[Rq-rules] Re: Hero Points

[Tom Zunder (Home)]

On 19 Jun 2006 at 11:01, Simon Phipp wrote:

> To tell the truth, Hero Points were one of the RQM rules that my players really liked. It reminded 
> them a bit of HeroQuest and was also very useful. What we then did was to merge Hero Points 
> and Experience Points together, so that they only had one set of points to use. It moves it even 
> closer to HeroQuest, but that may not be a bad thing.

I do like hero points in games where they are the main 
mechanism, like James Bond or Savage Worlds (bennies) and 
have even used them with some success in BRP games.

> It depends how you want to play the game. It works for my players, they choose whether to keep 
> Hero Points to spend in scenarios or to use in experience. I haven't used theLegendary Abilities 
> system as I don't like how it is used, so they don't need to spend Hero Points on that kind of 
> ability. But, if they had to then they would, quite happily.

Which I understand. But this was touted as a 'streamlined' 
game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ that uses the 
core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop the resistance 
table, even though it's a great mechanic (and could be a game 
system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure skill based d100 
for everything, reolsution, advancement, uber-feats etc.

It's the core clean approach I wanted.

> You do seem to have a bit of a downer of RQM, to tell the truth. I saw the system for bumping 
> rolls in the DBRP playtest and RQMHero Pointsbeats that hands down.

I do. I ran it and made a lot of core suggestions and I see little 
sign of it being done. I can ignore legendary abilities esaily so I 
won't fret them.


> Yes, it does seem a bit strange, doesn't it? Maybe they've improved it in the book.

We'll see, but don't hold your breath.

> So, make your own ones up - the ones described are only examples. Personally, I wouldn't give 
> them out at 90% because that means you are just a Master, nothing particularly special. I'm 
> always wary about getting new abilities _just_ because your skill has crossed a threshold. You 
> should earn them on a HeroQuest or something similar rather than just be given them.

Oh of course. But the 'make your own up' answer applis to all 
roleplaying. Of course we can 'make it up', but I think that by 
now the core system should work out of the box, so 'little 
Johnny' can pick it up and just play. Sod it, so I can pick it up 
and just play. Oh and yes, I agree, to start the Mastery skill off 
one needs to perform a Quest, find the Master, whatever.

> The Experience system is very good. Hero Points are fine. The general idea of the magic system 
> was fine, but not the implementation. Using opposed skills rather than the Resistance Table is a 
> good idea, but my players didn't like it.

The magic system is conceptually sound but implemented such 
that I suspect being a magic user is going to burn up too much 
skill points in character gen for a limited reward. It was not RQ 
again. Most people in the days of RQ3 wanted easier magic, 
not more difficult. Still, it does conceptually work and for a non-
Glorantha low magic setting it might be quite good.

> 
> Although it was a bit sad seing Matt Sprange and Steve Perrin falling out, it wouldn't stop me 
> buying RQM - in the past, Greg Stafford has apparently fallen out with a lot of people, but that 
> hasn't stopped me buying HQ, HQ or even Chaosium games. Business is business and people 

Exactly. We're all frail and weak and make mistakes and fall 
out.

Thanks Simon, your email lifted me up. Gonna run some MRQ 
at Continuum? I might well like to sign up if you do..







> fall out.
> See Ya
> 
> Simon
> 


Tom Zunder
http://www.zunder.org.uk
http://tzunder.livejournal.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/
ICQ: 1521799
MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk
Y!: tzunder
Google Talk: tom.zunder