Here is what we thought worked best:
Contest
Although I quite like the theory behind the Crunchy Contest, I didn't like it in practice. I thought the combat was too static and the loss of AP bidding took out a lot of tactics in the fight. We decided to carry on with the extended contest but decided to use some very good ideas from Simon's document (see consequence chart below).
Ratio
After a few combat at different power level we thought 1:5 was working allright. At a low level of abilities (between 15 and 20), it was quite difficult to injured an opponent but on the high end (between 15W2 and 20W2) it became fairly easy and thus, more lethal. Still without the books, I have two questions about the structure of an exchange.
First, what is an exchange? Is it basically equal to a turn (every players describe their actions, act and defend in order of AP's) or is one turn composed of many exchanges (I describe my action then act. End of exchange one. Player two describe his action and then act. End of players two's exchange... and so on until end of turn)?
The reason I ask is because of the two wounds maximun per exchange rule. In other words, if I am attacked and lose badly (opponents decide to inflict two wounds) then I attack and lose badly again, can the opponent inflict another two wounds?
Consequence Chart
We though the consequence chart should be changed to something like (from the Crunchy Contest document):
Marginal Defeat -2 Bruised Minor Defeat -5 Hurt Major Defeat -10 Injured Complete Defeat -20 Dying
The penalty is obviously applied to both ability rating and AP. The final penalty would be determined using the highest of level of defeat and wounds penalty received during the fight. For example, despite receiving 12 wounds penalty (-12) during the combat, player one inflicted a minor defeat to player two (-5). Player two was injured twice during the fight (-2). The final level of penalty for both player would be -12 (injured) for player one and -5 (hurt which is a higher penalty than -2) for player 2. Even though player one won, he paid dearly for the victory.
For the consequence chart, we preferred the fixed penalty instead of the % of abilities because the effect seems to be about the same at any level. For example, being injured means the loss of half a mastery. A high level hero would still be powerful enough to win against a lesser foe but would be in dire straits against an equal. We also tried and adopted the 'Losing and Dying' rule of Simon Hibbs' Crunchy Contest document.
Comments?
Fred
----Original Message Follows----
From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Reply-To: HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com
To: HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com
CC: hw-rules_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Back in town : rule questions
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:21:56 -0700
Fr�d�ric on the AP for Hurt rule:
> Do you personally use the -1 for 7?
Yes we did. It seemed to create a valid tradeoff, especially for foes with AP significantly greater than their skill (such as a hero with a lot of followers). We weren't playing at high levels (nobody had double mastery), so this might vary.
(I'm cross-posting to the Rules list, which would be a better place for followup discussion.)
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein _________________________________________________________________ MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous ! http://fr.ca.search.msn.com/
Powered by hypermail