Another AP question

[lightcastle]

I thought this might as well be another thread.

How do you deal with a player wanting to take out someone's augments and modifiers?

Things like disarming a sword to remove the weapon bonus, or tangling someone's feet to eliminate their Running? Making loud sounds to take out someone's Hearing?

Do you just assume that the AP knocked off in the bid covers it? (That seems wrong). Do you do something like the "inflict a wound" rule, where you sacrifice some of the AP you took off to cement the loss, as it were? If so, how much is a reasonable trade off to insist on?  Is it better to just assume that's really only a situational modifier and just add it in to the next round?

Do people have preferences on this matter? (Again I suspect the answer is -- of course -- "go with what works for your style of play", but I'm curious.)[/i]

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi,

How do you deal with a player wanting to take out someone's augments and modifiers?

Things like disarming a sword to remove the weapon bonus, or tangling someone's feet to eliminate their Running? Making loud sounds to take out someone's Hearing?

I would handle it as an unrelated action. If successful, the opponent would lose his sword (or whatever) and its bonus, or he would get a penalty due to his loss of hearing as dictated by the Contest Consequences table.

Cheers,

/Peter N

[Wulf]

How do you deal with a player wanting to take out someone's augments and modifiers?

Do you just assume that the AP knocked off in the bid covers it? (That seems wrong). Do you do something like the "inflict a wound" rule, where you sacrifice some of the AP you took off to cement the loss, as it were? If so, how much is a reasonable trade off to insist on?  Is it better to just assume that's really only a situational modifier and just add it in to the next round? [/i]

I use Wounds, requiring 7 AP per -1 (I allow more than one 'wound' for this purpose). Naturally, the stated intent and ability used mst be suitable. If it's done by a magical Feat/Spirit/Spell, or in a Simple Contest (unusual Simple Contest, but what the hell), I require at least a Minor Success (a Marginal just reduces the augment by 1).

Wulf

[lightcastle]

Both of those seem reasonable.

I would handle it as an unrelated action. If successful, the opponent would lose his sword (or whatever) and its bonus, or he would get a penalty due to his loss of hearing as dictated by the Contest Consequences table.

I use Wounds, requiring 7 AP per -1 (I allow more than one 'wound' for this purpose). Naturally, the stated intent and ability used mst be suitable. If it's done by a magical Feat/Spirit/Spell, or in a Simple Contest (unusual Simple Contest, but what the hell), I require at least a Minor Success (a Marginal just reduces the augment by 1).

It seems that Peter's approach works well for the "all or nothing" augment, like a sword, since you can just get rid of it on a success (it makes little sense to "reduce" the augment).  But I must admit I like Wulf's idea of keeping it in with AP bids (after all, a dramatic disarm is certainly a risky and daring maneuver). It seems a bit high, though. A typical sword would require a 21 point bid to disarm it.

While I hesitate at throwing in lots of unrelated simple actions to a contest, it seems that it might be an easier approach in this sort of situation.

[Brand_Robins]

While I hesitate at throwing in lots of unrelated simple actions to a contest, it seems that it might be an easier approach in this sort of situation.

I generally go with something closer to Wulf's suggestion, as I hate filling combat with lots of unrelated actions -- especially when the actual action being represented is intimate to the conflict.

In general I think people under use AP, letting them remain to vague and nebulous, rather than pushing them and making their gain and loss have actual tangible game effects. To me that's the whole point of AP, not only do they give you the abstract "who's winning this moment" meter, they give you a way to dramatically push and move the contest.

Generally what I do is use the "Sample Advantage Point Bids" on page 68 as a guide to what should have to be bid in order to attempt an action. I figure out how difficult/dangerous the action would be and how much effect it would have on the conflict, and then determine it's AP minimum by checking the table.

Something tricking, and potentially dangerous, like a disarm is generally going to require a fairly large AP bid – a determined action, something that you push in order to dramatically shift the combat. If you're successful the abstract meter gives you more AP, and the dramatic push sends your opponents sword spinning across the floor. Of course, running to get your sword back is a much less reckless maneuver (unless, of course, you disarmed it into a dangerous area) and so he'll probably only need to make a mid to low AP bid to get it back. So a disarm becomes dangerous both because you can screw yourself if you miss, and because even if you're successful the opponent may get his blade right back.

Doing it this way lets the disarm stay part of the conflict, something that makes the AP gain and loss actually mean something other than bean counting, and gives the players options and things to think about when they're doing actions in an extended contest other than just "I stab him with a 10 AP bid."

[lightcastle]

I like the sword disarming example, because unlike the wound, which is permanently carried, any of these other modifiers can be recovered with another AP bid.  (Dramatically rolling across the table and to your sword to pick it up again.) Thus you don't need to calculate it on a straight 7AP per bonus of augment you are knocking off.

At the same time, having gone back and read the Extended Contests posts much earlier in this forum, I see a lot of this has already been discussed. Including the idea of using Simple Contest unrelated actions as a way to put a serious hurt on someone (more than the -1).

I have the feeling I'm going to have to play some of these out to see how it feels in real time.

And, of course, this is all in anticipation of the fight scenes my too-used-to-DnD players are going to get into, I haven't even touched on the relationships aspects -- which I am looking forward to.

[Wulf]

It seems that Peter's approach works well for the "all or nothing" augment, like a sword, since you can just get rid of it on a success (it makes little sense to "reduce" the augment).  But I must admit I like Wulf's idea of keeping it in with AP bids (after all, a dramatic disarm is certainly a risky and daring maneuver). It seems a bit high, though. A typical sword would require a 21 point bid to disarm it.

Sorry, should have mentioned I kept the 'Hero Wars' Grievous Wound rule, a loss of 15 points means a Wound PLUS the effects of AP loss. So a 15 point AP loss can be converted into -3 wounds and a 1 AP loss. Basically, a Grievous Wound level of AP can do just about anything.

And you could 'reduce' the bonus from a sword, either by bending/breaking it (better for a spear or axe), or by unseating it from the wielder's grip (unrelated action to settle the grip/re-augment) or simply by 'shocking' the wielder's hand or arm. In re-enactment (blunt metal weapons) that was quite common, hit their sword so hard they ended up with a numb arm.

Wulf

[lightcastle]

Sorry, should have mentioned I kept the 'Hero Wars' Grievous Wound rule, a loss of 15 points means a Wound PLUS the effects of AP loss. So a 15 point AP loss can be converted into -3 wounds and a 1 AP loss. Basically, a Grievous Wound level of AP can do just about anything.

Not having the Hero Was book, I'm not familiar with this. But in HeroQuest it says everything over the 7AP keeps on as an AP loss. (i.e. - 15 AP means you could put 7 into the wound, and the other 8 go as a loss to the person.) So did Hero Wars just let you add up those AP as you go?

I'm not sure of the math.

And you could 'reduce' the bonus from a sword, either by bending/breaking it (better for a spear or axe), or by unseating it from the wielder's grip (unrelated action to settle the grip/re-augment) or simply by 'shocking' the wielder's hand or arm. In re-enactment (blunt metal weapons) that was quite common, hit their sword so hard they ended up with a numb arm.

Hmmm.. That's very true.

It really does seem to be that there are numerous ways to model this, and one should just go with what works for them.  I suspect I am going to have to find this balance in play.

[Mike Holmes]

I like the sword disarming example, because unlike the wound, which is permanently carried, any of these other modifiers can be recovered with another AP bid.  (Dramatically rolling across the table and to your sword to pick it up again.) Thus you don't need to calculate it on a straight 7AP per bonus of augment you are knocking off.

Not to sound pedantic, but you're missing something about "wounds." Penalties that are the result of a contest can be anything and "heal" at some reasonable time related to their nature. Actual wounds probably require days at least (and this is dealt with in the book as such). But if the "wound" in question is actually representative of the loss of a sword, then it's "healed" as soon as the player successfully recovers it. This may or may not need a roll as determined by the Narrator.

I have the feeling I'm going to have to play some of these out to see how it feels in real time.

What you'll find, I think, is that all these methods work out just happily. That is, you can probably let the players figure it out for themselves as to how they want to represent these things when they happen. That is, even if you have a player who doesn't know about the Unrelated Action option, you'll find that he'll come up with the idea of disarming his opponent all on his own using AP.

Similarly, you can use whatever seems to make sense to you at the time. Each of them have somewhat different effects, and so, to an extent, the potential result represents just how all out you're going. The Unrelated Action to disarm is actually quite a potent gamble - you could end up with a complete success, say, meaning potentially that the opponent, sans sword and demoralized, is now incapable of using that ability for at least the rest of the combat. That can be telling. While the AP disarm may just be for color, the sword soon retrieved in a future round, and combat continuing.

Mike

[Wulf]

Not having the Hero Was book, I'm not familiar with this. But in HeroQuest it says everything over the 7AP keeps on as an AP loss. (i.e. - 15 AP means you could put 7 into the wound, and the other 8 go as a loss to the person.) So did Hero Wars just let you add up those AP as you go?

No, the Grievous Wound rule was entirely seperate and only mentioned, I think, in the Glossary of Hero Wars. While you could OPT to drop 7 AP to inflict a wound, if you inflicted 15 AP loss or more the opponent lost all the AP AND ADDITIONALLY took a wound. The rule was still that you couldn't inflict more than one wound at a time, but the Grievous Wounds rule specifically stated that it inflicted a wound which should be treated "as if it were from another contest" (approximate quote from memory). The only way that wording made sense was if the Grievous Wound rule overrode the normal limit of one wound per action.

Mind you, I also simplified the HeroQuest combat rules by stating that a Minor Success in a Simple Contest resulted in the loser losing 1/10 of the ATTACKER'S current ability - thus saving the losing player/GM from having to recalculate every ability used until healed!

Wulf

[lightcastle]

Wulf,
 I think I'll skip the Greivous wound rule. I see the appeal, and maybe keep it in mind for the future. Thanks for clearing it up, though.

Mind you, I also simplified the HeroQuest combat rules by stating that a Minor Success in a Simple Contest resulted in the loser losing 1/10 of the ATTACKER'S current ability - thus saving the losing player/GM from having to recalculate every ability used until healed!

I'm not sure how much this simplifies anything. Wouldn't it still be applied to all relevant abilities, so require the math anyway? Or am I missing something?

Not to sound pedantic, but you're missing something about "wounds." Penalties that are the result of a contest can be anything and "heal" at some reasonable time related to their nature. Actual wounds probably require days at least (and this is dealt with in the book as such). But if the "wound" in question is actually representative of the loss of a sword, then it's "healed" as soon as the player successfully recovers it. This may or may not need a roll as determined by the Narrator.

I realize that the word "wound" is misleading here. And don't worry about being pedantic. Making sure the word choice is clear can be important in these things. I should use the "Hurt" terminology in the book. But I was under the impression that 7AP turned into a Hurt was carried to the end of the contest at the very least.  

What you'll find, I think, is that all these methods work out just happily. That is, you can probably let the players figure it out for themselves as to how they want to represent these things when they happen.

I don't doubt it. One of the reasons I'm throwing these all out is to have some idea of what way to jump when my players start throwing stuff at me. :)  I expect there will be a fair amount of winging it and just negotiating what "makes sense" to the group. (If everyone's happy, then you're playing correctly, right?)

Similarly, you can use whatever seems to make sense to you at the time. Each of them have somewhat different effects, and so, to an extent, the potential result represents just how all out you're going. The Unrelated Action to disarm is actually quite a potent gamble - you could end up with a complete success, say, meaning potentially that the opponent, sans sword and demoralized, is now incapable of using that ability for at least the rest of the combat. That can be telling. While the AP disarm may just be for color, the sword soon retrieved in a future round, and combat continuing.

That's a good way of looking at it.  In fact, it is one of those things about the HeroQuest system that I like so much. The rules give you a few options to model different things depending on the needs and drama of the story. (We've been keeping this nice and limited to a swordfight, just because I know my players will start thinking of extra things to do first in a fight. Then, as they realize the system works for other conflicts, they will start getting REALLY clever. *grin*)  

In a way, the unrelated action thing completely compliments the AP approach and event he "drop 7 and give them a hurt" approach. Since an unrelated action doesn't effect AP, in some ways it's all a scale of sacrificing a potential gain in position/advantage to alter the future rolls by taking away or impairing an ability.

Man, the fact that scheduling means I've lost my Saturday game (too many people have to miss it) means I will have to wait another week to really try this all out. (I might just grab 1 guy and hack some of this out to see what I think, though.)

[Wulf]

Mind you, I also simplified the HeroQuest combat rules by stating that a Minor Success in a Simple Contest resulted in the loser losing 1/10 of the ATTACKER'S current ability - thus saving the losing player/GM from having to recalculate every ability used until healed!

I'm not sure how much this simplifies anything. Wouldn't it still be applied to all relevant abilities, so require the math anyway? Or am I missing something?

Well, this way you're told the reduction at the time of it's infliction, and it's the same for every ability, rather than having to recalculate 1/10 of every ability used, then subtract. After a series of contests, you could end up with a Major, two minor and 3 marginal failure effects. Now, is that 30%, -3, of the original ability? Or is it 90% of 90% of 50% of the original -3? My way it's half your ability minus whatever's marked as your wounds.

Wulf

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, I get Wulf's thing now. But you're double rewarding high ability ratings (or double penalizing low ones). As for calculating the loss for every ability, that's really not difficult. Also, I only apply it to the total TN, not to each ability. That is, I don't say, OK, your strength 5W is reduced by 10% so that's 2W, and thus the augment is a +2, not a +3. I get the total TN as normal with all the augments, and then take off 10%.

In any case, I find that PCs with particular hurts end up in contests that don't involve them (the players cleverly steer clear of them until healed) so it's rarely something that happens, anyhow.

Also, the rules state very clearly how to calculate losses. First, you total the percentage losses, and deduct for those. Then you subtract total hurts. This is actually the harshest method possible, and intentionally so. If you have several injuries that bring you below zero, where the rules explicitly say that you can't attempt that contest, then you know you aren't up to it.

LC, I think the idea is that a hurt due to AP conversion lasts for the entire contest, if not healed in it. That is, I think you're refering to the normal duration, but I'll have to check the book. In any case, it's a simple change to say that you can "heal" them, and hard to explain why you wouldn't be able to do so. Maybe more importantly, players don't often use the AP method, even if made aware of it. Because it's pretty unsound tactically. I think it's mostly for players who want to toy with their foes, or for GM's looking to make a contest more "interesting" (meaning making the character more interesting by hurting him, while keeping him in the contest). Because the AP thing prolongs the contest, and doesn't really creat a penalty that matters, relatively speaking.

Further, people have always talked about allowing multiple hurts from one AP loss. The idea is that the statement about anything more than 7 getting applied really means anything more than are spent on hurts. Meaning that the "change" is charged to the AP account of the loser after the hurt comes out (and that the part about seeming to limit it to 7 is an unintentional example). Still, again, this won't get used much - if you can do 28 AP and finish off your opponent, or give him a -4, which are you likely to do? :-)

Lastly, the one rule that most offends me in all the HQ rules is the MGF rule. The one that says that you should change the rules if somehow they aren't fun. HQ is fun, and needs no changing. The many rules provide you with such a versatile toolbox that I can't imagine any reason to change them. That's not to say that HQ is the ultimate game or anything, just that it works well as written for what it was written.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Lastly, the one rule that most offends me in all the HQ rules is the MGF rule. The one that says that you should change the rules if somehow they aren't fun. HQ is fun, and needs no changing. The many rules provide you with such a versatile toolbox that I can't imagine any reason to change them. That's not to say that HQ is the ultimate game or anything, just that it works well as written for what it was written

I honestly can't tell if you're joking here. I mean, I agree that HQ seems to have such a real toolbox that you don't need to make more rules (it's more a question of how you and your players choose to interperet said rules) but I still think MGF is a general principle.

Re: Multiple hurts. I kinda figured I would end up doing that. As you say, it is rare you would trade it in when the AP penalty was huge. It becomes less and less sound tactically as the AP penalty grows.  I have the feeling I would be using the AP thing more often just for colour/storyline/"keeping things interesting" stuff.

I'm getting the feeling that specifically taking out an ability or advantage (weapon, equipment, etc) I would do as an unrelated action most times. I'll have to see when I actually run something, but that seems to be what my brain keeps slipping back to.

[rylen dreskin]

Getting back to weapon augments and disarms, should there be a difference between descriptive actions and keyword or magic based actions?

For instance, a number of combat affinities include things like "break sword, break cudgel" and a fighting type could definitely develop a "disarm weapon skill."  Given that these specifically remove particular augments, should they be more permanant then "I try to knock the sword from his hand."?

Rylen