System specifics aside, the linked robotech posts are pretty interesting.

I've seen a few HQ 1e/HW play reports that gave at least some feel for the system--mostly at The Forge or some other place frequented by (I think) Mike Holmes. Strangely, the one that made it seem the most cool was a Livejournal post by someone who was using it to run Nephilim--but when I asked for more details, the person said the game had run aground because HQ "kinda sucked".

Anyway, I know that 2e did some things to streamline play while also adding some narrativium--along the lines of difficulties, if not outcomes, being malleable according to the needs of dramatic flow. Perhaps ironically, this wasn't wholeheartedly embraced by the story-games fans, but that's not really surprising as it smacked of railroading.

These days I reckon that Mythic Roleplaying will do much of what I'd want from HQ, though with less of an open-ended upper bound on abilities/traits.

Quote from: Bren;980332Thanks, though other than for a couple of attacks with the GU-11 I'm not seeing where it is clear what was rolled or the result of the roll. Also it would be helpful to have stats for the opponents to get a better sense of the mechanics.

It's been a while, but I think I just set the resistance of the entire bad guy side. The back and forth rolls, that aren't directly described, were part of an Extended Contest (for those following along and don't have HQ2) where each side accumulates resolution points, 5 points wins. In this scenario, the bad guys got 5 point first but really wanted to really stick it to the PC but fumbled, allowing the tide to turn.

Quote from: Bren;980332To be fair, part of my problem is also that I'm not too knowledgeable about Veritech so when you say in paragraph 3, "As the veritech changes modes to evade enemy fire..." I don't know what mode he changed to. I assume he started in Fighter mode since he was on patrol and that he changed to a mode with a better maneuverability than the Fighter's Maneuverability 6 for evasion, but I don't know if that was Guardian (Maneuverability or Battloid (Maneuverability 12). Also, if in Battloid mode, when would the player roll for Poor Flight 15 (-3).

That first mention of changing modes was actually just setting color. It's one of those things that you see aces in the setting do. The transformation to Guardian mode in the next paragraph was for in-game tactics and system effect. The PC was able to augment with mode's stable ability to have a better chance of not hitting the protoculture chamber.

Quote from: Bren;980332Also, is the (-3) a die roll mod for any Flight rolls?

I treat the vehicle flaws as per page 14:

QuoteNarrators may decide during play that certain  aws are better expressed as penalties to your attempts to overcome other resistances. Divide the value by 5 and round.

Quote from: Arminius;980341System specifics aside, the linked robotech posts are pretty interesting.

Thanks, Arminius. It's worked out pretty well for us. But I think I'd treat mecha a little differently now. I'm not quite sure what I'd change but I have a better understanding of the game's nuance after getting more time with it.

Quote from: Arminius;980341I've seen a few HQ 1e/HW play reports that gave at least some feel for the system--mostly at The Forge or some other place frequented by (I think) Mike Holmes. Strangely, the one that made it seem the most cool was a Livejournal post by someone who was using it to run Nephilim--but when I asked for more details, the person said the game had run aground because HQ "kinda sucked".

I think you have to be in the mood for HQ and I think it has to fit your interpretation of the source material. One of the big reasons why I went with a mecha setting was that I hadn't been able to translate the fast and fluid dynamic that you see on the screen to the table. HeroQuest 2 did it pretty good job of it without what you'd usually expect from a game in that genre. If nothing else, it was a fun experiment.

Quote from: Arminius;980341Anyway, I know that 2e did some things to streamline play while also adding some narrativium--along the lines of difficulties, if not outcomes, being malleable according to the needs of dramatic flow. Perhaps ironically, this wasn't wholeheartedly embraced by the story-games fans, but that's not really surprising as it smacked of railroading.

For some reason, some people think that because the Pass/Fail cycle is in the book it must be used. Ironically, I've found it most handy when the game goes off in a direction that I hadn't anticipated - go with the pass/fail flow until I get my GM feet firmly back under me.

Quote from: Arminius;980341These days I reckon that Mythic Roleplaying will do much of what I'd want from HQ, though with less of an open-ended upper bound on abilities/traits.

Mythic is great. I've a few posts about it too.

Quote from: Bren;980323I second this motion.

I own Hero Wars and Heroquest (the two predecessors to Heroquest 2E) and the rules never clicked for me. I'd be interested in seeing how someone actually used the rules in play.

I didn't record everyone's rolls, but when I have time this weekend, I will try to lay out what I have. I will also strive to record rolls and results next time we play it.

Quote from: Imaginos;980358I didn't record everyone's rolls, but when I have time this weekend, I will try to lay out what I have. I will also strive to record rolls and results next time we play it.

Thanks in advance!

Quote from: Arminius;980341Anyway, I know that 2e did some things to streamline play while also adding some narrativium--along the lines of difficulties, if not outcomes, being malleable according to the needs of dramatic flow.

Quote from: Eisenmann;980346For some reason, some people think that because the Pass/Fail cycle is in the book it must be used. Ironically, I've found it most handy when the game goes off in a direction that I hadn't anticipated - go with the pass/fail flow until I get my GM feet firmly back under me.

This seems to come up in every discussion of HQ2. The rulebook is pretty clear that the Pass/Fail Cycle is just one way you can use to determine difficulties when they aren't immediately obvious. Still, there are always people who claim it is some mandated way to determine all difficulties, that if the players encounter a dragon while they are on the low end of the cycle, you need to make the dragon a pushover. Of course, you know that dragons are tough, so you make the dragon tough no matter where you are on the cycle.

The cycle is for the kind situation where the PCs get into some unexpected encounter with an NPC you just invented on the fly where you have no immediate idea how tough they should be.

On top of that, it's also completely optional. You can play HQ by-the-book just fine without using it at all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980134From the publisher


In before the move to Other Games.

I'm surprised it is still here. Pundit is going to get kicked out of the OSR Taliban if he keeps letting threads like this exist in the main RPG forum.

Quote from: Baulderstone;980674This seems to come up in every discussion of HQ2. The rulebook is pretty clear that the Pass/Fail Cycle is just one way you can use to determine difficulties when they aren't immediately obvious. Still, there are always people who claim it is some mandated way to determine all difficulties, that if the players encounter a dragon while they are on the low end of the cycle, you need to make the dragon a pushover. [snip]
On top of that, it's also completely optional. You can play HQ by-the-book just fine without using it at all.

I've been a regular and nearly exclusive user of HQ(1) for a good while now, and read HQ2 and did adopt stuff from it too, later. I love the system! My feeling is, rather, that HQ is written as one of the smuggest and most sanctimonious RPG systems I've ever encountered, and that HQ2 actually is the most smug & sanctimonious. So when the HQ2 book spends as much time as it does presenting the pass/fail thing -- condescendingly, pausing here and there to congratulate itself again -- it's harder for a reader to respond unemotionally, literally, and mechanically to the merits and necessity of the thing being described. Sure, it's technically optional and can be ignored. I think it's weird not to expect lots of people to want to throw the book against the wall while reading about it, is all.

For more than one person I've heard from, the HQ2 messenger shoots itself in the face before delivering its message. (We've done dramatic readings out of the book; nosebleeds from laughing have resulted.) But in the end, it works for me -- a lot. The treat is that once you've read through the rules once or twice, you never really need to refer to them again. I have players now who I think have never looked at the rulebooks, just a couple pages of cheat-sheets I've printed up along with whatever specific house rules.

It's true that HQ dumps all the work of establishing and maintaining shared world / genre / tone / scale assumptions onto the ref & players, but in practice that's never been a real problem. For me, anyway. (So far!)

Quote from: kk7;980985I've been a regular and nearly exclusive user of HQ(1) for a good while now, and read HQ2 and did adopt stuff from it too, later. I love the system! My feeling is, rather, that HQ is written as one of the smuggest and most sanctimonious RPG systems I've ever encountered, and that HQ2 actually is the most smug & sanctimonious. So when the HQ2 book spends as much time as it does presenting the pass/fail thing -- condescendingly, pausing here and there to congratulate itself again -- it's harder for a reader to respond unemotionally, literally, and mechanically to the merits and necessity of the thing being described. Sure, it's technically optional and can be ignored. I think it's weird not to expect lots of people to want to throw the book against the wall while reading about it, is all.

For more than one person I've heard from, the HQ2 messenger shoots itself in the face before delivering its message. (We've done dramatic readings out of the book; nosebleeds from laughing have resulted.) But in the end, it works for me -- a lot. The treat is that once you've read through the rules once or twice, you never really need to refer to them again. I have players now who I think have never looked at the rulebooks, just a couple pages of cheat-sheets I've printed up along with whatever specific house rules.

It's true that HQ dumps all the work of establishing and maintaining shared world / genre / tone / scale assumptions onto the ref & players, but in practice that's never been a real problem. For me, anyway. (So far!)

How is HQ1 different from HQ2, and why is it better in your opinion?

Apologies for the long delay in replying, and apologies for the mushy answer to follow!

My impression is that HQ2 aimed to radically strip out any remaining trace of 'simulationist' playing, whether in feel/tone/tenor/whatever and in mechanical practice. A lot of HQ1 was pretty frank about the problems of dealing with, e.g., an extended battle, using 'narrativist' tools & techniques. I think what I like about it (HQ1 I mean) is that it was interested and wiling to bridge gaps not just in "narrative style", but in "gaming style" aso.

HQ2, as my impression was, is much more focused and dedicated to a single way of playing games: the narrative one, the pseudo-literary one. I -- personally and frankly speaking, here -- think this is a terrible bad road to go down. At best, it's a misunderstanding of the esthetics of literature vs. that of play; often, it's a perversion of both literature and imagination, an outlet for fetishism.

That being said, I don't think HQ2 is not worth reading. Every bullshit "what is role playing?" plug that gets inserted into a game book, it supersedes. Likewise for "how do I run a game?" and "how do I be a player?" bits of boilerplate -- whether you're a grey old coot like me or a kid born after the millennium like a few of my gaming crew today, it focuses you on what and why and how you're doing this make-believe stuff.

That being said, if you want a 'gaming system', it's not worth your bother. Seriously, someone else who has read the book can well teach you all its "mechanic" in thirty seconds or under. (As if anyone here needs to be "taught", except for private excitement?) And there's also the issue of autocongratulation, that I mentioned initially. Holy Moonballs, HQ2 is a self-satisfied text, and one that I can attest has directly put people off RPGs as a practice and as an entire subculture. And in the end, you do feel like buying a book that tells you, over and over again, to make it all up yourself.

TLDR: Find a copy of HQ1, it's open-minded in a fairly broad sense. You can turn it as diceless and storytellingist, or as points-logging and chaotic-gamist as you like. HQ2 is marginally worth buying for the intertextual sake of ancient gamers, well depraved in their vice, and for properly dubious newbies seriously interested in what they're into.

Victor, I don't think I really answered your question. I'm sorry. I think they're the same at heart -- yet HQ1 feels more flexible and open to me, while HQ2 seems written to be only one way, the snide and superior way.

Didn't want to answer until kk7 had a chance but since some of the question remains, I'll mention what I've heard. If this provokes a nerd-raged correction to my hearsay, so much the better.

HQ1 had two elements of play that were problematic for folks. One was that people would hunt across their character sheet looking for bonuses that could justify, since there was no limit to the number of "helper" skills/abilities/aspects that could be applied. IIRQ HQ2 only allows one.

The other element was extended contests. I think in Mythic Russia, which was sort of a HQ 1.5, an alternative mechanic was  introduced, and that was retained at least as an option in HQ2.

You did answer my question! I think I'm going to hunt for a copy of HQ1. I like HQ2 but the way it tries hard to distance itself from any "simulationism" or "virtual world-ism" botters me a bit. Thanks!

Isn't Heroquest 2E the book that advices play following some kind of narrative rythm or something, with pre-scripted failings by the players in the name of drama and all that? If so, its not my thing. Too railroady. I prefer the other drama school (the "forgite" one).

Quote from: Arminius;988719HQ1 had two elements of play that were problematic for folks. One was that people would hunt across their character sheet looking for bonuses that could justify, since there was no limit to the number of "helper" skills/abilities/aspects that could be applied. IIRQ HQ2 only allows one.

The other element was extended contests. I think in Mythic Russia, which was sort of a HQ 1.5, an alternative mechanic was  introduced, and that was retained at least as an option in HQ2.

Oh, yes, thank you! Those are/were/will be big tripping points for any crew taking HQ1 off the blocks and running a game from scratch. I was blowing hot & abstract air ;(

The 'applicable bonuses' breed like rabbits in the hands of even lightly experienced RPG'ers and can bring a game session to a screeching halt just as fast as High Baroque era Rolemaster. OTOH, HQ2's procrustean solution kills off a lot of the joy in building characters in the mechanics. ("How often can Dr. Pop's 'The Wind Is Full of Evil Farts 1w2' Illumination insanity ever matter? Yeah, screw it then.") Some fix to HQ1 is needed (in the absence of cosmically wise and restrained players), and I think house rules are a better option than what HQ2 put forward. What my own group has settled down on is "only one modifier per 'category' of character rating", with ratings roughly separated into physical characteristics, personality, cultural background, knowledge and skills, community links, personal ties, religious powers, and a few others ad hoc.

I actually have had Mythic Russia for years and never actually used its rules bits for gaming, and so didn't realize it had a different approach to extended contests... so I should probably shut up about the second point you raise. But yes, it's hard to use the HQ1 mechanics as written to run extended contests, strictly speaking. Mostly what I seem to find people doing is assigning 'real' consequences  at each turn of the contest, at the same time you narrate what's happening, with the clear understanding that after the contest is wrapped up, weird/conflicting story-telling bits can get edited. (Lightly edited.) I don't know that that's anything like a good fix; OTOH, I do know I still want some baby in the bathwater, is all. ("Tastes great, no empty calories!")

Quote from: Itachi;988982Isn't Heroquest 2E the book that advices play following some kind of narrative rythm or something, with pre-scripted failings by the players in the name of drama and all that?

As someone more articulate than me said near the start of this thread, HQ2 does advise something like that, but it really does not stipulate it. I don't see why that should be a problem, and the "pass/fail cycle" can be smoothly and joyously booted from anyone's use of HQ2. If anything, I disliked the rhetoric of HQ2, and its smugness -- definitely not any inherent railroadiness.