>"The Extended contest AP mechanic applies an overly complex bidding
>system onto a narrative game which diverts unhelpfully from the flow of
>a storytellng game. Being wounded and using missile weapons seem to be
>badly modelled using this system."
>
>This may be old hat to you knowing types, but I want to give the game a
>go as Narrator, and have some concerns over the extended contests. I'll
>be at Convulsion so look me up, sit me down with a pint and explain it
>all to me!
I won't be there, so here's my thoughts now...
Yes, missile weapons & wounds during the battle are the two primary problems. Neither make much sense as written, but that's mostly because of those who would promote vagueness as a bonus, not a flaw. With a bit more explanation and example, it works. With use of '7AP=Hurt' and Grievous Wounds rules, wounds can be represented (although very weakly), I also, as recently explained, apply -ve AP damage as it happens, even if the contest continues. Missile weapons DO work, so long as you carefully define the actual contest.
>This is what a couple of my current players found. I was a player with
>them but sort of 'got it' towards the end of the HW game that one of
>my friends was GMing. Suddenly understanding what the AP mechanic was
>there for, I used it to help accentuate my descriptions of what I was
>doing. When I wanted to bid high and take more risks I pushed it with
>the description of what I was attempting. Something had to 'click' (or
>is that 'snap'?) before I switched from my RQ mentality over to the
>more abstract view of an exciting combat sequence. It stayed exciting
>for me.
Strangely, I never had to switch from a sumulationist view to the HW mechanic, only to the HW description (or, in other words, as you explained, I have no problem at all with applying sumulationist logic to the mechanics of a narrativist flow). The AP mechanic is a simulationist mechanic, the only two abstractions are, a) the usual Hit Points, Fatigue Points, Positional Advantage and 'Morale' factors are combined into one value b) there are no formalised values on any given manoeuvres, modifiers or results - in RQ terms, you don't have a standard values for position, or die rolls for damage. This is, of course, tied in to point 'a', since AP represent more than damage, but it does make defining a reasonable AP value for a bid more difficult.
> > 1) You are not supposed to tell players what their state of wounds are
> > until the end of any combat.
>
>All abstracted, I agree. I've developed a 'feel the blood' variant
>that gets round this, but wonder if I'm therefore missing the point.
I also feel there is much missing from any system where your ability (as opposed to your recourses in AP) are unaffected by the ongoing conflict regardless of your current state of success or failure. But, as described, there are ways to get round that.
> > 2) There is no real means of changing tactics during a combat because
> > your pool of APs is based upon the skill you started with. (As far as I
> > can tell.)
>
>I think here that the switching of skill may force the opponent to
>switch to an alternative defensive skill which they are, potentially,
>crap at.
I've got no problem with this, it's just a matter of description/narrative.
> > 3) The AP mechanic simply doesn't work with missile combat. At all. I
> > fire some arrows at my enemy and because I miss my range of possible
> > actions is reduced when he gets to me? I can even be 'defeated' because
> > I started out shooting at him before he reached me? Why?
>
>Because from the musical score and a number of well judged camera
>angles, you've given the audience the impression your a bit crap. Er,
>no. No, I can't find a way round this one :-). Help someone?!
This is where the narrative becomes essential to the simulation (so to speak). If an archer is driven to 0 AP, it means he's screwed up. How he's screwed up is dependent on how the contest was defined.
Except in case 'a' (where a Final Action is about to ruin his whole
day), the Archer takes no actual damage in there situations. The
secret is, to define the victory conditions of each contestant at all
points. If either change their intent, the contest must be modified
too -
"He fumbled and broke his bowstring? Great, I won't run away, I'll
kill him"
"Well, as you WERE running away, you're a long way off, so it'll cost
you a whole load of AP to run up to him before he runs off"
>And also to the others of you that have played or GMed HW: have you
>found the AP mechanics to be a useful way of measuring the eb and flow
>of combat in a fun supportive way?
I have always though the AP mechanic was the best part of HW, the best Fatigue system of any RPG I've tried. I'd use it ALL THE TIME if it was a bit quicker! I hate the idea of any complex action (like a combat, no matter how short) being decided by the roll of a single die, but even more I hate the idea of an arbitrary decision being used to decide (not bothering rolling), without the slightest chance of Luck, good or bad, spicing things up.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail