New to HeroQuest ~ need advice

[Mike Holmes]

Never be sorry to disagree. I stand corrected on sidekicks (though I hope I can be forgiven given how the rules are presented). In any case, the restriction on generation is still pertinent for the poster. But thanks for clarifying.


The magic subject is an intensely complicated discussion. First, let's start with what we all agree on:

Firstly, the magic systems presented in the HQ book are all samples. That is, even in Glorantha, there are more systems of magic than the four presented. For example, there is a fifth - Natural Magic - implied in the book and enumerated clearly on the Glorantha site (http://www.glorantha.com/support/natural_magic.html). Coming soon in ILH-2 we'll have Lunar Magic. Oft implied are mysticism (though this could also be part of many other religions and more of a road than a whole magic type), and other sorts of magic. In any case, this is one case where I've asked the designers, and I'm sure that it's the case - the magic chapters are sample forms of magic.

I was supposed to write an article for the site on making new magic keywords, so I did a lot of research on this.

Anyhow, what this means is that you're supposed to, in fact, create your own magic styles. If you have your own world and you create your own magic methods, then you've done nothing but what you're supposed to in HQ.

Secondly, as Ron Edwards first pointed out (FWICT), yep, I agree, you can completely have fun and portray magic just fine using the "just select certain abilities as magic" style. I think that if you're really not into looking too deeply into magic, in fact, that this is probably the best thing to do. For example, given a wuxia game that's supposed to match movies or something, this is cool. Or if you're just the sort of player who's entirely into stats as metagame, and not at all simulative - then by all means discard those parts that Ron calls "cruft" here.


Now, that all said, I am a great apologist for the HQ magic systems. And I've gone on at some length elsewhere about why. But we can do it once more here.

The main advantage to the various forms, IMO, is that they do have a different feel based on the various requirements a character must have to get and use the magic of that form. For instance, to get animist magic one has to befriend spirits. Sure, one could simulate this with the simpler system, saying that such a contest just gets you one or more abilities...but then how different is this than the animism system?

This is an important point, I think. The various magic systems aren't really as complicated as people think. Largely they boil down to "How do I get magic in packages vs How do I get individual magics?" Sure, easy for me to say, given that I've played it a lot. But it's only complicated in relation to the incredible elegance of the rest of the HQ system. To compare it to D20 magic is not at all accurate. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they're limited in number for each system, and actually generally follow their own patterns. To say nothing of the fact that their use is pretty optional. That is, people tend to add on things as they feel the need to do so. So you didn't know that you could have a spirit ally as a concentrated animist? OK, fine, now you know, go get one.

Anyhow, I've had no trouble getting people to understand these things even in chat media.

But, back to the original point, for what is really little more complication, what you get is a feeling about how the magic is obtained and retained. For theism, you get affinities, which are interesting in that you can't use more than one feat from an affinity at a time - the feats are part of the ability, and you can only use the overall ability once. That's interesting because while devotees are flexible, they're also very limited in how much they can do at once. This gives a strong feeling about what the capabilities of an individual of this sort are like.

Adepts (my favorite) learn spells from books. Either with an understanding of the whole work, or the spells individually (or combined). This gives two perspectives on how Adepts learn their magic, and is a fun choice to have to consider in play.

More importantly than just obtaining magic, however, is the question of how the character must behave to use it. Sure, with the simplified system one could rule that certain abilities might go away with "impious" behavior, but I like to have it listed which ability belongs to which spirit, so I know which abilities are unavailable when I piss of which spirit.

Again, sure, you could record this to the side with the simpler system, but now you're back to the complexity level of the system as written.

Anyhow, all taken together, the keywords and magic structures work to give a lot of feel to how magic is obtained and used, and which has lead in lots of cases in play of games I've run to creating interesting thematic decision points. What seems odd about your claim, Harshax, is the idea that somehow all of the extra mechanics somehow detract from the thematic feel of magic. HQ is designed so that when the resolution system meets the keyword structures provided by the samples, that play tends to hit on some very consistent types of themes that are what everyone wants to see in fantasy play. "What do you believe in?" for instance is heightened by the investment in certain magic structures.

This is, I believe, what Latreya is talking about losing if you decide to ditch these extra mechanics. In any case, I find the argument that doing nothing to discriminate between magical methods would be superior to what HQ does if one desires differentiation. And I've played lots of RQ...and RQ is just not very magical at all, IMO. Better than D&D, certainly, but mechanically it doesn't do anything at all really to differentiate (other than in some cases to provide exception mechanics, which you say that you don't want). If you don't believe that appropriate mechanics are important in creating a particular feel in play, then you need to read the System Does Matter essay here on the essay page.


I also have to disagree with Chris and others who have repeated the old chestnut that "HQ magic is just to represent Glorantha." While there may be some bias towards Glorantha, and while I do think that HQ magic does do Glorantha very well, the fact is that Glorantha is just representative of Earth. Oh, sure, it's less earth-ish than Middle Earth or some other worlds, but scrambling geography doesn't change the fact that it's still largely about humans in a world where falling down hurts. Basically to make any RPG interesting, it still has to be something we can relate to. Fantasy games really make very little alterations to earth, except to say "Magic and monsters are real!"

Well, even those monsters are real world monsters. That is dragons, werewolves, trolls, etc, are all real world concepts. Yeah, Norse elves aren't plants. Whatever. The point is that Glorantha has lots of similarities to our world to make it something we can relate to. It's mythology is like ours. And it's magic is like that which we have come to know through literature, and is like that believed in by our ancestors. Like in every fantasy game. Is it a co-incidence that both Glorantha and D&D have wizardry?

Ah, but, you say, "Mike, D&D wizardry and Gloranthan wizadry are very different!" And you're right. Gloranthan wizardry is more like earth wizardry, and that which we read about in books. Theism as presented in HQ is more like the source material by far than "Clerics." Animism works a lot like real world animism, unlike Druids or whathaveyou that are just priests in disguise.

The three presented forms are just Monotheism with shadings? I must be reading that incorrectly. I have no idea what you might mean. From lots of play of HQ, all I can say is that using the rules as written as closely as possible has lead to the most magical play of any fantasy game I've ever played. And it's not remotely "despite" the mechanics, but because of them.

And I don't play in Glorantha. I play in ICE's old Shadow World setting. When I started, I thought to myself, "Mike, you're going to have to do a lot of work to make HQ fit Shadow World." And I did that work (you can find it all posted on this forum). Know what? It was pointless. Because what I didn't really want was to play Rolemaster using HQ resolution. I wanted to play the issues behind Shadow World using the HQ system in full, a system which it turns out has managed to make Shadow World come to life like it never could under Rolemaster, specifically because of the magic systems (it's fascinating how the RM and "Gloranthan" systems map almost perfectly in theme, but how HQ does them all so much better).

So...the system changed my mind. In actual play. That using it as written was a better idea than house-ruling a lot of it. How much more powerful a statement can I make about it's effectiveness in this way?

Now, all that said, is it perfect? No, it's merely the best system for magic that I've seen to date (and I've seen a lot). There are some hitches in getting people to get things like multi-part soul-spirit-essences, etc. I've had players complain that the complexities weren't worthwhile on occasion (Chris?). I have a house rule for concentration. Yeah, even I don't play 100% by the rules. I'm not saying that one shouldn't change it at all.

I do so love magic in RPGs. That's what first attracted me to RPGs, and why I still play fantasy far more than any other form. So, perhaps I'm biased in that I want more complexity where magic is concerned. I want people to fiddle around with the magic rules. I want it to be philosophically complex. Not everyone will want that.

So, again, maybe the simple method is better for those people. But if you really want magical magic, if you want that sense of wonder about magic that makes it so cool...then I can only most heartily recommend trying to put forth the extra effort to learn it.

What's more, if I can be of any assistance to anyone in understanding these things, I love nothing more than to go on at length about such here. Just ask.

(And, when I screw up, correct me).

Mike