[HeroQuest 2] New GM Advice...
Chris_Chinn:
Hi,
Usually I find the trick is to stick mostly to procedures the players need to remember rather than concepts. You can explain a concept in person, but the procedure is the part the players will need to reference pretty often.
For example, I'd probably cut out the part where you describe that you could have a Critical, Success, Failure, or Fumble- the chart basically makes that obvious. And you can cut out the paragraphs describing what a Simple Contest is vs. an Extended contest- the hypothetical I posted earlier simply puts that into a single sentence.
Then, when you play, you simply walk through the procedures- pull out the reference and show the players how what you're doing actually is what's on the sheet. Then they figure out that it's useful rules and not those rules that never get used in a game.
(I also end up making quicksheets like this because it makes my life easier running games. If I have to pick up a game, a year later, and don't remember the rules? Quicksheet makes it easy.)
***
As far as discussion, there used to be a very active Hero Wars/Hero Quest forum here, and it's now all in the archives:
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?board=13.0
Generally, discussion on the Forge moves slower than other forums- you may find a few more folks replying over the next 2-3 weeks. The other thing, is that the forum has been winding down in population and activity.
As a forum commmunity, we've hit sort of a weird imbalance in participation between actual play and game design- a lot of folks hear how the Forge is a great place to learn about design, but they miss out on the fact that good design comes from understanding play - so don't be surprised if the AP forum doesn't get as much movement as the game design forum.
Chris
Chew:
Hi Mr Grognard :)
My advice is to just go for it. By all means, give the players a crib sheet if you think they'll forget rules but HQ is so rules-lite I think you won't need to.
By "go for it" I mean: give them all an empty sheet, tell them this is the best way to learn to play and that you think HQ2 could address their woes about DnD.
Get them to make character names and a one-phrase descriptor to use as a major Keyword, including their profession, like: "hard-bitten, abused sailor" or "vain starship captain" or "tripped-out druid". Get them to write 17 next to that and say it's a Keyword and covers all the abilities that are reasonable under that heading. You can introduce the rules about that later.
Then frame an improvised scene for each of them (you could get them to write down Kickers beforehand to help you present a meaningful scene that 'grabs' them) so that you need to do a Simple Contest to resolve the conflict. Don't do the outcome narration for them but make sure they know whatever they say is okay, it doesn't have to be poetry, the only guide is whether the room-as-a-whole feels it's credible (the "is it lame?" test). Don't reward good narration, the reaction from the room is the right reward.
Next, demonstrate how failure is fun (note I didn't say "can be"). Frame a contest for them that can't be ignored and is unwinnable. Then when the outcome is a defeat, get them to narrate their own defeat [you can include all of the characters in this one contest]. Remember character death is not automatic in HQ - it's always with player consent (and many times, most healthy at their own suggestion - for a cool story ending or a poignant scene climax). You might like to show how the outcome of one contest can lead to another, especially if they were defeated. Oftentimes, in more traditional-style games, defeat is seen as a stop in the action for that character - in HQ this is not necessarily so.
That's all you really need to start playing. It will be easier to have fun with narration under this circumstance because they won't be too concerned with the future of their characters. You can introduce HeroPoints when you think they are comfortable with the rest - my advice with these is for the players to make the choice (whether to spend them) before any outcome narration. This way only one narration is heard, which is less confusing.
After this (which might be a whole evening if you let it grow naturally into an improvised scenario) you could see about playing your campaign. I'd really recommend getting them to make their characters from memory - I think it would be a mistake to convert every little facet that was there in DnD. HQ characters don't need to have complex skill lists. Use keywords to imply whole collections of skills - that way they can not only do what they did before but also what you all think a "wizard half-elf ranger thief" should be able to do but were afraid to fracture DnD for.
It's fully possible to play HQ2 for a whole campaign without ever using more rules than I mention above. You certainly don't need to use the full set - perhaps introduce some of the others as and when they feel right. Use Robin Laws' advice about when to employ things like extended contests.
I hope that's helpful. My intention was to show you can just start having fun in HQ within a few minutes. Might help with your player buy-in!
Oh, and remember the contests don't have to be combat. I recommend not framing combat scenes in the demonstration until they are having fun with non-combat ones.
Web_Weaver:
It intrigues me that you would use a Pathfinder scenario, I find traditional scenarios very difficult to convert to HQ, due to the focus on stats, combat and obstacle based structures.
What kind of scenario have you chosen? How are you planning on using it?
Web_Weaver:
Quote from: Grognard on June 26, 2011, 09:18:28 AM
I do have another question, for you or anyone else. I really like the way exchanges are set up, in extended contests the PCs square off against a target and go at it, with the PCs declaring their goal/tactics, we roll, and I narrate the outcome... but, other than when the PCs lose an exchange, when can the opponents be proactive? I want to do stuff like taking a hostage or whatever during an extended contest, but it looks like the only time I could is when the PCs lose an exchange. Yes, asymmetrical exchanges, but if the PC wins that exchange, the opponent doesn't get what they want. Anyone else spot this issue, or am I missing something?
I don't think you ar missing anything, I just think th rules are not adequate. The rules very shift from basic extended contests to large multi-party conflicts without really getting into any detail about how the extended contests are supposed to work.
In my opinion they don't work very well. My advice is to focus on the fact that even individual contests within an extend contest should be viewed as Conflict Resolution, and so each roll should be preceded with an emphasis on how each party is acting and how their intentions conflict.
So a direct answer would be do the declared actions of the NPCs throughout. The player will be actively acting against them with their intent either implcity or by implied goals.
I would also advise ignoring the advice on orthogonal conflicts in the rules, they are clouded and IMO try to fix a problem that isn't there.
formen:
As other people have mentioned, I'd used fixed augmenmts over rolled ones as it saves a lot of time. Also, if you use magic/psionics/whatever, I'd give each one a rating and treat them all in the same way, it's faster than having special rules for each effect. Also, I wouldn't use Extended Contests, ever. Use Chained Contests from Mythic Russia instead as they are quicker, easier to use and, in my opinion, more satisfying
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page