>From: "sarahnewton111" <sarah.newton_at_...>
>
>I've been wondering how multiple wounds are supposed to be handled
>in the HQ rules. A simple example is a warrior who has just
>finished a combat with an Injured result (-50%). Without any
>subsequent healing, he then gets into another combat and again ends
>up with an Injured result.
>
>Is he now at -100%? Is he dead / dying?
No. The rules don't say it, I don't think they mean to imply it, and, most importantly, the system works better if you don't make this assumption.
What is pretty clear from the text is that each consequence that a character takes has it's own nature. They aren't a generic penalty. That is, the text says to apply the penalty only when it's appropriate to the contest in question. Certainly if you describe a -10% "injury" as a blow to somebody's pride as the result of some social contest, you're not going to penalize the character on some contest when they run away from somebody (well, depends on the circumstances, but you get the point).
Just because an minor failure indicates "injury" as the result of a contest that involves fighting, doesn't mean that the result is any more generic than one that occurs as the result of a debate. That is, they still are specific and apply as a result of the narration, and whether it seems to make sense on future conflicts to apply the penalty.
In fact, really good technique begs for you to describe the injury in your narration, and apply the penalty only to those situations in which it would apply. For instance, if you describe the character getting hit in the sword arm for -50%, then that penalty would make sense to apply to a following contest involving swinging a sword, but not for one that, again, involved running away. If he does fight, and gets a leg wound for an additional -50%, then no more fighting contests for him (the total of -100% in penalties mean automatic failure)... though he can probably still run away with a -50%.
Penalties are not cumulative like Hit Points from other games. They are cumulative in terms of what penalties apply to which contests, however. This actually gives a lot more realistic sort of simulation of the effects of injury in combat. Wounds don't add up. Eventually there is one fatal "wound" (even if that "wound" is 27 stabs to the chest or something).
What previous injuries can tend to do is to make a Complete Defeat more likely. And, yeah, if the penalties add up to -100%, then the character is at their opponent's mercy. But what that means is simply that the character will probably choose a different goal. If he's got a -50% leg wound, and a -50% sword wound, then he knows that he can't defeat his opponent by killing the opponent. The player will choose to have his character flee as his goal for the contest. Or maybe simply to dodge his opponent until help arrives (still with the -50%). Or maybe he's got rocks he can throw with his good arm. Or...well I could go on and on and on.
There is no "combat" in Hero Quest. Go ahead, look for the section on "Combat." It doesn't exist, mechanically. There's simply a set of rule for "contests" that happen to include a lot of examples that are fighting-oriented. Which makes sense after all, HQ is about the Hero Wars and fights will happen. The point is that fights are handled precisely the same whether they are fights with words or fights with spears (or potting wheels, or arithmetic...). The penalties delivered by either sort of contest function the same.
Meaning that, by a liberal interpretation, that even "Dying" means "Altered to point where anything up to and including death might be the end result." Note carefully that the result listed for Complete Defeat is called "Dying," and read the section labeled "Death." There is no mechanical way to get to death as a contest outcome. For death to occur, the Narrator has to make the explicit decision that the results of some contest that are a Complete Defeat for the character are such that, in the circumstances in question, the character subsequently dies.
Explicitly the book indicates that this means that narrators should feel free to save characters from untimely deaths by having somebody stabilize them or somesuch. But, of course, such deus ex machina are terrible for drama. So it's actually mechanically the same, and dramatically superior in most cases, to simply say that the alteration to the character wasn't one that might lead to death.
How about cutting an arm off instead? That's a Complete Defeat result right there. And, actually, left unattended, such a character will die from blood loss. But in real life there are plenty of situations where people have lost limbs and survived it by applying pressure and getting to medical attention ASAP (I recall one story of a rock climber who, trapped, cut his own arm off...).
How do you represent this mechanically? Well, there are two ways. One is to give the character a flaw representative of the alteration to the character. This is actually mechanically somewhat weak (the penalty from the augment level will be less than even a -50% penalty would be), but does make the result persistent. The rules indicate that this is allowed on even the Major Defeats, much less the Complete Defeats.
But even better, is to think of the character as permanently altered in such a way as he can no longer win certain sorts of contests or even participate. So, armwrestling? That's out for a character with no right arm (unless his opponent is willing to armwrestle lefty). Using a sword and shield? Nope, not going to happen. The character is just different now, and capable of less things as a result of his defeat. Entire contests are disallowed.
This is mechanically no different from saying that a human can't fly to the top of a mountain, because he has no wings. According to the "improvisational modifiers" rules, trying to do so will result in an "automatic defeat." Basically, choose another contest. Complete Defeats lead to such changes.
After all, what is Death, but the loss of all ability to compete in the mortal world. Note that in Glorantha, it's probably not the end for the character as a whole - his spirit or soul or essence may well go on in some Otherworld. And this is even theoretically playable. Though it's also probably a good point to consider retiring the character. The point is merely to think of death as not some special circumstance in the rules, but just another interesting potential outcome of the conflict resolution system to be used when appropriate.
And that's key. Use "Dying" as the result of a fighting contest only when it's a fun result to have. Otherwise the narrator has the duty to create some other interesting result.
The rules for contest consequences in HQ are extremely fun - as I point out in an article of mine they are part of what makes it possible for failure to be fun (http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_defeat.html). Which allows play to have a dramatic cycle to it. If you play with them using this line of thought, I think you'll find that the answers to questions like yours are more obvious.
Mike
Powered by hypermail