Jump to content
Oracle

Crowd Source Editing: HeroQuest Glorantha

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Aprewett said:

steer me to using RQ2

RQ2, and RQ3, which I ran years ago, are a very different style of game from HQ:G, so I'd base a decision around the style that you and your players are most interested in (there's plenty of folks on this forum who can help you with either).  RQ is a very gritty system - works well with adventurers working the streets of Pavis or exploring the Big Rubble, to treks to distant Balazar (but harder to run Otherworldly quests).  Both RQ2/RQ3 lean towards combat where battles can be quite lengthy, and can be quite deadly (or at least maiming) to players.  HQ:G is a very narrative system with much of the detail abstracted and tends to run faster (and still captures plenty of drama in its contests).  HQ:G can easily range from life in the clan to fighting against the Lunar Empire to world-spanning and mythic quests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that.

I can bend either way but I may have problems with my players, who are not the most interactive bunch. We have tried some Fate and it was a struggle. I am a bit over the grit having gamed Harn for many years and loong combats. Although Harn is not too bad but is gritty, its the games with hit point attrition and taking an hour to get to the same point in the narrative that can be done in 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that HQ gave me the qualitatively defined structures that I had wanted from Fate, without the burden of needing to manage the Fate Point economy to keep the game running how it should. My flaw as a Fate GM was that the more I got caught up in the flow of the roleplaying and let the system fade into the background, the less I thought to toss Compels out, leading to the players too often being starved for FP by the climax of the session. With Hero Points in HQ being much less central to play compared to FP in Fate, even when using Fate-ish options like the Flaws-as-Hero Point-Generators rule presented in Nameless Streets, you're never in a situation where whole swaths of mechanics are unavailable to the players for lack of points to spend. (Many successful Fate GMs manage the FP economy rhythm just fine, of course. I just turned out not to be one of them. :) )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks that is very good to know. Sorry about the thread hijack!

My gaming group in Darwin with a small population has been down to one player for a few years, we have just found another tentative player.

My original player is very tricky, extremely intelligent IT/computer geek who has never read a fiction book. He has only watched movies and series. He likes a good story with twists but with games like Fate for example, he has no skill in even thinking of a new situational aspect by himself. In trying to get him to do this and engage with the narrative results in stop-start gaming. He can game Harn and traditional styles of games ok, still sitting back to have the story come to him. He is not lazy or not interested, he just does not have the grounding that most gamers have from books. He is willing to go out side his comfort zone and experiment with new games, but most of the work comes from me. Its like he can't think/react fast on his feet. I don't know what I would do with if I found a player who was actively driving the story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2017 at 5:46 PM, jajagappa said:

RQ2, and RQ3, which I ran years ago, are a very different style of game from HQ:G, so I'd base a decision around the style that you and your players are most interested in (there's plenty of folks on this forum who can help you with either).  RQ is a very gritty system - works well with adventurers working the streets of Pavis or exploring the Big Rubble, to treks to distant Balazar (but harder to run Otherworldly quests).  Both RQ2/RQ3 lean towards combat where battles can be quite lengthy, and can be quite deadly (or at least maiming) to players.  HQ:G is a very narrative system with much of the detail abstracted and tends to run faster (and still captures plenty of drama in its contests).  HQ:G can easily range from life in the clan to fighting against the Lunar Empire to world-spanning and mythic quests.

I would argue that RQ leans toward granular skills, rather than combat (which is just a specific skill, or suite of skills).

It's true that there is some special attention to the "combat" skills in RQ -- e.g. while we can kinda/sorta understand the tenor of a "crit" on a social-skill roll (bargain/etc), RQ doesn't have a specific suite of rules to cover "crit" or "impale" or "fumble" results, outside of combat...  Whereas there ARE such rules in the combat context!

However, it's entirely-possible (and often-done, in my experience) to have several game-sessions in a row where there's little to no combat.  Can be pure-RP if the group likes that, but stealth-and-social skills to investigate a mystery are just as possible as fighting... etc...   Remember that HP/location combat is DANGEROUS.  Once players figure that out, they usually are pushing their OWN agenda of "let's not go to combat just yet..."   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×