Missile combat

[Snowden]

I'm new to Heroquest, and will be hopefully running it for a few friends within a week or two.  They're mostly current/ex D&D players, so I've been trying to get a handle on some of the issues that may come up.  For instance: even after reading the rules and various threads on this group, I'm still not sure what will be the best way to run missile combat.  Some of the suggestions revolve around augmenting or AP lending, but I'd like to provide a more active and "traditional" option.  I think this is the best I've come up with:

At the start of a conflict, characters armed with missile weapons can choose to stand apart from the main battle.  Other characters without ranged spells or missile weapons cannot attack them directly until they have "closed" with them by winning a fairly serious bid (50% of starting AP?) using a movement ability; once they have done this the archer's missile bonus no longer counts against them (perhaps they are even penalized?), and they can attack normally.  Additionally, I would probably allow archers to make as many Final Actions as they wanted to (i.e. "reload" their AP) as long as no-one had closed with them to interfere.

Does this sound reasonable?

Morgan (first time poster, long time reader)
[edited to fix the title, which no longer applied]

[Brand_Robins]

Sounds like a decent start.

The one thing I'd say is that it's generally a bad idea to start out with a preset "correct" amount of AP needed to close the distance. Whether you're playing Sim or Nar, having a preset default amount like that makes the situation far more static than it should be for a HQ contest. Sim wise it negates the abilities of people in the world to use tactics and creativity to change the situations and seems to assume missile fighters stand there and only shoot and melee fighters only try to close the distance by running at them. Nar wise it forces the non-missilers into a box where they have to make a deterministic number of bids rather than being dramatic.

To give examples of what I mean, let's suppose the following situations:

There is a group of archer up on a wall, defending a keep for example, and a PC on their side on the ground below. The fight moves around, and the PC ends up climbing the wall and taking up a bow. Does he suddenly move into the "aside" position, despite having been down in it before? What if he leaves the missile position? What if he gets up there just before someone from the other side comes over the wall, and he shoots them at close range while the other archers scatter?

There's a fight in relatively open ground, in which one group is armed mostly with hand to hand weapons and the other has lots of bowmen. The melee group tries to close the ground – but the missile group doesn't let them, actively using their own abilities to keep their distance. What does this do to the AP bidding situation? What if the melee group then remembers they have a bunch of slingers who can outrange the archers and switches attack modes? Or if they realize there is a ravine a half-mile over they could use for cover to sneak around to flank the archers?

What if the archer group is set up and ready to fire, and the non-archer group sends forward their general, a blazing golden hero, who orders to archers to flee – making a presence attack? Or if the melee fighters bring forward the archers' children and tie them in a picket line in front of their advance? Or if one of the melee fighters catches their arrows and hurls them back at them?

HQ extended contests need to be fluid and dramatic (or tactical, in the sense of being able to use real-world tactics rather than game-mechanical tactics) if they're going to pack a punch. Thus I feel strongly that you need to let the amount of AP be determined by the situation. Your basic idea is solid (make actions/gain AP to close the distance; can't melee attack/can't missile attack) – but I'd caution you against presetting a "correct" amount of AP to do it. Let the actions the players take determine how many AP it's going to cost, and work from there.

(P.S. Did you read the Narrator's Advice column about this issue at http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_ranged.html?)

[Snowden]

Thanks for the link; I'd seen that site but managed to miss that article.  It sounds like they're suggesting a more fluid version of what I was thinking.  There are a few details that still aren't totally clear, but I think I'll cross those bridges when I come for them instead of nitpicking myself to death in advance.

Thanks again; I'm glad to see that I was on the (or at least a) right track!

[Mike Holmes]

Heh, the "they" in the article is the same guy as you're taking to above.


The less easy to understand, but deeper version of all of this is this principle: Every situation is different, but there's always a multitude of plausible ways to portray anything you want to portray with the HQ extended contest system."

I'm always amused that people have a particular problem with the missile weapon thing. Because its merely adherence to a point of view related to that "tradional" style that you reference that makes missiles any different than any other contest.

For a zen moment try this out: there is no differnce between how you handle one HQ contest and another that's not simply attention to the details of the contest.

There's simply no difference at all in how missile combat works as compared to a hostile takeover of a multinational company. The only difference is in the details that you'll narrate.

Now you say to me, "How can a character in a missile combat get "hurt" when they're not actually in contact with the enemy. To which I respond, "how can a CEO of a multi-national be removed from his seat, if he's not been proven to have committed a crime?"

The answer is that he can't. Rather, the answer is always that some prior narration has to have occured to make it possible. So, just as you find it plausible that the distance would need to be closed, I'd say that it's important for someone to plant evidence on the CEO first. Or, alternately, that the archers run low on ammunition, or that some digging is done on the CEO that shows he was involved in problematic accounting practices.

The answer is always that before you can narrate X effect in any contest, you have to first have narrated it to a situation where X is plausible, first. Which is obvious to everyone, really - but for some reason, missile combat people see as somehow different. But that's only because they're thinking in terms of hand to hand combat where you're together to start, and attacking is plausible.

One last Koan: You and you're opponent have massive battle axes. You want to kill him, but he wants to run away. Between you is the plaza of the imperial city in china. In the contest to bring him down, what has to happen first?

Mike

[Snowden]

Brand, sorry I didn't pick up on the fact that you wrote that article; I didn't realize the Long Arm Of The Forge reached that far!


Mike, although your CEO-on-CEO example is different in terms of color, I think the dynamics are basically the same as in any other normal contest: two opponents engaged in a contest in which each side has equal opportunities to affect the other.  This is an area where Heroquest really makes sense to me, in theory at least.  However, the reason "missile combat" seems tricky is that I see its unequal nature as being tactically AND dramatically fundamental: a bunch of lightly armored bowmen at the top of a wall are boring unless they've somehow "got the drop on" their stronger, better armed, and more numerous opponents in the melee down below.


After re-reading some of the rules again, maybe I can express my issue in more mechanical terms:

1.  If A (Archery 6W, Brawl 17) shoots at B (Brawl 12W2, Dodge 13), she will start off with 26AP against 13AP; B will have to close a lot of distance (both literally and in terms of AP) to have a chance, even once she gets to start using that Brawl ability.  Works for me.

2.  If B (Brawl 12W2, Dodge 13) swings at A (Archery 6W, Brawl 17), she will start off with 52AP against 17AP; A's longbow isn't much good for fighting up close.  Again, works for me.

3.  If A (Archery 6W, Brawl 17) hangs back and shoots while C (Brawl 13) goes toe-to-toe with B (Brawl 12W2, Dodge 13), they'll start out with 26AP for A, 13AP for C, and 52AP for B; B is now better off than in example 1, even though she now has to deal with one more opponent.

Does this make any more sense?


[Edited to take a crack at the koan:]
If this was a big, dramatic moment and the Imperial City was a big deal, I would probably give the plaza "Interfere With Duel 14W," put it on the villain's side, and let them all have at it!  Any lasting "damage" to the plaza might reflect poorly on our hero's reputation in town, of course...

[NickHollingsworth]

However, the reason "missile combat" seems tricky is that I see its unequal nature as being tactically AND dramatically fundamental.

Archery is a great example of this principle: to perform any action the facts in play must support it. This often means you must perform some other action first so that they do.  Or as Mike succinctly said:

before you can narrate X effect in any contest, you have to first have narrated it to a situation where X is plausible

Replace 'X effect' with 'attempting action X' and you will see they are the same thing.

In this case there is a fact against the brawlers, namely they are a long way away from the archers. There is deliberately no set way to apply this situation or the infinate others that the principle covers. As always it is left to the GM and the group to decide what way best fits the situation and their level of interest in the scene.

There are plenty of options for you and the players:

You can rule that brawling is just plain invalid. Before they can brawl they must succeed at an action to close the distance.

You can represent the action as an AP amount that must be bid to represent closing the distance. Or an additional AP amount over and above the bid to represent the asymetric nature of the situation.  For example if the distance requires 20 AP to cover then then on a successful bid of 30AP the distance has been closd and the archers lose 10AP.

You can apply the distance as a situational modifier against the brawlers. For example you might say its worth 20 off their skill to take account of having to close. Success means they closed and brawled, failure that they are still some way off.

You can suggest the brawlers do something that isn't invalidated by the distance or is affected less. Perhaps Looking Dangerous might be enough that a good victory shakes the archers.

You might present the opposing fact as an opponent in the contest. To get rid of the fact they must remove it from the contest. This is what you suggest in your answer to the koan and its a nice answer. In this case the distance probably wont attack back, but there is no reason why it should't. If the gap between the archers and the brawlers had been described as a muddy hill that must be climbed then it would make sense for it to attack on its turn to see if the brawlers slide back down.

And sometimes you might just ignore the issue. This is perfectly ok if no one at the table is that bothered, which is to say that they are really bothered about something else and this would just distract from it. just because you dont introduce the issue mechanically does not stop you from narrating results that describe it.

I dare say there are other options.
[/list:u]

Which one is right? Whichever suits your needs as a group. Just choose the one that feels right for the moment. Encourage the players to speak up when they see alternatives they would prefer.

Dont get hung up on 'modelling it properly'. There is no properly; there is only satisfyingly. There is no one way to show in in  film, so there is no one way to handle it in a contest.  Its utterly subjective.

You may be right to do it one way one day and do it a different way the next even in identical circumstances, simply because the second time you were all tired or you didn't have long left or your focus of interest was slightly different. For a player from a D&D or Runequest background this would seem like a fudge. They may see it as a sensible fudge or invalidating play. But these are all valid reasons; such concerns are central to this style of play. Its

why the rules are the way they are and dont lay down correct ways of doing specific things. And its why most of the early fan-base (who were pretty much all hardcore Runequest players) struggled for the first year.

So: exercises like this are helpful to open your mind up to the possibilities. But then forget them. Go and play and make it up as you go.

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, Nick, well said.

I think that not worrying about it is probably the best suggestion, truth be told. As Ron said early in his discussions about the game, stuff like this never comes up in play. For example, for this to be a problem, several things would have to occur.
[list=1][*]A is the hero that belongs to a character. If B is the hero will his player complain about the extra AP?
[*]B must be attacking C first, because if A or C attack first, their side declares actions first, and B has to defend against A's archery with Dodge just like in example one. Further, like Nick says, if it really bugs you, say that he has to use Dodge anyhow, even if he attacks first (pushes the rules around slightly, but there's precedent).
[*]Example #3 has to happen right after example 1 for anyone to remember the details. And you should never run two extended contests end to end. Actually if you ran this as two separate extended contests simultaneously, that would be OK, and solve the problem. Add that to Nick's list above. Further, it's a violation of the "same contest" rule to run these end to end. Basically, somebody is going to have to recal far back to another similar contest and how it was run.
[*]B must win the contest. Because if A wins, against bigger odds, then why would he be unhappy? And B is very unlikely to win example 3, because he's going to have a hard time winning any of the rolls to close the distance.
[*]Lastly the player of A must not realize that losing in HQ is fun, and be really worried about the "fairness" of it. Or he'll be happy to be clobbered by the impressive brawler. I'd be. I'd be all like, "Dude, that guy managed to cross the distance between us while I was firing, and smashed my dude's butt! It's going to be really fun to get him back!"[/list:o]

IOW, this is just never a problem in play. Well, it's only a problem if you come into play with certain false assumptions. Like:

[*]Fights are "combats" which mean the goal is to kill the other side.
[*]Combats are special and require extended contests.
[*]Combats are special and require contests to resolve.
[*]The resolution system models the in-game "reality" of the situation.
[*]etc.[/list:u]
Or is your problem still with the idea that the archer can be harmed at range (you actually seem to be looking at two different things)? Because that's something you have to deal with no matter what - Brand's essay notwithstanding.

Let's say you start with situation 3, but with A attacking first, giving B only 13 AP. Here's how it might play out: first round, A fires at B, who has not yet had a chance to act. He decides to bid 14 AP, to put B out of action immediately. But, oops, A rolls a crit fail (and has to HP), and B rolls a crit success. A bumps up because of his mastery, but that still means a x2 Transfer. Putting A out of the competition.

So you're going to need to explain this. If you are able to explain this "worst case scenario," then everything else should work out fine. If you can't, if it seems utterly incongrous to you, then there are fundamental things you don't understand about how the game plays that are going to prevent it from ever making sense.

Generally, don't try to make the in-game situation be modeled by the mechanics, use the mechanics to create in-game situation.

Mike

[Snowden]

Nick, thanks for the suggestions; there are several that look like they could be helpful depending on how much I/the players want to emphasize the distance issue.  It's funny, because that answer to the koan didn't occur to me until I saw the distance between the two combatants as interesting in its own right (i.e. "the bustling imperial plaza" instead of just "twenty yards of open field") -- I'm going to have to get used to using my imagination in new areas!

Mike, I do hear what you're saying and I'm totally comfortable with the idea that an archer can be "harmed" at range through exhaustion, nerves, lack of ammunition, dropping their weapon, obstructions, closing distance, and so on!  However, I still think there is an area of the rules that is somewhat fuzzy: when several characters engage in a group contest that allows them to use a variety of abilities, AP calculations can get weird.  I seem to remember someone suggesting using fixed starting AP to avoid this problem, and letting the abilities used in each exchange be the only source of advantage/disadvantage.  I'm not ready to make this drastic a change without trying the rules as written, but I'm also trying to avoid creating a situation where the players feel that their expectations (for instance, that it's a good idea to have missile-equipped PCs hang back while melee-oriented ones engage the enemy up close) are being stretched too far.  I don't think this represents artificial D&D-think, so I hope to find some way to support it through the rules if it comes up.

There has been a lot of really great input on this thread, some of which will probably help me out well beyond the narrow situation I've described.  At this point I think my remaining "issue" with the rules is over initial AP calculation, and it seems like one that has come up before without an easily apparent solution; it also seems like a lot of people have found it not to be a big deal in practice, which seems reasonable enough.  I'm going to stop worrying and file this under "cross that bridge when we come to it"!

[Mike Holmes]

I was just going to leave this lie, but I can't resist one more comment.

I seem to remember someone suggesting using fixed starting AP to avoid this problem, and letting the abilities used in each exchange be the only source of advantage/disadvantage.

There's a very similar POV here which makes a lot of sense. That is, instead of thinking in terms of the "response" to something being the first action that's taken, think of it as the response overall.

That is, the rules as they stand try to reinforce a certain notion that's the cause of much of the problem, which is that your advantage is based on the skill you're forced to use primarily to "defend yourself" against your opponent. This is why B has to use Dodge at all - because it makes a kind of "sense" that he can't use his "brawl" to stop arrows.

But that's very "task" based thinking. That assumes that the only action that's going to happen between now and A or B getting their goal is the primary response. Or rather that this somehow sets the tone.

Well, if you take the long view, then you can see that in fact, in getting certain goals, all sorts of abilities can be used. The point being that at some point B's brawling may come into effect in the contest. As such, shouldn't he be given the benefit of the doubt on that when the contest starts?

That is, the "problem" in this case can be as easily solved by allowing B to use his brawl ability in both case 1 and case 3 to set AP. Ah, you say, but shouldn't he have a problem getting to the archer? To which I reply that he already does. It's represented by the character having to roll his dodge on approach. In fact, again, if you set up A and B in this circumstance and give B the 52 AP, I think that it's telling that A will still win most of the time.

So doesn't he already have the advantage of range? He does. So why do we need to penalize B a second time for being at range? We don't.

So, from this POV, simply choose any ability that the character intends to use as primary to the conflict and give him AP based on that. It still has to make sense, and you can still penalize it with modifiers. So if Brawl doesn't seem as applicable to you, you can still give it a -10 or whatever, which will affect that AP total.

Yes, this alters the rules ever so slightly. But if you're thinking of making a change to a "flat" rate, it's a smaller change in the rules, and a better one, I think to say that the character gets AP equal to some "primary" ability. And, if you're interested, this is how I play.

This makes things more dramatic, too, IMO. If A is the player, he's worried that B has more AP and that he has to keep him at bay with his bow, or he's in trouble against that big pile of AP charging him. When he wins, the big bralwler falling at his feet, just shy of pounding him, it'll be all the more exciting.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

So, from this POV, simply choose any ability that the character intends to use as primary to the conflict and give him AP based on that... Yes, this alters the rules ever so slightly... This makes things more dramatic, too, IMO.

It may make things more narrative based, but it does also change one of the semi-sim ideas behind the extended contest rules -- that he who sets the contest sets the stage.

As it stands there is a big reason to be the person who initiates a contest, as you get to force where things happen and how they can be responded to in terms of starting AP amounts. Thus the smart archer starting at a distance from the guy with a high brawl/low dodge is a good move, and by being the one who sets the stage he gets the advantage. Being able to determine what abilities the opponent can use for their AP calculation is a huge thing, and changing that ability will alter the way the game plays.

Not that I'm saying it would alter it badly -- but it isn't really that small of a change.  

For the record, I do this when two sides "start up" at more or less the same time. If the archer and brawler spot each other at the same time and both declare, then they can both use their good ability. If one proactivly sets the situation up,  I use the default rules.

[Snowden]

Mike, that seems like a solid compromise between the somewhat dry "fixed AP" system and the current one; I may give it a shot if this kind of thing becomes an issue.  If it doesn't come up at all, I still appreciate the feedback!

On a more theoretical basis, I still think the fixed AP idea is really interesting.  I wonder if this could be tied into either an AP point pool system or some kind of bidding mechanic that would cause the severity of your outcome (if defeated) to the amount of AP you'd decided to start with, instead of how far into negative AP your opponent had driven you.  The more AP you take up front, the harder you fall if you lose...

That may be a topic for another thread, though!  I'll stick it in a time capsule and re-open it when I have a little more HQ experience.

[Mike Holmes]

Oooh, a gambling mechanism. I like those. :-)

I've proposed an alternate system that's similar to what you're proposing here, in that you build up to a total, instead of tearing a total down. How long you go before stopping is part of the gamble. As well as a cap on the returns based on how high an ability you're going up against.

But, yeah, now we're getting pretty far from HQ as written.

Mike

[Snowden]

Brand: I like your suggestion a lot, and I think that's what I'll plan on going with.  I hope that giving players such a strong mechanical incentive to approach conflicts proactively (rather than just waiting for them to happen) will really push them to drive the plot.  I realize that this seems almost like coming full circle, but I'd somehow forgotten that you could "force" someone to use a less advantageous ability (even when they would have reasons to use a stronger ability instead) by getting the drop on them.

Mike: we are certainly not in Kansas anymore.  But come to think of it, the Final Action rules seem to allow a bit of gambling, in that the player can deal themself another AP "hand" at the cost of potentially taking two injuries instead of one.  Has anyone seen this happen in actual play?

[Brand_Robins]

But come to think of it, the Final Action rules seem to allow a bit of gambling, in that the player can deal themself another AP "hand" at the cost of potentially taking two injuries instead of one.  Has anyone seen this happen in actual play?

I once saw a PC get himself dying by doing a Desperation Stake/Final Action and getting his clock cleaned while doing it. If the silly get had just laid down and accepted the fact that The Lord of the Spirits of Air and Light was out of his league he'd have only been hurt. But no, he had to go and get uppity....

It was a great scene though. I think the gambling aspect really did play up the drama, as the player knew that his aciton was one that could have disasterous fallout. So when he rolled the dice everyone at the table was holding their breath.

[Mike Holmes]

If the silly get had just laid down and accepted the fact that The Lord of the Spirits of Air and Light was out of his league he'd have only been hurt. But no, he had to go and get uppity....

LMFAO.

That's awesome. Players know what they're getting into here, and love it when they lose. Why not go for it? It only amplifies the results.

Mike