Dogs?  If there's trouble, they want to sort it out and 
they're not afraid to step on peoples toes if they have to. 
That spells trouble for them and their friends.
Junkers?  Poking around and messing with the stuff that 
ruined the world in the first place.  Would you stick 
around and see what they can blow up this time?
How about Sykers?  Crazy war vets who have murdered their 
way around Faraway and risk blowing their heads off every 
time they use a power?  Kind of people sensible folk would 
associate with?  I don't think so...

--
Do you think you can keep on running
Like the papers that blow down your empty street
Outside in the dark when you can't sleep
The ghost of your father, always watching
--
Steve Wallace
http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/~ceesrw
ceesrw@cee.hw.ac.uk