RE: Re: Heroquest rules - Equipment from Matthew Cole on 2008-04-10 (HeroQuest RPG)

From: Matthew Cole <matthew.cole_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:46:32 +0100

Hey Andrew.

Your suggestion seems to say 'get rid of weapon modifiers' and then 'use them'?

"Don't give someone a bonus for sweet weaponry, increase his skill to reflect the improvements to his kit."

So, take away +4 for his b*stard sword (:P) and give him +4 to reflect the 'improvements'?

The whole 'weapon designed for the situation' sounds a little too sim for me (and I do have sim tendancies).

(for the uninitiated, Sim = Simulationism. See GNS Theory)

I'd be happier with situational modifiers to reflect changes in, er, situation, from the er, norm.

I worry that you have to increase and reduce heroes skills, causing confusion; at least with the 'item provides a benefit' and situational modifiers (Mr Bad Guy isn't used to fighting on a rope bridge but Mr Good Guy is) we all know where we are?

But to use the new abbr. YHQWV. (gasp!)

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Andrew Solovay
Sent: 09 April 2008 23:05
To: HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Heroquest rules - Equipment

donald_at_...:

> I've got rather bored with fiddling with armour and weapon bonuses.
> So I tend to think of the ability rating as including standard
> equipment. Only if there is something exceptional does it get a bonus.
> The converse of that is that if a character ends up fighting in the
> nude for some reason they suffer a penalty. But that's exceptional
> enough to be interesting.

One approach would be to assume that the ability score includes/takes into account the player's standard equipment, and thus doesn't need adjustment (i.e. that soldier's "sword and shield: 5w" is taking into account the quality of his preferred arms and armor; he'd be penalized if he had to grab inferior or unfamiliar stuff off a corpse). Don't give someone a bonus for sweet weaponry, increase his skill to reflect the improvements to his kit.

BUT: If the particular weapons the character has are inappropriate to the situation, penalize him. This would be the "ends up fighting nude" qualifier, but I think it could be a lot more common than Donald suggests. Take, for example, that scene at the end of the "Rob Roy" flick ten years or so back. There's a duel between Liam Neeson and Tim Roth, both of them first-class swordsmen. But they're fighting unarmored, and Neeson is using his broadsword--a weapon which sacrifices finesse for power, great if you need to slice through thick leather on the battlefield but a bad choice for an unarmored duel. Roth, on the other hand, is using a rapier, a weapon designed for that very situation.

So in that case, they may have equal "sword combat" skills, and equipment bonuses might cancel (or in my suggested scheme, their equal skills might reflect the fact that Neeson is a better fighter but the wealthier Roth has a better sword)--but Roth is using a more appropriate weapon for the fight, so give him a bonus.

In short, "one of the characters is fighting in the nude" will be the rule, rather than the exception. In any given fight, one side is going to be equipped more appropriately to the circumstances than the other--so give that side a bonus, small or large depending.

Yahoo! Groups Links