The Forge Archives

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.

QuoteIn 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.

Does this answer your question?

Cheers,

/Peter Nordstrand

Quote from: Peter Nordstrand

QuoteIn 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.

That's one way to do it. I prefer:

Player:"I aim a blow at his head... (rolls dice)... I took 9 APs off him"
Narrator: "Your blow knocked his helmet askew and sent him reeling backwards, his arms flailing as he tries to keep ballance."

In Hero Wars and Heroquest you say what your character is trying to do, and if you succeed well enough then they did it. It realy is as simple as that.

Simon Hibbs

Quote from: Peter NordstrandHi Darren,

QuoteIn 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?

I understand how that works, I just don't particularly like it. You're free to interpret and describe the effects, but they don't actually have any effect, other than loss of APs.
I'd expect, say, that if I described a mounted warrior getting unhorsed, or an armed man getting disarmed, that there'd be an effect on the victim's skill in subsequent rounds, in addition to the AP loss. So I feel constrained to just describing things which amount to flavour text.

I do recognise that the loss of AP is supposed to represent that sort of thing (that if you suffer a loss of AP, it's a setback and it may cause you to change your bidding pattern in following rounds). I just don't like that mechanic as a way to represent it.

(Also, the whole tracking APs thing seems to be a good way to remind players and GM that we're playing a numbers game.)

Still, I'll probably end up getting HQ, and using some other method for extended successes.

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

Quote from: Peter Nordstrand
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.

It's true I have made my mind up, but that doesn't mean I couldn't change it again :) I am interested in hearing why you like it, and why you think I might be wrong.

Let me say that I do think I understand the role of APs (though I'll entertain the possibility that my understanding is flawed), and the way narrators are meant to narrate them (as in Simon's example), but based on my current understanding, I think the philosophy of the system is one that just doesn't match my desires.
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).

I'll quote your response to Simon below to further illustrate my position:

Quote from: Peter NordstrandHi,

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.

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).
Players and NPCs might just as well declare "I stand and hack at my opponent", for all the difference, mechanically, it makes.
I don't mean to sound so dogmatic, by the way :)

Darren

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

Quote from: demiurgeastarothbased on my current understanding, I think the philosophy of the system is one that just doesn't match my desires

It sounds like that's probably true, although I don't think it's hard to get there from here. I think you can amke HeroQuest do tricks in order to make it more palatable to someone interested in what you're talking about.

Quote from: demiurgeastarothOne 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)

There are three ways that a hero can suffer injury and still win:
1. The opponent can choose to cause a hurt instead of
   7 AP loss (so if you cause someone to lose 9 AP, you
   can give them a hurt and a 2 AP loss) (This is in the
   Narrating chapter, so it's not immediately obvious)
2. In a Group Extended Contest, a character can come
   back into the contest after being driven to defeat as
   long as he succeeds at an action and is ignored. The
   character keeps whatever defeat level he suffered.
   So if you and I are fighting some Trolls and you go
   down to -12 AP, you might be able to come back
   into the fight. Then after you and I defeat the Trolls,
   even though we won (and both ended the fight with
   positive APs), you'll be Impaired (-10%) which could
   easily represent a disabled limb (or at least a dis-
   located shoulder).
3. In an Extended Contest, you can allow Unrelated
   Actions as simple contests. So if the Extended
   Contest is a melee combat, you could have the
   enemy sorcerer blast someone with a lightning
   bolt as an "Unrelated Action." Then just apply the
   defeat level from that contest. (I realize this may
   strain some people's ideas of what the word
   "Unrelated" means, but it works out pretty well in
   practice. I've used it for attempts to blind
   opponents in combat as well)

Quote from: demiurgeastarothThis 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)

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.

In short, the HeroQuest rules are designed to be a bit too loosy-goosy for your tastes, but it's really not that hard to have narrated effects have real effects on the game.

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.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Darren,

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

Just did. You wrote, about extended contests:
"Simulationists, accustomed to constructing an imaginary reality step by sequential step, may howl with rage at this idea."
That's me :)

Quote
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.

Um, well, can't really take much credit there - I just waded in and my innate likeability must have saved me.

Quote
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,

Still waiting for that Narrativism article... ;)

Quote
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

I haven't seen Arrowflight, but I'm familiar with TROS, and I do think that's the best new game system I've seen for a while (though these days I only buy something like 2 or 3 games a decade - there's a ot of stuff reviewed on the Forge I've never seen).

Thanks,