Hi everybody.

I should write a long introduction about how much I love HQ, stumbling across it while trying to find a system that did what I wanted it to do, etc. etc..

But I have the feeling I'd be preaching to the choir. :)

Also, it's late and I should go to sleep.

I haven't had a chance to look through the 7-odd pages of posts here, so this may have already been answered. If so, just point me where I need to go.

To my main question: I love the AP idea for extended contests, I like the way it rolls in different aspects of a struggle as long as you make it about a conflict, not just a series of tasks. (As I understand it)

But I'm not sure I think the first skill used should define the AP you have. IT seems that it would lead to a lot of people using a barely relevent skill early to get the advantage and then switching off.

The thought that immediately hit my mind was two nearly-equal swordsman square off for their dramatic showdown - a duel to the death. But our hero has "Snappy one-liner insults" at 15W2 and starts with a barrage of insults. gives himself an AP of 55 plus whatever augments he's got (assuming I understand the math right) and his opponent has no choice but to defend with a base 14 (assuming he has no appropriate stat for the moment.)

While I am all for the snappy patter being an augment in the fight, it seems wrong to let it define the advantage points so completely if this is a dramatic duel to the death. It's only tangentially related to the goal.

I realize as narrator, I have final say, but what's the general thinking on this? Do I just make sure to find an appropriate ability to resist with (Hatred of hero? Cold-blooded killer? Grim and humourless?) and go from there? Do I rule it's an augment only?

I've got some more AP-related questions, but I'll start with this one.

Thanks all,
LC

lightcastle wrote: The thought that immediately hit my mind was two nearly-equal swordsman square off for their dramatic showdown - a duel to the death. But our hero has "Snappy one-liner insults" at 15W2 and starts with a barrage of insults. gives himself an AP of 55 plus whatever augments he's got (assuming I understand the math right) and his opponent has no choice but to defend with a base 14 (assuming he has no appropriate stat for the moment.)

Sorry to hijack the thread, I also have an AP related question.

How does initiative go?

Say two groups face each other, the players want to go after the NPCs with close combat and the NPCs want to go against the players with some mental ranged attack. How do you determine who has the initiative? (and as such gets to pick their most appropriate skills for the extended contest to determine the APs.)

Janus

P.S. BTW the default resistance of 14 applies for extended contests if one doesn't have any relevant abilities, not just for magic.

Janus wrote: How does initiative go?

Janus wrote: P.S. BTW the default resistance of 14 applies for extended contests if one doesn't have any relevant abilities, not just for magic.

The primary ability used has to make sense with the goal in question. That is, if the goal of the player is to kill the other guy with his sword, then he can't do that with Snappy Insults. Period. There's no way that this ability can propell a sword in a manner that will kill the opponent. From a metagame viewpoint, it makes differentiation of character abilites pointless if you say that any ability can be used to accomplish any goal; you might as well just have one stat for every character without a descriptor (Trollbabe, anyone). Appropriateness is still important for a game that describes characters in such detail.

Now, if the goal had been to embarrass the other guy to death, then maybe Snappy Insults would work as primary ability. Depending on the believability. I think a more reasonable goal would be something like "Embarrass the opponent so badly that they'll never face me again." A player announcing that would get full AP from his Insult ability in my game. In any case, if you think that something isn't somehow completely appropriate, then you as Narrator have the ability to send that message in terms of an "Improv Modifier."

Now, that said, the guy with the Insult ability is going to do OK, even in the sword fight to the death. Because, though he's supposed to use the primary ability on the first round (something that I personally think isn't really a great rule), he can change to another ability in later rounds. And I think that insulting his opponent can lead to his opponent's demise. Basically, after the first round, the insulter will use his insult ability to get his opponent off balance so to speak, and close the deal. I agree that there's usually a personality trait that's applicable in defending against something like Insulting, but not always. If not, then the other guy is going to have to resist with a 6, not 14. 6 is the default as I understand it.

Janus, can you cite me where it says that 14 is default for extended contests? Does anybody know if there's errata clarifying this one?

What does an insult that causes AP look like? The player declares, "I cleverly insult my opponent's ancestry, to get him angry and make him overcommit to an attack." If he succeeds, the Narrator narrates somethink like, "Enraged by your words, he thrusts foolishly putting him off balance as you easily evade."

I think that most any ability can be used in some way in the short run to do in an opponent if you play creatively enough. But the overall framework of the goal of a contest still says something about it. Meaning you can't use just any ability for any goal (and many will have Improv Modifiers). Despite this, however, alternate abilities can be used to get you closer to your goal within a round of an extended contest - it all depends on cleverly stating your goals for that round.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Janus, can you cite me where it says that 14 is default for extended contests? Does anybody know if there's errata clarifying this one?

Hmmm. Nothing in the errata FAQ about it. Does anybody have an insight into why the discrepancy? I don't have my book here but I'll check it tonight.

If we can't clear it up here, we can try over at the HQ-Rules mailinglist. This sounds vaguely familiar somehow...

Mike

My guess would be that it's not worth doing a contest if the resistance is inferior to 14, you might as well just use the automatic success rules if that's the case.

That might be true. This pertains just to extended contests, right? I mean it's specifically mentioned there? Or does this seem to pertain to all contests?

If the latter, then what would be the point of noting that the default for mundane abilities is 6? If you never use that number, what's the point?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That might be true. This pertains just to extended contests, right? I mean it's specifically mentioned there? Or does this seem to pertain to all contests?

If the latter, then what would be the point of noting that the default for mundane abilities is 6? If you never use that number, what's the point?

Mike

14 is also mentioned as default resistance if the narrator is not sure for Simple Contests.

However in the sample resistances on p 274 and 275 you do have some resistances (very few) that are less than 14.

So I guess you could have resistance less than 14 and do contests with them if you feel like it. 14 is not an absolute minimum, just some default value to use when you are not sure (HeroQues tending not to do exhaustive listing of attributes). If you are certain the resistance is 6, then there you go.

Good notes, both of you. Personally, I use resistances less than 14 all the time. I think it's a fun part of play.

The unconscious thing isn't an issue. The contest rules are for actual conflicts. As long as you determine the conflict, then you'll have numbers to use. For example, if you want to kill somebody who's unconscious, and there's nothing really stopping you, then you just kill them. No contest. To get a person unconscious probably takes a complete victory anyhow, so you could have killed them then - or, rather, they've already lost the contest to stay alive, and are at the mercy of those around them.

OTOH, if you had a contest to kill somebody before their friends got to you to stop you, then you'd roll against the friend's ratings. If you were trying to stick a peasant knife through the hide of a rhino, before it woke back up, then that might be a contest.

There has to be conflict of some interesting sort to be a contest, else the automatic success rule kicks in. I think that "default" rolls are actually particularly interesting, because they can be so "slice of life." We did one once where we all rolled against our default "grooming" and such to see how good looking we could make ourselves for a social gathering. That sort of thing is fun, and I'd encourage people to try it out.

So, I don't see a problem here, except with the notion that the book seems to be promoting in terms of the defaults being pointless. I'm not sure why they're even mentioning them. You don't develop up from 6 (13), and it's saying not to use them, so...I don't get it.

Mike

Janus wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Janus, can you cite me where it says that 14 is default for extended contests? Does anybody know if there's errata clarifying this one?

HeroQuest p. 66, second column, the first 2-3 lines.

buserian wrote:

Janus wrote: HeroQuest p. 66, second column, the first 2-3 lines.

I note that this section is for the narrator defining the resistance to the hero's action.

Yeah, having re-read the pertinent sections, I'm thinking that the intent of the rule is to say something like, if you don't know, use 14, if you know the character doesn't have any of that for sure, then use 6.

But, basically, it's unclear. The way that I've got it above is how I will play, personally, but I think other interpretations will be just as valid.

Mike

You post a question, your computer crashes, and not only is your question addressed by the time you get back, but an entire side thread about resistance has started. :)

To return to my original question, I understand the interpretation of using the snappy patter in combat. And I suppose that I would even understand the idea of letting the player lead with it (getting an opponent so riled up they screw up royally).

Hell, you could make the argument that this is what our Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man does all the time.

I also realize that while my first instinct was to limit it to an augment since at some point the person DOES have to be fighting, I realize that isn't a problem either. Because the opposing swordsman gets to use his swordsmanship when it is HIS turn to go, forcing our witty fast-talker to resist with either some kind of evading or combat maneuver. (Mind you, this means I WOULDN'T let fast talker use the ability in a simple contest, only as an augment.)

I knew I liked this system.

So... next question. What happens when your goals change in mid contest? Not just what you are using to accomplish your goals, but an entire change of goal.

i.e. The heros are fleeing their foes-- racing to get somewhere before time runs out. They suddenly decide that even if they fail to get there on time, it's not that bad and turn to have it out with their pursuers in a big knock-down.

Do I just start AP over from scratch? (That's certainly my first instinct, they've now chosen an entirely different conflict, so things start anew.)

How about a situation where the change is more subtle, and some advantage gained should logically carry over? Say some kind of tournament fight -- non-lethal and for honour -- Suddenly the hero's rival, realizing the match is being lost, grabs a real weapon and turns it into lethal combat.

Just keep the AP and add the weapon bonus to the rolls? Start AP over again, but bring in some kind of effect from the advantage the hero already had?

Any suggestions?

lightcastle wrote: So... next question. What happens when your goals change in mid contest? Not just what you are using to accomplish your goals, but an entire change of goal.

i.e. The heros are fleeing their foes-- racing to get somewhere before time runs out. They suddenly decide that even if they fail to get there on time, it's not that bad and turn to have it out with their pursuers in a big knock-down.

How about a situation where the change is more subtle, and some advantage gained should logically carry over? Say some kind of tournament fight -- non-lethal and for honour -- Suddenly the hero's rival, realizing the match is being lost, grabs a real weapon and turns it into lethal combat.

lightcastle wrote:
I also realize that while my first instinct was to limit it to an augment since at some point the person DOES have to be fighting, I realize that isn't a problem either. Because the opposing swordsman gets to use his swordsmanship when it is HIS turn to go, forcing our witty fast-talker to resist with either some kind of evading or combat maneuver. (Mind you, this means I WOULDN'T let fast talker use the ability in a simple contest, only as an augment.)

So... next question. What happens when your goals change in mid contest? Not just what you are using to accomplish your goals, but an entire change of goal.

simon_hibbs wrote: This realy is a vital point that is often overlooked. You can't use 'Witty Reartee' to either defend against a physical attack or win a combat, but you can use it to ridicule an opponent while he's attacking you - whatever good that does you!

For example suppose you're in a fight and are losing. You reckon that your character is probably a lot quicker footed than your opponent so you switch goals to running away. Your opponent pursues, but is quite slow so you gain a bunch of APs. Next you switch to attacking your opponent again. Fair? Well, perhaps your opponent is more puffed than you, or you were able to set up an ambush situation, or you just had more time to think up a better attack strategy.

Mike Holmes wrote: My clarification here is only that I put the onus on the player to make his case, not on the GM to arbitrarily choose what's plausible and what's not.

Brand_Robins wrote: In Mike's Shadow World Hero Quest game, for example, the players often tell each other things OOCly to help screw over their own characters. "Oh Lahn, use my Patricide flaw to agument your Torment Thomas With Evil Ghosts action!" At that point the idea of cheesing to win just never occurs to anyone.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think he got that from seeing the effect of Chris's self imposed love flaw. Now everyone is going to want one. :-)

Protagonism ~= (Sum(ability)+Sum(abs(flaw)))^2

Brand_Robins wrote: ...but all of my HeroQuest experiences have led to flawed heroes who kicked ass because of their flaws and became protagonists because they sometimes lose.

Meaning I think we're all on the same page in terms of practice - we've just got slightly varying methods for determining what's plausible.

lightcastle wrote:
I think that about sums it up perfectly.

(So is there an easy default to make that quote above say "Mike Holmes wrote:" that I missed?)

And luckily enough, assuming I do successfully poach players from the DnD group my friend is running I shouldn't have problems with people trying to break it -- this is a group that ends up with players playing characters having low Wisdom by foolishly doing things that they (as experienced players) know are going to put them into trouble. I think they are going to LOVE this.

I'm sure once I actually run my first game this weekend I'll end up with all sorts of new questions to bug you all with. :)

Mike Holmes wrote: Sounds like it. Sell them flaws as "free" abilites that tend to be double edged. Players hop on that with wild abandon.

Mike Holmes wrote:

lightcastle wrote: (So is there an easy default to make that quote above say "Mike Holmes wrote:" that I missed?)

The only way that I know of is to copy the first tag that comes up when you click the "quote" button (instead of reply). Other than that, you have to type the code yourself.

That's what I said...

That only makes the name come up at the very beginning. If you want to do multiple quotes with that tag, then you have to copy and paste it.

Mike