Runequest vs heroquest

[zanshin]

The compendium is CoP and CoT stuck together.

& much more, with cult write ups expanded from Different Worlds and also taken from Pavis, Big Rubble and Trollpak. I have all of the sources but it is so great to have it all in on volume. i cannot recommend it too highly, especially for those who do not have the information in other sources. The best £30 you can spend on Gloranthan gaming.


On the Heroquest thing , i experienced a badly run scenario of it at its launch at Convulsion and decided to stick with Runequest. I bought the first version of it but never ran it. That may well be my loss.

 

[burdock]

zanshin wrote

Quote:
The compendium is CoP and CoT stuck together.


& much more, with cult write ups expanded from Different Worlds and also taken from Pavis, Big Rubble and Trollpak. I have all of the sources but it is so great to have it all in on volume. i cannot recommend it too highly

Great!! I thought it was just the two cult books. May get it.



RMS wrote

I run HQ too (in addition to RQ) and agree with this. HQ is only "namby-pamby" if the players want it that way

I agree with this. In HQ a strong emphasis is on how the resolution results are DESCRIBED. So a successful combat could result in a crushed skull with the brains squirting out or with a foe who has been subdued and lost the will to fight. In some ways the resolution mechanics are more about obtaining control over the flow of the narrative than about simulations of events. This works brilliantly but requires a shift in ones way of viewing roleplaying. A shift away from wargaming and toward storytelling.

 

[AKAramis]

In some ways the resolution mechanics are more about obtaining control over the flow of the narrative than about simulations of events. This works brilliantly but requires a shift in ones way of viewing roleplaying. A shift away from wargaming and toward storytelling.

The big problem I had was that the players expected the results to be die-roll driven.

HQ simply provides a mechanic for directing the narrative, not determining outcomes nor simulating combat, and many players just won't grok that part of it.

It requires the GM, and the players, to be able to make stuff up on the fly.

I can think of a couple other games with similar issues: Sorcerer, for one.

 

[burdock]

AKaramis wrote

It requires the GM, and the players, to be able to make stuff up on the fly.

I see this as one of the positive features! It encourages people to actively engage and develop their imaginations and descriptive powers.....though I agree that this does take a little more effort than in some other rpgs. Effort isn't neccessarily bad, for example reading Thomas Hardy takes more effort than reading Terry Pratchett...but the quality of the experience gleaned makes the effort worthwhile.

 

[jorganos]

How useful is the background material.

Depends on when you are playing. All old RQ material and all HQ material is set in the 3rd Age, with lots of local detail unavailable earlier, and much 2nd Age information lost. If you plan on playing in the 3rd Age, the HQ material offers all but game stats.

I am new to Glorantha and am trying to get a feel for the world. I am having trouble getting my hands on any of the old RQ2/3 material

The classic RQ2 material is in print (or was, recently, and should now be available as PDFs if sold out) by Moon Design as "Gloranthan classics", nicely re-formatted and even slightly expanded. The old Genertela Box and Gods of Glorantha box are hard to find, as are the troll supplements. Some of the material is online on glorantha.com.

Missing out on the troll supplements is a major bummer, especially Uz Lore.

The RQ3 Renaissance products (Sun County, River of Cradles, Strangers in Prax, Dorastor) are out of print, too, but may be available 2nd hand, not too expensive. Sort of 30-40% useful in 2nd Age context.

and was wondering if the HQ world material was worth the download from RPGDriveThru.

I realize that it is 3rd age and that MRQ is 2nd age.

I'd go for Glorantha-Introduction to the Hero Wars, Thunder Rebels and Storm Tribe if you are after the feel of the cultures, unless you are willing to wait for Mongoose to deliver cultural info. While the world has changed since the 2nd Age, quite a bit of the cultural info still applies.

Barbarian Adventures is set under Lunar occupation, but would work almost as well under God Learner occupation (in Kethaela). The next to volumes are more 3rd Age specific.

Men of the Sea is about 60% useful for 2nd Age campaigns.

Imperial Lunar Handbook 1 maybe 40%, don't bother with ILH 2 if you play 2nd Age, except for the Illumination clarifications.


If you can get the "Missing Lands" unfinished work as PDF, do so - apart from Jrustela and Umathela, most of the info is quite up to date. This was the Seas and Pamaltelan stuff cut from Genertela Box, hardly unfinished.

 

[atgxtg]

One example of the diferences between the two games is this:

In RQ if a character has his arm cut off in combat, eveyone knoww pretty much what happened and how it happened. X number of damage points go past the armor and were supfficient to remove the limb.

In HQ, if at the end of a conflict you are -10, or -20 or whatever, you get some sort of penalty, but the overall effect is much more vague (puposely). The character might have lost a limb, or not. Based entirely upon the GM's interpretation (or whim).

The big difference with "realistic" vs. "mythic" is shown after the battle:

In RQ that character is without a limb until such a time as he can getit magically restored-if he ever does.

In HQ the character gets a penatly that fades away. Now this could be viewed as the character working his connections to get the arm restored, or it could also reflect the character adapting to the loss of a limb. Basuically the penalty goes away and no longer plays a signficant part of the storty. It's more episodic, just like in myths, or most TV series.

You really have to have a lot of trust in the GM's judgement for HeroQuest. Moreso than in most RPGs, since practically everything in HQ is a GM judgement call. Players coming from games with a more adversarial relationship witrh the GM (dungeoncrawlers) probably won't take to this style.

 

[RMS]

In HQ, if at the end of a conflict you are -10, or -20 or whatever, you get some sort of penalty, but the overall effect is much more vague (puposely). The character might have lost a limb, or not. Based entirely upon the GM's interpretation (or whim).

The big difference with "realistic" vs. "mythic" is shown after the battle:

In RQ that character is without a limb until such a time as he can getit magically restored-if he ever does.

In HQ the character gets a penatly that fades away. Now this could be viewed as the character working his connections to get the arm restored, or it could also reflect the character adapting to the loss of a limb. Basuically the penalty goes away and no longer plays a signficant part of the storty. It's more episodic, just like in myths, or most TV series.

There are "permanent" injuries in HQ that don't just fade away. At the very least, most injuries like this have to be worked off in game play. If the character looses an arm, then questing to someone who can replace it and convincing them to do it would be necessary to restore it. I would never throw away such an obvious plot-hook as that by letting it just fade away between sessions. I'm not that creative. I need every obvious plot hook I can get ahold of!

The same would hold for an injury to someone's reputation with the clan, or their self doubt, etc. However, you're right that this is up to interpretation. Though it's not generally mine. I usually ask the player what they think is a suitable result of defeat and go from there. Odds are pretty good that what they think is interesting is a good idea to work into the game. (Note: I don't always do this. Sometimes I have my own ideas about things too!)

You really have to have a lot of trust in the GM's judgement for HeroQuest. Moreso than in most RPGs, since practically everything in HQ is a GM judgement call. Players coming from games with a more adversarial relationship witrh the GM (dungeoncrawlers) probably won't take to this style.

I can see that, and it's unfortunate. In my case, I just wouldn't play with a GM like that in any game. When I GM, I've always encouraged players to put as much self-determination into the world as they want. I want the characters (via the players) to set goals and try to accomplish them. In the case of HQ, I agree with you, but I think it's two ways. It requires trust of the players too, moreso than most traditional RPGs. I trust my players to use their relationships and personality traits as negative modifieers when it's appropriate, and they do. I trust my players to direct the game in a direction that interests them, and to let me know when something is interesting and when something isn't catching their interest. Threads like this are definitely showing me why some people don't get along with HQ very well.

 

[atgxtg]

You really have to have a lot of trust in the GM's judgement for HeroQuest. Moreso than in most RPGs, since practically everything in HQ is a GM judgement call. Players coming from games with a more adversarial relationship witrh the GM (dungeoncrawlers) probably won't take to this style.

I can see that, and it's unfortunate. In my case, I just wouldn't play with a GM like that in any game. When I GM, I've always encouraged players to put as much self-determination into the world as they want. I want the characters (via the players) to set goals and try to accomplish them. In the case of HQ, I agree with you, but I think it's two ways. It requires trust of the players too, moreso than most traditional RPGs. I trust my players to use their relationships and personality traits as negative modifieers when it's appropriate, and they do. I trust my players to direct the game in a direction that interests them, and to let me know when something is interesting and when something isn't catching their interest. Threads like this are definitely showing me why some people don't get along with HQ very well.

I'm not talking about bad GM's persey. I mean those GMs whoa re used to doing thing very differenrtly, and to soemm extent player used to doing things differenrtly. Soe=meth=imes I run into gamers whose big corcerns in a campaign are if the GM has itin for them, or is certain classes are "balanced" or what not. I've had some interesting experiences trying to teach old dogs new tricks in RPGing. I know a buch of D&Ders who can play a warrior or a wizard, but have difficulty handling melee and magic with the same character. I suspect one reason for the low-keyed magic approach in MRQ might be that a lot of gamers are the same. I used to butcher groups reguarly just becasue no one bothered to use their battle magic, but the NCs did.

I think that in order to play an enjoy HQ, you need a GM and players that understand the game and what is expected of them. Most gamers I've known tend to take thier expectations with them from game to game, usually with disasterous results.

I think HQ's biggest weakness is in getting it's goals and style across. Prince Valiant also has a rules lite approach, is story driven (perhaps moreso), a combat system with vague results, yet IMO it does a better job of explaining itself.

Bascially Prince Valiant is written to exaplain things to a novice GM. HeroQesut is really written for experienced GMs who already have some sort of understanding about what they are supposed to be doing as well as some understanding of Glorantha.

Toss Prince Valiant to a newbie, let him read the rules, and he probably can run it and play it. TOss HQ to a newbie, let him read the rules, and he probably can't run it and play it.

 

[AKAramis]

AKaramis wrote

It requires the GM, and the players, to be able to make stuff up on the fly.

I see this as one of the positive features! It encourages people to actively engage and develop their imaginations and descriptive powers.....though I agree that this does take a little more effort than in some other rpgs. Effort isn't neccessarily bad, for example reading Thomas Hardy takes more effort than reading Terry Pratchett...but the quality of the experience gleaned makes the effort worthwhile.

Yes, it's a cool feature, for SOME groups. For other's it's the death knell... like the groups who slavishly count hexes/squares, and if the wall isn't 3d, then they must be able to see through it... and expect that if one makes the to-hit roll a damage roll follows...

I've actually had some really NON-creative players in my groups, and they've done fine with more concrete systems... However, they are not always able to cope with abnormal situations... and they often need maps and counters/minis rather than just verbals.

 

[RMS]

I'm not talking about bad GM's persey.

To me, adversarial GMing is bad GMing, as I understand the term. At the very least, it'd be bad GMing for me. Of course, there are exceptions. I love running and playing Paranoia as much as the next person!

I mean those GMs whoa re used to doing thing very differenrtly, and to soemm extent player used to doing things differenrtly. Soe=meth=imes I run into gamers whose big corcerns in a campaign are if the GM has itin for them, or is certain classes are "balanced" or what not. I've had some interesting experiences trying to teach old dogs new tricks in RPGing. I know a buch of D&Ders who can play a warrior or a wizard, but have difficulty handling melee and magic with the same character. I suspect one reason for the low-keyed magic approach in MRQ might be that a lot of gamers are the same. I used to butcher groups reguarly just becasue no one bothered to use their battle magic, but the NCs did.

This sounds like our old issue of D&D players with too many bad habits and my lack of experience with that type of player. For my new HQ group, I found it interesting that nearly half of them said they'd never played D&D at all! A couple of them have been gaming nearly as long as me, but came into it through Traveler, CoC, or similar and never got to AD&D, or any other version, since. I thought I was odd with my lack of D&D experience!

I think HQ's biggest weakness is in getting it's goals and style across. Prince Valiant also has a rules lite approach, is story driven (perhaps moreso), a combat system with vague results, yet IMO it does a better job of explaining itself.

I'd agree here. The mechanics are pretty clear, except that magic takes some effort to understand. However, the GMing section and sample adventures are very traditional, and that really isn't what HQ supports best. It'll do it, but it does other things even better.

Bascially Prince Valiant is written to exaplain things to a novice GM. HeroQesut is really written for experienced GMs who already have some sort of understanding about what they are supposed to be doing as well as some understanding of Glorantha.

Toss Prince Valiant to a newbie, let him read the rules, and he probably can run it and play it. TOss HQ to a newbie, let him read the rules, and he probably can't run it and play it.

I've always wanted to look at this, but never have. It's suppose to be a great game. I've also wondered if my 6 year old would be able to enjoy something simple like it yet.

 

[atgxtg]

I had similar difficulties with Ars Magica. Get a good creative group and troupe style play is fantastic. DOn't and it turns into your typical fantasy group.

 

[Darran]

I mean those GMs whoa re used to doing thing very differenrtly, and to soemm extent player used to doing things differenrtly. Soe=meth=imes I run into gamers whose big corcerns in a campaign are if the GM has itin for them, or is certain classes are "balanced" or what not. I've had some interesting experiences trying to teach old dogs new tricks in RPGing. I know a buch of D&Ders who can play a warrior or a wizard, but have difficulty handling melee and magic with the same character. I suspect one reason for the low-keyed magic approach in MRQ might be that a lot of gamers are the same. I used to butcher groups reguarly just becasue no one bothered to use their battle magic, but the NCs did.

This sounds like our old issue of D&D players with too many bad habits and my lack of experience with that type of player. For my new HQ group, I found it interesting that nearly half of them said they'd never played D&D at all! A couple of them have been gaming nearly as long as me, but came into it through Traveler, CoC, or similar and never got to AD&D, or any other version, since. I thought I was odd with my lack of D&D experience!

I never had any experience with D&D either.

I did try and convert my co-workers to HeroQuest.
See here for my report:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=52532

Most of them were complete newbies and took to it like ducks to water.

 

[AKAramis]

Theater-types tend to do well if one can get them over the "What do you mean I don't have to block it out?!?!"

 

[atgxtg]

Most of them were complete newbies and took to it like ducks to water.

I usually would rather teach a game to newbies than try to teach it to people who have played one system for years and years. It usually works out better.

 

[Lord Twig]

Okay, I just have to chime in from the opposite perspective.

Everyone is going on about how HQ requires creativity and that those poor dungeon crawlers just can't understand how to play it. BULL! It is not any truer than saying that HQers don't play RQ because they can't do the math.

They understand just fine. They just don't want to sit around and ask each other, "What do you think happens?" or "How would you feel about that?"

AkAramis is right about actors and such fitting right in. That is because they are comfortable "getting into character" and acting out how they feel the character should react without worrying about pesky rules to get in their way.

And there is nothing wrong with that if that is what you want to do.

But others, myself included, would like to play a game.

I like knowing the odds. I like knowing the rules and how to use them to accomplish what I want. I enjoy coming up with an effective combination of spells, maneuvers and tactics to overcome obstacles. And we always keep in mind that regardless of what the rules say, there should be a consistent logic in how the world works.

We role-play our social encounters and bargain or talk our way past others. But when diplomacy fails we break out the battle mat and prepare for a contest of strategy, intellect and luck.

The GM does his best to play the NPC effectively versus the players that are doing their best. A good GM will plan for encounters that are challenging and balanced to give the players a decent chance of success. If the story demands weaker opponents, so be it. This gives the characters a chance to really shine and bask in their own power. If the story calls for an over-powering villain a good GM will give subtle clues to the players that this may be more than they can handle.

So I'm glad you enjoy HQ. I think it sucks rocks. But that is just my personal opinion.

 

[soltakss]

Lord Twig makes some interesting points about HeroQuest. But, to be honest, the games he describes could equally have been played using HQ and RQ. They are examples of roleplaying/gaming where you roleplay to a certain point then use the rules to decide an outcome.

HeroQuest, like RuneQuest, is just another game, no better no worse. You can be a rules-lawyer and enjoy HeroQuest and be a freeformer and enjoy RuneQuest. What is important is the way the game is played and GMed. If you have a GM who slavishly follows the rules and has a one-track mind then the game will be the same whether you play RQ or HQ.

People say that HQ avoids combat, it doesn't. I've played and run mass combats in HQ that were more complicated than ones in RQ. HQ just has a mechanism for simplifying combats, boiling them down to a single roll if required or an extended combat if that's what you want.

I've played RQ games where we were completely in character for weeks on end. I've also played RQ games where we didn't roll any dice for a whole session and enjoyed it. I've done cavern crawls in HQ and played HQ without making a single Relationship roll.

OK, HQ is more abstract, which is something I like about it.
RQ is more concrete, which is something I like about it

But there's nothing about HQ that is inherently worse than RQ or vice versa. Neither is more suitable as a model for Glorantha or any other world, in my opinion.

I would think, however, that you could run a fantastic SuperHero game using a simpler version of the HeroQuest rules.

 

[atgxtg]

Okay, I just have to chime in from the opposite perspective.

Everyone is going on about how HQ requires creativity and that those poor dungeon crawlers just can't understand how to play it. BULL! It is not any truer than saying that HQers don't play RQ because they can't do the math.

They understand just fine. They just don't want to sit around and ask each other, "What do you think happens?" or "How would you feel about that?"

THat is certainly true with some gamers. But there are those who do not understand. I've run RQ games where the players just could not grasp battle magic and learn how to use it effectively. One of the most notirious examples of which was a battle where the group were attacking Broo, and despite having time to put up their battle magic, one guy stopped in midcharge to cast bladesharp, leading to a second guy stopping, and resulting in one PC dropping becuase he was unexpectedly triple teamed.

I've seen another guy quit an RQ campaign becuase he never saw any change in his character, even with a group that had spent a couple of months practicing while travelling at sea. He didn't see his hit ppoints go up, or got any XP awards so he wasn't happy. Likewise, seeing his skills go from 30% to 60% didn't mean anything to him. So somepople don't get it.

As for me, I understand HQ, but in general do not like it that much. I find the universal contest system and augments just make all contents "feel the same" to me. In most cases it doesn't matter much what you are comparing, just what the values are. With GM permission someone could oppose a someone using Sword Combat 17 with Great Axe 19 or Bore to Death 19 or Extreme Falutuence 19. THree radicially different cirmmstances, but all play out the same.

It it left to the GM to work out the details and decide what you can an cannot oppse with, or what you can use to augment.

Even the bidding works against things as far as I concerned. Bidding and losing 6AP feels more like a hand of blackjackt the casino that being backhanded by a blackjack.

If I wanted a vague game with an abstract Hit Point system where the wounds do mean anything until you go below zero--there is another game out ther that already does that.

 

[Darran]

For me it boils down to this.

As a player I will choose to play either HeroQuest[or Questworlds] or RuneQuest [or other BRP game].

As a GM I would only run HeroQuest. Scenario prep is way more simplier and quicker with HeroQuest than RuneQuest. My time is far too valuable to waste making up RQ NPCs.

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

If I wanted a vague game with an abstract Hit Point system where the wounds do mean anything until you go below zero--there is another game out ther that already does that.

If by that you mean "HeroQuest is similiar to Dungeons and Dragons", then you're just plain wrong.

 

[atgxtg]

If I wanted a vague game with an abstract Hit Point system where the wounds do mean anything until you go below zero--there is another game out ther that already does that.

If by that you mean "HeroQuest is similiar to Dungeons and Dragons", then you're just plain wrong.

No I mean the way AP loss realates to wounding is eeriely similar to the way HP relate to wounding. Both are abstract, both are linked to fighting skill.