I'd like to try and get my regular group hooked on HQ. I just love the system, and my gamers seem tailor-made for a story-heavy style of play. Most of them are professional improv comics outside of their day jobs, for instance: the ideas of "saying yes" and "story over character, character over kewlness" are their bread and butter.

But, they're also gamers, and they love their crunch. Our current game of preference is 7th Sea, which provides a healthy balance between narrative-driven gaming and crunch (the powers of Swordsman Schools, sorcery, magic items like dracheneisen and puzzle swords). I'd like to think that they're serious enough to make the jump to a game that's almost entirely narrative-driven, but, without crunch, they might not have anything to sink their teeth into ... if I may stretch the metaphor to its breaking point.

So - how can I add crunch to Heroquest? Keep in mind that I'm not using the published setting of Glorantha in any way (I just don't like it; sorry). If I incorporate any of Glorantha's magic rules as written, it'd be strictly the Theism chapter - I like the hierarchy of worshippers -> initiates -> devotees, and the way the powers unfold into feats and then lead to secrets. I will be using most of the relationship rules as written.

I already have write-ups for several debate schools which teach different styles of rhetoric and persuasion, structured like theist pantheons in Glorantha. That's somewhat crunchy for me (the benefits provided by debate school membership are pretty sizable), but I could use more crunch.

Suggestions?

Well, what constitutes "crunch" for you. I mean, we could start throwing things out there, but if you could give us, say, one example of something "crunchy" from one game, and where that's "missing" in Glorantha, then I think we might be able to help better.

Taking a stab in the dark, if by "crunchy" you mean "playing with a lot of detailed algorithms" I'd say that HQ can support that pretty well as is - it all depends on the GM to make it crunchy by declaring lots of detailed contests.

For instance, break down fighting into more discrete segments. Have a roll for every attack, and have that just be to determine if you hit. Then have another roll to see if defenses were penetrated. Then another to see how bad the injury was. Then another to see how badly armor was damaged.

For instance, Player A has his character attack Player B's character with his sword. Player A rolls his Swordsmanship against Player B's Sword and Shield as a defense. Let's say that A gets a Minor Success. The GM Narrates, "the blow connects solidly". Then player A rolls his character's Strength against the opponent's Breastplate ability (I recommend handling all equipment as abilities instead of as bonuses in this sort of situation) reduced by 10% for the good connection of the blow, and gets a major success this time. The GM narrates, "the strong blow is just beneath the breastplate rendering it uselsess. Then player A rolls his Strength again (each time these rolls are with appropriate augments) against the defender's Stout ability with a -50% due to the strength of the blow and the armor being no help. Player A gets a Complete Success this time, and the GM narrates, "The sword slides through important parts of the foe's anatomy, and he drops to the ground dying."

HQ can be as "crunchy" as you want depending on how you break up the contests. I suggest that you may find that in practice it's less fun to do all this detail every time, but preferences will vary.

In any case, is that the sort of "crunchy" you're talking about? If not, see my original comments about clarifying what you mean.

You may also be interested in Simon Hibbs' posts on the subject of Crunchy conflicts:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5828
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8336

Mike

Yeah, I suppose I am being kind of vague.

I define "crunch" as "that stuff that you read the sourcebooks for during your downtime, speculating how cool it would be if your PC had that stuff." Using 7th Sea as an example, heroes can invest a sizable number of points in being a member of a Swordsman School. You gain ranks in a Sword School (Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Master) by increasing that school's prerequisite skills. So, as you advance, you gain the benefits of being a better swordfighter, since your skills improve.

The difference is, thanks to your Sword School membership, you also get a special bonus or attack at each rank of mastery. An Apprentice of the Eisenfaust school, for instance, is skilled at exploiting an opponent's weakness, and gains a bonus to his next attack equal to the amount his opponent misses by. A Journeyman can make a free attempt to break an opponent's weapon on a successful Parry or Bind, thanks to the large steel glove that all Eisenfausters wear. A Master gets bonuses to his attack for holding that attack as long as possible, until the opportunity is perfect.

These special bonuses or abilities are ways that Swordsmen cheat the rules of normal combat. They're the kind of "crunch" I'm looking for.

The problem with Heroquest - "problem" for my purposes - is its lack of crunchiness. Look at two Swordsmen in 7th Sea, one of whom is a Master of the cunning, ruthless Ambrogia school and the other, a Master of the intimidating, flashy Soldano style. Their abilities tell us that the Ambrogia master is good at exploiting mistakes for maximum damage, while the Soldano fighter blinds his opponents with a whirl of blades before landing an unexpected blow. The Soldano would probably Tag his opponent several times, build up a pool of bonus dice, and then go for a definitive thrust, while the Ambrogia fighter might rely on stunning his opponent with a Pommel Strike and then following through with a vicious blow (Note: Tagging and Pommel Strike are examples of the aforementioned skills that a Swordsman must develop as prerequisites for his school's special powers).

In Heroquest, the first fighter would be represented as a hero with the abiilty "Ambrogia Fencing 5W2," and the virtues "Cunning 10W" and "Ruthless 17." Similar numbers, with different labels, for the Soldano fighter. An imaginative GM and players adept at storytelling could describe a combat between the two in the same way as the 7th Sea combat might pan out, but they'd need to work at it. "Okay, Ambrogia, you gained 10 AP thanks to your bump on that roll. You close in and smash the Soldano swordsman's temple with the hilt of your dagger; his eyes lose focus. Soldano, your bid."

So I guess crunch takes some of the narrative burden off the players (and the GM), by embedding and defining in hard rules the effect of certain abilities. At least that's how I'd like to use it.

That's an unusual use of "Crunch" in my experience. A lot of people refer to that as "splat" actually. For example, Seventh Sea has Splatbooks with rules like this in terms of several things starting with the nations.

I'd start by asking if you're playing the right game at all. I mean, to me it sounds like, "How can I add more of a certain sort of rules to a game that functions in it's normal state entirely without them?" The question is why would you want to? Or, more to the point, what is it about HQ that you do like that makes you think it's a candidate for this sort of alteration?

Because the answer to "What can I add in terms of Crunch?" is "Anything you like." I mean, nothing particularly stands out as being a good idea overall. I think that it would really depend on the setting. For instance, in the Glorantha setting there's a lot of theoretical "crunch" (actually I tend to think of it all as simply examples, and none of it hard at all) in terms of the religions and how to advance, as you've noted. So the Crunch is comming from the setting.

In my conversion for Shadow World, I've added what you'd call "Crunch" in terms of rolls that substitute for the old Rolemaster Spell Point mechanics. In point of fact, however, I've never used them because they just seem ancillary to play. In any case, I can't really suggest them for you because I have no idea if they'd fit the system. Lastly, even if you did adopt them, you'd soon discover that they're merely a simple extension of the system sorta like my example above. I've never found any need to go outside that system.

I think that to proceed, you'd have to identify some areas from your world that need fleshing out. Then we could see what can be done. But what I'd ask first is whether you've tried playing the game as it's written? I get the feeling that you think that HQ play involves little rolling and a lot of making stuff up. It's really mechanically much more intense than that, at least when I play. If you're using all the rules that are in the book, you're pretty busy, IMO, and the players never need additional support in terms of "what to do next". The character sheet does that just fine.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't alter the game to your tastes, that's just fine. I'm just not convinced that it can't already meet your tastes.

Mike

In a lot of cases the answer to adding crunch to HeroQuest is to keep some of the structural ideas of the game you’re coming from, but let it work with existing HeroQuest mechanics. For example:

Deacon Blues wrote: In Heroquest, the first fighter would be represented as a hero with the abiilty "Ambrogia Fencing 5W2," and the virtues "Cunning 10W" and "Ruthless 17." Similar numbers, with different labels, for the Soldano fighter.

Brand has already touched on this, but my first thought was that HQ does have this sort of crunch, but almost exclusively in the magic rules. There's nothing to stop someone applying the same sorts of rules structure to other kinds of activity. Making 'Close Combat' like an affinity, or even developing different combat styles as affinities, is certainly one way to do it.

In HQ all the 'special sauce' in the game system is reserved for magic, but in another genre or setting it does't have to be that way.


Simon Hibbs

Brand:

Just what I was looking for. Thanks!

Mike:

I'd start by asking if you're playing the right game at all. I mean, to me it sounds like, "How can I add more of a certain sort of rules to a game that functions in it's normal state entirely without them?" The question is why would you want to? Or, more to the point, what is it about HQ that you do like that makes you think it's a candidate for this sort of alteration?

In my conversion for Shadow World, I've added what you'd call "Crunch" in terms of rolls that substitute for the old Rolemaster Spell Point mechanics. In point of fact, however, I've never used them because they just seem ancillary to play. In any case, I can't really suggest them for you because I have no idea if they'd fit the system. Lastly, even if you did adopt them, you'd soon discover that they're merely a simple extension of the system sorta like my example above. I've never found any need to go outside that system.

Deacon Blues wrote: I understand your concern / confusion. I want to introduce the group to Heroquest, as I said, and gradually introduce them to a more improvisational, narrative-centered style of roleplaying. 7th Sea to Heroquest raw is a bucket of sea water to the face, yet I want to immerse them gradually.

You're right; there may be a better game for my purposes: Talislanta, for instance, which abstracts a great deal of action resolution into a single system. But I'd like to see if it can be done with HQ.

I think a system like HQ really illustrates how much crunch can be a crutch (forgive the pun; it makes sense in a moment). If you define an ability broadly enough - instead of a handful of set maneuvers, you have "Sword Fighting" - and have a professional group that knows how to build a good story, you don't NEED the rules that tell you who can do what when.

At the same time, though, plunging into a system with no rules is often shocking. My (limited) experience doing improv has taught me something I often repeat to other performers or roleplayers: "a complete lack of boundaries is the enemy of creativity."(*)

Similarly, let's say my Ambrogia Fighter rolls a major success in an extended contest of his Fencing against an opponent's Fencing. How do I describe that?

simon_hibbs wrote: Brand has already touched on this, but my first thought was that HQ does have this sort of crunch, but almost exclusively in the magic rules.

Alai wrote:
Conversely, I find it somewhat odd that conversions of HQ to other genres/worlds seem to take on board so _much_ of the 'crunch' in HQ that's presumably by intent specific to Gloranthan magic. Other than the convenience of reuse, there's no real _need_ to have that (same) crunch, for the sakes of using the core system, surely.

Mike Holmes wrote: Personally, I retained the magic as much as possible because the methods that HQ uses, despite it being theoretically Glorantha specific, because I think that they portray a more "deep" or "realistic," as it were, portrayal of the way magic should work in a fantasy environment.
Mike

Alai wrote: That certainly makes sense: if one's setting "crunch priorities" are much the same as Glorantha-HQ's (can we say 'GHQ', or is that taking miliitary acrostics that step too far?), and the nature of the magic itself, or the things one wants to 'do' with it in-game, are similar, no need to reinvent (or deinvent) the wheel. In broad terms I wouldn't even have said it was _specific_ to Glorantha, certainly as regards general concepts like 'affinities', which are at bottom more of an alternative way of structuring abilities than any deep Gloranthan Simulationism.

My suggested moral I suppose being, "examine one's assumptions and priorities before doing so".

Mike Holmes wrote: And just to be clear, they aren't precisely the same, but where they differ, the Gloranthan aesthetic is just superior in my mind. In Rolemaster, there's a lot of emphasis on gaining spell points, but never any question of what that means in terms of the character's beliefs.

Oh, agreed. If I had run a spy game in which there were people with psychic powers as a tacked on addition, then I'd be remis in trying to adapt some of the crunchy mechanics of magic to it, and, if anything, I'd be finding crunch in the spy game part of things somehow.

Our points are the same then - ons should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Our points are the same then - one should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Brand_Robins wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Our points are the same then - one should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Such as swordsmanship styles in a swashbuckling game?

Maybe.

In The Princess Bride, yes, Inigo and Westly announce their styles as they duel near the cliff. But to me, this is simply each of them escallating their display of their prowess. It's quite the same as them then revealing that they are not left handed. Just a way to point out how great they are as swordsmen (I'm seeing this as larger and larger AP bids). In other words, it's just color that speaks to their very high levels of ability.

In any case, other than that example, do you really ever hear about styles from the source material? Think of all the pirate movies, Robin Hood remakes, musketteers, etc, etc. How often is swordsmanship style mentioned at all? How often does it have an effect? I mean, what's more important in most pirate films, whether the captain was trained in Austria, or whether the girl he loves in on that other ship? Is it more important that he uses an Salzburg Lunge, or that he hates his opponent?

The thing is, if you like that sort of flowery description, you can add it on, no problem with the normal rules (this is how I'd imagine that the PB narration would come about in play). But if you aren't interested, then you can ignore it, and just focus what matters to the genre.

If Deacon had said that he wanted specifically to have a game that was all about comparative fencing styles, then I'd be all for supporting what he's talking about. But he's said that he just wants this as an interrim solution for getting to normal HQ play - that without this support that play won't work for his players. This is what I object to. HQ has everything you need to support a rather intense Swashbuckling game without addition. I'd argue that HQ will look more like the source material with normal HQ, than it would if you added crunch to the swordsmanship.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: In any case, other than that example, do you really ever hear about styles from the source material?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Brand_Robins wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Our points are the same then - one should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Such as swordsmanship styles in a swashbuckling game?

Maybe.

If Deacon had said that he wanted specifically to have a game that was all about comparative fencing styles, then I'd be all for supporting what he's talking about. But he's said that he just wants this as an interrim solution for getting to normal HQ play - that without this support that play won't work for his players. This is what I object to. HQ has everything you need to support a rather intense Swashbuckling game without addition. I'd argue that HQ will look more like the source material with normal HQ, than it would if you added crunch to the swordsmanship.

Mike

Well, yes and no. Swashbuckling was simply the example I picked because, at the moment, I spend all day thinking about 7th Sea and can recite sword schools off the top of my head.

In the game in question, the "crunch" I planned on introducing was Debate Schools: styles of rhetorical tradition that are taught throughout the campaign world. Debate Schools function very similarly to Theistic pantheons in Glorantha: an intro level where you can use the skills as augments, an intermediate level where you can use the skills as abilities, and a master level where you get a Secret. The Schools are organized around different styles of argument: Weighing the Evidence, Passionate Speechmaking, "Socratic" Dialogue, etc.

I intended this to serve two purposes: one, to highlight the alternatives to direct, violent conflict that plague 90% of all fantasy RPGs out there (or, the reason Brand suspected); two, to ease the players into a less crunchy system than 7th Sea (or, the reason Mike suspected). Mike's given me plenty to chew on that might cause me to question the latter, but I still like the former to a sufficient amount to keep it in.

Brand_Robins wrote: The thing to worry about, however, is less whether the system is going to emulate literature to a T or if it is going to give a good game experience. For folks like you (and honestly, me as well) the level of crunch that the magic system has might not be neccisary in other areas. For some groups, however, porting that level of crunch into something that is going to be the focus of the game might be fitting.

Deacon Blues wrote: I intended this to serve two purposes: one, to highlight the alternatives to direct, violent conflict that plague 90% of all fantasy RPGs out there (or, the reason Brand suspected); two, to ease the players into a less crunchy system than 7th Sea (or, the reason Mike suspected). Mike's given me plenty to chew on that might cause me to question the latter, but I still like the former to a sufficient amount to keep it in.

Mike Holmes wrote: Heck, what does "convert 7th Sea" mean? Convert the setting and swashbuckling feel? Done and done without any more crunch. Convert all that plus the parts that make the system unique? Well, then why not just play 7th Sea?

I do have the following for support, however; here we can see that John didn't want the other countries:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=318

I'm seeing splat here - material to sell supplements. Which I think adds a layer onto the basic swashbuckling structure that was never really the point of the game. More importantly, I know some people play without this stuff, and get more milage out of the game, not less.

Falkenstien doesn't have this sort of stuff.

Also compare how Lace and Steel

Swashbuckler

I won't suggest that people check out GURPS Swashbucklers (other than as a good reference), but I could use it as a counterexample of how inappropriate crunch is superfluous to good emulation of a genre.

BTW, for those interested in Swashbuckling games with HeroQuest rules (sans much crunch – just specialized fencing keywords) there’s a pretty good thread on RPG.net right now that’s talking about a lot of it and looking for input.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114249

I think we're somewhat talking past each other here. I agree that each of these games have additional crunch with regards to fencing (even GURPS does in the standard rules - parrys are better with fencing). The point is that none of these do so by introducing new maneuvers, or by mentioning schools. TROS does this, but then TROS is all about the tactics of combat.

I'm not against creating focus using the rules as written. If he merely wants to have keywords to represent schools, then, again that's fine. And most of what you're calling "maneuvers" I'm seeing as just standard use of the Improv rules. As such, these wouldn't be any sort of change to the rules, but an interesting application. Again, what I object to is additional mechanics that require players to declare maneuvers or the like (acutally either L&S or Swashbucklers does have something like that now that I think about it).

The "Magic" crunch for Glorantha is actually mostly about how you aquire abilites. Have to be an initiate to use affinities, have to be a devotee to use feats, etc, etc. This is all very pertinent to the ideas of belief that surround magic in Glorantha, and as such are, I think, merited (though I could make some counterarguments there, too). Such developmental ideas don't seem pertinent to swashbuckling. I mean, even if you added it as color, I don't see it's actual use as adding anything in actual play.

I mean, to make an analogy, one could have various masters as saints, ane "veneration" becomes "study" of their styles using the wizardry rules, and spells in grimores become maneuvers in, well, grimoires. But in Glorantha, this means that when casting your spell, that you're saying something about your beliefs. Whereas with the swordmaster system it would mean just that you had the ability. Which is enumerated just as well without the additional "Grimoire" extra level of enumeration.

Hmm. OK, now that I think of it, if you included relationships to the school, then you could make a cool game about inter-school politics or something. But, again, is that what's desired? In point of fact, it's not. What the poster wants, it turns out, is stuff about debate schools. And I think that he's on the right track simply by having keywords to represent that.

Again, I'm not saying that one should never add any crunch anywhere, just that it needs to only be added where neccessary to create the sought after focus, and that often simply adding normal keywords works just fine.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What the poster wants, it turns out, is stuff about debate schools. And I think that he's on the right track simply by having keywords to represent that.

Brand_Robins wrote: Maybe true. Though if it was based on the Classical rhetorical and debate schools there could be interschool rivalry. Witness Plato and the sophists, for example, followed by the debates about the superiority of the Asiatic or Attic style during the late Roman republic.

Though you're right -- keywords should represent what he wants just fine. The only issue would really be if the keywords have personality traits to bias them against other schools.

Mike Holmes wrote: Our points are the same then - ons should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Alai wrote: In essence, yes. I suppose that implicitly captures also _whether_ one wishes more Exploration, at all... To which I'd add the corollary that one should likewise be open to _subtracting_ 'crunchy bits'. On grounds of inappropriateness, obviously, but also simply deprioritisation.

I may be on thinnish ground here as firstly, I may be worsening thread 'drift', and secondly, asking dumb questions about an area I'm somewhat wilfully ignorant of (the 7th Sea background). But, oh well... (Brick wall rather than disingenuous, at any rate.)

Brand_Robins wrote: Because it doesn't give me the play experience that I want except in small areas? While I sort of like the swashbuckling schools I dislike almost every other element of the game engine and so wouldn't want to play with it. (In the end I didn't even like how Drama Dice worked.)

On the other hand, HeroQuest may give me the experience that I want. So I want to bring in elements from the other game that I liked, if I can do so without doing anything that breaks, unbalances, or changes the basic dynamic of the game. As we know for a fact that it's possible to have a certain amount of crunch in HeroQuest if it is focused on something central to the game (the magic rules for a Gloranthan game, frex) it is no problem at all to use that same crunch just in a different focus.

Brand_Robins wrote: While I will admit that my suggestion to have differnt manuevers do different system effets was probably too much, I don't see the swashbuckler styles as replacing magical styles as being so outre a concept. Actually, the easiest thing to do might just be to make the skills very specific -- so you take improv penalty if you don't have it. If you've a disarm skill you can kick it well, but if you want to disarm with your rapier skill your at penalty. Add to that some personality traits and a Mastery Secret and you could do a pretty good fencing game without much guff.