Quote from: CRKrueger;769510Yeah, even BBG though is kinda split it seems, the "Cult of IP" has poisoned the well against legitimate claims.  It has it's own section now separate from the original.

For a while there was a heated debate. Mainly because GZ was presenting the game as being a reprint of the original. Even using the old ads and claiming the new was compatible with the old. Then claiming they did not need to credit the original designer, etc in GZs usual own worst enemy routine.

And the claims they were totally legit and had Hasbros permission, then they didnt, then they did, then they didnt need it and so on.

Its got its own seperate entry due to later claims that the rules would not be a reprint of the original. Hence its sectioned off. Board though is about 75% the same to the original. I did a comparison.

This on top of GameZone pulling repeated nationalist cards and rallying against the "jealous americans" "trolls" and so on.

As said. Their own worst enemy. All of this could have been avoided.

Quote from: soltakss;769480Personally, I like both systems, but prefer RQ a little more.

The 100 word chargen is fairly easy, you just write down your character, then underline whatever seems to be an ability or important thing. Then you rewrite it to strip down the fluff and bring out other abilities, giving you a more streamlined character.

As Jeff said, the best thing to do is to focus on keywords and ignore individual abilities, unless they are important to the character. That way, you get a short, meaningful and powerful character description that could be written on an index card, if that's what you prefer. I'd use an A4 sheet, folded in half, as they are cheaper and allow you to write other things on.

I like that idea.

As for the RQ, HQ discussion. I have yet to get my feet wet with HQ, but RQ6 is working very well. Hard to say why. Perhaps because it slides into the background and just does its thing.

What is Epic?

Also doesn't HQ2 have some sort of rule that the GM is supposed to put their thumb on the scales at dramatic moments? More than any other factor, that would separate it from RQ (or pretty much anything I would want to play). Though it's probably easy to remove. That and extended contests for social combat--I've never seen it done in a way that works for me.

Quote from: Arminius;769535What is Epic?

Also doesn't HQ2 have some sort of rule that the GM is supposed to put their thumb on the scales at dramatic moments? More than any other factor, that would separate it from RQ (or pretty much anything I would want to play). Though it's probably easy to remove. That and extended contests for social combat--I've never seen it done in a way that works for me.

Don't worry Eliot, we're still in our formative years apparently, someday we'll grow up and rolepl...er create Collaborative Fiction with the best of em!

I've been surprised how many old RQ/Chaosium old hands have boarded the HQ train. Starting with Greg Stafford of course!

OTOH when you engage many of these folks you find that they've had very little contact with hardcore Forgery; it's more like it was adopted, with Mike Holmes as a sort of St. Paul putting his own stamp on the reception and interpretation. Meanwhile the classic Chaosium approach is surprisingly railroady--Griffin Mountain is the exception. One would think that a set of rules with such gritty verisimilitude would have more sandbox support at the campaign level.

With HQ v. RQ it's obviously a fallacy that proportion of rules for various activities dictates the course of the game. But complex rules are going to turn off some people, including a good number who aren't that interested in the thing handled by those rules. Conversely mechanical approaches have a variety of benefits: fun of rolling dice; making it easier for the GM to adjudicate without having to improvise a method; supporting impartiality; moving things in unexpected directions; enforcing consequences. So I can see why BG is interested in this game given his thread on deemphasizing combat. Personally, though, I'm long worn out by encounters with HQ advocates who downplay the negatives of the system--I'd rather just have something that's lighter across the board.

Although there's some truth in what Jeff says regarding how the RQ combat system is often cited as a feature (and, indeed, may prove to be an attractive feature for some roleplayers), Pete and I have continually de-emphasised the role of combat in the game.

If you compare Character Creation, Combat and Magic, Combat receives far less page count than either of these chapters. We've also tried to communicate the philosophy of 'combat as last resort' to deter the inevitable mountains of bodies and limbs that people tend to associate with RQ.

When combat does take place, then it should feel thrilling and dangerous. It should be able to capture the wonderful panache of Wesley and Inigo Montoya as well as the brutality of Ridley Scott's Gladiator (we think it does). But we don't regard combat as central to RQ. In our long-running Mythic Britain campaign, combats were quite rare (and when they happened, tended to be over quickly). Instead we had a lot more politicking, alliance building/breaking, deep loves and hatreds and, in the final part of the campaign, adventuring directly in Celtic Myth (the characters' trip to Gorfannon's Forge was pure HeroQuesting and felt like it was lifted from the Mabinigion).

So RQ can do all the things HQ can. It does them differently, but as a rule system it's really only confined by the imagination of the GM and players: something that's true of every RPG. I also think that while combat was the central core of the system in previous editions, RQ6 offers a huge amount of scope (using the core d100 mechanics) to tackle many different forms of challenge and conflict - much as HQ does.

And for the record, both Pete and I use HQ for certain kinds of games where the atmosphere requires a particular narrative pace, and the drive of the HQ mechanics are perfect. In our recent Culture game, we actually merged RQ and HQ, using the former for the actions of our physical avatars (sent to deal with a barbarous species) while HQ was the perfect platform for running epic space battles between our Abominator Class Fast Response Pickets.

Quote from: Loz;769999Although there's some truth in what Jeff says regarding how the RQ combat system is often cited as a feature (and, indeed, may prove to be an attractive feature for some roleplayers), Pete and I have continually de-emphasised the role of combat in the game.

If you compare Character Creation, Combat and Magic, Combat receives far less page count than either of these chapters. We've also tried to communicate the philosophy of 'combat as last resort' to deter the inevitable mountains of bodies and limbs that people tend to associate with RQ.

When combat does take place, then it should feel thrilling and dangerous. It should be able to capture the wonderful panache of Wesley and Inigo Montoya as well as the brutality of Ridley Scott's Gladiator (we think it does). But we don't regard combat as central to RQ. In our long-running Mythic Britain campaign, combats were quite rare (and when they happened, tended to be over quickly). Instead we had a lot more politicking, alliance building/breaking, deep loves and hatreds and, in the final part of the campaign, adventuring directly in Celtic Myth (the characters' trip to Gorfannon's Forge was pure HeroQuesting and felt like it was lifted from the Mabinigion).

So RQ can do all the things HQ can. It does them differently, but as a rule system it's really only confined by the imagination of the GM and players: something that's true of every RPG. I also think that while combat was the central core of the system in previous editions, RQ6 offers a huge amount of scope (using the core d100 mechanics) to tackle many different forms of challenge and conflict - much as HQ does.

And for the record, both Pete and I use HQ for certain kinds of games where the atmosphere requires a particular narrative pace, and the drive of the HQ mechanics are perfect. In our recent Culture game, we actually merged RQ and HQ, using the former for the actions of our physical avatars (sent to deal with a barbarous species) while HQ was the perfect platform for running epic space battles between our Abominator Class Fast Response Pickets.

As awesome as Conflict Resolution can be for something like a space battle, you know we're going to put your guys thumbs to the screws until we get a Unofficial Space Combat Module for the non existent supplement that shall not be named.

Disclaimer: I did not just threaten Lawrence with actual medieval torture.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770033As awesome as Conflict Resolution can be for something like a space battle, you know we're going to put your guys thumbs to the screws until we get a Unofficial Space Combat Module for the non existent supplement that shall not be named.

Disclaimer: I did not just threaten Lawrence with actual medieval torture.

No, you didn't. You just casually implied that I would join in on a potential thumbscrewing mob.
Which I won't, of course. Preposterous! Though, such a supplement would be awfully nice...

Quote from: baragei;770046No, you didn't. You just casually implied that I would join in on a potential thumbscrewing mob.
Which I won't, of course. Preposterous! Though, such a supplement would be awfully nice...

Disclaimer: Whenever I say "we" it is the "royal we".
Disclaimer: As far as I know, I am not actually royalty.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770054Disclaimer: Whenever I say "we" it is the "royal we".
Disclaimer: As far as I know, I am not actually royalty.

Least we know which floor of the dungeon he ended up on...

QuoteSECOND FLOOR DUNGEON!
Jewelry department.
Leg chains, ankle chains,
neck chains, wrist chains,
thumb screws and nooses
of the very finest rope.

And we still have not solved the problem of which side the ducks eat their toast... butter side up or...

Quote from: CRKrueger;770033As awesome as Conflict Resolution can be for something like a space battle, you know we're going to put your guys thumbs to the screws until we get a Unofficial Space Combat Module for the non existent supplement that shall not be named.

Actually I 'm sure hypothetical pages 29-35 of the supplement that shall not be named has exactly what you are not supposed to be looking for...

[/Jedi Hand Wave]

Quote from: Pete Nash;770062Actually I 'm sure hypothetical pages 29-35 of the supplement that shall not be named has exactly what you are not supposed to be looking for...

[/Jedi Hand Wave]

Damn you and your memory obfuscating powers!  Should have done more then skimmed the guns and Jedi section.  :banghead:

Disclaimer: I am neither confirming or denying that Pete Nash is a Jedi or whether not he gets invited to Sith parties.

This is not the supplement you're looking for.

You can go about your business.

Move along.

I still have some old Hero Wars books, but the apparent collection needed just to get a decent start -- and the chaotic mass of the texts -- put me off even before the first line-wide revision. Never got around actually to running the game, and never saw anyone running it locally (although Mongoose RQ must have had some legs since the flgs stocked it).

It looked as if it should be better than RQ at handling hero/superhero level stuff a la WB&RM. Not sure about scenes with more than a few figures, though; old D&D has been my thing for that (or DBA for really big battles).

My impression is that HQ has more "narrativist" elements.

As to the free-form character write-up, I thought that was a great idea.

I like the "hit point" equivalent (forget what it's called) in extended contests. Along with d20, that smooths the probability curve compared with Risus. It's especially nifty, I think, for really long-term projects (of which several may be ongoing in parallel).

All theoretical appreciation, as I haven't played.

As Loz mentioned earlier I do occasionally use HQ, ironically enough the last time being to play out a battle between Culture warships and a sublimed Dra'Azon guardian. The reason I utilised the HQ rules in an otherwise (non-combat) RQ6 game was that the fight was very abstract and I was employing a lot of high level physics as part of the battle descriptions.

Whilst I like playing in HQ games, I personally tend to find it very draining as a GM to run for anything more than a one-off game. In campaigns its quite difficult to ensure that narrated effects and powers remain consistent (both by the players and the GM), and for things like combat I like to have a bit more rules support to save myself from sounding like a scratched record when describing the to and fro of a contest... especially when my mental alacrity has noticeably atrophied from my younger GMing days.