Group Extended Contests and Ganging Up

[bluegargantua]

Hi,

 So I ran some heroquest yesterday and it went fairly well.  We ran out of time before reaching the Heroquest portion of the game, but people seemed to have a fun time anyway.

 Afterwards, one other guy was left and we tried out group extended contests because that's what the Heroquest was mostly going to be and I was curious to see how it worked.

 We came up with two groups of three characters each.  They were cookie cutter identical so we had:

 Group One:  A, B, C
 Group Two:  1, 2, 3

 Each character had a starting AP of 50.  Two of the guys had a skill of 17 for anything they attempted to do, the last guy had a skill of 25.  Not terribly realistic, but we just wanted to jump in and streamline.

 First off -- even sides like this are real luck-based as far as we can tell.

 But the big question came when Group One decided to have A and B gang up on 1.  With some decent sized bids and good rolls they tore him down pretty fast.  Which made me wonder:

 1.)  Is there a penalty for multiple opponents?

 2.)  If I'm attacking someone who's busy with someone else, do I get any bonus to attack them?

 I keep thinking there's something in the rules about this, but I couldn't find it.

later
Tom

[Peter Nordstrand]

1.)  Is there a penalty for multiple opponents?

2.)  If I'm attacking someone who's busy with someone else, do I get any bonus to attack them?

See HeroQuest, page 79.

[Bankuei]

Hi Tom,

First off -- even sides like this are real luck-based as far as we can tell.

There are two things also to take into account.  

First is augments, which will change and alter each round depending on what someone is doing or doing to react to another.  Since each character will have a wide variety of augment "clusters", you'll find that the same character may only have a 17 in one round and 3W4 (83) in the next.  This means that even sides are going to be a rarity rather than a common factor.

Second is the rules for modifiers which also goes right into tactics used on a round to round basis by the players and the opposition.  While augments push up the scores, modifiers can alter a score from -20 to +20 easily.

So, the real difference in "evenly matched" contests is a combination of good augment clusters used intelligently and smart tactics(player creativity) each round.  A lot of people miss that, and that is really the wide, wide open door for player strategy in terms of altering the odds and the outcome in contests in HQ.

Chris

[Bryant]

Hi Tom,

First is augments, which will change and alter each round depending on what someone is doing or doing to react to another.  Since each character will have a wide variety of augment "clusters", you'll find that the same character may only have a 17 in one round and 3W4 (83) in the next.  This means that even sides are going to be a rarity rather than a common factor.

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this. Can you give us a short example?

[bluegargantua]

Yeah, I just want to tag on to what Bryant said above.

See, my issue is that if it's a fight then your starting AP will be based off of your combat skills.  Further, most of the time, you'll be trying to clobber the other guy.  Well, you've pretty much calculated what your score is going to be and it's probably not going to change much at all.  Every round you're going to pick an opponent and go after them.

Now, I totally understand if you're (say) a healer and taking a bunch of unrelated actions to heal up characters and lend AP and get them back in the fight but when it comes to toe-to-toe fighting, haven't you already done most of the number crunching?  What would cause the numbers to shift significantly?

Tom

[Brand_Robins]

What would cause the numbers to shift significantly?

Taking different actions, attacking different foes, changing the face of battle, etc. The only way you'll have calculated your score for all your actions in a contest is if all your actions in the contest are essentially the same. In other words, if all you're doing is "hitting him with my sword" every round -- and 'him' is a generic foe against whom you have no special bonuses or penalties -- then sure, its unlikely things will change that much from round to round.

However, both because of the nature of the game and the fact that players will always be seeking to pump themselves a little more, I've rarely seen an actual HeroQuest combat do this. I think part of the problem we get with you example at the beginning of the thread is that it seems to presuppose a certain level of "white room generic opponent" combat that's actually fairly rare in HeroQuest. Many HeroQuest combats (at least Extended Contest Combats) will be fairly specifically tied to place and personality. Once you add that in, things can change quickly.

For example, let's take the ABC & 123 combat and make it a group of Lunar soldiers sent to Dragon Pass to support the local Temple of the Reaching Moon against a group of Heortling rebels trying to break the Lunar stranglehold on the grain supply so their family doesn't starve that winter. The setting is a narrow mountain path that winds around the edge of a steep cliff, clogged up with three wagons full of grain and a small procession of priests.  

Now assuming, for whatever reason, the Heortlings don't ambush the Lunars but rather engage them in frontal combat so that both sides can use their full combat skills to bump things up and set their starting AP values (highly unlikely) it doesn't mean the score they start out with will be the score they use the whole contest. Just for starters someone will probably eventually attack the priests, at which point the Lunars get to add their piety scores to their total. Then it's also likely that a member of one side or the other will try to disengage to do something with/to the wagons, or to shift position to use missile weapons, or to block off the path so that the enemy has to come at them from one angle, or to leap over the heads of the whole rival group with a feat, or to try to bull-rush someone off the cliff, and so on. Then add in the special abilities and magic of the people fighting ("I will now use my amulet of flame to set fire to the cart the Lunar is standing on!"), the possibility of someone trying a non-combat skill to end the encounter ("Just give us the grain and we let the priests live" – Intimidating 5w augmented by Honorable and Good Reputation), followers being gained and lost through the course of the fight, or even things as simple as the sword wielding Heortlings forcing the spear wielding Lunars into a tight crevice where the spears become useless as weapons ("I'll use my Huge augmented by my Strong and Iron Skined to push them between two carts and the cliffs edge, so they have to drop their spears or take a penalty on using them") and you'll get scores that change radically from turn to turn.

Honestly, if you're going to just have a straight up fight in which scores, actions, tactics, and augments aren't going to change through the contest you'd probably be better doing it as a simple contest – things like that are what the rule is there for.

[bluegargantua]

Hmmm...

 Looks like some more playtesting is called for (and perhaps another reading of the rulebook).

 Couple questions from your example:

 1.)  As the Lunars, wouldn't the piety be figured in from the start?  If I'm the Lunar player, grabbing for every augment I can, I'll stick in that Piety as soon as I see the barbarians charging me.

 2.)  It sounds like many of the various things people try in your example would count as Unreleated Actions calling for a simple contest.  Is that correct?  My thought was that Unrelated Actions don't change the AP totals because there's no bid (you're doing something else).  Lending APs is the Unrelated Action that sticks out most in my mind -- the APs change, but not as the result of a bid, you're just shifting them around.  Maybe I'm just being too stingy with what counts as "related".

 3.)  I know you can trade in APs for Wounds or Impairment, but is there any defined mechanics for shifting focus in combat?  Your example includes herding the lunars so they can't use their spears (or suffer a penalty).  What determines difficulty or effect?  If I bid a minimum of 3APs and succeed do I affect them at all or as much as someone who bids 30APs?  I suspect this is the more narrative, portion of things, but I'm a little unclear as to what you can do.

 BTW -- I really appreciate this example.  Despite my questions, I think I'm actually grokking it.  I'd really like to flesh this out a bit and actually run it to provide a larger Example of Play for people.

Tom

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm...

 Looks like some more playtesting is called for (and perhaps another reading of the rulebook).

I'm thinking that's what's needed is actual play. As Brand point out doing generic combats is likely to lead you more astray than it is to help. Play the game and it will become clearer much more quickly.  You're a smart guy, you don't need to "practice" this stuff at all. Become good at it as you play. More fun that way.

1.)  As the Lunars, wouldn't the piety be figured in from the start?  If I'm the Lunar player, grabbing for every augment I can, I'll stick in that Piety as soon as I see the barbarians charging me.

Potentially. But the game isn't all about just making the biggest stack you can, it's about augmenting with what inspires you at the moment.

2.)  It sounds like many of the various things people try in your example would count as Unreleated Actions calling for a simple contest.  Is that correct?  My thought was that Unrelated Actions don't change the AP totals because there's no bid (you're doing something else).  Lending APs is the Unrelated Action that sticks out most in my mind -- the APs change, but not as the result of a bid, you're just shifting them around.  Maybe I'm just being too stingy with what counts as "related".

If the player wants it to be unrelated, then I make it unrelated. If they want the action to be related, then it's related. I mean, I have my input, too, but it's really more a matter of taste than anything else. Put it this way, if you want to give the opponent a penalty, then it's an unrelated action. If you want to lower their AP, then it's related.

3.)  I know you can trade in APs for Wounds or Impairment, but is there any defined mechanics for shifting focus in combat?  Your example includes herding the lunars so they can't use their spears (or suffer a penalty).  What determines difficulty or effect?  If I bid a minimum of 3APs and succeed do I affect them at all or as much as someone who bids 30APs?  I suspect this is the more narrative, portion of things, but I'm a little unclear as to what you can do.

As always the action should parallel the AP bid. If both me and my opponent have 50 AP, I can't say, "I  bid 3 AP on an all out lunge intended to cut his head off." The bid and action must match. There are some good guidelines in the book on what fractional proportions represent what kind of action. The larger the "shift" the larger the AP bid would have to be to be appropriate.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

1.)  As the Lunars, wouldn't the piety be figured in from the start?

Depends on how you sing it. If I were the GM I'd initially say no, unless you specifically pointed out that you were protecting the priests -- and then your first couple of combat actions would have to, in fact, involve protecting the priests (and thus probably affecting the skills you can/can't use and the improve penalties you get), or you gave a really good reason why loving your god should make you want to make these guys dead. (Possible with Lunars vs Heortlings, but not automatic.)

In general, when using "possible" augments -- especially those that are personality traits, I use the passionate intensity rules explicated here: http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_personality.html

2.)  It sounds like many of the various things people try in your example would count as Unreleated Actions calling for a simple contest.  Is that correct?

Watch Brand tap-dance....

Some people would run them that way, yes. And as Mike pointed out, some players might want them run that way because doing it as an unrelated action can give the opponent a penalty rather than changing the AP total. However....

I don't generally like resorting to Unrelated Actions for actions that clearly are directly and intimately related to the contest. If you're in a sword fight and suddenly have to save an innocent person who is falling off a cliff – sure, that's an unrelated contest. If, however, you're in a sword fight and you want to disarm you opponent, or force them into a corner, or get behind their guard, or unbuckle their armor – these are all things that are quite clearly part of the contest. They aren't just related to it – they are an inherent part of the fight, a part that if we didn't get in a movie or novel we'd be mighty pissed off about.

Luckily they can all be modeled with AP loss and required skill uses and improv penalties (you lose your ability to use your spear, you can't use spear & shield fighting at full value, for example) and so there is generally no deed to go to Unrelated Actions for them.

One complaint I hear about HQ is that APs are just beans to count, utterly abstract and having no real relation to the tangible situations the PCs are in. All I can say to people doing it that way is that you're doing something different than I am. In my games APs represent something. You take away 3/4ths your opponents APs you don't just nebulously get into a better position – you knock him on his ass and kick his shield to the side, if you take away 1/3rd his AP you get inside his guard, etc. So when a player wants to call such an action, all they have to do is make a suitable AP bid (using the chart on page 68 as a guideline) and if they get the AP they needed then they get the result they wanted. That way gaining and losing AP is about gaining and losing control and position in the scene, not just about bean counting and generic and abstract advantage.

3.)  I know you can trade in APs for Wounds or Impairment, but is there any defined mechanics for shifting focus in combat?  Your example includes herding the lunars so they can't use their spears (or suffer a penalty).  What determines difficulty or effect?

I think Mike got this one pretty well -- it ties in to what I said above. If something is going to effect the current contest, but not have long term effects, you can probably model it with AP. If you're fighting someone using a spear and you want to make the spear useless to them it's going to be a pretty important action, so will take a pretty good AP bid to make it happen. It's this kind of thing that makes me keep my book open to page 68 during combats.

Lets give an example here, using the above scenario.

The Heortling wants to pin the Lunar into a narrow area between two carts, making it impossible for the Lunar to use his spear correctly. This will inconvenience the Lunar for a turn or two (until the Lunar does a maneuver action to get out, or a strength action to push the barbarian back, etc) because they can only use their shield -- getting them an improv penalty to their Spear & Shield combat ability.  This is a pretty brave action, none to easy, and with a good amount of consequence -- it would probably thus take a bid of 1/2 the Heortlings starting AP to make it work.

Now lets say the Heortling wants to disarm the Lunar, knocking the spear out of his hand. This is a harder action, has bigger consequences (the Lunar might not be able to get the spear back, will have to take an action to get it back at least, and will take either a large improv penalty to Spear & Shield combat for a couple turns or will have to use a different skill), and so needs a bigger AP bid -- like maybe 2/3 the Heortlings starting AP.

Finally, the Heortling wants to sunder the Lunars spear & shield -- leaving him with no weapons. This is obviously a huge maneuver, designed to effectively end the fight in one or two actions. Thus the Heortling is going to have to bid between 3/4ths and all of their starting AP. If they succeed the fight will probably end quickly. If they fail it will probably be pretty quick as well -- but in the opposite direction as they step in to deliver a great blow and the Lunar puts her spear in the Heortling's neck....

My rule is generally that if the action will affect the fight, but not necessarily last outside the fight, then it should be doable as an AP bid. Thus if you want to gain ground, knock your opponent down, disarm him, shove him under a blanket, etc (all temporary penalties) then you don't have to resort to wounds to do it, its part of the fight. It's only if you want to inflict a wound that will last outside the current contest that you have to trade AP to inflict a Hurt. So if you want to slice your opponents arm, making him weak for a day or so after, or inflict a particularly cruel joke on someone that will linger around town for a week even if they out debate you about the main issue, or take away –all- of an opponents weapons so they're defenseless until they get home – then you're probably wanting to trade Ap for Hurts.

[lightcastle]

Hey Brand. Thanks for the explanation, I think you put your position more clearly than when I was asking about it earlier, and I thank you for that.

So when a player wants to call such an action, all they have to do is make a suitable AP bid (using the chart on page 68 as a guideline) and if they get the AP they needed then they get the result they wanted.

What if they don't get the AP they needed?
Does this mean you would rule that a marginal success doesn't achieve what you wanted it to?

[Brand_Robins]

What if they don't get the AP they needed?
Does this mean you would rule that a marginal success doesn't achieve what you wanted it to?

Generally that you get a part of what you want. You've had some effect, just not everything you were shooting for.

For example if you're trying to disarm somone and you get a complete success their sword goes flying out of their hand and off a cliff (bye-bye -- no more sword this fight). If you get a major you disarm then and knock it across the room (they need to do a good sized bid to get it back). If you get a minor you knock their sword out of their hand, but it lands at their feet (they can get it back for a small bid). If you get a marginal you make them lose their grip, but they'll be able to recover fairly easily (they don't have to bid to get it back, but maybe get a -1 to a single roll as they recover).

However, I'll also note I've occasionally had a player bid way more than they needed to in order to get an effect, just so they'd have enough AP to acheive their goal even if they only got a marginal success.

[lightcastle]

However, I'll also note I've occasionally had a player bid way more than they needed to in order to get an effect, just so they'd have enough AP to acheive their goal even if they only got a marginal success.

So to use your disarming example, if they said they wanted to disarm the opponent, and you said, "sure, that would be about a 20AP bid (random number picked for no good reason)" and they said "Fine, I bid 40 AP", you would let them disarm the opponent even if they got a 20 AP result?

Shouldn't they have to justify why this disarming attempt is risking twice as much AP as a normal one, would be?  Presumably it is riskier and more daring, do you make them explain why, or do you just let them go with it?

[Mike Holmes]

Shouldn't they have to justify why this disarming attempt is risking twice as much AP as a normal one, would be?  Presumably it is riskier and more daring, do you make them explain why, or do you just let them go with it?

Of course they have to justify it. In my game, instead of saying, "I try to disarm him with 20AP," the player will say, "I try really hard to disarm him with 40AP."

I mean, it's not high art. Just take the player's explanation and accept it. He's taking a more dramatic risk, so why try to slow him down? :-)

Mike

[Alai]

So to use your disarming example, if they said they wanted to disarm the opponent, and you said, "sure, that would be about a 20AP bid (random number picked for no good reason)" and they said "Fine, I bid 40 AP", you would let them disarm the opponent even if they got a 20 AP result?

Shouldn't they have to justify why this disarming attempt is risking twice as much AP as a normal one, would be?  Presumably it is riskier and more daring, do you make them explain why, or do you just let them go with it?

This is one of those "groupthink" things, but I think a good maxim is "sauce for the gander". If the Narrator's (or better, the group) expectation is for description revision along such lines, the Narrator should really be trying to phrase her end of the dialogue in game-world terms too, and equally should feel free to _suggest_ such modified descriptions if she deems them necessary.  It ought not to be a process simply of "player proposes, Narrator vetos". Equally, no law against the other players from contributing -- rather than just sitting there like great puddings.  But if the group doesn't have such an expectation, and perceives the details of this as more nuisance than added value, why bother?

[lightcastle]

I mean, it's not high art. Just take the player's explanation and accept it. He's taking a more dramatic risk, so why try to slow him down? :-)

Indeed. :)

And Alai, I have to agree that this is one of those things that should just evolve in the social contract anyway.

Thanks all.  Now, if only the group I was putting this together with hadn't been poached by someone offering them a new DnD3E game. (Learning new things is hard, so now they've all agreed to that and "don't have time" for another game.)