Rurik said:Did you get the 1.2 patch? fixes some unreachable locations like that.
No I didn't. I'll have to look into that. It really frustrated me because I'd completed everything else I wanted to do in the game.
Rurik said:Did you get the 1.2 patch? fixes some unreachable locations like that.
RMS said:Rurik said:Did you get the 1.2 patch? fixes some unreachable locations like that.
No I didn't. I'll have to look into that. It really frustrated me because I'd completed everything else I wanted to do in the game.
atgxtg said:Back to the topic-How would you handle the "winning" smile/serving wench idea I placed above? It does seem sortof difficult to handle in HQ terms.
RMS said:With simple contests, after he says that he intends to kill her, she could declare that she'll try to talk her way out of it. Then I'd just run that simple contest first since logically any attempt to talk someone out of killing you has to procede their attempts to go through with it. It'd be based on her Cute Smile (+ augments) vs. his Merciless (or similar + augments). I'd just use the results of that to bound the next contest.
The deal with HQ is that this is really hard to answer in the abstract. In a concrete game, it works out much easier because all of the PCs and NPCs have personalty and history that indicates pretty strongly what is appropriate and what's not.[/quote
That's definitely my experience. It's main advantage as a system is that players can create exactly the character that they imagine, with very little restriction on what that can be. You essentialy make up the 'rules' as you go, through dialogue with the Narrator to refine exactly what your character's abilities can be used for, which is an aspect of 'rules' that is usualy very well defined (read 'restricted') in other systems.
If the sword wielder is a Humakt who's sword an Oath to kill the girl, then no attempt at Cute Smile vs. anything is going to stop him from pulling his sword and hacking her down.
simonh said:If the sword wielder is a Humakt who's sword an Oath to kill the girl, then no attempt at Cute Smile vs. anything is going to stop him from pulling his sword and hacking her down.
In any of my games the Humakti had better have some decent augments from his 'Devotee of Humakt', and related abilities to back that up. Not all Humakti are perfect exemplars of everythign Humakti. They're only human (Or, er, trolls. Or whatever), after all.
Simon Hibbs
atgxtg said:No, you missed my angle on it.
Rather than character A (our hero) using "Cute Smile" to influence/oppsed Character B (the one set to kill him), what if Character A uses "Cute Smile" on Character C (serving wemch standing behind Character B) to charm her into knocking Character B out cold with a mug of ale?
atgxtg said:atgxtg said:No, you missed my angle on it.
Rather than character A (our hero) using "Cute Smile" to influence/oppsed Character B (the one set to kill him), what if Character A uses "Cute Smile" on Character C (serving wemch standing behind Character B) to charm her into knocking Character B out cold with a mug of ale?
I'd still like to hear from a HQ GM how they would handle the quote situation. I does seem a bit of a problem to me.
What I was wonder though is how woukld a GM handle this is used in the middle of a contest. For instance, the classic cinema scence where two guys are fighting and the girl smahes a vae over one the head on one of the guys (often the worng one).
burdock said:atgtx wrote
What I was wonder though is how woukld a GM handle this is used in the middle of a contest. For instance, the classic cinema scence where two guys are fighting and the girl smahes a vae over one the head on one of the guys (often the worng one).
You could handle this by using the Lend Advantage Points mechanic. She increases your APs by distracting your opponent with a bottle smashed over the head. Or she can simply be considered to be joining in the extended contest so your opponent has two people nabbing at his APs. Or you could run it as a Simple Contest (which I think would fit in with the movie versions) where a success would result in the oppponent collapsing unconscious. Whatever way you run it there is a good chance that she will succeed. She has probably done this trick many times. i imagine her skill would be 10w3. But your PCs issue is in convincing her to do it by looking attractive, looking vulnerable or being commanding, etc.
atgxtg said:Mark Mohrfield said:No, it does not. It represents the gaining of some kind of advantage over the opponent. A character with low APs can still win quickly if he makes a desperation stake.
If I even own a casino, I'm inviting you. Casinos thrive on people who believe just that. While it is mathematically possible, the net game effect is similat to saying that a 1st level fighter has a chance against a 10 level fighter. Mathematically yes, realistically, no.
If someone is overmatched in HQ, the bid really only determines how long it takes for them to be defeated. If you are using Spear 17 and the other guy has Greataxe 17W3 you could desparate bid you socks off. Barring some hHero Points and a series of "one in 400 chance" rolls, you are toaste.
atgxtg said:The problem with your argument is that since APs are vaguely defiend units used to resolve everything in HQ, then then it is impossible for them NOT to repent something. The second you dicde to make any sort of test or comparison, be it combat ability, weath, beatuty, or size of a fleet, it becomes a value expressed in APs.
duncan_disorderly said:atgxtg said:Mark Mohrfield said:No, it does not. It represents the gaining of some kind of advantage over the opponent. A character with low APs can still win quickly if he makes a desperation stake.
If I even own a casino, I'm inviting you. Casinos thrive on people who believe just that. While it is mathematically possible, the net game effect is similat to saying that a 1st level fighter has a chance against a 10 level fighter. Mathematically yes, realistically, no.
If someone is overmatched in HQ, the bid really only determines how long it takes for them to be defeated. If you are using Spear 17 and the other guy has Greataxe 17W3 you could desparate bid you socks off. Barring some hHero Points and a series of "one in 400 chance" rolls, you are toaste.
Nope, you are confusing AP and ability here. If someone has a 3 mastery advantage (once all augments and modifers are included) then you are toast any whioh way you look at it - your best rolled result will be a critical vs a fumble, but then their three masteries will bump them up to a crit vs crit tie. Any time they don't fumble they will be bumping you down once they have achieved a critical (so a rolled crit vs failure will end up as success vs crit - a rolled success vs success (which is the most likely result on a 17 vs 17w3 contest) will be a fumble vs crit...
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to win a contest from a position of low AP (whether using desperation stakes or not)
If both characters are 17W3 - so starting with AP totals of 77, but one has been consistently loosing contests and is now down to 17, they can still bid up to the original starting total (the "desperation stake") which, with a good result will end the contest in their favour. It is (obviously) a potentially risky strategy (it's not called desperation just because it sounds pretty...) but if you can use an ability which force the opponent to defend with a much lower rated ability and/or can burn a hero point where the opponent can't then you can swing the odds in your favour
duncan_disorderly said:Also it is not true that a HQ contest has no consequence until one character drops to/below 0AP. Firstly because a HQ contest might not be an extended contest so AP might not even be used (and this, unlike D&D, has no connection as to whether this is a combat situatiuon or not), and secondly because even when it is an extended contest there is always the option for the winner of any round to trade AP loss for wounds, giving their opponent a penalty on the dice rather than reducing their AP
atgxtg said:But, both character don't start off at 17W3. One character had a starting ability of 17.
Mark Mohrfield said:No, it does not. It represents the gaining of some kind of advantage over the opponent. A character with low APs can still win quickly if he makes a desperation stake.
atgxtg said:THe lesser skilled character's only real chance is to get that series of low rolls to win. And yes, that applies to the 17 guy with a group of followers who can desparate bid 77 AP. Even if he gets that one in 400 roll, the best result he can get is to transfer 1/2 the AP. THis won't take the 17W3 down, and the 17W3 guy can still whittle down the AP and get them back.
atgxtg said:duncan_disorderly said:Also it is not true that a HQ contest has no consequence until one character drops to/below 0AP. Firstly because a HQ contest might not be an extended contest so AP might not even be used (and this, unlike D&D, has no connection as to whether this is a combat situatiuon or not), and secondly because even when it is an extended contest there is always the option for the winner of any round to trade AP loss for wounds, giving their opponent a penalty on the dice rather than reducing their AP
Point one. True in ia simple contest AP don't factor in. That is entirely based upon relative ability.
As for trading wounds, where is this in the HQ rules? All I See is the party shot rules, and those are designed to be used against a defeated (no APs) opponent.
duncan_disorderly said:atgxtg said:But, both character don't start off at 17W3. One character had a starting ability of 17.
Well if you choose to discuss the chance of characters with different skills then maybe, but that is not what the original point said... (empasis added by me)
Mark Mohrfield said:No, it does not. It represents the gaining of some kind of advantage over the opponent. A character with low APs can still win quickly if he makes a desperation stake.
Nothing about realtive skill levels there
atgxtg said:Oh yest they are. AP's are based upon the skill you are using. So a guy with Sword Combat 17 starts the fight with 17 APs, plus whatever augments he can get, and these AP are what are bit and lost during the fight. If anything APS are even more closely tied to fighting ability that HP because as APs are lost so is fighting ability.
Hit Points in D&D are also tied to fighting ability. The number of HP that a character has is based upon class and level. THe more combat capable the class, the greater the HP.
Yes, they are quite similar in play. As combantat's fight, these points are lost. In both cases the points do not necessarily represnet actual wounds but the relative situation of the fight-until someone goes into negatives. Once out of points, characters in both games suffer peanlties.
Functionally, there isn't much difference. Roll a D20 and someone looses points.
As to the games being similar in other ways, well, it is probably one of the greatest ironies of the RPG world that as innovatives as RQ was, it wasn't well suited for GLorantha. D&D, with it's unrealistic, larger than life, player characters is actually a better match.
atgxtg said:THe lesser skilled character's only real chance is to get that series of low rolls to win. And yes, that applies to the 17 guy with a group of followers who can desparate bid 77 AP. Even if he gets that one in 400 roll, the best result he can get is to transfer 1/2 the AP. THis won't take the 17W3 down, and the 17W3 guy can still whittle down the AP and get them back.
duncan_disorderly said:No, his only chances are either to treat it as a simple contest so he only needs to make that 1 in 400 roll once (with all the other caveats and issues discussed) or to find a way to frame the contest as something other than a 17 vs 17W3 contest...
atgxtg said:duncan_disorderly said:Also it is not true that a HQ contest has no consequence until one character drops to/below 0AP. Firstly because a HQ contest might not be an extended contest so AP might not even be used (and this, unlike D&D, has no connection as to whether this is a combat situatiuon or not), and secondly because even when it is an extended contest there is always the option for the winner of any round to trade AP loss for wounds, giving their opponent a penalty on the dice rather than reducing their AP
Point one. True in ia simple contest AP don't factor in. That is entirely based upon relative ability.
As for trading wounds, where is this in the HQ rules? All I See is the party shot rules, and those are designed to be used against a defeated (no APs) opponent.