Some More Questions about HQG Text (Typos?)

[Christopher Kubasik]

I can’t find the PDF/Proof thread, so forgive me if this stuff has already been covered! I’m not even sure if they are typos, but I am looking for clarification on a few of the points.
.
1) On p. 70 (as well as other pages) there are references to the “Resolution Point Table.” On p. 70, the second table is labeled “Extended Contest Resolution Points.” After looking for the “Resolution Points Table” and not finding it, I realized that the “Extended Contest Resolution Points” might well be the Resolution Point Table. Is it? If so, I don’t think it should be labeled “Extended Contest Resolution Points” — because it is used for both Simple and Extended contests. Yes? It simply is the “Resolution Points Table” and spits out information for Group Simple Contests and Group Extended Contests. (That is, if I’m correct about the Table’s purpose!)
.
The same labeling of the table appears on the table among the charts at the back of the book on p. 243.
.
2) I believe the results of the Simple Contest Results table (p. 63 & 243) every result is listed as a Victory or a Tie. Is this intentional? As it is, one can deduce that the Complete Victory goes to the character who rolled the Critical rather than the Fumble, no matter which way the table is read. But there is no mention of “Complete Defeat” on the table since there is no concern for whether anyone is reading the table from the right column or the top row relative to the participants. (If that makes sense.)
.
I can see how this might have been done on purpose. But I did want to point it out.

[Clay]

I would think you are correct because I came to the same conclusion. When I reorganized the tables into homemade hand-outs, I renamed that table:

GROUP SIMPLE CONTEST/EXTENDED CONTEST RESOLUTION POINTS

(see http://www.clan-amok.org/resources/HQG%20Tables.pdf)

[Steve Hammatt]

2) I believe the results of the Simple Contest Results table (p. 63 & 243) every result is listed as a Victory or a Tie. Is this intentional? As it is, one can deduce that the Complete Victory goes to the character who rolled the Critical rather than the Fumble, no matter which way the table is read. But there is no mention of “Complete Defeat” on the table since there is no concern for whether anyone is reading the table from the right column or the top row relative to the participants. (If that makes sense.)

I must admit that I found that confusimg too. I had to read it several times to make sure I hadn’t missed something. Of course the intended meaning isn’t hard to work out, but I can’t see why it has been presented in this way other than by mistake. But quite possibly I’m still missing something.

[Jonathan Fish]

In the Heroquest 2nd ed book,p28 the table is presented a bit differently – the Y axis is labelled “contestant A” and th X axis is labelled “contestant B”. The descriptions then state either”contestant A” or “contestant B” has a victory (e.g. if “contestant A” gets a Critical and “contestant B” fumbles then “contestant A” scores a complete victory (and vice versa). I have no idea why this got changed for HQ:Glorantha, as it now reads as if all results are successes for the active “contestant A” player…

Edit – basically what Chris Kuwait said above above, but the table is much clearer in HQ 2nd ed.

[Jeff Richard]

I changed the table presentation because I didn’t like the wordiness of the old HQ2 table. The new table is pretty obvious it shows the level of victory achieved by the winner of the contest. The rules already make it clear that a Success beats a Failure, and so on.

[Steve Hammatt]

Jeff, I agree that the HQ2 table was overly wordy. But the HQ:G table seems to have lost some clarity, for me at least, in the word reduction process. Point 5 on that same page (63) talks about the table showing “your” level of victory (where “you” appears to be a player and not the GM), so shouldn’t that then be “the winner’s”? It doesn’t specifically say what the loser’s level of defeat is, though of course that’s easy to imply. I do wonder whether it wouldn’t be easier just to change half of the table’s entries to defeats though.

[Jonathan Fish]

If you want to keep the wordage of the table down (and I agree that the original was wordy), I also think it would be clearer to change half the table be defeats, rather than trying to show victory results for two participants on one table (which I don’t think works that well, even on the original table).

[Jonas Schiött]

For your question 1, yes I believe it’s the same table. I was confused about that, too, for a while.

As for 2, I’m sorry Jeff, but I have to agree the change was a bad one. I can’t make heads or tails of the table as it stands. For that matter, the resolution points table has the exact same issue, though that’s not new – it was the same in HQ2.
Both of these tables are impossible to understand unless you understand the rules text. And if you understand the text, you have no need for the tables…

[Author]

Posts