GM vs Overpowered Heroes

[Sotiris]

I want to hear your opinion on that.

For me, there are two main options.

1. High level Heroes needs high level monsters. Stop using orcs in your adventures.

2. You can upgrade your orcs making “elite” and “special” orcs in your scenario, so you can boost up their stats. For example “+2 Body to all the orcs in this quest”. (The good about changing only the Body is that you don’t mess with the balance of the enemies or confuse the players. So the orcs can stay alive after the first strike and can attack in the next 1 or 2 rounds)

Best solution is option 2 (no map changes, no extra monsters etc) modified with this way:
GM gains 1 Body Point boost when a quest pack is over AND when killing a champion (hero with 3 completed quests?).
Before the quest begins, he selects 1 type of monster and boost its Body Points. This effect lasts until the end of the quest. Same logic between every quest.
GM may spend more than 1 B.P. boost on 1 type of monster if he wishes.

[chaoticprime]

There is absolutely no reason to consider anything related to Dungeons & Dragons when regarding Hero Quest. It just muddies the water. The game-play position that the Evil Wizard holds is similar to the Dungeon Master, but its entitlements and objectives are ultimately different. Other D&D's-version of terms like "melee" need to go away, too. The main thing that needs to get gone is the idea that Hero Quest is a role-playing game about character advancement and not the arcade-style four-player beat-em-up with a human engine that it actually is. Gary Gygax typically regarded experience points as being the most important attribute of the "game" in "role-playing game." No experience points, no RPG.

[knightkrawler]

No experience points, no RPG.

No character advancement, no role. No role, no role-playing game.

[Goblin-King]

We are indeed getting a little sidetracked here!
I'd just like to add that in day to day speak... on a heroquest board... I'd just automatically assume DM/GM refers to the EWP.
Of course in a discussion about the nuances of roles in different games, it's necessary to make the distinction.

Jafazo, I kinda get that your (long winded) point is, that as long as the game is fun, the players shouldn't be concerned about what goes on behind Morcar's screen?
If they get the feeling they are in danger it doesn't matter if the EWP is actually saving asses?

I'd pretty much agree, except it's fun as EWP to try and win!

****************************************

edit to answer posts posted while I was posting:

There is absolutely no reason to consider anything related to Dungeons & Dragons when regarding Hero Quest. It just muddies the water. The game-play position that the Evil Wizard holds is similar to the Dungeon Master, but its entitlements and objectives are ultimately different. Other D&D's-version of terms like "melee" need to go away, too. The main thing that needs to get gone is the idea that Hero Quest is a role-playing game about character advancement and not the arcade-style four-player beat-em-up with a human engine that it actually is. Gary Gygax typically regarded experience points as being the most important attribute of the "game" in "role-playing game." No experience points, no RPG.

Gary said that? Well then he is a twat, rest his glorious soul.
In my view, what really makes a RPG is the ability to act out your characters, well... role.
I agree with CP here. HQ is not really a RPG. You don't get to do any actual RP. Your only options are to fight or run. You can't use language to solve a quest.
"I try to convince the Fimir to act as my bodyguard by offering it gold".
"I start shouting to distract the orcs while the Elf backstabs their leader"

You COULD, but then you wouldn't really be playing HQ. You'd be playing your own version of HQ.

[cynthialee]

I still disagree with the EWP approach and much prefer the GM approach. Now I am not saying you should nerf and redesign everything in the game or quest. I tend to leave the quests as is, but sometimes the hands of the gods need to intervene. If sheer bad luck and constant botches are the lot of the players and the monsters are coming up all skulls....the treasure in the search (if the heroes survive) will probably make up for some of their losses. I never save a party from their own stupidity. Like the Dwarf and Elf party I had that took to opening doors, seeing monsters and running to try another door finding monsters and running away again, trying to find a new hide out...dumb move, dead heroes.
It is a hard and difficult job to be a Gamemaster and do it well. The heroes must be aware that you are fair, out for their blood and cheering them on the entire time. Being Zargon is somewhat easier but it tends to lessen the game experience in my opinion. Zargon and Mentor are my NPC's, not my player character in a game.

[chaoticprime]

We are indeed getting a little sidetracked here!
I'd just like to add that in day to day speak... on a heroquest board... I'd just automatically assume DM/GM refers to the EWP.
Of course in a discussion about the nuances of roles in different games, it's necessary to make the distinction.

Jafazo, I kinda get that your (long winded) point is, that as long as the game is fun, the players shouldn't be concerned about what goes on behind Morcar's screen?
If they get the feeling they are in danger it doesn't matter if the EWP is actually saving asses?

I'd pretty much agree, except it's fun as EWP to try and win!

****************************************

edit to answer posts posted while I was posting:

There is absolutely no reason to consider anything related to Dungeons & Dragons when regarding Hero Quest. It just muddies the water. The game-play position that the Evil Wizard holds is similar to the Dungeon Master, but its entitlements and objectives are ultimately different. Other D&D's-version of terms like "melee" need to go away, too. The main thing that needs to get gone is the idea that Hero Quest is a role-playing game about character advancement and not the arcade-style four-player beat-em-up with a human engine that it actually is. Gary Gygax typically regarded experience points as being the most important attribute of the "game" in "role-playing game." No experience points, no RPG.

Gary said that? Well then he is a twat, rest his glorious soul.
In my view, what really makes a RPG is the ability to act out your characters, well... role.
I agree with CP here. HQ is not really a RPG. You don't get to do any actual RP. Your only options are to fight or run. You can't use language to solve a quest.
"I try to convince the Fimir to act as my bodyguard by offering it gold".
"I start shouting to distract the orcs while the Elf backstabs their leader"

You COULD, but then you wouldn't really be playing HQ. You'd be playing your own version of HQ.

Gygax was describing the "game" aspect, only, and for when determining if something is or isn't an RPG. That has nothing to do with the "Role-playing" part. He could have attached any rules-set with any logical basis to the act of role-playing. The rules set that he chose was based around the logical component of experience points.

Video-game wise, HQ is far closer to being Gauntlet than Dragon Warrior.

[Gold Bearer]

I see... I believe the terms DM, GM and EWP is used pretty interchangeably around here; that's why. But your comment makes sense now.

But isn't changing the quest on the fly venturing pretty far into DM territory?
You are definitely not a player out to win if you can just add stuff.

The rules encourages the Evil Wizard to make personal changes. In fact, its almost integral to do so with some Quests--I think this is indicated by how The Trial has 25% more enemies than the average Quest in the original 14. I think the Trial is as much a trial for the EW as with the Heroes--it gives you an idea of how hard the game is supposed to actually be (though that doesn't mean its necessary to use every single piece in the game).

I don't think that's what the trial's for. It says in the intro that not everyone will survive. If think it's just to get the players used to dying early on so they realise it doesn't really matter. That's why I think character progression is important, so it does matter.

I am suggesting nothing more fiendish or complicated than stocking per-Quest empty rooms with some monsters. Most Quests have plenty of totally empty rooms that were probably intended for this purpose--when you think about it doesn't it seem like fan-made Quests have far less frequency for empty rooms?

I think that's just to build tension.

I see... I believe the terms DM, GM and EWP is used pretty interchangeably around here.

They shouldn't. Let's refer to the Evil Wizard player as exactly that or as Zargon or Morcar. It's really not a Dungeon Master. Gamemaster would be OK because of its sheer lexicality, but really it's not because of the connotation that it's synonymous to Dungeon Master and similar terms.

I always talk about being Morcar and "to morcar" is even a verb I've come up with.

GM for HQ and DM for D&D, in case someone wants to replace the EW with a new antagonist.

Do we refer to the out of game player as DM, GM, Zargon, or Morcar? Get over it. Your answer is, there are TWO Zargons or TWO Morcars, did you know that? Allow me to explain...

Blah...

As for whether or not the GM should be trying to kill the heroes, or playing to keep them alive and keep the game going... I have a pretty interesting outlook on this. Basically, to me, opinionated people who claim to PREFER certain types of GM's, are like addicted crack heads in denial and I'll explain. HQ is the drug, you're the crack head, and you're in denial because you CLAIM you like a certain something, yet you probably do nothing about it when you get what you don't like. Discussing this now, is the equivalent of an AA meeting to these people. How many of you players, at the start of ANY quest or adventure to ANY role playing game, stopped and asked the GM, "Ok so before we get started, what kind of GM are you? I might not want to play if you're constantly going to be saving my ass." Likewise, the GM never tells his/her players. Players might MENTION their preference now and again, but they never enforce their preference. As a side-note, I'm sure the board will fill up with people suddenly CLAIMING they do this but I don't buy it because not ONCE have I ever, not only witnessed this done, but even read or HEARD about an individual who interrogates his DM before gameplay and who has walked away from a game because their GM said, "I'll definitely be throwing potions of healing at you if you're dying." Save it crackhead, I don't buy it. You like what your dealers sell and you'll take it in any way shape or form you can get it.

Opinionated? Have you read your posts? So why are people who have a preference "like addicted crack heads in denial" while presumably those without a preference aren't?

You see, a player might MENTION his/her preference during an off-handed discussion, like on a forum board, but I've never known or met a player who actively enforces his preference. To them, ignorance is bliss. They don't know if the GM is trying to kill them, or save them, and they like not knowing... that makes it exciting and is the way it SHOULD be in my opinion. One reason why Players should NEVER know what the GM's play style is because, in my opinion, that play style should be changing constantly... and THAT'S the worst and most dangerous GM, who in turn, tends to be the most exciting to play for.

This is from the p-b-p forum.

But I don't like the type of game where the DM isn't actually trying to kill the heroes. I know a lot of people do play it that way but I can't. For me there's no fun at all if there's no peril.

Other D&D's-version of terms like "melee" need to go away, too. The main thing that needs to get gone is the idea that Hero Quest is a role-playing game about character advancement and not the arcade-style four-player beat-em-up with a human engine that it actually is.

Why shouldn't it be both? And why does the term melee need to go away? It's a shorthand way of saying a non-ranged physical attack. I think it's even used in the HQ rule book.

Jafazo, I kinda get that your (long winded) point is, that as long as the game is fun, the players shouldn't be concerned about what goes on behind Morcar's screen?
If they get the feeling they are in danger it doesn't matter if the EWP is actually saving asses?

I still disagree with the EWP approach and much prefer the GM approach. Now I am not saying you should nerf and redesign everything in the game or quest. I tend to leave the quests as is, but sometimes the hands of the gods need to intervene. If sheer bad luck and constant botches are the lot of the players and the monsters are coming up all skulls....the treasure in the search (if the heroes survive) will probably make up for some of their losses.

That then renders what just happened completely redundent. If they hadn't had trouble they wouldn't of gotten anything, so they're in the same postition either way. I really can't see the logic of playing it that way. If they're struggling then they shouldn't be helped out because then they're not really in trouble. Luck is a huge part of the game, that's why you roll dice. Leveling out any amount of bad or good luck basically takes away everything from the game because nothing matters.

It is a hard and difficult job to be a Gamemaster and do it well. The heroes must be aware that you are fair, out for their blood and cheering them on the entire time. Being Zargon is somewhat easier but it tends to lessen the game experience in my opinion. Zargon and Mentor are my NPC's, not my player character in a game.

It's easy if you don't allow yourself any freedom to move the goal posts. The only power the GM should really have above the other players is the final say in rule interpretations. It's like allowing rooks to take diagonally because one player is behind and still has two of them.

Video-game wise, HQ is far closer to being Gauntlet than Dragon Warrior.

Gaunlet! I used to love playing that in the arcade. "Archer, your life foce is running out." I KNOW!!! The newer Gauntlet had xp and level progression and that definitely wasn't an rpg.

[cynthialee]

Well I must be doing something right. In the last 15 years I have been the Gamemaster almost exclusively no mater what we are playing and the family and friends begs me to run the games.

[Gold Bearer]

Well I must be doing something right. In the last 15 years I have been the Gamemaster almost exclusively no mater what we are playing and the family and friends begs me to run the games.

I'm not saying you can't be a good GM unless you do it this way. I'm just trying to explain properly why I think it makes much more sense.

Whenever you change something mid-quest you're undoing something that's happened and making it redundant. If you only change things in extreme cases then you're undoing the most interesting situations by definition, or at least the most unusual ones. I can't see anything that's gained from doing that. If you let it be then everything that happens during a quest has a lasting effect and anything within the rules can happen. That's the way it should be, that's what the rules are there for.

If the heroes get badly hurt by a group of monsters for example and you then add in some healing potions it's as if that fight never happened, it might as well have been an empty room. Making chamges on the fly is the ultimate form of game rigging.

[Anderas]

Hey Gold Bearer,
maybe you just let other persons have their own opinions. No necessity to go up against them and discuss every sentence they produce just because you have a different opinion.