April 22, 2014 at 3:21 pm #5402
I’ll contribute one idea. Other ideas encouraged.
Breaking out from https://plus.google.com/101637289695677311329/posts/aAVLiRbVpn9 Michael Hitchens wrote: “I quite like [FATE’s] conflict resolution with its maneuvers, stress and consequences. … Now if I could work out how to seamlessly graft Fate’s resolution onto HQ’s attributes…”
Here’s a way that converts stress and consequences, but not maneuvers (and possibly not other aspects of FATE resolution; I’m not sure what else Michael had in mind.)
1. Take HQ1 attributes, divide by 5. (Cosmetic and optional.)
2. Resolve rolls with ability + modifiers +1d6 -1d6 vs. ability + modifiers +1d6 -1d6.
3. Rolled margin of victory: 0 tie, 1-3 Marginal Victory, 4-7 Minor Victory, 8-11 Major Victory, 12+ Complete Victory.
4. If the rolled margin of victory is even: take a consequence, like a lingering penalty, equal to the margin. Record consequences individually, with a brief description for each one. Take a penalty of -(sum of applicable consequences) on applicable rolls.
5. If the rolled margin of victory is odd: take that much stress. Take a penalty of -(stress) on all rolls. The GM calls refreshes of stress ad hoc.
6. Total of 12 related consequences: permanent injury. Total of 12 stress + consequences: can’t contribute to any contest for which the consequences would apply. Total of X stress + related consequences: knocked out of, or lose, the current extended contest, with X called at the beginning of the contest. Simple or extended contests can also be called with a damage multiplier (either less than one or greater than one) that takes the rolled margin of victory and turns it into stress or consequence.
7. I’m not sure if there’s a simple conversion for group contests. There probably is a simple way, but I’ve focused my attention on a complicated way where you 1. scale each character’s contribution exponentially so that level 8 = x 10, level 12 = x 100, and level 16 = x 1000; 2. add up the numbers for both sides; 3. apply the scaling in reverse and use the result in a 4d6 contest per rule 2. (This is a Glorantha-specific heroic scaling.)
8. Applying consequences selectively (rule 4) gives you something like stress tracks. As a sketch of an alternate way to get stress tracks (for Glorantha): assign each of a character’s abilities to one of their runes, and apply stress and consequences separately for each rune.April 23, 2014 at 11:07 am #7639
My comment was a bit off-hand and I don’t think I was precise enough. I probably should have said Fate’s results, not Fate’s resolution. Here’s a (hopefully) clearer explanation of what I’ve been musing about.
Take HQ attributes (including masteries, bumps etc.) and the contest result tables. But drop the AP and associated bidding. Instead use the HQ marginal/minor/major/complete result and translate that into Fate like stress and consequences. Also allow for creating advantages as well as attacks as per Fate. I haven’t really thought it through, but here’s some issues that would need dealing with:
(Oh, and I’m referring to HQ1, I need to get HQ2. I’m procrastinating on the details until I see how many problems HQ2 might already solve.)
1. Fate Core has four results: fail, tie, succeed, succeed with style, HQ1 has eight: complete defeat, major defeat, minor defeat, tie, marginal victory, minor victory, major victory, complete victory. Yes, there are more in HQ1 if you look at the extended contests, but it might be possible to stick with the simple results and either use them as one roll equals end (consequences only, no stress) or for an extended system with stress and consquences.
2. HQ is open-ended. In theory masteries can go to any level. Fate is more constrained. That means deciding how to define how many stress boxes a character has and how many consequences they can take. Fate runs those off skills. I’m not sure that adding a stress box every mastery or so of a particular skill would be a good idea. More importantly it effects the meaning of a result. Fate ties it directly to the level of success, whereas HQ1 makes it depend on the AP bid (if extended). Those things aren’t scaling the same way. Yes, they both depend on skill levels at base, but with the skill columns increasing skills isn’t as easy as in HQ1.
3. In Fate magic isn’t the same as skills. In HQ1 everything is an attribute. Which means the HQ1 augmentation system has to be thought about. Might be a non-issue, but has to be considered.
Anyway, hope that makes my (admittedly ill-thought out) thinking a little clearer. Essentially I’m playing thought games to see what system might best my match my conception of Glorantha.April 23, 2014 at 3:52 pm #7643
Just to check if we’re talking around each other, let me try to reword it, with the HQ rolling scheme and a point value for advantages. How does this strike you, for what you’re looking for?
1. Instead of having fixed tracks, you have a single stress track, each consequence has a point value and a short ad hoc description, and you judge ad hoc whether and when individual consequences stack. Instead of fixed-size pools for stress or consequences, each point of stress gives -5 on all rolls, and each point of consequence gives -5 on each applicable roll, with applicability being judged ad hoc. Advantages give a bump (that is, +20).
2. You lose a contest when you reach X stacked damage, with the GM choosing X at the beginning of the contest, and X is never more than 12. If you’ve taken 12 total stacked/related consequences, you’ve taken a permanent injury.
3. The loser of a roll takes one of the following amounts of damage depending on the victory type: Marginal 1, Minor 4, Major 8, Complete 12. If the loser’s roll was odd they take stress damage, and if it was even they take consequence damage. Before each contest, the GM can choose a multiplier that will apply to these numbers.April 24, 2014 at 4:34 am #7648
It’s certainly getting closer and giving me some useful ideas. I’ll need to think it through a bit more to see, but I appreciate the suggestions
ThanksAugust 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm #10351
Michael, you should definitely check out HQ2, it solves many of the issues we ran into in some long-running campaigns. (It might be worth waiting for the edition set in Glorantha).
HeroQuest is an excellent game system, and even before the new edition, perfectly suited for Glorantha. But I like a lot of FATE’s elements too. To me, any adaptation should be trying to run Glorantha with FATE, not run Glorantha-as-viewed-through-a-HQ-lens with FATE.
For example, you might want to treat runes as aspects (since they can be compelled — check out all the personality-related descriptions). Conceivably they would be skills instead (since someone might be strong in the Movement rune). Possibly both (you might be able to spend up to your skill level in Fate Points to invoke for effect).
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.