Newbie and some questions about AP

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, having re-read the pertinent sections, I'm thinking that the intent of the rule is to say something like, if you don't know, use 14, if you know the character doesn't have any of that for sure, then use 6.

But, basically, it's unclear. The way that I've got it above is how I will play, personally, but I think other interpretations will be just as valid.

Mike

[lightcastle]

You post a question, your computer crashes, and not only is your question addressed by the time you get back, but an entire side thread about resistance has started. :)

To return to my original question, I understand the interpretation of using the snappy patter in combat.  And I suppose that I would even understand the idea of letting the player lead with it (getting an opponent so riled up they screw up royally).

Hell, you could make the argument that this is what our Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man does all the time.  

I also realize that while my first instinct was to limit it to an augment since at some point the person DOES have to be fighting, I realize that isn't a problem either. Because the opposing swordsman gets to use his swordsmanship when it is HIS turn to go, forcing our witty fast-talker to resist with either some kind of evading or combat maneuver.  (Mind you, this means I WOULDN'T let fast talker use the ability in a simple contest, only as an augment.)

I knew I liked this system.

So... next question. What happens when your goals change in mid contest? Not just what you are using to accomplish your goals, but an entire change of goal.  

i.e. The heros are fleeing their foes-- racing to get somewhere before time runs out.  They suddenly decide that even if they fail to get there on time, it's not that bad and turn to have it out with their pursuers in a big knock-down.

Do I just start AP over from scratch? (That's certainly my first instinct, they've now chosen an entirely different conflict, so things start anew.)

How about a situation where the change is more subtle, and some advantage gained should logically carry over?  Say some kind of tournament fight -- non-lethal and for honour -- Suddenly the hero's rival, realizing the match is being lost, grabs a real weapon and turns it into lethal combat.

Just keep the AP and add the weapon bonus to the rolls? Start AP over again, but bring in some kind of effect from the advantage the hero already had?

Any suggestions?

[Wulf]

So... next question. What happens when your goals change in mid contest? Not just what you are using to accomplish your goals, but an entire change of goal.  

i.e. The heros are fleeing their foes-- racing to get somewhere before time runs out.  They suddenly decide that even if they fail to get there on time, it's not that bad and turn to have it out with their pursuers in a big knock-down.

How about a situation where the change is more subtle, and some advantage gained should logically carry over?  Say some kind of tournament fight -- non-lethal and for honour -- Suddenly the hero's rival, realizing the match is being lost, grabs a real weapon and turns it into lethal combat.

In both cases, so long as the action is continuous, I would simply have characters change Ability (or, in the second case, have the player declare an action to 'augment' his ability with his weapon bonus). Exaustion from the chase would lower AP in the first case, as would surprise at the change in situation, so I wouldn't make it a new contest. Actually, tiring out your opponent isn't a bad way to start a fight...

If, on the other hand, the chase was effectively non-interactive, the pursuers were out of sight and following the PCs trail, rather than actually chasing them, I'd say that changing to a fight was a new contest.

Wulf

[simon_hibbs]

I also realize that while my first instinct was to limit it to an augment since at some point the person DOES have to be fighting, I realize that isn't a problem either. Because the opposing swordsman gets to use his swordsmanship when it is HIS turn to go, forcing our witty fast-talker to resist with either some kind of evading or combat maneuver.  (Mind you, this means I WOULDN'T let fast talker use the ability in a simple contest, only as an augment.)

This realy is a vital point that is often overlooked. You can't use 'Witty Reartee' to either defend against a physical attack or win a combat, but you can use it to ridicule an opponent while he's attacking you - whatever good that does you!

So... next question. What happens when your goals change in mid contest? Not just what you are using to accomplish your goals, but an entire change of goal.  

I've never had a problem with this, but I can see how the current rules might be manipulated for an (arguably) unfair advantage. I think with a bit of creativity a wide variety of abilities athat at first glance don't seem apropriate can be pressed into useful service in unlikely-looking contests. The same goes fro changes in goals.

For example suppose you're in a fight and are losing. You reckon that your character is probably a lot quicker footed than your opponent so you switch goals to running away. Your opponent pursues, but is quite slow so you gain a bunch of APs. Next you switch to attacking your opponent again. Fair? Well, perhaps your opponent is more puffed than you, or you were able to set up an ambush situation, or you just had more time to think up a better attack strategy.

I'm all for rewarding creative use of abilities in HeroQuest, but I do think that puts a certain onus on the players to come up with sensible, viable strategies. Just saying "I'm using ability X in this contest because... er... in HQ you're supposed to be able to use lots of abilities for different things" doesn't cut it.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

This realy is a vital point that is often overlooked. You can't use 'Witty Reartee' to either defend against a physical attack or win a combat, but you can use it to ridicule an opponent while he's attacking you - whatever good that does you!

I'm a little softer on this issue - I only say that it's a question of appropriateness. Which will differ with different groups and GM's making the call. Yeah, sometimes I suppose that the abilites are so odd that a particular resistance is useless. But more often I'd "inform" with an Improv Mod. I mean it's possible that someone could insult another person so harshly as to get them to go home with their tail between their legs. Or at least I think some groups would find that a feasible result.

What is good about requiring "appropriate" resisting abilities is that it does encourage people to be the aggressor so that they can choose the arena of conflict first. It gives players an incentive to employ their abilities rather than wait and discover that they don't have anything that makes sense to defend against someone else's "attack."

In any case, in the play that I've seen, players always choose fairly appropriate stuff anyhow. I've yet to see somebody choose an ability just because it was high and they wanted to "win".

For example suppose you're in a fight and are losing. You reckon that your character is probably a lot quicker footed than your opponent so you switch goals to running away. Your opponent pursues, but is quite slow so you gain a bunch of APs. Next you switch to attacking your opponent again. Fair? Well, perhaps your opponent is more puffed than you, or you were able to set up an ambush situation, or you just had more time to think up a better attack strategy.

Again, I don't see players doing this in an abusive fashion. I'd work with the player to come up with some of the explanations that you did. I think that, with creativity, you can almost always come up with something that makes sense. As long as I think the player is just trying to make a more interesting game, I'll go for it. And since I've not seen any abuse of the system yet, I can't imagine a situation where we wouldn't work something out. Either we'd come up with a suitable explanation together, or the player would just find something else.

Heck, if this was a combat with an archer, changing to footracing would, to me, be a completely appropriate form of gain for AP. :-)

I guess that my point is that the question is whether or not a player trying to have their character win in a situation in HQ is going to constitute abuse. I think as long as they "pay" for their creative uses of abilities by ensuring that it all seems to make sense after the fact, they've earned the right to use whatever number they like on the sheet.

I think that'll be my guiding principle from now on, in fact (and I think it's more or less what I've been doing all along). If I think you put the effort in to declaring the use of an ability in a way that seems plausible, then no matter how creative, you get to use it. I think this is precisely what the rules are intended to support. My clarification here is only that I put the onus on the player to make his case, not on the GM to arbitrarily choose what's plausible and what's not.

Meaning I think we're all on the same page in terms of practice - we've just got slightly varying methods for determining what's plausible.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

My clarification here is only that I put the onus on the player to make his case, not on the GM to arbitrarily choose what's plausible and what's not.

I very much like that rule -- it gives a lot of control and focus over to the players, allowing them to effectivly protagonize their characters without having to come to the GM with hat in hand.

As for worries of abuse, I suppose it comes down to a matter of social contract and game expectation. In every HeroQuest game I've played the dymanic of the group was very much on making a story together and playing dynamic protagonists. If that's the emphasis, then abuse of the system to "win" a contest through cheese isn't going to be a problem.

In Mike's Shadow World Hero Quest game, for example, the players often tell each other things OOCly to help screw over their own characters. "Oh Lahn, use my Patricide flaw to agument your Torment Thomas With Evil Ghosts action!" At that point the idea of cheesing to win just never occurs to anyone.

[Mike Holmes]

In Mike's Shadow World Hero Quest game, for example, the players often tell each other things OOCly to help screw over their own characters. "Oh Lahn, use my Patricide flaw to agument your Torment Thomas With Evil Ghosts action!" At that point the idea of cheesing to win just never occurs to anyone.

Yeah, I won't say that HQ can't be played by Min-maxing gamists, or isn't. But it really doesn't support it, and no play that I've seen has ever shown even the slightest inclination towards abuse of any sort. Rather, as you say Brand, the opposite.

For instance, I love how Nathan volunteered to take on a Wants Marek 5W flaw as the result of losing that contest with him. I told him that -50% to resist in the future was probably more than enough, but, oh no, Nathan had to have the ability to represent it permenantly. :-)

I fully expect that, at some point, Nathan will use this as a bonus on some rolls. But I also know that he understands that I'm going to hose him as hard as I can with that ability at every opportunity. Basically he knows that flaws, used either way, make just as much of a protagonist as any other ability does.

I think he got that from seeing the effect of Chris's self imposed love flaw. Now everyone is going to want one. :-)

Protagonism ~= (Sum(ability)+Sum(abs(flaw)))^2

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

I think he got that from seeing the effect of Chris's self imposed love flaw. Now everyone is going to want one. :-)

Damn! I was going to take a "Trusts Regina" flaw to represent the growing relationship there and the several times she's talked him around to something -- but now everyone will just think I'm a biter. ;)

Protagonism ~= (Sum(ability)+Sum(abs(flaw)))^2

Very true. I'd also like to note this is something that HeroQuest encourages in a lot of subtle ways that a lot of RPGdom has always punished. We all know of the need to win and the need to not get into danger or have weakness that plauges RPGs due to abuse, disfunction, and so on -- but all of my HeroQuest experiences have led to flawed heroes who kicked ass because of their flaws and became protagonists because they sometimes lose.

[Mike Holmes]

...but all of my HeroQuest experiences have led to flawed heroes who kicked ass because of their flaws and became protagonists because they sometimes lose.

Very true. I think that it's so important that losing in HQ makes your character more interesting, not less. Most of the time losing in an RPG means that the character is dead, or closer to dead, or just hits a dead end in progressing towards a goal. HQ just tacks another neat number to play with on the character and says, "Now what are you going to do about that?"

Key.

So, LC, does any of this help with giving you an idea of how to judge abilities used in extended contests? If you've got a group that you trust, then it's just a matter of working with them to ensure that whatever is declared is good for the narrative. Think of yourself as a facilitator, not a limiter, and it all works great.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Meaning I think we're all on the same page in terms of practice - we've just got slightly varying methods for determining what's plausible.

I think that about sums it up perfectly. (So is there an easy default to make that quote above say "Mike Holmes wrote:" that I missed?)

One of the reasons I hunted HeroQuest down (hard to find in Montreal for whatever reason I cannot fathom) involves the way it promotes that kind of thinking.

And luckily enough, assuming I do successfully poach players from the DnD group my friend is running I shouldn't have problems with people trying to break it -- this is a group that ends up with players playing characters having low Wisdom by foolishly doing things that they (as experienced players) know are going to put them into trouble. I think they are going to LOVE this.

I'll add that Mike's line about making the player argue the case is probably what suits my mindset as well. If you can make it make sense, then great.  I think for questions of changing contests, I'll have that go on a case by case basis how much influence the earlier contest has.

I'm sure once I actually run my first game this weekend I'll end up with all sorts of new questions to bug you all with. :)

[Mike Holmes]

I think that about sums it up perfectly.

Cool.

(So is there an easy default to make that quote above say "Mike Holmes wrote:" that I missed?)

The only way that I know of is to copy the first tag that comes up when you click the "quote" button (instead of reply). Other than that, you have to type the code yourself.

And luckily enough, assuming I do successfully poach players from the DnD group my friend is running I shouldn't have problems with people trying to break it -- this is a group that ends up with players playing characters having low Wisdom by foolishly doing things that they (as experienced players) know are going to put them into trouble. I think they are going to LOVE this.

Sounds like it. Sell them flaws as "free" abilites that tend to be double edged. Players hop on that with wild abandon.

I'm sure once I actually run my first game this weekend I'll end up with all sorts of new questions to bug you all with. :)

Cool, look forward to it.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Sounds like it. Sell them flaws as "free" abilites that tend to be double edged. Players hop on that with wild abandon.

I fully expect so. One of my players once wanted to make a superhero that was a 6' man with a fish head in a tuxedo who spoke entirely in non-sequitors and shot lightning from a giant tuning fork.

He's been waiting for a system like this for years. :)

[buserian]

(So is there an easy default to make that quote above say "Mike Holmes wrote:" that I missed?)

The only way that I know of is to copy the first tag that comes up when you click the "quote" button (instead of reply). Other than that, you have to type the code yourself.

Actually, if you click the "Quote" button in the upper right hand of any given posting, that entire posting is quoted in the manner described.

buserian

[Mike Holmes]

That's what I said...

That only makes the name come up at the very beginning. If you want to do multiple quotes with that tag, then you have to copy and paste it.

Mike