Got my HQ book last week and I've been pouring over it for a while. I'm totally new to the system (and the world), so I'm hoping some of you old skool types can help me out with a few questions.

1) Abilities seem very narrow, which seems like it would pigeon-hole characters into limited roles, something I'd expect more from DnD than what I had read about HQ. If I want to play a weapon master, do I have to take abilities in every single combination of weapons? Am I doomed to "Close Combat" with improv penalties on every roll? A "weapon master" keyword might do the trick, but it can't be improved.

This extends to other areas besides combat. From the examples of play I remember "Bring in Harvest", "Jump Up Cliff", and "Play Harp". Why not "Farming", "Superlative Leap", and "Musician"? If I want to encourage my players to branch out and take fun abilities that round them out and give them character, I wouldn't want them to have to sink the majority of their points into it just to be competent. I have this vision of character creation, "oh, you wanted to *plant* crops too? sorry, you'll also need Sow Crops, and then you'll take an improv penalty since you didn't specify what *type* of crop you can plant. You'll also need Sharpen Plow, Care For Mule, Hitch Mule to Plow..." At which point the player gives up in disgust and dumps all his points into Hit Things and Avoid Getting Hurt.

I'd assume I was blowing this out of proportion, except this concern was brought on by reading the examples of play. How's this work out in actual play?

On to magic...

2) Theism would seem to be more powerful and versitile than Wizardry. Affinities can contain a near infinite number of feats that can be learned or improvised (limited mainly by player creativity). Feats can be improved and also benefit from the affinity being improved. Spells cannot be improvised or even modified much in their use. Grimoires kind of match affinities in that they give you access to a bunch of grouped powers, but you can't improvise spells and spells cannot be raised individually (and you can have your grimoire taken away). Is this a feature, a bug, or am I missing something about wizardry? In the comparison of power between the styles of magic in the book, wizardry was "starts really weak but can be very powerful at the high end", yet it seems a bit weaker than theism at best, and much weaker at the low end.

3) Does an animist always have to cement charms he creates? If a shaman is about to fight a fire demon, can he take a little time to whip up a charm of protection from fire, not spend a hero point, and after the adventure just say he gambled it away/freed the spirit/gave it to the local tribe in case the demon came back/etc? Is animism meant to have this kind of on the fly flexibility, or is each new charm meant to be paid for with hero points and made a permanent part of the character?

4) Magic works "here, now, against that". To recreate the classic fireball, you'd use your Firebolt power and take a target number penalty to increase the number of targets, right? If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

That's enough of a brain dump for now. I really like the look of HQ, but there's definitely some nuances I need to understand before I'd try running it.

Alex

Cool post. I'm interested in the answers about the magic stuff myself as I haven't read that close enough to answer those (but I do know that it's more expensive to become a Devotee than it is to become an Adept). But I can speak to the breadth issue.

kalyptein wrote:
1) Abilities seem very narrow, which seems like it would pigeon-hole characters into limited roles, something I'd expect more from DnD than what I had read about HQ. If I want to play a weapon master, do I have to take abilities in every single combination of weapons? Am I doomed to "Close Combat" with improv penalties on every roll? A "weapon master" keyword might do the trick, but it can't be improved.

This extends to other areas besides combat. From the examples of play I remember "Bring in Harvest", "Jump Up Cliff", and "Play Harp". Why not "Farming", "Superlative Leap", and "Musician"?

If I want to encourage my players to branch out and take fun abilities that round them out and give them character, I wouldn't want them to have to sink the majority of their points into it just to be competent. I have this vision of character creation, "oh, you wanted to *plant* crops too? sorry, you'll also need Sow Crops, and then you'll take an improv penalty since you didn't specify what *type* of crop you can plant. You'll also need Sharpen Plow, Care For Mule, Hitch Mule to Plow..." At which point the player gives up in disgust and dumps all his points into Hit Things and Avoid Getting Hurt.

I'd assume I was blowing this out of proportion, except this concern was brought on by reading the examples of play. How's this work out in actual play?

Hi,

- Keywords
While it is correct that keywords cannot be improved, individual abilities can. So, while a warrior cannot improve his Warrior keyword, he can improve his Scout ability, which is part of the keyword.

- Is Theism more Powerful?
Yes, affinities can be used to improvise feats. There is no equivalent in wizardry. Does this mean that theism is more powerful? Let’s take a closer look, but bear in mind that a situation like the one below is purely academic. It will most certainly never come up in play, since there will be modifiers involved, and characters will be augmenting.

An initiate of Destor (p. 123) is fighting a magical duel with an orderly of Saint Gerlant (p. 170).

The initiate uses his Movement affinity @ 17 to improvise a feat that will paralyze his opponent (That’s creative, I’d allow it). Assuming that he has concentrated his magic, and no other modifiers apply, his rating in the Paralyze feat is 17 -5 = 12. He faces a minimum resistance of 14, thus giving him approximately 40% chance of rolling a marginal victory or better.

The orderly uses his Burn Pagan spell @ 17 to defeat his barbarian opponent. He gets to use his full ability rating of 17, the minimum resistance is 14, giving him almost 50% chance of rolling a marginal victory or better.

Oh, wait a minute, they are fighting each other, right? Assuming that we make this a simple contests (the vast majority of contests, including combats, should be simple contests) they roll the dice against each other. That’s 12 vs. 17 (or possibly 14 vs. 17, since 14 is the minimum magical resistance). Is the theist still the most powerful?

Now, take a look at the hero improvement costs. To increase an affinity +1 costs 3 hero points if you have concentrated your magic. To increase a spell costs only 1.

In real play things would be much less predictable. What augments are the characters using? Hell, what abilities are they using? Are they members of a hero band, or some other community whose guardian gives them a bonus? The orderly will always benefit from a whole bunch of blessings that are going to be on at all times. Are the characters getting community support? I could go on and on.

Game balance is a slippery thing, in HeroQuest particularly so. The game looks deceivingly straightforward, but it has nuances that you will probably only discover in play. The only thing you really need to know is this: The most powerful character is the one using the ability with the highest target number. But then, again, that is complicated by the use of hero points…

- Spells can be raised.
Spells can be raised individually. You need to re-read the appropriate sections in the book. Orderly spell is on page 161 (for orderlies), wizardry spells and grimoires (used only by adepts) on p. 164. Note that magic works differently for different kinds of worshippers. Wizardry is complex, but I love it.

- Charms
Hm. I haven’t thought about this. Also, I’ve never actually tried out the animism rules in play. Give me a little while to check this out. I’m sure, however, that animism is not a "get any ability for free" magic system.

- Fireball

If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

I really like the look of HQ, but there’s definitely some nuances I need to understand before I’d try running it.

By noting narrow things about the character, you do create realistic, interesting, and well differentiated characters. Have you looked at the sample characters in the book or on the site? What abilities are missing from these characters? Which would you expand? Heck, I can see being a Farmer who knew how to play one instument, or a Musician who knew how to plant, but how many people really are both? HQ represents this well. You have one culture, one occupation, and one Magic keyword. This alone makes for a reasonable character.

For comparison, do you have a system that you think does a better job of this? So we can see what your standard is?

Oh, wait a minute, they are fighting each other, right? Assuming that we make this a simple contests (the vast majority of contests, including combats, should be simple contests) they roll the dice against each other. That’s 12 vs. 17 (or possibly 14 vs. 17, since 14 is the minimum magical resistance). Is the theist still the most powerful?

- Charms
Hm. I haven’t thought about this. Also, I’ve never actually tried out the animism rules in play. Give me a little while to check this out. I’m sure, however, that animism is not a "get any ability for free" magic system.

Quote:
If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

You have to divide the AP loss among the opponents as usual.

Hi Alex,

Regarding the narrow/broadness of the typical skills, you could also rule to play with broader ranged skills, but also recognize that you'd probably be speeding up advancement by about 4 to 5 times, which may be just fine for you(it is for me).

Chris

Hi, Alex

1) Abilities seem very narrow, which seems like it would pigeon-hole characters into limited roles, something I'd expect more from DnD than

You can always adjust the improvisational penalties to you taste. If you think that playing the harp familiarises you with horns, hit the only with a penalty of -3, or something like that. HeroQuest is a toolbox, use it to fit your campaing and tastes. Also, I think that "Bring in the Harvest" is a very broad ability. IMO it aplies to everything associated with bringing it the harvest, not just carrying it from the fields to your stead.

Anyway, the abilities are broad. Let's examine your basic farmer. Let's say that he has 5W in "Bring in the Harvest". That means that he can do many things related to that and propably can improvise things like "Shoo Animals Away from Fields" with an improvisational modifier.

Let's see that weaponmaster. If he has Sword and Shield close combat, I'd let him fight with -3 with only a sword, -3 with two swords, but something like -5 with a spear and -10 with a lance. "-3" isn't crippling. It means that he is not comfortable fighting with odd weapons. Now, the keywords often have several styles of combat, so I don't think this is a problem. The same goes for Sword & Shield vs. Fyrd combat. . .

3) Does an animist always have to cement charms he creates? If a shaman is about to fight a fire demon, can he take a little time to whip up a charm of protection from fire, not spend a hero point, and after the adventure just say he gambled it away/freed the spirit/gave it to the local tribe in case the demon came back/etc? Is animism meant to have this kind of on the fly flexibility, or is each new charm meant to be paid for with hero points and made a permanent part of the character?

IMO you don't have to cement each charm. Story-wise you can handle this by saying that your ancestor agreed to help you against this demon or whatever. Animism is flexible, but remember that you generally only deal with the spirits known to your tradition.

4) Magic works "here, now, against that". To recreate the classic fireball, you'd use your Firebolt power and take a target number penalty to increase the number of targets, right? If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

HQ is a toolbox. IMO it doesn't define set ways of doing things. "Fireball delas 6D6 dmg to everyone within 10' radius of the point of impact" is just not what HQ is about. If the fight is not that important or climatic, I'd recommed that you just use simple contest and just roll the thing with 2 dice and tell what happened. If you want to use it in an Extended contest you could rule that a serius opponent and his followers were under it and no-one else is affected or you could rule that it is just like attacking several targets with the sword etc. If you want fireballs to be effective you can go easy on then, if not . . .

Also, I'd say that I'm not the right person to answer this conundrum. You can find extra guidance from HQ-Rules at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hw-rules/.

kalyptein wrote:
Realism is definitely not my first concern. I want to allow heros the kind of breadth they have in movies. The swashbuckling pirate doesn't commandeer a ship and then realize he can't sail sloops, only schooners.

quot;kalyptein]
Realism is definitely not my first concern. I want to allow heros the kind of breadth they have in movies. The swashbuckling pirate doesn't commandeer a ship and then realize he can't sail sloops, only schooners. The sage can comment on pretty much any supernatural phenomenon even if his magic is all about Fire.

Did I say realism? Bad Mike. Does Plausibility work better for you? The point is to make characters that have depth to them that makes them interesting. If all your abilitties are like "farmer" and "Musician" that doesn't tell us very much about what instruments he likes, or what sort of farming he does. The point that people are making is that the Keywords give you broad areas of competence that "fill in the holes" and the specific abilities serve to really flesh the character out. This is the best of both worlds.

I now have some comments on the Magic. :-)

I'd definitely allow charms to be made and lost as you suggest. It seems to totally be how it would work for most abilities. For example, I can probably use a smithing ability to create a sword with similar bonuses. But I can only keep it if I Cement it. Basically, all Abilities have some power to create temporary bonuses and Abilities (limited as you and others have suggested by plausibility, time, resources, etc). But only by Cementing can you keep them.

I'm really confused about the fireball thing. What would you prefer? That the same number of AP be taken from all the opponents? The TN penalty is not a compensation for this. You have the same penalty if you're using a weapon against multiple opponents (actually spells have less of a penalty when you get to really big numbers of people). So that's what multiple target modifier balances. If you made a spell do the same AP to all targets, then spells would way outstrip the power of normal abilities. I'd gladly lower my TN a few points to multiply the power of the ability many times.

AP aren't hit points. They're a representation of how close I am to success. For example, if I win with the fireball, I can describe how it blows out the platform on which they're standing, droping them all into the pit below. It doesn't have to do "damage" per se at all. So the "power" of an Ability is the power of an ability. A 17 in sword and a 17 in fireball have the same game effect in almost all respects. If that seems weak to you, then get the level of your fireball up higher so that it compares favorably. Don't blame the game for being well balanced.

This isn't easy for people who aren't used to it to wrap their heads around. But it's a very cool way to do things, and not any harder than any other way (in fact, in most ways it's much easier).

Mike

I haven't played HQ yet, so if I got a chance to, I might find my question is meaningless in play. But since I haven't, I'll ask instead, and hope someone can help.

Given the above discussion, I don't understand why (in an extended contest) you would fireball a group rather than firebolt your main enemy. You take a penalty for doing so, but in the end the APs taken from the main enemy and his followers is the same. Sure, the fireball is flashier than just a bolt of flame. What I'm curious about is whether there is anything you get from the mechanics in exchange for the mechanical penalty you take?

Elgorade

elgorade:

It all depends on how the contest is being run (leaving aside whether it's cooler to fireball them and such things, I'm only considering the game mechanics).

It sounds like you're assuming that you're in an extended contest against one opponent who has a bunch of followers and they're all adding AP to him, not acting as seperate opponents. In that case, either one works exactly the same. You don't take a penalty for multiple targets since you're only attacking one target. Even though that one target is "Fishface and his band of Mermen". So assuming you have a Fire Affinity of 7W, are specialized, and have no appropriate feats, your Firebolt would be 2W (that's with the -5 for improvising a feat) and your Fireball would be 2W (you only take the -5 for improvising since you're only attacking one target)

If the Narrator sets the contest up differently, though, you might be fighting several opponents (Fishface, Merman 1, Merman 2, and Merman 3). In that case, using your 2W Firebolt against Fishface won't do anything to his followers. They still have all of their AP and can act. On the other hand, if you cast a Fireball on all of them, you would get to divide the AP loss among them (possibly taking some of them out). Of course, you could just as easily shoot a Firebolt at each one (zap, zap, zap) as one action, but you take the same multiple targets penalty as if you Fireballed them.

So basically, you take the multiple targets penalty only if you have multiple Opponents to target. Followers just adding AP don't count as additional Opponents.

Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm really confused about the fireball thing. What would you prefer? That the same number of AP be taken from all the opponents? The TN penalty is not a compensation for this. You have the same penalty if you're using a weapon against multiple opponents (actually spells have less of a penalty when you get to really big numbers of people). So that's what multiple target modifier balances. If you made a spell do the same AP to all targets, then spells would way outstrip the power of normal abilities. I'd gladly lower my TN a few points to multiply the power of the ability many times.

dunlaing wrote: On the other hand, if you cast a Fireball on all of them, you would get to divide the AP loss among them (possibly taking some of them out).

Ah. That helps. I wasn't clearly making the distinction between follows just adding ap and followers acting on their own.

Elgorade

Hi folks,

One consideration is that effects don't take place until after the resolution is over. This allows a lot of leeway for Fortune in the Middle style juggling of events... So, a successful roll with Swordfighting in the middle of the extended contest could be a flesh wound, or even just a close call that puts a chink in the foe's armor, while the same roll at the end of the contest could be a solid blow, or knocking your foe unconcious with the hilt.

Bringing this over to the idea of petrification, it could be either a "slow working spell" working in many ways like a poison, that takes time to kick in, it could require a lot of magical concentration to pull off(hence multiple rolls), or it could be as described, miss, miss, hit.

On note of splitting spells and taking the penalty, you're limited to handing out 1 hurt(-1 penalty) in a single roll against a single opponent... So if you split between 3 opponents, and hit them for a total of 21 AP, you could then confer all of it to hurts, giving each of them a -1 to the rest of the contest. It could be very useful in a group combat.

Chris

How would you handle something like a petrification spell ... petrification is pretty binary, you're rock or you aren't. How would that work if you get less than a Complete Victory? Or is this kind of save-or-die magic just not something appropriate to Glorantha?

Its appropriate if you want it to be. Remember that you have carte blanc to describe the AP loss in terms you find suitable. The mechanics tell you how many AP point are lost. You decide what you want that to mean in the ongoing narrative.

For example if you get a success against Ruric with your petrification spell and take off half his AP the narrative could be:

"Ruric feels his joints fusing and his muscles calcify. Fear spurs his spirit and he struggles to throw off the evil magic. He struggles - and then shatters the spell. His skin which had become grey returns to its normal tone. But the effort has exhausted him and worse, his enemies have taken advantage of his lack of concentration to close."

or it could be:

"Ruric feels his joints fusing and his muscles calcifying. Fear spurs his spirit and he struggles to throw off the evil magic. He struggles - and finally he succeeds. But not before it has stiffened his flesh and left him with a unhealthy grey palour. His enemies are closing and he struggles to move his unresponsive body to defend himself."

The mechanical effects of losing half his AP are the same. The situation you describe and the implications on what skills he can now use and modifiers he will suffer may not be.

Since my background is RuneQuest, which is very rule based, it took me a while to realise that its OK to think in terms of modifiers and not just straight forward AP number crunching and that this meant the jointly agreed narrative, which is what we use to agree on the modifiers, has a massive affect on the odds. (Hope that makes sense).

If extended contests where just about AP attrition it would be a bit dull IMO.

Nice description, Nick. Welcome to the Forge.

One of the things that's really neat about how the system works is that it isn't binary. That is, things that are traditionally handled as binary have to be handled in other ways, which just enriches them, IMO.

Take Rolemaster. It's system actually describes partial success, and near success for skills, but makes all magic an all or nothing event with resistance rolls. Why not have partial success on spells, too? HQ enables this. So Vroltar the Hairy Mage casts his spell of Paralysis on you? Well, if he only grazes you with the beam, perhaps only your foot is affected. Leading to that -1 effect. In other systems it's all or nothing.

Note that the "all" effect can still occur, however. You can roll well enough to paralyze your opponent in one shot. It's just difficult. By putting all powers on the same scale, however, you balance them as well as possible. So no longer do you have to worry about the "is the wizard of the fighter the better option?" question. With HQ, it's the one with the higher Ability. Period. Making coming up with opponent's of the appropriate power simplicity itself.

Mike

KingOfFarPoint wrote: its OK to think in terms of modifiers and not just straight forward AP number crunching and that this meant the jointly agreed narrative, which is what we use to agree on the modifiers, has a massive affect on the odds. (Hope that makes sense).

kalyptein wrote: Another magical situation I was wondering about: How would you handle something like a petrification spell (assuming a mage good enough to get by the increased resistance for transforming someone)? In an extended contest I'd assume you keep "missing" your target until he runs out of AP and finally gets tagged.

kalyptein wrote: But petrification is pretty binary, you're rock or you aren't. How would that work if you get less than a Complete Victory? Or is this kind of save-or-die magic just not something appropriate to Glorantha? Would it be sensible to say you're petrified, but it wears off in a few hours on a Minor Victory? It does leave you worse off after a fight than a normal I-got-wounded result would, but you're if you're defeated by an enemy, you're pretty much at their mercy anyway, right?

Alex

kalyptein wrote:

KingOfFarPoint wrote: its OK to think in terms of modifiers and not just straight forward AP number crunching and that this meant the jointly agreed narrative, which is what we use to agree on the modifiers, has a massive affect on the odds. (Hope that makes sense).

So if in a combat one person has a spear and the other is trying to grapple, and the grappler scores a big win, the narrative might run something like he closes in and grabs him. Then the next turn the spearman might have to attack with grappling or some kind of agility trait to get free, instead of being able to use his Spear Fighting. But if the spearman had gotten the better of the situation, the grappler might have a big penalty to his grappling attacks, since he is being kept at spear's length and his attacks represent trying to close in without getting skewered.

Hey Nick, that's what we round here would call a classic GNS incoherence situation. In plain English, you and these other players you describe have fundamentally different views of how to make decisions in play. Neither is bad, but the frustration comes from not being able to see the other's POV. There's extensive theory here regarding that, which may be of some interest.

But it should suffice to say that HQ supports a very different mode of decision making. One that some players will love (because the game handles it so well), and that others won't like at all. That's not a statement against the game at all, it's just a fact that all games have to deal with.

As for you, Kalyptein, you're seeing something that, it seems, you've never dealt with before. It requires a very different mindset. The rules don't tell you what happen, just the results. It's up to the players to describe in as entertaining a way possible, just how the action got from the declaration of intent to the outcome that the dice show.

And this can be anything that the group is comfortable with. That is, if you want to describe the spearfight AP win as a small alien beaming down to grab the guy's spear while you then close, and then he smiles at you and beams back up, that's potentially suitable. Actually it won't fly for most games because they'll have a standard that requires a lot more plausibility. But there's nothing in the rules that say that the alien is illegal per se. It all depends on your group's standards.

So, think about that for a second. You only have to link the action to the Abilities used in such a way as the players "buy it". Outside of that, there are infinite descriptions of any potential success or failure roll.

Mike

I'd handle petrification magic in a extented contest just as I would almost any other ability. If the other guy want's to make sure that his opponent is petrified, then a parting shot is in order. But, in the end, it's not about what I'd do, it's you campaign, you can do it the way that feels best.

Mike Holmes wrote: And this can be anything that the group is comfortable with. That is, if you want to describe the spearfight AP win as a small alien beaming down to grab the guy's spear while you then close, and then he smiles at you and beams back up, that's potentially suitable. Actually it won't fly for most games because they'll have a standard that requires a lot more plausibility. But there's nothing in the rules that say that the alien is illegal per se. It all depends on your group's standards.

I can't say, though I'd doubt it. Plausibility will, again, be determined by the group.

But if you want to get experimental...

:-)

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: ... that's what we round here would call a classic GNS incoherence situation. ...you and these other players you describe have fundamentally different views of how to make decisions in play. ...

Mike Holmes wrote: ... There's extensive theory here regarding [GNS], ...

Mike Holmes wrote: I can't say, though I'd doubt it. Plausibility will, again, be determined by the group.

Hi there,

I think this thread is pretty much done, unless the initial poster wants it to continue.

Nick, that is a great thread topic, whether for this forum or for RPG Theory or Actual Play, depending on what you'd like to emphasize.

Wulf, your one-line posts are obstructing the discussion. Can you phrase your points and inquiries into more complete form? Starting a new thread for this purpose would be ideal.

Best,
Ron

I'm pretty much done (for now...) Thanks for all the suggestions and advice everyone.

Alex