On the Essence and Feel of Advanced HeroQuest

[RECIVS]

I’ve been reading that interview in more detail. It seems to me that it was inspired (at least in part) by what I posit in this thread. I really appreciate it if that's the case. Anyway, the point is that we can now safely derive the following facts and assumptions from there:

*According to Jervis Johnson himself, for a game to be good, the designer must have a clear idea of what they want to achieve, and they must attain those goals with the minimum amount of rules overhead. This is not to say that a good game needs to be simple. The trick is to know what you want to achieve first and then design a game that does that as straight-forwardly as possible. It’s obvious to me then, that he had a clear idea of the type of dungeon crawler he wanted to create when he came up with the concept of AHQ.

*The creator of AHQ seems to be more of a strategy gamer than a role-player; it’s just a matter of going through his list of games to see this. He even says in the interview that one of his favorite games is a wargame! EDIT: I just realized that the list of thumbs he has given at BGG further helps my case. He's a wargamer at heart!

*The biggest influence on the notion of dungeon crawler the creator of AHQ had in mind when he came up with the concept of the game was based on Gary Gygax’s AD&D 1st Edition, not WFRP. The implications of this fact are clear.

*We all know that the concept of dungeon crawling itself started as a wargaming scenario by Gary Gygax and company. The story-telling and role-playing aspects were introduced later, as they weren’t a part of the original conception. AHQ, however, seems to be more about the “pure” dungeon-crawling aspect of the experience.

*He doesn’t say whether Albie Fiore favored tactical combat or storytelling (and role-playing) in the D&D campaign mentioned in the interview. It’s true that DMs may make their D&D games more about storytelling and less about combat, but I think it’s clear by now that Mr. Johnson was more into the latter, at least for the scope and purposes of our game. Again, it’s just a matter of going through his games (AHQ included) to realize this. By the way, I found this video and this adventure by the late Albie Fiore. Back then, D&D games were more about combat-oriented dungeon crawling as far as I can see online. EDIT: I just came across this other video, very illustrative for our purposes here. The player in white shirt is Jervis Johnson, isn't he?

*AHQ wasn’t well playtested because it was rushed to market, so it (obviously) didn’t receive the attention it needed. According to what I said above, then, it’s only natural to assume that the creator of AHQ would keep favoring the tactical aspect of dungeon crawling over role-playing if he had the opportunity and will to redesign the game.

*AHQ has its own quirky style or feel, which is the opposite of mainstream, common, or usual. In my opinion, this makes certain game mechanics (such as using cards for exploration and record keeping or overland travel, for example) simply incompatible with the spirit of the game. It's really just a matter watching the video I posted above to realize this.

[RECIVS]

Now, from my perspective, it’s clear that the creators of AHQ favored the concept of fragility of the Heroes from WHFRP (coupled with an ingenious, flashy, and ahead-of-its-time dungeon generation system) as a cornerstone, and they pretty much wrapped everything else around that premise as a result—as if implementing such an approach was their main purpose regardless of playability. Unfortunately, such a “realistic” approach ends up sacrificing tactical variety in room encounters given the scarce number of starting wounds allocated to the adventurers and how in-combat healing works in the vanilla game—see this post for more details. The original approach may work in WHFRP, but I believe it's clear by now that it wasn't well implemented in AHQ.

This seems to be the only part that I got wrong in this thread, surprisingly. It ends up helping my case, anyway. I mean, if WFRP wasn’t the main influence behind AHQ, then the “fragility of the Heroes” is not such an essential feature of the game after all. Therefore, allocating more starting wounds to the adventurers and making in-combat healing easier in the game (as I propose to make it more playable) becomes even less invasive than originally thought.

If I'm honest, however, I find it hard to accept that WFRP didn't influence AHQ. Maybe they only used the Hero templates as a baseline? I'm thinking something along those lines.

[RECIVS]

*The biggest influence on the notion of dungeon crawler the creator of AHQ had in mind when he came up with the concept of the game was based on Gary Gygax’s AD&D 1st Edition, not WFRP. The implications of this fact are clear.

I keep meditating on the subject of this thread. Call me deranged, but the more I think about it, the more AHQ, at the most basic level, seems to be nothing more than a fantasy skirmish wargame (with its minis and all) in a dungeon crawler setting.

We could say that, both thematically and mechanically, AHQ is between HQ and AD&D 1st Edition—but in the WH universe, of course. It's about making HQ more “advanced” or tactical (à la AD&D)—as a wargamer influenced by D&D in 1989 naturally would—but without straying from its boardgame format. It’s all about condensing pure old-school combat-oriented dungeon crawling into a boardgame, which is also solo-friendly, a novel concept back then.

As we now know, AHQ was designed by a wargamer for an already wargaming company at the time, with the intention of capitalizing on the success of HQ and D&D, two titles not published by GW, which is perfectly fine and acceptable in that business. According to Mr. Jervis Johnson himself in the interview posted above, the purpose of AHQ was that GW had a game of its own that was linked to HeroQuest, to act as a bridge for players who bought games in toy stores and introduced them to the GW hobby.

It's obvious to me what "the GW hobby" meant back in 1989 and what it still means today: fantasy miniature wargaming. It’s also obvious to me that the death-zone mechanics implemented in AHQ alone indicate the type of DC it was meant to be.

As in a cave, we see only shadows of the reality of AHQ projected onto the end product that we now—mistakenly, in my opinion—identify as such. By reality, I mean what was in the designer’s mind when he came up with the concept of the game—the spirit, not the rushed-to-market product that ended up being released.

The above may sound contradictory and trollish even, I know; maybe it’s just metaphysical-inspired nonsense after all. In the end, it's only an approach (certainly up for debate) that may help us see through “the veils” of the physical reality of any boardgame. I believe it’s clear by now that such an approach has helped me plenty in the past in my search for the true essence of AHQ, and here we are now. For example, the interview with Mr. Jervis Johnson I refer to above seems to have stemmed from what I posit in this thread and not the other way around.

On the other hand, from what I’ve seen online over the last 13+ years, fantasy boardgamers—who by far play more DCs than wargamers (otherwise DCs would play more like wargames)—mostly favor “adventure”, exploration, and roleplaying in their games. To them, combat is only an incidental element of dungeon crawling that shouldn’t be too prevalent or detailed.

Under their view, then, AHQ may be perceived as “incomplete” for not having a more elaborate overland travel system or more story-driven quests, for example, but at the same time, they don’t seem to have issues with repetitive and dull combat dynamics. According to this view, doorway fighting is not problem in AHQ (as long as the dungeon generation keeps going), as combat in general is seen as secondary—even though it is what players do most in the game!

Now that I think about it, maybe that’s why AHQ did so perfectly well back in the day, according to the interview mentioned above? I have to admit that this whole situation has seemed weird to me from day one. I mean, as we've seen above, AHQ was supposed to be a tactical DC, intended to introduce people to the wargaming hobby, but (because it had to be rushed to market for some reason) it ended up falling short of the mark, so to speak, as discussed in this thread. The end product is such a “tacticsless” DC, that for decades it was confused for a fantasy boardgame. Weird indeed!

I know that tastes and preferences exist, especially in boardgaming, but my point is that, if we can agree on the type of dungeon crawler AHQ was meant to be (or actually is), then some degree of objectivity is attainable—we couldn’t categorize boardgames at all otherwise!

It’s also my point that AHQ was never meant to be the type of DC fantasy boardgamers crave nowadays. Why would any of those gamers play AHQ if they want detailed overland travel, roleplaying between expeditions, story-driven quests, and reduced focus on combat in their DCs to begin with? As I’ve said in other threads, there are other titles out there that were actually designed for that type of gameplay experience, not AHQ.

Actually, the fact that HQ and WHQ are more popular than AHQ among fantasy boardgamers only helps my case here: AHQ was intended to be a different type of DC—one that may appeal to old-school dungeon delvers and skirmish wargamers more than to fantasy boardgamers. As noted above, the latter play boardgame DCs much more than the former, however, which is why their opinion seems to be more prevalent everywhere.

AHQ may be considered a dungeon sandbox, granted, but (as with every boardgame) it still has its own nature, scope, and focus, as we’ve seen in this thread. One wouldn’t implement dice rolls in chess, for example, at least not if we are to preserve its original spirit.

Given all the above, why should we strip AHQ of its unique identity rather than acknowledge it? Why should we turn it into something it was never meant to be rather than playing a more suitable game? It still beats me after all these years.

My other conclusion is that nostalgia is a hell of a drug that doesn’t do AHQ any favor, quite the contrary, actually. In my personal opinion, some players don’t really like AHQ nor they want to see it change either; they just seem to be emotionally attached to the feelings and experiences they remember from playing the game as kids, which—as we’ve seen over the years—is fine but doesn’t contribute to turn AHQ into the type of DC it was actually intended to be, beyond our personal preferences, emotions, and biases, which, by the way, can change on a whim.

As we can see, I’m trying to be as “conceptual” and “practical” as possible at the same time. I hope to have bridged the gap effectively in this thread.

[The Admiral]

I liked AHQ for a short while, in a similar way to WQ, but it just seemed a lot of work for the same end result as in HQ, and the random board creation just got boring. At least in WQ you knew you would reach the end within a limited framework.

Now I just use those 2 games as a resource for HQ.

[RECIVS]

AHQ was never meant to be the type of DC fantasy boardgamers crave nowadays.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. It helps my case here.

At least in WQ you knew you would reach the end within a limited framework.

This is exactly why I think AHQ is a superior system to WHQ. Knowing how many rooms are left to explore in a DC simply kills it for me.

[RECIVS]

Actually, the fact that people here mostly prefer HQ and WHQ over AHQ only helps my case: AHQ was intended to be a different type of DC—one that may appeal to old-school dungeon delvers and skirmish wargamers more than to fantasy boardgamers. The latter play boardgame DCs much more than the former, however, which is why their opinion seems to be more prevalent everywhere. From my perspective, people who want to turn AHQ into a fantasy boardgame should be playing a different game instead.

[b_0]

AHQ does not require the use of random dungeon generation. The GM can use pre-designed maps and make them as small as he wishes.

[The Admiral]

Actually, the fact that people here mostly prefer HQ and WHQ over AHQ only helps my case: AHQ was intended to be a different type of DC—one that may appeal to old-school dungeon delvers and skirmish wargamers more than to fantasy boardgamers. The latter play boardgame DCs much more than the former, however, which is why their opinion seems to be more prevalent everywhere. From my perspective, people who want to turn AHQ into a fantasy boardgame should be playing a different game instead.

I don't want to turn AHQ into anything and I am playing a different game instead.

I didn't say I preferred WQ over AHQ. I said I found the sometimes tedious almost endless random board creation boring and at least you didn't get that with WQ. The tactical fighting and atmosphere was better in my opinion in AHQ. There are only so many mould rooms you can enter before that initial interest wanes.

[The Admiral]

AHQ does not require the use of random dungeon generation. The GM can use pre-designed maps and make them as small as he wishes.

Indeed, but that requires a degree of commitment and effort. Some will, and do, do that of course, but that will always be limited in scope. Committing to retail a game can't rely on this to push sales.

[RECIVS]

I don't want to turn AHQ into anything and I am playing a different game instead.

I got this part.

I didn't say I preferred WQ over AHQ. I said I found the sometimes tedious almost endless random board creation boring and at least you didn't get that with WQ. The tactical fighting and atmosphere was better in my opinion in AHQ. There are only so many mould rooms you can enter before that initial interest wanes.

Yes, and I think you're helping my case here too: AHQ was supposed to be a tactical DC, intended to introduce people to the fantasy wargaming hobby, but (because it had to be rushed to market for some reason) it fell short of the mark, so to speak. However, as I say above, some—seemingly nostalgic—fantasy boardgamers don't agree with this. They imply that combat isn't such an important part of AHQ, and that it needs more story-driven quests and more detailed overland travel instead. What are your thoughts on this?

Indeed, but that requires a degree of commitment and effort. Some will, and do, do that of course, but that will always be limited in scope. Committing to retail a game can't rely on this to push sales.

That AHQ is a niche game is also my point, so no discussion here. In fact, now that you mention it, I'm kind of surprised that DCs haven't been turned into card games altogether by now!

By the way, this thread is about assessing the nature of AHQ as objectively as possible, not about what we like, prefer, or find tedious in a DC. Stating our preferences here will take us nowhere.