Hi all,

I had HQ for a year or so, and although Glorantha doesn't appeal to me much (I'm the guy with the EarthDawn conversion in a coma) I do like HQ's system enough to convince my friend to give it a try. We both read the book several times and have managed to grok some of the stuff there, with a good degree of success (except for magic, naturally). However, we do not understand everything, and so here come questions. We also have tentative answers, but I am not sure how good they are, and so I'm including them for the sake of discussion.

1) The default resistance is 14 if one does not have an appropriate ability. However, the beginning value of an ability is 13 and at times 6. Therefore it seems that at times it is better to have no ability than a low one. How does this work? [My bet: no idea]

2) In extended contest, the contest ends when one side reaches 0 or lower AP, however this means that if one is in a major disadvantage, the best thing he can do is bid his remaining AP (or rather half) with a specific goal to lose with 0 AP. Is this correct? Doesn't this mean that the weaker one who knows he is going to lose decides the outcome of the combat no matter how powerful his enemy? This is especially true if someone is completely outmatched (say 10 against 10W3) in which case he can bet on getting total defeat. That can lead to a situation where I as a novice can pick a fight with a veteran and just gamble everything, worst thing I'll just lose all the AP. [My bet: yes, a novice pretty much has to gamble everything on a lucky shot; but why can't he get worse than 0 as a result? Or does that leave him open to a parting shot, so a worse result is possible after all?]

3) Let us assume we have a warrior with Taunt 6 and Sword Combat 10W3. If he would begin an extended contest with a Taunt action he would have 6 AP even if he would make most of the extended contest a sword fight (using his Sword Combat score). Shouldn't there be an AP effect to switching abilities in the middle of an extended contest? [My bet: why make it an extended contest in the first place? Make it simple, and if you lose then impose a penalty accordingly to the Sword Combat extended contest that ensues as you're enraged. But for the sake of argument, let's stick to the original example and see how we can make this work.]

4) What are keywords? Should there always be a set number = three? Should every character describe himself using those three keywords? What if it's irrelevant to the game we want to play (say, race or religion)? Do you still have them then? [My bet: Keywords in this case are a nice-to-have-for-free set of skills, use them or don't, as you wish. Also, HQ can be played perfectly well without keywords at all].

Well, that's that (for now). As you can see, some of the questions come from a "non-HQ" mindset, so please be gentle.

MarK.

Mark,
As a newcomer to HQ I thought I'd try my hand at answering your questions for my own benefit. :) So take with a grain of salt.

1) When you have no appropriate ability the default value for your ability is 6. The "default resistance" is for when the Narrator isn't sure how challenging something would be.

2) One idea is to not reveal the opposition's ability ranking...so you don't know how powerful your enemy is unless you use an ability like "Assess opponent" (which may give you the advantage of minimizing the extent to which they defeat you).

3) First of all, Taunt 6 represents something the hero is untrained in, so they could not augment with it. It sounds like the focus of the EC is a fight with some pleasantries thrown in at the beginning and inbetween (e.g. "Princess Bride"). I would simply make this a part of the narration of each round of the EC, and use the Sword Combat 10W3 as the relevant ability.
Another way to handle this might be a simple contest of taunting before the EC of fighting (or vice versa).

4) Keywords are templates describing the character's background. It seems there is no "right" number to have, but many people divide them this way: What do you do? (occupation) Where do you come from? (homeland) What makes you special? (magic/trademark/or whatever it appropriate for the setting). In HQ a character with more Keywords doesn't really have an advantage over a character with fewer Keywords (with the possible exception of defaulting to untrained abilities at 6 less). I think it's a good idea to strive to include one keyword at character creation because it helps the player to conceptualize the character (as is done when creating a character as you go).

Hi, Mark.

herrmess wrote:
1) The default resistance is 14 if one does not have an appropriate ability. However, the beginning value of an ability is 13 and at times 6. Therefore it seems that at times it is better to have no ability than a low one. How does this work? [My bet: no idea]

2) In extended contest, the contest ends when one side reaches 0 or lower AP, however this means that if one is in a major disadvantage, the best thing he can do is bid his remaining AP (or rather half) with a specific goal to lose with 0 AP. Is this correct? Doesn't this mean that the weaker one who knows he is going to lose decides the outcome of the combat no matter how powerful his enemy? This is especially true if someone is completely outmatched (say 10 against 10W3) in which case he can bet on getting total defeat. That can lead to a situation where I as a novice can pick a fight with a veteran and just gamble everything, worst thing I'll just lose all the AP. [My bet: yes, a novice pretty much has to gamble everything on a lucky shot; but why can't he get worse than 0 as a result? Or does that leave him open to a parting shot, so a worse result is possible after all?]

3) Let us assume we have a warrior with Taunt 6 and Sword Combat 10W3. If he would begin an extended contest with a Taunt action he would have 6 AP even if he would make most of the extended contest a sword fight (using his Sword Combat score). Shouldn't there be an AP effect to switching abilities in the middle of an extended contest? [My bet: why make it an extended contest in the first place? Make it simple, and if you lose then impose a penalty accordingly to the Sword Combat extended contest that ensues as you're enraged. But for the sake of argument, let's stick to the original example and see how we can make this work.]

4) What are keywords? Should there always be a set number = three? Should every character describe himself using those three keywords? What if it's irrelevant to the game we want to play (say, race or religion)? Do you still have them then? [My bet: Keywords in this case are a nice-to-have-for-free set of skills, use them or don't, as you wish. Also, HQ can be played perfectly well without keywords at all].

Thanks guys, I think I'm more clear on some stuff now.

1) So if I understand correctly, when Greg is attempting to resist my Crush Bones I have to roll against an actual ability of his (or if he has none then against the default of 6?) but if a bone just lying there is attempting to resist my Crush Bones then I roll against 14?

2) Aaron, you're right about not knowing the other side's AP, that's for sure. Unless you clearly see he's far far better than you are, like a peasant vs. armored knight in a duel. So that's one point. As for the 10 vs 10W3 I was being facetious; 10W2 and bidding half would've served as well. But point taken. There are always chances and you cannot manipulate them as safely as we assumed.

3) I was explicitly thinking along the lines of Sebastian's reckoning. Yet something didn't seem right. Now I see how it works, but then I need to ask (my gamist mind kicking in) - why would someone not want to use his best ability both for the start of the contest and for the remainder of it? (Possible options: you can't because you lost your sword, or it's too dangerous and someone might get seriously hurt or even killed, or it's silly to wave your sword in a pie-eating contest, or you want to surprise your opponent as Sebastian described above. But otherwise, if the situation fits, then why not?)

4) I agree with both of you. On this point my friend and I differ. I say - more power to keywords. Why, you get a pack of skills bundled up together, all as a part of your education/occupation. He says - but the typing of keywords is problematic. This makes the game be about those keywords (so if you have Western Tribesman suddenly you can bring all that stuff into play). I say - cool! Let them! He says, but what about my romantic swordsman who doesn't care a rat's ass about the city-state he grew up in? Keywords should be the center of my character's being, why should he take Megalopolis Citizen when these points can be spent elsewhere? The question he then raised is "what if I want to have a set of skills that can qualify together as a keyword, but it's not community/occupation/religion/magic/whatever type of descriptor the game uses as keyword". (I believe his example was a "hopeless romancer" keyword or somesuch, as keyword is, as he quoted from the book something that is in the "core" of your character.)

I think he's more about "this upsets 'game balance' and the game direction itself in favor of those who use 'typed' keywords". I'm more about "take whatever abilities you want, what does it matter if it's keyword or not". We finally settled on one keyword (the equivalent of "character class", big surprise there) and the rest as individual abilities or GM/Player negotiated "packages" wherever applicable.

MarK.

Sebastian, really good comment about how risky ECs can be. I'm really eager to play one!

h wrote: why would someone not want to use his best ability both for the start of the contest and for the remainder of it? (Possible options: you can't because you lost your sword, or it's too dangerous and someone might get seriously hurt or even killed, or it's silly to wave your sword in a pie-eating contest, or you want to surprise your opponent as Sebastian described above. But otherwise, if the situation fits, then why not?)

The question he then raised is "what if I want to have a set of skills that can qualify together as a keyword, but it's not community/occupation/religion/magic/whatever type of descriptor the game uses as keyword". (I believe his example was a "hopeless romancer" keyword or somesuch, as keyword is, as he quoted from the book something that is in the "core" of your character.)

I think he's more about "this upsets 'game balance' and the game direction itself in favor of those who use 'typed' keywords". I'm more about "take whatever abilities you want, what does it matter if it's keyword or not". We finally settled on one keyword (the equivalent of "character class", big surprise there) and the rest as individual abilities or GM/Player negotiated "packages" wherever applicable.

[Note, crossposted with the last two posts.]

I don't know that you guys need me, you're doing pretty well all on your own.

But since when have I let that stop me. :-)

BTW, when I say doing well, that includes you, too, Mark. First, you've realized that there is a paradigm change going on with these new rules. You haven't quite got the gist of the change yet, IMO, but you're instincts are serving you pretty well.

Also note that the perspective that I'm going to give, and that of some others here, tends to be about playing HQ to a certain paradigm that not all people who play the game would agree is neccessarily best. So consider everything that I say, "The way Mike reads it, and makes sense to him."

1) Everybody's telling you the same thing, but the language is messy.

The player has an ability rating, and with augments and modifiers, ends up with his Target Number or TN. This is what the player rolls against. The Narrator selects a Resistance, and rolls against that. So the 14 resistance is the default "difficulty," if you will.

Now, why would you ever need one of those? Well, actually you may find it pretty handy. I use it a lot. Did the character hear the sound? Oh, sure, you could agonize about how loud the sound is, or how far away it is...but don't. Just pick 14 and roll. Those other details are just not that important. In fact, use a Default 6 resistance if the thing attempted seems really easy (if you roll at all). Er, using Grooming ability before going to the ball? Just pick 14.

2) Sebastian sorta got this one right. That is, with the system, a wide number of things can still result from the situation described. Further, you, Mark, got it right when you guessed that this shouldn't be an EC. Oh, I'd probably run it occasionally as an EC, but you'd find that when I did, it would be right to have a 6 AP to start. Largely the criteria for an EC comes down to, "Do the players think it would be cool as an EC?" If you're seeing a problem with 6AP, then don't do an EC - simple enough.

In fact, keep in mind that it might simply be something that's better off just using the "automatic failure" rule. Missed that in the rules? Well, there's no specific method like Automatic Success, but you can think of it two ways. Sometimes the resisting side is the hero effectively and is facing an conflict that "no self-respecting hero would fail at." But, even more rigorously, in the rules for Improvisational Modifiers, it says that you can rule that if a situation makes sense that the player automatically fails.

Often in these cases, it's best just to skip the roll, and keep on moving.

OTOH, I love default ability contests. I'm always pointing them out for my own characters, for instance. Because a lack of ability is often as interesting as having lots of an ability.

So, OK:
1. Don't do ECs
2. Consider automatic failure here

but there's a third point I want to make that's even more important. Yes, HQ lets the character who is on the downside "Cheat" to get away with taking less lumps. OK, yeah, sure, the Narrator has the "Parting Shot" at his disposal. But let's just forget about that for a second. Oh, and lets forget that the opposition may go big early, and the PC is never "low on AP" so can't take advantage of this. Let's forget all of that for a moment.

HQ intentionally let's the player "get away" if that's what he wants.

As a zen koan, I can't think of anything else to say about HQ that better explains the paradigm of it's system. At the risk of marring it's crystaline clarity, I'll explain this one. HQ contests aren't about players proving how good they are at winning. They're about interesting resolutions. The system actually goes a long way to enabling a player to tailor those outcomes as he sees fit.

I mean, consider HP for bumps. Is that "cheating?" Then why is it cheating for the player to use the equally drama-based EC resolution system to produce the outcome he wants.

Note that players have a huge incentive to actually bid more than the "safe" amount at this point. First, you're assuming that the player is OK with the character losing. If he wants to win, often it's best policy to bid large at this point. Basically the system is about risk. How much are you willing to put on the line for victory? Are you willing to take on the risk of a minor defeat instead of just a marginal to give yourself a better chance to win? Are you willing to risk a major defeat? Complete defeat?

See how dramatic this is? Quite as often as I see players "play it safe" here, I see them also make desperation bids, knowing the repercussions if they loose. Why do they do it? Because it's far more heroic and fun. Especially because...

In HQ, it's fun to lose. Or can be, if you do it right: http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_defeat.html

So, given that it's fun to risk, and that losing is fun...why would you bid low? Weak...

3) The real question is why would you assume that this was an EC in the first place? Because a sword was involved? Are you laboring under the assumption that ECs are a "Combat System?" There is no combat system in HQ. Just a contest system. Run massive battles as simple contests, and verbal sparring between men and women interested in each other at a picnic as ECs.

Or do the reverse. Sometimes, rarely, it makes sense to do a fight as an EC.

The question of when to do an EC should have to do with what drama would require. Ask yourself if it would get an extended scene all itself in a movie - if so, then EC away. If not, then Simple Contest. Mostly just stay away from EC.

Second, Sebastian caught this one, but...there's nothing cooler than Vin Diesel killing a man with a tin cup. Oh, to be sure his AP are higher than 6, because his taunt is higher, but it's the only example that I can think of. You thought that contest was to see if he could kill the guy? No, it was to get everyone away from the girl. He starts with intimidation, and and manages to shift the AP total a bit. But not so much as to end the contest, so some guy comes at him, and he's forced to change tactics to using his, "Killing With Random Objects" ability. Where he wins handily with his 4 masteries. And, lo, the bad guys go away after one of them lies dead (on his marginal victory result).

Like, Dude, he so beat those guys starting with only 6 AP. Coooool.

AP aren't near as important to EC victory as the abilities used. They're just relative placeholders.

4) This is a fascinating question. Keywords are ability groups which include all abilities that should be under the keyword. After play starts, and you have actually listed, say, the abilities from the book that are listed as under the keyword, the keyword could be discarded except that it continues to serve one important function. Determining the level at which all of the other abilities under the keyword are at, if and when you discover any.

So, for instance, you're playing a warrior, and his sword has gotten in bad shape through overuse in extended contests, and you look on the sheet and see that there's nothing there for repairing weapons. So you ask the narrator, "Shouldn't he have something like Weapon Maintainence?" and the narrator agrees. You get that ability at keyword level.

Now the really interesting question is what "should" go in every keyword. Mostly the answer should be "anything the player thinks should be there," but that's not a criteria, really. So the most used criteria is, "What everyone  - or almost everyone - who has the keyword has." Does every warrior know how to maintain weapons? Yeah? Then this warrior does too.

Want your warrior character not to know how? Then don't ask the narrator for the ability.

Now, neccessarily, there is some bend in occupations to account for differences in homelands. In one maybe they don't all learn how to maintain weapons, but learn other things instead. You can pretty much play with this a lot as you go, and give the player the benefit of the doubt.

No, you don't have to worry about the player abusing this because, after all as pointed out above, the player is not trying to win, he's only trying to make the most interesting character he can. The rules support this here. In any case, narrator approval is neccessary, so you can always say no if you're feeling mean.

The three keywords suggested for starting characters are a good idea. No, you can certainly get away with dropping some or bringing in others. It's been done. But consider this...

If you think that the religion keywords aren't important to your play, then you might be playing the wrong game. Actually, more likely, you're not understanding what they're about, and what options exist. Starting with the keywords suggested leads to a particular sort of play. Without them, you're playing only 10% of Hero Quest.

That said, don't feel nailed down to the keywords that are in the books, they're just examples. Make more as you need them: http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_keywords.html

Mike

Note: crossposted with Mike. Man I have got to learn to type quicker :-)

herrmess wrote:
1) The default resistance is 14 if one does not have an appropriate ability. However, the beginning value of an ability is 13 and at times 6. Therefore it seems that at times it is better to have no ability than a low one. How does this work? [My bet: no idea]

herrmess wrote:
3) Let us assume we have a warrior with Taunt 6 and Sword Combat 10W3. If he would begin an extended contest with a Taunt action he would have 6 AP even if he would make most of the extended contest a sword fight (using his Sword Combat score). Shouldn't there be an AP effect to switching abilities in the middle of an extended contest? [My bet: why make it an extended contest in the first place? Make it simple, and if you lose then impose a penalty accordingly to the Sword Combat extended contest that ensues as you're enraged. But for the sake of argument, let's stick to the original example and see how we can make this work.]

herrmess wrote:
4) What are keywords? Should there always be a set number = three? Should every character describe himself using those three keywords? What if it's irrelevant to the game we want to play (say, race or religion)? Do you still have them then? [My bet: Keywords in this case are a nice-to-have-for-free set of skills, use them or don't, as you wish. Also, HQ can be played perfectly well without keywords at all].

Hi MarK,

You probably got most of the answers you need here, but I cant resist chipping in here:

herrmess wrote:
1) So if I understand correctly, when Greg is attempting to resist my Crush Bones I have to roll against an actual ability of his (or if he has none then against the default of 6?) but if a bone just lying there is attempting to resist my Crush Bones then I roll against 14?

In Mike's IRC HQ game, Okhfels has a common magical ability, "Eat Fire 14".  On several occasions I have narrated him reaching into a campfire to idly munch on hot coals.  It wasn't used in a conflict, it was just a little piece of business I used to show that he's a magical guy,  in his own way.  Mike never made me roll, and frankly if he had, Okhfels would have gotten burned... the resistance would have been way too high, even at 14. 

On the other hand, on several occasions Okhfels used his "Heat metal" common magic to heat up his weapon to sparking, flashing, nearly-molten state.  Because it was only at 14, it gave a +1 in combat for the augment.  Was that appropriate to a weapon hot enough to sear flesh on contact?  Sure it was... because the scores aren't about effectiveness they're about impact.

Good actual play reference, Fred. Fred also knows about, and has used, the variable augment rule. He could try with his Heat Metal, to get a far greater bonus for this ability. Defeat representing the fact that magic is never a sure thing, and victory representing the fact that the magic in question may be pariticularly cool in a given situation.

Basically it's up to the player to decide if he wants to push these things or not. Most of the time people just take the straight augment, because, as Fred says, even if it's a small bonus, it still gets incorporated in the TN, and we feel that it's involved.

As I always say, Augmenting isn't about making sure that we have some accurate representation of the proportional effects of all of the abilities used (indeed, neither is the regular resoultion system applied to abilities alone, nevermind augments). It's about showing how the character fits into the contest in question.

Think of it this way...would the author of a book describing the conflict involving this character have bothered to put in some comment about the ability in question in writing about the character? If so, then you should augment with that ability, and for the same reason. The author doesn't put the description of the ability in to make the character more likely to win - he gets to decide the outcome by fiat anyhow. The author does it to show us things about the character. Same in HQ. Yes, it does, in fact, have an effect on whether or not the character will win. That's a little incentive for the player to do the augmenting. But the effect of an augment is to have us all go, "Ahhh, I hadn't considered that he might be in this fight because he sees these guys as a threat to his family. Cooool." Or, even more traditionally, "Oh yeah, I had totally forgotten that he's so resistant to pain. That's neat!"

Mike

I think I've got slightly different answers to most people:

1.

I play 14 is the default resistance only for active magic abilities, representing the idea that those are often unreliable and fickle unless mastered.

If you framed a scene to start with the PC prepared and hidden behind a civilian with no relevant combat abilities or magic, then if they simply tried to stab them that might be resistance 6, but tried to cast a death spell that would be resistance 14. In other words, the resistance opposing an ability of that kind can never go below 14.

This is not something that often comes up, as the resistance is usually higher outside of some special case like that.

2.

At 0AP, you are out of the contest (apart from one last gasp action), but your opponent is not, they can still act. If they are really trying to kill you, what ability are you going to use to resist their 20AP 'plunge a sword into your guts' bid? If not, a similar bid can be 'tie you up', 'knock you out', 'ask you to yield'

3.

This is the one area I use what's definitely a variant rule, contradicting the text. Everyone always use their full APs in any extended contest, no matter what skills are involved.

When Bond played Goldfinger at golf, which afaik he had never before been mentioned as playing, it still took up the full allocation of screen time as it would have if he had been playing him at his specialist abilities of bacarra-playing or martini-drinking. He just had to use non-golf skills to win.

The way I run things, simple contests are about _whether_ the PCs win, extended contests are about _how_ they win. If you want the player to risk losing, use a simple contest, if you wan to showcase the character's ability to take a beating, recover and win by turning the tables in an amusing and heroic fashion, give them the full APs they need to do that.

4.

As several people have already said, the set of keywords is a technique aimed at pushing characters into fitting into a particular genre. If you want to play a game more in the 'sword and sorcery' genre, instead of HQ's default 'secondary world fantasy', then you might use a slightly different set of keywords, emphasising personal character over cultural background.

Alternatively, in a particular setting there might be a 'cosmopolitan' or 'seafarer' homeland keyword that some characters had, indicating that its a distinctive and interesting fact about them that were one of those unusual people with no real roots in any particular place, like a UN diplomat's daughter in the modern world. 

Mike wrote:
If you think that the religion keywords aren't important to your play, then you might be playing the wrong game.

Hi

I would run contrary to the 'you may be playing the wrong game' theory. If you want to drop stuff or add stuff, including keywords then you can quite easily. I personally dont like the Earthdawn game system, and I have no idea about the background to that game because we played in a generic D&D type fantasy world. I certainly think its a good idea to migrate to Heroquest.

The HQ rules are also dead easy to introduce new people to, it can just be a little difficult getting into the HQ mindset, because its quite a departure from game systems that go into mechanics of how things work to the nth degree. As it proved for me. Its very much a game of interperatation of the rules rather than the rules being there to tell you exactly what a particular die roll means.

Regards
Rob

Thanks, guys!

I now got #1 certainly cleared, as well as #2 and #3. BTW Mike I think you will find it interesting to know that as I typed in the original questions I had to edit #3 somewhat. All instances of "conflict" were originally "combat". Go ahead an count 'em. :-)

As far as #4 is involved, I agree with you Mike that we might be playing "the wrong game" - but only insofar as HQ's typed keywords are involved. I see no harm in grouping "what's important to my character" or "how my character defines himself" into a keyword. I see no harm in not doing so, either. I know all too well that not using those keywords can "strip" my character of any setting components (which is IMHO the real strength of HQ, see the fascinating discussion at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13831.0) and this is why I'm biased against it. You see, I love using the setting for conflict (otherwise what's the point? pre-made Color?). I think that for EarthDawn's setting HQ is a dragon's breath of fresh air. But my sentiments are not necessarily shared, and the roleplaying background we come from doesn't really help. But the fact that is can be used by anyone who wishes, and that a keyword does mean "whatever is important to my character" (and not only by way of "I want to be the best in it"), this is enough of a step in the right direction for us.

MarK.