Post originally by Trombone4Hire at 2003-09-01 13:42:12
Converted from Phorums BB System
I used to play a Milton Bradley board game called HeroQuest back in junior high, before I started playing real RPGs. It was basically a RPG-lite, moving archetypical fantasy heroes around subterranian locales, brawling with orcs, skeletons, chaos warriors, and evil wizards. If the chaos warriors seem familiar, it's because the game was also made by Games Workshop as an intro to the Warhammer setting, though it was never explicitly stated to be such. A few expansions were made for it, and a HeroQuest Advanced games was published as well. I don't know what ever happened to it, but I still get the urge to play from time to time. *sigh* Oh well. I guess I'll read the review now.
Post originally by Harrek at 2003-09-01 13:50:47
Converted from Phorums BB System
Nice review, Wulf, and a fair treatment. For the most part I agree with your criticisms, though some of them don't bother me much (such as Wealth, or cementing items). And while I'm not overly fond of the cover, I think it's a non-issue.
I have a minor quibble with one of your points:
--------------------------------------------
It’s bit strange that the abilities you are renowned for are actually poorer than those common to many others around you, but there it is.
--------------------------------------------
I don't think that's true. If the ability is in your keyword, you (and everyone else with the same keyword) start at 17. If not, at 13. But in the second case, the others will not have the ability at all, and will have at best a default value of 6.
Of course, if that still bothers you, it's an easy fix to start those additional abilities at something higher than 13.
(Either I'm stupid today, or the there is a gremlin loose - I couldn't post this earlier...)
Post originally by Wulf Corbett at 2003-09-01 14:30:27
Converted from Phorums BB System
Like I said on the Forum... I didn't say your unique abilities started lower than everyone else, I said they started lower than your (and others')common abilities. And they do, 13 vs 17. However, it doesn't bother me much, so I didn't dwell on it. It's just something that's been commented on elsewhere.
Post originally by Henrix at 2003-09-01 15:24:04
Converted from Phorums BB System
As Malenfant says, it went OOP, as Grimes Orkshop games are wont to do.
However, it did have a reincarnation as WarhammerQuest before it was finally laid to rest.
Post originally by Stephen at 2003-09-01 17:19:04
Converted from Phorums BB System
I never played HW but I did download the rules synopsis and first 3 chapters of HW from Issaries some months ago. HW talks about Mystic strikes and Mysticism, but not a single mention of it in HQ. Rules too broken to be bothered with? A supplement for playing in the east to come? As HQ is supposed to be back compatible with HW supplements, I assume Mysticism never appeared in any of them?
I disagree that the homelands being too skimpy. I started role-playing with RQ2, and this book gives you more to start with in terms of playing just with the book and nothing else. Likewise I don't see the Wealth value as too much of an issue, a better merchant will have a higher Wealth than a poor one - I don't see the difference to tracking silver coins. (Mind you I haven't tried playing the game yet).
The immunity to injury in this game is a flaw I think. It should be mentioned that losing any contest causes you to be 'hurt' or worse in the appropriate ability. Like a debate could injure your social abilities by 10% for a season or so. The game does seem to rely on the contest a little too much, but the game mechanics remind me a little of Prince Valiant, and that game includes an example of a player making such a good speech that the Storyteller ignored the Presence roll (err, coin toss).
I wonder if there should be tracking of losses and wins during the contest and the final defeat used to adjudicate them. eg. if you win but took an over 50% loss of AP at one stage, that translates into a minor injury (of a major one if you lose the contest).
Magic: I found the Wizardry section much harder to figure out than the Theistic section. I am still not sure of the relationship between orders and schools, if any. The Feats seemed reasonably simple, although I draw the example from Common magic. The 'leap over trees' common magic seems to be how a feat would work to me, so a 'Sunset leap' feat would only work at sunset....
Character development - the create as you go could be problematic, but only for the first couple of adventures. I would be more worried about ending up with an eclectic bunch of skills instead of a coherent character. It is worth pointing out that the narrative method can also be used in a similar fashion. You have a maximum of 100 words, but if you conk out at 60, you can keep the other 40 to flesh out the character as you go. I think I like that option - more focused than the list as you play.
Finally, if HQ worth it if you are not interested in Glorantha?
Well, if you like loose Narrative systems I think this is not a bad addition to your collection. The scale of the game is from normal human to superhuman, so it would technically work as a Supers game. Likewise the flaw of being almost impossible to be hurt in the rules would work well in pulp fiction games where you can survive leap out of exploding planes with only a blanket to break your fall.
Post originally by Dave at 2003-09-02 04:23:06
Converted from Phorums BB System
Hi,
well, in my opinion the "other" HQ was actually so bad that I don't cry over it. I was an expierenced roleplayer when we did a couple of sessions with the basic and advanced boardgame and I was horrified how badly designed it was. I always thought that it gives players new to RPGs a completely wrong impression...with the GM being "the bad guy", all that hack'n'slash...random dungeons....uggh. the best thing about it were the plastic miniatures that could be used in any Warhammer-related game...cheers, dave
Post originally by Luke Silburn at 2003-09-02 04:44:36
Converted from Phorums BB System
The way I see it, the keywords represent your 'professional' abilities - the stuff you do to make a living; whereas your additional traits represent your 'amateur' abilities - the stuff you've picked up along the way as a sideline activity or hobby.
Viewed this way it makes sense to me that these non-core abilities start lower than those that contribute to your day-to-day vocation.
Linear Mode
