[RPG]: HeroQuest, reviewed by Dan Davenport (4/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12174.phtml

Dan Davenport's Summary:

The authors bring Glorantha to life once more with a system that’s at once simple to use and epic in scale. If you’ve no patience for abstraction, you may find yourself annoyed. Otherwise, prepare to be amazed.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Nihtgenga]

Good review Dan (as always, but I kinda miss the gumshoe).

In the end I just couldn't get enthusiastic for the system, even though it is almost a work of art. When I decided that I really was after the more mortal scale of RQ, the hand wavy 'no kill' thing became the deal breaker. What I use it for now is a translation document to turn RQII into an 'Over the Edge' game. Keywords to central traits and the ability to equate OtE HP to extended contests AP totals works well. Moving augments to bonus die doens't work as well, but in the end I had a something that approximated the grittiness of RQ and the speed of HQ.

I think HQ is one of those great systems that I will never play. (Having the sufer dude example character really didn't help either).

Cheers

[Tom B]

After running a few sessions of HeroQuest, I ended up disappointed. I was hoping for a less numbers-intensive game, and was dismayed by how the character sheets ended up looking. Columns of skills and numbers. Whenever skill use was required, the players scoured their sheets looking for augmenting skills. The extended contest, supposedly descriptive and less numbers-oriented, basically boiled down to numbers. (You bid 8. (roll) Your opponent loses 8. He bids 6. (roll) You transfer 6 to your opponent. You bid...) Now, this is couched in descripted terminology, but that's what it boiled down to.

I recognize that I need to give it another chance, but obviously I had built up some unrealistic expectations for it.

I still appreciate how clever the basic mechanics are...they just didn't play out as I thought they would. Good review, I basically agree with it, although I would have given a somewhat lower Substance score.

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by Nihtgenga

Good review Dan (as always, but I kinda miss the gumshoe).

Thanks very much!

And don't worry: I have it on good authority that the hard-boiled GMshoe will be back, and soon.
<br>

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by Tom B

I still appreciate how clever the basic mechanics are...they just didn't play out as I thought they would. Good review, I basically agree with it, although I would have given a somewhat lower Substance score.

Thanks, Tom!

I probably would have given it a lower Substance score myself, if I were rating just on how much I, personally, enjoyed the rules. But I do think it achieves its goals very well. Good point about the scrambling for augments, though.

[Simple Man]

Thanks for the informative review, Dan.

You've actually motivated my decision of whether or not to purchase Heroquest.

Thanks.

[Ranyart Finn]

Originally Posted by Tom B

The extended contest, supposedly descriptive and less numbers-oriented, basically boiled down to numbers. (You bid 8. (roll) Your opponent loses 8. He bids 6. (roll) You transfer 6 to your opponent. You bid...) Now, this is couched in descripted terminology, but that's what it boiled down to.

I agree with you 100% Tom. GMs, as well as players, need to adopt a different approach to make HQ work as its meant to, or it becomes a bean-counting exercise. I'm running a Hawkmoon game using HQ, and to prevent this type of thing happening (ie, just bidding numbers without any rationale), I have to preface contests by telling the players that I want descriptions of what they're doing or I won't allow any augments to the ability they choose. I also demand plausible reasons for why an augment applies - even obvious ones.

My GMing style is narrative-focused anyway, so HQ suits me, but amending my approach hasn't always been easy. The players have started to get the message, and instead of scouring away for tenuous abilities with max power, and suspicious augments, they start to describe what they're doing, how they're doing it, and why.

It does work. But I agree that it won't work for everyone, and I can see how, despite its cleverness, it will disappoint on some levels.

And Dan, an excellent review!

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by Simple Man

Thanks for the informative review, Dan.

You've actually motivated my decision of whether or not to purchase Heroquest.

Thanks.

Glad I could be of help.

(Just out of curiousity, which way did you decide? )

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by Ranyart Finn

I agree with you 100% Tom. GMs, as well as players, need to adopt a different approach to make HQ work as its meant to, or it becomes a bean-counting exercise. I'm running a Hawkmoon game using HQ, and to prevent this type of thing happening (ie, just bidding numbers without any rationale), I have to preface contests by telling the players that I want descriptions of what they're doing or I won't allow any augments to the ability they choose. I also demand plausible reasons for why an augment applies - even obvious ones.

My GMing style is narrative-focused anyway, so HQ suits me, but amending my approach hasn't always been easy. The players have started to get the message, and instead of scouring away for tenuous abilities with max power, and suspicious augments, they start to describe what they're doing, how they're doing it, and why.

It does work. But I agree that it won't work for everyone, and I can see how, despite its cleverness, it will disappoint on some levels.

And Dan, an excellent review!

Thanks, RF!

And you're absolutely right. The game works perfectly for your gaming style, which is why I gave it the high marks that I did.

[The Horror]

Fantastic review. It actually answered every question I've ever had about HeroQuest!