Ian Cooper

>since a fireball is traditionally an area effect

Are they a mob? If you are treating them in game as a mob, i.e. despite being many of them, they just have one action, then the fireball targets all of them, but their resistance drops to that of an individual, instead of being pushed up for being a mob. So for example if you have a mob of Orcs, at a resistance of 20, but the player fireballs them, i might drop the resistance to 14 to represent the area effect nature of the weapon.

> they are all individuals

This is slightly tougher because you would need individual contests against all of them, and if you didn't knock them out, they would enter the contest with other members of the group uninjured. That doesn't really emulate what you are after, even if you just roll once and apply the results to everyone.  In that case I would probably treat is as an 'unrelated action' use the simple contest vs the mob of orcs to determine their fate. In QuestWorlds I might treat a defeat for the orcs as half of them are dead, the other half are at -6 due to wounds, I might give the orcs a -3 if they got a victory to represent flash burns anyway. One of the changes in QuestWorlds is to let you give penalties on a victory or bonuses on a defeat

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

But, if you use them and the Adventurer is engaged in a contest and some orcs come running around the corner, it all depends on how you see this:

 

I am going to try and address the issue of 'initiative' and parallel and sequential actions in the Core Rules.

A summary would be: Either the story makes it clear who has the initiative or the PCs do by default. Whoever has the initiative gets to say what they do in an exchange first. The other side respond (however they wish to that). You roll for the exchange and the GM (as always) narrates the outcome. If you win the exchange, you most likely have initiative for the next exchange, presuming that makes sense in the fiction. In this way control shifts back and forth. There are exceptions here. Extended as opposed to Scored Contests use AP bids to figure out initiative in a group contest, so use that in preference there.

On 8/27/2020 at 5:25 AM, redmoongoddess said:

Sorry for not replying to this until well after a month...but I need something to be clarified, was the Fronrit thing something that was "going to happen" that is now "we don't know if we'll do it or not"? Or was it always the later?

We don't know if we'll do it or not. It all depends on reception to QuestWorlds

On 4/26/2020 at 2:04 PM, Aprewett said:

Hi, not sure if you are looking for feedback or not here. My first stumbling block was section 2.3.2.2, third paragraph, second and third sentence. That just left me hanging, I really felt like it needed to continue the example to show what the story obstacle might be, to then hightlight why the evasion is not the obstacle. I am probably missing something.

Go here to raise issues: https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/issues

On 9/23/2020 at 9:35 PM, Corvantir said:

I have spotted something that seems to be a leftover from the "Game Formerly Known as HeroQuest". As Story Points are no more spent before a Group Simple Contest is resolved, the sentence in green is not needed anymore.

 

10.3.3.3 Boosting Outcomes
Because they average together the outcomes of multiple participants, group simple contests tend to
flatten outcomes, making victories more likely to be marginal or minor than major or complete.
To overcome this flattening effect, if the outcome of a group simple contest is a tie or victory, you
may spend one or more story points to purchase a boost; a boost assures a clearer victory.

The cost varies by the number of PCs participating:
• 1 story point for 1-3 PCs.
• 2 story points for 4-6 PCs.
• 3 story points for 7-9 PCs.
• and so on…

You may spend twice as many story points as required to gain a double boost. The points may be
spent by any combination of players. They remain spent no matter how the contest resolves. You may
continue to spend story points to bump your individual result.

The boost increases the collective victory level by one step. A double boost increases it by two steps.

 

If its in that section, it's part of the material intended to release older rule variants under the SRD but not part of the new game

On 11/16/2020 at 6:29 PM, yamsur said:

Yes, there are no language restrictions

Hi,

I have a question for the Chaosium team: can we create universes in French by translating all or part of the QuestWorlds SRD rules ?

I have the same question of principle for BRP ?

 

"Salut,

j'ai une question pour l'équipe de Chaosium : peut-on créer des univers en Francais en traduisant tout ou partie des règles de QuestWorlds SRD ?

J'ai la même question de principe pour BRP ?"

Hey @Loïc,

Only just seen this. I have my third group going through the adventures at the minute, and they always surprise me with taking in the game and me in some new direction each time.

Hope you are still enjoying it.

Ian

I'm much more likely to post at the FB QuestWorlds group, as I only drop to this forum occasionally. I'll try to circle back for a bit  to pick up  responses on this thread.

It's worth bearing in mind that we have never been able to get the HeroQuest entry on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia regards the boardgame as what everyone knows the brand applies to. That brand confusion is not a great position for us.

If we change the generic name to QuestWorlds then, because outside of Glorantha our use of HeroQuest has no brand recognition, we are faced with the question of what to do with HeroQuest Glorantha.

It remains likely that we will want to bring QuestWorlds players to Glorantha to grow our numbers, over bringing existing BRP Glorantha fans to QuestWorlds. They have RQG and it's going to be a low number that look over the fence to see what their neighbour is up to. So I don't think the HeroQuest branding really helps us grow our base. Better to bring them via QuestWorlds to Glorantha. And that means the brand identity works in our favour. "Oh look another QuestWorlds genre pack. Oh and it is set in the world of Glorantha that I heard about," is more likely than "HeroQuest is just another name for QuestWorlds, and not the MB boardgame, so I will pick that up."

Hi guys,

Whilst I am busy with the QuestWorlds Core book, and the Augments line, I pop in here less. it's just a time issue. As Greg once said, if you are writing on the forums you are not creating.

Still, if you want to track progress on QuestWorlds this may be the easiest forum right now: https://www.facebook.com/groups/205528290149281

I'll try to pop in here too, but no guarantees

It's something I would like to do, at some point. But realistically we have to increase the market share for QuestWorlds/HeroQuest.

PS It's not true to say there are no books planned for HeroQuest Gorantha, at least one is very close to completion.

it's likely that we will cover Supers in the Core Book and the have Ron's treatment as a follow up book

The correct runes are giving on the header introducing the NPC

It's quite possible to define a breakout ability that not everyone who has the keyword has. For example I might take

Pilot 17

   Bullseye Womp Rats +1

Now not every pilot learned their skills on Tatooine, so not every Pilot keyword can get Bullseye Womp Rats. Now, if someone has that skill and is attempting to run the trench on the Death Star I would give them a lower TN, because the genre says that farmboy flying skills save the day in Star Wars.

3 hours ago, Archivist said:

Is there any way to generate a temporary Flaw from a poor conflict outcome? It seems like this would be a fun optional rule. 

There is nothing in RAW to do that. Mechanically, we just have consequences of defeat, which are measured as states of adversity. But if you wanted to use flaws to tag 'injuries' it's a valid rules change for you to make for your game. We probably would not recommend you using a state of adversity as well.

3 hours ago, Archivist said:

What do the penalties apply to. Just the abilities used in the conflict? All abilities? Just where it makes sense

GM's choice. Most of the time it makes sense to be either (1) An ability used in the conflict (2) Future attempts to obtain the prize. But the GM is at liberty to choose what makes sense in genre.

3 hours ago, Archivist said:

How do you keep track of the states of adversity from multiple sources. If I get a sprain (narrative description of damage from conflict 2) then move one more track down (narrative description of damage from conflict 2) because I've seen something sanity blasting, do I need to write that down somewhere since they might affect different abilities or recover at different rates? or is recovery just an overall thing (regardless of source if you're at level X here's how long it takes to get back to normal)

Yes, you need to track them. Some character sheets have had a section to track these.

I tend to review at the beginning of each session, as they may stimulate further adventure in this session, or have faded.

I don't always impose or grant them. Only when I think the contest is likely to have consequences in the story. Sometimes the contest didn't really have story impact, so I don't want it to have numerical impact either

6 hours ago, g33k said:

Dunno, man...

If you go back far enough, you'll find Chaosium has already produced Questworld.

The plural makes all the difference... but the idea, of something open that others could utilize, is one reason we liked the name

1 hour ago, jrutila said:

Great thing this is out now!

About Group Simple Contest boosts @David Scott in some other thread said that the boosts can be bought after everyone has rolled.

Now, in QW2.2 in chapter 4.5.3 it is quite clearly stated that boosts can be purchased before the contest. Is this now the final ruling about boosts?

I'd not seen @David Scott's suggestion. Let me get together with him and see if that is something we want to correct.

1 hour ago, Corvantir said:

Thank you very much for this SRD.   👍

I am currently running two campaigns with HeroQuest: Glorantha and don't feel the need to convert to QuestWorld though. But I have skimmed through the document and there are already some changes I will make based on this SRD (the new Resistance Table, the new Consequences of Defeat Table). And I am now considering the expanded Chained Contests rules as an alternative to Scored Contests if my players don't bite them or if I want the action to feel grittier.

This SRD is also a very useful reference as there is a lot of clarified content.

If you are playing HQG today, this will hopefully clarify,  provide some tweaks to existing rules, and some options. But it's not significantly different.

2 hours ago, g33k said:

Is it done yet?

</snark, based wholly on how unreasonable we fans can be... >

I'll check on the Wyrm's Footnotes ad from 1987 and see when we promised it... it was probably next year 😉

1 hour ago, Archivist said:

When can I get this in a book form.

We are working on a new core book.

44 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

So I'm reading through it now and liking what I see, but, uh... you mind toning down the bold text a bit? I get that the point is to emphasize important words, but right now so much is bolded that it really doesn't emphasize anything and just makes me desensitized to bolding.

We wanted to clearly distinguish when we were using a word, like outcome, to refer to a game rule, or just generally. We use terms that can be confused, even in context, so we wanted to be clear as to intent. Any use of bold highlights a game term.

16 minutes ago, Tindalos said:

Just wanting to check something.

The Jonstown Compendium Content Guidelines say that you can use Questworlds when making material for the compendium. The Questworlds OGL says  you cannot make Gloranthan using it.

I'm hoping that means if you make Gloranthan scenarios/content using the questworld rules you have to publish it via the Compendium and not independently, rather than changing the Jonstown Compendium so that Questworlds isn't allowed at all?

Yeah, it just means that you have to use the JC

23 minutes ago, Roko Joko said:

I expect people will have feedback.  For example I just found a confusing sentence that I think was probably mis-edited (the second sentence of section 2.0, beginning "Stories advance by ..." - it's a run-on sentence and very confusing to me.)  There might also be typo reports, questions, and other kinds of feedback.  Could you tell us what kinds of feedback you want and where/how we should give it?

Two options. If you feel comfortable with that approach, raise a GitHub issue. If, not wait a day or so and I will start an errata thread.

The good news is our turn around on these will be fast, as the artifacts are generated

1 hour ago, Oracle said:

Started with trying to download the SRD ... but all GitHub on questworls.chaosium.com related links fail with a 404 (Page not found) error currently ...

Download from https://www.chaosium.com/questworlds-system-reference-document/ without any issue ...

Should be fixed