Augmentations in Extended Contests and in Simple Contests

[epweissengruber]

Been doing a lot of Heroquest play lately and doing a lot of thinking about the rules.  Our group has been working out our approach to running Simple Contests and Extended Contests.  Moreover, in order to cram in all of the exciting incidents arising from players' decisions, I have been opting for related Simple Contests rather than many Extended Contests.  This involves a simplified extension of the rules for heroquesting to other actions.

We ran into a number of problems and misunderstandings.  Here are my proposed solutions.

(These arose out of actual play but the following notes are specifically related to Heroquest and don't belong in the Actual Play forum.)

Thanks to Hans' discussion of Tunnels and Trolls (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19038.msg200151#msg200151) in the Actual Play forum for clarifying my thinking on these matters.

______________________________________________________________
Part of the confusion regarding augmentation can be attributed to the contradictory rules in the text itself.

Contradictory Rules

Here are the rules from page 79 of the Heroquest rulebook:

"You can augment with any number of mundane or magical abilities, if they are appropriate and the narrator agrees.  You may only use a particular ability to augment another once during a single round.  Thus, you cannot use Strong twice to augment Sword Fighting, and magical abilities often have limitations on stacking.  The narrator may decide that it takes a certain amount of time to apply multiple augments, even with mundane abilities."

And 3 paragraphs later the book contradicts itself:

"Some abilities are inherent characteristics, such as Strong, Clever or Large.  It usually takes no time to augment with them, so even augmenting with multiple abilities does not take an unrelated action in an extended contest.  Thus, during each round of combat a giant automatically gets +6 each for its Large 18w2 and Strong 18w2, and another +3 for its Tough 10w."

Well, which is it?

3 Problems

#1 Does the giant use Strong once per round of an Extended Contest or only once during the entire duration of an Extended Contest?  The rules take two diametrically opposed stances on this point.

#2 In Simple Contests, everything is over in one round anyway.  Players have to decide how many augments are applicable.  This is, in turn, affected by the duration of a contest.  A second's decision might not allow 10 augments.  Or it might.  How many augments can be loaded on at the begining of a Simple Contest?

#3 What is the process for deciding what is a "reasonable" amount of augmentation?  What is the process for deciding how long a contest lasts and what, therefore, are "reasonable" augmentations in that period?  These two problems can be subsumed under a general process of decision making about conflicts.  But what is this process?

Solutions

General Approach:
* Approach all problems in Heroquest as problems of conflict resolution rather than task resolution. 
* A Simple Contest is, then, not a simple task.  Such a contest could last for a whole day, or a whole battle.  Simple Contests are simple means for resolving conflicts, not a quick way to resolve quick tasks.
* Extended Contests are not necessarily long contests: they are contests whose every detail is of interest to the players.  They are closeups or set pieces.

Solution to #3
* I have no general statement on the mode of decision making in Heroquest.  I can only offer the practical solutions that I will apply in my games.  The default seems to be the traditional role of the GM as final arbiter of the constitution of the Shared Imaginative Space.

> Rule of 3
-3 magical and 3 mundane augments seems a workable limit to an ordinary conflict that is not particularly intense or which does not involve the players' major goals or backstory or values.
- The limits on magic augments are in the rules and the guideline about mundane augments is an extension of it.

> GM sets the Parameters of the Conflict
- GM has to set out what is at stake and what time, space, and resources are involved in the conflict at hand.  Such guidelines allow players to make reasonable decisions about what abilities they can and should bring to bear.
- In any situation where the guidelines are being exceded, the GM and the player have to justify every single one of  the augments being proposed.  I as a GM have to get a little better at this, but by being fair and consistent I can prevent inter-player conflict.  Fairness to all players is important as we are now seeing more intra-character conflict which should not spill out of the fictional level of the game and turn into conflicts between the players.

General Solution to #1 and #2
> Apply the Solution to #3 in both cases
> Players declare augmentations that could affect the outcome of the entire conflict at the start of that conflict.

Specific Solution to #1
> Players declare augmentations that could affect the outcome of the entire conflict at the start of that conflict.  These last throughout the whole conflict.  Such augmentations  include:
* magic
* personality traits related to the conflict
* abilities related to a conflict.
> As the rounds of the Extended Contest begin, players should bring in new one-round augments that reflect the details of the situation.  A fight might have started as a straightforward sword duel.  But if a character roleplays a great insult to his opponent, and could justify the use of Biting Insults ability as an augmentation, so be it.  Or he could use that ability as an unrelated action.
> Of course, the situation can change.  An player who began a duel with the intention of "dispatch my enemy with haste" might then turn around an decide to "run for safety."  The AP pools of the conflict stay the same.  But once the player has a new ability in use he or she should consider the new applicable augmentations. The magic applied at the start will probably be in effect but will have to be reconsidered.  Mundane augments should not go beyond the Rule of 3.
> Unrelated actions should use only the applicable augments in effect since the start of the conflict. (But exceptions are possible).
> Discretion must be used and the difference between pursuing an overall goal and momentary changes of tactic must be maintained.  A giant whose stated aim is "crush the party like gnats and feast on their bones" can use Strong, Large, and Tough for the whole thing.  Two suitors trying to win a lady's love should be using aguments related to seduce, flatter and persuade at the start of the contest.  In individual rounds they may try things like using their strength or toughness to impress the lady, but such augments should be for one round and one round only.  They are the colour that makes Extended Contests interesting.

Specific Solution to #2
- Simple Contests should have their parameters set by the GM.
- The Rule of 3 provides a generally applicable limit to augmentations in such contests, regardless of how long they might be in real-time terms.
- Conflicts of deep thematic interest or of relevance to a characters goals or backstory can justify the application of augmentation in excess of the Rule of 3.
- However, Extended Contests are the venue for exploring conflicts of deep thematic or personal importance.  Icing a few monsters or getting some cash are not conflicts of such importance.

What about a series of Related Simple Contests?
- I have been using these more often than Extended Contests for two reasons: the players are still getting comfortable with the system and I like to save Extended Contests for climactic conflicts related to the story arc.  However, we can start using them more frequently if players wish.
- My use of related simple contests is an application of the rules for heroquests to mundane situations.
- The GM may say: this is an open-ended situation. Let's resolve it with a series of Simple Contests.
- As before, the GM sets the parameters of the situation.
- Players set augments applicable for that situation.
- Each stage of the situation is resolved by a simple contest.
- If there are gaps of time or if there are major changes in the situation, the choice of new abilities and new magical and mundane augments is appropriate.
- If I were resolving a 7 day hunting excursion using related simple contests, we could resolve it all with one Simple Contest, bringing in up to 3 magical and 3 mundane augments to a single ability. A 7 day series of contests, each of which tested a different talent of the hero, would involve deciding the ability and applicable augment for each test. Jousting would require one ability and one set of augment while Creating Poetry would involve a different ability and a different set of augments.
- However, the results of one of the Simple Contests would be rolled into the next. So a guy beaten senseless at Jousting would, the next day, suffer a penalty to his Poeticizing. But a hero who was humiliated by a foe during the Poetry Test could also be penalized when facing that foe in a subsequent Mock Duel, as a consequence of feeling weak and inadequate in the face of a superior example of chivalry and knightly perfection. So failure at Poeticizing can affect later attempts at Rapier Combat.

[Mike Holmes]

There was a post in the Rules mailing list that answers the question in a way that I agree with, but doesn't address this in detail. I'll do so here.

Been doing a lot of Heroquest play lately and doing a lot of thinking about the rules.  Our group has been working out our approach to running Simple Contests and Extended Contests.  Moreover, in order to cram in all of the exciting incidents arising from players' decisions, I have been opting for related Simple Contests rather than many Extended Contests.  This involves a simplified extension of the rules for heroquesting to other actions.

I think I can see what you're getting at here. That said, I think that all simple contests are already well related to whatever other contests they need to be related to via the "injury" mechanics. That is, the outcome of one contest can always have a mechanical affect on the next by applying the penalties recieved in the first where appropritate. So I think that it's unneccessary to add a method here.

But that's just me. Anyhow...

Part of the confusion regarding augmentation can be attributed to the contradictory rules in the text itself.

As the poster in the rules list said, there is no contradiction. You can use as many augments as you like in a round, just no ability more than once. Seems odd that they had to tell people that you can't augment with Strong twice? Me too - seems pretty obvious. But that's what it means according to the authors (I believe both Rory and Greg have confirmed this in the past), and it's the only way it makes sense.

#1 Does the giant use Strong once per round of an Extended Contest or only once during the entire duration of an Extended Contest?  The rules take two diametrically opposed stances on this point.

Once per round. He can't use it twice per round. That's what the other rule is telling you.

#2 In Simple Contests, everything is over in one round anyway.  Players have to decide how many augments are applicable.  This is, in turn, affected by the duration of a contest.  A second's decision might not allow 10 augments.  Or it might.  How many augments can be loaded on at the begining of a Simple Contest?

The in-game duration of a contest does not determine it's length at all. There is one sentence that sorta implies that this is the case, true. But it's apparently an unintended implication. Again, this has been confirmed with the authors, and it's the only way it works well in play, in my experience and that of others who've expressed an opinion on the subject.

#3 What is the process for deciding what is a "reasonable" amount of augmentation?  What is the process for deciding how long a contest lasts and what, therefore, are "reasonable" augmentations in that period?  These two problems can be subsumed under a general process of decision making about conflicts.  But what is this process?

1. Look at the augments selected, and see how you feel.
2. If you feel that they're not fun, then disallow them.
3. If you feel that they're fun, allow them.

It's really that simple. What happens is that you develop a community standard. And, yes, as the Narrator, it's your responsibility to take the lead on this. That said, there's no reason why you can't poll the other players if you like.

For my part, I rarely dissallow an augment. I will, on the other hand, often ask for an explanation of how something applies to a situation. This is not so much to challenge an augment, as to simply get the information. Because, to me, augmenting is all about seeing how the character fits into the conflict. To that extent, more is better.

As for the fear of gamism drift (players "scouring" the sheet to try to get everything in), if you always say yes, they soon get the notion that the challenge to the player is not in getting an augment in, and winning the contest, but in getting in interesting augments and displaying the character in a cool way.

This is just how I do it, and how my standards form. For another group, another standard might work better. But hopefully it shows the process (and one fun and functional standard as an example).

*

Approach all problems in Heroquest as problems of conflict resolution rather than task resolution. 

For what it's worth, this is the take I have.

For a really good example, last night we had a situation where a player wanted another player's character to run his through with her rapier. Now, if we'd done a contest, then he would have had a player goal of having the character survive or something. But as the player goals were equal, there was no contest. They both wanted his PC to die, and they very agreeably created a very fun death scene. Conflict resolution, not task resolution.

I'd go so far as to say that HQ doesn't work very well as other than conflict resolution but YMMV.

* A Simple Contest is, then, not a simple task.  Such a contest could last for a whole day, or a whole battle.  Simple Contests are simple means for resolving conflicts, not a quick way to resolve quick tasks.

This has always been my assumption, based in part on some examples in the book and other good evidence. And it works well this way.

* Extended Contests are not necessarily long contests: they are contests whose every detail is of interest to the players.  They are closeups or set pieces.

Again, I believe you are right with this. The question becomes how to decide when to use one and when to use the other. You have your "closeup" idea, and that's aproximately the same as mine. Basically my process is to ask everyone whether to go to an extended contest when it seems like it might be something that people would want (for example, the moment resembles, as you say, a "closeup" moment from a movie, or it's a massive kung fu battle, or a trial that has lots of twists and turns, etc). If the people involved say yes, then we do it. If it's not dramatically appropriate to doing so, and they say no therefore, we don't do an extended contest.

In practice in the latest phase of play - about 50 sessions - we've done about 5 extended contests total. Two were fights? Something like that.

The default seems to be the traditional role of the GM as final arbiter of the constitution of the Shared Imaginative Space.

I think this is a true statement in some ways. That is, when all is said and done and the resolution is on the table mechanically, it's up to the "Narrator" (I think this is the only good reason to have this be the name for the position) to narrate an entertaining outcome that matches the mechanics.

This in no way makes it task resolution, BTW.

> Rule of 3
-3 magical and 3 mundane augments seems a workable limit to an ordinary conflict that is not particularly intense or which does not involve the players' major goals or backstory or values.
- The limits on magic augments are in the rules and the guideline about mundane augments is an extension of it.

It's odd, but I actually like one implication of the Rule of three, if not how it's written. Basically I'd agree that to get some abilities to augment in a particular situation, you'd have to have had some lead time to do so. To make magic seem like, well what we expect magic to seem like, it's a good example of this. That is, it would seem odd to be able to cast more spell than one, or to do them instantly - we expect some gesturing, and incantations, and such. Only one at a time, and it takes some time.

So how I interperet this rule is a simple extension of the idea that you can only use abilities if it makes sense in the current situation. So, let's say that I narrate, "Some dude with a knife suddenly jumps out at you!" The player states that his character is trying to fight off his assailant. He wants to augment with several magic spells that seem pertinent. I would ask him how he's going to have time to get these all off. Note that if they were charms, I probably would just automatically allow it, since charms seem to have the "always on" advantage (as it were). Meaning that everyone can visualize the charms just glowing up and taking effect immediately. But they can't visualize the character having time to gesture and incant to power up while he's in the middle of wrestling an opponent for a knife or something.

But...

If the player does narrate that he backpedals with all his might, and proceeds to cast his spells as he does so...I might allow it. I'd probably give him a situational penalty because that would be a fun way to represent the difficulty of the situation. But I'm not looking for a reason to disallow this. I'm just looking for it to be something that everyone thinks is a cool contest.

That's the key, to me. It's not about some in-game definition of what can happen in one predefined situation or another. It's about making fun conflicts that show off the characters in a way that delivers everybody entertaining visualizations of the event. So, yes, that means eliminating implausibilities and incongruities. But there are lots of viable ways to skin that cat.

> GM sets the Parameters of the Conflict
- GM has to set out what is at stake and what time, space, and resources are involved in the conflict at hand.  Such guidelines allow players to make reasonable decisions about what abilities they can and should bring to bear.

I usually have the players participate in this, at least to the extent that in terms of the goals they indicate for their characters this informs a lot of this. If, for instance, a player says that it's his character's goal to run from the cops, that indicates an entirely different length of conflict than having a goal of beating the rap at trial.

That is, I never say, "The contest is running away" because that assumes that this is what the player has decided to do. Conflicts are detected at the "The cops want to stop you vs. I want to be free" level. The question of the arena of that conflict is best left an open on, in my experience. That doesn't mean that the player is going to say, "I use my cooking ability to make them lunch so they let me go." We negotiate an entertaining (again including plausible) arena. But I'll take any reasonably interesting response to a situation.

- In any situation where the guidelines are being exceded, the GM and the player have to justify every single one of  the augments being proposed.  I as a GM have to get a little better at this, but by being fair and consistent I can prevent inter-player conflict.  Fairness to all players is important as we are now seeing more intra-character conflict which should not spill out of the fictional level of the game and turn into conflicts between the players.

As it happens, this is why just saying yes to everything works so well. If you aren't acting as police, nobody will think you're doing it unfairly.

Put another way, I've never, ever had this problem running HQ. Not even a hint of this sort of problem. It's just not possible.

Specific Solution to #1
> Players declare augmentations that could affect the outcome of the entire conflict at the start of that conflict.

Note that I've already addressed this, but I have a sorta related comment. Which is that it may seem at first like being able to augment more than once in a conflict is somehow advantageous. But it is not. In all cases exended contests are disadvantageous to the players. I think this is a good thing. It means that they'll only choose to do them if they're really dramatically invested.

Proof of this statement? The only question overall is who ends up with the victory, correct? With one roll with all augments in once, you only ever have to bump once to win. With an extended contest, it may cost the player multiple HP to win, and they may still lose, even if they spend them. It's my experience that players note this after about two extended contests.

> As the rounds of the Extended Contest begin, players should bring in new one-round augments that reflect the details of the situation. 

I do agree that as the situation changes in an extended contest that new augments might be brought to bear (or others become non-applicable). This is the fun of extended contests, it's really just a chain of simple contests, and shows character applicability to situation from multiple angles.

> Unrelated actions should use only the applicable augments in effect since the start of the conflict.

Actually I think that Unrelated actions are the perfect "excuse" to change the situation to get new augments into play. Drawing a sword being the obvious example (and used in the book). Can't reasonably augment your extended intimidation contest with your "Impressive Sword" until you draw it, right?

What about a series of Related Simple Contests?

I sorta agree with you here, depending on what you mean. If you mean requiring contest after contest like combat rounds, I'm against it strongly. I don't think it works at all, and damages how other things work in HQ. If you mean instead simply using the effects of one contest to start and mechanically affect others, then I'm all for it. But the key is to think of these as their own contests with new player goals for their characters. The "no repeat contests" rule is key.

- Each stage of the situation is resolved by a simple contest.

See, if you change this to allow each "stage" to be created organically from play, then I'm right there with you. I don't see this as an aberration from the rules as written, however, but just a creative use of it.

- If there are gaps of time or if there are major changes in the situation, the choice of new abilities and new magical and mundane augments is appropriate.

See, here we're definitely talking about the same thing. I'm simply saying to recalibrate between each "stage." Including, interesting, the exception to the "no repeat contest" rule, which is to do the same contest again, interestingly. It simply has to be well considered, and not an assumption in any way, IMO. Practically speaking I only do it about 5% of the time or so (repeating contests in very similar form). Usually it's more interesting to move on. But not always.

- However, the results of one of the Simple Contests would be rolled into the next. So a guy beaten senseless at Jousting would, the next day, suffer a penalty to his Poeticizing. But a hero who was humiliated by a foe during the Poetry Test could also be penalized when facing that foe in a subsequent Mock Duel, as a consequence of feeling weak and inadequate in the face of a superior example of chivalry and knightly perfection. So failure at Poeticizing can affect later attempts at Rapier Combat.

Good example, but this is precisely how the rules work as written. And, again, the only difference I can see between what you're saying and how I play is that I don't pre-plan any contests ever. They just come up as part of play. Including subsequent challenges, or strings of challenges that happen to affect each other. In some cases by design after the fact. I look at the outcome of a contest, often, and then suggest subsequent ones based on the outcome. So in my case, looking at the poet damaged psychically by losing his poetry contest, I then put him in a situation where he may have to joust at a penalty, to emphasize the penalty.

This is no different, really, than putting characters into situations where their abilities are interesting. Sometimes by lack rather than by abundance. The barbarian having to convince people at court is just as fun as the pride-injured poet. The point is that it's all relevant to the mechanical abilites that define the character. You just know the barbarian is going to end up doing something exciting like pulling his sword. :-)

So this is the general rule, IMO, with "linking" contests. Look at what makes the character interesting, and make a contests that shows it.

At least, that's what works spectacularly well for me.

Mike

[epweissengruber]

Thanks for pointing out my serious misreading.  That misreading then caused conceptual blockage and I had to go through all kinds of backflips to try to sort out a problem that did not exist.

And your systematic response has helped me focus on the real practices that lead to good HQ play.

[Mike Holmes]

Cool, but a few notes.

First, I've seen people play other ways successfully. Limiting augmenting does move things on for some people, and the only downside is that it may, ironically, reinforce the idea that HQ resolution is about trying to win. If your group likes that, or wouldn't fall prey to it anyhow, then the limits are pretty harmless.

Second, keep in mind that the HQ text is far from unambiguous about these things (I've seen people have the exact same misreading previously, and there are about six other common misreadings to boot). I think it does a pretty good job with some difficult subjects, actually. But the difficulty means that sometimes something won't make sense on a read through. If/when that happens, find somebody to talk to about it. That's saved me on, oh, about a dozen occasions, from heading off down the wrong path. Or, on a couple of occasions it's turned me around from something that I was doing in play.

Often there's no clear answer to an ambiguity, actually (see the great Magic Default debate). But what you can get from somebody is a sense of one interpretation that works. I don't say that my interpretation is always the "correct" one. All I can say is what interpretation works for me.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Well, Mike has answered this beautifully and most of what I think is the same (seeing as how he was a major influence on how I play HQ, or indeed, picked it up in the first place).

A couple of comments I would throw in:

1) I *really* can`t imagine using HQ as a task-resolution system very well. In fact, HQ has soured me on task systems completely, because the whole "you can do what your character is designed to do" is so much less frustrating. I think you can occasionally use it for a single task, but that's the exception.

2) Goal setting: I'm a fan of letting the players set this as much as possible. I will often explain the opposing goal in advance. (The cops want to get you) and then let the players pick whatever they think is appropriate as their response. Yes, my job as narrator is to be final judge on the consensus answer, but it takes a lot to get me to say no. :)

3) Chained single contests. Like Mike, I find that the penalty rules already there make this work.

4) Unrelated actions: I think this is *still* something I don't have a good handle on. When something is "unrelated" or not remains very fuzzy for me. I tried using "if it allows a new augment, ability, or situational modifier, it must be done by unrelated action" as a rule, but that never really satisfied me. (It wasn't that bad, but didn't seem to flow all that wonderfully.)

[Web_Weaver]

I'm with Lightcastle on the ambiguity of unrelated actions in the rules.

With HeroWars a few of us on the HWRules Yahoo Group refined a simplified version of the then existing rule of being able to spend AP to do extra actions.

This still works for me with HQ.

Example:
Fred is fast talking his way past a night club bouncer, He is using Charming Personality, augmented with Natty Dresser and Witty but he realises the bouncer has a large Seen it all Before skill and needs to enlist the help of a friend in the queue without letting up on the banter. He asks the Narrator if he can spend a portion of his current AP to wink and gesture surreptitiously to his friend to get him to create a diversion (i.e. join the contest as a follower or specific augment).  The Narrator and Player negotiate how many AP this would cost and the player chooses whether or not to go ahead.

[lightcastle]

Hey Web_weaver.

I'm not sure I understand your example.

Are you saying that to do an unrelated action, you just bid higher? Or that an unrelated action just entails spending a certain amount of AP (no bid)?

[Mike Holmes]

Unless EP wants to talk about that here, I've started a thread where we can take this tangent here and discuss it thoroughly: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=13.0

Mike

[soviet]

I started to have problems with excessive augmentation slowing the game down so I've recently implemented 'the rule of three' as a general limit. In theory players should be able to use their own discretion but my lot can't seem to help themselves so they suggested applying a more structured limit. As well as speeding things up I'm hoping that this will allow us to better highlight some of the more characterful abilities that sometimes get drowned out by everything else.

However... I think the 'everything and the kitchen sink' approach has its place too, so I'm allowing people to spend a HP to ignore this restriction when they feel it's appropriate (eg. the final confrontation against their arch-nemesis). I'm thinking of this as a screen time thing, much like simple vs. extended contests - some scenes require a whole drawn-out sequence that shows you every nuance of the character, while others are over in a couple of quick shots.

soviet

[epweissengruber]

Unless EP wants to talk about that here, I've started a thread where we can take this tangent here and discuss it thoroughly: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=13.0

Mike

My real name is Erik Paul Weissengruber

You can call be Erik.

My close friends call me Reverend Rico, but none of you are my close friends. 

Erik will do.

Note: People everywhere are convinced that my name is a parody of long German names.  Not so: it is a long german name.

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks for the clarification, Erik.

Soviet, I like that a lot. I'm not going to use it for my games, because my players tend to limit to 3 to 6 anyhow, and I think the key stuff comes out. But I think if you find players "scouring" that this is a great way to limit them, and inform them about where the sweet spot lies. Especially because, unless they come up with another +20 in augments, it's an inefficcient use of a HP - though still a good way to increase your odds on a particular conflict (as you can't otherwise spend more than one HP on a roll). So this is an indicator of how strongly the player feels about the contest. Which is good.

For extended contests, what do you intend to do? Make them pay one HP per round they augment? Or does this allow unlimited augmenting for the entire contest?

Mike

[soviet]

For extended contests, what do you intend to do? Make them pay one HP per round they augment? Or does this allow unlimited augmenting for the entire contest?

I guess it lasts for the whole contest.

I'm not too worried about balance issues here, I'm just trying to enforce a bit of discretion amongst my players and put a stop to the constant 'list-scouring'. If they decide the situation is important enough that they want to 'turn the soundtrack up' and go nuts with the augments, that's fine with me!

soviet