Monster "point values"

[paeterboy]

I was wondering if anyone has ever figured out a "point system" you could use to more precisely balance quests you create. For example, assigning "point values" to each kind of monster. Any thoughts? Thanks.

[Ethica]

I've thought about this but come to the conclusion that it's probabaly not necessary (or too much hard work). Some quests are easy and some are tough, heroes can always retreat if they're not up to it.

Because you don't know how many and what level of heroes will be undertaking the quest, there'd have to be a way of showing in the quest book how each quest can be made harder or easier (maybe by having monster icons in different colours that are either included or excluded depending on the difficulty you want to achieve).

[el_flesh]

Beernut has done exactly that, long ago when we were actually playing HQ.
But his system he bases it on was invented by him at about the time HQ actually was on the game shelf in any store...

[cynthialee]

Sounds like a tool some GM's might find useful.
I end up tweeking aroud with a system so much that it would not be of much use for me. When I run a game, I tend to be very open to altering monster encounters soon after the first couple of encounters.
After the players have dealt with a couple of fights and a room or two I have a general idea of their power level and game compitancy and I start tailoring the game.
I do pretty much stick with traps and monsters as listed in the manual. However...do not be surprissed when the power level is upped or I do wild things like build a goblin with many magic items and spells. Fimir always cast spells at my table. Chaos wizzards are typically given the entire deck of chaos spells and the spells the players get. I stack the loot deck and if an artifact is going to be given out, I typically will give it to a monster with a couple other artifacts and realy make the Heroes work for it. After the fight only the artifact that is suppossed to be given out 'survived' the fight. Random wandering monsters...I make them pull a monster card from the deck most the time. (Actually puts those cards in play and an element of everyones play time.) If they pull a really tough monster at a particularly bad time I will apologize, look at the books and my notes and indicate that that monster was not supposed to be in that pull. Most times however....there are some powerfull foes out there. (most the time for some reason...undead are pulled)

So a point system fails for me.
Now if I would just stop tinkering with things and play the damn game as written...

[Maike05]

Yes i've done a custom system for myself where I distinguish small or weak, normal, champion, boss.

weak = 1
normal = 2
Champion = 3
Boss = 6

Then every combination is possible : 1 orc = 2 goblin, 1 gargoyle = 2 chaos warrior / 6 goblins.

Goblin 1
orc 2
skeleton 2
zombie 2
mummy 3
fimir 3
Chaos warrior 3
Gargoyle 6
Chaos sorcerer 6


Then you could asign points for heroes by body points : 4+6+6+8=24 is an easy quest
A hard quest would be the double = 48 points.

You could also do this by encounters :
easy = 4 points = 2 orcs
challenging = 7 = 1 fimir + 2 orcs
Boss room = 16 = 6 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 1 gargoyle + 2 chaos warriors + 2 goblins + 1 orcs

Hope you can figure out something with that

[Ethica]

Doesn't tinkering with the rules or adding in monsters if the heroes are doing too well, remove your ability to compete as a 'player' in the game and change your role to 'host' (which isn't how Heroquest was originally intended to be played).

I did explain my point much better but the computer lost my comment, grrrr.

[AerynB]

This guy designed a program to act as game master for running HQ without an Evil Wizard player. One of the things he did was make some kind of points system for the monsters so people could increase the difficulty if their heroes were too strong. He also created tougher varieties of the monsters we're familiar with, like a Skeleton King, or an Orc Captain. I can't remember them all. It's probably worth checking out.

http://heroquest.hjortskov.net/quest_ratings.htm


EDIT: Got some more info.

I looked a little closer at the program and I thought I'd post some things I discovered. (At first the commas threw me, but I think they're meant to be decimal points.) Anyway, his formula for determining a monster's score is like this:

Score=((attack dice+defend dice)/2 + body points + mind points/3 + offset)/constant

The constant is 3 and the offset is 1. I'm not sure how he figured out the constant and offset but that's ok. Using that formula a Goblin's score is 1.3. The rest of the monsters work out like this:

Goblin 1.3
Skeleton 1.3
Zombie 1.5
Orc 1.7
Mummy 2.2
Fimir 2.3
Chaos Warrior 3.0
Gargoyle 3.3

So if a quest is too easy, you could replace Goblins with Skeletons, Skeletons with Zombies, and so forth, but that may not make sense with the atmosphere of the specific quest you're playing. So, you could replace Goblins with Orcs, and Orcs with Fimirs, or replace Skeletons with Zombies, and Zombies with Mummies, but then all of sudden you're not playing with the Goblin and Skeleton figures anymore.

So this guy came up with a neat upgrade system -- new monster using the same figure. I'll go back to my Goblin example. If a regular Goblin is too weak for your Heroes, upgrade him to a Goblin Guard: A-3, D-2, M-1, B-2, Movement-8. With those stats its score is 1.9, more of a challenge for your heroes and you get to use the same goblin miniature.

Here's another example using Skeletons. Their score is also 1.3, but they can be upgraded to Skeleton Guards, Skeleton Warriors, and then Skeleton Kings. A Skeleton Guard's stats are A-3, D-3, M-0, B-1, Movement-6, and a monster score of 1.6. Next is the Skeleton Warrior: A-3, D-2, M-0, B-2, Movement-6 and a score of 1.8. After that you could upgrade to a Skeleton King with these stats: A-3, D-4, M-0, B-2, Movement-6, and score-2.2.

I think it's a neat little points system (though I've never tried it out in an actual quest). Who knows if changing a score by a couple tenths of a point exponentially increases the difficulty. Anyway, I hope I helped a bit and didn't overwhelm you.

[cynthialee]

I prefer to play as a host instead of looking to win when I am the evil wizzard.
If I wipe the party...such is life.
My main goal when I 'host' a game of HQ, is for everyone to have fun, laugh and the scarfing down of massive amounts of snacks and soda pop.

[ken]

I prefer to play as a host instead of looking to win when I am the evil wizzard.
If I wipe the party...such is life.
My main goal when I 'host' a game of HQ, is for everyone to have fun, laugh and the scarfing down of massive amounts of snacks and soda pop.

Well, that is exactly what it is all about.
How about some of your favourite snacks over on the Food Thread, please

[cynthialee]

Every time I play to win as Zargon...I win or the game is rediculously easy. The rest of the folks look dejected and bummed out, either way. No one likes a give me game and a game that can't be beat due to player ineptitude or bad luck combined with limited equipment is also no fun.
When I take the role of 'computer' and just run a game with the paramiters that fun must be had, and the chance that a hero or two will die along the way, then things go splendedly. If I wipe a group under such paramiters the players still have fun and want to have Another go at it. If I run the game as packaged and the group wipes they become disillusioned with the game.
When you play the game as a GM, players become engaged and there are moments of baited breath and the rush of victory fills the room when a game is defeted.

I much prefer playing the Evil Wizard as a Game Master as apposed to an active 'player'.

Now I do very much like wipeing the floor with heroes on occasion but not if everyone is going to get all butt hurt and not want to play again.