Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Corvantir last won the day on March 29 2018

Corvantir had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

111 Excellent

About Corvantir

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • RPG Biography
    Started RPGs in 1982 though we really started role playing the following year when we dropped D&D in favor of RQ2. RQ3 detracted me from Glorantha and I am now getting back to this wonderful setting thanks to HeroQuest 2. It seems I am bound with second editions as far as Glorantha is concerned.
  • Current games
    I am currently running a few one shots from time to time using a house ruled version of Free Universal (FU) or a home made compact version of FATE.
    I currently have two projects, a Solomon Kane campaign (using my home made compact FATE) and after that I would like to run a HeroQuest: Glorantha campaign.
  • Location
    Toulouse (France)
  • Blurb
    I am 48 years old and I am lucky enough to live with the most extraodinary woman in the universe.
    I like hiking, jazz music, reading and... guess what!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thank you for your answer. It's cool to give us such options. This is how I like generic game rules. A set of core rules and options showing us the various possibilites and ways to customize our experience. 👍
  2. Thanks for the link. 👍 I like the layout and the rules seem to be better explained than in HQ2 and HQG. I hope Action Points are just an option though and that Extended Contests can also be resolved through the use of Resolution Points.
  3. Unless I am missing something, I see no difference between the List Method and the As-you-go Method. In the List Method, you have a Keyword (the other Keywords used in your campaign are free) and then pick 10 abilities right from the start. In the As-you-go Method, you start with a Concept that includes a Keyword and an Adjective and then add abilities while playing until you have a total of 11 abilities (your Keyword, the Adjective and 9 additional abilities). I assume that the Keywords used in the campaign are also free but it is not clearly stated though. In both cases you assign a score of 17 to your best ability and earn a basic score of 13 in all the other ones. This means that you end up with 11 abilities (with free additional Keywords) and can distribute the same number of points (20) whatever the character creation method. About the Breakout Abilities without a +1, I have not found what you are pointing at in the Creating Genre Packs section of HQ2. Can you give me a page number? In the Gaming in Glorantha section, are you pointing at the spells? If this is the case, the spells are not Breakout Abilities (and thus don't have a +1). However, a spell is part of a Grimoire that IS a Breakout Ability with a +1.
  4. As far as I know, HQ2 and HQG character creation are close but are each their own beast. The HQG character rules are not an option from HQ2 and are even different from the ones you can find in the Gaming in Glorantha section of HQ2. As far as I understand the rules, you don't earn another ability slot if you chose to make a flaw of your distinguishing characteristic. About the lack of trade-off, I would reply that the HeroQuest 2 rules are not about optimizing your character but about creating the character you want to play. You will find a summary of both character creation rules in the following file: HQ2G_Character_Creation_Summary.pdf
  5. This post is just the result of an Edit attempt gone wrong. 😁
  6. Thanks for this clarification. This is something I have done instinctively until Aprewett's questions raised valid points I didn't thought about before. It is sometimes as if the authors of HQ2 had forgotten to write things that were obvious for them but that are not for those that didn't playtested the game system. In my opinion, HeroQuest mainly needs a more accessible prose, some clarifications and a lot of examples, really a lot of them. This game system can be confusing because of its innovative concepts. So it needs varied examples showing us how it can be used in many different contexts and with conditions changing during contests of various scales. If the rules are the tools, I see the examples as an users' manual. And I think that there are not enough of them in HQ2 and HQG. I am the kind of persons that needs to be shown how things are working in order to grasp them efficiently. This is the reason why I am not playing any PC game that doesn't have a good tutorial. More examples in HQ2 would be a good tutorial. As far as I am concerned, HQ2's learning curve is too steep, especially if one considers the simplicity of its rules. I have played 9 long sessions thus far and I am still considering myself as a beginner. To my eyes, the complexity of HQ2 does not lie in its rules but in the way to handle them because of their flexibility and infinite possibilities.
  7. I don't know if it is still accurate but it seems to me that Conversion Guides, like the RQ Classic to RQG one, were considered at a time. That would be great and enough for me.
  8. @Aprewett, the players won because one of the characters was the last to stand up. A side wins an Extended Contest as soon as there are no more contestants on the opposite side. One of the Heroes is the last to stand, they win. Their goal was to defeat the Ghoul, it is defeated. You then look at the Consequence of Defeat inflicted upon the Ghoul to determine the Level of Victory, which means by how much they succeeded. If it helps, you can read the Level of Victories otherwise, like this : Complete Defeat > No, and... and... Major Defeat > No, and... Minor Defeat > No Marginal Defeat > No, but... Marginal Victory > Yes, but... Minor Victory > Yes Major Victory > Yes, and... Complete Victory > Yes, and... and... Your players earned a Marginal Victory. This is a "yes, but..." result. So YES, the players have defeated the Ghoul, BUT it managed to escape (or whatever @jajagappa gave as an example a few posts earlier). If we consider the Ghoul, this is a Marginal Defeat, a "No, but..." result. So NO, it didn't kill the characters, BUT it managed to escape, it is Hurt. @godsmonkey, I have read the Extended Contests rules of HQ1 this weekend. Yes, I agree that there is definitely something interesting in the HQ1 Action Points (AP). It could well fill my players' needs. If my first plans don't work, this is definitely something to test. I might even test it with a one shot someday. I also think that HQ2 and HQ1 are closer than what I thought. Many Tactical Options of HQ2 seem to me as if they were bids in disguise. I think that HQ2 plays faster than HQ1 though. It feels somehow more natural to me than HQ1.
  9. @Aprewett, the degree of success and the consequences are linked but are two things. When you frame a contest, the players state their goal and then their strategies.After that, do the same We then play the Extended Contest to determine who wins, the players or their opponents. The final Degree of Success then tells us by how much they succeed or fail. The Consequences are not directly indicating whether the Heroes succeed or fail, this is the Degree of Success computed from the losers' Consequences that does. In your case, the players earned a Marginal Victory. As the goal of the players was to defeat the Ghoul, the ghoul is defeated but is only Hurt in the process. May be as it managed to scamper away. If their goal had been to kill the Ghoul, the Ghoul would be dead, because it was their goal and they succeeded. The Ghoul is dead even if it is a Marginal Victory only.
  10. Thanks for the explanation @godsmonkey, I get it. 👍 As it has been said earlier: interesting!
  11. This is what I am thinking about and something that I have not done enough thus far. A better vision of the overall scene, like a rough map with the relative positions of the characters and their opponents, along with some terrain features, could also encite the opposition and the players to try things in order to change the situation to their advantage. As far as a condition tracker is concerned, this is what I think I am trying to achieve with my Condition Modifiers "House Rules". I don't know the HQ1 game system enough though, so there might be differences I can't catch.
  12. As far as I am concerned, I wouldn't change anything in the HQ2/G rules. I know another group I am planning a Glorantha campaign for that I am pretty sure will not be bothered by the original rules. These players are more familiar with narrative games and improvisation and will catch the opportunity to describe their actions in a colorful manner. I still have to practice how to foster interesting Extended Contests though. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, if neither plans work for this group, I will come back here to pick some ideas. I will avoid things adding too much crunch though.
  13. Yes, it is a bit like Chained Contests but tied to the original HQ2/G Extended Contest rules. The less the original rules are changed the better, in my opinion. It is addressing one issue only as they are also "complaining" that they don't feel like they are being hit when RP are scored against them. It is as if they were so used to hit points that they are missing them. Strategies will be addressed in another way. Modifiers can do the trick from time to time, so do Plot Augments. They will adopt strategies because I will show them how to do it through the actions and reactions of the NPC. I would prefer strategies to be a matter of decisions rather than a matter of rule options used to get a mechanical advantage over the opponents.
  • Create New...