Keywords.
Write about 100 words, choose some, then ....
I am not grokking that. What?! How?!
Someone point me toward a "Dummies guide" or something. Fate aspects, compels, tags are okay. Older abilities, modifiers are okay.
This? I cannot compute. Just a link. Save the "story game" heat for another time, I just need pointing in the right direction. If that fails I will come back and say "Nope".
The boardgame is a lot better.
Wait, there's a HeroQuest that isn't a boardgame?
Quote from: Doom;769391Wait, there's a HeroQuest that isn't a boardgame?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest_(role-playing_game)
BG: what specifically confuses you? I have to admit this threw me too (and I doubt I'll ever play the game) but eventually I think I saw that no matter how many keywords you took, you had a budget on how many good ones you could have. The rest are just flavor.
Or maybe I'm misremembering. I've got the book by my nightstand but I can't be bothered to open it now.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;769387Keywords.
Write about 100 words, choose some, then ....
I am not grokking that. What?! How?!
Someone point me toward a "Dummies guide" or something. Fate aspects, compels, tags are okay. Older abilities, modifiers are okay.
This? I cannot compute. Just a link. Save the "story game" heat for another time, I just need pointing in the right direction. If that fails I will come back and say "Nope".
The 100 word character creation is popular, although we've dropped it in the new HeroQuest Glorantha book in favor of the "As You Go" character creation.
Are you using HeroQuest 2 or HeroQuest 1?
Quote from: richaje;769415The 100 word character creation is popular, although we've dropped it in the new HeroQuest Glorantha book in favor of the "As You Go" character creation.
Are you using HeroQuest 2 or HeroQuest 1?
HQ2. I have the core and Mythic Russia.
It seems very loose and fluid, which is a bonus I suppose. But I am failing to see how I can nail it down to be a little more concrete.
The "abilities under a keyword" seems like it could be a little crazy. Are there limits on having too many? What is stopping me filling the start narrative with keywords like a website SEO?
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;769422HQ2. I have the core and Mythic Russia.
It seems very loose and fluid, which is a bonus I suppose. But I am failing to see how I can nail it down to be a little more concrete.
The "abilities under a keyword" seems like it could be a little crazy. Are there limits on having too many? What is stopping me filling the start narrative with keywords like a website SEO?
Think of a keyword as being analogous to a character class. So you take a keyword "Fighter" - the keyword includes everything a Fighter ought to be able to do. A keyword is always a broad ability and gets penalized against a specialized ability (or against a NPC who the GM has described with some specializations beyond just "Thug" or "Mook" or whatever). So for example, lets give our Fighter keyword a rating of 17 - the character can do whatever we all agree a Fighter ought to be able to do.
If you use the Breakout Abilities tool (which pretty much everything after HQ2 does), then you can pick specializations within that keyword. These specializations can be raised independently of the keyword but are linked to the keyword to determine their value. So for example:
Fighter 17
Awesome sword of righteous Justice +1
Tactical knowledge +1
This ends up being a lot easier and a lot less cluttered than the list of abilities approach taken in Mythic Russia (which comes from HQ1).
In HQ2 this tends to be self-controlling. Players rarely have lists of abilities that can't fit on an index card - especially since most abilities start at 13. What I normally see is that people focus on a couple of keywords and add some specializations and then take a few other stand-along abilities.
Brilliant. Thank you. That makes much more sense put like that.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;769429Brilliant. Thank you. That makes much more sense put like that.
You're welcome. A few years back we ran the old Fire Giant's Hall AD&D scenario using HQ2 but keeping to the "genre" of AD&D (with Fighters, Magic-Users, Thieves, etc). The scenario turned out to be far tougher, as the players concluded it would be Nearly Impossible to fight any of these iron-plated 12 foot tall, several ton monstrosities using mere swords, spears, and bows. So they snuck around, used magic to conceal themselves, jumped a single guard and looted the map room. And concluded that they were now wealthy enough to raise a company of mercenaries to fight those giants who left the Fire Giants Hall on raids, taking the scenario in a completely different direction with a good time had by all.
BG, you should have gotten Other Worlds instead of HeroQuest.
Other Worlds is the same type of game but with much better mechanics.
Here's a thread where I made a bunch of character templates for Other Worlds. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?691122-Other-Worlds-1001-templates)
Quote from: richaje;769431You're welcome. A few years back we ran the old Fire Giant's Hall AD&D scenario using HQ2 but keeping to the "genre" of AD&D (with Fighters, Magic-Users, Thieves, etc). The scenario turned out to be far tougher, as the players concluded it would be Nearly Impossible to fight any of these iron-plated 12 foot tall, several ton monstrosities using mere swords, spears, and bows. So they snuck around, used magic to conceal themselves, jumped a single guard and looted the map room. And concluded that they were now wealthy enough to raise a company of mercenaries to fight those giants who left the Fire Giants Hall on raids, taking the scenario in a completely different direction with a good time had by all.
Of course, if you played the same thing in RuneQuest, you might very well come to the same conclusion.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769466Of course, if you played the same thing in RuneQuest, you might very well come to the same conclusion.
I've been playing RQ since the RQ2 days. I still enjoy the occasional RQ game (especially if I really am needing to scratch that tactical skirmish itch), but HQ has long been my (and my players') go-to game system of choice. Part of that is the flexibility, part of that is that combat is no more or less useful to overcome obstacles than anything else, and part of that is just that HQ is a heck of a lot easier for me to run.
Jeff
Quote from: richaje;769470part of that is that combat is no more or less useful to overcome obstacles than anything else
Glad you found that with HeroQuest, sorry you didn't realize you had that with RuneQuest also. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;769472Glad you found that with HeroQuest, sorry you didn't realize you had that with RuneQuest also. ;)
Well not really. In RuneQuest, combat is the heart of the rules engine. Its where all the whirly bits, the machine that goes ping, and all the other good bits of the rules system come out. It is clearly what the rules system is intended to focus on - providing exciting, SCA-style skirmish combat (by that I just mean single duels and aim missile attacks among relatively small groups of combatants) and a magic system carefully thought out to provide significant supernatural efforts for potentially every combat.
In HeroQuest 2, the rules engine for combat is
exactly the same as using any other ability to overcome an obstacle. What you gain is that other abilities can end up being what generates the excitement, and you can get the whirly bits and the machine that goes ping out when a player says she wants her character to overcome a bunch of heavy cavalrymen with her "I am an Earth priestess" ability. Or gain the support of a bunch of dragonewts by successfully performing a "Graceful Dance" with them.
What you lose, of course, is the detailed SCA-style skirmish combats, since HQ2 simply doesn't try to model that. Additionally RQ is has an attritional mechanism to add excitement, while HQ2 focuses on pacing. Both are substantially different game engines with a substantially different set of strengths and weaknesses. But hey, different strokes for different folk.
Personally, I like both systems, but prefer RQ a little more.
The 100 word chargen is fairly easy, you just write down your character, then underline whatever seems to be an ability or important thing. Then you rewrite it to strip down the fluff and bring out other abilities, giving you a more streamlined character.
As Jeff said, the best thing to do is to focus on keywords and ignore individual abilities, unless they are important to the character. That way, you get a short, meaningful and powerful character description that could be written on an index card, if that's what you prefer. I'd use an A4 sheet, folded in half, as they are cheaper and allow you to write other things on.
Quote from: richaje;769477Well not really.
Yep. Really.
Quote from: richaje;769477In RuneQuest, combat is the heart of the rules engine. Its where all the whirly bits, the machine that goes ping, and all the other good bits of the rules system come out. It is clearly what the rules system is intended to focus on - providing exciting, SCA-style skirmish combat (by that I just mean single duels and aim missile attacks among relatively small groups of combatants) and a magic system carefully thought out to provide significant supernatural efforts for potentially every combat.
In HeroQuest 2, the rules engine for combat is exactly the same as using any other ability to overcome an obstacle. What you gain is that other abilities can end up being what generates the excitement, and you can get the whirly bits and the machine that goes ping out when a player says she wants her character to overcome a bunch of heavy cavalrymen with her "I am an Earth priestess" ability. Or gain the support of a bunch of dragonewts by successfully performing a "Graceful Dance" with them.
Of course RuneQuest doesn't have any kind of skill system or anything to govern those non-combat situations...oh wait...
Quote from: richaje;769477What you lose, of course, is the detailed SCA-style skirmish combats, since HQ2 simply doesn't try to model that. Additionally RQ is has an attritional mechanism to add excitement, while HQ2 focuses on pacing.
So RuneQuest focuses on what actually exists in the world, and HeroQuest focuses on the pacing of the Story we're all agreeing we are
as players, telling.
Quote from: richaje;769477Both are substantially different game engines with a substantially different set of strengths and weaknesses. But hey, different strokes for different folk.
Different strokes for different folks is one thing...
Quote from: Robin LawsRQ is about robbing newtlings in the desert for their left thigh greaves. HQ is about playing the mythic historical events of Greg Stafford's fiction.
Is quite another, as is pretending that HeroQuest is unique in getting away from the D&Disms of going toe-to-toe with giants, as RuneQuest does that quite well.
If all you think RuneQuest can do is SCA-style combats or you think that if you're doing RuneQuest sessions without having SCA-style combats, you're missing the point of the RQ system, then got news for ya, it's
you, not the system.
I guess all the people who play RuneQuest and like Glorantha should not shell out the hundreds of dollars for your Atlas, since all they want from the game system is a combat simulator?
Quote from: CRKrueger;769481Of course RuneQuest doesn't have any kind of skill system or anything to govern those non-combat situations...oh wait...
RuneQuest does have a skill system. But the skill system is a truncated engine compared to the combat system. So frex, in RuneQuest if I want to have a courtroom battle I use my Orate skill. I roll against that skill. If I succeed - hurrah, I win! If I fail - sadness ensues, because I lose!
RQ3 introduced the idea of opposed skills (although bits and pieces of that had been introduced in various RQ2 supplements if I recall), which sort of worked like a truncated combat, but without the whirly bits and machine that goes ping. One dice roll for the "defender" then one dice roll for the "attacker".
Now HeroQuest built on that and expanded it. So you have a Simple Contest which is just an opposed contest with two dice rolls, and an Extended Contest which occupies the same place as the old style combat, with lots of dice rolls and chances to use funky abilities and tactics to maximize your chances. But RQ really is combat-centric (not that there is anything wrong with it) and HQ really isn't.
As for whether either game focuses on what actually exists in the "game world", I don't subscribe to the GNS theories at all. RQ approaches the "game world" with a set of war game sensibilities, HQ approaches it with a set of story logic sensibilities. Neither is wrong or right, they are just different styles of having fun.
And yes, you can do mythic journeys with RuneQuest and you can do skirmish combat with HeroQuest. But that's not really playing to the strengths of the rule system, IMO.
As an aside, Robin Laws is also an old time RuneQuest player, as was Jonathan Tweet and Mark Rein-Hagen. For all of us, RuneQuest really was our formative game system, probably far more than AD&D. I'm hopefully not dissing RQ (I got my copy of RQ2 out on my desk right now) but like all good game systems, it does some things well, and it does some other things not so well.
Quote from: richaje;769483RuneQuest does have a skill system. But the skill system is a truncated engine compared to the combat system. So frex, in RuneQuest if I want to have a courtroom battle I use my Orate skill. I roll against that skill. If I succeed - hurrah, I win! If I fail - sadness ensues, because I lose!
RQ3 introduced the idea of opposed skills (although bits and pieces of that had been introduced in various RQ2 supplements if I recall), which sort of worked like a truncated combat, but without the whirly bits and machine that goes ping. One dice roll for the "defender" then one dice roll for the "attacker".
Now HeroQuest built on that and expanded it. So you have a Simple Contest which is just an opposed contest with two dice rolls, and an Extended Contest which occupies the same place as the old style combat, with lots of dice rolls and chances to use funky abilities and tactics to maximize your chances. But RQ really is combat-centric (not that there is anything wrong with it) and HQ really isn't.
As for whether either game focuses on what actually exists in the "game world", I don't subscribe to the GNS theories at all. RQ approaches the "game world" with a set of war game sensibilities, HQ approaches it with a set of story logic sensibilities. Neither is wrong or right, they are just different styles of having fun.
And yes, you can do mythic journeys with RuneQuest and you can do skirmish combat with HeroQuest. But that's not really playing to the strengths of the rule system, IMO.
As an aside, Robin Laws is also an old time RuneQuest player, as was Jonathan Tweet and Mark Rein-Hagen. For all of us, RuneQuest really was our formative game system, probably far more than AD&D. I'm hopefully not dissing RQ (I got my copy of RQ2 out on my desk right now) but like all good game systems, it does some things well, and it does some other things not so well.
You might want to update your "RuneQuest" assumptions a bit from your formative RQ2 to RQ6. You might find the RuneQuest people play is not the RuneQuest in your head.
As an example...
HeroQuest is written for Story-logic sensibilities - yep.
RuneQuest is written for War-game sensibilities - nope. One of those "It is known." assumptions frequently tossed around by story-logic gaming people that doesn't pass actual muster.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769484You might want to update your "RuneQuest" assumptions a bit from your formative RQ2 to RQ6. You might find the RuneQuest people play is not the RuneQuest in your head.
RQ6 came out after HeroQuest 2. Given that Loz and Pete were both involved with making HQ2, it is not surprising that it influenced their writing of MRQ2 and then RQ6. But I doubt Pete (a member of the SCA btw, just as Steve Perrin is) would disagree that combat is at the heart of the RQ6 rules, that's why it gets its own chapter with combat styles and tactical mechanisms, and other skills do not (frex, you could theoretically do the same with Orate if we wanted to have a speech-making centric game).
Loz and Pete did a great job with RQ6 and I think that is the best version of the rules to date (so much so that I find RQ3 just really clunky now). But RuneQuest and HeroQuest co-exist in different ecological niches. And that's a fine thing.
Quote from: richaje;769486But RuneQuest and HeroQuest co-exist in different ecological niches. And that's a fine thing.
It is, as long as you simply admit the niche is the difference between focusing on story-logic vs. not focusing on story-logic. Because smoke, mirrors, and Lawsian ideology aside, that's the
fundamental difference.
BTW, you do realize how ridiculously patronizing the term "formative" is right?
Hopefully Gamezone will not try any more end runs around Moon Design.
I have to agree with Krueger on this.
This sounds suspiciously like the oft trotted out "fact" that D&D is all about combat because there are lots of rules covering combat and thus there could not possibly be anything more. Despite the 30 odd years of people doing exactly that and running some massive courtly intrigue campaigns.
I have one of the early RQ boxed sets and there is nothing in it that suggests that combat is the be-all and end-all. Its just where the rules are heaviest because combat tends to be where things need it. Interaction does not need pages and pages of rules.
Im not trying to be mean here. I'll let Krueger do that aheh... But this sounds alot like parroting what others have said or just overfocusing on one thing and blind to anything that says otherwise.
They got the crowdfunding done on some Spanish or Italian site and are going through with it from what I can tell.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769501They got the crowdfunding done on some Spanish or Italian site and are going through with it from what I can tell.
That we are painfully aware of. Its the fact that GZ has tried to bypass MD twice now that is the twist. That and the fact Gamezone has not shown the rules yet or even WHAT the rules will be and will not for a month or three yet.
Its been a total circus since the start.
(http://64.136.20.22/3360335_m.gif)
Quote from: Omega;769500This sounds suspiciously like the oft trotted out "fact" that D&D is all about combat because there are lots of rules covering combat and thus there could not possibly be anything more. Despite the 30 odd years of people doing exactly that and running some massive courtly intrigue campaigns.
...and despite the fact (which is an actual fact) that the non-combat rules and mechanics far outweigh the combat rules and mechanics, both in D&D, and RQ2-6.
Quote from: Omega;769500I have one of the early RQ boxed sets and there is nothing in it that suggests that combat is the be-all and end-all. Its just where the rules are heaviest because combat tends to be where things need it. Interaction does not need pages and pages of rules.
Interaction does need pages and pages of rules as well as player-facing "funky abilities and tactics" if what the "game" is about is determining who gets to narrate this scene of the story by having the tests be Conflict Resolution.
Quote from: Omega;769500I'm not trying to be mean here. I'll let Krueger do that aheh... But this sounds alot like parroting what others have said or just overfocusing on one thing and blind to anything that says otherwise.
It is known...
Seriously though, I didn't say a damn thing until after the rules question was answered, and then the river of stereotypical arrogant bullshit started flowing...
Quote from: Omega;769500Im not trying to be mean here. I'll let Krueger do that aheh... But this sounds alot like parroting what others have said or just overfocusing on one thing and blind to anything that says otherwise.
You certainly may disagree with me, but from within the small echo chambers of the designers and writers of RuneQuest and its later progeny, this has been an issue. Pendragon, Epic, and HeroQuest were all created or commissioned to get around "perceived weaknesses" in the RuneQuest rules when applied to certain specific genres such as Gloranthan heroquesting. That is not saying RuneQuest is anything but an excellent rules system. But Pendragon handles the style of Arthurian Romance Greg wanted to play better than RuneQuest did (although you can clearly see the origins of Pendragon in some of the later RQ2 material). Same thing with Epic and HeroQuest - those were efforts to deal with perceived weaknesses the rules had in modeling certain themes in the Glorantha setting.
These "perceived weaknesses" of RuneQuest can also be big strengths - they are a big part of the reason that Sandy still runs a regular RuneQuest 3 game (which has got to be over 20 years old by now). Sandy, for example, loves the emphasis on gritty, detailed combat and armor rules that have the characters looking like misfits from a Mad Max movie. That's great stuff.
But hey, that's all subjective aesthetic taste. I am pretty sure Steve Perrin would completely disagree with me, and maybe Ken will as well. But that being said, I don't know anyone I have worked with who would not cheerfully say RuneQuest is more oriented towards combat than HeroQuest. Or Prince Valiant for that matter. Call of Cthulhu is equally combat oriented (at least in the older editions), but that's fine because regardless of how you confront Cthulhu, you are going to die or go insane.
And I should have made it clear that by RuneQuest I was referring to RQ2 and 3. I think Loz and Pete have done a great job with RQ6 and I look forward to being able to show off how Pete has resolved these "perceived weaknesses" in a completely different way from HQ2 with Adventures in Glorantha.
Quote from: Omega;769504That we are painfully aware of. Its the fact that GZ has tried to bypass MD twice now that is the twist. That and the fact Gamezone has not shown the rules yet or even WHAT the rules will be and will not for a month or three yet.
Its been a total circus since the start.
Yeah, even BBG though is kinda split it seems, the "Cult of IP" has poisoned the well against legitimate claims. It has it's own section now separate from the original.
Personally I think MD was logical, there's no way we're gonna license the name to you unless you prove you cleared it with Hasbro, because there's no way we're letting you drag our heads onto the chopping block with you.
There may be absolutely no way to prevent them from selling it in Spain however. Distributing it internationally, no clue.
This article about writing HQ character descriptions from the old Glorantha.com website might help.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071023203619/http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_descriptions.html
Quote from: CRKrueger;769510Yeah, even BBG though is kinda split it seems, the "Cult of IP" has poisoned the well against legitimate claims. It has it's own section now separate from the original.
For a while there was a heated debate. Mainly because GZ was presenting the game as being a reprint of the original. Even using the old ads and claiming the new was compatible with the old. Then claiming they did not need to credit the original designer, etc in GZs usual own worst enemy routine.
And the claims they were totally legit and had Hasbros permission, then they didnt, then they did, then they didnt need it and so on.
Its got its own seperate entry due to later claims that the rules would not be a reprint of the original. Hence its sectioned off. Board though is about 75% the same to the original. I did a comparison.
This on top of GameZone pulling repeated nationalist cards and rallying against the "jealous americans" "trolls" and so on.
As said. Their own worst enemy. All of this could have been avoided.
Quote from: soltakss;769480Personally, I like both systems, but prefer RQ a little more.
The 100 word chargen is fairly easy, you just write down your character, then underline whatever seems to be an ability or important thing. Then you rewrite it to strip down the fluff and bring out other abilities, giving you a more streamlined character.
As Jeff said, the best thing to do is to focus on keywords and ignore individual abilities, unless they are important to the character. That way, you get a short, meaningful and powerful character description that could be written on an index card, if that's what you prefer. I'd use an A4 sheet, folded in half, as they are cheaper and allow you to write other things on.
I like that idea.
As for the RQ, HQ discussion. I have yet to get my feet wet with HQ, but RQ6 is working very well. Hard to say why. Perhaps because it slides into the background and just does its thing.
What is Epic?
Also doesn't HQ2 have some sort of rule that the GM is supposed to put their thumb on the scales at dramatic moments? More than any other factor, that would separate it from RQ (or pretty much anything I would want to play). Though it's probably easy to remove. That and extended contests for social combat--I've never seen it done in a way that works for me.
Quote from: Arminius;769535What is Epic?
Also doesn't HQ2 have some sort of rule that the GM is supposed to put their thumb on the scales at dramatic moments? More than any other factor, that would separate it from RQ (or pretty much anything I would want to play). Though it's probably easy to remove. That and extended contests for social combat--I've never seen it done in a way that works for me.
Don't worry Eliot, we're still in our formative years apparently, someday we'll grow up and rolepl...er create Collaborative Fiction with the best of em! :D
I've been surprised how many old RQ/Chaosium old hands have boarded the HQ train. Starting with Greg Stafford of course!
OTOH when you engage many of these folks you find that they've had very little contact with hardcore Forgery; it's more like it was adopted, with Mike Holmes as a sort of St. Paul putting his own stamp on the reception and interpretation. Meanwhile the classic Chaosium approach is surprisingly railroady--Griffin Mountain is the exception. One would think that a set of rules with such gritty verisimilitude would have more sandbox support at the campaign level.
With HQ v. RQ it's obviously a fallacy that proportion of rules for various activities dictates the course of the game. But complex rules are going to turn off some people, including a good number who aren't that interested in the thing handled by those rules. Conversely mechanical approaches have a variety of benefits: fun of rolling dice; making it easier for the GM to adjudicate without having to improvise a method; supporting impartiality; moving things in unexpected directions; enforcing consequences. So I can see why BG is interested in this game given his thread on deemphasizing combat. Personally, though, I'm long worn out by encounters with HQ advocates who downplay the negatives of the system--I'd rather just have something that's lighter across the board.
Although there's some truth in what Jeff says regarding how the RQ combat system is often cited as a feature (and, indeed, may prove to be an attractive feature for some roleplayers), Pete and I have continually de-emphasised the role of combat in the game.
If you compare Character Creation, Combat and Magic, Combat receives far less page count than either of these chapters. We've also tried to communicate the philosophy of 'combat as last resort' to deter the inevitable mountains of bodies and limbs that people tend to associate with RQ.
When combat does take place, then it should feel thrilling and dangerous. It should be able to capture the wonderful panache of Wesley and Inigo Montoya as well as the brutality of Ridley Scott's Gladiator (we think it does). But we don't regard combat as central to RQ. In our long-running Mythic Britain campaign, combats were quite rare (and when they happened, tended to be over quickly). Instead we had a lot more politicking, alliance building/breaking, deep loves and hatreds and, in the final part of the campaign, adventuring directly in Celtic Myth (the characters' trip to Gorfannon's Forge was pure HeroQuesting and felt like it was lifted from the Mabinigion).
So RQ can do all the things HQ can. It does them differently, but as a rule system it's really only confined by the imagination of the GM and players: something that's true of every RPG. I also think that while combat was the central core of the system in previous editions, RQ6 offers a huge amount of scope (using the core d100 mechanics) to tackle many different forms of challenge and conflict - much as HQ does.
And for the record, both Pete and I use HQ for certain kinds of games where the atmosphere requires a particular narrative pace, and the drive of the HQ mechanics are perfect. In our recent Culture game, we actually merged RQ and HQ, using the former for the actions of our physical avatars (sent to deal with a barbarous species) while HQ was the perfect platform for running epic space battles between our Abominator Class Fast Response Pickets.
:)
Quote from: Loz;769999Although there's some truth in what Jeff says regarding how the RQ combat system is often cited as a feature (and, indeed, may prove to be an attractive feature for some roleplayers), Pete and I have continually de-emphasised the role of combat in the game.
If you compare Character Creation, Combat and Magic, Combat receives far less page count than either of these chapters. We've also tried to communicate the philosophy of 'combat as last resort' to deter the inevitable mountains of bodies and limbs that people tend to associate with RQ.
When combat does take place, then it should feel thrilling and dangerous. It should be able to capture the wonderful panache of Wesley and Inigo Montoya as well as the brutality of Ridley Scott's Gladiator (we think it does). But we don't regard combat as central to RQ. In our long-running Mythic Britain campaign, combats were quite rare (and when they happened, tended to be over quickly). Instead we had a lot more politicking, alliance building/breaking, deep loves and hatreds and, in the final part of the campaign, adventuring directly in Celtic Myth (the characters' trip to Gorfannon's Forge was pure HeroQuesting and felt like it was lifted from the Mabinigion).
So RQ can do all the things HQ can. It does them differently, but as a rule system it's really only confined by the imagination of the GM and players: something that's true of every RPG. I also think that while combat was the central core of the system in previous editions, RQ6 offers a huge amount of scope (using the core d100 mechanics) to tackle many different forms of challenge and conflict - much as HQ does.
And for the record, both Pete and I use HQ for certain kinds of games where the atmosphere requires a particular narrative pace, and the drive of the HQ mechanics are perfect. In our recent Culture game, we actually merged RQ and HQ, using the former for the actions of our physical avatars (sent to deal with a barbarous species) while HQ was the perfect platform for running epic space battles between our Abominator Class Fast Response Pickets.
:)
As awesome as Conflict Resolution can be for something like a space battle, you know we're going to put your guys thumbs to the screws until we get a Unofficial Space Combat Module for the non existent supplement that shall not be named.
Disclaimer: I did not just threaten Lawrence with actual medieval torture.
Quote from: CRKrueger;770033As awesome as Conflict Resolution can be for something like a space battle, you know we're going to put your guys thumbs to the screws until we get a Unofficial Space Combat Module for the non existent supplement that shall not be named.
Disclaimer: I did not just threaten Lawrence with actual medieval torture.
No, you didn't. You just casually implied that
I would join in on a potential thumbscrewing mob.
Which I won't, of course. Preposterous! Though, such a supplement would be awfully nice...
Quote from: baragei;770046No, you didn't. You just casually implied that I would join in on a potential thumbscrewing mob.
Which I won't, of course. Preposterous! Though, such a supplement would be awfully nice...
Disclaimer: Whenever I say "we" it is the "royal we".
Disclaimer: As far as I know, I am not actually royalty.
Quote from: CRKrueger;770054Disclaimer: Whenever I say "we" it is the "royal we".
Disclaimer: As far as I know, I am not actually royalty.
Least we know which floor of the dungeon he ended up on...
QuoteSECOND FLOOR DUNGEON!
Jewelry department.
Leg chains, ankle chains,
neck chains, wrist chains,
thumb screws and nooses
of the very finest rope.
And we still have not solved the problem of which side the ducks eat their toast... butter side up or...
Quote from: CRKrueger;770033As awesome as Conflict Resolution can be for something like a space battle, you know we're going to put your guys thumbs to the screws until we get a Unofficial Space Combat Module for the non existent supplement that shall not be named.
Actually I 'm sure hypothetical pages 29-35 of the supplement that shall not be named has exactly what you are not supposed to be looking for... ;)
[/Jedi Hand Wave]
Quote from: Pete Nash;770062Actually I 'm sure hypothetical pages 29-35 of the supplement that shall not be named has exactly what you are not supposed to be looking for... ;)
[/Jedi Hand Wave]
Damn you and your memory obfuscating powers! Should have done more then skimmed the guns and Jedi section. :banghead:
Disclaimer: I am neither confirming or denying that Pete Nash is a Jedi or whether not he gets invited to Sith parties.
This is not the supplement you're looking for.
You can go about your business.
Move along.
I still have some old Hero Wars books, but the apparent collection needed just to get a decent start -- and the chaotic mass of the texts -- put me off even before the first line-wide revision. Never got around actually to running the game, and never saw anyone running it locally (although Mongoose RQ must have had some legs since the flgs stocked it).
It looked as if it should be better than RQ at handling hero/superhero level stuff a la WB&RM. Not sure about scenes with more than a few figures, though; old D&D has been my thing for that (or DBA for really big battles).
My impression is that HQ has more "narrativist" elements.
As to the free-form character write-up, I thought that was a great idea.
I like the "hit point" equivalent (forget what it's called) in extended contests. Along with d20, that smooths the probability curve compared with Risus. It's especially nifty, I think, for really long-term projects (of which several may be ongoing in parallel).
All theoretical appreciation, as I haven't played.
As Loz mentioned earlier I do occasionally use HQ, ironically enough the last time being to play out a battle between Culture warships and a sublimed Dra'Azon guardian. The reason I utilised the HQ rules in an otherwise (non-combat) RQ6 game was that the fight was very abstract and I was employing a lot of high level physics as part of the battle descriptions.
Whilst I like playing in HQ games, I personally tend to find it very draining as a GM to run for anything more than a one-off game. In campaigns its quite difficult to ensure that narrated effects and powers remain consistent (both by the players and the GM), and for things like combat I like to have a bit more rules support to save myself from sounding like a scratched record when describing the to and fro of a contest... especially when my mental alacrity has noticeably atrophied from my younger GMing days.
Quote from: Skywalker;769394http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest_(role-playing_game)
Yeah... the boardgame still looks better.
Two D20s??? That should be a handful of d6s, thank you very much.
Actually, the RPG and the boardgame aren't even connected, as far as I can tell. HeroQuest RPG is tied to Runequest. Hero Quest the boardgame is based off of Warhammer.
Quote from: everloss;771095Yeah... the boardgame still looks better.
Two D20s??? That should be a handful of d6s, thank you very much.
Actually, the RPG and the boardgame aren't even connected, as far as I can tell. HeroQuest RPG is tied to Runequest. Hero Quest the boardgame is based off of Warhammer.
Correct. Totally unrelated.
Quote from: Enlightened;769464BG, you should have gotten Other Worlds instead of HeroQuest.
Other Worlds is the same type of game but with much better mechanics.
Here's a thread where I made a bunch of character templates for Other Worlds. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?691122-Other-Worlds-1001-templates)
:nods sagely:
HQ is one of those games where different people read different things into it. If you're coming at things from a storygamey, Holmesian perspective (after Mike Holmes), OW might be for you. If you're coming at things from a more GM-led, Lawsian perspective, possibly HQ2 would be more your cup of tea.
Personally I am a Holmesian all the way! :-)