Jump to content

godsmonkey

Regulars
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About godsmonkey

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    plainyg since 1980
  • Current games
    Just started a RuneQuest Glorantha campaign, getting back into GMing and playing after a long hiatus.

    Also experimenting with a rules variant HeroQuest game, set in the Shadowrun universe.
  • Location
    west palm beach FL
  • Blurb
    If you're in the WPB area, and want to game, let me know.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This was the first I have seen of the game rules, but it was laid out easy enough to understand, and even use as the basis of another game. All that's needed is to change "coin" to D2 (unless you want to keep coins to establish mood in the game) Make a few changes to skills to fit the mood (For example firearms for a modern setting) and add any ornamental rules to flesh out the new game. The core mechanics are nothing more than a dice pool system, Im guessing the first of its kind in RPGs? Even more evidence of the legacy of Greg Stafford.
  2. Someone did just that: https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/prince-valiant-cheat-sheet.pdf
  3. I assume youre looking to GM? How are you thinking of doing this? Roll20, Fantasy Grounds or some such? Skype? Google Hangouts? My only HQ experience is a one off of ShadowRun I did using the HQ rules. Im not even sure I fully grokked it, but my players seemed to enjoy it. I am however somewhat versed in Glorantha, and have been gaming for many years, so depending on how you plan to proceed, I'd be interested. Im EST so only an hour ahead of you, so time wont be a big factor.
  4. GMTA! I was brainstorming something like this myself. The idea of a D20 totally front-facing game holds some appeal to me. It has a fairly high HQ feel with some Dungeon World added in. That would have really been the case with a 2D6 resolution. I was thinking for extended contests, each bump of 5 (say marginal victory to minor victory), would inflict one "wound". I typically play all my games using a "Mooks, Minions and Majors" house rule. Mopks take one "hit" to beat, Minions, 3, and Majors 5. that translates nicely to a 1/3/5 extended contest. If you want a more variable resolution, you can use the old HeroWars or HQ1 idea of AP. In those rules, the atarting AP was equal to the skill you begin the contest with. That would not work with your game. So you would need to determine starting AP some other way. Perhaps 10 + 3x the starting skill, plus modifiers? The player then wagers a number of AP, and rolls D20 losing or gaining AP: Complete Defeat: Lose 4X AP bid Major Defeat: Lose 2X AP bid Minor Defeat: Lose AP bid Marginal Defeat: Lose 1/2 AP bid Marginal Victory: Opponent loses 1/2 AP bid Minor Victory: Opponent loses AP Bid Major Victory: Opponent loses 2x AP bid Complete Victory: Opponent loses 4X AP bid. Roll of natural 1: automatic failure. Opponent GAINS the AP bid and adds to their AP pool. Roll natural 20: Character gains the base AP bid, adding it to the AP pool. Thanks for this post, and indulging my brain-storm ideas.
  5. If as game master, you feel killing the party is the best outcome for the narrative, then do it. The threat of character death should be ever present, at least in my opinion.
  6. I feel like Benjamin Button in that I went from RQII in the 80s and am just now getting into playing HeroQuest. But really, the smart thing to do is make the New material RQ friendly. I'm just glad Glorantha is seeing a new golden age
  7. When you can, I'd be interested in seeing your house rules.
  8. Agree on the first point, not so much the second. But Like YGMV, YHQMV. For me, and my players, I like the variability of the AP wagers. It seems like the players got far more involved that the more abstract RP system. However, I can see instances where a simple contest is too macro, and AP bidding would take too long for the level of importance. So maybe, use all three methods?
  9. Like you, I'm new to these rules, and am trying to treat how to use them. The first to five extended contest just doesn't fire my imagination. I did really enjoy the AP wagering system and am going to use it. I do kind of feel that by making the system so flexible, it's lost some edge. It makes me wonder why they switched from the wager system, to an even more abstract extended contest system.
  10. I found a copy from a third party seller on Amazon, but you can find them on eBay as well I also found the hero wars books. The two systems are similar, but there are differences in character generation especially. However, I went with hq2 on character generation, because it's more streamlined.
  11. godsmonkey

    Hero Wars

    So, a follow up. (I mentioned this in the thread about extended contests as well) I bought both copies of Hero Wars, and first addition HeroQuest. I was able to run my normal RQ:G group with quickly converted characters, and used a few house rules (most notably, a flat 20 AP monitor for everyone.) Using a combination of chained contests, and AP wagering. Atgxtg asked if there was a reasons for wanting those copies... well, after running the game, and especially once players started using AP bids instead of just the chained contest results, combat got FAR more interesting. I have spent the early part of today finding used or NOS copies of several of the books,and am now planning on running a first edition HeroQuest game. It's fast, its fun, and there is just the *right* amount of crunch for my players and I.
  12. Earlier in the thread I made mention of an alternate system I was considering for extended contests, since like the OP players, I felt the HQ2 extended contests were a bit boring, and lacked strategy, or even risk/reward since everything is boiled down to an opposed D20. Last night, I convinced my regular RQ group to try out my idea of chained contests, and a condition monitor of 20 Action Points. I used the Edge and Handicap rules, and then at the last minute, gave the option of bidding AP, or just using chained contests. Chained contests, while perfectly usable, gave a bit of a feel of sameness. It was always the same point outcomes. Then one player FINALLY decided to risk big, while engaged with the two leading officers of the war band they were fighting. So the Humakti warrior player bet 10 AP, and rolled a Crit! ( use high roll, with the actual number being the Crit number) The opponent failed, resulting in a huge AP transfer, and took out the officer who had been slowly getting whittled down. I am now a solid believer in AP wagering. It certainly adds drama to the contests, and makes every character decision more important than just rolling the dice in a first to five, or chained contests. Im not sure if Im going to continue to use the condition monitor I created, or use the HQ1 AP system (2 times starting ability) But, I AM going to try to convince the group to convert to HQ1, with elements of HQ2, instead of RQG. Its a faster paced game, and from a GM standpoint much easier to run, since there are far fewer stats to track. Corvantir, You may want to look into the HQ1 extended contests, and AP bidding. That MAY be the trick your players are looking for.
  13. Neither HeroQuest 1 nor Hero Wars had a condition monitor. that's me adding it to the game because I think I'm more like your players in that the idea of having some means of telling how close to defeated I am and engages me more that just a number of resolution points that reset every time I engage a new foe. Thinking about what your players are looking for, maybe the HQ1 extended contest would be to the groups liking: 1. State what your hero is trying to do and which ability he uses for his first action. 2. Figure your starting AP total using the target number plus any source of additional AP you may have. Advantage points (AP) measure how well a hero is doing against his opponent in an extended contest. Each contestant’s starting advantage point total equals the target number of the ability he uses in his first round of the contest, including all modifiers and augments. The AP include +20 for each level of mastery, and can also be increased by followers. 3. The narrator selects the resistance and figures its starting AP total. Advantage Points and Combat HeroQuest combat is modeled on popular fictional sources. You rarely see or read about fighters delivering a succession of permanent wounds to each other until one of them finally keels over. Instead, they jockey for a favorable position, ducking, dodging, knocking each other over, tossing each other around, and smashing up the furniture. Up until the final blow, they generally deal out only minor bruises and cuts. Advantage points thus reflect much more than the contestants’ physical condition: o Advantage points measure a fighter’s position: Is he upright, or has he been thrown to the ground? Does he have his balance? Does he have the advantage of high ground, or is he fighting from below? Is he on even, uncluttered ground and therefore able to move easily, or is he encumbered by hazards such as clinging vegetation, broken flooring, sucking mud, or cliff edges? Does he have his weapon in hand? If not, is he close to objects that make for impressive and entertaining impromptu weapons or shields? o Advantage points also measure a character’s emotional state. Is he ready and willing to fight, or has the instinctive fear response that impels us to run from danger taken over? Is he clear-headed enough to make splitsecond decisions, or is he dominated by anger, a thirst for violence, or concern for his reputation? o Advantage points eventually determine if the hero is wounded, but they are not “hit points.” Until a character drops to 0 or fewer advantage points, any wounds will be superficial. They may well cause considerable pain, ruining his concentration and slowing him down, and even heroes that are never hit will begin to tire as they fight through their third or fourth round. But in the end, if a hero finishes the fight with a positive AP total, he is not wounded. The last sentence gives me pause from using the old HQ1 rules. If you have positive action points at the end of a contest, you are NOT wounded. Using the idea of a condition monitor, and chained contests, there is a possibility of lingering effects/wounds. I have my RQ:G group playing on Sunday, maybe I can convince them to give my house ruled HQ2 extended contests a go, and report back.
  14. That was my logic with the condition monitor. One thing that bugs me, Rules as Written is if I defeat one opponent, then engage another, it FEELS like I have suddenly healed up the RP scored against me in the prior contest. ( I know that you determine results at the end, and I could be a walking corpse.) With a condition tracker, all RPs scored are kept track of so while I took out opponent A & B pretty easy, when a fresh opponent C comes along, I am worse for wear, not starting with a fresh monitor. Another option is to keep all penalties from chained contests when engaging the new foe. So even though your RP track against the foe starts fresh, you enter the contest with penalties. I know it adds a bit of crunch, just sharing my thoughts.
  15. If I'm following right, this is a half way point between chained contests with penalties after each contest (0 -3,-6,-9, -12) and the contest ends when a contestant reaches 5 RP against a foe? That would certainly make combat feel more deadly, and would introduce something of a death spiral, but not add too much bulk to record keeping. I'm not sure if that fixes your players original concern: But as others have mentioned, adding modifiers for tactics, terrain and such, might do the trick. Using the equipment modifiers to the roll, and not the result as I suggested might also give them more of a feeling of tactics ("Oh, my dagger gives a +1, but my broadsword a +2? I draw my sword!" "I duck behind that rock for cover from the archers, how much of a penalty that give them?" and so on ... )
×
×
  • Create New...