Topic: Another AP question
Started by: lightcastle
Started on: 4/7/2004
Board: HeroQuest
On 4/7/2004 at 6:14am, lightcastle wrote:
Another AP question
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.)
On 4/7/2004 at 7:42am, Peter Nordstrand wrote:
Re: Another AP question
Hi,
lightcastle wrote: 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
On 4/7/2004 at 12:41pm, Wulf wrote:
RE: Re: Another AP question
lightcastle wrote: 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 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
On 4/7/2004 at 4:25pm, lightcastle wrote:
RE: Re: Another AP question
Both of those seem reasonable.
Peter Nordstrand wrote:
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.
Wulf wrote: 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.
On 4/7/2004 at 6:08pm, Brand_Robins wrote:
RE: Re: Another AP question
lightcastle wrote: 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.”
On 4/7/2004 at 6:31pm, lightcastle wrote:
Interesting stuff
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.
On 4/8/2004 at 12:44pm, Wulf wrote:
RE: Re: Another AP question
lightcastle wrote: 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
On 4/8/2004 at 5:57pm, lightcastle wrote:
Greivous wound
Wulf wrote: 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.
On 4/8/2004 at 6:07pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Interesting stuff
lightcastle wrote: 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
On 4/8/2004 at 6:09pm, Wulf wrote:
Re: Greivous wound
lightcastle wrote: 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
On 4/8/2004 at 7:40pm, lightcastle wrote:
Wounds, disarming, and general tomfoolery.
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.
Wulf wrote: 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?
Mike Holmes wrote:
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.)
On 4/8/2004 at 8:04pm, Wulf wrote:
Re: Wounds, disarming, and general tomfoolery.
lightcastle wrote:Wulf wrote: 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
On 4/8/2004 at 10:36pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Another AP question
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
On 4/8/2004 at 11:07pm, lightcastle wrote:
Hurts and etc
Mike wrote: 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.
On 4/9/2004 at 3:22pm, rylen dreskin wrote:
RE: Another AP question
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
On 4/9/2004 at 5:09pm, issariesguy wrote:
RE: Another AP question
rylen dreskin wrote: 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
Not an official Issaries answer here, just Stephen's opinion. But I was discussing this issue the other day. I personally think that any individual roll in an extended contest can have such an effect. That is, if I roll in one round and get a critical while my opponent gets a failure, in a simple contest that would be a major victory. In an extended contest, it just indicates a certain amount of AP transfer. Depending on the ability I used, however, I think it is perfectly acceptable for the narrator to declare that there is an additional effect. Thus, if I have this result with a Lightning Blast feat, and you had Magical Shield up, the narrator might rule that my success in that round was so great that my magic blew away your magical protection, and remove the +4 you get from it for the rest of the contest, or until the opponent takes an action and casts the spell again.
Similarly, if I reduce my opponent to -12 AP during the round, and he then immediately gets back to positive AP, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the narrator to declare that, instead of him being impaired, instead I have blown away his Magic Shield spell, and he can't cast it again for a couple of days. Unless, of course, he uses some appropriate ability to "restore" the magic immediately. Or maybe until he gets his own "major victory" in the next exchange involving appropriate abilities.
This is where MGF comes in -- if it is more fun to have special effects of this nature than to inflict Hurts or make the opponent Impaired, then the narrator is well within her rights to do those special effects instead. It should be an option if it makes the game fun, and the narrator shouldn't worry about whether or not the rules allow it.
So, to disarm someone, you have lots of different ways it can be done, and the story will help determine which is which:
1. Specific ability
2. Great roll in an extended contest
3. Instead of inflicting an appropriate wound
As I see HQ, it's all about options that make the game fun. If I can extend the YGWV mantra, YHQWV.
Stephen
On 4/9/2004 at 6:09pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Hurts and etc
lightcastle wrote: 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.Dead serious. If I sold you a car, and said, "Hey, if anything turns out to be broken, you know what? We give you permission to fix it!" What would you think of that? If the car broke the next day, you'd be pissed knowing that I'd said that because I knew it would break. If it never broke, you wouldn't need my permission to change it. In fact, you don't need permission to fix things, and it's insulting to suggest to a person that they might not have the right.
These sorts of rules came from two things. Way back, Gygax in an attempt to unify play under his vision told folks that if they modified D&D, that they weren't playing D&D. He was right, but it was a pointless thing to say. At about the same time, people were noting how often their systems didn't make sense in certain situations of play, and how they had more fun if they didn't use the rules in these cases. So they figured, hey, lets encode that, and be anti-authoritiarian at the same time!
Drivel. People can and will alter RPGs when they want to, and don't need to be told that they can. OTOH, what should not happen, is that the rules should never be suspended in play. The rules exist as a framework to cause people to imagine things in-game in a shared way. If you dump that mid play, you're violating the agreement to use that framework. Which can happen innoccuously in most cases, but which ends up in terrible dysfunction in other cases.
So, sure I make modifications to the rules that make the game more mine. But I never, ever, in game do something that the rules, as we all currently understand them, do not support. It's a slippery slope to bad play. HQ has plenty of options built in to ensure that you're never stuck _ it's a brilliant design that way. So I don't see why you'd need to go outside the system to get Maximum Game Fun. To me MGF is achieved by using the rules, not changing them.
Thus I'm not sure where the "problem" is in Rylen's case. If you cause AP to a character that are described as breaking his sword, then presumably you bid enough to make this seem right. And so, yes, it will be permenant until he gets a new sword. Gains and losses of bonuses are the GM's right per the rules (thus I don't see how Stephen's first idea is outside of the rules). Can't see how that would be interpreted any other way. As for Stephen's second example, I can't see how this is more fun than just saying that the impairment applies to the character casting spells.
As for "wounding" even simpler - again wounds go away when the GM thinks they should. In the case of a broken sword about the time that he finds a new sword, (or fixes the old one, or finds a reasonable substitute, whatever).
What more "permenance" do you need than "until the GM says so"?
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.Yeah, I tend to think of weapons as just other "augment only" abilities, so this makes sense.
Mike
On 4/9/2004 at 9:18pm, lightcastle wrote:
RE: Another AP question
Mike Holmes wrote: So I don't see why you'd need to go outside the system to get Maximum Game Fun. To me MGF is achieved by using the rules, not changing them.
Gotcha. I see where you're coming from now on that.
Thus I'm not sure where the "problem" is in Rylen's case. If you cause AP to a character that are described as breaking his sword, then presumably you bid enough to make this seem right. And so, yes, it will be permenant until he gets a new sword. Gains and losses of bonuses are the GM's right per the rules (thus I don't see how Stephen's first idea is outside of the rules).
What more "permenance" do you need than "until the GM says so"?
What indeed? As you say, none of these options fall outside the scope of the rules, it is all subsumed in that interpretation. I think for extra effects, I personally wouldn't let them happen just because you rolled well without including that effect as part of the goal of the bid. But as I said, I think more and more my interpretation will lean towards an unrelated action.
Well. Thank you all very much. Because so much of this involves interpreting what makes sense story wise, it's great to hear how other people have wrestled with it. But I think I've learned about all I can on this specific question until I have a chance to pin some players down and try it.
So unless someone has some final piece of crucial advice that hasn't been covered, I can close the thread here since I started it, I beleive.
On 4/10/2004 at 3:30am, rylen dreskin wrote:
RE: Another AP question
I'm still trailing a few posts behind and thinking mechanically instead of narratively. (Should change when I get a game going...)
One of the ideas given in extended combat is supporters drop out w/ AP loss and recover w/ transfers. I'm trying to square that with the idea of inflicting hurts.
1 -- you trade AP loss to impair the character, not necessarily damage them. The hurt might be on the follower, not just the PC.
2 -- similar to disarming and weapon breaking, you trade AP loss for specific effects. Is it easier to take out a PC mook, lower his AP total that way, and remove a follower bonus then it is to directly attack a PC.
Experience is the big teacher. How have hurt, wounding, and followers getting knocked out been working in your games?
Rylen
On 4/10/2004 at 6:07am, Alai wrote:
RE: Another AP question
rylen dreskin wrote: One of the ideas given in extended combat is supporters drop out w/ AP loss and recover w/ transfers. I'm trying to square that with the idea of inflicting hurts.
The main thing in narrating extended contests (whether combat or otherwise) is that you not make the resolution of any action in the middle of an EC both 'definitive' and 'irrevocable', in any way that'd cause suspension-of-disbelief issues if, as you say, you regained those APs back later in a transfer -- or as is almost endemic, when the winning side gets them back after the contest. (Welll, indeed both sides do, but the loser will indeed suffer some sort of 'definitive' consequence at that point.)
e.g., you don't in general want to tell a player (or indeed have him announce, if you're doing it Monologue of Defeat -style) that a blow's shattered his arm in five places simply because he's lost a shedload of APs. But saying 'feels agonising, like the bone's broken' is suitably deniable. And of course, much of what APs represent even in a combat has nothing to do with physical injury anyway: for example, your opponent has tripped you up and is about to lunge in for the kill, has gained some tactical or psychological advantage, etc.
Likewise, if you 'lose' a follower, it's unwise to establish beyond all subsequent dispute that he's been atomised and is Gone Forever. He may have been winded, or scared off, or simply not in the right place at the right time when you happened to need him (but when things swing back in your favour, picks himself up/is rallied by your valiant excample/turns back up in the nick of time).
OTOH, Hurt in the HQ game mechanical sense _does_ mean some (small) definitively established disadvantage, idependently on the course of the current contest. Say, you picked up a limp in that last melee, had your loyalty to your kin impugned while (otherwise) successfully debating in the tribal council, etc. So if a given action seems to most logically resolve itself in such ways, you may choose (or suggest to the winning player that he chose) to 'inflict' Hurts instead of AP losses. For example, if in a fencing duel one participant couches his actions in terms of trying to impair his opponent by nicking his arm, rather than going all-out for the 'kill' directly, this may be the appropriate mechanic.
On 4/10/2004 at 6:41pm, Peter Nordstrand wrote:
RE: Another AP question
Hi Mike,
You are misreading Maximum Game Fun, I think. The rules it discusses is not the rules of the game HeroQuest, but rather the setting. Look at the examples:
HeroQuest page 190 wrote: Aeolians using veneration to worship gods; or because something exists that "should not be," like an origami-folding woman riding a shell deer; or because someone wants something "inappropriate," like wanting to go surfing
The MGF rule says that not everything in Glorantha follows the norm. Some things are strange weird, different, or whatever. Your want to play a character that tries to reach dragonhood without walking the mystic path? Maximum Game Fun says "Go ahead! Explore! Enjoy!"
This is nothing at all like the stupid Golden Rule of White Wolf.
All the best,
/Peter N
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9417
On 4/10/2004 at 6:56pm, lightcastle wrote:
RE: Another AP question
Alai, since this has been re-opened, think you could give a quick jump over to a previous question I asked about followers?
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10700
I just want to make sure I wrapped my head around it correctly.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 10700
On 4/10/2004 at 9:52pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Another AP question
Peter Nordstrand wrote: You are misreading Maximum Game Fun, I think. The rules it discusses is not the rules of the game HeroQuest, but rather the setting.MGF=YGMV? I don't think that they're in there for the same reason. OTOH, I see your point that perhaps it's just saying that if you're not having fun that something is wrong. I'd buy that.
The problem is that people, even Stephen, say things like:
This is where MGF comes in -- if it is more fun to have special effects of this nature than to inflict Hurts or make the opponent Impaired, then the narrator is well within her rights to do those special effects instead. It should be an option if it makes the game fun, and the narrator shouldn't worry about whether or not the rules allow it.
Now, again, Stephen might be saying that for a particular group that this might be a change that works better for them, and that it would be good to incorporate it as a change in overall proceedure. Again, people change games, and I have no problem with that. But it seems more likely to me that he means that one should alter the rules as the game proceeds - one possible interpretation of MGF. And if so, I'm wholeheartedly against that.
Back to the real topic of the thread, however (I don't want to continue to hiijack the thread), personally, I stay away from any description in an extended conflict that might even potentially be thought of as a "durable" penalty to a character to describe AP losses. A couple of reasons.
First, it's actually more dramatic this way. Not at all realistic, but follows every drama convention. For example, watching a Kung-Fu flick, you see people get hit, and grimace in pain all the time, but it never really affects them until critical points. In HQ, your martial artist player would declare, "I use the thousand hand palm strike to nail him right in the midsection!" Upon gettin a major victory you narrate, "Your blow lands almost precisely where you'd aimed it, so quickly that it bypasses his attempts to parry, and the force sends him windmilling back ten yards before he stops with a look of pain on his face, but coninued determination." Another typical result, "Your cross contacts his face, and he spins away from you. When he stops himself, a small trickle of blood comes from the corner of his lip." It would just be totally inappropriate to say, "Your blow breaks many of his ribs, detaching them from his sternum." Sword fights are even more this way. In the famous scene where Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone fight it out as Robin Hood, and Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), the fight between the two of them goes all over the room, tables, chairs, candles and other scenery getting torn up along the way, with a battle raging all around them, and neither of them are scratched until Robin Hood does Sir Guy in at the end. Swashbuckling is all about the movement, nobody gets hurt until the finish.
Secondly, there's the "flesh wound;" if you really want blood, do like the "trickle" above (for those who want a more Rambo-esqu feel). "The sword grazes across your chest, mangling your shirt, and creating a thin red line of blood that slowly starts to ooze. The flesh wound is painful, but only strengthens your resolve." Hell, that could actually be the result of a winning AP bid (I'm going to have to do that). Basically, the idea is that you inform the player right off that the wound is superficial. Because you never "need" that wound to be real. That is, sure, at the end of the combat, you're going to go negative, and that'll mean an injury of some sort. And, sure, theoretically you could narrate something like, "You're morale gives out, as your opponent backs you into a corner - you note that the wound to the chest you recieved earlier is actually as bad as it feels (and accounts for the -10%)." I mean, you could do that, but why not, "with a deceptive flourish, his blade gets past yours and slips between your ribs (accounting for the -10% penalty)." Isn't it more climactic to have the injury (or whatever impairment chosen) be the result of the last action taken? So you don't need any "potential" injuries. If you really wanted to do something like this, it's perfectly valid to have them appear right at that point, and say that they'd gone unnoticed until that point or something.
Lastly, avoiding stuff like "your arm hurts like it could be broken" means that the potential "problem" with players wondering where the wounds went. Or, if you pull the "You find now that it's bad," then the player wonders why they didn't have the penalty all along. I mean, if you argue adrenaline, then wouldn't adrenaline in the next contest make it irrelevant yet again?
Nah, I say leave the descriptions of the stuff that could account for penalties for when the character recieves the penalty. (As a bonus it satisfies the sim guys more, too).
Mike