Some person wrote:Ok, you don’t want to be as annoying as you come off here, and you're learning the language; I get it. What’s this discussion about again?
It’s just an approach to fixing AHQ; I think the vanilla version doesn’t do the
spirit of the game
justice, which makes it bland, repetitive, and ultimately a sad waste of its potential.
Some person wrote:I don’t agree; why should I do AHQ any “justice” at all if I've already told you I enjoy it as it is?
It’s only a method, a recipe that opens a discussion about AHQ's
true reality—
the one we can’t see or touch—which obviously implies that the released version of the game,
the reality we can actually see and touch, doesn’t match it.
You are by no means obliged to participate in such a discussion, of course. However, it’s also meant to expose biases and how they manifest.
Some person wrote:Fair enough, but I have to say it all sounds a bit weird.
It’s pretty much a simple analysis of the tangible and intangible elements that constitute a board game, AHQ in this case. No fancy terminology, just plain facts, reasons, and common sense.
For the sake of method, I’d say the first logical step to fixing AHQ (or to do anything with it, for that matter) is assessing its
nature as objectively as possible, and no assessment about that can be complete without analyzing the duality of its reality.
As mentioned above, this discussion, then, is meant to reveal and channel AHQ's intangible reality through the powers of the mind, beyond mere observation and apprehension, not to project our preferences and biases here.Some person wrote:What’s this “spirit" of AHQ you keep talking about?
Is it in the room with us now? 
We could say so, at least in the same way the very concept of “spirit” is in the room with us when you evoke it. Are our thoughts in the room with us now at all? What are they to begin with? What are they made of? Where are they, exactly, if anywhere?
Some person wrote:Ok, that's enough, what’s the “spirit of AHQ" to you, then?
Well, the idea of this discussion was to search for it together, but if you ask me:
Basically, AHQ is supposed to condense old-school dungeon crawling into a board game, so it’s more about dungeon exploration and monster fighting than storytelling and roleplaying, which are almost irrelevant in the game. It’s about the pure dungeon-crawling aspect of the experience, with emphasis on tactical combat, traps, and hazards, with everything else abstracted, simplified, or randomized.
AHQ is something uniquely different from anything else that came before; it’s thematically and mechanically between HQ and AD&D, with the purpose of introducing people to the fantasy wargaming hobby.
Some person wrote:That’s still too abstract; would you mind elaborating a little more?
My whole point rests on the following assumptions that remain undisputed:
*The premise of pure dungeon crawling is already repetitive in and on itself; boardgame dungeon crawlers, commercial and otherwise, rely on variety to be entertaining and remain engaging.
This is even more obvious in a combat-focused game such as AHQ, where overland travel and roleplaying between expeditions are either nonexistent or irrelevant.
*For the same reasons, features such as
realism are not supposed to limit the said variety in any way in a game of this type.
From a game design perspective, realism and playability should work together to enhance the gameplay experience, not hurt each other. This is a pretty objective game design standard, as far as I know, and it clearly applies here.
*Under the same principles, repetitive doorway fighting (
or any repetitive form of fighting for that matter) becoming the rule in the game only to favor some sort of seemingly mishandled realism is clearly a flaw to fix, not a feature to keep and design around. Under this approach, it should be the exception, not the rule.
Even if it was intended—I highly doubt it, because of the artwork and how it works differently with DM and solo, which hints at rushed-to-market design rather than methodical intent—I’d advocate changing it anyway if it's poorly implemented, with the same results and based on the same principles.With that in mind, I’m afraid you’ll have the hardest time convincing me that the spirit that should guide the overhauling of AHQ is to dismiss these principles to make the already repetitive premise of pure dungeon crawling even more so on purpose.Some person wrote:What are the actual facts you're basing your assumptions on?
*Well, Mr. Jervis Johnson himself disclosed in
a relatively recent interview, for the first time as far as I know, that the biggest influence on AHQ was Albie Fiore’s games played with the 1st edition Advanced D&D rules by Gary Gygax. He also said that, when he was asked to create AHQ, he tried to channel as much of Albie into the game as possible. He also said the purpose was for GW to have a game of its own, linked to HeroQuest, to act as a bridge for players who bought games in toy stores and introduce them to the GW hobby.
*AD&D 1st Edition belongs to the now old-school tradition of dungeon crawling, so to speak. Roleplaying games were essentially what we know today as skirmish wargames, but in dungeon-crawler settings back then, kind of.
*In the late Albie Fiore’s material, I can’t find evidence that he favored doorway fighting in his games; quite the contrary, actually. See
this video, for example.
*The AHQ rulebook and components themselves suggest the game is more of a wargame (with its gridded turn-based combat in dungeons) than what we know today as an adventure game.
It's unequivocally more about combat encounters than anything else. *The artwork, which is supposed to set the theme and tone of the game, doesn’t depict doorway fighting at all.
Let's forget the spirit of AHQ for a moment; let's do justice to the tangible, pretty objective depictions shown in its artwork to begin with! *In the same interview mentioned above, the designer himself said AHQ wasn't well playtested, which is obvious if you ask me.
*Doorway fighting is an evident, game-breaking problem that makes combat repetitive in this type of game.
Some person wrote:Why is this relevant again?
As I said above, it’s only a method to access the whole reality of AHQ, pretty much a guide that can tell us what to fix and what to keep in the game, fairly objectively, by the way.
Again, it's more of an approach than a specific set of rules. It's not entirely abstract, though; it’s also about tangible results.
Some person wrote:What tangible results do you propose, then?
These, essentially. From my perspective, the problem with AHQ is not so much that its Heroes become overpowered, but rather that the combat dynamics (and everything else) become inadequate as the Heroes train, acquire new equipment, hire henchmen, and accumulate Fate Points.
Some person wrote:Ok, I see your point now, but I still prefer vanilla AHQ, thank you.
That’s fine; however, my approach is also meant to invite you to reflect honestly and ask yourself
why, only as a thought exercise. What’s really behind that so-called “preference” that appears to be blind to design principles, intention, tangible results, and even common sense? Is it nostalgia? Is it a certain emotion? Is it a bias? Is it mere posturing?
Why favor repetition in a game that, by mere principle alone, is supposed to avoid it? It still beats me after all these years.
