Solo/Co-op play

[ampersand]

fair comment. but it should also be fair for me to say i dont like the idea of more look up tables.
i mean your ideas are fairly logical. but i also like the method i have used i that you accumulate tokens via an 'impending doom' to that the danger rises the longer nothing happens.
that being said. there is no reason why i couldnt use similar to flesh out the use of the tokens. i just feel wandering monsters and traps is more than enough...At the moment! in my head this all balances out nicely. so there is every possibility once i have fleshed out the themed hazards...it might need a little more 'oomph' to bolster the use of dungeon counters.
i just dont know yet. did you have a read of the rules i posted up?

ive slapped the co-op play rules on google drive for you to have a look...remember its all WIP
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fmv ... ue&sd=true

at the moment i am trying to create more quests. i never liked how they were written. and how every quest could feel the same. so im trying to vary them up.
for rescue quests. having 12 to roll up. but each one has slightly varying conditions so no matter what type of quest you roll up. they always have some form of interesting spice to keep the feel fresh.

Revenge quests. are a bit meh. they killed my family. they killed my friend. i dunno they just seem too narrow for a co-op experience. and not sure how varying these up will work out. but ive written a couple of nice different stlye quests that have their own little twist. i might slash out of of the lesser existing ideas if i can cook up things better. maybe these should just be straight up "go kill stuff type quests" but no reason why they cant be made more interesting.

Retrieval quests - kinda hard in co-op play to avoid the "find quest room and recover the item from the chest after killing all the monsters" its too obvious and offers nothing interesting. so maybe some way to randomize this might be a clever way to add some variation into the mix. i just want to avoid the obvious and the same scenario for each quest type. just havent thought upon this too much at the moment.

Race against time always felt like a wasted opportunity. it never really felt like a race against anything. and seems kinda pointless to have multiple expeditions for a quest that is a race against time.
so im toying with a timer counter that follows the heroes and once it catchs up to them. time is up...quest over/failed. i mean its a nice varied idea. just bouncing the idea around in my head at the moment in how it would work best. but would certainly add a valued sense of urgency to playing these particular quests. as well as giving a nice sense of variation to a type of quest.

Exploration - this again falls foul of finding the quest room. so again some way of enhancing the 'exploration' aspect of this type of quest is needed. but this is way down the list. im sure ill cook something up by the time i get this far down.

again though the idea should be plug and play. use whatever rules you want. these quests should be able to be used by anyone...im kinda looking forwards to writing some more epic style quests as well at a later date.....beyond playtesting i think

[RECIVS]

fair comment. but it should also be fair for me to say i dont like the idea of more look up tables.

I'm afraid AHQ is about looking up tables. However, that's one of my points about my HR...no table lookup is needed during play. It's just structured as a table to follow on the tradition (of course) and because I find the format more convenient than writing/reading paragraphs of text.

Again, the situations that trigger the DCEs are the same ones that any player or GM must keep in mind anyway. Besides, it preserves the feel of AHQ, as in the old classic the players have to roll for DCs in solo/co-op mode. That's the AHQ way! But again, I see this is more about your preferences, and it's fine. It's your thread.

As a point of reference (on topic) Slev's new mechanic for using DCs in solo/co-op mode seems to be a bit "more complex" than mine, with more variables and modifiers to keep track of. Have you checked that one out yet?

I like what you're doing with the quest generator, by the way.

[ampersand]

i think most peoples response to enhancing something is to add more. more charts. more dice rolls. more of everything.
and i think that is the AHQ way...but maybe that is why it wasnt as popular as the other similar titles.. maybe that advanced aspect didnt need to be more of everything. maybe some things just are screaming for simplification right underneath our noses and we dont see it
reason for my approach. i just wanted simple of something! and yes i have seen the reforged way. and think its way more than is needed (sorry slev )
my approach to the quests was to give a cleaner cut and move away from the sandbox explanations. i dont want to have to cook up a quest when playing co-op. i want the dice rolls to do that for me!
i dont want to become an author of another variant though. so ill just slap these out there and people can adapt them as they see fit.

how the original count quest reads (i have excluded the counts stats from both examples)
The Count
The Count has been kidnapped while out hunting, and if not returned to his castle rumours will spread like wildfire. Bandits will grow bold and harry the leaderless castle troops, and the local folk will grow fearful and flee for their lives. The Heroes must rescue him!

for me this is a sandbox explanation...works great if you have a GM to build upon the loose text...but co-op you want a set guideline to challenge the party.

how i did it (yes i added more text.
but i wanted to make these a bit more of a contained unit and will have a set of

- narrative (for thematic immersion if i can i will add more 'fluff' to the narrative)
- conditions/special rules (this was always the failing point and i hope to be able to vary up every quest rolled on the table in this manner)
- a conclusion (none of the original quests really covered HOW you completed the quest very clearly again i hope to vary up how you complete the quest)
- reward (they all have them.. i just made it clearer)

The Count
“The local Count, Von Cristoff has been kidnapped whilst out with a hunting party, if not returned to his castle rumours will begin to spread like wildfire and bandits will grow bold and harry the leaderless castle, and the local folk will grow fearful and flee for their lives! You must rescue him before all is lost”

The 2nd Hazard room that the heroes discover will be a normal small room containing a pack of wandering monsters as guards. And a 2x2 cell containing the count. Upon defeating the wandering monsters Von Cristoff pleas with the heroes, “you must find the keys. Get me out of here!”

The keys will be found in the quest room treasure chest and must be brought back to free Von Cristoff from his cell before being led to safety to any stairs up tile. The quest then ends.

Reward = 100GC Each

its a bit different from 'find the quest room' and involves finding 'not ragnar' first and finding the keys later. i see the extra challenge coming from then having to trek back with the possibility of dungeon counters adding a bit more challenge to the time this involves.....playtesting aside. i hope this at least gives some variation and enough of a challenge without becoming a slog.

also my approach to these in design is they are all 1 level basic dungeons. but no reason why they couldnt be more. i guess you let the dice decide!

[RECIVS]

i think most peoples response to enhancing something is to add more. more charts. more dice rolls. more of everything.

I'm afraid that's inevitable when the original game lacks something. In this case it lacks rules for using all the DCs in solo/co-op mode (among other things). The goal, at least in my case, is to fix that without altering the essence and feel of AHQ.

and i think that is the AHQ way...but maybe that is why it wasnt as popular as the other similar titles..

As I said in this thread, that's simply because card-driven DCs appeal to a wider audience. It's just the "less-commitment culture" permeating everything.

maybe that advanced aspect didnt need to be more of everything. maybe some things just are screaming for simplification right underneath our noses and we dont see it

I don't see anything complex or complicated about AHQ, only that it could be more demanding than HQ and WHQ. Is that what you're referring to?

i hope this at least gives some variation and enough of a challenge without becoming a slog.

Sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to the playtest version.

[ampersand]

maybe that advanced aspect didnt need to be more of everything. maybe some things just are screaming for simplification right underneath our noses and we dont see it

I don't see anything complex or complicated about AHQ, only that it could be more demanding than HQ and WHQ. Is that what you're referring to?

its just a turn of phrase that sometimes the last places we think to look for a solution is sitting right in front of us...im quoting lord of the rings..ish
not sure you read the rules i posted. but how i did the matrix creation. was a simplified version of how slev did it. it still follows the same rules. but meets halfway. yes its not as indepth. but i dont think it needs to be.
thats just an example that sometimes more isnt necessarily the best way to approach things. but in this case i feel will simplify and speed up the flow of co-op play. nobody has to use it. but itll certainly help.

[RECIVS]

sometimes the last places we think to look for a solution is sitting right in front of us.

The solutions are indeed out there sitting in fron of you...but you dismiss them as "more complex" even when they're not.

not sure you read the rules i posted. but how i did the matrix creation. was a simplified version of how slev did it. it still follows the same rules. but meets halfway. yes its not as indepth. but i dont think it needs to be.
thats just an example that sometimes more isnt necessarily the best way to approach things. but in this case i feel will simplify and speed up the flow of co-op play. nobody has to use it. but itll certainly help.

I did, but how is it more "simplified" than Slev's system? I see more things to keep track of in yours.

[ampersand]

you keep track of 1 number that you equate at the beginning of the expedition and thats your offset until you hit another dungeon level.
its pretty simple. i just took the time to explain it over a page with an example.

[RECIVS]

you keep track of 1 number that you equate at the beginning of the expedition and thats your offset until you hit another dungeon level.
its pretty simple. i just took the time to explain it over a page with an example.

Oh, I see. It's just that there're more tables and multipliers in yours. I assume then that the pre-generated matrices have to be tweaked as the adventurers gain experience, right? May I ask what's wrong with Slev's system? (the old one anyway). One of the benefits of his method is that one can forget about preparing/editing matrices. The results are more open-ended, and one may get creative in each encounter without being restrained by pre-made matrix tables.

[Kurgan]

One of the main reasons for the existence of HeroQuest is to simplify fantasy tabletop roleplaying into a familiar boardgame format that just about anyone can easily pick up with very little prep time. Wanting to keep the lore and story and make it into a complex, mainstream type of game was the goal of Advanced HeroQuest (and then Warhammer Quest) I suppose?

Then again if you have the game components, you can make it into another, more expensive game, while saving a lot of money in the process needing only pencil and paper and imagination!

[RECIVS]

One of the main reasons for the existence of HeroQuest is to simplify fantasy tabletop roleplaying into a familiar boardgame format that just about anyone can easily pick up with very little prep time.

My point exactly. It became a commercial success and an inevitable reference.

make it into a complex, mainstream type of game was the goal of Advanced HeroQuest

"Complex"? Here we go again...

If HQ (or WHQ) is going to be the standard of complexity, then I'm afraid that a good number of other tabletop DCs out there (at least that I know) are "more complex" than that, which tells us something about the metric.

I get your point, though.