Been doing a lot of Heroquest play lately and doing a lot of thinking about the rules.  Our group has been working out our approach to running Simple Contests and Extended Contests.  Moreover, in order to cram in all of the exciting incidents arising from players' decisions, I have been opting for related Simple Contests rather than many Extended Contests.  This involves a simplified extension of the rules for heroquesting to other actions.

We ran into a number of problems and misunderstandings.  Here are my proposed solutions.

(These arose out of actual play but the following notes are specifically related to Heroquest and don't belong in the Actual Play forum.)

Thanks to Hans' discussion of Tunnels and Trolls (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19038.msg200151#msg200151) in the Actual Play forum for clarifying my thinking on these matters.

______________________________________________________________
Part of the confusion regarding augmentation can be attributed to the contradictory rules in the text itself.

Contradictory Rules

Here are the rules from page 79 of the Heroquest rulebook:

"You can augment with any number of mundane or magical abilities, if they are appropriate and the narrator agrees.  You may only use a particular ability to augment another once during a single round.  Thus, you cannot use Strong twice to augment Sword Fighting, and magical abilities often have limitations on stacking.  The narrator may decide that it takes a certain amount of time to apply multiple augments, even with mundane abilities."

And 3 paragraphs later the book contradicts itself:

"Some abilities are inherent characteristics, such as Strong, Clever or Large.  It usually takes no time to augment with them, so even augmenting with multiple abilities does not take an unrelated action in an extended contest.  Thus, during each round of combat a giant automatically gets +6 each for its Large 18w2 and Strong 18w2, and another +3 for its Tough 10w."

Well, which is it?

3 Problems

#1 Does the giant use Strong once per round of an Extended Contest or only once during the entire duration of an Extended Contest?  The rules take two diametrically opposed stances on this point.

#2 In Simple Contests, everything is over in one round anyway.  Players have to decide how many augments are applicable.  This is, in turn, affected by the duration of a contest.  A second's decision might not allow 10 augments.  Or it might.  How many augments can be loaded on at the begining of a Simple Contest?

#3 What is the process for deciding what is a "reasonable" amount of augmentation?  What is the process for deciding how long a contest lasts and what, therefore, are "reasonable" augmentations in that period?  These two problems can be subsumed under a general process of decision making about conflicts.  But what is this process?

Solutions

General Approach:
* Approach all problems in Heroquest as problems of conflict resolution rather than task resolution. 
* A Simple Contest is, then, not a simple task.  Such a contest could last for a whole day, or a whole battle.  Simple Contests are simple means for resolving conflicts, not a quick way to resolve quick tasks.
* Extended Contests are not necessarily long contests: they are contests whose every detail is of interest to the players.  They are closeups or set pieces.

Solution to #3
* I have no general statement on the mode of decision making in Heroquest.  I can only offer the practical solutions that I will apply in my games.  The default seems to be the traditional role of the GM as final arbiter of the constitution of the Shared Imaginative Space.

> Rule of 3
-3 magical and 3 mundane augments seems a workable limit to an ordinary conflict that is not particularly intense or which does not involve the players' major goals or backstory or values.
- The limits on magic augments are in the rules and the guideline about mundane augments is an extension of it.

> GM sets the Parameters of the Conflict
- GM has to set out what is at stake and what time, space, and resources are involved in the conflict at hand.  Such guidelines allow players to make reasonable decisions about what abilities they can and should bring to bear.
- In any situation where the guidelines are being exceded, the GM and the player have to justify every single one of  the augments being proposed.  I as a GM have to get a little better at this, but by being fair and consistent I can prevent inter-player conflict.  Fairness to all players is important as we are now seeing more intra-character conflict which should not spill out of the fictional level of the game and turn into conflicts between the players.

General Solution to #1 and #2
> Apply the Solution to #3 in both cases
> Players declare augmentations that could affect the outcome of the entire conflict at the start of that conflict.

Specific Solution to #1
> Players declare augmentations that could affect the outcome of the entire conflict at the start of that conflict.  These last throughout the whole conflict.  Such augmentations  include:
* magic
* personality traits related to the conflict
* abilities related to a conflict.
> As the rounds of the Extended Contest begin, players should bring in new one-round augments that reflect the details of the situation.  A fight might have started as a straightforward sword duel.  But if a character roleplays a great insult to his opponent, and could justify the use of Biting Insults ability as an augmentation, so be it.  Or he could use that ability as an unrelated action.
> Of course, the situation can change.  An player who began a duel with the intention of "dispatch my enemy with haste" might then turn around an decide to "run for safety."  The AP pools of the conflict stay the same.  But once the player has a new ability in use he or she should consider the new applicable augmentations. The magic applied at the start will probably be in effect but will have to be reconsidered.  Mundane augments should not go beyond the Rule of 3.
> Unrelated actions should use only the applicable augments in effect since the start of the conflict. (But exceptions are possible).
> Discretion must be used and the difference between pursuing an overall goal and momentary changes of tactic must be maintained.  A giant whose stated aim is "crush the party like gnats and feast on their bones" can use Strong, Large, and Tough for the whole thing.  Two suitors trying to win a lady's love should be using aguments related to seduce, flatter and persuade at the start of the contest.  In individual rounds they may try things like using their strength or toughness to impress the lady, but such augments should be for one round and one round only.  They are the colour that makes Extended Contests interesting.

Specific Solution to #2
- Simple Contests should have their parameters set by the GM.
- The Rule of 3 provides a generally applicable limit to augmentations in such contests, regardless of how long they might be in real-time terms.
- Conflicts of deep thematic interest or of relevance to a characters goals or backstory can justify the application of augmentation in excess of the Rule of 3.
- However, Extended Contests are the venue for exploring conflicts of deep thematic or personal importance.  Icing a few monsters or getting some cash are not conflicts of such importance.

What about a series of Related Simple Contests?
- I have been using these more often than Extended Contests for two reasons: the players are still getting comfortable with the system and I like to save Extended Contests for climactic conflicts related to the story arc.  However, we can start using them more frequently if players wish.
- My use of related simple contests is an application of the rules for heroquests to mundane situations.
- The GM may say: this is an open-ended situation. Let's resolve it with a series of Simple Contests.
- As before, the GM sets the parameters of the situation.
- Players set augments applicable for that situation.
- Each stage of the situation is resolved by a simple contest.
- If there are gaps of time or if there are major changes in the situation, the choice of new abilities and new magical and mundane augments is appropriate.
- If I were resolving a 7 day hunting excursion using related simple contests, we could resolve it all with one Simple Contest, bringing in up to 3 magical and 3 mundane augments to a single ability. A 7 day series of contests, each of which tested a different talent of the hero, would involve deciding the ability and applicable augment for each test. Jousting would require one ability and one set of augment while Creating Poetry would involve a different ability and a different set of augments.
- However, the results of one of the Simple Contests would be rolled into the next. So a guy beaten senseless at Jousting would, the next day, suffer a penalty to his Poeticizing. But a hero who was humiliated by a foe during the Poetry Test could also be penalized when facing that foe in a subsequent Mock Duel, as a consequence of feeling weak and inadequate in the face of a superior example of chivalry and knightly perfection. So failure at Poeticizing can affect later attempts at Rapier Combat.

There was a post in the Rules mailing list that answers the question in a way that I agree with, but doesn't address this in detail. I'll do so here.

epweissengruber wrote:
Been doing a lot of Heroquest play lately and doing a lot of thinking about the rules.  Our group has been working out our approach to running Simple Contests and Extended Contests.  Moreover, in order to cram in all of the exciting incidents arising from players' decisions, I have been opting for related Simple Contests rather than many Extended Contests.  This involves a simplified extension of the rules for heroquesting to other actions.

Part of the confusion regarding augmentation can be attributed to the contradictory rules in the text itself.

#1 Does the giant use Strong once per round of an Extended Contest or only once during the entire duration of an Extended Contest?  The rules take two diametrically opposed stances on this point.

#2 In Simple Contests, everything is over in one round anyway.  Players have to decide how many augments are applicable.  This is, in turn, affected by the duration of a contest.  A second's decision might not allow 10 augments.  Or it might.  How many augments can be loaded on at the begining of a Simple Contest?

#3 What is the process for deciding what is a "reasonable" amount of augmentation?  What is the process for deciding how long a contest lasts and what, therefore, are "reasonable" augmentations in that period?  These two problems can be subsumed under a general process of decision making about conflicts.  But what is this process?

Approach all problems in Heroquest as problems of conflict resolution rather than task resolution. 

* A Simple Contest is, then, not a simple task.  Such a contest could last for a whole day, or a whole battle.  Simple Contests are simple means for resolving conflicts, not a quick way to resolve quick tasks.

* Extended Contests are not necessarily long contests: they are contests whose every detail is of interest to the players.  They are closeups or set pieces.

The default seems to be the traditional role of the GM as final arbiter of the constitution of the Shared Imaginative Space.

> Rule of 3
-3 magical and 3 mundane augments seems a workable limit to an ordinary conflict that is not particularly intense or which does not involve the players' major goals or backstory or values.
- The limits on magic augments are in the rules and the guideline about mundane augments is an extension of it.

> GM sets the Parameters of the Conflict
- GM has to set out what is at stake and what time, space, and resources are involved in the conflict at hand.  Such guidelines allow players to make reasonable decisions about what abilities they can and should bring to bear.

- In any situation where the guidelines are being exceded, the GM and the player have to justify every single one of  the augments being proposed.  I as a GM have to get a little better at this, but by being fair and consistent I can prevent inter-player conflict.  Fairness to all players is important as we are now seeing more intra-character conflict which should not spill out of the fictional level of the game and turn into conflicts between the players.

Specific Solution to #1
> Players declare augmentations that could affect the outcome of the entire conflict at the start of that conflict.

> As the rounds of the Extended Contest begin, players should bring in new one-round augments that reflect the details of the situation. 

> Unrelated actions should use only the applicable augments in effect since the start of the conflict.

What about a series of Related Simple Contests?

- Each stage of the situation is resolved by a simple contest.

- If there are gaps of time or if there are major changes in the situation, the choice of new abilities and new magical and mundane augments is appropriate.

- However, the results of one of the Simple Contests would be rolled into the next. So a guy beaten senseless at Jousting would, the next day, suffer a penalty to his Poeticizing. But a hero who was humiliated by a foe during the Poetry Test could also be penalized when facing that foe in a subsequent Mock Duel, as a consequence of feeling weak and inadequate in the face of a superior example of chivalry and knightly perfection. So failure at Poeticizing can affect later attempts at Rapier Combat.

Thanks for pointing out my serious misreading.  That misreading then caused conceptual blockage and I had to go through all kinds of backflips to try to sort out a problem that did not exist.

And your systematic response has helped me focus on the real practices that lead to good HQ play.

Cool, but a few notes.

First, I've seen people play other ways successfully. Limiting augmenting does move things on for some people, and the only downside is that it may, ironically, reinforce the idea that HQ resolution is about trying to win. If your group likes that, or wouldn't fall prey to it anyhow, then the limits are pretty harmless.

Second, keep in mind that the HQ text is far from unambiguous about these things (I've seen people have the exact same misreading previously, and there are about six other common misreadings to boot). I think it does a pretty good job with some difficult subjects, actually. But the difficulty means that sometimes something won't make sense on a read through. If/when that happens, find somebody to talk to about it. That's saved me on, oh, about a dozen occasions, from heading off down the wrong path. Or, on a couple of occasions it's turned me around from something that I was doing in play.

Often there's no clear answer to an ambiguity, actually (see the great Magic Default debate). But what you can get from somebody is a sense of one interpretation that works. I don't say that my interpretation is always the "correct" one. All I can say is what interpretation works for me.

Mike

Well, Mike has answered this beautifully and most of what I think is the same (seeing as how he was a major influence on how I play HQ, or indeed, picked it up in the first place).

A couple of comments I would throw in:

1) I *really* can`t imagine using HQ as a task-resolution system very well. In fact, HQ has soured me on task systems completely, because the whole "you can do what your character is designed to do" is so much less frustrating. I think you can occasionally use it for a single task, but that's the exception.

2) Goal setting: I'm a fan of letting the players set this as much as possible. I will often explain the opposing goal in advance. (The cops want to get you) and then let the players pick whatever they think is appropriate as their response. Yes, my job as narrator is to be final judge on the consensus answer, but it takes a lot to get me to say no. :)

3) Chained single contests. Like Mike, I find that the penalty rules already there make this work.

4) Unrelated actions: I think this is *still* something I don't have a good handle on. When something is "unrelated" or not remains very fuzzy for me. I tried using "if it allows a new augment, ability, or situational modifier, it must be done by unrelated action" as a rule, but that never really satisfied me. (It wasn't that bad, but didn't seem to flow all that wonderfully.)

I'm with Lightcastle on the ambiguity of unrelated actions in the rules.

With HeroWars a few of us on the HWRules Yahoo Group refined a simplified version of the then existing rule of being able to spend AP to do extra actions.

This still works for me with HQ.

Example:
Fred is fast talking his way past a night club bouncer, He is using Charming Personality, augmented with Natty Dresser and Witty but he realises the bouncer has a large Seen it all Before skill and needs to enlist the help of a friend in the queue without letting up on the banter. He asks the Narrator if he can spend a portion of his current AP to wink and gesture surreptitiously to his friend to get him to create a diversion (i.e. join the contest as a follower or specific augment).  The Narrator and Player negotiate how many AP this would cost and the player chooses whether or not to go ahead.

Hey Web_weaver.

I'm not sure I understand your example.

Are you saying that to do an unrelated action, you just bid higher? Or that an unrelated action just entails spending a certain amount of AP (no bid)?

Unless EP wants to talk about that here, I've started a thread where we can take this tangent here and discuss it thoroughly: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=13.0

Mike

I started to have problems with excessive augmentation slowing the game down so I've recently implemented 'the rule of three' as a general limit. In theory players should be able to use their own discretion but my lot can't seem to help themselves so they suggested applying a more structured limit. As well as speeding things up I'm hoping that this will allow us to better highlight some of the more characterful abilities that sometimes get drowned out by everything else.

However... I think the 'everything and the kitchen sink' approach has its place too, so I'm allowing people to spend a HP to ignore this restriction when they feel it's appropriate (eg. the final confrontation against their arch-nemesis). I'm thinking of this as a screen time thing, much like simple vs. extended contests - some scenes require a whole drawn-out sequence that shows you every nuance of the character, while others are over in a couple of quick shots.

soviet

Mike wrote:
Unless EP wants to talk about that here, I've started a thread where we can take this tangent here and discuss it thoroughly: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=13.0

Mike

Thanks for the clarification, Erik.

Soviet, I like that a lot. I'm not going to use it for my games, because my players tend to limit to 3 to 6 anyhow, and I think the key stuff comes out. But I think if you find players "scouring" that this is a great way to limit them, and inform them about where the sweet spot lies. Especially because, unless they come up with another +20 in augments, it's an inefficcient use of a HP - though still a good way to increase your odds on a particular conflict (as you can't otherwise spend more than one HP on a roll). So this is an indicator of how strongly the player feels about the contest. Which is good.

For extended contests, what do you intend to do? Make them pay one HP per round they augment? Or does this allow unlimited augmenting for the entire contest?

Mike

Mike wrote:
For extended contests, what do you intend to do? Make them pay one HP per round they augment? Or does this allow unlimited augmenting for the entire contest?