I recently bought HeroQuest and I love it! In many ways it articulates all the things I've wanted from an RPG or felt were lacking from other systems. However, I'm still struggling to get my head round some of the concepts and, in particular, how combat works.

Fundamentally I don't really understand why, when it has such a simple and powerful core mechanic, HeroQuest doesn't just use it for everything. AP bids, '+3 swords', and % wound penalties just don't do it for me I'm afraid.

So these are my proposed 'solutions'. I would really appreciate the input of anyone with a better understanding of Hero Quest (ie everyone here!).

1. Use only Simple Contests

2. Treat normal weapons and armour as keywords

This would start at 13, or 17 for steel or well-made items. Each weapon would also have a couple of abilities such as Parry, Stunning Blow, Entangle, or whatever, adding up to about +3 worth of augments. Different weapons can therefore have different strengths and weaknesses rather than all being '+3 swords'

3. Have a separate damage roll

Maybe this seems like a step backwards for HQ but I think it's too useful a concept to gloss over so easily. Abilities used in the combat can't also be used in the 'damage' roll (so there's a bit of room for strategy there) but each weapon and armour will have at least one ability that can *only* be used here (Deflect Blow, Stab).

4. Describe Injuries as abilities

So instead of being 'Impaired, -10% to ability' you get 'Broken Arm 17' or whatever. For non-combat situations you would get things like 'Distrusted by Innkeeper 13' or 'Scared of the dark 7W'. I'm not too sure how high these negative abilities should be, though.

Different levels of Success in the main Contest could either modify the Damage roll or could represent maneuvering and position etc - Driven Back 17, Knocked to Ground 7W, or whatever. I think I like having this kind of distinction between 'heavy hitter' types and 'swashbuckler' types.
Any comments anyone?

Thanks

Soviet

Welcome to the Forge! Do not get disturbed by my questions, they mean well.

Fundamentally I don't really understand why, when it has such a simple and powerful core mechanic, HeroQuest doesn't just use it for everything. AP bids, '+3 swords', and % wound penalties just don't do it for me I'm afraid.

soviet wrote:
So these are my proposed 'solutions'. I would really appreciate the input of anyone with a better understanding of Hero Quest (ie everyone here!).

1. Use only Simple Contests

2. Treat normal weapons and armour as keywords

This would start at 13, or 17 for steel or well-made items. Each weapon would also have a couple of abilities such as Parry, Stunning Blow, Entangle, or whatever, adding up to about +3 worth of augments. Different weapons can therefore have different strengths and weaknesses rather than all being '+3 swords'

3. Have a separate damage roll

Maybe this seems like a step backwards for HQ but I think it's too useful a concept to gloss over so easily. Abilities used in the combat can't also be used in the 'damage' roll (so there's a bit of room for strategy there) but each weapon and armour will have at least one ability that can *only* be used here (Deflect Blow, Stab).

Different levels of Success in the main Contest could either modify the Damage roll or could represent maneuvering and position etc - Driven Back 17, Knocked to Ground 7W, or whatever. I think I like having this kind of distinction between 'heavy hitter' types and 'swashbuckler' types.
Any comments anyone?

If you want to distinguish "heavy hitters" from "swashbucklers", I'd suggest that you take the penalties inflicted in a different way. If the "wound" is inflicted with a ability called flashing combat moves, you may decide that the damage wasn't physical. The opponent is awed-struck, knocked down and confuced. He is still beaten, but the effects of the wounds are different.

soviet wrote: 1. Use only Simple Contests

soviet wrote: 1. Use only Simple Contests

soviet wrote: 3. Have a separate damage roll

soviet wrote: 4. Describe Injuries as abilities

What is this core mechanic you refer to?

Now, if you'd use only Simple Contests, how would you handle a big, important fight, for example? Am I right in guessing that you'd do it as series of little "contests", like "Will I remain unseen?", "Will I hit the guy?", "Will I avoid the blow?"

I would however suggest considering some other system, if you find details of weapon types and wounds important. Do you realize that all these details are incorporated by the current system as improvised modifiers to the extent that the players find necessary?

A good system for this kind of game could be GURPS, I think. Especially with the new edition. It offers room and tools for detailed simulation of weapon type and wounds.

Overall, have you put thought to the kind of action you'd use the HQ system for? I mean, most people I know use it to tell social type adventure stories, where combat is no priority at all. Are you sure that HQ can be transformed to serve a combat heavy campaign? More importantly, can it be used for the kind of combat game you seem to desire? There is plenty of things that simply won't work too well, like rules strategizing or setting player challenges. In this regard it would be maddness to try to duplicate the D&D experience in HeroQuest.

Extended Contest, which I want to remove from my game. My intention is therefore to use additional Simple Contests (possibly Chained, thanks for the link Brand_Robins!) to fill this gap where required.

FWIW Soviet, I think you're really missing the boat with your judgement of Extended Conflicts. You need to play out a full 6 or 7 session campaign with them in place before making a ruling on something as core to the HQ experience as the Extended Conflict.

Its not a "special case" or "exeption" rule. It is an application of the standard core mechanic done in a way that maximizes narrative and creative input while minimizing book keeping and time consuming crunch.

I think you'd be better served by playing the game as written and really working to get Extended Conflicts right (which you admitt you're struggling to get your head around). Writing house rules to "fix" a mechanic that you're imagining in your head will be a problem is never a good idea.

Play the game. Really try to use to the ECs well and correctly (this forum is an excellent source for help with that). Then after several sessions if you still think its a problem, think about ways to fix it. But right now I think you're just imagining problems that aren't there.

That's my advice anyway.

First, I have some sympathy for Soviet here. That is, I don't think he's far off the mark at all.

1. You'll find it likely that all of the people here who have advocated using extended conflicts, only use them sparingly. Indeed, if you keep them as an option, and never use them because you never judge the need to have arisen, you'll be playing a lot like the people around here.

Now, the one downside to really, really rare extended contests is that the group may forget how to do them, making you artificially unwilling to do them. Basically, there's a horizon at which you will stop doing extended contests altogether, more or less out of habit. Truthfully, if this serves you, then I have no problem with it.

But what I'd advocate is getting to know the EC rules, and using them when it makes sense. Even if it's rare. See 3 below

2. Actually, this is sorta what I do. Or, rather, I went through a phase where this is what I did. Now what I do is to say that all armor and weapons, indeed all tools for any task are "required," and do not give a bonus. That is, who goes into combat without the weapons they need to use their skill. If they did, you'd give them an improv penalty, right? So what equipment does is to give you the level field you need to perform the task at hand.

Unless they're special. In which case, then I use the normal rule, and rate them, thus giving the character the bonuses in augmentation.

Does that mean that an unarmed fighter is the equivalent to an armed fighter? Well, maybe, but if you don't think this is the case, then give the unarmed guy an improv penalty.

3. If it's actually two separate conflicts, then I'd say, of course you should roll for each separately. And I can even see some places where it would be the case. What I would not do, is to do task after task with that system to emulate the effects of an extended contest. For one thing, it's a more complicated way to do it. But worse, it allows conflicts to be continued where they'd otherwise end normally. This is a real problem. The system is designed to tell players at a certain point that they're done with the current conflict, and can't decide to go on. This is a feature, not a bug.

4. On the HQ rules list, I have a system for making injuries and, indeed everything into abilities. Might want to check it out.

Mike

Hi,

To piggyback Mike's point #1, what I typically do is have at most 1 extended contest in a given play session... although I often have 2 or 3 extended contests running over the course of several play sessions, at the same time.

So, if a long term goal includes convincing a certain clan to ally with yours, but you do not have regular contact with them, each encounter or act which would affect that counts as a "round" complete with AP bid towards that goal.

Chris

Hi Soviet,

Many of us seemed to of shared very similar ideas about HQ. But I think your points 2, 3,4 and probably even 1-being all of them-stem from a misperception of what combat (and more specifically-victory) is in HQ.

Combat in HQ is ‘cinematic’, it simulates the type we see in movies, or read in the epics. From the Hero’s Book: “You rarely see or hear about fighters delivering a succession of serious wounds to each other until one of them finally keels over...Instead, they jockey for a favourable position, ducking, dodging, knocking each other over, and smashing up the furniture. Up until the final blow they generally deal out only minor bruises and scrapes.”

There is another reference somewhere about “ostensibly displayed bandages” which always somehow reminds me of Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But that is exactly what combat is like in HQ.

The crux of the point is: combat in HQ isn’t always about killing or injuring. Broken bones and blood loss just aren’t important-the victory is. The HB gives many alternatives to killing and the beauty of HQ is that you it allows you have a complete victory without your opponents dying from lack of Hit Points. You can capture them and put them into slavery, knock them unconscious, display your superior prowess but let them go so that they will forever walk humiliated, interrogate them, ask them for a favour, etc...

Combat is not a matter of course in HQ-it is the culmination of brewing drama, rising tension, the final and only recourse left for any kind of closure, and after which things are never quite the same. Physical conflict with another being is a very significant event in any world, and one which could possibly alter the entire course of the story. Combat in HQ is not about slaying an endless stream of nameless and meaningless monsters.

Cheers,
Lorenzo.

Hi Soviet,

On re-reading my post, I must berate myself for sounding so harsh. My apologies for an unwelcoming reply. Most of my post is a reaction to your point number 3.
The other points, as I said, many of us have considered and are worth pursuing if you are interested-follow the links by Brand_Robins. HQ takes some time to get your head around and my post was probably forcing the point a bit, so...

Thanks for the post and welcome to the Forge, and Heroquest!

Lorenzo.

Thanks for your replies.

I think it might be useful to explain that most of my current group have played D&D more or less exclusively for their entire gaming 'career'. Our games are fun but there is a *lot* of time spent looking up rules, calculating movement, resolving actions, etc, and it can be frustrating. I think HeroQuest could be a breath of fresh air for the group, but it is a significant conceptual leap for everyone to make (me included).

In some ways I think there should be a D&D:HQ conversion guide. Not for rules or monsters or something lame like that, but for players. A 'check your preconceptions about roleplaying in at the door' kind of book. It would be very useful and interesting!

In retrospect I don't particularly like the damage roll idea and I will try using extended actions. I still feel like armour / weapons and different 'fighting style' abilities should make more of a characterful difference though. I'm particularly struggling with the idea of representing armour as interchangeable with weapons (i.e. they both just give a flat modifier to the combat). Maybe it's the D&D/RM influence talking but it seems wrong to me that a heavy armour guy and an unarmoured guy with a rapier fight exactly the same. OK, I can narrate the difference in effect between 'tank guy' and 'swashbuckler guy' but in real terms they might as well both have 'Generic Fighting 17' and 'Stuff +3'. I like the verisimilitude of weapon and armour 'crunch' and would like to be able to replicate it better within the HQ rules.

I will definitely be treating armour and weapons as a kind of keyword as discussed in my earlier post. So one guy has a Rapier 13 with Riposte 13 and Strike First 13, while another guy has Mace 13 with Stunning Blow 17 (or whatever). Similarly, armour might be Plate 13 with Deflect Blow 17 and Heavy 13, etc.

How would you make use of abilities like 'Strike First' or 'Stunning Blow' in combat (particularly in extended contests)? How would you make use of armour?

Or maybe I should just go back to the HW Edges system?

Thanks

Soviet

Well, what you're doing is changing the rules in a way that significantly alters the intention of what the rules intend to provide. That is, you're really making up your own new system. Which I have no problem with (I do it all the time myself), but which should be made clear. Basically, in making the system do certain things that it wasn't intended to do, you're losing some things that make it good at what it does.

But so long as we all agree that this is a modification intended to get at something else, I think we can proceed to discuss this sensibly. Basically, you're trying to put the focus of the system back on combat detail. If that's the case, then try this - do nothing but extended conflicts (only do simple contests if you want to abbreviate contests), and just have all abilities be "offense" and "defense." The way it works in extended contests, each character takes turns, much like most games, trying to do stuff to the other guy. Well, when you're attacking, only use those abilities and weapons that are "offensive." When you're defending, use only armor and defensive abilities.

Note that the "verisimilitude" that you're creating is actually a very D&D sort of reality. That is, in real life, armor does make you more potent offensively, and weapons are good for defense. Not the same, but in terms of how well you do, there's no doubt it's true. I'd posit to you that your idea of what's verisimilitudinous has nothing to do with reality, but is instead formed by long term play of D&D. Which isn't a bad thing, just worth pointing out.

The above system will create the sort of in-game detail that you're looking for, I think. Or go with your original system. That'll work fine, actually for what you're looking for.

Just realize that it's not Hero Quest, and that you're loosing some very important advantages that it presents to create a certain sort of play. Put another way, consider trying to play the game as is sometime, intending to try to get the sort of experience that HQ does an extremely good job of providing. Because it's a lot of fun. That's not to say that your current mode isn't fun, too - just that it might be interesting to try something different for once.

Mike

soviet wrote: I still feel like armour / weapons and different 'fighting style' abilities should make more of a characterful difference though. I'm particularly struggling with the idea of representing armour as interchangeable with weapons (i.e. they both just give a flat modifier to the combat). Maybe it's the D&D/RM influence talking but it seems wrong to me that a heavy armour guy and an unarmoured guy with a rapier fight exactly the same. OK, I can narrate the difference in effect between 'tank guy' and 'swashbuckler guy' but in real terms they might as well both have 'Generic Fighting 17' and 'Stuff +3'. I like the verisimilitude of weapon and armour 'crunch' and would like to be able to replicate it better within the HQ rules.

Or maybe I should just go back to the HW Edges system?

Jane wrote: Quite how Tank Guy's armour applies is an interesting question. If the entire fight is the contest, then no doubt it's a bonus. But if you've split the fight up into an extended contest, then it's only a bonus when he's trying to avoid being hit by Swashbuckler Guy. When he's the actor/attacker, all it's doing is slowing him down.

And if Swashbuckler Guy makes running away his action for that round, heavy armour is not going to help Tank Guy catch up. Maybe it should be a negative modifier? In fact, a nasty ref would apply it as a negative modifier anytime he tries to, say, swim :)

Of course, if it isn't just "full plate", it's "Legendary Breastplate of Famous Ancestor", then maybe it isn't just the fact of a lot of metal protecting him that matters, maybe it's the morale value of knowing he's wearing this intensely personal heirloom? Maybe what scares his opponent is the paint job on the front?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Jane wrote: Quite how Tank Guy's armour applies is an interesting question. If the entire fight is the contest, then no doubt it's a bonus. But if you've split the fight up into an extended contest, then it's only a bonus when he's trying to avoid being hit by Swashbuckler Guy. When he's the actor/attacker, all it's doing is slowing him down.

Just to follow up, this is the fallacy that I was talking about. Armor doesn't slow people down, and, because of the confidence it gives the wearer, it makes one able to make more effective attacks.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Again, if you want realism, combat effectiveness has very little to do with armor, weapons, strength, agility, or the like. None of the things that RPGs attribute to success in combat. What's most important in actual combat is the will to injure your opponent, and risk injury yourself in doing this. In reality, the only things that matter significantly are training, experience, and motivation.

Mike Holmes wrote: In reality, the only things that matter significantly are training, experience, and motivation.

And knowing how to read your opponent, how to get your timing right, how to notice other factors around you (like the guy behind you, the tree root you're about to trip over), thinking about turning your opponent so the sun is in his eyes...

Which in HW rather than HQ was called "Close Combat". Weapon combination in use was unspecified, more or less. And I still think this was a much better idea.

I just realised that this point hasn't (IMHO) realy been addressed directly yet.

soviet wrote: Maybe it's the D&D/RM influence talking but it seems wrong to me that a heavy armour guy and an unarmoured guy with a rapier fight exactly the same. OK, I can narrate the difference in effect between 'tank guy' and 'swashbuckler guy' but in real terms they might as well both have 'Generic Fighting 17' and 'Stuff +3'. I like the verisimilitude of weapon and armour 'crunch' and would like to be able to replicate it better within the HQ rules.

That's the thing, Simon, I think that what he wants is to revert that methodology from HQs to the more traditional style. I would agree with you that this is "ruining" what makes HQ unique and interesting, but if that's what he needs, then that's what he needs.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That's the thing, Simon, I think that what he wants is to revert that methodology from HQs to the more traditional style. I would agree with you that this is "ruining" what makes HQ unique and interesting, but if that's what he needs, then that's what he needs.

Well, it's my personal view that HQ isn't quite so much a toolkit, that it plays pretty well "out of the box." In this case, I think he just has a very different set of goals than the "out of the box" version supports. Hence the need for alteration.

Mike