Is 2 red dice for Hero move best?

[Daedalus]

@Sadkitchen
Why shouldn't the barbarian be faster than the elf? He's taller. Moreover, he's a meele fighter, fitted best for close-up combat, so he would naturally rush forward, whereas the elf would move more carefully.

@ Daedalus:
As for the fixed value beeing 3 or 4 - Your aim, as I understand it now, is to model the movement values of the original rules as close as possible, which is a good thing.
I, on the other hand, only aimed for a practicable and enjoyable movement rule without taking the original values into account whatsoever.

I don't want to make a point here, I actually like your approach, but just to explain my reasoning:
The player can choose when to roll. Now a player wants to get his hero somewhere he can reach with his fixed X+4 movement. Fine - he will do so. Now he wants to get to a point he can only reach at X + 5 or 6. Now he could roll a die, but the odds are 50% that he will actually roll less than 4, with a chance of only 33% to really take an advantage from the roll. He will not roll - never. It would just be stupid.

I should have made it more clear that I appreciate your variant as another way to implement random and fixed movement for Heroes. If torilen is any indication, more people may find interest in your approach that allows more player flexibility. This is a case where two heads is better than one.

I also agree with you since your first description that your implementation is best served with an X+3 adjustment for random rolls. I wanted to justify my choice, but it wasn't my intent to put your alternative and its logic into question. Problem was, I got so wrapped up in my own explanation that I neglected to differentiate the usefulness of X+4 vs. the inappropriateness of X+3 for my rule, while it was perfectly reasonable and desirable for your rule to use X+3.

[Daedalus]

A "running" idea that I'm in favor of discussed in this thread: http://www.yeoldeinn.com/hqforum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=598&hilit=running The above hybrid system of fixed and random movement could also benefit. In place of an Action, a Hero could instead take an extra move. This double move would allow two fixed moves that turn or a fixed move and a random move if combat was possible with a monster during Zargon's turn. To keep the movement-affecting Swift Wind spell competitively attractive, taking an action to cast it is an exception that may be combined with a double move.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

HeroQuest relies on 2 red dice to create random Hero movement. Is it worth the trouble?

The Good:

Adds tension in a pursuit

Tends to separate Heroes so that monsters stand a better chance against early arrivals

Boosts the drama as a Hero randomly rushes to another's aid

A broad range of movement is possible with a simple rule

The Bad:

Rolling low and not getting into the action isn't any fun

Mandatory rolling of dice adds to game length

Heroes that stick together spend extra turns doing so, again adding to game length

Red dice are often visually lost on the game board, requiring search time

Another way for young players to knock down the furniture and figures, or roll 'sloppy dice' off the table

Same move mechanic as Monopoly

Could the game be improved by removing the dice mechanic for Hero movement and replacing it with a static number, like mercenaries, sorcerers, and elven warriors have?

Great question and a long running debate as this is certainly one of the most common areas for house rule discussion.

Fixed Movement for Heroes instead of Variable

The standard HQ movement mechanism of 2 red dice for movement, i.e. variable Hero movement versus fixed movement for monsters, is an important mechanism as despite the name "movement" the mechanism incorporates an in-built initiative roll, your roll, compared to the monsters fixed value (and the distance between you - time to target) determines whether you get to attack first or whether the monster does. First attack is very important, for many monsters it may be their only attack, so initiative matters. The fixed monster "movement" values don't just reflect their out and out speed, like in a race, but their initiative. Goblins are very quick-witted so have a high score, making them much harder to get the jump on, Zombies are at the other end of the scale.
This isn't a track event, with all parties lined up on the starting line ready and waiting for the starter pistol, the monsters are not aware of the heroes presence, so with a good roll a hero might be able to burst through the door and attack a surprised monster, before it has had the chance to do anything but scrabble to its feet and draw a weapon, alternatively with a lower roll particularly against higher initiative monsters the hero may burst into the room, but be attacked by a monster first, perhaps it has a sixth sense or maybe it just reacted fast to the sound of the door being opened, or the sight of a hero rounding a corner.

So I agree with the OPs advantages, but I think this initiative aspect should be on that list, potentially the top of the list!

The other advantage, point 2 on the OPs list is around breaking the hero party up a little during normal movement, which gives choices, do they slow down and allow others to catch up, or do they move quicker and spread out making then more susceptible to surprise attacks. You get to the door well ahead of your group, do you do the sensible thing and wait for them, or do you open the door, hoping there is a fat Treasure chest guarded by a single Goblin!

So I think variable movement gives players more choices and a bad roll can force improvisation as the best laid plans go awry, all of which enhances the game in my opinion.

Disadvantages

1) Mandatory rolling of dice adds to game length

Eliminating the movement roll would undoubtedly save time, but this is only an advantage if you think that each turn takes too long as standard (and if you do their are other ways to speed it up, such as eliminating the need to use character sheets, combining searches etc) and also be aware that the time that a player spends, rolling and doing other stuff on their turn, is time spent by other players figuring out their own options, so removing the roll will save time but not as much as you might expect. On balance for me the time saved by eliminating movement rolls isn't worth the cost of losing the advantages of variable movement.

2) Red dice are often visually lost on the game board, requiring search time + Another way for young players to knock down the furniture and figures, or roll 'sloppy dice' off the table

This is a disadvantage of dice rolls altogether rather than specifically for movement, unless we abandon dice altogether, I would suggest the use of a dice tray if that is a common issue in your sessions.

3) Rolling low and not getting into the action isn't any fun + Heroes that stick together spend extra turns doing so, again adding to game length

Rolling low and missing out may not be fun at that moment, but forcing the players to improvise ends up being more fun as they manage to adapt to bad rolls and still triumph (generally) and giving players the choice as to whether they move faster as individuals or slow down to maintain group cohesion, means more choice, more ways to vary player tactics, which for me can only be an advantage (again to encourage players not to waste turns, other suggestions are available such as EWP Decks and Wandering Monster rolls)

4) Same move mechanic as Monopoly

Appreciate this is probably a tongue in cheek comment but it being a common mechanism is actually a big advantage with younger players (and by younger I mean less experienced not necessarily in just years)

For me the big disadvantage that is missing from the list (and again perhaps should be top of the list) is

5) Turn after turn with all players just rolling movement dice and nothing else, becomes repetitive and dull.

This is certainly an issue, but the fact that it is far more of an issue in certain Quests (Prince Magnus's Gold) and less so in others suggests to me that this is an issue with Quest design not with the movement mechanism.

If you assume that 3+ turns with nothing apart from movement as an available option as the tipping point then that averages at 21 squares, so this situation is likely to occur in the following scenarios:

+ Passageways 21 squares + with no traps, monsters and similar
+ Back-tracking or retracing your steps due to a dead end path of 21+ squares, a missed secret door (with the objective behind it) or returning to the exit having completed the objective

So to rectify this issue I would suggest applying some "rules of thumb" to Quest Map design (and I currently "polishing" the Game System Quest Book so will identify and amend where necessary)

+ Identify passageways 21+ squares with no traps, monsters and similar and either shorten them or add monsters and/or traps
+ Identify dead end paths 21+ squares and either shorten them or join them back into other paths so that they are no longer a dead-end
+ Don't place objective rooms behind secret doors (keep secret doors for short cuts and bonus rooms) unless the secret door is placed very early in the dungeon where back-tracking is limited or where it will always be found*
+ Having completed an objective provide a shorter or different route back to the exit (one-way secret door in the objective room, falling block, drop-gate, portcullis, collapsing ceiling or similar mechanism to cut off the original route), or just end the quest at this point (if possible)

So on balance I am definitely in favour of keeping variable movement over fixed movement

Movement, Initiative and Armour

I see a number of people have suggested a third option, roll one red die and add a hero specific modifier, which is effectively a variant of the standard roll 2 red die where one of the die results is essentially fixed in value.

All the same comments that apply above between Fixed and Variable movement rolls still apply but this option is very interesting as it effectively draws out the initiative aspect of the movement roll leading to some advantages

1) Allows greater differentiation between heroes
2) Eradicates extreme rolls whilst keeping variability
3) opens up the possibility of handling armour penalties differently (the Plate losing one movement die is too extreme and results in Plate being rarely bought)

If for example, we draw inspiration from Warhammer Fantasy Battle, then standard members of our races would be ranked as follow.

• Elf: Move 5, Initiative 6
• Human: Move 4, Initiative 3
• Dwarf: Move 3, Initiative 2

So transforming that into HeroQuest

• Elf: Movement D6+5 Squares [MIN 6, MAX 11, AVG 8.5]
• Barbarian: Movement D6+4 Squares [MIN 5, MAX 10, AVG 7.5]
• Wizard: Movement D6+3 Squares [MIN 4, MAX 9, AVG 6.5]
• Dwarf: Movement D6+2 Squares [MIN 3, MAX 8, AVG 5.5]

These values keep the totals within the standard 2-12 range (the new range is 3-11), and the average are all distributed the same average of 7 as they were under the standard mechanism so we aren't breaking anything there. It also neatly means that it is possible, though less likely for the slowest to outpace/out react the fastest as the Dwarf MAX score is 8 and the Elf MIN score is 6.

As suggested by others you could then combine this with a "body" armour reduces initiative idea:
• Chainmail = +1 DD, -1 Move
• Plate = +2 DD, -2 Move
• Borin's Armour = +2 DD, No Movement Penalty

And for further distinction between the hero types and to avoid the Dwarf forever lagging behind, I would suggest that his build means that he ignores movement penalties for body armour

This approach seems to keep all the advantages of variable movement rolls, improves differentiation between Hero types, solves many of the issues around armour particularly plate.

And does it also suggest a default and potentially fixed turn sequence in initiative order, Elf, Barbarian, Wizard, Dwarf?

Afterthought 1: You would also need to change the wording on the Swift Wind spell and Potion of Speed so that instead of "rolling twice as many dice as usual the next time you move", they would allow you to "move double the number of squares the next time you move"

Afterthought 2: My only concern with implementing this otherwise great suggestion, is will the Dwarf end up trudging around the dungeon lagging behind the rest of the group and this may disincentive players picking this character?

[Malcadon]

Same move mechanic as Monopoly

Wait! I did not know I could roll again on a double. And if I roll doubles again, do I go to jail? I'm I going to have to bail myself out for 50 gold coins?

"I USE MY BUAWD-SWAD!"

"I USE... GET OUT OF JAIL FREE!"

[The Admiral]

2 red dice, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong!
Will the Barbarian leap heroically into battle, or trip over a flagstone....

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I kind of agree with you in that I agree scrapping variable movement for heroes would be a bad idea. Fixed movement for heroes (and monsters) would take a lot of the fun and unpredictability out of the game and would break the inbuilt initiative effect created by heroes having variable movement and monsters fixed movement. That said variable movement doesn't have to be 2 red dice...5+D6 is still variable...

My hesitation around adopting the #+D6 movement and the linked movement-initiative based turn sequence, is that whilst I think they would make for better gameplay, I'm concerned as to whether they move them too far away from the original simplicity...thoughts welcome on this point!

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Further rumination on this topic and trying to decompose the various ideas into the simplest components and then evaluating each in turn...I propose the following which retains the 2 red dice variable movement for heroes (and fixed movement for monsters), avoids roll and add modifier, which arguably isn't HQ, but this proposal I think still adds value.

1. Purchase 6 more movement dice (assuming 5 players - 4 heroes) so you have 2 per hero player
2. At the start of a quest seating positions from left of EWP are; Elf player, Barbarian player, Wizard player, Dwarf player
3. At the start of each round (round of turns, full turn - choose your own terminology) each hero player rolls 2 movement dice and leaves them neatly in front of them.
4. Play proceeds (assuming no monsters on the board) with the hero with the highest roll, once they have completed their turn, play moves to the next, rinse and repeat (no need to roll your movement dice as you have them pre-rolled in front of you)
5. If more than one player has the same score then proceed in seating order amongst those players only
6. Once all players have completed their turns and the round is complete then go back to (3)
7. If on a hero players turn, their movement reveals one or more monsters, then complete that hero's turn as usual, but the next turn goes to the hero or monster(s) with the highest movement value, that haven't already had their turn, rinse and repeat.

[therealshrek]

the 2d6 is combat movement. Between encounters fixed movement makes more sense so you dont have a group waiting for the guy who keeps rolling two ones.
Typically Human/Humanoid speed 8, Elves Speed 9, Dwarves and other smaller races Speed 7. These base stats modified by class and armor.
IE: Scout (ranger, thief, etc) classes typically have +1 move, fighter Classes standard move, and caster classes -1 base move.
Armor has specific mods, -1 for Scale, -2 for Plate. Tower Shields also have a -1 move modifier.

[dreicunan]

I find the Playtest rule the best: You can choose to have each movement die counts as 4 when there are no monsters on the board, so normally you can "take 8." Anyone who wants to roll still can.
I personally also allow heroes to take 8 when a monster is on the board but nowhere near them and not involved with them yet (so if you are in a chase situation, either fleeing or chasing, you'd still have to roll regardless of distance).

[Bareheaded Warrior]

the 2d6 is combat movement. Between encounters fixed movement makes more sense so you dont have a group waiting for the guy who keeps rolling two ones.
Typically Human/Humanoid speed 8, Elves Speed 9, Dwarves and other smaller races Speed 7. These base stats modified by class and armor.
IE: Scout (ranger, thief, etc) classes typically have +1 move, fighter Classes standard move, and caster classes -1 base move.
Armor has specific mods, -1 for Scale, -2 for Plate. Tower Shields also have a -1 move modifier.

Personally I find it more fun, challenging and rewarding to try and keep to the existing constraints of the game by not including any D6+/-mods mechanisms as HQ doesn't use them, so I don't, although back in the 90s, having purchased AHQ my gaming group didn't feel satisfied with the official rules so made our own that were basically HQ rules as a starting point but then reworked to use D12 (in one version, D6 in another) and converted many rules to use exactly that "roll a dice and apply modifiers" mechanism, but then that wasn't HeroQuest.

Two 1s, 1 in 36 frequency, 4 heroes, so every 9 turns, not that frequent and when it does happen it forces tactical choices for the heroes, do we leave him behind and plough on into the next room without him, or sacrifice speed to stay together?

If smaller races have a movement of 7 then why do Goblins, the smallest of them all, have a movement of 10 squares? Because the movement square value in HQ neatly incorporates both "speed" and "initiative" so whilst Goblins may not win the 100m race, they react very fast to changing circumstances, like a hero bursting through a door and interrupting their dice game (and whatever it is monsters spend their time doing when not being killed by heroes) as opposed to Trolls that might be considered dim witted, irrespective to the speed that their shambling gait can achieve in an open race. And Zombies are both dim-witted and low speed, hence their lowest movement value (version-dependent).

The main point that many people have made here, is that whilst hero variable versus monster fixed movement may (or may not) be relevant in a combat situation with monsters on the board, or at least on the board and within the vicinity of the heroes, it isn't relevant outside of that situation. However as HQ doesn't distinguish between "exploration" turns and "combat" turns like AHQ for example, it is possible and indeed common that a hero starts his turn without monsters present and then on his turn reveals monsters, so a rule that allows a choice of different mechanisms based on whether monsters are present or absent is flawed.

One example, and there are many variations, but I'll leave you to think these through, one such rule, the "official" take 8 mechanism where you can choose to take a fixed 8 movement squares if there are no monsters on the board (a non-combat situation), can be easily exploited by a player by ending a previous turn a square short of a door, behind which is likely to be a room containing monsters, so on his next turn instead of risking a low roll, moving to and opening the door, revealing the monsters, and moving short and giving them the initiative and the first attack(s), instead he takes the 8, then moves one square, opens the door and has a guaranteed 7 squares to move, gain the initiative, and get the first attack, effectively bypassing the variable roll which should apply in a combat situation.