Just wanted to see high I could get a combat skill in HeroQuest - the experiment is below:

Sartarite Warrior - Devoted to Humakt (built with the list method)

Keywords:
Sartarite 17 (Dragon Pass Geography, Farming, Hate Lunars, Heortling Customs, Speak Sartarite, Spear & Shield Combat, Walk with Snowshoes, Wilderness Survival)

Warrior 17 (Endurance, Guard Camp, Know Lunar Tactics, Know Local Area, Listen, Bastard Sword Fighting 7W, Bow Fighting, Recognize Fighting Style, Recognize Foe, Ride, Scout, Warband Mass Combat)

Humakt Devotee 17 (Craft Weapon, Dagger Fighting, Detect Lie, Greatsword Fighting, Mythology of Humakt, Shortsword Fighting, Soul Vision)

Affinities: Combat 17 (Great Blow, Truesword Stroke, Weapon Destroyer), Death 17 (Death Song Berserk, Kill Undead, Visage of Fear), Honor 17 (Know Truth, Rally Warriors, Shame Coward)

Other Abilities: Intimidating Appearance 13, Large 14, Quick Reflexes 15, Strike at Enemy's Weak Spot 13, Strike Mighty Blow 13, Strong 15, Tough 15

Common Magic: Crush My Enemy 17, Pile 'Em High 17, Shatter Ribs 17, Sun in Your Eyes 17, Watch This! 17

Personality: Bloodthirsty 17, Boastful 17, Brave 17, Determined 17, Fear Dragons 17, Grim 17, Hate Chaos 17, Hate Lunars 17

Relationships: Temple, Tribe, Warband

Equipment: Bastard Sword of Butt-Kicking 13, Plate Armour of Coolness 13, Shield of Excellent Protection 13

Gifts/Geases: +5 to Bastard Sword Fighting/Never use a mace.


Right then... let's get the calculator out:

Bastard Sword Fighting 7W
Recognize Fighting Style 17 (-5) (+1)
Great Blow 17 (+2)
Visage of Fear 17 (+2)
Crush My Enemy 17 (+2)
Intimidating Appearance 13 (+1)
Large 14 (+1)
Quick Reflexes 15 (+2)
Strike at Enemy's Weak Spot 13 (+1)
Strike Mighty Blow 13 (+1)
Strong 15 (+2)
Tough 15 (+2)
Bloodthirsty 17 (+2)
Brave 17 (+2)
Determined 17 (+2)
Bastard Sword of Butt-Kicking 13 (+5)
Plate Armour of Coolness 13 (+6)
Shield of Excellent Protection 13 (+2)
Humakti Gift (+5)

So his 7W skill jumps by 41 points to 8W3 (and 12W3 vs. Lunars). Not bad... not bad at all - and this is without Iron weapons and armour.

Of course the character is a complete cardboard cut-out... utterly boring - but maybe you can recognize one of your player's characters in him? :)

Now I don't have Heroquest yet, I'm still using my old copy of Hero Wars, and I may be wrong about this but...isn't there a prohibition abainst using more than 1 non-magical adder at any give time in the same manner? In other words you could use any ONE of those skills to boost the stat and any number of magical abilities but not multiple non-magical abilities. Unless this has changed from HeroWars in which case I am way off base.

Hi Wolf,

Augments are the key in HQ :) Traits tend to cluster into groups effective for certain activities, and smart players will build clusters around that(in your example, combat).

While a large cluster helps you in a specific area, its going to be rare that you're going to get all of those augments firing at one time, and smart enemies or conditions may act to limit which ones can and cannot be used. For example, if someone is using ranged weapons, being Large works against your hero, instead of for him.

What tends to work well, that a lot of folk miss out on, is a wide range of clusters, particularly utilizing both personality traits and relationships. These motivation type clusters tend to augment all around, regardless of the field of conflict, and usually kick in for important conflicts(like saving your village).

Chris

IIRC In Heroquest, you can augment with any number of non magical abilities with the proviso that the GM agrees, the abilities are relevant and that it may take time to augment with more than one ability.

You cannot stack magic from the same affinity, but if appropriate you could use an augment from each of your affinities. Again, this may take some preparation time.

The liberal use of augments is something I am not too happy with. My first time running HeroQuest was a typical example of a munchkin friend of mine detracted from the game by reading off each ability on his character sheet and asking whether he could use it as an augment (I'm sure that left unchecked, his next Character could have been designed like Wolfhead's).

This detracted from game and became an exercise in numbers.

I ruled, that he could only augment once with a different type of ability /affinity. EG Mind, Relationship, Trait, Physical, Magical Affinity. Each should represent your most dominant motivation in the contest.

So in the example above, if you're Bloodthirsty, Brave, Determined and Hate Lunars, what is your main psychological drive to enter combat with against a superior number of Lunars?

Is it because you hate them with a passion?
Is it because you are holding them off to buy time for your kinsman to call for help?
Is it because your duty to the clan? Or,
Is it because you just like killing?

I think it would keep it simple and manageable without destroying the spirit of it.

These are my thoughts (of a very inexperienced HeroQuest GM) due to two sessions and subsequest thinking.

Bankuei wrote: What tends to work well, that a lot of folk miss out on, is a wide range of clusters, particularly utilizing both personality traits and relationships. These motivation type clusters tend to augment all around, regardless of the field of conflict, and usually kick in for important conflicts(like saving your village).

Kagemusha,

When the player goes through every ability, do the following after he comes up with a reasonable total:

Let's say that the player is fighting a bear.

Player: Heortling Culture?
GM: Oh, yeah, thanks, Heortlings revere bears, that's a -2.
Player: Legends of Humakt?
GM: Yep, that's another good one, there's the legend of Humakt defeated by Odayla the bear, that's another -2.
Player: Strong? Surely that counts.
GM: Well, it's a bear, silly, um, your strength gets you in close thinking you can take him on which gives you...
Player: let me guess, another -2.
GM: Yep. Want to try any more?

I'm tempted to say that this could be seen as abusive GMing. But, really, the whole augmenting process is a social feedback loop. The more a player mentions augments, the more it should represent the player's desire to make the character a protagonist. If it becomes apparent that they're doing it just because the rules say that they can, then start to give feedback in the form of negative augments.

This is totally legitimate, BTW, any ability can be used positively or negatively to augment. And it's purely the GM's prerogative to decide what's appropriate. With a little creativity, you can take any "positive" augment, and make it a negative one. The player will get the idea soon enough.

If you sense that the player thinks that you're being abusive, simply point out that you're just turning the tables on his abusive behavior. If that doesn't convince him to change his ways, then he's never going to get how to play properly anyhow. And limiting the player in augments isn't going to help, because the problem goes much deeper than just augments. Have you had this player insist on following up one contest with the same thing? "I'm only wounded, why can't I attack more!" Or had problems with some of the other abstactions of play? "I can't lose AP to that guy, I'm shooting him with a bow!" Etc, etc.

If you don't get the player on the same sheet of music in terms of vision as to how to play HQ overall, then small "fixes" like this are doomed to fail.


Wolfhead, to follow on the point above, if the player playing that character is onto the mode of play that HQ best supports, then this is an infinitely interesting character. Power level really doesn't much matter at all, and you can't really avoid making an interesting character. In fact, the Humakti Warrior is a staple of Glorantha, an archetype second only to, perhaps, his close buddy the Orlanthi warrior who embodies the god on the cover of the book. This character is so central to the HQ focus of conflict that he can't help but be interesting.

And, as Andrew points out, he's really not too powerful. I mean, yeah, in combat, watch out! Stay out of this guy's way. Sooo...people will stay out of the way there. When I as narrator throw a beautiful woman into his path, and his "Bloodthirsty" and "Intimidating Appearance" are all sucking points off his Determined 17 (-5) = 12 brining him down to a 9 TN to woo her, we'll see just how well he handles rejection. :-)

Which isn't a bad thing. Players shouldn't worry about their characters being bad at things - it's an important part of the game. This lopsided character is all the more intrestting for it. One moment he's slaughtering piles of trollkin, the next he's babbling incoherently to a slip of a woman. It's all good. I defy somebody to make a character that really interests them to play in HQ that isn't playable, and downright enjoyable. It just can't be done.

Mike

Thanks Kagemusha and welcome to the Forge! I was not aware of that difference from the previous version. I dig your approach however as it does utilize the built in GM caveiat effectivly. Hmm, I think I'll have to pick up the new addition before I can chime in to these conversations.

Makes sense to get up to date, Brendan, it's a good buy.

OTOH, you've run into here what is perhaps the most important difference in editions. Basically, the "depth" to which a player should dig for augments should represent his interest in the contest. Players should never fear to fail in HQ, and their digging should never represent a simple desire to win in all cases. That's not to say that they shouldn't try at all - the player is the person who needs to make a protagonist of the character. But what makes the character a protagonist isn't so much winning, as displaying the character's interest in the conflict effectively. That's what augment selection is all about. Simply put, if you select your augments well in terms of the drama (nothing less dramatic than going down the list and just asking if each is appropriate), then the character is made a protagonist before the dice are even rolled.

The fact that the reolution method is such that the narrator can contunue to heighten the sense of the character being a protagonist even when they fail means that the game garuntees protagonism as long as everybody is thinking that way.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
When I as narrator throw a beautiful woman into his path, and his "Bloodthirsty" and "Intimidating Appearance" are all sucking points off his Determined 17 (-5) = 12 brining him down to a 9 TN to woo her, we'll see just how well he handles rejection. :-)

The liberal use of augments is something I am not too happy with. My first time running HeroQuest was a typical example of a munchkin friend of mine detracted from the game by reading off each ability on his character sheet and asking whether he could use it as an augment (I'm sure that left unchecked, his next Character could have been designed like Wolfhead's).

This detracted from game and became an exercise in numbers.

This is my first forge posting, so if the format looks odd or it comes off strange then I blame that.

I tend to agree that the listing of augments is a feature that I do not particularly like. It seems like too much bookkeeping or character sheet reading to me. I have posted my own preferred by unlikely to be popular solution elsewhere before; which is to only allow one augment but to allow multiple attempts at rolled augments (of which the best is kept). This does mean that abilities are looked at for appropriateness, the most appropriate chosen first, rolled for with a risk of failure, but also of a high bonus. If this fails, then the negative modifier is applied to the augmenting skill for the duration of the contest, but the player can scour his character sheet for another skill. After some abysmal failures he might select a puny auto augment to avoid his "best" augment being -2, say.

For simple contest I also prefer augments after the roll - both participants roll on their primary ability, then each can attempt to get a big enough augment to nudge the result on way or the other. This is a sort of one up-augment-manship that I feel has not detracted from the drama of the build up tp one big roll. It also allows one to say things like ".. and you would have defeated me too if it wasn't for my immense strength"

Keith Nellist

Hi folks,

The main thing I do to avoid Augment Abuse is that I have the players declare what they are doing that highlights an augment trait or three, then narrate what the opposition is doing in return(either building their own augments, or negating the ones the players are doing), and so forth and so on until the player runs out of augments.

If this is a simple contest, then we've just narrated an exciting back and forth of drama, and then the final roll kicks in. If this is an extended contest, then each action is a round in the contest. So you have one or both sides starting with relatively low scores, and through the back and forth building for a final total.

Also, to avoid problems like Kagemusha mentions, the opposition usually takes intelligent actions to counteract the augments, or increase their own. So, if a player starts pulling up, "Strong", "Agile", "Brave", first, I'd ask for specific actions that utilize those traits. Second, the opposition will do things like manuever the heroes into tight spaces("Being agile doesn't help here, does it?"), etc. Again, the whole affair becomes a back and forth narration that turns out rather exciting, with the big kick at the end, finally deciding who actually comes out on top.

Chris

Deacon Blues wrote:

I don't know about the rest of the forum, but I'll admit: I've never talked a woman into bed by gritting my teeth stoically and never giving up. ;)

Haha. No it doesn't work does it? Although after a few beers, you might think so.

If you sense that the player thinks that you're being abusive, simply point out that you're just turning the tables on his abusive behavior. If that doesn't convince him to change his ways, then he's never going to get how to play properly anyhow. And limiting the player in augments isn't going to help, because the problem goes much deeper than just augments.

Mike, You've hit the nail on the head. This guy will never take up HeroQuest. He's D&D to the core, and will twist any rule he can find to get a bigger club to mash the oponent.

I like the idea of reflecting how the augment is used to achieve his goal.

Thanks for the welcome.

Kagemusha writes: "This guy will never take up HeroQuest. He's D&D to the core, and will twist any rule he can find to get a bigger club to mash the oponent."

Hi Kagemusha - and welcome to the Forum. Just for the record, the character sheet above was just a thought experiment by me to see how high you could raise a combat skill with augments - while keeping to the rules as written.

Having said that, I have had players who could come up with such a pc - or even worse... witness one Humakti who wanted an Iron Katana and a warhorse "to trample my enemies with"... sigh...

Personally, I love to see tons of arguments used in a contest, especially personality traits. Relevant personality traits can make the contest much more interesting. In his article, Passionate Intensity: Augmenting With Personality Traits, Brand Robins creates "the Passionate Intensity Clause, which states that a personality trait is relevant if, and only if, it is passionately engaged in the contest." I'd heartily recommend reading this article for further insights.

If a player wanted to create a combat-monster with as many augments to his /her main combat skill as feasible, I'd allow it. I'd also explain to the player that this character, while wickedly powerful in combat would be quite pathetic in non-combat situations, and in my campaigns, non-combat situations abound. The players will regularly encounter situations that are perhaps not best resolved with a sword. Then again, perhaps the player is looking for a character who is a Clouseauesque bumbler outside combat; such a character could be interesting to play, and so long as the player is going into the situation eyes wide open, this character would have my blessing.

As for the players who read off their entire list of abilities ... well, if they're literally reading off each and every ability, they're abusing the system with gamesmanship of the lowest order and I'd call them on it. If they're seriously asking if they can augment with Wilderness Survival, Speak Sartarite, Track and Know Animals while fighting on the deck of a pirate ship, I'll ask them, calmly, to stop being deliberately obtuse, and to stop wasting my time, the other players' time, and their own.

In a nut-shell, I won't place arbitrary limits on the number of augments, but I expect a reasonable explanation of exactly how a given ability would help in a given situation. I'm reasonable; I'll give consideration to saying "Yes, but" with a penalty before I say "No." If the augments are personality abilities, I'll expect the player to describe the passionate intensity. There's a difference between describing how deeply involved in the scene your character is, and reading off a laundry-list of abilities, throwing them against the wall to see what sticks.

Just spit-balling here, but maybe some of these problems could be avoided proactively by doing a little pre-game education and establish some expectations. One approach might be sitting down with the players before play begins and going over typical situations they might find themselves with their characters. Consider situations where the character would be strong, ones where they would be weak, and some in-between. Ask them what ability they would use, and what they would augment it with. Allow them to modify the situation to see if different augments become applicable. "Ok, I can't augment with Brave when chasing small children out of my garden, but what if I'm trying to chase off a troll?" Keep notes, and these ability/augments can be used later on in play to help speed things along.

Another approach might be to point out the abilities of some key NPCs. For example, it might surprise them to learn that King Broyan's most powerful ability is not combat-related, but Inspire Sartarites (IIRC; I would have to pick today to leave my copy of OiD at home).

Well said, Paul.

My hope is that I can simply lead by example in play. That is, by just saying no, providing the right feedback, modifying appropriately (everything that you mentioned, essentially), that by doing all this that the players will get the idea. I don't want to have to do the "pre-game" activity for several reasons. One of them is that I want the players to define the abilities somewhat in play and as a group. That is, on first use, I allow a lot more lattitude, and consider what all the players have to say about a particular use. The discussion helps to nail down the meaning of the ability. Then as time goes by, everyone gets to know more and more solidly what each ability represents and what it doesn't until there's never any question when it's invoked. At some point a player just "gets" it enough that he knows when to use it and when to not even try it, or when to try to "wheedle" it in (which I think is appropriate in many cases).

Indeed, I think this is the only way in which player defined abilities can work well. As an example, one of the characters in our last game had Sneaky as an ability. He decided to whip it out in a contest that involved setting my character up to misunderstand something. Josh said something like, "Oh, so it's not like sneaking around stealthily, it's just knowing how to be a sneaky bastard in manipulating people?" Indeed, I would have thought the other meaning applied. But it doesn't matter what I thought, it only mattered that we nailed it down at that point. Further uses probably would have nailed it down even tighter if his character hadn't gotten killed not to long thereafter for being a sneaky bastard.

Note that I don't care that this allows a player to dissemble. Ryan could well have been changing his mind right at that point about what it meant. Doesn't matter, he could be using the Develop in Play chargen method. In putting down the ability, he was actually defining the character in a much harder fashion than if he'd just left it completely undefined. Since it hadn't been established in play what it meant, anyhow, there's no problem with redefining it right at that point (not that I think that's what he did, but if he did, then more power to him).

Again, let the player "abuse" his way into a definition of an ability. The character is still defined exactly like any other character, and will be only be as good. Because no matter what ability level you give someone, there's always somebody better, or someone who's going to challenge you in a way that's unexpected.

Note how much of an improvement this is over other games. In those, having certain key abilities in certain areas is important to make your character a protagonist - somebody who has the capacity to be cool. In HQ, since it's not about always winning, the narrator can feel free to hit characters in areas in which they aren't good at stuff. Meaning that there's no way to "powergame" a character.

Note that I don't want to imply by any of this that you shouldn't give the player challenges which his character is undeniably well suited to deal with. With the above combat monster, he should be kicking ass about every other roll. The player wants that, or he wouldn't have made the character that way. The rest of the time all his other issues (like potential incompetence, but not limited to it) can be explored. And in mixing it up like this, you inform the player that there's no particular advantage to powergaming. Not so that they don't do it, but so that it becomes merely another interesting option, and so that they understand how to properly augment.

Know what? I can't get any of my players in my game to stack up on power. I give them tons of HP, but they either don't spend them, or they spread it all out. I may have to back inform them that lopsided characters are fun to play in HQ as well. :-)

Brand'll probably argue that it's just not plausible that his character has become more of a combat monster given that the ten sessions that we've played have only covered a few days of in game time. ;-)

Mike

Hi folks,

Another way to use the system to your advantage with these sorts of players is to actively use and enforce modifiers. Modifiers in the book are mostly shown to be penalties, although smart tactics can add bonuses.

If you encourage these sorts of players to take bold and exciting actions(swinging from chandeliers, kicking a chair at a foe to trip them, everything Jackie Chan, etc.) and let them know its going to give them anywhere from a +5 to a +20 bonus, they begin to get really creative and exciting with their actions. It puts them to doing what they want to do(action) and focus less on the list-reading.

Also, it helps alleivate the fear that these players have about failure. Giving them options and allowing them to use them constructively for play helps the entire game run smooth.

Chris

Wolfhead wrote: Just wanted to see high I could get a combat skill in HeroQuest - the experiment is below:

Sartarite Warrior - Devoted to Humakt (built with the list method)

[snip]

So his 7W skill jumps by 41 points to 8W3 (and 12W3 vs. Lunars). Not bad... not bad at all - and this is without Iron weapons and armour.

Mike Holmes wrote: Let's say that the player is fighting a bear.

Player: Heortling Culture?
GM: Oh, yeah, thanks, Heortlings revere bears, that's a -2.
Player: Legends of Humakt?
GM: Yep, that's another good one, there's the legend of Humakt defeated by Odayla the bear, that's another -2.
Player: Strong? Surely that counts.
GM: Well, it's a bear, silly, um, your strength gets you in close thinking you can take him on which gives you...
Player: let me guess, another -2.
GM: Yep. Want to try any more?

buserian wrote: Note, though, that even this munchkin isn't all that great at fighting when you consider other starting heroes.

Mike Holmes wrote: I don't want to have to do the "pre-game" activity for several reasons. One of them is that I want the players to define the abilities somewhat in play and as a group.

I'm a big fan of doing "education" in play. That is, if there's some exercise going on to "teach" players how to do something right, then I think that it's probably just as good to do it in play. Yeah, this might get some characters killed in TROS, and it might slow down the first few contests in HQ, but I think that players learn that much more quickly for it. And it's more fun. :-)

Mike