HeroQuest

[Chuckg]

Been looking at HeroQuest (the 2003 Glorantha RPG, the updated version of Hero Wars by Issaries, *not* the boardgame), and it's looking quite nice. Flexible, fast, and fun.

Just one thing. The resolution system, which abstracts fights into a single die roll or series of die rolls that does *not* simulate blow-by-blow combat, seems to be a little weak re: handling conflicts with multiple protagonists vs. multiple antagonists.

Anybody houserule a fix to this? If so, share, please. Thanks.

[Doc Democracy]

Well the conflict resolution system might be seen as weak as it does not obviously simulate blow by blow combat but it does allow a lot of narrative input that should reflect the bidding of advantage points.

The conflict resolution also allows your persuasion skill to be pitted versus someone's axe skill in an attempt to talk them out of killing you. In a superhero game it would allow your speed to be a nominated defence against someone's flame bolts rather than simply your invulnerability or your power armour. I think it would be a great system for superheroes and can't wait for the Worlds of Wonder for the system.

However, my beef with the contest is that in a fight with someone you either come out beaten and possibly hurt or you win with no hurt. There is no automatic resolution where you win but are battered and bloody - which seems to be a common result in many fantasy combats.

I am thinking of testing out a system whereby any time you lose 30 or more AP in one go you gain a named wound at 10, so someone slashes you with an axe and does 30 AP you might get Abdominal wound 10 - which would be an automatic -1 to physical abilities - or scalp wound 10 which may also interfere with visual abilities but not running etc. For AP losses above 30 I would simply increase the wound rating to 1/3 of the AP loss.

This should give some crunch to the contest.

I haven't done it yet so am not sure whether a threshold of 30AP and 1/3 of the loss as a rating will be sufficient or whether I might come down to a 20AP threshold and 1/2 of the rating.

If you give it a go let me know how it plays out - our group is in a FH game set in Middle Earth just now - wont be HQing for some time.


Doc

[Chuckg]

A difficulty with AP-based solutions is that's for extended contests only, and I'm trying to follow their advice of keeping things as simple contests whenever possible and save the extendeds only for important boss fights or dramatic archnemesis duels.

This leaves me with going simple-simple-simple-simple for each round of 'ordinary' combat, like Storyteller and its opposed rolls.

That won't work without tweakin' either. :)

Edit -- oh, forgot to mention, I'm not using HQ for a supers game. I figured I'd start out with a fantasy-genre game (although not with all that funky Glorantha stuff), as that's closer to what ye system were originally intended to do, and works up from there.

And they're coming out with a superhero expansion? When?

[Doc Democracy]

A difficulty with AP-based solutions is that's for extended contests only, and I'm trying to follow their advice of keeping things as simple contests whenever possible and save the extendeds only for important boss fights or dramatic archnemesis duels.

This leaves me with going simple-simple-simple-simple for each round of 'ordinary' combat, like Storyteller and its opposed rolls.

That won't work without tweakin' either. :)

Actually that idea works really well. The idea with a simple contest is that everything is over in a single round. What you as a GM have to be clear about is what each level of victory or defeat actually means for each contest. I find it useful to have seven outcomes indicated in advance and to wing the detail once the result is clear.

This keeps the story moving until you get to a big set piece where you decide to use an extended contest.


Edit -- oh, forgot to mention, I'm not using HQ for a supers game. I figured I'd start out with a fantasy-genre game (although not with all that funky Glorantha stuff), as that's closer to what ye system were originally intended to do, and works up from there.

And they're coming out with a superhero expansion? When?

Well, they're going to produce Questworlds (http://www.glorantha.com/news/ann_05_01.html) which will include superhero rules


Doc

[Chuckg]

*looks at Questworlds*

IT MUST BE MINE!!!

Faster, Issaries, faster!

Edit -- ... is there a playtest copy?

[Doc Democracy]

Not as far as I know... :mad:

[Steve Long]

One of the HeroQuest freelancers, Mark Galeotti, is a Hero fan and has posted here on the boards a few times. Not sure of his handle; he might be using his own name. Keep this thread active long enough and perhaps you can attract his attention and he might have some valuable input. ;)

[Doc Democracy]

Mark does use his own name - and you're right - he'd be an excellent source


Doc

[Chuckg]

Since I have absolutely no patience whatsoever, I just sent him a PM pointing him to this thread. :)

[Blue]

I'm always surprised when I see people dis Glorantha. I think it may be the most fun fantasy setting I ever played in.

Helped that my GM slept with a copy under his pillow.

[Chuckg]

I wasn't 'dissing' Glorantha so much as pointing out that it not only wasn't what I was trying to run, the magic and belief and metaphysics systems and etc. weren't even close enough for me to adopt and change the labels.

What I was trying to do was take the HeroQuest *engine* (which looks more beautiful the more I look at it), and apply it to less Glorantha-specific fantasy *settings*... like, oh, the Turakian Age, or Greyhawk, or things along that vein.

Edit: and now that I've heard about QuestWorld, my hindbrain is also whispering things to me about Traveller and cyberpunk conversions...

[Doc Democracy]

It's an excellent system for high fantasy, not so sure of its value for grittier campaigns.

I think it is also unique in its ability to deal with social and combat contests using the same mechanics and would even allow them to interact.


Doc

[Mark Galeotti]

Comrades!

Just letting you all know that I'm here! I need to finish some day-job writing tonight, but will get on to this tonight or tomorrow.

All the best

Mark

[Blue]

Lookit that! As if summoned!

[Steve Long]

Summon Mark Galeotti: Summon Mark Galeotti (an RPG writer built on, oh, let's say 75 Character Points), Specific Being (+1), Friendly (+1/4) (34 Active Points); Arrives Under Own Power (-1/2), Summoned Being Must Inhabit Locale (and have his attention attracted by two or three PMs; -1/2), Summoned Being Only Appears Virtually (-1/2). Total cost: 14 points.

Or I suppose one of us could just buy him as a Contact. ;)

[Steve Long]

Comrades!

Hey, waitaminnit h'yar... His sig says Mythic Russia, but he uses the term "Comrade" -- could this all be a Communist plot??!!?!??? ;)

[Blue]

What does that say about you, Mr. Summoner?

[Mark Galeotti]

Comrades!

A quick break from organised crime in Cuba to address some initial queries.

Yes, HQ is more cinematic than gritty, but there are various tweaks worth considering. Here are three:

1. Chained Contests

This may sound kinky, but it's actually a nice idea from Graham Robinson (http://grahamrobinson.com/glorantha/hw/house_rules.html) on how to use successive simple contests instead of extendeds. This was written for the original Hero Wars rules instead of HQ, but the only point to bear in mind is that we eliminated edges and handicaps in HQ, so you can ignore point 6.1.

2. Persistent Penalties

You can run extended contests as usual, but instead of just keeping a tally of current Advantage Points, also tally how many each participant loses. At the end, resolve the contest usually but also assume that the victor suffers a level of 'damage' based on final AP minus total AP lost.

This means that long back-and-forth contests can be very bruising. Consider 3 scenarios:
1. Lunar soldier A and Orlanthi warrior B are fighting and each has 30 AP. Soldier A make a daring attack, bidding all his AP and wins a decisive victory in his round, knocking B into minus figures. He has won and is unscratched.
2. A wins, but loses a few rounds with more cautious bids. In all, he ends with 15 AP and 15 AP: 15 - 15 = 0 AP or a Hurt.
3. A wins, but it's a long struggle in which first he was losing, then managed to wrench the ascendancy. He ends with 5 AP, but in the back and forth lost a total of 45 -- he's at -40, or Dying!

To some this is too harsh; you could rule that it is one level less (so he's be unhurt in example 2, Injured in example 3. The virtue is that it gives people a reason to pull out of extendeds, even if they are winning.

3. No Healing Magic

(Or at least make it rare).

I should add that the first two of these appear as optional rules in Mythic Russia.

More anon,

Mark

[Chuckg]

*looks at the 'Chained Simple Contests' rule*

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo... :thumbup:

Thanks!

[Mark Galeotti]

Another 'grit factor' people sometimes like is a greater sense of differentiation between weapons. Here's another optional rule from MR.



Optional Rule: Weapons with Detail
Some narrators and groups prefer their combat to be a little more detailed. Although one of the strengths of Mythic Russia is that combat is no different that any other contest, which would mean that there should be an equivalent list for, say, different kinds of trade goods for sale in the market or, indeed, different conversational gambits, this option is here for those who want a greater sense of differentiation between weapons.
All weapons and armours have a basic rating, as above, but also one or more specific abilities, which may be used where appropriate in their own right or to augment. Note that in some cases, abilities may provide penalties (for example, a spear’s Long 20 actually counts as a -2 fighting in a confined space) and some are intended as penalties outside combat (Heavy, for example, can penalise a hero’s ability to run long distances or jump wide chasms).

Dagger +1 (Quick 13)
Improvised Club +1 (Knock Out 13)
Mace +3 (Knock Out 14, Bash 10)
Sword/Sabre +3 (Cutting Slash 13)
Hatchet +1 (Chop Wood 15)
Axe +3 (Chop Wood 20)
Spear +3 (Long 20)
Great Sword +5 (Chop Through 15, Long 15, Mighty Swing 17)
Berdysh +5 (Chop Through 20, Long 20, Mighty Swing 20)
Self Bow +2 (Quick Reload 15)
Longbow +4 (Quick Reload 15)
Crossbow +5 (Armour Piercing 17, Slow to Load 5M)
Leather Jack +1
Medium Armour such as chainmail or scale-and-chain +3 (Heavy 10)
Full Plate Armour +5 (Heavy 20)
Shield +1

If narrators want, they are welcome to use the same approach for other pieces of equipment. It is, however, recommended that it be confined to special or unusual items. It may make sense to have Ornate Imported Venetian Robes +5 (Look Cosmpolitan 20, Look Rich 20), but Ordinary Tunic +1 (Nothing Special 5) is hardly worth detailing!

Special or named items will have a numerical rating (such as My Mother’s Wedding Dress 13M or the Axe of St Nikita 1M). Their rating can, of course, be used as an active ability, but otherwise they add the usual bonus, as above, and an additional one based on the auto-augment value of the rating, as discussed below (ie, the rating divided by 10, rounding 0.5 up), so that in combat, the Axe of St Nikita would be worth the standard +3 and an extra +2 from its own rating for a total +5, while in the right situation, the dress would get +3 over and above the appropriate rating from the dress. Especially important items could have several abilities. For example, the extraordinary Icon of St. Athanasius, painted by the equally extraordinary Andrei Rublev, has Do Not Lie 2M2, Evil Begone 10M and Dare to Chastise Princes 15M.
However, what can provide a bonus in some circumstances might incur penalties in others. Thus, a man in heavy armour is harder to hurt in battle… but will sink and drown all the more quickly when he falls through the ice (just ask the Teutonic Knights ­– see page xx). Likewise, the fine robes and exotic imported scent the hero donned to further his chances wooing the princess might make him rather less imposing when he tried to intimidate his way past the drunken vagabonds who waylay him on the street outside. In such cases, the hero suffers a penalty equal to the usual bonus, or even a multiple of the modifier. (This penalty usually does not take into account any extra bonuses an item may have for being magical or otherwise have a rating of its own.)

[Mark Galeotti]

Hey, waitaminnit h'yar... His sig says Mythic Russia, but he uses the term "Comrade" -- could this all be a Communist plot??!!?!??? ;)
Well, comradeship in Russia was always more myth than reality...

All the best, sorry, do svidanya

Mark

[Mark Galeotti]

Just one thing. The resolution system, which abstracts fights into a single die roll or series of die rolls that does *not* simulate blow-by-blow combat, seems to be a little weak re: handling conflicts with multiple protagonists vs. multiple antagonists.
One way to handle this is to make one character on each side the lead and everyone else augments/supports him, so its not, say 10 people vs 15, but 1 with 9 supporters vs 1 with 14.

All the best

Mark

[Chuckg]

This works for NPC boss villains surrounded by mooks.

It doesn't quite work for a gang of mooks.

It *definitely* doesn't work for a gang of PCs... nobody signed on to play to suddenly count as another PC's Follower or Sidekick.

[Mark Galeotti]

It *definitely* doesn't work for a gang of PCs... nobody signed on to play to suddenly count as another PC's Follower or Sidekick.
Obviously every gaming group has its own dynamic, but my experience has been that actually this isn't a problem; the situation only arises every now and then, but when it does there hasn't been an issue with one of the group taking point. After all, it is not generally the same hero, just whoever seems more suited to that challenge, and being a 'follower' is also a dynamic process in HQ as people come up with interesting ideas about just how they are contributing. But of course this is just an option, which may not work for you, or only is those more limited situations.

All the best

Mark

[Doc Democracy]

This works for NPC boss villains surrounded by mooks.

It doesn't quite work for a gang of mooks.

Yeah, but if you had a gang of mooks facing the group you would essentially write them up as Gang of Mooks and give abilities like "Overwhelm with numbers 17" and "Hail of arrows 5W". In the narrative you can detail mooks falling over and running away as the Gang loses APs.


It *definitely* doesn't work for a gang of PCs... nobody signed on to play to suddenly count as another PC's Follower or Sidekick.

I found my group quite happy to nominate the best person for the job and seek ways to support him. It is fine as long as the point man varies enough.


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

While its nice to see Mark here I'm afraid I have to upbraid his summoner - why hasn't he mentioned the reason we wanted him summoned? He hasn't even mentioned Questworlds! :)

Plugged Mythic Russia a few times though!!! :D


Doc

[Mark Galeotti]

While its nice to see Mark here I'm afraid I have to upbraid his summoner - why hasn't he mentioned the reason we wanted him summoned? He hasn't even mentioned Questworlds! :)
Well, the truth of the matter is that QW is rather further away; yes, it will have a supers genre chapter, but we are quite a way from having a draft manuscript submitted and certainly nowhere near having any kind of release date. I could't even say whether it would be a 2006 or 2007 release. Sorry!

All the best

Mark

[Chuckg]

*whimper*

2007?

[Mark Galeotti]

To be honest, it's really use to port HQ over to other genres, so while I appreciate your eagerness, you need not wait for GQ! One of the most assiduous converters has been Bruce Ferrie (he posts on RPGnet and the like as 'Captain Spaulding' -- his page @ http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/resources/index.htm includes notes on converting Buffy, Dr Who, Exalted, etc. A quick google will also find you converstions for Middle Earth, Star Wars, etc. Although I'm often a little unimpressed by the 'meta-ideology' of The Forge, the HQ forum there @ http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?f=13 is also both replete with such conversions and a great place to get advice and kibbitzing on the subject.

All the best

Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Mark

Are Bruce's supers notes being used for the Questworlds? Is that why they were taken down from his site?

I had been assiduously referring people to those pages from here...


Doc

[Chuckg]

WebArchive still has it (edit *again*) -- OK, if Mark says it's OK, then I guess it's OK. Link going back up.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040604050050/myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/resources/supers.htm

[Mark Galeotti]

Are Bruce's supers notes being used for the Questworlds? Is that why they were taken down from his site?
Yes; though as Chuckg has so helpfully pointed out, in the net goes does not always mean gone!

All the best

Mark

[Chuckg]

Ew. If they were removed from the web due to their being yanked for putting in an official game product later, I suppose I should take that link down, then. (edit) Or not. *shrug*

Also, behold the Wayback Machine's exclusion & removal policy (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html).

[Mark Galeotti]

Ew. If they were removed from the web due to their being yanked for putting in an official game product later, I suppose I should take that link down, then.
Thanks, but I wouldn't worry about it. Bruce was simply being extremely solicitous -- in any case, the final published version may bear little resemblance to his initial notes.

All the best

Mark

[DreadDomain]

Comrades!

Yes, HQ is more cinematic than gritty, but there are various tweaks worth considering. Here are three:

1. Chained Contests

2. Persistent Penalties

I should add that the first two of these appear as optional rules in Mythic Russia.

Mark

Great stuff! Have you considered a "named injury" system like Doc Democracy was suggesting earlier?

In any case, thanks for the previews and get that book out :)

[Doc Democracy]

Yes; though as Chuckg has so helpfully pointed out, in the net goes does not always mean gone!

I'm pleased. Bruce is one of the good guys and it was fun thrashing out details of how to do supers with him - even if he didn't take all my advice.


Doc

[DreadDomain]

Comrades!

2. Persistent Penalties

You can run extended contests as usual, but instead of just keeping a tally of current Advantage Points, also tally how many each participant loses. At the end, resolve the contest usually but also assume that the victor suffers a level of 'damage' based on final AP minus total AP lost.

This means that long back-and-forth contests can be very bruising. Consider 3 scenarios:
1. Lunar soldier A and Orlanthi warrior B are fighting and each has 30 AP. Soldier A make a daring attack, bidding all his AP and wins a decisive victory in his round, knocking B into minus figures. He has won and is unscratched.
2. A wins, but loses a few rounds with more cautious bids. In all, he ends with 15 AP and 15 AP: 15 - 15 = 0 AP or a Hurt.
3. A wins, but it's a long struggle in which first he was losing, then managed to wrench the ascendancy. He ends with 5 AP, but in the back and forth lost a total of 45 -- he's at -40, or Dying!

To some this is too harsh; you could rule that it is one level less (so he's be unhurt in example 2, Injured in example 3. The virtue is that it gives people a reason to pull out of extendeds, even if they are winning.

Mark

It just occurred to me that strange results could happen with such a system.

Let's say that A and B are fight and that the momentum is swinging back and forth. A finally wins when B gets to -1 AP. B is hurt. On is side, A is at 5 AP but lost a total of 40 AP in the fight so he is dying. This could be seen as a quite heroic battle were A finally barely defeated his bitter enemy almost sacrificing his life in the making BUT what if B, in the back and forth struggle, also lost 40 AP? He lost as much AP than A but because he lost, he is only hurt while the winner is left dying. That would be weird wouldn't it?

The more I think about it, the more I like Doc Democracy's way...

[Mark Galeotti]

It just occurred to me that strange results could happen with such a system.

Let's say that A and B are fight and that the momentum is swinging back and forth. A finally wins when B gets to -1 AP. B is hurt. On is side, A is at 5 AP but lost a total of 40 AP in the fight so he is dying. This could be seen as a quite heroic battle were A finally barely defeated his bitter enemy almost sacrificing his life in the making BUT what if B, in the back and forth struggle, also lost 40 AP? He lost as much AP than A but because he lost, he is only hurt while the winner is left dying. That would be weird wouldn't it?
Remember that the goal of a contest need not be the kill the enemy. In your example, would A be satisfied with leaving B at -1 AP? His goal might have been to force B away from the door he was gaurding (so A's friends can flee) or whatever. But ultimately this creates additional break points in the contest and additional tactical/moral quandries. Essentially, what is A prepared to risk or suffer in order to beat B?

It's optional precisely because it changes the dynamic of contests in that at present in most cases the victor is completely unharmed, but in playtests people seemed to like it. If A doesn't want to take chances, he can break off as soon as his tally of total lost AP starts to mount up, rather than staying in the fight, regardless of the blood dripping from his wounds, the pain of broken bones...

All the best

Mark

[Doc Democracy]

If A doesn't want to take chances, he can break off as soon as his tally of total lost AP starts to mount up, rather than staying in the fight, regardless of the blood dripping from his wounds, the pain of broken bones...

You mean he can try and break off yes? :) Changing contest goals mid-stream and using movement abilities to get away rather than combat ones? This is where HeroQuest gets complicated even to HQ people!


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Let's say that A and B are fight and that the momentum is swinging back and forth. A finally wins when B gets to -1 AP. B is hurt. On is side, A is at 5 AP but lost a total of 40 AP in the fight so he is dying. This could be seen as a quite heroic battle were A finally barely defeated his bitter enemy almost sacrificing his life in the making BUT what if B, in the back and forth struggle, also lost 40 AP? He lost as much AP than A but because he lost, he is only hurt while the winner is left dying. That would be weird wouldn't it?

Well, you have to embrace the system to get this. It is a system for storytelling and as such that dying hero is just another element in the story. He has defeated his ancient foe yet the victory could slip from his fingers as, from a wound taken in that epic battle, his life leaks away. What next?

On a narrative level this is an excellent outcome that could not have resulted from most systems and makes the player consider the situation in another light.

Doc

[DreadDomain]

Remember that the goal of a contest need not be the kill the enemy.

Yes I am aware of that but for the sake of argumentation let's say A and B wants to kill each other. The goal in my example is not really important. The point is that it COULD happen that the loser lost as many AP, if not even more, than the winner but can end up better off because he lost.



In your example, would A be satisfied with leaving B at -1 AP?

Which brings an interesting question. A won (but is dying), B lost (but is merely hurt). Is there any reason for A NOT to take a final action, bet all his (original) AP? If he wins, B could end up in a much worst state. If he lose it doesn't change anything since he was already dying. Heck in some cases even if he loses the exchange so badly that he must transfer to is enemy, he could end up losing but in a much better condition than in victory and vice versa for B.


It's optional precisely because it changes the dynamic of contests in that at present in most cases the victor is completely unharmed, but in playtests people seemed to like it.

I personally think it is the worst feature of HQ, hence my interest for these optional rules.

Which brings me to this :


Well, you have to embrace the system to get this. It is a system for storytelling and as such that dying hero is just another element in the story. He has defeated his ancient foe yet the victory could slip from his fingers as, from a wound taken in that epic battle, his life leaks away. What next?

On a narrative level this is an excellent outcome that could not have resulted from most systems and makes the player consider the situation in another light.


Oh! there doesn't lie my problem. My problem is that if this model doesn't make sense mathematically or logical (my example) but answers the goal of the author (Mark) narratively (your example), I'd like it to be spelled out in the book so that the readers know that the author knows exactly what he is doing and that the strange results are a feature, not a bug.
Otherwise, we will hear about this "screwed up murphy's rule" for years to come :rolleyes:

Ahhh! It feels good to speak about MR. The combinaison of HQ and Medieval Russia. You can't go wrong with this...

[Chuckg]

Which brings an interesting question. A won (but is dying), B lost (but is merely hurt). Is there any reason for A NOT to take a final action, bet all his (original) AP?

You can't take a final action unless a) there is a group extended contest in progress and everybody's turned their back on you and left you for dead, or b) you are the *winner* of an extended contest.

[Mark Galeotti]

While its nice to see Mark here I'm afraid I have to upbraid his summoner - why hasn't he mentioned the reason we wanted him summoned? He hasn't even mentioned Questworlds! :)

Plugged Mythic Russia a few times though!!! :D

Doc
Though of course if I really wanted to plug Mythic Russia, I'd be drawing people's attention to http://www.firebird-productions.com/ordering.htm ...

All the best

Mark