Ian Cooper

I'm hoping that we will continue to get product into your hands, so that you can continue to use HQG for all your Glorantha gaming. Thanks @daskindt for your passion for what we have done with the line so far. I hope to continue in that vein, and with luck grow our numbers so that we can move faster.

Thanks. One of the goals in that scenario is to introduce the PCs and GM to the movers and shakers in the clan. The 1619 scenario, Flight from the Bat, is intended to do the same for the Tribe and Telmori. Once your PCs start interacting with the 'movers and shakers' enough, you should find your own adventures flowing.

We will continue with to produce them, for now it's just slower that we all might like. Keep promoting the game. The more you do that, the more we sell and the bigger the budgets we will have for art etc. will be

We have a new fiction editor, James Lowder, and the direction of Gloranthan fiction is up to him. A lot has changed in the last 18 years 🙂

Alright let me see if I can make the dates work.

Great question. We tried to film something at a Kraken, but it didn't really work out. The bar, unfortunately has gotten quite high for this stuff when done officially, so it might be better for some fans to record and upload their actual play.

I really should come back to Ropecon and run some games there. Thanks for keeping the flame alive!

I think its unlikely. Here is why. I playtested a version, derived from some notes of Greg's at some cons. That v ersion had some unsatisfying elements. It was close, but not right. So I put it to one side to see if I could figure out what was wrong. Recently I had the flash of inspiration I needed when trying to re-work the game for my group, and reviewing a lot of stellar mythic material in the Stafford Library. Intriguingly, I recently had a conversation with Merlin Cox who had noted the same problems that I had noted with the original idea. That means I now have a clearer idea of what I am trying to show in this book. One thing I admire about the old RQ2 line was that Chaosium tried to show how to run different types of adventure. Griffin Mountain: wilderness hexcrawl. Borderlands: mission play; Pavis: City Adventure; Big Rubble: megadungeon. My goal is to riff off that idea, especially as we have less output and do the same. So we have PgTA: urban/noir; S:KoH: epic; TCS & 11L: saga and so I want the 'Dragonrise' book to be different. It's going to focus on heroquesting, and be an example of a high-level heroquesting game. Now I know how to hook that up, so you can see how to do it. But that means I have re-written and I am play-testing the new version. So whilst I hope to have a new first draft of the ms in the next few months, the time for art, review and revision, proofing and layout makes delivering in 2019 a real stretch.

For those who want the headline. Take the difference between the higher and lower abilities, multiply by 5%, add to 50% and that is a good rule of thumb for the higher abilities chance of victory. So, simplifying grossly 13 vs 13 is roughly 50-50 14 v 13 is roughly a 55 % chance of victory 17 v. 13 is roughly as 70 % chance of victory 20 vs. 13 has a difference of 7, which is roughly an 85% chance of victory.

Here is something I wrote a while back for someone: ---------------------- So the discussion was about probability in D20 based games. First, its obvious that in an unopposed roll under Target Number (TN) on a D20, each pip adds a 5% increment. Roll under 10 is 50% (10/20 * 100) and roll under 13 is 65% (13/20 * 100). HeroQuest uses opposed rolls, so the math is a little more complicated. You can find a number of articles out there which look at the system many D20 games use: Roll D20 and add Dice Modifiers (DMs) and the higher number wins. This is a common approach. The maths is easy, as the probability can derived from the DM, as you are both equally likely to roll any number. Accounting for ties, you can use the difference between the DMs each side has to determine likelihood of victory. This calculation gives each pip a 4% improvement. For example a +4 DM gives you a 30% chance of losing, 66% chance of winning, and a 4% chance of a tie. However, Heroquest is roll highest but roll under, and the math is more complicated. Let's start with an evenly matched contest of 13 vs. 13. It is easy to understand win vs. lose. It is just 13/20 * 7/20 * 100 = 22.75%. A situation where both sides succeed is given by 13/20 * 13/20 * 100 = 42.25%. We can also use negation, as well as coincidence. As either side could win, the chance someone wins is 22.75 + 22.75 + 42.25 = 87.75. which subtracting from 100 means that the chance both lose is 12.25% Now this is where it gets complex. For now I want to ignore criticals and fumbles as it makes this easier to follow. I want to determine who wins, if both succeed, or both lose, as here the highest roll now wins. If we both win, then I have to roll higher than you. If you roll 1, there are 12 numbers I can roll to beat you, if you roll 2, there are 11 numbers I can roll to beat you. So my chances are 12 + 11 + 10 +... divided by the total number of combinations. Now we already know we are in the 42.25% bracket, so we can treat this as though we had a 13 sided dice, so our possible combinations is 13 ** 2 or 169. This gives us 46% chance that I will win, 46% chance that you will win and 4% ties. Failure is similar, it is the highest roll within the 7 remaining pips. Again my chance of beating you is 6 + 5 + ... divided by the total number of combinations: 49. So 21/49 or 43% with a 14% chance of a tie. Now I can figure out my chance to win. It's (22.75/100) + (46/100 * 42.25/100) + (12.25/100 * 43/100) = 47.45%. Given your chance to win is the same, the chance of a tie is: 5%. And this should meet our expectations: two evenly matched opponents have about a 50% chance of success. So what happens if the numbers are 17 and 13 instead, in other words I use one of my key abilities against one of your also rans. Win vs. Lose. For me 17/20 * 7/20 * 100 = 29.75% Lose vs. Win. For me (or you win) 3/20 * 13/20 = 9.75% Both Lose: 3/20 * 7/20 = 5.25% Both Win 13/20 * 17/20 = 55.25% Now we need to look at again at outcomes where both win or lose. If you roll 1 there are 16 numbers I can beat you with and so on. So my chances are 16 + 15 + … divided by the total number of combinations and again we can treat this as though we have a 17-sided dice and a 13-sided dice or 221 possible combinations. That gives us 136/221 or a 61% chance that I win. You win on 12+11+.. divided by 221 occasions, or 35% of the time, with a 4% chance of a tie. Failure is a little trickier. The contestant with the higher skill has a small set of numbers, 3, whilst the one with the lower skill has, 7 possible numbers. Of those 21 combinations, on a 20 I can beat 6 numbers, on a 19, 5 and on an 18, 4 so I have 15 of the 21 combinations or 71%, you have 3 of the 21 or 14%, and there is 15% chance of a draw. So I win on (29.75/100) + (55.25/100 *61/100) + (5.25/100 * 71/100) = 67.18% So to compare the two: 13 vs. 13 is a 47.45% chance of victory, but 17 vs 13 is a 67.18% chance of victory. It is of the order of 5% per pip, which is to be expected, but its certainly a sizeable difference. So it does not differ significantly from opposed rolls with a DM of +4 above.

Try looking at https://anydice.com/

On the flipside, RQG GMs can use HQG books, as we don't use any space on HQG stats, so they get good value for money 🙂

Kind of. Opposed D20 resolution maths is covered on a few sites. I think that 'roughly' each point in difference is worth a 3% shift on the odds. It is why we recommend modifiers in multiples of 3, as they shift by about 10%

Some broad notes: The SRD will have two types of long contest:extended (AP) and scored (RP). This reflects a draft Robin wrote for HQ 2 It will also reflect advice not to mirror the outcomes, unless it is PC vs. PC i.e. if the PCs gain a Minor Victory then the GM narrates the outcome for the losers based on the story obstacle i.e. what was at stake. You **can** kill your opponent on a Minor Victory. We mirror for PC vs. PC in the interest of balance only HeroQuest deals in story obstacles i.e. steal the princess's necklace. A simple contest is one-roll for the entire obstacle. An extended contest is when you want to break it down into tasks i.e. pick the lock, sneak pas the guards. We break down when tension is high, and the PCs have lots of possible, not just one repetitive action, to complete. Combat is often the least exciting option to break down, unless the players have lots of tactical choices.

The SRD will include AP based contests.

Sure, we have had a couple of hold ups on the layout. It's coming. Soon.

The biggest problems with using RQG for HQG are: Adventures. Whilst you can use HQG adventures for RQG the reverse is often unsatisfying because of the nature of the game. HQG can cover a lot in a 2 hour session, and the average RQG adventure, which tends to be focused on skill challenges and a 'big fight' can be both quickly resolved in HQG. Let's face it, we an do the defense of Gringle's Pawnshop in one roll. As a result RQG adventures don't lend itself the wide range of problem-solving approaches that HQG prefers, nor cover the same amount of ground. You can use them, but they are not the rich fare we prefer. I note this a lot at cons, where the RQG folks spend most of the session on a big fight, with a small amount of role-playing leading up to it. Just look at Masks of Pavis vs. Welcome to the City and the difference is clear. Waste: An awful lot of RQG is stat blocks, which are just 'waste' as far as HQG is concerned, as we don't need them. Limited Magic. The magic in RQ is necessarily balanced, particularly for combat, but much more limited than the spells in HQG which echo the runes and actions of the gods. Because they take up quite a bit of cult descriptions, they again create waste, but more importantly they encourage players to limit themselves to RQ magic as 'what is available". Greg never used RQ magic in his stories, and HQG is built to model Greg's fiction much more closely. It's all Glorantha, and so good, but RQG isn't a satisfactory diet for HQG players, it's like junk food when they crave a Michelin starred meal.

We don't need those 🙂

We still have HQG books in the works. The game is thriving. At most UK cons up to a third of the Glorantha tables are HQG games. At some small cons HQG is the only Gloranthan game on offer. I suspect we have a far higher player to reader ratio than the RQ line which seems to have more armchair enthusiasts. Indeed, many of the most enthusiastic RQG GMs I see at cons are also enthusiastic HQG GMs. My Twitter feed is full of gamers playing the 11L with HQG. It has active and enthusiastic fans, despite lower sales numbers. Some folks come for RQG, but stay for HQG. The existing plan is to continue to focus on the 1625- period for HQG, as opposed to the 1626+ period which is RQG. We will probably put out HQG how-to's for some of the RQG material, to cover of items that are missing. We also still plan to open up the setting to other areas. The Dragonrise book is still forthcoming. This is also primarily pragmatic, it is too hard to co-ordinate across the two lines with regards to plots, characters etc. We do have less people and lower budgets. As @Rick Meints points out we are more likely to target sales around 1K than 5K with resulting impact on budget. As a result our art budgets etc are going to be lower. We will likely re-use more art etc. Some of you have complained about this in the past, but we don't have choices here. Our throughput will be lower, as we no longer have Jeff beavering away at HQG full-time. We also see the new generic version of the game as a way to up the overall numbers of players. If we can think of selling 2-3K of the new generic core book, then many of those players may come to HQG. The two lines may well have slightly differing interpretations over time of Glorantha, much as say KoDP and HQG already do. That becomes inevitable when HQG has twenty years of existing material to work with, but RQG is pretty much a clean slate. The **best** thing that you can do to support the line is get out there and play. On-line, in clubs, and at conventions. The more we push HQG games, the more noise there is on social media or forums like RPG.NET about them, the more others will play. Talk about it on podcasts. Create actual plays on YouTube. I don't have time to do everything, so a strong fan community promoting the game is invaluable. When HW as young, I and some others, promoted HW a lot of various games forums. It helped lift the game and awareness of it. Many say that HW kick-started the whole indie games movement, inspiring long-term fan Ron Edwards to write Sorcerer and help start The Forge. It's influence has led to games like Apocalypse World. It's time to put it back where it belongs, in the top of the tree.

So following a tips thread, and experience of @David Scott using them at the Birmingham Glorantha Games Con. I brought 50mm D20s to a table of newbies tonight. I have to vouch for it. Because you quite often have to walk through the comparing results and applying masteries ritual, having the numbers visible to everyone really helps. Big dice and poker chips sing together too.

Let us know how it goes, it's something we could pick up on for the next version if it helps.

I would suggest that modifiers can always be used to reward creative tactical options within an extended contest, or simply altering the resistance. I often reward players for smart tactics this way. Usually I hand out a bonus, when I see it as a one-exchange advantage for some clever idea or tactic, and lower the resistance if I believe that a new approach picks up on their opponents weakness in a way that disadvantages them. You may be able to treat the advantage modifier as the benefit of victory from another contest as well, for example if the PCs set an ambush then for one round they get a benefit for their ambush roll. I would use this over an augment in that case, because the augment really reflects using two abilities at once, over a chain of events

In a chained contest, you simply run a simple contest, apply the penalties to the losing side, and then play another round if neither side wishes to surrender the prize

Greg Stafford used the term Heroquesting to describe the activity where adventurers enter the world of myth very early, and HeroQuest was always the proposed name for the game that would handle this, listed regularly in the forthcoming products at the back of RQ products in the 70s and 80s and in discussions on various zines. But with no product there was no trademark. Games Workshop produced a board game Heroquest in conjunction with Milton Bradley in 1989, far later. This always irked some. They let the trademark lapse, and when this happened Greg picked it up. As the game Hero Wars was entering a new edition, and was the first Gloranthan game to properly include heroquesting, Greg trademarked the name HeroQuest for his new version of that game. Some felt this was just. There have been some attempts to produce new versions of the MB game, but they always hit the issue of who now owns the trademark as a result.

The change occurred because in play for many of the authors it had proved hard to provide a climatic challenge with +9 that felt that different to a +6. and using a +M was more likely to provide a challenge the PCs might fail at. Consider that a PCs primary ability is often as high as 7M and against a +9 you only get 3M resistance meaning that most PCs will beat a Very High resistance. Nearly Impossible was too much TBH, I do wonder if we do actually need the full +3, +6, +9, +M range for resistance instead i.e. Moderate = 0, Routine +3, High +6, Very High +9, Extreme +M, Nearly Impossible +2M instead I suspect the Pass-Fail notation is too hard with this range of values, but as it is indicative, it could point to a range of resistances to use over one.