Ye Olde Inn

The Proposal

I am proposing that we create a living rulebook, that is hosted, created and maintained by members of the Inn

What is a Living Rulebook and why would we want one?

• There are many different versions of the Instruction Book, this project would produce a single definitive version
• There are many rules that are found on supplementary material, not in the Instruction Book, for example spell cards and expansions, that would be better rolled into a Rulebook to ensure that it is complete (eg passing item rules)
• There are many problems with the existing rules, contradictions, ambiguity, gaps, at least some of which we may be able to agree are a problem and better yet agree on an improved version of that rule
• We could also, at a later point, review and publish appendices to this document each of which covers an existing Quest Book/Pack and list errata and changes that could be applied to this Quest for future Zargons
• All changes would be documented in a change log so we can track them and remember when and why they were applied, and could link back to the relevant discussion topic at the Inn
• This document will be made available to download in PDF format free of charge to anyone that wants it on the Inn

Q1. Is this project worth doing?

• Yes
• No

Q2. How do we best determine what gets included and what doesn't, and in what form i.e. how do we make decisions?

• Unanimous
• Consensus
• 2/3 Majority
• Majority (>50%)
• Another option

Q3. What do we want to use as our starting point?

• EU 1st Edition
• EU 2nd Edition
• NA Edition
• Japanese Edition
• 2021 Edition
• Something else - eg. Phoenix's edition

Q4. Having decided on our starting point, do we want to leave it formatted as per the original or modularise it?

• Original Format
• New Modularised Format - as per latest version on the thread below

Existing discussion here: The Inn's Modular System for House Rules

Q5. What do we want to name this project / living rulebook?

Suggestions welcome, some below

• HeroQuest The Living Rulebook - Basic, simple
• Loretome The HeroQuest Living Rulebook - More flavour, less simple
• something else

(inclusion of punctuation ‘:’,’-‘ and the like and capitalisation we can agree on later!)

Q6. How best do we arrange this on the forum?

Need to know options for this one, any mods who are listening can you chip in with options that are within your power to deliver and any options that you know of that might be outside your power to deliver?

Q7. How do we keep momentum on this Project?

We all know how these kind of things drag on forever gradually running out of steam, what if anything can we do that is realistic to keep the momentum up.

EDIT: I've broken Q8 down into sub additional sub-divisions in response to feedback

Q8. What did you think would be the best approach to the question of Version Control / Original Text / Optional & Alternative Rules / Change Log?

Do we need to make modifications in a different colour, retain original text but struck-through?

Q9. What do you think would be the best approach in terms of document management?

Where/how best to host the document(s)?
What format to work in Word, PDF?
One single document or multiple?

Q10. In terms of the text within the document, how best to manage this?

Fonts to use?
Use of bold, italics, titles, capitalisation, gender-neutral terminology, red dice or D6, combat dice or attack dice or defend dice, 7 or 'seven'
What language should we do this in? Obviously the Queen's (sorry King's) British English is the correct answer, however if we go with the US Edition as a base I'll just have to get used to spelling things wrong

this seems an interesting project.
Do you want to feature only original rules or also homerules?

Important project of course but some questions appear to me:

Will be the cards involved in the project or only the questbook? I see difficult not revising also the cards and rest of components if apply.

The idea is just revising the official rules and correct them or making a new rules system for HeroQuest?

Sorry for the questions, but just trying to know the limits and scope of the project.

The first stage would be all the official rules from whichever version / edition we decide upon including all cards, armoury and similar material, plus all the content from the expansions (rules content, cards etc not maps, narrative and similar)

Then the second stage would be identifying problems and modifying the rules to resolve them.

Possibly a third stage, maybe in parallel with the second, would be to go through each Quest Book / Pack and produce a document for each including Quest errata and conversion notes to make it compatible with our living rulebook (for example - ignore rule x in this Quest and just refer to rule y in The Living Rulebook)

That second stage could be considered "homebrew" but I suppose the distinction in my head is, modifying the rules / text to fix problems is in scope, adding in new weapons, spells, potions and so on just to expand the game and not specifically to resolve a problem is not in scope - although that can be a fine distinction!

The cards are an interesting example, yes they need to be included as some of the cards also have rules on them. We may decide that the rules cover the 'HOW things happen' and should be in the rulebook and card text should be used only to indicate 'WHAT things happen'

Appreciate I’m answering my own questions but…

Q1. Yes I think so but then I wouldn’t have proposed it otherwise!

The wide variety of house rules versions present on this site demonstrates to me that others also would consider it worthwhile and having been doing this independently. Whilst I don’t consider a Living Rulebook as replacing people’s own House Rules or Home Brewed content*, it may at least give a starting point for people to build their own homebrew material on if they wish, safe in the knowledge that they are starting with ALL the official content in a single place and that the most obvious and possibly least contentious bugs have been fixed.

Another important reason for me, is that one of the strengths of HeroQuest is that is isn't a Game, but a Game System i.e. player are actively encouraged to create their own Quests. Not having a definitive rulebook makes that task harder as you are never quite sure which version of the rules, which interpretation, which expansions those that choose to play your Quest might be using

*For the 2021 generation (i.e. those that have discovered HeroQuest as a result of the reboot or reprint), some of them may well not wish to spend 3 decades debating the finer points of game law (or lore) although they are welcome to, but equally they might appreciate a reference document that resolves some of the problems that they spot during play!

Q2. Personally I would like us to aim for consensus, which is not exactly the same thing as unanimity, so for example if I was to make the following proposal:

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why we shouldn’t use the US edition as our starting point?

Provided that no-one, after a suitable period of discussion and a one month cooling off period, has provided a compelling reason why we shouldn’t, then we do it.

Q3.

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why we shouldn’t use the US edition as our starting point?

See what I did there!

HQ2021 - I feel (I'm not a copyright lawyer) that the HQ2021 really belongs to Avalon Hill / Hasbro and is theirs to take in whatever direction they feel is appropriate, so I think we should leave well alone

Japanese Edition not only has the additional complication of translation but is quite different from the others, so that's a NO from me.

Of the other versions I'm working on the assumption that the more recent is the best (I did say that was an assumption!) hence my recommendation above. Of course if there are problems with elements of that version, then using the relevant EU rule instead, maybe a valid solution.


Q4. Having decided on our starting point, do we want to leave it formatted as per the original or modularise it?

The layout of the original rulebook leads to repetition and duplication of the same or similar rules, such as rules for Hero movement, Hero attack, Hero defence and so on and separately rules for Monster movement, Monster attack, Monster defence and so on, by converting this into a modular format and having a separate module by theme, e.g. movement, combat, spell casting, searching and so on, we can reduce repetition and duplication and make a clear distinction between topics (modules) making the rulebook easier to use as a reference document for players especially Zargon and by indexing this modular format we can facilitate discussions and modifications to specific rules and modules. As an example, and we don’t need to use the same layout, my HeroQuest Gold rules below show the application of such a modular approach

My natural position is to modularise it, it is more work up front, but makes it easier to maintain on an ongoing basis, as the idea of a living rulebook is that it is maintained eternally so less work in the long run.

That said agreeing on a new format might derail the project before we get started, so perhaps a hybrid method would be best. Initially we take the easier route of using the existing format and starting work, whilst in parallel kicking off discussions around modularisation. After a given point in time, perhaps 3 months, we can decide to either retain the original format, or to modularise based on the format that has been agreed (assuming one has), otherwise we stick with the original and continue or abandon the modular decision as we see fit. That way it doesn’t hold up any progress.

*For various reasons, copyright, size and simplicity, I would suggest that any base version omits all ‘narrative/story’ text, artwork, images and similar material and just sticks to text

If we decide to modularise it and agree on a new format, can we and do we want to apply that same modularisation to the ‘official rules’ forum?

Q5. My preference is “HeroQuest Gold: The Living Rulebook”

It contains the word ‘HeroQuest’ which is an excellent start, it describes what it is ‘The Living Rulebook’(I’m thinking of search engine optimisation here!) and the Gold bit is a thematic and catchy (easily to use short form) and is intended to invoke a ‘gold standard’, that serves to unite all the various versions. We could even have an icon that can be applied to Quests that have been (re)written to meet the standard

Q6. How best do we arrange this on the forum?

I’m probably going to wait until I get some options from those that are in the know on this, from a technical forum point of view, but some initial thoughts below

• HeroQuest Rooms -> Official HeroQuest Releases -> Official Rules is THE place for discussions around the official rules, all discussions around the official rules do sit in there and must remain in there.

• Project Discussion Thread: Discussions around the Project itself (NOT the rules) can be done under this topic (although this does need moving to the 'Project Forge')
• Rules of Engagement: maybe a sticky one that only 'Project Admins' can post to, where we can cover standing instructions, quick reference, what is the project, what is the scope, why are we doing it, how do I contribute, where can I get hold of the latest version, and perhaps a road map, news & announcements and similar

Q7. How do we keep momentum on this Project?

Establishing a regular cadence, setting a time limit for a particular discussion (for example 1 month), after which time we will see if it can be brought together as a proposal, if so then publish the proposal, give people 1 month to raise objections before putting it into the new version

Working in parallel, like the example above, have a side discussion about modularisation, if that ever comes to a point of agreement then it can be incorporated, if it doesn’t then the main work continues regardless

Publish indicative dates, such as we will publish a new version every three months, that will include whatever has been agreed by this point.

For example:

Timeline / Roadmap (by end of month indicated)

NOV2022 Need to get feedback on the key questions above especially Q1 but also Q2-Q6 - obviously if the outcome of Q1 is not to do this then it won't happen!

NOV2022 Publish draft 'Rules of Engagement / Project Charter agreeing the project goal, scope, method of decision making and so on i.e. the output of the previous step

DEC2022 Start to put together a text document of the basic ruleset, i.e. version 0 including cards and similar, including all expansions (to be completed by end Jan 2023) and work out where, when and how to publish this, plus need to decide whether to keep the original formatting (for now) or reformat and if reformat then how? Need page numbers for reference on this document

DEC2022 Need to discuss and agree and document how these posts are going to be arranged/managed on the forum (for example where should they sit, how do we want to format the topic subjects and the posts themselves, one topic per thread, prefixes) then these discussions can start at this point in parallel to anything else

JAN2023 Publish JAN2022 version of the Living Rulebook, this version 0 will be the starting point for all modifications

FEB2023 Publish next version, incorporating everything that has been agreed for inclusion by that date

Q8. Other Questions?

Where/how best to host the document(s)?
What format to work in Word, PDF?
Fonts to use?
One single document or multiple?
How best to implement version control / document control / change logs, do we need to make modifications in a different colour, retain original text but struck-through?
What language should we do this in? Obviously the Queen's (sorry King's) British English is the correct answer, however if we go with the US Edition as a base I'll just have to get used to spelling things wrong

lestodante wrote:this seems an interesting project.
Do you want to feature only original rules or also homerules?

A very good question and one that I suspect will keep cropping up, so I will answer with an example, that will hopefully make things clearer

In the US Edition of the Instructions of Play there is no rule about passing of items so it could be argued that there is NO official rule, although there is a rule about passing potions specifically "You may give one of your potions to a fellow Hero, but you may do so only on your turn."

However various rules around passing of items are present in a number of official expansions

From New Beginnings Quest

"Passing Items – A Hero can pass a potion, artefact, weapon, or any other item to another Hero only if the two Heroes are in adjacent squares and neither Hero is adjacent to a monster. Players may also freely trade items before or after any quest"

From Kellar’s Keep

"On his turn, any Hero that has artefacts may give them to other Heroes."

So it could be argued that there are several official rules, but for me that is too many, there should be one and it should be in the rulebook.

The one from New Beginnings doesn't specify that this can only happen on your turn but the original rule on potions does so I assume this was missed

The one from Kellar's Keep, does specify ‘on his turn’ but doesn’t mention other items or the adjacent squares or lack of surrounding monsters

So perhaps these could be combined into a single rule

"Passing Items – On his turn, a Hero can pass potions, artefacts, weapons, or any other items to another Hero only if the two Heroes are in adjacent squares and neither Hero is adjacent to a monster. Players may also freely trade items before or after any quest"

It has been pointed out elsewhere (and I will find and add the link as to who, where and when) that these rules even taken collectively are flawed

Problem: 3 Heroes in a row, first, on his turn fires a crossbow at a monster using his action, he then passes the Crossbow to the next Hero who, using his action, fires the same crossbow again, and then passes it to the third Hero... you get the drift.

Solution: Passing an item rule needs to be amended so that it counts as an action

Here we have an example of where multiple different official rules exist, that need to be merged into one AND there is a perceived problem that has been clearly stated and a proposed solution that has been clearly stated.

Does this count as an official rule or a house rule? No idea, but it is exactly this kind of situation that needs to be identified, clearly stated, discussed, made into a proposed change or amendment and hopefully included in the Living Rulebook.

The EU 1st and 2nd editions, the Japanese edition and the NA edition are different rulesets (and as far as I know, all the other localisations are based on one these other rulesets--usually the EU 2nd edition, except the 1991 PC games which use an odd blend of EU rules and some weirdness of their own), but as we know the 2021 remake is based directly on the NA edition's rules.

The "passing" rule from New Beginnings is copied from the EQP/BQP from 1992.

Avalon Hill/"Zargon" on Twitter has clarified that in the Remake edition they didn't intend the Wizard (and presumably the Warlock as well) to be able to use the new Handaxe despite the card not restricting anyone from using it.

They also stated that they intend the Crossbow to be able to hit the four close diagonal squares (without needing to be one square away from the target). I disagree with this clarification as I feel it makes the Longsword much less useful (especially for say the Barbarian who already starts with a 3 dice weapon to hit adjacent squares) and prefer the Japanese HQ interpretation of this weapon which cannot hit the eight squares surrounding the user, only those squares beyond it.

There is some debate about whether "metal armor" (as in the new remake heroes such as the Rogue, Bard, and Druid) refers only to body armors (Chain/Plate) or also includes the helmet (but not the shield). If you say the latter, the characters are weaker, the former, they are stronger.

Also from the Mythic tier (but the Mythic heroes are all preserved in the official Companion App):

The wording of the Druid's transformation spell also is a little odd in the released edition from the playtest version, presumably they were intending to exclude the bonus from ranged attacks but now it sounds a bit more confusing.

Multiple attacks. Via the clarifications for the Frozen Horror (Into the Northlands and the subsequent Companion App update)...

The intention now is that whenever a character is attacked more than once, the victim has to decide WHICH of the attacks to roll their defense against. The other roll(s) they cannot defend against at all. This is meant to apply to the Rogue's multi-attacks against monsters, not just the Polar Warbear's multi-attacks against heroes. Also this could apply retroactively towards other types of multi-attacks like the Game System's Heroic Brew, and the Orc's Bane (against Orcs anyway). Frozen Horror and Mage of the Mirror each have a "two attack" potion for the Barbarian and Elf respectively.

The Companion App isn't always right however... as there is an option to make furniture able to be passed through ("intangible" to figures). This seems to be done for troubleshooting as opposed to being a legit alternative rule. Plus there is some weirdness with a treasure chest in a corridor not being searchable (corridors normally can't be searched for treasure under the NA rules but some rooms are created FROM corridors and the app can't resolve it). But the App does give a way to escape Yeti hugs that is not documented elsewhere.

Mercenaries are clarified to be treated as heroes in all respects except that they have fixed movement, and while they can have spells cast on them and can be given potions to use, they cannot use any equipment or other items unless specifically designed for them (and of course do not collect any treasure, and any gold given to them cannot be recovered). Presumably a mercenary could recover the lost loot of a dead hero to prevent it being claimed by monsters, but he couldn't actually use it.

Animal companions are like mercenaries but cannot open doors and are only for solo quests.

What about heroes who try to cheat by switching back and forth between shield and battle axe/staff every turn?

Some great topics there Kurgan but we really need is to gather peoples opinions on the key questions, obviously Q1 is THE key question but also Q2-Q5 really need answering / agreeing upon before we can proceed.

I would welcome your thoughts / opinions on the original questions at the start of this topic.

In brief, per your (Bareheaded Warrior) request to focus on your initial questions, but with a few of my thoughts on some of them...

Q1. Is this project worth doing?

• Yes

Primarily because, while many have created "Comprehensive" rulesets in the past, I feel that typically these are tailored to a particular approach as preferred by the individual author. That's not a critique, incidentally, it makes perfect sense. Whereas I see a project such as this one benefiting from a narrower focus of identifying rules and errata that can be easily found by current and future fans of the game.

------------------------

Q2. How do we best determine what gets included and what doesn't, and in what form i.e. how do we make decisions?

• Unanimous
• Consensus
• 2/3 Majority
• Majority (>50%)
• Another option

I feel that this is a solid consideration. I also feel that it may be too early to answer. Basically, we don't know if this project is happening or who and how many may be involved. If the project were to go forward, I'd think that identifying a project lead and a group of editors would be key to answering question # 2.

------------------------

Q3. What do we want to use as our starting point?

• 2021 Edition (Qualified)

I understand that the Inn has a foundational history of keeping the Nostalgia alive, and that would suggest either early EU or NA (Or even a combination of both) rules as a starting point. However, I feel that to be a truly useful we would need to make sure that the project supports the most current and "Relevant" information... Particularly in the context of content that a player new to HQ could reasonably have access to.

That said, there's an awful lot of current content, really, though even then we run into the question of edge case data, such as topics or rules that might be current but most relevant to limited release products (Mythic and Knight content for instance). So that would need to be considered as well. Which leads nicely into question #4.

------------------------

Q4. Having decided on our starting point, do we want to leave it formatted as per the original or modularize it?

• New Modularized Format

I feel that this is pretty much necessary, and a given, since the scope of this project could be quite broad in the long run. Just one of several advantages to making such a resource modular, is that it would allow for more flexibility in addressing sources and editions, should we end up going for broke and including most everything we can find.

Being able, for example, to present a verbatim rule or entry, while citing variations from differing sources. In this sense, including errata with appropriate citation seems a must. A modular approach could facilitate offering multiple sources and variations in context while maintaining readability of the streamlined rule.

------------------------

Q5. What do we want to name this project / living rulebook?

Future Inn problem. But I like including Loretome in some manner.

------------------------

Q6. How best do we arrange this on the forum?

Good question. While in development, I'd think that having a dedicated folder in the Project Forge sub-forum would be ideal. I say folder rather than topic, because it'd be really useful for the team to be able to create targeted topics within that folder, so that discussions could remain focused. I have no idea how viable that idea is.

------------------------

Q7. How do we keep momentum on this Project?

I would counsel a lot of patience and a willingness to see progress made in fits and starts. Inspirations and available time are likely to ebb and flow. THis is exacerbated with an all volunteer staff in my experience.

------------------------

Q8. Any more questions?

Of course?

...*chuckle*...

Seriously though, always worth asking.

QorDaq,

Thanks for you input, it is much appreciated and has prompted a few more thoughts of my own, some in direct response to your responses and some that were inspired by your responses but have since wandered off on a course of their own

Q2
This may just be terminology but I’m keen that we don’t go in the direction of a group of editors (using the word ‘editors’ here is the sense of a newspaper editor who makes the decisions around what content gets included and where), obviously we will need a group of people who have access to and can update the Living Rulebook (perhaps ‘custodians’ rather than ‘editors’ in both sense of the word - caretakers of the document and guardians of the integrity of the document, process and project, maybe even "Custodians of the Living Flame" but now I'm getting carried away but I’m happy for someone to provide better terminology) but I want decisions around what to include to be made by and for Inn members as a whole, collectively. The main reason for this is, as you mention yourself there has been many individual attempts at this kind of thing before, each from the stand point of the individual editor (and each with their own merits), to avoid just replicating this but with a wider group of half a dozen editors, I think we need to move away from individual perspectives and try and get a more open, inclusive and broader Inn-wide consensus (although that may well come with its own challenges!)

Q3
2021 Edition is based on US Edition with some changes

We could start with the US Edition and consider each of the differences and decide on a case-by-case basis which we wanted to incorporate and which we didn’t. Or we could start with the 2021 basis, consider each of the differences and decide on a case-by-case basis which we wanted to reject/change/fix and which we didn’t. With knowing in advance, irrespective to our starting position, whether the outcome of that would be the US Edition, the 2021 Edition or a hybrid leaning one way or the other, either option is equally valid in terms of the amount of work involved

However, I personally favour starting with the US Edition (1st) rather than the 2021 Edition for the following reasons.
• Decision has been made that 2021 content (rule book, cards, expansions) are not being hosted / shared on Ye Olde Inn (which I agree with), so the US Edition (1st) is more openly / freely available
• Nostalgia
• We already have over 3 decades of debate, bug finding and options for bug fixes that can be mined based on earlier editions (and in the vast majority of cases the bugs are still present in the 2021 Edition)

But I do take your very valid and important point that whichever edition we go with we will need to have a workstream dedicated to continuously keep an eye on 2021 future changes and flag them up to be considered for inclusion in the Living Rulebook (and if we don’t go with 2021 Edition, then there will also need to be a discrete piece of work to examine the differences and consider those too)

Q4
I too see the benefits of modularisation, do you support my suggestion of a parallel approach, so we can get some content published irrespective to the debates around modularisation and then if/when we decide on a specific modularisation we can then apply it?

Do you think it would be beneficial if I create/review the existing Modularisation thread and set up a ‘straw man’ i.e., a suggestion for a comprehensive modular approach that people can throw stones at, until we get something more robust?

A separate point that you have mentioned here around being able to include verbatim rules and entries, and variations from other sources is a key one that I alluded to earlier.

Do you see us handling this as a ‘best’ approach, or an ‘alternative’ approach? I appreciate that best may not always be possible but would you rather than we do something like this.

a) Alternative Approach
Original rule text
Original alternative rule text
Problem statement
Alt Resolution 1
Alt Resolution 2

b) Best Approach (assuming we can decide on a best one)
New/updated/amended rule text

I suppose this discussion also ties into change log and similar matters, for me I can see the merits of both approaches, alternatives is more complete and thorough (show your workings) but I worry that it will make the end product more cumbersome to read and use, perhaps we are better just showing the new/updated/revised rule in the main body of the document (or a couple of the best alternatives if we can’t decide on one) and then creating a change log at the end of the document or separate to the document where we record the original / alt original / alt revised and so on (and potentially link back to the relevant topic on the forum?)

Q5

In the interests of not holding up progress, I recommend that we keep referring to it as “The HeroQuest Living Rulebook” until such time as we all agree on a better name, if we ever do, that way it becomes a future decision, and we can proceed without it.

Q6

I’m keen that all discussions around official rules take place in the Official Rules discussion forum, partly because that is what it is there for, and partly because it already contains a mass of material and the chances are that the vast majority of topics that we go on to discuss as part of this project will already have material, potentially a huge amount of relevant material, that has been gathered over decades, often from contributors that may well not be here anymore.

I would want to avoid starting new topics in a new area / sub-forum, which are already replicated in the Official Rules Forum and then having to manage / maintain loads of cross-links. I would also want to avoid re-locating topics from the Official Rules forum into a new area/sub-forum for the purposes of the project because this would be a big admin burden and ultimately if the project goes well and over a long enough period we would end up moving most of the content across from the Official Rules forum to another forum which seems a lot of work with little point.

The only exception to this that I see the need for would be two (at least) topics in the Project Forge area
• One to cover discussions on the Project itself (this one)
• One, as a locked down, broadcast/announcement channel, covering The Purpose of the Project, Progress, Road Map, How to Use the Living Rulebook, How to Contribute and similar material

EDIT: On Q6

I can, having thought about it a bit more, see a need for some other project related topics, that probably would benefit from having their own thread within Project Forge, spin-offs from the main Project discussion thread, but perhaps some method of identifying or keeping them all together.

For example,

Discussion on “text conventions” to apply to the document for consistency – covering capitalisation, font, italics, bold, different colour fonts (sorry ‘color’), use of number format as opposed to word ‘3’ as opposed to ‘three’, should combat dice be referred to as ‘combat dice used in attack’ or ‘attack dice’ (or defence and so on), text should be gender neutral

Discussion on ”principles or constraints” that we decide that we want to apply to rules within the Living Rulebook such as ‘use only dice types that are supplied in the box’

Maybe even the existing ‘The Inn's Modular System for House Rules’ as I would imagine that we would want a “Common Modular System” that could be used for the Living Rulebook AND any Modular System for House Rules - which incidentally should probably be under Project Forge rather than ‘General HeroQuest Discussion’ anyway…

So perhaps we could do with a separate sub-forum after all if that is possible?