Hi Matthew,
Sorry if I came across as snarky - I've had a couple of occasions where people have jumped to the wrong conclusions about my approach to the HQ2 rules, and doubtless came across as a little too jaded. Apologies :-)
With regard to Supporting Characters, p60 has the general statement "Supporting characters ... mostly act independently of your PC. When they do so, the Narrator rolls on their behalf, using abilities she has assigned to them."
Later on p60, an "ally" supporting character is described: "An ally's ability ratings are about as high as yours". On p61, a "patron" supporting character "will have ability ratings two or more masteries higher than yours in political, social, and resource-related abilities". Finally, a "contact" supporting character is described: "A contact's ratings in his main areas of expertise are on a par with your best rating".
So those are the Rules-As-Written; imho they make great sense in avoiding using the PFC for supporting character abilities, and (again imho) seem equally usable for "friendly NPCs" who aren't as formally integrated into a character's story as a Supporting Character (ie they're met casually, don't appear on the character sheet with a relationship, etc). It seems clear they have whatever abilities the Narrator thinks appropriate, with ratings where useful - personally in 99% of cases I'd probably just have a single score for an NPC with an implied keyword (Entarios the Supporter 12W2, etc), with maybe a bullet list of the most jazzy abilities as an aide-memoire in play.
Naturally all the above applies to friendly NPCs - "Supporting Characters" - and not opponents, who use the PFC. Another example of HQ2's very deliberate asymmetry :-)
Regarding Multiple Opponents, p43 seems to expand quite considerably on the idea of "story resistance", even to the extent that it *might* offer an alternative tool in our narrative toolbox. For example, the base assumption lf HQ2 seems to be that you roll against a resistance representing the dramatic situation at that moment - the 'story resistance'. In such a case, you would roll, once, against an obstacle, whether it was a cliff to climb, a monster to kill, or a dozen warriors to drive from the walls. Each of those three obstacles would have its own resistance, determined by the pass/fail cycle, and you'd roll one single contest (either simple or extended).
The Multiple Opponent rules, however, suggest that the Narrator can (should?) divvy up the opposition constituting an obstacle into separate groups - the tacit assumption is that the dozen warriors above would become a dozen separate opponents, but there's no reason you couldn't divvy into 4 groups of 3, 2 groups of 6, whatever. But, according to p43, "you take part in a number of contests equal to the number of opponents", suffering Multiple Opponent penalties as appropriate. Implicit in this is that each of those contests would use effectively the same resistance, as determined by the PFC, but the Narrator might describe each attack differently (referencing her understanding of the opponent's abilities - magic, weapons, claws, etc), and therefore letting the PC use different abilities in each case (they're separate contests, remember).
Again, that's what the RAW say, and my take on what they imply. Personally I'd use the single PFC resistance covering all 12 warriors for a simple contest mid-session where it wasn't dramatically all that crucial (maybe an event during a siege where the hero is trying to do something else and the 12 warriors are simply an aggravation); then I'd use the 12 separate contests (or permutations thereof - if they were trollkin I might have, say, 3 groups of 4, like FATE minions) where the situation was dramatically important, and use the Multiple Opponent Penalty rules plus the PFC to determine each opponent's (or group's) resistance.
IMHO there does seem to be two separate but related rules here: a single story resistance vs possible multiple opponent resistances, but I like the extra choice; it provides for tactical choices both for Narrator and players.
That's my take so far, anyway :-)
Cheers!
Sarah
ps - my blog's at sarahnewtonwriter.com, click on the 'Meme Machine' tab & excuse the ramblings ;)
>
> Heya
>
> I can see that we're pretty much on the same page :) I hope you realise
> that I only had this thread to go on when formulating what I thought would
> be a helpful post? From the tone of your reply, it seems that I used the
> wrong tone in my post - please accept my apology for any offense caused; I
> assure you it was only (since I don't know you) trying to cover a few bases
> at once with supporting information. I am aware that posts can have
> unintentionally direct style, my pre-send re-read didn't seem that way
> though.
>
> I myself mostly use a subset of the full HQ2 rulebook, keeping the more
> complex stuff for special or very fitting occasions. I find complex rules
> often represent increased work and can be counter to my desired comfort
> level. You seem to have a more complete knowledge of the text than I; a
> cursory search of the HQ book for "Supporting Characters" revealed that an
> example (possibly the same one you mention, about the reporter) does indeed
> have a reference to an ability rating for a supporting character but my
> reading suggests it's just the base resistance (+ PFC/Story Logic) being
> spoken of as if it were an Ability. Perhaps you can show me what you're
> talking about?
>
> When I read "Multiple Opponent Penalties" I see a simple way to aggregate
> opposition and that the base resistance (plus PFC or story logic) is the
> "ability" which is rolled against.
>
> Robin has a very good command of language and an admirable ability to pick
> the right word for the usage, however I think this ability can sometimes be
> a flaw because: the right word for that situation is (indeed) "ability" but
> his game system already used that word and its use here implies something
> other than base resistance + PFC/Story Logic. I wish he'd used a bold,
> capitalised word (e.g. "*Ability*") for all game-system term usages.
>
> Can you link me to your blog? I'd be interested to read about your
> comparisons with trad gaming (or any other pieces you have on the subject
> of HQ). Interesting that you keep separate PFC tracks for each character; I
> had considered the same but (so far) have been too lazy to try it :)
>
> I thought that PFC was in opposition to recording Ability scores for NPCs;
> do you not think so?
>
> Thanks for your reply :)
>
> M
>
> On 21 December 2011 11:45, SARAH <sarah.newton5_at_...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi Matthew,
> >
> > I'm not sure where you're getting the idea I'm rolling tons of dice
> > against myself from - as I mentioned in an earlier post, that's certainly
> > *not* what I'm doing. :-)
> >
> > Likewise with the idea that I might be adding to the HQ rules - from my
> > previous posts also you can probably tell I'm obsessive about understanding
> > the implications of the Rules As Written. I have no desire to house-rule.
> > However, the HQ2 rules are quite complex, and sometimes require a close
> > reading to understand their implications fully. I fully agree that a
> > background in more traditional RPGs can lead to expectations of the HQ2
> > rules which aren't borne out by the rules themselves - I've blogged a few
> > times about this.
> >
> > If you read the Relationships chapter carefully you'll see that "Robin
> > wrote the rules" in such a way as to make it clear that Supporting
> > Characters *do* have stats - check out Audley's Reporter ability, for
> > example. Also, whilst I agree that players are rolling "against the story",
> > there are interesting rules features such as the Multiple Opponent
> > Penalties which suggest that sometimes players aren't *just* rolling
> > against a story resistance, but somehow against that story-level resistance
> > distributed across multiple separate instances of that resistance. How
> > those two facts (Audley's stats and the Multiple Opponent rules) gel with
> > the 'story resistance only' rules base is extremely interesting - and what
> > I'm trying to fathom. Unless, of course, you ignore them and houserule. ;-)
> >
> > Incidentally, I enjoy villains and opponents in my HQ games to be as
> > richly textured as the situations and the story. That doesn't automatically
> > equate to stat blocks - in many cases, I provide myself with a bullet point
> > list of what the Zorak Zorani Death Lord can do in order to facilitate my
> > narrator descriptions - mechanically that's no different from using a
> > paragraph of prose, and a damn sight easier to read in the heat of play.
> > Knowing *how* to describe an opponent (or even an ally) is a far cry from
> > slipping down some presumed dark and doomed path to detailed NPC stats. I
> > thoroughly enjoy the pfc and pretty much use it exclusively, and keep a
> > separate pfc for each character; I consider it absolutely central to the
> > HQ2 rules, without which I'd be in arbitrary subjectivity territory, which
> > personally I dislike.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > --- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "matthew.cole" <matthew.cole@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Sarah
> > >
> > > I have read this whole thread with much interest and I know how a
> > > background in more traditional games might suggest that HQ has a gap in
> > its
> > > rules for this kind of thing. From my reading of the book, there's no
> > need
> > > to add to the HQ rules for this.
> > >
> > > Ash had the most important point to make: "Whatever you do don't roll ANY
> > > dice for them...". Take this most seriously because the impact of what he
> > > is warning against can be a subtle undermining effect on the way your
> > game
> > > works. Robin wrote the rules that way for good reason and play-testing (I
> > > assume) must have borne that out.
> > >
> > > There are a few different HQ methods for this and none of them require
> > you
> > > to roll for conflicts that do not involve the players' characters.
> > >
> > > One that hasn't been suggested so far is to use the NPC as a situational
> > > modifier. This rule demonstrates the use of adding to an Ability value
> > > without rolling. Remember the Ability scores on the character sheets are
> > > not representative of character skill and that the players are not
> > rolling
> > > their dice against *anything* except the *story*. These ability scores
> > just
> > > show how important the player finds that aspect of their character to the
> > > story.
> > >
> > > The most important thing to realise is that you are using the game system
> > > to create a narrative of the form found in film or literature. You're not
> > > trying to use it to model a real situation - instead you are (together)
> > > narrating something with it's own class of dramatic license.
> > >
> > > Again, *never* roll conflicts that don't involve the player's characters.
> > > If you get tempted to, stop and just decide the outcome that would be
> > most
> > > interesting/enjoyable for the group as a whole and just describe
> > (narrate)
> > > it. The other way leads down the dark path and forever will it dominate
> > > your destiny! Before you know it you will be stating out your NPCs and we
> > > all know where that leads! [remember that Troublesome Griffin!]
> > >
> > > I hope that was helpful, it should reduce the amount of work you need to
> > do
> > > as a narrator and lead to freer enjoyment!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > > On 21 December 2011 09:04, SARAH <sarah.newton5_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I think I'm answering my own question again. :-) I've been having a
> > fresh
> > > > and closer look at 'Supporting Characters', the Ally, Patron, and
> > Contacts
> > > > sections in the Relationships chapter, and think I can extrapolate how
> > to
> > > > handle friendly NPCs. That section implies 'statting' a supporting
> > > > character on a PC's character sheet with a Relationship score and one
> > or
> > > > more keywords or key abilities at levels equal to the PC's highest
> > ability
> > > > score or a couple of masteries higher. So, you could have "Patron:
> > Gringle
> > > > 13 (Issaries Priest 17W2)" or some such.
> > > >
> > > > By extension a "casual" NPC ally (one you don't necessarily have a
> > > > Relationship ability score for) could be statted in similar fashion
> > > > (assuming we see his role as analogous to a Patron).
> > > >
> > > > The Supporting Characters section implies that succeeding in a
> > > > Relationship roll of such a Patron would persuade (etc) him to use his
> > > > abilities on your behalf, as direct abilities. This could be as a
> > separate
> > > > ability, augment, assist, whatever. Again by extension, this would be
> > the
> > > > model for a "casual" NPC, too.
> > > >
> > > > For my purposes, that means I can either sketch Gringle with a keyword
> > or
> > > > two, or even with more detailed Significant and Exceptional Ablities,
> > then
> > > > set his top ability score (as a Patron) a couple of masteries above the
> > > > PC's highest ability. For a more equal ally, I'd set his ability
> > roughly
> > > > equal to the PC's top ability.
> > > >
> > > > Does that sound about right?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Sarah
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "SARAH" <sarah.newton5@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for all the replies - some good advice and food for thought. I
> > > > guess the discussion has helped me focus on my main question, which is
> > > > really one of magnitude - how do you quantify the impact an NPC ally
> > has on
> > > > your session? Of course you can handwave everything, but I'm looking
> > for
> > > > something a little more structured, perhaps along the lines of the
> > pass /
> > > > fail cycle.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking NPC allies have significant and exceptional abilities
> > (etc)
> > > > in the same way adversaries do, with an implied level of competence
> > (score)
> > > > relative to the PCs. So you might have a powerful NPC ally who's Very
> > High
> > > > competence, one who's pretty much on a par with the PCs who's
> > Moderate, and
> > > > so on - giving you a rough indicator of ability scores for gauging
> > assists,
> > > > augments, ability scores when acting as sidekicks or followers, etc.
> > I'm
> > > > not sure how or even if this should tie into the pass / fail cycle,
> > except
> > > > perhaps to derive from the session's base resistance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incidentally, I always have players make NPC ally rolls in my games,
> > in
> > > > as much as they're needed at all, always have done. Happily HQ2
> > reduces the
> > > > need even for that. Enough to be keeping track of as it is! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sarah
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, Bo <lorgryt@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/20/2011 1:12 AM, Jeff wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Most important, figure out an approach that doesn't have you
> > > > rolling
> > > > > > > NPC vs NPC each round.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is key. Never have the Narrator role against herself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > In HQ this isn't necessary as far as I can see. Not only is it
> > > > > > anti-climactic to have a good roll for and NPC be the winning roll
> > of
> > > > > > the exchange, but they assist and augment system make it real easy
> > to
> > > > > > either give the players the up or the resistance the down. So you
> > > > never
> > > > > > need to roll at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>