Unrelated Actions Revisited

[Mike Holmes]

A perennial topic, the subject of Unrelated Actions was brought up in this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19082.0

The question, as always, is what makes an action truely unrelated enough to use this rule? When should an action be just another AP bid, and when should you use a side simple contest with it's own results. Lots of answers have been tried, but I'm not sure any have stuck. I myself have found very, very few occasions to use them, in part because I use extended contests so infrequently. But some of the ideas are intruguing.

Here are all the ideas I could dredge up from the forum:

Maybe Don't Use Them
Here's LC's general case for not using unrelated actions at all, and me and others respond: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16068.0

Wounding and Healing
The classic is wounding, an example of which is here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=7889.0
The reason people like this is because it somewhat fixes the "unable to be injured until the end of the fight" theoretical problem.

Similarly, I suggest healing as UA here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14453.15
It comes up once or twice in other threads, too. Basically, if you're using UA to wound, then you can use UA to heal. Wounding and healing here meaning creating or eliminating any assigned penalty.

The problem with this is that wounding is a very good tactic. The character with the higher TN is likely to win, even if behind on AP. So if you've got the lower TN, adjusting your opponent's TN lower is usually the superior strategy. So unless this is limited, it might become the only thing done in extended contests.

I'm clearer here, however: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14591.0

Basically, it's alright to do other contests during extended contests, if they don't directly involve getting to the same goal.

The Player Principle
Here I have another principle, however: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10964.0

If the player wants it to be unrelated, then I make it unrelated.

Again, however, this may lead to unfettered "wounding."

Augments
There are a couple of pretty clear cases from the rules:
Lending AP
Augmenting

That said, there's also an interesting implication described here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=6328.0
Basically some abilities are described as "Always On" while others simply are not. Charms are always on, but spells need to be cast.

I point out the spell thing myself here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14098.30

Brand and I both hit it here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13669.0
So, basically, this is only true when the augment would seem to take some "time out" from the contest.

A sort of reverse implication here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10649.0
Basically, it also makes sense to use Unrelated Actions to eliminate an opponent's augment. Disarming an item being the obvious example.

Escape
There's another priciple here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=6328.0
Basically if you do something that could bring an end to the contest all at once, though it doesn't bring the original goal home, then maybe it could be an Unrelated Contest? The problem with this is that it's, again, an escape clause essentially.

Specific ActionsSome sorts of actions just seem to strike some people as unrelated:
Aiming a Firearm: (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10769.0)
Followers showing up: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=7897.0
Escaping from a contest: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13179.0
Traps: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8326.0
Movement: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8067.0

New Rules
Brand proposes that with mastery, some abilities might be allowed to have free Unrelated Actions here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10439.0
And he suggests werewolves shapechanging here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13723.0

Long Term Contests
Here Josh gives an example of Unrelated actions that I and another player took in one of his games, during what was a very extended contest in terms of both real and game time: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=9973.30

OK, that's the background, let's discuss further.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Good lord Mike, that's the encyclopedia of this debate! :)

Now I have a whole bunch of back reading to do.

I do remember the "wounding" discussion though, and I also find that it becomes SUCH a good tactic, that it seems not quite right.

OK. Not tonight because it is late, but let's see if reading through all that in concentrated fashion sparks anything.

[Tim Ellis]

I'm not completely convinced that wounding is such a superior tactic.  Sure there are times when it will make sense, but any win that doesn't reduce your opponents AP's does not directly help you win.  It might give you more chance of winning a subsequent round, but you still need to actually win that round...

[Mike Holmes]

It's a complicated issue, Tim. I agree, actually, that an Unrelated Action to wound is not neccessarily all that effective. That is, you need a Major Victory, really, to have an effect. Marginal is mostly color, and even a minor cannot make that much impact on the advantage. So it's not a great tactic.

But it's far, far better than playing into your opponent's strength. That is, let's say that you're both using fencing, your TN is 10W, and the opponent 10W2. You're very likely to lose over time here if, on your turn, you continue to accept these TNs. But if you stop for a moment to use a "Break Bone Spell" ability, where your TN is 5W vs his 14...sure, you may well only end up reducing his TN by one as your spell bends his clavicle painfully. But that's far better than simply accepting the original odds, and likely losing AP. You at least give yourself a substantial chance of placing the odds in your favor. If you do get a Major Victory (say a broken femur), your opponent is now down to 5W, and you're pretty likely to win unless the situation changes again.

As mentioned, this is only ever a good tactic if you have the lower TN, and probably a substantially lower TN.

Now, the quesiton is whether or not you have other options. This is tricky. See the discussion of Assymetry at the end of my first post here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19213.0

The point is that if the narrator allows a good deal of Asymetry at least between rounds, then maybe it's a better option to simply use the ability in question to reduce AP.

Or, put another way, Unrelated Actions to wound become more attractive, the less Asymetry the narrator allows. If you can't get a high ability (and/or correspondingly low opponent ability) into a normal turn, then if you can as an Unrelated Action, they become very attractive.

So this is a key part of this discussion, then. The extend to which "wounding" in UAs is going to be attractive is the extent to which the narrator relegates using Asymetrical abilities to Unrelated Actions. If the narrator goes way Asymetrical, then there's no reason to evey use UAs - just use the same abilities and bid high on your round. If the narrator allows no Asymetry, then UA to wound until you have superiority may well be your best tactic.

Given that I tend to enforce a good deal of Symmetry internal to a round, I think players will have considerable incentive to wound if I use this.

That all said...if you wound me, I can wound you, too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So I'm not worried about it in terms of balance at all. What I worry is that many contests will simply not use the AP mechanism much at all.

Also...just for kicks and to clarify, what happens if you're attempting to wound me using a UA, and you get a Complete Victory? In terms of the overall extended contest, how does that affect my TN? Do you win the extended contest immediately then? I think the correct answer is no. To be clear, if your character is trying to kill one of my narrator characters as his goal for the extended contest, I would only allow a UA for a specific attack to wound. That is, a complete victory would not kill in this case, it would just accomplish the wound in very complete manner. "Attempt to Lop his arm off" would do just that. But this would have no mecahnical effect in terms of the extended contest. AP would remain the same, etc. and, interestingly, the TN would not change directly. Instead, the situation having been dramatically changed, the narrator would have to impart a suitable situational modifier. Meaning that he'd be free to say that any attempt to continue to use your sword skill would by an automatic failure. So you'd have to use something else, likely with a big improv penalty.

Because what I definitely don't want such a "wounding" rule to become is a way to accomplish a character goal by a back door. If we allow this, it's tantamount to saying that in any contest that you're losing, you can simply convert in suddenly into a simple contest. I don't mind changing the odds by changing goals. But I do mind this as an odd last ditch tactic.

Anyhow, keep in mind that the reason that wounding is attractive as an option for UAs is because it's mechanically rigorous. That is, if the player says his intent is to get a penalty on the opponent, instead of reducing AP, then we know which rules to use. It's very clear, just as the rule for augmenting or lending AP is. But the fact is that the apparent intent of UA are for anything unrelated, so while this might be a fun interpretation, we also have to be able to find the line where something is unrelated without the benefit of mechanical difference.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Mike's done a good job of explaining why "wounding" is a strong tactic. Or at least a tempting one. I, too, can see an exchange turn into a series of attempts to wound instead of ever advancing AP.

Because what I definitely don't want such a "wounding" rule to become is a way to accomplish a character goal by a back door. If we allow this, it's tantamount to saying that in any contest that you're losing, you can simply convert in suddenly into a simple contest. I don't mind changing the odds by changing goals. But I do mind this as an odd last ditch tactic.

Absolutely, accomplishing a goal via the backdoor is no good.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your observation that it is tempting partly because it is mechanically rigorous. It's clear. But maybe that is an appropriate measure?

What happens if you simply say that ANYTHING that provides a situational modifier must be done by an unrelated action, and cannot cost AP. That if you use AP bidding, you can never modify your situation, despite the bid.

i.e. - If you attack by leaping onto a table and pulling the rug out from under your opponent, you either make it an unrelated action and get all the benefits of being up on a table and your opponent flat on their ass, or you get an AP shift.

It's mechanically pure, but seems very sterile to me. It does seem to fit with the idea of "drawing a new item" or such being an unrelated action, though. Mind you, would this mean you have to spend an UA whenever you wanted to switch abilities? And what of the case where an AP transfer is defined as "someone tossing you a sword", would that simply be outlawed?

I'm not sure this would actually work at all. 

As for your asymmetrical thing... I think I tend to enforce symmetry within a round, although am very free with it from round to round. So you must defend with something appropriate to what you are being attacked with; in other words, choosing how to frame the contest lets you limit what your opponent can defend with. I like that, personally.

[Mike Holmes]

I think we should call the situational modifier idea the "Brand Robbins" rule. He suggests something like that in an article posted to the narrator advice column here: http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_ranged.html

Actually, his suggestion is more that a change that allows the use of a new ability should require a high AP bid. Which is not quite the same thing. But, again, we're looking at the idea that UAs be used to alter the mechanical situation in ways other than AP bids. Given that disallowing the use of an ability is equivalent to giving a use an "Automatic Failure" Improv Modifier, this is all part of the same spectrum.

So...if drawing a new weapon should take a UA, to essentially eliminate the "Automatic Failure" Improve Modifier (or even just a large penalty) for trying to use Swordfighing ability sans a sword, then it seems like, yes, any such change in modifier should require such.

This does point out the similarites between these sorts of actions, once again. The theoretical dichotomy is "Actions which alter the situation" vs "Actions which bring the overall goals closer to being accomplished." The "Ranged Combat" example is a perfect one that shows how many maneuvers are going to seem to be both at the same time. That is, if your goal is to kill somebody, and they're standing far from you, then getting close to them can be seen as either altering the situation, or getting closer to the goal, or both.

With Brand's rule in effect, allowing AP exchanged to also adjust the situation, we'd really rarely have a use for UA. The thing about Brand's rule is that it's a double win. That is, you're always incentivized to do these sorts of maneuvers, because you gain in both the AP race, and in the situation race, if you win. I mean, if you have the problem that you're being shot at, is there really some trade-off that you can get for the difficulty of closing by taking some other action? No, you're going to have to close anyhow. And when close, you're probably going to be able to use superior abilities to create further adjustments in situation.

So, to make it a real trade-off, I think that I like our way better here - making a mechanical adjustment either about AP, or taking a UA. I think that the player, yes, does get to simply decide this. The downside to a UA to shift situation instead of AP is that the player has to hope that the narrator will agree with him about what the shift of situation means in terms of Improv Mods. With an AP bid, once the player has gotten the approval that the bid matches the action from the narrator, the player knows precisely what he's gambling, mechanically. With a situation change, he won't know if the narrator feels the same way about the attempted change as he does.

For instance, if I get on top of a table to get an Improv Mod for fighting from a height, I don't know precisely what the narrator will give as a penalty to my opponent's resistance (or bonus to me). If I change the situation so that another ability applies that didn't before, will that ability be full, or have an improv penalty? One could get around this, by having the narrator state the mechanical value of the stakes, "Yes, if you win, you'll be able to use that ability with no penalty." But that predicts that the situation will not change on the opponent's next round.

In any case I think it's more interesting not to know what Improv penalty is coming, as is usual in contests. The narrator should give the player something for making the effort to change situations, probably a 5 point shift somewhere at least, but I think that the narrator has lattitude here in precisely how much shift does occur, mechanically.

Anyhow, I think, more and more, that this does work with "wounding." Because, actually, situational shifts gained by even a marginal victory, are going to be worth more than the effect of a marginal victory. That is, I think that the advantages from a situational shift are greater than those from wounding on average.

In fact, the question now becomes, are situational shifts far too advantageous a strategy? I think that they are, in fact, very strong. Like if you're being attacked by a character with really heavy arms and armor, and suffering for the difference, then grappling with your foe, and throwing him in the water is a huge change of situation. But I don't think this is problematic any more. That is, I think that dramatic shifts in situation are fun in an extended contest, and, as long as these tactics don't allow you to actually achieve your original goal directly, the situation could change back (UAs can be taken to eliminate "wounds" too, remember).

From another perspective, the situational stuff exists already, and I don't see it overused. So I think that we have a solution. In fact now there are several categories of things that you would use UAs for:

• Augmenting
• Lending AP
• Sub-contests to create a penalty for the opponent (AKA Wounding)
• Contests to change situation to alter Improv Penalties or bonuses - including making way for other abilities to have less Improv Penalties.

Note from the list way above, that many things can fall into the "shifting situation" category. Taking time to aim certainly seems a good example, as does taking the time to shapeshift to use some ability of the new form.

Yeah it' still often ambiguous as to which would seem to apply more in certain circumstances. In the ranged combat example, is getting closer to the opponent AP, or situation? Couldn't it be both?

But I think as a set of abstractions that any of these work fine. So I think leaving it to player selection is fine as well. What I definitely don't want is to have to use narrator fiat to say which you can do in one situation, and which won't work in another. That's not the same as putting an Improv penalty on some attempt after it's declared (or whether an AP bid is the right size), by the way...that's an unavoidable narrator responsibility. The fiat I'm mentioning is in declaring one action altogether impossible by one mechanic or another.

There are usually rolls involved with unrelated actions, and they don't reduce AP, meaning that the opponent has time to come back. So the risk/reward seems pretty balanced to me. I'm pretty sure this is at the playtesting state now.

But thoughts?

Mike

[Web_Weaver]

I am unclear on the whole wounding issue. I don't see any precedence in the rules that would allow a character to roll a separate contest directly against the opponent with a view to lowering his skill..

The idea very quickly emerged in the early days of HeroWars as a way of making magic appear cooler and allow it to do something other than effect the AP bid, but I feel this was players struggling with the new rules and the whole AP paradigm shift.

Is there anywhere in the rule-set that allows this tactic, or are you just suggesting it as a "change" to the rules?

[Mike Holmes]

Good question.

It's not specifically allowed in the rules, but it's not specifically disallowed either, and it is generally allowed.

That is, the general rule for a simple contest is that, when there's a conflict, you roll for it, right? What all contests specifically disallow is for players to roll more than once for the same goal. So what you definitely shouldn't be allowed to do is to gain your goal via something like this. Again, if your character is trying to kill mine, and you take an unrelated action to wound my character, even a Complete Victory cannot kill my character, because that can't have been the goal of this contest.

But there is prescedent for Unrelated Actions to be contests, which is Variable Augmenting. Why can't other Unrelated Actions be resolved by contest?

Now I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the intent of the rules (but I could be wrong). But I think it's a fine loophole to exploit. So I don't see it so much as a change in the rules as a creative interpretation. In any case, it works a lot better than the -1 Hurt for 7 AP thing, IMO, and generally accomplishes a lot of things that people see as problems with the system. Yeah, if this were simply a kneejerk reaction to conflict resolution, I'd be with you in saying it's unneccessary. But it's not, I don't think, I see this as an interesting adjunct to the overall system that makes sense of a lot of what exists in the rules.

Mike

[nichughes]

From another perspective, the situational stuff exists already, and I don't see it overused. So I think that we have a solution. In fact now there are several categories of things that you would use UAs for:

• Augmenting
• Lending AP
• Sub-contests to create a penalty for the opponent (AKA Wounding)
• Contests to change situation to alter Improv Penalties or bonuses - including making way for other abilities to have less Improv Penalties.

I'm with you on 3 out of the four items but I think the wounding category is only appropriate if the wound does not really bear on the contest at hand, if you really need to give someone a penalty for the current contest the augmentation rules probably cover it well enough. Where this might count as a separate category is if the wound is really unrelated to the goals of the contest but the player wants to hinder their opponent for some future contest. For an  example consider duelling with an opponent , the player might choose to take time out to publicly ridicule their opponent over some personal matter to make them a laughing stock. This will probably have little or no effect on the outcome of the duel but might leave the opponent seriously hindered for social contests for some time to come.

---
Nic

[Mike Holmes]

Well, how do you know that an penalty won't apply to this contest later in it? That is, taking your example, the player, in a later round, decides that his bid is to distract his opponent, and asks for the penalty he got from the previous ridiculing to apply to his opponent's resistance. Do we then rule that it can't be allowed because it was caused by an unrelated action in the current conflict?

See, this is, to me, the essential problem - the term "unrelated" is not easy to define. And depending on what a narrator allows for abilities in contests, and such, anything can be considered related from some POV.

So what I'm suggesting is that instead of "unrelated action" that these be "Other Mechanical Result" actions. Meaning that they can't result in lowering AP, or in achieving the overall goal of the contest, but some other mechanical result including the above bullets (and one I forgot, actions that have no mechanical result - a player can always take a colorful timeout on his round). This way there's no judgement call to be made, and no problems with having to deny the use of a penalty that seems appropriate to a particular situation.

Anyhow, our methods are not to different here, so I guess my question is why you wouldn't allow the wounding to affect the current contest? Certainly you'd allow a wound from a previous contest to affect this one, right? So what's the downside? The potential ones that I've seen are:

1. This may become the dominant strategy, making the AP system ancillary.
2. It's not what the designers intended, even if it's not strictly forbidden.

I'm not seeing either of these as a reason to reject the method. Is there some other downside that I'm not seeing? Or is this just a taste thing?

Mike

[Web_Weaver]

The main reason I am wary of wounding via unrelated contests is one you list.

1. This may become the dominant strategy, making the AP system ancillary.

The extended contest concept is dependent on the AP system being simple and fluid without too much distraction. APs are what allow the narration of the contest to be framed more flexibly and in a more story driven way.

If the rules encourage players to take out opponents via a secondary method, it runs the risk of drifting the rule set towards a more gamist approach. Which, I believe, can detract from Heroquest's strengths.

In my experience with the game system, both running and playing, the narration of contests can very quickly become forgotten or de-emphasised in the midst of mathematical maneuvering. This can be just as much fun, but changes the style of the game dramatically (sometimes without the consent of all involved).

Granted there are 'Gamist' elements in the way that bids are chosen and the 7AP = 1 wound, but nothing that can't be handled quickly and then reflected in the narration.

I think our differences on this matter may come down the useage of the word Goal. I do not get the impression from the rules that goals are a fundamental part of extended contests. A goal is stated at the beginning and it can change depending on situation and skills used. You appear to read the rules differently, with goals as a central concept in the contest.

In your reading you can separate out what is part of the main contest and what isn't. In my reading, you cant really do that as the goal is too fluid a concept.

Having said this, I do think we need a clearer definition of Unrelated Actions, and emphasising goals could be one method of clarifying things.

[Mike Holmes]

If the rules encourage players to take out opponents via a secondary method, it runs the risk of drifting the rule set towards a more gamist approach. Which, I believe, can detract from Heroquest's strengths.

Well, I don't think there's a valid threat of this here. Any moreso than there is of the system getting drifted to gamism because of situational modifiers, or changing goals to use different abilities, or any of several other currently existing features. That is, actually I'd agree that the system is probably susceptible to drift already, and I don't think that this will much change that. Only playtesting would tell. But the fact that the play seems pretty coherent right now in the play I have says to me that this won't hurt things either.

Or, put another way, if you think that this is problematc, I think that you should find all modifiers, and goal shifting problematic. The way to make it most strong for non-gamism play would be first to eliminate all of the other cruft that exists. Heck, you should just stick to simple contests (I mostly do). If extended contests work for you as is, then I don't think the wounding idea will hurt. But, again, the only way to know for sure at this point is to test it out.

Now, if you can prove that doing this is actually a superior option, then I think that it may be problematic. But the more I look at it, the more I think that it's actually not all that great an option. Basically, the odds of winning or losing are the same, the only question is which result makes you more likely to win. Yes, a -50% injury for a major victory is probably going to be telling (though the opponent can switch tactics, too). But you have to compare to the overall expected value of the results. A more typical result of -10% or -1 isn't likely to swing things in the character's favor much at all, whereas this could have gotten them substantial advances as an AP bid. Basically this only becomes a good tactic when you're relatively sure of a big result. And that only occurs with really lopsided contests.

In my experience with the game system, both running and playing, the narration of contests can very quickly become forgotten or de-emphasised in the midst of mathematical maneuvering. This can be just as much fun, but changes the style of the game dramatically (sometimes without the consent of all involved).

Narration is not narrativism (I was supposed to write an article for Narrator Advice that dealt with this, actually). Simply put, just because you only look at the numbers, and never narrate the action, says nothing about your mode of play. To whit, in my FTF games, we often don't have much, if any description of the in-game action. Gamism, and narrativism are very close in this regard. Desire for narration is, if anything, Simulationism.

Now, isms aside, if you don't like your game to lack narration of this sort of thing, and/or dislike extra complexity, then I can see your objection. I like narration only as much as people want to have it in play, and like extra complexity in my games. As long as the options are a fun means of pushing the agenda forward.

I think our differences on this matter may come down the useage of the word Goal. I do not get the impression from the rules that goals are a fundamental part of extended contests. A goal is stated at the beginning and it can change depending on situation and skills used. You appear to read the rules differently, with goals as a central concept in the contest.

In your reading you can separate out what is part of the main contest and what isn't. In my reading, you cant really do that as the goal is too fluid a concept.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Central" but you're absolutely correct that a player may change his goal in a contest at any time. I don't have a problem with that, in that the rule would still be that you couldn't get whatever your current goal was with an unrelated contest.

But I do see a loophole (that maybe is something you're already seeing coming). A player might say, "I'm changing my goal from killing my opponent to running away, and now I'm taking an Unrelated Action to try to Kill my opponent." That would be problematic, as it's voiding the intent of not allowing Unrelated Actions to end the contest favorable to the character using a sudden simple contest declaration. It would also lead to a strange situation in which the opponent might be dead, or otherwise thoroughly defeated, but still have AP left in the contest.

So, OK, here's my solution to that. Which is to charge directly in the opposite direction. How about instead of saying that the goal of an unrelated action used to "wound" has to be something that can't void the goal of the contest, how about if this can only be used if, in fact, the goal of the "unrealated action" is to further the character's chances of reaching the current goal. Thus wounding does help reach killing, but killing can't help with running away.

Making it very much a "related action," yes. Again, I think that the definition as "related or unrelated" is never going to work so I don't think this is problematic. That is, again, it's "unrelated" enough in that it doesn't reduce APs. Again, I'd call this just another mechanical option, rather than trying to decide what, in in-game terms counts as one or the other. If the player says that he's trying to get above me to create a penalty, then we roll for that. If he says that he's trying to get above me to reduce my AP, then we roll for that. The mechanical outcomes continue to work fine in either case, and players can select the option that seems most aesthetically pleasing to them for the action that they're considering.

Yes, this is still abuseable in theory, because a player could say something like, "I'm going to change my goal from killing him to having his funeral, and since killing him helps me get to do his funeral, I can do that as an unrelated action. But this is no more abusable than the current rules for changing goals are (I once posited that a player could kill some NPC with a marginal victory by delcaring that his goal was to impress the villagers watching the fight - in which case killing the opponent is merely a side-effect on the way to the actual goal). Basically it's up to narrator judgment to create a community standard that stands up here. Again, if this is problematic, then you'd have to lock goals throughout the contest to avoid the problem generally for your play.

Mike

[Web_Weaver]

Heck, you should just stick to simple contests (I mostly do). If extended contests work for you as is, then I don't think the wounding idea will hurt. But, again, the only way to know for sure at this point is to test it out.

Agree with all of this, I do stick to simple contests as much as possible, mainly for simplicity and speed, but partly because I don't feel that extended contests do run smoothly in my game. But this is probably social contract stuff, and I can't really comment fully here as I am currently playing not running in our weekly game and so I have yet to try and tidy up my games play style with a clearer understanding of the groups enjoyment requirements. (Will maybe use the actual play forum when I do get to this, as it will no doubt be interesting.)

My gut feeling for the unrelated wounding is one of potential danger, but I also think a more clearly defined system, such as you propose, is certainly worth playtesting. I actually wonder if any work has been done on these issues on the QuestWorlds project. Any idea how one would volunteer to playtest for this?

Basically, the odds of winning or losing are the same...

The obvious question here is where is the need then? Is there an identified need to include such wounding in the unrelated action rules. Again only answered by playtesting.

Narration is not narrativism.... Desire for narration is, if anything, Simulationism.

I agree totally, which is why I avoided the term, my point is more a number crunching over story issue. In fact, Heroquest is not easily pigeon-holed in this way.

Now, isms aside, if you don't like your game to lack narration of this sort of thing, and/or dislike extra complexity, then I can see your objection.

Indeed, I think this is the difference in approach. I see great potential in the extended contest rules as a narration heavy mechanism, one that allows a spreading out of the responsibility to tell the story. With this narration led approach 'extra fiddly bit's' would detract from the fluidity of the narration. However, I need to playtest the narration heavy style first, and see if it is enjoyable for my players, as they may feel more 'in control of their character's' with a more crunchy mechanic.

But I do see a loophole (that maybe is something you're already seeing coming). A player might say, "I'm changing my goal from killing my opponent to running away, and now I'm taking an Unrelated Action to try to Kill my opponent."

Actually yes, although my concern was the flipside of this example: attacking an unrelated skill and then changing the goal to exploit the new situation. Same difference really. In gamist terms, this would allow the players to feel clever in having defeated a foe by outmaneuvering the opponent, and as such may appeal to some players.

How about instead of saying that the goal of an unrelated action used to "wound" has to be something that can't void the goal of the contest, how about if this can only be used if, in fact, the goal of the "unrelated action" is to further the character's chances of reaching the current goal. Thus wounding does help reach killing, but killing can't help with running away.

Actually, that feels better for me (nomenclature concerns aside) as it keeps the action and therefore the narration, focused on the task at hand. Leaving anything that is intended for a conflicting goal as a discreet side issue.

Your manipulation of goals example, is only avoidable at a meta-game level, so not really as important an issue in terms of rules changes.

[nichughes]

Well, how do you know that an penalty won't apply to this contest later in it? That is, taking your example, the player, in a later round, decides that his bid is to distract his opponent, and asks for the penalty he got from the previous ridiculing to apply to his opponent's resistance. Do we then rule that it can't be allowed because it was caused by an unrelated action in the current conflict?

I would not bother with that, after all neither the goals or the steps on the way to them are really decided until the contest is over..

What I would do is apply a no double jeopardy rule. If later on in the contest the goals change such that the previously unrelated "wound" is now crucial to the contest then it applies to the contest but does not persist after the contest unless that would be the outcome of the contest by the normal AP rules. On the other hand if the "wound" never plays a significant part in the contest then it is an additional result of the contest and persists as long as is normal for the level of result.

The idea is to keep the basic contest simple and targeted on the current primary goal, whilst allowing for the fact that players may also have a number of secondary goals with which to distract themselves.

--
Nic

[Mike Holmes]

Again, I shouldn't talk about the contents of Quest Worlds, but I think it's safe to say that the team has looked at just about every aspect of the HQ rules in detail, and have come up with some pretty good solutions. Further, I've had to refrain from proposing certain radical solutions to all of these problems as they're ones that are under consideration for the project in question. Make of that what you will.

In any case, there is a percieved need for this that occurs prior to the whole discussion of Unrelated Actions. Which is that people often lament that it's impossible to get a penalty on your way to a victory in an extended contest. Questions of metagame aside, I actually agree with the simmies who propose this because it's damn dramatic as well to have to pay something for your victory. So I'm all for any system that creates this dynamic in HQ.

That is, UA's aside, I still like this idea for solving this other particular problem.

You are correct that system-wise, HQ is not easily pigeon-holed. What I'm talking about here, however, are things that constitute drift to something other than narrativism, or to to system that promotes things other than narrativism. That is, I don't think this particular rule creates said drift any more than doing lots of contests in play does. In fact if you talk to Jay, he'd say that density of rules impinging on play is anti-sim (though I don't really agree with that, either).


Nic,

I think double jeopardy is just fine, given that the duration of any penalty is really a matter of narrator whim. By adjusting the nature of the description of a penalty, the narrator can make it something that will fade quickly, or stick around until healed. I like this feature, personally, and so I don't want something to artificially limit the duration of penalties.

Mike