Thoughts on Combat in HQ

[Jane]

Quite how Tank Guy's armour applies is an interesting question. If the entire fight is the contest, then no doubt it's a bonus. But if you've split the fight up into an extended contest, then it's only a bonus when he's trying to avoid being hit by Swashbuckler Guy. When he's the actor/attacker, all it's doing is slowing him down.

Just to follow up, this is the fallacy that I was talking about. Armor doesn't slow people down, and, because of the confidence it gives the wearer, it makes one able to make more effective attacks.

Well... I know if I put my mail shirt on, other people I fight tell me I'm slower. Maybe this is just the endurance factor coming in rather earlier than would be the case for a non-couch-potato adventurer.

But then, given the option of a helmet, yes, no question, I wear it. And if full-weight blows were coming at me, I'd be wearing the mail shirt, no question, because the ability to avoid being killed is so much more important!

On the morale effect of armour, at least part of it is "he's wearing really expensive armour, he must be good! Let's run away now, before he sees us."

Again, if you want realism, combat effectiveness has very little to do with armor, weapons, strength, agility, or the like. None of the things that RPGs attribute to success in combat. What's most important in actual combat is the will to injure your opponent, and risk injury yourself in doing this. In reality, the only things that matter significantly are training, experience, and motivation.

And knowing how to read your opponent, how to get your timing right, how to notice other factors around you (like the guy behind you, the tree root you're about to trip over), thinking about turning your opponent so the sun is in his eyes...

Which in HW rather than HQ was called "Close Combat". Weapon combination in use was unspecified, more or less. And I still think this was a much better idea.

[Mike Holmes]

In reality, the only things that matter significantly are training, experience, and motivation.

And knowing how to read your opponent, how to get your timing right, how to notice other factors around you (like the guy behind you, the tree root you're about to trip over), thinking about turning your opponent so the sun is in his eyes...

Which in HW rather than HQ was called "Close Combat". Weapon combination in use was unspecified, more or less. And I still think this was a much better idea.

I agree that a general ability is a good idea here.

But, to be precise, things like timing only matter if you're willing to swing the sword. This is the difficult part to explain. But without going into detail, in a real fight, generally the person more willing to do harm to their opponent wins. Because we're all programmed to be very bad at it from childhood. Training can overcome this unwillingness to kill by making it an automatic response. Experience can overcome this unwillingness to kill by inuring one to it (at great psychological cost). Emotions can overcome unwillingness to kill by making us angry.

Only with two people equally dedicated to killing each other do things like timing and tricks like sun in the eyes matter. The usual convention in RPGs is to assume that anyone in a fight has decided that they're willing to do whatever it takes to end the life of their opponent. This is the really unrealistic assumption that needs to be dropped. Which is not to say that it should never happen, just that it should only happen when we know that the characters in question really care about what's going on. I.E. when we see relationships in play, or other personality traits that would make the character care.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

I just realised that this point hasn't (IMHO) realy been addressed directly yet.

Maybe it's the D&D/RM influence talking but it seems wrong to me that a heavy armour guy and an unarmoured guy with a rapier fight exactly the same.  OK, I can narrate the difference in effect between 'tank guy' and 'swashbuckler guy' but in real terms they might as well both have 'Generic Fighting 17' and 'Stuff +3'. I like the verisimilitude of weapon and armour 'crunch' and would like to be able to replicate it better within the HQ rules.

The ability and augments you use in HQ have a direct effect on the kinds of statements of intent you can reasonably make, and how those will be handled by the narrator.

Whether you have a bonus due to wearing armour or using a rapier will make a difference in a number of situations. For a start, and most obviously, the guy with the rapier only has one hand free. He has a long weapon and so could reasonably make statements of intent that he's trying to keep his opponent at a distance, while the armoured guy will probably want to close in for a close attack, which he may be penalised for due to the rapier that's in the way. If armoured guy can get in close though, rapier guy will be at a disadvanatge and as GM I'd assign apropriate modifiers.

As always, look to what the characters are actualy doing, beyond bland actions such as "I hit him", or "I try to kill the guy". Other games essentialy assume bland goals such as these, but game mechanicaly model more detailed factors. HeroQuest takes the opposite approach, putting the emphasis on how the situation is narrated and then providing a rich set of generic tools to resolve that.

Simon Hibbs

[edited]

[Mike Holmes]

That's the thing, Simon, I think that what he wants is to revert that methodology from HQs to the more traditional style. I would agree with you that this is "ruining" what makes HQ unique and interesting, but if that's what he needs, then that's what he needs.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

That's the thing, Simon, I think that what he wants is to revert that methodology from HQs to the more traditional style. I would agree with you that this is "ruining" what makes HQ unique and interesting, but if that's what he needs, then that's what he needs.

I suppose so,that'sjust the disadvantage of a toolkit approach, it passes a lot of the responsibility (and work) on from game designer to game master.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Well, it's my personal view that HQ isn't quite so much a toolkit, that it plays pretty well "out of the box." In this case, I think he just has a very different set of goals than the "out of the box" version supports. Hence the need for alteration.

Mike