Topic: Heroquest d20
Started by: S'mon
Started on: 3/2/2005
Board: HeroQuest
On 3/2/2005 at 7:09pm, S'mon wrote:
Heroquest d20
Just mulling it over, occurred to me there's really no reason I can see not to use a version of Heroquest's simple-conflict-resolution rules for most D&D/d20 conflicts - I mean, the game already effectively does this for 'skill' conflicts... why not for NPC vs NPC combat, ship vs ship combat, PC vs 5000 mooks... and for what would be Extended contests in HQ I can always use the regular D&D combat rules or such. But for most things, just give each side a suitable mod, and roll.
This might not make it Nar but it would sure make it much less painful to adjudicate! :)
On 3/3/2005 at 5:06pm, Different Games wrote:
Or
Or even better, just use HQ for everything and leave the idiocy of character classes, armor classes, experience points and all that blech behind.
On 3/3/2005 at 6:05pm, S'mon wrote:
Re: Or
Different Games wrote: Or even better, just use HQ for everything and leave the idiocy of character classes, armor classes, experience points and all that blech behind.
But then there'd be no Gamism. :(
;)
On 3/3/2005 at 7:03pm, Scripty wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
I actually put together a d20 to HeroQuest conversion. Probably the most useful thing to come out of it is a chart giving HeroQuest ratings for d20 numbers. The whole point was really to tool the numbers of d20 into a format where the HQ rules could take over.
A few people expressed interest but I haven't heard anything back from any of them. Which could mean they didn't like it or found little use for it or are still burning incense to me on a daily basis due to the kewl chart I sent them for free. Who knows?
My own use for it would be to rip monsters and whatnot out of d20 on the fly. Or to try to get D&Dites to give HQ a whirl. A brief (very brief) exchange with Robin Laws convinced me of the error of my ways though. I'm beginning to get a look-see at how a generic HQ could work and I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it before I did all those dadgummed conversions.
For what you're talking about, S'mon, I'd recommend tooling d20 to resemble more of the Shadow of Yesterday. Introducing "Bringing Down the Pain" and "Keys" to d20 would go a lot farther towards Narr-ish play with the d20 system than just using the resolution mechanic of HQ would, IMO.
Scott
On 3/3/2005 at 8:58pm, S'mon wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Thanks, I'll maybe give that a looksee. I like to be able to resolve stuff quickly and easily, and sometimes dice are handy.
On 3/3/2005 at 9:00pm, S'mon wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Not sure if I'm really wanting Nar according to GNS but I do like Drama according to GDS, I tend to prioritise it over G or S though in the Threefold they're not exclusive.
On 3/3/2005 at 9:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Well how is this different from D&D's resolution system now? I mean, it's roll d20 +Mods >= TN, right? So what about HQ would you be keeping, and what chucking? You're making all rolls opposed? Adding the mastery thing? Using what ratings for things?
Put it another way, can you give an example of how you'd do an original D&D contest, and then how it would work using HQ with the same characters? Or is this what you're looking for out of this thread?
Mike
On 3/3/2005 at 9:52pm, S'mon wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Mike Holmes wrote: Well how is this different from D&D's resolution system now? I mean, it's roll d20 +Mods >= TN, right?
It's not different - that's my point. The basic mechanic of d20+ mod vs d20 + mod (or DC) is basically the same. The way you find the mod is different, that's all. I was inspired by the discussion on running Hornblower Heroquest in another thread. The standard D&D/d20 approach to say shipboard combat is highly simulationist and probably involves minis and (these days) battleboards & square counting. It almost certainly involves ablative hit points and round-by-round combat. This takes _hours_ and detracts from the RP experience, I'd rather that conflict be resolved in 1 (opposed) roll - one reason I love the 0D&D War Machine mass combat system, which does this with a %.
So I'm thinking that it could be a good idea to define eg a ship in HQ-style terms with a bunch of mods-to-d20-roll like Tough Hull +5, rather than AC, hit points & such. This can also be done for armies, buildings, etc. The skill system already does it for NPCs, to a large extent, though it would be nice to incorporate relationship mods, which are rare in D&D (aside from Hate Orcs +1).
On 3/3/2005 at 9:57pm, S'mon wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Mike Holmes wrote: Put it another way, can you give an example of how you'd do an original D&D contest, and then how it would work using HQ with the same characters? Or is this what you're looking for out of this thread?
I think I'm looking for pointers on eliminating the Sim-crunch elements from d20 task resolution when I wish to do so. They're already pretty much absent in skill resolution, but combat, being the game's focus, is harder. In my 1 session playing HQ I really liked how combat tasks were at the exact same level as non-combat in terms of resolution and interest. D&D/d20 puts combat on a pedestal & everything else is relegated to unimportance (which makes playing Rogues kinda sucky).
On 3/3/2005 at 10:02pm, Adrienne wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Scripty wrote: My own use for it would be to rip monsters and whatnot out of d20 on the fly. Or to try to get D&Dites to give HQ a whirl. A brief (very brief) exchange with Robin Laws convinced me of the error of my ways though. I'm beginning to get a look-see at how a generic HQ could work and I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it before I did all those dadgummed conversions.
I hope this isn't too derailing, but monsters are my favorite thing about D&D, so this sounds really interesting. How complicated was the conversion? What made you decide it was an error?
On 3/4/2005 at 2:25pm, Scripty wrote:
RE: Heroquest d20
Adrienne wrote: I hope this isn't too derailing, but monsters are my favorite thing about D&D, so this sounds really interesting. How complicated was the conversion? What made you decide it was an error?
Well, the big part of the conversion was a chart. Mike Holmes had set it in motion in my head with a response to an earlier attempt to convert d20 numbers to HQ ratings. I tweaked his suggestions for ratios and whatnot and tested the results until I got levels of difficulty or prowess that were roughly equivalent across the two systems.
The chart consists of d20 numbers (bonuses and DCs) referenced against 5 columns of HQ ratings, each column a successively higher ratio than the one before.
In truth, you'd probably only need or use the first two columns and I honestly don't see why you wouldn't or couldn't just pick whichever column sounds right to you based on the circumstances of the encounter.
The higher ratios in the successive columns in order to make it so that DMs (or Narrators) would not have to calculate augments for the creatures. This streamlined the use of the chart, IMO, and allowed it to be more useful as an at-the-table reference.
Subsequently, if you're familiar with DCs in D&D but not so familiar with the TNs in HeroQuest, you could use the chart to gauge relative difficulty. Say you know that a trap should be roughly a DC 18 to disarm in D&D but have no clue what kind of HQ rating that would be. You could just look up DC 18 on the chart and run your finger across to the rating that made most sense at the time, without having to make further adjustments.
If you're still interested, PM me an email address. I'll send you a copy of the chart and the notes on how to use it.
S'mon wrote: I think I'm looking for pointers on eliminating the Sim-crunch elements from d20 task resolution when I wish to do so. They're already pretty much absent in skill resolution, but combat, being the game's focus, is harder. In my 1 session playing HQ I really liked how combat tasks were at the exact same level as non-combat in terms of resolution and interest. D&D/d20 puts combat on a pedestal & everything else is relegated to unimportance (which makes playing Rogues kinda sucky).
Again, Simon, I think "Bringing Down the Pain" from Shadows of Yesterday is more what you're going for.
Essentially, PCs roll against a DC or an opposed roll, after stating their intentions for the outcome of the contest. Based on the results of the contest, the PCs live by the results, unless they want to "Bring Down the Pain" of course.
This is probably better served by the M&M damage save system than Hit Points, but Hit points could be used, I suppose, in lieu of Damage Saves.
"Bringing Down the Pain" results in a series of rounds that feature repeated rolls and a spiral of sorts that ends in either the player accepting the terms of failure or injury, of some sort. The system is modelled after HQ resolution and would be much easier to port over to d20, IMO, than the HeroQuest system of contest resolution.
Here's a link, I don't think Ron or Clinton will mind if I pimp out Clinton's game: Shadow of Yesterday.
Also, please don't forget to help a brother out and buy a copy if you like it.
Clinton, my check will be in the mail shortly. I just got finished paying off my credit card for two major job-hunting trips. I'm picking up a copy of Rippers and SoY this month, and maybe Savage Worlds Revised next month. So I'm not just a pimp... I'm a customer!
Scott