HQ vs RQ?

[Toadmaster]

I've played Runequest since 1980-81 give or take, but have never even peaked at Heroquest. I know HQ is a far less cruchy system appealing more to the storyteller / rules light gamers, but are they essentially the same target audience as far as power level / scope goes?

I always have had the assumption that HQ was aimed at a more mythic scale following demi-gods in Glorantha. With the announcement that there will be RQ conversion packs available for many Moon Design Heroquest materials I'm begining to doubt that assumption. I thought HQ materials would only really be useful in RQ for the background, not directly of interest for play.

Anyone care to educate me a bit about HQ and the relation to RQ?

Thanks

[RosenMcStern]

They are two different game systems that produce different game experiences.

From my point of view, RuneQuest tries to feed your imagination with elements and details that come directly from the game rules. Hero Quest instead is fed by your imagination and tries to translate it into game elements and details. Consider what you want from your game and choose the best game for you.

[Atgxtg]

The major differences between the two systems is that RQ is very detailed and gritty while HQ is much more abstract. In HQ nearly anything can be treated as an ability and get a rating, and any rating can be used in a conflict, assuming the GM allows it. In HQ the rating score is not only the skill that you roll, but also works like your hit points. So if you got a W5 skill (25), you can take 25 points of "damage" in a contest. Since practically anything can be used in a contest, assuming the GM okays it, Basket Weaving against Pole Ax, for example, contests can be very abstract, but also quite mythic (The hero encases the attacking army in a huge wicker basket).

Conversion between the two wouldn't be that hard. Both have skills and other abilties that can port over to the other, and both have a scale of competency that can be used to convert scores. The biggest obstacle is that in HQ you only track the abilties that you raised or that come from your background. But these could simply be set to average in RQ.

But even if you convert a character over from one system to the other, you won't have quite the same game experience. The two systems are different and will play out differently. A dumb fight that might leave a character with a permanent scar in HQ, will probably get the character killed in RQ.

[Gollum]

Here is what I wrote in the thread about knockback attacks... Hoping this can help...

____

After reading the HQ vs RQ thread, I would add that BRP is between GURPS and HQ.

To explain what I mean...

GURPS is very simulationist. Of course, you can use it in a simplier manner, by getting read of all optional rules... But when you bought a 500-page book of dense and detail rules, you rarely do that.

HQ, tp the contrary, is very narrativist. It lets the GM decide freely what is a success or a victory, etc., depending on the situation and the genre.

Then, BRP falls somewhere in between. It offers simulationist rules... But they are much more simple than GUPRS ones and they give a lot of freedom to the GM. Our discussion about what can or cannot do a character with the Spear skill only is one example of that.

_____

So, I would say that your choice will depend of the degree of simultaionism that you want in your game. If you love playing in a purely narrative way, where the most important thing is the story, HQ is the best choice. Without any contest! But if you like having some rules that "simulate the reality", BRP is better. Now, if you want rules for every contingency, with precise maneuvers and combat techniques for your combats, have a look on GURPS.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Gollum

[Toadmaster]

Thanks, but the answers are focusing on the part I understand about the two games. I'm more interested in the intent / goals of each game.

Other than the rules do the two essentially cover the same ground, similar goals, power levels etc or are they very different types of gaming?

My impression is that HQ would be a game where the players are playing the likes of Hercules, Thor, and Beowulf, while RQ features heros like Aragorn, Arthur's Knights, Conan etc.

Hope that makes my question more clear.

[Gollum]

Yes. It makes it more clear.

Intuitively, I would say that HQ, since it is a universal and narrative game, allows the GM to choose exactly what kind of heroes he wants: almost ordinary people, like Frodo, experimented heroes, like Aragorn, or demi-god, like Heracles... RQ, on the other side, says how to roll each characteristic and how to assess skill levels. So he doesn't have such a versatility.

Now, I don't know these two games enough to be sure. So, I prefer letting the others answering to this question.

[Toadmaster]

I had not considered that possibility, thanks.

[BMonroe]

Power levels in HQ scale to the intent of the game. You decide how tough the PCs are, and use the difficulty ranges in relation to them. In HQ, the PCs are quite literally the 'center of the universe'.

EG: you could have two different campaigns. One is a tough and gritty, street level gang war, and the other is a Space Opera epic. In the first game, you've got a Mob Enforcer with "Big Guns 19". In the second, you've got a giant sentient robot with "Big Guns 19". Clearly you're talking about two different scales of PCs, here, but as far as the game system is concerned, they're handled in exactly the same manner.

That being said, you would get stymied in trying to use one character in the other campaign.

[Atgxtg]

EG: you could have two different campaigns. One is a tough and gritty, street level gang war, and the other is a Space Opera epic. In the first game, you've got a Mob Enforcer with "Big Guns 19". In the second, you've got a giant sentient robot with "Big Guns 19". Clearly you're talking about two different scales of PCs, here, but as far as the game system is concerned, they're handled in exactly the same manner.

That is the pros and cons of HQ in a nutshell: they are both handled in exactly the same manner". As far as HQ is concerned one ability works the same as any other. In fact,two characters in the same campaign could conciebable have different skills with similar names, or even skills that do the same thing but have differernt names. A character could sqaure off with tank gun, archery, Sword & Shield, Play Mandolyn, or Pillow Fighting. As far as the HQ rules go, it's all the same.

[soltakss]

In HeroQuest, an Innocent Smile ability could beat a Sword ability. That just wouldn't happen in RuneQuest. It invites a different style of play, in my opinion, where the players are far more inventive about how they use their abilities.

[Toadmaster]

Ah, so the huge eyes cute kitty power Puss'nBoots has in Shreck.

So I'm guessing the HQ material really is just additional Glorantha background for RQ since it doesn't sound like the HQ rules bits would take up much space. Any RQ "conversion" will most likely just be stat-ing out major critters / important personalities and such then.

Thanks for the additional info, I really had not understood just how rules light HQ was.

[Psychman]

Ah, so the huge eyes cute kitty power Puss'nBoots has in Shreck.

So I'm guessing the HQ material really is just additional Glorantha background for RQ since it doesn't sound like the HQ rules bits would take up much space. Any RQ "conversion" will most likely just be stat-ing out major critters / important personalities and such then.

Thanks for the additional info, I really had not understood just how rules light HQ was.

The only thing HeroQuest really requires, I think, is a clear shared idea of a setting and its tropes so that coherent characters can be made and relevancy of abilities to various contests can be judged. The HeroQuest Glorantha books are really good deep resources for establishing "how things work" in the mindset of the cultures looked at, and a common set of concepts for players.

NB I'm not sure I explained that as well as it deserves, I hope you get what I am trying and I suspect, failing to say. :-)

[Atgxtg]

Ah, so the huge eyes cute kitty power Puss'nBoots has in Shreck.

You got it. Although it goes ever further than that. Virtually any ability could be used, from Trollball Triva, to Dirty Lunar Jokes to Belching. It all depends on what the GM will allow. It is a doubled edged sword. On the one hand it opens up the door for more mythic and superhero types of play but on the other hand it can make the various abilities all seem the same. I used to joke about making up a character with Unified Field Theory on his sheet and using it for everything, since it would all tie in. Mechanically the only thing that works different is magic, and that isn't very different.

So I'm guessing the HQ material really is just additional Glorantha background for RQ since it doesn't sound like the HQ rules bits would take up much space. Any RQ "conversion" will most likely just be stat-ing out major critters / important personalities and such then.

Thanks for the additional info, I really had not understood just how rules light HQ was.

[Trifletraxor]

The HQ2 Glorantha stuff is excellent for d100 gaming. I'm running the King of Sartar campaign myself now using d100rules.

[1d8+DB]

Here's a free HQ scenario: http://http://moondesignpublications.com/page/return-apple-lane, worth it for the maps if nothing else. Almost no 'statistics' are given, and most of the material is descriptive or historical.

I could see a GM running parallel campaigns in both systems: a gritty game of hard-scrabble rogues in RQ/MRQ/Legend, and a mythic HQ game based on the folklore and mythology that inspires them. "After that hard fought battle with the Broo warband, as you rest exhausted around the campfire, Aseor decides to raise the spirits of his companions by telling the tale of Taran Swift-Axe's slaying of the Great Beast of the Burning Woods."

Edited August 12, 2012 by 1d8+DB
faulty URL

[Toadmaster]

The HQ rules as described really don't appeal to me (I am not a rules light kind of guy), but the fact they are so minimal actually kind of makes the misc HQ Glorantha stuff more appealing.

1d8, the dual campaign is a neat idea. It would probably be hard to pull of but would definately be different.

[Atgxtg]

1d8, the dual campaign is a neat idea. It would probably be hard to pull of but would definately be different.

It really wouldn't be that hard to pull off. Both games give (or at least gave) benchmark ratings that could be used to come up with stats. Somebody who has a journey rating in sword, would have about a 20 in HQ, and about a 50% or so in BRP. Not that difficult.

THe tough stuff would be stuff that has been changed ("Gregged") over the years, such as Yelmalio/Emal, and stuff which RQ lacks, or stuff where the Glorantha material sucks (i.e. Mongoose Cult write ups).

You will get a differernt feel and style of play depending on which system you are using, but that's true with any two RPGs.

[soltakss]

Ah, so the huge eyes cute kitty power Puss'nBoots has in Shreck.

Exactly, and it is surprising how often similar things come up as players find inventive solutions to problems.

So I'm guessing the HQ material really is just additional Glorantha background for RQ since it doesn't sound like the HQ rules bits would take up much space. Any RQ "conversion" will most likely just be stat-ing out major critters / important personalities and such then.

I've done some conversions to RQ3 for HQ Cults at Hero Wars Cults Conversion - Cults and creatures at Converting HeroWars Creatures and my views on why HQ1 didn't really work as well as I would have liked at Why HeroQuest Doesn't Work

Thanks for the additional info, I really had not understood just how rules light HQ was.

At its core, HQ has a very simple, very scalable resolution system that can be used in any situation. The rest is just additional stuff to confuse things. I prefer RQ in many ways, but I have taken many of the ideas from HQ and used them in RQ. HQ2 doesn't appeal to me at all, I understand what it is trying to do and agree that it's a jolly good idea, but it doesn't grab me in the same way that HQ1 did.

[dragonewt]

At its core, HQ has a very simple, very scalable resolution system that can be used in any situation. The rest is just additional stuff to confuse things. I prefer RQ in many ways, but I have taken many of the ideas from HQ and used them in RQ. HQ2 doesn't appeal to me at all, I understand what it is trying to do and agree that it's a jolly good idea, but it doesn't grab me in the same way that HQ1 did.

I would say that it is more of the tone of play that differentiates HQ, in that it promotes the idea of "Some Mythic Capability" vs "Any Other Mythic Capability", with augmentation.

We need to separate the mechanic from the tone to have a clearer view. I am sure you could play a game using BRP/RQ that has "huge cute kitty eyes" at x% vs "sword" at y% (with various modifiers, such as can be done with martial arts or cooperation).

The difficulty with tone (using any mechanic) comes with determining effectiveness of one "skill/ability/aspect/follower" vs another. Cute "kitty eyes" might not work against "whirling thunder blade" in a 'typical' Wuxia themed game, but "panty flash" might work against "sword" in a semi-comical Anime inspired Wuxia game.

[Atgxtg]

...and my views on why HQ1 didn't really work as well as I would have liked at Why HeroQuest Doesn't Work

By HQ1 do you mean HeroWars (the name HQ had to go by at first) or HQ1? I've tead (and played) HW, and own HQ1/ I know the latest version of HQ put everything on a "relative to the players scale" but otherwise I though the changes between HQ1 and HQ2 were minor. Did I miss something?

I got HQ

[soltakss]

By HQ1 do you mean HeroWars (the name HQ had to go by at first) or HQ1?

I meant the first edition of HeroQuest, (HQ1), not HeroWars (HW).

I've tead (and played) HW, and own HQ1/ I know the latest version of HQ put everything on a "relative to the players scale" but otherwise I though the changes between HQ1 and HQ2 were minor. Did I miss something?

I got HQ

It has changed a lot, as far as I can see. HQ2 seems to be more about the story experience, so your chances of succeeding at something depends on how important that is to the plot/story. There are a load of mechanics I can't get my head around, but I can't remember what they are.

I am getting old.

I got HQ as well. I don't really get HQ2, though. I see what they are trying to do, but my overriding question is "Why?".

[Atgxtg]

Thanks for the info.

I don't really get HQ2, though. I see what they are trying to do, but my overriding question is "Why?".

THat part I think I get. In a narrative, the actual ability and realsitc chance of success have little ro do with how a hero performs. The hero perfomrs as required by the needs of the story. Robin LAws in very big on narrative style of play.

[GianniVacca]

I have played both RQ and HQ extensively, and for me the major difference is in the way equipment and items are managed. In RQ, if two warriors have both Sword 90% but one of them has no armour and the other one wears a full plate, you know which one is going to survive

In HQ, if two warriors have Bad-Ass Warrior 4W1 and one of them has Full Plate Armour 17, the outcome is not that obvious. The armour may give an augment, but then the other player can probably augment with some other skill (Hate Lunars or Fight to the Death or Initiate of Humakt) and the fight will be even.

So (independently from power level) I'd recommend RQ to players to whom equipment matters, and HQ to players who just like to come up with good ideas (which translate in bonuses) during play. Also HQ handles high level play better but is not necessarily restricted to that kind of gaming.

[BMonroe]

I got HQ as well. I don't really get HQ2, though. I see what they are trying to do, but my overriding question is "Why?".

Because it's fun.

[Atgxtg]

I have played both RQ and HQ extensively, and for me the major difference is in the way equipment and items are managed. In RQ, if two warriors have both Sword 90% but one of them has no armour and the other one wears a full plate, you know which one is going to survive

Not really. Those parry rolls are all important. Not to mention things like magic.

In HQ, if two warriors have Bad-Ass Warrior 4W1 and one of them has Full Plate Armour 17, the outcome is not that obvious. The armour may give an augment, but then the other player can probably augment with some other skill (Hate Lunars or Fight to the Death or Initiate of Humakt) and the fight will be even.

But 4W1 is a lot higher than 90%, more like 200%. At that level, the armor becomes less of a factor in RQ. The criticals and specials will dictate the outcome. And characters in RQ can "augment" too, with stuff like magic. Stuff like bladesharp and protection can level the playing field.

The differences have more to do with style of play than with equipment. HQ is looking at things from the viewpoint of the story, and isn't looking too closely at the details.FOr example, Luke beats the rancor somehow despite lacking any weapon that can really harm it. The thing just happens to be standing right underneath a heavy door, and Luke just happens to find a skull, toss it at the control panel, hit, and activate the door, which also just happens to close very quickly, and lacks any sort of sensor to prevent it from dropping down on top on something and crushing it. In RQ/BRP something like that would have to be played out, spotted by the player, timed perfectly, the rancor would need to blow it's defense roll, and go through he normal damage procedure. It's a very different fight, and equipment has little to do with it. Luke still has a couple of bones and his wits to fight with in both RPGs. Just in HQ, he has a much better chance of pulling it off.