Is there any difference in the way extended contests work between Hero Wars and HeroQuest?
For example, more mechanistic ability to tell what's exactly happening between the beginning and end, other than just action points diminishing?

Hi Darren,

While there are a few minor differences (and a number of very useful clarifications), they are not along the lines you suggest. It is still up to the players to decide what the AP loss actually represents.

Here's a quote from a somewhat outated article I published on my website a couple of years ago. It is about Hero Wars, but applies to HeroQuest as well.

In Rune Quest, deciding what happened was often pretty straightforward.

"He hits you in the [rolls dice] head. You take [rolls dice] four points of damage."

The dice told us what happened, both in game terms -- four points of damage -- and in terms of describing the event -- hit on the head. You could flesh it out if you wanted -- "blood is trickling into your eyes" -- but the game worked fine even if you didn't.

In Hero Wars, the rulesey part is easily determined -- "you lose seven action points" -- but the interpretation of the rules is largely left at the discretion, and storytelling capabilities, of the narrator and players.

Peter Nordstrand wrote:

In Hero Wars, the rulesey part is easily determined -- "you lose seven action points" -- but the interpretation of the rules is largely left at the discretion, and storytelling capabilities, of the narrator and players.

Peter Nordstrand wrote: Hi Darren,

In Hero Wars, the rulesey part is easily determined -- "you lose seven action points" -- but the interpretation of the rules is largely left at the discretion, and storytelling capabilities, of the narrator and players.

Does this answer your question?

Hi,

Simon,
You are missing my point. Obviously, a player should state what action his hero is attempting. My point is the italicized part of my quote: Interpretation. "Your blow knocked his helmet askew and sent him reeling backwards, his arms flailing as he tries to keep ballance" is a clear example of the narrator interpreting the loss of AP.

Darren,
Are you interested in discussing this any further? I'm happy to tell you why I like the extended contest mechanic, and also why I think you are wrong when you are saying that AP loss "don't actually have any effect." However, there is no point if you have already made up your mind. Please advice.

Cheers,

/Peter N

Peter Nordstrand wrote:
Darren,
Are you interested in discussing this any further? I'm happy to tell you why I like the extended contest mechanic, and also why I think you are wrong when you are saying that AP loss "don't actually have any effect." However, there is no point if you have already made up your mind.

Peter Nordstrand wrote: Hi,

Simon,
You are missing my point. Obviously, a player should state what action his hero is attempting. My point is the italicized part of my quote: Interpretation. "Your blow knocked his helmet askew and sent him reeling backwards, his arms flailing as he tries to keep ballance" is a clear example of the narrator interpreting the loss of AP.

Hi Darren,

My review of Hero Wars carries a fair amount of text about this issue, because I knew it was going to be a GNS-breaker (that's some jargon, by the way, for "preference stuff"). Check it out if you'd like through the Reviews link at the top of the page.

I also want to commend you for keeping the tone and intent civilized in this thread. You clearly know that this is going to be dicey to discuss for advocates of the game.

Here's my take on your specific question about wounds and being really smacked, yet still winning.

In Hero Wars (I'm digesting 'Quest), a combatant could spend Action Points to establish a "real wound." Damn, it's been longer than I thought, and I'm not recalling the mechanics like I could a year ago ... but the point is, it was permitted by the mechanics of the game.

It still carries some element of what you are stating as not your preference, that you know this "after" the fact in game-mechanics terms, but it is more "immediate" than most Hero Wars/Quest wounds.

I don't know if you care about my notions about role-playing, but if you're interested, check out the concepts of Simulationism vs. Narrativism, with the technique of Fortune-in-the-Middle being very well suited (all else being equal) to the latter preference and not very well to the former.

And also, you might be interested in the games Arrowflight and The Riddle of Steel, both of which feature a much more causal, action-by-action approach to combat, and yet both of which are extremely "modern" in the elegance of their systems.

Best,
Ron

demiurgeastaroth wrote: based on my current understanding, I think the philosophy of the system is one that just doesn't match my desires

demiurgeastaroth wrote: One thing the HW method doesn't seem to allow or makes very hard - combatants who suffer a significant injury like a broken or at least disabled limb, and then win (an injury that might follow them for days after, even though they won)

demiurgeastaroth wrote: This may be so, but it seems that the narrator is limited to flavour text descriptions such as that. I call it flavour text because, while interesting to hear in combat, it really has no effect on the ongoing battle (unlike, say, having the helmet broken might have, or the victim knocked over)

As someone fairly new to HeroQuest I thought I’d throw in my two cents, as I had some of the issues brought up on this thread and found ways to deal with them in play.

First, there are some itty bits hidden away in the Narrator’s section of HeroQuest that can help deal with the issues of “no mechanical effect.” The first, which a few others have mentioned, is that 7 AP can be traded for a Hurt (-1 to all rolls). This allows you to injure your opponent, resulting in a situation that will change the numbers, and thus the odds of the contest.

The other issue is that there are ways to use the AP system to create actual effects that change the way the contest is running. What you have to do is use the Bid Amount rules to determine how hard something is, how much effect it will have on the fight, and then allow the character to generate that effect if they succeed at the action. Rather than just sucking away AP, an action can cause different skills to be used, or otherwise affect the course of the contest. For that matter the very nature of the action might cause different skills to be used.

Some examples of this might be:

“I have a knife, he has a spear. I dodge right then leap in when he responds, rushing inside so that I can use my weapon and he can’t.”

Now this is a fairly determined action, and so should require a large AP bid (I’d say at least 20 or so). If it is successful, however, the character has gotten inside the reach of the spear, and the spearman looses the bonus from his spear until he can open up the distance again.

Or let’s say that the character is engaged in a heated debate with the Devi Yasmina who is clocking him with her Debate 5w2. The PC, desperate for an edge, steps in and grabs her, laying a kiss on her that curls her toes and makes her lose track of all her arguments. This is a really desperate move, and so will require a vast AP bid (I’d say either 40+ or everything the PC has). However it could allow the PC to use his Seduce Nubile Maiden 2w2 against the Devi’s Resist Manly Barbarians of 17. If the PC loses the Devi slaps him and publicly spurns him, but if he wins he’ll gain a huge advantage and possibly move the rest of the “debate” from debate skills to bodice ripper skills.

In other situations it might not even require such big bids, as we are told quite explicity that the same skill does not have to be used for every round in an extended contest, and the PC changing what skill they use may well force the opponent to change as well. Characters who are fighting a mounted foe while they are on foot, for example, might use their "climb tree" skill to get up a tree -- forcing the mounted foe to respond with something other than "reckless charge."

If you let PCs do things like that then there is large incentive to not stand there and hack. Standing and hacking will bleed away AP, but not get any other effect. Good description combined with daring AP gambles should, IMO, be able to change the mechanics of the conflict.

(Edited to make my introduction sound less assy.)

Thanks for clarifying that rule!! I knew it was there (we'd used it), and I was dipping confidently in my brain-stem and came up with a leaky bucket.

Best,
Ron

Brand--

Those were some great examples. Thanks.

With contest you have to remember that you aren't limited to using the same skill each round. When the contest is initiated the starting APs of each side are calculated from the skills used in the first exchange.

So in the debating contest above this would be 5w2=45 for Devi Yasmina and say 5w=25 for the PC. Perhaps the PC calls on his Owl totem to boost his total by +3 to 25, but he's still at a serious disadvantage as Devi holds one level of mastery on him.

After the first round of exchanges it is pretty clear that the PC is very unlikely to win using the debating skill, hence the switch to Seduction. Even though the PC now holds the skill advantage, the APs are carried over from the previous round.

In practice it works pretty well although I do find that wounds are not penalty enough at -1 per 7 AP. I'd more likely go for -1 per 2AP!

Hi folks,

Another neat effect from this is that whoever establishes on what basis the first round abilities are called in, gets a pretty big say in starting AP scores. Smart players will attempt to push it favorably, and nice Narrators can also choose to have the opposition choose less than optimal starting abilities. For example, in the Runaway Kite scenario, the Black Oak Clan begins with using javelins, as opposed to melee combat, which would actually give them better starting AP.

Another rule that I'm looking forward to instituting is allowing relationships to augment even if the person isn't present, requiring either an appropriate flashback or co-current cut scene(ala Trollbabe).

Chris

A variant rule proposed during the original Hero Wars playtest had heroes taking a Hurt per 7 AP loss as well as the AP loss itself. It makes for much grittier combat and still makes sense in non-combat contests as well. In a legal debate, it could represent the hero becoming frustrated, slowly losing his cool, and making mistakes because of this. While the rule was ultimately rejected, even as an option, it did enjoy a measure of favor amongst the established RuneQuest fans.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Darren,

My review of Hero Wars ... Check it out if you'd like through the Reviews link at the top of the page.

I also want to commend you for keeping the tone and intent civilized in this thread. You clearly know that this is going to be dicey to discuss for advocates of the game.

I don't know if you care about my notions about role-playing, but if you're interested, check out the concepts of Simulationism vs. Narrativism,

And also, you might be interested in the games Arrowflight and The Riddle of Steel, both of which feature a much more causal, action-by-action approach to combat, and yet both of which are extremely "modern" in the elegance of their systems.

Best,
Ron

Thanks to everyone who responded (and my apologies for the delay in responding) - you've done a good job of shaking my convictions on this matter :)

I had missed that 7 AP = 1 hurt result (tho' it seems vaguely familiar), which does help, definitely. Those other suggestions from dunlaing are worth looking into as well.

dunlaing wrote:
It doesn't have to have no effect on the battle. As the Narrator, you're well within your rights to say "You hit him in the head, knocking off his helmet. Ok, so his armor goes down to just +3 instead of +5, so he's a 3W instead of a 5W" as opposed to "You hit him in the head, knocking off his helmet. Cool. Of course, this has no effect on combat."

You can also apply a penalty to him instead of worrying about his armor. You can say that fighting without his helmet gives him a -2.

Likewise if someone uses a "Diarm foe" ability (or their swordfighting with an improv penalty) and succeeds, you can say "Ok, you lose 8 AP as your sword goes flying out of your hand" Then make the person either use an unrelated action to pick up their sword or use another weapon.

Brand_Robins wrote: Or let’s say that the character is engaged in a heated debate with the Devi Yasmina who is clocking him with her Debate 5w2. The PC, desperate for an edge, steps in and grabs her, laying a kiss on her that curls her toes and makes her lose track of all her arguments. This is a really desperate move, and so will require a vast AP bid (I’d say either 40+ or everything the PC has). However it could allow the PC to use his Seduce Nubile Maiden 2w2 against the Devi’s Resist Manly Barbarians of 17. If the PC loses the Devi slaps him and publicly spurns him, but if he wins he’ll gain a huge advantage and possibly move the rest of the “debate” from debate skills to bodice ripper skills.

GB Steve wrote: With contest you have to remember that you aren't limited to using the same skill each round. When the contest is initiated the starting APs of each side are calculated from the skills used in the first exchange.

In practice it works pretty well although I do find that wounds are not penalty enough at -1 per 7 AP. I'd more likely go for -1 per 2AP!

I could easily imagine (for the sake of example, anyway) a contest in which the first round starts out using one set of skills, and thus, sets the AP totals, and the rest of the contest ends up using other skills - possibly leading to someone getting seriously short-changed.

demiurgeastaroth wrote:
This, I have to admit, is something else that makes me uneasy.
I could easily imagine (for the sake of example, anyway) a contest in which the first round starts out using one set of skills, and thus, sets the AP totals, and the rest of the contest ends up using other skills - possibly leading to someone getting seriously short-changed.
This "first round sets AP totals" seems very arbitrary.