So why aren't you playing D&D? Or Runequest if you like Glorantha? It seems to me that the problem is that your players want a style of play that's different than what HQ provides. If they're having problems with how archery works, then they're going to have problems with a lot of other things in HQ. Do they seem to enjoy the game outside of the archery "problem"? I can't imagine.
>One of my players was a hunter, he thought he would sit back and
>shoot things (it always worked in D&D...), he put skill points into
>shoot AND melee. Another player was a Humakti, he put everything
>into melee.
I can stop you right here. The problem here is related to the difference in highest ability level. If the archer had the same level in archery as the Humakti would there have been as much of a problem? I doubt it. This is a somewhat complex issue, and deserves it's own thread if you really want to talk about it. But it mostly comes down to the style issue again. The players care about how powerful their characters are. That shouldn't happen in HQ. That is, in HQ it's entirely possible to play second fiddle to someone else's character and enjoy the game as much or more than if your character was equal in power. Because it's not about power at all, but why you use the power.
>I tried using lots of weak archers at various points, they simply
>became an AP battery for the target. My players would run out and
>yell "Shoot ME, shoot ME!!!" So I stopped doing that.
Sounds to me like you have lots of transfer results in your games. Opponents don't ever need to be weaker than the Heroes, and certainly not enough to cause lots of transfers. But the real problem is, as somebody else pointed out, that your players are ignoring the narrations apparently and thinking of AP as HP. As long as that continues, they aren't going to enjoy the game in general.
And in any case, how is this any different from melee. Do they also stride out in front of weak melee opponents and shout, "Hit me!" Because the effect for a particular level is the same.
Lastly, what are a lot of weak archers supposed to accomplish? Being easy targets for the PC archer? This just seems misguided. Again, it's not about power. Make the opposition whatever seems most realistic, and play it out. It all works out in the end.
>Explaining this away in a narrative fashion is easy, yes I can make
>up some story, but it ISNT reality. Reality is that an archer
>reasonably happy with his safety (defended position) is quite
>effective. An archer behind a wall is in heaven. Lots of archers
>shooting at targets in the open should be effective...
I think that you're incorrect, if done right it all seems perfectly realistic. From some perspectives expecting the system to match up with reality isn't important at all, but I'll leave that consideration behind for a moment, because it's obviously important to you, and to your players. But even when it is important, I think that the rules do just fine in simulating reality.
>From another POV, you're saying that you think that archery should just be
more effective. But HQ starts with the assumption that power is based on
ability level. So if you really think that archery is a more effective form
of combat or something, then just raise the archer's levels (allowed per
rules), until the level matches the effectiveness that you think it should
be at. If you have to use the "realism" perspective, and make this
assertion, it would mean that a character with the same level in archery as
a character with a melee weapon would actually be relatively less well
trained/suited to being an archer. So, either the player has to be satisfied
with that, or you have to give him more levels.
But it's all not needed if the players are in the spirit of the game.
>Thinks of the classic ending to "1001 Spartans" where the persians
>get sick of trying to melee them and stand back and mow them down
>with arrows... the sky turns black...
Works just fine in HQ, if you keep in mind that the Spartans aren't just standing still getting shot. Just because it's your character's round in an extended contest doesn't mean that the opposition isn't still fighting, advancing, whatever.
>Multiple attack penalties are one way around this, shoot lots of
>archers at a single target and wear them down, bidding 1AP each till
>they are weak... works fine.
No idea what you're getting at here.
>But a single (player) archer seems to have serious problems within
>the game. Duplicating Legolas is very hard in HQ..
Depicting Legolas would be very easy. He's probably about a 10W4 archer attacking 5W orcs. He's going to mow them down in droves. I can't imagine what the problem would be.
>So we made some
>rules up about 'missing', where unless there WAS a good narrative
>reason they suffered no negative effects
Missing is a negative effect. It means that the opponent got nearer, or farther away, or in some other way had time to get closer to accomplishing his goals. Note that when you're down to zero AP, he gets his goal. Your AP are a measure of how close he is to his goal - not how bad off you are.
>Archery is a lot to do with morale... a happy archer is a better
>archer. Unhappy archers tend to run away... so from a narrative
>point of view you can always say "You missed and it discouraged you,
>you feel defeated..." But then you are starting to use morale
>modifiers, so my players would start asking for positive
>benefits... "I am behind a wall, can I get something etc etc"... I
>dont want to have to go that far if i can avoid it...
Why not? If that's what's "realistic", then they should get bonuses for morale. There are a number of ways to do this. One is to just assign some temporary ability like "good morale 5W" (for a +3 augment) to the archers or whatever - per the rulebook, I'm not making this up. You can also give them Confidence for Cover, etc. In the end, if you want, you can just abbreviate this to whatever bonus you like overall.
>and there is
>no distinction in HQ for 'defensive' modifiers, any bonus becomes
>aggressive as it is all subsumed into your skill rating... although
>I suppose you could allow a wall to count as a -^20 AP or
>something...
Huih? When defending you should also get this sort of bonus on defense. Or another way of looking at it is that there's no attack and defense, just rounds in which both characters are trying to acheive their objective. The only thing that your round does is allow you to pick the relevant attempted action. That doesn't mean that the opponent stops trying to achieve his goal while you do that.
The other way of handling this is as penalties to the opposition. Like you've already suggested, advancing in the open without a shield is a big penalty to your dodge or whatever. Basically you have four ways available (eight if you're using edges) to simulate either offense or defense making HQ the most flexible game ever in simulating these things. Throw in whatever modifiers are needed to make it "right". The system completely enables you to do this.
You're trying to twist HQ into something like D&D. Forgive me if I seem a bit excited, but that really disturbs me. The game is vastly superior for the style it supports, and the last thing it needs is alterations of this nature. Again, if you really want to play in this mode, I think that there are far better games than HQ for you to play. The thing that's most problematic, however, is saying that there's a problem with the system when in fact the problem is that you just don't like it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't play perfectly well for others.
Mike
Powered by hypermail