Heroquest 2: what does the system add?
Alexander Julian:
My central thesis is that the system of HQ2 doesn’t provide any additional benefit by using it and in some cases actually subtracts from the overall game fun.
The players: Alex, Ian, Ben (GM), Jim, Erik
Campaign: Pelanda during the Lunar revolution (Glorantha). One of the central questions during the game was ‘what will you do when the revolution comes’
My character was InsiEstes a hideously ugly philosopher of the Kassa school. Here are the relevant abilities I had listed.
No appreciation for the arts 15
Hatred will not let him rest 17
Knows what he’s against 16
Condemn Pelandian morality 1W
So during the last session of the campaign the city is in turmoil. Public order is breaking down, Ian’s character IdoDesa (a butcher who wanted to be an artist) has ended up being King. A disastrous HeroQuest has mucked up the mythological conception of justice. Lunar revolutionaries are running riot and demanding food. Things are at boiling point.
InsiEstes (me) has been sent by the King to quell the Lunar mob. Now instead of quelling them I decide instead to tell them to steal (a big moral taboo in Pelandian society). My basic intent is to have them run amok and over turn the city. InsiEstes at this point just hates the established order, he’s a resentful malicious type who just wants to hurt the society that he thinks has shunned him.
So I state ‘get the mob to run amok and steal’ as my prize. Now Ben the GM vetoes this because Pelandians wouldn’t do that. Instead they’re going to outcast me from the city, make me a stranger (the worst crime in Pelandan society). Ben asks me if this ok first and I’m fine with it.
Now this is a pretty cool outcome. The important point to remember here is that it was decided by GM veto. The way the system is set up I have no idea whether I can make a mob riot. I have to just state an intent and hope it doesn’t get Vetoed. Now another point is this. If I hadn’t been ok then we’d have had to retcon the last 15-20 minutes of play because what I was doing up until that point was a set up so I could try and incite the mob.
In this case the system provides no guidance and is worse than something like GURPS where I can (presumably) consult an 'incite mob' chart, look at their attitudes and then come up with an appropriate difficulty. In the case of GURPS I have feedback, in the case of HQ2 I don’t.
The session rolls on and things start coming to a close. Ians character decides to give up the throne and leave to become an artist. Upon hearing this my character goes into a rage. The King who he entrusted to overthrow society is giving up on that and instead going to ‘do art’. So I state as my prize that I will kill him.
Ians character had at this point answered the question about what he’ll do when the revolution comes. Really he just wanted to be an artist and the whole revolution thing was frustration because he couldn’t do that (I’m simplifying). So thematically he’s come to a close. He leaves the city and a stranger is waiting for him, InsiEstes, rock in hand. This is my final dice roll of the game.
We do an extended contest and during the course of it I try and persuade Ians character that being an artist is futile. Ian doesn’t want this because he’s closed his character and this makes sense to me. The difficulty is that Ian needs a prize to actually enter the contest. His prize is to kill me, which I don’t find thematically pleasing but at this point we’d spent a bit of time getting here and so I just accept this.
When the contest starts I begin burning Heropoints (I had far more than Ian) to get a victory. This wasn’t that satisfying but I’d put myself in a position where I (Alex) didn’t want the consequences of failure. So IdoDesa and InsiEstes struggle but at the end of the contest I don’t have enough points to kill IdoDesa. So although I win the contest he isn’t dead he’s just badly hurt.
I try and roll with it. Insiestes hatred has consumed him flat out, he’s give up any pretence at being a revolutionary and just wants to hurt people he’s envious off. Of course since he didn’t do any lasting damage to IdoDesa so this was all a bit weak. He didn’t become a murderer. Considering the intensity of the campaign the ending felt very wet to me.
Now this last contest was just poorly chosen by me in a lot of ways. Yet it highlights one of the major problems of the system. It works by negative feedback. You have no real guidance as to what you can and can’t do. The success levels chart itself also seems to suck tension away. Consistently we’ve reached boiling point in the fiction. Everyone in the group really tense over an outcome. The dice are rolled and we get ‘Well you succeed a bit.’ What is actually happening is that the prize is often changed. So you get something like the prize but not exactly. The tension builds but often fails to resolve, instead kind of trickling away.
So my argument ends up being. HQ2 seems to fail as a system because it adds nothing compared to:
Using GURPS or Solarsystem or something else with a skill list that has clear boundaries.
Forgetting abilities all together and just flipping a coin to see if you pass or fail.
I’m in the position of not seeing why you need abilities. What do they bring to the game? There are a lot of HQ veterans here. What does the system offer that I’m missing? Lastly, is the HQ2 system FITM or FATE? My understanding was that it was fortune at the end but if it’s fortune in the middle then I don’t understand what fortune in the middle is, help clearing that up would be appreciated.
Erik Weissengruber:
What Genre/Setting/Style decisions did you make prior to play?
Can you give any examples of the GM deciding what a "Stretch" was in the particular context?
What about setting Target Numbers based on dramatic logic and prior successes by players?
Did the GM track the success curve of the group or were Target Numbers tailored to each character?
If you can give some specific application of the new rules it would help further the discussion of HQ2's merits or faults.
I can't see any mention of these new rules so we can't discuss if the new edition helps or not.
Callan S.:
Hi Alexander, just not sure what you mean here
Quote
Now this is a pretty cool outcome. The important point to remember here...
Do you mean more
Quote
Now this is a pretty cool outcome. But despite that, it's important point to remember here...
I'm not sure whether you like it and want to describe whats underneath that, or you liked the result but don't like what potential lurks underneath?
Alexander Julian:
Hey Callan. I liked the result in that instance but I don’t like the potential that lurks underneath. In a game like Vampire I know that if I have charisma 5 I can go to a large group of people and persuade them to do dastardly deeds if I get four successes. In HQ2 I never know exactly what it is I can do.
Epweissengruber, I haven‘t played HQ1 so I personally can’t compare editions.
The resolution order for HQ2 runs like this:
Player states prize
Player chooses states means/tactics of getting prize
Player chooses ability he’s using
GM sets resistance using pass/fail or by assigning number
Fortune is employed
GM narrates outcome
Quick example from actual play:
Anrur (me) goes to talk to his mentor Orkarl about some Lunar converts.
In character me and Orkarl chat a bit, he starts talking about the bad influence of the Lunars. I state my prize ‘convince Orkarl that Humakt has a plan for the Lunars and they are not the enemy.’ I pick an ability ‘initiate of Humakt 1W.’ I don’t state the means because I’ve already said in the state prize section I’m talking with him. I then say some stuff in character ‘The Lunar god talker healed me. I asked her before I pledged my sword “are you corrupting the clan” and was satisfied they were not.’ (I’m paraphrasing). We then roll the dice and consult the success chart. I get a major success. The GM narrates Orlkarl as being convinced by my argument and he even decides to join me in defending the Moon winds against any hostile clan members.
How the GM sets the difficulty in the game is problematic in my opinion but I’m more focussed on how the combination of prize, ability and means/tactics work. If anyone wants to give an AP example from HQ1 that would be helpful to me. I’m not seeing how the system differs from say ‘world of darkness’ or ‘cyberpunk’ except that in those games the means and the ability are equivalent. How does making them non equivalent help play?
So if the above happened in cyberpunk for instance, I’d use persuade or empathy or fast talk to get Orlkarl to agree with me. The GM can’t veto my use of these, it’s pretty explicit what they do and how they are used. What is it that abilities do except add an extra unnecessary layer?
Callan S.:
Don't vampire and cyberpunk have the 'golden' rule in their text somewhere? The GM's just as capable of veto in those, invoking the golden rule, isn't he? I wouldn't say your any more empowered in those games. Not that I'm advocating the golden rule or vetoing as part of a design.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page