Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Peggy and I have begun work on our first non-Gloranthan QW project. It's something a little strange and different, but we're hoping folks will like it!

Work is still progressing at pace on Lances at Dusk, the 2nd book of the Jaldonkiller's Saga, too. 

We're trying to make the best of my current job situation and the pandemic. The challenge leads to the solution, and all that! ;)

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 9:46 PM, Tartarosso said:

Any anticipation on non-glorantha qw?

Anticipating, here!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non Glorantha QW will definitely be welcome, though I would like Glorantha stuff eventually. Personally, I've been making some notes on how to apply the QW system to dungeon crawling and I'm liking it so far. It's really an incredibly flexible engine, moreso than even Fate or PbtA imo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

Non Glorantha QW will definitely be welcome, though I would like Glorantha stuff eventually. Personally, I've been making some notes on how to apply the QW system to dungeon crawling and I'm liking it so far. It's really an incredibly flexible engine, moreso than even Fate or PbtA imo.

Yeah, I really hope QW doesn't mean the death of HQG.  Even more than the epic element, I love the flexibility and idiosyncrasies PCs can develop by creating abilities that don't come from a pre-existing list.  I'm not saying it's better than RQG, but it's a qualitatively different style of play that leans into different elements of Glorantha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Richard S. said:

[...] Personally, I've been making some notes on how to apply the QW system to dungeon crawling and I'm liking it so far. [...]

Don't want to derail that thread, but I would be very curious to learn about your findings^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 1:51 AM, Balakatun said:

Don't want to derail that thread, but I would be very curious to learn about your findings^^

Ah, yeah! The basic idea is that the dungeon is divided into distinct levels of increasing difficulty, and at the start of each level the players would each do a simple contest with their "role" keyword (scout, guard, leader, healer, scholar, etc.) against a difficulty based on how deep they are. If you win, good job everything's chill. If you crit, you find something useful or valuable (lingering benefit). If you fail, something goes wrong - roll on a table based on your role, modified in some way by the difficulty somehow. When something goes wrong, you "zoom in" on the party and play to resolve it, which can have either good or bad consequences. On a fumble... I haven't thought about that yet, probably something to do with automatic lingering penalties. It's not terribly fleshed out yet, but that's the gist of it. I'm also thinking of giving each role a designated relationship ability, like a contact for the leader that they can use to get supplies from the surface, or some guard retainers to help deal with monsters and the like.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard S.! I guess I got confused, I thought you were referring to having a more 'combat-oriented' set of house rules, and maybe your own way to make combat more 'tactical' maybe...anyway, interesting ideas all the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 1:12 AM, Balakatun said:

a more 'combat-oriented' set of house rules

What do you think is lacking in QW for combat oriented games or scenes? 

That isn't an ambush question or anything. I'm really interested to hear what you think about QW and combat heavy scenes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

What do you think is lacking in QW for combat oriented games or scenes? 

That isn't an ambush question or anything. I'm really interested to hear what you think about QW and combat heavy scenes.

 

Hey Shawn, I am not 'certain' anything is lacking in terms of game features to make combat feel tactical (though I realize it may have come out this way). I recently came back to checking out HQ/QW (because of Valley of Plenty^^) and I am struggling (when reading the rules, examples, and questions and comments on the forums) to 'visualize' how a combat encounter can be dealt with in a dynamic fashion, with change of tactics mid-fight, creating and taking advantage of opportunities, etc.  As an example, how could you inflict a status (positive or negative) and how does it translate into game terms. Say I want to temporarily 'blind' an opponent (through a spell, or throwing dirt in their eyes), then how does that work in the flow of a scored/extended contest? What if I want to 'stun', or 'slow' them, or if I want to attempt to disarm, or push them so they fall into a precipice...

I realize these are more tactical tasks rather than narrative objectives, but these situations are also what can make a great cinematic/narrative experience. I assume they can be represented in HQ/QW but I am just failing at finding out how. I guess, like I have seen several times on different posts, it may be that I'm craving for a lot more examples, tips and advice.

Note: I re-opened HQ1 to get the combat example that uses AP (since I believe you mentioned in VoP that is what you are using) and I can see better how it can help in creating the sense of dynamic encounter (when you feel your group needs that) but I am still struggling with the points I mention above.

Note 2: I also realize it may just be me loving the openness and simplicity of the HQ/QW system for abilities and character definition, but also loving tactical/granular combat and I just cant reconcile the both of them.

Note 3: congratz on VoP, looking forward for more!

Edited by Balakatun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Balakatun said:

I recently came back to checking out HQ/QW (because of Valley of Plenty^^)

Wow! Thanks!

2 hours ago, Balakatun said:

I am struggling (when reading the rules, examples, and questions and comments on the forums) to 'visualize' how a combat encounter can be dealt with in a dynamic fashion, with change of tactics mid-fight, creating and taking advantage of opportunities, etc.  As an example, how could you inflict a status (positive or negative) and how does it translate into game terms. Say I want to temporarily 'blind' an opponent (through a spell, or throwing dirt in their eyes), then how does that work in the flow of a scored/extended contest? What if I want to 'stun', or 'slow' them, or if I want to attempt to disarm, or push them so they fall into a precipice..

It takes some adjustment as both a player and a GM. One thing that I did to ease myself and my players into it was using group simple contests for most combats. That seems counter-intuitive, but bear with me. ;) After running several combats, I got players used to giving me more descriptive descriptions of what they were attempting and the specific prize they were after. They also started setting each other up for success, i.e., player A's prize would give player B an advantage. Then I'd narrate the outcome and let the players interrupt if they wanted to say what they thought "really happened." If what they said worked for me and the other players seemed okay with it, I'd weave it into the narration of the outcome.

Once I had them used to that approach, I introduced them to extended contests. These are a little trickier. You (and your players) have to think on your feet. I think of each exchange as a typical RPG "combat turn." I describe the situation and everyone reveals their bids. I ask the players what prize they're shooting for and how they intend to achieve it. If their description doesn't line up with their bid, we fix that. Those prizes are how you get to the statuses you're looking for (me, too).

Prizes like, "I use a spell to slow him," are perfectly legit. Narrate the outcome based on how many points the player bid and how well they succeeded. Then you can either use "benefits and consequences of victory or failure" to reflect how much the slow spell is impacting the bad guy, or just use your GM's discretion (that's what I do - I hate tables).

The prize stated in an extended combat shouldn't normally be "I push him over the cliff." They should be stepping stones that build up to shoving him over the cliff when the contest is won.

Hopefully the above makes sense and helps. My main advice is make the game your own. Run it the way that works best for you and your players. You paid for it, do what you want with it!

BTW, you can find the QuestWorlds SRD free online. It has includes the current version of Extended Contests (with bidding) and Consequences/Benefits. 

Thanks again for your kind words about Valley of Plenty!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Shawn, thanks for your replies and examples - it actually helps!

First thing, and in the spirit of keeping the thread on topic, this is precisely the kind of things I would like to see more in any new QW material (Glorantha or otherwise): more concrete examples of actual plays on how to resolve the typical actions the game/settings proposes. Your examples here are very valuable, expanding more on those would be great for any upcoming book.

Then, regarding your examples above, I think I am getting confused about the definition of the Prize. At first I thought you meant the Prize is the goal of the whole encounter (as per the rules), but after a couple more reads I think I understand the prize is the goal of a single exchange ("I use a spell to slow him"). So, my understanding is that you kind of mix chained contests and AP bidding in your extended contest: each 'round'/exchange you name a prize and tactic (for that exchange), bid APs, resolve and narrate, and factor the benefit and consequences of victory/failure on the spot. Or did I misunderstood?

Thanks,

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Balakatun said:

Then, regarding your examples above, I think I am getting confused about the definition of the Prize. At first I thought you meant the Prize is the goal of the whole encounter (as per the rules), but after a couple more reads I think I understand the prize is the goal of a single exchange ("I use a spell to slow him").

Long contests (either scored or extended, not sure about chained) should be framed just like simple contests. So there is a prize for the whole encounter.

The "I use a spell to slow him" is just a tactic for a single exchange. After you know the outcome of the round you should look at the overall point situation (Is anyone close losing? Are there clear gap between the points?), previous narration, the tactic for this round and the outcome of this round and base your narration to those.

Overall I would defer telling what happens in a single exchange until the outcome is clear. Usually the tactic (the skill) tells enough but maybe the player needs to justify the use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Balakatun said:

I think I am getting confused about the definition of the Prize.

No worries. I wrote my response in a rush, so I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been!

In a simple contest of any kind, the prize states the overall outcome of the scene, which is narrated based on how well or poorly the contest went for the PC.

In an extended contest, there should be a prize for each exchange. AP bids should reflect the nature of the prize. The more ambitious the prize, the more it exposes the PC to harm. Since each player's turn order is firmly established, there's no problem with narrating the result of each of their contests in the exchange as they happen. This has the effect of allowing players to build on the tactics of the previous player(s). When the opposition (or the PCs) reach zero APs, it will be due to aggregate outcomes of each exchange. Remember, the goal of an extended contest is to allow the PCs to use (and establish competence with) a wider array of abilities by freely using different tactics for each exchange. This is as close as HQ/QW gets to traditional RPGs' process based combat.

Now, let me share how I handle "big scenes" in my home game, combat or non-combat. 

  •  I establish how much of a pain I want the opponent to be and whether I want the PCs to win regardless of contest results (I don't share either of these things with the players).
  •  I let the players know this is going to be a multi-contest scene so they can set their prizes accordingly. I've established with them that I'll signal them when victory or defeat seems eminent so they can state "finishing move" or "run away! run away!" prizes.
  • I run two or more group simple contests, each of which builds on the outcome of the last. This allows for the tide of fortune to run in and out and makes the scene more exciting. The more difficult the opposition, the more contests I run, but I usually run 3 to 5, max.
  •  If I feel like the outcome of a contest merits it, I'll give the PCs a bonus or penalty for the next contest, ranging from -9 to +9 in increments of 3. I may also simply narrate the outcome of the next contest with the outcome of the last contest in mind, though.
  •  When the scene hits a tipping point where I believe victory or defeat has arrived, I tell the players that the next contest is the climactic conclusion contest and brace myself for the suitably dramatic final prize they dream up.

Granted, that's seat of the pants GMing, but my players like it. It also means they only have to remember one mechanism: the Group Simple Contest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 6:52 PM, Shawn Carpenter said:

Peggy and I have begun work on our first non-Gloranthan QW project. It's something a little strange and different, but we're hoping folks will like it!

If you don't mind me asking, how are you planning to publish it?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soltakss said:

If you don't mind me asking, how are you planning to publish it?

 

Our plan is to sell on DTRPG. We've done the whole webstore and carry stock and all that before and prefer not to again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shawn Carpenter Thanks for the explanations, that's very clear and they offers new option to tailor the amount of 'crunchiness' one can include in contests. Very helpful!

4 hours ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Granted, that's seat of the pants GMing, but my players like it.[...]

I'm a non-native speaker, so I also learned a new expression^^. That's already a very productive day, thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...