Fixing the Doorway Problem

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I use something similar and have done so since the early 90s (although the original idea wasn't mine Games International #9 Sep/Oct 1989)

#5 Wandering Monster Roll
At the start of each of his turns, the EWP rolls a combat dice. If the result is a , he may place a wandering monster for the Quest

And I use this in combination with "standard" Wandering Monsters, D6 1-3 = Goblin (Skeleton), 4-5 = Orc (Zombie), 6 = 2 Goblins (Skeletons)

There are only a couple of differences between your approach and mine, the main one I think being that the odds of a WM appears under your mechanism is 1/216, whilst introducing the rule will initially cause players to react in exactly the way you expect and desire, I think longer term the very low odds will make this effect slowly fade away as they realise that it pretty much never occurs!

That said I did find some scribbled notes of my own from back in the 90s around a proposed mod to my own rule, which I don't remember ever playing, which is to remove the WM roll and instead make a WM appear whenever a player rolls for movement. Obviously you would need to ensure that they roll their movement dice even when they aren't moving, but I'm tempted to switch over to this version of the rule in future as the odds are a little lower 1/9 but it also scales with the number of heroes which is neat.

[Zenithfleet]

I use something similar and have done so since the early 90s (although the original idea wasn't mine Games International #9 Sep/Oct 1989)

#5 Wandering Monster Roll
At the start of each of his turns, the EWP rolls a combat dice. If the result is a , he may place a wandering monster for the Quest

And I use this in combination with "standard" Wandering Monsters, D6 1-3 = Goblin (Skeleton), 4-5 = Orc (Zombie), 6 = 2 Goblins (Skeletons)

There are only a couple of differences between your approach and mine, the main one I think being that the odds of a WM appears under your mechanism is 1/216, whilst introducing the rule will initially cause players to react in exactly the way you expect and desire, I think longer term the very low odds will make this effect slowly fade away as they realise that it pretty much never occurs!

That said I did find some scribbled notes of my own from back in the 90s around a proposed mod to my own rule, which I don't remember ever playing, which is to remove the WM roll and instead make a WM appear whenever a player rolls for movement. Obviously you would need to ensure that they roll their movement dice even when they aren't moving, but I'm tempted to switch over to this version of the rule in future as the odds are a little lower 1/9 but it also scales with the number of heroes which is neat.

You're quite right about the possibility of the players eventually cottoning on to the very low odds. However the people I usually play games with aren't really probability / mathsy-minded (that includes me), and it feels like rolling three 1s or three black shields is more likely than it actually is. Sadly we're unlikely to play enough HQ in a row to get into the habit of ignoring it. But I want to try it in a few more games and see how it goes.

Off-topic a bit: In another old Milton Bradley game, Thunder Road, I added a 'bomber plane' house rule. In that game, each player rolls 3 dice for movement (one for each car racing down the road). As a house rule I decided that if a player rolls a triple 1, which would be a really disappointing result (they would barely get to move at all), that player gets to roll the attack dice for a spiky Mad Max aeroplane that flies up the road and drop bombs on everyone on the central highway. The player's own move will be just enough to get off the highway before it attacks. When I tried this out in a game, one player did roll a triple 1 ... and on the very last possible turn too, winning the game just as another player was about to make it off the board and win. What are the chances of that?

I think using a single combat die for the wandering monster would cause it to appear too often for my own tastes. (I don't want to put too much time pressure on exploration in HQ.) However, originally I was going to use two standard dice rather than three for the Evil Wizard player to roll--a double 1 results in a WM appearing. That might be a happy medium in terms of odds. (Or two combat dice, so two black shields.)

Tying it to the hero flubbing a movement roll is an interesting alternative! You're right, though, that they would need to remember to roll even if they don't move, or if they're only 1-2 spaces away from a monster and wouldn't normally bother rolling. (I tend to automatically roll out of habit even if I'm using a Man-at-Arms so I'd personally be fine, I reckon. ) It could also cause WMs to appear in the middle of combat with other monsters, but I guess you've been doing that already.

The other thing is that if the WM appears in the hero's turn, it would be more dangerous, because it might get to attack twice--once in that turn as soon as it appears, and once in the EW's turn if it survives until then. It would also throw up a couple of rules questions about whether the hero who rolled the double 1 gets to use his attack action if he hasn't already done so, before the WM gets its immediate attack, and whether his turn ends as if he'd stepped into a trap. (Edit: Presumably the WM attacks first, before the hero does, in the same way that it would attack first before the hero could move away if he found it with a regular search.) WMs appearing by treasure searches or by rolling in the EW's turn are simpler to deal with.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

As you can see below my notes from the time are brief but not exactly comprehensive (but then I guess I wasn't anticipating at the time having to interpret them several decades later!)

Replace WM roll with snake eyes on movement roll. Auto-scales for # of heroes, neat!

Thinking about it now, I would imagine playing it so that if a Hero rolls on their movement dice it would work exactly as if they had just drawn a WM treasure card, so they would be able to take their action, if they hadn't already done so, and their pitiful movement, after the monster's activity had been resolved.

The main thrust of this current discussion appear to be around frequency...

a) Your suggestion: WM roll on EWP turn* OR = 1/216 turns (* if you are only rolling when their are no monsters on the board then this is actually even lower)
b) Another suggestion: WM roll on EWP turn* OR = 1/36 turns
c) My new suggestion: on heroes movement dice = 1/12 turns (assuming 4 heroes, but auto-scales)
d) My original rule: WM roll on every EWP turn = 1/6 turns
e) Original GI rule: WM roll on every EWP turn = 1/3 turns (which definitely feels too frequent to me, and most other people I think)

On balance I prefer my new suggestion (c) (but then that is no surprise really or I wouldn't have suggested it!) as it sits in the middle probability-wise, it eliminates the need for an additional roll every turn and it auto-scales for the number of heroes.

The other aspect it whether you would accept or change the WM in various published quests, as some quests feature a powerful WM, such as a CW, which I think could be game-breaking, especially in combination with some of the higher frequency options above.

So for me personally I would prefer a relatively higher frequency of occurrence 1/12, a lower strength WM, but whose appearance - timing and placement (potentially with other monsters on the board, instant placement and attack, possibility of attack again shortly afterwards) makes it slightly more of a threat, and therefore slightly more interesting tactically, than if it was just placed on the EWP's turn.

[Zenithfleet]

I was interested to see that the original GI article (assuming I found the right one) doesn't place a wandering monster as such, but a 'reinforcement' monster in a place the players have already explored but isn't currently visible to them. It won't get to attack immediately and indeed it might be held back until more reinforcements have accumulated. That makes more sense of the high frequency, I think.

There is one other consideration to take into account (if you haven't already), which is how it feels to the players.

For example, if the WM appears on a Hero's move, that's more efficient because the Evil Wizard player doesn't have to roll each turn. But on the other hand, the EWP doesn't get to roll each turn. Rolling gives them something to do on a turn when otherwise they would be doing nothing. That could be especially important for HeroQuest's original intended audience (kids).

Also, it's already frustrating for a player to roll a double 1 and not be able to move where he/she wanted to. Having a WM pop up as well would be extra-frustrating. That may be a feature rather than a bug, of course.

In Milton Bradley's Space Crusade, when you shoot at an enemy, you only roll to 'attack'. The opponent doesn't get to defend like they would in HeroQuest. You just roll your dice and if the number is high enough you kill the enemy. In terms of time, this is quicker and more elegant than HQ. It effectively combines "do you hit it?" and "do you hurt it?" into a single roll. In SC every player controls multiple models, and there's more attacking going on than in HeroQuest (because everyone has guns and can attack anyone they can see, instead of having to be adjacent), so this stripped-down system was probably the right choice to keep the game moving along at a brisk pace.

However, the feeling of shooting at enemies in Space Crusade has always bothered me, ever since I was a kid. Because the single roll makes no distinction between hitting and hurting the enemy, it tends to feel like most of your shots miss by a mile and that your troops have worse aim than Star Wars stormtroopers. Plus, when you're being shot at, you don't feel like you have any agency to dodge or shield yourself. You just helplessly watch your models get bumped off. In HeroQuest you get to roll defence dice, and in Warhammer you get a 'save' roll, which makes you feel like you're reacting to the enemy and participating in the game--even though it's less efficient. Again, this can be particularly important for kids.

The other aspect it whether you would accept or change the WM in various published quests, as some quests feature a powerful WM, such as a CW, which I think could be game-breaking, especially in combination with some of the higher frequency options above.

Yes, that's the trouble with house rules--they tend to lead to other house rules, because they disturb the overall balance and assumptions of the game. It's like putting bigger wheels on your car for one reason or another. It seems fine until you realise your elderly mum can't get in because the door is higher off the ground, and the centre of gravity is higher up so you're more likely to roll over in a crash. Suddenly you need to bolt on an extra step and a roll cage.

For my part, I'm now leaning toward a 1/36 chance, so a double 1 (or two black shields) on two dice, rolling on the Evil Wizard player's turn instead of moving and fighting with monsters. (That way the roll can be made either when there are no monsters, or when the EWP is trying to lure the heroes through the door into a room with monsters.) I think a 1/36 chance lessens the problem of the especially powerful wandering monsters in certain quests, and doesn't put too much time pressure on the heroes' exploration.

I've played a lot of Warhammer Quest, which has a 1/6 chance of something horrible happening every turn--sometimes up to a dozen monsters appear at once. It's incredibly tense and a standout feature of the game. But it gives you no time to hang about or look around. Got to keep moving! Fine for WHQ because it's more about fights than exploring, but not ideal for HQ.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

There is one other consideration to take into account (if you haven't already), which is how it feels to the players.

For example, if the WM appears on a Hero's move, that's more efficient because the Evil Wizard player doesn't have to roll each turn. But on the other hand, the EWP doesn't get to roll each turn. Rolling gives them something to do on a turn when otherwise they would be doing nothing. That could be especially important for HeroQuest's original intended audience (kids).

Also, it's already frustrating for a player to roll a double 1 and not be able to move where he/she wanted to. Having a WM pop up as well would be extra-frustrating. That may be a feature rather than a bug, of course.

At my table
a) when the EWP has nothing to do on his turn, his does nothing, his turn is skipped which retain the pace of the game
b) agreed it adds to the frustration of a but I regard this as a deliberate love/hate feature, you really don't want to roll the dreaded snake eyes, and it turns a boring disappointment into an exciting twist, rather like discovering a pit the hard way, spoils your turn but in an exciting way (and it makes a low roll that isn't snake eyes a relief!)
c) also another love/hate aspect is when your heroes are in their phalanx (or phallic ) formation blocking a door, with the Battle Axe wielding Dwarf in the doorway, flanked by the Longsword (ported from NA remake) armed Barbarian and the Spear armed Elf, all ganging up on the poor monster on the other side, with the Wizard tucked in safely to their rear...when an Orc wanders around the corner and makes a bee-line for the Wizard!

The other aspect it whether you would accept or change the WM in various published quests, as some quests feature a powerful WM, such as a CW, which I think could be game-breaking, especially in combination with some of the higher frequency options above.

Yes, that's the trouble with house rules--they tend to lead to other house rules, because they disturb the overall balance and assumptions of the game. It's like putting bigger wheels on your car for one reason or another. It seems fine until you realise your elderly mum can't get in because the door is higher off the ground, and the centre of gravity is higher up so you're more likely to roll over in a crash. Suddenly you need to bolt on an extra step and a roll cage.

Indeed, the law of unintended consequences is a real bugger! I try to mitigate this by making sure that I really understand the rules before applying a house rule, that I am really clear and sometimes even right down exactly what the problem is that I'm trying to fix first, and then ensure that my proposed house rule does actually fix the problem stated and that it is the minimum possible change to achieve the intended fix.

In this case specifically, the top-end Wandering Monsters (a CW for example) I do consider as an issue without applying any house rules. I'm all for giving players a choice, but equally it is important to me to allow but not to encourage or promote the choice that leads to boring gameplay. Obviously there may be occasions where the team is struggling towards the end of a hard quest and the safe, but boring option is tactically the right thing to do, but for me the risk of drawing potentially 10 WM cards in a 10 room dungeon, each representing a CW (and making the quest very difficult indeed), means that not searching at all during that quest (or at least not after you draw the first WM card) is the sound option, which results in a game with minimal treasure and minimal advancement (boring!)

I was interested to see that the original GI article (assuming I found the right one) doesn't place a wandering monster as such, but a 'reinforcement' monster in a place the players have already explored but isn't currently visible to them. It won't get to attack immediately and indeed it might be held back until more reinforcements have accumulated. That makes more sense of the high frequency, I think.

Whether the mechanism produces a WM once in every 36 turns* (under your proposal) or once in every 12 turns (under my proposal) - although obviously I prefer mine as there are less rolls needed to produce the same effect and it auto-scales for the number of heroes - but it isn't something I'd be willing to die in a ditch over, both house rules improve the base game! And I think we both agree that any more frequent is too frequent and any less is too rare so we are probably both somewhere around the goldilocks zone.

*Actually yours is less frequent than that as your only roll on turns where there are no monsters on the board...

What is perhaps more interesting, and yes you found the right article and section (sorry I should have said), is the different placing of the monster which when I read it back in the day, got me thinking around Wandering Monster placement...but that is a story for another day...